Jennifer Ehle+Colin Firth - how the film industry has treated them...

[Tensmumym]

Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth were famously in Pride and Prejudice as partners. I've just discovered that the 45 year old Jennifer played the mother of the 25 year old Dakota Johnson in the film Fifty Shades of Grey. here Meanwhile, the 54 year old Colin played as the love interest opposite the 26 year old Emma Stone. here

Thing is plenty of men fancy older women. You get them all the time on okc etc. Last date I had turned out to be 20 years younger than me.

Great thread! Lots of food for thought.

By the way, did you know that Lionel Jeffries, who played Dick Van Dyke's father in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, was a year younger than him?

wafflyversatile
"I wonder if they cast him rather than, oh, I don't know, a 21 year old because they thought a 21 year old would find it too icky to kiss a 36 year old"

Some younger men might, some might actually like the older woman thing, and some in either camp would no doubt just be professional and see it as not being about them and whether they would kiss the woman, but about their character.

When I first saw this story I wondered whether there was an element of some people just ageing better than others. Maybe CF still has the x-factor whereas JE doesn't, but looking at the photos linked to she doesn't look that bad at all.

I don't know if it has been mentioned but with regards to dodgy age gaps, wasn't Sean Connery only seven years older than Harrison Ford when he played his dad.

12 years between Henry Jones and Henry Jones Jr

Yes that was weird, in indiana jones, and IIRC it was talked about a lot at the time as being a bit weird.

It was good though that they brought back the woman from the first film, even though she was gasp however old she was. But then I think I read that the age gap in the original film was big anyway, so you know, not a huge win but a win all the same.

harrison ford brn 1942
karen allen born 1951

so not too bad at all!

I remember when I saw that crystal skull film and she was in it, i was really pleased because she was a good character, it was a nice continuation, and because they hadn't felt the need to get a 25yo for him

Yes, they wanted Karen Allen to return for Temple of Doom as she was such a fab character, but she didn't want to get typecast I think (presumably at the time ToD wasn't set 5 years before Raiders as that wouldn't have made any sense). Really great she came back for Crystal Skull. And I'm reasonably sure that Leia and Han are still together when the next Star Wars movie comes out in December. I can never forgive them for Jar Jar sodding Binks but that would pale besides splitting up Leia and Han.

Oops, 12 years not 7.

"Yes, they wanted Karen Allen to return for Temple of Doom as she was such a fab character, but she didn't want to get typecast I think"

Pity they replaced her character with such a scaredy drip. All this talk of age gaps reminds me that Harold and Maude in on my Netflix playlist, to be got around to.

Yes, she was definitely not a worthy replacement, was she? Kate Capshaw obviously got over it enough to marry Steven Spielberg! But it was not a great role, a very stereotyped spoilt princess. Too much screaming and having to be rescued. Marian would have kicked her arse and sent her packing.

Harrison Ford comments in a documentary on the making of Temple of Doom, that it is set three years before Raiders of the Lost Ark, and he is now two years older. "which means I am now 5 years too old for the part."

It's not the years honey, it's the mileage

IRL though a 9 year age gap is fairly unusual isn't it? I would've thought about 70-80% of marriages have a gap of 5 years or less.

Agree it's better than 25 years!

JAPAB

I was more wondering if that was the film-makers reasoning rather than reality.

Although Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a massive disappointment, Karen Allen was one of the best things in it.

I've always hated in particularly action movies when they go past one movie that there is some random new love interest every episode. It fundamentally cheapens any dramatic impact a romance may otherwise have.

It's really hard to find many examples where they keep the female leads, but often when they do it works. Die Hard is my all time favorite action movie and Holly McClane is essential, even though she doesn't actually appear in the third movie she is nevertheless present in the main characters mind the whole time until he gets over himself and phones her.

The Mummy series is also another one with Rachel Weiz's character, who is actually the protagonist with Brendan Fraiser's Indy clone her leading man as opposed to the other way around. Bit of a shame they recast the role in third film, but I've not seen it so no idea if it works.

Gransnet have now picked up on this thread.

Funny you mentioned Rosamund Pike as I had to google her and it turns out that her partner is ancient.

This is an interesting discussion. I am going to quickly dump my thoughts and run.

