Simple, studios pay the highest salary to whoever puts bums on seats, it may not be fair, but that's showbiz. Similar to football, the biggest stars get the biggest salaries.
It's a bit rich for someone who may very well be a multi-millionaire anyway. And I'm not "brain dead" for suggesting that.
She's being paid more than Chris Pratt for an upcoming film of theirs, I know that. Given the pay system over there, seems fair, she's the bigger star.
Not a problem no, but it does seem to me that Hollywood is starting to push women over men, and it will get more female skewed as time goes on. Based on current statistics there may not be many, but they're on the rise and I just fear that men won't be allowed to be men in films soon.
Seriously. You haven't got a clue about what you're talking about. If you read this, you might... Hollywood is as male dominated as ever..only for you it's still not male dominated enough.
The Guardian twist everything into a feminist article, it's what they do. And I'm not, if I'm a dinosaur, so be it, anyway, I'm out, peace.
The article was simply a statement of fact about speaking roles in films. I don't see what is being twisted. Either you think its untrue or you think it doesn't matter. Which is it?
Have you noticed the amount of female-led films that are being released all of a sudden? The likes of Trainwreck, and Hot Pursuit? The way that Disney's last few films, for the most part, have been very pro-female in their approach-Brave, Frozen, Maleficent, Inside Out? Of course, there's the new all-female Ghostbusters film coming out next year, too. I don't see why it has to be all female, surely a 50/50 gender split could've been achieved.
I also notice how American actresses-sorry, actors-are getting more and more vocal all of a sudden on alleged "sexism". thinking that they should only be asked questions on their work, and not on the fancy dress they're wearing on the red carpet. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this in theory, however, if you're wearing something rather eye-catching, then you're bound to get asked about it. Men don't wear much in that regard as men can't be fashionable in a way that women can.
Women can lead movies and do well in them-I like the Hunger Games films with Jennifer Lawrence, and I really enjoyed Gone Girl last year, which was very much Rosamund Pike's film more than it was Ben Affleck's, but it seems that movies are in danger of becoming sanitised by feminism. Look at Jurassic World, accused of being sexist, yet it was Bryce Dallas Howard's character who shot at the dinosaur to save Chris Pratt, and planted the explosives. Hollywood seems to be suggesting that a man can't save a woman these days as it's sexist.
I'm not against female led films, but I do fear that, over the next decade or so, the movies wil become increasingly more and more female focused, and leave the men out of the picture. Comic books are coming up with more female superheroes, and that, I think , will be Hollywood's next big play. I suppose what I'm saying is, while female led films can and do work, I don't want to see good storytelling that may be more male-driven than female driven being marginalised to satisfy the feminists.
What do you all think?
This post has had me in stitches. OMG!!! The wimmin are comin' - argghhh!
Women in general have always had a shitty deal in Hollywood. I'm more than ready for 'feminism' to take a larger part within the system... Why not?
Whats wrong with more 'feminisation' in the fake factory?
You think it's gonna get any worse than what's already been? Run by a bunch of closeted homos and misogynist heteros?! GET REEEEAL!:D
This post has had me in stitches. OMG!!! The wimmin are comin' - argghhh!
Women in general have always had a shitty deal in Hollywood. I'm more than ready for 'feminism' to take a larger part within the system... Why not?
Whats wrong with more 'feminisation' in the fake factory?
You think it's gonna get any worse than what's already been? Run by a bunch of closeted homos and misogynist heteros?! GET REEEEAL!:D
Of course, things always seem to go in cycles....
That's the strangest thing about it. When it comes to action blockbusters for example, Hollywood is pure fantasy so they could insert practically anyone into the lead role. In a word where Ronda Rousey fights sell a million PPVs for UFC, audiences are more than ready to see women kicking ass on screen. Obviously that's just one genre but does Hollywood seriously think that, in playing to the lowest common denominator, that only straight white males will do in lead roles?
meaning "I lost the argument and now I'm going for a sulk"
No, meaning I was retiring for the night, actually! I guess I've learned on here that the situation hasn't changed as much as I thought it had, I knew by coming on here that you'd all respond this way, it kind of gives me a warm, fuzzy glow inside. I've had a good laugh. The media can manipulate me sometimes, it would appear. Thanks for the info, people.
No, meaning I was retiring for the night, actually! I guess I've learned on here that the situation hasn't changed as much as I thought it had, I knew by coming on here that you'd all respond this way, it kind of gives me a warm, fuzzy glow inside. I've had a good laugh. The media can manipulate me sometimes, it would appear. Thanks for the info, people.
No, thank you.
Whenever someone so smugly flatters themselves this way, it always makes their deluded nonsense so much more convincing.
Well I know what I'm trying to articulate. It is happening,you mark my words. Happens every time I start a thread on here, I get shouted down by the cold, hard logic brigade. And don't worry, you're not to blame, I'll save my tin hat for the media, thanks for taking the last half-hour to check out my other thread, though.
