No Country for Old Ladies (Or Young Ones)
Unless you like montage reels, the Oscars aren't good for much. But occupying a sort of DMZ between art and commerce, they do serve as a decent tool for gauging the part of American mainstream filmmaking that isn't completely retarded. Case in point: the best-actress category at last weeks ceremony. The award went to a French woman (Marion Cotillard) in a French movie (La Vie en Rose) that few Americans saw. Her co-nominees were an Australian (Cate Blanchett), an Indian-born Englishwoman (Julie Christie) and only two Americans (Laura Linney and Ellen Page), one of whom just turned 21.
Truly, 2007 was a crap time to be an American actress with half a brain, and this year isn't looking any better. Last Friday saw the release of two very different dramas driven by homegrown female talent: The Other Boleyn Girl and Bonneville. That would be good news if the former wasn't cotton candy and the latter wasn't gruel (with a side of extra gruel).
Boleyn is the story of Anne Boleyn and her family as told through the medium of bodice ripping. In it, Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson, both often praised for being smarter than the average bear, cat-fight over King Henry VIII (Eric Bana, who apparently refused to don a fat suit for history's sake). If you've seen the preview, you know whats coming: bitchy remarks are issued, breathy make-out sessions take place and cleavage is, well, cleaved. It's a silly movie, though not nearly as silly as the publicity tour executed by its two leads, who have spent every TV and print interview playing a game of "No, you're sexier." (Portman, in particular, can not seem to get 10 words out of her mouth without four of them being about her co-stars rack). It may be a sign of the apocalypse, but it's also smart marketing. Johansson and Portman, after all, are loved by men everywhere. That love is multiplied tenfold when a 0.001-percent chance that they may start playing tonsil hockey at any moment is introduced.
Jessica Lange does not make out with Kathy Bates or Joan Allen in Bonneville, a shame, because the movie could use some excitement (even the tawdry kind). The three actresses play old Mormon ladies on a road trip from Idaho to California to dispose of a dead husband's ashes. Together, they are the best assemblage of female talent on-screen in recent memory which doesn't matter much when all you do is have them stare wistfully at things, say stuff like "Oh, doesn't that just take you back?" and then start laughing in unison for no apparent reason.
Hollywood is failing to cultivate young American actresses and is neglecting its older ones. That wasn't the case back when Ellen Burstyn won an Oscar for 1974's Alice Doesnt Live Here Anymore, beating out Diahann Carroll, Faye Dunaway, Valerie Perrine and Gena Rowlands. Instead, women who look like Scarlett Johansson are handed roles that require them to do little more than look like Scarlett Johansson, while any woman over 45 is left in such a pickle that she jumps at any part with more than 15 lines. Nevermind if it sucks. A shame, because all of us, men and women, could use a lot less suckage at the movies.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
White woman as victim again. Cry me a river. Puhleez.
Well, yes. And if we look at any field, profession, or institution in this country we see the same thing: men run everything, are the decision-makers, have the control, get most of the money and all the credit, and women are excluded. Academia: tenure still denied routinely to women. Legal partnerships still mostly men despite women representing 50% of the attorneys. Medical partnerships are the same. Most businesses, corporations, CEOs and top management are mostly men. As for film, did you notice how many women directors were nominated? That would be none.
Decades ago there was a myth that if women were allowed to enter the field -- by going to professional school, for example, or by becoming a cop, firefighter, doctor, university professor, carpenter -- then they could show their talents and willingness to work hard, and undoubtedly would be welcomed. It ain't so.
White men dominate everything in this country and they do not want to step aside. Why would they? By keeping the top spots for themselves, they also keep themselves in a position where they have less competition to worry about, and keep getting big salaries.
We need a national commitment to remedy past exclusion and discrimination based on gender and race. The white racist neocon-supporting males launched a massive assault on affirmative action, claiming that "those people" wanted to take "their jobs." No, actually, we just want to have our own jobs, which you guys have been holding for years.
Let's do it.
I make it a habit whenever I am someplace where there is a dearth of women, I just ask: Where are the women? Don't you let women work here? Don't you have any women partners, doctors, professors, plumbers? Ask the question. Criticize people. Push and make the effort. The courts won't help. The courts: duh, an institution dominated by white men. I have been in trials in which I've seen the judge step in and almost take over trying a case for a man attorney when there was a woman on the other side. They protect their own. And women and minorities are considered a dangerous threat.
Movie making is not about female, male, White or Black. It's about Green - the almighty dollar. Investors want as little risk as possible, which means they can rely on male teens spending disposable income on seeing movies more than the adult market - a market that gives women's films or movies with strong leading women in them a better chance at the box office.
