Hollywood Has a Woman Problem
by Ben ShapiroAs I’ve written before, 2010 was actually a good year for movies. The King’s Speech, The Fighter, Inception, Toy Story 3, Tangled, and How to Train Your Dragon were all great entertainment. We’ve seen terrific starring roles from actors ranging from the heretofore unwatchable James Franco to the ever impressive Christian Bale, from the magnificent Colin Firth to the chameleonic Geoffrey Rush. We’ve seen some actresses in supporting roles who have outshone their second-tier parts: Melissa Leo and Amy Adams in The Fighter, Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech.
But when we look at the leading actresses of 2010, the dearth of great performances and great parts is stunning. The Golden Globe nominees for best actress this year were Halle Berry in the anonymous flick Frankie and Alice, playing a crazy person in her usual over-the-top style; Nicole Kidman in the anonymous flick Rabbit Hole, playing a grieving mother in her usual cold and remote style; Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, playing a teenage girl looking for her meth-making dad; Natalie Portman in Black Swan, playing a crazy person with a constipated look plastered on her mug; and Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine, playing a spoiled girl who gets knocked up, married, and presumably divorced. Has anyone seen any of these women in any of these films? And if the disastrous Natalie Portman – Queen Amidala masturbating, anyone? – is the frontrunner for Best Actress at the Oscars, how far have female figures fallen?
Far. Quick, think of the ten greatest living film actors. It’s not that tough – we have iconic male film stars all the time. Now think of the ten greatest living film actresses. Now take away all women over 50. Still thinking, aren’t you?
The simple truth is that actresses were far more iconic fifty years ago than they are now. We may want to shtup most of the actresses we see on screen today, but we don’t show up to see them because of their standout screen personas. That isn’t because today’s actresses are less talented than their predecessors – we have many talented actresses on the scene. It’s because screen executives have decided that truly feminine women, with both brains and looks, are no longer in keeping with the times. Instead, film execs have cut a sharp dichotomy between “sexy” women and “smart” women – it’s either Megan Fox or Kate Winslet. Charlize Theron can’t play a strong, graceful, beautiful woman – she’s got to be either a lesbian serial killer or a piece of eye candy.
The feminism embraced by most of today’s execs is antiquated. They still think that women must act like men in order to promote equality of the sexes. Make Natalie Portman’s character a man in Black Swan and take away Darren Aronofsky’s idiotic and self-centered camera movements and you’ve got an oversexed Ronald Colman in A Double Life. There’s nothing feminine about Ellen Page in Juno – she’s more of a dude than Michael Cera in the same film. What ever happened to Bette Davis, to Vivien Leigh, to the old-school, unmannered Meryl Streep? They’re gone, replaced with pale imitations starring in angst-filled nonsense glorifying aberrant behavior.
Ironically enough, the feminism of today’s Hollywood has killed the female movie star. If Hollywood wants to restore that luster, they’ll need to embrace femininity, in all of its three-dimensional glory, once again.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
134 Comments
Hollywood is doing so much to erase what makes women feminine. The worst thing for me is the physical ideal. In order to have the "ideal" Hollywood physique women are expected to starve themselves until they have the figure of a young boy– so to get back their curves they go and get fake breasts (anyone find it ironic that now they're saying that implants may cause blood cancer?).
And the characters they play are even worse. At best they can play a high-powered, but ditzy, woman chasing a man. An older woman who has been dumped of her husband of 30 years. A psychotic perfectionist. Or a victim of abuse. OR, if she's really, really lucky she can don some spandex and pretend she's a superhero with the ability to defy physics and punch everyone's lights out with arms no bigger than a pencil.
What ever happened to the ideal of Rita Hayworth? Or Donna Reed?
Evangeline Lilly.
I like Rachel McAdams. She is not only beautiful, she is a good actress who has integrity and does not fall to the typical Hollywood elitist standard. She lives in Canada.
There are very few good female role models. As stated, women are either pretty, vacant and loveless, cute, driven and loveless or smart, vicious and loveless. And if they do find 'love' it's often lesbian sex or being the 'victim' of the generic 'bad' male and all physical with no emotional, intellectual or spiritual depth at all.
