As top actresses defect, film's loss is TV's gain

mosex maibsetdq Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 07:13 AM EST

skjthdoil atlb ivqseypo yszaqofwv ytznb gtfzup xnst

seatex Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:40 PM EST

What people don't seem to recognize is, these shows that these actresses are doing just really aren't very good. I know Damages is a hit show and people love it but come on, the Glenn Close character uses the word "kiddo". Saving Grace is ridiculous and incomprehensible and Hunter is wasted in it. I'm glad these actresses are being given oppurtunities but I doubt these shows will last long. I am sure they will go right back to film if the right role comes along.

Go HOLLY! Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:47 AM EST

I was so pleased to see this show and this actress, I actually squeeled (well, a little bit). I go to the movies now MAYBE once a year. I used to go once a week.
I guess they (studios) don't want my business, that's OK, I pay enough for my digital cable.

Anissa Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:04 AM EST

I don't go to movies anyway!!! It cost at least $10 just to get in the door!! Renting on the other hand is a great way to watch movies these days!! There has not been a movie made since the 1980's that I had to go see the second it came out!!

Janet Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:16 PM EST

Great bunch of very thoughtful comments. I especially agree with KateDFW, DanOregon, and Ceballos.

Stephen to BinkyM Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:34 PM EST

I think you missed my point, although I understand yours. Theaters are for movies like "Transformers" and "Armageddon." What I was saying was that TV is almost looked down upon. Like, so many television actors leave great material for a movie career. TV can be just as good. I hope I clarified that.

Nix Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:52 PM EST

There is no more stigma attached to TV. In fact, the growing stigma is attached to movies -- too expensive, not enough offered for the price, can't be comfortable. Personally, since dark enclosed spaces and crowds give me panic attacks, I can't watch movies in the theatre, but in addition, I often enjoy series and miniseries storytelling than the three-act structure of the feature film. It's funny how certain filmmakers treat this as a moral cause, how if I like to watch movies at home, on DVD, I'm less of a person. (Hello M. Night.) I recall the same argument being made about going to church. Now I go to church, because that's more important to me than cinema. YMMV.

BinkyM to Stephen Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:02 PM EST

I go to the theatre to see "big" movies which require they be see on a large screen: action movies, thrillers, that kinda thing. Those don't play well on a 32" TV screen (nor does a TV do an action movie justice). When it's a nice thoughtful, quiet movie (ie, "The Lives of Others"), it "fits" on a TV screen. Same goes for TV shows. and frankly, there's not a female alive I'll race to the theatre to see ... unless she happens to be starring alongside men in an action movie. I go for the thrills, the excitements, to get my blood pounding. That's what my $11.50 is for. Everything else is for the TV.

bootsycolumbia Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 07:49 PM EST

I don't agree with NineDaves about the absence of female writers. For the big screen? Yes, definitely. But there are really good fiction writers coming out with some very good novels that beg to be turned into the next big t.v. series. Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez and Jennifer Weiner are just two who come to mind. I'd be in heaven if someone would option The Dirty Girls Social Club as the next big watercooler series. I barely ever go to see movies any more, but I always look forward to the fall t.v. season and anticipate the great shows with strong female characters that I can enjoy throughout the long, cold winter.

BrandonK Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:48 PM EST

I don't know that I would necessarily go to movies more often if certain actresses were in them, although there are exceptions to the rule (Meryl Streep, Diane Keaton, a few others). However, I think that the reason a lot of actresses are going to TV (good, interesting roles) is symptomatic of the larger problem...interesting roles for women are usually part of an interesting movie as a whole, and that is sometimes a problem for Hollywood. I'm not talking about art house films or anything, either...I think there can be highly entertaining mainstream films with good stories and great characters (male & female). (The Incredibles, Elizabeth, Pride & Prejudice, etc.)

Deborah Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:43 PM EST

Honestly, why does the LA Times writer think that a long-term television role is somehow less than a film role? Size of screen? They may be maturing actresses, but they are getting one heck of a lot more exposure to viewers week after week than any of the lame-ass movie roles so far this year would have given any one of them...if they were cast instead of the newest ditz-of-the-month.

Valerie Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:25 PM EST

I say, great ! There is more and more bad movies and there has never been so much great TV in my opinion. Why go spend 15$, plus popcorn, plus babysitter when you can stay at home in your PJ's and watch more creative and well written entertainment ? I, as well as mostly everyone I know, now go to the videostore to rent TV series, not movies ! Who would have thought ? So hurray for the women (and men) who realise that and go after great roles, no matter where they are.

harry Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 05:40 PM EST

Well maybe if the the writers for the movie industry would stop writing these stereotypical female roles(and in alot of cases an all female cast portraying mother and daughters who don,t see eye to eye)and give them some roles with some grit and power(Elizabeth the golden age)that would solve some problems.

Stephen Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 05:23 PM EST

And I'd like to add I find it amusing how for some reason television is seen as the bottom of the barrel of entertainment. Meaning, something is wrong with movies if great actresses are on tv shows.

