Can't hate on someone for making money with their talents. I'm not sure she has ever made a claim to being the greatest actress alive.

She seems like someone who knows her capabilities and does what she can to benefit from them.

Of course being Australian her homeland hates her because she didnt earn it like some 'little aussie battler' or whatever other mythical trope Australians like to perpetuate about their provincial selves.

So many of her film roles depicted meaty characters that perhaps other actresses may have illuminated better, if even just with a more natural / relaxed / realistic approach to acting compared to the stagey 'Nicole' syndrome. I wanted so much to give credence to Kidman's acting capacity even from her early days in film, as she seemed to have a promising screen persona. Truth is, I always expected more but came away disappointed :( At times, I even felt that the casting of her was the sole reason why many films that could have been great were destroyed.

Take, for comparitive purposes, actresses like Rose Byrne, Jennifer Connelly, or even Dianne Kruger – attractive, classy, but still devoted to acting as an art, rather than acting for popularity or self-aggrandizement. The subtlety in as well as choice of their expressions, use of physical space, and voice point toward a more natural approach to acting which raises their skill levels to above par status when placed next to a piece of cardboard like Nicole. Many times I've wondered why Nicole would gawp, sigh, mock-flirt, despair, pace around, or break into a fit of giggles like a clueless schoolgirl when most anybody else would not have reacted in such a way. Kidman could learn a lot from her contemporaries, but may be too vain or self-satisfied to admit it! Even Lauren Bacall, who hails from a different, more savvy era of Hollywood altogether, was spot-on in her description of Nicole as merely a 'beginner', rather than a 'legend' (the latter, a term too loosely applied to several modern actors who haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what it means to wield command onscreen). In fact, Kidman owes her audience a great debt.

So basically, what does that leave us with? My guess is that her career was built on hype and spectacle, rather than a true nod to any notion of depth in acting. I am convinced that she herself is aware of this, and exploits it for whatever monetary gain it has to offer. Unfortunately, these days, the phenomenon of star appeal in Hollywood seems to chip away at and sadly, supersede proper acknowledgement of those with real talent.

If, as has recently been publicized, a major studio is overtly planning to cut women out as leads for movies in the scripts being produced, then girls will be relegated to experiencing "story" via man-stream film that chronically casts fe-males in the role of sidekicks to men, men's lives writ large (never women's), men's action in the world and men defining men's idea of unnatural womanhood. If women can be (mis)led to believe that it's "cool" to disparage women stars among the other women role models chronically disparaged to a greater degree than their male counterparts (e.g., Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin), then women are led farther along the sheep-le path of becoming fe-males not in their own creativity but in man-made roles according to what men, not what women, want.

Name the global media patriarchy for what it is, and the methods of misogyny become obvious.

Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, Melissa Etheridge — three who are more powerful and emotionally resonant, more intelligent and fascinating than Hugh Jackman, Phillip Seymour Hoffman or "the Boss." Note that Springsteen gets called "the Boss" in patriarchy even though he cannot carry a tune as he rocks.