Tag: Women in Hollywood

Movie Posters: A Bitch Flicks Verbal Beatdown

Dear Filmmakers, Movie Promoters, Marketing Teams, Poster Designers, et al:

Recently, I spent some time gathering movie posters for several of last year’s top-grossing films. I noticed that in movies with male leads, the posters usually featured them prominently, with either up-close shots of their faces (smiling in a mocking “I’m hilarious!” way, or looking pretty bad-ass, like they’re about to do some shit). Or, the posters showed full-body shots of them already engaged in some kind of action.

That led me to wonder about the movie posters with female leads and whether they would contain the same elements. I did some research, looking for movie posters that featured lead actresses, and making it a point to leave out the most offensive posters (extreme close-ups of body parts, etc) of which there were many. I specifically looked for posters where the female lead took up most, if not all of it, and I tried to favor facial close-ups.

In case you weren’t aware, many of the less offensive promotional movie posters featured below still led me to believe at least one of the following about the lead actress’s potential role in the film:

A. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to fuck someone

B. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to get fucked by someone

C. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to kill someone

D. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to avoid getting killed

E. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to avoid killing herself

F. she will spend most of her time in the movie being adorable

I’m curious as to whether this was intentional, or if you’ve internalized so much of our cultural hatred toward women that you subconsciously cast them as passive objects rather than active subjects, even in cases where the actresses play very active roles in the films. (Case in point: The Pelican Brief. In this film, Julia Roberts spends some of the time trying to avoid getting killed and the rest of the time completely blowing open a government fucking conspiracy. Yet the poster merely suggests ohmygod fear.)

I will concede that there are certainly cases where the lead actress actually plays a passive object, but for the most part, that’s not the case. And for the record, using these posters to portray the leading ladies as seductresses and/or sexy yet crazed-looking potential serial killers does not constitute an active subject. Please advise.

Love,

Bitch Flicks

P.S. It’s fine with us if you want to put more women of color on movie posters. But that would require giving them their own movies, wouldn’t it?

A List, An Archive, and Some Wishes

Today I’m posting some great links to things other people wrote. Enjoy!

  • Melissa at Women & Hollywood has created a “highlight reel” of some of her best posts. This is must-read material for anyone interested in movies and the role women play in (making) them. Help her celebrate her 1000th post by sending a donation.
  • The IFC has created a list of the 50 Best Movie Trailers. I’d spend all day watching them if I could. What’s your favorite?

Are You Ready to Get Ridiculous?

In response to my previous post about pay discrimination in Hollywood, an anonymous commenter pointed out the following:

“Although I agree that women should be paid the same in all industries, your breakdown of the top grossing movies fails to recognise that apart from Sex and the City there were major male actors in each of the films, whereas the male movies listed featured the men as the main star of the film surrounded by a supporting cast.”

That got me thinking. While it was impossible to account for every single factor that might’ve contributed to the actors’ salaries more than doubling the actresses’ salaries (actors/actresses who produced rather than starred in a film, actors/actresses who released more than one film in the previous year, actors/actresses receiving residuals from past work, worldwide box office gross versus US box office gross, etc), my main goal was to illustrate the fact that lead actresses didn’t seem to be fairly compensated for their films based on skill-level (measured by Oscar nominations and wins), US box office gross, and the overall critical reception of their work, when compared/contrasted with the male leads’ compensation.

But, like I said, that anonymous commenter got me thinking. Is it possible that male leads are usually the main attraction in their films, surrounded by an anonymous supporting cast, while female leads tend to star in more ensemble-driven films, surrounded by a cast of prominent male actors?

So I decided to use the list of films from my previous post on pay discrimination to attempt to get to the bottom of this. My ultimate goal: to discover if a trend exists where male leads star in their “own movies” whereas female leads tend to blend in with the rest of their cast (which often includes major male actors). Or, do we merely view male leads differently than female leads, seeing the female leads the way our society sees women in general: as helpers, partners, and assistants rather than leaders?

********************************************************************

Kung Fu Panda: Angelina Jolie’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $215,395,021
Cast: co-starring Jack Black, well-known ensemble cast, including Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, and Lucy Liu

Analysis: Most of the posters only featured the Panda, and the previews did the same, mainly focusing on Jack Black in the title role. While Angelina Jolie is an Oscar-winner, as is Dustin Hoffman, and they are by no means minor players in the film industry, it’s safe to characterize Kung Fu Panda as a Jack Black movie, since it was essentially marketed as such.

Verdict: Jack Black movie, supported by a prominent male and female cast.

********************************************************************
Marley & Me: Jennifer Aniston’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $143,084,510
Cast: co-starring Owen Wilson as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner, and Alan Arkin

Analysis: The promotional posters either featured the dog only, or they featured all three: Aniston, Wilson, and the dog. I’m not sure how to characterize this movie, as the dog seems to carry as much star-power as the actors. Given that Aniston and Wilson both have some box-office draw, I’ll call this what it is: a draw. (But I really just want to give it to Marley.)

Verdict: Aniston/Wilson movie, supported by a prominent male and female cast. And a dog.

********************************************************************
Mamma Mia!: Meryl Streep’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $143,704,210
Cast: well-known ensemble cast, including Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, and Amanda Seyfried

Analysis: Meryl Streep is in this (and many film posters exclusively promoted Amanda Seyfried).

Verdict: Meryl Streep movie (with special shout-out to Seyfried) supported by a prominent male cast.

********************************************************************
Sex and the City: Sarah Jessica Parker’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $152,595,674
Cast: well-known ensemble cast, including Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon, Chris Noth, Candace Bergen, and Jennifer Hudson

Analysis: Even though this is an ensemble comedy, Sarah Jessica Parker narrates, and most of the promotional posters focused on her. The film also benefitted from its success as a TV show, where SJP’s job as a columnist took center stage.

Verdict: Sarah Jessica Parker movie, supported by a prominent female cast.

********************************************************************
What Happens in Vegas: Cameron Diaz’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $80,199,843
Cast: co-starring Ashton Kutcher as love interest, anonymous supporting cast, including Rob Corddry, Lake Bell, and Jason Sudeikis

Analysis: Who cares? This movie sucked and Diaz/Kutcher could’ve been replaced by other actors and it probably wouldn’t have made a difference. They both got equal billing and promotion, and since it’s a rom-com of sorts, and rom-coms rely on, you know, a romantic relationship, it too is a draw.

Verdict: Diaz/Kutcher movie, supported by an anonymous cast.

********************************************************************

(Sandra Bullock: did not star in any films in 2008)

Analysis: From what I can gather, she produced several films/owns a production company, so that’s where her loot came from.

********************************************************************
Four Christmases: Reese Witherspoon’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $120,136,047
Cast: co-starring Vince Vaughn as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Jon Voight, and Jon Favreau

Analysis: Same deal—it’s a rom-com, so yeah. I’d like to argue that Reese Witherspoon’s Oscar win trumps Vince Vaughn’s whole schlubby-funny-guy thing, but the unfortunate reality is that the success of rom-coms doesn’t usually depend on the actual quality of the actors/acting.

Verdict: Witherspoon/Vaughn movie, supported by a prominent, mostly male cast, with the exception of Spacek.

********************************************************************
Australia: Nicole Kidman’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $49,420,849
Cast: co-starring Hugh Jackman, anonymous supporting cast, including Shea Adams, Eddie Baroo, Ray Barrett, and Tony Barry

Analysis: Love, or something. I never bothered to see this gem, given the reviews, but if the movie poster is anything to go by, I’m pretty sure it’s about love and Australia. Nicole Kidman has won two Oscars and everyone loves her, so I’m tempted to call Kidman the main attraction. Except! Hugh Jackman is totally Wolverine!

Verdict: Kidman/Jackman movie, supported by an anonymous cast.

********************************************************************
Beverly Hills Chihuahua: Drew Barrymore’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $94,497,271
Cast: well-known supporting cast including Piper Perabo, Andy Garcia, George Lopez, Cheech Martin, Edward James Olmos, and Jamie Lee Curtis

Analysis: Um.

Verdict: Talking Chihuahua movie, with Barrymore’s voice supported by a prominent male cast (and Jamie Lee Curtis).

********************************************************************
Leatherheads: Renee Zellweger’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $31,199,215
Cast: co-starring George Clooney and John Krasinski, anonymous supporting cast, including David de Vries, Rick Forrester, Malcolm Goodwin, and Matt Bushell

Analysis: Zellweger barely got mentioned in the promotion of this film and seems to have been relegated to the infamous barely-there role-as-female-love-interest. Didn’t they show her in the previews literally cheering from the sidelines?

Verdict: George Clooney movie, supported by an anonymous male cast.

********************************************************************
Indiana Jones: Cate Blanchett’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $316,957,122
Cast: co-starring Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, and John Hurt

Analysis: I actually think this is a tough one. Blanchett = brilliant Oscar-winning actress, so it’s hard to exclusively call this for Ford. But in reality, would people have gone to see this if Cate Blanchett’s role-as-villain had been played by another actress? Yes.

Verdict: Harrison Ford movie, supported by a prominent actress (Blanchett) and a mostly male cast.

********************************************************************
Get Smart: Anne Hathaway’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $130,246,343
Cast: co-starring Steve Carell, well-known supporting cast, including Dwayne Johnson, Alan Arkin, James Caan, and Bill Murray

Analysis: I watched the first fifteen minutes of this before turning it off, and it appeared as if Carell and Hathaway had a whole equal partnership going on. But I have to admit, I was only talked into watching it because someone reminded me that Steve Carell is hilarious. When I realized it was the worst fifteen minutes of a film I’d ever seen, I lamented that Hathaway chose to be a part of it.

Verdict: Carell/Hathaway movie, supported by a prominent male cast.

********************************************************************

(Halle Berry: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: I don’t know man, I don’t know.

********************************************************************
The Other Boleyn Girl: Scarlett Johansson’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $26,814,957
Cast: co-starring Natalie Portman and Eric Bana, anonymous supporting cast, including Jim Sturgess, Mark Rylance, David Morrissey, and Kristen Scott Thomas

Analysis: This film was all kinds of offensive. The marketing mainly focused on the casting of Portman/Johansson as vengeful sisters, (fighting over a man) so I’m only barely giving it to Johansson, since she’s the actual “Other Boleyn Girl” … and the supposed heroine.

Verdict: Scarlett Johansson movie, supported by Bana, Portman, and an anonymous, mostly male cast.

