Sarah's Movie - Is She For REAL? (She is a Broadway Performer)

[BroadwayBest]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 9:37pm

Hi all,
I know this is a Broadway site. But I have to tell you something that I found very interesting. (About a Broadway actress)

I (as have most of you I'm sure seen so many t.v. interviews with Sarah Jessica Parker these past few weeks promoting her husband Mathew's movie of the Producers as well as hers) went to see "The Family Stone" tonight.

What I can say is that it started off slow and then picked up to be a fairly enjoyable movie (although the theme was certainly not new- a lot of us have lived through it IN REAL LIFE)

What bothers me is an interview she did this morning on CBS' Early Morning show where she said it was a tough decision to end "Sex and the City" because she started to feel too "comfortable" in SATC and that a movie role like this(you know she already had the script while in SATC) would change that. My assumption(and that is all it is) is that she was paid a He-- of a lot of money to do this role. She put three actresses and countlesss crew and cast members out of work to do this.

While I certainly don't agree with Kim Catrall's decision not to do a SATC movie because Sarah(let's face it -was the boss), I think that the message of what Sarah wanted to do could have been made clearer.

Now, I love SJP in many of her roles, but if it turns out that the way she described it this morning was that she was ending the SATC run because she was "too comfortable" in it and wanted to make the movie at the risk of other people's lives/careers, I have to think twice about where her head was at.
Originally I was pissed at Kim Cattrall because she has been the hold out for a variety or reasons (sorry Kim, but your naked 45+ body is not an award winner or a draw, but neiither is mine!), but now I really am wondering what SJP's intentions really were.

I admit, I could be totally off the mark here. I do enjoy SJP immensely, but I would never put my employees out of work because of something I wanted to do to further my career. Hey-- (everyone is replaceable) I happen to know that for a fact. And I don't have a damn chin mole!( I had it removed 17 years ago!)
(on a recent SJP interview with ELLEN, even ELLEN volunteered to fill in in case "one" of the cast didn't want to do the movie of SATC.

Sorry folks for the rant. Just had to vent. Forgive me Please.

[DivaBrigader]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 9:47pm

I personally don't see where your resentment comes from. People leave regular television shows voluntarily for many reasons. Most of the time, the creative forces (remember that SJP was also one of the executive producers of "SATC") want to leave while the show is still creatively vital. That's why "Everybody Loves Raymond" left the air when it did. I think a lot of us would agree that "Friends" overstayed it's welcome by about two years. Had it gone out when Rachel had the baby and without the final two years of salary disputes, I think it would have ended on a creative high note. Yes, it's sad that the show ended and that the many cast and crew members were left looking for new jobs. But isn't it better for the show to have ended without it ever having gotten bad? There are only so many men those ladies can have sexcapades with! When Sarah said "too comfortable," I think she meant that the writers and the actresses were no longer bringing the vivacity they once brought because they were getting bored and starting to phone it in, so to speak. It happens with long running gigs. I think it's admirable that they, despite the money I'm sure HBO was prepared to throw at them, knew how to go out on top so that the fans could have six solid years of the show instead of suffering through years of mediocrity.

[ShuQ]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:06pm

This belongs on the off-topic board.

[Jon]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:01pm

I guess that by your logic, Hugh Jackman put around a hundred actors, musicians and crew people out of work when he did not exrtend his contract for THE BOY FROM OZ, since the show could not run without him.

And if a U.S. senator decides not to run for another term, he puts his staff out of work.

[DramaDork925]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:09pm

I'm sure most, if not all of those people have jobs now. You aren't one of them, I assume so don't let it get to you. It's a stupid thing to get worked up about.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:18am

BroadwayBest, the Hollywood industry doesn't work like that. Everyone employed knows that gigs are temporary -- a six-year run is beyond anyone's expectations for staying in the same job as a member of cast or crew.

Those who worked on SEX IN THE CITY have no doubt just rejoined the industry's talent pool, just like they have repeatedly done in the past, and just like they've always expected would happen. These aren't positions where you stay on for 40 years; there's a lot more turnover, and writing and especially camera crews are constantly in demand (especially if you're an experienced worker off of SITC).

Sarah Jessica Parker has every right to decide what she wants to do with her career, and if she thinks she'd be happier elsewhere, it's reprehensible to force her to stay.

[442namffug]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:27am

What a joke. If those actors/crew members had talent and drive, they could continue to get work (and many of them do.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:47pm

Like six years of a t.v. show isn't enough for anybody.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:51pm

I don't see how you can blame SJP. When she decided not to continue, I doubt it was because she wanted to put so many people out of work.