Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Thursday, October 24, 2019




By Angelina Jolie
7:57 AM EDT

I lost my grandmother and my mother to breast cancer. I remember once holding my mother’s hand, as she was receiving chemotherapy, when she started to turn purple and I had to race to get the nurse. Now there are new ways to identify which chemotherapy medication is best for each patient, resulting in fewer of the horrible side effects. Fewer. It’s often still so hard on the body.

My mother fought cancer for nearly a decade. As I stood in the hallway of the hospital waiting for my mother’s body to be collected and taken to be cremated, her doctor told me she had promised my mother that she would make sure I was informed about my medical options. Years later, I was able to have a genetic test that revealed I carried a gene, the so-called BRCA1, that predisposes me to cancer. The test came too late for the other women in my family.

Women typically have a 13% risk of developing breast cancer over their lifetime. I had an estimated 87% risk of developing the disease and a 50% risk of ovarian cancer. Because of my high risk, experts recommended preventive surgeries. I had a double mastectomy and later removed my ovaries and fallopian tubes, significantly reducing, although not removing altogether, my risk of developing cancer.

In the years since my surgeries, there has been further progress. Technology and science are converging in ways that will bring discoveries to clinics-—and into our homes—at the most rapid pace in human history. Genetic testing has become more accessible and less expensive, although still not for everyone. Immunotherapy advances mean there are now targeted treatments like checkpoint inhibitors, which help block the “cloak of invisibility” that cancer cells put up to avoid immune attack. PARP inhibitors, when used in combination with immunotherapy, can improve the chances of survival for breast and ovarian cancer patients. In a recent visit to the Institut Curie, France’s leading cancer hospital and research center, I met some of the doctors and scientists who are working to develop new treatments that will mean more people survive cancer in the future and are able to live better lives during their illness.

An artist friend of mine recently survived breast cancer. She had no family history of the disease but developed it in her 30s. She educated herself on all the latest advancements and procedures. She made the choice of a mastectomy, removing the breast and nipple. She froze her eggs before she had to go through chemo and then went to reconstruction. She documented her treatment through her art, finding a creative outlet to interpret her experience and share it with others.

But while stories like these should give us hope, we still have a long way to go. There’s currently no reliable screening test for ovarian or prostate cancer, for example, and no effective targeted treatment for the most aggressive forms of breast cancer, known as triple negative cancers.

***

What I’ve come to understand, as I’ve reflected on my own experiences and those of others I’ve met, is that while we should continue to push for advancement, care is not just about medical treatments. It’s also about the safety, dignity and support afforded to women, whether they’re battling cancer or trying to manage other stressful situations. And far too often they’re not given nearly enough.

I’m often asked how my medical choices, and being public about them, have affected me. I simply feel I made choices to improve my odds of being here to see my children grow into adults, and of meeting my grandchildren.

My hope is to give as many years as I can to their lives, and to be here for them. I have lived over a decade now without a mom. She met only a few of her grandchildren and was often too sick to play with them. It’s hard now for me to consider anything in this life divinely guided when I think of how much their lives would have benefited from time with her and the protection of her love and grace. My mother fought the disease for a decade and made it into her 50s. My grandmother died in her 40s. I’m hoping my choices allow me to live a bit longer.

I have a patch for hormones, and I need to get regular health checkups. I see and feel changes in my body, but I don’t mind. I’m alive, and for now I am managing all the different issues I inherited. I feel more connected to other women, and I often have deeply personal conversations with strangers about health and family.

People also ask how I feel about the physical scars I carry. I think our scars remind us of what we have overcome. They are part of what makes each of us unique. That diversity is one of the things that is most beautiful about human existence.

The hardest scars to bear are often invisible, the scars in the mind. All the patients I met at the Institut Curie said the care and support of their loved ones was the most important factor in their ability to cope with their illness. And here the picture is troubling globally, particularly for women.

Women are the largest group of people affected by post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Unipolar depression is twice as common in women as in men worldwide. More women than men are affected by anxiety, psychological distress, sexual violence and domestic violence. And more than half of the women killed worldwide died at the hands of a partner or family member, according to the latest statistics. Factors that account for women’s poor mental health, according to the WHO, include discrimination, overwork, poverty, malnutrition, low social status and unremitting responsibility for the care of others.

So I have learned that when it comes to women’s health, medical advances are only one part of the picture. Mental and emotional health, and physical safety, are just as important. Without that there may be a false sense that a woman is being cared for, when in fact she is falling apart because of other pressures in her life that receive no attention at all. I understand now that we often focus on the specific cancer or illness affecting a particular woman, but miss the bigger diagnosis: her family situation, her safety and whether she is carrying stress that is undermining her health and making her days much more difficult.

No person should feel a level of worry and pressure that affects their health. But so many do. And it should not take someone getting sick to realize that caring for them and not harming them is necessary.

My mother seemed peaceful when she first knew she had cancer. I now see that in part it was because after many years of stress and struggle, people were forced to be gentle to her. During the highest years of stress in my own life, I developed high blood pressure and needed to be treated for hypertension.

When we speak of women’s equality, it is often in terms of rights withheld, that ought to be given to us collectively. Increasingly I see it in terms of behavior that needs to stop. Stop turning a blind eye to the abuse of women. Stop blocking the ability of girls to get an education or access health care. Stop forcing them to marry a person you have chosen for them, especially when they are still children. Help young girls know their value. Help keep women you know safe. And before a woman is in the hospital, dying, and that reality is written on a diagnosis sheet, look into her eyes and consider the life she is living and how it might be with less stress.

All medical discoveries that extend our lives are welcome. But the bodies we are hoping to heal also need to be respected and spared preventable harm. Only if we feel safe and cared for are any of us able to reach our full potential.

Jolie, a TIME contributing editor, is an Academy Award–winning actor and special envoy of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

-----

Chloe Dalton who was a speechwriter for William Hague, accompanied her back to her hotel and likely helped her draft this. 

Saturday, September 6, 2014








Movies Feature

9 most influential women in Hollywood: Kathleen Kennedy to Angelina Jolie

By
Saturday, Sep 6 2014, 09:00 BST

A recent Forbes list named Sandra Bullock as the highest-paid actress in Hollywood, but when it comes to shaping the films coming out of the industry pipeline, you have to look behind the camera for the biggest movers and shakers.

