Is Kidman’s frozen face ruining her career?

In the brilliant, little-seen 2004 film “Birth,” Nicole Kidman stars as well-to-do New Yorker who comes to believe that a 10-year-old boy is the reincarnation of her long-deceased husband. There’s an extraordinary scene early on, where Kidman and her fiancé attend the symphony; the camera stays locked on Kidman’s face for two solid minutes, as we see a panoply of emotions rocket through her mind, subtly revealing themselves in her countenance.

As movie close-ups go, it’s one of the greats, to be placed alongside silent screen legends like Lillian Gish and Maria Falconetti. What Kidman does in that two minutes, however, acts as a perfect summation of what’s going right and what’s going wrong for her career.

On the plus side, Kidman frequently attaches herself to daring and unusual indie films, often made by some of today’s most provocative directors. It’s hard to imagine, say, Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon dashing off to Europe to work with troublemaker Lars von Trier (as Kidman did for “Dogville”) or romancing a wolfman-suited Robert Downey, Jr. (“Fur,” from “Secretary” director Steven Shainberg) or even making something as challenging as “Birth.”

In a sense, Kidman’s career path seems more European than American; foreign actresses like Catherine Deneuve or Isabelle Huppert will often balance the glamour roles with down-and-dirty, gut-wrenchers directed by the current generation of cinematic provocateurs.

Kidman’s record of interspersing commercial projects with art films has, alas, been less successful, but one can hardly blame her for that. Projects like “Bewitched” and “The Stepford Wives” and “The Invasion” may have turned out dreadfully, but given the talent involved behind the camera, they all no doubt seemed like better bets when Kidman originally signed on. And it behooves Kidman to retain her status as a box-office draw, if only because that clout ensures that the arty stuff will actually get made.

‘What has she done to her face?’
Alas, that “Birth” close-up also reminds us of Kidman’s most recent career challenge — did she paralyze her face in the name of beauty? In the current “Margot at the Wedding,” one becomes distracted during the film’s climactic scene because of the eerie frozen quality of Kidman’s features. Salon.com film critic Stephanie Zacharek, in her review of the film, was compelled to ask, “What has she done to her face? … Kidman’s skin is, without a doubt, beautiful. But it has turned into her greatest limitation, a boundary beyond which she can’t stretch.”

Slideshow: The week in celebrity sightings Her paralyzed visage is even more apparent in “The Golden Compass,” where Kidman is otherwise brilliantly malevolent as the evil Mrs. Coulter. Kidman certainly has the voice and the presence for the role, but her cheeks look unnaturally porcelain. As compelling as she is, audience members will be forgiven for being distracted over whether or not Kidman’s eyebrows will actually move in any given scene.

And let’s be very clear about something — Hollywood has shown itself to be merciless on the subject of aging women, so it’s unfair to attribute the inclination toward plastic surgery to mere vanity on the part of actresses. Women in the industry know they have to look a certain way, or the parts start drying up. But at what point does the elimination of wrinkles justify a performer’s destruction of her most valuable asset? The face of an actress is her instrument, and without it, she becomes a statue, a painting, a frieze.

On the tipping point
Video: Controversy surrounds ‘Compass’ The current issue of Radar magazine — the cover of which features Kidman as a Barbie doll, with the screaming headline “Help! I Can’t Move My Face!” — notes that casting directors are beginning to redouble their efforts in Canada and the United Kingdom, where actors are less likely to have altered their looks. The fact that said casting directors are principally responsible for the Botox-ing of the current generation of American actors probably bodes badly for film and television, but well for plastic surgeons abroad.

Radar also observes that Kidman, who turned 40 this summer, is at the tipping point between natural aging and plastic-surgery victimhood. One hopes that there’s a road in the middle —there are, after all, distinguished ladies of American movies who have allowed themselves to age “gracefully,” which may just be another of way of saying, “has had some work, but the subtle kind that doesn’t leave you looking like an alien.”

So what advice can this lowly critic (and admirer) offer to Ms. Kidman?

Stop doing whatever you’re doing to your face, at least when you’re working. The gauntlet of horror that is the red carpet is one thing, but the movie camera needs to see you express yourself through your furrowed brow, your crinkled nose, your wry smile. We’re all getting older with each passing year, but your immense talent should be enough to make you a desirable commodity even if a line or two should surface in your peaches-and-cream complexion. If nothing else, think of how little competition you’ll have among actresses who actually look their age.

Few of your contemporaries can hold a close-up the way you do, or speak volumes with just the slightest movement of the eyes or mouth. Please don’t deprive yourself, or your audience, of the full range of your gifts.

Duralde is the author of “101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men”; find him at www.alonsoduralde.com