********************************************************************
The Reader: Kate Winslet’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $34,111,418
Cast: co-starring Ralph Fiennes, anonymous supporting cast, including Jeanette Hain, David Cross, Susanne Lothar, and Alissa Wilms

Analysis: I had no idea who else was in this besides Kate Winslet. And she won an Oscar (finally) for this role.

Verdict: 100% Kate Winslet movie, supported by Fiennes and an anonymous, male/female cast.

********************************************************************
Indiana Jones: Harrison Ford’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $316,957,122
Cast: co-starring Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, and John Hurt

Analysis: We already went over this. Blanchett. Brilliant. Doesn’t matter.

Verdict: Begrudgingly given to Ford.

********************************************************************
Bedtime Stories: Adam Sandler’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $109,993,847
Cast: co-starring Keri Russell and Guy Pearce, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Russell Brand, Richard Griffiths, Lucy Lawless, Courteney Cox, and Carmen Electra

Analysis: Adam Sandler was the only person in this film they even attempted to promote, which is good news for all the other actors associated with this piece.

Verdict: Adam Sandler can have it, with support from a prominent female/less prominent male cast.

********************************************************************
Hancock: Will Smith’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $227,946,274
Cast: co-starring Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman, anonymous supporting cast, including Jae Head, Eddie Marsan, and David Mattey

Analysis: It’s a Will Smith action movie, what more can one say? Sure, Charlize Theron is an Oscar-winning actress who plays the role of “very important sidekick” next to a world famous action hero, but just check out the ridiculous movie poster if you need confirmation.

Verdict: Will Smith movie, supported by Theron and random men I’ve never heard of.

********************************************************************
Meet Dave: Eddie Murphy’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $11,644,832
Cast: co-starring Elizabeth Banks, anonymous supporting cast, including Gabrielle Union, Scott Caan, Ed Helms, Kevin Hart, and Mike O’Malley

Analysis: Has Eddie Murphy ever been in a movie that isn’t an Eddie Murphy movie? Again: movie poster. (Bonus points for anyone who can find me a film poster that features a female lead like this. Hint: one of the films on this big ass list does it.)

Verdict: Eddie Murphy movie, supported by Banks and less well-known actors.

********************************************************************
Knowing: Nicolas Cage’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $79,911,877
Cast: anonymous supporting cast, including Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne, Lara Robinson, D.G. Maloney, and Nadia Townsend

Analysis: I think the phrase “anonymous supporting cast” is enough of an analysis.

Verdict: Nicolas Cage movie, supported by an anonymous male/female cast.

********************************************************************

(Tom Hanks: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: I’m pretty sure Tom Hanks makes money just by existing.

********************************************************************
Tropic Thunder: Tom Cruise’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $110,416,702
Cast: cameo/supporting role by Cruise, well-known ensemble cast, including Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, and Ben Stiller

Analysis: No one really knew Tom Cruise was in this, and many people didn’t recognize him even as they watched. I kind of love that. Were there any women in this movie?

Verdict: I’ll give it to any one of the other prominent male cast members who isn’t Tom Cruise.

********************************************************************
Horton Hears a Who!: Jim Carrey’s highest grossing film of 2008
Gross: $154,388,002
Cast: well-known ensemble/supporting cast, including Steve Carell, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett, Seth Rogen, Isla Fisher, Jonah Hill, and Amy Poehler

Analysis: They promoted this as a Jim Carrey/Steve Carell comedy, but Jim Carrey is Jim Carrey and Steve Carell made Evan Almighty. It’s a kids film, though, so maybe none of that matters.

Verdict: My 4-year-old niece doesn’t give a shit, so neither do I, supported by a prominent male/female cast.

********************************************************************
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Brad Pitt’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $127,490,802
Cast: co-starring Cate Blanchett as love interest, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Julia Ormond and Taraji P. Henson

Analysis: Cate Blanchett’s performance in this captured me much more than Brad Pitt’s performance, but I guess the Academy feels like they’ve already given her enough Oscars. Ultimately, the stand-outs were the women: Blanchett and Henson. But Brad Pitt has a bunch of kids with Angelina Jolie and he even dressed up in some kind of old man disguise for this film, so I really don’t know what to do here. I’m taking a cue from the movie poster.

Verdict: Pitt/Blanchett movie, supported mainly by a female cast of mommies and love interests.

********************************************************************

(Johnny Depp: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: Remember when Johnny Depp wore that cut-off-at-the-waist football jersey in Nightmare on Elm Street?

********************************************************************
Burn After Reading: George Clooney’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $60,338,891
Cast: well-known ensemble cast, including Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins, Tilda Swinton, and John Malkovich

Analysis: I just watched this five days ago and was totally surprised by the focus on McDormand and Swinton. All these people have either been nominated for Oscars or won Oscars, and it’s definitely an ensemble-driven film. So, sorry Clooney, this doesn’t exclusively go to you.

Verdict: Everyone, equal weight given to a prominent male/female cast.

********************************************************************
Body of Lies: Russell Crowe’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $39,380,442
Cast: co-starring Leonardo DiCaprio, anonymous supporting cast, including Mark Strong, Golshifteh Farahani, and Ali Suliman

Analysis: I actually couldn’t remember what the hell this movie was, so I looked it up and even then I still didn’t remember it ever existing. But apparently it made money. So who do I give it to, Crowe or DiCaprio? The suspense!

