This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Adios to five hit points. Trogdor has badly wounded you."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 25 November 2014




Tweet







January 02 2006

Q and A with Eliza Dushku. Quite an insightful interview which has some surprising revelations. And curious about her new play? City of Angel has a good review.

I started to feel a little responsibility to young women, but it didnít quite jell. It certainly wasnít this young, strong female character that I expected it to be.

I guess she's talking about Faith, and why she turned down a spin-off, but I'm not really sure what she was expecting Faith to be. I mean, I think she had a wonderful arc, and by the end she was one of the good guys with a bit more focus and better outlook on life than she had in season 3 and 4. And you still want Faith to not be Buffy, so there's a bit more edge and darkness(though Buffy's own darkness we'll ignore here.) Of course, maybe she felt Faith's arc was complete, and there would be little material, but naturally I'd disagree.

And when did she sign a 6 year deal for something?
Honestly, from what little I read about "Kung Faith," it didn't sound like such a great idea to me. I'd love to see a Faith spin-off, but not so much as a motorcycle-riding demon hunter. They did that as comedy with Wesley in season 1 Angel. With Faith it sounded like it might be pretty fetish-y.

Did the interviewer seem a little hostile?
If the article is transcribed correctly, which I find dubious, the six year deal must have been for Buffy availability. I'm curious how she woukd define the "smut" she's never engaged in. If, as it appears, she's not refering to porn but rather to sex scenes in mainstream fare, she must have forgotten the scene in Soul Survivors showing her enthusiastically groping another woman's naked breasts .
I could be wrong, but I think the "didn't quite jell" comment was in reference to Tru Calling, not Faith. Or possibly not... I found this interview a little difficult to follow.
If she needs work, she can always phone up Joss. I dunno, I think she must of gotten a bit annoyed when Tru Calling was canceled the way it did, and as popular as that was for her, you still get fans who talk about Faith and she turned down the spinoff, so she disappointed some fans there, and tru calling got canceled anyway.

And I remember there were alot of Faith fans who wanted Tru Calling to be finished after season one, so she could do a Faith series, they really badly wanted one, me too, and now neither Tru or Faith worked out.

Now we don't have her in a series anymore, and people still say Faith, so there must be something she kinda thought up to justify her not doing Faith, the problem now is networks, when she was offered it, it was a sure thing. I hope the golden time of doing the spinoff didn't pass, otherwise I guess it'll always nag her down the line, why didn't you do Faith I can hear the fans saying now and again if she pops up at conventions etc.

[ edited by SeanValen on 2006-01-02 13:27 ]
I too thought she was referrring to Tru Calling.
I'd love a Faith spin-off in any form, motorbikes, penny farthings, whatever. More Faith please!
Now that I look at it again, yeah I think she's explaining what didn't work with Tru Calling.
I love Eliza, but they *made* her do Maxim? I highly doubt that. She's proven time and again that she doesn't do anything she doesn't want to. And yeah, I think she was referring to Tru Calling. Faith was a great character and she has been quoted many times on how rewarding it was to reach young girls with that role.

p.s. I still want a Faith show. Badly.
Far be it from me to say that studios exploit teenage actresses and tell them to do photo shoots cause it's in their contract or it allegedly boosts the profile of a TV show.
Re-reading, I can't tell if it was the spin-off or Tru Calling she was talking about. For which I blame the interviewer.
I am also unsure of which character she was referring to, and I'm not sure whose fault it is. The way Eliza responds to the question definitely makes it sound as if she's saying that the Faith spinoff wasn't a strong young woman type character, but that also doesn't sound right.

I agree, most of the last half of the questions seem quite confrontational, almost, as if the interviewer is trying to catch Eliza out. Not a completely bad interview but it would be nice if it made more sense.
Yeah, to me, the interview seems a little hostile in places. I think it reaches a high point when the interviewer asks, "What was the message behind posing for Maxim?" Obviously, I can't tell what tone the question was asked in, but, given Eliza's answer to the previous question, I can only guess that it was sarcastic.
Word, Simon. :-)
Out of curiosity I looked up her photos at maxim online. They are sexy, but she's fully dressed, no lingerie or anything, so I don't know what issue the interviewer could have with it. There's also an interview with Eliza which I found more coherent and interesting than this one.
It strikes me that Faith's arc was really just beginning.
There was a lot more room for growth in that character.
She certainly wasn't at peace with herself yet.
Witness her TOTAL inability to be truly intimate ("Yo that was rock'em sock'em").
And while she was stable, she never got to truly understand her role in the world.
Psychologically, she was totally interesting--- attachment disorder that was dangerously close to leaking over to "borderline personality" disorder!.

