The Hot Blog

So in the end what's the lesson here? That old cliche - nobody knows anything? My initial reading of Finke's article seemed to imply that Robinov was putting all the blame on Kidman and Foster, which doesn't sit well with me (granted, it could be Finke's manipulation of words). I happened to read early drafts of both The Invasion and The Brave One and I thought both were very good and very promising. Neither of those scripts is what ended up on screen (not entirely anyway). The screen versions seem to want to be more action-y, rather than the more character-based scripts they originally were. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I've a good feeling Joel Silver is the one that dumbed them down a bit. He should bolster some of the blame as well.

"his illness"

what

Thanks for the catch, Tofu... fixed.

And yes, Andrew, it is more complex than "Robinov attacks women." On the other hand, opening movies never has anything to do with the quality of films... and both films opened soft by the standards of the talent that was paid for.

I don't think nobody knows anything, except in the cosmic sense in which Goldman wrote the words. In the end, there are no sure bets. But the reality is that films with female stars are a niche play, just as other niche plays are. That is the truth of the marketplace... which is always in play and open to breakouts. And when THAT happens is what no one knows.

Much as we all claim to want "meaty roles for our actresses" and "strong women's stories," the unfortunate fault resides with the audience itself for rarely supporting such movies even when they do get made. Not saying by any stretch that WB potboilers like "Brave One" or "The Invasion" fit this bill, but the "female audience," if one is to crassly generalize, can be extremely prickly and difficult to predict.

Kudos to the few actresses, like Witherspoon, Roberts, Barrymore, and Winslet, who can navigate the perilous waters of female audience approval, because it's usually such a delicate situation. Actresses that are too overtly "hot" are intimidating; Actresses that are too familiar from TV are TOO accessible and thus not special enough to go see; Actresses that are too cold or harsh are off-putting.

With a male-oriented movie with a cool concept, trailer or poster, the male audience doesn't necessarily nitpick the differences between, say, Shia LaBoeuf and Chris Evans. But a romantic comedy aimed squarely at the ladies? For some reason, the leap from Reese Witherspoon to Scarlett Johansson is an unjumpable chasm.

Wow, I had no idea The Holiday made that much. I was under the illusion it really underperformed.

I hold no brief for Kidman, but didn't anyone stop for one moment and ask: is there really a huge demand for a FOURTH version of BODY SNATCHERS? Would Roberts or Witherspoon--or even a male lead--really have made a difference? I highly doubt it.

The Notebook and Prada showed that THERE is an audience, if the film is well made and characters have a little of charisma, girls will be in the theater, but is dosnt help when we receive those crap bad comedies with freaking Jennifer Aniston (I dont care what magazines says, she is NOT a draw )

Dont also forget that the biggest film of all time (Titanic was a chick flick)
Yes, it is difficult for a female actress, but I don’t buy the “she is too beautiful so we don’t like her”. Girls like girly girls, the ones that we can relate to, Natalie Portman is one of the most perfect faces in the world and girls LOVE her, the day she does a Romantic comedy it will be a success, we also like Reese, Rachel Mcadams is adored by young girls, Drew, Anne Hathaway, Kate Winslet.

But please no more Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston, Scarlett “I will bomb your film” Johansson, Angelina Jolie and Lindsay Lohan.

So where were the girls for Anywhere But Here, Where the Heart Is, or Closer?

So where were the girls for Anywhere But Here, Where the Heart Is, or Closer?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you really see those films as roamantic comedies?

Of course actresses CAN be a draw. And so can actors and actresses who don't appear to assure box office success.

Thing is, the successes for the women you mention are real, but they are all interested in stretching (perhaps an attribute that makes them cool in the first place) and the girls don't seem to show up for their stretchy roles.

Isn't that what Jodie Foster is now suffering... a role as an aggressor in response to violence not drawing the female audience?

Remember, we're only five years from a trifle like Reese Witherspoon's Sweet Home Alabama opening to $35m, topping out at $127m. Studios can make some real money on female leads, they just need to cast them in the right projects. The Invasion is not the proper movie to showcase Kidman's talents. Australia probably will be.

Resident Evil Extinction opened to $24m on its way to nearly $50m when all is said and done. Shouldn't that be on your list, Poland?

Well, DP. You're full of contradictions. You call Nikki out on her "latest rant" against Robinov, though you point out his statement should never have been said out loud. How chilling. Though hers was a short blog entry on an immediate issue, you call her out on not noting that Pascal did the same thing quietly. So you, who are always talking about being open and honest, and who supposedly give a damn about women in hollywood (cough) don't back up Nikki with that observation, you point out that Pascal had "two great box office years."

You drop that logic, and track a safer route - saying it's not a conspiracy against women, but a conspiracy for money - while backing up Robinov's "logic," comparing big budget male lead blockbusters that have big writers, directors and marketing budgets with small-budget movies, some that are poorly conceived, cast and marketed. With your stats, you back up the perception that "women's movies" perform poorly. And what the heck is a "borderline women's-driven film"? Reminds me of Jamie Lee Curtis's (i think) line i've mentioned before where she talked about getting scripts where the female character showed up on page 6 so the male lead would have someone to screw on page 60.

