Ten Simple Reasons to Go See Bridesmaids
10.) KRISTEN WIIG KRISTEN WIIG KRISTEN WIIG. I cannot overstate how good she is, how good the writing is, how crucial her unique sense of timing and deadpan is to the narrative. She is this movie, and I hope it makes her an enormous star. I would totally not mind seeing pictures of who she’s dating and what she looks like when she goes to the grocery store. I want her haircut, I want her to be my best friend, I want to go on a plane ride with her.
9.) If you have ever been a bridesmaid, this film is like post-traumatic therapy, manifesting all that is obnoxious, tiresome, difficult, and bank-breakingly opulent about the bridesmaids process. It also speaks to the undergirding reason bridesmaids exists — because women love and need each other — and emphasizes how more important that is than the bridal shower invitations.
8.5) Jon Hamm with his shirt off.
8.) An adorable love interest with a Irish accent. But obtaining said love interest is NOT the sole focus of the narrative. This is so. Incredibly. Refreshing.
7.) If you are a boy, or if you are trying convince a boy to go see this film, rest assured, they will like it. Several boys in my life with distinctly boy-centric media tastes have already declared it “REALLY REALLY FUNNY,” “so good,” and “the best film of the year.”
6.) Demonstrating her increasing irrelevancy, Nikki Finke made a bet that if the film grossed over $15 million its opening weekend, she’d “leave Hollywood reporting forever.” She was wrong — the film is going to make at least $20 million, second only to Thor — and while I doubt she’ll actually leave Hollywood reporting, I like to see her stubbornness (and wrongheaded reading of the film: it’s not about women burping and farting; it’s about women being funny, and there’s a total of one scene with burps and farts) laid bare.
5.) “Bridesmaids doesn’t treat Annie’s single status as a dire character flaw worthy of triage: she’s simply going through a rough patch and has to figure things out, as in real life.” - Manohla Dargis, NYT.
4.) Women are funny, and as obnoxious as this may seem, we — men and women alike — need to place our vote at the box office that we like seeing women being funny. Otherwise, I’m telling you, we are doomed to decades of Kate Hudson and Katherine Heigl rom-coms. This is our future. Change it.
3.) The film has been broadly sold as a “The Hangover for women.” I hope this gets people to see it, but I also think it’s a misnomer. There are Judd Apatow aspects to this film — especially evident in the scene supposedly inserted by Apatow himself involving scatological humor — but don’t be fooled. The humor is rooted in Wiig’s sensibility, which, to my mind, is much more interesting and hilarious than the Apatow/Hangover brand of humor.
2.) Lab puppies and Wilson Phillips.
1.) See it because it’s fucking hilarious.” - Dana Stevens, Slate.com
Roundtable: Leslie Mann, Judd Apatow, and 'Women of a Certain Age' in Hollywood
Welcome to the Inaugural Edition of Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style Roundtable — a feature I hope to continue somewhat regularly. Today’s topic — Leslie Mann, Judd Apatow, and ‘Women of a Certain Age’ in Hollywood, was first proposed by the one and only Kristen Warner, who, like the other participants in this panel, is either a current or former student in the Department of Radio-Television-Film at the University of Texas-Austin.
A bit on each of our roundtable participants, in part to help illuminate some of their comments below:
Kristen Warner (The One and Only KW) studies ‘color-blind’ casting and recently completed a research trip to Hollywood, where she sat in on several casting sessions, but will make you wait to hear the juiciest details until the publication of her highly anticipating dissertation. She also likes Mad Men and making fun of my chaco sandals.
Peter Alilunas (PA) completed his M.A. at UT before departing for cooler pastures at the University of Michigan, where he studies, amongst other things, masculinity and its manfestations. His excellent blog, Manvertised, catalogs some of the most valuable yet ephermal traces of ‘manvertising’ in the public sphere. He also happens to be my doppelganger: he grew up in Moscow, Idaho, where he was one of Lewiston’s arch rivals; he and I unknowingly shared a class on Stars at the University of Oregon (he was a savvy undergrad, I was a clueless first year master’s student). I can make him laugh on command by mentioning the words ‘Lamonts Department Store.’
Courtney Brannon Donaghue (CBD) specializes in analysis of film industries — and the Brazilian film industry in particular. We share a common affinity towards celebrity gossip, CSA vegetables, and Scorsese. She happens to have been a member of my sorority, but she didn’t even know the anchor wave when I first met her.
R. Colin Tait (CT) is Canadian, and that might be all you need to know about him. He thus uses an extra ‘u’ in odd places and replaces the ‘z’ with an ‘s.’ But he also studies the film industry, with a particular eye to Steven Soderbergh (on whom he’s currently deep in co-authoring a book) and ’70s nostalgia.
I start out the post below and the other respondents take it from there — and we’d love to hear more of your thoughts, or suggestions on future topics. And if you’d like to be a future respondent, just let me know.
