The Dark Knight: and the Ladies (update)

In taking apart Monica Corcoran's disastrous attempt at gender-based humor about The Dark Knight, Why Women Can't Handle The Dark Knight, I was missing the most important piece of information: the percentage of The Dark Knight's audience that was actually female. I knew Warner Brothers knew or would know, but they hadn't released it yet. Here you are: 48%

If you account for the fact that guys will most likely devote their attention to the new Batmovie, no matter how atrocious, I think this means that The Dark Knight actually has greater appeal for women. Were it a placeholder Batman movie, I would have expected the gender breakdown to be 60-40 or worse. In order to overcome such a skewed result, this movie must have really, really appealed to women. Women, that is, who don't like Diet Coke.

The Dark Knight: and The Ladies (Room)

You'll probably find this a bit hard to believe, but Monica Corcoran of the Los Angeles Times has proposed that women don't like The Dark Knight because...it's too long for them to watch without having to get up and pee. Here's a sample quote from "Why Women Can't Handle The Dark Knight":

"Clearly, the director of "The Dark Knight" and the auteurs behind other interminable fan boy action movies such as "Iron Man" (126 minutes) don't know that a woman's bladder is about the size of a salted cocktail peanut. Men have bladders that are walnut-sized. And those very gals, after silently praying that the Joker will die or Batman will retire or everyone will just perish en masse and the movie will end, tend to be seated in the centers of theater rows."

I have a had time even taking this argument to pieces. It's so stupid, and has already been so savaged, that it seems pointless. I'll do it anyway, but my heart's not in it.

1. Women can't handle The Dark Knight? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. I must have been mistaken.

2. Monica asks: "Ever drink a gallon of Diet Coke and sit for two hours with your legs crossed? Oh and then -- just when it seems like Gotham is safe and credits will roll -- suffer through another 32 minutes of clenching your nether region muscles?" A comment on her site asks: "Why don't you just NOT drink a gallon of diet coke?" Well Monica, I'm gonna go with Kelly on this one: that sounds like a personal problem to me.

3. Monica describes Iron Man as an interminable fan boy action movie (126 minutes). Look Monica, first of all, the fanboys don't like Iron Man - he was a big jerk and mean to Cap. Didn't you read Civil War? Secondly, if you found Iron Man interminable, it wasn't because it was 126 minutes. That's about 10 minutes longer than the average move. If that ten minutes is gonna kill you, you'll have to avoid roughly 40% of all movies.

4. Monica seems to think the length of a movie is directly proportional to how guy-centric it is. Oops. Oops. 238 minute-long Quadruple Oops.

Look, I'm a guy, and I like many stereotypically guy movies. I also like many stereotypically girl movies, and I've tried to use this blog as a place to talk about the now century long handicapping of female stars, female audiences, and above all female creators.

When something like this is published, it embarrasses not only its author, but all of us who would like sexist and regressive thinking to go out the window. In a perfect universe, Monica Corcoran would get fired. But all I've got is this blog, so I make it clear that she's just an idiot. It's the best I can do.

A Straight Guy's Cinematic Homoeroticism

For those of you who are still hoping for it: no, this is not the post where I renounce my marriage and my heterosexuality, and switch this blog over to a fan-Yaoi* site featuring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. I am sorry. That post is still several years away, at least.

But this is an attempt to explain and situate the reasons why I spend very little time valorizing the female figure and more than a little time mentioning that Christian Bale is hot. I'll divide this into two parts: I. Why I don't obsess over the cinematic female figure.
II. Why I do obsess over the cinematic male figure.

Ia. It just feels juvenile: Sure, Megan Fox in Transformers is about the hottest thing I have ever seen (and no, that's not dirty- she's not much younger than I am. She just played a high schooler). But if I spent time talking about/posting about/leering over how hot Megan Fox was, then I'm pretty sure I would feel like I was 12 years old. If others wish to do so, that's fine...but it just rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, I could look at that all day long. I'd feel pretty bad about myself, though

Ib: It's misogynist/objectifying: This one, surely, is obvious to everyone. Now, certainly, there are male actors who have been chosen purely for their looks, and who feel bad about being objectified that way; Burt Lancaster started his own production company just to get some roles where he could keep his shirt on. But those male figures are relatively rare. On the other hand, I would say that over half of female Hollywood stars and starlets are viewed as sex objects first, and then actors and/or people second. And talking about how hot Megan Fox is is only a few steps away from chasing Britney Spears with a camera and ruining her life.

Oh Burt, put your shirt on

This leads to a corollary: except for the occasional shot that Craig Ferguson shows of Jack Nicholson shirtless, male movie stars are generally allowed to age. The women, on the other hand, are hounded into plastic surgery, then mocked for getting plastic surgery. I'd rather not be part of that cycle.


Ic. It encourages bad acting: Sure, there are guys who get cast just because they're pretty. But there's a long history of less than super good-looking guys (Spencer Tracy, Robert DeNiro, etc) being major Hollywood stars, as well as a long tradition of pretty boys (Pitt and Clooney, for recent examples) who get their break because of looks but, through hard work and (one presumes) outside pressure, eventually back up their looks with great acting.

I don't really know of either of these traditions for the ladies. Instead, the cult of female attractiveness leads casting people to scour the modeling agencies for fresh, talentless faces, which it tosses in front of the camera just to put leering men in the seats. And maybe some of those faces would pan out with actual acting ability...but the life of a Hollywood leading lady is desperately short, and they usually get thrown on the junk heap before we find out if they can act or not. I'd rather not encourage that system.

II: Reasons why Man-Love is Awesome

IIa. It's Generational: This isn't so much a reason as a statement of fact. An anecdote: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (which seriously pushes the bounds of male-nudity) features a British cock-rocker (Russell Brand) and a Hawaiian waiter (Jonah Hill) who loves him. At least one reviewer described Jonah Hill as "gay." But neither I nor any of my friends perceived him as gay. He was just a guy who really liked his favorite rock star, to the point of sexual arousal. And in an age where the term "man-crush" can be used even by the homophobic, I think that's just not that weird.

You can be straight, and still want to hit that.

IIb. It's funny: Now, in case you were wondering, I don't think Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are that hot. But boy is it comical - with my wife, on my blog, but above all at parties and gathering - to loudly and passionately proclaim my belief in their physical attractiveness. Or at least, I think it's comical. If everyone else doesn't: sorry. Don't invite me to parties or read my blog any more, because I ain't giving this one up.

IIc. It's Sublimation: I know this isn't a classical use of sublimation (i.e. sublimation is usually nonsexual), but I think the term applies. Here's what I mean: I do like looking at pretty people up on the big screen. But I feel bad and/or dirty (see reasons Ia, Ib, and Ic) for ogling the ladies (besides, apparently, Megan Fox). But I'd like to ogle someone. So I redirect my desires to subjects that I can admire without feeling like I'm turning them into inhuman sex objects. That's not so bad, is it?

IId. Christian Bale is hot.

*I am so naive. I couldn't remember the name for Japanese cartoon guy-on-guy porn. So I searched, in google, for "Japanese cartoon male porn." That search...did not turn up what I was looking for.

What Happened to the Ladies?

Hi guys. Sorry, I haven't been around lately. I was busy and also upset at what a bad film reviewer I am. But I've decided just not to write film reviews, but still write as much as I can about my thoughts on movies. You might enjoy it more, or less, if you've read the blog before...either way, I hope I don't waste your time too badly.

Anyway, this post is me trying to think through some more gender issues, since that's been an unofficial theme of this blog. It's a response to a comment my friend Tolf made about hating an entire generation of female movie stars - the Meg Ryan/Melanie Griffith generation. Off the top of my head (confirming ages with wikipedia) I came up with two more actors and have this generational analysis:

A Bad Generation: Meg Ryan, Melanie Griffith, Julia Roberts, Jodie Foster, and Jamie Lee Curtis were all born between 1957 and 1967, which in my mind makes them all solidly in the same acting generation. And boy do they suck. Assuming that Academy Awards are a decent barometer of excellence, just not an iron-clad one, let's look at some numbers: Among these 5 actors, with several decades of acting experience, we have only 8 awards and 3 wins (actress and supporting actress), with Jodie winning two awards and Julia bringing in one. But among those eight nominations, at least 4 are in films that I consider complete jokes: Working Girl, Erin Brockovich, Pretty Woman, and Nell. That's right, those movies suck.

I want to compare these ladies to a previous generation. All of the following actresses were born between 1945 and 1951: Mia Farrow, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver, Meryl Streep, Anjelica Huston (I'm not including Sally Field, who was born in that age range and would bring some serious Oscars to the table, but I think sucks). So, wow. That's an amazing group, all born within six years of each other. Shall we do the Academy Test? The numbers are, for six actors: 28 nominations, 5 wins. Mostly that tells you that this generation had a hard time winning awards, but for our purposes nominations are more important. Plus, Mia Farrow was NEVER nominated for an Academy Award, despite some performances in films you might have heard of: Rosemary's Baby, Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Husbands and Wives...these are mostly Woody Allen movies, it's true, but in my mind that's just a giant plus.

What's more, I didn't include Diane Wiest, since I just don't really consider her a movie star (being a movie star: often a bad thing), but she would have brought three more nominations and two more wins.

So, where does that leave us? Pure Numbers: 5 Movie Stars, born between 1957 and 1967, that I consider representative, have won only three oscars, from 8 noms
6 Movie Stars, born between 1945 and 1951, have won 5 oscars from 25 noms - and nominations, I think, are a much better general gauge than wins.

If I'm right that noms are a good indicator and that those other four movies really suck (Special sucking award: Nell. So terrible), then the generation of movie stars that came of age in the 70s truly is a great one, and the generation that came of age in the 80s/early 90s is truly a waste of space...

Ok, that's it for now. Sometime later this week I'm going to try to think through the reasons for this discrepancy, and probably do some counter-arguments. If you have any counter-arguments or ideas, please, please post a comment or email me.. I would like to revive this blog: with your help! Our powers combined, etc.

Update: Women and Movie Stars

This just in: the Quigley Poll, which I don't entirely understand, just had its numbers released: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22489800/. The Quigley Poll seems to be a strange beast: it is supposed to tell us the top 10 most successful movie stars of the previous year, but it does so by polling the exhibitors, not by simply adding up the box office grosses of the stars in question. In some ways this makes sense - if you go to box office mojo and look at career box office earnings, Christopher "Count Dookruman the White" Lee will be pretty high, since he happened to be in 2 Star Wars movies and 3 Lord of the Rings Movies, even though no one knows who he is. So, instead of mathematically trying to work out how important each star is to a film's success, they just poll the people who should know: movie theater owners. Here's the list of most bankable stars of 2007:
1. Johnny Depp
2. Will Smith
3. George Clooney
4. Matt Damon
5. Denzel Washington
6. Russell Crowe
7. Tom Cruise
8. Nicholas Cage
9. Will Ferrell
10. Tom Hanks

Here's what MSNBC and every other media outlet noted: "For the first year in 24 years, a female actress was not included on the top 10 list." Damn. If the era of the movie star really is over (note: George Clooney is supposed to be case-in-point that the movie star is dead, but he's number 3 for 2007), the era of the female movie star seems to be deader than the era of the male movie star. At this point, I have no thoughts on why this might be. I'm sure I'll suggest something eventually.

Overall, I'm skeptical of this "poll." First of all, the Clooney factor. Sure Ocean's 13 did great business, but that was a sequel with tons of stars that people actually wanted to see. Michael Clayton was 10 times better - no dice. What about Nic Cage? If being a movie star means, as this slate.com article suggests (http://www.slate.com/id/2175710/fr/flyout/ , option 3) that you can bring people into a movie that no one wants to see just by being in it, Nic Cage certainly doesn't count. He had a great run with National Treasure 2, a sequel with an inexplicably established fan base and the Bruckheimer name on it, but completely bombed with Next. Next, which you may not have heard of, co-starred Julianne Moore and Jessica Biel, one of Hollywood's current "It" girls, and was a semi-supernatural adventure yarn with a metacritic rating of 42. National Treasure 2 has a lower-wattage cast, outside of Cage himself (in the Quigley poll, I'm sure Biel would be higher than Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel combined), and only has a 48 on metacritic - it's not a better movie. But people had no interest in Next, just because it had Nicholas Cage in it. Or maybe they just thought it was an adaptation of the MTV show.