Verdict: Who cares—didn’t this go straight to DVD? (Men supporting men.)

********************************************************************
Iron Man: Robert Downey Jr.’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $318,298,180
Cast: co-starring Gwyneth Paltrow as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Paul Bettany, and Jon Favreau

Analysis: Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow! Oh wait, that doesn’t mean anything? Just check out our review of this movie here.

Verdict: Robert Downey Jr., supported by Paltrow and a prominent male cast.

********************************************************************

(Denzel Washington: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: I love you, Denzel.

********************************************************************
Four Christmases: Vince Vaughn’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $120,136,047
Cast: co-starring Reese Witherspoon as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Jon Voight, and Jon Favreau

Analysis: See above. Even though Vaughn could be a good actor if he wanted to, it doesn’t really matter in the simplistic world of rom-com.

Verdict: Witherspoon/Vaughn movie, supported by men and Spacek.

********************************************************************

So, did I learn anything from this exercise? What the hell was I trying to do again? Oh yeah, depress the shit out of myself, and this:

… discover if a trend exists where male leads star in their “own movies” whereas female leads tend to blend in with the rest of their cast (which often includes major male actors) …

Well, the male leads who star as the “main attraction,” surrounded by a mostly anonymous supporting cast include George Clooney in Leatherheads (this one’s tricky since Zellweger and Krasinski co-star and probably don’t count as “anonymous” ha, but whatever), Adam Sandler in Bedtime Stories, Nicolas Cage in Knowing, and Eddie Murphy in Meet Dave.

One could argue that films like Iron Man and Indiana Jones and Hancock and The Other Boleyn Girl—films that relegate prominent lead actresses to the status of sidekick and/or love interest (and for that matter, go on ahead and add The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to that list)—while the men go off and save the world and/or run the world and/or do shit in the world, and shit, might as well fall into the male-lead-as-main-attraction category.

I think maybe I just convinced myself that they do. Fuck.

Okay, so, the female leads who manage to star as the “main attraction,” surrounded by a mostly anonymous supporting cast include, um … Kate Winslet in The Reader?! That’s it? I guess Ralph Fiennes isn’t even anonymous, but neither are Zellweger and Krasinski, and I gave Clooney Leatherheads! Take that, film industry!

I’m depressed.

It appears, from this list at least, that female leads either co-star with a male lead in romantic comedies, or star in films that include a prominent supporting cast, (Mamma Mia!, Sex and the City). Clearly, we could use more Tomb Raiders and Changelings (go Angelina!) and whatever other movies our actresses have starred in as the “main attraction” who’s surrounded by a mostly anonymous supporting cast.

Can we make a list, please? Because I’m pretty sure I was wrong when I suggested that the audience might only be viewing female leads as helpers, partners, and assistants; the film industry actually fucking treats them that way.

********************************************************************

Bonus Movie Poster

Pay Discrimination in Hollywood, Who Knew?

Forbes recently published a list of Hollywood’s top-earning actresses, for films completed within the previous year.

Please note the following:

“As is still typical for Hollywood, our actresses earned significantly less than their male counterparts. Harrison Ford was the top-earning actor this year with $65 million, $38 million more than Jolie earned. All told, the top 10 actors earned $393 million, compared with $183 million for the top 10 actresses.”

Take a look at the 15 Top-Earning Actresses, along with their respective career Oscar wins and Oscar nominations.

1. Angelina Jolie: $27 million

1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations

2. Jennifer Aniston: $25 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

3. Meryl Streep: $24 million

2 Oscar wins, 15 Oscar nominations

4. Sarah Jessica Parker: $23 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

5. Cameron Diaz: $20 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

6. Sandra Bullock (tie): $15 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

7. Reese Witherspoon (tie): $15 million

1 Oscar win, 1 Oscar nomination

8. Nicole Kidman (tie): $12 million

1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations

9. Drew Barrymore (tie): $12 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

10. Renee Zellweger: $10 million

1 Oscar win, 3 Oscar nominations

11. Cate Blanchett: $8 million

1 Oscar win, 4 Oscar nominations

12. Anne Hathaway (tie): $7 million

0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination

13. Halle Berry (tie): $7 million

1 Oscar win, 1 Oscar nomination

14. Scarlett Johansson: $5.5 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

15. Kate Winslet: $2 million

1 Oscar win, 6 Oscar nominations

Total Amount of Money Earned: $212.5 million
Total Number of Oscar Nominations: 35
Total Number of Oscar Wins: 9

***************************************************************

And, just for kicks, here’s the Forbes list of the 15 Top-Earning Actors:

1. Harrison Ford: $65 million
(0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination)

2. Adam Sandler: $55 million
(0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations)

3. Will Smith: $45 million
(0 Oscar wins, 2 Oscar nominations)

4. Eddie Murphy (tie): $40 million
(0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination)

5. Nicolas Cage (tie): $40 million
(1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations)

6. Tom Hanks: $35 million
(2 Oscar wins, 5 Oscar nominations)

7. Tom Cruise: $30 million
(0 Oscar wins, 3 Oscar nominations)

8. Jim Carrey (tie): $28 million
(0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations)

9. Brad Pitt (tie): $28 million
(0 Oscar wins, 2 Oscar nominations)

10. Johnny Depp: $27 million
(0 Oscar wins, 3 Oscar nominations)

11. George Clooney: $25 million
(for acting: 1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations)

12. Russell Crowe (tie): $20 million
(1 Oscar win, 3 Oscar nominations)

13. Robert Downey Jr. (tie): $20 million
(0 Oscar wins, 2 Oscar nominations)

14. Denzel Washington (tie): $20 million
(2 Oscar wins, 5 Oscar nominations)

15. Vince Vaughn: $14 million
(0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations)

Total Amount of Money Earned: $492 million
Total Number of Oscar Nominations: 31
Total Number of Oscar Wins: 7

***************************************************************

In the past year, the top-earning men made over twice the amount of money as the top-earning women. Perhaps the Oscar info might seem arbitrary; the films that usually gross the most money (summer blockbusters, Apatow, etc) don’t necessarily line up with the many low-budget films that garner Oscar nominations for the performances (The Reader, Rachel Getting Married).

But I still find it disheartening, to say the least, to look at a list where the highest paid women in the previous year, who have won more Oscars overall (arguably the most prestigious award in the history of fucking filmmaking), and who have been nominated for more Oscars overall, still earned less than half of what their male counterparts earned.

***************************************************************

Now, to get really super-crazy, let’s look at the highest grossing films that the top five earning actors and actresses released last year, specifically noting who starred, the exact box office gross, and the overall “fresh” rating on rotten tomatoes (a high percentage means critics thought it rocked; anything lower than 60% usually means it was a piece of shit).

Actresses

1. Angelina Jolie: Kung Fu Panda
Box Office: $215,395,021
RT Rating: 89%

2. Jennifer Aniston: Marley & Me
Box Office: $143,084,510
RT Rating: 61%

3. Meryl Streep: Mamma Mia!
Box Office: $143,704,210
RT Rating: 53%

4. Sarah Jessica Parker: Sex and the City
Box Office: $152,595,674
RT Rating: 50%

5. Cameron Diaz: What Happens in Vegas
Box Office: $80,199,843
RT Rating: 27%

Total Box Office Gross: $734,979,258
Average RT Rating: 56%

Actors

1. Harrison Ford: Indiana Jones … Crystal Skull
Box Office: $316,957,122
RT Rating: 76%

2. Adam Sandler: Bedtime Stories
Box Office: $109,993,847
RT Rating: 23%

3. Will Smith: Hancock
Box Office: $227,946,274
RT Rating: 39%

4. Eddie Murphy: Meet Dave
Box Office: $11,644,832
RT Rating: 19%

5. Nicolas Cage: Knowing
Box Office: $79,911,877
RT Rating: 32%

Total Box Office Gross: $746,453,952
Average RT Rating: 38%

***************************************************************

Basically, the women made much better films according to critics. And while the men grossed more at the box office, by $11.5 million, it’s hardly worth mentioning when you’re talking about $746 million versus $735 million. And yet, the top five actors still earned more than double ($245 million) what the top five actresses earned ($119 million).

Will someone please explain to me how this isn’t blatant gender-based discrimination?

Movie Review: Duplicity

Duplicity (2009). Written and directed by Tony Gilroy. Starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Excellent supporting roles by Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti.

Duplicity has dropped out of the top box-office earners since its March 20th release; though it has earned a total of over $40 million domestically, that’s not enough to cover its budget of $60 million.

I saw Duplicity in the theaters last month in part because of the positive reviews paired with skeptical press and questions about whether Julia Roberts could still open a movie. (Questions that angered me enough to express my opinion with my wallet, an action I believe is important.) A recent story clip on MSN compelled me to revisit the movie. The headline “Moneymakers” beside a picture of Julia Roberts, with the byline “Hollywood’s most bankable actresses” links to an article that discusses which actresses can currently be counted on to bring in the bucks. “Moneymaker”, of course, is a term most commonly associated with pornography, prostitution, and the objectification of the female ass, in particular.

The actress-as-commodity isn’t anything unusual in the sexist institution of mainstream filmmaking, but describing a popular actress as a “moneymaker” creates a serious problem. While box office numbers (and particularly opening weekend numbers) determine a film’s success and influence executives in terms of which movies are greenlighted, I have to wonder if it’s the actress’ ass alone bringing people into theaters.

Anyhow, on to the movie.

Duplicity expects level of sophistication and intelligence from its audience, which includes the ability to follow a story that jerks viewers from location to location, and from time to time. It’s a romantic comedy, but it makes you think. Maybe this is a problem for box-office bucks, but a little mental effort makes a movie much more enjoyable–for adults, at least.

Thinking about Ripley’s Rule as a litmus test, this movie actually barely passes–if at all. This fact ordinarily is a big problem for me, but in Duplicity it feels like an afterthought. It’s a romantic comedy, but not the kind we’ve become accustomed to. As a number of reviewers have previously mentioned, this film hearkens back to the screwball comedies of the 1940s, when wit was king, and the women generally matched the men in smarts (that’s not to say that the gender politics were a mess in those movies). What makes the movie good–and so different from other romantic comedies–is that the man and woman are on an even keel. Domination of one or the other sex isn’t the issue. These characters have bigger fish to fry–namely, their bosses in the world of corporate espionage. It’s as if Michael Clayton were remade into a romantic comedy.

