Anyone catch the image in which diesel fuel costs $123/gallon? Whoa.
I Love Women (in Film)
Over the last couple of years, I’ve realized that the category that most intrigues me and is the toughest to choose a winner for in The Academy Awards is the female acting department. There’s usually a cut and dried winner in the race for an Oscar among the men. In the last four of five years, the victor has been an absolute lock in that category. 2008 proved to be no different (Day-Lewis was a shoe-in). Not only that, but the category isn’t ever all that strong. Many of the actors are just sort of ho-hum contenders. Yes, they’re nice performances; but nothing like the women’s category - which is almost always a real race, hard to predict, fun to watch and no matter which nominee wins, it is “correct.”
Look at this past year’s list of nominees in the leading actress and supporting actress categories:
- Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth)
- Julie Christie (Away from Her)
- Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose)
- Laura Linney (The Savages)
- Ellen Page (Juno)
- Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There)
- Ruby Dee (American Gangster)
- Saoirse Ronan (Atonement)
- Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone)
- Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton)
Now compare those to the men. It’s not even a contest. If you put all the nominees (men and women) into the same category (which I actually think should be done anyway) and picked five winners, four of them would likely be women. To make this particular race even more interesting and relevant for this article, in Todd Hayne’s I’m Not There, six actors were playing the same character: Bob Dylan. It was pretty much
critically unanimous that Blanchett, the sole female actor portraying the legendary singer/songwriter, was easily the best fit (hence her Oscar nod) - even amongst quality, veteran actors (Bale, Gere, Ledger, etc). So this goes to further my point that women seem to be better in their roles than men (or at least more interesting, compelling and captivating to this author). And this goes on year after year like this. Why?
Physical beauty:
So yes, women’s roles generally interest me and have me compelled far more than men’s. Let’s look at what you might be thinking is the obvious: women are prettier. Yes this author is male and it never hurts that nearly every female role (lead or supporting) is portrayed by a “better than average” looking woman. Let’s face it, even an average looking female is nicer to look at than an average looking male. While I’ll be honest and admit that yes, I enjoy watching an attractive female saunter around on screen for ninety minutes, this has zero bearing on my praise for the actress’ craft as an artist or her talent, or the quality of the film. Rarely, if ever, do I mention the physical attractiveness of a character’s role in a film review unless it has some bearing on the plot or I just feel like being snarky.
Emotional connection:
So putting aside physical attractiveness, since outer beauty can rarely shape a woman’s acting prowess (other than for maybe greater self-esteem and hence a higher self-confidence), why else might the female hold greater interest to me in a film than her male counterparts? Well, at the risk of sounding like a sexist pig, when I think “woman,” the first thing that pops into my head is: “emotional.” The more and more I think about this subject, this emotional component seems to be the key that fits best in my argument.
If we’re going to be honest here, we all know that women (in general) seem to be more in touch with their emotions than men. This should give them a huge leg-up when approaching a character; especially a character in a drama (which tends to be the type of role that is more likely to be noticed by the Academy). This is of course just a theory, but a woman’s emotional connection to a character and her ability to tap into those emotions more easily than a man may give a performance that much more depth and believability that we look for in terrific performances. Could this emotional connection also help a woman to understand her character more easily? And not only understand her own character, but maybe even more importantly, better understand the characters that surround her throughout the picture; thereby portraying more accurately how a person acts and reacts?
Manipulation:
Fellow RowThree contributor, Marina, recently sent me an interesting interview with Guillermo Del Toro in which he’s discussing his latest project, The Orphanage (R3 review). He talks about utilizing female characters in his movies because the audience seems to be more sympathetic to them. The female lead is able to manipulate the world around her within the story and thereby make it that much more interesting:
“I believe that the female gender transforms the world, gives it a different spin, is the creative force. In The Orphanage, the mother wants her son back, and she wills the world to bend to her perceptions – like the girl bends the world to her perceptions in Pan‘s Labyrinth … that female creative force is what transforms the world and female characters in Almodovar’s films and mine – and in The Orphanage do have the power to bend reality to their will.”
Interesting. So Del Toro believes (at least in his films) that a female is able to manipulate and alter the world around her, simply because she is a female. Could this also transcend the screen to reach the audience? Is a female more easily able to bend the real world to her will? In other words, are we as audience members subject to manipulation simply because the character is female? And if this is the case, is it because we naturally feel more sympathetic to a female presence? Or is it because, as Del Toro suggests (as did I in an above paragraph), a female is able to portray emotion more accurately, thus manipulating movie patrons to her will? Or is it a combination of the two: women know (consciously or subconsciously) that an audience may be more sympathetic to their plight, thus they ratchet up the emotional barrage in an attempt to arrest the audience attention and ultimately their imagination, delight and captivation?
