Funny ladies of Hollywood discuss getting "old"
Did you know that Amy Poehler played Rachel McAdams' mother, even though she's only eight years older? Or that, sigh, she and Sarah Silverman were both tapped to play Jonah Hill's mother? Listen as these great ladies discuss what it means to be over a certain age. (Like magazines that don't feature women over 35 years old. Seriously.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Funny ladies of Hollywood discuss getting "old".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15108
I was shocked and PISSED OFF that Winona Ryder played the mom of Zachary Quinto (Spock) in the new Star Trek film. They even gave her fake gray hair and fake wrinkles. WTF? I thought it had to be a joke. She doesn't even have any kids in real life!
Or how about Cameron Diaz playing a mom of 2 teenagers and 1 kid in "My Sister's Keeper"???? Um yeah, right. Most women with teenaged kids are usually in their 40s.
so fucking pathetic.
Cameron Diaz is 36. Lots of 36 year old women are the parents of two teenagers, just as lots are not. Certainly every woman I'm descended from that I've ever met was the parent of at least two teenagers when she was 36. It's perfectly believable.
aahh, okay. I still don't buy it. My mom was in her early 40s when I was in high school, as I knew many other teenagers with 40something years old mothers.
Sure, that's also very common. But my mother was the parent of two teenagers when she was thirty-six (for a week, from when my sister turned thirteen until my mother turned thirty-seven, but still), and it was also pretty common. My experience of the commonness was probably exacerbated by living in the kind of neighbourhoods you might live in if you were poor because you had children when you were very young, and most of my friends' parents were offset from them 15-20 years in age.
There're probably class components and whatnot (if you have kids pretty young, you'll be fairly poor, so if you weren't fairly poor growing up, you probably didn't see a lot of kids with younger parents), but it's not uncommon at all. In high school, most people had parents in their mid thirties to mid fifties. Any representation within there is pretty reasonable. A representation doesn't need to be the most common configuration to be reasonable. Common (and even uncommon) configurations all should be included. Your family's configuration isn't more valid than mine, say, only equally as valid.
I'm with Brian here. We have to watch out for class and regional variance in when children are born. I was also born to a poor mother...and she turned 19 a month before I was born. Which means I was out of my teens before she even hit 40.
I was in the Army and most of the parents I came across in the Army where married by 18 and had their first child in the 18-19 time frame.
As a matter of fact, people were very concerned that by 21 I had not yet married nor had kids. I was concerned they might figure out I was queer and put me in prison. But I have a "fiance" back home as a cover.
Yes, but even you said this would not be a common thing to see if you were not poor or growing up around others who were poor. The mothers in the movies these women are slated to play in are supposed to be middle to upper class women. Not to mention that telling movie goers that 16 is a good age to have kids at is just not culturally healthy, AT ALL.
If a 36 year old has kids at 20, they'd have a 16 year old teenager. Many, many people have kids at 18, 19, 20, 21.
Having a 36 year old with teenagers is not the same as saying people should be having kids at 16.
True... but I didn't say anything about women who were 36 specifically, though I know the previous poster did. I was talking about the apparent age difference between the women playing teenagers and people in their twenties and the women portraying their mothers. (IE Rachel McAdams and Amy Polher) Even Cameron Diaz who just recently played a young newly wed is now in theaters as a mother of two...
Anyway my main point is in the comment I left below. :)
I'm also not saying that middle to upper class women CAN'T or DON'T get pregnant in their teens, that's not true at all (Bristol Palin anyone?) I wanted to make that clear. I'm just saying that while teen pregnancy may be more common than we think, it's not the norm and shouldn't be portrayed as such.
I also didn't want this to detract from what these women are complaining about - these women are NOT OLD! They still relate to the parts of characters who are still in the heat of life, and yet they are being placed into the parts of women who are at the end of their lives - women with whom men are "revolted" at the thought of sleeping with.