Digital Spy takes a look at 9 of Hollywood's most influential women below...

1. Kathleen Kennedy

Kathleen Kennedy
© Getty Images / Mark Davis

When George Lucas handed over the keys to his Lucasfilm kingdom he turned to Kathleen Kennedy, who began her Hollywood career as Steven Spielberg's secretary and swiftly rose through the ranks to produce hits such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park and The Sixth Sense.

Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm signaled an aggressive intent to relaunch Star Wars for a new generation – following on from Episode VII, we'll get to see big-screen sequels and spinoffs, an animated TV show, fresh Star Wars comics, novels and video games in a huge cross-media tapestry weaving together George Lucas's universe.

The pop cultural landscape over the next decade could get totally reshaped by Star Wars (and let's not forget Lucasfilm could also revive Indiana Jones), and Kennedy is the one entrusted with steering the ship.

2. Megan Ellison

Megan Ellison
© Getty Images / Kevin Winter

In the age of franchise blockbusters aimed at the broadest possible audience, the film industry is quickly losing sight of the mid-budget drama - or, in simpler terms, movies for grown-ups. However, there is one person flying the flag for directors such as Paul Thomas Anderson, Kathryn Bigelow and Spike Jonze: 28-year-old Annapurna Pictures founder Megan Ellison.

The daughter of tech billionaire Larry Ellison, Megan and her brother David have invested their millions into cinema. Whereas David's tastes are more mainstream (he's behind the revamped Star Trek and Mission: Impossible franchises), Megan has produced fare that's more artistically challenging.

She'll likely be a fixture at this year's Oscar season (Bennett Miller's Foxcatcher on the horizon), but she's also dipping her toe into brother David's territory as executive producer of Terminator: Genisys.

3. Amy Pascal

Amy Pascal
© Getty Images / Jason Merritt

Co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, Amy Pascal helped develop '90s classics Groundhog Day and A League of Their Own before becoming president of Columbia Pictures in 1996. A decade later, she ascended to the top table at Sony and has managed to successfully juggle commercial hits with critical acclaim.

The Spider-Man and 007 films have pulled in big ticket sales, but Pascal has also overseen a host of Oscar successes at Sony. American Hustle, Captain Phillips, Zero Dark Thirty, Moneyball and The Social Network all proved to be dramas of substance, while this year's Fury has the potential to go the distance during awards season.

4. Nina Jacobsen

Nina Jacobsen
© Getty Images / Peter Kramer

Rising through the ranks at DreamWorks and Disney, Nina Jacobsen held the position of Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group president until 2006 before forming her own production company, Colour Force, in 2007.

The firm had early success the Diary of a Wimpy Kids family films and One Day, but it's The Hunger Games franchise that has been Jacobsen's biggest success. Thanks to the Jennifer Lawrence-led franchise, Hollywood is scrambling to turn every YA novel into a feature film, and by the time the series wraps up in 2015, it'll have generated more than $3 billion for studio Lionsgate.

5. Angelina Jolie


© Rex Features / Geoff Pugh

Though we've tried to make this list more of a behind-the-camera glimpse at the film industry's big movers and shakers, there is one actor we couldn't avoid putting in. A reformed wild child, Angelina Jolie was just 24 when she won an Oscar for Girl, Interrupted, and since then she hasn't look back.

With a string of box office hits, her marriage to Brad Pitt, a burgeoning directing career (the Oscar-tipped Unbroken is out this year) and her humanitarian work for UNHCR, Jolie is arguably the only Hollywood star who's managed to transcend her profession.

Her acting roles these days are few and far between (directing, she says, is where her future lies), but the box office success of this year's Maleficent proved that Jolie's still got major star power.

6. Kathryn Bigelow

Director Kathryn Bigelow on the set of 'Zero Dark Thirty'
© Columbia Pictures

The first woman to win the Best Director Academy Award, Kathryn Bigelow rocketed to the top of Hollywood's directing A-list after her Hurt Locker Oscar glory. Bigelow batted away offers to make studio blockbusters (she reportedly turned down The Amazing Spider-Man and Rise of the Planet of the Apes) to continue on her own path.

2012's Zero Dark Thirty cemented her status as one of pre-eminent action directors, and for her next film she's reuniting with producer Megan Ellison for the Tom Hardy-led True American. The film, which centres around a US terrorist who starts killing Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11, will again illuminate America's War on Terror through a thrilling based-on-fact narrative.

7. Oprah Winfrey

'Beyonce: Life Is But A Dream' New York Premiere at Ziegfeld Theater
Featuring: Oprah Winfrey
Where: New York City, New York , United States
© WENN / Andres Otero/WENN.com

Since leaving her chatshow behind in 2011, Oprah Winfrey has slowly been making the move back to films. Teaming with director Lee Daniels, Winfrey has starred in the filmmaker's historical drama The Butler, and will also wield her considerable industry clout to get Martin Luther King biopic Selma and a Richard Pryor film made.

Winfrey reportedly has a personal fortune of £2.9 billion, and is the wealthiest self-made woman in America. Heading up OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network, naturally), she already has a powerful outlet to push her film and TV ventures.

8. Donna Langley

Donna Langley
© Getty Images / Imeh Akpanudosen

The first British woman to run a studio, Donna Langley heads up Universal Pictures alongside Adam Fogelson and has been instrumental in the revived Fast & Furious series and bringing Fifty Shades of Grey to the big screen.

The latter will likely be one of the biggest hits of next year, and looking beyond that, Universal is also striving to forge a new path among the crowded blockbuster market. Whereas everyone is chasing the next big superhero thing, Universal is focused on reviving its old monster back catalogue - Dracula Untold will arrive next year, followed by fresh takes on Frankenstein and Wolfman.

It's a big gamble, but in offering cinemagoers something different, Universal could end up reaping the rewards.

