On October 5th 2007 a news item broke on Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily, that Warner Bros president Jeff Robinov had decided "we are no longer doing movies with women in the lead."
This story inspired this blog piece written a couple of days later:
Is Robinov out of line or is he just stating what any reasonable movie exec should be thinking?
Clearly the film industry is about profits and unfortunately profit is much more important than quality. If you were president of Warner Bros, and you had shareholders beating on your door demanding profits, increased share prices, and a bigger and bigger market share year on year, you'd probably want to find a simple solution that will deliver the profit sheet everyone's baying for. Of course it's obvious that there isn't a simple solution and outlandish statements like we're banning films with female leads are not going to go down well. But is he right in his clear implication, that lead actresses are box office poison? Can women really open films?
Only a couple of weeks ago my colleague was lamenting the lack of decent roles for women, but isn't this because writers know their films are less likely to get made, and less likely to make profit if they are made, with women in the lead? It may not even be a conscious decision, but it is understandable if writers deliberately focus on male characters when the president of Warner Bros is openly coming out with a statement like that.
Here are the US box office grosses for what I believe to be the 13 highest paid women in film, in their last 3 films. Remember this is lead roles we're talking about. We're not talking about supporting or roles like Renee Zelwegger's in Cinderella Man where she's clearly supporting/co-starring Russell Crowe's lead. I will include films like Mr and Mrs Smith, where Jolie and Pitt are absolutely down the line equal (ditto Walk the Line, Intolerable Cruelty etc.) Equal billing in a film featuring a large number of supporting roles, such as Babel counts as long as the actor or actress is clearly billed first in the film's publicity.
(all figures in millions)
Witherspoon: Walk the Line: $119; Just Like Heaven: $48; Vanity Fair: $16
Zelwegger: Bridget Jones 2: $40; Down with Love : $20; Chicago: $171 **
Lopez: Monster in Law: $82; Shall We Dance: $57; Jersey Girl: $25
Bullock: Premonition: $48; The Lake House: $52; Miss Congeniality 2: $48
Jolie: A Mighty Heart: $9*; Mr and Mrs Smith: $186; Taking Lives: $32
Zeta-Jones: No Reservations: $42*; Legend of Zorro: $46; Intolerable Cruelty: $35
Foster: The Brave One: $34*; Flightplan: $89; Panic Room: $96
Berry: Perfect Stranger: $23; Catwoman: $40; Gothika: $59
Kidman: The Invasion: $15; Bewitched: $63; The Interpreter: $72 ***
Swank: The Reaping: $25; Freedom Writers: $36; Million Dollar Baby: $100
Diaz: The Holiday: $65; In Her Shoes: $32; Charlie's Angels 2: $101
Barrymore: Lucky You: $5; Music and Lyrics: $51; Fever Pitch: $42
Roberts: Mona Lisa Smile: $64; America's Sweethearts: $94; The Mexican: $67
Compare that with the men...
Smith: Pursuit of Happyness: $163; Hitch: $179; I, Robot: $144
Hanks: The Da Vinci Code: $218; The Terminal: $77; The Ladykillers: $39
Cruise: Mission Impossible 3: $134; War of Worlds: $234; Collateral: $101
Carrey: Number 23: $35; Fun w/ Dick/Jane: $110; Lemony Snicket: $118
Damon: The Bourne Ultimatum $244; The Good Shepherd: $60; The Departed: $132
Di Caprio: Blood Diamond: $57; The Departed: $132; The Aviator: $103
Pitt: Ocean's 13: $117; Babel: $35; Mr and Mrs Smith: $186
Crowe: 3:10 to Yuma: $49m*; A Good Year: $7; Cinderella Man: $62
Clooney: Ocean's 13: $117; Syriana: $50; Ocean's 12: $125 ****
Foxx: Dreamgirls: $103; Miami Vice: $63; Stealth: $32
Reeves: Lake House: $52; Constantine: $76; Matrix Revolutions: $139
Sandler: I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry: $130; Reign Over Me: $20; Click: $137
Stiller: Night at the Museum: $250; Meet the Fockers: $279; Dodgeball: $114
First of all that's a lot of numbers and probably not very nice to read so here's the bottom line: Average box office for the top 13 highest paid actresses: $57.6m
For the men: $113.6m
Around double.
So why is this happening? Do audiences prefer going to see actors rather than actresses? Or do actors generally find themselves in bigger budget films with better roles? Clearly box office receipts are no indicator of quality otherwise Adam Sandler films would be nominated for best picture every year. But looking at that huge list the only films I'd recommend would be, for the actresses:
Chicago, Intolerable Cruelty, Million Dollar Baby, The Holiday, Charlie's Angels 2 (yes seriously), plus Walk the Line, which I've not see but I'll bow to those who have. So 6 films in total. Maybe add Panic Room if you're feeling exceptionally generous. Call it 7.
and for the actors...
Collateral, Dodgeball, The Bourne Ultimatum, Blood Diamond, The Good Shepherd, The Aviator, 3:10 to Yuma, Cinderella Man, Syriana. Which is 9 films - and I'm leaving off a Best Picture winner in The Departed since I didn't care for it, but call it 10 to be fair.
So not only are the men's films making more money they're also better. Once again it comes down to the quality of the script. It must be that not only bigger but better roles are being written for men, but, since most screenwriters are men and they often write about what they know, that isn't surprising. It is rare for a writer to develop a great career by writing great roles for the opposite sex. In fact I can think of just one; Pedro Almodovar. Screenwriters are only writing these great (and not so great, but high profile and money-making) roles for men. But maybe this is because writing a lead role in a big budget film for an actress is just too much of a gamble.
It's not too bad if your Vanity Fair, or Freedom Writers doesn't take off, but when The Invasion, The Reaping and Catwoman all tank, you have problems. The discrepancy in the grosses of the 'popcorn' films is clear. But more telling is the discrepancy in the success of the more arthouse films. 'Difficult' releases such as The Good Shepherd (3 hour, dry 1950s set film) earns a 60 million and a near 3 hour biopic of Howard Hughes, The Aviator, earns over 100 million. Can you expect such results with female biopics? I don't think so - not unless it stars someone I'll mention later.
Is all of this then accounted for by the scripts?
Maybe it is. Maybe audiences are just more loyal to actors. Certainly if you were running a company the only hard and fast rules you could draw from any of this is let Will Smith make whatever he wants to make. But seriously, has Jeff Robinov really said anything that bad? He's trying to make money. The numbers don't add up. Blanket statements like no more movies with lead roles for women are probably too far but if you were in his position you'd certainly take a closer look at those movies featuring Halle or Hilary, whilst happily signing off on those with Tom and Leo.
Of course there is one actress who can open pretty much any film, but even she's a bit of an unknown quality since she hasn't lead a film for 4 years. Julia Roberts is, or was, the Will Smith of the actresses. Before The Mexican she had Erin Brokovich, $125; Runaway Bride, $152; Notting Hill, $116; Stepmom $91; Conspiracy Theory $71 and My Best Friend's Wedding, $127. These films were all back to back. That's a pretty unbelievable run of success and makes The Mexican look like a flop. And if your flops are earning $67m then you'll probably even get Jeff Robinov to give you a lead role. I bet they can't wait for her return.
AL
*still on release but on too few screens to add significantly to this figure
** ignoring Miss Potter which never got above 102 screens
*** ignoring Fur which never got to more than 39 screens
**** ignoring The Good German which never expanded beyond 66 screens |