If you're trying to compare male lead blockbusters with female lead blockbusters - well guess what - there aren't any female lead blockbusters to compare. Do you really think The Brave One compares with a Spiderman or Bourne or similar commercial film? Do you really think Neil Jordan was even trying for the blockbuster hit when he told you specifically he'd taken out the parts of the original that would have made it a dumbed-down, obvious take on a complex issue? And when it fails, why is it the fault of Jodie Foster and women? Does anyone think men must not like comedy because of the Heartbreak Kid? Did anyone say men don't like Clint Eastwood after White Hunter Black Heart ($2 million total) and Pink Cadillac ($12 mill total) and geez, Dead Pool was Dirty Harry and it only got to $37 million - maybe men don't like violence - but they went to Titanic, so they like tragedy - or romance - or icebergs as villains? There is NO logic in cherry-picking like this. And why do people look at The Invasion and say nay to Nicole and not Daniel Craig? Horseshit. The playing field is not level - not in the roles and not even in perceptions - which nullifies the judgements weighed on them.

More contradictions: "As in all things, it's the movie, stupid." "Now, I’m not saying that closing off a demographic completely isn’t stupid." "Judge the material first. Make good choices. But yes, also take the genre, the sex, the race, etc into business account." Hmm... are the same people who judge the material and make "good" (as defined by Goldman?) choices the ones judging sex and race? So what are you saying, DP? Sounds like you're trying to keep your wick in every lamp while pouring the oil all over yourself and lighting the match.

By this "logic" we should have no African American, Asian or Latino leads, either (already pretty much true). No documentaries. And what about all those "socially conscious" films - like Syriana or Blood Diamond - those should be wiped off the slate, too. But no, those are male leads, so they're okay. Or was Jennifer Connelly the reason Blood Diamond didn't make more $? (Darn those borderline women-driven movies!)

I'm sure you're aware that, historically, female leads in Hollywood have done superbly, in fact, as good as or better than male leads in previous decades when they were given top scripts by top directors, budgets, etc. That is - when they were playing on a level playing field. I'll say the same for other minorities, male or female. The movies of the 30's, 40's and 50's are strictly a Caucasian affair - not because African American, Asian, Latino, etc. actors weren't box office draws, but because they were never given the chance and our society and Hollywood was so racist it wasn't about to give it to them. How much did we lose as a nation because of it? Actors like Denzel and Will Smith are terrific, fun and charismatic - and they've been given good scripts, good directors, etc, that show their chops. There are many other women, African Americans, Native American, Asians, Latinos, etc, who could do and have done the same with the same opportunities.

Robinov is saying something that should ring alarm bells all over the industry - that he's taking the chance away from women (which is already near non-existent). Of course he'll keep the women who show up on page 6 so the leading male will have someone to screw on page 60. Is that not as misogynist as the 30's, 40's and 50's were racist? What if he'd said no African American leads? (or is that something better done silently, a policy you seem to agree with?)

You showed your cards by criticizing Nikki's relatively benign comments on Stringer's remarks an "attack on men's obsession w/ women's weight." How you can see Stringer's comment as anything other than at least remarkably insensitive if not down right chauvinistic is beyond me - especially when it's widely noted that young girls and women are literally killing themselves to look like the male ideal of a woman, beamed down to their $10 seats or TVs - which is literally impossible to achieve without surgery (note to the confused: you cannot lose so much weight you have the body of a 12-year old while growing boobs the size of small or large watermelons).

Either you give a damn about women and minorities in Hollywood or you don't. Either you disagree with this corporate Hollywood group think or you agree. You can't have it both ways. Though you can try, and end up waffling and hiding behind your statistics.

Maybe I'm wrong, (probably) - but I'd like to think you do give a damn, but your Pavlovian response to Nikki over-ruled your logic - or your heart - and that's why your entry is a muddled mess, imo. Because in the end, these particular entries of Finke's weren't controversial at all. They were no brainers. They were along the lines of one of your highest tenants - to speak up and not be silent. Yet you made a bandwagon and jumped on it, titling it "Another Moment of Hysteria." Or was the hysteria yours?

seenmyverite?

You are quite clearly passionate about this issue. You do seem to gloss over Amy Pascal's decision to do this years ago. Because to call one studio head out over another, because one is friendly with one and not the other, seems hypocritical.

So, okay, now it's out there. Two studios (at least) have decided not to spend big budgets on films with female leads. What now?

Outrage isn't going to make "The Invasion" a better movie. Nor "Bewitched" or "The Stepford Wives," to go back a few Kidman movies. "The Invasion" wasn't sold as a Daniel Craig movie, which imo is why he is not taking the blame for the failure of the film. Daniel Craig also did not make this a "go" picture. Kidman made it so, and they got the flavor of the month to back her up. Basically, he's the guy that shows up on page 6...

And finally, the better roles for women have always been the lower budget projects. The quality of the films have been higher with lower budgets. Is it your contention that with higher budgets the movies would be even better?

Seenmy - My primary point is that this is not a black and white issue. There are lots of contradictions.

I wrote just a few days ago about how frustrating it was for Universal to choose to shoehorn Russell Crowe's white character into a movie about a Black Scarface. It really hurts what should have been a film of legend.

That doesn't mean that I am not aware of the historic boundaries of how much a Denzel movie makes worldwide and how those limits make budgeting a real issue for a funder. I personally think they might have overcome traditional Denzel limitations (given that they start with consistent success of a level) by making a truly great movie by staying focused. But that is a risk. And not taking that risk is not racist.