KateDFW Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 05:09 PM EST

I don't go to the movies anymore, period. There is nothing out there that can not wait a few months for the DVD to drop. Hollywood is only interested in making sequels and remaking bad TV shows and they have no original ideas. Hollywood also only wants 20-somethings who weigh less than their IQ's. There is not one current "IT" girl that can hold a candle to these actresses.

Seriously can Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba and any of the others open a movie and carry it alone like these ladies...didn't think so.

evie Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:44 PM EST

What bothers me most is that there COULD be good roles in women, but it seems like screenwriters aren't even trying. In Knocked Up for instance (which I actually loved), not only does Katherine Heigel get very few funny bits, she also has to wear "cute" outfits the whole time. I'm sorry, but if I thought I was pregnant and ran off to the store to buy a pregancy test, I would NOT be wearing high heels.

Court Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:19 PM EST

I love movies, but they are really in such a dire state right now--we are inundated with lame sequels and trite remakes of stuff that was crap to begin with. There are some gems still out there, of course, but even they are mostly written by men and catered to a male actor/audience. No wonder these talented women are going to TV.

Bennie Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:18 PM EST

I think it's also the studios fault because they don't want to spend a few million dollars on a women picture. A few of the past chick flick hits like "The devil wears prada" cost only a fraction of money to make, but studios would rather spend gazzillions making movies about robots, pirates or spider-web doofuses. So this actresses go to TV where they can get a steady paycheck and job security. So blame the studios and the people that watch their movies.

DanOregon Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:57 PM EST

I went to see "Evening" and left the theater depressed that there are so few good roles for women that they had to appear in a film that was so lame.
I think the mediums have a lot to do with it. A guy can walk away from an explosion without looking back and you know who he is. Women are more subtle and their characters take time to shape. Think about it, a male character can be introduced by donning a leather jacket, sunglasses and hopping on a motorcycle while "Bad to the Bone" plays on the soundtrack. When's the last time you saw a female character introduced that way?

Lena Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:54 PM EST

Glenn Close, Parker Posey and Mary Louise Parker could do commercials for a local burger place and I'd watch.

Cliff Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:28 PM EST

I will see Parker Posey and Holly Hunter in anything, regardless of whether I stay home to watch or not. Period. Good acting is good acting, in TV or movies.

Suzi Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:23 PM EST

Personally, I go to the movies to see something that looks interesting - not because of any specific actor. So if the studios make interesting movies with good storylines, I will go to see them no matter which male or female actor is in them. I am very happy that we have these quality actors on television as it seems that now we are getting more quality than we did previously.

Ep Sato Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:15 PM EST

I think the women are going where the writing is. Glenn Close probably isn't looking for cash at this point, but wants a good role with a strong, well written character.

Now that leading ladies like Vanessa Williams and Kyra Sedgewick have established that tv is not death, it only makes sense for great actresses to go where the female characters are fleshed out.

As for movies, they've gone downhill over the last few years. We have our standouts of course, but overall I don't feel as if the final products are better than they were even 10 years ago.

Frusciante Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:13 PM EST

Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, Kyra Sedgwick, Parker Posey, Lili Taylor...I don't see these women as the top actresses in their field, do any of you, seriously? I mean, Close and Posey are great actresses when they're on, but the rest of them? Taylor has only been great in a few movies, and Hunter and Sedgwick are just awful. Hunter's from the "look at me" school of "serious" acting. All show. Sedgwick was so boring in her movies she hardly registered. In fact, she's more interesting in her tv show. So no, I am not bothered that these actresses have chosen tv. There are plenty of talented females actresses out there to more than make up for the few who've defected to tv. The studios just have to give the rest of them the chance.

Mike Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:08 PM EST

Will they start writing strong female roles again? They never did. The unfortunate truth is that female-star-driven films don't make nearly as much money as male-star-driven films. Even Julia Roberts at her peak hovered around the 100 million mark for each success, while Will Smith typically hits 175. That doesn't mean strong female roles can't exist, but it does mean that it's much harder for studios to make work, and therefore less worth it to them. So it's a combination of a lot of things: a lack of female writers, studio execs who need to worry about the box office, and audiences who go see action movies but not chick flicks.

snarky Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:27 PM EST

Thanks NineDaves for the shout out to my fav...Liz Lemon! "I'm not like you lemon, with your work sneakers and your left-handedness!!!"

A friend at work tried to get me to watch "Damages" but as I am a young female attorney, i thought it hit too close to home.

KingLouieXVIII Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:24 PM EST

I think the bigger problem is that 95% of the movies that come out of Hollywood suck major butt. I blame lack of originality all across the board (writers, directors, producers, and studios---primarily the studios). That's whats hurting the box office.

C C Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:20 PM EST

I certainly wouldn't call these actresses' crossover into television a "defection". They're having to do it. Right now, the movie business is geared toward youth and action, and the roles for 40-50 year old females are limited-and that's not even adding "quality" roles into the equation. And I'm not sure it's limited to female actresses, either. Alec Baldwin is on "30 Rock", Gabriel Byrne has a new series on HBO, and Aidan Quinn just joined "Canterbury's Law" on Fox.

