But that's not what Russell is saying. He's saying, suck it up, ladies. You can't be young forever.
I feel like you're deliberately glossing over/ignoring the problem here. The Heat and Bridesmaids are recent developments. They aren't proof of anything. I can name maybe five female centric comedies. We'd be here a long time if I listed off the male centric comedies that have come out alongside them.
Kathryn Bigelow won a goddamned Oscar. I guarantee you it's still not easy for her to get projects greenlit.
Russell isn't calling for a change. In fact, he's trying to make a false equivalency, that because he cannot play Gladiator again, that 50 year old women shouldn't expect to be cast in movies either.
But the fact of the matter is that there is a giant female casting hole in Hollywood. Women get to play either the young hot love interest of some older man or they get to play grandma. There are occasional exceptions to that rule, yes but not enough of them.
It would be like arguing that because Shonda Rimes is in vogue right now, that there are plenty of roles for black women in Hollywood. We all know that isn't true. And if Kerry Washington came out and said that Lupita needs to just accept roles on television and her career would be good, we'd tell Kerry to sit her ass down somewhere.
This is still an industry problem. I'm not trying to ignore anything. What he is saying is that due to the nature of the industry, it is ridiculous for women to try to play roles 20-30 years younger than them. Also, it's ridiculous for males to try to play them, i.e. himself. When they do manage to land these roles, it's to cater to men who had followed these prime actors as they've aged alongside them.
James Cameron would not have cast Sharon Stone to play Rose in the Titanic. It's not unreasonable to think it ridiculous for Sharon Stone to think she can play the role of a 19 year old.
Yeah, but Sharon Stone doesn't want to play a 19 year old. The assumption that all these women bitching are just bitter because they can't play 20 year olds IS A PROBLEMATIC AND SEXIST ARGUMENT!
Yes, I'm using all caps a lot but there is a ton of chucklefuckery up in this thread that calls for nuggetbrain levels of expression.
Again, in small words, Crowe's argument is sexist as fuck because it presumes that the older women doing the complaining are just mad because their tits aren't as perky as they used to be. But the simple truth here is that there aren't many roles written for women between the ages of Jennifer Lawrence and the Dowager Countess. Meanwhile there are a swath of roles written for men of all ages.
I mean shit, look at the Sony email hacks. They were looking at men of ALL ages for that Steve Jobs movie. Are you white and have a penis? Sony wants YOU to play Steve Jobs. But Angelina is too old to play Cleopatra.
I'm thinking of blockbuster hits. Big budget films. Transformers. They didn't get Sandra Bullock to play Megan Fox. They also had some young buxom girl play Mark Walhberg's daughter in the most recent one. She was paired with younger guy as her boyfriend. I'd wager the only reason that he got the role was because the moms taking their kids to see it would swoon over him.
If these guys want to play roles that are washed up old action guys, looking at you Bruce Willis, they're not going to have the same damn appeal as they did when these guys were younger. Shia LaBouf played Indiana Jones, not Harrison in the last remake.
The industry is agest, and it does sway in the favor of men. We know that. Him saying so doesn't make him sexist to me. Because he can land jobs, and he calls out the unlikelihood of young Megan Fox type roles going to Renee Zellweger isn't offensive to me.
My interpretation is that he is saying that the industry is sexist and agest, and women who've been in the limelight for a while should know and expect this because it is statistically shown. Men should as well, as he included himself.
Right...and to the point of calling him a sexist jerk? Okay, maybe there are some nuances he's overlooking here, but I don't think it makes him sexist or a jerk. And I don't really even like Russell Crowe.
He's a sexist jerk because 1. he doesn't seem to recognize that the industry is sexist and 2. he seems to be blaming actresses for their problems getting work after the age of 35.
Right...and to the point of calling him a sexist jerk? Okay, maybe there are some nuances he's overlooking here, but I don't think it makes him sexist or a jerk. And I don't really even like Russell Crowe.
I think this is the ageist version of telling black folks to just stop breaking the law and then they wouldn't have to worry about the way our justice system treats black folks. Yep. I went there. Because it is the same damn this. It is presenting a straw man solution. Women should just play roles for women their age. Yeah. All five of those roles that come up ever year and the whopping ONE that does not require a 48 year old woman pretend to be the mother of a 37 year old man.
Or the 68 year old mother of a 55 year old mother of a 44 year old.
But that's not what Russell is saying. He's saying, suck it up, ladies. You can't be young forever.
I feel like you're deliberately glossing over/ignoring the problem here. The Heat and Bridesmaids are recent developments. They aren't proof of anything. I can name maybe five female centric comedies. We'd be here a long time if I listed off the male centric comedies that have come out alongside them.
Kathryn Bigelow won a goddamned Oscar. I guarantee you it's still not easy for her to get projects greenlit.
Russell isn't calling for a change. In fact, he's trying to make a false equivalency, that because he cannot play Gladiator again, that 50 year old women shouldn't expect to be cast in movies either.
But the fact of the matter is that there is a giant female casting hole in Hollywood. Women get to play either the young hot love interest of some older man or they get to play grandma. There are occasional exceptions to that rule, yes but not enough of them.
It would be like arguing that because Shonda Rimes is in vogue right now, that there are plenty of roles for black women in Hollywood. We all know that isn't true. And if Kerry Washington came out and said that Lupita needs to just accept roles on television and her career would be good, we'd tell Kerry to sit her ass down somewhere.
This is still an industry problem. I'm not trying to ignore anything. What he is saying is that due to the nature of the industry, it is ridiculous for women to try to play roles 20-30 years younger than them. Also, it's ridiculous for males to try to play them, i.e. himself. When they do manage to land these roles, it's to cater to men who had followed these prime actors as they've aged alongside them.
James Cameron would not have cast Sharon Stone to play Rose in the Titanic. It's not unreasonable to think it ridiculous for Sharon Stone to think she can play the role of a 19 year old.
But Sharon Stone can't play a 19 year old and she's not trying to. She (standing in for all the actresses in their 40s and 50s) wants to play a 45 year old who's still attractive and is more interesting and important than "main character's mom." Where are all these roles?
Russell Crowe is addressing something that no one is claiming, though. He's saying 40 year old women can't play young romantic interests. Okay? Tell us something we don't know? Actresses over 30 are not lamenting that. They're complaining that there are NO ROLES that aren't young romantic interests, except for a few strong women type roles that allow Harvey Weinstein to attempt to grow his collection of Oscar-winning films each fall/winter, which all go to the same 5-10 actresses. So when a woman says it's hard to get a role when you age in Hollywood, they don't mean that they are angry about not being cast in a bikini in Blue Crush 2. It's a false dichotomy that Crowe is setting up here.
Because hollywood just views female actresses as their relation to men. So love interest of a man or mother of a man. But that really shuts the door on other roles. Men get to routinely play, and not just anecdotes, nuanced characters with a range of emotions and roles. It would be crazy to see a movie featuring Meryl Streep as an alcoholic pilot. But that was Flight with Denzel Washington (a great movie btw). Or anything Bill Murray does in his golden years. Or Matthew McConaughy. Or ...name any over 40 actor.
This is just what I was thinking. There are really precious few movies where there is any logical reason the lead can't be a 40 something year old woman. Take interstellar. Fabulous movie. I loved it. But Anne Hathaway plays the young, attractive twenty something astronaut, McConaughey plays a middle aged dad astronaut. There is absolutely no reason his role had to be played by a man. Holly Hunter could have played the aged astronaut. And there was no reason Anne Hathaway's character had to be so young. Fucking Judy Dench could have played that character. But as always, it was written and cast in a way that completely proves Crowe wrong. And there are a TON of movies just like that. I mean, The Net with Sandra Bullock from the 90s. That role did not require a twenty something actress.
The fact that Sharon Stone isn't still making kick ass movies really only proves the point. She is talented AS FUCK yo and she looks damned good too. But what's she done recently? An episode arc on fucking Law and Order.
And she's dating David DeLuise which has nothing to do with anything except that I wanted to share is and perhaps confess that I had a tiny crush on him when 21 Jumpstreet was in reruns. And when he was on SeaQuest.
Because you see, men are allowed to fantasize that young as hell women with tight bodies will still be into them when they are old and frumpy but women aren't allowed to fantasize that men will still be into us after our boobs start sagging and our bellies look like something that once held a growing fetus.
Or I guess we're allowed but we wouldn't buy those movies, right?
...and even Jeff Daniels. The guy who is most famous for his explosive poo on Dumb and Dumber gets to anchor a nightly news program on the News Room. That could have been a woman.
Men are playing men their own age and they are almost always cast with women and if it is not a teen movie (Fault in our Stars) and the man is over 30 - he is ALWAYS cast with a woman in her mid 20's to early 30's. Unless he's in his 70's and then *maybe* a 40 something year old actress will be cast with him. And asswipe Crowe thinks that's A-OK
...and even Jeff Daniels. The guy who is most famous for his explosive poo on Dumb and Dumber gets to anchor a nightly news program on the News Room. That could have been a woman.
I hope you're all watching Veep though.
It's also why I try hard to watch everything Julianne Moore and Amy Adams do because those ladies work hard for those careers. People keep citing Meryl and Helen but everything I've read either of them say truly paints a portrait of how hard it is for them to remain working.
All four of those actresses not only lobby hard to get their roles brought to the screen but then do their best to sell them hard. They are putting in twice the work for half the reward. It's not something that just comes their way. Occasionally, roles are written for them but, particularly for those who aren't Meryl, they fight hard to be considered, to get the financing, to sell them on awards circuits, to get picked up for distribution, etc.
It's not something they just fall into the way male actors do.
And the setbacks can be MASSIVE.
Please compare and contrast the career trajectories of Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. How many fucking shitty ass movies has Johnny Depp foisted on our asses? Tell me Angelina would still be here if she'd made shitty movie after shitty movie.
Tell me what will happen to Melissa McCarthy if just one of her movies bombs as hard as an Adam Sandler movie does.
Even Jennifer Aniston has to work harder than male comedic actors.
...and even Jeff Daniels. The guy who is most famous for his explosive poo on Dumb and Dumber gets to anchor a nightly news program on the News Room. That could have been a woman.
And the main woman, the executive producer of the news room, Emily Mortimer (43), spends her time pining away for him (59) and being flighty and dumb.
Don't get me started, 5 episodes in, how much I hate this show.
One of the problems here, that he refuses to acknowledge, is that there aren't any roles for women over 40 where they're allowed to be anything but the mother/grandmother/wacky neighbor. They don't have to be the fucking action hero, they don't have to be the ingenue, but it might be nice for them to actually have sex and enjoy it.
FFS.
I haven't seen a whole lot of movies lately, but the last time I remember a full-on 40+ woman as a sexy sexy hot bodied female lead was way the fuck back in 1999, when Rene Russo played opposite Pierce Brosnan in The Thomas Crown Affair:
One of the problems here, that he refuses to acknowledge, is that there aren't any roles for women over 40 where they're allowed to be anything but the mother/grandmother/wacky neighbor. They don't have to be the fucking action hero, they don't have to be the ingenue, but it might be nice for them to actually have sex and enjoy it.
FFS.
I haven't seen a whole lot of movies lately, but the last time I remember a full-on 40+ woman as a sexy sexy hot bodied female lead was way the fuck back in 1999, when Rene Russo played opposite Pierce Brosnan in The Thomas Crown Affair:
And when was the last time you saw Rene Russo in a lead role or, well, anything??
One of the problems here, that he refuses to acknowledge, is that there aren't any roles for women over 40 where they're allowed to be anything but the mother/grandmother/wacky neighbor. They don't have to be the fucking action hero, they don't have to be the ingenue, but it might be nice for them to actually have sex and enjoy it.
FFS.
I haven't seen a whole lot of movies lately, but the last time I remember a full-on 40+ woman as a sexy sexy hot bodied female lead was way the fuck back in 1999, when Rene Russo played opposite Pierce Brosnan in The Thomas Crown Affair:
And when was the last time you saw Rene Russo in a lead role or, well, anything??
Jamie Lee Curtis' Activia contract must be up by now.
...and even Jeff Daniels. The guy who is most famous for his explosive poo on Dumb and Dumber gets to anchor a nightly news program on the News Room. That could have been a woman.
funny you bring up The Newsroom since the way that the female characters were written on this show is completely indicative of the problem in Hollywood.
Also, I'm pretty sure it was established like back in 2003 or something that Russell Crowe was a sexist jerk so I'm really not sure why people are indignant on his behalf.
Or is just another illustration of how behind in pop culture some of you are? lol
...and even Jeff Daniels. The guy who is most famous for his explosive poo on Dumb and Dumber gets to anchor a nightly news program on the News Room. That could have been a woman.
funny you bring up The Newsroom since the way that the female characters were written on this show is completely indicative of the problem in Hollywood.
Russell Crowe Says Older Women Don’t Get Movie Roles Because They Refuse to Act Their Age
In 2013, Robin Hitchcock of Bitch Flicks published this telling stat: 62 percent of Oscar winners for Best Actress are 35 or younger, while only 14 percent of Best Actor winners are. In the world of Hollywood movies, men outnumber women, but older men vastly outnumber older women. The usual explanation for this divergence is plain old discrimination, with the men who run the studios and make the majority of movies assuming that audiences don't want a bunch of aging women in their epic tales of elderly men performing feats of strength. But Russell Crowe has a different explanation for the disparity.
“The best thing about the industry I'm in—movies—is that there are roles for people in all different stages of life,” Crowe told Australian Women's Weekly during a promotional interview for his movie The Water Diviner, where he plays a father with three sons and no daughters. “To be honest, I think you'll find that the woman who is saying that (the roles have dried up) is the woman who at 40, 45, 48, still wants to play the ingénue, and can’t understand why she's not being cast as the 21 year old.”
“Meryl Streep will give you 10,000 examples and arguments as to why that's bullshit, so will Helen Mirren, or whoever it happens to be. If you are willing to live in your own skin, you can work as an actor,” he continued, citing the two women who are tasked with playing basically all women over 50 that are allowed to be onscreen.
But Streep is not nearly as skeptical about the existence of sexism in the movie industry as Crowe says she must be. In a 2010 Barnard commencement speech, Streep said that “the hardest thing in the world is to persuade a straight male audience to identify with a woman character. It's easier for women [to identify with men] because we were brought up identifying with male characters in literature.” Perhaps this is why a study of films released in 2008 found that men had 67 percent of speaking roles, and that 26 percent of female characters wore “provocative” clothes, compared with a mere 5 percent of men.
As for the notion that there are a hefty and appealing number of roles for older women who are willing to act their age, it is particularly hard to believe when you look at Vulture's 2013 analysis of who is cast as the female romantic lead for men in their 40s and 50s. If Hollywood were indeed flush with roles for middle-aged women, we would see middle-aged men coupled off with women of their own generation. Vulture found otherwise: “As leading men age, their love interests stay the same, and even the oldest men on our list have had few romantic pairings with a woman their own age (or even one out of her mid-thirties).” Instead, you get 57-year-old Denzel Washington paired off with 35-year-old Kelly Reilly. Or 49-year-old Johnny Depp with 30-year-old Rebecca Hall. Or 50-year-old Tom Cruise with 33-year-old Olga Kurylenko. Or 50-year-old Steve Carell with 29-year-old Olivia Wilde.
Looking at Vulture's charts, it seems that it's not women who refuse to age gracefully onscreen. Instead we're fed a bunch of images of men who look, to quote Crowe, like they are “trying to pretend that [they’re] still the young buck” by bedding down women who are often young enough to be their daughters.
Misogyny and racism, absolutely, yes, beyond all argument are the same thing.
Is this current discussion exactly analogous to the shooting of black men by police? No.
But it is very much so analogous to people viewing black men and black folks in general as more dangerous and less trustworthy than white folks.
Why? Because just like Hollywood writes out women, reducing them sex objects, shrews, or plot points, Hollywood is also partially responsible for writing black men, especially large and/or dark ones as scary menaces who are probably into gang violence, drug dealing, and other shifty behavior.
To say there are absolutely no parallels here is a level of stupidity I cannot fathom.
But go on and keep being touchy. Clearly we're all talking about poor Sandra Bullock not getting enough money and fame and NOT the large, wide scale problem of how Hollywood continually uses it's time and energy to shoring up the system of oppression of both gender and race around the world.
Sure, white women aren't being shot for stealing cigarettes but women as a whole are suffering from gender discrimination in the workplace, in the home, on the streets, etc. And that gender discrimination isn't relegated to mere pay disparity.
