In Search of a Midnight Kiss

[August1991]

I liked the music, and the clarinette (oboe?) interludes.

This is an intelligent script. It is connected to a real world.

I have never been to LA, but this is LA life as I imagine it.

The actress is a weak point and I wonder about two things: 1) Are there too many actresses? It seems to me that too many women want to be actresses. Like dancers, males are better because fewer want to be one and it is easier for casting agents to choose. 2) Men write scripts and this woman does not speak naturally.

This movie is a modern version of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Truman Capote's written version is better. His "Other Voices, Other Rooms" is still better.

Watching this movie, no one should imagine that smoking is sophisticated, or non-PC. It isn't.

Happy New Year!

----

IMDb

Edited December 31, 2009 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

I liked the music, and the clarinette (oboe?) interludes.

This is an intelligent script. It is connected to a real world.

I have never been to LA, but this is LA life as I imagine it.

The actress is a weak point and I wonder about two things: 1) Are there too many actresses? It seems to me that too many women want to be actresses. Like dancers, males are better because fewer want to be one and it is easier for casting agents to choose. 2) Men write scripts and this woman does not speak naturally.

This movie is a modern version of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Truman Capote's written version is better. His "Other Voices, Other Rooms" is still better.

Watching this movie, no one should imagine that smoking is sophisticated, or non-PC. It isn't.

Happy New Year!

----

IMDb

Smoking is an ugly bitch, no question about it. Sophisticated as lung cancer. I was truly surprised at the effort it took me to quit--several times!

[bush_cheney2004]

Smoking is an ugly bitch, no question about it. Sophisticated as lung cancer. I was truly surprised at the effort it took me to quit--several times!

Natch...no surprise there.

[bloodyminded]

Natch...no surprise there.

The little dinkling speaks again. How adorable.

[bush_cheney2004]

[kimmy]

The actress is a weak point and I wonder about two things: 1) Are there too many actresses? It seems to me that too many women want to be actresses. Like dancers, males are better because fewer want to be one and it is easier for casting agents to choose.

A couple of things occur... first off, how much is because of the actress and how much is the role? this may correlate to your point #2.

But if the director isn't happy with the performance, is he just going to shrug and say "there's so many weak actresses in this town" and carry on? His name goes on the product (well, his name or Alan Smithee) and he's ultimately responsible for what you're seeing on the screen.

As a free market enthusiast, I'm sure you'd agree that supply and demand will deal with this problem. Good actresses can demand higher prices from productions seeking higher quality; shoddy actresses will find themselves with secondary roles or maybe contemplating new careers. Judging from Sara Simmonds' list of credits, it would appear that many producers agree with your assessment of her talents.

2) Men write scripts and this woman does not speak naturally.

I'm often perplexed that while there are indeed female writers and directors, they seem largely involved in projects that seem destined for obscurity ("art-house movies," indie films, "special interest"...) and those that are more mainstream seem to be in large measure "girl stuff"-- romantic comedies or junk aimed at teenaged girls. Maybe female writers and directors are interested in making non-mainstream stuff and junk for teenaged girls. Or, maybe there's some sexism at work.

Unthinkable that the ultra-liberal Hollywood industry might harbor sexism, but I once recall hearing someone (Rob Reiner, maybe?) saying that during the making of A Few Good Men, one of the studio execs kept complaining about Demi Moore's character. "She doesn't take off her clothes, and she doesn't fall in love with Tom Cruise, so why is this character a woman?"

I wonder if there are studio execs who would be asking "we're not making a chick flick, so why did we hire a female director?" or look at the names on the manuscripts and huck them onto the "romantic comedy" pile without even reading them.

Among the year's best-reviewed movies is "The Hurt Locker", directed by Kathryn Bigelow. I gather it is not a chick-flick.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

The actress is a weak point and I wonder about two things: 1) Are there too many actresses? It seems to me that too many women want to be actresses.

That's like asking if there's too much plankton. The answer is that it's almost an infinite supply, I guess.

[August1991]

As a free market enthusiast, I'm sure you'd agree that supply and demand will deal with this problem. Good actresses can demand higher prices from productions seeking higher quality; shoddy actresses will find themselves with secondary roles or maybe contemplating new careers. Judging from Sara Simmonds' list of credits, it would appear that many producers agree with your assessment of her talents.

Without even considering supply and demand, it seems to me that if many women want to become actresses, then directors/casting agents would have the pick of the litter - and in general, actresses would be better than actors. IOW, for the same amount of money, a film could hire a better actress than actor.

Then again, maybe the plethora of potential actresses confuses the choice and makes it harder - not easier - to find the good one.

Price is a number indicating the terms of trade. That's all. It is not the cause of good quality. When people conclude that a high price signals good quality, they are confusing correlation and causation.

How is this relevant to the quality of actors and actresses? At issue is how anyone can discern anything.

