Friday, 31 August 2007 12:38 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineSome 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:
For years, Hollywood has climbed craggy peaks and begged various oracles to tell them, once and for all, why people aren't going to the movies anymore. Never mind that plenty of people are going to the movies, just ask Spider-Man or Harry Potter, who pulled together, alongside friends Shrek and Jason Bourne, to create this year's $4-billion summer. Although the male-lead action franchise seems pretty healthy, the mid-budget thriller, the romantic comedy, even the costume drama are what fantasy films once were -- gambles few are willing to take. And so entire genres have been all but abandoned.
Technology, we are told, is to blame, all those iPods and video games; popcorn costs too much and people refuse to turn off their cellphones in the theater which ticks off anyone over the age of 30, who have 100-foot plasma screens now, movies on demand and no desire to leave the house, anyway. It's hard for a poor multibillion-dollar industry to compete when all anyone wants to do is play with TiVo and YouTube.
Um, OK, but whose fault is it that Close and Hunter are on television? Or Lili Taylor, Parker Posey, Mary-Louise Parker or Kyra Sedgwick? A few years ago, these were all film actresses and now they each have their own series. Even Susan Sarandon is back as the bodacious babe on "Rescue Me." Which is, don't get me wrong, totally terrific for us, the audience members, but unless the movie industry has made peace with being the purveyors of blockbusters, Judd Apatow comedies and not much else, why are they letting go of some of their best talent?
Since its inception, television has been threatened as the doom of movies. And we may be getting to the point where it's actually true.... Jodie Foster may still be able to find work on the big screen as a tightly wound protagonist, but she's had to become a small but hard-bodied action hero to do it. Critically appreciated but less established actors like Julia Stiles and Virginia Madsen are forced to take tiny roles in male star vehicles (the Bourne films for Stiles, "Firewall" for Madsen). Meanwhile, "Grey's Anatomy" has become a think tank of performers who couldn't find enough work in film, including Ellen Pompeo (whose breakout role was with Sarandon in "Moonlight Mile") and Madsen's "Sideways" companion, Sandra Oh....
For film stars to migrate to television isn't new -- Barbara Stanwyck starred in "The Big Valley" -- but for so many to be moving over so young is rather astonishing.
Challenging roles for women over 40 have been few and far between since Joan and Bette faced off at the box office, but now, with blockbusters and male-oriented sex comedies ruling the big screen, women under 40 are having a hard time.
Yes, yes, some actors like Parker say they chose TV because it offers financial stability and a saner schedule, but let's be real. This is not the U.K., stardom American style still has a media hierarchy and TV, no matter how rich and fascinating the show, is not on the top of the food chain. For performers like Close, Hunter and Parker, TV is where you turn when the feature scripts are not very good, or simply not there. Which, for an industry constantly complaining about its financial health, is just ridiculous. There are only two more books in the "Harry Potter" series after all.
That none of the struggling screenwriters out there, no power-mad producer or studio executive, can create vehicles for these award-winning, money-making women is either sexism on a boycott-inspiring scale or a total failure of imagination.
Summer will be over soon, the kids will be back in school and blockbuster fatigue will set in. But you all just keep blaming those iPods; we'll invite a few folks over and turn on the tube.
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.
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:
For years, Hollywood has climbed craggy peaks and begged various oracles to tell them, once and for all, why people aren't going to the movies anymore. Never mind that plenty of people are going to the movies, just ask Spider-Man or Harry Potter, who pulled together, alongside friends Shrek and Jason Bourne, to create this year's $4-billion summer. Although the male-lead action franchise seems pretty healthy, the mid-budget thriller, the romantic comedy, even the costume drama are what fantasy films once were -- gambles few are willing to take. And so entire genres have been all but abandoned.
Technology, we are told, is to blame, all those iPods and video games; popcorn costs too much and people refuse to turn off their cellphones in the theater which ticks off anyone over the age of 30, who have 100-foot plasma screens now, movies on demand and no desire to leave the house, anyway. It's hard for a poor multibillion-dollar industry to compete when all anyone wants to do is play with TiVo and YouTube.
Um, OK, but whose fault is it that Close and Hunter are on television? Or Lili Taylor, Parker Posey, Mary-Louise Parker or Kyra Sedgwick? A few years ago, these were all film actresses and now they each have their own series. Even Susan Sarandon is back as the bodacious babe on "Rescue Me." Which is, don't get me wrong, totally terrific for us, the audience members, but unless the movie industry has made peace with being the purveyors of blockbusters, Judd Apatow comedies and not much else, why are they letting go of some of their best talent?
Since its inception, television has been threatened as the doom of movies. And we may be getting to the point where it's actually true.... Jodie Foster may still be able to find work on the big screen as a tightly wound protagonist, but she's had to become a small but hard-bodied action hero to do it. Critically appreciated but less established actors like Julia Stiles and Virginia Madsen are forced to take tiny roles in male star vehicles (the Bourne films for Stiles, "Firewall" for Madsen). Meanwhile, "Grey's Anatomy" has become a think tank of performers who couldn't find enough work in film, including Ellen Pompeo (whose breakout role was with Sarandon in "Moonlight Mile") and Madsen's "Sideways" companion, Sandra Oh....
For film stars to migrate to television isn't new -- Barbara Stanwyck starred in "The Big Valley" -- but for so many to be moving over so young is rather astonishing.
Challenging roles for women over 40 have been few and far between since Joan and Bette faced off at the box office, but now, with blockbusters and male-oriented sex comedies ruling the big screen, women under 40 are having a hard time.
Yes, yes, some actors like Parker say they chose TV because it offers financial stability and a saner schedule, but let's be real. This is not the U.K., stardom American style still has a media hierarchy and TV, no matter how rich and fascinating the show, is not on the top of the food chain. For performers like Close, Hunter and Parker, TV is where you turn when the feature scripts are not very good, or simply not there. Which, for an industry constantly complaining about its financial health, is just ridiculous. There are only two more books in the "Harry Potter" series after all.
That none of the struggling screenwriters out there, no power-mad producer or studio executive, can create vehicles for these award-winning, money-making women is either sexism on a boycott-inspiring scale or a total failure of imagination.
Summer will be over soon, the kids will be back in school and blockbuster fatigue will set in. But you all just keep blaming those iPods; we'll invite a few folks over and turn on the tube.
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.