Please tell me Angelina Jolie is not still attached to this ‘Cleopatra’ mess

42nd Toronto International Film Festival - 'First They Killed my Father' - Premiere

In December 2014, the internet exploded with the document dump from North Korea’s hack of Sony. North Korea hacked Sony because of that stupid Seth Rogen film, and at the end of the day, people lost their jobs over the hack and what the hack revealed. One of the major headlines out of the hack involved Amy Pascal (then in charge of Sony), Scott Rudin (super-producer) and Angelina Jolie. They were trying to put together the long-gestating Cleopatra film, something that would be more of a Cleo bio-pic about her power and life rather than just a love story between Cleo and Marc Anthony. In the emails, Angelina comes across as polite and professional as she discusses her ideas for Cleo (she wanted it to be a story about power) and she wanted to be involved in choosing the director for the project. In the hacked emails, Scott Rudin repeatedly mocks Jolie to Pascal, calling Jolie “seriously out of her mind” and a “minimally talented spoiled brat” intent on making Cleo into a “$180 million ego bath.”

Suffice to say, Cleo was put on the back burner in the wake of the Sony Hack, although the project had been pretty much on death’s door for months before the hack, mostly because Rudin, Jolie and Pascal’s relationship had declined over the course of the year as they tried to put the project together. Well, guess what? Cleo is being revived! And no one knows if Jolie is still attached:

Denis Villeneuve is in early talks to direct Sony’s long-in-development biopic “Cleopatra.” Amy Pascal and Scott Rudin are producing based on Stacy Schiff’s book about the powerful Egyptian ruler who created a dynasty before her eventual downfall due to her love affair with Roman soldier Marc Anthony. Sony has been trying to get the film off the ground for quite some time with filmmakers like Paul Greengrass and James Cameron circling at one point. Villeneuve is currently attached to direct a “Dune” reboot at Legendary. He will helm the latter while developing “Cleopatra.”

David Scarpa, Eric Roth, and Brian Helgeland have all worked on past drafts. Angelina Jolie has long been linked to the project, but it’s unknown whether she is still on board to star.

In leaked emails that surfaced following the Sony hack, Rudin infamously attacked Jolie’s involvement in the film, calling her “a minimally talented spoiled brat.” “Kill me please. Immediately,” he also told Pascal in June 2014 when he learned Jolie was interested in directing the movie.

[From Variety]

Angelina always maintained that she never sat down and read the emails, but I would assume that someone gave her the broad strokes. She did “make up” with Pascal, who is no longer in charge of Sony, but still involved with developing some films for Sony. My guess is that Angelina is over it and she doesn’t even want to be involved with Cleo at this point, and my guess is that Pascal and Rudin don’t want her either. It will be fascinating to see who does get cast though. Like, you know they’ll go to the same people they always go to: Jennifer Lawrence, Margot Robbie. Maybe Amy Adams. By the end of this, everyone’s going to wish they had just let David Fincher direct a bald Angelina as Cleo.

'Blade Runner 2049' photocall in Rome

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

165 Responses to “Please tell me Angelina Jolie is not still attached to this ‘Cleopatra’ mess”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Annabelle Bronstein says:

    I feel that Amy Pascal got the raw end of that deal.. like why did she have to take the fall for Scott Rudin’s misogyny? As far as I can remember Amy didn’t really say anything fireable, she seemed to be trying to manage Scott’s massive ego.

    Anyway, run far far away from this film. There’s a reason it hasn’t been made and no big names want to direct!

    • Neelyo says:

      I think she made some racist jokes about Obama and 12 Years a Slave, is that right?

    • Jbapista says:

      Dennis Villeneuve is now a very big name director – or at least will be when the Blade Runner sequel opens in a week.

      Why he wants to do this, however, is beyond me.

      • third ginger says:

        Yes. He is. I commented something of the same below.

      • lucy2 says:

        He directed Arrival, which was really interesting, and I’m a little curious about the Blade Runner movie too.

      • Marr says:

        Early reviews for Blade Runner call it a masterpiece. Villeneuve is so happening right now in HW, everyone wants a piece of him. I admit that I’ll watch anything from him, even this if the deal goes through. And unlike his fellow “auteurs” he seems like a decent fellow.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        I don’t see Villenvue doing this, nearly every director in town has had ‘early talks’ on this. I loved Arrival, it really sticks with you and has some interesting things to say.

      • godwina says:

        Because he’s a Quebecois director who likely never dreamed he’d have all the HW power and money in the world to do whatever he wants. Blade Runner sequel? Sign me up. Dune? Yup. Cleo? Aces. He’s going for all the big historical SFF or epic projects right now in pure celebration. He can probably handle them, too.

    • Jerusha says:

      He directed Sicario, one of the best movies of 2015, imo.

    • CustardApple says:

      I think Amy Pascal ended up doing very well despite the firing. There was no way Sony was going to keep her as chairman on after all that. She’s on special projects for Sony, has her own production company, and has been involved in a bunch of big hits.

  2. Talie says:

    Alexander was a huge flop…so I don’t even get why she would want to bother. Plus, she can’t do accents.

    • manta says:

      Plus if it takes 3 years or more before actual start , she’ll be more than 25 years older than Cleopatra was when she became queen. Unless this movie focuses on her last 5 years, I can’t see that working.

      • whatWHAT? says:

        also, though she’s been portrayed this way in almost every film about her, she was NOT some great beauty.

        she was (as were most members of dynasty families) a product of inbreeding, which makes prominent features (like noses/chins) very exaggerated.

        Jolie is WAY TOO pretty to play her. and, um…a bit too white, to. we don’t need yet another whitewashing of a middle-eastern figure in a film.

      • Kata says:

        Cleopatra was Greek, so white, so this wouldn’t be whitewashing for once.

      • SK says:

        I do think she is wrong for the part. Although, let’s be clear: Cleopatra was not Middle Eastern. She was Greek / Macedonian.

        “Cleopatra was a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, a Greek family of Macedonian origin that ruled Egypt after Alexander the Great’s death during the Hellenistic period. The Ptolemies spoke Greek throughout their dynasty, and refused to speak Late Egyptian, which is the reason that Greek as well as Egyptian were used on official court documents such as the Rosetta Stone. By contrast, Cleopatra did learn to speak Egyptian[6] and represented herself as the reincarnation of the Egyptian goddess Isis.”