Empathy: or lack thereof
Some might argue that because it’s harder for males to relate to females, this is the reason why we have fewer female leads and fewer successful films in which the lead is female. But I offer up an alternative. Perhaps we need more female leads for precisely this reason. As a male, therefore the majority in the theater-going demographic, the female mind/persona is unrelatable or “foreign” to me, thus possibly making it more fascinating? Is it possible that because I fail to have the ability to completely comprehend and empathize with the female character, I may actually be more interested in investigating their persona and attempting to engage with them more closely; thereby becoming more attached and interested? Could this contribute to a subconscious belief that women are better actors? Or is this more likely a load of hogwash?
Versatility:
I’d never thought of this before, but women can really play just about any role. With some obvious exceptions, anything goes for a woman. They can play more masculine roles, but can also play the damsel in distress. They can be a sexy vixen or lovable girl next door. Women can play hookers, lawyers, cops, assassins, a studio exec or a house-wife. Sure, a man can play a house-wife or hooker too, but it often comes off as comedic or silly (Hairspray, To Wong Foo). A woman can pretty much tackle any role thrown at her and it will likely work if written well. A man on the other hand is actually limited in the types of roles he can play. Interesting concept. Is it true?
Lack of roles:
Another possible explanation for why women in film seem to interest me more is the simple fact that there aren’t many juicy roles for women. So when one comes along that’s different (The Brave One, Domino, Death Proof), it’s that much more compelling and special, simply because we don’t get to see one very often. And we all know why.
For every Thelma and Louise, Aliens or Working Girl released, there are ten or twenty ignoramous/damsel in distress films. To quickly touch on the obvious, it’s a male dominated industry. Directors, screenwriters and producers are all predominantly men and outweigh the women by factors of ten. This goes beyond the industry though. This transcends to the movie going public as well; which is also predominantly men. So therefore we have a vicious cycle: men making movies for men. As long as men (many of them teenage boys) are the ones shelling out the money, movies will continually be made to cater to this demographic; which means lots of scantily-clad babes with large breasts screaming for the big, strong guy to come and save them. Which again, I’ll be honest; isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes this is what we all clamor for; even many women and even many of us film snobs (and women film snobs). But I’m getting off topic…
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting female leads necessarily make better movies or even more commercially successful films than men (which obviously isn’t the case). I simply argue that the characters which females typically portray are more interesting and developed. Take La Vie en Rose for example; generally regarded as a pretty decent movie, but nothing overly fantastic. Cotillard’s performance on the other hand was nothing short of mesmerizing. But this can be said of many films with male leads as well. So the quality of the film as a whole is not necessarily a consequence of the actors involved. Neither does the quality of the film affect the actress’ portrayal. Again, in general.
I’d also like to point out that my affection to quality female performances over that of quality male performances is not necessarily relegated to only strong female characters. In fact, quite the opposite could be argued. Everyone loves to talk about “strong” or “ass-kicking” female characters and how great they are:
- Demi Moore (GI Jane)
- Linda Hamilton (Terminator 2)
- Sigourney Weaver (Alien Quadrilogy)
- Rhona Mitra (Doomsday)
- Ellen Page (Hard Candy)
- Keira Knightley (Domino)
- Uma Thurman (Kill Bill)
- Angelina Jolie (Tomb Raider, Mr. & Mrs. Smith)
These are all examples of the exception to the rule and they’re definitely great fun to appreciate and root for (I actually enjoy all of these films quite a bit - with the exception of Tomb Raider). This is all fine and good, but these are hardly examples of fine art or a compelling character study. These are simply women in unconventional roles that manage to pull it off quite well. I personally prefer women in roles that have some depth.
A female lead doesn’t have to kick-ass in a role, however, to be considered strong. In fact, the strongest women are those that stand up for something, fight the system, take on issues or circumstances beyond her control. I’m not talking about space aliens or evil cattle barons here. I’m talking about oppression, or just surviving in a male dominated world:
- Joan Allen (The Contender)
- Sally Field (Norma Rae)
- Meryl Streep (Silkwood)
- Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman, Erin Brockovich)
- Charlize Theron (North Country)
- Melanie Griffith (Working Girl)
- Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain)
- Cate Blanchett (Veronica Guerrin)
In many cases this may actually include roles that are degrading, stereotypical, weak, offensive or just plain “normal folk”:
- Audrey Tautou (Amelie)
- Jodi Foster (Contact, The Brave One)
- Tura Satana, et al (Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!)
- Penelope Cruz (Volver)
- Hilary Swank (Boys Don’t Cry, Million Dollar Baby)
- Pam Grier (Jackie Brown)
- Natalie Portman (Closer)
- Elizabeth Shue (Leaving Las Vegas)
How about ditzy, bitchy, downright mean or intentionally annoying characters that you can’t help but love (or at least enjoy the performance)?
- Reese Witherspoon (Election, Legally Blonde)
- Alicia Silverstone (Clueless)
- Rosario Dawson (Sin City)
- Faye Dunaway (Mommie Dearest)
- Gong Li (Memoirs of a Geisha)
- Sharon Stone (Basic Instinct)
It seems that I’ve not provided many answers after asking my initial question of why women actors interest me far more than males. Instead, I’ve simply asked more questions. It could ultimately be that there is no answer. Maybe it’s as simple as just coming down to personal taste. So I leave it to you:
A) Do female roles/actors/characters interest you more, less or neither in your film experiences?
B) Whatever the case may be, do you have any answers or rebuttals to some of the questions and hypotheses I’ve presented above?
I just realized that the title of the article seems to suggest that I don’t love women in other facets of life; only in film. I assure you this couldn’t be further from the truth.
I quite enjoy women at all times.
Comment by Andrew James — April 23, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Similar for me in literature, female-centric stories do interest me less. It’s mostly subconscious and I never even noticed it all at really until a few years ago. The simple explanation would be that as a man, I relate with a male character and actor far more than I ever could a female character or actress. I’m an escapist in both reading and watching film and often find myself jumping into the shoes of characters, which is obviously much more difficult if they are high heels.
Obviously, it’s not as though women don’t interest me in film, because they do very much so. You named some real gems in the business: Audrey Tautou, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, and there’s Amy Adams and so on. Still, while these are some of my favorite current actresses, I get far more excited when I hear my favorite actors are in a new film. Weird, but true. I don’t have much more of a hypothesis as to why.
(p.s. Kate Beckinsale is perty)
Comment by Jonathan — April 23, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
All I have to say is that you wrote an entire article about women in film, and you didn’t once mention Ingmar Bergman. For shame Andrew.
Comment by Henrik — April 23, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Well, before getting into the heart of the matter, I have to commend you on your choice of graphics with the Mulholland Dr. image on the front page. Nice.
As for Ms. Cottilard, she’s great in La Mome, but I personally adore her in Jeux D’Enfants:
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 23, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
I seem to have a thing for teenage girl stories (not in a naughty way, I actually find the stories interesting). Even overblown stuff like “Thirteen” and “Heathers”.
Lukas Moodyson’s Lilja-4-Ever and Fucking Amal are both fascinating Young-female stories.
I also got a real kick out of Reese Witherspoon in Election, Ludivine Sagnier in Swimming Pool and the little girl in Pan’s Labyrinth.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 23, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Where does FASTER PUSSY CAT KILL! KILL! and THE LAST SEDUCTION fit into things. Women that’ll rip the men in half and spit ‘em out.
And Cheng Pei Pei in COME DRINK WITH ME (and GOLDEN SWALLOW):
If anything this topic is too broad (OK, I couldn’t resist) to narrow it down. I defy that there is a lack of good parts for women. In fact, there are lack of good parts for both genders if we are talking studio projects. Mainly comic book films, horror remakes and rom-com or raunch-com (or lately Apatow-Com). In the rest of the world and smaller more indie world there are loads of great parts for women (just look at Julianne Moore’s career…, or Patricia Clarksons, or Meryl Streeps, or Ida Lupino, or etc. etc. )
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 23, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Very interesting article, with some excellent points raised. I was particularly intrigued by the Del Toro quote. I recently saw The Orphanage, a terrific movie, and upon reflection, it was the strength of the lead character, a mother searching for her lost child, that really tied that film together for me.
And I always like seeing a little love dished out for Domino…easily one of the most undeserving “critical punching bags” in recent years.
You mentioned Jackie Brown for Pam Grier, certainly one of her best performances (isn’t it interesting how Quentin Tarantino, the man responsible for the testosterone-laden Reservoir Dogs, has his three most recent movies, counting Kill Bill as one and not two, mentioned in an article on women in film). However, I would also recommend Coffy, Foxy Brown, Friday Foster, Sheba Baby, etc. Pam Grier is one of my favorites, and she’s made a career out of playing strong women.
Finally, yes…Ingmar Bergman was the quintessential women’s director. His output in this area was second to none (Cries and Whispers and Persona for starters). You could make a similar case for the inclusion of many such directors from the past: Douglas Sirk, Clarence Brown and William Wyler to name a few. However, the above article focuses on (with one or two exceptions) the modern era, and while there is undoubtedly a rich history of women in the cinema, I believe Andrew has succeeded in pointing out that the current era has also seen its share of memorable, dare I say soon-to-be-classic, women-themed films.
Comment by Dave Becker — April 24, 2008 @ 3:21 am
You may be right, and I guess since the article is spurred on by the oscars, european cinema won’t be very interesting. There is a spanish movie mentioned, but that got an academy award nomination for best actress.
I really liked the visual side of the article as well, so thought I’d add a little to it. I don’t know how to put images in comments.
[ed note. We are working on allowing users to embed images and clips in the comments sections, Word press has not been making it easy for us at this point, but we've got TOP MEN working on it. TOP MEN.]
Comment by Henrik — April 24, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Woot on Domino, I normally hate Tony Scott’s excesses (see “Man on Fire” for instance), yet Domino takes it to such ridiculous extremes with its pastiche screenplay and avid-wankering that in the end it was a happy enough fever dream to sit through. The perfs are all great there too, even Ms. Knightly who has (for me) never realized on the promise offered by Bend it Like Beckham…
The opening Credit sequence of Domino pretty much promises what your are in store for, and plays like a 70’s-80’s TV show opening sequence on steroids with equal parts music video. (http://www.artofthetitle.com/tag/domino/)
Not surprisingly, DOMINO is a surprisingly good companion piece to SOUTHLAND TALES, another critical punching bag as you put it, Dave.
Comment by Kurt — April 24, 2008 @ 6:49 am
First woman to post, yay!
Great article Andrew. I definitely agree with your main point that there aren’t as many dynamic roles for women out there. But why? Personally, I think it’s because there are fewer successful female WRITERS out there. The vast majority of scripts are written by men, and as good as they may be, most of them have no idea how to get inside a female character’s head. I often find myself watching a female-centric film and going “WHY did she do that?! That makes no sense!” and I turn the box over and find out the flick was written by a man. :S Of course there are great writers, male and female, out there that do get it right, it’s just harder to find them!
Comment by Ashley Townsend — April 24, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Ashley, That I can certainly agree with, the auteur writers and directors (and for that matter, producers) are definitely male-dominated.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 24, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Excellent point Ashley. To make matters worse, a big chunk of those films which are written by women tend to be romcoms and not that there’s anything wrong with that or with some of those films but for the most part, they lack any sort of punch. It may tie back to the fact that the industry is mainly led by men which may, be it consciously or unconsciously, play into what types of films - by and for women - get made.
Comment by Marina Antunes — April 24, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
When you look at the ‘centre of the population/distribution’ of movies in general - from almost any film producing country for that matter - (i.e. the opposite of the “long tail”) everything is populist watered down pablum (obviously with exceptions), but most of the popular stuff by any division (male, female, old, young, etc.) is lacking in punch…
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 24, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Nice tie in - Tribeca listing of films by women about women.
Comment by Marina Antunes — April 24, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Nice post. But do you not think that the critical adulation of Blanchett as Dylan was based as much on novelty (female playing male) as anything else?
And also, what about that vaunted 18-25-year-old male target demographic? If that were an 18-25-year-old female demographic, don’t you think there’d be more good female roles/scripts and etc., even thought the industry is “mainly led by men?”
Comment by Rick Olson — April 24, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Rick - good point but I think that there IS such a demographic as the 18-25 year old but I get the sense that studios don’t realize that within that demographic, women aren’t just looking for teen flicks or romantic comedies and that’s mostly what they give us!
Comment by Marina Antunes — April 24, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
As for the novelty of a woman playing a man, maybe. But I think if you look at the performance, it’s easily the best one of the bunch and maybe one of the best Dylan “impressions” I’ve seen… ever. Sure, people maybe went into the theater thinking, “Blanchet playing Dylan, man I can’t wait to see how this turns out.” But then it turns out to be awesome - and Blanchett proves time and time again that she is in fact, AWESOME.
As for the demographic, I think that’s an excellent point. If it was mostly 23 year old girls going to the movies, then yeah, Hollywood would probably try to cater to them. But it’s mostly boys going and mostly men writing, so these two groups (male writers and male movie patrons) perpetuate each other.
Comment by Andrew James — April 24, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
“But it’s mostly boys going and mostly men writing, so these two groups (male writers and male movie patrons) perpetuate each other.”
I’m not sure I really buy that. I won’t argue with factual information that most movie goers are male but I always find that so difficult to believe. I run a local movie group and of the 400 or so members, the sexes are about equally represented both in the group and in who attends events. And when I go to the movies I see women there too. Are we just not talking loud enough? I wish I knew.