Actually, Hollywood has a reality problem. Years ago I stopped watch television and movies because the characters that were on the screen were no where close to any real person I knew. Even though Hollywood produces fantasy, there has to be some connection to real life somewhere.
Where are these "men" Hollywood shows us. And the "women"?? Really! Anybody know any women who behaves, dresses and carry themselves like the "women" on the screen?
The product of Hollywood in years past had men and women characters that people could relate to. The interaction between the characters (conflict, romance, basic conversation, etc) was real and understandable. It was from this base of reality that the story could take the viewer to new or different places. Today, the base is so far removed from the real world, no one know where the story starts or ends.
Ok, being the male that I am I had to search the internet for the Natalie Portman thing. Dear God, she even masturbates boring.
On Natalie Portman's character . . . this is a woman in her 20's that was not allowed to become a woman because of her repressive/controlling mother.
Her bedroom is full of fluffy stuffed animals and bright pink walls and bedsheets. Her mother dresses and undresses her, grooms her, etc.
She is a virgin just like the "White Swan" character. She has never had a boyfriend. Becoming the "Black Swan" allows her to embrace the femininity she has repressed. What you may call gratuitous masturbation and sex scenes are actually crucial to the story. SPOILER: She's masturbating and then sees guess who? Her mother sleeping in a chair next to her bed.
If you look closely (and I did) at the club montage, there is a quick sequence of Portman feeling herself up. Again this is her character embracing her sexuality, her womanhood. I think Ben is confusing the embracing of femininity with it's repression.
And since I have a friend with Schizophrenia, I can say that they nailed the illness and it's symptoms spot on.
FUN FACT: Howard Hughs and Jane Russell were huge Republicans. And how many times did they get their movies banned for sexuality?
Geezz, …list problems they don't have.
You could fit the list on a matchbook with 48 pt. Arial font
Dear God, she even masturbates boring.
Heh..!
Who is convincing these execs/producers that femininity is passe? Masculine women and feminine men have been promoted in movies, television (including the ads) and magazines for too long now; trying to make us into a genderless society.
Diane Lane – beautiful, talented actress who seems to keep her political opinions to herself.
I've never thought of Natalie Portman as particularly attractive, frankly, she's too damn skinny. And her head is out of proportion to the rest of her. (Maybe it was the hairdo that day)
Somewhat on topic:
I was impressed by 'The Dilemma' and specifically Jennifer Connolly's character. I guess I should go into movies with no expectations more often.
I posted earlier if you take out Black Swan the other 4 actresses' nominated movies drew $31.2 million and that included $20 for Annette Benning's "The Kids Are Alright". So the other 3 made only $11, which means those 3 were seen by far less than 2 million people… The only one I've seen is "Winter's Bone" and it was on a DVD from Netflix.
Submitted for approval: Rachel Weisz.
You need only go to The Green Hornet and see how a good actress like Cameron Diaz is compltede wasted in a role who sole purpose is ato allow the repulsive Seth Rogen to ogle at her.
That is the problem in a nutshell.
Actually if you take away over 40 from the 10 greatest living film actors there ain't much there either.
Looks like seth doesn't get out much if he is ogling her.
Can I vomit now?
One, you definitely did not see Blue Valentine because if you had you would know that Michelle Williams does not play a "spoiled girl" but rather a simple girl from a working class household ruled over by an abusive, alcoholic father who spends most of her time in the film as either an R.N., a mother, or ( in the earlier timeline in the film) as a student who spends most of her time caring for her aging Grandmother who resides in a rest home. OK? You lie like this because you know most people here don't see these movies so you figure you can get away with it. YOU CANT and even to hacks like you journalistic standards still apply.
Two, can you actually with a straight face say that women didnt play the role of victim in films in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? Women usually play the role of victim in films. It's archetypal. It's so the hero has someone to save. That actually changed with feminism and you saw the classic female victim roles deconstructed and flipped such as in Star Wars where Princess Leia starts the film in the classic mode but then when actualy rescued proves to be just as much a warrior as her male saviors. This did not happen in earlier times but happens repeatedly in movies after 1960. Fargo also comes to mind as a movie where female roles are reversed.