        I think they should find someone of Greek or Macedonian heritage (or something similar) and with strong “handsome” features and some serious charisma. That would be special.

        It would be amazing if a woman wrote the story/script because it is about a powerful woman and men so often get that dynamic wrong. I’d love a female director too but this director is amazing and his Blade Runner sequel is receiving insane rave reviews so this could be really interesting in his hands.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        SK, I think the issue is that there are really no one who is big enough star of Greek decent. And Hollywood isn’t hiring anyone who isn’t good looking, having some deglammed look is the best people can hope for. I really would struggle to cast anyone who would be big enough star (since the budget could not be small you need some star power). But since Cleopatra grandmother is unknown (some concubine) you could cast someone who is a bit darker shade I guess.

        But Jolie would be bad choice just for her age. What I want to see most if this would not happen is the initial civil war with her brother which she lost (and has not really covered anywhere since the lack of sources make it pretty vague but it should not be ignored) and Caesar arriving. And she was a teen/early 20s for that.

      • mayamae says:

        I wonder if this version will continue to ignore that she was married to her two brothers.

      • Lady D says:

        “SK, I think the issue is that there are really no one who is big enough star of Greek decent. ” Jennifer Aniston is Greek😁

      • Megan says:

        My husband is Greek, and, while he is technically white, he looks pretty brown to most people.

      • Marr says:

        @Lady D
        Wouldn’t that be something? :D :D :D Also, I had no idea.

      • downTime says:

        By all this logic Jen Aniston should play CleoPatra. Hah!

      • Mel says:

        “But Jolie would be bad choice just for her age. ”

        She is only three years older than Cleopatra was at the time of her death.

      • godwina says:

        Yes to Cleo being Greek (colonial power in Egypt, not a local). Also remember that ancient Greeks (like Italy and Spain, by different names then) were more “fair European” looking by and large before the Arab occupation–loooong after Cleo’s lifetime. Ancient Greeks could be hella blond, or dark-haired and fair (but likely tanned, if they weren’t aristo). Greek people today aren’t a solid measure of what Greek people looked like then.

        We honestly have no idea how pale or not pale Cleo may have been, exactly because of inbreeding OR also theories a parent may have been involved with an African. Lots of debate still, and all possibilities of “white” or “POC” are open to anyone playing that role. No limits either way.

        I’d like to see someone other than AJ play the role, though. Let’s see the producers use some imagination here.

    • Mel says:

      “Plus, she can’t do accents. ”

      I should hope fake “accents” of historical figures are history by now.
      All they manage to do is to remove credibility.

      “Jolie is WAY TOO pretty to play her. and, um…a bit too white, to.”

      Short of casting someone who has Cleo’s industrial amounts of peculiarly irresistible charm, the ONLY way to convey a legendary sex appeal and charm is through more obvious (physical) assets.
      And Cleopatra WAS white. Let’s not brown-wash history, either.

      • magnoliarose says:

        But she wasn’t anglo looking, and I disagree that we should beauty wash the story either. One of the most remarkable qualities is her appeal despite not being a beauty. That is far more complicated and interesting than the boring beauty trope.
        There is also a problem with American accents in historical films. It doesn’t sound credible most of the time and throws me out of a movie.

        This has passed for her, and it is time to move on. She is also too thin because I don’t know a single man who finds her body attractive. It isn’t sexy. Historically it was a sign of poverty and not wealth.

        I am not a hater, but I know her limitations.

  3. What's Inside says:

    I would go see Cleo from a different viewpoint (the romance angle has been done to death). As for the star, I still think Angelina would do a good job as she comes off intelligent, exotic and mysterious. However, I am sure that this role could be a real career maker for another actress who is able to bring it by talent and looks.

    • Whoopsy Daisy says:

      How is Angelina exotic? Or Cleopatra?

      • TheOtherMaria says:

        Jolie is certainly stunning but “exotic” (I really loathe this descriptor btw) she is not, also, she hasn’t been mysterious for years (IMO).

        I hope she stays far away from this script given the mess associated with the film from thoss emails. However, I believe she talked about the possibility of Cleopatra in a recent interview which is unfortunate, she really should try something different.

        Plus, I’m getting flashbacks from her atrocious accent in Alexander, ugh….

        No thanks.

      • mia girl says:

        Agree – Jolie should stay away. She probably has spent a lot of her time researching Cleopatra and seemed to have a vision for the film, but this thing is tainted now.

        As for Alexander – Jolie was compelling and SO beautiful in but yeah, that accent… it really has to be one of the worst in film history. I watched in disbelief that no one on that production realized how over the top and weird it was. I mean sometimes it sounded Russian, other times Italian!

      • Cat1 says:

        You are right. Jolie has repeatedly mentioning a script for Cleopatra as if she is still in the running (none of the reporters apparently remembered Sony hack and Rudin comments). Her comments are probably reason this HR article is out there without her name attached to it but I am surprised Celebitchy did not reference her recent comments (maybe it was NY Times and one other place)…

      • Lady D says:

        @TheOtherMaria, I called someone’s looks exotic on here once and got dumped on for being racist. It certainly wasn’t my intent, I meant it as a compliment, but ya I don’t use it anymore either.

      • What's Inside says:

        I meant that Angelina’s looks are by no means common, but exotic in my eyes, someone you might not see on the street or in everyday life. As for Cleopatra, what I have imagined based on what images I have seen from ancient coins, a bust image, and an artist’s reconstruction of her sister, Arsinoe’s, skull would lead me to believe that her looks are wonderfully different or exotic from those that I see commonly.

      • Mel says:

        “would lead me to believe that her looks are wonderfully different or exotic from those that I see commonly. ”

        Perhaps – although keep in mind that anyone’s likeness would look more striking or unusual if carved on a coin :) – but there was nothing unusual about her appearance in her milieu.
        If I remember correctly, ancient descriptions praise her VOICE (and her legendary charm and intellect of course).

      • Combat Vet's Girl says:

        If you want to use the word “exotic” to describe someone, use the word exotic! She IS exotic in the sense that she does not look run of the mill cookie cutter. Exotic is not an insult nor is it racist. It’s a COMPLIMENT FFS.

