Annals of Sexism: Melissa McCarthy Edition
I am a Melissa McCarthy fan. I loved her from Go.
I had seen her, somehow, before this trailer and then the movie. She had a tiny part. But she made instant, indelible magic. There are a bunch of actors in this film who were around before this, but established street cred with the movie. Sarah Polley, Timothy Olyphant, William Fichtner, Taye Diggs… even Scott Wolf.
Anyway…
The title of this post is a bit sarcastic. There has been a movement amongst some in media to somehow rise up to defend Melissa McCarthy and her movie, Tammy, as victims of the patriarchy. That, somehow, the movie has been overly pilloried. And that, somehow, Melissa McCarthy has become a victim.
I don’t buy it.
At all.
So I decided to go back and look at the facts. Obviously, statistics can be bent to serve anyone’s purpose. But I am trying—you will tell me if I fail—to play it straight.
McCarthy broke out as a supporting actress on the TV series, Gilmore Girls. She followed that with stints on a Lifetime series, Rita Rocks, and ABC’s Samantha Who? But she got a series based around herself and comic Bill Gardell—Mike & Molly—that launched in 2010. Pretty good trajectory.
The star of Gilmore Girls, Lauren Graham, did a couple of studio movies as The Wife, a couple indies, and a small part in a Focus release… all box-office misses. And went on to the ensemble show, Parenthood.
Nicole Sullivan, who starred in Rita Rocks, went back to funny supporting actress status after that show dies after 2 seasons.
And Christina Applegate, 20 years famous, got another series pretty quickly, teamed with Will Arnett and Maya Rudolph as a triangular lead, Up All Night.
Seems like McCarthy did pretty well for herself, amongst the leads of the shows she had been on.
Then, Bridesmaids hit in May 2011, after a year of Mike & Molly. Big surprise smash. Oscar nominations for McCarthy and for screenplay (Wiig & Mumolo).
Wiig & Mumolo passed on writing (and Wiig also starring) a Bridesmaids sequel. Annie Mumolo’s second screenplay, Joy, is being made by David O. Russell with Jennifer Lawrence in the lead. Wiig has been working nonstop and there is a deal for her to direct her first film.
On the acting side, Maya Rudolph got a co-lead in Up All Night and was recently given a shot at a variety show, something as rare as blue moon these days (and she’s knocked out a few kids in the midst of this, never letting it slow her down).
Rose Byrne was mid-Damages when Bridesmaids happened and has worked in a bunch of studio movies, most recently Neighbors, in which she had a really strong, developed role, even if the ad campaign didn’t show this.
Wendi McLendon-Covey, who had a role on Reno 911 and was on Rules of Engagement when Bridesmaids hit, had a show built around her—The Goldbergs—though the presence of Jeff Garlin and George Segal have taken some of the “she’s the star” luster away from it.
And Rebel Wilson, launched in America by her cameo in Bridesmaids, and made stronger by the turn in the Elizabeth Banks project, Pitch Perfect, got her own series as writer-producer-star on ABC —Super Fun Nigh—which ABC cancelled in May after mediocre numbers and not much critical love.
I don’t see how anyone makes a case for the women of Bridesmaids suffering under the yoke of male Hollywood oppression. Chris O’Dowd, the one significant male part in the film, on the other hand, has been in small parts in a couple studio films, big parts in some UK indies, had a nice arc on Girls, and was the lead on an 8-episode Chris Guest series for HBO. Not bad. But objectively, all the women have done better so far.
Now… on to Ms. McCarthy’s films since Bridesmaids.
Great little cameos in This Is 40 and The Hangover III.
Two movies as co-lead. Identity Thief and The Heat. Jason Bateman and Sandra Bullock as co-stars.
Bateman is one of those guys who is very funny, but has been inconsistent with audience draw. Horrible Bosses, also from Seth Gordon, had Bateman in the lead… but a lot of other firepower. $118m domestic. But then The Switch did $37m domestic. Not so great. Identity Thief… $135m domestic. How much Bateman—who had top billing—and how much McCarthy? Hard to say. But McCarthy is the shiny object, so she tends to get more credit.
Now, I don’t know what dates Bad Words shot. According to published reports, the film had about half the budget of Tammy. But it was probably “bankable” more because of Horrible Bosses and other Bateman work than because of Identity Thief. Nonetheless, that is what came next from The House of Bateman. And Ms. McCarthy went on to co-star with Sandra Bullock, one of the biggest movie stars of the last decade.
