MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Is Hollywood Stepford Or Just Doing Business?

It seems like we all need a reminder of some of the basic rules of Hollywood… again.
I will proceed down that track at another time, but the thought hitting my brain pan today is this one…

Hollywood is neither monolithic nor terribly interested in the content of what they sell.

The brilliant – and that is a straight forward compliment – Manohla Dargis makes this miscalculation extravagantly in her “Where are the women at?” piece in the Summer Preview at The New York Times this weekend.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that there is, as there has been for year after year, a dearth of movies with female leads in the summer season. Never mind the ironic truth that this summer has more women in lead roles than has been the norm, as Hollywood chases – 2 summers later – the The Devil Wears Prada dollars that they didn’t believe were there in nine figures until it happened.

But the urge of Manohla, as it is for most critics, I find, is to ascribe some sort of intent on the part of “The Industry.” This, I disagree with… no matter how vacuous, silly, vain, arrogant, misogynistic, and foolish execs can be.

“Hollywood” is driven, before anything, by trends. It is one of the troubles of Hollywood, as there is this 18 month to 3 year lag in bringing studio films to market and trend chasing can be absolutely deadly. But still, they do it over and over and over again.

The only $100 million movie defined by a female lead last summer was Hairspray… and one could argue that the female lead was a man in a dress. (I would argue that Nikki Blonsky was the lead, but Travolta was very effective bait. In any case…)

The same reality was there in Pre-Prada 2005, when only Mr. & Mrs. Smith – arguably a two-headed phenom – was the only $100 million summer movie with a female lead.

Of the 28 films last year that grossed $100 million domestic, a total of 3 had female leads.

In 2006, there were three $100 million female-led grossers – the three lowest grossers on that list – one was Dreamgirls, a very specific kind of ensemble with little star-launching power, one was The Break-Up, starring the real Mrs. Pitt with the Wedding Crashers-hot Vince Vaughn, and Prada.

In 2005, there were only 4 movies with female leads with $100 million domestic… and all 4 had the women as co-stars with dominant male performances (Johnny Cash in Walk The Line, Jim Carrey in Fun With Dick & Jane, Pitt as Mr to Jolie’s Mrs Smith, and King Kong dominating Ms. Watts).

That is the trend line.

Prada changed the dynamic to some degree, which is why Universal was willing to bank on Meryl Streep again this summer. The Kate Hudson/Sarah Jessica Parker In A February Romantic Comedy trend line is why the studios banked on 27 Dresses (while trying to launch Katherine Heigel, beyond the Apatow clan). Juno will open the door to a slew of strong grrrl comedies in the next two years.

What Manohla and so many others don’t seem to understand is that “Hollywood” would LOVE for any person of any sex, race, or religion to break out at any time and for them to be able to build movies around them. Will Smith doesn’t get “urban” opportunities only. Sacha Baron Cohen doesn’t get “Orthodox Jew” opportunities. And Reese Witherspoon – whose currency, ironically, was built on the smacked-down-by-The-Man Legally Blonde, as the same female writers hope will happen for Anna Farris with The House Bunny – isn’t limited by much other than her choices.

Interestingly, Manohla doesn’t mention any of the leading, still rising female stars of the moment, who can actually get movies funded, in whole or in significant part. Anne Hathaway. McAdams. Witherspoon. Knightley. Nor does she mention the strong second bananas (and occasional leads), like Mendes, Biel, Beckinsale, and Aniston.

And why isn’t Natalie Portman a bigger star? Or Halle Berry? Or Rachel Weisz? Or Kate Winslet? Or Cate Blanchett? Or Naomi Watts? Or Nicole Kidman, for that matter.

Want to know where the Rachel McAdams summer movie is?

Want to know where the Reese Witherspoon summer movie is?

Want to know where the Julia Roberts summer movie is?

So does Hollywood!

“Hollywood Thinking” is quite often bent by the reality of individuals. Is “Hollywood” supposed to ramp up its nine-figure cash machines for female stars in some sort of extremely affirmative action? If you look at what is going on out there, it is a clear reflection of success and failure in recent history.

Why is Cameron Diaz doing a cheaper comedy with Ashton Kutcher, that indeed, does smell of a knock off of the truly horrible Just Married? Because in spite of being very famous and well-liked, she hasn’t had a significant hit (aside from her voice in the Shrek films) in a long, long, long time. And why do studios want these combos? Because they are praying that the Mr. & Mrs. Smith magic – or even the surprise success of Just Married – will reoccur in a romantic comedy with two popular actors who haven’t really turned it up at the box office.

Why is Charlize Theron playing third banana to Will Smith in Hancock? Because she made non-commercial films for a few years, got her Oscar, built her producing cred… and now needs a way to remind Hollywood that she can be part of building big money movies that make her worth a nine-figure payday again.

Why is Angelina Jolie the only recognizable name in Wanted? Because M&MS means she can be paid mega-bucks for playing the supporting role that they will sell exclusively on her.

Why is Warners going back to the well on Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants? Because 3 of the 4 young women have become bigger TV stars since the first movie… and not one of them shows any indication of being able to open a movie on her own.
But together, maybe they can have a breakout sequel hit for girls.

And the films that Manohla cites as successes, aside from Alien Baby Mama, Death Proof, and “Meryl Streep in whatever” – were not the kind of successes that the industry wants. Baby Mama is unlikely to crack $50 million. That will get more opportunities for Fey and Pohler, but is not the kind of gross, while profitable, that was hoped for. Death Proof bombed. And Meryl Streep’s box office track record, aside from Prada, is abysmal in the last decade.

And what of The Female Director? Well… Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron have limited range and budget demands that have grown to the point of high risk. The two young hopes, Karyn Kusama and Kimberley Pierce, have both taken more than four years to make their second pictures… and one was a silly bomb and one was a serious bomb.

Have we seen the female director aspiring to make Hellboy or Superman or Iron Man or even Wall-E? (There is one female animation director who has had great success… one. And Pixar is using a trio of women – writer, director, and producer – on their first fairy tale, due in a few years.)

It may well be that there are women out there who want to make their Matrix, but who are not given credence by The Old Boys Club… including women who are in that club. But remember, The Wachowskis got the green light on The Matrix by making Bound (with two female leads), a demanded proof by Warners to show that the first-timers could deliver any movie, much less this complex visual feast.

“Hollywood” is, always, desperate for heat… any kind of heat. Behind the camera, in front of the camera, humping the camera… the industry doesn’t much care. If Karyn Kusama had made a better Aeon Flux, Karyn Kusama may well have been the director of Iron Man.

But maybe I am being to numerical here. Maybe I should speak to the headline, “Is There A Real Woman In This Multiplex?”

Manohla speaks to my response to that question in her piece, quite smartly.

Is there a real man in this multiplex?

And my answer is, “Not so much.”

But that’s another column...

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon