Sharon Waxman Washington Post Service

LOS ANGELES Sometimes they call it the Oscar curse, a hex falling on the careers of winning actresses. They gain the acclaim and admiration of their peers in a shining moment of glory, adorn magazine covers, get a couple of roles. And all but disappear.

But the Oscars may have nothing to do with the incredible shrinking careers of so many Hollywood actresses. Even as women continue to rise within the power structure of the industry - running studios and directing major films - the number of actresses who attain fame only to fall off the cultural radar is astonishing: Kristin Scott Thomas, Julia Ormond, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Angela Bassett, Elisabeth Shue, Bridget Fonda, Uma Thurman.

What happened? It seems like only a moment ago they were ubiquitous emblems of our celebrity culture. Stone was shooting movie after movie, Moore was headlining in "Striptease," Ormond was twinkling on some poster between Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear. Now, a few years later, they're familiar but distant history, finding work in the hinterland of cable movies, tiny art-house productions or not at all.

In the notoriously brutal microculture of Hollywood, the professional lifespan of actresses tends to be shorter than those of most other creatures. The unforgiving nature of the close-up, the industry's obsession with youth and beauty, make it even harder for women to sustain marquee status for any length of time.

But many in Hollywood agree that today's moviemaking environment is worse for women than ever. Constrained by the male-oriented demands of the box office, an avalanche of teen-targeted fare and the already entrenched intolerance for the aging process, even top actresses can't expect their turn in the spotlight to last much longer than a laser peel.

"Within the context of a youth-oriented market, women are going to be in a sense doubly discriminated against," says Vivian Sobchak, a professor at UCLA's film school. Among the Hollywood films that aren't aimed at teenagers, "the bulk of them tend to sustain older male stars - Mel Gibson, Sean Connery - and you don't necessarily find the same opportunities for women proportionately."

That's putting it mildly, say those in the trenches of the industry. "There's a huge difference between the roles available for men or women," says Hylda Queally, an agent at the William Morris Agency who represents Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett and Hilary Swank, among others. "If you don't want to play the stereotypical wife, girlfriend, lover - a corpse, basically - it's hard. You see a lot of actresses gravitating to period movies, which are better written and have fully fledged characters."

While some have hailed the advent of such female action movies as "Charlie's Angels" and the forthcoming "Tomb Raider" as a significant change from the recent past, even that lightweight genre represents a tiny fraction of Hollywood output, and is tailored to the youngest, buffest actresses.

Even a cursory glance at the movie ads in the newspaper suggests that things aren't going well for women in Hollywood these days. Of 30 or so films advertised in general release - from "Hannibal" to "Traffic" to "Saving Silverman" - only 11 can be said to have leading female roles, three of which are foreign.

Glancing back at the past year or two of movies, this pattern is fairly typical. With very few exceptions (Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan come to mind), "Women don't get leads. They don't control movies," says David Poland, a film critic and Internet columnist. "The reason you don't see as many female movie stars as men‚ and why young actresses don't really have a shot, is because they don't have leads written for them."

The actresses themselves may bear some responsibility when their careers take a swan dive. But it's also true that there are fundamental differences between the way Hollywood decision-makers approach actors versus actresses. For women, many agents and actresses say, the first requirement is beauty, rather than talent or even personality - and there's an extremely narrow view of "beauty." Executives calling to inquire about the Oscar-nominated Kate Winslet frequently begin conversations with: "How's Kate's weight?" say people close to the actress. Hollywood has never known what to do with the critically adored but physically plain indie actress Lili Taylor.

Women suffer a sharp falloff in offers after about age 35. It is one of the most common complaints among once-in-demand actresses: As they reach the pinnacle of experience and talent, the work seems to evaporate. It is one of the main reasons that Christine Lahti, 50, decided to become a director; her first feature, "My First Mister," will be released this month.

"I became a director by default," she said at the Sundance Film Festival, where the film premiered. "When I turned, what, 35, the scripts got fewer and fewer. I'm at my creative peak. Am I going to sit around and become bitter? That was not an option for me. There's clearly a double standard in the industry. It's deplorable. And that absolutely influenced my decision to become a director."

Many other well-known actresses entering middle age choose not to work very much, given the material they're offered. Mary McDonnell ("Dances With Wolves") resents the cult of plastic surgery that reigns among her peers, and dislikes the bland, airbrushed characters that movies often present as supporting roles. McDonnell, though still beautiful at 48, has some wrinkles and is not stick-thin. "I don't want to do certain things to myself and to play certain roles," she says. "I have a lot of confusion about what kind of woman I want to represent. Who do I want to speak through?" She pauses to think about this. "I'm in the second half of my life; I don't want to speak through women I don't believe exist."

In fact, Hollywood's unwillingness to write meaty roles for "older women" is part of the reason why there are so few good roles for women in general. When most female characters are well under 30, writers acknowledge, how complex can those characters be? "If you look at the greatest performances of women, they're usually older: Anne Bancroft in 'The Graduate,' Kathy Bates in 'Misery.' It's a matter of characters having a life experience that makes them interesting," says Rod Lurie, who wrote and directed "The Contender."

Another reason for the quick fade-out of many actresses over 35 is that male stars like to appear opposite much younger women, a reality evident in such movies as "Bulworth," which had Warren Beatty (now 63) opposite Halle Berry (now 34); or Woody Allen, now 65, opposite everyone from Mariel Hemingway to Juliette Lewis and Mira Sorvino.

Industry experts agree that the actresses with a fighting chance at a lengthy career are those who find and develop their own material: Jodie Foster, Emma Thompson and Sandra Bullock have production companies and seek out material that will provide them with interesting roles.

"This is not the era where some agent on a white horse discovers you and makes you Betty Grable or Lana Turner," says Nicole David, an agent who represents Sorvino and Thompson. "Nowadays you have to read a book, read an article, put things together for yourself. Those people that really do well are people who participate in a meaningful way in their careers."