$160m domestic, $230m worldwide for The Heat… directed by Bridesmaids director Paul Feig.
So let’s talk Bullock. She took a long time to rise. She became a big star. Then the star fell a bit. After Miss Congeniality II flopped, she did 2 indie dramas, a small love story/thriller, and a straight thriller before going back to a romantic comedy… The Proposal. But before that film ($163m dom/$317m ww) was released, she had fought to make two other, smaller films. One was All About Steve, a comedy for Fox. And the other, which no studio would fund, was The Blind Side, which did $256m via Alcon’s output deal with WB. It also won Bullock the Oscar. Then, BAM. Proposal was a smash. Steve bombed, making the media gasp. Then The Blind Side became an even bigger smash and only Bullock’s 2nd $100m dom drama after 1996’s A Time To Kill.
Bullock slowed down a little. Did Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close for Stephen Daldry in an ensemble situation not unlike Crash… but for a studio. And then, The Heat.
The Heat was Melissa McCarthy’s third lead/co-lead since becoming a name commodity for movies. It was Bullock’s 6th $100m domestic film and her third $100m comedy. She was coming off an Oscar and a lot of media love. How much Bullock and how much McCarthy? Still hard to say.
But from that film and the two others, the McCarthy household got a movie that wife & husband wrote, directed, starred in, produced, and got released by a major studio.
Is it a great film? I don’t know. Haven’t seen it. But the consensus seems to be that it’s okay, not what was expected, and not a big, ol’ laughfest.
But it’s theirs. Supported by Will Ferrell & Adam McKay’s Gary Sanchez Productions and New Line, they got a reported $20 million budget and made their movie. Home run. It’s grossed $33m in 5 days and the worst likely outcome based on this opening is about $80m worldwide. On most WB films, the P&A alone might leave the film with red ink… but they seem to have showed a bit of restraint on this one. With post-theatrical revenues and all, I don’t imagine that this film will lose money. It won’t be close to being as big as any of her Big 3 films. But who cares? Labor of love. No harm, no foul. And probably not another chance to do something personal to her and her husband until she racks up 3 or 4 more big hits within the system.
Is the media overstating the drama of Ms. McCarthy’s film being “a bomb?” Yes.
Does the media overstate every frickin’ movie opening, one way or the other? Yes.
Is the media hum around Tammy either sexist or size-ist? I just don’t see it.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of sexists, both in Hollywood and in the real world. Nor that overweight people don’t get abused by a media obsessed with its own idea of beauty.
Is the phrase “vanity production” fair to Tammy? It’s a semantic argument. Do you define it as a movie in which a star controls the film? Do you define it as a film that is funded from odd sources because it’s too self-indulgent to get funded by traditional methods?
I don’t feel anger towards people calling it a vanity production. I don’t think Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Falcone are particularly vain people. But on the other hand, it is a movie driven by a rising star, able to get the studio to—against all normalcy—let her husband direct his first feature at a reported $20m budget for a studio release with no TV resume or anything like that. Neither member of the couple has had a script made by a studio before.
I think of it as a free kick more than as a vanity production.
It happens. Vin Diesel had A Man Apart and kept announcing “Hannibal.” Brad Pitt had The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Leo DiCaprio (and Danny Boyle) had The Beach. Do you remember Wahlberg’s Broken City? Recall Alec Baldwin passing on the next Jack Ryan movie to do Stanley Kowalski? Which Tom Hanks pet project do you remember worse press for, That Thing You Do or Larry Crowne? Johnny Depp had The Libertine and The Rum Diary. Etc, etc, etc.
Anyway… there is some deconstruction. Your constructive input is welcome.
Super Fun Night didn’t get picked up for another season.
[Ed.: Corrected, thanks.]
Every breakout comedy star of the last 20 years or so has had a similar misfire on their resumé at a similar point in their star trajectory. Sandler had “Little Nicky.” Carrey had “The Cable Guy.” Will Ferrell had the double-whammy of “Bewitched” and “Land of the Lost.” Stiller had “Mystery Men,” among many others. Rogen had “The Green Hornet.” The difference here is that McCarthy’s so-called “misfire” cost a shitload less and will probably end up grossing more than any of the movies mentioned above. Also, unlike those other films, WB/New Line is going to make a nice profit — maybe not as much as they’d hoped, perhaps — but black ink is black ink and no one at the studio is going to be second-guessed for an instant for green-lighting the pictur and I guarantee every other studio in town wishes it could have the film’s profits in its ledger.