By the "cold hard logic brigade", do you mean people who use the facts of gross under-representation to dispute your vague notion that women are somehow taking over?
Try applying the Bechdel test to a few recent movies. It's shocking how sexist Hollywood still is in this day and age.
The Bechdel Test, sometimes called the Mo Movie Measure or Bechdel Rule is a simple test which names the following three criteria: (1) it has to have at least two women in it, who (2) who talk to each other, about (3) something besides a man.
That's the strangest thing about it. When it comes to action blockbusters for example, Hollywood is pure fantasy so they could insert practically anyone into the lead role. In a word where Ronda Rousey fights sell a million PPVs for UFC, audiences are more than ready to see women kicking ass on screen. Obviously that's just one genre but does Hollywood seriously think that, in playing to the lowest common denominator, that only straight white males will do in lead roles?
Didn't they try that with another fighter. Gina Giancarlo or something?
That film was pants. And not because she's a woman it's because they try to take a big name of a hard as nails woman and shoehorn her into a leading kick-ass role.
I'm no fan of them doing the same with the male equivalents. Doesn't the WWE even have their own film company?
I'm actually a fan of films with a kick-ass leading woman but usually it's better to get a decent actress and train them up - at least in Western cinema.
Films like Resident Evil, Aeon Flux, Tomb Raider, Hanna, Edge of Tomorrow, Dark Angel (TV) etc. Cynthia Rothrock back in the day
Some of those may not be the best films in the world either but for some reason I like them. I think it is because it's different than seeing a guy kick-ass which we've all seen plenty of times before.
You know what's weird? I've heard complaints about Arnie playing an action hero at his age, butyI've legitimately heard more cimplaints about the women in Mad Max and other movies with strong female characters. What's that about? Will someone please start a thread so we can discuss the old man agenda that's rife in Hollywood? >:(
Didn't they try that with another fighter. Gina Giancarlo or something?
That film was pants. And not because she's a woman it's because they try to take a big name of a hard as nails woman and shoehorn her into a leading kick-ass role.
I'm no fan of them doing the same with the male equivalents. Doesn't the WWE even have their own film company?
I'm actually a fan of films with a kick-ass leading woman but usually it's better to get a decent actress and train them up - at least in Western cinema.
Films like Resident Evil, Aeon Flux, Tomb Raider, Hanna, Edge of Tomorrow, Dark Angel (TV) etc. Cynthia Rothrock back in the day
Some of those may not be the best films in the world either but for some reason I like them. I think it is because it's different than seeing a guy kick-ass which we've all seen plenty of times before.
Gina Cerano? Seen that film and it wasn't up to much. She's not as big a star as Rousey by a long shot though. WWE films are almost universally crap but they're just lowest common denominator action schlock that should have been left in the 80s. And they don't make money.
It seems that Rousey is appearing in films more often now and there's an upcoming biopic of her that she may star in. But my point was more just that her success is a sign that people are willing to buy into and support women kicking ass and performing in roles traditionally held by men. If a real life female action star can be a big money star, then fictional ones can on screen too! But I doubt she's going to be a great actress herself.
I think the OP is making a classic mistake of equating feminism and female. Two different things, at times opposing each other aggressively.
Females make up a small percentage of the real power in hollywood. But hollywood is in the money making industry, we all know this. The whole tumblerina movement is money, so they like to sell "Social Justice Films" to appease that market. Same reason they make Transformers and the like, it has a market and they will pay them money.
Same with the anti-establishment vibe of some films, its catering to that market who enjoy being exposed to ideas that conform with their own. Its all just marketing to the demos in order to acquire more loot from the masses. A large group of people in the 60s decided they hated "the man" and the corporate culture. The response was to open new markets in alternative clothing and music, they just rebranded stuff and sold it to the people who hated them, they never take it personal. Its a money making tactic, appeal to the groups.
I think the OP is making a classic mistake of equating feminism and female. Two different things, at times opposing each other aggressively.
Females make up a small percentage of the real power in hollywood. But hollywood is in the money making industry, we all know this. The whole tumblerina movement is money, so they like to sell "Social Justice Films" to appease that market. Same reason they make Transformers and the like, it has a market and they will pay them money.
Same with the anti-establishment vibe of some films, its catering to that market who enjoy being exposed to ideas that conform with their own. Its all just marketing to the demos in order to acquire more loot from the masses. A large group of people in the 60s decided they hated "the man" and the corporate culture. The response was to open new markets in alternative clothing and music, they just rebranded stuff and sold it to the people who hated them, they never take it personal. Its a money making tactic, appeal to the groups.
Sounds reasonable. As others have said, I'm rather sick of all these superhero movies, although some are decent. Speaking of "the man", I always remember that little Asian kid in School of Rock-"We did what you told us to, we stuck it to the man!" I couldn't stop laughing at that!
