Comments on: Meg Ryan calls ageism in Hollywood “sexist and horrible”

By: me

me — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:35:14 +0000

okay botox and restylane are considered cosmetics not cosmetic surgery. You don’t have to be cut up to be injected and they aren’t permanent. Fillers and relaxers are simply advanced clinical skin care for the well heeled. And really when you break it down, no different to you or I buying a anti-wrinkle cream from the supermarket – depends on your budget.

If viewed in this light I don’t see how you can accuse Meg of desperately denying her age or trying to stay forever young. She’s just looking after herself as we all do, albeit with access to more expensive treatments than most.

I don’t see any evidence of her being over-surgerised or having had surgery at all for that matter. I think her good looks have as much to do with a good health and fitness routine (note the toned arms) as much as anything she does to her face.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Dingles

Dingles — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:25:37 +0000

I can’t believe “City of Angels” was made only 10 years ago, and what Meg has managed to do to her face in that decade. She was gorgeous in the mid and late 90s and was ageing just fine, until she started getting surgery. She’s practically unrecognizable.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Snowblood

Snowblood — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:43:45 +0000

That’s true, Granger. Excellent points, I do agree.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Granger

Granger — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:33:13 +0000

I agree with Meg that there aren’t many truly good roles for older women in mainstream Hollywood movies. But I also agree with Cindy Kennedy that there are too many young actresses willing to succumb to the sexist Hollywood ideal of the vapid, supporting role in a silly romantic comedy or mindless “thriller”. Meg was one in her day; Jennifer Aniston is reaching the end of her run; and Kate Hudson is still in the throws (which is sad, because I think she has real talent but she keeps selling herself short). So then when they hit 40, and nobody wants to see them playing the doe-eyed-”girl”-who-can’t-find-love-but-who-falls-for-the-caddishly-confirmed-bachelor part anymore, they whine that there are no good roles for women of a certain age. But realistically, if they’d tried harder to stretch themselves, prove their range, and move away from the “little girl lost” routine — well, maybe they’d only be making one film a year, but it would probably be really interesting and very rewarding.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Snowblood

Snowblood — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:41:28 +0000

I’ve always loved Meg Ryan, and I guess I always will. Reading that little interview, I was suddenly reminded of that scene in When Harry met Sall when Harry comes over to Sally’s house, and she’s sitting in her bed surrounded by little puff-wads of Kleenex, sobbing uncontrollably, and he wants to know what’s wrong. “I’m gonna be FORTY!!” she wails. “Yeah – in eight years!” he responds.

I do the same thing, freak out by myself once in a while that I’m gonna be 40 – even though it’s still a few years up the road from here.

I do love me some Meg Ryan. I’ll see this new film, just to watch her & Debra Messing, love Debra Messing, too.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: stellapurdy

stellapurdy — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:19:43 +0000

I think the trailer is pretty funny. Some good one liners.

This is the best I’ve seen Meg look in a while, albeit with the botoxed face. I like her and cannot imagine the pressure there is in Hollywood to try and look young.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: rottenkitty

rottenkitty — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:18:53 +0000

TP,

Actually, the 30s was one of the great heydays for actresses in Hollywood. Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer, Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard, Mary Astor, Nancy Carroll, Dolores Del Rio, Alice Faye, Myrna Loy, Rosalind Russell, Jean Harlow, Greta Garbo, and Jean Arthur to name but a few of the major stars of that decade.

The reason “The Women” was so big in 1939 wasn’t because those women were at the end of their careers by any stretch of the imagination, but rather because they were all at the top of their game.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: kate

kate — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:50:17 +0000

@ geronimo: i freakin’ love laura linney! and toni colette too. as for meg, her face looks somewhat normal now, not so chipmunkish.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: xxx

xxx — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:50:50 +0000

She’s had a lot more than collagen and botox. Looks like cheek implants that she now took out (thank goodness)-she only looks mostly fake now.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: tp Vero

tp Vero — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:34:11 +0000

Certain people should not be allowed to get old, perhaps all of us. If I can remember my film history, that 1939 film was a vehicle for all the famous women then who themselves were getting on in years and were really at the top of their form. Hollywood is a cruel mistress. There are so many female players who we should be seeing just because they have honed their craft so well. But as it has always been, they must take the second or third banana positions as they get older if they want to keep working. It is the way of the world for all of us I am afraid, even all those young people who can not imagine getting older. Crap happens and then you die.

Report this comment as spam or abuse