The difference here is the react-to-everything-instantaneously-and-hyperbolically-without-any-broader-perspective nature of the entertainment journalist corps circa 2014. Plus, it would seem knives are out for her somehow — maybe it has something to do with the film having gone through multiple directors in development (THE HELP’s Tate Taylor — not exactly Mr. Comedy — and TV vet Beth McCarthy-Miller) before McCarthy used her clout to insist on her husband. And unless SPY is some sort of unmitigated trainwreck, it’s hard to imagine she’s not going to continue to be in high demand, as long as she doesn’t let the budgets of her films spiral out of control ala Sandler, et. al.
Is the backlash sexist? Hard to say. But the chattering class is seemingly holding her to a different standard than the comedians mentioned above. Again, that might be less a matter of sexism and more a matter of the ignorant “know-it-all” nature of the writers making the big predictions of gloom and doom for McCarthy’s career. But it sure does seem unfair.
Yeah, hard to say if it’s 100% sexism or just the crazy acceleration of these kinds of HIT!!! versus FLOP!!!! talks. But for whatever reason, it reads as unfair to me, too. Sandler’s Little Nicky probably would have been a bigger ding to his resume/reputation if it came out five or ten years later and did similar numbers. Hell, Jack & Jill was sold in the media as the second coming of Little Nicky (in terms of poor/outlier Sandler box office) because it made an easy punchline, even though it did OK numbers — a softer-than-usual opening for Sandler but a pretty decent multiplier, in a slot that isn’t his norm.
It’s also telling what movies DP uses as comparison points:
Diesel’s Man Apart: more expensive, grossed less.
Pitt’s Jesse James: never got a wide release, is amazing but inaccessible movie.
Wahlberg’s Broken City: again, grossed less, and probably more expensive.
Depp’s pair: one a very limited release, one a wide release that flopped hard (though not unexpectedly), rather than disappointed slightly.
The Hanks projects are more analogous, except that Hanks only took a supporting role in the first, and in both cases was one of the biggest stars in the world. (And, again: Tammy will make more than Larry Crowne.)
I dunno, I’m sure WB was hoping for an automatic $120 million, even though Sandler is pretty much the only comedian who has done that consistently in the past decade-plus (and clearly doesn’t have quite that clout anymore). But at the same time, isn’t the model for Tammy actually really encouraging? Reasonable but not stingy budget for a movie built around a substantial talent given creative control that will ride out to $60 million domestic? Aimed somewhat more at adults than teenagers? Are we really saying a $20 million movie needs to do $100 million domestic to be worth the investment??
Again, I didn’t care much for the movie. To me it played like Identity Thief but with some indie cred that didn’t get it much of anywhere. But given that, I was actually surprised it did as well as it did over the weekend. I’d chalk that up to McCarthy star power. To me this is an example of her popularity, not a warning sign.
Of course, if audiences feel burned by this one, maybe they won’t go to the next one… except the next one will probably be much broader and an easier sell and probably (given the third Feig-McCarthy pairing) be pretty good.
And DP, I appreciate that you address this further — but your tone here is a little more reasonable than yesterday when you were suggesting she’d be demoted back to “sidekick” roles because of a single mid-level performer.
It is mystifying to consider how some stars plummet from grace after only one or two flops, and then are lucky to even get sidekick roles, while others continue aloft at more or less the same level for years, if not decades, despite multiple failures. Maybe it has something to do with how well liked the star is — audiences forgive his/her box-office trespasses because he/she has built up such reservoirs of good will.
Joe: It might be more a matter of how well-liked they are by the people they work with/for than by audiences. Once the money stops rolling in automatically, studios are less likely to indulge the pain-in-the-ass factor.
Film Fanatic: I wholeheartedly agree that has a lot to do with it. As a director once explained to me: If you going to spend weeks on location somewhere, you want to spend that time with people who are pleasant, professional and easy to get along with. Makes me wonder if that partly explains why a certain two-time Oscar winner had to go back to TV to jump-start his career.
The other part being he’s not a draw anymore, and is old now. I assume you’re talking about Dustin Hoffman’s stint on a HBO show.
I always think back to Caruso and Clooney both trying to make the break into features. Caruso had the two high-profile flops (one of which, Kiss of Death, rules btw) and seemed to vanish for years. Clooney started out with a string of flops but seemed to get way more opportunities than Caruso to figure it out.
