Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:47 PM
Sat Nov 7
42 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/24/09
Someone always brings up semi-recent female centric movies as evidence that there are plenty of female centric movies that do well.
But if you look at the top 10 this week, all of the movies are male drive (except possibly Paranormal Activity which I know nothing about ) [www.imdb.com] If you go through the archives, you can see that a good week for women in film means there are 3 or 4 female driven films in the top 10,
There is always someone who brings up "well, I'll see it on DVD." That's great, but studios make their money on tickets not DVD sales (never mind rentals). What does well in theaters is what we will see more of, your vote is the movie ticket you buy. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
a) Consider the source - the Wall Street Journal is, to my understanding, pretty right-wing and reactionary*. I see their writers on Fox News all the time.
b) Consider the timing - reviews looking bad, so studios cast around for someone/thing to pin it on in advance of predicted poor box office. The film hasn't even been given a chance to defy the reviews - they literally cannot wait to blame it on women. It can't simply be a bad film; No. It is Yet Another Nail In The Coffin For Women In Hollywood. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
*I am prepared to wrong about this, since I rarely read it!
10/24/09
Hmmm, I entirely disagree with point one. I don't even know where you pulled that idea from, but I don't watch FOX. I do read the Journal, and it is certainly not "reactionary" or "right-wing." It is similar to the Economist in its support of free markets and tends to be right of center on economic issues.
Its editorial staff tends to be more far more conservative than its news department---and a few of them are definitely right wing-- but if you remove the editorial staff from the paper it's actually been proven as one of the more liberal papers on many non-economis issues.
I'm not surprised some of its editorial staff would appear on FOX though.
However, the Washington Post is the source for this story, and they are a liberal paper. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
Basically before the WSJ didn't care what you did with your body or in your bedroom or in your place of worship, as long as it didn't interfere with business. Now it does. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
1937. And a movie like that wouldn't get made nowadays. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
I'd also note that other than Sally Field, who happens to be the one actress on your list who is part of an ensemble rather than a clear protagonist, all of the other actresses are starring in shows on cable, not on the networks. And cable shows are great - but they also don't need the ratings that network shows do. What the small screen is doing for female leads is still limited, and especially when it comes to network television, still tends to follow very formulaic and trusted narratives. #amelia
10/24/09
I think it's twofold right now. For one, the way we watch movies is completely different, as msAnthrope said. DVD quality is so good and the movies come out so fast, we are no longer going to pay ten dollars to see every movie. It's going to take special effects or something to turn out audiences.
Also, in economic slumps or war times, fluffy movies have historically done better. My life is depressing, so I'm not going to watch someone die slowly in a theater where I will be sad and cry like a baby. If we cry, we want happy, cathartic wedding cry, thus chick flicks and stuff. Otherwise, we laugh, which leads to the large number of comedies that come out. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
As much as I prefer the happy endings, I also like to see a women get through an issue or problem on her own without a man's help or a man saving her every two seconds. #amelia
10/24/09
[en.wikipedia.org] #amelia
10/25/09
10/24/09
but now 1)when people can spend thousands and thousands for a home HD theater, why the hell are they gonna spend any money to go to the megaplex; 2)now there are dvds, and i'll bet a ton of people wait until at least 75percent of movies come out on dvd.
the majority of movies that are huge blockbuster successes have megabucks behind them in the publicity/ promo department and get marketed that way. and even a lot of those don't do well. people don't watch movies solely at the megaplex anymore. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
make it good.
the only movies i'd agree with you about not getting the experience if not on a big screen are special effects movies and scifi.
10/24/09
there was a big difference back in the day of only video, though, because the amount of time between when a movie was in the cinema, and when it was released in video format, used to be a much longer time.
now, it seems a movie can be in the cinema at the beginning of one month and, if it doesn't do particularly well, can be on the shelves as a dvd the following month. so people don't have to wait that long to see the movie if they wait for the dvd. #amelia
10/24/09
Take Zombieland. The experience isn't about huge effects, it's zombies. There's a lot of blood, and makeup, and I'm sure some digital...but mostly it's practical effects. It was the laughter and "scares" which come from the story, the characters, the dialog. And seeing that with other people can be a great experience. No giant robots needed.
The same can be said for Atonement. I was in a theater of people who were deeply effected by that film.
I don't really think the other stuff is experience so much as visual stimulation. Which is fine. I would just like that to come with better stories. It used to.
Also, Moon was sci-fi without big effects. It only played in my independent theater for a week, but it was worth seeing it on the big screen. For the sake of immersion. The big screen allows you to fall into a story more, I think. Fewer distractions. At home, unless you have a really big screen, you're not as...set in it, I guess. You can pause. You can fast forward. You can check your dinner.
But at a theater, you're there, in a seat, immersed in the story because the visuals take over. Which is as true of a big budget film as a smaller one. You can see the nuances on the characters faces.
I like spectacle too. But after awhile, it's just...hollow. All the special effects in the world won't make a story worth telling. Which should really be at the heart of the experience, to me. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
So yes, of course it's changed. But theater profits still matter. A lot. And I think DVD matters, just as that kind of market has since video. But video didn't replace the need for theater profits and I don't think DVD will either. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/25/09
I think it' s unfortunate that people choose, a lot of the time, the shittier, bigger budget movie, because they mistakenly think the experience is "better" because they've bought into the idea that bigger is better. It's like thinking fast food is better because you get "more" for your money. Except it's mostly crap you don't actually need or want. And it's fine once in awhile, but eating it every day isn't a very good idea. I think film is about a lot more than explosions or showing off visual tech. Film is a storytelling medium. I don't mind sfx, or any of that...but I don't want it at the cost of stories that don't insult my intelligence.
Plus, what's more "fun" to watch is subjective. I had fun watching the new Star Trek because it was well crafted movie, good script, story, and lots of eye candy. Same thing with Zombieland. Those were good examples of how to do "bigger" movies well. But I loathed another big budget moive I, thankfully, didn't pay to see, which shit on the entire point of film...which is telling a story. Why bother? It doesn't have to be Shakespeare, but I'm getting tired of the choice being like this. Jaws was one of the first big blockbuster movies and it's not poorly written or told.
I don't have fun at a movie that takes my money and basically says, you know what? Who cares about the story! That's the kind of movie I can watch at home. If I'm going to spend money on the immersive experience of a theater, I want it to be worth my time. What I'll see will depend on my mood. I saw Zombieland and Whip It! in a double header, for instance. Both were worth it, but entirely different films.
If you're only seeing the "big" movies in the theater, then you are playing into that. Which is your right. But that's not the overall problem. Not the fact that ticket prices have gone up due to greed and inflation. At least if I pay that money for a smaller indie film I know what the money is paying for.
10/24/09
If you want to see strong women, if you want to see good filmmaking, you need to look beyond the major Hollywood productions, period. Hollywood is out for profit, and that means most often appealing to the lowest common denominator of moviegoer and choosing content for the highest profit-margin.
If you want to see a particular type of film succeed, get all your friends and family to go see it on opening weekend. There is no single act that can influence the future of the film landscape than buying tickets for a specific film on opening weekend. The converse is also true - remember that your purchase affects competing films and your choice is a vote.
10/24/09
Julie & Julia did spectacularly well a few weeks ago.
10/24/09
10/24/09
I call BS on Hornaday's article. #amelia
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
I think you can pick your data to make any argument you want - my point is, this is a spurious argument and actually does women in film damage, because it perpetuates this defeatist narrative. Which Jezebel is repeating here. Amelia is a bad movie; why not encourage women to go and see a GOOD movie with a strong female lead? Where was the post about Bright Star on it's opening weekend?
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
as in:
Leading Lady and Handsome Guy? check. tie-in lunch boxes and soft drink promotions? check. lame staged "controversial" magazine interviews? check. groundbreaking 3D effects? check.
Uh-oh! Now we still need some words for the actors to say...ooo perfect: let's just fill in the blanks in this Mad Libs booklet.
good to go! lights! camera! action!
zzzzzzz... #amelia
10/24/09
It's also a matter of taste. I love big screen action movies, and would love to see films with female characters that aren't just love interest or token supporting characters (Star Trek:Reboot, anyone?). I'm also not a huge fan of Romcoms, but will pay to see good ones on occasion (When Harry met Sally remains a favorite film of mine.
Anyway, I wish the Hollywood Powers That Be and the media wouldn't generalize what women want to watch. A good story will get me every time, so why are films with a good story and a female lead so hard to find? #amelia
10/24/09