Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on Mar 10, 2011 5:22:35 GMT -5
Derrick asked this question about why Curtis and Weaver would be in a movie like You Again when they've got enough career clout where they don't have to. I once heard that Alec Baldwin was asked during an interview why he accepted roles that were so clearly stinkers. And Baldwin's response was apparently that sometimes a film is described in such glowing terms that you don't realize how bad it is until you see the finished product or you've always wanted to work with that director or you owe someone a favor or sometimes, the shooting location is a place you've never been to and you get to go there on the studio's dime. The person who told me this was a very wise man named...Derrick Ferguson. Imagine that  Also, Christopher Walken reportedly never turns down a role unless there's a scheduling conflict because he feels every role, no matter what, is a chance for him to grow as an actor. |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Mar 10, 2011 7:04:42 GMT -5
I'm reminded of an interview with Linda Fiorentino (what ever happened to her?) She was on with Bryant Gumbal who was, not uncharacteristically, being a dick and asking her -- "Why are you in such shitty movies?" and she's like "I have to select roles based on what's offered to me at the time. I can't hold out for the movies that are going to go to Jodie Foster and Julia Roberts."
That's always stuck with me -- I don't think that Kristen Bell thinks to herself, "Hmmmm, should I play Mal in INCEPTION or do YOU AGAIN?" She can only choose from what's on offer to her, that affords her the chance to to compensate the agents and other people she has to pay.
And if people want her to get the clout to make a VM movie, unfortunately that means you have to get in line to see her indentured RomCom work the weekend it opens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Mar 10, 2011 15:44:01 GMT -5
I'm reminded of an interview with Linda Fiorentino (what ever happened to her?) She was on with Bryant Gumbal who was, not uncharacteristically, being a dick and asking her -- "Why are you in such shitty movies?" and she's like "I have to select roles based on what's offered to me at the time. I can't hold out for the movies that are going to go to Jodie Foster and Julia Roberts." That's always stuck with me -- I don't think that Kristen Bell thinks to herself, "Hmmmm, should I play Mal in INCEPTION or do YOU AGAIN?" She can only choose from what's on offer to her, that affords her the chance to to compensate the agents and other people she has to pay. See, this is what Tom and I fight about all the time as he insists that actors such as Kristen Bell must have enough money from other projects and don't need to work in shitty movies. Well they do, because they've got a whole staff that expects to be paid: publicist, agent, fashion and make-up consultant, secretary, personal assistant, housekeepers, nannies and Odin only knows what else. |
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Mar 10, 2011 20:18:34 GMT -5
I'm reminded of an interview with Linda Fiorentino (what ever happened to her?) She apparently garnered herself such a reputation for being super-difficult that no one wants to give her a job. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Mar 10, 2011 20:25:36 GMT -5
See, this is what Tom and I fight about all the time as he insists that actors such as Kristen Bell must have enough money from other projects and don't need to work in shitty movies. No, she doesn't, because she's still relatively 'young' as an actress (When have I ever stated that Kristen Bell has enough money to refuse anything that comes down the pike? I have said that continuing to accept RomCom after RomCom engenders the belief in the Hollywood Powers-That-Be that Kristen is only good for RomComs, however). People like Robin Williams, however, have had enough of a career that they've earned enough money that, with proper management, can have both a whole coterie of servants and the ability to choose the roles they want, and not anything spit out at them.... This is not the gang-up-on-Tom-because-he-expects-quality-work thread...especially given that the statement that inspired the start of it was made by my partner and did not in any way involve the evoking of The Beautiful One's name.... |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Mar 10, 2011 21:49:26 GMT -5
