Aniston to reprise role of Rachel Green…again
Will someone please off Jennifer Aniston already? Is it just me or has she played the character of Rachel Green in every role she’s ever gotten? Does Rachel Green have a devoted cult following at the box office or something? My brain tells me that’s a ludicrous notion, but I guess that could explain why she continues to get movie roles for continually reprising the character of Ross Geller’s on again off again love interest in new, albeit generic, romantic comedies every year (like the most recent waste of time, “The Switch” with Jason Bateman). Maybe the movie makers know the train wreck of a romantic comedy they cast her in will get at least a few bodies in the theaters, even if those bodies are single women still caught up in the whole “Team Aniston” thing, you know, hostile women who are committed to supporting Aniston because they believe they have something in common with her since the big breakup scandal that took place between Aniston, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt…seemingly decades ago. Get over it, white women!
Or maybe she’s just sleeping her way into these roles? I mean, she does have a pretty good body for her age. And her nose job is still one of the best plastic surgery successes in the biz (apart from maybe Ashlee Simpson…oops, did I let the cat out of the bag?).
But really, before too long Aniston will probably be forced to pull a Meg Ryan and do full frontal nudity, because, really, when you think about it, their movie careers seem to parallel one another. I mean, both of them play the same character in nearly every role they get. People get tired of the girl-next-door routine, especially when said girl’s physical appearance takes a turn for the worse. Right? I mean, Meg Ryan used to be really cute, then she went all Catwoman on us and had her face chopped up to look like a sick Sphynx. But at least Ryan had talent.
By my math, Aniston doesn’t have much longer for her good looks and sex appeal to afford her a role anyway. Before you know it, Aniston, seemingly out of nowhere, will be doing full frontal nudity. Should people be excited? Well, that’s a tough question.
Although the nude scene is probably inevitable for Aniston, it is sort of bittersweet. Yes, the chance to see Monica’s roommate naked will pique the interest of many people, but Aniston’s good years are running out. The clock is ticking away on her chance to do nudity “tastefully.” You know, “tastefully,” also known as the last grasp at popularity and fame nearly has-been celebrities and pseudo-celebrities alike give as the reason for doing Playboy or baring it all on HBO, etc. Let’s be honest, there aren’t very many roles available that can roll nudity, “tastefully done” and artistic into one big pill for the Hollyweird types and movie-goers to swallow (see Marissa Tomei in “The Wrestler” or Halle Berry in “Monster’s Ball). Most actresses who do nudity seem to be shunned if at least two of the aforementioned criteria are not met in the project for which they bare it all (see Elizabeth Berkley in “Showgirls”).
I believe by the time Aniston realizes she sucks and has been playing the same character for 20 years she will be so desperate to either break out of that shell (sorry, that abomination of a movie she did with Clive Owen doesn’t count) or hold onto her fame that she will have to settle for something more along the lines of “In the Cut” (thanks for the nightmares, Meg Ryan). And then it’ll just be sad, because it’ll be painfully obvious Aniston didn’t take the role because it was the role of a lifetime; she will have taken it because she can no longer fool anyone into buying a $12 movie ticket to see if she’s gonna get back together with the ultimate antipoon, Ross Geller. Maybe then movie-goers will see Aniston in all her glory, but waaaay past her prime…and not really glorious at all.
So please, Aniston, give it up.