... Any one else notice how these movies (the one Christina was talking about and the one with Jonah Hill) sound like more of the plethora of bromance comedies we've had? I was particularly offended at the description of the prior flick. It sounds like this movie will be one that (once again) trivializes rape and sends the message that older women are disgusting and asexual. Meanwhile older MEN are told that they are ALWAYS sexual and ALWAYS sexy, and that they should sow their seed at any age! (Even though now it's been proven that medical disorders such as down syndrome are linked to men who fathered these children at an older age.)
If you're poor because you're young, it's quite common to stop being poor when you stop being young.
Again, I may be normalising to my own experiences, but it's not so freakish or outlandish that one need to denigrate the idea.
I don't think I was denigrating the idea, and I never said it was freakish or outlandish or even implied that it was. I do think teen pregnancy is a negative thing, but I realize you were referring to women slighter older than that. My only point was that I feel the complaint that such young women be playing mothers on TV and movies to women not much younger than themselves is valid, regardless of the existence or commonality of young mothers. Today - MOST women are having their children between 25 and 35 (MY mother had me at 42) the national average being 25.
Just because your mom was in her 40's when you were in high school, doesn't mean that experience is universal. That's like me saying "My mom was 36 when I was 18, and that's my experience, so it must be true for everyone." and that would just be silly.
Just because your mom was in her 40's when you were in high school, doesn't mean that experience is universal. That's like me saying "My mom was 36 when I was 18, and that's my experience, so it must be true for everyone." and that would just be silly.
Just because your mom was in her 40's when you were in high school, doesn't mean that experience is universal. That's like me saying "My mom was 36 when I was 18, and that's my experience, so it must be true for everyone." and that would just be silly.
I think the problem is really more about the ways in which mothers are portrayed on screen.
I tend to find that there are two kinds, the "sexy" young mother who is still considered vibrant and lively, and then the "naggy" older mother who seems out of touch or controlling. Why is there never anything in between?
I'm not familiar with "My Sister's Keeper," but I imagine Diaz's character falls into the former category, while a woman like Diane Keaton plays roles that almost always fall in the latter.
good point about the two types of mothers, I've noticed that in TV shows and movies, too. It's pretty annoying.
On the plus side, Amy Poehler's character in Mean Girls is a no-holds-barred satire of the young, fun, "sexy" moms portrayed elsewhere.
But that's because Tina Fey is, um, fucking awesome.
Who cares? They're ACTORS -meaning they are paid handsomely to pretend to be something they are not. The only person who has any right to complain would be Winona Ryder.
I didn't see Sean Connery bitching about playing Indiana Jones' father -even though Connery is only twelve years older than Harrison Ford. If John Wayne, Dean Martin and Michael Anderson can play brothers in The Sons of Katie Elder (John Wayne and Michael Anderson were born 36 years apart), why not Cameron Diaz as the mother of teenagers?
"who cares"? Then why are you even reading this thread about actresses complaining about playing even older roles? If you don't care, then don't read this and go read something else.
I'd love to see Feministing address this cultural erasure of women older than 35 by having more voices here who were, well, older than 35. The online feminist blogsphere doesn't seem to give much space for voices that aren't young, white, cis, and of a certain type of academic standing. Linking to articles or videos about an issue is one thing, but not then seeing how many of those same dynamics play out in your own world is what privilege is made of.
The truth is most people who blog are younger than 25, it's hard to get people to blog on your site as it is - so really the only thing you can do is EXACTLY what they've done here... post videos and blogs about the topics that attract the readership you speak of.
Interesting the lack of color sitting at that table. Granted it is the Emmy Roundtable, but still. Damn
Am I the only Feminist on here that doesn't feel a constant need to point out what someone has done wrong/didn't do well enough?
No, you're definitely not the only white feminist to tell people of colour, trans women, etc., that they shouldn't point out when they're excluded from feminist discourse...
I sometimes just feel like a lot of the commenters on this site are very hateful towards other commenters. Every post (especially in the community section) has at least 3 commenters that leave something along the lines of "what you did/said/posted was good, but not good enough". Half the time I'm terrified to post something, for fear that I'll have half a dozen people attack me.
I guess you can't please everyone.
