Both actresses got nominated twice for Golden Globes yesterday. As Reuters points out, Bullock, 45, didn't appear in any movies last year and only one in 2007. But The Blind Side and The Proposal have both been hits. Meanwhile, Streep, 60, is the romantic lead in It's Complicated, a heavily-promoted movie opening Christmas day, after recent lauded turns in movies like Julia & Julia and Doubt. Speaking to Reuters, an industry analyst sees a refutation from the conventional wisdom of women onscreen and in audiences:

"Older women is a category Hollywood has written off, but this proves that nobody knows nothing. No matter all the surveys they take and all the focus groups, someone can come along and have their greatest success at this point in life," said Pete Hammond of awards website www.The Envelope.com

Leslie Bennetts' Vanity Fair cover story on Streep delves even more deeply into the issue:

Many studio executives have been privately convinced that it wasn't worth even a modest budget to make films about women, particularly older ones, and they seem stunned that a series of movies about middle-aged women racked up such enviable grosses. "The problem isn't just the fact that studios forget that movies about or aimed at women have an audience-they honestly don't know how to market them," says Nora Ephron, who wrote and directed Julie & Julia. "What they know how to market are movies aimed at teenage boys. I don't think my movie would have been made without Meryl."

Even those who are unimpressed with what Nancy Meyers has to offer women (or audiences in general) can marvel at the change, at least when it comes to Streep: Fifteen years ago she was considered too old to play Clint Eastwood's romantic interest in The Bridges of Madison County. ("There was a big fight over how I was too old to play the part, even though Clint was nearly 20 years older than me," she tells Bennetts.) Now, in what may or may not be Meyers' frothy fantasy (more on that later today, regarding Meyers' upcoming profile in this weekend's The New York Times magazine) both Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are chasing her onscreen.

Whether all this is a sea change or just more indication of Streep's exceptional status as Greatest Living Actress (I don't have an explanation for Bullock, but I welcome theories), proving that women will go to see movies if there's something worthwhile for them to see is a good start. And if It's Complicated is the success it's pegged to be, there will be even less of an excuse for Hollywood to pass the buck on women-directed and aimed films, starring a greater range of actresses.

On a side note, the Vanity Fair piece notes approvingly that Streep is un-Botoxed and refuses to get plastic surgery. So why did they have to make her look like she did on the cover? Streep herself, looking over portraits that Brigitte Lacombe took of her over the years, says this one is her favorite, "because they scraped all the crap off my face." Ours too, but guess Vanity Fair thought newsstand buyers would balk if they saw what Streep actually looks like. Change starts at home, guys.

Something About Meryl [Vanity Fair]

Meryl Streep, Sandra Bullock Enjoy New Lease On Career Life [Reuters]

Earlier: Golden Globe Noms: Nods for Precious Actresses, Director Kathryn Bigelow
"Fuck Them": Times Critic On Hollywood, Women, And Why Romantic Comedies Suck

Dargis' "fuck them" - the first of several - refers specifically to a fact she highlighted in her piece this weekend on the lack of progress in Hollywood films for and about women: Two major studios, Paramount Pictures and Warner Brothers Pictures, didn't release a single movie directed by a female, even in a year of renewed prominence for women in film. One bright spot: The Hurt Locker by Kathryn Bigelow (pictured above) is sweeping the early critics' awards: in the past two days alone she and her film have gotten top accolades from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Boston Society of Film Critics, the American Film Institute, The New York Film Critics Online, and the Alliance of Women Film Journalists.

In a wide-ranging conversation this morning on women in Hollywood, Dargis, who has been a chief New York Times film critic (a title she shares with A.O. Scott) since 2004, had similarly strong words for Hollywood conventional wisdom and the studio system overall. "My tendency is not to talk in sweeping terms, but one thing I can say in sweeping terms is that there's a lot of sexism in the industry," she says. Here are some of the other highlights from the conversation.

On why women in Hollywood aren't faring any better: This business is really about clubby relationships. If you buy Variety or go online and look at the deals, you see one guy after another smiling in a baseball cap. It's all guys making deals with other guys. I had a female studio chief a couple of years ago tell me point blank that she wasn't hiring a woman to do an action movie because women are good at certain things and not others. If you have women buying that bullshit how can we expect men to be better?

On working within the system: For me the most sobering thing of the last ten years is that there really was a point where four of the studios were run by women… and you would have thought that would lead to an uptick of women directors. I'm not saying I've done a systematic analysis, but it doesn't look like it changed very much… Working within the system has not worked. It has not helped women filmmakers or, even more important, you and me, women audiences, to have women in the studio system. … I think the studio system as it exists now is a no-win situation for women filmmakers.

On director Kathryn Bigelow's success (achieved in part by getting funding outside of Hollywood, detailed in Dargis's June profile of her): Something like a woman winning best director for directing an action movie and not a romantic comedy is symbolically important. Whether it then leads to a lot of women doing things outside of the pathetic comfort zone of romantic comedy – and I say that as someone who loves romantic comedy – we'll see. We know that because women are allowed to make romantic comedies that they can make romantic comedies. That's in everyone's comfort zone. The idea that a woman can be a great action director is not is everyone's comfort zone. That's [Bigelow's] exceptionalism.