I found Faith's rehabilitation to be one of the really interesting things in the Jossverse. People actually get a second chance. (Unless your Lindsey!)
I found Faith's rehabilitation to be one of the really interesting things in the Jossverse. People actually get a second chance. (Unless your Lindsey!)


Lindsey got a second chance. In fact, Lindsey got a second, second chance. He just found the attraction of power too strong. That happens in real life, too.
barboo--
That's true-- Lindsey was really an interesting character but ultimately way too corruptible..
BTW..You're not the only one who carries Buffy DVDs around!
I've totally brainwashed my 7 year old godson--- he went trick or treating as Spike and was a little disappointed that he had to explain who he was to the uninitiated!
The Maxim shoot was in 2001; Tru Calling premiered in 2003. That excuse about promoting a tv show doesn't wash. She's also not exactly crying in the photos. If you read her interviews, it sounds like her brothers were upset about the Maxim shoot. And what she's doing is called 'backtracking'.
u2prince: She may not be crying in the pictures, but even if she had been crying at any stage, do you think they'd have used those pictures? Plenty of actresses have done photoshoots that they weren't entirely comfortable with. If done in the early days of their careers, perhaps they didn't feel as though they could voice their discomfort. Remember SMG's first Rolling Stone shoot? She has since said that she wasn't at all comfortable (and actually had a cry about it), but was still young and didn't want to make a big deal out of it. If she was in the same position now, you can guarantee that she would express her views. I think it's also safe to say that actresses often face pressure from studios, production companies, PR departments or whoever to do photoshoots that they perhaps would rather not. I'm not sure exactly what Eliza means when she says she was "forced" to do the shoot. But I don't find it hard to believe that she could have been made to feel that she had little choice.

[ edited by Impossible on 2006-01-02 20:22 ]
Not to change the subject, but I have to mention that I saw Dog Sees God a couple of weeks ago. Eliza was fantastic and so full of life. I'm surprised she hasn't done plays before because she seemed so comfortable and to really be enjoying the live audience. The play was dark and cynical but really funny too.
Hey! I think you're our first poster who has seen it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Eliza is referring to Tru, not faith. Eliza has said in the past that she was disappointed with how Tru turned out and said Tru was not the positive experience she hoped it would be. She's also said how she didn't think Tru was a strong enough character.
Eep, I just google imaged SMG's Rolling Stone cover, and eep! Poor girl, those pictures made me super sad, they are so cheesy and awful and b-grade.
Well, for a start, I'd love it if she were in the hopefully upcoming "Spike Movie". I thought their interactions together toward the end of "Buffy" were great. Even just a cameo, would be nice (wouldn't want to get in Illyria's way). Maybe this could ease her back into her "Faith" role. I think there are some great "Faith" tales that are waiting be told.
I'm trying to convince my friend to go see Dog Sees God with me. Although, I've heard Eliza's role in it isn't the biggest.
I'd never heard the SMG Rolling Stone story--so I googled it--and you're right, her pics aren't very pleasant. However, they have a totally different vibe from Eliza's, which are lively and sexy. Unless Eliza is a far better actress than SMG (which is a very strong possibility--oooh, I'm snarky), I don't think she could fake enjoying a photo shoot while her soul was being crushed.

Eliza has over-protective brothers and they felt weird about their sister doing a men's magazine. It seems like she's trying to placate them by saying she was forced to do it.
Back to Dog Sees God, which I saw last week, and just to warn that the review linked to there is very Spoilery: the synopsis gives almost everything away, and the last bit of the write-up gives away the final line of the play!

I'd definitely recommend it, not for Eliza alone (whose part feels almost like "star cameo"), but for the whole cast and terrific direction. And yes, it is dark and very funny.
I have not read the article yet, but the audience can rarely tell what is going on with an actor by the performance being given whether in photographs, film or live. How many emotionally abused child performers are successfull at giving cute perky performances? Even with adults you can read what was goiing on while filming performances and it is hard to imagine given the performance you see on screen. It is all an illusion after all.
IMO, it's a far different thing to say someone is abused and does a perky role that is a respite from said abuse, as opposed to doing a photo shoot that is destroying you on the inside WHILE your picture is being taken. But I seem to be the only one here who thinks that way.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home