By Govindini Murty. Housewife shows are apparently bigger business than ever before, with one ‘housewife’ formerly of Bravo’s Real Housewives of New York City even recently signing a major merchandising deal for $100 million. I commented on this trend a year ago and said that it represented a move toward traditionalism – posing a wry counterpoint to the apparent ‘progressiveness’ of modern popular culture. After all, the ‘housewife’ shows glamorize women who seem to do nothing but shop, gossip, have lunch, dress up and attend parties – and who have only acquired their lifestyles by marrying wealthy men. These tendencies reached their zenith in the deliciously campy and over-the-top recent episodes of The Real Housewives of NYC‘s lavish trip to Morocco (read hilarious recaps here, here and here), an obvious homage to the notorious trip to the Middle East from last year’s Sex and the City 2 – a film that earned over $288 million at the worldwide box office.
When these housewives have careers, they often appear to be pursued for vanity reasons, rather than for serious purposes of building long-term professional achievements or for supporting their families. And yet, in the very fact that these housewife shows are highly popular on TV (and seem to be the major money-makers for the cable network Bravo, which has launched six of the Real Housewives shows), they appear to be one of the few ways in which shows featuring a majority of women characters can even get on the airwaves.
I’ve written previously about the highly un-progressive nature of Hollywood casting. Despite the fact that women make up over 50% of the population (and according to the MPAA’s 2010 box office report, purchase 50% of the movie tickets), according to SAG statistics they’re only cast in one out of three lead roles in film and TV, and only earn two-thirds of the pay of male actors. Watch most network TV shows, TV ads, or movies in theaters and you will see two or three men cast for every woman. It’s completely deplorable.
This disparity poses a telling contrast to the era of classic Hollywood, when it seemed that leading women got as many roles as the leading men -and were often the most highly-paid performers at their studios. When Greta Garbo made films with Clark Gable at MGM, she got top billing. When Marlene Dietrich was at the height of her fame in the ’30s at Paramount, she was the highest-paid performer at the studio. Mary Pickford was so powerful in the 1910s and ’20s that she co-founded and ran her own movie studio, United Artists, after being the top-paid performer at Paramount. Even Shirley Temple was the top money-earner at Twentieth-Century Fox in the depths of the Depression, single-handedly keeping the studio afloat and earning the paychecks to match. Is there any female actress today with the clout to co-found a movie studio? No. Is there any female actress today who earns more than the top male stars at any studio? No. Is there any top female actress who will get top billing over a top male star? No. And yet in reality TV – which may more accurately reflect the tastes of average Americans, due to the fluid, highly-adaptable nature of the programming – women get the majority of the roles and significantly out-earn male reality TV stars.
Just look at the stunning example of Bethenny Frankel, formerly of the Real Housewives of New York City and the current star of her own Bravo show, Bethenny Ever After. After three years as a regular on reality TV, Frankel shrewdly parlayed her TV exposure and her popularity among young women into a reported $100 million dollar liquor deal for her Skinnygirl drink line. Yes, you read that right: $100 million. Frankel has also written three New York Times bestsellers on the subject of diet and self-help, and has launched a number of other Skinnygirl lines for everything from shape-wear to vitamin supplements. For all this she was recently featured on the cover of Forbes Magazines’ annual ‘Celebrity 100’ issue as one of the top celebrity money-earners of the year. The Forbes report places Frankel at #42 on the list, above such A-list Hollywood stars as Sandra Bullock and Brad Pitt. Frankel has even recently taped a pilot for a day-time TV show, according to Hollywood Reporter – and I, for one, would say it would be one of the few day-time talk shows I’d be willing to watch.
And yet the irony is that Frankel, who owed her career breakthrough to being cast on the Real Housewives of New York City, has said that she quit the show because:
“There’s no good reason to be spending so much of your time and energy on nonsense,” she said. “I always say it’s women being rewarded for bad behavior. I left the show because I didn’t want to hear the maddening, the deafening sound of just catty arguing.”
And this is the crux of the matter: many people complain that the ‘housewives’ shows encourage women to behave badly, and only attract ratings because of the outrageous and unprofessional behavior depicted on-screen. But I have to ask the question: which is worse, women acting outrageously on TV in a manner that used to be standard in women’s melodramas and comedies (the type that were made all the time in classic Hollywood) – or women only showing up on TV in supporting roles, or not even showing up on TV at all?
Frankel for one has had the intelligence to not fall for either dichotomy, but to find a way to both be on reality TV and yet channel it to a productive business purpose. She was also one of the few ‘housewives’ who actually wasn’t married to a wealthy man when she starred on The Real Housewives of NYC and therefore had to actually earn a living. The focused and ambitious Frankel made the effort to study the marketplace and to create products that answered a need in the lives of young women. As a result, Frankel has built a brand with enormous potential. As she said to Forbes:
“I don’t really think in terms of money,” … “[b]ut considering what’s going on now, let’s put it this way: If I was offered a billion dollars for the whole Skinnygirl brand, it wouldn’t be a definite yes.”
I don’t normally focus as much on the business of entertainment as on the artistic or philosophical aspects of it. However, it’s revealing to see here how when women are disadvantaged in major areas of the entertainment industry – from not being cast in as many roles, to not earning as much as men for the same work (Frankel herself had countless career setbacks in Hollywood and in the media before her breakthrough) – women who are shrewd and resourceful will still find a way in America’s ever more diverse media environment to create their own paths to success and independence. If that isn’t a heartening, democratic outcome, I don’t know what is.
Posted on June 27th, 2011 at 5:16pm.
Something I’ve noticed is that men don’t take women seriously. Men don’t read books by women and don’t watch shows featuring women.
The funny thing is that women do the same thing. They’d rather watch men and read books by men. This is all relative, of course, but both sexes have trouble taking women seriously.
Not just in entertainment- compare news coverage of male and female politicians.
I used to think that women’s complaints about cultural bias were wrong. Then I looked at my book collection and the movies I watch… and the 2008 campaign was a real eye opener.
John – I would really have to disagree here – if both men and women would rather watch men, than why for most of classic Hollywood’s history were women the queens of the movie studios? Rita Hayworth, Greta Garbo, Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Audrey Hepburn, and many other fine actresses shouldn’t have had such successful careers by your reckoning. And what about the long history of Western art masterpieces featuring women? I’m surprised I even have to make this argument.
I think the problem here is that Hollywood ever since the ’60s has not been able to make good movies for and about women, and my theory is that it has to do with the latent misogyny of the radical poiitics of the ’60s. When well-made movies are made starring women, people turn out in droves to see them. Just look at “Gone With the Wind,” “The Sound of Music,” “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves,” “The Exorcist” and “Titanic” – all starring women and all in the top ten highest grossing films of all time.
As for people not wanting to read books written by women, have you looked at the recent New York Times best-seller lists? Take a look at Amazon – out of their top ten fiction bestsellers, nine are by women.
As for coverage of women politicians, yes, it is biased, especially if you are a conservative woman. That’s a whole subject for another lengthy discussion.
I have to disagree too. I am a guy and I love watching TV show with strong female leads and there hasn’t been a shortage of them on TV.
Nice article Govindini.Original and thought provoking.
You say Hollywood casting is responsible for the lack of good roles for women. Aren’t these determined by the projects that are picked to film? And if that’s the case, then what you are really saying is that the people behind the productions — the writers, the money men and the people who decide which pitches will be green lighted, are neglecting properties that would be both popular and have more roles for women?
Just my personal taste, but there are very few women I find all that appealing as movie stars these days. Who could compare with Natalie Wood, Barbara Stanwyck or Liz Taylor? I submit that as a male, in a biological sense, I respond to some level of cultural stimulation on the screen. The previously mentioned actresses screamed FEMALE – because they belonged to a culture that celebrated the difference. In the postmodern era female characters = men by definition. It’s a subtle change but lowers the experience of being in their presence in a movie. I suspect this is true for both women and men. This is why I don’t expect a Mary Pickford on the horizon soon.
@John Lynch: The men of my acquaintance take women seriously. Ayn Rand is extremely popular, and science fiction has quite a number of women authors who are read mainly by men. A personal favorite being Lois McMaster Bujold which you might like to check out.
Thanks so much K – and I appreciate your thoughtful response as well. Yes, of course the Hollywood casting is determined by the projects that are greenlit, and the bias definitely begins at the source. And though the lead roles will be decided by the studio and the producers, there are lots of other roles where either men or women can be cast with no difference in the story, and over and over again I’ve seen the role go to a male actor, which is another reason why on average the actresses learn less than the men nowadays. They’re simply employed a lot less.
As for the cultural source of the problem, it really developed in the ’60s in the radical politics of the era. Look at the numbers of starring roles for women in the ’50s, from musicals to romances to serious dramas to comedies, and it’s absolutely stunning the breadth and quality of roles they had. You mention such fine actresses as Natalie Wood, Barbara Stanwyck, and Liz Taylor, and to them I would add such other captivating stars as Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Ava Gardner, Deborah Kerr, Grace Kelly, Bette Davis, Judy Garland, Jennifer Jones, Eleanor Powell, Kim Novak, Cyd Charisse, Jane Russell, Yvonne DeCarlo, and many others. Then look at the ’60s, and the number and breadth of women’s roles really plummets.
I think the problem every since then has been that the ’60s generation and its descendants have not been able to figure out how to write great roles for women because of their desire to jettison everything that women traditionally bring to art. Believe me, I’m all for women having equal rights and equal pay, and in that I’m a feminist, but I’m not for tossing out all the traditional traits of womanhood either. I think there’s a way to split the difference – to have great stories that feature women who are feminine and alluring, but also have careers and individuality of their own. You point out Ayn Rand, and she was certainly able to write these sorts of characters for women, and her books have been massive best-sellers for over fifty years as a result.
Do actresses today necessarily want to be feminine & alluring onscreen? Our most acclaimed actresses seem more attracted to “gritty” parts. Not only because those parts get the most attention, street cred, and awards (e.g. see Oscar wins for Charlize Theron in Monster & Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry & Million Dollar Baby), but because they are genuinely drawn to parts that allow them to explore more extreme emotions, behavior, & human experience, or characters that have more eccentric, quirky personalities.
These types of characters are not written as men with breasts; they are definitely recognizable as women, but are not particularly concerned with exuding femininity or being alluring to the audience. Kishke’s example of Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone is a good one.
The desire to play these kinds of parts applies to male actors as well, of course. It’s just that masculinity has a somewhat wider range than femininity (Cary Grant is masculine, but so is DeNiro, just in a different way. An actress playing a female version of 70’s DeNiro-type parts may give a terrific & fascinating performance, but she’s probably not going to come off as feminine).
I love classic Hollywood, but I can understand why some actresses might find those types of roles limiting.
I love the glamour and allure of old Hollywood actresses, and the way , but I can understand why actresses in particular might find tho
There are movies out there that feature solid female leads who are playing actual women. See, for example, Michelle Williams’ affecting performance in Blue Valentine. Gosling is great there too, and the movie is excellent, but Williams is letter-perfect. I’m thinking also of Winter’s Bone, which I watched recently. Jennifer Lawrence’s character is strong, but in no way is she playing a man.