    • jwoolman says:

      I agree. A story that focused on her life and reign before the done-to-death Roman love story would be very interesting.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        Her reign was entirely diactated and remembered (since it was the Romans writing it) due to her relationships with Caesar and Anthony. She didn’t really do much anything cinematic her own that didn’t involve them apart form the very early falling out with her brother in her teens and the civil war which she lost. She just kept the country running and since the bureaucracy was really effiecient then it was not that involving. But her relationships with the two powerful men don’t have to be framed in terms of sexuality or romance but how country uses and is used by a superpower. And the dangers of playing “Game of Thrones” in general and how she used and shaped her own image and how the same was done by her enimies (Augustus). But people need to get that Rome has really similar relationships with client kingdoms and she wasn’t that different form someone ruling Armenia for example, what makes her relevant is her Rome connections, her being a woman and all the image things of her then and now.

    • Mel says:

      Yes, but one should keep in mind that it WAS a romance, and that it was the romantic/erotic component of their relationship(s) that was the driving force – certainly in the two men.
      Making it ALL about “power” would be missing an important point (not to mention it would be more of a bore, because people identify with romance much easier than they do with power plays).

    • Sasha says:

      @ What’s inside
      I can’t imagine another actress in the role. If the writing is there, I’m all for it.

  4. Megan says:

    I vote for Amr Salama for director. I think his perspective as an Egyptian might bring a certain something to the film.

  5. manta says:

    Well, The interview, that stupid Seth Rogen movie as you put it, was a lot funnier than I expected it, and as far as satire goes, I’ve seen worse and dumber. And sorry, but the wording here basically tells that people lost jobs because of this film!
    No, an idiot and oversensible country leader had time and resources to waste over an entertainment product that got under his thin skin. Sounds familiar? It wouldn’t cross your mind to lay the blame on those irking Trump, so no need to do it to Rogen.

    • mia girl says:

      Yeah, the movie was what hurt the feelings of a man-child and drove NKorea to try to hack Sony, but ultimately the blame lies with Sony’s sub-par cyber security. IMO the blame for people losing their jobs lies with Sony’s corp management and in particular the CIO and Head of Security.

    • Erinn says:

      Whatever was hacked was stuff that was already done. The people who said what they said, and made the moves that they did are responsible. It’s not up to Seth Rogan to protect freaking Sony from cyber attacks. Sony is responsible for Sony. The people saying shit in emails are responsible for the shit they said in emails. When you’re using company resources – email, servers, computers, etc – anything you create, do, or say is in some form property of the company. It’s up to that company to do what it can to protect that information – but at the end of the day whatever was said through work emails or on work computers is likely something the company could have pulled and reviewed by the company.

  6. Dana says:

    With all the drama that surrounded this movie and the generic plot ( unless they changed it) it’s going to be a hot mess.

  7. Miss Melissa says:

    Cue Alicia Vikander.

  8. Kate says:

    Come on, she didn’t just want to be involved in choosing a director. She was pursuing Fincher and acting like she had the ability to offer it to him, even though the actual producers didn’t want him and she herself was not a producer, just an attached actress. She was also trying to get a very different story told to the one the producers wanted to make, which, again, she was only on board as an actress.

    Rudin was, well, his usual self, but let’s not act like Jolie’s behaviour was normal just because Rudin’s a prick. She was acting like a producer who owned the option on the material, when that wasn’t remotely the situation.

    • lucy2 says:

      She was polite about it and Rudin was his usual ass of a person, but I too remember getting the impression that she was overstepping her role in the production, if she was not a producer.

    • Maya says:

      Umm go back and read the emails and if was established that Angelina only signed a contract to act in this movie only if she has some input and that it follows the book.

      The writer herself confirmed that and said she wants Angelina to act in it.

      Funny how when a woman gives input she crosses the line but when a man does, he is strong and intellectual.

      PS: weren’t you the one who was all gloating that First they killed my father had a score of 60 after 6 reviews? Well now the score is 90 with 50 reviews. Any comment?

      • TheOtherMaria says:

        Tbf Maya, I don’t think anyone would consider Rudin an intellectual, he was/is an ass.

        Jolie may have had input but designating the director is a no go, either way, she was professional and polite- the other two, not so much.

      • Kate says:

        I did read the emails. Every A-list actor is promised input if they sign on. It doesn’t actually mean anything if they aren’t also a producer. They’ll be listened to, and then ignored if what they want doesn’t align with what the people in charge want. It’s not like actors don’t know that, which is why they usually option books themselves and produce the project if they have a particular interest. Jolie didn’t do that, she only signed on to act.

        I have no idea what you’re referring to with the last bit. You know there’s like a dozen different Kate’s on this site right?

      • mayamae says:

        @Kate, why don’t you tweak your name – Original Kate, for example – to avoid being attributed the negative comments of other. I think it would be wise, especially in these threads, where any remotely negative comment regarding Angie is catalogued and referred back to for years.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I don’t know why people with same names don’t add to their name, so we are aware who they are.

    • Sophie says:

      @kate Angelina was sticking to Stacey’s book & eric roth’s script. Scott rudin & pascal wanted to make it a romantic crapfest about cleo & anthony again. Instead of who cleopatra was as a person. Why ask for Jolie’s input & then criticise her for doing so? I hope she doesn’t do it, if rudin & pascal are involved. The emails show how backstabbing, racist & unprofessional those two were, while jolie was actually very polite.

      • Kate says:

        They’re the producers/studio heads. If that’s the movie they want to make, that’s the movie they get to make. No one was forcing Angelina to be in it. Instead of just leaving the production when it became clear there were major creative differences, she tried to hire a director the studio and producer didn’t want, which she had zero power to do, and she fought with them over use of the material, even though they owned the option.

        I don’t even understand what her end-game was, since Pascal and Rudin obviously weren’t going to be cornered into financing a version of the film they weren’t at all interested in making.

      • Kelly says:

        Sony from the beginning wanted to do Cleopatra, who was messing with it was Scott Rudim, in the emails the directors of Sony including Amy Pascal, said that after everything Scott did they did not want to work with him, that was to pay all that they owed to Scott, and they were only interested in keeping Cleopatra ….. that Scott destroyed Sony’s relationship with several people.

        Scott Rudin will be no problem because Sony knows very well who is dealing ….. Angelina did more for the movie than Scott, she went to talk to the directors, she and screenwriter Eric Roth are friends and family he is godfather of Pax.