Funny People star Leslie Mann
AHP:
First, a bit of backstory.
Leslie Mann is an actress. She is also the wife of Judd Apatow. Whether her designation as the former should be or can be wholly attributed to her designation as the latter (and the politics of such designation) is the topic of this ’round table.’
According to Wikipedia and IMDB, Mann was selected from an open casting call for a role in The Cable Guy (1996), for which Apatow served as co-producer and co-writer. They married in 1997. Since then, she has appeared George of the Jungle, Big Daddy (with Apatow’s former roommate and current star Adam Sandler), Perfume, Orange County, Stealing Harvard, the Apatow-helmed The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, but also Drillbit Taylor and 17 Again. In other words, she has appeared in non-Apatow films, but her most distinguished performances have been in films of his making. Apatow also cast his own daughters in both Knocked Up and Funny People - a decision I’ve seen attributed to the ease of working with family members (as opposed to unfamiliar actors/stars).
Now, the point in question, first suggested by the one and only KW, is how we should regard Mann’s roles in said films. In her words, “Leslie Mann: self-serving climber or ‘wife of a certain age’ who probably wouldn’t be allowed to work, finding herself in advantageous position? Where does she fit in relation to contemporaries of similar ‘situation’: Demi Moore, Katie Holmes, Annette Bening, Mia Farrow, etc.?”
These questions now go before our roundtable panel, composed of current and former UT RTF graduate students.
I’ll start us off with a bit of provocation: yesterday, Nikki Finke published the anonymous email below, detailing the ways in which Universal is fending off (or failing to fend off) criticism related to the relative failure of Funny People (which opened with a disappointed $22 million over the weekend, and is expected to continue to slide with negative word of mouth — certainly not the sort of numbers associated with Knocked Up. It’s also insult to injury concerning Universal’s piss-poor summer — see here for Finke’s scathing analysis).
From Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood:
“Despite what anyone at Universal is saying now — trying to cover their asses — I can 100% assure you: Universal execs never begged or pleaded with Judd to shorten his movie. Not one of them would have had the balls to. They never would have done anything to piss Judd off. There was a mini feud on “40 Year Old Virgin” between Judd and [ex-Uni exec] Mary Parent, and everyone learned never to side against or ever really question Judd after that. Trust me. Besides, all questions of length were precluded by two words, “Knocked Up”. It was almost as long and it was an out and out comedy. No one would have been brave enough to challenge Judd on this, even in a joking matter. Trust me, Nikki…Better or worse it was Judd’s show and he delivered to them the movie he wanted and they smiled and said “Thank you.” Privately they may have worried, but they never, never, never asked Judd to shorten it.”
“PS… Judd did shorten it. I saw a three hour, forty five minute version of “Funny People” and Judd’s goal was to get it to “Knocked Up” length. And that’s where he got it, too. And the studio was happy with that length. And the idea that someone would directly tell Judd that the part with his wife had to be particularly shortened is ridiculous. Ask that person to give you details on that conversation. I would love to hear how that went. It didn’t happen.”
The email is interesting not only for the manner in which it highlights Apatow’s hubris, but also points to the inability of the studio to criticize parts of the film (specifically the last 1/3) that strongly featured his wife. So where do we go from here? Is it fair to criticize Mann? Is marriage to a successful male director/producer the only way for a middle-aged woman to get decent (or comedic) parts? How is Mann similar or different to the abovementioned female (married) stars? Is it intrinsically sexist of us to criticize Mann? How is she — and her roles — different from Heigl, whose ‘shrewness’ I’ve detailed at length? Finally, what does the relative failure of Funny People bode for the future of Mann in Apatow productions?
************************
The one and only KW:
I feel I should offer a few statements about women in Hollywood:
1. There aren’t that many roles.
2. There aren’t that many types.
3. After a certain age, there definitely aren’t that many roles or types.
These three items are certain and definite within the working structure of the Hollywood organization model. And, no doubt, these items are problematic. Thus the negotiations and ways that women can circumvent this harsh reality are important and necessary to women maintaining place in this industry. Owning production companies and enhancing one’s star status are two of the more popular ways that women have negotiated Hollywood. And yet another one that is often thought of but rarely considered in any real thoughtful way is marriage. Rosselini marries Ingrid Bergman. Kate Capshaw and Amy Irving before her marries Steven Spielberg and ensures legitimacy and the opportunity to work-whenever they’d like, if they’d like.
Annette Bening fresh off The Grifters meets Warren Beatty on set of Bugsy and transforms into legitimate actress (more on her later as possibility for actual success as an actor). Mia Farrow and Sinatra were big but Mia Farrow and Woody Allen become a power couple. With actor couples it works quite similarly. Think of Demi Moore and Bruce Willis. And the same with Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise. And the same with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas. And the same with Jada Pinkett-Smith and Will Smith. And the same with Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise.
These women went from minor roles and minor successes to the star stratosphere only after saying “I do.” Matrimony as socio-economic success formula is clearly nothing new in Hollywood. So, then why does Leslie Mann’s success in conjunction with her husband Judd Apatow bother me so much? After all, if it wasn’t for her husband or his connections, she wouldn’t be working (and she is certainly entitled to employment as are all working actors). Well, it’s nepotism. Regardless of Mann’s talent, the fact that Apatow automatically writes his wife into the roles automatically excludes every other woman who could play the part-every single time. And again, while it is important that a woman over 40 gets to act (as a woman over 40), I think the fact that she obtained the role specifically and explicitly because her husband gave it to her does taint the well a smidgen and overshadow her performance. Second, it seems she has had little desire to step out from her husband and try to prove her own legitimacy. Annette Bening may have started as Warren’s wife (and may still be thought of that by many of us) but in terms of acting, she has become an acclaimed actress in her own right. Even Zeta-Jones leveraged her marriage to Douglas to become more of a credible actress. Pinkett-Smith had a supporting role in Ali with her husband but since has managed to create roles for herself somewhat autonomous of her spouse (she’s even executive producer of her own show-no doubt in conjunction with Will whose power in Hollywood is definite leverage). If these women can do it, why can’t Mann? Why is she content to be “the” star of her husband’s productions? I ain’t mad at her for getting her foot in the door, I’m just frustrated that she seems to think she’s automatically the best for the role. And I don’t think that’s been tested.
Leslie Mann and Judd Apatow
************************
PA:
I agree the core problem here is a distinct shortage of quality roles for women. To go right to KW’s final point: we have no idea what roles Mann has auditioned for, how often she has been turned down, or what efforts she has made to increase her visibility. But there’s a deeper question: for what roles would she be auditioning? She’s primarily a comic actress — how many movies are out there every year for women with that sort of part? And whom would she be up against for those parts that do exist? Christine Taylor would probably like some of those parts, too, but instead she’s relegated to performances in husband Ben Stiller’s films. I’m sure Mann (and Taylor) would love to get some quality roles like those actresses you mention, but how? The line out the casting door is probably at least ten deep with women who have won or been nominated for Oscars, are known to the public, and have some cachet. Apatow is a specialist in a very particular type of comedy — one that does not lend itself to female performances or “quality” actors. Every example KW mentions is a marriage to someone with intense, Oscar caliber connections (I’d like to do a count of the Oscar nomination totals between Warren Beatty, Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Michael Douglas, Will Smith, etc.) that Apatow does not have. And now that he has made a slightly more serious film, the critics and the public have essentially dismissed it. I’m not sure how she’s supposed to parlay her connection into anything more than similar, cutout comic roles, let alone a serious part.
To go to the original questions, I’d ask this: why would we criticize Mann for anything related to this film? The success of this project (which is an entirely different discussion) hardly seems even remotely related to her performance, which (as in all the films Apatow has written, produced, or directed) is primarily a symbolic foil against which the men unroll their narratives. Apatow specializes in boys’ treehouse films and there isn’t much room in there for anything else.
Part of the ‘treehouse’ gang - Mann included?
The quality of Mann’s performance hardly seems responsible for the relative failure of the film; the subject matter, marketing, cast, and spectatorial associations with Apatow’s, Rogen’s, and Sandler’s previous films seem much more likely candidates. I doubt more than a small percentage of people walking in to or out of this film (or any of the other Apatow films in which she’s appeared) know or care who she is.
If we want to pinpoint the problem, I’d say it resides in the viewing public, almost wholly unwilling to transgress gendered boundaries and accept women in lead performances. Cultural fantasies about appropriate gender behavior and partnerships play out more powerfully in the movies than almost anywhere else. To gloss quickly into some gender theory, there’s an intense and powerful unwillingness on the part of men to accept women in lead roles, which has resulted in these sorts of outcomes, where even the “best actress” category is populated by actresses who are essentially playing supporting roles in films dedicated to male narratives. The rare performance by a woman in a genuine lead role typically makes very little money and is ignored or dismissed by male audiences, or is manufactured and marketed to play into regressive cultural fantasies about male and female behavior. Until that changes, nepotism for married/partnered women is one of the only ways it seems Hollywood understands as a mechanism for getting quality roles for women — many of which (including many of the examples listed by KW) are prestige, personal, or risky projects carried by actors willing to take gigantic risks, and which often return little on the investment other than critical success. As evidence of that, look no farther than Frances McDormand, who has worked steadily as a supporting actress but has always gotten her best parts from her husband and brother-in-law. An even better example might be Rebecca Pidgeon, an established and incredibly competent stage actress who would barely have a film/television career at all except for husband David Mamet. Sure, Mann might seem oversaturated in the Apatow universe (but isn’t any more visible in that world than Seth Rogen — who has made little effort as of yet to break out of the Apatow factory, but seems free from these sorts of criticisms), but if this is how she (and all the other actresses struggling to get a part, any part) gets what little work is available until some cultural changes can be made that break down gendered boundaries and expectations, I’m all for it.
