Amanda Seyfried, brat, does romantic comedies “for the money”


A couple of weeks ago, I covered Amanda Seyfriend’s interview in April’s Esquire Magazine. I claimed that she came across as “kind of an ungrateful snot”. I stand by that, although I would like to add an extra dimension to my take: I think Amanda seems like a girl who is really full of herself, and who hasn’t done enough solid work to back up her attitude. Granted, she’s had a few number-one box office hits (Mamma Mia, Dear John), and she’s been in some critically acclaimed stuff (like Chloe, which is what she’s promoting, and Big Love, which she’s leaving behind because her part wasn’t big enough). So Amanda has way more to proud of then, say, Megan Fox or Lindsay Lohan or someone like that. But still – Amanda is not a household name, yet she’s already giving interviews talking about “I sacrificed six years in L. A. I did my job out here. I made the contacts and did the work I had to do.” Or anything from this most recent interview, in Vanity Fair.

Amanda compares her career to Angelina Jolie’s (except Amanda wants us to know “I don’t want to be in magazines everyday, because I don’t want people to get used to one thing”) and she also has some pretty inappropriate things to say about doing romantic comedies for the money:

You’ve played a pretty wide array of roles. What types of roles do you find yourself rejecting the most?
Horror films. Like very generic horror scripts. And romantic comedies, cause those tend to follow the same pattern, the same structure, and that can be really boring. Also, usually I’m playing a version of myself—I mean, I’m always playing a version of myself, except in Chloe—so the challenge isn’t really there, in terms of playing a lead in a romantic comedy. Those have to appeal to a wider audience and I sometimes have a problem with needing to appeal to a wider audience, because with that comes studio backing, and with that comes pressure to make it mainstream. When you start using test audiences, it becomes more scientific than it is about the work itself, and that’s boring.

You do seem to vary your choices of a lot.
Well it’s the trick of making sure the audience will believe you in any form that they see you in. When I vary my roles, it allows them to lose themselves more, hopefully. I don’t want to become a brand and I certainly don’t want to have a persona. I don’t want to be in magazines everyday, because I don’t want people to get used to one thing. They may know my face, but I feel like Angelina Jolie can still play a character and you can still get lost in it… Even though she’s all over the place, and that’s unfortunate for her. But luckily she still maintains enough anonymity for us to believe her.

Can a young actress really get away with swearing off romantic comedies?
Well, it’s hard because they pay a lot of money. Sometimes, when you want to buy an apartment in Manhattan, you gotta do one or two. But in most cases you don’t need to be doing them—there are enough action flicks to keep you busy… no I’m kidding. Romantic comedies are great, though, if they’re done well. I love watching them; I just don’t necessarily love the process of making one. I like a small production company, a small set. That’s sometimes really wonderful. But if you’re working with a director who’s trusted by the studio, then you get to be freer. And I’m not bashing studios; it’s just a different way of making movies. It’s making movies for a different reason: for money. And that’s all great. We all want money. I mean, I love my apartment in New York.

Did Dear John pay for that?
No, it was Letters to Juliet. But also, I—my God—I got to work with Gael García Bernal and Vanessa Redgrave and it’s like, although it’s a romantic comedy made by a studio [Summit Entertainment, the people behind Twilight and The Hurt Locker] and everything, and there’s all these things attached to it, it was amazing. It was great and we shot in Italy. But I’m not going to say it didn’t get me an apartment.

All those benefits and you don’t want to do it again?
I do! I will! I absolutely will, but just not right now, cause I just did it. It’s coming out in May. Dear John for me was more of a stepping-stone. With that came more opportunities, and also it was my first romantic lead. But now I’ve done two of those, and now I’m ready to not for a while.

You made a big impression with your first film, Mean Girls. Are trying to avoid similarly ditzy roles?
Not anymore.

Was that a concern at first?
Yeah, absolutely. It was really well written. Really well written. And I had a great comedic coach, to help me get the role, cause I was unknown. And it was just for the big-boobed idiot, and for a lot of those roles, were just vacant, and they were just silly, they wouldn’t have been for anything really. But now I’ve various things over the years, and it’s been really good. That’s the trick—and it is a trick: you really do have to like hold off on things, even if they’re throwing you million dollar pay checks. You just have to say, its not right right now. I just did it. I’d be bored. When you’re scared to go to work, at the end of that day, you just feel so great and so tired because you were fulfilled in your job. And if you go home feeling like, another day, like it’s all the same, sometimes it gets so boring you wonder why you’re even doing it.

Unless you want to upgrade that apartment
Unless you have a kid, and then, you need a bigger apartment. Or like, I don’t know, if your dog is sick, and you need to pay for surgery. I mean there are definitely reasons to do certain things, but for the most part I like to stick to good director, good actor, good script.

So you have a dog?
I do!

What kind?
I have an Australian Sheppard. Finn. He’s five and a half months. Ohmigod, ohmigod, ohmigod! My dog sitter just sent me pictures!

[From Vanity Fair]

Ugh, bitch please. You’re pretty and you’ve got an okay talent and you’ve got big boobs. You don’t really stand out that much, so just be grateful that people are hiring you for anything. Too harsh? I know she said “oh, just jokes” or whatever, but the whole conversation about doing films for the money is just annoying. Gwyneth Paltrow used to talk that way too – she claimed she did that run of sh-tty movies in the 1990s because she wanted a big apartment in New York. Here’s a tip to all young actresses: You are not Gwyneth Paltrow. Stop saying you do films for the money. Just be grateful to have a job, because all of you are utterly replaceable. And if you’re just going to do a film only to bitch and moan and whine about doing it for the money, don’t sign on. Let that part go to another actress who will appreciate it.


Amanda at Showest on March 18, 2010. Credit: WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

47 Responses to “Amanda Seyfried, brat, does romantic comedies “for the money””

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. bite me says:

    what is an amanda seyfried

  2. scotchy says:

    why do these young mediocre actresses insist on shitting on the hands that feed them?
    they should all be slapped, and “Chloe” for the record, was not all that great and she was not all that great in the film. there was not a single moment where i believed she was emotionally connected to the other characters. ugh. shut up already amanda. shut up

  3. Cath says:

    Ehhh, I’m not so worried by this. She’s honest. I find that refreshing. If she tried to act like romantic comedies are serious cinema, we’d all laugh at her for trying to talk up her “craft.” Six of one, half-dozen of the other, you know?

  4. Sumodo1 says:


  5. omondieu says:

    What an ugly dress. She looks like she’s got hirsutism.

  6. Kim says:

    I look at that dress and all I see is a hairy chest.

  7. ShanWOW says:

    At first glance the lace on her dress makes her look like she has a hairy chest.

  8. mila says:

    I agree with Cath. Those young women can’t win, can they?
    LOL at the hairy chest comments.That’s an unfortunate choice of fabric for this area!

  9. meme says:

    @bite me – a mediocre starlet who thinks she’s the next St Angie Ho.

  10. Lady Nightshade says:

    I agree with Cath, wouldn’t it be worse if she started talking about how Mama Mia was such a groundbreaking film?

  11. Obvious says:

    i love Mama Mia it is one of my favorite movies and is an uplifter.

    that being said i also adore amanda, i think she’s got heigl-itis, but it’s ok. but that dress is awful!

    and as i mention in every amanda post, i want hey boyfriend!!!!

  12. Bek says:

    No, “mama mia” wasn’t groundbreaking. And rom-coms DO follow a formula. They’re less about pleasing the critics and more about pleasing the audience/making money, as she states. Still, I DO think I’m going to have to change my tune and say she IS starting to sound like a total snob. It’s almost like she finally realizes that “dear john” won’t get her an oscar, so she backtracks and says that she never cared about her past projects in the first place. What an idiot. You’re an actress. It’s your job to entertain. Period.

  13. nikki says:

    she’s honest for me!!
    Romcom are shitty usually!for one good romcom(500 days in summer),how many awful movies(all about steeve,the proposal,…)?

  14. snapdragon says:

    so she doesn’t do horror films, but wasn’t she in “jennifer’s body”? and as for her “honesty” about rom-coms, why not say something generic like, “mamma mia was so much fun to shoot, and i love ABBA, and i got to work with meryl streep.” she doesn’t have to talk about how groundbreaking it was, but a little humility wouldn’t hurt her. maybe her career should be given to someone who would be grateful to have it and she can wait tables or something to get that fabulous NY apartment.

  15. Iggles says:

    I don’t think she came off like a snot this time. She’s talking about the business side of the business, which I found interesting because it’s not something the public are not privy to.

    That’s the trick—and it is a trick: you really do have to like hold off on things, even if they’re throwing you million dollar pay checks. You just have to say, its not right right now. I just did it.

    I think Jennifer Aniston would do well to take heed to this.

    Now, on to that horrid dress. I had a visceral reaction because at first glance the mesh looked like blonde body hair..

  16. Rosanna says:

    Refreshingly honest, even about herself (like when she said she does romantic comedies “for money”… Julia Roberts, SJP, Sandra Bullock, ALL do romantic comedies for money but none of them has the guts to say so).
    I’m noticing that honesty isn’t very much appreciated… “niceness” needs to always win *barf*

  17. ThunderC*nt says:

    I don’t really know who this is but I will say: She is so generic looking.

  18. IriD says:

    It’s her job, so why wouldn’t she be doing it for the money? With a rom com it’s certainly not about “art”. I like this kid and think she’s just being honest and that she is lovely and has a lot more talent than most of the starlets her age.

  19. d says:

    I don’t find anything offensive about that interview at all. She’s right about a lot of things, including the formulaic rom-coms. I don’t think it’s much different from other jobs where you do it for hte money so that you can have a decent living space, vs. doing something that you really love but which doesn’t pay that much money. That’s what I got out of it.

  20. scotchy says:

    @snapdragon. i agree.
    i also think that she is not nearly as talented as she thinks she is and could use just a touch of humility.

  21. Ruby Red Lips says:

    god, so if she doesn’t say all the things that you say should be said, she’s an ungrateful brat??!!

    WTF – I personally applaud her for saying what she means and why not, she is doing very well, she is very beautiful (allbeit the above dress is hideous)

    Its almost now she’s doing well for herself and has a given a couple of honest interviews, its time to ‘slap her down’ – on this article Kaiser I disagree with you completely

  22. mslewis says:

    I think the interview is interesting and she sounds level headed and intelligent about her career. What she said makes sense; she doesn’t want to do romcoms one after the other and be stuck in that genre. What’s wrong with that? Every young actress should think that way and they won’t be typecast. She turns down scripts she thinks are not up to her standards. Smart girl. I like her.

  23. lucy2 says:

    I don’t find this that bad. I agree with a lot of what she says about the genres, and I think she’s just trying to establish herself as a Serious Actress. I can appreciate holding out for the best roles possible and not wanting to be typecast. She’s young and popular right now, so she might as well since someday there won’t be as many offers.

    A bit more humility wouldn’t hurt for sure, and I think she has to be careful not to burn bridges. Right now I think she’s walking a fine line and needs to not cross the line into badmouthing her previous experiences.

  24. Just a Poster says:

    Hey at least she is honest about the roles she takes.. why not take them for the money while there is money to be made?

    At least she isn’t going all JLo and saying she wants an Oscar while only doing Romcoms.

  25. scotchy says:

    @lucy that is what i think.
    judging by her latest indie daring film, and she wasn’t that strong in the picture and i am not the only one to say so.
    i think it’s great to have an idea about what you want, but come on, you have agents and managers that are guiding her and she has come to fame by doing these roles she now finds beneath and it comes across a little snotty and she might want to be careful about that because perhaps at this point she is not as strong of an actor as she might believe herself to be.

  26. Alarmjaguar says:

    I totally disagree with the idea that she comes across as snotty or bratty or full of herself. She was being thoughtful about how she is trying to build her career. People do get typecast, romantic comedies do follow a (really boring) script, why do we have to bash her for talking about something substantial rather than just gushing about, I don’t know, how hot her co-star was or what designer she is wearing (though on that note, I’m going to bash, really bad dress!)

  27. Kate says:

    No offense Kaiser but I think you’re being overly critical of Amanda… she’s just intelligent and upfront. I would probably have the exact same attitude about doing rom coms, everyone with a brain knows they’re just to make money so what’s the problem with her saying it? These interviews make me like her more… I think you’re just looking for something to bitch about.

  28. Leek says:

    I don’t know, I didn’t think that was bad. She didn’t seem like she was being phony or affected, she just seemed to be pretty honest. I liked her interview.

  29. I Choose Me says:

    Ditto on seeing hairy chest at first glance of the dress. Not a good look at all. As for Amanda herself “meh.”

    Edit: Just re-read the interview. Seems to me like she’s being honest and telling it as it is. She doesn’t come off as ungrateful or snobbish imo, she just seems to know what she wants and as she’s not out and out trashing anything like Dame Heigl did, she gets a pass from me. *Shrug* some statements just don’t translate well in print.

  30. Feebee says:

    She needs to be a little more careful in her interviews. But she has a point about rom-coms, they’re pretty formulaic, we all know it. She does come off a little harsh and mouthy.

    But “she’s not Gwyenth Paltrow”?? What’s Gwyneth Paltrow? An average actress with an inflated sense of herself, maybe she did crappy movies because that’s all she was offered?

  31. gen says:

    I’m just gonna say it. I feel like u hate on her way more then deserved.

    The dress would be so nice if it wasn’t for that lace.

  32. Courtney says:

    I love her! I’ve loved her since I saw her in Mean Girls, LOL. All I can say is she’s totally being honest, and I love that.

    Wish I had her eyes and hair. That dress though….would look SO much nicer without the lace!! I totally saw chest hair at first glance too!

  33. Chris says:

    Let’s be honest – which actress does a RomCom for any other reason than the money. They certainly don’t do them for the artistic value, memorable story, great script or the liklihood of a Oscar nomination.. Jennifer Anniston?? Katherine Heigl?? Kate Hudson?? They all do them for the money. But they are uniformly pathetic movies. I love what Roger Ebert said about Valentine’s Day – it was a great first date movie because if your date liked it you would know there should be no second date.

  34. lena says:

    @ Kate, couldn’t agree with you more…she’s just being honest

  35. anon says:

    i don’t really get what your problems is with her, she seems honest and nice. i think you just don’t like her

  36. Pia says:

    Add me to the crowd that thinks she was just being honest. These repeated critiques just seem like you’ve decided not to like her from the get go. Nothing she has said so far has been offensive or insulting. Most actors take on big studio pictures for the money. It’s work not high art. I work for the same reason. I don’t think anyone at my job would be offended if I told them that’s why I was there.

  37. anon says:

    you are just hating on her because she is good looking and successful!

  38. kimberly says:

    her acting is NOT good enough to win any awards.

    why does she want to be angelina? it’s not like every movie she does is a winner?? Good sherperd? boo! these actors do romantic comedies, which always suck, for publicity not just a paycheck. Studios give them a shot with one to test the waters only after a female was noticed in another movie that featured a mainstream male in the lead role.

  39. jules says:

    I don’t want to hear from anyone who gets to make movies for a job and refers to making movies as “boring.”

  40. blinditemreader says:

    Love her makeup in that photo. Too bad she opens her mouth.

  41. Jeremy Henderson says:

    I agree that saying she sacrificed six years of her life to be in LA is a little ‘grand’ for someone who is, after all, just beginning.

  42. It's Me says:

    She really really annoyed me in her earlier interview “I sacrificed six years in Hollywood….” What did you sacrifice?? You’re earning more money than most people will see in their lifetimes!!! Get over yourself;You’re not that special BRAT

  43. ViktoryGin says:

    The girl obviously requires a certain degree of depth in her roles and doesn’t warm too kindly to compromised material. Why must that be perceived as snotty? She’s discriminating, not necessarily a snob; and I get really perturbed when people mutually equate the two as an indisputable matter of course. The fact is much of what comes out of the Hollywood machine is shit, and if you have legitimate artistic leanings then you don’t want to waste your time with sub-standard work. Yes, sacrifices have to be made and sometimes you have to sign onto projects better left to Jennifer Aniston, but what you are trying to achieve is the highest expression of your craft.

    Heath Ledger had to continuously reject roles after “Ten Things I Hate About You” that tried to pigeonhole him as the next REPLACEABLE matinee idol. It was after years of sacrifice that he started to reap the results. Most never do.

    If there is an issue that I have with Seyfried, it’s that perhaps she overestimates her talent. She always read vacantly on screen. Sometimes it’s the character; sometimes it’s not. Emoting doesn’t seem to be her best talent. She reminds me of Jessica Alba a bit. You can tell that she wants respect and legitmacy so badly but just isn’t that good.

  44. Mikunda says:

    Well, unlike Megan Fox and Lindsay, Amanda can sing, she has a beautiful voice, and she is a really good actress who has a lot of potential. Also, unlike the aforementioned two girls, Amanda has a healthy image and can be a good example for the young girls out there. And yes, I want my daughter to be like her when she grows up – confident, having a realistic perspective of who she is and being able to assess quite fairly the sacrifices she has made/is making and what she is getting in return.
    I think Amanda is very down-to-earth and she really has a lot of things to be proud about. She is a good kid who works as hard as the rest of us. So what if she chooses not to be politically correct like Reese Witherspoon? We live in a free country and everyone is entitled to being able to express their own opinion about their own life.

  45. NicoleAM says:

    I’m not too familiar w/ her flicks, but I wasn’t bothered by her interview. It’s honest! All actresses want their movies to blow up the box office, it means more $$ for them. And frankly, every job is about MONEY! Even if you loved your job, if it didn’t support you, you’d have to find another one.

  46. Najoni says:

    I love Amanda Seyfried, and I think that she is kind and caring, and yet strong enough not to allow others to push her around and make her do roles that she wouldn’t feel good about. As for doing movies for money, I can’t tell you how many times I hear people say,”I’d do that too, if I was paid as much as they were.” Look how many people flock to shows like big brother or Survivor just to make a buck! So what I see is she’s honest, straight forward and not afraid to speak her mind. At least you know where you stand with Amanda, and you don’t have to worry about any talking behind the back! And as far as talent goes, well she can sing, dance and in her eyes alone she can show so much emotion more than most actresses now days, and I think she was lucky to have Meryl Streep mentor her in so many ways! She is always grateful to her co-stars which most are not! So Get over yourself and quit being jealous of a wonderful girl!

  47. Julia says:

    I hate her.