I also notice how American actresses-sorry, actors-are getting more and more vocal all of a sudden on alleged "sexism". thinking that they should only be asked questions on their work, and not on the fancy dress they're wearing on the red carpet. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this in theory, however, if you're wearing something rather eye-catching, then you're bound to get asked about it. Men don't wear much in that regard as men can't be fashionable in a way that women can.
The thing that annoys me about this issue when actresses raise it, is that generally the reason they are wearing these lavish dresses and fancy jewellery is because it's been given or lent to them by the designers specifically so that they can get some publicity.
And these actresses accept these fashion items to wear, yet then declare that they shouldn't be asked about them.
Well, if that's the case then, in future, they should fork out the thousands of pounds on jewellery and dresses for the multiple red carpet events they go to out of their own pockets.
But then no doubt they'd simply change their tune to moaning about how unfair it is that they have to spend thousands of pounds on clothing for these events at all and how that's somehow the fault of "patriarchy".
The thing that annoys me about this issue when actresses raise it, is that generally the reason they are wearing these lavish dresses and fancy jewellery is because it's been given or lent to them by the designers specifically so that they can get some publicity.
And these actresses accept these fashion items to wear, yet then declare that they shouldn't be asked about them.
Well, if that's the case then, in future, they should fork out the thousands of pounds on jewellery and dresses for the multiple red carpet events they go to out of their own pockets.
But then no doubt they'd simply change their tune to moaning about how unfair it is that they have to spend thousands of pounds on clothing for these events at all and how that's somehow the fault of "patriarchy".
Not at all. You misunderstood their intentions.
As my posts on the first page of this thread pointed out, they are happy to either be asked one single question about their outfit (like men are) or share the details via social media as Reese Witherspoon & Gwyneth Paltrow experimented with during awards season earlier this year. They're well aware it is a publicity opportunity for the designer and will ensure there is still that exchange of information.
The whole point of #askhermore is that actresses just want to be treated EQUALLY to men on the red carpet. Men get one question about which designer they're wearing, then questions about their work/achievements/opinions etc. Women get endless questions about their outfits and get asked to show their manicures, jewellery, shoes and 360 degree turns on these stupid special 'red carpet' cameras!
Let's not forget that in this day and age, designers' PRs send out details of who is wearing what BEFORE they even arrive on the red carpet. So it should be even less of a conversation with the press on the red carpet in theory, not more. Yet each year E! brings out some ridiculous new garment-capturing camera that only applies to women. It's almost as if some of the press have the attitude that the men are attending the event for their achievements, and the women for the opportunity to wear a nice outfit.
And I very much doubt actresses would moan publically to the press if they had to buy their own red carpet dresses - borrowing clothes for a red carpet is actually still a relatively new thing, plus many actresses still choose to buy their own anyway. They definitely wouldn't blame the patriarchy!
But men only get asked who they're wearing once because there's usually nothing more to say. It's a suit, usually like any other suit, by a particular designer. Job done. And none of the blokes watching at home could really care less anyway.
Women's fashion, as you well know, is far more extravagant and complicated and there is vastly greater public interest in it. The very fact that the actresses might be wearing shoes, dress, jewellery, accessories, nails, hair, all by different designers necessitates a more in-depth questioning alone. Also, a number of female stars tend to be working with or heavily linked to certain designers or fashion houses and waxing lyrical on how wonderful they are is part of their remit.
Anyway, the fact is that Hollywood and the fashion industry are inextricably linked, particularly with regard to women's fashion, and answering questions about and publicising the clothing on display is part and parcel of the whole movie industry machine.
Simply answering one question or posting the names of the designers online isn't realistically going to suffice these days. At least, not without some trade-off, e.g. TV companies no longer wasting their time sending crews/interviewers to cover red carpet fashion and/or designers not bothering to give up their time and products for free.
I'm perfectly fine with actresses suggesting that interviewers should be asking them more questions about their work; but bemoaning the questions they do get asked about what they're wearing, which is done for a reason, and pretending that a minimalist approach where they get as few questions about their clothing as the men do is realistic is just grating.
And yes, they would moan if they had to buy the dresses and accessories out of their own pocket. The indignance at women having to spend more time, money and effort on the way they look is a common part of the feminist rhetoric.
Oh for crying out loud. Do you really equate 'female led' movies with feminism? If you do, please look up the word feminism. I've watch many 'female led' movies that are sexist.
I get the sense you are being ingenuine with your questions, but I will take you at face value for the sake of argument, despite it being highly flawed and contradictory in its premise. First things first, feeling threatened? Because don't worry, there is a 100+ years of movies that are 'male led'. Hollywood is still releasing an overwhelming amount of male led movies which far exceed what you seem to fear.