9. Jennifer Lee

Chris Buck, from left, Jennifer Lee and Peter Del Vecho pose in the press room with the award for Best animated feature film of the year for "Frozen" during the Oscars
© PA Images / Jordan Strauss/AP

Jennifer Lee's rise has been meteoric, to say the least. After penning Wreck-It Ralph for Disney, she stepped into the director's chair with Chris Buck for the studio's Frozen. The film became the most successful Disney movie of all time, and turned into a pop cultural phenomenon.

Lee bagged an Academy Award for the film and is now at work on a live-action adaptation of Madeleine L'Engle's fantasy novel A Wrinkle in Time



nytimes

Movies

From Now On, Women Save the World

Hollywood Has Realized That Movies Starring Women Can Make Money


LOS ANGELES — Hollywood has long known that women are better customers than men. It’s right there in the annual reports from the Motion Picture Association of America: Moviegoing in the United States and Canada was 52 percent female last year. Just as it was five years earlier.
So why are studios only now pumping out female-focused megamovies?
Over the past year, “Gravity,” “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” “Frozen” and “Maleficent” have taken in a combined $3.6 billion worldwide, according to the database Box Office Mojo. Coming up, Warner Bros. is finally taking a flier on Wonder Woman, and Columbia Pictures is hot on an all-female remake of “Ghostbusters.” Disney has enormous hopes for a live-action “Cinderella,” arriving March 13.
Lionsgate, meanwhile, has decided to turn its fledgling “Divergent” series, which stars Shailene Woodley, into at least four films. More modest coming examples of female-aimed movies include the male stripper sequel “Magic Mike 2,” the musical comedy “Pitch Perfect 2,” an action extravaganza called “Expendabelles” and the bondage romance “Fifty Shades of Grey.” (One notable outlier: Marvel has not yet responded to fan clamor for a movie anchored by a female protagonist.)
All of this estrogen is not rolling through Hollywood because there are more women than ever in senior studio jobs, even though there are. And studios are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make event movies with female protagonists because cries of neglect have finally soaked in. “I wish that was the case,” said Catherine Paura, the movie industry market researcher. “I’ve been pointing to the potency of the female moviegoer since the 1980s.”
No, the shift is happening because female ticket buyers — finally given the opportunity — have shown studios the big money, producers say. Women have finally proved to Hollywood’s satisfaction that they can power not just a single film (with the occasional sequel) but an entire world-dominating film series. The five “Twilight” action romances took in $3.6 billion, after adjusting for inflation. The first two “Hunger Games” movies, which star Jennifer Lawrence as the archer Katniss Everdeen, took in $1.6 billion; two more are ahead, starting with “Mockingjay — Part 1,” which opens Nov. 21.
 
Even Paramount’s light-horror “Paranormal Activity” series, which has taken in $867 million across five microbudgeted installments, has been primarily supported by female fans. That was not true of the gorier horror franchises (“Saw”) of the past. A sixth “Paranormal Activity” is scheduled for 2016.
Hollywood prizes these kinds of franchises above anything else, noted Lynda Obst, a producer whose credits include “Adventures in Babysitting” (1987) and Christopher Nolan’s coming “Interstellar.” Not only are franchise films easier to market and thus less risky, she said, but they also tend to throw off profits in the form of merchandise and other tie-ins. “Everyone is trying to find a formula here, and right now, ‘The Hunger Games’ is an awfully compelling one,” Ms. Obst added.
Aside from the films, Lionsgate has a “Hunger Games” video game and a traveling exhibition of costumes and is working on theme-park rides. Oh, yes: “We’re deep into conversations with prospective partners on four continents,” Jon Feltheimer, Lionsgate’s chief executive, told Wall Street analysts in mid-August.
“Frozen” may not get a sequel — at least not anytime soon, given the long gestation time for animation — but the film, a musical about a pair of fearless princesses, is nonetheless showering Disney in franchise cash. A traveling ice show has just opened, a huge Christmas merchandising push is planned, and a Broadway version is on a fast track.
Over the years, underserved female ticket buyers have occasionally grabbed Hollywood by the throat by turning a “Mamma Mia!” (2008) or a “Titanic” (1997) or a “Clueless” (1995) into a juggernaut. But these hits were easy for studio bosses to dismiss as anomalies. They turned on a special circumstance: an adaptation of a Broadway musical, an epic love story, a witty contemporization of a classic novel.
Or they were not optimal sequel candidates, executives would explain, because their audience was too skewed toward one gender. In 2001, Disney released “The Princess Diaries,” which took in $222.4 million worldwide, after adjusting for inflation, and led to “The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement” in 2004. Grand total: $392.3 million. Not bad for two movies that drew a minuscule number of men.
Also in 2001, by comparison, Universal released a testosterone-fueled movie called “The Fast and the Furious.” Five sequels and $3 billion in ticket sales later — and an audience almost evenly split between men and women, according to the studio — the franchise is still going. Universal is getting a seventh installment ready for an April release.
Better to concentrate on that testosterone.
“Women will go to a male-oriented movie, but men have to be dragged to a female-oriented one,” said Ms. Paura, chief executive of Capstone Global Marketing & Research. That old industry saw is a huge generalization that makes some people angry to hear, Ms. Paura noted, “but it has been true more often than not.”
A swing started to occur in 2008, with the first “Twilight” movie, which notably came from a small movie company, Summit Entertainment, after major studios had held their noses. A big-screen “Sex and the City” also arrived in 2008, generating roughly $460 million in ticket sales. But both “Twilight” and “Sex and the City” were dismissed by many studio executives as flashes in the pan. One sprouted from a popular book and the other from a popular TV show; both had opening-weekend audiences that were 75 percent or more female, according to studio exit polls.
“Sex and the City 2” wilted — no gender expansion, partly because it was a terrible movie — but turnout for the second “Twilight” movie was surprisingly balanced between male and female ticket buyers, and the grosses grew accordingly. The second chapter, “New Moon,” took in $788.3 million, 81 percent more than the first one. Maybe that old theory about men avoiding “girl” movies needed to be retired? Maybe moviegoing was starting to reflect a shifting definition of masculinity? (This was the dawn of the era of “manscaping,” after all.) And what about changing female tastes in entertainment?
Whatever the reason, evidence started stacking up: “Bridesmaids” became a smash hit in 2011, and “The Hunger Games” opened in 2012. Pixar’s first princess movie, “Brave,” also succeeded that year. (Universal would love a “Bridesmaids” sequel, by the way, but Kristen Wiig, who starred in and was a co-writer of the first film, has refused.) By the time Angelina Jolie’s “Maleficent” rolled into theaters in May, selling $748.7 million in tickets and becoming the No. 1 nonfranchise film of the summer worldwide, the boom could not be denied.
You guessed it: Disney is working on ideas for “Maleficent 2.”


A version of this article appears in print on September 7, 2014, on page AR52 of the New York edition with the headline: From Now On, Women Save the World.










Friday, September 5, 2014







Women Are the Successes of the Summer Box Office

Contributor

As the fall season kicks off with the big festivals (I am currently in Toronto), it is important to take stock of the summer season that just ended.
According to most box-office reports and reporters, Summer 2014 was a big disaster.  Box-office totals were at $4.05 billion, down 14.6 percent from 2013 — an embarrassing eight-year low. Big studio stars like Tom Cruise flopped (even though his action film, Edge of Tomorrow, got some great reviews), and the reunion of 80s movie stars in The Expendables 3 was DOA.
But there was a bright spot in this grim mess: the women. This should give Hollywood some hope as it plans for the future, since, according to a NY Times piece, recent women’s successes at the box office are causing Hollywood to rethink its “conventional wisdom” that movies starring women are box-office poison. (I’ll believe that when I see it.)

Here are some of the summer’s success stories:



Angelina Jolie

Sometimes I don’t think she’s a mere mortal. She had the biggest movie of her career, Maleficent, which is at $238 million domestically and $748 million worldwide and managed to give the film a strong feminist message. Jolie’s fall and winter will be just as big as she prepares her sophomore directing effort, Unbroken, which is also generating Oscar buzz, and her third film, co-starring her husband Brad Pitt.

read the rest at forbes













Wednesday, July 2, 2014







thenewyorker

July 2, 2014

Love’s True Kiss: “Maleficent”’s Complex Sexual Politics






The sexual politics of Disney’s “Maleficent” are a complicated business. The most important thing, or at least the basic thing, is that the moviemakers took a villainess and turned her into a sympathetic character. “Maleficent” is an update of “The Sleeping Beauty,” which, to name the three versions especially relevant to the new movie, is a seventeenth-century tale by Charles Perrault; a nineteenth-century Russian ballet—probably the most honored of all nineteenth-century ballets—choreographed by Marius Petipa to a score by Tchaikovsky; and a 1959 Disney animated feature. Unsurprisingly, since these renditions come from different centuries and different media, they vary in many details (I will favor the details of the ballet in its modern versions), but on one point they emphatically agree: an innocent princess, Aurora (her name means “sunrise”), is condemned to death, or to a permanent coma, by an evil fairy, supposedly because, by mistake, the fairy was not invited to the princess’s christening party. A lot of readers and movie- and ballet-watchers will notice that, at the party, the invited guests are all dressed in pretty clothes and have nice manners, while the evil fairy wears a slick black garment, simultaneously deluxe and sinister, and arrives at the palace in a carriage drawn by rats or the like—circumstances that raise a doubt as to whether her exclusion was, in fact, due to a clerical error. Might she not be a reiteration of an old trope: Eris, the goddess of discord, who threw the golden apple, thereby precipitating the Trojan War? Might she not be that thing we’ve all been told about, the thing than which Hell hath no greater fury: a woman scorned?

In the new movie, the fairy’s wrath is given a backstory. We meet two children. One is Stefan, a regular country boy. The other is a girl he has encountered in the woods: Maleficent, with a sweet, round, normal face but also, curiously, wings. The wings are not dainty little things, like something on an Advent card. They are big and brown, and, as I remember, they are taller than Maleficent. She zooms around on them wildly. She is not vain about them, however; she thinks they are just part of her body. To us, on the other hand, they are magical, making her both beautiful and weird. Her name (invented for the 1959 animated movie) is another double message. It means “evil-doer”—a prophecy of what will happen in the film—but many people will associate it with some pretty, old-fashioned girl’s name, such as Millicent or, more likely, with “magnificent.”

Maleficent and Stefan are friends. But the king of the territories neighboring Maleficent’s goes to war with her and loses, whereupon he declares that whoever can kill her will succeed him as king. Stefan goes to visit Maleficent and brings his dagger, but he can’t bring himself to murder her. (Think of Snow White and the huntsman.) So he does something almost worse: he drugs her and cuts off her wings. Blessedly, we don’t see this happen. We only hear, once Maleficent awakens, her horrible cries—low, guttural, unstoppable—rising out of the woods. Angelina Jolie, who plays the adult Maleficent, has said that it was clear to her and to the writer that the removal of the wings was an image of rape. I am certain that someone involved must also have had clitoridectomy in mind. A piece of the girl’s body, and a source of power and happiness, has been sliced off. The wings are taken to the castle and hung in a glass case, like a display in the Museum of Natural History.

Stefan, as promised, becomes king. He and his queen produce Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning), and then begins the real story, the story of Maleficent’s emotional life. (Reportedly, fifteen minutes were cut from the beginning of the movie in order to get to this business faster.) Frightened by a death curse that Maleficent has laid on the baby, King Stefan sends Aurora away, to be reared by three fairies, lovable but silly old ladies. While they are off doing whatever they do, Aurora is watched over by—yes—Maleficent. Maleficent didn’t mean to get involved in this. Early on, she says to one of the cute little girls who plays the young Aurora, “I do not like children.” This is a meta joke. First of all, the child actress whom Jolie is speaking to is her own five-year-old daughter, Vivienne Jolie-Pitt. Second, Jolie demonstrably does like children. She and her mate, Brad Pitt, are famous philoprogenitives. They have six children, three of them adopted,and she has been a leader in international child-protection movements. From another angle, too, she has a special relationship to motherhood. As she explained on the Op-Ed page of the Times last year, she recently had a double mastectomy, because she had learned from genetic testing that she was at a very high risk for breast cancer. A big-time, gorgeous movie star, announcing that she has had both of her breasts removed: Is this something that Marilyn Monroe would have done? It is not.

Which brings us to the next point. Jolie, who often plays a sexy little item—in several of her early movies she was one of those “Nikita” types, with the short skirt and the lethal weapon—becomes, in “Maleficent,” the very opposite, a mater dolorosa. The evil spell hanging over Aurora is such that, if she is pricked by a spindle, she will fall into a deep sleep and will revive only by “love’s true kiss.” Maleficent, now fond of Aurora, tries to get every spindle in the kingdom removed from Aurora’s reach. When that doesn’t work—Aurora is pricked, and she succumbs—Maleficent gets in touch with Prince Phillip, a nice young man from a neighboring kingdom. He and Aurora met once before, and they liked each other. Now here he comes again; he kisses her, and we await the promised result. Her eyelashes will flutter, her bosom will rise and fall. But they don’t. This is the film’s wittiest and most politically forthright moment: kiss, wait, wait, nothing. Maleficent gives up. Clearly, Aurora will sleep forever. Before leaving to return to the woods, Maleficent leans over the body of the sleeping girl and plants a farewell kiss on her brow. And Aurora wakes up! That is “love’s true kiss”: not romantic love, the thunderbolt, but a steady, daily love. And not necessarily from a man, who you think will magically save you, but from a woman, who perhaps will unmagically save you just by having loved you, quietly, for a long time.

It is to Jolie’s enormous credit that she is able to put this wholesome revisionist message across without righteousness or sentimentality. Her performance is less a matter of words than of small physical details: tilts of her lovely head, topped, here, with a pair of Minoan-bull type horns; gleams of the eyes, plunging to great, green depths; and, of course, adjustments of the famous Duchampian cheekbones, whose angularity was greatly enhanced for the occasion by the Disney makeup people. Jolie manages to be both soft and sharp, poignant and yet still a little slithery. (Those horns are covered in black leather, or something close.) This is a quite a trick, but perhaps not for Jolie. In her early years, she was a wild thing. She told interviewers that she had tried every drug she could find, that she was bisexual, that she was interested in B.D.S.M., and so on. She showed off her many tattoos. Now, at thirty-nine, she is a special envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Perhaps it wasn’t so hard for her, in “Maleficent,” to be both a badass and a paragon.

The film’s moral tolerance extends to its other characters. The treatment of the men is especially interesting. King Stefan falls to his death from one of the castle’s high parapets, but, God knows, he had it coming. As for the rather goofy Prince Phillip, his ineffectual kiss is not laughed at, and when we last see him and Aurora they seem to be happily getting to know each other. In the meantime, Maleficent has acquired a sort of lieutenant, Diaval, who is a shape-shifter. His default position is as a raven, but he can pretty much be whatever she needs: a dragon, etc. In the end, Maleficent’s wings are restored—they sense her presence in the castle and escape from their vitrine to reattach themselves to her—whereupon she and Diaval zoom off, pulsing, into a white sky. God bless them! Above all, God bless Maleficent, who wasn’t sure, until the end, that she wanted to do all those good deeds.

Read the original post at the new yorker


















Monday, June 23, 2014







But this year could be a breakthrough year for women directors. I know it is overly optimistic and a tad delusional to think that women could get two nominations for best director, but there are two women — Angelina Jolie for Unbroken and Ava DuVernay for Selma – who should get HARD looks come awards time. The fact that both women have made movies about men will just enhance their chances of getting noticed.

Angelina Jolie, arguably, has had the best year of her career. As an actress she was able to propel Maleficent to great box office heights — this past weekend it crossed $500 million worldwide at the box office. She just co-convened an international conference on sex crimes in war, and was made a dame by Queen Elizabeth.  But is will be her film Unbroken based on the best selling book of the same name by Laura Hillenbrand  that will get Jolie into the Oscar conversation as a potential best director.

The movie just screams Oscar. It was written by Joel and Ethan Coen with additional writing credits to William Nicholson and Richard LaGravenese. And it’s a story about a man who survived incredible odds. Here’s the imdb description: “A chronicle of the life of Louis Zamperini, an Olympic runner who was taken prisoner by Japanese forces during World War II.” And keep in mind that Jolie is not a directing novice. She made the really terrific and underseen film In the Land of Blood and Honey about the Bosnian war in 2011.
...

Read the rest at Forbes




...

Tuesday, June 17, 2014







The New Kind of True Love

We don't always need Prince Charming to save the day.

We know the standard Disney fairy tale formula by now: The princess is either cursed, trapped, or in some other major predicament, and only one thing can save her — true love. And that true love has always come in the form of a dreamy prince. Until now.

Disney's Maleficent has made a splash at the box office over the past few weeks, and besides being a cinematic masterpiece starring Angelina Jolie, it put a new twist on an old classic. It turns out the seemingly evil queen isn't so bad at all — she's been betrayed by the man she believed was her true love when he takes what is most important to her. In revenge, Maleficent seeks to lure his daughter, the princess, into an eternal sleep, but ends up bonding with her in a way we did not expect. Instead of Prince Phillip saving Aurora with that true love's kiss, it was a kiss on the forehead from mother-figure Maleficent herself that did the trick.

Strong female bonds are important to many women and a remain big part of many of our lives. Let's be real, there's just some times where you need a girlfriend, and the man in your life just doesn't get it. Mothers and daughters, sisters and friends — these are the female bonds that actually end up saving us the most in real life, so it's about time the movies reflect that. Especially Disney movies, which attract moviegoers of all ages.

Frozen was the first to shake things up last year. First, soon-to-be-queen Elsa actually attempts to talk some sense into sister Anna who wants to get engaged to someone she just met and doesn't know, shutting down the classic princess story formula from the beginning. After Hans won't even kiss Anna to save her freezing heart (since he's a complete jerk and was only using her to acquire the Kingdom of Arrendelle), we thought maybe noble mountain man Kristoff would be the solution. But it turned out to be the act of love between two sisters that saved the day. Anna's near sacrifice for Elsa unthawed her own heart and showed Elsa how she can stop the eternal winter. Throughout the entire film, Anna’s relationships to Hans, Kristoff, and even trusty snowman Olaf are totally secondary to the one with her sister.

