Film roles for Actresses are Scarce.....the Julia Roberts Complex

During the Spring of 2010, Lauren Graham visited the 10! Show on NBC in Philadelphia to promote her show, Parenthood after not having a main presence on the tube since The WB's "Gilmore Girls" came to an end back in 2007. This interview was enlightening on not only what she thinks about her own abilities and/or limitations in the entertainment industry but also whether there truly is an imbalance of job opportunities between television and movies, for women, specifically actresses.

When asked if she wanted to get back into television or did the Parenthood role speak to her, Lauren Graham told the host that her decision to join the NBC cast was based on a combination of those factors. Graham also added, "I think the best jobs for actresses are on television in general, unless you're Julia Roberts".

Is this really true? I don't think so. Then again, I'm not Lauren Graham so what do I know? Maybe she can find better roles on television than in movies....or maybe there is something to what she's saying, not the whole "Julia Roberts" part but acting roles in general. During an appearance on ABC's The View, actress Marg Helgenberger who stars in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation also stated that there are more roles for women in television than there are available in film. Based on the fact that two different women (who work for different networks and were interviewed on two different types of TV shows) made similar statements in the same week, maybe there IS an imbalance of opportunities between the two industries, as Lauren Graham mentioned.

As a Gilmore Girls and Lauren Graham fan, her comments still made me sad and wonder if she's selling herself a little short.

Here are three ways, from a TV fan's perspective, in which Lauren Graham could possibly find more roles in film so that she doesn't continue to believe that television is her only or more promising option.

1. The Best roles are not on Television. Steady roles are on television. Take a walk down the Jennifer Aniston path. During the rein of Friends on NBC, there was probably no reason for actress Jennifer Aniston to be concerned with landing film roles because she was not only part of the cast of a popular show, but she also had a lucrative job at the moment (weren't those Friends cast members making like $1 million each per episode or something?) so of course, in that position it could be easy to believe that the best roles are on television. The question though is.....where is Aniston working now that Friends is over? I haven't noticed her dominating television recently. Why? Because she's busy landing film roles.

Aniston seems to be finding jobs just fine in film, in roles that are probably better in quality than what she's been offered in television since departing from her Friends and she doesn't seem to be worried about Julia Roberts either. Isn't there enough room for a variety of talent? Actresses may have great roles on television but reality shows still seem to dominate the channels, which does not add much substance to broadcast networks in terms of quality program options for both cast members and TV audiences.

2. Star in Comedy Movies
Lauren Graham may be great in comedy movies. Why stop at Bad Santa or Evan Almighty when it's clear that comedy seems to be your thing? I'd likely go to the movie theater to watch Lauren Graham in the next "Meet the Parents" spin-off or it would be nice to see her work with Steve Carell, Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell or even Adam Sandler.

3. Do something Daring, or at the very least, something Different (really different, not just raising a new set of kids on another TV network).
As of 2011, I've watched up to three different programs where Lauren Graham essentially had the same role.....a single mom. The thing is, all of these roles were not on television (cue The Answer Man if you don't believe me) so maybe it's time for her to try a new character that doesn't come with a dead-beat dad, homework help and college tours.

Maybe she could benefit from playing a professional woman with no children (Sarah Jessica Parker in Smart People, anyone?), a psychotic lesbian, a married woman with a family or anything other than many of her previous roles that depict a woman who had a child too early and has to try and figure out how to raise this child on her own. It seems that the story has been told already, many times over with different kids but the same mom...Lauren Graham. I think we get it. She can play a single mom. What else is in store for Lauren Graham, not the mom, but the actress?

Jessica Biel's transition from television (7th Heaven) to film (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre; Blade: Trinity) didn't seem to be that difficult. Mila Kunis also took her That 70's Show fame on the road, gaining film roles that put her next to best of 'em in the business such as The Book of Eli opposite Academy Award Winner, Denzel Washington and The Black Swan next to industry darling, Natalie Portman, which Kunis has been getting lots of media attention for over the last 12 months.

The bottom line is, everyone does not have to be Julia Roberts and even Julia Roberts started somewhere (anyone watch Satisfaction?). Actresses such as Lauren Graham can still find the "best" movie roles, and may even win huge awards.....the possibilities are out there.

Hey, if all else fails, call Tyler Perry. He seems to be on a movie making roll these days. Side note: Can you believe he got that Alex Cross role for the next James Patterson movie, right up from under Morgan Freeman? SMH!

His bankrolling skills also got Gabourey Sidibe an Oscar for Best Actress (see Precious) and hey, while Graham may think she's no Julia Roberts.....there may be plenty of TV fans and movie fans who think Sidibe is no Lauren Graham, so there you go!

Watch the Full Lauren Graham Interview here:

Resource:
NBC Philadelphia

Technorati Tags: lauren+graham+movie+roles, lauren+graham, lauren+graham+movies, lauren+graham+film, lauren+graham+film+roles, lauren+graham+parenthood, julia+roberts+film+roles, julia+roberts+films, julia+roberts+movie+roles, julia+roberts+movies, movie+roles, film+roles, roles+in+film, roles+in+television, roles+on+television, roles+on+film, television+roles, film+roles, television+roles+for+actresses, film+roles+for+actresses

Fuck the Cheerleader, Save the Actors!