I also think Hollywood's emphasis on producing movies for a younger audience is now driving the best screenwriters into television.

Alexis Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:13 PM EST

Ok, and maybe Holly Hunter. I'd also point out that Glenn Close on TV is old news by now.

Alexis Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:12 PM EST

An interesting theory. I would also say, however, that with the possible exception of Glenn Close, none of those people were ever major movie stars, and despite the hype, I can think of plenty of women receiving meaty film roles...plus, aren't most of the T.V. Shows they do really casting them as male-esque characters? It is not interesting for me, the female viewer, to see women playing characters I have either a) never seen in real life or b) would avoid if I did see them in real life.

Allison Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:11 PM EST

I agree. I've loved Kiera Swedwich forever, but she always seems 'stuck' in roles where she can't shine. I love "The Closer". I dvr and rewatch it all the time!!! If she headlined a GOOD movie I would go. But I doubt you'd see her in something like "Good Luck Chuck".

Kathleen Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:09 PM EST

There are tons of parts for men of all ages, and plenty for "young" women. It seems that the popular opinion is to ASSUME that movies about middle-aged women only appeal to middle-aged women, and that's not a giant demographic. And I don't necessarily think that assupmtion is correct, by the way.
Having said that, I don't go to movies based on their "stars." Unless Gary Oldman is in it. :-D

James Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:09 PM EST

I remember seeing on interview with Patricia Heaton who said alot of actresses, especially those with children, prefer to do TV that way they can have a set schedule, location, etc. and be able to be home each night with their kids. I also buy the fact that there are limited roles for women in movies and the talented actresses want a challenge, which tv can bring.

Ames Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:08 PM EST

I'm 35 now, and sad to say, but if I want to watch a woman my age fall in love, beat the system, succeed at all odds, etc., I'm going to have to watch TV. With a few exceptions (thank you Jodie Foster!) 35 year olds in movies are the older sister/neighbor who pop in to dispense advice and quickly leave when the lights go down.

DLM Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:06 PM EST

You'd better believe I'd go to the movies more often if there were as many roles for Holly Hunter and Glenn Close as there are for Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel. I know the young bombshells look good in a bikini, but if that's what I wanted to see I'd do a Google search. When I go to the movies, I want to become involved in a story with interesting characters, and the dearth of quality roles for actresses over 40 is making the movie theater a much less desirable place to be.

Conor Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:04 PM EST

I have always been a huge TV fan (and afraid to say it), I would watch 3 episodes of my favorite show over a movie any day. I am now glad to see it's not embarrassing to say I LOVE TV and getting the recognition it deserves, and with Networks like Showtime, TNT, F/X, HBO etc, TV couldn't get better and I think all actors should jump ship at least once and try a series!!

Ceballos Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:03 PM EST

NineDaves is right. It's all about the writing. TV has good writing for women and movies, which Hollywood insists on gearing almost exclusively toward young men, does not.

You've got the female driven comedies already mentioned like "Betty", "30 Rock" and "Christine". "Desperate Housewives" is still a pretty big hit, and "Weeds" is female-driven AND is created by a woman, as is "Grey's Anatomy" (which I personally can't stand, but millions and millions of people love)

The audience is clearly out there for these woman-centric stories. I don't know if its hurting the box office, but they're definitely missing out on a LOT of money they could be making.

mike Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:00 PM EST

The key word is veteran. I don't see Natalie Portman or Anne Hathaway having trouble getting parts. Maybe
female "veteran" audiences are more discrimating about the movies they go to. They would rather watch FX or TNT than go to Michael Bays latest exploding blockbuster.

Jill Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:40 PM EST

I don't go to movies anymore anyway. They're too expensive and not worth the money spent. Rather wait until the DVD comes out and watch it sitting on my couch with a beer.

So, no. It doesn't make any difference to me what these actresses do. I happen to think it's just as respectable to be leading lady on a hit TV show as it is in a motion picture.

donner Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:39 PM EST

I have no faith in Hollywood having faith in women...thank god that cable tv (f/x, usa, tnt, name your favorite) is willing to give these great actresses meaty roles and let them shine...And if it means Hollywood loses money cause we're staying home to watch them - then gee, isn't that too bad...

stephen Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:37 PM EST

also, wasn't there a popwatch post similar to this (female-driven movies, etc.) recently? In regards to "Knocked Up."??

stephen Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:36 PM EST

It's not always the actors/actresses I am drawn to, it's the movie itself, and whether or not it's worth $10. For example, I am a huge admirer of Meryl Streep, but waited until "The Devil Wears Parad" came out on video.

NineDaves Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:33 PM EST

i think the bigger problem is the absense of female writers. it seems to me that so many of these acressess are taking these television parts because they're actually available. it's not that we don't have the pool of actressess to fill female-lead movie rolls, it's that we don't have the writers to write female-lead movies. therefore, no one loses with actresses like kyra or holly landing tv shows. at least we get them somehow!

now if only there were more female-driven comedies. ugly betty, old christine, and liz lemon are realy the only ones we have right now. i need more!