The boys of summerI like superhero movies. I really do. They’re fun and fast and the costumes are faaaa-bulous. Straight men in stretchy fabric and capes – this is better than figure skating! This summer’s heroic roster includes Iron Man, Batman and The Incredible Hulk. And as great as those crime fighters are, they’re also a reminder that when it comes to superhero movies, no women need apply – this is man country.
New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis recently opined on the lack of women heroes and women— period — in today’s big budget blockbusters. Could this be the realization of Warner Brothers exec Jeff Robinov’s decree that the studio would not make any more movies with female leads? Dargis thinks so: “Nobody likes to admit the worst, even when it’s right up there on the screen, particularly women in the industry who clutch at every pitiful short straw, insisting that there are, for instance, more female executives in Hollywood than ever before. As if it’s done the rest of us any good. All you have to do is look at the movies themselves — at the decorative blondes and brunettes smiling and simpering at the edge of the frame — to see just how irrelevant we have become.” Ouch, but true. One needs only to look at this summer’s slate to see the sad truth. Besides all the testosterone-driven superhero flicks, it’s all dudes – old and young. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: old dude with a whip. Speed Racer: young dude with a car. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian: Prince dude. You Don't Mess with the Zohan: secret agent turned hairstylist dude. Get Smart: not-so-smart dude. The Love Guru: enlightened dude. Hancock: burned-out super dude. Hellboy II: The Golden Army: big red dude. Pineapple Express: stoner dudes. Bangkok Dangerous: why-is-he-still-getting-leading-action-roles dude.
So what is out there with women leads? Two films aimed at girls: Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 and Kit Kittredge: An American Girl. The latter is based on a line of dolls. (Yes, dolls.) And for us grown ups? We have Mamma Mia! and Sex and the City. Plus I call halvsies on The X-Files: I Want to Believe because it is both Mulder and Scully.
For years, the conventional industry wisdom has been that women will go see a men’s movie, but men won’t see a woman’s movie. The NY Times piece lays out some stark numbers along those lines. Only three of last year’s 20 highest-grossing films were female driven, and those films were either about princesses (Enchanted) or pregnancy (Knocked Up, Juno). Talk about your Madonna/whore complex.
But this leads us to the classic chicken or egg question: Are there few successful female-driven films because they don’t do well, or do female-driven films not do well because there are so few of them? I have to believe the latter. Baby Mama, a comedy with not one but two female leads (way to eat up the year’s quota, ladies,) opened No. 1 and beat out a comedy with two male leads (Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay). Perhaps you’ve also heard of Alien, The Devil Wears Prada and some hardly-seen flick called Titanic.
Hundreds of male-driven films flop each year, but there are so many of them, we hardly notice except for the biggest-budget disasters. But if one or two female films fail (like Nicole Kidman’s The Invasion and Jodie Foster’s The Brave One last year) and it’s time to pull the plug? In the last three years Nicolas Cage (the aforementioned “why-is-he-still-getting-leading-action-roles dude”) has had bomb (Next) after bomb (The Wicker Man) after bomb (The Weather Man) after bomb (Lord of War); yet there is his big creepy face on movie posters for Bangkok Dangerous scaring small children.
The problem isn’t that women’s movies don’t do well; the problem is that women’s movies are treated as a niche. The choices in female-driven films simply aren’t as broad as the choices in male-centered films. For the most part, we are either in romantic comedies (because, you know, all women want to get married) or thrillers (because, you know, women in peril sells). It’s pretty simple: more choices mean more opportunities to connect, means more chance of success. Women-centered films can become the Field of Dreams of cinema. If you make good ones, we will come. Submitted by on May 15, 2008 - 5:00pm. |
User loginRecent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|







great analysis
thanks ms snarker, for the great analysis! I agree with you, if there were more female-driven films, more of those films could and would be successful! I generally don't like those princess movies, but I loooooved "the brave one"! I don't really understand why this movie wasn't successful, it was such a great film. maybe it was too dark for having a female lead, which maybe doesn't attract men.
I haven't been to the cinema often in the last year, mainly because the choice isn't that great. Yeah, I did watch "knocked up", but this movie didn't really offer anything except for the laughs. I much rather watch another "monster", which was a movie that had me thinking for days. why don't films like these get made more often? yeah, I want to be entertained, but I also want to be intellectually stimulated!
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from." ~ Jodie Foster
Depressingly true
Excellent, well-written and logical article....although depressing when you think about it.
I think this a huge reason why I rarely go to the movies anymore. I'm bored with the whole weak (and rail thin) female in desperate need of a manly rescue. Sadly I don't see any change on the horizon any time soon.
Chick Flicks
It would be great to see women in leading roles as the hero. In stead it seems a lot of times when women are cast as leads they are written as weak or dependent. I think women will be stepping up soon. I mean we only just got our right to vote 80 years ago.
Wow, The Brave One poster
Wow, The Brave One poster is so phallic...
Anyway, yeah, what Ms. Snarker said. That's why I don't go to the movies. For me to go to the trouble of watching something it has to meet the three Alison Bechdel criteria: (1) There have to be at least two women in it (2) who talk to each other (3) about something besides a man. It's that last one that knocks out a lot of things, like Sex and the City. Actually, it can't just have two women in it either--at least one has to be a lead or co-lead, but I will make an exception if there if just one female lead but she is a really good one, as with The X-Files.
boycott all the crap
I can tell you, I'm not planning on seeing ANY of the so called action movies. They sound exceedingliy boring. If the big studios don't want to make movies that I'm interested in I'm quite happy to watch indie movies, which are usually much more compelling.
I reckon its time our het sisters refused to get dragged by their men to such tetosterone fuelled movies.
There are people out there making intelligent entertaining movies with intelligent entertaining women in the lead. You might have to search them out, but they're there. And the more we talk about them and create a buzz, the more they're likely to succeed.
In the last little while, I've enjoyed Miss Pettigrew lives for a Day (Frances Mcdermand, Amy Adams), Stone Angel (OK, Canadian movie with Ellen Burstyn - she was mesmerizing),Then She Found Me (Helen Hunt. Flawed but interesting).
Planning to see Battle in Seattle (Charlize Theron - when the WTO met their match in Seattle),Baby Mama (enuf said), My Blueberry Nights (Norah Jones, Jude Law, Wong KAr Wai's debut English movie), 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days (should have won the foreign language Oscar this year), Brick Lane (based on award winning novel by Monica Ali about the transformation of a Blangadeshi woman living in London).
Nicolas Cage ...
He's not an outstanding actor**, he's not attractive, he's not charismatic. WHY does his career EXIST??
This is one of the greatest mysteries of our era.
**except in "Leaving Las Vega", I do admit that he was awesome in that film.
Nicolas Cage...
One word...Coppola
______________________________
Arrr, let's goooooo...
and the weird thing is
Just saying
Your observations are spot-on, as always; it's really, really nice to hear someone else voice the same concerns, complaints, and critiques of the depressingly male-dominated movie scene.
But I also would like to point out that the Kit Kittredge movie isn't just based on a doll. Kit Kittredge is part of the American Girls doll collection, which, yes, is a line of dolls with ridiculously expensive clothes and furniture...the toys are based on books about Kit and several other girls from different historical time periods. No doll is sold without at least one accompanying book. And the books bring the experience of young women during times of crisis (war, large scale migration, emancipation, economic depression etc) to 'the center', which you rarely see in literature.
Reading these books (yes, with a doll clutched under one arm or in my lap) formed my interest in professional historical study, and also helped me to realize how girls and women are constantly left out of historical analysis. I can't imagine that a movie would really impact young women in the same way, but here's hoping.
p.s. I couldn't agree more about Nicolas Cage. Someone needs to put a muzzle on him already.
--
The problem is feeding itself....
Another problem with action movies, thrillers etc. seems to be the fact the female lead* is usually written so that pretty much any actress wannabe (if she's considered good-looking enough) can play the part. The character is poorly written, and the actress doesn't need to have any talent. And when the majority of movies in these genres are written and cast like this the problem starts feeding itself: Any young actress can get a part or two, but once she reaches a certain age she stops getting parts cause she doesn't really have that much talent as an actress. Yet at the same time even serious actresses can have a hard time finding good parts because practically all the parts are written for the young model-type wannabes. And since most of the actresses are young and not-so-talented a lot of (presumably male) writers simply assume that there's no point in writing solid female characters cause they don't believe that they can find ladies talented enough for the parts.
*yes, that's singular. For some reason most of these movies can have a huge pack of different male characters with all sorts of different talents, traits and quirks... but only one female character whose key defining trait is that she's well... female and good-looking. In other words, she's just decoration. No wonder I yawn myself through 75 % of the movies I watch with my family.
Now I must watch BSG and "The Sarah Jane Adventures" to make up for this imbalance.
Cherry / Torchwood_Operative