Never mind the Bullock
Donald Clarke
There’s a slightly scary truth at the heart of Forbes magazine’s recent list of the best-paid female actors (thank you, Irish Times style book). We’re not talking about the news that Sandra Bullock has made it to the top spot. She’s a hard worker and a good sport. More to the point, The Proposal and The Blind Side were genuine breakout hits.
Actual photo of Sandra Bullock not getting out of bed for less than $56 million.
No. The slight chill comes from the knowledge that the remaining places in the top five are taken up by, in order: Reese Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against any of these actresses… sorry female actors. But, consider the most recent film each of them has made: Four Christmases, Knight and Day, The Bounty Hunter, Sex and the City 2. It’s a fairly gruesome bunch (though this week’s Knight and Day is reasonably diverting). More importantly, all of these films performed below the studio’s expectations. Look back further in the top five’s CV’s and financial triumphs remain elusive.
Next in the list is Julia Roberts, who hasn’t had a proper hit since the 17th century. After her, we get Angelina Jolie — number two, you might have predicted — who actually has delivered two successes recently: Salt did okay; Wanted was a minor smash.
Here’s my point. If the most highly paid female actors (groan) in Hollywood can’t bring in the bucks then surely nobody can. It looks as if the star system is dead — or, like Monty Python’s parrot, is “all shagged out after a long squawk”.
Male stars have only a tiny bit more pulling power (mainly in Rest of World). Consider this year’s worldwide box-office top ten. It’s not exactly coming down with star vehicles. Is it?
1. Alice in Wonderland
2. Toy Story 3
3. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
4. Shrek Forever After
5. Iron Man 2
6. Clash of the Titans
7. How to Train Your Dragon
8. Inception
9. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
10. Robin Hood
Donald, please don’t let the PC parasites win. Actress is not a sexist word, in fact it’s as “sexist” as “female actor” – both define the person by their gender, which is a despicable thing to do (apparently). Seriously, this is going to last about as long as that three-year period a few years back where you weren’t allowed to say “black” in public in the US, you *had* to say African-American. This lasted until people realised that not all black people are American. Or African for that mattter…
“So, what do you do?”
“I’m a Blacula hunter.”
“Oh, you only hunt African-American vampires?”
“No, I also hunt British vampires.”
Anyhow, to the matter at hand – Donald, I think it’s unfair to say that few of those films are star vehicles, only Alice and HTTYD jump out. Tom Hanks, Robert Pattison, Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, RDJ, Sam Worthington, Leo DiCaprio, Jake Gyllenhaal and Russell Crowe are all big enough names to draw crowds, although I do see your point, these are spectacle pictures for the most part.
“Female actors”? Really? Man, The Irish Times is intent on pissing me off this week.
Well, you make my point for me, David. As I said recently when discussing this issue, few people who attended Twilight did so after saying “Oh look, there’s a Kristen Stewart film on at the Odeon”. Mind you, people probably did go to The Bounty Hunter because they liked Aniston.
So what do the Screenwriter brain Trust think is the reasoning behind it?
As movies get more expensive the less studios want to risk a spot of couch-jumping torpedoing their product?
There’s just a current vogue for establishing/continuing franchises?
Or are movie goers getting fed up with vehicles after seeing a new Will Ferrell movie every 3 months?
Or is it ridiculous to base any assumption on a single year’s list?
I do not think that the term female actor is any more or less offensive than female actress. I think most people who believe actress is not PC would rather the word actor was used, with female being added only when it is necessary, as in a list which concerns itself with female actors only. It rather bothers me that you can be so irked by people choosing not to say actress. The existence of two separate words for people who do the same job is strange, and in my opinion pointless, we don’t say doctress. I would refer to Meryl Streep as an actor because that is the job she does, not because it’s politically correct but because it is a fact. I’m not motivated by feminism but by logic.
As for this ‘slightly scary truth’ business about the star vehicle being dead- so what? It’s hardly a bombshell, people have been commenting on the likes of Tom Cruise’s diminishing returns for years. Has it stopped the public from going to see films? Isn’t it possible that maybe the majority of the public just cares more about a film as a whole, and whether it looks like a story that they are interested in seeing, than whether some face from the tabloids appears in it? I think if that’s the case then it’s a very positive thing.
I’m sure the point has been made before, but following gender-neutral logic to its conclusion wouldn’t there be just two acting Oscars – lead and supporting?
@ 4
Mary, it’s just clunky English to have to use “female actor”. You compare it to doctor/”doctress”, but it’s not, it’s the equivalent of GP/dentist/neurosurgeon/paediatrician/etc.
Being an actor or actress is the deciding point between which half of all roles you can play. Yes, an actor can play a female role and an actress can play a male role – but in that case it’s even more relevant that their title contain their gender – Cate Blanchett was the most acclaimed Dylan in I’m Not There, all the more impressive because her gender should have made it difficult.
Donald’s post was blatantly bogged down by the insistence of the PC fascists to keep using “female actors” – let’s face it, it’s a clunky phrase. In French there would be an extra e to denote the gender of most professionals – is the word fiancée sexist? Girlfriend? Wife? No, these words show us the INCREDIBLY RELEVANT gender of the person involved.
In the same way there are separate women’s events in most (all?) sports, there are separate categories at awards shows for actors and actresses – Sean points out this out very well.