It's not about pleasing everyone - it's about offering a different perspective. Exploring or adding to what a poster may have said (or not said) isn't "hateful." People aren't attacking you when they're giving a different viewpoint.
The fact that there are no women of color on a panel discussing women's issues is *extremely* valid.
After all, what's the point of intellectual discourse if you're just going to take an opinion, label it "good enough," and call it a day?
This is a tone argument. Oh no! Those people of colour and trans women are being mean to me!!!
You privilege is showing.
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
I am sure there are resources on tone arguments people might link for you, or you could take the initiative and educate yourself.
This is not helpful nor is it constructive. The site you list is a site for mocking people, not helping them. No person you may want to read this site will do so, or will not take away from it what you want then to because of the 'tone' it takes.
If you want people to see the world in a different light, how about sharing your world view with them in an inclusive way, rather than perpetuating exclusivity? I agree that Katy's comment might have shown a little naivete, but it does us no good as women to belittle each other or to dismiss one person's problem as less than another's.
I agree that Sabrina's comment should not be dismissed - as I said to her, there ARE no women of color here, because there are VERY little women of color in Hollywood, the very point I think she was trying to make. But I no more think her opinion should be dismissed because it is about color, than the opinions of the women in this video should be dismissed just because they are all white. Isn't the purpose of sites like Feministing to bring us together, to discuss and broaden our views of our SHARED pains as women? Maybe instead of putting each other down as society intends us to do, we should be helping each other up to higher and different planes of thought.
Seriously? You're responding to a link to a site explaining derailing with a tone argument. Good lord the privilege runs thick at Feministing.
It might not be useful to you, but that's a very useful site for people who are interested in understanding their privilege and fixing it.
And, while we're at it, you might want to look at the entry for Don't You Have More Important Issues To Think About.
Dismissing all the other points I made by simply saying I am 'privileged' is a cop out. You have no idea what my financial standing is, nor what color or creed I am, and you shouldn't pretend to. I don't assume these things about other readers, and neither should you. I went to the page, I read it, and regardless of if the information is 'helpful' or not, the fact stands that it's condescending and superior. So what, because I disagree with you and with not the content of this site, but with the way in which it is presented, I am privileged? Sorry I'm not persuaded. It seems to me you should practice what you preach.
If you're defending a white woman's right to dismiss the concerns about the lack of representation of women of colour - which is what you're doing - that is privilege. I don't need a demographic profile of you.
Just because you think tone arguments aren't a real derailing tactic doesn't make it so, and your investment in that idea is, again, privilege.
About your other points - do you think people of colour don't already KNOW there isn't representation in Hollywood? 'Educating' someone to that point to deflect the discussion of it is, once again, privilege.
Katy, take note I never attacked Jessica for not being "good enough" (whatever that means) or posting what is an actually awesome video. I just think it's interesting the lack of women of color included on a dialogue about older women comedic actresses in Hollywood. It's a valid point and I'm tired of seeing media that does not account for the fact that America is a country of many races and backgrounds.
Secondly, I'm not a hateful commenter, in fact this is only my SECOND comment I've ever posted on Feministing (so, welcome to the neighborhood?).
I get tired of seeing media that misrepresents women or provides unidimensional cardboard cutouts of women. But hey, at least as a White woman I get a placeholder. Sort of a nod of acknowledgment that, although I'm not worth the bother to understand or appeal to, at least they'll acknowledge I exist. It must be a first-rate bummer not to even get that.
Katy, the whole process of demanding rights and change is all about pointing out what isn't good enough! By its very definition, being an activist involves pointing these things out. I find it odd you'd visit a social justice webpage and then complain about this.
As for your complaint that commenters in the community section disagree - who the hell wants to read a bunch of, "I agree!" comments? We all have different perspectives and beliefs to share, that's what I come here to read, not an echo chamber of praise.
Probably.
Am I the only Feminist on here that doesn't feel a constant need to point out what someone has done wrong/didn't do well enough?
