Hollywod worships young males

[sr71plt]

There are hundreds of movies being produced and released annually. Just talking about the top-grossed sixteen doesn't cut it for me. Certain genres run popular from time to time. That doesn't mean that other genres aren't well represented in what is profitably being produced (and awarded) and giving actors lucrative work.

Again, building a convincing argument on a premise requires acceptance of the premise. My belief from looking across the spectrum is that older women actresses are no harder up for looking for movie work than most other categories you can isolate on just one characteristic of the actor--and that actors inl all categories are dropping by the wayside in proportional numbers.

What is this need for pc equality in all things known to man (Opps, sorry . . . humankind) anyway? Natural selection is . . . natural.

 

[sr71plt]

P.S. Helen Mirren can jolly well stop complaining about what others aren't doing and form her own production company and discriminate against everyone but older actresses if she wants to. She has the means to do it and it's what some of the others have done.

 

[driphoney]

I'll have to go with those saying that most young male theatergoers don't generally give two figs for young male actors.

And I read an interview with Mirren recently where she did say she missed out on not having enough juicy sexy roles early. She complained that no one seemed to know her before Prime Suspect and that this set a stereotype for her that she had been fighting every since.

Regardless, I think she's off base. I think mature actresses are getting their full share of lead movie roles currently.

There are hundreds of movies being produced and released annually. Just talking about the top-grossed sixteen doesn't cut it for me. Certain genres run popular from time to time. That doesn't mean that other genres aren't well represented in what is profitably being produced (and awarded) and giving actors lucrative work.

Again, building a convincing argument on a premise requires acceptance of the premise. My belief from looking across the spectrum is that older women actresses are no harder up for looking for movie work than most other categories you can isolate on just one characteristic of the actor--and that actors inl all categories are dropping by the wayside in proportional numbers.

What is this need for pc equality in all things known to man (Opps, sorry . . . humankind) anyway? Natural selection is . . . natural.

Top grossing shows what is selling, ticket sales. It does not prove that movies with a particular type of person is getting work in movies or not. I don't think top grossing cares what the genre is or is not, but market demand and previous sales does effect financial backing and whether a movie can or cannot get backing.

You were talking about what you perceive young male moviegoers are interested in watching. What source are you basing your opinion on that young male moviegoers don't care to watch young male actors? What source did you use to come by the opinion that older women are getting as much work as other categories of actors?

 

[sr71plt]

What source are you basing your opinion on that young male moviegoers don't care to watch young male actors? What source did you use to come by the opinion that older women are getting as much work as other categories of actors?

As opposed to watching young female actresses? Because I think (but I don't know, of course) that most young males aren't queer (or don't realize they are yet).

Let's drop back a bit. Regardless of whether I accept the premise of 3113's argument (I don't, but she can if she wishes), people investing in creative business ventures have every right to spend their money and creative expression as they please and take their chances in the marketplace. Whichever segment of the acting community wants to grumble about that, if they don't like it they can put their own money up to creating what they please with whoever they please in the roles.

Mirren certainly has the means and clout to do it. I think she's a fine actress. But I also think she's druming a tired old drum--and getting the publicity she wants out of it. Pretty much all older actresses say exactly what she's saying right at this point in their careers--and most of them go on to lucrative work long after workers in most segments of society have been forced into total retirement (if they haven't gone voluntarily).

I see no reason to force pc quotas on the entertainment industry.

 

[Stella_Omega]

P.S. Helen Mirren can jolly well stop complaining about what others aren't doing and form her own production company and discriminate against everyone but older actresses if she wants to. She has the means to do it and it's what some of the others have done.

This.

 

[driphoney]

As opposed to watching young female actresses? Because I think (but I don't know, of course) that most young males aren't queer (or don't realize they are yet).

Let's drop back a bit. Regardless of whether I accept the premise of 3113's argument (I don't, but she can if she wishes), people investing in creative business ventures have every right to spend their money and creative expression as they please and take their chances in the marketplace. Whichever segment of the acting community wants to grumble about that, if they don't like it they can put their own money up to creating what they please with whoever they please in the roles.

