They’re either too young or too old.

Post Reply
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: They’re either too young or too old.

Post by Reza »

Uri wrote:I have an age fetish. I’m fascinated with ages of people and I tend to read a lot (of probably nonsense) into them. I tend to look for, and therefore find, patterns and meanings in them. Combine this with my other fetish, the Oscars, and we’re in troubles.

When it comes to the ages of actors, nominees and winners, we all know that actors tend to be about a decade older than actresses, that actresses in their ‘20s have a good shot at winning while actors have practically zero chance of doing so and so on. So the fact that this year winner will almost certainly be 26 is nothing special and this year lineup for best actress is seemingly in order. But something about it bugged me, and it was the way the ages of these 5 people spreads. They are 21, 25, 26, 46 and 69. None of these numbers seems to be precedent setting in any way – we had younger and older nominees and winners in the past, with the 2012 lineup being the most extreme, featuring the youngest as well as oldest nominees ever. The odd bit of data is actually the age gap between Larson and Blanchet.

When the list of nominated actresses is studied, it turns out that the mid two third of them were older than 28 and younger than 46. This age frame is, or at least used to be, the zenith of actresses's career. It’s no coincidence that it overlaps with the same time frame that in the western world is the main child bearing and rearing period, or in other word, as Dame Maggie would say, their “Prime”. And over the decades the plum roles for women, the prestigious, awards winning ones were designated at actresses of this age (remember Margo Channing insisting on being 32 even after she turned 40?) A closer analysis of the data offers some truly fascinating findings.

Here’s a table showing the way the nominees ages are spread over the decades:

----------under 28--28-45---over 46
All time---17.2%---65.1%---17.7%
1930-39---17.8%---75.6%----6.7%
1940-49---20.0%---78.0%----2.0%
1950-59---26.0%---56.0%---18.0%
1960-69---26.0%---60.0%---14.0%
1970-79---10.0%---82.0%----8.0%
1980-89----6.0%---70.0%---24.0%
1990-99---12.0%---58.0%---30.0%
2000-09---16.0%---54.0%---30.0%
2010-15---23.3%---40.0%---36.7%

First – this year is indeed the first time ever no actress “in her prime” is nominated. My initial gut feeling is validated.

But looking at these columns, there are quite a few patterns and trends to be seen. The most powerful one is the way the central one eerily reflects the place women have had in American society and in Hollywood films over the years. From the central place they had in the ‘30s and even more so in the ‘40s (the War years), they way they were sent back home in the ‘50’s and most of the ‘60s (the Baby Boom years), the rise of feminism in the ‘70s and ‘80’s. And one has to wonder what the decline of these numbers later on means (no support for Hillary among younger women, maybe?) But as we all know, woman in current American films are indeed marginalized. (Or is it the simple fact that every role for women in this age range goes either to Meryl Streep or Jennifer Lawrence). To me, the constantly growing number of older nominees reflects a kind of Marie-Dressler-on-steroids phenomenon - it's more about repeatedly revering a small group of beloved, reassuring icons (Streep, Dench, Mirren) than real lack of ageism. And at the other end of the spectrum, the numbers are too similar to those of the '50s and '60s to not suspect that some of that era crooked sensibilities are back (Country Girl's Grace Kelly - meet Joy's Jennifer Lawrence).

(What I read into these numbers is indeed the emergence of a new conservatism, the kind that on the surface is open and allows more variety at the edges, but suffocates the main body of society. Or in other words - Welcome to the Trump era).
Not exactly sure what this all means but if by chance the 69 year old wins the Oscar this year it will make me very happy :D
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

They’re either too young or too old.

Post by Uri »

I have an age fetish. I’m fascinated with ages of people and I tend to read a lot (of probably nonsense) into them. I tend to look for, and therefore find, patterns and meanings in them. Combine this with my other fetish, the Oscars, and we’re in troubles.

When it comes to the ages of actors, nominees and winners, we all know that actors tend to be about a decade older than actresses, that actresses in their ‘20s have a good shot at winning while actors have practically zero chance of doing so and so on. So the fact that this year winner will almost certainly be 26 is nothing special and this year lineup for best actress is seemingly in order. But something about it bugged me, and it was the way the ages of these 5 people spreads. They are 21, 25, 26, 46 and 69. None of these numbers seems to be precedent setting in any way – we had younger and older nominees and winners in the past, with the 2012 lineup being the most extreme, featuring the youngest as well as oldest nominees ever. The odd bit of data is actually the age gap between Larson and Blanchet.

When the list of nominated actresses is studied, it turns out that the mid two third of them were older than 28 and younger than 46. This age frame is, or at least used to be, the zenith of actresses's career. It’s no coincidence that it overlaps with the same time frame that in the western world is the main child bearing and rearing period, or in other word, as Dame Maggie would say, their “Prime”. And over the decades the plum roles for women, the prestigious, awards winning ones were designated at actresses of this age (remember Margo Channing insisting on being 32 even after she turned 40?) A closer analysis of the data offers some truly fascinating findings.

Here’s a table showing the way the nominees ages are spread over the decades:

----------under 28--28-45---over 46
All time---17.2%---65.1%---17.7%
1930-39---17.8%---75.6%----6.7%
1940-49---20.0%---78.0%----2.0%
1950-59---26.0%---56.0%---18.0%
1960-69---26.0%---60.0%---14.0%
1970-79---10.0%---82.0%----8.0%
1980-89----6.0%---70.0%---24.0%
1990-99---12.0%---58.0%---30.0%
2000-09---16.0%---54.0%---30.0%
2010-15---23.3%---40.0%---36.7%

First – this year is indeed the first time ever no actress “in her prime” is nominated. My initial gut feeling is validated.

But looking at these columns, there are quite a few patterns and trends to be seen. The most powerful one is the way the central one eerily reflects the place women have had in American society and in Hollywood films over the years. From the central place they had in the ‘30s and even more so in the ‘40s (the War years), they way they were sent back home in the ‘50’s and most of the ‘60s (the Baby Boom years), the rise of feminism in the ‘70s and ‘80’s. And one has to wonder what the decline of these numbers later on means (no support for Hillary among younger women, maybe?) But as we all know, woman in current American films are indeed marginalized. (Or is it the simple fact that every role for women in this age range goes either to Meryl Streep or Jennifer Lawrence). To me, the constantly growing number of older nominees reflects a kind of Marie-Dressler-on-steroids phenomenon - it's more about repeatedly revering a small group of beloved, reassuring icons (Streep, Dench, Mirren) than real lack of ageism. And at the other end of the spectrum, the numbers are too similar to those of the '50s and '60s to not suspect that some of that era crooked sensibilities are back (Country Girl's Grace Kelly - meet Joy's Jennifer Lawrence).

(What I read into these numbers is indeed the emergence of a new conservatism, the kind that on the surface is open and allows more variety at the edges, but suffocates the main body of society. Or in other words - Welcome to the Trump era).
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”