Do most 'female led' films have 'normal' looking women in? No. Whilst we all know the movie industry values looks in both genders, more emphasis is placed on the way a woman looks. When talking about women in films, there is very often reference to the way a woman looks, more so than men. The 'female led' movies you talk about, much emphasis is placed on the womans sexual value. The camera angles, figure revealing clothing and general emphasis for women in these movies are different purely due to her gender. Unfortunately some don't get why defining a woman by her sexual value is a problem.
In most mainstream movies women are girlfriends, wives, sex objects, mothers, bitches or daughters. Men are 'characters' and generally better fleshed out. Men have far more interesting roles.
“if you're wearing something rather eye-catching, then you're bound to get asked about it”. What is considered eye catching is highly subjective. But, you have just proved their point – men very rarely get asked about what they wear on the red carpet and it's not because they can't be 'fashionable'. Of course, there is nothing wrong with finding a woman 'eye catching', that's nature. The issue is how you go about expressing it – or preferably not. Imagine you were an actress walking the red carpet next to your male colleague. He's getting asked questions like 'what inspired you to take this role', 'what's your characters motivation' etc etc, and your getting constantly asked 'who are you wearing' - you would get pissed off also. It is very much a case of sexism. To prove the point, if a woman tried to not be 'eye catching' just so she could be taken seriously, and turned up at a red carpet wearing jeans and a shirt, she would be criticised and mocked for the way she looks. In case you missed it, the point being she is only valued for her gender and sexual value, not her work.
“Hollywood seems to be suggesting that a man can't save a woman these days as it's sexist.”. They ain't. Are you suggesting women can't save men? The old movie troupe of men saving women is far older than the reverse. Though that said, there are very few 'kick ass' female characters that I don't find ridiculous, because most of them look like they would fall over in the wind. But there is no way Hollywood would cast a physically capable looking woman in a physically strong role. The only way a woman can be 'kick ass' in Hollywood is if she's feminine, freakishly attractive, half naked, and a strong sex object prepared to acquiesce to her love interest.
“movies are in danger of becoming sanitised by feminism”. Are you kidding me? When we have normal looking women playing nuanced, complex characters that don't revolve around the fact she's a woman or an accessory to a man as standard, your argument would still be flawed because for 100+ years movies have been highly “sanitised” by the very opposite of your argument. I'm more concerned with the danger that Hollywood has stopped producing original content.
Fact is, the movie industry is sexist to both men and women. If you base your world view on Hollywoods output, then no wonder you come up with asinine 'arguments' like yours. But fret not, Hollywood is still a male dominated industry and I should think Hollywood still has many years left of pouring out 'male led' films, before them uppity women start taking over.
You seem threatened by what you perceive as feminism taking over your beloved art form, despite the fact that all evidence overwhelming points to the contrary. Are you really that threatened by a small percentage of films reflecting something you find offensive? Because if you are, not only are you sexist, you are paranoid, and misogynistic. I am not threatened when I watch the Expendables, or Shawshank Redemption, The Hangover, The Wrestler, any 80's action flick, or any other of the endless stream of male led films.
Looking at some of your responses here, you are pretty sexist, against your own gender... “men won't be allowed to be men”. What does that even mean? I think I must have missed the handbook they gave out on the one true way to be 'man'. I've met many wonderful men, and the only thing they have in common is a penis. All identify to their gender differently – or not at all. Guess what? Some are not threatened, or even enjoy a 'female led' dynamic. Shocking!
Hmm...kind of sounds like the OP has some insecurities about women and them having more focus than they use too, could be wrong, just saying that's how your original post could be read as.
The fact is women are still criminally under represented in movies and while there is some movement to address this and movie land is starting to get better at creating some more roles its still way WAY off being even close to 50/50, nether mind the idea (or is that irrational fear OP ) that women are taking over and poor men won't be having movies made about them anymore, haha that concern is pathetically laughable its a bizarre world thought.
Personally I want more interesting roles for women and greater diversity over all (in all aspects, age race sexual orientation etc) and I say that as a 20 something straight white male, women are 50% of the population and are just as interesting and complex (impo I would say slightly more interesting and complex) as men so of course lots of movies should feature women prominently (its sad we have to say that and it isn't just the case) Having a equal playing field between the genders and greater diversity of all walks of life I believe would give us better well rounded interesting movies.... benefiting society as a whole (excuse me getting on my soapbox there)
But men only get asked who they're wearing once because there's usually nothing more to say. It's a suit, usually like any other suit, by a particular designer. Job done. And none of the blokes watching at home could really care less anyway.
Women's fashion, as you well know, is far more extravagant and complicated and there is vastly greater public interest in it. The very fact that the actresses might be wearing shoes, dress, jewellery, accessories, nails, hair, all by different designers necessitates a more in-depth questioning alone. Also, a number of female stars tend to be working with or heavily linked to certain designers or fashion houses and waxing lyrical on how wonderful they are is part of their remit.