I agree with you... there is a lack of color here. But how many comedic women are there in the same age bracket that are the same level of fame as these women who are of color? (There's not that many famous comedic WOMEN.) Hollywood's GENERAL lack of color is nothing new, so I think the real issue here is an older, bigger problem that's showing it's face (or not, as the case may be) in a smaller sampling of women.
Good points on all fronts but Mo'nique is a comedic black woman whose new movie Precious is getting amazing reviews and award buzz. Also, Margaret Cho, Wanda Sykes.
Thought you would find this interesting re: this debate. From 2004, feature on a Muslim woman comic
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/09/21/mirza/index.html
Yesss I forgot about Margaret Cho! She's one of my favorite comedians... though she is pretty well known I don't think she nor Shazia Mirza are on the same level of fame as these these women. I had never even heard of the latter but I'm very interested after reading this article to see her stand up!
So yeah, I mean like I said there are SOME hilarious women out there, but given Hollywood's predominately white population, and add the fact that women aren't seen to be as funny as men, it doesn't surprise me that people of color are exluded from most Hollywood round table discussions. :/ (I'm sure you've also noticed that most hollywood movies that DO feature more than a couple black actors are geared specifically for black audiences? As opposed to movies with white people where their race isn't a facor, and are marketed to the general public. As if being white was the 'default.' I loved I Am Legend for the fact that Will Smith's character had originally been white, but the movie starred him as a black man and was an action movie meant for the main market.)
Oh and about men being funnier... as much as I loved the first 3 or 4 bromance movies that came out, anchorman, wedding crashers, 40 year old virgin, etc... There's only so much of 'boys behaving badly' that I can take. It's just the same joke over and over and over.
But neither Mo'Nique, Wanda Sykes, nor Margaret Cho are the lead actors in a network comedy. The only POC I can think of who is the lead actor in an network comedy is America Ferrera...but she wasn't nominated for an emmy this year.
If you go over to basic cable and expand to dramas, you can get some POC representation: Jada Pinkett-Smith in HawthoRNe, Edward James Olmos in Battlestar Galactica...but they aren't being nominated for Emmys either. (Well, Jada Pinkett-Smith isn't yet eligible).
The lack of color at that table has a lot more to do with an overall racist problem in hollywood that goes beyond that one round table discussion.
My brother and I were recently looking at a list of best comedy Emmy Award winners, and there's a huge lack of color. There hasn't been a best comedy winner featuring a person of color in a leading role since The Cosby Show in 1985.
Perhaps people of color aren't funny? /sarcasm
Actually, I wonder when the last Best Drama winner lead by a POC was?
Does Lost count? Lost won in 2005. I think there's at least one POC, but I don't know who counts as a lead actor/actress on that show.
Wow. 6 amazing, smart, funny women I love all at the same table? I would love to watch that group discuss for hours!
What I don't get is that in shows about adults that aren't "family shows" the women don't have kids until they're over 30 but in most shows about teenagers they have mothers under 45.
What I don't get is that in shows about adults that aren't "family shows" the women don't have kids until they're over 30 but in most shows about teenagers they have mothers under 45.
Because apparently older women are ugly and unattractive, and no one wants to look at them so they shouldn't be on tv or in movies.
That was sarcasm by the way.
I think I know what script they're talking about in the clip, I believe it is this:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994936.html?categoryid=1238&cs=1&query=cougar+town
""Cougar Town" comes as the idea of the "cougar" — a middle-aged woman who pursues younger men — continues to resonate through pop culture. "
It may not be that project, but that'd be my best guess. Not exactly a wildly feminist title, even if the merits of older women being viewed as attractive (or wanting to be seen as sex objects) can be debated.
Anyway, as far as women and women of color succeeding in hollywood... it's not pretty. My hope is to remind everyone that the women in this clip, their careers are a product of the last fifteen years or so, and with progress being made across the board on civil rights issues, growing acceptance of gay marriage, of a certain president, of the growing prominence of transpeople, and lots on the ground work I'm forgetting, that perhaps the next fifteen years or so will be better. I can hope. But.
Here's a cursory google search, turning up this page:
http://www.now.org/issues/media/women_in_media_facts.html
"Movies and Primetime TV: Women Missing Behind the Scenes
Women comprised just 15 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films in 2007. A shocking 21 percent of films released in 2007 employed NO women in any of these roles. Zero films failed to employ a man in at least one of these roles.
Women made up 26 percent of the creators, executive producers, producers, writers, directors, editors and directors of photography during the 2007-08 television primetime season."
It is a sad reality that women are not currently a driving force of the entertainment industry: most executives are men, and white men at that. And its an industry so fascinated with its own perpetuation based on nepotism and helping out friends, that the 85% of mostly white men end up helping a new generation of mostly white men take up the torch.
There is a supposed truism in Hollywood that the money, the real box office money, comes from the so-called heartland of America, places with far less racial diversity (i dont mean to generalize, but sometimes also less tolerance) than the coastal cities where most of the stuff is actually made. But then there are successful exceptions to appeals to white audiences-only: Tyler Perry, for instance, has created a whole franchise from his works with only a 6% white audience, last I checked.
The market is out there, but I think that for too long women and minorities both have put up with fare that only marginally caters to their life experiences, and is mostly written, directed, and produced by white men. The trouble is, current hollywood producers won't risk giving a lot of new filmmakers of color a chance unless they are sure of a market, while the market won't appear until it finds the right movie or tv series from someone who shares their life experiences. Something of a catch-22.
I think I know what script they're talking about in the clip, I believe it is this:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994936.html?categoryid=1238&cs=1&query=cougar+town
""Cougar Town" comes as the idea of the "cougar" — a middle-aged woman who pursues younger men — continues to resonate through pop culture. "
It may not be that project, but that'd be my best guess. Not exactly a wildly feminist title, even if the merits of older women being viewed as attractive (or wanting to be seen as sex objects) can be debated.
Anyway, as far as women and women of color succeeding in hollywood... it's not pretty. My hope is to remind everyone that the women in this clip, their careers are a product of the last fifteen years or so, and with progress being made across the board on civil rights issues, growing acceptance of gay marriage, of a certain president, of the growing prominence of transpeople, and lots on the ground work I'm forgetting, that perhaps the next fifteen years or so will be better. I can hope. But.
Here's a cursory google search, turning up this page:
http://www.now.org/issues/media/women_in_media_facts.html
"Movies and Primetime TV: Women Missing Behind the Scenes
Women comprised just 15 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films in 2007. A shocking 21 percent of films released in 2007 employed NO women in any of these roles. Zero films failed to employ a man in at least one of these roles.
Women made up 26 percent of the creators, executive producers, producers, writers, directors, editors and directors of photography during the 2007-08 television primetime season."
It is a sad reality that women are not currently a driving force of the entertainment industry: most executives are men, and white men at that. And its an industry so fascinated with its own perpetuation based on nepotism and helping out friends, that the 85% of mostly white men end up helping a new generation of mostly white men take up the torch.
There is a supposed truism in Hollywood that the money, the real box office money, comes from the so-called heartland of America, places with far less racial diversity (i dont mean to generalize, but sometimes also less tolerance) than the coastal cities where most of the stuff is actually made. But then there are successful exceptions to appeals to white audiences-only: Tyler Perry, for instance, has created a whole franchise from his works with only a 6% white audience, last I checked.
The market is out there, but I think that for too long women and minorities both have put up with fare that only marginally caters to their life experiences, and is mostly written, directed, and produced by white men. The trouble is, current hollywood producers won't risk giving a lot of new filmmakers of color a chance unless they are sure of a market, while the market won't appear until it finds the right movie or tv series from someone who shares their life experiences. Something of a catch-22.
You know, I really like this site but the comments section is starting to really get on my nerves.
The first half of the comments for this post had little to do with the subject matter. It was just a bunch of snippy, snarky nonsense. And I certainly am not coming from my "privedge"--none of you know whether I'm a "privilged" member of society or not (or whether I'm a mix of both--which I would assume a lot of posters are). None of us really know the truth about each other. And, of course, there are some who lie about who they are.
