Helen Mirren gave a really excellent interview to The Guardian to promote her L’Oreal contract. At the age of 70, she’s the oldest “face” of a beauty brand and I’m sure this interview fulfills some of her contractual obligations. But that’s sort of the beauty of hiring Mirren to represent a beauty brand: she talks like a real person, she’s able to discuss aging, work and family with a great deal of authenticity and she’s just a really cool person. You can read the full Guardian piece here. Some highlights:
Her L’Oreal contract: “It was about time that someone of my age, not necessarily me, did it. Certainly my whole life, one had these images of perfect, incredibly youthful girls shoved at you as what you should aspire to. And we’re not even talking about 25-year-olds, incidentally, we are talking about girls of 15. Who looks 15? It’s not fair. It’s taken a very long time for the penny to drop because women have been 50 for a very long time, or 60, or 70.”
Does she feel beautiful? “I hate that word. Kate Moss is beautiful, so is David Beckham, and I can appreciate a beautiful girl walking down the street. Young is beautiful. But the majority of us are something else, and I wish there was another word for it.”
Whether she looks better now: “Oh no, I definitely don’t look better now than when I was young. Definitely not. Of course I looked better then. The great thing that happens as you age is that you don’t really give a flying f–ck. I don’t look so good, but I don’t care.”
Whether sexism in the film industry will ever change: “When roles for women in real life change, then you will see change in the film industry. If we happen to see a [female] president of the United States, and a world expert on marine biology comes on television and it’s a woman, or the female head of a petroleum company on the news.”
Getting 20-something girls to play every age: “I think what’s galling to me is when you see someone who’s supposed to be a high-level surgeon in a film and she’s being played by a 28-year-old actress. They wouldn’t even be qualified yet, never mind eminent. The more those roles change for women in life, the more people get used to that image – seeing an older woman’s face. They become more familiar with it. It’s not uncharted territory, visually, so it’s not such a shock to the system any more.”
The shifting gender dynamics: “It’s interesting that Greta Garbo retired at, I think, 42. Jennifer Aniston is fortysomething, and wants to be – that’s the other thing. She’s not trying to be 28. She wants the roles that a 40-year-old can play, because they’re much more interesting. She wants to move into that world, and Greta Garbo felt she couldn’t, she had to retire. So absolutely it’s changed, and it will continue to change. Having said that, we will always love beauty on the screen, and youth.”
She “doesn’t bother” calling herself a feminist: Because “it’s just f–king obvious.”
Posh kids: “I couldn’t afford to go to drama school. To become an actor was a dangerous thing, financially. But, on the other hand, it was doable and I don’t know whether it is any more. It’s gone back to only really posh kids being able to afford to be actors.”
Her greatest achievement: “The longer your life, the more you have to remember, and I do have amazing memories. I feel particularly grateful that I’m in a happy marriage. I love my husband, I love being with him. He’s a nightmare, but he’s great, and I look forward to seeing him and miss him when he’s not there. Not that I can’t live without him, because I can. But that is a really nice part of my life, when I look back and think of what we’ve done together. Family in general, I think. It’s not any of my doing really, and the fact that I’m very close to my family is great, even without children. Maybe especially without children.”
I don’t think she was going to say anything bad about Jennifer Aniston when she cut herself off there. She was just doing a stream-of-consciousness thing and Aniston was probably the first 40-something actress she thought of. That being said, Aniston isn’t the best example of a 40-something woman who wants to play 40-something characters. Aniston would love to still play 20-something characters but she’s realized that A) no one buys her in those roles anymore and B) she’s not going to win any awards trying to convince people she’s 28. As for what Mirren says about Hollywood using 20-something women for every role, even if the role is for a woman much older… she’s right. And it is offensive.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
If people find the double standards and sexism in Hollywood films so offensive why do they continue to watch them?
I think part of the problem is that the twelve year old boy demographic dominates too much. Sexism will change once studio execs realize that there is an important demographic they are not reaching– and to be an important demographic you kind of have to participate, and speak up. Which is what she is doing. All that said, what do you want women to do? We’re here, we are speaking up, and you would think people who make the decisions would notice this. But no, it’s still all about twelve year old boys. Because it is their but ts that are in the seats.