These may be princess movies, but they represent so much more. Close relationships among women are crucial in today's world, whether we're battling congress for better gun control or coming together to decrease the wage gap. It's time that female solidarity is reflected in the movies we view.

Not only are we starting to get more female lead characters starring in movies (whether fantastical or animated), they're actually getting to love and care about each other — all without needing to be "saved" by men. Let's keep this up.





Angelina Jolie is talking about rape.
Last week the Academy Award-winning actress all but took over the Internet when she joined Foreign Secretary William Hague in leading the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The summit came just days after the opening of Jolie’s current film, Maleficent, which opened at number-one at the box office and has since grossed over $150 million worldwide. The Disney production is a retelling of the 1959 animated classic from the villain’s point of view, one that has received mixed reviews among critics but garnered significant attention in feminist circles for its provocative storyline.
The moment that transforms Maleficent from a fun-loving, quirky woodland fairy into cruel, pissed-off sorceress is an act of violence. The man she thought was her friend drugs her, and while she is unconscious, he saws off her wings. She wakes up bleeding, in pain, a part of her destroyed. Sobbing. It feels like a sexual assault.
Yes, it does, and according to Jolie (who also serves as the film’s executive producer), it was meant to. During an interview on the BBC Woman’s Hour, Jolie was explicit that the integral scene was intentionally written as a metaphor for rape. 
This is no small feat in a feature film by one of America’s most prominent and beloved studios, known for its portrayal of women as lovesick, house-arrested, eye-candy. Jolie’s participation in lobbying for legislative change on a global front is inspiring, though it may be Maleficent that is challenging the most insidious of oppressors—the Hollywood feature film. As the L.A. Times’ Betsy Sharkey points out, “It’s one thing to speak in front of global dignitaries about the need to combat rape; it’s quite another to slip that message into a global blockbuster.”
It is no secret that there is tremendous gender disparity in Hollywood—where the stories of men are told in the words of men, through the lenses of men, and about the desires of men. In 2013, the MPAA reported that 52 percent of movie going audiences were women, yet of the year’s top 500 grossing films, women comprised only 30 percent of speaking roles, only half of which were protagonists.  When women are present (as characters who are predominantly written by men), they are often regulated to the usual roles of ingénue, mother, or wicked witch/queen/stepmother.
This is a pattern so consistent that The Atlantic's Raina Lipstiz argued Thelma & Louise was the last great movie about women. That was 23 years ago.
Combating this is one of the ways Maleficent creates real change, as making a truly progressive film for women means more than just passing the Bechdel Test. Maleficent has two female protagonists, and the majority of the film focuses on the relationship they develop with each other. It was written by a woman, Disney veteran Linda Woolverton, who credits the film with one of the most emotional moments of her career, the kiss scene between Maleficent and Aurora/Sleeping Beauty.
You have to rewrite these things 100 times, and every single time I wrote it I could barely get through it. I did Homeward Bound, you know that dog movie? Every single time I wrote the moment over the hill when everyone comes back at the end, I would cry into my hand over the keyboard. The kiss scene was like that for me.
Woolverton’s emotional attachment and her assertion that 20 years ago she couldn’t have written “as complex a lead character” is a reflection of the rampant sexism in Hollywood, echoing the growing frustration of female moviegoers who yearn to see characters in their likeness and stories that mirror their own experiences.
Of course, the film has it’s flaws and allows ample opportunity for feminist critique. It is, in fact, a fairy tale created in the same old storybook of kingdoms and hierarchies and colonization, one so lackluster in creativity that blogger Lindy West asks, “You could have built any world you wanted to—why choose one ruled by the same regressive, white-washed mid-century morality as every other 'modern' fairy tale? Aren't thou bored?”
West goes on to note the glaring acceptance of gender normativity by the female characters who exist as “moldy feminine tropes—the sullied innocent, the abandoned lover lost without her man, the evil ex-girlfriend, the overreacting harpy, the broken woman redeemed by motherhood.”
It’s true. West’s analyses evoke Audre Lorde’s assertion that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. But focusing on the ways Maleficent reinforces stereotypical images of women distracts from the vital moments when it does not, most notably the conscious choice by the writer and executive producer to create a national dialogue about rape and sexual assault, in a country where it largely goes unspoken. Fairy tale or not, Maleficent is reflective of the experiences of #YesAllWomen.
“The Longest War” is what writer Rebecca Solnit calls America’s cultural relationship between sexual violence and gender:
At the heart of the struggle of feminism to give rape, date rape, marital rape, domestic violence, and workplace sexual harassment legal standing as crimes has been the necessity of making women credible and audible.
The feminist lessons in Maleficent may not have the same magnitude as those taught in college classrooms or published in scholarly journals, but they are reflective of a common experience among American women and girls. These women, though they may not live in a categorical warzone, live in a country where 1 in 4 experience teen dating violence, 1 in 4 are abused by a partner in their lifetime, and 1 in 6 are survivors of rape or attempted rape.
These are the women who cheered when Aurora saves Maleficent by rescuing her wings, the same way that a generation of women before erupted in bursts of support when Louise shoots Thelma’s rapist. It more than just a climactic plot twist, more than just character redemption, and way more than revenge. This is a chance for real women to access and feel their right to a self-determined life. Through these characters, a silenced majority is given a voice that is resonating beyond the silver screen.
After all, the Global Summit to End Violence During Conflict didn’t take place in Fairy Tale Land.
Alicia Swiz is an educator and performer committed to inspiring dialogue about gender, feminism and the media. Find her @popgoesalicia.




Sunday, June 8, 2014






Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
 11:48 a.m. EDT June 8, 2014

Despite boasting Angelina Jolie, a $180 million budget and one of the most famous names in fairy tale lore, Maleficent entered theaters May 30 amid a swirl of skepticism.

Would Jolie's four-year absence from the big screen hurt the movie's debut, analysts pondered. Would kids remember Maleficent from her 1969 roots in Sleeping Beauty? Most pressing, pundits asked: Would boys turn out for a modern-day fairy tale?