        David Fincher wanted to make Cleopatra he even mentioned in an interview he wanted to do, but Scott wanted him to make Jobs, a film that David did not want to do and did not answer Amy Pascal’s calls

        Denis Villeneuve was one of the directors who were on the list of what Angelina wanted, and he was interested,

        People talk about age, but the book that the movie will be based on is the last years of Cleopatra’s life, and a 39-year-old person in those days is very different from what is today

        People do a lot of drama with Angelina, if they read the emails everyone from Sony will see how educated she is, it’s the Hollywood world to be 2 guys, speak ill of others or use others to escape your responsibility .. … Both Amy and Scott were extremely fake with each other … and Amy for fear Scott used Angelina as an excuse for Fincher not to do Jobs …. and in fact was that Sony was not interested in these others Scott’s films, so much so that the partnership between Sony and Scott’s producer ended ……

        Now that Angelina really knows who she’s dealing with, it would be great for her to make the movie, yes, even more so with a good director ….

        And even Scott having that “hatred” all over and finding Angelina untalented, he was offering her one of his movies for her to direct …. LoL and in the end began to be Angelina’s “friend” to other people Sony in the emails had noticed the difference in behavior of Scott ….

        Angelina left him full of doubts, in one of the emails he says he stayed all night thinking about what ANgelina had said about the bald Cleopatra ……… I think it will be spectacular …. No one needs to work alone with people we like. It was going to be a tension.

      • magnoliarose says:


        I agree with you.
        Actors who push and try to dictate the entire film are considered difficult. Other players will make their own demands, and it gets competitive and ridiculous.
        When one star makes these kinds of moves, it is an attempt to control the entire project. They aren’t producing or directing, and it isn’t their movie. If she wants that level of control, then she has to put some skin in the game and shoulder some risks. This can cause the whole project to fall apart and waste a whole bunch of time.
        Obviously, there had been other discussions by that point, and they were over it by then. Fincher is Brad’s friend, so he is out.
        At this point, they need to start fresh to change the image of the project.

        BTW She was polite, but it doesn’t mean what she wanted was overreaching.

  9. third ginger says:

    Villenueve is a darling of critics, but the project does not sound promising. That said, I always take a wait and see attitude. Let’s see who is attracted by whatever script is the final result.

  10. lala says:

    Cleopatra was Egyptian of Greek descent so maybe an actress who isn’t platinum blonde and super white would be nice?

    • FriendlyUser says:

      She wasn’t Egyptian at all, she was just Greek, with maybe a bit of Syrian. Cleopatra was the first of her house to even learn Egyptian. Historians actually have no idea what her hair color was, it’s just assumed to be brown but it’s possible it was blonde. As Alexander the Great (Who might have been the half brother of Cleopatra’s ancestry Ptolemy I) historically had blonde hair.
      Sure she wasn’t platinum blonde but Cleopatra herself would have considered herself to be Greek not Egyptian.

      • Tanguerita says:

        Truth be told, she was half Greek indeed, but we know virtually nothing about her mother. She could have hailed from Egypt. After all, Cleopatra was the only ruler from the Ptolemaic dynasty, who spoke Egyptian. Either way, Jolie would be a dreadful choice for the part.

      • FriendlyUser says:

        She wasn’t “half greek” that’s a misunderstanding. She was mostly Greek. Her family had been inbreeding for near 300 years, brother to sister and if they didn’t they were marrying Greeks from Macedonia (which is the country today but a region in Greece). In Cleopatra’s entire family tree there is maybe only one grandparent unaccounted for, it’s an unnamed concubine. From what historians can gather that concubine might have been either a greek concubine or a Syrian one. New evidence is actually coming out though which suggests Ptolemy XII was actually the son of his father’s wife not his concubine as original thought. Which would have put Cleopatra at 100% Greek.
        Most of the historians place her mother as her father’s wife, who was Cleopatra V who was either Ptolemy’s sister or his cousin but given all the inbreed it makes no difference genetically by this point.

      • Gene123 says:

        I recently researched this after seeing an argument about it and the historical community agrees that she was white (Greek) and her family was openly proud of their line not having any Egyptian in it because that was looked down upon. I also read that her line was so inbred that 1. It was easy to trace and 2. Her parents shared every grandparent (ill need to refind the article I read)

      • FriendlyUser says:

        Yep, that’s part of the reason I don’t believe the concubines were Egyptians, the Ptolemy’s really loved the fact they were Greek. They were considered for a time to be the “successor” to Alexander the Great. His body was buried in Alexandria, which was a huge status symbol for them.
        They were Greeks who ruled Egypt, appropriated their culture when it suited them and discarded it when it didn’t.

      • Marr says:

        Now that’s a movie I’d watch. No shying away from the ugly parts and less sappy romance. It doesn’t seem that Pascal and Rudin have that in mind though.

    • Anna says:

      She was Macedonian and supposedly a red head. So probably ‘white’. The ancient world was more diverse than people think.

      • FriendlyUser says:

        Yea the ancient world was very diverse, especially among the Hellenistic kingdoms.
        I think it’s hard for modern-day viewers to imagine how diverse it actually was.
        I believe there is one grandparent of Cleopatra’s unknown which may have been Syrian or even a Greek concubine. Some people attempt to prove the concubine was Egyptian but even still one Egyptian grandparent in a sea of greek is hard to classify her as Egyptian.
        Her half-siblings might have had an Egyptian mother based on analysis of what’s thought to be her half-sister’s skull. But Cleopatra is believed to be the daughter of her father’s wife not his concubine.
        Cleopatra’s house was very inbred though (marrying brother-sister, uncle-niece) which would have led to repetitive features forming. Much like the Hapsburg jaw. Her hair color isn’t known but it’s possible it could be a number of shades. I’ve seen red thrown around, especially because more evidence is showing that Alexander the Great’s hair might have been more red than blond

    • godwina says:

      FFS I can’t wait until this movie is in production for reals so some historical and anthropological teaching about ancient Greece (and Rome) gets more mainstream. People in what’s now Greece, Italy and Spain had a lot more “fair” genes in them before the Moorish occupation and there were tons of blonds running around in Cleo’s time. There were people of all races and hues in these massive cosmopolitan civs with how many traders and soldiers and slaves from farflung lands per person adding to the gene pool? From platinum blonds to African–you had it all in ancient Greece.