All non-franchise movies are a financial risk. Studios, which now spend massive amounts even on straight, simple dramas, look to cut their exposure. Is it fair to expect otherwise, especially when the studio in question made more movies with female leads last year than any other by a wide margin, including those led by women?

And yes, Seenmy, people said Clint Eastwood's career was OVER (all caps in lunch chatter) after White Hunter, Black Heart (which got rave reviews and did no business) and The Rookie (which got panned and did mediocre business). Then he had his comeback run with Unforgiven and In The Line of Fire and Bridges of Madison County and even A Perfect World, which did very over $100 million overseas in 1993, which was major money back then. Then he was “done” again with True Crime and Blood Work. So this director who was always on time, on budget, and budgeted low compared to most, fought for the opportunity to do Mystic River… and got a nomination bonanza. Then he fought to do Million Dollar Baby and won Best Picture and Best Director.

The illusion that guys have a cake walk is just that… an illusion.

That said, there is a chicken and egg thing. Hard for “women’s movies” to do business if they are not made. Yes.

And yes, there have been many great female stars who made tons of money for studios. But here is what’s changed… the price of making and selling movies. A movie like The Family Stone was a big success for Fox because it was so cheap to make. If you can make a commercial-minded Diane Keaton movie for $20 million, it’s a good bet. But there are very few studios that are interested in making $20 million movies. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but it’s the reality. That is why (amongst a few major reasons) there are so many independently funded companies that are precisely in the $20 million movie game.

It is not the best thing for art, but the reality of a major studio is that any movie they make is a minimum $60 million investment with P&A. They need to be able to sell what they make. If you hire a $10 million-plus actor, it is marketing bait as much as it is a choice to hire the “right” actor. So who does a Nicole Kidman draw? Answer: not men. So are you going to make The Invasion with her in the lead again? Duh.

There are many failures leading to the failure of that film. It’s not all Nicole’s fault. It really isn’t her fault at all. But deciding not to try that again is not blaming Nicole. It’s recognizing the dichotomy of movie values and marketing values.

We've also been discussing why Jodie Foster with a gun in her hand didn't draw. It's a constant issue. Same with why Heartbreak Kid didn't open.

Historically, this is not such a happy reality. Choices seem wrong-headed all the time and throughout history. Would I love to have seen Julie Andrews in My Fair Lady? Yes. But Warners made a business decision and the movie still works. Moreover, we only know that Julie Andrews would likely have been great in the film because she has had a great movie career since. Not every great Broadway performer has made that transition. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick on Broadway in The Producers… magic. In the movies? A mistake.

Making any statement of "we aren't looking for XXX types of scripts" is stupid for any head of production... politically and realistically. Politically, it's obvious. Realistically, there will be another Alien someday (in the women’s category) and there is a wide range of possibilities for films focused on women.

Of course, we are responding to Nikki repeating gossip, the details of which she doesn’t know or try to offer. Nor do you.

“(Robinov is saying something that should ring alarm bells all over the industry - that he's taking the chance away from women (which is already near non-existent).”

Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t. Maybe he said, “No more $80 million movies staring women for a while.” Maybe he said, “We need more than just Jessica Biel to open Justice League.” Or maybe he said something as stupid as Nikki suggests.

But like I wrote… his company gave more chances to women last year than any other. And it didn’t work. It didn’t not-work just once. It failed in most every case.

When the daily machinations of this industry devolve into accusations of misogyny and people like you start talking about how it is comparable to racism, it is hysteria.

And do you really think Jeff Robinov is looking to make Blood Diamond or Syriana again? And for that matter, I would argue that Blood Diamond was as confused about race as any movie I saw last year. It wanted to argue for good, but was often pushing racist buttons in the process.

And do you want to know why movies like Syriana are made by studios? A big star the studio cares about combined with funding from companies like Participant Productions with a billionaire willing to risk a large part of the budget to see a movie like that made. It’s not magnanimous. Its reduced risk and potential for a surprise hit. And of course, Warners makes profit on distribution on a film like that before considering giving a dime back towards the budget, lowering their risk further. That’s how the studio avoiding losing much on Superman Returns themselves and shifted the loss to the private funders.

“Either you give a damn about women and minorities in Hollywood or you don't. Either you disagree with this corporate Hollywood group think or you agree. You can't have it both ways. Though you can try, and end up waffling and hiding behind your statistics.”

Bullshit.

And that’s exactly how it becomes black and white at the studios. They are not in the business of “giving a damn” and NEVER have been. If women directors want to have the opportunities the boys do, they need to start shooting action-y commercials. If they don’t, then they are, like say, Bennett Miller, who had a great success and still lives in the art ghetto.

Yes, there is a built in bias… whether the exec is a man or a woman. But that is not all there is. And the idea that studios should spend scores of millions or hundreds of millions in order to be “unbiased” is absurd.

There are many terrible ways in which opportunity is earned for the wrong reasons in this town, but it is, at base, business in which opportunities are, indeed, earned. And the opportunity to front $80 million-plus movies for which you get paid $15 million is not a bias issue.

