You know the media are saturated with political correctness when it becomes necessary to defend Hollywood. And the October 9 CBS “The Early Show” was no exception.
LA Weekly’s Deadline Hollywood Daily reported Warner Bros. President of Production Jeff Robinov made the decree “We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead.”
The article, written by Nikki Finke called Robinov’s comment “Neanderthal thinking.”
“The Early Show” agreed. Entertainment Contributor Jess Cagle blamed Hollywood culture: “There is a tremendous amount of sexism in Hollywood, just as there’s a tremendous amount of sexism in our culture.”
But even if Robinov said that – Warner Bros. had denied it – couldn’t the issue really be the bottom line known as box office sales?
CBS’s National Correspondent Hattie Kauffman poorly tried to refute that possibility. She pointed to three movies that weren’t exactly blockbusters to make the case that movies with female leads do make money.
“In fact, if you look at the biggest moneymakers over the last year, three of them were driven by women,” Kauffman said. “‘The Devil Wears Prada’ took in $124 million in the U.S. alone. ‘Dreamgirls’ was another $100 million movie. And you couldn't do ‘The Queen’ without a female in the lead. The movie tallied $122 million worldwide.”
However, “The Devil Wears Prada” was 17th out of the top 100 domestic grosses for 2006. “Dreamgirls” came in 19th and “The Queen” was 57th. “The Queen” barely broke the top 20 (19th) in the 2006 gross box office rankings that include United Kingdom – where conventional wisdom would suggest the movie would do well.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
“Neanderthal thinking.” Beside the point.
October 9, 2007 - 16:18 ET by mattmRecent studies show that despite all the B.S. from the Feminists, women like so-called "neanderthals" better than modern metrosexual girlie-men. They're even attracted to guys who abuse and mistreat them...which is why Clinton won two terms.
But this is beside the point. This guy is just expressing an economic reality. If the fact that woman-lead movies don't sell equates to "neanderthal thinking" well then, I guess the women's libbers were wrong on a few things, eh? (Can I say that nowadays? I mean, unless I'm a womenizing Democrat?)
Caveman
October 9, 2007 - 17:00 ET by allanfI'm sure the Caveman show has a good shot a being a hit.
No worries to the gals at the Early Show. The Movies may not be available to you, but there is plenty of room in TV News biz for emoting news gals, egged on by a meterosexual male (Harry Smith) anchor who gets bitchy with Tony Snow.
Now Harry, you do take the skim milk and equal in your latte? You are so understanding
Chick flicks and Hollywood sexism
October 9, 2007 - 18:18 ET by greenfairieHollywood sexist? Really?
Honestly, Tinseltown has always treated women like crap. Even in the silent movie era. For every Mary Pickford there were scores of ingenues tossed aside for ticking off the honchos or for reaching the high side of 25. There were teenage girls arriving by the busload and the trainload from the heartland to make it in the business, so there were plenty of new faces to choose from. Olivia De Haviland sued her studio in the '30s because actresses weren't getting paid as much under contract as actors of similar status. Even today, an actress is lucky to make her movie career last past the 35-40 watermark. And you still see a disproportionate number of young, attractive actresses doing nudity/sex scenes as opposed to actors, who can go through their entire careers without taking off more than a shirt. The few women in the business in my opinion don't necessarily create better films for women than men do. It's little wonder most actresses find better roles on t.v..
That said, there's also a problem with Hollywood thinking that women want to see "chick flicks." I find most of them to be condescending and puerile glurge. I'd rather sit through "Transformers" than something like "Evening." Most filmgoers male and female agree, so they avoid these movies in droves. Those types of movies tend to cast actresses in the lead and surprise, surprise, they don't do well.
Doesn't this go against the
October 9, 2007 - 18:23 ET by balboaDoesn't this go against the idea that "Hollyweirdos" are only interested in furthering the "liberal agenda"?
balboa, Your question
October 9, 2007 - 18:41 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Your question seems to contain the assumption that only liberals are against sexism. That questionable assumption aside, even it was (for the sake of your question), then no. Pointing out that those in Hollywood exhibit forms of sexism doesn't go against the idea that they are predominantly liberal and try to push (or a least have a habit of expressing aspects of) a liberal agenda in their work.
They can either be falling short of a standard they have set for themselves or they might just be giving lip service to be against sexism.
Typical of liberals, I'd bet it's the latter.
So this doesn't help prove
October 9, 2007 - 19:16 ET by balboaSo this doesn't help prove that the bottom line for Hollywood is making money, not the liberal agenda?
balboa, Do you know what
October 9, 2007 - 19:26 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Do you know what a "straw-man argument" is?
I don't think you'll find too many people who would hold to the assertion that people in Hollywood are willing to push a liberal agenda at the expense (pun intended) of losing money.
What's wrong with the common sense idea that they try to do both but that in some cases, one takes priority over the other?
And, again, you are assuming that fighting sexism (whatever that really means) is strictly a liberal agenda item.
"What's wrong with the
October 9, 2007 - 19:31 ET by balboa"What's wrong with the common sense idea that they try to do both but that in some cases, one takes priority over the other?"
That makes perfect sense, until Brent writes one of his columns decrying the state of Hollywood, and board posters pile on saying that Hollywood doesn't care as long as they further the "liberal agenda."
balboa, I think the gist
October 9, 2007 - 19:49 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
I think the gist of those types of comments is that Hollywood is so divorced from Middle America and so awash in liberal ideas, that they honestly think movies like Broke Back Mountain will pull in a ton of money.
The other suggestion might be that Hollywood is willing to take a hit on some "liberal" movies to push their agenda.
But I don't think anyone would suggest that Hollywood is willing to knowingly bankrupt itself to push its views.
Not sure anyone behind
October 9, 2007 - 19:54 ET by balboaNot sure anyone behind Brokeback Mountain thought it was going to make a lot of money. In the movies, sometimes studios can be convinced to make an "artsy" flick. If you think they do that simply to push their agenda, I disagree.
balboa, Well, I was
October 9, 2007 - 20:05 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Well, I was giving you my take on the types of comments I see regarding that topic. Not my argument.
My argument is that people mostly act unconsciously when it comes to bias. They put effort into things they think are relevant or important. So I wouldn't call it "pushing" an agenda, since that implies a conscious act.
My argument then only relies on the assumption that most people in Hollywood (those involved in a material way in the making of films) are liberal (or lean left, or however you want to put it). I think that's a pretty safe assumption.
That's an argument that
October 9, 2007 - 20:09 ET by balboaThat's an argument that makes sense. (what's wrong with me) :-)
balboa, "My job here is
October 9, 2007 - 20:15 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
"My job here is done." he says, as he rides off into the sunset.
The bosses of "Hollyweird"
October 9, 2007 - 19:29 ET by stratmanThe bosses of "Hollyweird" have always been interested in making money. Money is the bottom line. Voicing the reality of what draws customers at the box office and greenlighting projects that will have the best opportunity to fatten their ledgers is not new. What is "new-ish" is that someone had the chutzpah to say female leads do not make as much gelt as male leads and that his/their movies will focus on the better grossing male star leads based stories is blunt honesty missing from most public dialogue in modern times.
Since there were high grossing movies featuring females as leads, the industry will not out of hand turn down every female lead based movie, no matter what this yutz says.
That is not to say that there isn't a bias towards Liberal causes in Hollywood. All one needs to do is turn on the television set to see Liberalism in high gear. More perfect examples are the Oscars and adulation for An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore.