Women Within The Film Industry

[Cerbeh]

Hi Guys, Gals and Film Buffs!

I'm doing a project on women within the film industry and i was wondering if you guys were willing to take part in a discussion. all you have to do is reply honestly what ure opinion is on the proposition that i give to you guys. obviously being an online forum its completly anonomous so theres nothing to worry about in that department.

Ok so here we go

To what extent do you agree that the representation of women in film is that they are seen as sex objects and then further how far that makes it harder for older women to get a job.

I know the wording in that is poor but im sure you get the jist of what i was trying to say there.. so yea, just reply with your opinions on the matter at hand. the more advance ure reply the better

Oh and a final thing. No Flaming, no being an arse and keep ure answers mature. i Don't have time for internet geeks this is a serious thread!


Cheers!

Cerbeh

[A Pemberton]

(Cerbeh @ Nov 14 2005, 03:51 PM) Hi Guys, Gals and Film Buffs! Oh and a final thing. No Flaming, no being an arse and keep ure answers mature. i Don't have time for internet geeks this is a serious thread! Cheers! Cerbeh

Is civility and politeness dead?

[penfold]

(A Pemberton @ Nov 14 2005, 04:33 PM) Is civility and politeness dead?

Spelling's in a poor way too, it seems. Ure ???

[Jackdaw]

To what extent do you agree that the representation of women in film is that they are seen as sex objects and then further how far that makes it harder for older women to get a job. [/i]

You haven't told us the deadline date for your essay.

Cheers
Jacky

[penfold]

(Cerbeh @ Nov 14 2005, 03:51 PM) To what extent do you agree that the representation of women in film is that they are seen as sex objects and then further how far that makes it harder for older women to get a job.

Assuming you mean acting work, to be honest it has more to do with how good an actress the woman in question was, not whether or not she had only been seen in 'sex object' roles when younger. A good actress will always be in demand - whatever her past or appearance, though it is true that there are fewer roles for fifty-year old women than twenty-year old women; but then the same is also true for men, but that's a question that doesn't get asked in media studies courses.
Always awkward to pigeon-hole, but you could try to categorise women actresses (or their careers).
'Sex object', never to be seen again after age 30 when her beauty fades; 'Sex object' who could actually act and therefore reappears (sometimes after a hiatus, sometimes not) in middle-aged or older roles; and actresses who never lost their beauty, as they didn't start with any, but stuck at it and achieved fame later in life.
Category 1; almost any Hollywood starlet du jour
Category 2; Catherine Deneuve, Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Angela Lansbury (honestly!!) Deborah Kerr,
also Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver in the next generation down. Out of the current lot, my money will be on Nicole Kidman, and Kate Winslet.
Category 3; Flora Robson, Margaret Rutherford, Joan Hickson, Thora Hird....

Not all women, in film or in real life, are seen as sex objects....some are, some aren't. The same, of course, is true of men; what about the male eye-candy that has been paraded across the screen since before the days of Rudolf Valentino? Does that make it harder for middle-aged actors to find work - and if not, why not???
Hope this gives you something to discuss.

[sanndevil]

(penfold @ Nov 14 2005, 04:59 PM) Spelling's in a poor way too, it seems. Ure ???

Punctuation is not too hot either. All in all, not much going for it, really.

[samkydd]

(sanndevil @ Nov 14 2005, 05:33 PM) Punctuation is not too hot either. All in all, not much going for it, really.

It's pretty f***in' obvious what women's roles are in the film industry, it's the same as any other industry, and gender shouldn't make any difference!

I'd like to know what role media studies plays in the academic world when compared to other subjects like Playdough and sand pit!

[Cerbeh]

Cheers for the constructive reply penfold, atleast someone decided to actually help me out. As to the question stated by Jacky this research is to take place over a week from the creation of this thread while points are made and discussed. (hopefully)

As to the non helpful posts given I shall take not of what you have said in a civil manner. I'm sorry that my grammar and punctuation was inaccurate and therefore compromised the validity of my post. I wasn't aware that it was that big of an issue towards my thread.

Now to the points created by Penfold.

I do agree to some extent that most women who can act are placed in roles due to their acting ability. I did originally start with this point within my hypothesis and have got some other research looking into this. however it is due to a belief of feminists that some women are still paraded around on the screen like sex objects. Yes in some cases (like the ones you have stated) it is true that some women can surpass the 'old' age bracket by being a well renowned actress. however through other forms of research i have seen other well known actresses complain about their lack of work. Yes i am well aware that what i have stated is coming from a biased source as it was written by the people complaining about work, however there is still some extent of validity. how have certain household names such as Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Charlotte Rampling, Sharon Stone and Whoopi Goldberg seemed to of disappeared in their older age?