Frances McDormand in husband/brother-in-law’s Burn After Reading
************************
CT:
One thing that troubles me about this discussion - not the points raised, but the core of the argument - is the overwhelming negativity towards people in the limelight and their products.
In my current work on the critical reception to Steven Soderbergh’s films the following pattern emerges:
a) Fanfare in the press surrounding the upcoming movie, including details highlighting its unique/innovative techniques
b) the film opens to lukewarm reviews, including pieces by writers in the same publications who covered these films in feature stories. Usually the same elements that were highlighted as innovative, or the film’s pre-release story are the elements that are attacked
c) the film is delcared a failure after the disappointing opening weekend (within 3 days!). Here, critics (and feature writers) reinforce and validate the content of their reviews, highlighting issues that audiences may or may not have found appealing but with no qualitative data (audience research, etc.) This could be why Soderbergh’s The Good German has the same % of freshness on rottentomatoes.com as Paul Blart: Mall Cop - standing at 33% each.
d) Finally, this discourse of failure and negativity somehow makes it into the ether of the public, where people grasp on to what they can relate back to each other. The media has a great deal to do with this and somehow Katherine Heigl’s 17-hour story, or Judd Apatow’s casting of his wife Leslie Mann, or how actor B gained (or lost) 40 pounds for the role becomes the bigger story than the movie itself.
To me, this (very rough) model helps to inform our own discussion of Leslie Mann and explain the fact that we’re even discussing her at all. We’re looking for explanations as to why this movie is a failure; an explanation that has been pre-determined for us before we even saw the film. The fact that Apatow went outside of the very rigid boundaries that we expect of him - nothing but funny man-child films for us, please - reinforces its inevitable failure — regardless of whether or not it is a good movie!
We live in a culture that wants people to fail. This is particularly true of our stars, our artists our leaders and people who dare to be different than us. The media equips us with reasons to hate movies and the people that make them, especially if they are successful. This extends to their immediate family and friends who are often used as fodder in the press and are not immune to criticism. Nepotism in Hollywood seems to be the #1 taboo, despite the fact that there is more than enough evidence to support that this has been Hollywood’s M.O. for nearly a century. And sometimes it’s easier to tell yourself that the actor/actress didn’t earn it, has ruined a movie or, worse, a franchise. After all, I hate Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom because of Kate Capshaw (married to Spielberg), pure and simple.
In a sense, this is and isn’t about Leslie Mann. It is to the point that the features surrounding this film highlighted how Apatow and Mann met (where he declared in the audition room that he was going to marry her) and that this is precisely the element that critics and box-office reporters seem to be highlighting and attacking - particularly the bit about how the Mann storyline is out of place and weighs the film down (to the point that was originally 3 3/4 hours).
To quote Morrissey, “We hate it when our friends become successful,” it’s just that now, we have a whole network that feeds into this need to hate anyone who tries anything at all.
To follow up on the gender aspect raised by Peter, I wonder how we feel about male figures who are dwarfed by the stardom of their wives? Certainly Guy Ritchie, and his cheeky title as “Mr. Madonna” would be an example of this, especially in their disastrous collaboration on Swept Away. I also wonder a little bit about Matthew Broderick (Mr. Sarah Jessica Parker), Danny Moder (Mr. Julia Roberts) and Ryan Phillipe (the former Mr. Reese Witherspoon) and how we largely see these men as more than emasculated or at the very least, under their more succcessful wives’ shadows.
(Have we mentioned the fact that this negativity is directed at a film that opened at #1 at the box-office?)
This weekend’s #1 film
************************
AHP:
I’ve been reading this rather elementary book on political economy in television and film — it’s called Culture Conglomerates, and it’s obviously meant to be an introduction for upper-level undergrads, but it’s spelled out the connections in all aspects of the industry (production, exhibition, distribution, both in film and in television) in the most coherent fashion of all other political economy I’ve read. (For those outside of academia — Political economy = The study of who owns what, and the assumption that ownership matters — and can inflect the product that the company produces. Recent political economy is especially keen to note the ways in which consolidation and conglomeration over the last 50 years (and the governmental deregulation that facilitated it) has made it so that a very small handful of massive conglomerates control the vast majority of our media).
Anyway, one of the author’s points is very persuasive when it comes to this argument: Americans love us some individuals. We love individual achievement. It’s at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the ideology of the American Dream (and general Americanness) that structure our belief system. So when we think of a piece of art, whether it be a television show or a movie, we like to attribute the achievement to the individual — this is the impulse behind auteurism, of course, but also behind the way that we, as a society, generally talk about movies. (The author’s point is that in focusing in on the genius of the individual, we lose sight of the corporate machinations which really create the movie — and he’s absolutely right.) With the shift away from straight-up auteurism, we think of producers - whether Apatow or Jerry Bruckheimer or whomever — as auteurs. Show-runners as auteurs. Major actors as auteurs. Within this paradigm, it’s easy (and simple!) to attribute all achievement within the particular film to that selfsame auteur: a Wes Anderson film is the product of his unique vision; all performances were directed and entirely his idea, the distinctive set design borne of his dreams.
And so it is with Leslie Mann: it’s as if we’re in Greek mythology and she sprung completely formed from Judd Apatow’s forehead, and now does his bidding and projects his thoughts. Her agency = completely elided. Her skill — and it certainly does take skill to play a shrewish wife that makes ‘treehouse’ Ben Affleck always look affable — forgotten.
Returning to Peter’s point, it’s far more comfortable for us to attribute genius to men. Women are always part of a team of genius — we don’t talk about Katheryn Bigalow so much as the plotting and the performances. Jane Campion’s The Piano was the product of her and Holly Hunter (and Anna Paquin). Julie Taymor’s Frida is her vision plus Salma Hayek’s passion. And tour de force female performances — including those of Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet — always have a male director who’s really responsible.
************************
CT:
Aren’t Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes one of those power couples? If so, is Kate Winslet immune to this kind of criticism and why?
************************
CBD:
So far is the issue with Leslie Mann an institutional problem due to limited of roles/types and nepotism (KW); that audiences are not willing to transgress gender boundaries (PA) or we live in a society that cheers failure (CT)? Perhaps it is a combination between the current studio system and contemporary audiences and society. However as has already been mentioned nepotism and blaming the female for a film’s failure (ie Katherine Hepburn famously described as “box office poison” in the 1930s) are nothing new. While her role may be only tangential, you better believe when it is time to place the blame for the films financial failure they won’t be blaming Apatow the golden child who just signed a multiple picture deal with Universal. This is also evident in the studio’s harsh reaction to the last 1/3 of the movie featuring Mann. The question now is, how prominently will she be featured in the project?
First of all, while I agree with AP’s point that it is easier to construct genius as a masculine attribute, are we willing to make the stretch that Leslie Mann has some hidden genius inside her that the one dimensional shrewish female characters she is given by Apatow is stifling? I hardly believe this. At this moment, Leslie Mann is not an indie actress, an art cinema actress, a method actress, opening weekend box office gold…whatever you want to call it. She is not in the same ballpark as Kate Winslet who had established a name with studio and moviegoers alike before her marriage to Mendes, newly Oscar winner and part of the British actresses with character actor capital known best for their period pieces such as Cate Blanchett. Leslie Mann is just a minor stage player in the Apatow brand, while she may venture off to occasional supporting roles a la 17 Again, she appears to be comfortable in her space as just another one of Apatow’s “shrewish” bitchy women and that is what seems to infuriate everyone here.
In response to CT, I will digress for a moment. Apatow/Mann and Winslet/Mendes are two very different power dynamics that represent two ends of the spectrum of the political economy of the studios. Apatow/Mann are the wide release, safely profitable mid-range genre picture produced with Universal. Apatow is pretty much a household name among male 18-35 demos, which is what makes him so valuable as director/writer/producer.
Whereas Mendes/Winslet are the indie, “quality” branch of the conglomerates - the Focus Features, smaller dramas opening in 100-500 theaters that almost always get nominated for the prestigious awards, but are not guaranteed to make money or travel well in foreign markets (and as we say with Mendes’ last two projects Revolutionary Road and Away We Go did not gross enough to be considered safe). These power couples, the director husband/actress wives, serve different functions within the industry as well as function discursively in different ways among audiences, critics, etc.
In regards to opening #1, the film performed below expectations and that is all that matters to the studio. (Apatow’s previous films have grossed $30M in opening weekend.) The stakes are higher for the mid-range studio films than tentpoles especially for a proven brand.
************************
One and Only KW:
I cannot help but agree with the things everyone has said-especially in regard to her performance as proof of the ultimate failure/success of Apatow’s newest film. I think to make Mann one of the many scapegoats of this film is wrong and ultimately absurd. But notice that in my opening statement I made no mention of the film. My argument was merely to try to explain why Mann is different from all those other ladies who married more successful men in that it seems that she has not tried to exploit (for lack of a better word) her relationship with Apatow for better, stronger roles. If anything that anonymous memo to Nikki Finke suggested it is that regardless of the KIND of movie Apatow makes and regardless of his cultural cachet, he is an emerging powerful source to the studios precisely because he brings in tons of cash to the industry. It is not necessarily about winning an Oscar PA (although that certainly happens) but it is more about leveraging relationships in the service of gaining parts. As I have learned recently, Hollywood has some jacked up casting practices in terms of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, and of course, gender. Average working actors are willing to sacrifice every aspect of their identity JUST to get their foot in that door (PA: it’s not nearly as people deep as you might think) and get looked at. Relationships are what build Hollywood and so it makes sense that if Mann (just like these other ladies we’ve mentioned) has tied herself to someone who is in a position to NOT be told ‘no’ (much like Spielberg I am told..if you want stories, chat me up later, lol) that she wouldn’t try to stretch beyond her husband and become a good working actress (I’m not necessarily suggesting she become an Oscar winner or even an Emmy winner or even a People’s Choice nominee) in her own right is ridiculous and only leaves me with a few conclusions about her self-knowledge concerning her talent. On one hand, I feel that her knowledge that she might not be that good is humbling and I feel supportive of that. But on the other hand, that she completely accepts that and chooses to work in every project her husband has (and her children as well-different blog topic) instead of widening the casting net because, well, there are other women “of a certain age” who also need to be SEEN , just seems lecherous and kinda shallow. And, yes, I would say the same about Christine Taylor.