I like the posts and sometimes the comments are thought-provoking. But REALLY--some of you need to re-think of how you're perpetuating the stereotype of women's dialogue as cat-fighting and that women can't get along or work together.
These complaints might be a little more convincing if many of these women hadn’t burned the candle at both ends in their youth, under the strange belief that their bodies, unlike those of every woman before them, would not be affected by their behavior.
You know what, ladies, smoking is NOT GOOD FOR YOUR SKIN. (And regardless of what crap you may read in High Times, smoking marijuana also generates the same carcinogens). Neither is lots of sunlight good for your skin. Neither is drinking, too little sleep, ecstasy/meth/cocaine.
If your 35-yr old face looks like that of a 45-yr old, don't be surprised when you are asked to play 45-yr old.
It is quite possible for women in their forties and fifties to look as lovely as any women in their twenties — heck I know some. But these are women who care about their bodies and minds, and who live healthy lives; they are not the party animal Hollywood set.
By saying that middle-aged (and older) women should strive to look like someone in their twenties, you're reinforcing the standard of beauty that already exists.
Obviously smoking and drugs take a toll on one's skin. Sunlight does, too. So does living in an urban environment. Are women supposed to revert to parasols and white silk gloves every time we step outdoors, for fear of turning into a wrinkly "hag" (as those ladies so hilariously put it) in our later years? Should we avoid smiling so we don't get crow's feet around our pretty little eyes? Should women who work and live in urban areas pack up and move to the country to escape all that uglifying pollution?
I realize this is a gross exaggeration, but that's the way I think your logic's going and I needed to say something before we start wearing bustles again.
I suggested a long litany of things, pretty much all under one's control, that make one look older. I did not mention whether looking older is more or less attractive.
As for putting on a hat when outside --- well, yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. I (a man, as I assume you guessed) wear one whenever I plan to be outside for more than a few minutes, as do plenty of people in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Likewise for "broad" sun glasses that cover as much of the face as possible. I have a pair of arm-length gloves that I keep in the car and wear when driving to protect my arms from the sun, and I would urge everyone else to do likewise.
I've no idea why you think mocking the idea of "revert to parasols and white silk gloves" is some sort of powerful argument against my statements. Is taking care of your body some sort of anti-feminist stance? And why bring up the issue of bustles --- a bustle has nothing to do with maintaining health, unlike garments that protect from the sun.
Obviously there is little one can do about urban pollution; fortunately, however, for those of us in the US and Western Europe (as opposed to say large parts of Asia) that is a very minor effect, as opposed to all the much larger issues that are under our control.
Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't edit my post as well as I should have. To clarify:
I don't have a problem with the idea of taking care of your body. I think it's a completely valid argument. Re-reading my post, it does seem like I'm arguing that women shouldn't try to take care of their bodies, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.
This phrase, however, gives me pause: "It is quite possible for women in their forties and fifties to look as lovely as any women in their twenties". That does seem like an indication of where the beauty standard--though not necessarily YOUR beauty standard--lies, age-wise.
I really don't mean to attack you personally (Lord knows there's enough of that in the Feministing comments section ;] ), but I think the notion that your comment brings up--that women should preserve their bodies, not only for health reasons, but to look as "lovely" as a twenty-year-old--is a prevalent one in our society and something that feminists should be talking about.
Why are many older women turning to Botox and plastic surgery? Methinks they're trying to counteract the inevitability of appearing older, an inevitability that simply isn't honored or even appreciated in most societies.
Thoughts?
Not to dismiss the way that Hollywood overlooks talented women of a certain age...but here's another perspective.
I've been acting since I was young, and I've always been told that it's a compliment to play someone older than you are. Some of the finest acting I've ever seen was a twenty-year-old playing an 80-year-old woman and a forty-year-old playing a woman in her early seventies. It would be false to say that these roles are given to these actresses based only on their looks. It requires talent to inhabit a character--ESPECIALLY when that character is older than you actually are.