And again… much of your take is driven by Nikki reporting gossip about Robinov and Stringer without context or any interest in it. I don’t assume that US Magazine knows whether Angelina Jolie is pregnant or just eating chocolate this week and I don’t automatically assume that Nikki is being fair to these people. Moreover, as you yourself point out, compared to what women across the globe suffer in self-image in real and complex ways Stringer’s alleged comment would have been trivial in its most offensive reading. But if you are writing for Drudge links, writing that would be a mistake.

dave...you're attacking the messenger and not the message again! Glass house dave, glass house.

Actually, you are obsessing on the messenger and not really thinking about the message.

A lot of content in this post... and not much about C. Nikki.

hendhogan - i didn't mean to gloss over Pascal's decision - I thought I was covering the concept, no matter who was promoting it.

I disagree that the better roles for women have always been low budget films (as I mentioned films in past decades above), and though I'm sure you don't mean it that way, to me that idea seems patronizing to women. I don't think you can equate budget with quality at all, you can get gems and dreck with both high and low budgets. I was talking about making a blanket policy that states there will be no women leads. I think the logic that is based on is false for many reasons, including the fact that women haven't been given equal opportunities, so the playing field isn't level.

DP - I was talking about you giving a damn, as a journalist in the film industry, not the studios giving a damn. And as for them, yes, it's show "business" - but you know that's bullshit, too. Movies get greenlit for a thousand different reasons that have nothing to do with money - to curry favor, to grant favors, to assuage egos, to create legacies, for friendship & loyalty, for awards prestige, for nepotism, for artistic passion, for that heartfelt project they always wanted to make, for their "Driving Miss Daisy," and yes, even because they give a damn - especially because they give a damn. Movies like "Gentleman's Agreement" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Good Night and Good Luck" and "Brokeback Mountain" weren't conceived and greenlit with the almighty dollar in mind. And maybe they need to show on paper they'll make money, and maybe they think they will, but it's a crapshoot, whether the budget is 5 mill or 100 mill.

Logic Police: you called me out for responding to Nikki's comment by saying it's gossip and might not be true, when you based your whole blog entry on it & and began by saying Amy Pascal had already done the same thing but quietly, and then pointed out the financial success of Pascal's decision, followed by a bucketful of statistics to back it up. I'd say you took it more seriously than Ms. Finke. I was responding to your response to her.

You say your primary point is that this is not a black and white issue, and I agree. That's why I wrote against a studio executive making a blanket policy as if it were a black and white issue (as reported in your blog entry, and backed by your Pascal assertion).

I'd beware the old double standard, where when you stand up for or against something, you call it refusing to be silent, and noble, but when someone else does it and you don't agree or don't like them, then it's hysteria. And yes, when a studio head makes a blanket policy, stated or unstated (you mentioned Pascal), where they will not give a chance to an entire segment of a population - be they women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, homosexuals, Jews, etc, then I wouldn't label it hysteria to write against it.

That it's the high cost of films that exclude women - that's a current popular & false perception - there have always been big budget movies that seemed exorbitant, but in the past, women had leading or equal roles in them, like Gone With the Wind. But the thinking on this has changed, and your example w/ Diane Keaton proves my point - the mindset is a female lead = small budget, small movie or in some way less than - and so often not as good, and then when no one wants to go see that movie, then the "logic" is, geez, there's no market for women's films. I could list countless examples of "women's" movies that were not only bad, but insulting to women. (My Super Ex-Girlfriend? AKA the girlfriend from Super Hell vs. the, of course, long-suffering guy. I knew no women who wanted to see that (and we like Uma and Luke as actors).

My point is - the playing field is not equal. Notice they don't say "men's movies." No - there are movies and "women's movies" - which shows how belittling the perceptions are. Sorry, but I don't buy the blanket statement that female leads don't make money. I think it is indicative of a scary group think epitomized by LexG's comment above. And LexG, while I'm sure you are a comfort & joy to the womenfolk in your life, in your comment you have, perhaps unwittingly, channeled what I call the Henry Higgins Effect, which (all too) often whistles down Hollywood hallways. Cue the song: Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man?

But when Rex Harrison sang it, we knew it was meant to be funny.

Seenmy - It wasn't that they were "low budget films." The distinction was not the same in the studio world as it is now.

The studio world was much more like TV - which is a lot more balanced than the film world - is today. The machine knocked out movie after movie and while there were more successful and less successful films, there wasn't the stratification of grosses or costs that there is today. People went to the movies more like they watch TV now... it was a weekly habit and they stayed for more than one feature.

Yes, the mere mention of "women's movies" perpetuates the ghetto. So do "powerful women" lists. So does Nikki's breast beating.

My objection to Nikki's rage blog is not that she is raising the issue of the women's ghetto at the studios... it's the lazy attack on Jeff Robinov as thought he was King Bad Guy when, as I pointed out, he was the most willing to try film's starring women on their own last year in all of StudioLand.

If you want to take it on and you are serious, you need to take on Pascal, Snider and even the late great Gail Berman as well as the others. Disney and Universal have actually been relatively good on this front.

Addressing bias recklessly is as dangerous as most bias... because it is another form of bias.

And yes, I do take it seriously... and I seek to offer a sane response loaded with facts so that people can add a factual base to any emotional response.

I realize that in the past studios knocked out a lot of quick, cheap films, but they also made quality, expensive, even exorbitant blockbuster type films which were highly successful with female leads.

One man's "breast beating" is another person's "refusing to remain silent."

