A Review of Hilary Swank’s Brinker International Forum Performance
One of our haiku contest winners was kind enough to write the following funny review of Hilary Swank’s gig Monday night. I’m a bit late getting it online, but it’s worth a read:
Ms. Swank deserves another Oscar for her performance Monday night. Don’t know how she kept a straight face during such gems from Quin Mathews as: “I think the Next Karate Kid was a more physical movie than Million Dollar Baby. Don’t you think?” H. Swank: “Did you see Million Dollar Baby?”
Mathews: “Why did the producers pick you for Boys Don’t Cry?” H. Swank: “You would have to ask them.” Mathews: “But, you must have some idea …” [awkward pause]
Mathews: “I think you have to be a life-long actor. You could never stop acting, right?” H. Swank: “No. I could stop whenever I wanted to. That was a funny question.”
For a few split seconds, I contemplated jumping up out of my seat and yelling, “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, LET HER FREE,” but distracted myself by noticing that if I closed my eyes, Ms. Swank sounded sort of like Jillian, a trainer from my favorite show, The Biggest Loser.
Ms. Swank was “delightful” as the program bio promised. It didn’t mention “patient,” but it should have. I found myself hoping that she would spot me in the audience, look deep into my eyes, and know instantly that we were meant to be besties forever.
The program also mentioned her upcoming film Freedom Writers, circa 2007, so that could have used some updating.
Overall, the conversation was about 5% “succeeding against the odds” as advertised, about 10% awkward pauses, and 85% questions about The Next Karate Kid.
My grade. H. Swank: A-. I docked her a few points for her dress, which had a weird mini train attached to the back. Quin Mathews: Z-.
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Since intelligence is attractive to me, there is something about this review that makes me think this critic is rather hot. Not in a leather-wearing-I-want-to-spank-you-ball-gag way, but rather an intellectual-red-haired-ponytailed-catholic-schoolgirl way.
I don’t think this review was very funny. But it sounds like PR “knows” this reviewer quite well.
That review was one thousands times more entertaining than the actual event. Does Quin Mathews even like movies? Or maybe he only likes his own “movies” …
Eskimo – pull the ice cubes out of your toosh. D- I think you should hire whoever wrote this review, it was hilarious!
I disagree. Hillary Swank was uncommunicative and rude. Quin Matthews attempted to engage her in conversation, asking her a number of very good, open-ended questions that a more agreeable interviewee could have answered with amusing anecdotes, engaging insights and interesting insider scoop on the movie industry in general and her experiences in particular. Swank gets the Z grade while Matthews earned an A for effort.
@KB: Are you kidding? He was the one restricting her. Apparently he’s never heard of the word “follow-up.” He was never under any circumstance derailing that train toward boredom.
I agree with the author of this review. The moderator was not only restricting, but by his body language alone it was evident that he did not want to be there. Slouching should be left for when one is in front of the television, not an audience. I kept telling myself the whole time “I’m so relieved I was given these tickets”, I would have been upset if that is what I paid for. I felt that if they would have went with their gut not used a moderator; Hilary Swank would have done an excellent job on her own. She still sparkled when she spoke, and somehow managed to share things about her animal, and gay rights activism. She was quite respectful and allowed him to ask his questions, because that is what he was there to do. Unfortunately, they were not very good questions.
@BK: Nope, our group agreed afterwards that she was one of the worst interview subjects we’d seen in years of attending Tate and Brinker Series events. We felt sorry for Quin Matthews who politely persisted in the face of her borderline hostile “Yes/No” closed-end answers.