Idiocy about Hollywood sexism

JANE, 28, athletic but sexy. A natural beauty. Most days she wears jeans, and she makes them look good.

Behind a steamy shower door is the indistinguishable but sexy silhouette of JANE showering.

Sigh.

Female actors, writers and directors have long complained of sex discrimination in Hollywood.

This isn’t sex discrimination, it’s not sexism. It’s sex.

Hasn’t anyone noticed that near all of the women in movies are good looking., just as near all of the men are? Because, in a visual medium, that’s what works?

34 thoughts on “Idiocy about Hollywood sexism”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Male actors can be sexy without being physically attractive. Danny De Vito has actually been a credible male love interest.

    I doubt any similarly shaped or aged women can.

    What men and women find attractive differs. Men wants to see young, curvy, nice women. Preferably showering. This is, as TW says, a biological feature of the human race.

    Quite what women want is more complex. But I note that George Clooney has just had another film tank. It has been a while since he has been in a successful film that doesn’t have the cast of Ocean’s Eleven behind him. So being a pretty boy and having the world’s media puffing your career doesn’t seem to help all that much.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    JANE, 28, athletic but sexy.

    It is not that sexist by the way. 28 is marginal for men. If you look at those idiotic lists naming the most beautiful women in the world, one or two of them have been this age – with the help of photoshop. They are invariably younger.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Speaking of idiocy related to sexism, Chris Bryant wants to ban rugby fans singing Delilah. Because, obviously, sexism.

    For God’s sake, don’t let him know what Carmen is about. Although the ENO is putting on Madame Butterfly and who knows? It may have a modern ending. So if Mr Bryant has his way Carmen will probably move into a lesbian squat and keep up the manful struggle against Thatcherite neo-liberalism.

  4. I doubt any similarly shaped or aged women can.

    Except in Shallow Hal, where the whole point of the film was that Jack Black falls for an obese woman. So obviously for that role they had to cast an obese woman to play her.

    Oh, hang on, wait. No, they didn’t. They dressed stunner Gwyneth Paltrow up in a fat suit. Hollywood doesn’t even want fat women to play fat women.

  5. . But I note that George Clooney has just had another film tank.

    Two films which pissed me off more than any other:

    1. The American starring George Clooney as an ever-so-exciting assassin who hides in a pretty Italian village where, despite being over 50, he treats us all to shirtless scenes of him doing press-ups and (naturally) bangs the cutest girl in town. Plot: tired and cliched.

    2. The Tourist starring Angelina Jolie as an ever-so-exciting something or other who wanders aimlessly around Venice, Paris, and other places that American producers like to take holidays/film in where, despite being haggard and way past her best, she nevertheless treats us to umpteen shots of her doing catwalk modelling in the latest dresses. Plot: tired and cliched.

    Both films were nothing more than vehicles for the ageing leads to attempt to show they are still the sex-symbols they were a decade previously. Both failed miserably, but why this shite gets commissioned is anyone’s guess.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “Both films were nothing more than vehicles for the ageing leads to attempt to show they are still the sex-symbols they were a decade previously. Both failed miserably, but why this shite gets commissioned is anyone’s guess.”

    There is no reason why George Clooney couldn’t be a sex star at his age. Sean Connery was at a much more advanced age. Connery was 69 when he was named the sexist man of the century. But Clooney is a spineless leftist while Connery is an unrepentant wife beater who made his name playing an amoral murderer.

    Harrison Ford is as left wing as Clooney. Although he doesn’t quite so obviously hate America as much as Clooney does. But he doesn’t play such obviously spineless wimps on the big screen. In fact he too has a slight preference for quasi-amoral murderers.

  7. There is no reason why George Clooney couldn’t be a sex star at his age.

    Absolutely not. But as any (honest) woman will tell you, men are sex stars when they just go about what they do best and don’t try to be sex stars per se. Having to make a film to desperately show you are still a sex star is possibly the least sex-star-like thing a male actor can do. Connery just got on with it, as does Harrison Ford.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Ben S – “Wonder if George Clooney’s attractiveness has gone down since he got hitched? That is probably sexist too.”

    I have always thought that Harrison Ford killed his career by divorcing his plain 40-something wife in favour of Calista Flockhart. Since he dumped the second wife, his best film has been what? Cowboys and Aliens?

    In the end, middle aged women were likely to be a large part of his audience. And of course what they really don’t like in a male star is someone who divorces his comfortably shaped wife of twenty years in favour of a much younger, much thinner woman like Ms Flockhart.

    Of course that is sexism, but it is the good sort because they are women.

  9. George Clooney is a good example, contrary to SMFS, of why looks count. Since he’s started looking old, his box office bankability has dwindled with his bonkability. The best we can say is that good looking men “lose it” later on average than women, because biology.

    Anyway, main point, this is Feminism. Feminism is, as I have often said, based on a hatred of heterosexuality and all that arises from it. Ergo, “sexy” and “sexist” are the same thing. Of course, this again allies with the general Puritan hatred of beauty, because it is a thing of the mundane physical world rather than of the transcendent spirit.

