[This message is in response to this quote from Scarlett Johansson: “You work hard making independent films for fourteen years and you get voted ‘best breasts’.”]
ScarJo made Ghost World when she was 17 and Lost In Translation when she was 18. I have no idea where you got this “majority” of her roles), but I’m pretty sure she’s been in a really wide range of films?? Plus, looking at her most famous “sexy” or “beautiful girl” roles (Vicky Christina Barcelona, Match Point, maybe Girl With Pearl Earing…?), those are all movies focusing on sex and relationships, meaning that the men (Jonathan Rhys Myers, WOODY ALLEN) are playing “sexy” roles as well. ScarJo has won multiple awards for acting, whereas Woody Allen pretty much just plays himself in every movie. But because ScarJo is beautiful and ~sexy, she’s less worthy of respect than her male costars?
Woody Allen has been making the same type of movies for 40 years, using an ever-changing roster of beautiful young women, because once an actress reaches 40, she can no longer fulfill her purpose of being beautiful and desirable.
99% of A-list Hollywood actresses are conventionally attractive, and are habitually cast in roles where a significant part of the role is to be stunningly beautiful. It’s utterly ridiculous to shame an actress for occasionally taking that kind of role, when it’s often the only kind that’s offered to her. In order to maintain a career as an actor, you have to keep making movies. And women don’t have the option of making the kind of dumb “filler” movies male actors do in between their more serious projects, because the vast majority of female-led “fluff” movies are romcoms… which require women to be desirable and beautiful.
Matt Damon can make 10 shitty action movies and will still probably be making “serious” movies until he retires, whereas if ScarJo does a couple of lighthearted romcoms or films where she plays an ~object of desire, she’s automatically a “sexy” actress who isn’t worthy of respect. Despite the fact that at the beginning of her career (ie, her breakout adult role in Ghost World), she was definitely NOT seen as the sex-symbol she is today.
If it was possible for A-list actresses to “use their influence” to create more substantial roles for women, do you REALLY THINK that Hollywood movies would still be as sexist as they are? Yes, a few people like Angelina Jolie have the clout to make their own movies from scratch, about strong female characters. But a) that’s only a tiny minority of super-famous actresses, and b) Angelina Jolie’s level of fame is partly based on the fact that she’s a sex symbol. “The Heat” is just about the most mainstream movie you can make, but the filmmakers were still told to hold off until Bridesmaids came out, in case it seemed like there “wasn’t a market” for female-led comedies. “Alien” is still the most famous example of a female-led sci-fi movie that actually respects its lead character as a human rather than a ~sexy heroine, and it came out in 1979. Drew Barrymore created and funded “Whip It!”, a fantastic female-led coming-of-age dramedy, which almost flopped because people couldn’t deal with a female-led movie that didn’t revolve around a girl obtaining a boyfriend.
This askbox message basically proves ScarJo’s point when she said that after 15 years of making a wide range of movies, she’s still known as “best breasts”. This actress has received so many awards and nominations (including Golden Globes, BAFTAs and a Tony Award) that the list requires a separate Wikipedia page. But because she’s chosen to play a few “sexy” roles, you’ve decided she isn’t worthy of respect.