All morning? You tried it. I posted it in here twice. Once to say I didn't think it was sexist and another time to post a few more words than that. Anyway, in comparison to this justice system and black men dying which was stupidly brought up in this thread, no I don't care. This is not my issue. Period. And the next time you want to say something to or about me, just quote me or tag me.
Also, I'm pretty sure it was established like back in 2003 or something that Russell Crowe was a sexist jerk so I'm really not sure why people are indignant on his behalf.
Or is just another illustration of how behind in pop culture some of you are? lol
Not jumping to call him a sexist jerk doesn't seem like being indignant. I'm neither annoyed or angry about it. I just don't agree that every angle of his approach in this article is unreasonable for the industry that he is in. He said the actress wanting to play the 21 year old, not a talented actress wanting a good solid role.
Him ignoring the fact that women's roles are limited by age, I agree is sexist. However, I don't think what he is saying is far fetched or untrue.If an actress wants to continue to play roles of younger women (looking at you Cameron), you're going to find sparse results because the industry doesn't write for that because the industry is sexist and ageist.
There have been very strong roles for older women. Kate Winslet in The Reader, she was both sexy and dynamic. While on this board controversial, Reese in The Wild was also a strong role for a woman in Hollywood. The roles that women win Oscars for aren't normally overly glamorous. Helen Mirren won for the Queen. Meryl Streep was nominated playing a powerful editor in Devil Wears Prada.
Men who play the Gladiator or the cheesy crappy roles they get following that don't win for those roles. He won an Oscar for playing in A Beautiful Mind. Most often, older men get box office hits because their name will sell tickets, not because they're talented actors or out of shape and old.
I agree.
But IF you're Russell Crowe and have been massively successful in the industry (which presumably comes with some level of power) and you look around and see Cameron et al trying desperately to play younger and appear younger than they are, and your sole reaction is "bitches be crazy," you are also sexist.
Nobody is saying that there are zero strong roles for older women. But they are few and far between, especially in comparison to the number of strong roles for men. Even the number of mediocre roles for older women is smaller than the number of mediocre roles for men in the 40-60 age bracket. There's just less work for women over 35, period.
Also, I'm pretty sure it was established like back in 2003 or something that Russell Crowe was a sexist jerk so I'm really not sure why people are indignant on his behalf.
Or is just another illustration of how behind in pop culture some of you are? lol
Not jumping to call him a sexist jerk doesn't seem like being indignant. I'm neither annoyed or angry about it. I just don't agree that every angle of his approach in this article is unreasonable for the industry that he is in. He said the actress wanting to play the 21 year old, not a talented actress wanting a good solid role.
Him ignoring the fact that women's roles are limited by age, I agree is sexist. However, I don't think what he is saying is far fetched or untrue. If an actress wants to continue to play roles of younger women (looking at you Cameron), you're going to find sparse results because the industry doesn't write for that because the industry is sexist and ageist.
There have been very strong roles for older women. Kate Winslet in The Reader, she was both sexy and dynamic. While on this board controversial, Reese in The Wild was also a strong role for a woman in Hollywood. The roles that women win Oscars for aren't normally overly glamorous. Helen Mirren won for the Queen. Meryl Streep was nominated playing a powerful editor in Devil Wears Prada.
Men who play the Gladiator or the cheesy crappy roles they get following that don't win for those roles. He won an Oscar for playing in A Beautiful Mind. Most often, older men get box office hits because their name will sell tickets, not because they're talented actors or out of shape and old.
But therein lies the problem. He thinks that the 40- and 50-year-old actress want to be the 21-year-old. THEY DON'T. He thinks they want to play the 21-year-old when what they actually want is to not have so many roles restricted to actresses under 35. Again, the chart that ttt speaks volumes. All those men well over 45, and all those love interests well under 35. Setting aside the issue of the leading main man and the woman's role being the love interest, why are all these love interests not being given to age appropriate actresses?
Saying that as a 45- or 55-year-old actress, you should be able to play the love interest of Denzel Washington or Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe or George Clooney is not the same as saying you want to be cast as the 21-year-old ingenue.
He fails to recognize that it's the omnipresence of the 21-year-old ingenue that's the problem and thinks the problem is women wanting to be something they are not.