In sum: I do not have a problem with power marriages. As I think we’ve all hinted at, it is one way to ensure that women have some place in Hollywood and can maintain some semblance of power (outside of the studio execs). But I think I expect that most of these women have ambition beyond specifically working for/with their spouses-especially if they were relative unknowns before meeting them. That Mann just seems content to work within the confines of her husband’s immediate network (including his friends) shouldn’t be a bad thing I suppose. I think that it is just a model that hasn’t been seen in quite a while (McDormand notwithstanding) and may speak to her own levels of confidence and perhaps dominance. Let me be frank: should she retire she would be the next Kate Capshaw-which begs the question, is that a good thing?
************************
AHP:
Quick interjection: Kate Winslet is also immune to such criticism because she built her career before meeting and marrying her director-husband. Same goes for Helena Bonham Carter. What bothers people — whether KW, industry insiders, or those who dislike the fact that Mann is always in the movie — is what is perceived as unmerited favoritism (e.g. Mann didn’t get cast because she was the best of all possible actresses — but because she was the wife).
Maybe what we’re talking about here, in addition to the relative dearth of leading-female-roles, is the entire casting process — who gets cast (race, gender, past star performance) and why. Part of the illusion and continued importance of celebrity/stardom is the underlying belief that we choose our stars — they are big (and paid well) because we ‘vote’ for them by going to see their movies, buying magazine with them on the cover, etc. As I spoke of in the first Katherine Heigl post, we think of stardom as a function of our democracy. So when someone circumvents that — as we see Mann doing, even though she is not really a ‘star’ — or fails to show appreciation for that (Heigl…or, in the case of Apatow, he isn’t showing his gratitude in that he’s given us a film that ISN’T along the lines of what we liked from him before) we reject them.
************************
KW:
AHP, I sense some baiting with you hinting at the casting process. At the stage that these actors we mention function, they are well beyond the traditional casting process. Mann certainly has open casting calls to thank for introducing her to Apatow but I’m sure she has not had to audition for anything in quite a while. Now because she has only “proved” herself within a limited scope of films, if she were not Apatow’s wife she would most definitely have to endure the casting process. She is no star; neither is she that talented a performer (my true claws finally come out) comedic or otherwise. Thus only working for Apatow (and again, his network) ensures she doesn’t have to and after having spoken to casting directors and guild representatives, who could blame her? Well…
************************
AHP:
Not bating! At least not on purpose. Let me revise: while I do think we’re talking about casting in the literal sense (as that was, after all, the way that Mann met Apatow), but we’re talking about ‘getting jobs’ — through agents, deals, whatever. I know that Mann (and most big actresses) never have to audition, let alone do a read through. What I’m trying to point to is ‘hiring apparatus,’ writ large.
************************
KW:
Hiring apparatus?
************************
CT:
I wonder if I might interject for a moment, if only to say that there’s a reason that the Apatow crew is referred to as a “Mafia.” I think that the family connotations of the word (as in Corleone, or Coppola, if you prefer) are extremely appropriate, particularly as we can see the network of players (from Freaks and Geeks onwards) including Leslie Mann (who was there from the beginning, and is featured in one of my favourite episodes) Jason Segel, James Franco and Seth Rogen, but also to an increasing repertory company which includes Martin Starr, Paul Rudd, Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler and Jonah Hill. The “family” keeps expanding outward, to the point where we could pretty much see Apatow’s fingers in many (if not most) of the comedy hits of the past 5-ish years. Mann is one of the most consistently featured of these players, but to point to her directly as responsible for this failure is as nonsensical as pointing towards Starr (the unfortunately bearded guy in Knocked Up), or worse still, blaming Bruce Campbell for when one of Sam Raimi’s films fail, despite the fact that he is in every one.
Mann seems to me to be at least a capable, pretty and likable actress.
This may seem naive, but the question that I have is whether these women are “allowed” to take outside roles, or whether there are even roles available for them. This seems to be the case with Mrs. Ben Stiller, who seems contractually bound only to appear opposite her husband. I wonder if a better comparison is Rita Wilson (Mrs. Tom Hanks), who also only appears every few years in a Tom Hanks production.