  11. FriendlyUser says:

    Cleopatra’s among my favorite historical figures, I don’t understand the scoff at romance. While yes the romance angle has been done to “death” it’s hard to imagine you not doing it in any movie on her life.
    Historically it’s what happened. I mean Caesar and Cleopatra are a bit debatable whether that was more about power than love, but Mark Antony and Cleopatra are not. It’s just a historical fact that they were very deeply in love with each other.
    Mark Antony quite literally jumped off his boat to chase after Cleopatra when he thought she was abandoning him during the Battle of Actium. He quite literally died in her arms after committing suicide due to thinking she was dead.
    So any movie on her if it goes to the Mark Antony years would have to play up a romance angle. It’s just what happened. Part of the reason the world was shocked by Mark Antony and Cleopatra was that neither seemed like the type to fall this deeply in love with someone. Especially Mark Antony.
    That being said Angelina Jolie is far too old to play the part. Cleopatra was only 39 when she died, which is just around Jolie’s age now. If you were to start Cleopatra’s political life it began around 14 when her father declared her his Co-Regent. Still, most movies skip over this and go straight to when Cleopatra was 18 and was being threatened by her 10-year-old Brother-Husband. So obviously they would need to cast either two actors (Young and an Old) or an “in the middle actor”
    I would really like a production of Cleopatra’s life, she was quite a fascinating historical figure. She was the only Ptolemaic Pharaoh to ever even learn native Egyptian. I think for this movie casting will be key here, as they’ve never really got a good Cleopatra. Margot Robbie, Amy Adams, and Jennifer Lawrence would be horrible choices.
    While I enjoy the Liz Taylor movie, it’s very unrealistic. She was not a great beauty, she wasn’t ugly either but by all accounts, she was short, slightly overweight in later years, had a hooked nose like most members of The House of Ptolemy, and probably very Greek looking like the rest of her house.
    I want to be excited about this movie, still holding out hope.

    • Anna says:

      Great comment!

    • LadyT says:

      Ha! I want to see the movie you just described. Everyone keeps saying “done to death.” What am I missing? Taylor /Burton from 1963? I hope they make it, accent on her power and intrigue but the romance too. (Jolie doesn’t sound like the appropriate age though.)

    • Chinoiserie says:

      I think it’s clear Anthony loved her but it’s depatable if she felt as strongly with the story of his suicide. She could have used him from politics as well. But of course it’s nice to think it was a love story.

    • Marr says:

      She could have had feelings for Anthony AND used him at the same time. I don’t see why it couldn’t have been both.

  12. Millenial says:

    All this just makes me want to re-watch the Taylor/Burton Cleopatra. I wonder if it holds up? Or if it’s kind of like Gone With the Wind — remembered fondly until you actually re-watch it and realize how messed up it is.

    I think Angie’s name gets tossed around for Cleo because she has that Taylor-esque beauty. So, she seems perfectly cast because of the similarities.

    • Trashaddict says:

      Mellenial, the Taylor/Burton Cleopatra is gloriously kitsch, a lot like most big epics of that era. There a scene with an ongoing argument between Antony and Cleopatra which is basically just an excuse to show off a lot of fabulous Cleopatra costumes. At least one can get a laugh out of it.
      I wouldn’t mind Jolie playing the part (no accent). But I would prefer Ridley Scott to direct it. Everything in movies is so over-the-top these days, you feel like your brain has been through a sensory assault. The good thing is, movies go in cycles, we will get some non-fussy cerebral cinema one of these days.

  13. Em' says:

    I think she talked about it in a recent interview when asked about her projects.

  14. Savasana Lotus says:

    Cleopatra was not a beauty. Her rise and success came rom personality, strength and fortitude. I’m pretty sure because it’s Hollywood, they will make Cleo with a beautiful actress. They should use someone with geology of the region. Ruth Negga is perfect.

    • FriendlyUser says:

      But Cleopatra was not from the region herself. She wasn’t Egyptian from what historians understand. If you want to race bend the cast I think that’s fine but it’s a well-established by now that Cleopatra was mostly Greek, and from an inbreed house.

    • Anna says:

      Negga is way too beautiful! I like the idea though, as you say I’m sure they will cast someone beautiful and she is a good actress.

    • LAK says:

      So your suggestion to solve the ethnicity casting question is an Ethiopian (and Irish) actress to play an Egyptian (who was more probably Greek ethnically)?

      • magnoliarose says:

        Hi there LAK
        Happy to see you round these parts again.

        I think a light-skinned Egyptian would be more believable. Or a light biracial woman with Greek features.

    • Savasana Lotus says:

      Greece is less than 1000 miles from Egypt. As a Californian that would be like me going from LA to Oregon. Greece is a hop across the Mediterranean to Egypt. To me that’s the same region. It’s not perfect casting but a better fit in terms of how Hollywood would portray the character. Liz Taylor’s parents were from Kansas. Jolie’s decent is German and French Canadian. Negga is in closer range.

      • FriendlyUser says:

        But it’s not, it’s really not at all the same. You’re honestly gonna tell people natively from Egypt they are the same as Greeks? There is a huge difference, in terms of culture and appearance.
        Also a thousand miles today is far different from thousand miles in 30 BCE. Many ships sunk in the Mediterranean in attempted travel. While travel happened and the regions were diverse it wasn’t easy to travel.

      • Savasana Lotus says:

        Oh good grief. I’m talking Hollywood. Change my term to African/Irish decent rather than using the word region. Apparently you are assuming I don’t understand simple geography and culture. This is not a history lesson it’s a gossip site and if I were the casting agent I’d pick Negga. Is that clear enough.

      • LAK says:

        You are the one being pedantic about the race /region of Cleopatra and it’s being pointed out that your suggestions are inaccurate. You can’t fall back on ‘this is a gossip site’ whilst insisting Hollywood should be accurate as far as Cleo casting whilst making wrong suggestions to further your point.

  15. anna says:

    she recently said she was interested. in an interview that was covered here. let me find it:
    “Her next project: “Maleficent, we’re working on, most likely. And I look forward to having some fun with that. Cleopatra, there is a script. There’s a lot of different things floating around. But I haven’t committed.”

    • Felicia says:

      I don’t get out of that the same thing at all. I’m getting that she did a good job of attaching herself to something that she’s probably no longer attached to with the “there is a script” comment. That she’s made it appear that she’s still in demand as an actress because “there are other things floating around out there” which insinuates that those “other things” and the Cleopatra script have come to her. And maybe that’s the case although I tend to think she’s aging out of the “all good scripts come to me first” stage of her career. And I’m sure she knows that which is why she’s been attempting to create a directing career for herself.

      The only concrete things she said there was that she’s definitely doing Maleficient 2. And she hasn’t signed on the dotted line for anything else with the “I haven’t committed” remark.

  16. lucy2 says:

    I have to think if Rudin is developing this, Angelina will not be cast in the role. He did not seem too keen on the idea then, and more time has passed so she’s aging out of it.
    If they’re going to do it, I hope they find a good actress for the role, don’t white wash the entire population, and do the movie well.

  17. Mannori says:

    Ruth Negga + Denis Villeneuve + a good script. Creative control and final cut guaranteed to him = critical and commercial success. Awards season stuff for sure. If they let the man do his thing and Rubin & Co. stay the f*ck out of his way this could be a great movie. The more the suits and nosy producers intervene, the more the productions get messy. Just look at the miracle he did with Blade Runner.

  18. Eliza says:

    I would love to see this movie from the two sisters perspectives. We know Cleos power plays, but her younger sister is written out in most versions. She rose an army with her brother to throw out the Romans. Not really spoiler: didn’t work. She was captured, they attempted to humiliate/publicly kill her but the Roman people boo’d it, so she was spared and let live in a temple, until she was murdered (most likely on demand of Cleo)

    As long as they don’t have British accents!! Why anyone thinks a Macedonian family ruling generations in Egypt would speak with a modern English accent?? Just use the one you’re born with because no modern accent will be technically correct.

    • Kata says:

      Because all of Europe (and parts of Africa!) in the history of time had a British accent. Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, French, Danish, Dutch, doesn’t matter – we all have British accents. Nobility that is, prostitutes, peasants or comic relief characters can have their own accents of course.

      • mayamae says:

        Well that’s certainly true of American made historical films. I remember way back when Roger Ebert would complain about that.

  19. Brittney B. says:

    She literally JUST mentioned Cleopatra in the VF interview. How does no one remember this

  20. bijou says:

    Why can’t they use someone who is not white?

    • Kata says:

      They whitewash POC characters all the time so it wouldn’t bother me if they cast someone non-white as Cleopatra, but Cleopatra was white. She was of Greek origin.

    • Chell says:

      …because Cleopatra WAS white? I’d have no problem with a Person of Colour being cast for the role but if what we’re wanting them to go for is historical accuracy… Cleo was white…

      • Trashaddict says:

        Hollyweird never cared about historical accuracy before, so why should they now? It’s pretend folks, have fun with it!

    • .. says:

      She was white!

  21. Sophie says:

    What i hated about the email mess,
    was how Angelina & Amy Pascal were thrown to the media wolves. Scott Rudin is a despicable person & gets a free pass because he’s a good producer? The way he treats people around him is disgusting, yet where was his character assassination in the press? Just the women!

    • I am bored says:

      What I hated was that people really thought Angelina cared. When asked about it she said she was used to people talking trash about her. No big deal.

  22. NeoCleo says:

    Cleopatra was Greek and therefore a woman whose skin would be a much darker hue than Jolie’s. She also was NOT beautiful. She was however, highly intelligent, immensely charming and very politically astute. She was, in short, a fascinating woman and men were drawn to her for that. She was also from a very wealthy, powerful family dynasty. This could be a truly great movie if they would let it be so.

    • Kata says:

      Not that much darker? I’ve seen plenty of Greeks and they’re a bit tanner than Angelina, but not much.

      • l says:

        I worked in Greece for a while and there’s a big scope of skin-tone: using N. American Greek heritage actors as a reference they could go from a little darker than Jason Mantzoukas to a touch paler than Elena Kampouris although most were middle-to-Jason in coloring where I was (the Peloponnese). So probably not Angelina’s skin-tone, but she’s not out of range (if fairly uncommon). I think because Cleopatra was living in Egypt it was likely she was tanned by incidental sun-exposure even if not by effort due to the climate.

    • V4Real says:

      They would probably darken her skin the way they did when she played a biracial woman in A Mighty Heart.

      • mayamae says:

        I wonder why this doesn’t outrage people. Is it because it’s Angie?

      • V4Real says:

        I think so. But Scarlett and Emma got ripped to shreds for white washing fictional characters. But AJ got a pass for darkening her skin to play a non-fictional bi-racial woman. I don’t care that the woman asked Jolie to play her, Jolie could have said no, just like people on this site said Emma and Scarlett should have said no.

      • I am bored says:

        There was outrage … Because at the time people were pissed that JENNIFER ANISTON didn’t get the part. Seriously.

        Later on when the outrage about race came out MP released a statement saying she chose Angelina to play her so people shut up.

        Also, Brad Pitt produced it and cast Angelina -that’s another reason there is no real outrage about it these days… He can do no wrong in some people’s minds.

      • mayamae says:

        @ I am bored – my response last night was moderated out, so I’m sure this one will be as well. But come now, why do all roads lead to JA? It makes no sense to me that people were demanding JA play this role. When I heard about this movie, AJ was already attached. And having a problem with AJ having her skin darkened, and wearing a kinky curly wig, doesn’t mean one demanded JA in the role. JA would have been just as inappropriate with her unnaturally tanned skin and blue eyes. And I’m not sure why it’s Brad Pitt’s sole fault. Unless he strong armed Angie into taking the role, she had no problem passing as a biracial woman.

      • Felicia says:

        To be fair regarding the Aniston thing, she was instrumental in securing the rights to the book for Plan B. From an interview from 2004:

        “(Jennifer) Aniston and (Brad) Pitt, along with Brad Grey, have formed a production company, Plan B, and they hope to make a film together about Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was murdered in Pakistan. Pearl’s wife, Mariane, initially refused to sell the rights to her book, A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life and Death of My Husband Danny Pearl, but changed her mind after meeting with the couple. “She is one of the most inspiring and courageous women I’ve met in a long time,” says Aniston. “And if the film is something that seems worthy of the story that she told, if it’s done in the right way, then it will be made. That was sort of the deal that we all set with one another, as well as with her, because it’s such delicate subject matter.”

        Aniston, who says she would love to play a purely dramatic role someday (“I can see it”), is tentative when I ask her about playing Mariane Pearl. “If it works,” she says, “I would love to think that I could, but I reserve the right not to. We’ll have to see when it happens. I’m just excited about nurturing it.” ”

        Any “outrage” at the time was probably more directed at Pitt for yet another example of completely lacking a sensitivity chip. You have to admit it was kind of a d*ck move and this followed the W spread d*ck move.

