Sandra Bullock: The perfect girl next door

Most actresses in Hollywood would probably kill for Sandra Bullock’s career — not because she’s winning tons of prestigious awards, because she isn’t, or because she gets to stretch her acting muscles in a wide range of roles, because…come on.

Bullock’s c.v. consists primarily of chick-flicky, girl-next-doorish roles that Julia Roberts and Drew Barrymore probably turned down first. But as the reigning queen of mediocre chick flicks, Bullock has smooched just about every cutie in the business. Keanu Reeves, Hugh Grant, Ben Affleck, Aidan Quinn, Benjamin Bratt, Viggo Mortensen — she’s kissed them all. Because that’s her job.

How did she get — and keep — that awesome job, exactly? She’s not a great actress. She’s not bad; she’s not Claire Forlani or anything. But she’s not Meryl Streep, either. And she’s certainly pretty, but she’s not stunning. She’s just…pretty.

Is that why Sandra Bullock has such a solid career — because she’s attractive but not threateningly so, because she tempers it with appealing clumsiness? Does average likeability count?

What is Sandy’s secret?

Tara Ariano

The reason she does such a great job in roles that require her to be endearingly dorky is that she is endearingly dorky.

Remember that old “SNL” Mark Harmon hosted where he did a fake Coors ad and talked about how women find him sexy, but men aren’t threatened by him? Well, I think Sandra Bullock is the female Mark Harmon. In a good way!

I mean, not to make any sexist generalizations about how women hate beautiful women, because I don’t think that’s the case. But when it comes to non-threatening romantic comedies that amount to wish-fulfillment fantasies for grown-up ladies (some more fairy-tale than others — “Practical Magic”? They had actual powers!), it’s easier for normal women to identify with and therefore root for someone who looks like she could be in your yoga class than someone who looks like she just stepped off a Chanel billboard, Nicole.

Freakishly beautiful women belong in tragic love stories; fizzy comedies require relatably attractive women, and Bullock fits that description perfectly.

And more than that, Bullock is likable. The reason she does such a great job in roles that require her to be endearingly dorky is that she is endearingly dorky. “Miss Congeniality” may not have won her (or William Shatner) any Oscars, but TBS wouldn’t run it every other weekend if there wasn’t a considerable number of us who think it’s funny when she snorts or trips in her heels. Which…um, it is. And you know it, so don’t be a snob.

Sarah D. Bunting
Oh, I know it. Not as well as I know every line of “While You Were Sleeping,” because I watch it every time it’s on cable, but still. Even when I don’t like the movie she’s in — and I often don’t, but I watch a lot of them, because airlines really seem to like showing them — I still like her.

I just wonder how she’s going to employ that endearing-dorkiness superpower in the future. She’s relatably attractive, which is a huge asset in her line of work…but she’s also 40, which means she’s got a limited amount of time left as a believable rom-com heroine. Hollywood only has so many juicy roles for mature actresses, and the line in front of Bullock 1) is really long, and 2) starts with Meryl Streep.

The “Miss Congeniality” franchise might trundle along forever à la “Police Academy,” but if it doesn’t, maybe it’s time for Bullock to diversify her portfolio with a little Shakespeare or something. Again: I like her. I don’t think she needs to change anything about herself or her career — now. But the meter is running.

Tara
I’m sure I’m the only one who saw “Murder By Numbers.” I mean, I’m sure of it. But she deviated from type there — playing a tough detective (who was nursing a secret wound, of course) — and although it was a pretty stupid movie, her taking a role that was a bit of a departure kind of worked. As much as we’re all used to seeing her grinning and capering, she was believable looking grim and joyless, too. (Plus she had mad chemistry with Ryan Gosling, possibly because they were reportedly a real-life item at the time.)

Shakespeare, though…I don’t know. She has such a contemporary look; her last attempt at a period piece (“In Love And War”) didn’t really convince me. Plus I don’t know that she can’t keep chugging along the way she has been pretty much forever; girlfriend does not look 49 to me (possibly because she hasn’t tried to buy herself more time by turning her lips into a pair of sausages, Meg).

MORE FROM MOVIES

Movies Section Front

‘Avatar’ blasts off with $232 million worldwide Streep and Baldwin — not a ‘Complicated’ pair Downey brings action to ‘Sherlock Holmes’ You’ll wish you didn’t ‘Hear About the Morgans’ Sarah Jessica Parker can’t wait for Christmas Jeff Bridges is Bad to the bone in ‘Crazy Heart’ Cameron aims for ‘Titanic’ results with ‘Avatar’ Clooney, Streep, Bullock earn SAG Award nods This was not the decision Lucas was looking for 70 years on, ‘Gone With the Wind’ still holds up Movies Section Front   Add Movies headlines to your news reader: