<p>actressmom,</p>
<p>I’m not a mother and don’t plan on it anytime soon. 
I’m just an ‘ignurt’ conservatory drama nun, but aren’t you the one who trained in the UK? What has that meant for you? </p>
<p>I guess in the director’s art of film it might not matter so much. It’s pretty much been proven that a good director can take an ex-American Idol contestant with no acting experience off a cruise ship and get an Oscar winning performance out of her, so maybe not … But … I’ve booked a small role in a film this summer (hoping no strike happens) and the CD who set me up with it said she really LOVES that I’m being classically trained and to under no circumstances discontinue it. I’m a versatile type to begin with and the training I’ve had so far has multiplied that versatility tenfold. That excites her. She could plug me into a lot of things although ‘edgy bimbo’ will be my bread and butter starting out. ;)</p>
<p>I personally wouldn’t be artistically satisfied only playing to type in film, but that’s just me … I guess everyone has to make up their own minds about that, but I think I’ll stick to the path of the actresses whose body of work I find most consistently interesting … Judy Dench, Laura Linney, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Helen Mirren, Cate Blanchett, Mary Louise Parker (Too bad about her Hedda), Julianne Moore, Juliette Binoche, Parker Posey, Annette Bening … Even when they’re just playing to type, I see a lot of depth and fluidity that’s usually lacking in those who just moved out to LA and started auditioning. There are others like Charlize Theron whose work I usually enjoy who have never set foot on stage to my knowledge, but how many years did she spend as one of Ivana Chubbuck’s pet pupils? Don’t tell me she isn’t trained. Not that I’ll have that kind of success - not even sure I’d want it - but I think you get where I’m coming from …</p>