      • Sherise says:

        Felicia, to be fair to Brad, it was Mariane that wanted Angelina to play her. And the W spread was a promo shoot for Mr and Mrs Smith. It was work. Jennifer has done similar shoots, even saying how much she love spending time and working with a colleague (name escapes me at the moment, I will look it up) who was married. And that is not to mention releasing intimate photos of her and Justin only one week after Heidi had fled their apartment. So if you want to talk about lacking a sensitivity chip, Jennifer has more than enough examples of her lacking one.

      • Felicia says:

        The W shoot was conceived by Pitt and he owns the rights to that shoot. He may well have attempted to pass that off as a promotion for MAMS, but it was not the studio who did that shoot, it was Pitt. Personally. And please note that there were no children in the couple in Mams.

        Marianne Pearl… when she sold the rights to her book to Plan B, Jolie was not even in the equation. To say that she “insisted” on Jolie playing the role well after the fact of selling the book rights rather than having “insisted” on Jolie playing the role before she signed that contract doesn’t actually seem a choice made from free will. Unless she contractually retained some control, who was going to play her was completely out of her hands. My point being on all of that is that the “outrage” spoken of above probably had more to do with Pitt publicly scr*wing Aniston over.

        Jen, Justin, Heidi was 12 years in the future then and has zero relevence on what the perception at that point in time. Just as the divorce proceedings and the accusations and/or insinuations between Pitt and Jolie have zero relevance on what happened and how it was perceived over a decade ago.

      • Sherise says:

        I never said Marianne Pearl “insisted” on Angelina playing her. Just that she wanted her to. Regardless of how Plan B came to be in the hands of Pitt and Jolie – and Aniston gave it up willingly, lets admit that; Marianne after meeting Angelina wanted Angelina to play her. She never said any such thing about Aniston, did she?

        The W shoot was conceived by the Production team and Pitt and overseen by Pitt. But the fact of the matter remains that it was a promotion for a movie. End of story.

        ‘Jen, Justin, Heidi was 12 years in the future then and has zero relevence on what the perception at that point in time.’ If that is so, then Pitt-Jolie-Aniston have zero relevance to this whole discussion. Might I remind you that you were the one who delved back 12 years in the past talking about a ‘sensitivity chip missing’. I simply responded to you going back 12 years to something that had no relevance to the discussion. Whether it is the fact that Aniston obviously screwed Brad over or Aniston obviously screwed Heidi Bivens over, either one example is irrelevant, or BOTH are relevant. One or the other. Take your pick.

    • Marr says:

      “This could be a truly great movie if they would let it be so.” Hear, hear. Who knows, I’m still holding out some hope for it (especially if Villeneuve’s name sticks).

    • Felicia says:

      I think it’s probably a useful thing to keep in mind that 2000 years ago, the Greeks probably didn’t look the same as they do now. Or rather, what we think of as “Greek looking”, because it’s probably safe to say that there are a whole bunch of the modern Greeks who don’t look “greek” either. I went to school with one who had naturally very blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin. There were colonies set up around that time, notably in Aleria, Corsica that introduced blond, blue eyed genes into the local population.

      It’s also worth keeping in mind that back then, the population was a lot less mobile and the physical characteritics of the people from one part of what is now Greece were probably a lot more defined due to a higher degree of isolation. That’s probably even more true of the Macedonians who originated from a mountain tribe. Surviving artwork of the time from Macedonia predominantly shows light skinned people with brown, light brown or blond hair.

      The Saracen invasions around the Mediterranean basin left their mark on the physical characteristics of the local populations, but that didn’t really start until the 700′s.

    • I am bored says:

      again to Maymae in yet another version of my comment. this is the third time

      maymae, I am Ann Angelina fan not a brad /Brangelina fan so I don’t like to see Jennifer’s name constantly attached to AJ either. In fact I hate it.


      What I said is true – people back then were not outraged about the race issue they were outraged because they saw Angelina playing MP AS a slight to Jennifer Aniston. Jennifer expressed interest in playing the roll and so when Angelina got the part it was a big issue for that reason not the race issue. The race stuff didn’t come until later.

      Why can’t we acknowledge that FACT??ive been deleted twice already. I mean c’Mon, celebitchy, if you don’t like me and my comments just deleted them all not just one or two.take me out of the discussion completely. rude.

      You know what.. I like this site because this is one place where you don’t get deleted if you don’t agree with the herd. Now I’m getting deleted. Ugh. Whatever

      I’ll be back tomorrow but it’s not nice.

  23. Bridget says:

    The Jolie really wanted this movie to happen, but the reality is that I don’t think anyone else is clamoring for yet another Cleopatra story. It doesn’t matter what spin is put on it, you’re still telling a story that has been told multiple times in multiple mediums. We haven’t run out of enough ideas to have to come by this one again.

    Also, if I have to read the same “she’s Greek” discussion on this, I’m going to scream. Even knowing the history of the Ptolemaic dynasty, it’s icky. And part of the reason why this just doesn’t need to be told again – is the only African woman’s story worth telling one who’s not even of African descent?

    • mayamae says:

      You forgot – and Macedonian. That’s always immediately referenced when Angie is discussed as being a bad fit for Cleopatra. I’m curious what would be said for another WASPy woman.

      • Bridget says:

        Considering that whitewashing has been discussed for Emma Stone and Scarlett Johanssen, I’m guessing that it would be said for any waspy woman. But it’s a gross conversation in the first place. Because lets get real – she’s not been previously played by white actresses for historical accuracy.

    • FriendlyUser says:

      Totally think there are other African and more importantly Egyptian women’s story worth telling. Pharaoh Hatshepsut would be a great movie, but there are others, Nefertiti springs to mind (Although nobody is quite sure if she was Egyptian but certainly you could cast as such) or Nefertari who was the wife of Rameses II and quite a political player. Queen Tiye was another political player, although she was half Syrian but still certainly not white. I would love a good movie on Ancient Egyptian. It has never been done before.

  24. mayamae says:

    For those in the know, what would a second Maleficent look like? We’ve already covered her trauma, her darkness that allowed her to curse an innocent baby, then her return to light when her love awakened Aurora (Not gonna lie, I did not see that coming, and I teared up). The movie ended like most fairy tales do: sunlight, bright colors, happy fairies and animals. Are they going to war with man again?