That’s why I love groups like the Alliance for Women Film Journalists. It’s unfortunately that we need a group like this one and I don’t always agree with some of their commentary but I love that they’re putting attention on the small minority of women in film and film criticism. Because let’s face it, we DO have different experiences and a different voice.
Comment by Marina Antunes — April 24, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
I would also like to say, just to address some of the criticisms above, this article isn’t really intended to be an overview of women in film history. It’s more of an attempt at coming up with rationales as to why I prefer women actors over their male counterparts and why it seems to me that women can act better. Hence, I didn’t dig into women directors or writers all that much - of which I know there are plenty good ones out there.
But I also admit that my knowledge of pre-1970 cinema is fairly limited. Take that as you will.
Comment by Andrew James — April 24, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
No excuses Andrew, don’t worry about it.
And FYI, Viskningar och rop is from 1972 :P.
Comment by Henrik — April 24, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Henrik: Great pic! I love Cries and Whispers, easily one of the top-5 Bergman films (if it’s possible to narrow it down to just five, that is).
Kurt: Thanks for the link to the titles site. Lots of great stuff on there.
Comment by Dave Becker — April 24, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Not to be anything but honest; @Dave Becker: It’s not possible, but it is a film that reminds you why film at all is interesting.
Comment by Henrik — April 25, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Commendable article.
I think it all comes down to:
Physical Beauty — I tend to focus more on what attractive women say and do (I’m a man and therefore a simpleton).
Versatility — I like to see women playing a diverse set of roles. When men play sappy roles, I almost immediately tune them out.
Comment by The Critical Critic — April 26, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Henrik: I agree. Cries and Whispers is extraordinary. I’ve seen it about 5-6 times now, and it only gets stronger with each subsequent viewing.
If you were to venture to name your top-5 Bergman films, which would they be? Mine would be:
Fanny and Alexander
The Seventh Seal
Cries and Whispers
Persona
Scenes from a Marriage
Of course, this leaves a LOT of great films on the outside looking in, but if I absolutely had to choose just five, these would be the ones.
Comment by Dave — April 26, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I would pick your five, and also Såsom i en spegel and Höstsonaten and The Magic Flute…
I can’t imagine sitting through Cries and Whispers again though. I was hardly able to stomach it the first time.
Comment by Henrik — April 26, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
I will join the Cries and Whispers bandwagon, great bit of cinema. Bergman is hit or miss for me… sat down to watch Winter Light a couple weeks ago and could not get through it. Have yet to see Scenes from a Marriage or Fanny and Alexander… but will do.
Comment by rot — April 27, 2008 @ 8:28 am
“Bergman is hit or miss for me”
Blasphemy!
Comment by Henrik — April 27, 2008 @ 8:42 am
I am woefully WOEFULLY ignorant of Bergman films. I’ve decided this is unacceptable and something I need to remedy immediately. Everything else is on hold for a Bergman marathon.
Can you all point me in the right direction; where should I start? Should I just start with Dave’s top 5 and go from there?
Comment by Andrew James — April 27, 2008 @ 9:43 am
wait a second, my mistake the film I was thinking of was Autumn Sonata, not Cries and Whispers, a film I have only seen the first five minutes of (but had to return it to the rental shop)… the five minutes were good though.
Persona is… good… but it irks me in a way.
Wild Strawberries, Seventh Seal, Autumn Sonata, are the ones I can recommend, except Andrew I know you do not like stories about corrosive families being mean to each other (i.e. Margot and the Wedding) and this seems to be a common trend of Bergman’s… Autumn Sonata being a classic example.
Comment by rot — April 27, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Corrosive family stories in general don’t really bother me, it’s just that if that’s the ONLY thing the film does for 90+ minutes, then yeah, I just start to get angry (Virginia Woolfe).
Thanks for the recommendations though. I’ll start adding them to the Netflix queue tonight.
Comment by Andrew James — April 27, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
You shouldn’t expect a plot Andrew. There is no story but what you’re able to recognize for yourself. But don’t be surprised if one of his films have you in it.
Comment by Henrik — April 27, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Alright, I added to the top of my queue:
Scenes from a Marriage
Cries and Whispers
Wild Strawberries
Fanny and Alexander
(in that order). I forgot that I actually saw The Seventh Seal at the theater last fall. Very good stuff.
As soon as I watch John Carpenter’s “Someone’s Watching Me” (I’m following Dave’s Carpenter series quite closely), it’ll be all Bergman for about two weeks.
Comment by Andrew James — April 27, 2008 @ 7:14 pm