Conference bookie::movies

    Sometimes and actor needs to do one movie in order to get the part that
    they *really* want....a package deal type of thing.  So it may not be
    totally up to the actor what they play in.  I realize its not as bad as
    it was during the "golden age" of Hollywood when actors were indentured
    servents but there are still times when a writer/director/actor whoever
    needs to fulfill an obligation or do a favor before they can be in or
    direct a movie they really truly want and have faith in.
    
    Jt

Actually, that's why I wanted to see the credits
of this disaster.  To find some hint to the decision
to take the job.  There was no visible connection
to a major TV or film product company, nor to a known
producer, writer, or director (well, known to me, at
any rate).

I have no doubt that there were compelling reasons
for Daniel Day-Lewis to take "Eversmile New Jersey".
From his reputation I suspect that they were artistic,
rather than fiscal.  Maybe it was a favor to the 
leading lady (a lover?).  Nevertheless, the film is 
a stinker.  So Ms. Burchill's argument that actors 
like Gary Oldman should emulate _Day-Lewis_ and never 
settle for less than the best is Rubbish.

There are lots of reasons to take a film role when you
aren't Harrison Ford yet (a fine actor, the ultimate 
movie star, and one who makes very few bad choices 
as well). Staying in work, any work, so long as it
is paid and visible is one of them.

Michael Caine will take anything put in front of him,
so long as the money is right.  And he's good enough 
that for every 10 "Blue Ice" there's one "Hannah and 
Her Sisters" to remind the industry that he's an actor 
as well as a hack.  Hopkins has done much the same.

Olivier was seriously ticked off that he had a life 
peerage but was having trouble paying for his kids' 
schooling.  When they worked together on "Sleuth",
Caine taught him the facts of life.

dcl

 The point Julie Burchill was making was that actors do not need to "sell out"
 by moving to America in order to make good films. She'd also just been 
 reviewing 4 Marriages and a Funeral and was sounding off about how great the
 Brits are etc. 

 I find her very irritating - she's controversial for the sake of it, and her
 whole reputation is built on that. Did anyone see the piece she wrote on 
 Jacqueline Kennedy? Ouch!

Yes, I rather liked that one, in a perverse, Republican
sort of way.  But I never read her stuff! :-)

RE:               <<< Note 580.0 by SMAUG::LEHMKUHL "H, V ii 216" >>>

>Recently in _The Times_ an exceedingly annoying woman

Which "Times" do you mean?

Brian

_The Times_.  London.  Not _The New York Times_, 
or other Timeses.