Searching for Debra Winger (2002) User Reviews

Growing old in the movies

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 9 August 2005]

Age is an actress worst nightmare, or so it appears to be the case that Rosanna Arquette explores in her interesting documentary "Searching for Debra Winger". In fact, most actresses working in movies seem to have a sort of "shelf life" while they are young and beautiful, then, after that, it's oblivion, at best.

As Martha Plimpton points out, most actors working in films have a lot more options than actresses. Jack Nicholson and others of his age group, still active, are the examples. For every Meryl Streep, there are a hundred Debra Wingers that could still be working in meaningful projects, yet, little work seems to come their way, unless they look toward movies made for television.

Rosanna Arquette has a sharp eye to delve into the subject and her choice of people she interviews for us is quite remarkable. Unfortunately, Hollywood always will make films for a younger audience. Maturity and acting abilities seem not to matter much in that factory of dreams.

Interesting, but these women are insulated from real life

[leanne-elias · 6/10 · 21 August 2005]

I applaud Rosanna Arquestte for approaching these topics and find it interesting to see these actresses as themselves. However, I find myself shaking my head at most of their responses to balancing their careers and motherhood. It is like they have never heard this discussion before, and that they are unique in finding themselves facing this problem. Many woman - and many men who are primary caregivers - are faced with this agonizing dilemma. It is extremely difficult to be both a mother and be passionate about your chosen career. The big difference between these actresses and most women is that most of us can't afford qualified help (such as a nanny) to help ease the burden.

A far more interesting question, which arose out of the interviews, was asking why there are so few roles for women over 40, and why women in Hollywood need to be attractive but men do not.

Surprisingly insightful

[FilmOtaku · 6/10 · 18 August 2003]

I actually just read about this documentary in Entertainment Weekly, so was surprised to see it on Showtime tonight. I was ready to slam it for being shallow, but was pleasantly surprised at its refreshing insights.

Rosanna Arquette directs this documentary about the role of women in Hollywood when they are no longer a starlet; the effects of age on the actress' career. What was most impressive about the documentary was the incredible number of actresses interviewed. From Sharon Stone to Martha Plimpton, Holly Hunter to Charlotte Rampling the many actresses (both fairly obscure and mainstream) express some interesting views without sounding like they are complaining about the `lack of strong roles for women' – a phrase that has become cliché. While I am not a fan of Salma Hayek in the least, she came across as very strong, voicing the need for female writers, directors, etc. (and backed up her word by doing that with Frida.)

Arquette's earthy style made the documentary flow very smoothly, and it was refreshing to see no pretensions. On many occasions, she very humbly expressed her adoration and respect for her subjects. She also put many of her interviewees together in groups which not only opened up the dialogue, but showed genuine camaraderie. Even Roger Ebert makes an appearance discussing how the movie going men tastes in movies have changed.

The one complaint I have is that I never really followed Arquette's vision. After listening to the amazing insights provided by actresses, I didn't see a clear correlation with the thesis.

Definitely worth a look, but definitely estrogen-laden so it may not be for all. But for someone who generally leans towards the `anti-Meg Ryan' films this was indeed interesting and thought provoking.

--Shelly

Unscripted artists more compelling than their roles

[Apollo140ataoldotcom · 7 March 2004]

I just want to thank Rosanna Arquette for what was one of the most intriguing documentaries about Hollywood I've seen. Although I live in Los Angeles, I do not work in the film industry, and in general tend to feel as though we, the citizens of the Movie Capital of the World, are frequently over-inundated with media about actors and their films.

But SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER is different. Despite what the reader may feel about Hollywood, the actresses interviewed are some of the most influential performing artists of our era. Through Arquette, we get an opportunity to sit down and have a frank chat about their art, their insights, their ambivalence. The doc is not like a Barbara Walters interview: predictable and formatted and PR-mediated. Interviewed by Arquette, a fellow actress with similar sympathies, over little dinner parties, in restaurants, on lawn chairs -- even in the ladies room (a goofy, then serious Frances McDormand) -- the actresses managed to be more frank, more casual, unguarded with their opinions. Some seemed suspicious that the little documentary would ever be aired at all -- inadvertently freeing them up to be even more honest.

Famous for their beauty, their talent and their projects, you get to see that they are intelligent, clever, funny, angry, uptight, resentful, self-conscious, generous, insightful, even visionary in ways that are only hinted at in their films. The dialogue in SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER is all in the actresses own words: no scripts, no acting, no roles. Its an opportunity to see who they are, in all their brilliance, artistry, egotism and folly. Diane Lane is sharp as a tack. Alfre Woodard deeply reflective, eloquent and mature. My suspicion that Holly Hunter is a genius is confirmed. Theresa Russell cuts loose with quite a bit of rage. Whoopi Goldberg is the antidote to glamour-poisoning. Sharon Stone is at least as ballsy as her onscreen persona. Jane Fonda comes over as a wise and deeply generous doyenne. And Debra Winger is more compelling than she's been in any of her movie roles.

Perhaps the biggest revelation was Rosanna Arquette herself. She really puts herself out there, expressing her own insights, risking the exposure of her doubts, in a way that encourages the other actresses to feel comfortable, to open up, to speak frankly. Arquette gamely drops a lot of the pretensions of the industry to tell her story, and to get the other actresses to tell theirs, and as a result manages to reveal unexpected truths about the people behind the profession.

Because of all the big names, the documentary has star power, glamour, and charm in spades. But it has much more. With the lighting, hair and makeup aspect de-emphasized, one gets a glimpse of the real people underneath the monolithic illusion we know as Hollywood, and I found these people, these artists more fascinating than any scripted characters I've seen in quite some time. Underneath all the glittering surfaces, one discovers a deep, and untapped reservoir of artistic -- and human -- potential.

Some of the people here have issues more than Arquette

[rook01 · 6/10 · 29 May 2005]

I don't think that Arquette's documentary was just a whine fest for rich liberal actresses. On the other hand, Debra Winger was a poor choice as her icon of a talented actress who was tossed by the wayside as she got older. Maybe Arquette should have read the roles Winger turned down in favor of such dogs as Mike"s Murder and Cannery Row. She gets a pass for turning down the Holly Hunter role in Broadcast News because she was pregnant. That is a legitimate point that having a family does hurt an actress' career but then Mare Winningham played a virgin while she was a pregnant. Yet as the link shows, she had prime movie roles that she chose to turn down. The Music Box was an especially powerful film.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000700/bio She (Winger) became notorious for turning down worthy roles in quality films, such as Kathleen Turner's role in Peggy Sue Got Married (1986), Susan Sarandon's role in Bull Durham (1988), Michelle Pfeiffer's role in The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989), Jessica Lange's role in The Music Box(1989), and Geena Davis' role in A League of their Own (1992).

A League of their Own is especially egregious since Winger had the part but was upset that Director Penny Marshall chose Madonna to be in the film. I also wonder if Arquette considers Marshall sexist for not casting Ally Sheedy for a part because she could not play baseball good enough for the role. BTW, Winger married actor Arliss Howard and starred in a movie he directed in 2001.

I do have empathy for talented actresses who are not finding worthy roles in the movies. Part of it is the economics of movie making and what they consider marketable. However some of the actresses could also help by taking TV roles and boost the quality of that medium. It certainly helped Marg Helgenberger. If you are only willing to stick to a small part of the acting world of movies, actresses are limiting their own career. I mean big stars like Robin Williams, Julia Roberts and other big stars do cameos on TV, I am sure many of these actresses could find quality work especially with the proliferation of cable TV programming.

There are too many actors and actresses for everyone to be an A list movie star. Tony Shalhoub will never be a big time movie star but he certainly created some buzz with Monk. If he stuck to movies, he would be forced playing foreign cab drivers (Quick Change) or a pawn shop alien getting his head blown off (Men in Black).

It Is What It Is

[chron · 6/10 · 25 August 2003]

I am passionate about my profession and I am intrigued by people who are passionate about theirs. In this, Rosanna Arquette scores high. It is a documentary on the roles that are afforded female actors when they become elderly - which in Hollywood is the mid-thirties.

Since I like character-driven plots, I am frustrated that the distributors and producers of movies are missing so many opportunities for wonderful movies because so many of these wonderful actresses don't quite have the boobs of a 23-year old. (Although, just for the record, I like 23-year-old boobs).

This resonated with me. It is a documentary, so there isn't lot of plot or character to talk about. It is what it is. It is a well-done documentary on a valid topic that does not come across as whining, but as a valid issue which deserves some consideration.

As a postscript, if you like movies with wonderful female characters, check out "You Can Count on Me (Laura Linney)" and "In the Bedroom (Sissy Spacek, Marisa Tomei)".

If you care about quality cinema, this is worth the time.

Well done documentary

[wisewebwoman · 7/10 · 15 September 2005]

It was no mean feat for Rosanna Arquette to gain access to all these beautiful, older actresses and interview them on their careers and prospects. I don't take umbrage that these are all wealthy, talented and beautiful women and should have nothing to complain about. Equating individual wealth and fulfilling one's passion are two completely different issues. These women are not offered any more meaty roles due to their age and age-ism is alive and well in the media. I am particularly reminded of it when watching news anywhere in the world. The silver-haired, serious fifty plus or sixty plus male anchor and his perky twenty something blonde co-anchor. I can't ever recall seeing a middle-aged female anchor, anywhere. There were a few women omitted from these series of interviews whom I felt would have a lot to offer. One was Helen Mirren who has steamed into her sixties taking terrific roles, another is Anjelica Huston, yet another is Kathy Bates who is now directing. If there were a fault in this it would be finding an upside, it all weighed in a little too much on the negative side. Jane Fonda was terrific in describing her moments that worked (only about 20% of the time) in crucial scenes. So was Vanessa Redgrave speaking of child-raising. Some of the women had pretty obvious cosmetic surgery done,buying into the myth and at the same time being critical of it. Others, however, are proudly who they are and stand defiant, wearing the faces they have earned and lived in. 7 out of 10. the sound track is delicious and there are many heart-warming moments. It would have been a 9 if there were more balance on the positive side. Debra Winger is riveting in her comments.

Interesting, then redundant, then just plain self-serving.

[phantomframe · 5/10 · 26 October 2003]

I started out liking this film. Ms. Arquette was making some good points, talking to some very interesting actresses (Jane Fonda is a standout, as well as Debra Winger herself.) But this film could have easily been 20 minutes shorter--it just seemed to go on and on. In the end, when all of the actresses involved in the documentary are signing their names in lipstick on pieces of mirror (huh?), Rosanna is the very last one to do it. It just hit the point that this was such a vanity piece rather than a serious piece of filmmaking, which it really could have been, if someone else had directed it that is.

Extraordinary Documentary

[jayraskin1 · 10/10 · 30 March 2008]

This is an extraordinary collection of interviews with many of the greatest and most successful movie actresses from the 60's to the 2000's. They express their real feelings about their careers, their lives and the film industry.

We really have to thank Rosanna Arquette for this. Think about how wonderful it would be to have a documentary like this about all the great actresses from the 20's-60's who have now passed away.

All of these women are extraordinary artists. They have showed the complexities of the human soul in our time to millions of people in our time and hopefully millions more in the future. They all deserve our love and respect.

The movie is well-paced and keeps coming up with surprises (like Rosanna attending a movie premiere, or suddenly coming across Francis McDormand in a hotel bathroom).

Besides the interviews with many of the greatest actresses of our time, the film also includes an interview with one man: Roger Ebert, the greatest film critic of our time.

I highly recommend this movie to anybody interested in the art of movies. It is extraordinarily important for its historical value.

Lots of questions, very few answers

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 3 May 2004]

Rosanna Arquette interviews Hollywood actresses nearing & over 40 about the film business, juggling relationships with celebrity, mixing children with show biz, and just WHY did the elusive title-named actress bow out when we need her the most. Lots of wiseacre girl-group talk edited in choppy, slightly off-putting fashion. It rambles without making its point, it whines without taking a stand, and Arquette is far too fawning to be an objective hostess. Only Jane Fonda and Winger herself have something solid to offer--Fonda in particular tells a fascinating story about the on-set process of movie-making. But it doesn't dig deep, and doesn't offer any solutions either. ** from ****

Arquette's Personal Quest Turns Into a Meandering, Self-Indulgent Look at Hollywood Sexism

[EUyeshima · 4/10 · 5 June 2006]

In 1996's "The First Wives Club", Goldie Hawn, as an aging actress, has a piercingly perceptive line courtesy of screenwriter Robert Harling, "In Hollywood, women only have three ages: babe, district attorney, and 'Driving Miss Daisy'". Actress Rosanna Arquette has decided to explore this unfortunately true perspective in her 2002 documentary where she speaks with thirty-five renowned actresses of varying ages. Even though it's doubtful any of them are facing economic hardship, their dilemmas would still make a worthy subject for a film, but she makes it such an overly personalized odyssey over her own tenuous success as a 43-year old actress and mother that she is unable to provide anything significantly insightful on the topic.

Instead, we are left with a film with some revealing moments but more commonly, a haphazard structure of interview snippets that seem to make the same set of points over and over again - the incessant struggle to find good roles for women past forty, the precarious balance between managing a career and raising a family, and the myopia of profit-minded studio executives interested in what teenage males want to see (at least according to film critic Roger Ebert, the only male interviewed). The problem is that Arquette, as a documentarian, cannot provide much-needed objectivity to her subject, as she repeatedly interjects with her personal experiences when she is not fawning over her subjects. Her lack of discipline extends into her editing as there is no sense of organization to her narrative other than how she came upon the actresses, whether proactively seeking them out individually, organizing lunches (like what Jon Favreau does with his TV series, "Dinner for Five") or happening upon them at Cannes (like surprising a thankfully good-humored Frances McDormand in the ladies room). Truth be told, some come off quite badly as they express unformed thoughts with mind-numbing analogies. Meg Ryan, Gwyneth Paltrow and Emmanuelle Béart come to mind.

Some like Robin Wright Penn and Charlotte Rampling reveal so little about themselves that their inclusion provides questionable value, and a self-consciously glamorous Sharon Stone comes across as rather disingenuous when she talks about her abandonment of vanity. But others provide nuggets of wisdom like Holly Hunter, Diane Lane, Salma Hayek, Martha Plimpton (who has forsaken movies for the stage) and a predictably funny Whoopi Goldberg. Leave it to veterans Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda to offer the film's most honest, insightful comments, the latter especially revealing in how former husband Ted Turner encouraged her retirement and then sharing how she feels when she nails a pivotal scene in a movie. Fortunately, Debra Winger, whose self-imposed (and ultimately short-lived) retirement inspired the film's eponymous title, shows herself to be the trenchantly sardonic, perceptive non-conformist she obviously is. The film really contains very little when it comes to revelations about the inherent sexism of the film industry, and Arquette's personal catharsis frankly does not resonate enough to make the film worthwhile. Other than some trailers, the DVD has no extras.

Fantastic look at women's struggle for balance in life

[filmjoy · 10/10 · 1 January 2004]

I just finished watching this movie, and I loved it. I found it completely refreshing to have a topic for a movie to be about working women and the choices they make. There are certainly parts to it that are specific to being an artist, and even more specifically an actor, but you can definitely generalize this to working women at all. I'm probably limiting it to my perspective -- it would apply even to choices women make at all. It is a great irony that the type of movie the women in this picture discuss that isn't being made is exactly the type of movie this is. One that delves into real people, real "characters" as Martha Plimpton yearned for, that are dealing with issues that really affect life -- motherhood, relationships, feeling like you've done something with your life. I would LOVE to see more movies tackling those topics. Brava, Rosanna! As Sharon Stone said, "You go, girl!"

Well intentioned but unfortunately, mediocre.

[AZGrooveGuy · 6/10 · 2 March 2006]

I certainly appreciate what I believe Rosanna Arquette was trying to accomplish with this well intentioned documentary. Unfortunately the project was just not edited well enough nor focused enough on any particular issue faced by aging actresses to ever be engrossing or fascinating. Instead about midway through, it felt like the focus became 'how many actresses can I fit into this 99 minute film'.

I was hoping for a serious discussion of why writers no longer value story lines featuring actresses over 40. Why do we not get to see more juicy roles for our favorites....the Jessica Langes, Sissy Spaceks, Diane Keatons, Maggie Smiths, Sally Fields, etc etc. How do they feel about the new 'youth only' version of Hollywood? How do they choose roles today, and how fulfilling is working in TV after decades of movie work. These issues were talked about, but so were about 100 others, which watered down the film's narrative power substantially.