I believe women make up at least 50% of the movie going public. Women need to be the ones to stop watching movies that promote sexism and Hollywood will naturally go where the money is. I think women are just waking up to the seriousness of the problem and soon we will see more women taking a stand on the issue. I’m crossing my fingers that the dumb twats in Hollywood who can’t call themselves feminists, because they don’t understand what it means, will also wake up. I have some really high hopes this morning!
There was just an article in THR or Variety about how female-led movies do make lots of profits, but still they get made infrequently. I think, at this point, Hollywood does know there is a vast, untapped Ladies market. The Boys Club just doesn’t care, though. They want to make White Dude movies, and that’s what gets made 90% of the time.
Ah yes. The male gaze. Fuck that noise.
Because the world isn’t black and white. You’re allowed to enjoy something and have valid criticisms about it at the same time.
Yes, NORA—Thank You ! =)
So much this. I’m tired of boycott culture. I love comic books and videogames. Are they sexist? A lot of the time, yeah. Does it bother me? Yes, it does. But I still appreciate the whole thing (story, art, gameplay, etc.) and will judge accordingly.
Exactly. What are we supposed to live like cavemen just because we don’t absolutely agree with everything that goes on? That was a ridiculous statement.
Because that’s what they’re offered?
One reason I think Scandinavian and British TV – and people like Helen – are slowly becoming more popular is that they show pretty people, but real people, usually playing their age.
Absolutely Sixer. I love British Drama and TV in general. Only channels I get are the BBC 1 and 2. But they are way better than anything you can find out there on most American network channels. The people are real (normal bodies, normal hair, teeth, not inordinate amounts of make-up, the clothes look affordable/relatable…) and the subject matter is engaging and pulls one in.
PBS started running The Guilty last night, Sixer. Looks like it will be worth keeping up on. Did you like it?
Good but not stellar, I think, bluhare. Good ending, though!
Sixer-yes!! I love watching stuff from other countries. The actors look like the average person in many cases, and everyone is so talented. I wish we had more of that in the US.
European movies/shows are great for having actors who look like real people. Sometimes it’s just so unbelievable on American TV, where everyone in the show’s world looks like a 25 year old supermodel dressed in a $500 pair of jeans. It sometimes breaks my suspension of disbelief more than any of the crazy plot shenanigans.
My father – who is, admittedly, somewhat grumpy and curmudgeonly – refuses to watch any American TV drama these days. He says, “How can they act when their faces can’t move? And it’s not just the women; it’s the men too.”
I don’t think it’s *that* bad! But there is a very noticeable difference.
I just finished watching a BBC crime drama starring Anne-Marie Duff. She looks absolutely beautiful in it. And her age.
This is the main reason why I’ve always loved British television. On most cable shows everyone’s so primped and perfect it’s distracting.
Because girls are groomed from a very early age to tolerate, accept and be an apologist for sexist behavior, sexist attitudes and a sexist culture.
Speak out against it and you’ll be labeled a “man hater”.
Ann, so much this. it’s like we all have to be the “cool girl” part time just to get things done. Like, if I spend time objecting to middle age frat boy behavior at work, when will I get my actual work done? So I ignore it and pick my battles.
Can you point to media you’d deem appropriate? I hate sexism, double standards, women objectified, films and television made predominantly by men… but if I completely struck anything that could be classified as such from my possible to watch list, I wouldn’t have many options.
Most Australian or European movies could fill the void. There are lots of easily accessible, good quality movies out there. Try You Tube and you will find tons of stuff. Start with Absolutely Fabulous if you like sitcoms. It’s hilarious!
This should keep you going for a while: http://www.allmovie.com/characteristic/theme/womens-friendship-d1623
Actually this “Essential Films Directed by Women” list is better: https://mubi.com/lists/essential-films-by-women
i’m not sure about the styling. it’s very kate middleton-y from top to almost bottom (those shoes are not kate shoes) but the rest…
i just don’t know Dame Mirren. i really want to like it.
Didn’t Beatrice or Eugenie wear that hat?
I’m with you! It’s way too “brunch with the Queen” for my taste.
For Helen looking amazing, may I present:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/helen-mirren-sheer-gown_5629222fe4b0aac0b8fc1265
WHOA MOMMA!
love the construction of the whole thing too.
it’s borderline chintzy but all kinds of amazing!
thanks for the link, Bluhare!
It’s perfect on her! She is lovely at any age.
Love her! She sounds just like me when I talk about my husband.
“he’s a nightmare, but he’s great” Exactly what I feel about my husband!
Yes, it’s nice to hear a celebrity talk about what sounds like a real marriage to someone she actually likes. None of the soulmate-type crap that usually signals a split within the year, just someone who knows her spouse has flaws and enjoys spending time with him anyway.
Aniston’s never tried to play younger than she is. I don’t know why people act like she was trying to get roles playing college students, she’s always played near enough to her age or older.
that seemed an unnecessary and somewhat unrelated dig to me, too.
I think that is exactly what she said.
WORD.
Yes he’s never been after those roles for a long time. Unfair judgement.
You misunderstood what she was saying.
Attractive is a great word or striking woman.
Aniston has been playing the ‘ingenue’ for a very long time. She may not have been playing ‘younger’ deliberately, BUT ‘ingenue’ skewers to younger and it’s all about how ‘hot’ the actress is. It’s only now that she is 45+ that she’s making an effort to move into character roles.
I think Aniston has tried for “lead” roles (among a cast of others, usually men), but not necessarily ingenue roles. The movies she’s done are stupid, but I don’t think of that psycho dentist she played in Horrible Bosses as an ingenue at all — the men in the movie are repulsed by her (though obviously with good reason).
huh? Aniston trying for the ingenue bit? I have never seen her go after that role. Ingenue’s have always been girls in their early 20s.
I can’t think of a single part she’s played that would be considered an ingenue type role. She’s never played the young, innocent, naive and wholesome girl. Her characters always have more of an edge to them, and they’re always grown-ups. Immature grown-ups sometimes, but never gentle and sweet wide-eyed girls.
She is saying that Aniston does NOT play younger than she is.
But Kaiser was saying she wanted to, which I think the OP was responding to.
No, I think you guys read it wrong. I think Mirren is saying “Jennifer Aniston wants to be 40 something.” Jennifer Aniston isn’t a 40 something trying to pretend she’s 28.
I agree. And the reason Helen name-checked her is probably because she’s working with her husband soon, on that Robert De Niro movie.
I really think she’s beautiful, whether she does or not. I wish these established female actors could just find it in themselves to say, “yes, I’m a feminist.” I don’t get what’s so hard about that. I loved that she said her husband was a nightmare. That’s so British (right Sixer?) but she adores him. Love her, really.
I laughed at the husband thing! You are correct!
I also think that’s her British way of saying, “It goes without saying I’m a feminist, you moronic interviewer. Ask something good or get in the sea.” – !
Ah. I get it, thanks.
Yes, I think that’s correct. Also, I think most of us who are proud feminists rarely find ourselves in situations where it would occur to us to point it out specifically, except when someone is trashing feminists as a group and misrepresenting the word, because our words and actions make our feminism clear every day. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve said or written in the last year “I’m a feminist”, “as a feminist”, etc., but no one who knows me would ever be surprised to hear me describe myself that way.
Well I’m obviously a feminist and have always been and every one of my life choices would attest to that. But I just shy away from labels. I don’t like calling myself a feminist for the same reason that I kind of shy away from the label of mother or wife or student. It’s not that I’m not proud of those things that I am, I just don’t feel like any one in particular represents me fully.
That kinda seems like a long drawn out explanation, but it’s really just a natural aversion to labels across the board. So I can see where Helen Mirren is coming from. It is obvious and we should ALL be feminists the way we should ALL be civil rights advocates and whatever else. It’s good for EVERYONE when we are.
True, and what Sixer said, too.
Love her! Always will. Just to point out—-she was and is before her time. She was gorgeous when she was younger, is still gorgeous now….and yes—a true feminist.