Mirren certainly has the means and clout to do it. I think she's a fine actress. But I also think she's druming a tired old drum--and getting the publicity she wants out of it. Pretty much all older actresses say exactly what she's saying right at this point in their careers--and most of them go on to lucrative work long after workers in most segments of society have been forced into total retirement (if they haven't gone voluntarily).

I see no reason to force pc quotas on the entertainment industry.

I hate to admit I don't know who Helen Mirren is. I also agree with you and I'm not really arguing your underlying issue with the topic at hand.

 

[sr71plt]

This.

Thanks. And I should have added that theatergoers would come to see her movies.

 

[sr71plt]

I hate to admit I don't know who Helen Mirren is. I also agree with you and I'm not really arguing your underlying issue with the topic at hand.

She's currently in Reds and has a few other roles of late. I first saw her in the BBC Masterpiece Theater series Prime Suspect, and I thought she was terrific in that. I seem to recall she was some sort of sex siren decades ago in a BBC Greek/Roman series, but I'm hazy on that one.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm not sure it's worth arguing the point that there aren't fewer roles for middle-aged and older women throughout the performing arts. That's sort of a contributing factor in Male Gaze Theory, which was first described by a film critic. I'm sure there must be lots of academic papers that document this in both Film and Women's Studies schools. It's been a recurring theme within the acting community for decades.

It starts, as Stella and sr71plt indirectly point out, with a dearth of female playwrights and screenwriters. (eta: That fewer female playwrights are produced is a given - it's a matter of controversy whether that is the chicken or the egg)

 

[bisexualsmoker]

Hollywood=Disposable crap fast food culture. A true cultural dark age.I mean if it takes hundreds of millions
to make a movie to entertain somebody then there's something wrong.
All the millions and millons of mindless dweebs applaud this. They are nothing but blind fucking sheep.

People like Andres Segovia and George Carlin could entertain people for nothing.

I say read a fucking book instead.

 

[sr71plt]

I think a movie can hold its own with any other form in provoking thought and giving a rewarding viewing experience.

 

[xssve]

Mirren is sexy as hell, she was priceless in Teaching Mrs. Tingle, she should definitely be getting more work - she just isn't bland enough.

Speaking of bland, a bias towards young men, would explain why Keanu Reeves gets as much work as he does, nothing else explains it.

 

[SweetestThing]

As opposed to watching young female actresses? Because I think (but I don't know, of course) that most young males aren't queer (or don't realize they are yet).

Even young male viewers, I'm pretty sure, aren't basing their entire movie-going decisions based on whether or not they want to fuck the stars of the movie. The Batman films, for instance, have done pretty well for themselves starring a bunch of young and old men.

Let's drop back a bit. Regardless of whether I accept the premise of 3113's argument (I don't, but she can if she wishes), people investing in creative business ventures have every right to spend their money and creative expression as they please and take their chances in the marketplace. Whichever segment of the acting community wants to grumble about that, if they don't like it they can put their own money up to creating what they please with whoever they please in the roles.

I'm not sure that's terribly realistic given the nature of how movies actually get made. Mirren isn't George Clooney. She's not making twenty million dollars a film. She's a lead in small budget films, a supporting player in hollywood movies for the most part. Doing comfortably? I'm sure. Able to self-produce/finance movies? Probably not.

Hollywood seems less and less interested in making smaller-medium budget movies these days. Everyone is swinging for the fences. Are the studios allowed to do that? Yes. Nobody is saying that they aren't. But people like Mirren are then free to say that those attitudes and goals are leaving a lot of talented actors of either gender on the sidelines in favour of less talented but prettier people and resulting in lower quality movies being made.

Mirren certainly has the means and clout to do it. I think she's a fine actress. But I also think she's druming a tired old drum--and getting the publicity she wants out of it. Pretty much all older actresses say exactly what she's saying right at this point in their careers--and most of them go on to lucrative work long after workers in most segments of society have been forced into total retirement (if they haven't gone voluntarily).

Most older actresses do lucrative work well into their 60's? Most actors, of any age or gender, don't do particularly lucrative work.

I see no reason to force pc quotas on the entertainment industry.

Which is something nobody is suggesting either. If you read the article, Mirren is actually saying that she sees things changing for the better in this regard. That the increasing power of women in the entertainment business is likely to represent positive changes in how the product they produce appeals to female consumers. If Mirren wants to take the opportunity to speak to an assembled group of women in hollywood and tell them to use their industry clout to help those changes along, it's not calling for "pc quotas". To be honest that seems more like a windmill of yours here.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Wow.

This is a fairly big discussion over some small comments. And made by a semi-known actress. I'm thinking this Mirren is no Judy Dench.

I think I'll make the mistake of giving my own analysis (and covering my head with a garbage can lid to block the onset of stone-throwing).

Odd how Hollywood (and movies made outside of the major studios) tends to favor young males, but if you really take a good look at who's making movies (taking on major lead roles) I don't see young male actors holding down the staple position in Hollywood. I see actors who have established themselves over the long term. I see Brad Pitt, and Tom Cruise, and Sebastian Bale, and Denzel Washington. These guys aren't young anymore. Johnny Depp isn't either.

Truth be told, the industry is being led by male actors nearing middle age; most, if not all, of whom started out a heartthrobs for teenage girls and learned to act better along the way.

I can't speak for anyone else, but Brad Pitt's made a lot of movies that I've spent money on, and not a dime of it was spent with my penis' instigation.

Movies are directed toward you males for these reasons:

1) most of them are employed or have some form of money coming in, but don't usually have families or mortgages fto tie up that money, hence spare cash to spend at the theater.

2) Regardless of what is said, men still tend to pay for dates, so when Johnny 23 wants to take Mary 22 to the movies, he's paying. That means while she has say, so does he. Compromise, right? She wasn't Denzel's butt, he was a speeding train. Easy enough.

The main reason why these men are holding starring roles is that women have chosen them as "cute enough to spend money on" and they've found a niche in male-oriented movies. Vin Deisel and Paul Walker in Fast and Furious. Women get eye-candy, men get speeding cars. Fun for the whole (my adrenaline's up and her hormones haven't cooled down; let's make a family after...).

Women have actually had more say in the matter. Ben Afflec didn't get anywhere on acting ability. And he's made tons of movies. Women are deciding men can make careers in Hollywood without talent as lead actors; women have to take a backup role for the same career (anyone ever notice how bad movies suck when Halle Berry is the driving force behind the acting? Admittedly, she is rich; but acting wise, she should be homeless).

What people have said about Hollywood is accurate; it's a business, and young males spend lots of money on it. They was to see special effects (Avatar), and shit blow up, and hot girls (in the background). And it caters to their wants to get the wallets open.

As for non major motion pictures? Well, let's look at things in perspextive. Kevin Smith is one of the most successful directors not to succumb to this concept, and he has been well-known for references to big time Hollywood influences; Star Wars, Indiana Jones (big on Lucas as you can see) Superman was a failed project he was trying to get involved in. You can't escape Pop Culture, and Hollywood is more in your face than any independent film influences have the exposure to be. And not having the money to spend doesn't make the indy market more appealing. Can you imagine Captain Jack if they couldn't afford Johnny Depp? There is not movie...

*shrug*

Oh, well; there's my ramble.

Q_C

 

[sr71plt]

Wow.

This is a fairly big discussion over some small comments. And made by a semi-known actress. I'm thinking this Mirren is no Judy Dench.

Well, you know Mirren well enough not to misspell her name (in contrast to Judi Dench's name. )

And, actually, Judi Dench is, I think, exactly the equalizing comparison to make with Helen Mirren, who leaped right up there with her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II--and who has been sharing oscar nomination lists with Judi Dench for some time (including for portraying British queens named Elizabeth). They had identical--and recent--records in the oscar races--one win in four nominations each. They each have a load of Emmy nominations and wins. They also have been mixing and matching parts in Shakespearean productions for decades.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'd love to see Helen Mirren star in a movie about an older woman who's desired by tons of young, trimmed hunks.
Preferably if she was always wearing a suit and tie in the movie, and the guys were walking around wearing nothing but boxer shorts and Diesel after shave.