Why Can’t Women In Television Age Gracefully?
September 28, 2011
by Anita Finlay ("Ani")
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
It was a joy to see the magnificent Margo Martindale receive an Emmy for her work as the villainous backwoods matriarch Mags Bennett on FX’s “Justified” this season. But as heartening as it was to see a 60 year old character actress being recognized for her portrayal of a complex, distinctly non-cookie cutter character — and one originally written for a man — she is something of an anomaly in a world where actresses are still surgically enhanced more often than not. It’s not that men aren’t doing it, too, because they are. But some very beautiful, talented woman who would otherwise be aging gracefully feel a pressure to extend their careers in a certain category with a pull and a tuck, or several.
While we have made progress by virtue of so many female series leads being in their forties, fifties, even sixties, the other day I watched the new show of a very successful actress who had a face lift so severe as to render her all but unrecognizable. Why is she not allowed to have a single line on her face? Why does she not allow herself to have one?
Actresses on television have far more opportunity than on film and yet, on film, there are two actresses who refuse to succumb to the knife – Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren. These two ladies are both considered acting goddesses and seem to have a monopoly on any roles for interesting, complex women of a certain age. Is their great stature a built in protection against such pressure to get cosmetized?
Surely the external pressure to undergo cosmetic surgery is great. But since we have so many options to render ourselves younger looking, is the temptation too much to resist? In a culture that celebrates youth, and where women tend to become invisible as they age, I am surrounded by those who give in to that pressure. And I would be lying if I didn’t say that I’d like to take an eraser to a couple of the lines on my forehead. But I don’t.
The good news here is we are starting to see more women on television who are not (only) a size two, and more important, not twenty two. Glenn Close, Kathy Bates, Kathy Baker, Dana Delany, Sela Ward, Mary McCormack, Julianna Margulies, Ally Walker, Patricia Heaton, Melissa McCarthy, Marg Helgenberger, Jane Lynch, Lauren Graham, Bonnie Bedelia, Mariska Hargitay, Amy Brenneman, Maria Bello, to name a few, are women in charge with lives of their own – not window dressing…
But how many of them have succumbed to “airbrush” pressure coming from the other end of the spectrum via the young ladies on this fall’s tv line-up of “Pan Am,” “The Playboy Club,” and “Charlie’s Angels.” The young size twos send us all a very different message as our networks continue to sell sex and youth in order to titillate and lure the viewing public away from reality tv.
Even Diane Keaton – currently doing very high end make up commercials, has had the skin on her face digitally airbrushed – this dishonesty does nothing to honor her own natural beauty. Her 2003 Oscar nominated performance in “Something’s Gotta Give,” had Keaton portraying a middle-aged, very accomplished playwright and divorcee who embarks on an unlikely romance with an over-aged womanizer played by Jack Nicholson. The pleasure of their obvious chemistry was only outdone by the fact that they looked and acted their respective ages.
Here’s a hot flash – reality is refreshing. It also typically finds a bigger audience than the airbrushed, glamorized, pulled, tucked, cosmetic version of life we are so often force fed. If only we could convince studio and tv execs — and screenwriters — of the same. An actress I worked with several years ago said she was given a script to read that described the lead woman character as “35, but still attractive.” If that’s the attitude, no wonder women want to scrape their faces off! Another actress buddy of mine said, “We’re all in the same category – 35 to death.”
The message is the same across the board: the way the real world looks is not good enough, not glamorous enough – we need enhancing. And heaven forefend an actress, model or singer has a little meat on her arms. Editors will scrape that off their magazine covers, too.
Working in this business for many years I have seen actresses airbrush away (either in a headshot or under a surgeon’s knife) precisely what makes them unique. And sometimes those adjustments do help a career. I would wager there are just as many cases where they hurt. Attempting to clone oneself into a look that works for someone else has had decidedly mixed results. It is fascinating that women who tend to be most successful often refuse to take away the expression, the quirks and the character that have grown them into who they are – and who we love to watch.
Here’s to allowing us to celebrate our bodies, our faces, our own unique beauty and the aging process; a process to be honored. Not shamed.
Part of the reason this problem persists is women with integrity don’t go into the movie/TV business because it is so profoundly sexist.
I have also heard a lot of yap about this TV season being “all about women” as there are more shows about women. Well relative to media I only care about female consumers not women who work for media companies. Usually when actresses experience an increase in job opportunity it only means Media is making more tit and “asspirational” crap like Playboy Club. So the increase in work opportunity for actresses tends to be inversely correlated with interesting content for women consumers.
For the record, Playboy club bombed the first week it was on and is down 20% from the first week for it’s second showing. Charlies Angles got only a fair number of viewers, not what was expected and Pan am is doing OK. Are these shows “women’s content” because they have women in them? The only financially relevant definition of “women’s content” is “content women will pay to consume”. Women consumers and viewers determine what is “women’s content” not men and not inauthentic women who are slaves to the patriarchy.
So glad to read that Martindale received an emmy for Mags. She was absolutely amazing in that role. I had no idea it was originally written for a man and I can’t imagine anyone else playing the part. She owned it!
IMO, a big part of the problem is that young actresses get the big roles because they are young and pretty, not necessarily how talented they are. Then, as they age, they don’t have the skills to land the (admittedly scarce) good roles for “mature” women and/or complex characters. So they get the surgery to make themselves look younger (and “prettier”) because that’s all they have ever been judged on. I hope I don’t come across overly harsh but, as an outsider looking in, the entertainment industry seems to treat actresses as easily disposable eye-candy. It’s no wonder that so many refuse to age gracefully.
Personally, as a woman, I would love to see more complex female roles (and great acting) like Mags Bennett. That’s why “Justified” is one of only two TV shows that I tune into regularly.
Bes, it is a harsh generalization to say that no women with integrity go into film/tv because it is so profoundly sexist. I have been an actor for many years, working in the business regularly and take issue with anyone who does not think I have integrity. Sexism exists in just about any business. One has a choice — do not participate at all, or get in and as you move up the ladder, do your best to make a change from within. In the case of show business, the other choice is to write and produce (and possibly perform) your own work where you have control of content — which I have also done. Many other actors/actresses have as well.
I choose to participate in something I love even if it does not always look or feel the way I would like. There are certainly moments where actors or actresses are fortunate enough to work in a project that actually enlightens or informs about the human condition. That makes it all worthwhile. Not unlike a lawyer who every once in a while gets to represent a good guy/gal and wins a victory that is meaningful.
Further, Pan Am, Playboy Club and Charlie’s Angels will fall if they are not good shows, as you aptly stated. The titillation factor is certainly not enough to keep them going. To your point about who governs content, if women consumers gravitate toward shows with fully fleshed out, complex female characters, then we will have more of them on the air. That is also happening now, the eye candy stuff notwithstanding.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Anita: I am not impressed with or grateful for glacial progress for women. I have definitely noticed that local productions (I’m in Seattle) and small productions are great as far as representations of women go. I like to go to community and high school theater. But the business as practiced in New York and Hollywood is misogynist and one of the most backward businesses regarding women that still exists. It is too bad that due to the gatekeeping by the Media Cartel none of this modern, pro woman content can make it to market.
At this point women consumers are conditioned to expect disappointment and crap as well as offensive advertising from the offerings of the Media Cartel. Intelligent business people consider it a major business problem when your potential consumers expect your product to suck. I don’t have any suggestions for how the industry can change that perception. My only suggestion would be, it is unlikely that people who are so stupid that they let this problem develop and persist could be smart enough to dig themselves out of the hole they’ve dug. Because of the sexist corporate culture of old media the old companies and the people who accepted that culture will have to die out when a free media market is established.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...