Thursday, September 07, 2017

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WRITING COLUMNS ABOUT NOTHING - GREAT EXAMPLE BY AN EXPERT - IDIOCY OF WRITING ANYTHING ABOUT A MOVIE DESIGNED TO GIVE "THE HOTS" TO 12-YEAR OLDS - FEMINISM AND NATURE OF HOLLYWOOD


COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY HADLEY FREEMAN IN THE GUARDIAN


My interview with James Cameron prompted outrage – but is Wonder Woman worth the fuss?

Count on Hadley Freeman to do a review (or is it supposed to be an interview?) which isn't a review (or an interview) around the topic of a movie most might know likely isn't worth walking across the street to see at a free showing.

This silly production with its skimpily-clad "actress" is intended to give the "hots" to 12-year old boys. It has no other purpose, no matter what anyone reads into it.

Ms. Freeman’s purpose is yet one more repeat of the well-worn, almost threadbare, theme that there aren't enough women leads in films.

I reluctantly point out that Hollywood is not about social causes nor is it some kind of democratic institution.

It is about money, big money, and nothing else.

Believe me, if more women leading in films were understood to increase revenues and profits, Hollywood would be churning them out around the clock without any prodding.

Actually, there was a time it did just that. In the 1940s, we had a long list of truly major female stars - Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Katherine Hepburn, Lizabeth Scott, Vivien Leigh, Lauren Bacall, plus many others.

Why was that?

With a major war and economic turmoil and women filling in every kind of work possible from driving steam engines to working the assembly lines, there obviously was a big public appetite for female heroes.

It should be remembered, too, that production values and costs then were tiny compared to those today, so that each film was less of a risk for a studio.

But into the 1950s, many of the featured women begin to be more about being pin-ups or cutesy types – from Marylin Monroe to Doris Day.

The economics of making major films reflect the economics of society. It cannot be otherwise, unless you speak of smaller "indy" films, but I don't see writers on this topic, like Ms. Freeman, even mentioning, or showing any awareness of, such films.

No, they seem to expect that the Hollywood money machine should suddenly serve a cause. Now, how realistic is that?