On Bigelow's chances for Oscar or future commercial success: The only thing Hollywood is interested in money, and after that prestige. That's why they'll be interested in something like The Hurt Locker. She's done so well critically that she can't be ignored.

Let's acknowledge that the Oscars are bullshit and we hate them. But they are important commercially... I've learned to never underestimate the academy's bad taste. Crash as best picture? What the fuck.

On male and female directors being held to different standards, as Dargis suggested in comparing Bigelow and Michael Mann in her piece: Do you think that a woman would have been able to get forty million dollars to make a puppet movie the way that Wes Anderson has been able to make, bringing to bear all the publicity and advertising budget of Fox? After two movies that didn't make a lot of money? I think this is true for a lot of black filmmakers too – they're held to a higher standard. And an unfair standard. You can be a male filmmaker and if you're perceived as a genius – a boy genius or a fully-formed adult genius – that you are allowed to fail in a way that a woman is not allowed to fail.

On whether there's an essential difference between male-made and female-made movies: Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary. That's all we need to say about that. But I do think as 51 percent of the population we should be given a chance… It's very boring to watch the same people coming from a certain kind of background make the same kinds of movies.

On Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron: I personally don't think either of them is a good filmmaker — they make movies for me that are more emotionally satisfying but with barely any aesthetic value at all. I really like Something's Gotta Give, but I don't think it's a good movie…. I'm of two minds. Sometimes I think what women should do what various black and gay audiences have done, which is support women making movies for women. So does that mean I have to go support Nora Ephron? Fuck no. That's just like, blech.

On Sandra Bullock, whom she recently wrote should use her production company to "start giving female filmmakers a chance to do something other than dopey romances": Use your power for good, Sandy!

On why so many romantic comedies are so terrible: One, the people making them have no fucking taste, two, they're morons, three they're insulting panderers who think they're making movies for the great unwashed and that's what they want. I love romantic movies. I absolutely do. But I literally don't know what's happening. I think it's depressing that Judd Apatow makes the best romantic comedies and they're about men. All power to Apatow, but he's taken and repurposed one of the few genres historically made for women. ….We had so few [genres] that were made specifically for the female audience and now the best of them are being made by Judd Apatow. But what are his movies supposed to be about? Nominally about the relationship between a man and a woman, but they're really buddy flicks. Funny People was supposed to have an important role for a woman, but she was uninteresting and an afterthought.

On representations of women onscreen: There's a reason that women go to movies like Mamma Mia. It's a terrible movie… but women are starved for representation of themselves. I go back to Spike Lee and She's Gotta Have It. I remember going to see it at the Quad in New York, surrounded by a black audience. People are starved for representations of themselves.

On women being taken seriously as moviegoers: It's a vicious cycle. We're not going to movies because there aren't movies for us. Therefore we're not seen as a loyal moviegoing audience. My point is that if there are stories about women, women will come out for that…

That's why [women] go to a movie like The Devil Wears Prada and make huge hits. They want to see women in movies. People in the trade press constantly frame that as a surprise. This, gee whiz, Sex and the City's a hit, Twilight, hmm, wonder what's going on here. Maybe they should not be so surprised. In the trade press, women audiences are considered a niche. How is that even possible? We're 51 percent of the audience.

On this quote from a box office analyst for Hollywood.com, in The Washington Post: Fuck him. What an asshole. Yes, that's what I want! That's exactly what I want. If Angelina Jolie had been cast in a movie as a good as The Bourne Identity with a filmmaker like Paul Greengrass, I would have gone out to see it, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. That is absurd. That's blaming female audiences – you get what you deserve? Is that what he's saying?

On being a female critic reviewing and featuring women's films: I wanted to get [Bigelow] on the cover of 'Arts and Leisure'. I wanted this fantastic woman director to get her face on the front of the New York Times…[But] I am an equal opportunity critic. I will pan women as hard as men. I've had testy people imply that I should go easier on women's movies. I find that incredibly insulting. Are you kidding me? I don't want to be graded on a curve. None of us want to be a good woman writer.

I don't want to be the woman critic. I don't want to be the feminist critic. I don't want to be the shrew. What I want to do is talk about the art that I love and point out, every so often, inequities….It's a weird balancing act and I'm not saying there aren't contradictions.

On whether the prominence of women-directed films in 2009 will change anything, even if they're not statistically significant compared to other years: It's pretty shitty right now. Anything positive can only help a little bit. How's that for optimism?

Women In The Seats But Not Behind The Camera [New York Times]
Kathryn Bigelow Makes Movies That Go For The Gut [New York Times]
Now Starring At The Movies: Famous Dead Women [New York Times]
With Strong Female Characters, Hollywood Suffers From a Fear Of Failure [The Washington Post]

Related: Double X Films [The Atlantic]

Earlier: Things Are Not Getting Better For Women In Hollywood

Writes Dargis,

An autograph and collectibles convention, the Hollywood Show takes place four times a year at the Marriott across from the Bob Hope Airport, some 10 miles from downtown Los Angeles. (The most recent ran Oct. 9 to 11.) For three days the show fills an L-shaped foyer and adjacent ballroom, 15,000 square feet of the hotel's convention center. As the event's title suggests, collectibles - vintage movie posters, lobby cards and the ephemeral like - are part of the draw.