Robinov's decent policy last year doesn't excuse an indecent policy this year, no matter how many preceded him. yes, she could have included a history of prejudicial policy, but as i said, it was a short blog entry on an immediate subject, written for an industry that is mostly aware of this, and don't you hate it when people tell you what/how to write?

So you agreed with what NF said, just not the way she said it. You seemed to imply the opposite by citing Pascal and saying she's "had two great box office years since" and then backing that up with stats, etc.

And agreed, we wouldn't want to address bias recklessly, would we?

(grin)

seenmyverite?

First, I think lower budget movies are better in general. Not just women movies. Partly because you can't just buy your way out of a jam. It must be fixed. Also, I looked back at your previous post and couldn't see any examples of high budget succesful films with women in the lead. Off the top of my head, "Notes on a Scandal" comes to mind of the type of roles I was thinking of.

Second, you say you don't believe the stats, but I fail to see you providing any counter points outside of your belief.

Thirdly, what exactly did Robinov say? D-Po says not to make "pricey" films. Nikki says not to make any films. Very big difference.

It's not that Nikki objects to a dearth of films by, starring, and for women. It's the "fuck him" drama of it all.

THAT is what's dangerous.

THAT is what is misleading by its nature.

And THAT is what is every bit as disingenuous as any dumb comment by an exec. A comment, remember, fed to Nikki by some agent or hack producer with a grudge, repeated out of context, and as of yesterday, denied outright by Robinov's office.

But Nikki was lying even before Robinov said he never said it - she hasn't run that - by running the headline, "Warner's Robinov Bitchslaps Film Women; Gloria Allred Calls For Warner's Boycott."

In fact, in the very piece below that misleading headline, Allred states, ""If that's what he said..." and "If that studio confirms that their policy is to now exclude women as leads, then my policy would be to boycott films made by Warner Bros."

So, in fact, she did not call for a boycott. She made a qualified statement and Nikki went for the Drudge link.

Nikki is irresponsible. And your defense of her in this case - not your argument that there is problem - is irresponsible of you, seenmy. Being on the right side of an issue does not excuse intentionally malicious lies... or for that matter, one sided spin.

DP - i accidently posted my response to you on your more recent blog comment about this.

cadavra, meant to say earlier - kudos to you for showing that saner heads can prevail

hendhogan - I was speaking of earlier decades - maybe the first 50 years of film - from Mary Pickford who dominated the silents, was the first actor (male or female) to earn more than $1 mill a year, was one of the founders of a studio (UA), etc. - to women like Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis, Ingrid Bergman, Judy Garland, Joan Crawford, Katherine Hepburn - who regularly equaled or outperformed men in leading roles. I speak in generalities because I'm no film historian and don't have time to cull the stats on these earlier films. We still have the great actresses - but the roles aren't there like they used to be.

As for more recent films, my point is, they haven't been given equivalent roles in so long, that there's no level playing field to judge it on. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where they first separate out "women's films" - which is bogus and patronizing to start with, and then scale everything down because they assume they won't make money, like advertising, theaters (as Streep pointed out at the Globes), and then when it doesn't go gangbusters, they say it proves the point and ratchet down the opportunities, budgets, advertising, theaters, etc, even more. I remember when How Stella Got Her Groove Back came out, and they were saying it would determine the future for all "black women's films."

As for your last comment, according to NF - "Jeff Robinov has made a new decree that 'We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead'" and she says that's backed by the word of "three different producers." There's no mention of limiting it to "pricey" films - though to me, that would be just as patronizing and unjustified, so it's a moot point.

Is it okay with you, Seenmy, if studios attempt to turn a profit?

I'm not saying they can't all be doing a lot better in the segment. But the idea that not making $80 million-plus films with female leads when female leads are not often able to open and support film to numbers that pay for films that expensive is bias and insulting and patronizing... gee, do you have $150 million to throw at something for "the right reasons?"

Is investing in, say, movies of $30 million and less - with the potential of finding something that needs more money and could be commercial and female dominated - really something insulting?

And why do you keep quoting a gossip monger who spins and twists all the time - and specifically lies in her headlines on this issue, re: Allred - as though it is gospel?

Yes, I imagine that some approximation of this is likely on WB's mind. But not this draconian, not this specific, and not industry-changing.

You want to know when a studio made an $80 million movie based primary on the box office draw of a black actor other than Will Smith or Eddie Murphy? Never. Maybe you should be focusing on that bias, which is far more severe? How about black execs?

Just sayin'...

David, shouldn't Denzel be added to that list? DEJA VU, for one, was not an inexpensive film.

DP,

Regarding focusing on prejudice other than women - I have - I've included other minorities in my argument from the beginning.

So here it is in a nutshell: How many films - small, large, big budget and tentpoles - have failed with male leads, and they acknowledge it was a bad film in whatever way or didn't resonate with the public for whatever reason - but they never say the issue is that the public doesn't like male leads (or white male leads). They will, however, blame the failure of a film on female gender and race (other than white), and that is a very real issue.

Substitute "African Americans" for "female" and we've got the 1920's through the 50's (and beyond). Substitute "communists" and we've got the McCarthy era. Substitute "Jewish" and you end up in the German film industry in the 30's & 40's. (and let's not dilute this topic by digressing into a debate on government politics and WWII, I think you catch my drift.)