  10. Clooney’s early film roles included a number of nasty pieces of work. Most notably “From Dusk Til Dawn” in which he and Tarentino played two very nasty brothers–killers, psychos and rapist/perverts (at least Tarentino was). They became “heroes”( or at least characters the audience rooted for) only when they encountered evil worse than their own.

    Perhaps he has appeared in too many good guy/character roles without the nasty even violent streak that appeals to women.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Philip Scott Thomas – “Han shot first.”

    Damn Straight. Bloody Hippy Revisionism.

    Mr Ecks – “Clooney’s early film roles included a number of nasty pieces of work.”

    I think Clooney does nasty well. You could even see signs of it in ER. But he doesn’t let it rip often enough.

    As far as Ian goes, I don’t think Clooney was ever a film star. I think he has had a compliant media that has tried to sell him as a film star but I am not sure it has worked. He has not been a reliable actor – even when he was young he was not a reliable earner. He turned out flops at least as often as, well, not flops. His best earning film is Ocean’s Eleven where he is one of many stars.

    Nor is he that interesting as an actor. If you think of the Ocean films, I would argue that Don Cheadle, who has obvious problems getting good roles, has been a much more interesting actor. I still like him for The Devil in the Blue Dress. He didn’t quite work in The Guard which was quietly good, but he was still pretty good. I think even Andy Garcia has been more interesting if you ignore The Godfather and as a Catholic Republican he can barely work at all.

    The painful comparison is with Brad Pitt. Who is non-too-bright and doesn’t choose his roles well. And is little more than a pretty face that is beginning to fade. But Pitt has done, among the dross, some very interesting movies. Not just the disgusting Seven but Fight Club

  12. But Pitt has done, among the dross, some very interesting movies. Not just the disgusting Seven but Fight Club

    Pitt played himself in Fight Club, which he continued to do in the Oceans films (in fact, they all played themselves in those). But I always thought Pitt could act, right up until he did Troy and never recovered: Twelve Monkeys, Kalifornia, Se7en, Thelma and Louise, Snatch. All pretty good performances, where at least it looked as though he was trying. As for Clooney, his best work by far was in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “Pitt played himself in Fight Club”

    He must be a very unusual person in real life.

    American actors prefer to play themselves, or at least the person they pretend to be on the big screen. Think of John Wayne as a Roman Centurian or a Mongol Warlord. Their agents will go through and change the script to make it less of a stretch. So the only real acting you get is from young actors and the not-so-famous.

    As for Clooney, his best work by far was in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

    Although that was just so Clooney being Clooney. The other film I liked was Out of Sight which is unusual for getting a good performance out of Jennifer Lopez. Or at least from her backside. And from Ving Rhames. Who cannot act at all.

  14. I can’t say this enough times: Hollywood makes what people will buy. Sure, some actors are lefty liberals and want to make lefty liberal films, but most film production and exhibition is about what sells, and that’s subject to change. If women went to the cinema more, you’d get films more like you used to get like All About Eve or Imitation of Life. Studios are now making lots of films for teenagers with female protagonists because one took a shot on The Hunger Games, thinking there might be a demand because of the huge book sales, and found there was. Which has led to a load of similar films, and generally studios snapping up the rights to successful YA books.

    I am fucking fed up of hypocrites who complain about films in the cinema. They complain that arthouse films never get to the multiplex, and it’s just virtue signalling, that they like arthouse films, but have an excuse not to actually go out to see them. Actually, the likes of Cineworld show all sorts of stuff, from big action movies, Bollywood stuff, arthouse stuff, live opera. But no bugger goes to the arthouse stuff. So, it comes for a week, picks up the demand that actually is there, and then goes again. Star Wars is playing 3 screens for months because people turn out to see it.

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    The Stigler – “I can’t say this enough times: Hollywood makes what people will buy.”

    Top Gun. Enormously successful. Many efforts to make another one. Hollywood is not interested. Patriotic. The Passion of the Christ. Hugely successful. But Hollywood won’t bite. Not until they have to – with Noah. Which, needless to say, spits in the face of the supposed religious audience by making it about Climate Change and how having children is evil.

    They would not touch the war on terror except to praise the terrorists and condemn the West. It didn’t matter why the West was to blame – for going in, for staying out, for giving guns, for not giving guns – whatever the reason, the West was to blame. Then finally someone made American Sniper and it turned out there was a market for films about the War on Terror that did not star Clooney and hate on Bush.

    But they won’t make another one.

    Hollywood is determined to push their political agenda. If they make money, good. But if they don’t, they don’t care. They won’t make a film that contradicts the Party line if they can help it.

  16. “Danny De Vito has actually been a credible male love interest.”

    Struggling with the “credible” part here. Must’ve been a film I have not seen.

  17. I’ll concern myself with Jennifer Lawrence’s opinions on sexist Hollywood when she stops profiting from it and hands over her paycheck to plain girls who had to give up their dreams at 19 when they realised they weren’t pretty enough to compete with JLaw for roles. If she wants to keep profiting from this sexism then she can STFU.