And in reply to your comment about male representation, yes i would agree that men are in the same position of being objectified. however when looking at the amount of work you can observe that some men such as Harrison Ford, Sean Connery and some others are still working as much now in their 50's and 60's as they did in their 20's and 30's.

Keep the good things coming. hope you can all keep a civil tounge and give me a good debate here :)

[Steve Crook]

And what about actresses like Kathy Burke who was never in the "eye candy" category but was just a superb actress. She's not doing so much nowadays, but that's entirely by her own choice. She just wanted to give acting a break for a while and try her hand at directing, mainly in the theatre.

Steve

[catflap]

(Cerbeh @ Nov 15 2005, 10:32 AM) I do agree to some extent that most women who can act are placed in roles due to their acting ability. I did originally start with this point within my hypothesis and have got some other research looking into this. however it is due to a belief of feminists that some women are still paraded around on the screen like sex objects. Yes in some cases (like the ones you have stated) it is true that some women can surpass the 'old' age bracket by being a well renowned actress. however through other forms of research i have seen other well known actresses complain about their lack of work. Yes i am well aware that what i have stated is coming from a biased source as it was written by the people complaining about work, however there is still some extent of validity. how have certain household names such as Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Charlotte Rampling, Sharon Stone and Whoopi Goldberg seemed to of disappeared in their older age? And in reply to your comment about male representation, yes i would agree that men are in the same position of being objectified. however when looking at the amount of work you can observe that some men such as Harrison Ford, Sean Connery and some others are still working as much now in their 50's and 60's as they did in their 20's and 30's.

Just a note on the actresses you mentioned...

Meg Ryan is (or at least was) box office gold when cast in romantic comedy. Naturally she wanted to stretch her wings somewhat and her dramatic turn in Courage Under Fire was reasonably successful. But then she attempted to alternate her work ith polar opposites. She would give us a City of Angels and follow it with the role of a foul-mouthed junkie hooker in Hurly Burly. Then after Kate and Leopold we'd get In the Cut. Michael Parkinson was not alone in being utterly perplexed as to why she would b so willing to sabotage a beautifullyconstructed screen image. In short, she went to far. Now her old leading man Tom Hanks has successfully moved between comedy and drama, but has carefully chosen his roles so as to not alienate his audience. Poor Meg needs some career advice, pronto.

Holly Hunter was always something of an acquired taste, with that southern drawl and all. But only a couple of years back she was Oscar nominated for Thirteen and has a slew of films in the works. I doubt if she was ever a 'star', more a character actress who fell into a few juicy leading roles.

I don't know how you can say that Charlotte Rampling has disappeared in older age. Under the Sand and Swimming Pool were both successes. She is experiencing her most fertile creative and recognised period in thirty years, since she got her kit off for Dirk Bogarde.

After a whole lot of window dressing Sharon Stone hit the big time by pretty much going all the way on screen in Basic Instinct. It got the viewers in and was the most talked about film of 1992. But where do you go from there? Sliver tanked and, as nobody had been particularly interested in her acting abilitite before, why would they care now? Intersection and The Mighty are not bad films and she was quite fine in them, but her appeal was built on crossing her legs without any knickers. It is an extremely difficult base to build a career on. Within a few years she was playing support in dire Billy Connolly dramas on their way to the top shelf of your local video dealership.

Whoopi Goldberg is another accidental star whose biggest success came from Bette Midler dropping out of Sister Act. The quality of her followup vehicles put paid to her leading-actress career, rather then any studio or audience discrimination. However she will always be in work, in guest spots and character roles. The fact that, for a time, she seemed to be everywhere, probably helped audiences get a little bored with her too.

[penfold]

(Cerbeh @ Nov 14 2005, 11:32 PM) how have certain household names such as Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Charlotte Rampling, Sharon Stone and Whoopi Goldberg seemed to of disappeared in their older age? And in reply to your comment about male representation, yes i would agree that men are in the same position of being objectified. however when looking at the amount of work you can observe that some men such as Harrison Ford, Sean Connery and some others are still working as much now in their 50's and 60's as they did in their 20's and 30's.