You seem to concur, for you call a policy that would exclude female leads "draconian" and "industry-changing." Yet - you also say Pascal and others have done it - quietly - for years w/ financial success. (Contradiction.) You don't doubt Robinov is in favor of this policy - via your CBS link you say "The fact that he may have said it out loud to an agent was probably indiscreet and stupid..." Indeed, above you said it "should-never-have-been-said-out-loud."

And that's my beef with you on this, DP, as I noted from the beginning. To believe that this policy is draconian, but affirm its existence and condone and even admonish that it should be kept quiet and "discreet."

Yet you regularly talk about being straightforward and honest, and not remaining silent. On this issue, you're supporting the polar opposite.

You cannot compare movies from the 40s & 50s to today's movies. Talk about a non-level playing field! Studios controlled distribution through direct ownership of theatres. Actors were contractually obligated to studios whether they worked or not, unlike the free agency we have today. And most importantly, the economics are completely different.

You get insulted and patronized really easily. You are outraged, but you have no sense of context. Yes, it could be as straightforward as NF says it. It could have been an offhand comment while having a drink and blowing steam, with no real intent to follow up with it. Nobody knows and you're assuming a lot based on that.

As far as "women's films" go, you are right. No one says "white, male action films." however, when someone declares "westerns" are dead, they are not referring to black westerns or female westerns. A whole genre is dead. "chick films" is a genre. You can rail against that all you like, but it still is.

And, finally, what if it wasn't said and just done? As Pascal seems to be doing. I hear the rallying cry now. But if Sony (and possibly other studios) have been doing this for YEARS, why haven't you noticed? Where was the call of outrage these past few years?

If you chose to look at this issue through this lens alone, you are in danger of becoming myopic. All failure of female driven films becomes about sex. Soon, there can no longer be a bad film with a female lead. It must be supported for the greater good. It must be supported out of fear (rational or not) that opportunities will decrease if certain films don't succeed.

Seenmy -

I don't know you. I have no idea what your life experience has been. But your position on this is way, way, way over the top. I'm not sure there is more there for us to discuss since your position is so extreme and we split at the top, not the bottom.

It is said that when someone invokes Hitler in a conversation on the web, the conversation is over. Likewise, invoking McCarthyism here is beyond any rational conversation... or race in the pre-Civil Rights days...

You keep narrowing my comments the same way Nikki narrowed hers. And in the process, you are both misquoting me and vilifying me for something I am not saying. That, Seenmy, is exactly the tool of McCarthyism in this town. Are you now or have you ever been a misogynist?

But here – simply as I can put it – is the problem for me. Being paid over $10 million to star in a movie that costs over $80 million, plus a minimum of $60 million in P&A worldwide is not a right. Period. It is a privilege.

Being paid $1 million to star in a movie that costs over $20 million, plus a minimum of $30 million in P&A is not a right. Period. It is a privilege.

You keep laser-focusing in on this notion that Warners or anyone else will have “no female leads” and that, on its face, is absurd.

As dubious as I am about the toughness of questioning in Anne Thompson’s piece in Variety today – and about whether some of the titles mentioned really mean much in this conversation – it does put on the record a number of films with female leads in or about to start production. (Arguing the anti-WB side on this, only the Cameron Diaz picture – and who knows what that deal will really be – is not a boy/girl team or a franchise a la Sex & The City… so WB kind of made the case that they are not in the business of big movies starring women as primary leads, though they also make the case that they are not banishing female stars from the lot.)

The problem with all of this – as it has been from the start – is that someone took a comment made in process - perhaps haphazardly, perhaps blithely, perhaps foolishly – and made it into EVERYTHING. And that just isn’t true. It is a lie. It is the stickiest kind of lie… one that cannot be denied effectively, in part because everyone assumes spin and in part, because on some level it makes perfect sense… that is, until people get hysterical about it (a gender neutral activity).

Not only is Nikki not interested in the full truth of this single comment, but she is certainly uninterested and unwilling to investigate the truth of the whole story. For instance, what happened with Jessica Biel and Justice League? Could it be that her agents wanted to cash in on her run of tabloid fame and the juice that her wearing that suit would bring in and asked for a lot more than the studio was willing to pay? Or did she just hate the script? Does a studio being willing to pay Jessica Biel, who has never opened a movie, $5 million and not over $10 million an issue of sexual bias?

Do you know why Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry) didn’t make a movie for almost nine years after she broke out? Do you know how much money she made without making a movie over that time? Do you know whether she wanted too much, had projects that failed for the same reasons they do for men, whether she was too arty or trying to be too commercial? Do you know any of that? Or is it easier to just sigh and claim sexism is why this female director hasn’t been directing for a long time.

Would it do your heart good to know that Michael Hoffman, who had a lot more experience behind the camera, has had one studio movie since his 1999 Searchlight flop and fought to get one tiny indie made as well? How about Frank Oz, who was hugely commercial, but had two flops after 1999’s Bowfinger and hasn’t made a studio movie since? Or that Julie Taymor keeps going over budget, her two post-1999 movies have flopped, and she fights with the studios in public, but keeps working. How about the maker of the 1999 Searchlight release 20 Dates, Myles Berkowitz… hasn’t made another film. Marc Levin, who made Whiteboyz, released by Searchlight in 1999? He has only made TV and docs since, including the excellent Mr Untouchable, coming out shortly. Sam Miller, who made Among Giants, which had Oscar buzz that year? Back to England for TV only. Mike Barker, who made the very good Reese Witherspoon launcher Best Laid Plans? He’s made some indie films, which Lionsgate has unceremoniously dumped, including the Scarlett Johansson film from last year, A Good Woman.