My theory is that is purely the vanity of old and wealthy men who run the industry. Many of the films mentioned that feature large, unmentioned age gaps are by arthouse 'respected' directors - ie ones that aren't commercially viable. Woody Allen films don't generate much box office and DVD/TV sales and never have. Same for Polanski and many of the other films mentioned (see below - audiences wanted to see Colin Firth opposite Meryl Streep - not a woman 20 years his junior!). George Clooney has never been the box office force that his fame would suggest. Cinema audiences are young for the most part and simply don't want to see old men groping young women.

As long as actors look youthful and sexy enough audiences will go along with it. But as soon as they cross the line - that's it. See Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt and, to some extent, Tom Cruise. Will Smith looks 15 years younger than he is but Focus with Margot Robbe (20 odd years younger) was a flop. His days as a hot leading man are numbered.

BTW Who are the headline female stars of the top 3 biggest movies of all time in the UK box office? Judi Dench (Skyfall), Sigourney Weaver (Avatar), Meryl Streep (Mamma Mia). Everyone talks about who Jennifer Lawrence is cast opposite in various dramas but the mass market want to see her X-Men (with Nicholas Hoult) and Hunger Games with actors her own age.

Sexism and ageism is a massive problem and not going away but I am mildly optimistic. There is a lot less money to be made in movies than there was 10 years ago, and with that, the studios will have to give audiences - half of whom are women with strong views and deep pockets - what they want.

I've enjoyed reading this thread and another almost identical one on the same subject a few weeks ago.

I'm really and truly disappointed in Emma Thompson accepting a part playing Robert Carlyle's mother as she has been so vocal on this subject! She cannot possibly need the money, I always thought she was a rather sensible woman but this seems to be rather hypocritical on her part.

In the past couple of days I've been told on Mumsnet that I can always be relied upon to piss on the chips so I say with some trepidation re. #mindthegap - would that work for an international campaign? Surely it is a phrase that would only be recognised by English people?

Sigourney Weaver (Avatar)

I assume you mean Alien? I don't recall Sigourney being in the pile of pants that was Avatar.

Well, she was. Haven't seen it but she was third billed and will be in the sequels.

well it is still descriptive but also is used in its English form in other countries for station announcements and as a stock phrase. I'll wager many US actors and film makers are at least passingly familiar with it.

Goodness so she was. It was so stunningly bad I must have blanked that out.

It's one of the things I like about the Outlander books, that they follow the Claire-Jamie books past the original falling in love to years if marriage, grown up children etc. I hope the TV series will do the same.

So pleased this thread has generated so many posts!

I was just having a think about film star types in the kitchen and maybe mooning around a bit over a particular young man who is extraordinarily beautiful and also I would bet a substantial amount of cash is gay.

And then I was thinking about the film industry and how in Hollywood it is rare still for people to come out, and how odd it is given that how acting & stuff is not exactly an area that gay men hate and are unlikely to get into

And then I was thinking about how the reason given is often that women won't be able to take a gay man seriously as a romantic heterosexual lead. And I thought, something seems a bit fishy there. Because women and girls have fancied openly gay men & openly bisexual men for just forever, it doesn't seem to put us off at all. And insofar as you find someone attractive, who is acting, they're, you know, acting. They don't (usually) actually fancy the person they're with, it's pretend. What does it matter if they're gay, then they don't fancy them anyway.

And then I was thinking, hmmm, I'm not buying this explanation, which I'm sure is the one given almost all the time. And then I thought, maybe it's not women at all. Maybe it's men who would have trouble with a gay man playing say an action hero, or a hot man who gets all the girls, or whatever. I mean, say an actor who played James Bond was gay. That'd be fine, for me. But would some blokes find that impossibly incongruous and not be able to get on board with it? Is there something about empathising with characters to a certain extent, so when men watch a film they tend to "put themselves in the shoes" of the male character (or one of them) and ditto for women? So a film like James Bond is inviting men to step into the shoes of action hero who shags hot women left right and centre while having a really super watch and car, and if they know the actor is gay this fucks it up for them?

It's just a thought because otherwise it makes no sense. Some women are homophobic yes but lots of men are really funny about gay men, and gay women too actually, even while trying to pretend it's all fine and they're totally cool with it. Loads of bog-standard insults that men make to each other are about being gay, aren't they. And loads of jokes, you knwo off teh cuff stuff, as well. Women don't tend to do that nearly so much, IME.

Anyway, not sure. It just occurred to me that actually I don't buy they "women won't like it" thing, at all. And clearly the industry is full of gay men so it's not an insider thing. So who exactly is it for, this covering it up.