Kate Who?

Why is Kate Winslet a major star and Natascha McElhone isn't?

Ah, the enternal question. For me.

As a working critic, I was always out-of-step with my readers and their tastes. What I liked, they hated. And vice versa. The people for whom I worked never seemed to mind, and neither did I. Quite the opposite, in fact. I was invigorated by the on-going disagreements.

One particularly contentious area involved who the public would embrace as the Star of the Moment. And it still is.

In the 1980s, for example, I wasted a good part of my life trying to figure out why Julie Roberts was quickly becoming a major star and not Ione Skye. There seemed to be little difference between them, physically, although from where I sat, Julia had the brighter smile and Skye had the bigger talent. But what do I know? (An aside: I learned to appreciate and love Julia.)

Then there was Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise, the moderately talented actor who was guided to superstardom by major players in Hollywood.

Why not Matt Dillon, the superior actor?

Which brings me to Natascha McElhone and, alas, Kate Winslet. Look, I like Kate Winslet. Who doesn't? But she was far from the actress of 2008. No, that distinction would go to either Melissa Leo or Michelle Williams.

But, hey, thanks to a certain little number titled "Titanic," both critics and moviegoers love Kate Winslet.

Nevertheless, I think that anything in recent years that starred Kate Winslet would have been immeasurably better with Natascha McElhone, a handsome, eminently desirable actress still waiting to be discovered by inkstained critics and mall moviegoers alike. Again, feel free to disagree.