Sorry, but I laugh at these “younger” Hollywood types today—i.e., Nikki Minaj, Beyonce, Kim K, and, yes, Aniston. Aniston is no true talent while easy on the eyes. And these women refer to themselves as “feminists”. LOL PLEASE SPARE US.
While I love Bey, she forged her way on to the music scene by way of MEN. Uses a Man now, who happens to be her Husband, and IMO, is not independent enough of him and his brand.
Minaj is a joke—she is setting women BACK hundreds of years. Then we have, of course, the Kim K’s of this world and other Hollywood types that love to claim they are feminists, but clearly–they have no idea what the word truly means.
Helen uses a perfect example when mentioning the name GG—a true feminist who knew back in the day—she had to “retire” in MALE DOMINATED Hollywood. Dietrich was a feminist, Bette Davis, Billie Holliday, Lena Horne. Those are just examples of some true Feministas who embraced and stayed true to the word. And, yes—I will have to throw Madonna in to the mix, too. As vulgar and commercialized and over rated as she may be—she is and was before her time and shall remain an Icon—simply bc she has survived in the rat race since the 1980’s. And, primarily done so on her own terms.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the female musicians like Bey and Minaj think feminism is synonymous with fierce, assertive, empowered, independent/no-man-needed, diva. Especially the no-man-needed part…
Madonna when she came out, at the beginning, she was really feminist. She was there crazy, outrageous, and much more in charge of her career in a way few females artists are.
It seems like you’ll be criticized if you use the term feminist, and criticized if you don’t.
Pretty much. Call yourself a feminist and be judged for not measuring up to what their idea of feminism is. Say you’re not a feminist and then you get judged as well. There’s no winning.
Yep. To some feminism is not “What are your political beliefs” but instead “Would my parent or grandparent be able to tolerate your image?” I don’t think all the ignorance about what a feminist is can be blamed on Limbaugh.
If they want all people to have equal rights as human beings reguardless of gender, race, and sexuality, than they are all feminists. That doesn’t mean they have to be liked or agreed with, but nepotism doesn’t disqualify someone from a movement. We would never say that a gay person couldn’t be for equal rights because of their success being partially due to a straight person. And I don’t see how Madonna advances feminism but Nicki sets it back 100 years. Nothing about either woman says “Let’s take things back to 1915”, and that’s not a bad thing.
Helen is so cool!!!!!
‘It’s f**kin obvious’ should be the go-to answer for all actresses asked about feminism. Actress, you are:
– free to work, make and keep your own money?
– able to buy real estate without a male co-signatory?
– educated to at least grade 9?
– a voter?
Agree with your right to do all of the above? Congratulations, you’re a feminist.
Astonishing isn’t it? I think we way overestimate the intellectual capacity of many of these Hollywood women. We just assume they are at least of average intelligence then get really confused when they speak nonsense.
“When roles for women in real life change, then you will see change in the film industry.” While I do think that’s true, I think the reverse is true as well – film/tv can have an impact on society, so when they have powerful characters for women, other women and girls can see that and be inspired by it.
I think that’s a good point. An idea can be “normalized” to some degree by entertainment.
Great interview.
I love what she’s saying about acting being affordable to only posh kids nowadays. It actually holds true for artistic fields in general.
Funny though people have gotten used to just going around the subject.
Most of the emerging, very acclaimed English actors are posh: Redmayne, Cumberbatch, Hiddlestone. I think Hardy is the exception. And let’s not forget Blunt and her obvious statements that show where she’s coming from.
In music the most clear example is Taylor Swift.
I don’t really like this trend.
Oh God – are we really starting this whole “priviledged” talk about Emily Blunt again?
Yes, of course. When I wrote Redmayne, Hiddlestone, Blunt, Cumberbatch, Swift and others like them I OBVIOUSLY just meant Blunt – exclusively Blunt. I am just sleek that way!
Actually, I commented something about Adele on Adele’s post and that was also a veiled comment about Blunt’s privilege – now that you got me I figure I might as well confess my ‘crimes’.
You didn’t only mention Blunt but her “statements that show where she’s coming from”. You didn’t mention that for the other examples.