Anyway, the fact is that Hollywood and the fashion industry are inextricably linked, particularly with regard to women's fashion, and answering questions about and publicising the clothing on display is part and parcel of the whole movie industry machine.
Simply answering one question or posting the names of the designers online isn't realistically going to suffice these days. At least, not without some trade-off, e.g. TV companies no longer wasting their time sending crews/interviewers to cover red carpet fashion and/or designers not bothering to give up their time and products for free.
I'm perfectly fine with actresses suggesting that interviewers should be asking them more questions about their work; but bemoaning the questions they do get asked about what they're wearing, which is done for a reason, and pretending that a minimalist approach where they get as few questions about their clothing as the men do is realistic is just grating.
And yes, they would moan if they had to buy the dresses and accessories out of their own pocket. The indignance at women having to spend more time, money and effort on the way they look is a common part of the feminist rhetoric.
No. As a feminist and someone who used to work in the fashion industry, often lending celebrities clothes to wear (still work in a related field with celebrities and take part in similar exchanges), I'm afraid you're incorrect.
Your first paragraph - a lot of men do care very much, otherwise the male fashion industry (designer suiting in particular), wouldn't be the multi million dollar industry it is. Recently Mens Fashion Week has expanded on it's own (in previous years it would be a single day tacked onto the end of women's fashion week). There is a huge growing interest in this subject. You're conflating your own experiences with the truth.
Your second paragraph - if an actress is working with a brand then trust me, the brand PR will have spoken with her and the media outlets. Everyone will know what to ask and what to answer. This is not part of the issue, because it still does not mean the entire interview should be entirely about the outfit. Also - so women wear more seperate garments or more flamboyant styles? You're still reducing their existence to a coathanger if that's all they're going to be asked about. It's moot.
Answering multiple questions about a red carpet outfit has nothing to do with promoting a movie. It would make far more sense for an actress to... I don't know? Actually answer a question about a movie in order to promote it!
As for suggesting that posting details of outfits on social media is a "minimalist approach", sorry but that's a tad ridiculous... I'm fairly sure that Reese Witherspoon has more Instagram followers than E! Channel have live viewers of red carpet shows, not to mention as previously discussed, the PR machine will have been in full swing before she even left the house... Every single red carpet reporter will already know who is wearing what designer before they even get out of the limo. That info is already out there and therefore drumming it into viewers serves no purpose. People interested in red carpet fashion on Twitter and Instagram will be posting the info before anyone watching the live red carpet coverage will even see a glimpse of the actress. Online articles and red carpet galleries will be up in a matter on minutes. That's the digital age - info spreads around far quicker than before, to more people than before, so I'd say the opposite is true of your statement: "simply answering one question... isn't realistically going to suffice these days".
Your last paragraph is puzzling. As I previously stated, all celebrities until fairly recently had to pay for their own red carpet outfits, and actually many still choose to do this, so your logic that they'll moan about it seems a tad flawed.
I think you may have the "feminist rhetoric" confused too - women are not "indignant" because they HAVE to spend more time and money on their appearance. Feminists tend to believe that how much time or money you spend on your appearance is a personal choice. The only thing they are indignant about is the societal (no doubt, often patriarchal) expectations pressured onto them when it comes to appearances, which men do not experience to the same level (if, arguably, at all, in some subcultures).
I'm sure most people can see the link between that and the growing ridiculousness of the treatment of actresses on the red carpet.
But men only get asked who they're wearing once because there's usually nothing more to say. It's a suit, usually like any other suit, by a particular designer. Job done. And none of the blokes watching at home could really care less anyway.
Women's fashion, as you well know, is far more extravagant and complicated and there is vastly greater public interest in it. The very fact that the actresses might be wearing shoes, dress, jewellery, accessories, nails, hair, all by different designers necessitates a more in-depth questioning alone. Also, a number of female stars tend to be working with or heavily linked to certain designers or fashion houses and waxing lyrical on how wonderful they are is part of their remit.
Anyway, the fact is that Hollywood and the fashion industry are inextricably linked, particularly with regard to women's fashion, and answering questions about and publicising the clothing on display is part and parcel of the whole movie industry machine.
Simply answering one question or posting the names of the designers online isn't realistically going to suffice these days. At least, not without some trade-off, e.g. TV companies no longer wasting their time sending crews/interviewers to cover red carpet fashion and/or designers not bothering to give up their time and products for free.
I'm perfectly fine with actresses suggesting that interviewers should be asking them more questions about their work; but bemoaning the questions they do get asked about what they're wearing, which is done for a reason, and pretending that a minimalist approach where they get as few questions about their clothing as the men do is realistic is just grating.
And yes, they would moan if they had to buy the dresses and accessories out of their own pocket. The indignance at women having to spend more time, money and effort on the way they look is a common part of the feminist rhetoric.
Comments
Jennifer Lawrence was the biggest box office draw last year, so I'm gonna assume that she's earning more than anyone else for her next appearance.