My point is - and my apologies for singling out Kimberly Pierce - that the more you look at the whole picture, even if you look at narrow strands, the more you realize that every case is its own case.

If you want to be honest, you will have to admit that niche business is a real phenomenon. If Ice Cube can break through on some films, great. But movies about the black community in this country are, in fact, 90%-plus a niche business. Tyler Perry is the biggest in the niche at this point. Will Smith, Eddie Murphy, and Denzel Washington have broken free of the niche.

And with women, you have to know that “Hollywood” desperately WANTS the niche to be broken. They WANT Julia Roberts to be one of the biggest stars in the world…. Because there is a dearth of biggest stars in the world to work with. The more there are, the less leverage their agents have and the more movies that can be made that are more likely to make money. And that is the business.

Robinov took some very expensive shots this year, hoping that Nicole and Jodie could break through as action heroes. And he surely based it on the success of Jodie’s action-y films like Flightplan, Panic Room, and The Silence of The Lambs as well as the international business for The Interpreter, perhaps overlooking the fact that in Europe, it was Sean Penn with the big head in the posters, not Nicole.

And again… by narrowing my points, you try to catch me in some spin, but you are not being fair. Amy Pascal still makes movies with women in them. Eva Mendes works for Sony at least twice a year and if you notice, she is right up there in the ads for We Own The Night this week. She is, for that studio, a straw that stirs the drink. What she doesn’t do is get to be the primary lead in an expensive film.

Now… as she cashes her $5 million paychecks… is that sexist? Is that a ghetto? Her star keeps rising… they see her as a key part of their male-lead pictures… and they know that she has her limits as the central selling point. Is there a problem with that?

Do you prefer Kate Beckinsale in a skin-tight rubber suit as the lead of a boy-oriented action movie that cost a fraction of what, say, Hitch did? Is her objectification empowering? Did you feel good about her being The Girl opposite Adam Sandler in Click?

And yes, I’m sure there are a dozen more contradictions in all of this. That is the point. If you wanted to find an Issue of The Day in Hollywood, you could find one every single day.

And when you are busy raising Nikki to the feminist rafters for “outing” Jeff Robinov, do you ever wonder why she hasn’t “reported” senior execs at studios having extramarital affairs with their subordinates? Aren’t those women being victimized, at the very least by reputation? And wouldn’t Gloria Allred have something pithy to propose in those cases?

But Nikki, like most people in this town, is picking her spots, navigating her relationships, and slamming when she thinks it’s in her best interest. Well played for her, I am sure… but the truth is the first casualty of those relationships… or on a more subdued note, the effort to try to find some truth in the muck.

David, David, David ...

You just dug yourself a hole you're not going to be able to rationalize your way out of dude. Oh, David ... so sad.

YES David…
we CAN only accuse others of what we are guilty of ourselves.

And YES, it IS true!
I was "attacking" you.

( - just like I accused you of doing ... when I accused YOU of attacking Nikki.)

and YOU?
YOU are OBSESSED with NIKKI ... (you silly boy!)

Just like you accused me of ... when you decided that I must be obsessed with you.)

OUCH!
You ACT like a girl Dave,
but you're way too fat for my taste...

(In fact - both of you are.)

Cause I only obsess on healthy young women ... not orange tanned, over the hill, Robert Evan sunglass wearing “entertainment rehashing gossipers” like you.

(Because "gossiping" is what you accused Nikki of right???)

And you can only accuse others of what you're guilty of...

So let her go dude, let her go! You can’t have her. It's so sad - (and you can never be like her). But I’m sure she will always miss you...

and weep for you.

Her one, true, obsesser...

(just think back to everything you have accused her of Dave. That's what is hiding ... deep inside of you.)

Whatnokiss, you're Nikki Finke, right?

god, i hope not. that's horrible writing

Vagina Prologues

I realize that by mentioning hot button issues like McCarthyism I was making it easy for you to sweep away my whole argument. I was, of course, talking about policies that deny opportunity to an entire segment of a population - policies that promote sexism or racism. It has happened before. (that better?) So now you've back-peddled from your initial standpoint, which was not revelatory, that there are these unstated policies in Hollywood regarding sex and race (if the terms sexist and racist are too hot for you). And fine, you can now tally up exceptions and cover your bases. Done.

So now what's your point? Hollywood is the home of the white male movie and if there happens to be a woman or black woman or black man or Asian or purple polka-dotted bichon frise in it, it's "niche" and suddenly its success or failure ties into the preferences of the entire female sex or race (other than white), which will be sent to the hinterlands if it doesn't successfully play box office bingo? Isn't that the company line? (women are half the population, but they're "niche" and men aren't. hmmm....)

We're talking about perceptions that shape policies, and in this case, denigrating perceptions. As soon as movies are greenlit as "women's films" - which Robinov's PR posse has done with aplomb in today's Variety puff piece, then the petard has been hoisted - and WB's arse is covered. Cause you know how prickly and temperamental those women audiences are! (and girls! fuggetaboudid!) And what about black women?! Who the hell knows?! So what if the movie was written, directed and reviewed by men - daggone it, there's a woman in it, so it's her fault - that is, hers and all "her kind"! And hey, that one there was directed by a woman, so you can't say we didn't try! (Ah, the long-suffering male amongst prickly women, the subject of so many films, like The Heartbreak Kid... why didn't women flock to that? duh... but I digress...)

