Analysis of representation- need Help

[Unreal]

Hey there, im an a-level student doing Media Studies. as part of my course i have been asked to conduct a case study on the role of women in films. i need various pieces of research, and popular critisisms is one of them. I came accross this site, and from what i see, it seems to be full of some nice people and discussions.
So, ill get to the point. im on a forum asking people about their views on the representation in the roles if women in cinema.

Im focusing on the way ageing actresses survive the film industry, and what kind of control they have over the career from that point onwards. Any views would be kindly appreciated, as this means alot to me. my specific study area is around the 3 actresses Jodie Foster,Sigourney Weaver and Meg Ryan, so any specific views about those are also welcome.

thanks in advance...

[Lord Brett]

Originally Posted by Unreal Im focusing on the way ageing actresses survive the film industry, and what kind of control they have over the career from that point onwards. Any views would be kindly appreciated, as this means alot to me. my specific study area is around the 3 actresses Jodie Foster,Sigourney Weaver and Meg Ryan, so any specific views about those are also welcome. thanks in advance...

It might not be the period you're studying, but my instincts would be to take a look at the long and often intertwined careers of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis. Joan tended to trade on glamour and sex (if the rumours are to be believed, she literally traded on sex), and as she got older her looks hardened into a sort of glamorous clown mask, but she still got starring roles (of a type) well into the 1960s. She seemed unable to accept the ageing process, and fied in the late 1970s having not worked for some years.

Bette, on the other hand, even in her doe-eyed youth was a bit odd-looking, and demanded respect for her acting skills, which allowed her to age into a rather frightening-looking old lady. While this got her a lot of parts in horror movies, especially after her and Crawford's big success in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, she still was in demand for 'straight' roles right up to her death.

If you want to pursue this, try to get hold of a copy of the book Bette and Joan: The Devine Feud by Shaun Considine.

[Steve Crook]

Why does nobody ever do a case study on men in films?
Is this gender discrimination?

Steve

[julian_craster]

Look at the career of Dame Judi Dench - forget these American actresses (most are rubbish anyway) !

[Carmel]

Today i think actresses need to be young to be noticed very few make it in their older years most producers seem to want young skinny and talentless, as someone said Judi Dench what a great actress once we women reach 40 we seem to be told we are to old for glamour, movies etc. I know in the modelling buisness you need to be 16-28 after that we are to old or hired for jobs for advertising older peoples things. You also have to be a size zero i refused all my life to go under my size 8-10 as im 5ft 9 so size zero i would feel like a lump of string as clothes would look awful on skinny bodies. Older actresses are far more talented and not every one in the real world is size zero and a teenager.

[JamesM]

This question is very off topic. All three actresses are American.

If you are trying to find out how these actresses faired later in their careers, you need to look at the facts. Our opinions are not going be of help one iota.

[trelawnee]

I am old and fat and out of condition.

When I go to the movies I don't want to see a lot of other old and fat people (at least, not on the screen), so I am not interested in seeing a lot of elderly actresses.

Women are a lot more forgiving than men, which is why Sean Connery and Kirk Douglas played romantic leads years after they collected their bus passes.

[deckard]

Originally Posted by trelawnee I am old and fat and out of condition. When I go to the movies I don't want to see a lot of other old and fat people (at least, not on the screen), so I am not interested in seeing a lot of elderly actresses. Women are a lot more forgiving than men, which is why Sean Connery and Kirk Douglas played romantic leads years after they collected their bus passes.

Hmm, I sort of see your point Trelawnee,but being old, not very fat and sort of out of condition, I would , although very nice to look at, get quickly bored with the limited acting skills of most "lookers" ..... I would much rather enjoy a couple of hours of a blinding performance from say Judi Dench, amongst others.ta ta for now, Decks.

[Freddy]

This topic has been dealt with in many forms. Use the search engine above for 'women in film'
threads and there is a great deal of information to be found.

Also this siteWomen in Film & Television: Bibliography of Materials in the UC Berkeley Libraries has also been mentioned.

Best of luck

Freddy

[AdrianTurner]

Just a helpful hint, Unreal . . . if you find anything you like on the interweb, don't forget to airbrush the advertisements out of the copy. Otherwise, your lecturer might think you are guilty of plagiarism.I did a course on plagiarism once, didn't know what it meant, so I just downloaded it, know what I mean? A plagiarism on both your houses I say.

[sippog]

I think the best summary of what happens to actresses as they age can be found in that (otherwise undistinguished) film: THE FIRST WIVES CLUB.

Goldie Hawn describes an actress's career as having three phases: "babe" (i.e. young and stunning looking). "district attorney" (speaks for itself) and "Driving Miss Daisy" (look it up).

The trickiest period for an actress is between 50 and 65 when they're too old to play attorney's and too young to play grandmas. All that's left is Mums and not everyone is a Mummy type.
Mind you both Meryl Streep and Glenn Close seem to have found a new slot as The Dragon Lady archetype. Jolly good luck to 'em, I say.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by AdrianTurner I did a course on plagiarism once, didn't know what it meant, so I just downloaded it

If you take all your information from one source, that's plagiarism.
If you take it from two, that's research

Steve

[rskershaw]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook If you take all your information from one source, that's plagiarism. If you take it from two, that's research Steve

We used to call it primary and secondary sources But in the in late 80's early 90's the net was in it's infancy. I seem to remember having to go to a place called a library, anyone remember that?

[sippog]

Originally Posted by rskershaw I seem to remember having to go to a place called a library, anyone remember that?

Shh! Don't let on about using books for research. It could make my life harder.

I find that most examples of plagiarism in the student's work I mark is lifted wholesale from websites. The astounding thing is that they think (a) I won't find it suspicious when their badly spelled, ungrammatical writing suddenly breaks into a mellifluous prose style and (b) I won't simply type a line into Google to trace where they've lifted it from.

I don't know, even plagiarism aint what it used to be - but at least it's easier to detect nowadays.

[rskershaw]

Quote from an article in yesterday's Times entitled,

Call To Ban A-Level coursework as students just cut and paste

'One teacher from Leeds said; "I had one piece of work so blantantly 'cut and pasted' that it still contained adverts from the web page."'