Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 04:29 AM Mar 2014

4 signs that 2014 was a shitty year for women in Hollywood

We're actually seeing more of each woman on the screen (as in her boobs) while seeing fewer women overall. Only 15 percent of all protagonists in the top grossing films of last year were women, which could just be a bad year for ladies ... if that number wasn't actually one point lower than in 2002. In other words, the year of Austin Powers in Goldmember was slightly better for women in film than the year of Gravity.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-that-2014-shitty-year-women-in-hollywood/#ixzz2wOokd3Cf

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
4 signs that 2014 was a shitty year for women in Hollywood (Original Post) gollygee Mar 2014 OP
seems pretty early in 2014 for this headline. .. pipoman Mar 2014 #1
Oh, should be "is" - I wrote it wrong gollygee Mar 2014 #2
I just read the article and saw that. .. pipoman Mar 2014 #3
Suzanne Collins... theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #4
Emma Thompson... theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #5
Was the writer asking specifically about franchises... theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #7
I don't know pipoman Mar 2014 #8
Well, okay then. theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #15
My response was a bit ambiguous on rereading it.. pipoman Mar 2014 #16
Got our wires crossed. theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #17
That was 1995 gollygee Mar 2014 #10
Um... not at all. theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #14
They're talking about women producing/writing/etc. in FILMS, not books films were adapted from gollygee Mar 2014 #9
That isn't what the quote I posted said at all. .. pipoman Mar 2014 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author gollygee Mar 2014 #12
It hasn't been a good decade for women in film Ghost of Tom Joad Mar 2014 #6
One thing I really like about watching AMC (American Movie Channel) theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #11
The 15% of Big Stars in Big Hits is not nearly as meaningful as this bit of the article: Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #18
So the question becomes, is it the audience demographic that's changed? theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #19
Thank you. Good to see the salient point addressed redqueen Mar 2014 #21
It always sucks ismnotwasm Mar 2014 #20

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
2. Oh, should be "is" - I wrote it wrong
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 06:06 AM
Mar 2014

However many of the movies they're talking about were from 2013.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
3. I just read the article and saw that. ..
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 06:16 AM
Mar 2014
"Why not? Name one successful book adaptation franchise that camefrom a woman writer. One. We're waiting ..."

I also saw this. ..Harry Potter, Twilight, Fifty Shades. .

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
5. Emma Thompson...
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:10 AM
Mar 2014

... and the Nanny McPhee films. She not only starred in the films but wrote the screenplays.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
7. Was the writer asking specifically about franchises...
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:18 AM
Mar 2014

... rather than individual films? Either way, there are plenty of women who have both written screenplays for franchise movies and adaptions of works by other writers; Emma Thompson, for instance, both wrote the screenplay for and starred in Sense and Sensibility, becoming the only person to win an Oscar for both writing and acting.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
8. I don't know
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:23 AM
Mar 2014

I feel fallacious statements like this do more harm than good for the point being made. .

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
15. Well, okay then.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:49 AM
Mar 2014

Would you have preferred I not point out that women have written some of the most successful screenplay adaptions in movie history? That doesn't mean that women are, by any stretch, properly represented in the number of screenplays being filmed. I was simply contradicting the question referred to in post #3 which came off to me as a challenge to women's capability as screenwriters for successful films.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
16. My response was a bit ambiguous on rereading it..
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:55 AM
Mar 2014

I was referring to the text I quoted, not your response to it. ..

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
10. That was 1995
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:29 AM
Mar 2014

Obviously women write SOME screenplays but you have to go back to 1995 to find an example and you think that's an example that women are reasonably represented in the film industry? Really?

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
14. Um... not at all.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:41 AM
Mar 2014

Jeezus. I was answering the question that had been quoted in post #3, which I had assumed was a challenge to name any women who had written adaptions to successful movie franchises. I also cited Suzanne Collins (Hunger Games) and Emma Thompson again (Nanny McPhee). My point was not to contend that women are properly represented but for anyone to assume that women had written no successful franchise adaptions was to challenge their capability. I'd say if anything, women who have written screenplay adaptions, including those for franchises, have a better track record for success than most men. They simply aren't given the opportunities.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
9. They're talking about women producing/writing/etc. in FILMS, not books films were adapted from
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:26 AM
Mar 2014

and they make that point in the article.


And the same goes for any job where you get to yell at people -- only 16 percent of all high-up production jobs in 2012 were held by ladies, which is actually less than in the freaking '90s. But look on the bright side: It's not like Hollywood is going to start buying screenplays from chicks, so you best just start writing books.


Women write books, and men will make films based on books written by women, but women aren't really represented in the film industry.

Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Ghost of Tom Joad

(1,405 posts)
6. It hasn't been a good decade for women in film
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:12 AM
Mar 2014

or maybe even several decades. The industry caters to males 11-25 as their target audience.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
11. One thing I really like about watching AMC (American Movie Channel)
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 07:29 AM
Mar 2014

Used to be there were loads of good parts for character actresses and actresses over 40. They were a joy to watch. Now those parts are a thing of the past because too many films are written either by barely mature men or men whose lives apparently came to a halt once they reached puberty. Women don't even play the romantic partners anymore -- it's the buddy films now, no women necessary or even wanted.

There are a mere handful of mature actresses even considered for those rare roles -- Dames Judi Dench and Maggie Smith the most notable, perhaps. I recently saw a wonderful movie called "Cloudburst" with Academy Award winners Olympia Dukakis and Irish actress Brenda Fricker. A lesbian romance with two marvelous, mature women! It was funny as hell but of course, it was an independent film from Canada. I'd highly recommend it.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
18. The 15% of Big Stars in Big Hits is not nearly as meaningful as this bit of the article:
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:22 AM
Mar 2014

"As for speaking roles in general, only 30 percent of characters who get to say something in movies were women. That number has stayed pretty much the same since before we were invading Iraq."

That figure is about work, for all levels of actresses. Nothing about which films got to the top, no about just the big stars, this is the employment gap that matters. And note the constant state of that figure. It's even worse if you get into age stats. Much worse.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
19. So the question becomes, is it the audience demographic that's changed?
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:30 AM
Mar 2014

Used to be that movies were aimed at adults. Now it seems a majority of films are aimed at teen boys who either fantasize about being comic book heroes or can't get enough of an adrenaline rush of violence and speed. Not much of a place for women in that testosterone-pumped fantasy world.

ismnotwasm

(42,443 posts)
20. It always sucks
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 12:13 PM
Mar 2014

Probably why I like female "revenge" movies so much- from "Kill Bill" or "Death Proof" to I Spit on Your Grave". Two of these movies involve rape--the entire point of I Spit on Your Grave--But I don't kid myself; these movies don't change rape culture, they participate in it. They don't up uplift women, they fetishize them.

Still, when the bride slams her disgusting rapists head in the door repeatedly until he's dead, it's satisfying. It usually the other way around. As far as franchises -- sure there are successful women-- small boulders under the mountain of masculine run entertainment.



BTW Here's a good article on a theater

“Top Girls” is Top-Notch Feminist Theater



L to R, Linda Park as Lady Nijo, Karianne Flaathen as Isabella Bird, Sally Hughes as Marlene, Rhonda Aldrich as Pope Joan and Etta Devine as Dull Gret
Few women playwrights have garnered as much praise and generated as much controversy as Caryl Churchill. Her work has been called feminist, post-modern, post-colonial, Marxist, experimental, irritating, innovative, ludicrous and brilliant. She has worked with feminist collectives such as Monstrous Regiment and at establishment institutions such as the Royal Court Theatre, where she was the first woman to hold the position of resident dramatist. In both spaces, she has maintained her dedication to dismantling sexist, economic and colonial power structures through an ever-evolving exploration of dramatic form. Though she is still writing today, her early plays are already considered part of the Western canon.

Unfortunately, being included in the dramatic canon does not ensure that your plays will get produced on contemporary American stages, and even theaters devoted to producing the classics often avoid Churchill. This may be partly because she didn’t win inclusion in this elite, mostly male club by being one of the boys. If the traditional dramatic form, which proceeds in a straight line from exposition to climax, can be said to be “masculine,” Churchill’s writing is the epitome of the “feminine”: circular and multi-climactic. Likewise, if a masculine form can be said to be concerned with the individual protagonist’s psychological experience, Churchill’s feminine structures deliberately de-center the individual in order to explore identity as a product of social and historical forces.

Flaathen (left) as Mrs. Kidd, Hughes as Marlene
Churchill’s style, then, requires more of actors, directors and audiences than the typical canonical play. Yet a classical theater in North Hollywood, CA, has taken up the challenge: The Antaeus Company is running an engaging and highly relevant production of Top Girls through May 4.
Top Girls, which premiered in 1982, is best known for its opening act, during which an ambitious woman, Marlene, throws herself a dinner party to celebrate a work promotion. Her guests are historical and folkloric figures: Lady Nijo, a 13th-century Japanese concubine; Isabella Bird, Victorian world traveler; Patient Griselda of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales; Dull Gret, from Breughel’s painting of the same name; and Pope Joan, a medieval female Pope. The second act takes place largely in the employment agency where Marlene works. The third is set a year earlier in Marlene’s sister’s living room.


http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/03/18/top-girls-is-top-notch-feminist-theater/
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»4 signs that 2014 was a s...