BTW, it also seems to me that Marlene Dietrich, Ingmar Bergman, Simone Signoret, Vivien Leigh, Clara Bow, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford - to name a few examples - could all raise an eyebrow in a way that modern actresses only pretend to do. It takes an ego to be a good actor. Modern actresses have ambition and want attention but they lack ego. Dunno.

As for writers, Nora Ephron is a flaccid version of Anita Loos.

I'm often perplexed that while there are indeed female writers and directors, they seem largely involved in projects that seem destined for obscurity ("art-house movies," indie films, "special interest"...) and those that are more mainstream seem to be in large measure "girl stuff"-- romantic comedies or junk aimed at teenaged girls. Maybe female writers and directors are interested in making non-mainstream stuff and junk for teenaged girls. Or, maybe there's some sexism at work.

Would you give your life savings to a woman and let her decide alone what pension you will receive? Would you let a woman be the lead heart surgeon on your child?

Wall Street is a volatile and risky place but Hollywood amounts to a high stakes craps game where a producer can nudge the table. I suspect that few investors are willing to trust a woman to nudge the table well.

Sexism?

I think that this quote was posted here before:

"But what I always find interesting is when you take the areas of writing, producing and directing. I don't think there's a great deal of discrimination -- although I'm completely perplexed and confused as to why there aren't more women. For instance, if we're looking for new, young directors, which is something we do all the time, we certainly never go look at films because they're directed by a man or a woman. We look at films because they are winning awards, they're good, and it has nothing to do with gender. And women certainly have equal opportunity to get into a university like UCLA or USC, to get into the film department, to take the same courses to allow them to make films, to deal with a whole gamut of subject matter, and yet I don't know what happens. There's something that happens in the process of getting there that seems to turn many women away."

Kathleen Kennedy

Among the year's best-reviewed movies is "The Hurt Locker", directed by Kathryn Bigelow. I gather it is not a chick-flick.

Never heard of it but it sounds like my kind of movie. It reminds me of one of the best (anti-)war movies that I have ever seen: No Man's Land.

====

A little detail about "In Search of a Midnight Kiss". The main female character in the movie posts online to meet a man and there's a scene where she meets two in a sidewalk cafe. After a few minutes discussion, she dismisses one fat guy who says in effect "It took me an hour and a half to drive from Irvine. Now that I'm here, let's spend some together."

Having never been to LA, I imagine it as driving hours to get anywhere, going by endless suburban strip malls, and then having someone say, "what's in it for me?"

Edited January 7, 2010 by August1991

[kimmy]

Price is a number indicating the terms of trade. That's all. It is not the cause of good quality. When people conclude that a high price signals good quality, they are confusing correlation and causation.

How is this relevant to the quality of actors and actresses? At issue is how anyone can discern anything.

I'm not suggesting that paying more results in higher quality. (at twice the money, she would still be "Sara Simmonds".) I'm suggesting that maybe they could have hired an actress with a better resume than "Sara Simmonds" had they had more cash to work with.

But the guy wasn't just the director, he was also the writer. He must have known what he wanted this character to be like. Surely he should have been able to "discern" whether she was providing a performance that met with his expectations.

BTW, it also seems to me that Marlene Dietrich, Ingmar Bergman, Simone Signoret, Vivien Leigh, Clara Bow, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford - to name a few examples - could all raise an eyebrow in a way that modern actresses only pretend to do. It takes an ego to be a good actor. Modern actresses have ambition and want attention but they lack ego. Dunno.

(isn't Ingmar a dude?) I think you are referencing a change in film-making style and directorial preference, rather than the capabilities of the actresses.

As for writers, Nora Ephron is a flaccid version of Anita Loos.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Anita Loos to comment on the comparison, but I'm familiar enough with Nora Ephron to agree with the flaccid part.

Would you give your life savings to a woman and let her decide alone what pension you will receive? Would you let a woman be the lead heart surgeon on your child?

What, like a random woman off the street? No. I wouldn't let a random man off the street do those things for me either.

I would want a qualified professional. I suppose that statistically my chances of getting a qualified male in those two occupations would be considerably higher, but if I wind up with a female surgeon, would I doubt her competency? No. Would you? Is that what you're arguing? You'd rather have a male professional do important things for you ... because they're inherently more capable or something?

I have had both male and female financial advisors over the past few years; the results have been equally mediocre.

Wall Street is a volatile and risky place but Hollywood amounts to a high stakes craps game where a producer can nudge the table. I suspect that few investors are willing to trust a woman to nudge the table well.

Sexism?

If it works as you theorize, then yes, it is.

I think that this quote was posted here before:Kathleen Kennedy

Kennedy is one of a very few women of significant stature in the off-the-camera part of the movie business, to the best of my knowledge anyway. I believe that she herself has only got where she is in the industry thanks to decades of association with Stephen Spielberg.

She wonders where the women vanish between film-school and the real world? Maybe most of them just don't find Spielbergs of their own to work with.

-k

[Wilber]

Ingmar Bergman,

Hope you meant Ingrid.