Julianne Moore Gets mad at Hollywood

[Annie Hall]

Julianne Moore is now upset with Hollywood. I think she's right on. I love her acting, and she usually chooses really well-rounded roles.

IMDB news (http://us.imdb.com/PeopleNews/)
Angry A-lister Julianne Moore has slammed Hollywood studio bosses for preferring action films over character driven dramas. The Far From Heaven actress refuses to get sucked into Tinseltown's apparent obsession with high-octane movies, preferring instead to portray "ordinary" characters - even if it means less people will see the film. She says, "There was a decision at some point in Hollywood that the audience for film, the broadest audience, were young, international males between 18 and 24. So, the movie that plays in Japan, that plays in Germany, that plays in California, that plays in Australia, that goes everywhere and doesn't need to be translated, that's an action movie. And that leaves everything else in the dust. Everything that's dependent on language and nuance and anything that's difficult, that's not the easy money-maker. But I'm interested in characters that are about who we are and how we live. I'm very drawn to ordinary characters in domestic situations, because I think that's what out lives are about generally."

What do you guys think? Do you agree with what she says? Are you for less action and more "normal" characters in movies? Or do you think action is important enough to be shown as much as it is?

[James Logan]

Well, I can't say I disagree with the babe AT ALL, but the point is, I'm one of those suckers that loves action movies, adventure movies, goofy comedies, and all other popcorn flicks. I like 'em smart and well-done, but I like 'em nevertheless. She IS right, though.

[El Bracamonti]

yeh, i feel that she's right to stand up for what she thinks. she's an awesome actress, and i think that it's good of her to challenge.

[Hannibal21]

Aye, she's one of the best actresses out there and she's not afraid of a challenge, she's one of those actresses that KNOWS how to act so, I agree with her. :)

[Asokan]

Ah, well... this is not an entirely new point, is it?! She must be still pissed off about THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK, her biggest commercial success, but also easily one of her least demanding performances. In the end, it's just the way it is... Hollywood needs to make money so bet on the sure things. If they would've made art movies all the time there would only be a small group of devotees, instead of the huge fanbases.

[Tom Samborski]

Like Logan, I'm also a sucker for popcorn flicks. I have this method of seeing popcorn flicks at the theatre, and the critically praised flicks on video or DVD. As for Moore's comments, I'm glad she took a stand, and said what she had to say.

[Grebdron]

I'm glad she said it too. And now, let her stick to her guns, and not take a big paycheck. She can stay in her small little character driven films, and be "poor". Put her money where her mouth is.

Wasn't she the one who accepted the role that Jodie Foster had played previously, because SOTL had been a huge hit?

Hypocrite.

[boo]

She accepted the role of Clarice because it was a sequel to a great film and it was being directed by a great director. I don't think she accepted it because of the amount of money that SOTL made.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by boo
She accepted the role of Clarice because it was a sequel to a great film and it was being directed by a great director. I don't think she accepted it because of the amount of money that SOTL made.

Yup, and that's the same reason she was in JURASSIC PARK: LOST WORLD. The first one was a hit, and you just can't say "no" to working with Steven Spielberg...

[Scarface98.9]

She has a point, although I would hate to see the action movie genre die away like she wants. I don't always want to see some heartbreaking character stufy. Sometimes, I just wanna see tits and/or big explosions

[Bullet Tooth Tony]

She does have a point. Far From Heaven was struggling to be made until a certain Mr Clooney came along and lent a hand. Studio's do seem to waste shit loads on big popcorn movies we don't want to see...REIGN OF FIRE anyone?

However, I feel that there is a good mix of supposed "serious or art house" flicks and blockbusters. Blockbusters bring in the money for the studios to give film makers the opportunity to make smaller films. Or so I'm led to believe? I'm probably wrong.

I like to go to the cinema for the spectacle really, I loved Independence Day and Titanic at the cinema, when I saw them on video I wasn't impressed. Like Tom Samborski I like to see smaller films on DVD. I do watch a nice mixture of both when I get the chance to go to the cinema, living in a town that just has two multiplexes doesn't leave me much choice, for example I wanted to watch NARC but they werent showing it.

Anyway, in the words of a trailer trash hick on Jerry Springer "You Go Girl"

[Buck Turgidson]

I don't think there's anything in that statement that suggests she's only interested in making arty films. She's made tons of popcorn films and goofy comedies and has never said she felt they were beneath her or she only did them for the money.

Anyone who saw her joint appearance w/ Kidman on Larry King's show a few weeks ago can attest to the fact that she told Larry, when asked, that Lost World was a job she enjoyed and took as seriously and prepared as well for as anything else on her resume. She's also been in stuff like The Ladies Man recently. She's about as A list as it gets, but she'll still take small parts like this because she likes them. Just one of the many things I like about her.

She's completely right about the state of Hollywood, though. If you can't get an almost guaranteed profit (and Popcorn action movies and Romantic Comedies are pretty much that), it's damned hard to get financing. There is a real lowest common denominator aspect to Hollywood films these days. Anyone who tries to deny that just isn't paying attention.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Bullet Tooth Tony
Blockbusters bring in the money for the studios to give film makers the opportunity to make smaller films. Or so I'm led to believe? I'm probably wrong.



Exactly.


However sometimes Hollywood gets ahead of itself when it comes to making these big budget blockbusters and it ends up biting them in the ass. It's not uncommon for studios to set a release date for a film first and write the script second.This is one of the reasons why the Batman franchise went to pot.

Second. When a studio is trying to create the next action star, and are damned determined to do so, they end pouring boatloads of money into not only the special effects and stunts that make the actor look cool but the advertising as well.

xXx anyone?




So because of such marketing faux pas, studios end up short changing the little films as well as the big. Although a little frugality could be a welcome thing in making an action film, it has the possibility to hurt an already deprived smaller film.

[MickeyKnox]

I agree with Moore and i think we should have more character driven movies out there but i have to admit i do like high octane action films too!