Sorry if I offended you, it’s just that Emily Blunt’s citizenship ended up being one of the most exhausting subjects to talk about in my time in the internet. I’m traumatised, lol.
It’s because those 3 actors are well known for being posh and have talked about it. Whereas for Blunt no one really knows, nor unfortunately, is she on the same level of prestige AND popularity. You know some of us said it was a privileged position that she was fine to hold and we didn’t criticize her for it.
Even bigger than outrage culture is the OUTRAGE for outrage culture. So I guess everyone participates.
@korra
I actually wrote a lenghty reply but I’ll end this discussion right here instead because the last thing I need is having this discussion again.
Tom Hardy came from a background just as privileged as Redmayne or Hiddleston and pointing out who is posh does nothing to change the inequities or provide access to training or jobs to those with less money. This discussion comes up all the time
I appreciate and agree with the broader point about access and that The Bloke is not the oik he enjoys pretending to be – but in terms of class/privilege, there honestly is a MAHOUSIVE gap between the prosperous middle class Bloke and the semi-aristocratic/1percenter Hiddleston and Redmayne. Especially considering the stranglehold the latter’s social network has over the political, media and middle-to-highbrow culture in the UK.
“I love what she’s saying about acting being affordable to only posh kids nowadays. It actually holds true for artistic fields in general.”
Yes, yes, yes. You can see this all over NYC, as both established and wannabe actors, artists, writers, singers, etc. have been priced out of affordable housing & neighborhoods, the costs of training/tuition, jobs that might allow them to have any flexible time for rehearsal, a shrinking number of blackboxes & alternative venues & affordable, designated clubs/music performance spaces & rehearsal spaces & studio spaces & recording studios, increasing costs of mounting almost any sort of production, stunt casting… SF is much the same…
What I’ve noticed is that it’s the crucial infrastructure and support of being around other scrappy artists that disintegrates before your eyes, the neighborhoods of serendipity and collaboration and sharing leads about flexible gigs, the opportunities to learn from and participate in projects with each other. You literally can no longer afford to live around other artists any more because you can’t afford to live around ANYONE any more – and even some of the most successful, established, working performers & artists can’t either – much less can artists just starting out afford any learning or experimentation or cross-pollination time whatsoever.
For the most part, the ones you come across now – left standing in the dust of those who were driven to a creative Mecca, then driven away again – are the Trustfundians and the potential actors, artists, writers whose parents are subsidizing training and apartment rent and vanity productions and ‘internships.’
Just want to let you know that there is an amazing visual art scene happening here in Atlanta nowadays. Lots of interesting artists working in many different mediums – I strongly suspect that the city’s affordability (and fantastic climate) has a lot to do with the thriving art scene that’s happening. Also it’s not that far from the NYC art scene: Atlanta is only a 2 1/2 hour flight from New York and there are 20 nonstop direct flights a day.
If I were an artist with a trust fund, New York City is where I’d be. If I were an up-from-nowhere struggling artist trying to make my way in the world, I would make my way to Atlanta and rent a former industrial loft space for $400 a month and focus on my art. Seriously – how can you make art if you’re too busy just surviving?
@PennyLane: I’m a Buckhead native, back here temporarily taking care of family business; would you be so kind as to recommend some specific neighborhoods, venues, theaters, fairs and galleries I could hit? I’ve been so bogged down in complicated legal & estate stuff – and Atlanta has changed quite a bit since the Piedmont Arts Festival and Little Five Points were the only game in town – that I would really, really appreciate a current insider’s recs – especially those a little out of the usual! Thank you:)
(Also: could you tell me a bit more specifically where to look into $400 studios? That is extremely tempting; if you have any more info, I have several others interested in learning more, too. Thanks again.)
Pennylane, my parents live in Western North Carolina, near Asheville. That must be another area the “starving artist” artists are migrating to. The arts scene out there is pretty amazing, and every time I visit there seems to be more going on than before.
Hardy isn’t an exception. His school is nearly as posh as Eton. I think the fees at Reed’s are £30,000 per year. That’s hardly working class. He’s just as posh as the others, but better at hiding it, because the name of the school isn’t as overexposed as Eton or Harrow.
Thanks god, a voice of reason in a sea of embarassing ignorance.
Take note, Meryl. Is this the interview you meant to give?
Ouch! 👹 Awesome comment!
She’s such a good interview. I was nodding to everything she was saying here, particularly about beauty. Some people are just blessed with conventionally very attractive bodies, and people have always liked to watch that. This will sound bad, but instead of telling everyone they’re beautiful can’t we just teach them looks fade and aren’t everything. I’m short and super ordinary looking, I dont consider myself too attractive, but thats fine. Same with my boyfriend, he’s only okay’ish looking but his personality is what made me fall in love with him. People get uglier as they age, and that’s fine too, they grow wiser and more mature as well. Not a bad exchange at all.
I have seen women who look better at an older age. I know someone who looked really homely (for lack of a better word) when she was in her twenties and thirties, and now in her 50s look really, really good, like a model. You know, one of those older models who look like they would have been hot when they were younger, except she wasn’t. I think she will look even better in her 60s with silver/white hair.
Perfect example: Helen Mirren herself. IMO, she wasn’t all that attractive when she was younger. I think she looks much better now.
Oh yeah, of course there are exceptions to the rule. I’m just making a wider point about how obsessed people are with image. Mindy Kaling mentioned this once, how people always tell her how pretty and slim she is. She said she’s aware she’s got a bigger figure and isn’t actually slim, but she’s healthy and likes her body as it is.
Obviously, beauty is on the eyes of the beholder and if a more homely looking person feels like a movie star because of his/her looks, power to you, but maybe you really are a physically unattractive individual and that’s fine too. There’s much more important virtues to have than beauty.
I think Mirren is better looking now than when younger too. I saw pictures of a young Mirren and was surprised she didn’t photograph as well as you’d expect a movie star too. (Maybe she was better looking in person though, and I suppose everyone prefers their youthful selves). I did wonder if a younger Mirren could be cast in film today.
Which “younger” roles did Aniston ever unsuccessfully try to get??? She always seems to be cast in age appropriate roles.
Anyway, Mirren is the first actress in a long time to give a good interview, who also didn’t make a fool of herself when asked about feminism.
Helen says “Jennifer Aniston is fortysomething, and wants to be – that’s the other thing. She’s not trying to be 28. She wants the roles that a 40-year-old can play, because they’re much more interesting. ” This means JA wants roles for her age, she doesn’t look for roles under her own forty years old. She never tries to get “younger” roles.
Shelley is responding to Kaiser’s commentary, not Mirren’s interview.
It’s not that Jennifer plays schoolgirls while in her 40’s, but for the most of her career she’s played variations of her Friends character – the pretty ingenue.
I never thought of Rachel as an ingenue. The character developed over 10 years so she went from being a daddy’s girl to a successful woman with her own career and a baby (and the annoying appendage in Ross). But it’s hard for me to think of tv characters as ingenues since we see the full spectrum of their development (assuming the show is beloved on some level and stays around for a long time).
I get the criticism of Aniston playing herself, but she also generally seems to be playing the same age as the guy opposite her so I didn’t understand the blogger’s commentary either. In the Sandler movie, she played a woman who was the same age as Sandler, but Sandler was the one going after younger women. Only at the end of the movie did he realize that Aniston, the lady who is the same as him, was the right one for her. And in some of the other movies I’ve seen, she plays an older lady who hates the guy she’s stuck with (that Gerard Butler movie, that stupid drug movie with Jason Sudeikis). The movies are stupid, but I don’t think I’ve seen her play a role where she’s cast as the pretty young object that guys obsess over or are bowled over or see their lost youth in (like those Natalie Portman movies where the girl is the conduit through which the guy finds himself). I don’t think Aniston played those roles even when she actually was young…I don’t even think the Rachel character was like that.
Rachel Green wasn’t remotely an ingenue. An ingenue isn’t just any pretty young woman, it refers to a character who’s unusually good and kind and naive.
On Friends the character of Phoebe in the first few seasons (definitely not the last few) would fit the bill a lot better.
She needs to learn a little film history..the fact is garbo could’ve gone on to make films her entire life..like Ingrid Bergman..but chose her own isolation. In some cases the retirement was just vanity..a lot of actresses we’re offered the part of the aging star in Sunset Boulevard but didn’t want to be seen in that harsh reality. The films of the ‘golden age’ were often built around the female characters, and there were female directors and producers even in the 20s..the biggest difference really seems to be in the script..so many more female scriptwriters then..add that to the emphasis on the teen boys’ audience . I agree with her on the age thing though..it’s laughable how some very young actresses are cast as seasoned pros in various professions.
ORLY? you really think Helen Mirren has managed to eke out a career in film for 3-4 decades…but doesn’t know her film history? I doubt that. I imagine she has a solid grasp of film history.
I find it suspect that a woman “exercising choice” in that era was actually engaged in free exercise. Seems more like a woman would’ve made a cost-benefit analysis that was rarely fair to her, and proceeded the best way she could see how. That’s not the same as exercising choice like you’re faced with an array of options that are as equally appealing as a man’s might be.
You missed my point, which was in pre-50’s Hollywood, women were the draw and very often paid more and had more clout than their male costars. Hell, Mae West and Carmen Miranda were the highest paid women in the country (different years..) Yes, in their early years a lot took parts they may not have wanted, but it was a woman–Bette Davis–who first sued a studio over this and another woman–Mary Pickford–who got the first percent of gross. Carole Lombard was the highest paid actor before her death..besting her famous male co-stars like Gable. In fact, highest paid lists for the 30s and 40s is pretty evenly split..but a list of the last 20 years or so only has one female name..Sandra B. Different audiences, tastes, times.
Love Helen and I love what she had to say here.
I think Kate Moss is a great fashionista and model, but I don’t really think of her as the kind of “beautiful” that appeals to me personally (as in I don’t aspire to look like her face-wise or anything). Since beauty is subjective, I think the term “beautiful” can work on almost anyone.
The interview was good though, nonetheless.
I think at 70, maybe she’s just not aware of all the younger female actresses that are going, “I’m all for equality, but I am not a feminist”
I think at 70 years old she’s perfectly aware of anything she chooses to be. Plus, Streep said that “I’m for equality but not a not feminist” thing too, I wouldn’t exactly call her a “younger female actress”.
Maybe she said what she said about Jennifer Aniston because she, I don’t know, likes her? Is it really that hard to believe that Aniston actually isn’t that desperate, washed up actress and that she’s actually kind of well liked by the people who know her casually?
I love her, of course it’s f*&cking obvious!!!!!
Love Helen Mirren. Thanks for this – she is always thoughtful in interviews.
Helen Mirren is an interesting woman to interview. Much more interesting than Meryl Streep. I remember her actually saying she was so happy she didn’t have children because that means she had her freedom.
I think the most interesting thing she said was about only the posh kids being able to afford to be actors. At least in Britain. It’s been especially evident lately with the Cumberbatch, Redmayne, Hiddleston. It’s interesting. And a shame. Does the great tradition of acting (in the UK) shut out those who can’t afford to go to private acting schools? What talent are we missing out on when acting/writing/directing is left only to the upper-class?
James McAvoy (who definitely didn’t grow up posh) gave a great speech about this, about the voices and perspectives being lost when drama school is only possible for wealthy people. I think it’s an issue in the British acting community* because drama school is such an integral part of becoming an actor- they all go to drama school, and if you can’t afford it, you dont become an actor.
*obviously I’m generalizing about British actors
Mirren didn’t attend drama school and is an actress, so no, it’s not all doom amd gloom if you don’t go to drama school but in difference from Hollywood, in Europe in general, not only in England, the profession is far more regulated in a way that education leads to contacts leads to roles leads to job and regular pay. Still, there are quite a few actors who never went to drama school. France specifically has much more liberal acting field.
I think its so funny that Helen Mirren said something kind of complimentary about Anniston and sure enough it gave the writer and many commenters here an immediate case of bad gas. Helen obviously doesn’t know that JA is history’s greatest Mon ster