Some of the input was certainly worthwhile. I loved the feedback from Whoopi Goldberg, Holli Hunter, Diane Lane, Sharon Stone, and Martha Plimpton the most. These actresses were given a lot of screen time and were very interesting. Jane Fonda's admission that she was a less than perfect mother was also eye opening.

Other actresses I wanted to see more of were just given a few seconds on screen. I wanted more from Teri Garr (along with Goldberg, the actress with the most realistic viewpoints in the film). JoBeth Williams began to discuss the guilt of being a working mom, but then was never seen again. Catherine O'Hara was underused, with only a few seconds on screen.

Worth a watch but probably will not be as good as you are hoping for after seeing all the names involved. I commend Arquette for the effort in any case.

Talent or Appearance?

[noreaster13 · 2/10 · 20 December 2004]

The problem with this question of aging actresses fading in Hollywood is that many of them were originally hired NOT for their talent, but because of the fact that they were young and cute (or also, in the case of Jane Fonda, the daughter of a celebrity.). The assumption that all of these women have great talent that is going untapped simply isn't true.

With that comes some personal responsibility. If you buy into that world, and agree to be rewarded just on your looks and youth, those things will fade and so will your career.

But there are some that are so egotistical (such as Sharon Stone) that somehow believe that they are being persecuted because their fabulous artistic "talent" isn't being given a chance. Sorry, Sharon. Your talent is self-imagined.

There also is the problem that aging American women don't want to pay money to see aging actresses on the screen. If they did, more older actresses would get lots of work.

One thing that comes across loud and clear in this film is what amazingly huge egos many of these artistes have. They truly believe that the world owes them attention and that they are special.

One more thing- I shudder to think how many stylists it took to get many of these women ready for the camera here. They are "done" to the max- plastic surgery, makeup, wigs, and all. It's a bit terrifying, and reinforces the idea that for many of these women, appearance is all there is.

privileged beauties kvetch

[philip-106 · 8 June 2004]

Roseanne Arquette's personal documentary has a really great idea: several dozen top Hollywood actresses from the 70's, 80's and 90's discuss the difficulties facing women in Hollywood, particularly women over the age of forty. Interviewing them one-on-one or gathering them together in discussion groups, Arquette elicits refreshingly frank, unsanitized criticisms and confessions from some of Hollywood's outstanding actresses and beauties: Jane Fonda, Holly Hunter, Daryl Hannah, Salma Hayak, Angelica Huston, Meg Ryan, Sharon Stone, and many others including Debra Winger (who looks fabulous). The title takes its name from the idea that Winger chose to leave Hollywood at the height of her career in the 80's (though a quick check on IMDb.com shows that the actress has actually worked continuously since then.)

Roger Ebert provides a plausible - though unchallenged - explanation for the lack of good roles for women in their 40's. The audience, he explains, is thought to be comprised of young men 14-24 years old who are disinterested in films about women who might be the age of their mothers. Salma Hayak proposes a solution: she suggests that it will take powerful Hollywood women - like the ones interviewed in this documentary - to create more interesting opportunities for mature women in film.

The lack of meaningful roles for women, particularly mature women is a worthwhile subject and naturally has implications far beyond Hollywood; but Arquette's inquiry is disappointingly shallow. The documentary neglects the broader issues of our obsession with youth and beauty and women's role in society focusing exclusively on the impact of aging on Hollywood stars. (The choppy, MTV editing style and amateurish camera-work don't do a lot to elevate the topic either. But those are minor annoyances.)

At its worst, the film disintegrates into a kind of group kvetch for the over privileged. And watching these beautiful, wealthy women preen in front of paparazzi, compare jewellery, schedule dinner dates and party plans then complain that they don't have enough time to spend with their kids, well, it's kinda hard to feel a ton of sympathy....unless you, too, just happen to be a gorgeous, wealthy forty year old movie star. The irony is there for all to see but is never acknowledged: most of these actresses have clearly benefitted from the system they're now deploring; in their twenties, weren't these actresses eclipsing the previous, aging generation? So the laments come off as self-serving.

Despite these disappointments, SFDW is worth a look for its candid interviews. Debra Winger, Whoopi Goldberg and Jane Fonda are particularly good. Recommend.

enjoyed it very much

[ematerso · 7/10 · 8 January 2006]

This video was one of 12 we just purchased from our local video store. My husband would not watch it after about 10 min, but then came back for final 10 or so. His disinterest was because he considered it a "chick" flick. I did enjoy it very much, because I like that type of a format. Jane Fonda's description of acting the pivotal scenes in any film was engrossing and so informative to those completely outside this industry. I love her voice and thought she was adorable in Barbarella and Klute is one of my all time favorite movies. Although as a woman its interesting that she follows her men so slavishly (have read enough of marriages to Vidam and Hayden to have that opinion) & to give up her career on a second date! Selma Hyack made the most sense in really addressing what the focus of this documentary was. Why whine about what men are willing to give women? Why not go out and create, produce, implement their own projects? Despite what Roger Ebert said there is a huge untapped market of viewers of films starring older actresses. The first baby boomers are reaching 60 and will soon be retired. My husband and I are 10 years ahead of that and would love to go to more movies. . . but so few of them have really decent plots, with realistic characters and a minimum of violence and gratuitous sex. It is ridiculous that women who at one point could play Harrison Ford's wife in a movie would be considered too old now. He looked awful in the preview of the new movie (can't remember the name) where he has a young wife and family. It isn't that its totally unrealistic that a man his age would have a young family, just that from a Hollywood point of view every man his age would have. That is unless he is part of a couple who play unflattering "relative" roles. It was interesting to hear Daryl Hannah say how she was supposed to look as the mother of a 16 yr old. Personally I thought I looked pretty good when my daughter was that age and most women if they ever looked good will then too.

Just another documentary

[=G= · 6/10 · 6 March 2004]

"Searching for Debra Winger" is a pet project of Rosanna Arquette which purports to examine the role of the maturing actress in today's film industry and the sacrifices which come with balancing career and family in the face of a diminishing number of roles. As documentaries go, this film is ill focused, wandering, and takes the form of informal conversational coffee-klatsches with occasional peeks into the personal life of Arquette. However, it does offer a look at a slew of familiar faces (out of makeup) and the ideas, opinions, and world-views rolling around behind many pairs of beautiful eyes. Recommended more for fans than for those seeking revelations about the clockworks of the film industry or those interested in what it's like to be an actress. (C+)

Rosanna's Private Pleasure or Feminist Essay?

[Superwonderscope · 6/10 · 8 July 2002]

I was quite puzzled after seeing Rosanna Arquette's first directorial effort. Highly difficult exercise in documentary, she's trying to explain the choices and the feelings of 30-something to 45-ish actresses in H'wood. Choices of being at the same time mother, actresses, raising kids, leading artists and...why some just quit.

From Her introduction on THE RED SHOES to the final words of Jane Fonda, I could sense and feel what she was trying to do and express but...I couldn't see the point.

Some actresses here made some very interesting comments (Martha Plimpton is both hilarious and utterly clever). Some anecdotes are sometimes insulting for them (Adrienne Shelly's experience and Melanie Griffith's)others funny or even rewarding for the audience (Theresa Russell, for that matter). There's always something to learn from these artists. You can hate them for being soooooo serious (Sharon Stone, i really do love you but... don't take yourself so seriously, please!) or love them for being so lucid on their job (especially Alfre Woodard and Anjelica Huston). The most rewarding is (indeed) Debra Winger saying that she didn't say no to her acting career, but she said yes to some other stuff that she left apart doing her job.

But after all these comments and laughters and angers expressed...what's the meaning of all this? All I could feel is empathy for some time but I was also annoyed as the camera was always revolving around Rosanna Arquette. Not because she was the interviewer but...the her point of view was too self-centered. And it has no conclusion. As if we saw a rough cut of the documentary (or "experience" as the credits pretentiously say), waiting for some guiding line or some editing.

