It seems there just aren't any real women in the summer movies. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/m...argi.html?scp=1&sq=women+in+the+movies&st=nyt
I'm not clear why female-led movies tend to fare so poorly (i.e. non-romantic female-led films). Is Angelina Jolie the only successful female blockbuster-header?
^ I believe Sigourney Weaver did pretty well in her day. I think it's a bit extreme to say that women have been eliminated from cinema altogether. I rather liked Notes on a Scandal a while back; and that film rested its case on two great performances from the female leads; with the highest profile male probably being that composer playing the same notes over and over again and making a fortune by-the-by. Ahem. More recent films I've seen with a strong emphasis on their female characters? Uh, The Red Balloon. And Persepolis. But yes, I can't recall the last time I went to see an action film which focused on its women (outside of a wuxia picture). But I doubt that will remain constant. Maybe I'm a dunce and have missed the boat, but I thought girls with guns were a popular topic amongst certain key demographics. Anyway, I think a film should focus however it likes. If it has an all female or predominantly female cast; or vice versa, whatever works to serve the story. It's nothing new either; Lawrence of Arabia has no female speaking roles - unthinkable in any film today.
The interesting women's roles are all on TV now. I'm increasingly focusing on TV a lot more than movies. To me, movies are just icing on the cake, but the fact that TV can tell a long, complex story with significant amounts of character development is far more interesting than anything that could happen in a mere two to three hours. That movie is not really what the article is focused on. There will always be the small, indy, artsy movies that don't follow the Hollywood blockbuster formula, but most people are going to stuff like Iron Man.
True. But the article took its time near the start to berate prestige fare like There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, so I felt it was appropriate to note.
Oh for crying out loud, cry me a friggin river already.Just because there aren't any women superfreaks who can somehow beat up 100 guys a la "Charlies Angels" or "Kill Bill" doesn't mean there aren't any smart women characters in the movies. Talk about feminism run AWOL.
There are, but the problem is that money stands above everything, including gender, race, ideology, and even creativity. And women aren't stupid.
Interesting how they mention No Country For Old Men and There Will be Blood, yet fail to mention another of the big oscar nominees: Juno, which has a female character at its core, and for the most part depicts the male characters as immature.
Ahem: But it's true they gloss over Juno in that opening preamble, which unfairly skewers the emphasis somewhat. Of the other Oscar nominees, two of Atonement's three principal characters, including the most important one, were women.
Only one major le character, to my thinking, was portrayed as immature. Her father and her boyfriend, especially, were equals or better in maturity to their female peers (actually, Juno herself was more immature in behavior than was her boyfriend). This, importantly, is cause as well as effect. Audiences tend to respond poorly to what few female-led non-romantic films are made, understandable as this may be given that such films, for whatever reason, are often more poorly conceived than their male-led contemporaries.
The thing is, a film that is so unrealistic it has some 5'5" girl beating up twenty guys in one scene is not going to get my money anyway, not unless she has superpowers in a comic book movie. A film, however, with a decent, well written, well acted female lead is just as likely to get my money as one with a male one. Give me Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton or Joan Allen in the Bourne movies over anything with Parker, Hudson, Aniston or Lopez. Unfortunately, the majority of films with female leads are generic, cookie cutter rom-coms that at best are just boring and at worst are man-hating rubbish.
Maybe if there were more superheroine movies with writers that didn't suck there would be more released. Supergirl, Elektra, and Catwomen were botten of the barrel.
But how is that any more implausible than the escapades of John McClane and Indiana Jones, say, who are also noticeably bereft of supernatural abilities? And, personally, I think this lack of realism can be handled both artistically and well. But I like those wuxia pictures so that opinion is a given...
I believe the "3 out of 20" is the point being made. Yours is an interesting counter-argument in that it not only fails to address the point, it somehow makes up its own point that wasn't the real issue.
The question is, though, is this a picture studio problem, or something at work in the general public. Hollywood typically follows the money, making its decisions amorally based on what sells, so criticism may be moving in the wrong direction.
If these women used their brains and improvisational skills to beat their opponents like McClane and Jones do, I'd be happy. No way would some of the characters I'm thinking of just shoot the guy waving swords at them. We'd have a ten minute Matrix-esque fight sequence. I'm not against characters like Carter in Stargate SG-1, for instance. There's no reason why she can't do all the things she does but if she got in to a fist fight with Teal'c she'd lose. When Teyla starts beating up Wraith, my eyes do start to roll back in to my head, though.
^I could buy a woman with stamina. I cannot buy a woman who can beat up a heavily trained, well armed man wearing body armour.