Thing is I'm not against talking about the age thing. I was in the F4 threads saying that sadly I don't see them casting a woman in her late 30's and early 40's as Sue unless the actress is well known and critically acclaimed and has an oscar or a nom like Adams and Paltrow respectively. I'm not burying my head in the sand, I know that if Adams was little known she would not be playing Lois right now because of her age no matter how amazing her audition was.
Oh, I don't think you are burying your head in the sand at all. I applaud you for saying outright that this is one thing that you can't be silent about. I agree with you. It's too important and it has actual real world consequences not just for actresses but for all women. This kind of stuff shapes our cultural worldview.
Sadly, that vulture article about leading men and love interests confirms your theory though.
The vulture article states that statistically speaking one of the only ways that women manage to continue to get roles in their late 30's, early 40's is if they have achieved some semblance of fame and in PARTICULAR if they are a reknowned actress.
Amy is most likely (if American Hustle and Big eyes come to pass) going to have 5 Academy Award nominations next year. She already has 4.
Forbes ranked her as one of the actresses most "worth" a studio's $ a few months back. She is worth money because of her prestige and because people LIKE her.
Having Lois Lane as older than Clark and subverting this entire BS gender bias where the guy is always older is AMAZING and sends a great message but it wouldn't have happened if Amy didn't have the power she does.
And that's sad. Because not every actress out there is going to achieve Amy's success. Yet, if you are a man...you can be a mid-level/medicore actor and work well into your 50's without anyone giving you crap about it. But for women? We require basically that they prove they are worth staying around with prestige. It's sad.
t:
