Few nuggets, a lot of duds


This film might have been far more effective at about one hour, but it stretches to 100 minutes, and it's essentially a non-stop parade of talking female heads that go on and on and on. There's seemingly no time to breathe before a new face suddenly appears to bitch about the terrible times they have. The sad thing is the botoxed, surgically enhanced and collagen-filled faces (Melanie Griffiths looks hideous) of some of the actors who are barely in their 40s. How pathetic is that: anything to pretend you're 10 years younger? I find it really sad that Nicole Kidman, a mere 40 years old, is ALREADY loading up on botox.

Some of the insights (Laura Dern, Vanessa Redgrave, and perhaps most especially Debra Winger herself) are interesting, but for the most part there's a lot of heat but not very much light. If these women are surprised that Hollywood is a cut-throat business, they must be very naive indeed. If you're a woman over 40 -- jeez, even 30 -- forget it. Hollywood today shoots for audiences in the 18-to-28 age groups.

I think director Rosanna Arquette means very well. She comes through as an emotional and sensitive person and she even admits that she has a 'soft shell' and is easy to hurt. I was very touched by her honesty and her vulnerability. She comes from a large showbiz family, so she didn't have much choice but to go into the biz herself. But she's a gentle soul in a soulless business. Showbiz has no time for real human beings with real human emotions.

reply

Oh please, did anyone really expect to come over here and read an intelligent, objective, fair-minded review of this movie that wasn't filled with misogynistic condescension???

That is the whole point of this documentary.

D.


"...cookies so valuable, they are hand-delivered by uniformed officers."

reply

You sound like an absolute monster.

reply



The point of the documentary was to pose the question that if Hollywood(the movie industry as a whole) increasingly had no use for established actressess when they hit 40 what, ultimately, is the point of even having leading ladies?

It's fine if you're a character actress like Redgrave but a large majority of the names being interviewed were women who came to prominence in the 80s and 90s. And by the time the doc debuted in 2002 nearly all interviewed were already being considered also-rans who weren't able to maintain their star status largely because of the cultivated double standards that came rearing their ugly head in modern-era Hollywood. The belief that basically said 'women can't draw as well as men unless they chick flick fodder or cheesecake'.

Some people saw nothing but a bunch of rich women whining. I saw a honest documentary about how the industry allowed their biased perceptions of changing audience(read mostly young and male) tastes to impact negatively on the careers of almost every actress in film in within the last 2 to 3 decades.

reply

This film might have been far more effective at about one hour, but it stretches to 100 minutes, and it's essentially a non-stop parade of talking female heads that go on and on and on.


I agree. Why do some women insist on talking? Isn't there a washroom to clean or some cooking to do??

/sarcasm

reply

[deleted]