She's being paid more than Chris Pratt for an upcoming film of theirs, I know that. Given the pay system over there, seems fair, she's the bigger star.
Seriously. You haven't got a clue about what you're talking about. If you read this, you might... Hollywood is as male dominated as ever..only for you it's still not male dominated enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/06/hollywood-bias-women-speechless-with-less-than-a-third-of-speaking-parts-in-top-films
PS Exactly why are you so frightened of women, by the way?
The article was simply a statement of fact about speaking roles in films. I don't see what is being twisted. Either you think its untrue or you think it doesn't matter. Which is it?
meaning "I lost the argument and now I'm going for a sulk"
This post has had me in stitches. OMG!!! The wimmin are comin' - argghhh!
Women in general have always had a shitty deal in Hollywood. I'm more than ready for 'feminism' to take a larger part within the system... Why not?
Whats wrong with more 'feminisation' in the fake factory?
You think it's gonna get any worse than what's already been? Run by a bunch of closeted homos and misogynist heteros?! GET REEEEAL!:D
Of course, things always seem to go in cycles....
That's the strangest thing about it. When it comes to action blockbusters for example, Hollywood is pure fantasy so they could insert practically anyone into the lead role. In a word where Ronda Rousey fights sell a million PPVs for UFC, audiences are more than ready to see women kicking ass on screen. Obviously that's just one genre but does Hollywood seriously think that, in playing to the lowest common denominator, that only straight white males will do in lead roles?
No, meaning I was retiring for the night, actually! I guess I've learned on here that the situation hasn't changed as much as I thought it had, I knew by coming on here that you'd all respond this way, it kind of gives me a warm, fuzzy glow inside. I've had a good laugh. The media can manipulate me sometimes, it would appear. Thanks for the info, people.
Whenever someone so smugly flatters themselves this way, it always makes their deluded nonsense so much more convincing.
Try applying the Bechdel test to a few recent movies. It's shocking how sexist Hollywood still is in this day and age.
http://bechdeltest.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s
That film was pants. And not because she's a woman it's because they try to take a big name of a hard as nails woman and shoehorn her into a leading kick-ass role.
I'm no fan of them doing the same with the male equivalents. Doesn't the WWE even have their own film company?
I'm actually a fan of films with a kick-ass leading woman but usually it's better to get a decent actress and train them up - at least in Western cinema.
Films like Resident Evil, Aeon Flux, Tomb Raider, Hanna, Edge of Tomorrow, Dark Angel (TV) etc. Cynthia Rothrock back in the day
Some of those may not be the best films in the world either but for some reason I like them. I think it is because it's different than seeing a guy kick-ass which we've all seen plenty of times before.
Gina Cerano? Seen that film and it wasn't up to much. She's not as big a star as Rousey by a long shot though. WWE films are almost universally crap but they're just lowest common denominator action schlock that should have been left in the 80s. And they don't make money.
It seems that Rousey is appearing in films more often now and there's an upcoming biopic of her that she may star in. But my point was more just that her success is a sign that people are willing to buy into and support women kicking ass and performing in roles traditionally held by men. If a real life female action star can be a big money star, then fictional ones can on screen too! But I doubt she's going to be a great actress herself.
Females make up a small percentage of the real power in hollywood. But hollywood is in the money making industry, we all know this. The whole tumblerina movement is money, so they like to sell "Social Justice Films" to appease that market. Same reason they make Transformers and the like, it has a market and they will pay them money.
Same with the anti-establishment vibe of some films, its catering to that market who enjoy being exposed to ideas that conform with their own. Its all just marketing to the demos in order to acquire more loot from the masses. A large group of people in the 60s decided they hated "the man" and the corporate culture. The response was to open new markets in alternative clothing and music, they just rebranded stuff and sold it to the people who hated them, they never take it personal. Its a money making tactic, appeal to the groups.
Sounds reasonable. As others have said, I'm rather sick of all these superhero movies, although some are decent. Speaking of "the man", I always remember that little Asian kid in School of Rock-"We did what you told us to, we stuck it to the man!" I couldn't stop laughing at that!
S
The thing that annoys me about this issue when actresses raise it, is that generally the reason they are wearing these lavish dresses and fancy jewellery is because it's been given or lent to them by the designers specifically so that they can get some publicity.
And these actresses accept these fashion items to wear, yet then declare that they shouldn't be asked about them.
Well, if that's the case then, in future, they should fork out the thousands of pounds on jewellery and dresses for the multiple red carpet events they go to out of their own pockets.
But then no doubt they'd simply change their tune to moaning about how unfair it is that they have to spend thousands of pounds on clothing for these events at all and how that's somehow the fault of "patriarchy".
Not at all. You misunderstood their intentions.
