Sunday, May 18, 2008


It may be hard to tell from the above picture, but throughout most of Untraceable Diane Lane isn't wearing make-up. I'm not sure if the casting required it or if Lane just thought it was necessary for the character. Either way - and despite the overall badness of the film - it makes her much more convincing in the role.

Big deal, right? Maybe... but when viewing this, I realized how quickly my own ingrained sexism came out.

There's an early scene where Lane is driving home from work in the rain. The blue-gray lighting accentuates the details in her face. "Wow... she's looking old", I thought. Diane Lane is extraordinarily beautiful, yet my gut reaction was "why isn't she wearing make-up?". So, yes, my first impressions of women may run on the shallow, but that's probably not a revelation to players in the game of male/female sexual politics.

However, what I couldn't stop thinking about was the alleged decree, made last October, from Jeff Robinov at Warner Bros.: "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead". Robinov denied, denied, denied, but Nikki Finke - the reporter that broke the story - wasn't convinced.

Maybe Robinov is clean. We'll never know. But with the number of female leads hanging around the same low rank as always, it's reasonable to think that studio men simply suffer from the same knee-jerk sexism as me. It may not be intentional, but it doesn't change the fact that it's there.


Jason Bellamy said...

Diane can come over to my house without makeup anytime. Just sayin'.

WaywardJam said...

I saw this excuse for a film and agree. Lane looked ragged.

Sexist, maybe, but Hollywood's all about the sex appeal.

The WB guy saying they'd no longer do films with women in the lead is totally lame. If they stopped giving these talented ladies crap to star in like Untraceable maybe they'd actually profit when they produce a quality film featuring women.