All of the superpowers in the world could not keep Heroes on air for more than four seasons but it still had a strong run thanks to talented actors who brought the characters and their stories to life each week on NBC, in the first place. Much like the production of Heroes, many other television shows would likely not succeed without a great and well paid cast. Actors are generally among the most essential elements necessary to complete a movie or television show, so it’s understandable that actors (especially SAG actors, since union dues are paid for a reason) should expect to be paid reasonably for their contributions to these productions.

However, a 2009 deal that involved the Screen Actors Guild (aka SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) caused many actors to be in a frenzy about their wages. In a nutshell, the proposed deal included changes to residual payments for reruns of TV shows that are shown online. For those of you who are wondering “what are residual payments?” I’ll sum it up like this: Residuals are payments that actors receive in addition to their regular wages.

Under the new deal, SAG actors would not receive residual payments for the first few months that a TV show is online and then would receive somewhere around $30 or so in residuals as the TV show continues to rerun in new media markets (online) for about one year.

On one angle, I can understand why many actors would not like this type of deal because one of the benefits of being a SAG member is that it comes with perks that many working citizens in almost any profession take for granted such as pensions, health insurance and having worker’s rights advocates on your side. You can also get paid really well by working on productions with SAG contracts, especially those high profile projects like Heroes, The Mentalist or House for example. Before this deal, an actor who landed a role on one network TV show received $800 for working on this production and then earned over $3,000 within a two-year period after reruns of the same TV show brought the actor $2,700 in residual payments.

Using this scenario again, the new deal with AMPTP and SAG that many actors urged their peers to vote “no” on in 2009 would provide the actor with less residual payment amounts, possibly bringing this worker’s overall earnings to well under $1000. Now, this is where the cheerleader (oh, that sweet Claire Bennet) gets screwed right up the butt like she’s one of the supporting characters in Caveh Zahedi’s I am a Sex Addict. If SAG actors strike over residuals for online reruns and delay the shooting schedule on TV productions, then what happens when these actors cannot get paid at all because the shows are getting canceled due to low ratings after TV fans get tired of waiting for it to come back on air and changed the channel to ……I don’t know The Hills or ……Real Housewives of Atlanta?

I’ll tell you what happens….the actors now do not have a job! Good luck complaining about residuals when the day rates aren’t even there because the show is gone. This is what could happen (especially for actors who are in the midst of building their careers to the point where they can demand million dollar per-episode deals like Ray Romano, and then residuals won’t even matter) if actors stay focused on one trivial factor such as residuals rather than considering the bigger picture.

TV and the internet are two different mediums, which may call for a significant modification to payments made to SAG actors, including residuals. Some actors may not like it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Does anyone even take into consideration that TV studios may not be bringing in the same amount of advertising revenue online that they bring in on the tube? Maybe this revenue will improve in the future for the “new media” sector but right now, online advertising is still fairly new as networks and studios try to figure out how to monetize their video streaming content (or downloads or whatever they are offering to television fans via the internet) for maximum profits.

A 30 second commercial on American Idol went for $745,000 in 2007 but the same numbers may not transfer over into the online video streaming world, even if it's a rerun of TV shows like Grey's Anatomy and House. I actually like the fact that many network TV shows rerun online within a few days of airing. It gives TV fans the chance to check out an episode they may have missed due to work or social schedules and other responsibilities.

If the studios are not making a lot of money online, what makes a SAG actor think he or she is entitled to receive large residuals for online reruns of popular TV shows?

Technorati Tags: sag+actors, sag+agreement, sag+residuals, tv+shows, tv+show+actors, tv+show+agreements, television, television+show+contracts, television+residuals, tv+show+residuals, heroes, heroes+tv+show

Can the Oscars Best Actress Curse be Avoided?

Sandra Bullock was noted as being one of the more recent actresses affected by an "Oscar Curse" that has become common knowledge in Hollywood.

The curse consists of a relationship that falls apart after the actress wins an Oscar in the "Best Actress" category. Previous examples include Halley Berry (who divorced with Husband Eric Benet after winning an Oscar for her performance in Monster's Ball ), Reese Witherspoon (divorce with Husband, actor, Ryan Phillipe), Hilary Swank (divorce with Husband after winning for her role in Million Dollar Baby ) and the very famous...Julia Roberts.

This year, Kate Winslet also announced that she and her husband separated. Winslet won the best actress Oscar last year for her role in The Reader.

Here are a few questions that I am wondering based on this news, talks about whether an Oscar curse even exists and these Best Actress relationship statistics:

1. If there is an Oscar "Best Actress" curse, are their any couples who can get pass or avoid it?

2. If there is an Oscar "Best Actress" curse, is it better to not win and keep your marriage OR is it better to win and just get another husband.

3. If there is an Oscar "Best Actress" curse, is it better to just be single and wait until you are nominated and win before you date or marry anyone?

4. If there is an Oscar "Best Actress" curse, why doesn't a "Best Actor" curse exist for the leading men as well?

What are YOUR thoughts regarding the Hollywood curse?
Does anyone have answers to these questions or more insight on this matter?

Side note: I know I've been slacking off over here on this blog so I'm adding some new (or fairly new) material this week to close out Memorial Day 2010 in a good way. I don't know if all movie fans know about this Oscars curse in Hollywood. Actually, I don't know if any filmmakers are familiar with it either for that matter but I previously published this piece on Redgage regarding the curse, just as news about Sandra Bullock and Jesse James was starting to gain traction in the media. I posted it here since responses were minimal on there.

Technorati Tags: oscars+best+actress+curse, oscars+curse, the+oscars, sandra+bullock+oscars, hollywood+curse