|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.209.241
In Reply to: Re: Searching for Debra Winger posted by Victor Khomenko on March 24, 2005 at 13:05:52:
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.
Follow Ups:
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: