Film Industry

Like a fine wine: age in the film industry

Last month, a Guardian article pointed out an interesting trend among Oscar-winning actors and actresses in the past decade or so – they’re getting older. In the 2000s, best actresses had an average age of 36, which then went up to 41 from 2010 onwards. Best actors have also seen a slight increase in the past decade, from an average age of 43 to 45. The article also pointed out a clear disparity when comparing the ages of male and female winners, with the Academy favouring younger female winners – 32 have won Best Actress in their 20s – while the majority of Best Actor winners were in their 30s and 40s (only one has ever won the award in their 20s – Adrien Brody for his role in The Pianist). Is this a result of actors simply getting better at their job as they age, or is this an inherent bias of the Academy?

One possible theory behind these ageing actors and actresses is that of the ‘Career Oscar’. This refers to the Academy awarding winners taking into account their long career. While this is not technically something that should be taken into consideration (as the Honorary Awards are given to recognise careers), many critics of the Oscars have claimed Academy members factor this in to their vote. In recent years, critics have cited Oscars given to first-time winners such as Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, and Christopher Plummer as ‘Career Oscars’. However, the problem with these claims is, to put it simply, that they cannot be proven. Complete objectivity is understandably unattainable, and with the Academy consisting of thousands of industry professionals, it is a safe bet that they would have acting quality as the main factor behind their decision.

“A reasonable conclusion to come to is perhaps that actors and actresses simply improve over time”

It would be unfair to say, however, that the Academy disregards younger actors and actresses with less experience, in fact, there is much evidence to support the opposite. In recent years, a number of younger actresses such as Jennifer Lawrence and Alicia Vikander were recognised for their stellar performances in their respective films despite being relatively younger and less experienced than their fellow nominees. Additionally, in a record-breaking case, young actress Tatum O’Neal was just 11 years old when she won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for her acting debut, Paper Moon in 1973, making her to this day the youngest Oscar winner in history. But even with these examples, how come the statistics provided by the Guardian article show a recent trend of ageing Oscar-winners? A reasonable conclusion to come to is perhaps that actors and actresses simply improve over time.

Looking at it on a case by case basis, this argument is definitely valid. Actors such as Matthew McConaughey has had a relatively long career, with his breakthrough in the coming-of-age comedy Dazed and Confused in 1993, then moving on to a number of rom-coms like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, and finally winning an Oscar for his role in Dallas Buyers Club in 2013. The over 20 years of experience in a fairly wide range of genres had an arguably positive impact on his skill as an actor. This, coupled with a greater level of respect gained from his years in show business is what perhaps got him his Oscar. McConaughey is just one example too – other veteran stars such as Alan Arkin and Susan Sarandon had worked in Hollywood for decades prior to their first Oscar wins. On paper, it is also the only theory behind the ageing Oscar-winners that makes solid sense, as the simple fact that people get better at their jobs with experience applies to most, if not all professions out there. So maybe older does equal wiser.

Don’t you know that you’re toxic?

The casting couch. We’ve all heard the stories confessing the dark truths of Hollywood’s underbelly. From Marilyn Monroe to the child star, Shirley Temple, Hollywood has a long, ugly history with sexual harassment, stemming from an endemic lust for power by those placed in positions of authority. A throwback to the ‘golden-era’ of old Hollywood, when we were oblivious to the deep-rooted issues which plagued it. From time immemorial this has been part of a women’s world, why would we think the modern-era is any different?

Take Harvey Weinstein’s alleged crimes against women, an apparent open secret within the industry that went unquestioned. But more insidious than that is the systemic toxic masculinity that Hollywood perpetuates, on-screen in character development and off-screen in the production room. Is there a liberal hypocrisy?

We forgive artists for their artistic brilliance and excuse their predatory behaviour. Roman Polanski, upheld as a beacon of creative genius, yet only condemned once the crystal clean image of ‘Hollywood’ had been compromised. Deep inside the ivory towers of ‘Hollywood’ is a gender dysfunction; one awash with hyper-masculinity.

“Hollywood had suppressed the concept of masculinity into a solitary, pigeon-holed identity”

Don’t be fooled, strides have been made – but was Weinstein truly a watershed for a seismic shift in the power structures of Hollywood? Hollywood is still marred by an outdated model of hegemonic masculinity. Men have a prescribed role that they are expected to embody – a man of unyielding strength who is only immobilised by any expressed vulnerability. Identity hinges on their ability to sexually conquer and exert dominance.