These celebrate the differences between the genders. The word “actress” is not a shackle of misogynistic oppression. It’s just useful.
What was equally fascinating was last year’s investigation to find which actresses got the best return for the studio, i.e. salary to box office take. The unlikely winners were Naomi Watts first, Jennifer Connelly second and Rachel McAdams third. Watts was in King Kong, but the majority of people who went to that weren’t going on the basis that it starred “the woman from Mulholland Dr.”. Similarly, He’s Just Not That Into You (apologies for lowering the tone) did serious box office, though la Connelly (Oscar-winner, let’s not forget) probably didn’t get paid as much as her co-stars.
Aniston is a huge brand name but, strangely, that doesn’t generate much money (at least with her films, maybe her fragrences and endorsements and stuff do). Her last 3 films would qualify as flops: Bounty Hunter, Love Happens and Management. The latter went straight to DVD here.
It’s the same old: studios don’t know what people want, but they know they like movie stars, at least to some extent.
@ 4 – Mary, I admit that I for one have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this gender-specific tampering. My reasons however, are solely to do with my love of languages; one of the most attractive aspect of languages for me, and particularly French, is the masculine and feminine (we get actor and actress comes from acteur and actrice).
I certainly think it’s PC going too far when the barebones of language, and to an extent femininity, are changed for issues of professional equal footing. 1. It draws more attention to the issue than I think anyone actually wants and 2. If you need to precede actor with “female” in order to avoid confusion, then surely it completely defeats the purpose in the first place.
I think these minor noun specifics actually make for better logic.
Golly. The reference to the style book’s attitude to the word “actress” was just meant as a facetious crack to fill up the word count. For the record, I don’t really feel that strongly about the ussue, but, when distinguishing between males and females in the emoting profession, I would favour the use of the word “actress”. My reason is straightforward: the construction “female actor” sounds clumsy and is not a phrase you are likely to encounter in everyday speech. Its artificiality draws the reader up short.
But, as I say, I’m not really that bothered one way or the other. Do what you like.
I have seen this list, and while I like most of those on it, I cannot believe these are the best actresses Hollywood has to offer. I do like Sandra Bullock, maybe because I have constantly been told (especially in Dublin) that I resemble her since speed came out, and by the fact that she seems like a decent person. I am suprised Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchet where not higher on the list. Cate in particular is a great talent, I cannot believe Jennifer Aniston made the list especially since she has not had a hit movie in a dogs age.
I think refering to actresses as “female actors” is just PC Crapola run amok. Give me a break, it is just like the whole debate over stewardess and “flight attendent”. Actress is not a demeaning term, i could think of worse.
Bullock female actor — just doesn’t sound right somehow……….Anyway, I quite like Sandra B on the big screen (sure I mentioned that before) but it wouldn’t bother me at all if the likes of SJP and the other femmes en forme on the list were to plunge into a stellar black hole. A “movie meteorite” might be a good term for any movie star on the decline that survives a crash at the box office — going on the analogy that (here’s the science bit) a meteorite is a shooting star that survives impact with the Earth’s surface. But can a meteorite ever be a star again — not in this galaxy and probably not in Hollywood either but those Hollywood Director Mogul types are notorious for boldly going where no man has gone before……….I reckon there’ll always be another ‘galaxy’ of aspiring little stars waiting for that brief moment to shine until they hit the dust — or approx. age thirty nine
Donald’s reference to The Irish Times ‘style book’ reminds me of the august organ’s decree some years back on the subject of the word ‘media’. As surely everyone knows, media is the plural form of medium, that is, a means of communication – like The Irish Times, for instance.
Notwithstanding this, the Times declared that henceforth ‘media’ would be used as a singular noun, as in “The media is one of democracy’s few safeguards.” Any medium that can make such a silly decision is more than capable of foisting further travesties, such as ‘female actors’, on its readers.
What I wonder is: do Irish Times journalists, such as Donald Clarke, have any right to use correct English in their articles or must they submit to some sub-editor charged with ensuring compliance with the ‘style book’?
Ah sure Donald, you hand over the blog with the best of intentions and we either follow your main topic or go on a crazy digressive bender. Just look what happened to the Mel Gibson blog. Phew!
@13
Sorry, Jimbo. I regard myself as a raging pedant on these matters, but — whereas I appreciate your support — I can’t agree with your argument for continuing to treat media as a plural. There comes a time when you have to bow to common usage. Identifying that time is a tricky business. For example, one thing that drives me bananas is the use of “cliché” as an adjective on the internet. “This film is really cliché” and so forth. Yet I note that Websters Dictionary is now giving in on this subject:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cliche
This is a step too far for me. I will die before I tolerate “cliché” as an adjective. I, similarly, will not allow “enormity” for “enormousness” or “disinterest” for “lack of interest”. But I think the game is up on media as a plural noun. Treating it thus would, for me, be akin to spelling “jail” as “gaol”.
Conversely, the main argument for querying “female actor” is that it is not in common usage.
Back in Shakespeare’s day there were no such things as actresses and they knew how to write plays then. No correlation just a fact or two.
What I mean is there were only actors even though they wrote many parts for women characters. Uh. Never mind. I prefer it now we have many fine fine female actors. I used go out with one. She wasn’t keen on the term actress either. But anyway.
@17 Yes but all the ‘parts’ were played by men or boys playoing grrls/wumens roles….