When I first started this blog, I asked the question are blockbuster movies a thing of the past? One person said they were - you could view movies in your own home theatre and another did not think they were dead. I concur with the latter although I don't remember if I said so at the time.
By the way, this blog is under one of my internet aliases - that I use on other sites - in case you wondering.
Summer 2008 has been the summer for blockbusters. IronMan kicked off the season in mid-May followed by Indiana Jones 4, the Incredible Hulk was next with Get Smart now in theatres. I, for one, am enjoying this season. When people ask me why aren't you blogging - well for one reason - there haven't been a lot of films that I wanted to go see. I confess to having a thing about going to movies alone but I am going to try to work on that.
An interesting turn of events has been the release of the "Sex in the City" movie. For months now, my friend Aaron and I have dreaded it's opening. What if it did not live up to the show? Well the success of the film seems to depend on the audience age. My 17 year old niece "hates the show!" - which didn't surprise me in the slightest because: (a) she's 17 and (b) she's never seen the show. I also think that my sister won't enjoy the film because of its vulgarity which unfortunately is integral to the show. I say unfortunately because my sister does not like vulgarity - (L - tip for you - go see Get Smart. Lots of laughs and almost no nudity!)
For me Sex was great! I began to tune in to the show during the 2nd season and could relate to the characters. No, not because of the sex... The female characters are my age. They deal with issues that I could possibly and do deal with. Sex is the "Mary Tyler Moore" show of my generation and I love MTM.
There are little, or no, voices for women my age in this media era. Actresses my age are cast as the mother or supportive friend to the female lead. This decade has done little for actresses of any age but when the main audiences are either baby-boomers or people up to the age of 25, well my generation loses out. I think it is no surprise that women such as Halle Berry and Nicole Kidman are choosing this time in their lives to have children.
In the 1930s and 1940s there were great film roles available for Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Ingrid Bergman to name a few. In the 1950s while the amount of quality female roles decreased there were still roles available for Deborah Kerr, Joanne Woodward, and Doris Day. In the 1960s while there were still "kitten roles" for women (ie Barbarella or almost any Bardot movie), they also had "Bonnie and Clyde" (Faye Dunaway and Estelle Parsons), or "They Shoot Horses Don't They?" ironically with Jane Fonda. The 1970s and the 1980s again had lots of roles for women but there seems to be a backlash against women 35+ in films today.
Actors who are in their 40s and older are linked with women 20 years or younger and these roles are supposed to be credible. To be fair in Ironman, Gwyneth Paltrow is roughly 35 and Robert Downey Jr. is 42 (I love RDJ) but this is not the trend. In "Get Smart", Anne Hathaway is in her 20s while Steve Carrell is in his 40s (but she is still very funny). So it is refreshing to see four women in their 40s living in NYC doing what they want to do albeit not without their challenges like Mary, Rhoda, Maude or Sue Ann Nivens did on '70s tv. So support "women" films because the bottom line is money talks.
For the record, I loved Ironman, the new Indiana Jones movie (but what a crappy role for Karen Allen as Indy's lost love), Get Smart and Sex. I loved "Michael Clayton" with George Clooney and Tilda Swinton (what a magnificent performance) - and that's about all I can remember right now...
Cheerio