With the masculine ideal as heteronormative, Marvel – a beloved institution – reaffirms this existing stereotype. The Marvel universe is decidedly more sexually diverse in its original print than it is in Marvel’s film canon. This reflects Hollywood’s desire to preserve this heteronormative culture, one now seen as a product of a by-gone era and not representative of our population. A fear permeates Marvel – a fear that men will tune out, seeing a female-led film – that has manifested itself in the reality of Black Widow being deprived of her own film.

“Is Hollywood’s moral sanctity retrievable when it protects known sexual predators?”

Male mental struggles, that for years have been mocked and belittled, have finally – upon the wave of social reckoning – been acknowledged. Whilst slow, a catalyst has been set ablaze in the wake of Barry Jenkins’s ground-breaking Moonlight. Hollywood had suppressed the concept of masculinity into a solitary, pigeon-holed identity, when in actuality masculinity is a concept that is laced with complexities. Moonlight deconstructs masculine tropes, exposing the flaws of culture’s construction of manhood. By watching the male crisis of Chiron, who functions behind the masquerade of a hyper-masculine male, we acknowledge a cathartic truth: his suppression of sexuality is a pathological response to trauma and of culture’s homophobia.

Is Hollywood’s moral sanctity retrievable when it protects known sexual predators, sustain a culture of male toxicity, and homophobia? Ultimately, yes it is. With unflinching stories such as Chiron’s being backed by the executives, we have hope for masculinity. Hollywood has so far failed humanity, but change is on the horizon.

Who runs the world? Men, unfortunately

The film industry has flirted with the word ‘feminism’ a lot in recent years. Emma Watson, Charlize Theron, Joss Whedon, Channing Tatum – amongst many more – all proudly declare themselves as feminists.

Looking at the industry, it’s not surprising that many have been outraged by inequality. According to one study by Directors UK, in which they examined 2591 UK films between 2005 and 2014, films were six times more likely to be directed by men. A BFI study, meanwhile, reported that only 30 per cent of actors cast in films in 2017 were female.

So, here we have the problem presented through numbers. Inequality becomes quantifiable. The solution appears easy: women made up 50 per cent of cinematic audiences in 2016, according to the Motion Picture Association of America; so all that needs to be done is push the other percentages up to 50% as well. Then, we will have equality.

Except the problem runs deeper. Certainly, representation is significant and needs to be addressed, but it is important to look at how women are represented – not just whether they are. Declarations of feminist doctrine have come streaming out of the film industry, but it would be unwise to simply take them at their word.

There’s a Mitchell and Webb sketch about two producers looking to try and market The Apprentice. They note how it’s not just “coverage of idiots […] for an audience of idiots” – there’s also people who’ll watch ironically. “How do these ironic non-idiots show up in the ratings?” Webb’s character asks. “They show up the same, my friend,” Mitchell tells him.

Film producers do not have any allegiance to politics. They do not care if you’re watching ironically or not – if you’re progressive or sexist – only that you are watching. As they see progressive movements hit the mainstream, they adapt their films, not because they believe, but because this maximises their appeal. They adapt to the market, not to morality.

An effective way to do this is to present a film as feminist, but keeping characters sexualised under proclamations of ‘sexual liberation’. It’s easily done. A sexually empowered woman arrives on the screen, dressed in a skimpy outfit. The feminists cheer for sexual freedom. The sexists cheer for sexism. The producers cheer for profits.

This is definitely not to say that a woman reclaiming sexuality is bad, and of course it can – and should – be empowering. But most teenage boys do not care about sexual freedom, or the ‘Free the Nipple’ movement. They want to see you topless. It is a naïve hope to think producers are unaware of this.

So, yes, we can have female representation as action leads. We can have Black Widow (in Joss Whedon’s Avengers Assemble), Wonder Woman, Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde. But Whedon’s Black Widow will be in skin-tight leather (whilst not featured amongst the merchandise, or in her own film). Wonder Woman will have slow motion shots up her skirt/armour as she kicks (as in the Justice League trailer). Charlize Theron will have a lesbian sex scene. It’s as if producers are giving consolation prizes to men: “Sorry, fellas, we’ve got to do this because feminism’s popular, but here’s some close-ups of Scarlett Johansson wrapping her legs around a guy.”

“The sad truth is that even to watch most films is to accept underlying sexism”

Even this is only half the battle. To return to the Mitchell and Webb sketch, it’s worth examining “ironic viewers”. With so many films presenting sexist stereotypes in more obvious ways (women as housewives, sexualised women, women side-lined, etc), it can be tempting to watch these films believing you are better than their other audience because you’re aware they are sexist. The Fast and Furious franchise might needlessly have women in bikinis everywhere, to the point where even the actresses begin to call it out (“I hope [the studio] decide to show some love to the women of the franchise on the next one,” Michelle Rodriguez wrote on Instagram), but we can tell ourselves it’s a guilty pleasure. We’re not really sexist for watching it, because we know it’s sexist. We won’t fall for it.

But, in watching, we have fallen for it. The casual sexism is accepted, and even supported, by an audience of feminists and sexists alike. The films continue to be made. The sad truth is that even to watch most films is to accept underlying sexism. Fighting for more representation is incredibly important, but until we can deconstruct the sexist roots in our society, these films will continue to be made and consumed.

All we can do is hope that, by increasing representation, film producers will begin to become aware of and correct the stereotypes and ways of presenting women that have dominated the industry. With nothing short of a radical rethinking of cinema, can we strive for equality.

The gender pay snap

“I’m over trying to find the ‘adorable’ way to state my opinion and still be likable! F— that.” Is the conclusion drawn by actress Jennifer Lawrence in a recent article that can be viewed here. The basis of her article is formed on Sony Picture e-mails that when released in a cyberattack, ravaged the studio. The e-mails have now been indexed by WikiLeaks under the sanction that they provide insight into the workings of a major geopolitically influential company and thus belong in the public domain.

Regardless of the politics that sparked the discussion, Lawrence’s comments have instigated debate. However this can be all be too easily be attributed to the over-saturation of Jennifer Lawrence in recent times. It was almost global news when she shed her “luscious mane” in favour of an “elegant pixie cut”.

Her association with gender inequality fails to trivialize the issue. Her voice only adds weight and urgency to an ever-growing dialogue in the Hollywood industry that was addressed by Patricia Arquette in her 2015 Oscar acceptance speech. Arquette’s address was met with uproarious support from non-other than Meryl Streep, who despite receiving more Academy Award nominations than any male figure in Hollywood history, has consistently failed to secure equal to her male co-stars.

Upon receiving her Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Arquette said: 'To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights. It’s time to have wage equality once and for all' Credit: ELLE UK — Upon receiving her Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Arquette said: ‘To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s time to have wage equality once and for all’ Credit: ELLE UK

In fact examination of the Forbes highest earner’s list of 2015 only includes 2 actress’s in the top 10 category for acting. This is in fact a major upset with women rarely gracing the list in the last 5 years.

Does this point to gender stereotyping in an industry run by rich, old, white, jewish males? And worse still, why should be Lawrence be complaining? She was one of the 2 females to secure a spot on the top 10 highest earners with a $52 million salary accrued via her work on 2 major franchises, “Hunger Games” and “X-men”.

Her voice only adds weight and urgency to an ever-growing dialogue

The negotiations of such large sums of money is hard to sympathise with, in fact Kate Winslet finds the whole thing “vulgar”. She attributes this to a “British thing”. But what if she refers to a dominant hegemonic ideology that infiltrates western culture? The English student’s oldest friend: Marxism. The economic value of sexism is made clear here, the key lies in the fact that half the population is made to feel they are worth less and therefore worthless. It makes girls expect less and resist less so consequently receive less.

However it is not Marxism creating feminism, rather just utilising it for financial gain. Sexism seems to have been a common feature of more recent civilisation with women in the workplace, before it wasn’t even recognised as a problem. It is infuriatingly incomprehensible to me why people performing the same task, should be paid the same wage, in recognition of a basic human right.

If we are to address the obvious, Lawrence is not the average person. “It’s hard for me to speak about my experience as a working woman because I can safely say my problems aren’t exactly relatable.” She is angry over the principle and her failure to be, what she feels, an accountable role model for all women in business. Female business women, she argues, risk criticism for being called “difficult”, “spoiled” or as one producer called Angelina Jolie in a leaked e-mail, “a brat” for showing the same ingenuity as men who secure themselves the higher paychecks with less dispute.

Lawrence’s humility shines in an essay that tackles some very inconvenient truths.

Many in the media dismissed Lawrence’s article over these grounds claiming her to be overreacting in a now, safe and secure industry, thanks to governmental laws. Acts of Parliament, such as the Equal Pay Act of 1970 and the Sex Discrimination act of 1975, mean that women should have the same job opportunities as men. Women can now be independent. But, in Hollywood, they don’t. The very fact that discrimination against women is still considered a relevant issue today is a testimony to its prominence in modern society. For if it was no longer an issue there would be no need to discuss the matter.

CANNES, FRANCE - MAY 18: Actress Jennifer Lawrence attends "Jimmy P. (Psychotherapy Of A Plains Indian)" Premiere during the 66th Annual Cannes Film Festival at Grand Theatre Lumiere on May 18, 2013 in Cannes, France. (Photo by Traverso/L'Oreal/Getty Images) — Credit: Traverso/L’Oreal/Getty Images

More worrying still is the fact that this twisted mind-set has seemingly spread from the studios to their audiences. In a voyeuristic industry, objectification is always going to be a key issue. The treatment of women as pieces of meat is unfortunately exemplified by Lawrence’s leaked iCloud photos. Merely months ago this person was slathered all over the internet and provides a shocking warning of the extremes this inequality can lead to, with only actresses the victims of these attacks.

Gender equality is a hard topic to discuss, especially from a male perspective. Many find it intimidating and take the questions that arise from it as a personal threat. It is also difficult to promote a theory that preaches equality, in what is occasionally accused of being, in an aggressive fashion. That’s why Lawrence’s humility shines in an essay that tackles some very inconvenient truths. Her contribution here is undoubtedly on the force of good, however the potential façade that is her “down to earth” media personality remains to be seen as genuine, or conforming to patriarchal idealism. That, on the other hand, is a discussion for another day.

Hollywood: Lights, camera, sexism

“Who are you wearing?”

“Do you have a certain regimen you put yourself through?”

“Were you able to wear undergarments?”

It doesn’t take much brainpower to guess towards whom these absurd questions were asked; the hugely talented and hardworking actresses of Hollywood. Why does the film industry continuously devalue the work of actresses on the red carpet, in their salary and in glamorous award ceremonies. Actresses frequently suffer overt sexism and objectification on the red carpet, and they’ve had enough.

Cate Blanchett was horrified when a camera scanned her body and rightly asked ‘would you do that to a man?’ Scarlet Johansson is fed up of being asked ‘rabbit-food questions’ while her avengers co-star Robert Downey Jr. was asked existential questions. Why is it that Sandra Bullock will exclusively be asked about her appearance whilst male co-stars are interviewed about their talent? In other words: actual pertinent and meaningful questions about acting. The Smart Girls movement launched a new campaign to #askbetterquestions pleading with Hollywood Interviewers to ask questions such as ‘name a woman who inspired you’ or ‘what would you like to achieve in your career?’ as an alternative to inane questions about hair, dresses, and men.

However when the red carpet ends, sexism does not. Women were nominated far less times than men in the 2015 Oscars, in fact while 25 women were nominated 102 men were named. In individual awards for the Score, Directing, Cinematography and Visual Effects, only men were nominated. Emma Watson has complained recently that she had been directed by a man 17 times whilst only being directed by a woman twice. There is no female representation when it comes to Hollywood, it’s like women in film may well as not exist in the eyes of the Oscars. Since 1998 the amount of women in behind the scenes roles has only risen by a meagre 1 per cent. The Woman Media Centre shows that the percentage of women directors in the top 250 films has stayed at 9 per cent since 1998.

Why is it that Sandra Bullock will exclusively be asked about her appearance whilst male co-stars are interviewed about their talent?

Jennifer Lawrence was named the highest payed actress in Hollywood in 2015, having made a massive £52 million after starring in the Hunger Games trilogy and American Hustle, but was actually paid less than her male co-actors. In Hollywood, the highest paid actresses are payed 2½ times less than the best-compensated actors, and if we do the math that means that female actresses are payed 40 cents for every dollar a man will make.

‘I think it’s still completely s**t actually’ said Emma Thompson, and after hearing these facts, I most certainly agree.