You might have a point about hiring practices biased against women translating from the business world into the entertainment world, but the biggest difference in the latter is that you're marketing a woman to carry a film - based on her looks and her age - all of the superficial things that don't directly impact a company's productivity outside the entertainment industry. A movie's saleability IS - like it or not - dependent on race, age and sex.
If you really want to impact what drives the market, it has to start at home with children. If everyone taught their children to make better, more evolved consumer choices, the film industry wouldn't be where it is right now. Unfortunately, video games and movies are used as mechanized babysitters instead of opportunities to spend quality time with your kids.
It seems to me that the entire industry is about getting young people into the theaters where they will blow about $20 each on popcorn and nacho chips or gummy bears at $8 per pound, most of which ends up on the floors and seats.
For a number of years I used to take my dad to a very nice theater every Friday on the outskirts of Chicago. It was a seniors special and for $3.75 each we watched first run movies in a really nice, newly refurbished theater with great seats, , bought a modest bag of popcorn (no salt or margarine) and some diet soda ..(diabetes and blood pressure) and had a great time. No rude teens or crying toddlers. And FYI, the theater was always well attended and actually could have used more handicap parking! And when the seniors left, the theater was practically immaculate! All the other theaters in the area were practically empty on a Friday afternoon. What will it take for other theater owners to recognize that seniors will go to the theater if you make it inviting and offer it in the daytime when kids are in school. We are good busines, generate word of mouth, support the theater owner, and generally spread good will? When I suggested the same model to other theater managers they thought it was OK but really, they make the money on the high profile movies and food both of which are singularly empty of content and nourishment. But I wonder how this can be true when I read that Hollywood is always bemoaning the slacking attendance. This is an issue of mental attitude and therein lies the problem. Going to the theater to see a movie is a great activity for people of all ages and interests, and even my dad liked the low-brow stuff if the theater wasnt filled with noisy and annoying teens, but not to blow $40 for a couple of tickets and some junk food.
You have a point. I would have liked to have seen Angelina Jolie nominated for "A Mighty Heart". Naomi Watts should have had a supporting actress nomination for "Eastern Promises". What's happened to interesting young American actresses like Christina Ricci, Chloe Sevingny, Lily Taylor? Laura Linney was great in "The Savages", but where are the roles for women like Frances McDormand, Sigourney Weaver, Katherine Keener, Diane Lane.
As a story analyst, I've read many good scripts with strong female roles. The problem is not that there's a dearth of material, it's because studios want to make money off of the tween/teens that see a movie opening weekend again, and again, and again. Women's films aren't top priority.
not sure if I agree ... but that was really funny
I totally agree with what you're saying, but it's not just women being marginalised by Hollywood. Check out the cast list of 'Iron Man' .... everyone is hustling for work, apparently.
Ellen Page is actually Canadian - making it an even worse year for American Actresses
Seen any Woody Allen movies lately? While I agree with the basic gist of your article, Scarlett Johansson wasn't exactly the best person you could have used to make your point. You write: "women who look like Scarlett Johansson are handed roles that require them to do little more than look like Scarlett Johansson...." Umm, the last three Woody Allen films have starred Johansson, doing a lot more than just looking good.
Considering that Scarlett Johansson played the object of men's lust in both roles, Woody Allen movies aren't necessarily the best example to make your point. In Match Point, she's an unhappy actress that becomes a whiny mistress and in Scoop, she gets swept up in romance instead of focusing on the whodunit case she takes on. Not exactly meaty or unconventional. Allen has already been quoted several times as saying he's confused by her enormous breasts. He's prone to hiring young ingenues because he's obsessed with them sexually. Not exactly a good source of feminist film. And as for the third Woody Allen movie, enlighten me as to which one that is-?
The third Woody Allen movie starring Johansson hasn't been released yet http://imdb.com/title/tt0497465//).
While I'm here, I'd like to put in a good word for Allen.
I think he's been for years the best male director of women in American film. Just ask Diane Keaton, Mia Farrow, Dianne Wiest, Jennifer Tilly, Judy Davis, Juliette Lewis, Mira Sorvino, Tracey Ullman, Angelica Huston, Barbara Hershey--who have I left out?--and I think they'd all say that Allen provided them with juicy roles and that they'd jump at the chance to be directed by him again. (Off the top of my head, I'd guess that no director over the last 30 years has garnered more Oscar nominations for his actresses than Allen.)
I think he's done more than his share for women in American film.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