See, this is what Tom and I fight about all the time as he insists that actors such as Kristen Bell must have enough money from other projects and don't need to work in shitty movies. No, she doesn't, because she's still relatively 'young' as an actress (When have I ever stated that Kristen Bell has enough money to refuse anything that comes down the pike? I have said that continuing to accept RomCom after RomCom engenders the belief in the Hollywood Powers-That-Be that Kristen is only good for RomComs, however). People like Robin Williams, however, have had enough of a career that they've earned enough money that, with proper management, can have both a whole coterie of servants and the ability to choose the roles they want, and not anything spit out at them.... This is not the gang-up-on-Tom-because-he-expects-quality-work thread...especially given that the statement that inspired the start of it was made by my partner and did not in any way involve the evoking of The Beautiful One's name.... You're right that this isn't not The-Gang-Up-On-Tom-Because-He-Expects-Quality-Work-Thread because it isn't, nobody ever tried to turn it into that and you're being a touch sensitive by saying that it IS that, my friend. What I was trying to explain in my admittedly clumsy way that you and I have had heated discussions in the past about actors taking work far below their standards because they simply need and want the work. In retrospect, Kristen Bell wasn't the best example. A better one would have been John Carpenter, as we've debated hotly many times about his selling off his franchises but his name didn't come to my mind at the time and you ARE right...Kristen is young enough that she can pull herself out of RomCom Hell and have the rewarding career she deserves. However I still will maintain with my dying breath that I see nothing wrong with an artist, ANY artist in ANY field taking work that allows them to practice their craft and pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads and provide for their kids. And most actors in Hollywood have said on many occasions in interviews that they have no choice but to take shitty roles in lousy movies because their just ARE NOT that many good roles to go around. I myself don't see the point of an actor turning down work because of "artistic integrity". Unless of course they've made enough money to afford to have "artistic integrity" If you're an actor you can't work unless you're seen and oftentimes (and Tom, you can agree with me on this, I'm sure) even in a shitty movie, an actor who gives their all can stand out and go on to better, more rewarding roles in quality films. |
|
|
|
Post by smang12345 on Mar 11, 2011 11:45:35 GMT -5
There is also the aspect of what those in charge of the movies see you as. Michael Keaton would never have gotten Batman if someone hadn't seen Clean and Sober and saw he could do a dramatic role but someone had to take a leap of faith to think he could do a role like Clean and Sober in the first place.
I saw an interview with Tom Cruise when Magnolia came out and everyone was saying how good he was and why he didn't do more roles like that and why hadn't he done something like that before. He said he just tells them that he's never done a role like that before because nobody ever offered it to him before then.
The fact is you can hold out until you get that juicy role but until the casting director, or producer, or someone can see you in a role you'll never get it and unfortunately right now "The Lovely One" has been painted with the rom com paint brush so that's all she'll get offers for and she'll have to fight hard to free herself of it.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on Jul 26, 2011 19:30:50 GMT -5
However I still will maintain with my dying breath that I see nothing wrong with an artist, ANY artist in ANY field taking work that allows them to practice their craft and pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads and provide for their kids. And most actors in Hollywood have said on many occasions in interviews that they have no choice but to take shitty roles in lousy movies because their just ARE NOT that many good roles to go around. I myself don't see the point of an actor turning down work because of "artistic integrity". Unless of course they've made enough money to afford to have "artistic integrity" If you're an actor you can't work unless you're seen and oftentimes (and Tom, you can agree with me on this, I'm sure) even in a shitty movie, an actor who gives their all can stand out and go on to better, more rewarding roles in quality films. I agree with this. And another important thing to think about -- just because you think the movie is shitty doesn't mean the actor shares that belief. Maybe Kristen Bell really likes these rom com movies she's in -- it wouldn't surprise me (lots of women her age certainly seem to love them). And just because the end product may be shitty doesn't mean the experience making the film isn't enjoyable. Making a film is very, very different from watching it play out. I've been in some student films that had awful scripts and turned out to be terrible films. But the process of making them was a lot of fun and I'd do it again if I had the chance. I don't know what Kristen Bell (or anyone else's) motivations are but not everyone really cares about doing projects that offer artistic integrity. Some just want to be involved with projects that will pay them well and give them a good experience. I'd probably have a lot more fun being in a shitty rom com than I would being in a Kubrick film. |
|
