A fed-up film critic comes to the defense of Lindsay Lohan

By Kim Morgan
Special to MSN Movies

Author's note: This essay was written before Lindsay Lohan's recent arrest and not as a response to it. And though I stand by Lohan's acting ability and my stance concerning intense media scrutiny hasn't changed, I do think she needs to get some serious help.

--- 

Leave Lindsay Lohan alone. I'm serious. Just leave that girl, or, at this point, that woman and, lest we have forgotten, that actress alone. Why? Because all this negative attention concerning her personal drama deflects from what she does best: act.

That's right, act. Forget the freshly 21-year-old's stints in rehab (or rather, her time to reflect on healing, cheeseburgers, boys and the next time she might hang with Karl Lagerfeld), because despite tabloid fodder -- be it real (her lateness, her unprofessionalism on set, her DUI, her alleged cocaine problem) or imagined -- she is an actress, first and foremost. And when cast in the right role, she's an interesting one at that.

And yes, I know she seems to court controversy and even brings it upon herself -- ever thought of staying in one night and simply watching "Valley of the Dolls," not living it, Lindsay? I only wish her mother, Dina, would stress the implications of overpartying to her child and point her not to Los Angeles' notorious hot spot, Forty Deuce, but instead to its legendary film and drama bookstore, Samuel French. While among books ranging from the films of director Howard Hawks to the plays of Ibsen, Lindsay could study up on Bette Davis, Jane Fonda and Elizabeth Taylor, women who themselves endured intense scrutiny, and in some cases public hatred, yet emerged not only as Oscar winners but also as legends. Sure, they didn't have the same round-the-clock Internet surveillance and predatory paparazzi covering their every move (can you imagine if poor Patty Duke, who suffered from bipolar disorder, or the luminous Tuesday Weld, who was drinking before she was a teenager, had to endure such vampirism?), but they did undertake a fair share of controversy.

Now before you claim I'm comparing La Lindsay to Dame Elizabeth or my beloved Tuesday Weld, I'm not -- Lindsay hasn't lived long enough, she hasn't nabbed enough meaty roles, she hasn't exposed her extra layers of depth -- and looking at her family, you know she's got a lot from which to draw. But plenty of other sexy stars from the golden period (Lana Turner, Ava Gardner, Marilyn Monroe) had to prove themselves past their obvious sexuality while using their genetic gifts with sparkling, salty charisma and, when given the chance, their major league acting talent. The big screen loves talent, but it also loves a gorgeous face.

Nowadays the smaller screen (Internet gossip) and smaller mags (Us, Life & Style, Hello! and my evergreen favorite, National Enquirer) seem to only love a gorgeous face when they can cut it down to size -- or in the case of rich boy Brandon Davis, so eloquently label it as "firecrotch." Though I know certain stars from the past spewed plenty invective toward their peers (Harry Cohn was renowned for calling the gorgeous Kim Novak "that fat Polack"), they didn't have TMZ filming their every angry, cruel, drunken outburst. And as much as I find the long-standing Hollywood rags entertaining and even amusingly written at times (though so many are far too witlessly mean-spirited) and have scribed a few gossipy bits myself, I worry the endless coverage may damage certain other actors genuinely trying to develop their careers, unlike "actors" such as that woman who flashed her unmentionables while exiting a Mercedes. I can already hear you saying, 'They should be more careful; they're in the public eye,' but when you think about it, who cares? Who cares if an actress doesn't wear underwear? Why has the entire nation turned into one of Lindsay's movies, "Mean Girls"?

To further this assertion, I don't entirely care what so-and-so movie writer from whatever newspaper or Web site feels about Lindsay's partying or sexy lifestyle (there's a strong strain of misogyny in this kind of critique). The real question is, can she act? And if so-and-so movie critic doesn't think she can act, then I can only wonder whether he or she is judging the actress for her offscreen behavior. If critics assessed Jack Nicholson for his offscreen behavior, he might not have the Oscars he so richly deserves. And I won't even get started on legendary lothario Warren Beatty. And then there's Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole and Dennis Hopper.

I revere these men for their work and for their legend. But these are movie stars, for heaven's sake! Since when are they role models? How boring Hollywood would be if stars had absolutely no scandal in their lives. Lindsay's antics aren't anything new -- actors have often been wild, especially young ones. From early actors such as Clara Bow (who for a time was shunned from "decent" Hollywood society) to current star Angelina Jolie (she may be a saint now, but she used to wear vials of blood and yammer about limo sex with Billy Bob Thornton, and I loved her for it), the world has punished mostly the female wild actors, while simultaneously reveling in their photographs, fantasizing about their bodies and downloading their boring drugs/sex/or whatever else videos from the Internet.

Next: Lindsay can act!