As a photography of what's going on in the head of actresses between 30 and 50 y.o in this new millenium : excellent cast, fascinating comments :all good. As for the rest SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER proves that it's not with some good intentions that you make a good movie. It still needs something deeper. And a better light, please! Emmanuelle Beart has never been uglier on a screen. Rosanna needs a real camera operator (even if she was the B team C.O) and a decent D.P.

Superwonderscope says : 6

Whining for Roseanna Arquette

[AZINDN · 3/10 · 26 February 2005]

Privileged working women whining about how rough they really have it. Yeah. Getting old, facing responsibility, and trying to have their lives with entourages of hair and makeup staff surrounding them in elegant restaurants, interior designer homes, and Cannes! Oh please. Get over yourselves and get back to the kitchen where you're really happy and fulfilled. This is a documentary without structure. The wanderings of Arquette who never makes her position or cause obvious, she allows the statements of actresses/friends to drone on and they are more than willing to vetch for the camera, but none have anything to complain about.

This is more of a slumber party for women facing or past 40, whose looks are no longer getting them the parts it used to, and now, have to wonder what's it all about. Welcome to the situation every other working woman in the country faces without access to the lifestyle and salaries that have floated these women for the past 20 years. I have no empathy for this kind of film, much less interest in wanting to listen to them. A waste of film.

an inspirational piece on the age factor in the movie world.

[tlweschler · 10/10 · 23 April 2006]

Every time I show this DVD to my female friends they come away with what can be described as a warm feeling about these women they've come to know on screen and the great advice regarding how these screen actresses deal with the future becoming the present. This film is a great idea come to fruition with an excellent, wide range of actresses. The locations, the framing, the lighting is all put together to make an accessible, fun, and interesting movie. If you enjoy 'behind the scenes' kind of films this is one of the best. I show it to my students as well as friends all of the comments so far have been positive, it's fun to see how people react to the 'real thing' kinda set up Ms. Arquette uses to get the questions she has for these women answered. 10 out of 10!

TLW

Watch it for Jane Fonda

[NAHNCEE · 7/10 · 26 July 2004]

Every since Madonna effortlessly blew Rosanna Arquette off the screenin "Desperately Seeking Susan", I have considered Arquette to be a light-weight. After having watched this film, I see no reason to change that estimation. Arquette spends the whole movie breathlessly assuring us that she *is* talented and creative, and is seeking outlets for her creativity, but Hollywood won't allow it. If this film is an example of her creativity, then one can understand how she was overwhelmed by Madonna, who truly *is* both talented AND creative.

The documentary is of interest, however, even though the filming and editing is on a level with movies about a child's birthday party. Arquette has assembled an astonishing group of women who seem to talk freely about their lives as "movie stars". Sometimes it's painful to watch, like Laura Dern who seems to be imploding before our eyes. Other times, it's same-ole, same-ole as female after female talks about the importance of her children and balancing them with her career -- interestingly all of these children seem to have been the products of immaculate conception since NONE of the women talk about husbands or mates. Robin Wright Penn, who is married to Sean Penn, refers to him once as "he", and that's it.

But the movie is worth sitting through just to hear and watch and appreciate Jane Fonda, whose time comes at the end. She does a long riff, full of details, about what she misses about acting. Listening to her and watching her, you appreciate her intensity and her craft's technique. Fonda, also, is both talented and creative, and if Arquette had any idea how she would stack up in comparison with the strong and enviable women she blithely films for us ... she wouldn't have done it.

upsetting.

[wamaitha · 1/10 · 5 January 2006]

This movie was insulting. While issues to do with sexism and gender are very pertinent especially to do with film, this "documentary" addressed neither sufficiently.

Instead the film operated as a forum for a bunch of over-paid and over-privileged women to sob about aging. It was PAINFUL to have to watch their collagen filled lips and tight stretched faces whine about only being valued for their looks and then being discarded as they aged. What on earth would they expect when they continue to SUPPORT these institutions by playing superficial roles and succumbing to mainstream beauty standards?

Half of them have never had acted a decent role in their lives, yet they mope about wanting to play "REAL" characters, with "REAL" meaning.

The only saving moment was Alfre Woodard gracefully reconciling the struggles she faces as an actress, with the privilege which her profession allows her. She pays much needed respect to women AROUND the world who do NOT make millions of dollars for a few months of work, yet still struggle to be good mothers, wives, and career women.

