NYT: No women's roles in summer movies. "Post-Female Cinema."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/movies/moviesspecial/04dargi.html?scp=1&sq=women+in+the+movies&st=nyt

"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. That’s as true for the dumbest and smartest of comedies as for the most critically revered dramas, from “No Country for Old Men” (but especially for women) to “There Will Be Blood” (but no women). Welcome to the new, post-female American cinema."

People prefer to pay to see men.

Sometimes, it seems music, sport and politics are the same way.

Women in their 20s keep insisting that this is so.

Oh, maybe there are no (Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Whoopi Goldberg, Uma Thurman...) good women stars available......



:sarcasm:

hell, I even miss Xena!

Summer movies(especially 2007) are dreck.

Has everybody forgotten Juno already?

The girls of summer are few in number, and real women are close to extinct. The teenage Emma Roberts plays a Malibu brat shipped off to boarding school in “Wild Child,” and little Abigail Breslin has gone blond for “Kit Kittredge,” the first big-screen spinoff from American Girl dolls. Meryl Streep stars in the adaptation of the jukebox musical “Mamma Mia!,” and the cast from “Sex and the City” hits the big screen, though as that HBO show’s fans know, its four bosomy buddies are really gay men in drag. Angelina Jolie flaunts big guns in “Wanted” amid a so-called fraternity of assassins. Cameron Diaz stars opposite Ashton Kutcher in the comedy “What Happens in Vegas,” in a role that shrieks Brittany Murphy five years ago.

What, exactly, is a "real woman" and why do these roles that star women suddenly not count to the author of the article? Then the author goes on to denigrate any man that has ever experienced emotional distress ("They ache just like women and break like little girls"). Then she goes on to prove exactly why, in real terms, women aren't seen in leading roles ("Last year only 3 of the 20 highest-grossing releases in America were female-driven"), which seems to disprove her childish rantings altogether.

This seems like a poorly researched and even more-poorly executed article.

When I read the headline, I knew they were going to cite No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood as the prime argument. Both those movies-- especially There Will Be Blood-- were very well written, well-acted movies that come about as close to art as big movies ever do. To look at these works and say, "you need to stick a woman in there" is like arguing for *more* formulaic crap.

Iron Man- Obviously not a woman in the lead owing to literary sources.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall- romantic comedy, heterosexual couple

Baby's Mama- comedy, two leading women.

Forgettable Romantic Comedy #2- heterosexual couple

Harold and Kumar Escape from Gitmo- Stoner comedy, two dudes.

Meh. Seems a fairly equal mix. I don't know why the author's citing No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood, since they're not summer movies, and they came out last year.

:shrug:

Does that even count?

I'd say it does......

I admit, I was put off by the title, and didn't know a thing about the movie.

Ends with two women being good little breeders. Men, other than perhaps Adam Sandler, would definitely not be able to carry the role.

"No one buys albums made by woman anymore........except Mariah Carey, but she's nuts. And Madonna is old. And Gwen Stefani is an annoying idiot. And Hannah Montana is a slut. Oh, and Rhianna is overrated.....(on and on.....)

Execs, male or female, greenlight films that they feel will make a boatload of money.

have met that criteria.

shitty, dumb and pointless films are nothing new...if you roll back to any year and look at the films released you will find plenty of trash:

1952 for example, such cinematic gems as

Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd
Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet, The - Volume 4
Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla
Bonzo Goes to College
Craig Kennedy - Criminologist
Francis Goes to West Point
Here Come the Nelsons
My Son the Vampire
Zombies of the Stratosphere
One Too Many
Kid Monk Baroni

were released.

Movies are a business and in business to make money.

I don't think so.

Couldn't happen.

That said, the OP is right. I'm a little stunned that Gwenneth Paltrow accepted an arm candy role in "Iron Man." I assume it was for the paycheck.

She plays a great foil for Robert Downey Jr. in this one. I've never been a fan of hers, but she's sharp as a tack here and the back and forth banter between the two is not the typical comic book fare.

she was in the movie so that the two dudes in mecha-gear could fight over her. Robert Downey spent as much time bantering with his Really Smart yet Slightly Sarcastic computer assistant.

....although certainly not in cool armor like this.......

Sure, I think she wanted a paycheck (doesn't everyone?). But clearly the film's script drew in some real talent that you normally wouldn't find in a Marvel film.

we have Gwyneth Paltrow with a strong role in Iron Man, Karen Allen in the new Indiana Jones movie, Maggie Gyllenhall in Dark Knight... ALL strong women actors and characters.

forgettable love interests, arm candy and sidekicks, but otherwise, there is little for any of them to really do or say in those roles (which is certainly not their fault). We don't see women as LEADS much anymore.

Cate Blanchett and Queen Elizabeth. THAT'S a strong female role!

Because if you didn't, you might want to stop right now........

will change.

I find the New York media are on a vendetta against Judd Apatow and company because they are better than anything New York has produced in decades.