Eckhart to join Kidman in ‘Rabbit Hole’

Posted by · 2:15 am · April 3rd, 2009

Aaron EckhartNow this, to my mind, is a star pairing that really makes sense. Nicole Kidman has been attached for some time to star in the screen adaptation of “Rabbit Hole,” David Lindsay-Abaire’s stage play that was awarded the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Aaron Eckhart is now reportedly in talks to play opposite her.

The project represents a major dramatic opportunity for both stars: the play, which is said to be funnier than the thematic material suggests, revolves around a happily married couple forced to re-evaluate their relationship when their young son is killed in car accident. Cynthia Nixon (who won a Tony for her efforts) and John Slattery originated the roles on Broadway — I guess it’s fair to say the casting has been prettied up for film, but what’s new?

Personally, I’m excited at the prospect of Eckhart getting a role with some significant emotional range to tackle, and for some reason, I imagine his everyman quality and Kidman’s nervous reserve complementing each other nicely. Kidman, meanwhile, continues to choose the most interesting projects but it’s been a while since she had a really meaty dramatic lead in this vein — I’d love to see her pull something sufficiently riveting out the bag to stem the (unwarranted, in my opinion) backlash against her.

Meanwhile, the project may be an even more intriguing proposal for its director than for its stars. John Cameron Mitchell’s “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus” have won him a legion of admirers, but this promises to be a very different kettle of fish from those gleefully in-your-face efforts. I’m intrigued to see what he does with more muted material that he hasn’t originated himself. (Lindsay-Abaire will be adaptating his own work.) One to watch, for sure.

→ 16 Comments Tags: , , , , | Filed in: Daily

16 responses so far

  • 1 4-03-2009 at 2:51 am

    Alex said...

    I don’t know about Eckhart…he can act but I don’t have a good feeling about him pairing up with Nicole Kidman. Having seen the play, I think Jim Carrey could be good for

    I’m ecstatic about the director – it certainly won’t be a ‘vanilla’ adaptation. He has an authentic voice and will certainly take the material in an interesting direction. Even if it doesn’t entirely work, it’ll probably be much better than Frost Nixon or Doubt where the film is almost indistinguishable from the play.

  • 2 4-03-2009 at 6:46 am

    parker said...

    I’d feel a lot more sympathetic towards a grieving mother played by Cynthia Nixon than I would the icy Kidman.

  • 3 4-03-2009 at 7:55 am

    adam said...

    I like Aaron Eckhart.

    He should have really had a his big break by now. TDK helped but it still hasn’t given him is big moment.

    His next film, Battle – Los Angeles, sounds awful too.

  • 4 4-03-2009 at 8:07 am

    Mr. F said...

    aaaaand let the premature hate for this begin. Why do so many people hate Kidman? Is it her face? I don’t get it?

  • 5 4-03-2009 at 11:04 am

    /3rtfu11 said...

    I think box office poison Nicole Kidman shouldn’t be allowed to play Cynthia Nixon’s role. Cynthia was actually in a successful movie last year — wink wink!

  • 6 4-03-2009 at 11:39 am

    RichardA said...

    Either it’s going to be brilliant movie or just a flaming disaster. I cannot wait.

  • 7 4-03-2009 at 1:00 pm

    McGuff said...

    Adam, I wonder what you mean by “big break.” He was the lead in one of the decade’s most critically-successful comedies, and followed it up with a large supporting role in the decade’s biggest film. If Thank You for Smoking and TDK, as a combo, don’t count, I don’t know what does.

  • 8 4-03-2009 at 3:03 pm

    Eunice said...

    I agree with what RichardA said. I don’t really know what it is with Kidman, lately. Whether it’s the wrong director or material, I don’t know, but I hope this whips her up into shape. I’d hate for more people to want to take her Oscar back.

    As for Eckhart, good for him. He’s got range, and it’s about time he shows more of it.

  • 9 4-03-2009 at 3:18 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    Personally, I think Kidman is ten times the actress Cynthia Nixon is, but that’s me.

  • 10 4-03-2009 at 3:35 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    Guy did you ever watch SATC the series?

  • 11 4-03-2009 at 3:55 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    Here and there. Not a great fan, I must admit.

    I should clarify that I didn’t mean to imply Nixon is a bad actress. She’s perfectly good. But I think Kidman is truly great.

  • 12 4-03-2009 at 4:28 pm

    Mr. F said...

    I agree with Guy. Nixon is a really good actress. She was great the SATC show and was easily the best part of the POS that was the movie.

    However, Kidman, I believe, is one of the best acresses of her generation, right up there with Winslet, Watts, and Blanchett. I guess people don’t liker her for getting a sympathy Oscar (I hated “The Hours”), instead of winning the one she truly deserved (Moulin Rouge!).

    I also suppose that once you become a Mrs. Cruise people hate you.

  • 13 4-03-2009 at 6:46 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    I can’t believe all the people I disagree with over Lead Actress Oscar wins! I love Kathy Bates winning for Misery and Kidman winning for The Hours. Both performances are the type I believe modern movie audiences want to bestow awards to.

  • 14 4-06-2009 at 1:47 pm

    vanya said...

    Kidman hasn’t had a good, meaty role for quite some time ?

    Have you seen Margot at the wedding (2007) ? Or Fur (2006)? No masterpieces for sure but these 2 roles were interesting, Margot being the most complex one

  • 15 4-06-2009 at 4:13 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    I like her performance in “Margot at the Wedding” a great deal, but I think it’s a case of the actress being better than the role itself.

    “Fur,” while interesting, was too muddled to give her much of a showcase, in my opinion.

    For my money, she hasn’t had a role equal to her gifts since “Birth” in 2004.

  • 16 6-15-2009 at 1:28 pm

    gede said...

    For those parroting Cynthia Nixon for the role, if Nixon is interested in playing the role, she should have spent her money in developing the project. Kidman was not gifted the role, she approached the writer, got him to write the screenplay and developed it HERSELF through her production company and I don’t hear the writer complaining about the casting. Nobody is going to put Nixon in a movie, people went to see SATC because they liked the show. Put Nixon in another movie and no one will care. As for Kidman the BO poison, her movies may tank in the US but internationally, she makes the studio money and that is more than can be said for movie stars who make hits in the US. Also, Nixon may have originated the role, it is not hers. Rabbit Hole has been produced all over the US, the role was not written for her or with her in mind.
    As for Kidman’s talents, nothing needs to be said other than, she is one of the very best.