This post prompted the question. Zooey Deschanel, indie queen and Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype, is also starring in her own series. I also remember being surprised at Glenn Close getting a series.
You hear about actors making the leap from TV to movies all the time but the reverse a lot less often. Whenever someone who built their career on the big screen does a series, I always find myself wondering if their career has stalled.
Zooey Deschanel was never a blockbuster actress so it’s hard to see television as a “step down” for her anyway.
Now warbling praises about cotton, that was probably a step down.
That’s definitely changing. It used be the way you describe, but over the last few years, a lot of big film actors have made the switch to TV (Gabriel Byrne in In Treatment, just to pick the first example that comes to mind) by choice, because that’s where a LOT of the really good writing is now.
I think the shift may have started with Martin Sheen in West Wing, but it could’ve been before that.
Heck, I know some theater people who still don’t want to appear in those “flickering tin-types.” Though if you offer them enough millions, they would probably change their minds.
Zooey Deschanel is the lead singer for a group (duo?) called She & Him; I rather suspect that she got the cotton gig for her singing talent, not her acting reputation.
This exhausts my knowledge of Zooey Deschanel.
I knew that and I’m sure she picked up a paycheck for it that I would envy.
Regardless, she’s still on TV singing about textiles.
It is. TV stars try to break into movies…It’s a step up. TV is a step down because it’s a lot harder to really transition back. Also TV is a lot less glamourous than movies for the very legitimate reason that TV is a lot more like a job than being in movies. Movies are a few months and then done with the possibility of a lot of variance in your projects. TV has a lot longer production schedule and the possibility that you will be effectively doing the same thing (which is playing the same character doing the same type of acting -sitcom, drama, etc.) over and over and over again fro years.
TV is basically a defeat…a defeat with a nice paycheck but less prestige.
This isn’t the '80s. It’s completely respectable for movie actors to do TV nowadays, especially since TV has been getting better while movies have been getting worse. Witness Steve Buscemi (Boardwalk Empire, The Sopranos), Forest Whitaker (The Shield), Toni Colette (The United States of Tara), Glenn Close (The Shield, Damages), Matt Damon (30 Rock) - all of them respected film actors.
i think the implication is that once you’re commited to a series, you won’t have time to make movies. if your series is successful and runs several seasons…
I think that film work may be more prestigious, but there are fewer big films. A job as a regular cast member on a successful series, on the other hand, could mean a steady or even fat paycheck for several years or more. And you can still do movies during the hiatus period.
And also, appearing on television regularly keeps an actor in the public eye more regularly than does appearing in films.
As a counter-example to the thread’s premise, I suggest James Gandolfini’s success in TV was a step UP from the roles he had managed before The Sopranos. Those parts had paved the way for a convincing character like Tony and the writing and production quality of that series were at least on par with the better movies of the era. The fact that his movie roles since the series closed have been somewhat less than blockbuster caliber suggests that his TV career has been his high point.
Coming up with similar career paths for others may be a challenge, but at least there’s Gandolfini.
That was her?! Oh, how I loathe that commercial.
Many actors do both, but a full season of a TV series is going to make bigger demands on the actor’s schedule than a movie shoot. I think the reputation of TV has gone up a great deal as the cable landscape has expanded - there have been a lot of great series on HBO and other networks - and I’m not sure the pay is at the same level as movies. I think part of the lower reputation of TV has/had something to do with the idea that the style of acting for TV is different, smaller in scale and presented in a different setting. Certainly for sitcoms I’ve heard it said that regular cast members are really just playing a version of themselves, and actors in a film might be expected to stretch themselves more. But that wouldn’t apply to something like an HBO series.
I think movies are a step up from TV, but it’s no longer true that All TV Is Trash & All Film Is Art. Besides, isn’t Theatre supposed to be The True Art?
British actors, especially, are pretty good at mixing film, theatre & a bit of TV. Movies can pay well, but so does a successful TV series–especially one in the US. Benedict Cumberbatch just turned down a starring role on Broadway because his film career is taking off. He’s been a respected actor in several media for years, but a TV show (Sherlock) made people really notice him.
Also, Hollywood famously offers fewer roles for women of a certain age. A skillful (& still fine looking) actress might prefer playing a saucy TV detective over waiting around to play somebody’s mom in a movie.
…and how many big movies have any one of them done since committing to a series (Matt Damon doesn’t count since he was only a guest star a few times) and how many were high-profile stars when taking those TV jobs?
Glen Close hasn’t been an A-lister since the 80s.
Right… but by “appearing on television” are you including
TMZ, EXTRA, the E! Network, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood in that? Because those are probably a lot more helpful than being locked into a series.
I’ve also noticed a lot of movie actors changing to TV, at least as long as they get to front their own series. Previously even someone like Anna Paquin might not have made the change; she wasn’t huge, but she had had a lot of early success. It tended to be only character actors that you might see in both. Now James Belushi is co-lead in the Defenders and James Woods was the lead in Shark.
Ever since the eighties there’s been a tend for people to watch movies at home more and more, and that trend hasn’t let up. With Hulu, Netlfix, international deals showing the same show in many countries at the same time or close to it, and, ahem, illegal international downloads, TV shows have just as much international coverage as movies do. There just isn’t as big a difference between them any more.
It’s also probably a much nicer way to live - going home to your own grand house after work instead of some comparatively crappy trailer or hotel, getting to see your kids or grandkids grow up, getting to know your co-workers really well… Less exciting and glamourous than movies, but a better general quality of life.
I think that the growth in original, high-quality TV series being done by the cable outlets (HBO, Showtime, A&E, etc.) has improved the perception of TV work. A series like “The Sopranos” or “Mad Men” can give an actor a lot of positive critical notice.
In addition, a lot of the cable series shoot fewer episodes per season than do broadcast network series, which may give the actors more time to also pursue movie work.
Well, Forest Whitaker won an Oscar the same year he started on The Shield, and I’d consider both Buscemi and Colette high-profile.
Danny McBride (Eastbound and Down), as another example, has done a number of big movies since working on TV, as has Zach Galafianakis (Bored To Death).
True, but with the exception of Matt Damon on 30 Rock (which amounts to a series of semi-regular guest shots), the shows you mention are all on cable where the usual broadcast network restrictions are either considerably less or non-existent. Also, the cable shows often have only about 12 or 13 episodes with a gap of 12 to 18 months between each new season. That allows more time for the stars of these shows to do things like movies. I think for an established movie actor to do a broadcast network TV series, it’s still often viewed as a step down.
TV pays less. The gap is narrowing, but you can make far more money as a movie star, and work far less, than you can as a TV star.