If you aren’t convinced that the movie is worth seeing, the opening credits present the strangest and most hilarious fight scene in recent memory.

Here’s the trailer:

Bea Arthur 1922 – 2009

Bea Arthur, star of sitcoms Maude (1972 – 1978) and The Golden Girls (1985 – 1992) and Tony Award winner, died over the weekend after a battle with cancer. Here are some clips to remember her by.

“Maude’s Dilemma,” where Maude, age 47, decides to have an abortion. The episode aired before Roe vs. Wade (1973), when abortion was legal in New York, but illegal still in many parts of the United States. Search on YouTube for a minute and you can watch the entire two-part episode.

“Sniff, Swig, Puff” with Rock Hudson on The Beatrice Arthur Special (1980):

“Bosom Buddies” with Angela Lansbury, for which Arthur won the Tony:

Some highlights from The Golden Girls, where I first came to know Arthur:

A Big WTF to the NYT

Published in the New York Times on Saturday, March 20, “An Entourage of Their Own” by Deborah Schoeneman, highlights the friendship of four women writing in Hollywood today: Dana Fox, who wrote What Happens in Vegas and the screenplay for The Wedding Date; Diablo Cody, who wrote (and won the Oscar for) Juno, the upcoming Jennifer’s Body, and the Showtime series The United States of Tara; Liz Meriwether, who is beginning a screenwriting career after a successful run as a playwright in NYC; and Lorene Scafaria, wrote the screenplay for Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.

Here’s what’s great about the article: In these writers, we have four talented women who give us a positive model of the power of female solidarity, especially in an industry not known for such behavior. In the mode of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ the article brings attention to women working in Hollywood, and wants to be about how these women navigate life, work, and success in a deeply sexist industry.

Here’s the trouble: “An Entourage of Their Own” appears in the Fashion & Style section.

Why are we reading a fashion article about these women? Especially when there’s very little discussion of fashion or personal style?

Okay, so the four women—who happen to be screenwriters in an industry hostile (at the very least) to powerful women—have a certain kind of style that is more hipster than glam…we guess. Fine. But the way the (female!) writer depicts these women, using the language of submissive sexuality, is atrocious.

Take the opening paragraph:

Cross-legged in one director’s chair was Lorene Scafaria — black pants, brown high heels, amused gaze — leaning in to ask the next question. Waiting to answer, cross-legged in another, was Diablo Cody, struggling to keep her short blue dress from riding up.

This is a style piece (and lifestyle, to be more exact), but why the need to immediately objectify—and sexualize—the women, particularly Cody, with her near-exposure? The first four paragraphs include “cross-legged,” “crossed legs,” “gaze,” “leaning in,” “struggling,” “short blue dress,” “riding up,” “gorgeous,” “naked,” “plunged,” “revealing,” “intimate glimpse,” and “nudity.” At this point, readers are not thinking about fashion or style–much less what they’re interested in writing about–we’re thinking about these women as sexualized objects.

The writer is quick to remind us how hard they work, and how few women can achieve their level of success (!) in Hollywood, and how that success can’t be attributed to their looks, but, just as quickly, she undermines their hard work by quoting men in the biz.

“When you read a screenplay, it doesn’t come with a picture on the cover,” said Adam Siegel, president of Marc Platt Productions, a producer who is friends with all four women and has worked with all except Ms. Cody. “I know a few beautiful women, but none of them write like Dana, Liz, Lorene or Diablo.”

What, exactly, does beauty have to do with writing? If their success cannot be attributed to their good looks, why the incessant need to talk about it? Why is coverage of female filmmakers relegated to the style section of the paper? Finally, if we’re going to have a style piece about the “Fempire,” how about some discussion of their personal style and the way it reflects their confidence, or how it differs from other women who have achieved a similar level of success and power in Hollywood?

The Power of Representation

Representing President Obama as a “Super-feminist” has ignited a debate over who the savior of feminism ought to be (see here for a good overview), and likely sold a lot of copies of Ms. magazine’s January edition. Praise for the new president’s political aspirations regarding women’s rights isn’t contended; it’s how the feminist magazine chose to portray Obama: tearing open his Clark Kent clothes to swoop in and rescue us. It’s the representation that has people peeved.

For our purposes here at BF, two articles were published last month–the weekend before the inauguration–about the impact the movies had on Obama’s election. Not that the movies got him elected, but how roles black American men play in the movies have a real effect on the people who see them, and how we can see, through the movies, our own cultural values reflected back on us.

If you ever question how important representation in film really is, I think these articles make the point well. While they specifically focus on male presidential aspirations (and on the unique history of black Americans), they also remind us how pop culture permeates our society and informs opinions and values.

The New York Times published “How the Movies Made a President,”written by A.O. Scott and Manhola Dargis, in their Film section. The article provides an overview of black male roles, from the “Black Everyman” of the ’60s to the “Black Messiah,” currently played and re-played by Will Smith.

Make no mistake: Hollywood’s historic refusal to embrace black artists and its insistence on racist caricatures and stereotypes linger to this day. Yet in the past 50 years — or, to be precise, in the 47 years since Mr. Obama was born — black men in the movies have traveled from the ghetto to the boardroom, from supporting roles in kitchens, liveries and social-problem movies to the rarefied summit of the Hollywood A-list. In those years the movies have helped images of black popular life emerge from behind what W. E. B. Du Bois called “a vast veil,” creating public spaces in which we could glimpse who we are and what we might become.

We hear from the likes of Elizabeth Banks and Katherine Heigl that the only roles really open to them—genuinely talented, lovely young actresses—are that of sidekick, buddy, and romantic object. It’s not that there haven’t been good, meaty roles for women; there have, for sure. But what movie roles do young girls imitate? What fictional figures can women look up to?

The Root’s “Hollywood’s Leading Man: From Sammy Davis Jr. to Dave Chappelle’s Black Bush, how pop culture tested the waters for a black president” offers a more nuanced and contrarian view of the power of pop culture (and reminds us of the egos of those who really believe their art makes a difference). The article surveys the satirical representations of a black president as representative of the racial divide in America, but cites the series 24 as a shift–although one not without its problems–and questions how television and cinema will change.

So now that we have a black president, how will we react to media portrayals? Will there be pressure among writers and producers to create black leaders who feel real and black-led administrations that feel plausible? Will we, as viewers, be able to enjoy over-the-top portrayals of black presidents, such as Terry Crews’ wig-wearing wrestler in Idiocracy, as merely fun entertainment, devoid of racial and social commentary?

Might we perhaps see a black actor playing the lead in a complex drama like The West Wing, or a romantic comedy along An American President, where the president gets to be a fully fleshed out human, and not a cardboard icon? And isn’t it about time that we saw a portrayal of an African-American president who just happens to be a woman, too?

I, too, would like to see that woman. And I think we’d all like to see her on the cover of Ms., wearing a t-shirt that reads “This is what a feminist looks like.”

Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: The Invisible Woman?


Like a lot of women I know, superhero movies don’t really thrill me.

It wasn’t always this way. I have a clear memory of parading through the classrooms of my elementary school, when I was in fourth grade, dressed as Batman. I remember clearly that I felt powerful—not just because I was the Caped Crusader, but because my peers couldn’t tell if I was a boy or a girl.

Fast forward twenty years, when I enjoyed Batman Begins and looked forward to seeing what Maggie Gyllenahall would do for the role Katie Holmes tiptoed through. Turns out that Ms. Holmes wasn’t the problem with Rachel Dawes–Rachel Dawes was.

Although I had She-Ra action figures as a child, He-Man and Batman proved much more influential. While my childhood proclivities may be more revealing of my own personality than evidence of a lack of strong female characters, as an adult looking at representations of super-human power in the media, it’s more of a man’s world than ever.

Alyssa Rosenberg takes on the issue of female superheroes in the age of testosterone-fueled CGI blockbusters in her superb article “The Invisible Woman,” published this past September in The American Prospect. She talks of how comic books have numerous strong female characters—and a strong, growing female readership—but how Hollywood can’t seem to follow suit.

After a summer during which women flexed their box-office muscle, giving Sex and the City the highest-grossing opening for an R-rated comedy in movie history, it’s not inconceivable to think that a superheroine flick could draw on both the “girls’ night out” crowd and the already broad fan base for comic-book movies. That would be a great development, and not just for the studios that would experience a revenue bump of the kind provided by the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises. Superheroine movies could instantly provide badly needed quality roles for talented female actresses of varying ages and ethnicities, helping to address a gender imbalance in summer movies that’s caused critics like The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis (herself a minority in a world of mostly male reviewers) some serious heartburn.

Here’s hoping 2009 might bring some super-heroines whose shoes and sexuality aren’t her defining features.

Elizabeth Banks on a Porno

The number two movie at the box office this past weekend was Kevin Smith’s comedy Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Classically-trained actress, Elizabeth Banks, calls the role the best she’s ever played, and enthuses that director Kevin Smith “actually put a woman’s name in the title of a movie.”

Yeah, but he also put the word “porno” as the title’s direct object.

Read the LA Times interview with Banks, titled “Actress Elizabeth Banks is as versatile as they’ll let her be.”

About Banks, Smith says “She’s got that ‘guy’s girl’ thing going for her, so she can roll with dudes and be funny, but scrape that away and you realize this chick is way better than an R-rated comedy.”

I’ve heard the movie is funny and sweet, but I can’t help but to be skeptical of a celebration of this role, particularly with the bizarre and sexist statements that pop up in the very positive article.

Banks, like many actors in Hollywood, struggles with her desire to be taken seriously and do important work, but to be successful, too.

“You can go be in a female-driven indie and make two cents and maybe get an Independent Spirit Award, but then you can’t pay your car lease,” she says. “So Vince Vaughn makes movies, he needs a girl to be in it with him, it might be me.”

Movie Review: Baby Mama

Just to put it out there, I love Tina Fey. Who doesn’t right now, with her Emmy-winning TV series 30 Rock returning soon, and her riotously funny return to Saturday Night Live as Sarah Palin? If you haven’t yet seen Baby Mama, starring (but not written by) Fey and Amy Poehler, rent it. It’s funny, it’s smart, and–as a bonus–it’s one of the few movies that passes the Bechdel Test.

