In anticipation of the Tonys, I've been on a Jane Krakowski kick. More than I usually am, I mean.

I didn't realistically think she was going to beat her "Hamilton" competition, Renée Elise Goldsberry, who was absolutely brilliant as Angelica Schuyler and who deserves all her accolades. Besides, Jane Krakowski already has a Tony and other theater awards; it's not as if she hasn't seen her share of recognition for her stage work.

Still, my recent binge-watching led me to consider Ms. Krakowski's career. Although it's an incredibly successful one by most measures, it's still not proportional to her talent. I know how bizarre it is to concern myself with the plight of a rich, beautiful, Tony-award winning blond white woman. I know there are injustices in the world that are far more deserving of my attention and righteous indignation.

But, this is the internet. So here come some complaints!

Below are some reasons I think the Tony-winning, Emmy-nominated actress Jane Krakowski needs a better agent.

3. She is better than just a broadly-drawn, self-centered, second or third banana.

Krakowski first came to my attention in the sexist, hateful, horrible garbage show that was "Ally McBeal." Although her physical beauty was breathtaking, the show treated her character as a walking punchline, a proto-Anne Veal. She seemed to exist to be pathetically self-centered, delusional and, most of all, unjustifiably vain. This is in contrast to the protagonist's vanity, which was portrayed as far more logical. In fact, she was clearly the anti-Ally, a dumb loser to Ally's brilliant winner. There was a stupid mean-spiritedness to how her lines were written as if the writers were getting back at a shared, hated ex-girlfriend named Elaine. That she got a Golden Globe nomination is to her credit, not theirs.

In "30 Rock," Ms. Krakowski at least got more hilarious lines and comedic moments. Still, she was a butt of the joke more often than she wasn't, and once again seemed to be playing a caricature whose existence was to complement the radiance of the show's female lead. While Liz Lemon took certainly some hits as far as her dignity was concerned, her loss-to-win ratio was far more charitable. Jenna wasn't more narcissistic than her male counterpart Tracy Jordan -- she was more vulnerable and less successful, depicted as having questionable talent in contrast to his savant-like bouts of genius. It quickly became tedious, and obviously beneath Ms. Krakowski's vast talents, to see her so often shown, once again, in an unflattering (metaphorical) light. Jenna's moments of humanity were heartbreaking in their pathos; she was punished rather than rewarded for them.

Her character Jacqueline on Tina Fey's more recent show "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" is less vapid and one-note, but the change is underwhelming enough to demonstrate how badly she needs to do a non-Fey project. Much has been made of the controversy of the whitewashing surrounding Jacqueline's background, further proof that Ms. Krakowski needs to bail. While it's a star vehicle for the talented Ellie Kemper, it's a black hole for Ms. Krakowski, who isn't quite "wasted in a mediocre role" but is still miles above the material. She deserves better than to be another woman's less lovable but just-as-awkwardly-written sidekick. Perhaps the show needs Krakowski, but Krakowski needs neither “Kimmy” nor Jacqueline. I fear they're doing her more harm than good. Based on her performance in season two alone, it's clear she can more than handle being the female lead on her own show.

2. She steals every movie scene she's in. Why doesn't she have more of them?

She was in "Pixels." Let that sink in. $%^&ing “PIXELS.” And yet, she had under 20 lines. And none of them are jokes. Are. You. Kidding. Me? The nerve of Adam Sandler to cast a comedic actress of her caliber as the First Lady of the United States....and then barely use her! In one of her few scenes, she--looking gorgeous and regal at a ball--gets insecure at the idea that another woman might also be pretty. Oh good, this again.

Sandler's cinematic misogyny is well-established, but this was beyond insulting. I can't imagine what her agent was thinking not insisting she at least gets a heftier part, allowing her to do something besides act jealous for a few seconds. Was the prestige of appearing in a Sandler flick so great that it was just: "My client will take it, no matter how terrible and/or small the role!"

In "Alfie," the 2004 remake of the 1966 film, she got two scenes. Two. Freaking. Scenes. In one of the movie's final moments, she silently conveys devastation and forgiveness. She was, by far, the best thing about it. Jude Law's far-from-insubstantial charms were a candle to her lighting.

The list goes on. She shows up here and there, has not nearly enough lines, and leaves you wanting more. The few times she actually gets a substantial part, it seems to be in a "comically" bad movie. She's basically the one redeeming feature of "The Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas." Which, granted, is kind of like saying that the fruit cup is the most edible food in a hospital meal: the bar is fairly low. But, she's not a fruit cup; she's a delicious high-end dessert tray (okay now I'm hungry but you get the idea).

Without complaining too much about the sexism in Hollywood, I understand that actresses in their late forties aren't necessarily getting offers for leads left and right. I get that, and I get that that means Ms. Krakowski might not get the roles that her gifts should allow. Fine. But then I'd at least like to see her in a higher number of mediocre films, or in bigger roles in the mediocre films that she does appear in. However it happens, I need to see more of her face on the big screen. And not just smiling, either. Speaking.

Speaking of speaking...

1. She can act as well as she sings. She has a tremendous range.

Much has been made of Ms. Krakowski's amazing singing voice. But it's easy to overlook just how fantastic a spoken range she has, as well. Again, she can do more than the pretentious, affected, pseudo-European lilt that both Jenna and Jacqueline trained themselves to use. Her Betty Rubble had a mild, surprisingly subtle little-girl inflection that wasn't grating or a parody of the cartoon (SHE WAS SUBTLE IN A FLINTSTONES MOVIE! GIVE THIS WOMAN AN OSCAR! OR A DINOSCAR!). She can do multiple kinds of British, New York, and Southern accents, to name a few. Why is such a versatile actress pigeonholed? It's the actress part, at least partially. Stupid sexism.

With her incredible comedic and dramatic range -- often managing to pull off both within the same scene -- she is as Shakespearean as they come. I want to see her as Lady Macbeth. I want her roles on the Broadway stage to not be limited to "featured actress in a musical." Instead, I'd like to see her in every kind of play that offers a well-crafted female role to which she's suited. Mid-20th-century drama, 18th-century-farce...she's capable of any of it. I want her to shine on multiple platforms. Between worthy movie roles, of course.

So. Jane Krakowski should either get a new agent, or her agent should make all the things I said should happen, happen. That's what should happen. I am correct. And, like so many correct people, powerless.

Thanks, internet!