When I'm walking down the street, or sitting on the train or generally doing anything that involves being awake, it is the women that interest me. Not just because they have the breasts but also because of their.... Legs.
Okay but also, because they are more interesting than men, small animals and buildings. 
But on the movie screen the exact opposite is true. Somebody tried to get me to sign a petition recently to make sure women get as many roles and as much screen-time as men. I had about as much time for the petition as I do Kate Hudson in a lead role.
The box office supports my feelings on this (this is probably the first time i've ever sided w
ith the box office on an issue!) - women in a leading role just don't cut it.
I loved Ellen Page in 'Juno' and I thought Julia Roberts carried 'Erin Brockovich' well -- but aside from those and occasionally indulging in Diane Keaton family fluff - I'd much rather watch men on screen.
Would 'Cast Away' have worked with a woman? Probably not. Would a man in place of Jodie Foster in 'The Brave One' have inproved it? Well, okay, she's pretty manly. In fact, isn't she a lesbian? And isn't Ellen Page rumoured to be one too? Okay, maybe lesbians are interesting on screen, which is certainly supported by my porn viewing habits (joke). Of course there is the argument that the roles just aren't getting written for women. But even when they are like in 'Hannah And Her Sisters' it is the men whose problems and turmoils are more fascinating to watch.
It has probably become apparent to you that I have no theory or argument here - just the opinion that the lead in a film generally needs to be a man. Why else would 'The Women' have been so boring?
There are some wonderful actresses out there - from old-timers like Susan Surandon and Shirley Maclaine, to the big stars like Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts, to say nothing of my favourites Helen Hunt and Natalie Portman. But can any of those carry a film themselves? Helen Hunt is perfect playing second fiddle to Jack Nicholson or even Haley Joel Osment; but a Helen Hunt led feature would struggle, I'm sure.
So I guess it's time to explore why the summer blockbusters are headed by Christian Bale and Shia Lebouef rather than acting talent like Scarlet Johannson and Angelina Jolie (ooh actually, 'Changeling' was pretty good. I forgot about that one). They are important elements to the films they're in -- but they're essentially always replaceable.
I haven't seen 'The Reader' yet, maybe that will show me how Winslet can lead the line, women-wise. Don't get me wrong. I love women. I love women on screen, they're an important part of films; but it's very rare that I find them interesting enough to carry a film as the lead. What's that about? I don't have the answers, I just send this thought out into the ether for consideration.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Men Only.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Referring to your question, "What is COD5?" the answer is that COD5 stands for Call of Duty 5. It's a video game in a series that is based off of various wars.
ReplyDeleteI have the urge to turn this into a debate. But usually, instead of debating, I end up name calling. So I'll just leave you with this: I think you're absolutely wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I probably am wrong. More samples have come to me today of female led films I like. As I think you'll be able to tell by how I wrote it, I wasn't being definitive, and I would love to see more women in lead roles - it's just that the men generally lead, and i'm interested in why; as a viewer and as a writer/director. Is it just because of the box office? It's been the case since the beginning of cinema.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in the debate if the rest of you are, because I think it's fascinating. Wordly one - I'd be interested to hear on what ways you think I am wrong.
Why are they essentially always replaceable? Might that have anything to do with men dominating the film industry?
ReplyDeleteI do believe the argument that roles of caliber aren’t being written for women. Perhaps instead of making thousands of fluff films made to keep women in “woman-like roles” the industry should concentrate on making them more appealing to everyone.
Though I personally agree with you about ‘The Women’ being boring…I have a feeling that you (men) weren’t the target audience. (Ex: fluff) I don’t believe a male lead would have made the film any less boring or…fluffy.
They’re making films directed at one specific target audience at a time. Why can’t that be broadened? Why can’t they make more films that appeal and relate to both sexes? Now, more so than ever, men and women have common ‘problems and turmoils’ that should make it easier for us to relate. But those commonalities aren’t being expressed. The majority of films, with women in lead roles, which are made to appeal to men, are like ‘Tomb Raider’. “Look! Watch sexy, badass Angelina shoot up shit and hop around in spandex!”
Occasionally women are given the chance to “cut it”…but not nearly often enough. Obviously.
You both make very convincing arguments, but I agree with otherworldlyone. Men dominate the film industry= men write a lot of the leading roles= most of them are geared towards male actors.
ReplyDeleteWhile male leads do an awesome job, women could also be really great in leading roles, they just haven't gotten much of a chance to show it.
Basically, my stance on this, like almost every other argument between the genders, is that men and women are equally good onscreen.
There are women that are interesting to male viewersm they just aren't ever given leading roles. And instead, the roles go to women like helen hunt, diane keaton, angelina jolie. I hope I don't have to say more and you guys get the point.
ReplyDeleteEscarondito, thanks for your comment. It's interesting that you responded to this one, it made me re-read my article again. It's interesting because, my views have changed a lot since I wrote this - and I agree, so much of it is about women not getting the opportunity. We, as viewers, have been trained to want and expect to see men leading films, because it's a privilege for men that has always existed in the cinema.
ReplyDeleteSo whilst I do, still, generally find myself more intrigued by films led by men; I now have a wider understanding of why--- and here's the difference: I am no longer happy with that. I want to be a part of something where we can make more women spearhead more films - because there is so much more we can be exploring in cinema by doing so.
Here is the post Kid.
ReplyDeletehttp://bi-perspective.blogspot.com/2010/10/women-in-film-part-1-characters.html