    • I am bored says:

      The first script was horrible. Linda woolverton wrote garbage about Maleficent & Arouras children. So Angelina wasn’t really going to be in it that much. Idk maybe the kids who love the movie would like to see a movie about maleficent children but I don’t.

      They have a new script writer on it now. So we shall see.

      • mayamae says:

        Thanks for the info!

      • I am bored says:

        No problem. I’m thinking the first script was written when they weren’t certain that Angelina was going to do it. Now they know she’s in so they have a really good writer (can’t name drop the movies he done but he’s done some good ones and he also writes plays) forgot his name sorry lol

  25. Frosty says:

    A movie of the real story of Cleopatra and the fight for the throne with her brothers and sister – i would love to see that, don’t think it’s been done. Yet. I think AJ would be good even though she looks nothing like the actual Cleo, because it’s a quick, visceral way to understand Cleo’s appeal. But maybe what would be even better would be for AJ to direct this.

  26. whatevahmang says:

    Cast Ruth Negga instead.

  27. Bliss 51 says:

    Years ago, at the Telluride Film Festival, I saw a film, Incendies, which stunned me. After the movie, director, Denis Villeneuve did a Q & A. Villeneuve is from Canada and had directed a number of films before Incendies. After, he directed a couple of films w/ Jake Gyllenhall, one of them Prisoners (brutal and I would never imagined Hugh Jackman in his role!), Sicario, filmed in parts of my state, New Mexico, El Paso, TX and Mexico City, Arrival and Blade Runner 2049.

  28. WyoGirl says:

    I could see Gal Godot in the role.

    • tracking says:

      I like her, but don’t think she has the acting chops. I agree with those who think Ruth Negga would be a great choice. By the way, Duane Roller, author of a respected Cleo bio, wrote about the question of her racial background: Argues there is good reason to think she could have been 3/4 Macedonian Greek, 1/4 Egyptian.

    • sara says:

      i like her but i dont think she is excelent actor to pull it off cleopatra.
      Ruth Negga its a good choice.

  29. Aubrey says:

    I am on the Cleopatra train because I understood it to be a remake of the 1963 film and I thought that glamour and kitsch was what it would be going for.

  30. Flipper says:

    There is no way she can play Cleopatra.

  31. truth hurts says:

    Angie is doing the film. Period. She wants to show Rudin and Pascal. you think she forgot that shite talk they were doing behind her back? She will be on the big screen as Cleo the way she wants it done. POWER.

    • Felicia says:

      She was rather clear that she isn’t committed to anything other than Malificent 2. It was pretty clear from those emails that there was a massive gap between how Rudin wanted to do the film and how AJ wanted to do it. And frankly, since he owns the rights, he can choose or not choose whoever he wants. Jolie has absolutely no say in what he does with a property he owns, regardless of how much power she may or may not have.

      It seems to me that if she does do the film, it will be on his terms, with a script that he wants and the budget that he approves. Which, given the contents of those emails, are very different from how she wanted it to be. Personally I think that in that context, if she accepts the role now, it would show a loss of power compared to 6 or 7 years ago.

  32. Lauren says:

    I would prefer it if they didn’t cast someone classically beautiful for the role. Anyone who has seriously studied Cleopatra VII knows that she was no great beauty but had a appeal beyond looks. She was very intelligent, witty, cunning, ruthless (like all her sisters) with a strong will of self determination against Roman supremacy. Caesar saw a political advantage in being with her and she did with him. But Marc Antony and her were true passionate love. They were equals.

    I hate how Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton’s portrayals are so famous when they are so lacklustre and one dimensional. Lyndsey Marshal and James Purefoy did a much better job in ‘Rome’. I adore Marshal. She killed it on every level. No one could ever deliver like she did.

    Jolie would not be my choice at all since she is only being cast to uphold the Cleopatra beauty myth.

  33. Rdmum says:

    Cleopatra was an African queen – so why are we all assuming it’s ok for Angelina Jolie or any of the other actresses mentioned (Jennifer Lawrence, Margot Robbie etc) to play her? Cleopatra has been portrayed for so many years almost exclusively by white women that people have forgotten that she was Egyptian and most likely darker skinned. Zoe Saldana would probably be a better bet.

    • ellieohara says:

      She was not Egyptian, she was Greek. She was white.

    • Ankhel says:

      Because, as many have said here, Cleopatra was at least 3/4 greek, even though she was Queen of Egypt. Rulers don’t always have the same ethnicity as the majority of their subjects.

      The name and origin of one of her grandparents is unknown. So, at least it could have been a native Egyptian, which at that day and age probably would’ve meant someone with brown skin. If you go by that theory, Cleopatra may have had very light brown skin, but that’s it.

      For those who wonder at what Egyptians ( both natives and some of mixed origins ) looked like in late antiquity, google “Fayum mummy masks”. Realistic mummy masks became modern at Cleopatra’s time, and they look incredibly lifelike.

  34. Sara says:

    Um, wasn’t Cleopatra dark skinned? There are plenty of young talented dark skinned female actresses capable of playing this part. Please don’t white wash it.

  35. Agape says:

    I send Angelina & her kids Peace & Love, they are amazing Family and they look so happy together.

  36. I am bored says:

    No she’s not too old. There is a thing called technology. They can de-age her. If Jennifer Lawrence can play characters that are 2 decades older an older actress can go backwards, too.

    For those saying Ruth nega. Noo. She doesn’t have the right stature for the character

  37. I am bored says:

    Your reasoning to comment on a refuted idea that she’s too old is lame. TECHNOLOGY can de age. And so now in this day and age she’s not too old. So what if people called Lawrence out? Doesn’t change the fact that she stole older women’s jobs.

    Older women deserve to be allowed to steal younger women’s jobs. Technology affords them that,

  38. Bridget says:

    Yeah, because it doesn’t at all look totally creepy when they try to do that in movies. And it’s so cost effective.

  39. truth hurts says:

    I don’t have to show anything research it yourself and stop thinking like people didn’t want or don’t want her in anything. Studio heads know who puts people in the seats. She was the only actress attached to this movie even after the leaked emails that only proved Rudin was offended by her agressiveness about Fincher and her ideas. That is typical behavior from men in HW. She was the actress the author really wanted to do this film. Tell me who else is gonna even be considered, show me proof of that. He was one of the directors she listed in those emails that SHE wanted. Seriously. It doesn’t matter what you think or want anyway. To be honest.