(no subject)

[trinityvixen]

droidguy1119 has an update for me on the Warner Brothers "we don't like female stars" policy that I mentioned a day or two ago. Apparently, the blogger who broke it is a crazy person. who is not well liked.

By people who might actually have made the exact faux pas blogged about. Read this article denying the no-female-lead clause. Yep, sounds like an average blogger just trying to stir up trouble...

...except for this part in the supposed "defense" of character of the studio against claims of misogyny:

As for Neil Jordan's brainy twist on the vigilante genre, "The Brave One," Robinov said he is "proud of the movie," which Foster continues to support around the world. "It's tricky," he said. "It may have been too rough for women, and we didn't get the reviews we had expected."
(emphasis mine)

That's right, ladies. A movie about a woman who experienced violence and loss and went vigilante is "too rough" for you. Any woman who claims to have sat through--and enjoyed!--Batman Begins two years ago is a filthy, lying whore. That role was clearly too rough for you, and it's a damned good thing Batman's not a chick, because no way would a chick have been able to pull that off.

When Warner Brothers would like try to try and rally a defense of what was supposedly said that isn't patronizing, self-important, and completely insulting, I'm all ears. Hell, at this point, I'd prefer to hear them fucking admit what exactly was said, even if it was, "Fucking bitches, man. They can't open movies for shit. We ain't making no more girlie pictures."

(Ire aside, there was one sterling moment of clarity that shone through the Hollywood-ese bullshit where the person being quoted suggested that a problem of marketing the film The Invasion--which was already troubled by reports of rewrites, accidents, and friggin name changes up the wazoo because until yesterday I was sure it was only called Invasion--was to blame and that the male and female leads did not promote it hurt the film's box office. That's great. I'm truly thrilled to see Hollywood exercise the old standby of, "It must be the actors!" so long as the blame is shared. But perhaps all the other things I mentioned might have had an impact? No?)

Comments

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Uh-huh. Face it TV, your "case" is based on (a) a piece of hearsay from a (supposedly) questionable source, and (b) strained reasoning from a single piece of circumstantial evidence. (At least in Mel Gibson's case we knew about his father's Anti-Semitism, his portrayal of Jews in The Passion and so forth.) And all for what? To help Jodie Foster's career? (She'll do fine without us.) You're acting like a Soviet commissar sniffing out bourgeois tendencies, and I simply do not see the point.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but whether or not this was ever going to affect policy, someone said women-won't-lead over at Warners. The follow-up "clarification" is as phony as any other covering-their-ass story as I've ever heard, and only makes them seem more suspicious. And there is a documented drying up of female-led movies of substance (as opposed to films designed for the "niche" audience of only women). I'd say that and Hollywood's tendency to find the quick-fix solution or blame make it likely that there're shenanigans.

I'm not burning my DVDs or boycotting WB. That was hyperbolic ire after hearing the original statement. I just don't buy the "Nothing to see here!" shit after.