As my posts on the first page of this thread pointed out, they are happy to either be asked one single question about their outfit (like men are) or share the details via social media as Reese Witherspoon & Gwyneth Paltrow experimented with during awards season earlier this year. They're well aware it is a publicity opportunity for the designer and will ensure there is still that exchange of information.
The whole point of #askhermore is that actresses just want to be treated EQUALLY to men on the red carpet. Men get one question about which designer they're wearing, then questions about their work/achievements/opinions etc. Women get endless questions about their outfits and get asked to show their manicures, jewellery, shoes and 360 degree turns on these stupid special 'red carpet' cameras!
Let's not forget that in this day and age, designers' PRs send out details of who is wearing what BEFORE they even arrive on the red carpet. So it should be even less of a conversation with the press on the red carpet in theory, not more. Yet each year E! brings out some ridiculous new garment-capturing camera that only applies to women. It's almost as if some of the press have the attitude that the men are attending the event for their achievements, and the women for the opportunity to wear a nice outfit.
And I very much doubt actresses would moan publically to the press if they had to buy their own red carpet dresses - borrowing clothes for a red carpet is actually still a relatively new thing, plus many actresses still choose to buy their own anyway. They definitely wouldn't blame the patriarchy!
But men only get asked who they're wearing once because there's usually nothing more to say. It's a suit, usually like any other suit, by a particular designer. Job done. And none of the blokes watching at home could really care less anyway.
Women's fashion, as you well know, is far more extravagant and complicated and there is vastly greater public interest in it. The very fact that the actresses might be wearing shoes, dress, jewellery, accessories, nails, hair, all by different designers necessitates a more in-depth questioning alone. Also, a number of female stars tend to be working with or heavily linked to certain designers or fashion houses and waxing lyrical on how wonderful they are is part of their remit.
Anyway, the fact is that Hollywood and the fashion industry are inextricably linked, particularly with regard to women's fashion, and answering questions about and publicising the clothing on display is part and parcel of the whole movie industry machine.
Simply answering one question or posting the names of the designers online isn't realistically going to suffice these days. At least, not without some trade-off, e.g. TV companies no longer wasting their time sending crews/interviewers to cover red carpet fashion and/or designers not bothering to give up their time and products for free.
I'm perfectly fine with actresses suggesting that interviewers should be asking them more questions about their work; but bemoaning the questions they do get asked about what they're wearing, which is done for a reason, and pretending that a minimalist approach where they get as few questions about their clothing as the men do is realistic is just grating.
And yes, they would moan if they had to buy the dresses and accessories out of their own pocket. The indignance at women having to spend more time, money and effort on the way they look is a common part of the feminist rhetoric.
I get the sense you are being ingenuine with your questions, but I will take you at face value for the sake of argument, despite it being highly flawed and contradictory in its premise. First things first, feeling threatened? Because don't worry, there is a 100+ years of movies that are 'male led'. Hollywood is still releasing an overwhelming amount of male led movies which far exceed what you seem to fear.
Do most 'female led' films have 'normal' looking women in? No. Whilst we all know the movie industry values looks in both genders, more emphasis is placed on the way a woman looks. When talking about women in films, there is very often reference to the way a woman looks, more so than men. The 'female led' movies you talk about, much emphasis is placed on the womans sexual value. The camera angles, figure revealing clothing and general emphasis for women in these movies are different purely due to her gender. Unfortunately some don't get why defining a woman by her sexual value is a problem.
In most mainstream movies women are girlfriends, wives, sex objects, mothers, bitches or daughters. Men are 'characters' and generally better fleshed out. Men have far more interesting roles.
“if you're wearing something rather eye-catching, then you're bound to get asked about it”. What is considered eye catching is highly subjective. But, you have just proved their point – men very rarely get asked about what they wear on the red carpet and it's not because they can't be 'fashionable'. Of course, there is nothing wrong with finding a woman 'eye catching', that's nature. The issue is how you go about expressing it – or preferably not. Imagine you were an actress walking the red carpet next to your male colleague. He's getting asked questions like 'what inspired you to take this role', 'what's your characters motivation' etc etc, and your getting constantly asked 'who are you wearing' - you would get pissed off also. It is very much a case of sexism. To prove the point, if a woman tried to not be 'eye catching' just so she could be taken seriously, and turned up at a red carpet wearing jeans and a shirt, she would be criticised and mocked for the way she looks. In case you missed it, the point being she is only valued for her gender and sexual value, not her work.
“Hollywood seems to be suggesting that a man can't save a woman these days as it's sexist.”. They ain't. Are you suggesting women can't save men? The old movie troupe of men saving women is far older than the reverse. Though that said, there are very few 'kick ass' female characters that I don't find ridiculous, because most of them look like they would fall over in the wind. But there is no way Hollywood would cast a physically capable looking woman in a physically strong role. The only way a woman can be 'kick ass' in Hollywood is if she's feminine, freakishly attractive, half naked, and a strong sex object prepared to acquiesce to her love interest.