The boys did turn out — and they weren't that critical. The film was an overwhelming No. 1, earned $20 million above expectations and became the biggest hit of Jolie's career.

It also underscored a Hollywood gender bias that some scholars and analysts say is training girls to settle for male-geared movies, much like their grown-up counterparts.

"No one is asking whether girls will turn out for a comic-book movie; the assumption is yes," says Wheeler Winston Dixon, a film professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. "We are socializing young girls that this is how the movies are. Women make up an enormous percentage of moviegoers but their role is marginalized in movies, particularly in summer."

Indeed, though new data by the Motion Picture Association of America indicates that women and girls make up 52% of the American moviegoing public, just a fraction of films are geared toward them.

Of the top 10 movies of 2014, only No. 6, Divergent, is anchored by a female.

And a recent analysis by online trade publication The Wrap finds that of the 39 big-studio releases that were planned for this summer, only Jupiter Ascending, which was originally set for a July 18 release but has been pushed to February 2015, has a female director, Lana Wachowski, along with her co-director brother Andy Wachowski.

The trend, analysts say, comes despite evidence that female-friendly films can be goldmines. This weekend's The Fault in Our Stars scored a stunning No. 1 with $48 million. Still, Hollywood primarily courts boys.


"The summer is nearly always testosterone-driven," says Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Rentrak. "But look at franchises that are flexing their muscles: The Hunger Games, Twilight, Divergent. There's an untapped market with unbelievable potential."

Not that studios aren't looking for their next young-adult hit. This weekend's $12 million Stars, based on the popular book about a romance between two young cancer patients, crushed Tom Cruise's $178 million sci-fi extravaganza Edge of Tomorrow. And on July 25, Scarlett Johansson tries her hand at a solo action hero in Lucy, Luc Besson's story about a woman-turned-warrior. A month later, Chloë Grace Moretz anchors If I Stay, about a girl whose life is changed after a car accident.

Still, observers are puzzled by the paucity of offerings for girls, particularly given the success of female-led movies: Last year's Frozen and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire were two of the three top-grossing films of the year, earning a combined $824 million. The next Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I opens Nov. 21, with Jennifer Lawrence returning in the starring role.

"While the guys are home playing video games and surfing the Internet, the ladies are making an event of going to the movies," Dergarabedian says. "Look at Sex and the City and Magic Mike. These are girls' nights out, and there's business to be done outside of just comic book movies."

Speaking of which: "How do we not have a Wonder Woman movie?" asks Dixon, who teaches a course on superhero films. "There's a huge fan base, of males and females. But women are ignored by the superhero system."

Dixon says the bias is a byproduct of an industry dominated in all other realms by one gender. "If your film is directed by a man, shot by a man, acted by a man and distributed by men, whose bias is it going to reflect? It's easy to see, but it's been entrenched and accepted for too long."

But Brad Ricca, author of Super Boys, about the creators of the Superman comics, says that's selling females short.

"Superhero movies absolutely appeal to girls and women," says Ricca, who teaches film at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "Just because the protagonists are generally male doesn't mean the films are marketed to boys."

In fact, he says, "these recent films are being marketed to girls. A major selling point of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the off-screen romance between stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, which commercials for the movie were focused on. We didn't even see some of the major villains in the trailers, which would be easy marks for eager comics boys."

Even Disney executives, who distributed Maleficent, concede the scheduling vacuum for female fare was a no-brainer, pundits notwithstanding.

"As you think of what's available this summer, you have Captain America, Spider-Man, Godzilla," says Dave Hollis, Disney's president of distribution. "They have a certain, well, male feel. A rock-'em-sock-'em nature. We saw a need for relief, palate-wise."

But will Hollywood's taste change permanently?

"It can take the business a while to catch up," Dergarabedian says. "But you can't deny what's happening in theaters. Studios that ignore the phenomenon do so at their own peril."

























Weekend estimates














deadline
With five territories added in its 2nd international frame, Disney’s Maleficent scared up an estimated $59.7M. That takes its overseas total to $208.1M with a global cume of $335.47M. Mexico is still the top territory for Maleficent at $30M, followed by Russia at $24.1M, and the UK at $18.8M. Across Latin America, the average drop-off was about 28% this frame, according to Disney. In Asia, the decreases were about 32% and in Europe they were higher since the movie opened over a four-day holiday last weekend. Jolie visited China earlier this week to promote the movie which opens on June 20



Maleficent took second place with an estimated second weekend performance of $33.52 million. Disney's 3D fantasy film starring Angelina Jolie was down 52 percent from last weekend. That represented a relatively strong second weekend hold when considering the new direct competition the film faced from The Fault in Our Stars and that second weekend declines have tended to be quite large in general so far this summer. Maleficent surpassed the $100 million mark on Friday and has grossed $127.37 million in ten days. That places the film a strong 29 percent ahead of the $98.54 million ten-day take of 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman (which fell 59 percent in its second weekend to gross $23.06 million). Maleficent will face new direct competition from Fox's How to Train Your Dragon 2 next weekend, but won't really be facing any new direct competition for quite some time after next weekend.














Domestic Box Office (Estimates) Weekend of Jun 6-8 RSS Feed: Studio Reported 3 Day Estimates
Rank Title Distributor Name Weekend Revenue Cume Revenue
Revenue # of Locations* Loc AVG
1 Fault In Our Stars, The 20th Century Fox $48,200,000 3,173 15,190 $48,200,000
2 Maleficent Disney $33,523,000 3,948 8,491 $127,370,000
3 Edge Of Tomorrow Warner Bros. $29,105,000 3,490 8,339 $29,105,000
4 X-Men: Days Of Future Past 20th Century Fox $14,700,000 3,639 4,039 $189,101,266
5 Million Ways To Die In The West, A Universal $7,189,000 3,160 2,275 $30,178,970
6 Godzilla Warner Bros. $5,950,000 3,110 1,913 $185,043,006
7 Neighbors Universal $5,200,930 2,674 1,945 $137,801,425
8 Blended Warner Bros. $4,050,000 2,928 1,383 $36,508,944
9 Chef Open Road $2,600,000 1,298 2,003 $10,361,695
10 Amazing Spider-Man 2, The Sony $1,900,000 1,481 1,282 $196,288,396
11 Million Dollar Arm Disney $1,822,000 1,643 1,108 $31,347,000
12 Belle Fox Searchlight $765,000 476 1,607 $7,579,267
© Rentrak Corporation 2014 - Content in Rentrak Theatrical box office updates is produced and/or compiled by Rentrak Corporation and its Box Office Essentials® theatrical box office data collection and analytical service, and is covered by provisions of the Copyright Act. The material presented herein is intended to be available for public use. You may reproduce the content of the box office updates in any format or medium without first obtaining permission, subject to the following requirements: (1) the material must be reproduced accurately; and (2) any publication or issuance of any part of the material to others must acknowledge Rentrak Corporation as the source of the material.








