Date: 2/20/2009 1:57:25 PM
Author: Maisie
The reason I found the article confusing is because I don't understand what motivated it. Its obviously not from the sisters. Is the paper trying to give Kate a bad reputation? If so, is it because they don't like her success? She obviously worked hard to get where she is. I can understand that actors need a decent break to get them started but its not just a case of being at the right place at the right time. You need to be able to act too.
That I can see - I assumed everyone thought the content/story. was odd, as opposed to the motivation behind sharing the content/story.
I think that they're trying to insinuate that the sisters are equally talented, yet Kate got the break. Whether that's true we'll likely never know. I would venture to guess that the sisters may have lesser talents and
also have not been given breaks.
I can understand that actors need a decent break to get them started but its not just a case of being at the right place at the right time. You need to be able to act too.
Being in the right place at the right time is 100% necessary. There's no such thing as simply working hard and moving up the food chain in this industry. There has to be a stroke of luck at some point. Being able to act will just increase your chances at the stroke of luck.
The most common scenarios an actor lives through:
1) Have the talent, but don't have the drive, get lucky once or twice, then fade away (due to lack of drive)
2) Have the talent, have the drive, get lucky once or twice and stick around (due to having the drive)
3) Have the talent, have the drive, never get lucky (this is where, I think, the article insinuates that the "other" Winslet sisters fall)
4) Don't have the talent but think they do, have the drive, get lucky (no thanks to their talent) and hang on for dear life
5) Don't have the talent but think they do, don't have the drive, never get lucky, become carpenter.