  18. If the Telegraph was a person you would be concerned that they had suffered some traumatic head injury which had radically changed their personality.

    ‘Except they aren’t listening. Not really. And never will.’

    So, not being interested in a boring woman = misogyny. Fuck off.

  19. He must be a very unusual person in real life.

    Strutting around with his shirt off shooting one-liners? I’m not talking about the character, so much as the personality he attached to it.

  20. Magnusw. I’ve only caught up with Game of Thongs recently as RTLll are showing it over night. After all the hype, I assume its the shoehorned in naked breasts per episode a la I Clavdivs that is behind the OTT reviews for this poor tat.

  21. SMFS,

    “Top Gun. Enormously successful. Many efforts to make another one. Hollywood is not interested. Patriotic. The Passion of the Christ. Hugely successful. But Hollywood won’t bite. Not until they have to – with Noah. Which, needless to say, spits in the face of the supposed religious audience by making it about Climate Change and how having children is evil.”

    First of all forget “Hollywood”. It’s not a cabal. There are lots of studios, lots of distributors, lots of actors and directors with different views.

    Bruckheimer’s been trying to make a sequel since the first film. People have been having meetings about it for decades. It happens in the world of movies. John Carter OF MARS took nearly 80 years from the first idea of a movie to it being a movie.

    Passion of the Christ led to studios realising that there was a Christian market that they’d neglected. Christian movies of historical variety stopped getting made in the 1960s because studios had a number of financial bombs. Mel Gibson’s innovation was to market the film via churches. And the reason why films like Left Behind, War Room and Fireproof are being made and distributed is that everyone else cottoned onto that innovation.

    As for “They would not touch the war on terror except to praise the terrorists and condemn the West”, I’d refer you to Kathryn Bigelow’s 2 films: Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker, both of which honour the people fighting against terrorism. Both of which were nominated for Oscars by those West-hating liberals in Hollywood and one of which won best film.

  22. Both of which were nominated for Oscars by those West-hating liberals in Hollywood and one of which won best film.

    Although to be fair the former featured a tough female lead cracking the case of bin Laden’s location, who never existed in real life.

  23. I felt sorry for John Carter OF MARS. It wasn’t a bad movie, just not impressive. And in the intervening 80 years, anyone who cares about John Carter OF MARS has expected it to look like Frank Frazetta’s illustrations. Which you were not going to get in a Disney movie. Hence the general aura of meh.

  24. The characters have to be described *somehow*. I’ll assume male characters are described just as naff-ly but that it doesn’t suit the argument to have included them.

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    The Stigler – “First of all forget “Hollywood”. It’s not a cabal. There are lots of studios, lots of distributors, lots of actors and directors with different views.”

    I agree. Which is why something like The Passion of the Christ can be made at all. But it had to be made outside the mainstream of Hollywood because, obviously, they hate Christians.

    “Bruckheimer’s been trying to make a sequel since the first film.”

    Trying and failing. If they were all about the money they would be making one a year. They aren’t. Because the Studios hate that type of film and won’t make it if they can avoid it. Despite the massive amounts of money to be made. Because, obviously, they hate normal Americans.

    “John Carter OF MARS took nearly 80 years from the first idea of a movie to it being a movie.”

    Yeah but that was always an iffy proposition. SF films some times work, some times they don’t. It was released along with a bunch of other Mars-themed films. Which all tanked. It is not as if it was a sure thing. As a sequel to Top Gun or the PoTC would be.

    “Passion of the Christ led to studios realising that there was a Christian market that they’d neglected.”

    When did they realise this? How many other films have they made to tap into this market? Would that be zero? The PotC showed that there was an enormous Christian market. Which Hollywood has flatly refused to acknowledge or make any films for. Despite the money involved.

    “Christian movies of historical variety stopped getting made in the 1960s because studios had a number of financial bombs.”

    I doubt that. It is often said. I think it is more to do with the Rural Purge when the TV studios got rid of all their boring White middle class TV shows and tried to be edgy and appeal to the Yoof. Even though all those shows rated well, the media decided they were not interested in making those types of shows any more. So they stopped.

    “Mel Gibson’s innovation was to market the film via churches.”

    That is, to do it outside Hollywood. Because, obviously, they hate Christians.

    “And the reason why films like Left Behind, War Room and Fireproof are being made and distributed is that everyone else cottoned onto that innovation.”

    Outside Hollywood. To make Fireproof the Kendricks had to open their own studio, find their own funding, distribute the films themselves. They suffered a complete Hollywood boycott.

    “I’d refer you to Kathryn Bigelow’s 2 films: Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker, both of which honour the people fighting against terrorism. Both of which were nominated for Oscars by those West-hating liberals in Hollywood and one of which won best film.”

    So films that show Americans as unrepentant torturers, murderers, and psychotic killers are somehow honouring them? That is an interesting approach. These films are not as insanely hostile as other films on the war but to claim they are honouring anyone is absurd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *