What Happened to the Leading Ladies?

The New York Times had an article yesterday about the lack of leading ladies in this summer's movie line-up. But that's nothing new. And that's precisely the problem. The big leading ladies movies are: Sex and the City, Mamma Mia, The House Bunny, Wild Child, Kitt Kidridge, What Happens in Vegas, Wanted, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, and X-Files 2. And how many of these will be in the top ten money makers' list for the summer? Any?

But it's not just in the splashy blockbuster movies that demand big numbers -- smaller more critical fare also lacks leading women -- as the article points out two of the best reviewed movies last year -- There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Men -- lack women even in supporting roles. I mean I didn't see most of the films that the Leading Actresses were nominated for during the Oscars because performances aside, the films were mostly badly reviewed. Even romantic comedies have the men playing the women's part -- Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Made of Honor. So what's a girl to do? Star in a movie with a princess (Enchanted) or pregnancy (Juno, Knocked Up, Baby Mama) or weddings (27 Dresses)? No wonder more and more talented actresses are starring on TV shows.

TV is female dominated with many shows and networks for them -- you'd think the movie business could try and capture what works for those shows and put it on film beyond straight forward adaptations (like Sex and the City). But could TV's popularity with the ladies simply be a result of the lack of fare for them at the theaters? Probably. But obviously films need to expand their categorical leading lady types and bring complex characters who have more than their sexuality to deal with if they want to get the vaginas in the theaters. While Hollywood is usually in the foreground with representing society, it seems like lately it's been lagging in the times, which is sad because look at the times we're living in.