This question is motivated by a really interesting documentary on famous women actors called Searching for Debra Winger. In it, Rosanna Arquette interviews most of the famous actresses of the last 20 years and talks about their careers in Hollywood (If you haven’t seen it, you need to - it’s pretty amazing). One of the most revealing interviews is with Robin Wright Penn. I couldn’t find it online (and I haven’t seen the movie in years, so forgive my paraphrasing here) but she gives the impression that she is only allowed to make a film every two years, as per an arrangement with Sean Penn. I found this the most shocking of all the interviews, because it pierced my impression of Penn (as the quintessential liberal freedom fighter) and seemingly reinforced the patriarchy in the relationship.
So I guess my follow-up to this - Is it possible that these couples that are held up as paragons of contemporary Hollywood marriages simply reinforcing existing patriarchal power dynamics?
************************
PA:
“Simply reinforce patriarchal power dynamics.” Yes. Other thoughts: while Mann may not have to audition in the traditional definition, again I have to ask what films she would be on the table for anyway. Seriously — someone name ten films per year of the scope we’re discussing (budgets north of 50 million) that a forty-plus year old comedic actress would be in the running for that offer lead roles that aren’t somehow connected to Apatow through his factory channels. For that matter, name ten films per year of that scope that a dramatic actress would be considering. They don’t exist. KW suggests that I may be overthinking it when applying gender theory approaches, but it really does work even if the producers and executives aren’t reading Judith Butler together over coffee. Hollywood is managed by business school graduates who read spreadsheets and tally bottom line figures. When audiences, who are culturally conditioned not to accept transgressive imagery, refuse to pay for entertainments outside of established cultural fantasies, those bottom lines turn red awfully fast, and then the MBAs stop greenlighting productions with anything but deeply regressive politics. I wouldn’t say this is an overt, conscious strategy, just one that works as part of a belief in disrupting the fewest possible “common sense” beliefs. This is especially true in tentpole franchises: Harry Potter, Transformers, and Twilight are all just the latest examples. Apatow himself is a prime example of regressive politics, one reason his films have performed so well.
For Mann, Taylor, McDormand, Pidgeon, and others, this means they are stuck with nothing or the films their partners are willing to fight to have them in. Say what you will about their talents — I don’t particularly think Mann is anything exceptional as a screen presence either, and I’ve long thought Pidgeon is serious dead weight in Mamet’s projects — but it’s really not any different than any other business. It’s not just wives/partners, either, it’s also sons and daughters, which is an even longer list. Apatow clearly enjoys having his repertory company (the same as Mamet and the Coen brothers, as well as Paul Thomas Anderson, which makes for an interesting parallel). Why are we criticizing Mann or Taylor for their repeat appearances and not, say, Ricky Jay, who has very little screen charisma (not unlike Mann), but has become a beloved member of the Mamet stable? It really does come back to gender for me, and how it’s much easier to accept men in comedic roles than women, not to mention forgiving them for occasional missteps.
************************
CBD:
PA, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a disproportionate number of 40+year characters available to men in mid-range starring roles, but I have to disagree that similar budget, genre roles for women “don’t exist”. Perhaps we should look outside the Apatow franchise at working actresses of a certain age. Here are two examples:
-Meryl Streep (who has had a string of successful SUMMER films such as The Devil Wears Prada, Mamma Mia! in the past few years AND continued to performing smaller dramatic roles)
-Jennifer Aniston (although just turned 40, actively working on mid-range rom-coms that consistently perform boffo)
You may call them the exception to the rule that they are stars and brands in themselves and I would not disagree. However, we cannot ignore them. As AHP would say, these are star texts worth thinking about.
Additionally, there has been a lot of buzz in the industry about female leads in television dramas in recent seasons. What about roles being created in cable and pay television? I am thinking of Kyra Sedgwick in The Closer, Glenn Close in Damages, Mary-Louise Parker in Weeds and Mary McDonnell in Battlestar Galactica to name a few. (AHP: Holly Hunter in Saving Grace, Edie Falco in Nurse Jackie).
How does television as an alternative space for women fit into this discussion?
Kyra Sedgwick in The Closer
************************
CT:
I’d just like to add that as with any family business, you can’t really ask the owner to fire employees just because you don’t like them. I think if I were in a position to help a family member out, I would definitely cast, and likely hire anyone that I saw fit after I built a small empire. And let’s be honest, that’s what Hollywood consists of, small empires of families and friends writ large.
The one thing that nobody’s mentioned is it’s clear that Apatow didn’t just cast Mann because she’s his wife, but wrote the part for her as well. I am inclined to say, from everything that I’ve read so far that it’s a love-letter exclusively to and inspired by her. Dare we begrudge him for…loving his wife?
Screenwriters learn early to a) write what they know and b) to envision someone specific when writing a character. Who are we to judge Apatow because he does both? Do we complain when Wes Anderson writes another part for Bill Murray, or when Quentin Tarantino makes another rambling speech in one of his movies? To dictate who directors can and can’t cast smacks of Big Government, and we all know how popular that is these days! It seems patently un-American to me…not that I would know.
Nice discussin’ with you!
************************
PA:
Agree with CT — great conversation. One last clarification, with thanks to CBD: you’re absolutely right that these roles do exist. I seriously overstated when I said the roles don’t exist. I should have said they’re limited. And I hope that changes.
************************
KW:
CT-just a note to say that I have seen that documentary and that I also recommend reading Linda Seger’s When Women Call the Shots. It’s a pretty good book for anecdotes about how the industry feels about women and how women feel about the industry. I also wanted to make quick mention of CT’s claim that because Hollywood consists of small empires of families and friends (and it does) that what Apatow is doing is just more of the same. I agree with this. But, again, for me, the argument is not about Apatow’s films as much as it is about Mann’s automatic addition to his films. I feel like I should end with how this idea about Mann began in my head-Apatow was recently on an episode of Inside the Actor’s Studio and his wife sat in front row like many wives do. But Mann was given a mic and thus it began. PA you’re good with the textual analysis. In the comments, hypothesize what’s going on here.
************************
AHP: Comment away!
Post Script: Apatow, Rogen, Heigl Throwdown!
The shitstorm continues. Heigl’s The Ugly Truth opened relatively strong with $27 million domestic (although not strong enough to beat current summer rom-com champ, The Proposal).
And this weekend, it goes up against the Rogen/Apatow/Sandler collaboration Funny People. Rogen and Apatow have been doing the press rounds for the film, and have obviously heard wind of Heigl’s comments — both concerning her “torturous” schedule at Grey’s Anatomy and her previous complaints about her own collaboration with Apatow and Rogen, Knocked Up. (For the record, Heigl told Vanity Fair that Knocked Up “paints the women as shrews,” while the men look “lovable.” She added, “It was hard for me to love the movie.”)
On Howard’s Stern’s XM Radio show, Rogen and Apatow offered the following (via US Weekly):
“That [movie] looks like it really puts women on a pedestal in a beautiful way,” he quipped on Howard Stern‘s SIRIUS XM radio show on Thursday.
Added Apatow, “I hear there’s a scene where she’s wearing … Underwear …
with a vibrator in it, so I’d have to see if that was uplifting for women.”
Apatow figured Heigl was “probably was doing six hours of interviews and kissing everyone’s a**, and then just got tired and slipped a little bit” when she made the remarks to Vanity Fair.
Regardless, Rogen said, “I didn’t slip and I was doing f****** interviews all day too … I didn’t say s***!”
Even more baffling, said Apatow, “We never had a ‘fight’” with Heigl while filming. “Seth always says, it doesn’t make any sense [because] she improvised half her s***,” Apatow said, adding that she “could not have been cooler.”
Apatow said he hasn’t spoken to Heigl since her remarks. He doesn’t know if he’d make a big deal about it, either.
“It all depends on how much coffee I have had that day,” he said. “If I was fighting … with someone else about something I may handle it wrong, and if I’m in like total Buddha mood, I’d be like ‘I feel sad that she hasn’t learned the lesson of her journey yet,’” he said.
After the remark, “[You think] at some point I’ll get a call saying ‘Sorry, I was tired…’ and then the call never comes,’” he said.
Rogen said he doesn’t feel bad since Heigl seems to run her mouth and most people, including Grey’s Anatomy staff.
“I gotta say it’s not like we’re the only people she said some bat **** crazy things about,” he said. “That’s kind of her bag now.”
Now, this has been framed as Rogen and Apatow attempting to divert attention away from her movie and onto theirs, but I think the choice of forum — Howard Stern, who tends to encourage more, well, frank discussion — helps to at least frame their discourse as the expression of their ‘authentic’ feelings about Heigl.
Ultimately, Rogen and Apatow undermine any and all discourse that asserts that Heigl has become a scapegoat, or that her words are taken out of context (see the Newsweek article). If even the people she WORKS WITH say she’s this sort of person, she must be.
Again, I want to emphasize that it doesn’t really matter whether or not she really is a shrew — what matters is that all aspects of her image (and the media) seem to be collaborating to portray her as such. It also doesn’t help that she was the executive producer of The Ugly Truth — further highlighting what has been constructed as ‘movie-role’ hypocracy: criticizing her character in one film and playing one that seems to embody the selfsame traits in another.
That’s about all I have to say — other than the fact that everywhere, even The Onion A.V. Club, seems to be circulating this line of discourse. Heigl’s got to turn this around quick — either by mocking herself (a Funny or Die video or SNL skit might do, but I don’t know how funny she really is) or by doing something significant enough to drape over this now acutely felt component of her star image.