Brack: No, actually, I meant Kevin Spacey.
Isn’t that in large part because Caruso was allegedly a dick and nearly impossible to work with?
Joe: Oh Spacey. Well he’s been in Horrible Bosses not too long ago (he stole the show in all his scenes), and now its sequel this fall, and is making lots of money from House of Cards. I’d hardly call that having to jump-start a career when he’s averaging a movie a year and making millions a year doing a streaming series. And he is/was the artistic director for the Old Vic Theatre due to him spending so much time and money trying to save it over the years, so there’s that.
I’m not saying he’s not difficult, I have no idea, but he’s hardly been blacklisted from Hollywood as far as I can tell.
Maybe “Tammy” is getting McCarthy a bigger reaction a la “oh shit, her career as a lead is toast now” because this is the first movie that was hers and hers alone. Sandler had already carried a few hits on his own before “Little Nicky”, as did Carrey and Ferrell before “The Cable Guy” and “Semi-Pro”. McCarthy has either been a supporting character or part of a pairing up in her movies up to now.
That being said, the fact that a movie that was IN THE BLACK ON CONTACT at the box office in its first weekend is being called a disaster by anybody is something that’s worthy of a blog entry more than a frowny dissection of Melissa McCarthy’s career trajectory. A Hollywood budget of only $20 million for “Tammy” should have kept expectations a little more down to earth and a little less ding-the-moon-on-the-way-to-Jupiter too, no?
There aren’t too many R-rated wide release comedies with a female lead that opened with more than $21M over 3 days are there? Bridesmaids, ensemble. The Heat has Bullock. Bad Teacher, Jason Segel (and Justin Timberlake?). Identity Thief, Jason Bateman. It’s Complicated, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. Sex and the City, ensemble cast and based on a hit show. But she is flying solo in Tammy and it opened to north of $20M with an R rating and weak reviews in the heart of summer. That seems pretty impressive.
I think IDENTITY THIEF would’ve done the same numbers with just about any decent comedy actor opposite McCarthy — nothing at all against Bateman, whom I like a lot, but the success of that film lies in its premise and the timing of having McCarthy as her career was peaking (post-Bridesmaids, Oscars, Emmys, SNL).
Giving credit for the success of THE HEAT is a pointless parlor game, IMO. With only Bullock OR McCarthy opposite someone else, it’s a very different movie. That specific pairing (and their resulting chemistry) was probably more of a selling point than having one or the other, with McCarthy again arguably the key, since finding another marketable actor to fit that role would’ve been much more difficult than recasting Bullock’s role.
McCarthy’s problem going forward, as with most comedy stars, is that everything that’s great about her will be pumped up and shoved down our throats until we’re sick of her. There will be a law of diminishing returns. She’s super-talented, but pratfalls and pulling faces can get old, and her improv skills are impressive but not infallible (see the 2013 Oscars and, to some extent, her bit in THIS IS 40). That she manages to find the believable core of rather unbelievable characters like the one in Identity Thief is a triumph of her talent, but the public is fickle, so it’ll be interesting to see how her career plays out. TAMMY was sold mostly on a slapsticky trailer that gave us nothing of the premise, so every dollar it has made so far is probably due to McCarthy’s star power. As Stella’s Boy pointed out, that’s in the face of an R rating and weak reviews, so I think she’ll be fine for a while yet. But the clock is undoubtedly ticking.
I agree with your points Yancy. I was just trying to think of other R-rated comedies with a female lead and an opening better than Tammy’s. There aren’t many, and the ones there are, the female lead wasn’t flying solo the way McCarthy is in Tammy. I think that makes Tammy’s opening pretty impressive.
“McCarthy’s problem going forward, as with most comedy stars, is that everything that’s great about her will be pumped up and shoved down our throats until we’re sick of her.”
This already happened on her TV show “Mike & Molly” which utterly destroyed a funny, old-fashioned, ENSEMBLE comedy (that wasn’t wall-to-wall fat jokes like some people think it is). They went full on wacky physical comedy like the second coming of I Love Lucy and it stunk to high heaven.
helpful great trailer about sexism. thank you
I don’t think I would’ve framed the argument for sexism the way David in the OP. I’m not so sure the discrimination, in this case, would be measured in terms of direct loss of opportunity. It’d be too soon to see that. What I would wonder at this point of her career, which, as pointed out, has been astronomical in trajectory of late but not without moderate success to assail any flash in the pan talk, is should McCarthy have been given at least a pass?
