GIP

[profshallowness]

This icon replaces my Catwoman watching the Batsignal icon. Why?

Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily reports that Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov has made a new decree that "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead". (Thanks to femmenerd for the heads up).

yourlibrarian talks about this and moves on to other stuff about women in the

Comments

[svalar_unnir]

Ugh, I hate Hollywood.

[profshallowness]

I suppose I have a love-hate relationship with it. I know Hollywood's chasing the money, misogynistic and willing to dumb down, but it makes movies, and I love movies.

[svalar_unnir]

I guess what I hate is all the machinery about it. It takes away the artistry and gives us junk like Transformers toothpaste (okay, I doubt there actually is Transformers toothpaste, but I've seen enough merchandising crap to not be surprised if I were to find it). Mostly what I see is idiot celebrities, money-grubbing execs, and people who tear up beautiful works to make bad movies (ala The Seeker/The Dark Is Rising). There are good movies, movies I love, but a lot of them seem to have a strong advocate (Neil Gaiman, Peter Jackson) or aren't made by the Hollywood Establishment.

Then again, I'm in a bit of a snit because I have to read Strindberg and could care less about surrealism or whatever he's Supposed To Be, so my general feelings may be a bit less harsh : D

[profshallowness]

On some level, I know you're totally right about Hollywood, but I still buy into it, even if the films I enjoy the most are in the categories you describe - indie or with an indie feel and a strong individual imposing their aesthetic or whatever). Of the Big Hollywood Movies that I genuinely enjoyed, mostly its becuase I had lowered expectations going in. And yet, there's a part of me that believes that they can do another Pirates, somehow, despite all the odds.

(Hee. I somehow missed Strindberg in my studies. You're not making me feel too upset about that.)

As a male feminist...

[itayavtalyon]

...the first few paragraphs enraged me enough so I had to comment even before I read all the linked articles.

I think that if that statement were true it would have been a mistake. While Decision makers in Hollywood are apparently only concerned with the bottom line (thus making your statement about a guy in a car rather true). The female population, especially the younger ones, are quite an economic group (one of the largest where TV business is concerned, unless I'm grossly mistaken), which only stands to reason that that group would want someone to identify with - i.e. females on the big screen.

On the other hand, I'm trying to think of a list of fictional [TV and film) female role models, and come up short... (or at least the few that I could think of are from TV land).

I for one am very likely to see movies with a woman in the lead.

As a female cinema-goer

[profshallowness]

Yeah, if true it's inflammatory. I think that Hollywood is first and foremost after the money. i mean, sometimes it wants prestige too, but mainly so that that will give it more money. I have heard accusations that the entertainment industry revers male coin far more than the female equivalent, for reasons that probably don't stand up. With TV, it's advertisers too, they want a certain (male) demographic, who they think they can get to spend more on their products over their lifetime, and Hollywood has this same catch 'em young mentality, presumably (for franchises and ensuing DVD sales at least, but the conglomerates that own the studios probably love the middle aged men who updated their album collection to CD from the 90s on). And so they aim for that market, and that market at its basest often , and encourage the idea that women should only be seen by that all-important demographic in a way that does no-one any favours

Re: As a female cinema-goer

[itayavtalyon]

I read somewhere that females have the ability to identify with a character whether it is male or not, while males can't identify with a female character, or something along those lines.

Do you think that's why?

Personally, I think I can do both to some extent. I've only stopped reading twice before, and one time it was because the story was so stupid. I'm a chick flick fan, too.

Re: As a female cinema-goer

[profshallowness]

I read somewhere that females have the ability to identify with a character whether it is male or not, while males can't identify with a female character, or something along those lines.I've heard this too, but I don't think it is a law. I mean is the assumption that women are more empathic? Isn't that a generalisation? I think that makes certain demands on people to behave a certain way because of their gender that's a lot reductive. but assuming that this gender-based identification exists means that Hollywood can do a few things. If hey assume that males aren't don't identify with females (never mind how inhuman that makes males sound and how it dehumanises women to objects) then why bother tell stories about female characters, because more people of both genders will follow it. And so female characters get written less, they're less interesting and that somehow becomes further support for this law, because female characters who are written as less important characters get less interesting stuff to do and it is a vicious circle.