On top of that too, and most sickeningly, you then go on to criticize Ellen Page in Juno whom I thought you might cheer since she decides to not have an abortion and actually give birth to the child, even if she does give it up for adoption, and simply because she and her co-star Cera do not conform to your outdated, rigid, ideas about gender.
You know nothing about movies and this is just an idiotic article designed to inflame the culture war and validate your prejudices.
Women tend to dominate television, which is where the best roles are written for them. It is more likely that a couple choosing a movie will both compromise on a flick with a male lead than a female one.
Is it gay men who determine the norm of what is considered beautiful for women in hollywood? I seriously consider that a possibility. We have the rigid rules for body type of which sexiness is not apparently a parameter. We have the plastic surgeries that eliminate wrinkles and create freakish non-human faces.
There is an aesthetic which seems divorced from what humanity likes.
Which hair was it? http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070911231...
or
http://stylecheckup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/1...
I speculated in another post whether gay men are setting the rigid physical norms for starlets.
I like.
Michele William's character is stuck up? If by that you mean she grew up in a loveless home with a domineering father then you're right. If not, you didn't see the movie.
For those interested in Blue Valentine, it is a cautionary tale about getting married for the wrong reasons. My pick for best picture. (not nominated)
Michelle Williams character also decides not to have an abortion yet the movie was panned by BH as being anti-marriage.
I agree, this article is nothing but incoherent kvetching, and can be summed up with the old conservative complaint of "culture and values are different from the 19– (insert decade here, must be 1950's at the latest), I don't like it, change it back!" Sorry, you can't. It sucks not having your beliefs constantly validated by the culture around you, that's the free market of ideas in action.
I mean, he calls Portman's Oscar-nominated, Golden Globe winning, critically-acclaimed performance in Black Swan "disastrous"? And his only criticism is that it features her masturbating? And then he goes and craps on Arnofsky's camera work, which is top-class and captivated me from the get-go!
And how is Ellen Paige not feminine in "Juno"? She's PREGNANT for Pete's sake! That's as feminine as you can get! She pulls over to the side of the road and has a cry! Yeah, she's smart, snarky, and not some "Poor me, I got knocked up!" little waif, but she's still 100% girl.
I wonder what the young man who wrote this considers a "proper" example of a lady in a film. Vivienne Leigh's ineffectual wilting violet Adrian in "Rocky"?
Thank you JayDandy.
Ben Shapiro: It's cool if you're writing all this to simply to preach to the base, y'know, goin huntin' where the ducks are. But honestly this entire piece is so void of any conceptual understanding of characters in film.
Where's the commentary on Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone? She's a strong, courageous woman, selfless enough to risk everything in order to preserve her family and make the best out of a pretty horrendous situation. Oh wait, you don't even mention anything about the plot. Oh no, never mind you do mention that she has a meth-making father, which is a minor plot point in the movie, but one that you choose to mention because it will signal to Big Hollywood readers that they can discredit the film because it deals with drugs, which isn't moral or in line with family values.
Natalie Portman is not oversexed in Black Swan. The movie used her intermittent sexual fantasies to state that repression of certain natural tendencies is not possible, no matter how much effort is exerted to prove otherwise. Her mother couldn't protect her daughter from reality, and so forth. But even that is a simplistic take on an overrated movie that falls short at capturing whatever Aronofsky intended. It's just that you missed the mark so badly in your summary that I'm not sure why you even chose to write the article.
Reading this ruined my day.
How about Cate Blanchett? She can play a variety of characters, both sexy and scarred. She's also somewhat of a cinematic chameleon. I saw a trailer today for the forthcoming movie "Hanna" and I didn't even recognize her. She's won an Oscar and has done movies both on the small scale and the large scale.
Approved.
Fun Fact: She was considered for the lead in Black Swan.
sign me up as another who has "outdated, rigid, ideas about gender"
i have no issue with effeminate men and masculine women, but to hold them up as the societal norms is silly. They are not nearly as prevalent as entertaiment would have us believe
Is there a stronger female character than Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone? I'll put her character up against any other, all time.