First off, the fact that there aren’t many other similar comparables probably shouldn’t be ignored. Expectations by the first-glance media probably wasn’t in line with studio consideration. So drawing the conclusions to gather the pitchforks and bang the drums prolly wasn’t the most accurate response. We do, however, live in a world where the fires of content needs to be stoked 24/7. It certainly wasn’t that way when Go came out. The desire to create-a–story out of nothing comes from daily practice as opposed to disdain or disregard for women.
Why did so many grab a stick to take to make a piñata out of McCarthy’s career (choices, range, future you name it)? Sexism? Boredom? Unluck of the draw? I don’t know. Seems a bit early to toss dirt on her days in the sun. I don’t think people should have to take it easy on her, but I can see how a question of why the pile-on would be brought up. I don’t think anyone owes her anything, per se, I think she’s built enough credit, if not goodwill, to have been skipped on the public hazing. Why that didn’t happen (with first agreeing to if that did happen) I would think would lie the answer to whether or not it’s sexism.
There is no way you can proclaim her over just because of a slight stumble. Look at bullocks career, it was over and done maybe three times before? How many missteps has Diaz made, yet the other woman didn’t warrant the same slings and arrows despite having a similar trajectory. Stars aren’t stars because they never have flops, they are stars because they come back.
And speaking of that spacey never came back, k-pax, pay it forward, and David frickin Gale is reason enough to sentance him to supporting roles and trashy television. Why should he have stardom if he’s just going to squander it like that.
Now as for Caruso, the guy jumped ship as soon as films came calling, clooney was able to weather the first few shaky projects because he was still the hottest thing on tv. But besides that Caruso is just more physically suited for television, I don’t know what it is but his movements are somewhat awkward on a big screen and he looks better shot waist up on television. Don Johnson is the same way, for all the pleasures of dead bang and the hot spot, he just looks more natural in a series.
There is nothing special about the Tammy opening.
That said, the media is up its ass about this. But it’s up its ass most weekends. And hysterical. And all to happy to compare apples to oranges with GUSTO.
I don’t think it’s remotely an issue of sexism. But it is stupid to be questioning her future.
man DP, your ‘in-that-certain-river-in egypt’ commentaries about sexism in the film industry are just consistently cringe-inducing to read — when you’re tempted to write one of these things on the subject, you should just have a little ready-made placard graphic that reads:
THERE’S APPARENTLY SEXISM IN HOLLYWOOD, BUT I JUST DON’T SEE IT.
which you can then simply post and bob’s your uncle, no muss no fuss, save yourself 12,000 words saying the exact same thing, every time.
(just a thought, but maybe you’re ignorant about and don’t see/recognise systemic, entrenched sexism in the male-dominated film industry [or film criticism industry for that matter] because you’re male, you don’t work in the film industry, and even when called on your own sexist observations here from time to time you often respond with typical defensive dismissing/silencing techniques (don’t be a hammer that sees a nail!) instead of listening and attempting to understand and broaden your mind on the subject beyond your own narrow perspective and experience.)
on the subject: sexist attitudes can – and usually do – exist in conjunction with other factors such as in this case media overstating/hyping success or failure, prefabricated expectations, etc. the cherry-picking and wriggling around in eagerness to dismiss sexism and weight-ism (that can’t be the right term) as mitigating factors in the harsh criticism of McCarthy is curious, though not surprising
I find it funny to even bring up weight of comedians/comedic actors films. Aren’t some of the funniest people in films not so-called attractive? I mean, the only movie where Adam Sandler has looked in shape in the past two decades was in You Don’t Mess With The Zohan. Otherwise he’s a schlub. That’s the norm for the most part.
The weight issue is immensely stupid. Nobody ever gives John Goodman crap for his girth. And that’s a man who looks like he’s a coin toss between double-quintuple bypass or heart just bursting out of his chest a la “Alien” or Rosie Perez’ tool box in “Fearless”.
I need to see GO again.
And maybe a better comparison for “the weight issue” is Kevin James.
And yet when I saw BURT WONDERSTONE last year I didn’t realize James Gandolfini was in it until the end credits; he had become so grossly obese he was no longer recognizable.
His death, in retrospect, didn’t seem quite so surprising anymore.