 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.209.241
Watched this documentary last night. I do not believe that it received a commercial release, though it was apparently shown at Cannes in 2002. Patricia Arquette put this film together, and narrates it as well. She talked to numerous women in Hollywood, some in Europe, about women in film. The roles they receive, balancing life outside of film with their lives in film, etc.The actresses included: Martha Plimpton, Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Vanessa Redgrave, Sharon Stone, Jane Fonda, Emanuelle Beart, Melony Griffith, Roseanna Arquette, Ally Sheedy, Debra Winger, Darryl Hannah, Laura Dern, Terri Garr, Whoopi Goldberg, Salma Hayek, Diane Lane, Kelly Lynch, Julianna Margulies, Frances McDormand, Julia Ormond, Gwyneth Paltrow, Charlotte Rampling, Theresa Russell, Tracy Ullman, Alfre Woodard, Robin Penn, and couple of others I was not familiar with.
Some of it was a little too much psychobabble for me. I always find it ironic that anyone in Hollywood believes that they have figured out how to maintain a healthy private life with their professions because they are all such failures at it. Hayak talks at length about that, as does Stone and Fonda. Fonda tells us that Ted Turner asked her to give up her career, which she did because she wanted intimacy at the point in her life more than another role. I am sure the money did not hurt.
Plimpton made some good observations about the lack of women character actors, something I noticed, but have not really thought about. There are male actors "who have a face like a foot" who work regularly. But unless the female is either very young or vey old, then work is difficult to find. Once actress, I cannot recall her name, commented that most studios as run by men who have fantasies about the actresses that are cast.
Emanuelle Beart had the strongest comments about the film business, and seemed the most defiant about her unwillingness to do what the business expects of her. Katrin Cartlidge stated that she had done some umpleasant things to get some roles, though she did not state what those things were.
Hannah talked about a role in which she played a mother to a sixteen year old, and the studio asked her to wear a wig and wear frumpy clothes because the studio did not believe that someone that looked like her could have a sixteen year old child.
Debra Winger also made an appearance. She talked about how on the set of Officer and a Gentlemen, a producer came to her and handed her a pill because he said she looked bloated, and needed to retain water. She talked about her frustration not only with the roles, but the amount of time she had to prepare, which did not include time for research, et al.
I would not say that it is a great film, or even a very good film. About 70% of it was interesting, and maybe 30% things we already know, or were acresses blabbering. Incidentally, Roger Ebert is the only male to have a speaking role in the film.
Follow Ups:
the beautiful Alex Kingston is sacked from the television series E.R. because, at 37, the producers consider her "too old" for their target audience? So a character in authority must be old or be male to be taken seriously? Come on - this does not reflect real life, this is some television executive's out-of-touch perception of real life. Maybe 37 year old male production executives should loose their jobs because they are "too old." Maybe they, and film executives too, should reconsider.And this is not a new thing. Famous actresses like Bette Davis, Lauren Bacall, Sophia Loren, and Myrna Loy found jobs rare while they were in their middle age. Those who did find jobs often turned in the best work of their careers - the 41-year old Davis in "All About Eve" is a good example. Others, like Loy, Irene Dunne, Loretta Young, and many others, either left show business or worked on television.
Men have it tough, too, but nothing compared to what the women go through.
You are not suggesting the darn "execs" canned a 37 year old actress simply to satisfy their misogynist ego, the profits be damned?How many people stopped watching the show after that?
To the audience watching such shows young sells.
Myrna Loy... she was fun... but how many times could one watch the same good wife?
I agree that in men actors the aging is not as serious an issue, as in women the looks play more important role, but then there is the other side of the coin, where young and pretty women get advantage when compared to young men.
has lost a lot of its audience. What was once interesting television has foundered. I think the show "jumped the shark" a couple seasons ago when they killed off Paul McCrane, who was the doctor everybody loved to hate. Scripts have declined in quality to the level of a typical soap opera. It's now bores me so I seldom watch. And, if I want the youth I will watch "Scrubs" which is a funny, if unremarkable show.
perhaps ms. winger would not fly on the casting couch
perhaps the executive would not try her out
you know,too old
Older women can not bear children anymore, men yes. That may play a role in many ways.
Maybe in 20 years Diane Keaton will play in Baby Boom II, where she, a single 80 year old woman, gives the birth to a child, and she masterfully reconsiles that fact with her career at the local community center as the bingo operator.
Will we also see Victor with sweet Scarlett Johanson, pushing the buggy?
So I would be walking behind her, wondering who really is the father of that child?No, thank you, I would much rather see myself in the remake of El Amor de Don Juan, with all the ground work already done, me just harvesting all the beautiful young ladies.
Ok. letīs have sweet Scarlett and the others...
...Whoopie Goldberg's trashy comments.
There was one analogy that I failed to mention: One actress, I forget which one, compared actors and the roles they take to shoe makers. She said that if a customer comes into the store asking the shoe maker to make a shoe, he will make the shoe, even if it is not a good shoe, or up to his standards, because he needs to work. She felt that acting was the same way. Sometimes the role or the project is not particularly, but the actor takes the job because they need to work. Food for thought, I think, when we criticize an actor for being in a certain movie, or for the work they do. If that is all that is available, well maybe they should be given a little leeway.
I don't find that shoemaker analogy particularly impressive intellectually. Good shoemaker will not do that, bad one will. Ditto for actors. Plumbers. Gardeners. Engineers. This is not something unique to the actors. All of us can be in a situation where we would have difficult choices, some options being below our self estiem. Whether we take them or keep our integrity is up to us, and has nothing to do with our professions. Where does the integrity end and the prostitution begins each one of us defines for himself.There are actors who take the obscurity rather than bad roles, and there are those knocking one horrible role after another, just to stay in the limelight.
khomenko has set his standard for others a bit high
the illusion of intellect pays the bills only for clowns
I think that their point was the while men have many roles to choose from, women's opportunities are much more limited. That was Plimpton's point relative to character actors - there are many more male character actors than women character actors, and more opportunities for men. Women actors are either young and tight, or old. Not much in between. When I stopped to think about, I think she is right. Who are the women characters actors? Maybe Kathy Bates. Susan Sarandon. Holly Hunter. The list is pretty small. And they generally play the same types of characters because that is all that is available.Therefore, women cannot be choosy. Terri Garr said that she has had to take small television roles in order to work. I think that Debra Winger did as you suggested - to decided to hell with it, just quit. But then she made a lot of money in her early years, and could afford to do that.
Most of the other actresses never hit the big time, like Meg Ryan, and do not have the financial resources to turn down projects. They do not have the money to simply decide they do not like the film.
There are more companies hiring engineers, plumbers and gardeners. Thus, there is more choice who to work, and to turn down work. I suspect that in the acting field, with the very limited number of jobs, and the same small group of people hiring from the same pool, you take what you can get. I've never been that type of situation, so I am hesitant to judge someone who might take work to pay the bills. I would think that the actor's abilities should not be judged based upon the quality, or lack thereof, of the project.
One could ask the question of why is the pool small? The answer has to do with box office success. The producers tend to bet on actors with proven record of making money, so the pool shrinks quickly. Why take risk when a known star will guarantee $100M take?So it is in essence those who go see the film in the theater that decide which actor will get next job. Apparently the public is quite happy with the small pool that is being offered. If no one gets tired of Julia Roberts you will see her again and again - no matter what her acting talent.
Those entering this profession know all this. That never stopped anyone from trying though. There are two hundred thousand waitresses aspiring to be actresses for every Friends star, and that is how it shall continue to be. So to whine now is disingenious at best. Like a matador who gets injured by a bull - that is the name of the game. Way it goes.
Box office success is not related to the talent per se, but more to the grab the actor has on the audience... OK, call it another side of talent. Most people can't appreciate the fine aspects of acting, and they should not. To most movies is entertainment, not unlike the amuzement park, and they gladly pay for their tickets.
So the bottom line is brutal - if you can't produce, you go to the back bench. You can then blame anyone you want - the public, the producers, the bull... but the point is you are not suited for the game - plain and simple.
All those acresses now in oblivion had their chances. They failed, and many - multiple times. It is a competitive sport, unfortunately.
BTW - I did not suggest they should get out - I left it completely up to them, I am not their judge. I understand the need to earn and maintain your lifestyle. I am just calling a spade a spade. Yes, some can retire comfortably - but not many have Ted Turner, as horrible being in his company might look to many of us.
So when I hear those actors speak, I see Anthony Quinn in Requiem for a Heavyweight... and what can I say? Unless the public changes it's habits it will continue like it is now.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
