[News article] Why Meghan Markle was underrated as an actress

[TallerSally]

Rare praise from the i:
https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/a-suits-revival-wouldnt-work-without-meghan-2556238

The legal drama Suits is having a surprise moment in the spotlight 12 years after it first aired. The key to its success? Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex

“Meghan’s Suits colleagues left ‘terrified’ after paparazzi broke onto set: ‘It felt dangerous’Meghan was still filming the legal drama in Toronto when news broke of her and Prince Harry’s relationship in October 2016”

Trying to follow your timeline. They had a full year and month before official announcement so seems there was time for the palace to interfere with scripts.

I’ve just received Harry’s book so maybe he says when he told his family that they intended to marry: because if palace insisted on vetting scripts they could have started to do so from that point. I’ll get back to you.

October 2016 - news breaks of Harry and Meghan dating.

I do think that the palace, and some royals members, have likely told a few lies in their time too.

The dates do match up. Their relationship became public in October 2016, and they'd been quietly dating for a few months before that.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726701/prince-harry-meghan-markle-suits-actress-girlfriend-royal-family-relationship-secret-lover

Suits didn't finish shooting till Nov 2017.

That's a crossover of more than a year. Why are people pretending the dates don't match up? They clearly do.

She didn't finish filming Suits until more than a year after she was outed as Harry's girlfriend. They didn't even start filming the final season of Suits until months after she was outed as Harry's girlfriend.

Scripts are constantly re-written and edited right up to the day of shooting. So it's absolutely possible that during that final season, that the Palace were asking to see shooting scripts and asking for changes.

Oh I don't doubt for a second that the journalists were swarming the moment the news was out about them dating, I wasn't questioning the part about needing extra screens/security etc.

That's very different though to being officially a couple, in the latter part of 2017, where the palace could afford to get involved. If they'd got involved before it would have been obvious to anyone they contacted that there was a serious relationship on the go (which then gets read as engagement coming which is exactly what happened when the 'official couple' announcement came).

I'm not querying the timelines of when the press got involved, I'm querying how the palace would have had time to be so overbearing when filming was wrapping up by the time they got on board. I'm aware changes can be made up to the last minute but are we believing they made huge restrictions and made it impossible to work with MM over a handful of weeks to work with?

But why would you assume the Palace would wait a full year to "get on board", until they're "officially" a couple? What does "officially" a couple even mean? What does "get on board" mean? It'd been a YEAR at that point! You really think the Palace would refuse to get involved in any way in the Queen's grandson having a very high profile relationship with a TV celebrity, going on holiday and seemingly quite serious, for a full year, on the arbitrary grounds that it's not "official" whatever that means?

The Palace are infamous for interfering in the lives of romantic partners to royals, look at everything both Diana and Kate went through during their courtships. Not to mention Prince Philip and Princess Margaret before them. Sophie had to give up her career.

It was more than a year, and it was pretty obvious Harry was serious about her and probably going to marry her. I'd be shocked if the Palace wasn't interfering, considering the overlap of more than a year.

There just don't seem to be any grounds to just blithely call everyone liars, oh Harry's a liar, Meghan's a liar, all the actors and execs on Suits are liars, Tom Bowers, just to defend the Palace from the the accusation they can sometimes overstep in their desire to maintain a good public image. That's not really shocking or a surprise to anyone who follows the BRF, surely?

"The Palace are infamous for interfering in the lives of romantic partners to royals, look at everything both Diana and Kate went through during their courtships."

The facts are that the Palace didn't do anything for Diana or Kate - they were both left to fend off paparazzi by themselves before they were guven any kind of protection (Diana until she was engaged and Kate not until several years of dating.

The Palace did nothing. They didn't do anything for Sophie either - she didn't give up working until after her marriage (& the fake sheik scandal).

Except Harry released his statement about the media harassment and abuse of her in 2016, not 2017. That's confirmation enough it was a serious relationship by then.

Their first outing together a year later (Invictus 2017) doesn't matter.

I also don't think that just because something wasn't reported in the media/tabloids, that it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Interesting viewpoint on Suits' treatment of its female characters, particularly Jessica and Rachel. Highlights that Gina Torres and Meghan Markle probably did the best they could with their (relatively limited - in comparison to the male leads) characters...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/suits-why-its-impossible-not-to-like-this-netflix-phenomenon

She did all the little jobs like suitcase girl, soaps etc and worked her way up to greater exposure but she was never going to be a great actress. Let's be honest here.

She’s gorgeous with considerable sex appeal & a melodious voice. There are stronger in Suits.

I see her as Angelina Jolie, who is also striking & beautiful with intelligence & presence. I don’t rate her as a stand out actress. The Changeling, for example, I can see past Jolie. Based on true story & any woman that was that stand out stunning would be remarkable & people would comment. I couldn’t see past the ‘Angelina factor’ & into the character on screen.

You're right, but on screen AJ, is well, AJ, for me, anyway and it is similar re: MM. Fairly average actresses. Jodie Comer, for example, no competition.

It the distant past, if you were a true beauty that was pretty much enough to be on the silver screen, ditto matinee idol (man).

I liked her in Deal or no Deal

I know looks are subjective but Meghan imo is nowhere near the charismatic beauty that Angelina Jolie was in her prime. Meghan has a pretty girl next door appeal, but Angelina was a complete badass, who became well known for stunning appearance. Yeah Angelina may not have been a great actress but she was undeniably charismatic and had star appeal, hence the global box office hits for when she starred as Lara Croft, or in Girl Interrupted, Malificent and is considered a movie star in the likes of Elizabeth Taylor. Meanwhile, Meghan despite her efforts never became truly famous until she married harry. She doesn't have star quality, unlike Angelina.

Not even a fan of Angelina but I find it funny that Meghan could even be compared to someone like her. 😂😂😂

You're forgetting the It factor, the star quality that makes someone a movie star even if they're not much of an actor or actress. Meghan Fox is closer to the beauty that Angelina was but even she wasn't able to become the movie star that Angelina was. Other well known beauties also never achieved Angelina’s level of fame and celebrity, such as Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, even Monica Belluci.

@MamoruHisaishi the IT factor being closely tied to stand-out looks.

Oh, I disagree! I think it has far more to do with personal charisma and charm. Given that we are talking about Hollywood stars here they are already self-selected for having stand-out looks. The IT factor is what makes the mega stars out of that already very good looking cohort.

Agree on self-selected group.

Except Harry released his statement about the media harassment and abuse of her in 2016, not 2017. That's confirmation enough it was a serious relationship by then.

It would be something of a grim irony if Harry's own 'back off my girlfriend' statement led to Buckingham Palace interfering in her job.

yes its almost like people want to rip her apart.
Im not an AJ fan, but she is a movie star. imo Meghan is more like a tv actor.
if she was english she would have most likely ended up in a soap, rather than being the next helen miram (example)
she is often compared to women who are so different there is no comparison. Michele Obama being one, its like people want to compare apples to oranges.

urgh why do threads like this always start comparing women's looks? and always comparing Meghan unfavourably. It's so misogynistic. Ditto with film star v tv star etc

Is AJ stunning amd beautiful? I don't think she was in girl interrupted at all! She has those funny lips. Wasn't there a lot of shock that JA was prettier? So subjective!

I can't get over that on a women's forum there are women comparing one females looks with another. WTAF. Quite horrible.
And yes, certain posters have to make out Meghan is the unattractive one. Course they do.

so true. its like people can't accept that fact that she is a very attractive women.