(no subject)

Some weeks ago, I decided to think of all the actors in at least five silver-screen films of which I'd seen at least a large portion. This included voice roles and cameos. The two highest on my list, at 13 films apiece, were Robin Williams and Sean Connery.

Sadly, women were well in the minority, and I had known none from more than eight films. Had my viewing choices been subconsciously sexist, in that prominent males were more likely to sell a film for me? Was it my apparent predilection for comedians, who are more likely to be male? Or has the movie industry been relatively stingy with roles for actresses?

This article from a few days back suggests that it's mainly the last point. The article is doubly good for criticizing Hollywood's whine about lost income:

( Cut for length )

Thank you, Mary McNamara, for elucidating huge problems with modern cinema. That said, the fact remains that even the old-time actors I've seen and/or heard the most are predominantly male. Kate Hepburn, Lauren Bacall, and Faye Dunaway are about it for my elder actresses, while Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, Cary Grant, Marlon Brando, Charlton Heston, Orson Welles, Alec Guinness, three of the Marx Brothers, Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen, Max Von Sydow, Warren Beatty, and even Joseph Cotten number among the males. Could it be that women are somehow less likely to be in a large number of highly esteemed films, those composing the bulk of my viewing? I could hardly say why.

There are some things that men typically do better than women. Acting can't be one of them.