Baby Mama opens with a monologue from Kate (Tina Fey) that states a central problem for women who value both work and family, and it’s worth quoting here at length:

I did everything that I was supposed to do. I didn’t cry in meetings, I didn’t wear short skirts, I put up with the weird upper-management guys that kiss you on the mouth at Christmas. Is it fair that to be the youngest VP in my company I will be the oldest mom at preschool? Not really, but that’s part of the deal. I made a choice. Some women got pregnant; I got promotions. And I still aspire to meet someone, and fall in love, and get married, but that is a very high risk scenario. And I want a baby now. I’m 37.

Everything that Kate was supposed to do is a negation—she actually did nothing she wasn’t supposed to do: she didn’t get emotional, she didn’t inappropriately use her sexuality, she didn’t reprimand her superiors for inappropriate behavior. In other words, she put up with sexism and accepted the lies about women in the workplace, like “choice,” and “fairness.” She didn’t argue and she didn’t speak up for herself. She was a Yes Woman.

The beginning of the movie sets a high standard—and high hopes—for what follows. The initial joke here is that her monologue doesn’t address us—the audience—but a date. A first date. At the same time as give us our first laugh, she establishes her character as smart and ambitious, and still a woman who wants a child.

The plot of the movie is rather traditional, with a few twists, but it isn’t the plot that makes the movie so good. It’s the inherent critiques of male-dominated institutions that are subtle enough to avoid sounding topical or preachy, but strong and effective enough to reach the film’s smart viewers.

Real Life and Business

First is a critique—that runs throughout the movie—of the corporate business model. Kate’s sister, Caroline (Maura Tierney) first introduces the divide between “business” and “real life” when she chides Kate that “having a baby isn’t like opening one of your stores.” Caroline, who represents the perfect “mommy” in the movie, thinks that Kate’s approach to having a baby is too business-like.

Further, Chaffee Bicknell (Sigourney Weaver), who runs the surrogacy institute, refers to surrogacy as “outsourcing” and a “growth market,” and takes serious note of Kate’s joke about women in third-world countries carrying babies for wealthy women. Bicknell equates a nanny with a surrogate; a nanny takes care of your baby after it’s born, a surrogate takes care of your baby before it’s born. The ironic twist is that Bicknell is fertile to the point of absurdity, and didn’t start the business out of empathy, but simply for capitalist reasons.

This divide between “real life” and “business” is affirmed further by a conversation between Angie (Poehler) and her common law husband, Carl (Dax Shepard). In a scene where Carl refers to Kate as “Katie,” Angie defends her relationship with Kate (a plot twist, which I won’t reveal here, initiates the conversation). Carl tells Angie “You think you guys would be friends in real life? She’s a business lady. It’s just business.”

So what does this all add up to? Kate is, in fact, an unapologetic business lady. When love interest Rob (Greg Kinnear) warns her against “the man,” Kate thinks he means the cops when, in fact, he’s talking about rival smoothie makers Jamba Juice. “Jamba Juice is the man?” she asks. Kate, VP of operations for a corporate organic grocery, is also “the man.” It’s not clear, however, whether she’s aware of this fact, or how important the fact really is—to Kate and to the movie. The movie certainly critiques (and parodies) her corporate culture, but it still celebrates her success within it.

Hip Hop Culture

Critique of the hip hop industry comes from two subtle moments in the movie. In the first, we meet Kate’s doorman, Oscar (Romany Malco), singing along with his iPod to a song objectifying women. Oscar, for me, is probably the most troubling issue with the movie. Not only is he perpetually popping up in scenes, but his characterization reeks of stereotype and is a little cringe-worthy at times. He delivers some smart, funny lines, but doesn’t become a fully-realized character. Yet, viewers recognize a silly divide between the man he is and the music he consumes.

Not long after, Carl rummages through Kate’s media drawer and, dissatisfied, asks “Don’t you get down with rap?” Kate replies “Boy, somewhere in there I have an old Salt-N-Pepa CD.” While Kate name-checks some 90s hip hop that’s certainly more female-friendly than most of today’s fare, the implication is that she wouldn’t listen to music that she could, in no way, relate to. Or, it may simply show how out-of-touch she is with popular culture. The latter could certainly be the case, as an evening out with Angie shows how rarely Kate lets loose for a good time.

Men and Women, Talking

The movie’s men are all boyfriends, bosses, sidekicks—the standard roles for women in mainstream movies. While Kate’s boss, new-ager Barry, Carl, and Oscar are stereotypes, her love interest is a bit more round, even addressing gender during their first date. After Kate places a very specific Philly steak order, she says “I’m sorry. I’m a little overly thorough. Some people would say that I am bossy and controlling.” Rob replies “No, that’s just prejudice. They call you bossy and controlling ‘cause you’re a woman. But if you were a man doing the same stuff, you’d just be a dick.” The joke here is that he doesn’t say she’d be called “assertive” or the like; he actually insults her. While some enjoy this method of flirtation more than others, the recognition of a gender power dynamic is a cue for sympathetic viewers that he’s a smart match for Kate.

The real story of the movie isn’t the baby, of course, but the women. I love that about the movie. Kate and Angie fight, and are allowed real conflicts—in their own lives and with each other. There’s a nasty exchange of words between the two, where Kate reveals her classism, which had previously just shown up in comedic moments. A real friendship develops between them, and the movie is no less funny for it.