Friday, June 6, 2014


Random

Heading to the weekend - The YA portion of Maleficent's core demo will be heavily focused on The Fault in Our Stars which has already earned a Godzilla-sized $8M from Thursday eve. screenings. Weekend estimates for Fault range from mid $30M to mid $50M with the higher number looking more likely.  Edge of Tomorrow is expected to bring in $30M.  Maleficent should fall somewhere in between -- depending on how much of its core it is able to retain in the face of stiff direct competition.  Women, families and males not attracted to Edge of Tomorrow may go for Maleficent.  The film is also benefiting from repeat views.

In its first week in release, Maleficent's is running almost $2M ahead of earlier projections.


boxoffice

NORTH AMERICA: 'Maleficent' Casts Box Office Spell with $93.9M in its First Week

on June 06, 2014
 
Disney's Maleficent took in $5.399 million on Thursday to lead the box office for a seventh consecutive day. The 3D fantasy film starring Angelina Jolie was down just 4 percent from Wednesday. That percentage hold represented the day's best daily percentage among wide releases, which was especially impressive given the strong Thursday evening debut of Fox's The Fault in Our Stars (which will be counted towards Friday's opening day performance).


Earlier this week:









boxoffice.com



Twitter Tracking

Fri Jun 06 as of 03:08PM PDT
Title # Tweets
The Fault in Our Stars 286,100
Maleficent 56,867
22 Jump Street 40,706
Edge of Tomorrow 19,578
X-Men: Days of Future Past 7,500


Fri Jun 06 as of 12:08PM PDT
Title # Tweets
The Fault in Our Stars 198,916
Maleficent 51,167
22 Jump Street 28,769
Edge of Tomorrow 16,380
X-Men: Days of Future Past 5,835


Fri Jun 06 as of 10:08AM PDT
Title # Tweets
The Fault in Our Stars 148,914
Maleficent 45,088
22 Jump Street 21,801
Edge of Tomorrow 12,718
X-Men: Days of Future Past 4,776









deadline




forbes

Women's Films Ride to Box Office Success

Contributor

Last weekend, Maleficent opened magnificently to a box office total of $70 million here in the US, and over $100 million abroad. As of today, it has grossed $88 million in the US and almost $142 million overseas making its total before the weekend at a little over $230 million. This weekend the film contends against fading star in Tom Cruise in the well reviewed  Edge of Tomorrow (it is at 90% on rotten tomatoes) and the female driven tear jerker The Fault in Our Stars based on the best selling YA novel.

The Fault in Our Stars opens in the US in 3,100 theatres and with Maleficent holding onto 3,900 that means films about women dominate 7,000 screens this weekend. It has become common for summer films to unroll on Thursday nights, and last night, the Fault in Our Stars did a stellar $8.2 million in overnight screenings. The Thursday night box office take for this romance was equal to the box office take of a recent superhero film X-Men: Days of Future Past. That’s big news.  And let’s face it, Shailene Woodley is a star. She came to the world’s attention with her stellar performance in The Descendants, and then has steadily built her resume quite smartly taking on the blockbuster Divergent series (another YA sensation.) According to Fandango, 65% of people buying tickets to the film are buying them because of her, and the film is poised to be the biggest romantic drama in the company’s 14 years history.

 Shailene Woodley is now poised to be an even bigger star with the impending success of The Fault in Our Stars.  What’s fascinating to watch related to Fault is that this is a very low budget — $12 million — stand alone film that will do very good numbers without effects and without it becoming a franchise. Stand alone movies are rare these days, especially in the summer. The studio is predicting that it will make in the mid $20 million over the weekend, strong overnight and building word of mouth, it is looking like it will make at least $30-$35 million. Studios tend to hedge their bets especially related to movies about women because they really don’t have good data to build on — since they don’t release enough movies for women. Last weekend, Maleficent was predicted in the $60 million range and it ended up at $70 million, and Angelina Jolie mentioned a potential sequel this week while she was doing press in Asia.

While Fault it is based on a very popular book and has an incredible social media presence, still, a romantic tear jerker causing this much of a wave is something to talk about. And the fact that a good Tom Cruise film, and let’s face it, he hasn’t had too many lately, is going to come in second or maybe third at the box office — who knows how well Maleficent will hold — means something is clearly happening in Hollywood. It could be a generational shift, Tom Cruise is now fifty, or maybe, hopefully, the studios are figuring out that women are not box office poison, but they are box office gold. The problem continues to be that they just don’t put enough women onscreen and when they do, they always act surprised when the films are bigger successes than predicted.

But while these successes are great, they are still just a couple of films in a sea of men that have been and are still to come on our screens this summer. The upcoming Tammy starring Melissa McCarthy and well as If I Stay starring Chloe Grace Moretz are the only two films on the calendar that look to be released in a significant amount of theatres this summer (namely over 1,000.) And then there is the problem of women directors. With the delay of the Wachowski’s Jupiter Ascending from next month to next February, not a single film being released by the big six studios this summer will have been directed by a woman.

But remember there are some wonderful smaller films about and directed by women out this summer, and at the top of that list is Gillian Robespierre’s Obvious Child starring the about to burst to full fledged stardom Jenny Slate. It begins its run this weekend. While it might take an effort to find this film and other ones like Lucky Them directed by Megan Griffiths and the ever expanding Belle (it is in 476 theatres) directed by Amma Asante, I promise, it is worth it.