Michelle Pfeiffer’s career hit a breakthrough in 1988 when she starred in Stephen Frears’ “Dangerous Liaisons” and Jonathan Demme’s “Married to the Mob.” The former title earned her an Oscar nomination, the first of her career, while the latter impressed the likes of Martin Scorsese and would help her land other career-defining roles, such as “The Age of Innocence.” Working with Demme proved so successful that Pfeiffer was offered the lead role in the filmmaker’s follow-up project, “The Silence of the Lambs.” As the actress recently told The New Yorker, she turned down “Lambs” because it was evil to the point of making her uncomfortable.
“With ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ I was trepidatious,” Pfeiffer said. “There was such evil in that film. The thing I most regret is missing the opportunity to do another film with Jonathan [Demme]. It was that evil won in the end, that at the end of that film evil ruled out. I was uncomfortable with that ending. I didn’t want to put that out into the world.”
Pfeiffer turned down the chance to play Clarice Starling, opening the door for Jodie Foster to the play the character. “The Silence of the Lambs,” released in 1991, would go on to become a critical and commercial juggernaut, grossing over $270 million worldwide and winning Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, among other categories. Clarice would become one of Foster’s most iconic roles, winning her the Academy Award, the BAFTA, and the Golden Globe for Best Actress. Pfeiffer’s only regret is not working with Demme for a second time.
“It’s so sad to me that he’s no longer with us,” Pfeiffer told The New Yorker. “First of all, he is the nicest person, he is funny, and not only is he really funny but he’s the easiest person to make laugh, so we just laugh all the time. [‘Married to the Mob’] was a very demanding shoot, but for whatever reason I just sort of stepped into her. I don’t know why. I didn’t have to work really that hard at it, I didn’t even have to work that hard at the accent.”
When Pfeiffer met with Martin Scorsese to audition for “The Age of Innocence,” it was the actress’ “Married to the Mob” role that threw the director for a curve. As Pfeiffer recalled, “I remember [Scorsese] saying, ‘I thought you were this brunette girl from New Jersey.’ That was probably one of the greatest compliments that was ever given to me.”
As for Pfeiffer’s most iconic role, Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Tim Burton’s “Batman Returns,” the actress told ScreenRant last week she has never been invited to reprise the role. Pfeiffer’s “Batman Returns” co-star Michael Keaton is returning as the Caped Crusader in the upcoming Warner Bros. release “The Flash,” but Pfeiffer’s Catwoman return isn’t in the cards. When asked if she would play the comic book anti-heroine again, Pfeiffer responded, “I would if anyone asked me, but no one’s asked me yet.”
Yeah he was very good. A different take from Hopkins, and filmed in a totally different style, but in a way he was more repulsive and icky, whereas it’s hard not to love Hopkins-Lec.
Maybe this explains why Michelle Pfeiffer hasn't been in too many great movies... Batman Returns is her best. Then there's Scarface, but maybe she wasn't in position to choose her projects at that point of her career.
Well the decision was great for Foster (This film was far & away the defining peak of her career) more than it was bad for Michelle Pfeiffer who ironically had the more successful career from that point forward. That being, Scarface is definitely her best movie.
Well, I'm glad Michelle didn't get the role. I love her, but I can't imagine her as Clarice. Jodie brought a dyke vibe to the role that worked for the character. Another great actress, Julianne Moore, looked dowright silly playing Clarice in Hannibal
I don't think Pfeiffer has the intelligence to say that the movie is "Too evil". Thank God she did not accept the part, I can't for the life of me understand why she would be offered it in the first place. She is a terrible actress (Dangerous Minds) and would have not done the part of Clarice justice.
IMHO she can be a very good actress, one of the few actors of the late 20th century who's both really beautiful and really talented... but she'd have been miscast as Clarice.
She just doesn't read as a "rube", and never would. Even in "Frankie and Johnny", where she tried to play a waitress stuck with a bad job and bad hair, she seems too beautiful and sophisticated, someone who would always have known that ways out were available, and she would have given the same impression as a student agent. Foster was good casting in that she came across as not necessarily a rube, but as someone who knew damn well she didn't have any short cuts available to her - she could do the hard work or she could fail, she wasn't expecting any unearned breaks. Which is odd, because the Francine of the books is described as beautiful ("like a winter sunrise"), but I can't imagine the movie being as good with a heroine who's conventionally stunning.
Yes. She's a very good actress, even capable of bringing a stunning performance to a high-camp superhero movie, as well as being damn good in a lot of dramatic roles.
Which doesn't mean she would have been anything but a miscast in "SotL".
You know, I was going to go on and on about now understanding acting is a subjective experience... but I think I'll let your ignorance speak for itself. And your spelling.