Up to a point; Charlotte Rampling has made 14 feature films in the last five years; she may have disappeared off the radar of Hollywood, but in her adopted France she is equivalent to, say, Helen Mirren. Holly Hunter has made about the same.Meg Ryan has done herself no favours with an awful facelift; she has concentrated on production recently, but has three films in the pipeline; Sharon Stone is following up Basic Instinct. Whoopi has had a self-produced sitcom running in the States, and has been on Broadway.To be brutal, of these women, Charlotte Rampling and Holly Hunter are the actresses, Whoopi really a comedienne. The other two are or were stars. Big difference. Meg Ryan was cute and a reasonable light comedienne, but ingenues rarely age well. Audrey Hepburn. I can't think of any others. I think the jury is still out on whether Sharon Stone can actually act at all. She was the 80's/90's choice for the summer blockbuster; the equivalent of Arnie - I rest my case.
How about Meryl Streep?? Susan Sarandon?? Glenn Close?? All really good actresses....Meryl and Glenn are nearly 60, and are both working as hard as twentyfive years ago.
Interesting male examples to choose. Harrison Ford was 35 when he made Star Wars - when he was practically unknown. He has made three feature films in the last five years. Roles which used to head his way now go to George Clooney. Sean Connery? Two. Casting directors wanting intelligent charismatic older men now head for Malkovich or Willem Defoe. How long do you think Brad Pitt has left - five years max?? Now if you had said Christopher Lee...but then he was always an actor in a particular mould, a genre actor almost - and still in demand. But then, so is Judi Dench.
Over to you.
How about this for a subject for debate. What happens to child stars when they are has-beens at ten?? they don't generally have the clout to make self-serving films like 'Whatever Happened to Debra Winger'. Try getting hold of 'Whatever Happened to Baby Peggy' instead. It's a book. An autobiography of the girl who was star of 150 short, 9 feature films by the age of 7, then was totally forgotten for the next eighty years. Interesting reading.

[JamesM]

I was expecting the poster to discuss women in the film industry in the first post when they posted the title 'A discussion on the presence of women within the film industry', how silly of me.

Shall we talk about Jill Craigie, Mai Zetterling, Ida Lupino, Kay Mander, Agnes Varda, Betty E. Box, Peggy Gick, Penelope Spheeris, Agnes Varda, Aida Young, Sofia Coppola, Barbara McLean, Margaret Booth, Lynne Ramsey, Julie Taymor and Betty Thomas anyway.

[sanndevil]

(Cerbeh @ Nov 14 2005, 11:32 PM) As to the non helpful posts given I shall take not of what you have said in a civil manner. I'm sorry that my grammar and punctuation was inaccurate and therefore compromised the validity of my post. I wasn't aware that it was that big of an issue towards my thread.

Well, I admire your pluck for a first time poster, but you may have found our attitude a little more accommodating if you hadn't insulted the community. Poor spelling and grammar can be excused, but basic courtesy and manners are a prerequisite. You don't endear yourself with statements like "Keep a civil tongue".

Also, as I have said a few times here: the protocol is for students to open the debate first, thus proving that they have actually done some legwork and have formulated their own ideas and opinions.

[arty-dave]

(Cerbeh @ Nov 14 2005, 03:51 PM) Oh and a final thing No Flaming, no being an arse and keep ure answers mature. i Don't have time for internet geeks this is a serious thread!

If you spent some time in this forum getting to know us all, rather than just diving in, insulting us and then expecting us to do your coursework for you, you would realise we are (mostly) mature, responsible people.

I can't find an emoticon to sum up what my feelings towards you are

[Cerbeh]

Wow, you guys actually destroyed that.. but in a good way...

So from what you guys have said i can see that most of my actresses were poorly chosen. If i can say these actresses were what i saw as being the best examples from a document that i found which reported back on a documentary programme.

As i can gather from the common appearances of certain views and opinions, i get that most of them have done the damage to themselves or chose to take the chances that they have. But i still feel that there are a fair few actresses who can be a household name one day but then disappear over night. This can be because they have a lack of acting ability, yes. Maybe they chose some really bad career moves or they choose to change their presence within the film industry itself but is there something more to it? Can casting directors be so over run by their lower extravities as to only cast some women in roles due to the fact that they look nice on screen? Time and time again, i feel that i have gone to the cinema, watched a movie only to find that the leading lady was a nice face, nice assets but couldnt deliver the line with any form of emotion. Is this me having to much of a high standard? am i freaking out over the small things? or is there some people who are putting this talentless women in these roles?