And, of course there are the stars, from Debbie Reynolds to Deep Roy (Dargis' husband is right, he was indeed in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) in full costume, to former child stars, to Twilight Zone cast members. One of the bigger stars was Mickey Rooney.

Deep Roy was in one of the busiest corners because he was near Sean Astin, who tagged after Frodo through the "Lord of the Rings" movies. A second-generation Hollywood actor, Mr. Astin is the son of Patty Duke. William Schallert, who played her father on "The Patty Duke Show," was in the foyer.

To someone like me, who doesn't even want to find out actors' real ages on IMDB lest it impact on my suspension of disbelief, this sounds like about the most unappealing thing imaginable. But, hey, if people enjoy it, get a thrill out of seeing a familiar face, and an older star can receive some accolades and make a little money, why not? And people's reasons must vary; someone who grew up on Andy Hardy probably is reminded of his youth when he meets Mickey. And a rabid Lord of the Rings fan, even if he's not there to meet Sam himself, is still talking to someone who lived the film experience, was directed by the master, can explain the technicalities of the shoot. At least, in theory.

Concludes Dargis,

The truth is that movie love is itself a form of collecting, and to live with the movies, to write and watch and read about them day after day, year after year, is a form of intense worship. The word fan is thought to come from the word fanatic, which derives from the Latin word fanaticus, "of a temple." Hollywood was built on such adoration, with ornate movie palaces that were shrines, and stars whose ethereal beauty made them virtual gods and goddesses.

The contrast with today's celebrity culture - between respectful studio portraits and paparazzi crotch shots - is striking. In a world that's increasingly torn between deifying and degrading our stars, something as straightforward as paying for a picture seems almost quaint. A little weird, perhaps. But it's a safe space - and how often can you say that?

A Fan's Signature Moment [NY Times]

I took Mariska's self-assessment in a different light. I sincerely doubt that Hargitay is trying to tell Self readers that she's at all overweight. I think it's more that terms like "full figured," "curvy," "plus-size," and "big-boned," have become so obfuscated by the dieting industrial complex that their original meanings are essentially moot at this point.

In mag parlance, Gisele Bundchen and Jennifer Hudson are both "curvy," (which these days means "possessing breasts") and Whitney from America's Next Top Model is "plus-size." We got an angry email after New York Times reviewer Manohla Dargis described Keira Knightley as "a big-boned beauty" because the reader had assumed that Dargis was calling Knightley fat. The thing is, Knightley is "big-boned" according original definition of the word, which is "having a bone structure that is massive in contrast with the surrounding flesh." Her shoulders are broad and her clavicle protruding, but she has little flesh on her bones.

It's gotten to the point where one can't describe any form, male or female, without being accused of body snarking. However, fat prejudice is still insidious and rampant, as a new study in the U.K. shows 46% of people have referred to or thought of an overweight person by by a derogatory name, according to The Independent. Are we being over-sensitive about value-neutral words, or understandably concerned about weight messages sent from celebrities?

Mariska Hargitay's Skewed Self Assessment [Glossed Over]
Georgiana and Her Dull, Dallying Duke [NYT]
Many Britons Fattist Bullies, Survey Shows [Independent]

Anyway, Dargis takes issue, not only with the smug step brothers of the title, but also with the portrayal of the women they love. "So, once again, there is the spectacle and pathos of the sexually stunted immature male, here times two: Brennan (Mr. Ferrell) and Dale (Mr. Reilly)," Dargis writes. "Mary Steenburgen, as Brennan’s mother, Nancy, takes the fantasy parent role: she’s saintly, sexy — her relaxed, ready smile telegraphs satisfaction — and endlessly patient. She looks good for a woman who would have had her youngest at about 14."

Dargis goes on to skewer the film further for its semi-insulting portrayal of both men and women, but really, it seems like the cardinal sin in this comedy is that it's not especially funny. I don't really mind so much if comedies don't show women in the best light or elevate the adolescent male psyche, so long as they're entertaining. But Dargis' description of Ferrell and Reilly — "They’re losers that only a mother, an entertainment manager or a gang of self-satisfied comedy insiders could love" — makes me think this movie is both vaguely insulting and entirely unfunny. Come on Apatow and Co., we've seen Freaks and Geeks, and even the actual adolescents in that show were more mature than these dingbats. You can do better. Whatever, I'll probably see it anyway. (You're talking to a woman who saw Let's Go To Prison in theaters. I have no standards.)

Once More To The Well Of Goofball Comedy [NYT]

Earlier: What To Expect When You're Expecting Too Much From A Movie
Now That Her Paycheck Has Cleared, Katherine Heigl Calls Knocked Up Sexist