NY Times pieces on "Friends" and Perry

Free registration required ...

After 'Friends': Looking for a Second Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/movies/18KENN.html?8hpist

"Matthew Perry Found Fame, but it wasn't enough":

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/movies/18DANA.html

"Jonathan Roberts" wrote in message news:[email]...

I always get annoyed with this assumption that being in movies is so much better than being on tv. I can understand from a financial point of view why it's better, but not at all from an artistic one. I haven't seen The Good Girl since it hasn't been released where I live, but I find it annoying when actors are now taken seriously when they play someone not glamourous (ooh, she does wear make-up! What a stretch!). Let's see Julianne Moore play Rachel for a season and see how well she does.

Lewis.

"manhn" wrote in message news:ZVR79.169096$[email]...

why

when

Aparently there are many actors these days who agree that television isn't the black hole of Calcutta that it used to be. At $24,000,000/season the money is pretty good these days too.

"manhn" wrote:

I think it was more true some years ago -- if not decades ago -- than it is today. Tom Shales wrote a piece arguing that TV is now the "adult" medium -- shows deal with more important topics, at least at the high end of the scale, and actors can give a more nuanced performance over a longer period of time. Too many movies these days are escapist trash for teenagers, single-entendre'd sex plots or mindless action "thrillers."

I at one point watched some nominal dramas from the 70s and earlier, and the level of acting was atrocious. These were supposed to be serious shows, but the level of performance was camp at best.

Small-release films nowadays might be as good at they've ever been, but many of the classic films of even the 1970s wouldn't even get made today.