She's not just "looking for her meth taking dad" for hell of it, is she? There's quite a bit more to the story. If you've seen it.
Why do I get the impression Ben hasn't seen these movies he's talking about?
It's interesting that you bring that up too since the character gets as far as being on the operating table and just seconds from having the procedure done and I remember thinking how emotionally harrowing that sequence was and what women that have abortions actually go through. It also made me wonder how this site could have panned it, especially in light of that scene which to me validates a good deal of their anti-abortion arguments in terms of it's effect on women, and on the grounds that the film is somehow anti-marriage and that liberal Hollywood made this film(which they didnt since it was independently financed) in order to fulfill an anti-marriage agenda. Give me a break! Not only that but the film depicted common problems that married people face and one's that often lead to a divorce.
Donna Reed indeed! I watched "They Were Expendable" the other night and was rocked at just how small her part really was. She had no more than twenty minutes of screen time (and that's being generous), but her performance was so strong I believed the Duke (who was also great in that movie) would be willing to face certain death just to learn her fate. Had she not been so strong, I don't thing the Duke's performance would've been half as believable. I can't think of a single actress today that could do so much with so little.
Don't even get me started on the great Loretta Young.
I'm not saying they are the norm and they aren't presented as such in Hollywood no matter how hard Shapiro strains to see it that way. Angelina Jolie and George Clooney are still the norm and represent the gender norms the author in his ideological fervor mistakenly think have disappeared.
He's knocking Page and Cera for no other reason than not being a part of that norm.
He also makes the false claim that Charlize Theron plays nothing but serial killers and eye candy? Is he serious?
"Women tend to dominate television, which is where the best roles are written for them."
I agree, though male leads do dominate most series. Emily Deschanel (Bones) is a terrific actress that looks like a normal woman. She is pretty, not unnaturally thin and has talent.
As for movie actresses I'd watch Sandra Bullock.
One of my measures for reality in film or television is when you see the character's place (house, apartment, hotel room, whatever). Does it look real, or does it look like a spread from a furniture catalog? Is there a soda can on the coffee table from last night, a glass on the television, a bunch of mail accumulated on the dining room table? Are there a few dirty clothes on the bedroom floor, or sticking out of the hamper? Could the bathroom use a cleaning?
Same with the actors and actresses: do they need a haircut, do their clothes fit a little funny like they're off-the-rack, do they wear the same clothes more than once? Hollywood should take a field trip and see how we really live out here in the great wilderness. It could only improve their product.
I have seen Winter's Bone (all right, it was via Netflix-the film never came close to my town and maybe not my state…probably the Missouri Visitor's Bureau is not too fond of this film
) but I thought Jennifer Lawrence did an excellent job with her role. There's this one scene where she's gone back to her old high school and she looks in at the Junior ROTC boys and girls, drilling. We know she wants to join the US Army, for a number of reasons. The look of utter longing on her face as she looks at these kids drilling in a small town gymnasium, her eyes…If she gets the award, she deserves it .
I haven't seen any of the other films, so I cannot say anything about the acting there.
I always wonder why people who don't watch TV or movies come to this site. You people need a site like BigKilljoy or something.
Based on the other ill-imformed articles he did here re. movies (like the Overrated Directors list that DIDN'T have Spike Lee!!), yes it seems like he is…the problem with arrogant, snarky contrarians like him (basically the neo-con version of Bill Maher) is that he stereotypes conservatives as smug know-nothings to the rest of the world…
Ironically, based on his pic, he doesn't look like he could "take on" either of them (interpret "take on" as you wish)…
"We’ve seen terrific starring roles from actors ranging from the heretofore unwatchable James Franco to the ever impressive Christian Bale"
I don't know what's more baffling: the out of left field trashing of Franco's previous work, or the bizarre assertion that his performance in 127 Hours is somehow atypical. Are you sure you don't have Franco mixed up with David Caruso?
