"Searching for Debra Winger"

[Mizmoon]

Here's what I didn't get about that film ...

From beginning to end they showed about 20 or more female actresses complaining that there were no roles for them after age 40.

Now, collectively those women must be worth a fortune. Why don't they start producing their own projects with interesting roles for "older" women?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I think Demi Moore owns a production group

[CBGLuthier]

2. Old rule in Hollywood

Never put your own money into a film.

I also wouldn't assume they are all that fabulously wealthy. Most actresses are paid far less than their male counterparts just like in the real world.

[Mizmoon]

4. true, but Jen Anniston made 5 million

per film while brad pitt made 15 or so. Still, 5 mil is nothing to sneeze at!

Producing their own stuff just seemed like such a logical conclusion to me.

[CBHagman]

3. I think there are a number of women with production companies.

But I believe there are additional factors involved here, such as getting a distributor. Don't forget that link in the chain. If you can't get your movie shown, how are you going to continue with further projects?

The actress Charlotte Rampling said at Cannes that she has worked primarily with European directors in the recent past BECAUSE they appreciate the value of women of a certain age. I don't know how to test that theory, but I do find much of what's shown on U.S. TV and in U.S. theaters lacking in imagination and completely skewed to a certain demographic. It's as though it didn't occur to them that there are more than a few stories, and not all those stories involve white males who wield guns or think they're the funniest things to hit the screen.

And because so many of the films I've seen advertised lately seem tired, unimaginative, and probably not worth the $9.50 for a screening, I wind up at repertory and arts cinemas for much of my viewing.

On edit: I've also noticed that both men and women performers who aren't flavor of the month and don't command $20 million per film often wind up in cable projects. These are excellent performers, but I guess they don't "open" a movie. :mad:

[MrPrax]

5. Sad really...

As with any artist, their skills and talents only get better with age. It is tragic that the audience is ultimately robbed in that by the time many of these actresses reach the top of their fields, they are too 'old'.

This also goes to reinforce 'negative' stereotypes as the only stuff the public gets to see by these females performers is their 'early' works, where the 'projects' are less than ideal and they almost invariably have to do 'sex' scenes because they don't have the clout to avoid it.

It's amazing to see old films where actresses worked great parts and got roles for decades. Today the audience is simply subjected to crummy vehicles and poorly written female characters, where the actress is simply 'screen candy' and is usually 'whoever' scrapped from a TV show that tested well with the 18-24 group.

[CBHagman]

6. I know. Katharine Hepburn and Jean Arthur, for instance.

Arthur was playing the female lead in Talk of the Town after age 40, and her leading men were Cary Grant and Ronald Colman. Sigh.

Hepburn also starred in romantic comedies at what would be considered a mature age.

Granted, as time marched on, they paired up people like Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, and Humphrey Bogart with women who were a great deal younger. But it's great to see those fabulous women players of yesteryear -- Stanwyck, Davis, et al.

On edit: Obviously, there's always the stage for male and female actors. Ages are not as rigid when casting roles.

[kwassa]

7. The film-going audience is mostly a dating audience, therefore young

and it is hard to get them to go see movies about older people. There is not much of a market for it, relatively speaking.

It is a youth-oriented business.