The Plight of the TV Star

This guest post is provided by Luke Tatge of Journalistic Skepticism. From a distance he seems like your typical Streep fanatic, but he's actually more than that. You'd do well to have him on your blog roll.

          

Ah, the struggle of poor suffering TV actors. Their work is hardly as respected as that of the film or stage stars, yet they soldier on with weekly installments of often beloved characters. When it comes to the transition from small to big screen work, which seems inevitable at one point another for most television stars, it can be a treacherous path that rarely bears any fruit.

        

In the early years, it was basically understood that TV stars (possibly due to the strict studio guidelines at the time) were basically stuck with the tube when it came to finding work. Take Lucille Ball, for example – one of the biggest stars of her time, and yet she was relegated to playing varying versions of the “Lucy” character for most of her career (with the exception of a couple barely noted films).

So how do more recent TV stars fare when it comes to the big step into moviedom? Unfortunately, not so well in most cases. Arrested Development’s Jason Bateman has moved on to plenty of film work since the show wrapped, but he is mostly pushed into sideline roles. Even in the high-profile Juno, who even remembers the gifted TV star was in the cast? It seems like Lucy, he’s been pushed into playing a variation on Michael Bluth in most of his subsequent roles.

              

Sharp-tongued Rory Gilmore (a.k.a. Alexis Bledel) has had about the same amount of luck – any work she’s done since the show ended has been unanimously trounced (Post Grad) or ignored due to her co-stars (Sin City, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants). It seems these TV stars just can’t shake the persona that was so ingrained into the public week after week.

There are glimmers of hope, though. For people like Freaks and Geeks alums Jason Segel and James Franco or Cheers alum Woody Harrelson, film isn’t so out of reach. It seems the best route is to either stick with your crew and succeed or fail together or go for awards-bait roles. Although a word of caution – though folks like Mary Tyler Moore and Helen Hunt found break-out Oscary roles in 1980 and 1997 respectively (Ordinary People and As Good As It Gets), they’ve hardly enjoyed much of a career in film since.

So until Lisa Kudrow can shake Phoebe Buffay, Sarah Jessica Parker can shake Carrie Bradshaw, and Eric McCormack can shake Will Truman, how does a TV star stand a chance in the wide world of movies? Give them a chance to surprise you. 

               

Luke's thoughts are provocative. Why do you think it's so difficult for the television actor?

2009 in Review: War

Films on war have been a norm every year – from historical All Quiet on the Western Front, to The Deer Hunter to Saving Private Ryan. This year was a bit of different spin, we had films on war but instead of the highlights being the Vietnam War or World War II we had contemporary war films on America’s plight in the Middle East. The Hurt Locker was an early gem that impressed me. It was a riveting piece cast excellently from Renner’s leading man to Ralph Fiennes’ cameo. Fellow summer film Inglourious Basterds was more in line with the traditional war epic, kind of. We’ve been to World War II before, but never like this. I was reticent about appreciation of the film as you know, as I’ve said before the target audience would eat this up – and they did. I just was not part of the audience. Still even I could not ignore the scintillating performances of Christoph Waltz and especially Diane Kruger – certainly, neither would be my pick for a multitude of laurels but they’re performances were the highlight of the film for me with that intelligent Chapter Four standing out as the best of the lot – strangely, the one that was Christoph Waltz free. Still, Diane Kruger’s uninhibited turn as Helen Von Bismarck was the most significant part (acting wise) in Tarantino’s Basterds.

                       

The Messenger came out of nowhere turning into one of the more significant examinations of war. It was actually free of any scenes in or around combat, but the tale of a soldier recently come home whose job is to now inform the families of victims of soldiers’ death was one of the more harrowing pieces of the last few years. It’s obvious to see what the film’s selling point is though. It doesn’t show us so much the horrors of the war as it shows the trauma of war for the families of soldiers. Woody Harrelson’s Tony makes an astute point to the hypocrisy of it all. Families all wave and host parties to celebrate deployments and then are shocked when soldiers turn up dead. Of course, not all families are turning a blind eye to the potential misfortune ahead. Samantha Morton’s widow doesn’t, and neither does the entire cast of Brothers, I film I enjoyed much. The first half of Brothers, in fact, rests on this. One of my favourite scenes occurs as the soldiers turn up to tell Portman’s Grace of her husband’s (nonexistent) death. I wonder if Ben Foster’s Will would have taken to her too… There is not overt sadness here, Grace knew this moment was a possibility and she simply covers her mouth and the tears well in her eyes.                              

Next to these portrayals, I suppose In the Loop does look a bit irreverent, and it is – in some ways. Still, the entire point of this intelligent comedy is that the divide between actual combat and the promulgating politics is so different. The very document bemoaning the realities of war is after all amended simply to carry out a political agenda, it’s a bit frightening if we think too hard – but we’re too busy laughing to notice. Even those against war are not cuddly, teddy bear types. There’s nothing cuddly about Mimi Kennedy’s dirty mouthed (literal and figurative) Assistant Secretary of State. Three Blind Mice exists on the same level as In the Loop seeming to gloss over the traumatic incidents with humour, but it goes deeper. Of course, this deals with the Navy which is not the army – but it’s not far off. When Toby Schmitz makes his confession at the dinner table it definitively changes the tone of the film. His mother-in-law gasps, “That’s torture.” – I can’t help thinking in response, that’s the army. It’s not that the film isn’t funny after that; in fact the subsequent drunk scene is the funniest in the film. But the laughter has become less pure, more nervous.

                          

Two films I’m anticipating this year (The Way Back, The King’s Speech) both have war as secondary factors in it. King George struggles to be a better king in the latter and a group of convicts escape imprisonment during apparent guerrilla warfare in the former. If it’s good for nothing else, war is always a good starting point for film. Which was your favourite this year?