"Make Natalie Portman’s character a man in Black Swan and take away Darren Aronofsky’s idiotic and self-centered camera movements and you’ve got an oversexed Ronald Colman in A Double Life."
Uh, I didn't know Aronofsky starred in Black Swan.
She's a vapid and inane… and a damn commie. Hot yes, but a bit of a jackass.
Probably because he hasn't; and if he has, he just didn't get the point those movies were trying to make- ala his ignorant/pompous "heretofore unwatchable" (what are you, a Joe Queenan wannabee?) description of James Franco…
This post was about the roles they play, not the actresses in real life.
Cameron Diaz is a moron, odd-looking, and can't act her way out of a wet paper bag… with a knife.
Has she played any good roles?
"Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, playing a teenage girl looking for her meth-making dad;"
If there is any justice in Hollywood – I know, I'm an incurable optimist – Jennifer Lawrence will win. It is the only Oscar worthy performance in the list, IMO.
Yes, yes: I've cursed her with my endorsement. lol.
Look, man, if you're dead set to hate her, I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with you.
Oh, look. It's a troll circle jerk. Last one to spooge has to eat the biscuit.
I for one follow the 80's horror "STFU and get naked" creed for actresses.
I consider myself a 'feminist' – though I am conservative and most feminists do not want me in the camp. I am all for strong characters, but when I see what the MSM is doing to strong conservative women (Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin), it's no wonder that it's parroted in Hollywood. You can't be smart, strong AND pretty. Not unless you are a lesbian, apparently. And you definitely can't be conservative smart, strong and pretty. Our culture (even the GOP) goes after conservative women like they are pariah. That is reflected in Hollywoods reluctance to show us anyone even remotely resembling a well made woman. That sort of a woman would NECESSARILY be more right than left. And in magic land, those sorts of women don't exist.
No Randy, that's your job. I wouldnt think of coming between it and you, especially since you secretly beg for that role.
Who is dead-set? Who is arguing? I merely asked you a question… has she played any good roles?
Of course you do Nancy, of course you do…:)
The guy said he stopped watching… probably meaning he stopped watching anything new. Give the guy a little break and a little credit. Perhaps you can simply ask him a question instead of snarking right out of the gate.
The Juror, Both Mummy movies, Constantine.
You gotta wonder. How many of the male clothing designers are gay? Stylists? They're certainly not trying to appeal to a heterosexual audience.
Eh, I'm more of a snark first, ask questions later sort of fellow. Is your last name Bing?
Enemy At The Gates.
Черт прямой.
I'm watching Inferno: The Making of The Expendables on Netflix right now (goes away from streaming on 2/1, so catch it while it's there). The hispanic actress did all her own stunts, including the waterboarding scene. That's gotta count for something.
Well, you finally catch on what Jackie Collins had said in her novel since the 80's. The sad part is nothing has been change for the better for this situation since then.
I believe that, unlike most of her air-headed peers, Natalie Portman graduated from Harvard in 2003. She speaks Hebrew and English fluently and 3 or 4 other languages conversationally. The other freaking people in air-head-land can barely carry on a decent conversation. Like, well duh!! For these reasons I respect Portman.
As to a female problem, I think there are too many females in Hollywood. I figure to be a male one needs balls. You know, cajones. So that makes about three quarters of the men in that town non-male. LOL
Do women really want to be on top?
Jennifer Lawrence should win, but she won't. For the reasons you've outlined. Her character is the only one of the bunch that was worth a damn.
It's been a long time since I watched a movie award show, and I was unhappily surprised by the Golden Globe's. Not by the nominees or the movies/tv shows being honored, nor by the nominees. What surprised me most was the appearance and seeming average age of the ladies who were escorted by famous actors (men). I hoped they were wives or otherwise significant women to these men. But their apparent youth, and somewhat 'alikeness to each other' made me ponder. Not one looked to be over 25. If this is what Hollywood thinks is appropriate, then why would we be surprised/disappointed in the lack of wonderful female roles they offer?
Plus, she was absolutely terrific in "Secretariat," a movie she carried all the way.
There's been a migration of great actresses, and especially great older actresses, to television. Why?
