Culture - August 04, 2002
Cover story: Does this beauty have an inner beast?
Think glamorous blonde, think Cameron Diaz. But will her role as a street-smart pickpocket in Scorsese's Gangs of New York send her career in a new direction, asks Garth Pearce
Cameron Diaz has reached her moment of truth, and she knows it. She's 30 in the same week her
latest film is released in the UK, and there are questions to be asked. How long can she continue
playing the beautiful blonde who gets, or sometimes doesn't get, the guy? Can she change pace to
deliver something other than light, funny and sexy? Is her career set to spin on, as if she were a
21st-century Goldie Hawn, until change of any kind is resented? "I am just at that stage," she
says, "of wondering where I go from here. I came into this business almost by accident, but now it
has become serious. What started as a bit of fun, something to do other than be a model, has taken
on a different career curve. I have been forced to ask where that curve is going to end up."
Change is only a few months away, though, with the release of Gangs of New York. With this
high-risk $97m project, which director Martin Scorsese has wanted to make for the past 30 years,
perhaps the biggest risk is to Diaz herself. She is stepping back into a period setting for the
only time in her career -- the film is set between the 1840s and 1860s in a dangerous and
fast-expanding New York -- and has yet to discover whether she can act her way out from beneath
bodice, crinoline and the weight of history.
Her co-stars, arguably, have nothing to prove. Leonardo DiCaprio has already shown, in Titanic,
that the past sits well enough on his shoulders. Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays a rival gang leader,
has won an Oscar (for My Left Foot) and remains one of the most respected film actors in the
business, come what may. Even Scorsese has built up enough muscle through heavyweight offerings
such as Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980) and GoodFellas (1990) to take a disappointment.
Diaz, though, is exposed -- high and dry on the wharfs of Victorian New York. "I do appreciate the
risks," she tells me. "But I consider it was worth every moment I spent thinking about it and
working on it. This is a chance to find out what I can do. I had Martin Scorsese telling me I
could do it -- how much better guide could you get than him?"
He is certainly the best director Diaz has worked with so far. And if her role as the tough,
street-sharp pickpocket Jenny Everdeane is a triumph, then it is down to others around her who
insisted the part become bigger with each passing week of an eight-month shoot last year at
studios in Rome. "I was signed originally for five weeks, but ended up staying five months," she
says. "So Jenny changed out of all recognition. It was great to be a character like that, because
we had time to develop her, with script-writers, to make her strong and independent. She was the
only woman, so we wanted to represent through her what women were like at the time. She was a
survivor and needed to do whatever she could to stay alive on a day-to-day basis."
In the 20 minutes of footage from the film shown at Cannes, Diaz appears with muddy blonde hair,
neck-to-ground dress, little make-up and a desperate look in her eyes. "An important part of her
life was getting food, to avoid getting murdered, to try to stay disease-free, and to have a place
to sleep," she says. "Jenny evolved from a small part in the neighbourhood we re-created to a
full-blown character, a girl using her mind and wits to survive."
That wariness has now, in turn, been replaced by a glossy, self-assured manner. She's friendly
enough when we see each other in Cannes, but with added high-octane glamour. It may have been the
setting, where much is expected in terms of looking pure Hollywood. With red dress, blonde hair
and perfect make-up, she delivered in spades. Her message, though, is pragmatic. "I turned down
three films during the making of Gangs of New York, so I know there is a lot riding on this for
me," she says. "There were a lot of phone calls, meetings, faxes and cancellations. But that is
the price of being able to stay on a film like this and try and take on something different."
That difference came at a price. It was a difficult shoot, with script changes and a mounting
budget -- DiCaprio agreed to drop his fee by $3m at one stage, to keep it on track -- and some
loud and open clashes between the director and Harvey Weinstein, whose Miramax company is banking
on the three-hour epic to be its biggest Oscar winner since Shakespeare in Love.
But Weinstein revealed another reason why Diaz's presence in Rome was so important. "Without
Cameron, we would have all been screwed," he told me. "She was an angel on the movie, and we
needed that. Whenever someone's temper flared, Cameron would be around and nobody wanted to appear
to be an asshole in front of her. She is incredible. So calm."
Thanks to Arnzilla !
***