JENNIFER DREW said:

Interesting how the focus has been on Harrison Ford's age and how good physically he supposedly appears. Sounds to me like a clear case of justifying why an obviously elderly male is still trying to fool viewers his real age is still around 40! But then of course, all women actors are 'over the hill' once they reach that elderly age of 35+. After all a female actor's sole talent lies supposedly lies in her physical youthful sexualised body. Male actors of course are all individuals with immense skills and expertise hence the reason why Ford despite his age is still portrayed as never having aged and is still a youthful 40 (sic). Bias and male discrimination against female actors - of course not. Just that screenwriters and Hollywood believe films are for male entertainment and therefore female actors below the age of 35 are 'male sexualised commodities.'

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 11:07 AM

Tom Hulley said:

What's 'woman actress' about? Belt and braces?
I thought 'actor' was used by women nowadays as it means someone who acts. 'Actress' was designed to marginalise like all the other '-ess'es.
Once women are considered for best actor awards instead of the residual 'actress' one then they will have equal status in the profession. Meanwhile Susan Sarandon and Shirley Maclaine, among others, outstyle the dilapidated Harrison Ford. Maggie Smith and Judy Dench from the UK also keep going impressively.
Best regards, Tom.

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 11:12 AM

Glenn said:

Dame Helen mirren, Dame Judy Dench and Julie walters may dissagree with your statement that society thinks "if you’re a woman actress, even over 40 (and that’s pushing it), you have nothing left to offer"

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 11:31 AM

Tom Hulley said:

No offence at all, Helen! The term just did seemed awkward in a piece about women being sidelined, as they often are, in entertainment.
It is good to think about language but I would not want to impose my preferences on anyone.

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 11:41 AM

Jess said:

OK, so I saw Indy on Friday night and was pleased to see Karen Allen (aged 56, I believe), as Marion Ravenwood once again.

She's still quite a bit younger than Harrison, of course, but still, at least they didn't drag in a much younger actress to reprise the role of love interest.

More of a problem was that... well.. her character goes from pissed off to fawning over Indy almost immediately. She gets some good action sequences, but... well...

Frankly, the film is only watchable at all if you steer your mind quickly away from the shit bits (the scene with the monkeys! oh my god!), and the offensive bits (e.g. the Indians in the Latin American scenes...)

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 11:49 AM

Jess said:

@Glenn & Tom,

The problem is, Hollywood is heaving with older male actors scoring a wide range of parts in all sorts of movies. The number of women actors still working into their 40s and 50s and 60s is much, much smaller, and the parts they are offered are much less varied or interesting.

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 12:00 PM

Hazel said:

Hollywood has very little to offer women full stop. If you want to see more than the occasional good role for women you have to turn to TV or to independent cinema.

May I recommend Melissa Silverstein's excellent blog on this subject called "Women and Hollywood" (http://womenandhollywood.blogspot.com/).

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 12:56 PM

Seph said:

While there are older female actors in Hollywood, they tend to only get roles specifically for older women (e.g the Queen) or get stuck playing a background 'aged and wise' character.
Wheras older male actors are still getting action hero roles, Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford are both past their prime and playing action heroes. Ian Mckellen and Christopher Lee (in their 60s and 80s, respectivly) are still getting roles thrown at them left right and centre.

Another thing i've noticed is there are certain older male actors (Val Kilmer and John Tavolta spring to mind) who've become rather chubby, and are still getting job offors.

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 3:34 PM

monty said:

i can't believe you didn't mention marion, why no marion? Noting her presence would hardly be a spoiler. Hardly a balanced post when you neglect to mention they brought back the female lead from the first film.

Posted on 25 May 2008 at 3:40 PM

Amanda said:

I thought the fact that they used Karen Allen was actually pretty revolutionary. Putting aside her admitedly limited charaterisation it was great to see an older woman in that role. Ok so I have a lot of problems with the female sidekick in films like this but a big part of the problem is the way in which they are ditched at the end of each film and replaced with a younger and sexier model. I thought it was great that they actually portrayed an older woman in a meaningful relationship with the hero. It wasn't great but it seems a step im the right direction.

Posted on 27 May 2008 at 11:11 AM

Kuja said:

It's probably because younger male actors are expected to play tough, strong characters while younger female actors are expected to look attractive. When it gets to older actors, it seems to be less about the looking good and more about fitting the part.
It must be hard to make the transition; if Julie Walters had started off being mindless eye candy, would she still be a respected actor today? Most of the ones who are used for their looks will fade when they age, but the ones who establish themselves for other reasons will (hopefully) stick around.

Posted on 27 May 2008 at 3:46 PM

Headey said:

"I saw Indy on Friday night and was pleased to see Karen Allen (aged 56, I believe), as Marion Ravenwood once again."

3 cheers for Ms Allen. I thought she was the best 'love interest' in the whole series. Sad to hear she 'fawns' over Indy, but I hope she insisted on showing the (mostly) gutsy character she did in the first film.

Posted on 27 May 2008 at 6:17 PM

monty said:

hmm, i'm still wondering why karen allen was left out of this blog post. It seems like a glaring omission to me.

Posted on 28 May 2008 at 1:06 PM

BrevisMus said:

Coming late to this because I only saw the film yesterday.

Actually, I didn't think Harrison Ford looked that great for 65! But I was pleased that the love interest was an older woman. It would have been easy for the filmmakers to replace Marion with some young hottie (hey, the rest of the film was completely implausible, what more did they have to lose?), and I like the fact that they didn't.

(and whilst we're being nitpicky - woman in a noun, not an adjective, so the phrase is 'female actor')

Posted on 05 June 2008 at 2:43 PM

BrevisMus said:

Sorry Helen - I didn't want to be critical, but female/woman is one of my bugbears :)

Posted on 05 June 2008 at 5:20 PM

belledame222 said:

I just mostly thought it was a) racist as all hell b) feeling kind of phoned-in, for the most part. Don't care about Harrison Ford's age, but the franchise is really creaky. So's Spielberg for that matter, as far as I'm concerned. He hasn't really evolved so much as gone sour.

Posted on 07 June 2008 at 1:25 AM

Lynn Angela Pisco said:

I think it doesn't matter how old both Karen Allen and Harrison Ford turned out to be one of the most respected actors of all time. Actually they seems to be more older and wiser at some point but whenever you watch them do these action scenes from this particular movie, they are absolutely awesome to do their own creative old school stunts work apparently come on now . Karen Allen is in the best shape ever no doubt at her age of 56 hasn't change much since then . Harrison Ford in the other hand has still got it going on with his own fresh style like the whip and fight scenes as well . I think they will continue to do whatever it takes to make sure their fans enjoyed the wild ride for the next chapter and then let see if Marion Ravenwood herself can have her own fight scenes once and a while cause hey you will never know what's going to happen within the future .

Posted on 17 June 2008 at 10:17 AM