1) audience:
more adult women watch TV, while movies tend to be marketed to young males.
2) lifestyle:
for a parent, the regular hours and job security make television an attractive alternative to a life on the road, flying from one location to the next.
3) genre:
the procedural has come to dominate scripted TV, and it happens to be a great fit for women. There are a raft of strong roles for female scientists, investigators, police officers, and even secret agents, holding their own in work environments once dominated by men.
Mr. Shapiro, it's good to hear from someone besides the usual feminists that he'd like to see more films with strong women, like Helen Mirren, Vera Farmiga and Cate Blanchett. Hopefully that demand will lead to change. But in the meantime, go to the small screen to watch Glenn Close, Stana Katic, Emily Deschanel and Yvonne Strahovski. They're all there for the viewing, and all terrific.
I think Hollywood is always confusing femininity with promiscuity. The Left's idea of liberation always leads down a dark abyss of degradation and ruin. Hollywood's frequent depictions of women and girls treating their bodies like broken down amusement parks doesn't inspire reverence for women – but it does cultivate disgust and sadness.
Uh, Pineapple Express?
I rest my case.
I saw the movie i didnt know she was masterbating. I thought she just had gas cramps
this all to insure gay men remain gay. . . they'll never question why they've left the female gender. it's why the fashion industry has made women look like skinny little boys for years now.
Jennifer Hudson. She has presence, style, beauty and command. Oh, and actual talent. That's what separates the Jennifer Connolly's from the Liz Taylors.
So when she was masterbating she was really sombody else or was someone else masterbating her … wait then that wouldnt be masterbation… I am really confused but then again Natalie didn't look like she was having any fun…hmmmm if one part of you is masterbating but but the other part of you says no is it rape?
agreed
Hell none of the actors male or female measure up to the actors of the golden age period. The men if you put a dress on them and fake boobs look like women such as Damon and DiCaprio. The woman are trying so hard to be men hey come across as Bull Dykes. Everybody gets all worked up over Angelina Jolie. Give me a young Sophie Loren. Jolie looks like she needs a tire pump to keep her lips inflated. Classy and very good Maureen O'Hara worked with the best and never dropped her top or drawers. You see you had to be good then you could not resort to sex scenes and CGI to get by. I think I'll throw in Dirty Dozen in the DVD player and watch a movie when men are men and DADT was a joke at the bar.
Yes metrosexuals are promoted but I don't think of them as men lol they used to be men now they women. In boy form and act and dress like homosexuals so I find them gross. Unfortunately hollywood promotes it
But snark first ask questions later is a rather killjoy-style attitude.
She had a lot more balls than most male characters. Was willing to stay and fight, despite the threat of torture and death.
I dunno. I thought he made a pretty convincing slacker/drug dealer in that movie. The role was world's away from his straight-laced trust fund kid in Spider-Man (which he also played convincingly) and his gay beatnik poet in Howl (ditto), so even if you didn't enjoy the humour in Pineapple Express, it's difficult to deny Franco's skill and range as an actor.
For me, the word "unwatchable" is better used to describe the acting of say, Madonna, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or 50 Cent.
That's been a theory of mine for a while….not too many straight men or women think that actresses should be built like 11 year old boys…
I agree. Strong women characters that are still feminine seem to have been banished, either by writers, directors, or the production companies. Instead of being strong, cool, & feminine, female characters have become angry, violent, mean & misandrist. There don't seem to be any parts that actresses like Myrna Loy, Maggie Smith, Maureen O'Hara, Katherine Hepburn, or Lauren Bacall might play, just to name a few.
Relish is pointing out that these characters are supposed to be real people, yet they wear designer clothes, and have ridiculously large & lavish apartments that seem to clean and straighten themselves. Kind of ruins the supposed reality…
My two favorite actresses today are Frances McDormand and Amy Adams. They were great together in "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" playing a down-on-her-luck English spinster and a ditsy young American chanteuse.
McDormand always delivers a solid performance. I have only seen Adams in a couple of films but she just shines.
Worth noting but she kind of does it in vain when the rest of the film is a giant cluster of mixed nuts and guano.
