Speculation has been running rampant as to who will enter the Red Room of Pain as kinky couple Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey in the film adaptation of E.L. James' "Fifty Shades of Grey," with everyone from Lucy Hale to Alexander Skarsgård expressing interest. But someone's got to crack the whip on this production, and while rumors had it that Angelina Jolie was being eyed by Universal Studios to direct, The Hollywood Reporter says the actress-turned-filmmaker has had no such meetings with the studio.
I, for one, am pretty disappointed Angelina most likely won't be tackling the erotic tale of a naive college student who falls under the spell of a damaged billionaire. She may be a mother of six and Goodwill Ambassador now, but it wasn't that long ago the 37-year-old was wearing a vial of Billy Bob Thornton's blood around her neck, having pre-premiere sex in the back of cars and passionately kissing her brother. Clearly, this is a woman comfortable with her sexuality. But, alas, it's just not meant to be, which raises the question: Who should direct "Fifty Shades"?
The first name that comes to mind is Steve McQueen, who directed Michael Fassbender (and his Fassmember) in the titillating drama "Shame." Under Steve's direction, the film would take on a grittier edge than the novel—a tone the adaptation could benefit from. Another auteur who would amp up the story is Steven Soderbergh, who's already tackled the world of male stripping with "Magic Mike." S&M is just the next logical step, right? Of course, I'd be remiss in not throwing a woman's name in the mix, both because the story is from the perspective of protagonist Ana but also because we need more female-directed films. Catherine Hardwicke's work on "Twilight" isn't often considered her best, but we'll be the first to gush over her vision of Bella and Edward's steamy bedroom kiss, and wouldn't it be inspired to have Catherine direct a project with roots in the vampire drama?
All right, that's all from us. Laters, babe.