“movies are in danger of becoming sanitised by feminism”. Are you kidding me? When we have normal looking women playing nuanced, complex characters that don't revolve around the fact she's a woman or an accessory to a man as standard, your argument would still be flawed because for 100+ years movies have been highly “sanitised” by the very opposite of your argument. I'm more concerned with the danger that Hollywood has stopped producing original content.
Fact is, the movie industry is sexist to both men and women. If you base your world view on Hollywoods output, then no wonder you come up with asinine 'arguments' like yours. But fret not, Hollywood is still a male dominated industry and I should think Hollywood still has many years left of pouring out 'male led' films, before them uppity women start taking over.
You seem threatened by what you perceive as feminism taking over your beloved art form, despite the fact that all evidence overwhelming points to the contrary. Are you really that threatened by a small percentage of films reflecting something you find offensive? Because if you are, not only are you sexist, you are paranoid, and misogynistic. I am not threatened when I watch the Expendables, or Shawshank Redemption, The Hangover, The Wrestler, any 80's action flick, or any other of the endless stream of male led films.
Looking at some of your responses here, you are pretty sexist, against your own gender... “men won't be allowed to be men”. What does that even mean? I think I must have missed the handbook they gave out on the one true way to be 'man'. I've met many wonderful men, and the only thing they have in common is a penis. All identify to their gender differently – or not at all. Guess what? Some are not threatened, or even enjoy a 'female led' dynamic. Shocking!
The fact is women are still criminally under represented in movies and while there is some movement to address this and movie land is starting to get better at creating some more roles its still way WAY off being even close to 50/50, nether mind the idea (or is that irrational fear OP
Personally I want more interesting roles for women and greater diversity over all (in all aspects, age race sexual orientation etc) and I say that as a 20 something straight white male, women are 50% of the population and are just as interesting and complex (impo I would say slightly more interesting and complex) as men so of course lots of movies should feature women prominently (its sad we have to say that and it isn't just the case) Having a equal playing field between the genders and greater diversity of all walks of life I believe would give us better well rounded interesting movies.... benefiting society as a whole (excuse me getting on my soapbox there)
No. As a feminist and someone who used to work in the fashion industry, often lending celebrities clothes to wear (still work in a related field with celebrities and take part in similar exchanges), I'm afraid you're incorrect.
Your first paragraph - a lot of men do care very much, otherwise the male fashion industry (designer suiting in particular), wouldn't be the multi million dollar industry it is. Recently Mens Fashion Week has expanded on it's own (in previous years it would be a single day tacked onto the end of women's fashion week). There is a huge growing interest in this subject. You're conflating your own experiences with the truth.
Your second paragraph - if an actress is working with a brand then trust me, the brand PR will have spoken with her and the media outlets. Everyone will know what to ask and what to answer. This is not part of the issue, because it still does not mean the entire interview should be entirely about the outfit. Also - so women wear more seperate garments or more flamboyant styles? You're still reducing their existence to a coathanger if that's all they're going to be asked about. It's moot.
Answering multiple questions about a red carpet outfit has nothing to do with promoting a movie. It would make far more sense for an actress to... I don't know? Actually answer a question about a movie in order to promote it!
As for suggesting that posting details of outfits on social media is a "minimalist approach", sorry but that's a tad ridiculous... I'm fairly sure that Reese Witherspoon has more Instagram followers than E! Channel have live viewers of red carpet shows, not to mention as previously discussed, the PR machine will have been in full swing before she even left the house... Every single red carpet reporter will already know who is wearing what designer before they even get out of the limo. That info is already out there and therefore drumming it into viewers serves no purpose. People interested in red carpet fashion on Twitter and Instagram will be posting the info before anyone watching the live red carpet coverage will even see a glimpse of the actress. Online articles and red carpet galleries will be up in a matter on minutes. That's the digital age - info spreads around far quicker than before, to more people than before, so I'd say the opposite is true of your statement: "simply answering one question... isn't realistically going to suffice these days".
Your last paragraph is puzzling. As I previously stated, all celebrities until fairly recently had to pay for their own red carpet outfits, and actually many still choose to do this, so your logic that they'll moan about it seems a tad flawed.
I think you may have the "feminist rhetoric" confused too - women are not "indignant" because they HAVE to spend more time and money on their appearance. Feminists tend to believe that how much time or money you spend on your appearance is a personal choice. The only thing they are indignant about is the societal (no doubt, often patriarchal) expectations pressured onto them when it comes to appearances, which men do not experience to the same level (if, arguably, at all, in some subcultures).
I'm sure most people can see the link between that and the growing ridiculousness of the treatment of actresses on the red carpet.
I agree with this point.
Just looking back at this thread, have to say that I can start threads on whatever I like, I'm entitled to my opinion.
I notice a lot of male actors are talking about being feminists, so I'm still not entirely convinced about the counter argument. Convince me, please.