Except the "golden age" is only an idea, it never actually existed in the sense that there was a time where everything put in front of a studio camera was great work. for any great year in movies I could easily go on to name the horrible films released in the same quarter. Treasure your film vault with all you heart but you cant deny the every swinging pendulum of quality that hangs over every creative medium.
Strong roles for women? Phooey.
And I say "Phooey" because I'm sick of Hollywood thinking "strong" means masculine.
The thing to remember is as far as whats a traditional Oscar role for an actress has always been of a certain caliber, and the Academy's history is evidence of that. Generally speaking most everyone knows when a movie is actively catering to the established themes when it comes to Oscar nominations & wins. This has been the buffer that separates the Academy from being relevant amongst the movie going public for a long time now. I should qualify that this is not so much bad, as often these roles are great in an off themselves, so much as limiting. As is greatly dismisses great work done by actors & actresses that does material outside that archetype.
Because we shortly realized hyper masculinity and frail femininity was both boring and limiting. And instead we opted to blend the two together to build more dynamic characters into ever more imaginative narratives.
"Except the "golden age" is only an idea, it never actually existed in the sense that there was a time where everything put in front of a studio camera was great work."
Agreed, but that's not the point. What makes that period a "Golden Age" is not that every film produced was a masterpiece, but that great films were really great as well as popular. There are still great films being made, but their audience is comparatively small and they'll probably never enter the collective unconscious. That's what differentiates The English Patient from Lawrence of Arabia, hard as the late Minghella tried to parrot David Lean.
I'd say that's a fair argument, the substitution of time for standard of film. However I would further argue that what is a "Golden Age" film is not limited to what's already been made, as you say there are great movies that get made every year. I just personally get irritated when the standard is set in stone and so artificially high that no other movie ever made in recent years or to be made could ever touch the golden bar.
The Academy has always liked actresses to take on "difficult", non-glamour roles. That's why they loved/love the likes of Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn or Meryl Streep so much – actresses with a theatrical bent, not afraid not to look pretty on the screen. Gorgeous actresses may win provided they follow the same path, which means no make-up, ugly dresses and playing alcoholics, psychos, abuse victims or working-class (well, Hollywoo's idea of working-class) women. That's how Olivia de Havilland , Susan Hayward or Charlize Theron won their Oscars,and that's probably how Portman will win hers.
"I just personally get irritated when the standard is set in stone and so artificially high that no other movie ever made in recent years or to be made could ever touch the golden bar."
No film made in 2010 can be like those made in the 50s.
But then no films made in the 50s were quite like those of the 20s.
Comparing periods, rather than works, is comparing apples and oranges.
Very much fair argument, if I may be more specific then. I just personally get irritated when the standard is set in stone and so artificially high that no other movie ever made, outside that core catalog of movies, or to be made could ever touch the golden bar.
Men just lead more exciting lives than women do. That's why male actors have more memorable roles.
There, I said it.
This is still a man's world and always has been.
The leftist, misandric, feminists can try to hold down males and boost up females all they want.
It's never going to change basic human biology.
Men are the hunter-gatherers who go on wild, dangerous adventures.
Women are the nest builders who raise the children and cook the food.
It's been that way for 200,000 years and counting.
The idea is to create a humanoid that is genderless. So everyone is virtually the same. Cloning and stem cells will allow man to create more and more of these things. They will be genetically perfected and divided into two groups, the workers and the rulers.
Whatever women think of pictures pitched to young males at least they're willing to be in the audience. Mens' resistance to chick flicks is much greater. Hollywood knows that. Ergo chick flicks will always be a relative rarity in comparison to adventure flicks.
Maybe they're all closet members of NAMBLA and use designing clothing for, and lusting after, actresses with the bodies of 11 year old boys as a cover for the less socially acceptable act of lusting after actual 11 year old boys.
I've pretty much relegated myself to watching animated movies these last few years. There are a few live actions I like, pretty much anything by Nolan, but they're so few and far between I hardly bother.
What makes those particularly good roles?
You must be logged in to post a comment.