Oh, thank God for Russell Crowe.
And no, not in the way that I used to thank God for Russell Crowe. Like back in the Gladiator days, when he was so outrageously, in-your-face sexy that even Sex And The City name-checked the buff, Kiwi-Aussie, sandal-wearing God.
Samantha: “Who do you fantasise about?” Carrie & Miranda in unison: “Russell Crowe.” Those were the days.
A lot has changed since then.
Russell Crowe is no longer Gladiator, he is now a football-club-owning dad and film-maker who’s never met a pair of tracksuit pants he didn’t like.
Oh, age. It happens to us all.
Russell Crowe.But according to the ever-helpful Mr Crowe, women don’t realise that ageing happens. We struggle to let go of our youth, our beauty, our status as the “hot girl”. And it makes us whinge and whine about inequality.
And we can thank God for Mr Crowe pointing that out, as he did to the Australian Women’s Weekly this month.
Are you ready?
“The best thing about the industry I’m in – movies – is that there are roles for people in all different stages of life,” he told AWW when asked about the perceived discrepancy between the sexes in Hollywood. “To be honest, I think you’ll find that the woman who is saying that (the roles have dried up) is the woman who at 40, 45, 48, still wants to play the ingénue, and can’t understand why she’s not being cast as the 21 year old.”
Ouch.
Even Meryl thinks it’s funny that Russell doesn’t believe sexism in Hollywood exists.
But hold on, Russell wants to make his point by citing some very famous women, and himself:
“Meryl Streep will give you 10,000 examples and arguments as to why that’s bullshit, so will Helen Mirren, or whoever it happens to be. If you are willing to live in your own skin, you can work as an actor. If you are trying to pretend that you’re still the young buck when you’re my age, it just doesn’t work…. The point is, you do have to be prepared to accept that there are stages in life. So I can’t be the Gladiator forever.”
We all know what Mr Crowe is trying to say here, and on the surface of it, it may sound like common sense.
Top Comments
Nice to see that Meryl Streep has had read the whole interview and has pointed out that he was taken out of context. Unlike many websites who couldn't be bothered to do that and have instead been caught up in the internet outrage. If there's not many roles for women in their 50s it's because they're not being written and commissioned which is a different problem. Seriously, Russell is a lovely bloke, very intelligent most of the time, so I was surprised that people actually thought he'd be this shallow.
Yes! I just read this article (the one where Meryl Streep agrees with him after reading him in context) not twenty minutes ago and (again, in context) I don't think there is anything wrong with what he was saying.
As a woman in her mid forties, I can relate to that struggle from young and ok looking to old and invisible. I'm going to try and embrace age gracefully but the transition is hard - much harder than I thought it would be…maybe because the last fifteen years went by in an absolute flash! Anyway, I'm sure if I'm feeling this way being an average Jo, I'm sure it's that much harder being a beautiful Hollywood actress whose self worth is wrapped up so heavily in her youth and beauty.
Unfortunately men make up the majority of heroes and villains in real life, so that is reflected in fiction.
This, according to a man. If you ask most people who their hero is, they often say their mum. How does that fit into your theory?
And if you're meaning historical heroes, you might want to reflect on the fact that that's because of sexism. Men wrote history for and about men. Women even had to write as men, perform as men, sign up to fight as men - they lived very constrained lives that didn't lend themselves to heroism. Female heroes existed anyway, they just weren't supported or reported.
"This, according to a man". Gender is irrelevant to logic, either perception is right or wrong and attributable sexism is coming from your assumptions.
"If you ask most people who their hero" Stop right there. Until you do a critical study, you're just speculating more sexism.
Also, I'm talking about the classic sense of hero, in that someone who risks there lives for others in relation to what would make a goods story.
"Men wrote history for and about men." Says your gender studies professor who reads revisionist history and theories written by women an the absence of genuine critique.
Men lived just as constrained lives because of the expectations on them to die by both men and women. You erase female agency and culpability in the usual manner.
In summary, I'm wrong because what we don't know about history according to you is more proof than what has been documented and is still documented in this time of equality where women still don't seem to be the majority of people dying to save others.