Since the 30s women's roles in film and cinema have been relegated to secondary roles, do you agree?

Question

Female star power in Hollywood has changed quite rapidly since the beginning of the studio system in the early 30s when audiences flocked to the cinemas to see their favourite divas. Now, women are mostly relegated to secondary roles. Please discuss.

Answer 1

I disagree.

There has been no era in film history that women have been relegated to secondary roles.

I may not be familiar with their particular movies but look....
in the 1930s, it was Greta Garbo, Mae West, Jean Harlow, Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford who reigned the cinemas.

In the 1940s, Elizabeth Taylor, Ava Gardner, Vivian Leigh, Rita Hayworth, Ginger Rogers, Lana Turner, Ingrid Bergman, Judy Garland, Lucille Ball, Jane Wayman, Lauren Bacall, Katherine Hepburn who reigned.

In the 1950s, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Sophia Loren, Shirley Maclaine, Joan Collins who reigned. the list goes on...

Answer 2

I think the problem is more that when women get older they are relegated to secondary roles more and more, playing the mother or grandmother of the star of the movie. But that has not changed since the 30's when once women were over a certain age they were either the mother or the crazy lady e.i Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Hollywood just doesn't know what to do with older women actors.

Answer 3

The Golden Era of Hollywood spawned many,many frontline female stars. Alexis Smith, Greer Garson, Bette Grable and Hutton, Olivia De Havilland, Mary Alden, Mary Astor, Ethel Barrymore, Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Celeste Holmes, Judy Garland, Jennifer Jones, Yvonne DeCarlo, Deborah Kerr, Teresa Wright, Gloria Swanson, Katherine Hepburn, Claudette Colbert, Carol Lombard, Stanwicke, Leigh, Dunn, Garbo, Joan Fontain, Ingrid Bergman, etc.,etc. All of these tremendous talents brought millions to the Studio Mogul heads. Elsa Lancaster's '35 "Frankenstein" literally saved Carl Lamille's fledgling Universal Studios. The Heads of the Studios worked under a "Star" system, which was roughly an 80 20 split. The Studios getting 80 and the Stars a measly 20, and often less. Most of the Stars Beverly Hills Mansion's were owned by the Studios. Old age, filmwise, hit at 30. Cross that line and you went from the A to the B list. This Studio Mogul System went on for 20 yrs. It was around '42 after the completion of "Now Voyager" that Betty Davis had enough. Her very public battle with Jack Warner over rolls and money went on for weeks in the trades. In the end, Davis won, securing higher paid and longer contracts and the actors initutive to jump to another Studio for a project if she chose. Bette Davis made a better world for females in film in Hollywood. All of the female brat packs of today owe her for this milestone. In today's filmmaking there are no longer studios that are controlled by one man who run herd of the actors. Todays Hollywood is ACTOR fueled. 20 million for an A actors services plus a percentage of the gross AFTER COSTS are not at all unusual. But are women really "regulated to secondary rolls"? I think now only possibly by age, scripts, and genere's. Carmen Diaz, Julia Roberts, Diane Keaton, Faye Dunnaway, Winnona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, and others get a flat 15-20 million a picture. The rolls, or the diversity of female rolls in Hollywood has always and will always be a problem. But the money with youth and a good track record is there in bucket fulls.

Answer 4

you are 100% correct in terms of film--to the extent that more men than women remain at the top in terms of star power--and even remain there longer as they age.

sure, there are some women that do get starring vehicles, but compare that number to men.

maybe because it's harder to make a movie of real substance that the studios think will make money. typically women stars wind up in movies of "substance" or "chick flicks"--and i must admit, as a guy, i'd much rather see Die Hard 27 or Rocky 83 (tho they did soften this last one a little too much for my liking...) than The Queen or Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood.

didn't they say that teenagers power what makes money at the box office to a large degree? since more men star in action films than women, it kind of makes sense that money hungry Hollywood would aim at the kids.

oddly enough, though, i've seen seen four movies at the show over the last four days--The Reaping and Perfect Stranger (where i also took my GF) and Redline and Slow Burn (which i saw solo because my GF expressed little or no interest). two starring women in the main roles, two not. tho i must admit, i think that is unusual.

i do think women fare a little better on TV though.

Answer 5

I disagree. What about movies like Tomb Raider and Underworld? What about the romantic comedies aout there that have the lead played by females? I think women today have more access to good roles than they ever had in the 30s.

Answer 6

sure. we are nonetheless meant to be the breadwinner, reliable, and manly. this is sexist to assume women people to do "womanly" issues (laundry, cooking, and so on.) yet completely appropriate to think of adult males are people who elevate something over 10 lbs., open doorways for women people, pull out their chairs, and be those to artwork on autos and stuff. i might say classic "macho" adult males are the worst ones approximately holding those stereotypes going, to be truthful. i'm no longer a super believer in gender roles. There are issues adult males are extra probably to be extra valuable at than women people (and vice versa) yet i understand an exception to exceptionally much each gender rule. i might say the guy could do what he's appropriate at. comparable for the female. If this incorporates the classic gender roles, then this is the way it is going to be. If the guy's extra valuable at cooking and laundry, then he could do them. of direction, the different you would be able to have a minimum of a user-friendly thought on a thank you to do those issues too if certainly one of them is unwell or injured or in simple terms desires help. that's no longer to assert there are not a super style of envisioned gender roles for women people, enormously between older people, yet women people do no longer look as "incorrect" while they step out of their gender roles as adult males are, different than to particularly classic and conservative people.

Answer 7

you dont see a lot of women racing to be the outragous screenwriter's either. the storie's they write aren't putting them into situation's that get the people jumping.whrn they write for thier fellow women they write mom',victim's etc.write hero,truckdrivers etc for your fellow women.see what that brings

Answer 8

I disagree. I beleive women have gotten more prevelent roles...

Answer 9

No.