So WB's scapegoat is now set with the Vagina Prologue - an entire sex prepared to be sacrificed, but Robinov is covered. (Whew!) If the movies do poorly, he will look like the swell (long-suffering) guy who did his darndest. (whose chorus you have already sung.)

And now, let it be known this day to all various and sundry personages! We hold these truths to be self evident - that the race of white males are endowed by their Studio with certain unalienable Rights. They will continue to be absolved from blame and will not be held accountable if any movie with white male leads sinks at the box office. We solemnly swear to continue seeking some other reason for its failure - the timing of the release, the competition, the marketing, the poster, the subject, the director, the writer, the pacing, the actor (hey, just a slump!), the accents, not funny enough, the lack of chemistry, the women that refused to go with their boyfriends, too risky (ooh, you were so courageous to try!), the social climate, the political climate, the actual climate (snowstorm in the East!), the Super Bowl, etc. But you will never, ever, hear anything like the words "we are reducing (or eliminating) our slate of white male movies." Promise.

Amen.

Or is that - Ah! men!

wow, hyperbole much?

gee hendhogan, i had you pegged as someone with a sense of humor. lighten up.

Seenmy... cute, but false on the face of it.

Do you think that Robinov is greenlighting a Billy Bob Thornton movie anytime soon after The Astronaut Farmer and New Line's Mr Woodcock?

Do you think that Chris Rock will see the top line of a studio movie anytime soon after I Think I Love My Wife did $12 million?

How hard will it be/has it been to get a studio to roll the dice on Viggo Mortensen?

Have you noticed that Terrence Howard is playing supporting roles coming off of his Best Actor nod, even more so after Pride flopped?

Do you think that "they" are not worrying about Clive Owen after Shoot 'Em Up and whether Daniel Craig means a dollar if he's not Bond and how much Ben Stiller is worth on his own after The Heartbreak Kid?

Do you realize how many bombs Nicole Kidman was in before they greenlit The Invasion? The only $100 million domestic movie in her entire career was Batman Forever over a decade ago!

And YOU... you keep spinning what I am saying. I have ripped on Jeff Robinov in public more than any other reporter in Hollywood. I pushed and pushed and pushed on the summer of disaster last year while the NY Times bent over to his self-serving spin. So if you want to know where I stand, you better look at more than one frickin' story.

Failure or success at WB is an issue that will continue to be reported in my work - as it long has been - based on what actually happens, not on concerns about bias. Bias is an issue, but it is a separate issue.

The failure of The Invasion is much more on Robinov's shoulders than Nicole Kidman's. No one with a brain has ever said otherwise. The studio had so many problems with the film that they lost whatever mojo they had and it essentially became a dumped film. However, that doesn't make Nicole Kidman a stronger opener than she actually is.

And while we are discussing my history, please look back at my work on Kidman's career, where I gave her more credit than most for the opening of The Stepford Wives and Bewitched, even though they opened and dropped like a stone. But Bewitched was a step backwards and the studio sold Will Ferrell more than Kidman. She is what The Invasion showed her to be... about a $5 million opening star in a studio movie. I will give her every dime of The Invasion's opening. That seems pretty fair.

Anyway... this is exactly what I keep talking about. The nature of the gossip that Nikki sells as "scoops" is that it reduces us all to stereotypes. And once there, people like you, who are obviously intellegent, just keep hammering away so anything I say is A Defense Of The Hollywood Male.

Enough already. I've been shredding stupidity in this town for a decade, but I will not stoop to being a gossip monger to hype myself.

Nikki is not a serious journalist. She is a serous self-promoter and a world class hater. And in the end, I really don't think she knows the difference.

This is a person who writes about how she doesn't put off-the-record things on the record and then details every off-the-record conversation she had in order to make herself seem more powerful. Grow fucking up.

"hyperbole much?" is heavy?

"hyperbole much?" is heavy?

DP - note that my last paragraph above addressed the entirety of white males (through Hollywood eyes), not individuals. Your answer proved my point - that if a film fails with a male lead, the studios might blame the individual actor - BUT - they will not cast aspersions on the wisdom of making more male lead films - that is, on the entire gender. Not so with women (and minorities/race).

This issue, and these stereotypes, weren't created by NF - they've been around a lot longer than that, but seems you're having a hard time separating the two. And I don't want to talk about NF.

I haven't meant to rile you with my observations on this issue. When you say you care about women in Hollywood, I'd like to think it's not just lipservice, and that is why I question you. If I had no respect for you, I wouldn't care what your stand was, and I wouldn't be reading your blog. I like to think your blog is 4-quadrant friendly. Though I realize it can also be the internet equivalent of a wild west saloon, where testosterone is thrown around as much as intelligence. But still, you tend to anchor the intelligence, and that's not common in the entertainment blogosphere.

So look, there's no need to get defensive. Any woman who gives a darn about films and unfair stereotypes is going to care about this issue. Hopefully some men will, also. Like you.

hendhogan - you're one of those who prove this is not just a saloon, and who's been willing to discuss the issues with me in a rational manner. my hat's off to you.

heckfire, little lady, all part of the service.

and ah am so verra, verra grateful...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: