Where are the women?

[Matt Deckard]

I was watching films on TCM the other day and noticed that the women in the films were real women... no some adolescent mid 20 or 30 year old still trying to get past her high school days, though they were real women. Dre Barrymore still plays girls. Katie Holmes in Batman Begins was a girl not a woman. Kirsten Dunst is a girl.

You watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington and Jean Arthur is a woman. A reporter like a good Lois Lane and a real woman. Margot Kidder was a real Woman in the first Superman movie and they replaced her with Kate Bosworth... a girl. What happend to the real grounded women. The ones that at times were more worldly than the men. I'm not worldly... I'd like to be, and if I run into the right woman I hope she has a bit more of a head on her shoulders than the leading ladies of today. It's as if they are all playing Holly Golightly without the sophistication though with all the angst of not knowing where they belong. Lois looked like she would have made a better match with Jimmy Olson in the new flick.

What do you think? are our leading ladies of today... the era when they are supposed to be more enlightened and more equal... are the leading ladies really women or are they just getting more and more immature and Hollywood is pushing that angle?

I prefer the fast talking career gal.

 

[tallyho]

Lauren Bacall was 19 when she made To Have and Have Not and I think she was incredibly sexy!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

There were plenty of girls back then. Jane Withers. Deanna Durbin. A teenaged Shirley Temple. And Betty Grable and Lana Turner were definitely girls (and playing "girl" roles) in their first couple of movies.

Conversely, it was common for women (and men) in their twenties to play high school kids.

.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Yeah there were plenty of girls back then... THEY WERE PLAYING GIRLS!

Now the girls are playing women...

 

[Feraud]

The problem is most of the actors/actresses are grups, and it shows..

 

[tallyho]

I think the problem has to do more with the way we perceive the age of people in old movies and pictures. when I look at picutres and film of pilots and soldiers in WW2 they dont look like the 16-24 they were. they all look like they were in their mid 30s. and this has nothing to do with how they wear their clothes. I know some of you are going to say "well battle ages people". very true. you can look at pics of guysfrom before battle and pics after a couple years or just months of battle and they look like they have aged 10yrs. but even before, they still dont look like 18 yr olds. I find the same true movie stars of the 30s-40s.

 

[Haversack]

talleyho wrote:
" you can look at pics of guysfrom before battle and pics after a couple years or just months of battle and they look like they have aged 10yrs. but even before, they still dont look like 18 yr olds. I find the same true movie stars of the 30s-40s."

Its not just battle which can age a person or give them a sense of depth. It is hard times in general. I think the 1930s counted as hard times.

Haversack.

 

[Paisley]

I was going to write that the movie industry is dominated by men who must fantasize about helpless little-girl types. But Hollywood was even more dominated by men in earlier times. So all I can do is to share your discontent.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I can nary think of a single actress who fits the same character as a Golden Era film star. Perhaps, this is a function of our obsession with youth in this culture. If an actress faces a forced retirement at 35 for being too "old," then why would she want to play mature characters before then?

Angolina Jolie could play those parts, if she wanted, and if there were a script. She shows hints of it in silly films like "Mr and Mrs Smith." Meryl Streep played those parts, but that was twenty years ago. That's about it.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Julia Roberts

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, I think Kate Winslet is someone with the potential to ripen into a classic-style film actress. She's refused to allow herself to be typecast into the usual sort of roles that young actresses get -- if you look at the total scope of her career, she's covered a mighty impressive range of roles. Plus, she has the looks and body of a *woman,* not a teenager or a trendy model type. I can see her moving into some very interesting parts as she progresses thru her thirties.

 

[Lancealot]

I agree with you Matt.

There do seem to be a large number of "girls" in movies. Has Hemingway Jones mentioned there seems to be that cut off at 35. So I would say it has to do with that youth oppsesed market.

However I think there are a few women. Rene Russo would be my first pick and then Helen Hunt.

 

[Snookie]

The problem isn't just with women. Look at "Charade" (1963), and its remake "The Truth about Charlie" (2002). Charade starred Cary Grant in one of his last roles, and the remake starred Mark Wahlberg. I'm not sure if the public doesn't want sophistcation, or if Hollywood won't give us the chance.

But there is a real problem with a lack of women. As I've gotten older I've found fewer and fewer current actresses I'd like to emulate. There's too much of an obsession with youth out there. (Maybe the cosmetics industry is to blame? )

 

[Snookie]

So I would say it has to do with that youth oppsesed market.

You beat me to it!

 

[Lancealot]

(Maybe the cosmetics industry is to blame? )

You could be right. My ex-wife is a Mary Kay sales director and I have noticed a steady movement in them to younger looking models for there products.

 

[Novella]

Maybe the increase in women's rights has resulted in a reverse reaction in movies? The strong, career girl of movies past is now more represented in life so the idea loses the appeal to audiences that it once had? I'm really not sure, although I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm so use to these wimpy girl-women in movies that I'm unfortunately usually pretty oblivious to their presence. Maybe that's why I often like old movies better! I'd much rather be Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday" or Barbara Stanwyck in one of her tough-as-nails roles than some modern weak girl character. It seems like in older movies there is more of a focus on class with a subtle hint of sex appeal, rather than being slapped across the face with sex appeal.

Maybe it's not just a focus on youth, but also the insistance of youth to act older than they really are. So older actresses play young girlish roles, so that the younger movie-going audience can look at these older actresses and be able to connect with them through their desire to immulate older (but not too much older) women, and by taking the strength or maturity down a notch it makes it easier for the younger crowd to identify with these characters. So a weakening of actresses' roles would play into the desires of the teenage too-much-free-money-on-their-hands demographic. Which if that's true is a shame, because strong women characters make better role models and are generally much more complex and interesting characters.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Isabella Rosselini. A woman actress with star quality.

.

 

[herringbonekid]

i think it's the quality of the films and film scripts that is the problem, not the actresses.

as well as Isabella Rosselini, i'd add Isabelle Huppert, Judy Davis, Marcia Gay Harden, Patricia Clarkson..... but then they're more likely to appear in quality films.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

Faye Dunaway, Jane Fonda. They never seemed like girls to me.

Neither has Julia Roberts, though I've never liked her. Michelle Pfeiffer, Famke Janssen, Darryl Hannah, Uma Thurman, etc. They've been around.

 

[carebear]

Originally Posted by Lancealot
So I would say it has to do with that youth oppsesed market.

Interestingly, this accidental misspelling can also be read (as I did the first time) as "oppressed".

Which, given todays attitudes and styles, marketing and apparent beliefs, reads no less correctly.