Moreover the film was not shot documentary style- I am not a film-maker so do not know the logistics of different filming, however Arquette chose a style that was NOT reminiscent of documentaries. Looked more like a thriller DVD. And so the total effect was staged and over-produced.

The film was just plain rubbish. And though I would usually like to be less one-sided, i find it absolutely impossible to see this film any other way.

Speaks Truth to Power

[tolerford · 9/10 · 8 May 2006]

Rating this one short of a ten for the inability of some of these actresses to better articulate, or for the sad glimpses of losing the point in other interviews. This movie needed to be done. Hopefully, it rocked the boat to an extent that change will show its eyes. As usual, Whoopi Goldberg cut to the chase alleviating the coldness of the sickening truth better than anybody else. Life enriches us as we age. Where are the scripts. How much more seldom does it have to be, that money for production come from the actresses themselves? We've lost Wendy Wasserstein; where's Nora Ephron? Where are the productions of the women-owned studios? Let's roll!

Pitiful!

[abeal49 · 1/10 · 11 March 2005]

The film opens with Arquette telling the audience that the first movie she ever saw was The Red Shoes, a movie about a neurotic ballet dancer so torn between her career and family that she throws herself in front of a train. Later in the film we learn that it was her own mother who took her to see this movie (no Disney for that family, it seems) when she was only four years old. Her mother died at 57 of cancer, but it is Arquette's opinion that what really killed her was the inability to express her art. It is unkind, but irresistible, to note that Arquette's mother's tombstone bears a Star of David, which explains why the entire documentary is one incredible guilt trip, that contrary to Arquette's belief that her mother never expressed her art, she in fact mastered the art of Jewish Motherhood. (Did she ghost write the book by Dan Greenberg, I wonder?) Giving credit where it is due, she did her job well; it seems they are all over-achievers.

Anyway, Arquette decides to probe the depths of this guilt over how she and her siblings' demands led to their mother's untimely demise, by interviewing every actress willing to talk to her. What is notable about this is finding out that if you take the scripts away from actresses they turn into inarticulate potty-mouths. What is even more surprising is seeing them having lunch in a fancy restaurant, screaming the f-word back and forth at each other, and the management never asks them to leave. Memo to all: don't go to lunch there, the patrons will make you vomit.

Good Intentions Gone Awry

[ambimom · 21 August 2003]

I wanted to like this movie, I really did, but it's a mess. As well-intentioned as is Roseanna Arquette, there's no real point to this film.

Obviously, Arquette was able to secure the confessions of some of the finest actresses of our times, but instead of drawing on the "Red Shoes" theme, we are subjected to an inchoate collection of let's face it, silly laments.

Though not meant to be, a lot of these diatribes are insulting to women who struggle along in boring jobs, barely able to make ends meet while juggling marriages, kids and art without benefit of nannies, private jets and personal assistants.

Instead of discussing the struggle of art v. children, or career v. marriage as was promised in the opening monologue, this movie is about extraordinarily beautiful women who want our sympathy because they no longer receive the enormous privileges they received when they were more desirable to the men who make movies.

I love Theresa Russell, I really do, but she comes off like a selfish, prom queen who isn't getting enough attention. Laughable but sad is Melanie Griffith who obviously knows the joys of Botox and collagen but still cringes at the sexism to which she is subjected by the industry that made her rich. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, is as loopy as she was when Ed Murrow interviewed her 40 years ago on "Person to Person."

At least two of the screen goddesses interviewed -- Diane Lane and Sharon Stone-- have already altered their pronouncements: Lane who allegedly can't fit a man into her life is remarrying and Stone who finally met the perfect mate is divorcing.

The only person in this documentary who makes any sense at all is Terri Garr. I've always liked her and now I like her even more. The problem is no one is listening to Garr, though she still works all the time, even with a disability. And thankfully, Debra Winger comes off sane and sensible.

Get a grip girls. The rest of us mortal women of a certain age struggle throughout life, not just when we enter menopause. I am competing with 20 year olds in my workplace, just the same as you.

What was it that F. Scott Fitzgerald said? "The rich are different from you and I?" I guess the same is true of actresses.