madonna.jpgThat's what The Guardian's Andrew Pulver seems to think, although he doesn't make a very good argument out of it. He points out that, contrary to popular belief, Madonna is not *completely* talentless on film if coddled in the right way – after all, her performances in Desperately Seeking Susan and Dick Tracy are both quite good – but in general, the broad just isn't an actress.

What she may be, according to Pulver, is some kind of solipsistic visionary, deeply devoted to the epic realisation of her own obsessions. Pulver tries to prove this point by pointing at Madge's videography, but aside for namechecking her two early-90s masterpieces (Justify My Love and Vogue), he seems to have shamefully overlooked the huge portions of her video ouevre where Madonna seems to be Saying Something; arguably, it would be these moments (from Papa Don't Preach's hamstrung abortion narrative, to the brilliant contradictory tones of What It Feels Like For a Girl) that would point to any existing artistic talent. Pulver goes on to name Madonna's "strength of will" and "relentless drive". Drive, I'll give ya, but is their a weaker willed woman in the world than this professional fad-hopper?

Ultimately, Pulver makes a few good points but more silly ones, and he never really answers the question at hand. Could Madonna direct better films than her husband? Hell if I know – but if you want to present a convincing argument, I'll listen.
categories Movies, Cinematical