Aaron Sorkin has been all over the Sony Hack stories. He wrote the script for the Steve Jobs bio-pic, and Sorkin had strong opinions about who should play Jobs. There are also lots of emails about Sorkin, like Amy Pascal telling people that Sorkin is broke and dating some coworker. So, obviously, Sorkin decided to chime in officially about where he stands on the Sony Hack stories – he wrote a NYT op-ed called “The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press.” You can read the whole piece here, but the basic gist is: “Shame on news outlets for reporting on all of the Sony Hack emails, legit media should ignore those stories!” It’s all very Pollyanna and it doesn’t even ring true – it seems Sorkin is only taking that position because he has been personally affected.
And Sorkin has been personally affected! The Daily Beast got their hands on one of the worst pieces of the Sorkin documents hacked from Sony. Sorkin had been emailing Maureen Dowd – the famous NYT columnist and Sorkin’s ex-girlfriend and friend – about the state of Hollywood sexism and the lack of good roles for women. The Sony Hack has revealed a lot about Hollywood sexism, but Sorkin’s email to Dowd (which Dowd apparently forwarded to Amy Pascal) is easily one of the most infuriating pieces of “Oh, this is really how men in Hollywood think” misogyny. You can read the full coverage of this at The Daily Beast, but here’s the basic story:
In a leaked email uncovered by The Daily Beast that Sorkin sent to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on March 6, 2014, the Oscar-winning screenwriter attempts to get to the bottom of Hollywood’s women problem.
In the latest email uncovered by The Daily Beast, Sorkin responds to Dowd’s March 4 column titled, “Frozen in a Niche” (which Dowd forwarded to Pascal), that riffed on Cate Blanchett’s Oscar speech for Blue Jasmine where the actress took Hollywood to task for its treatment of women by blasting those “who are still foolishly clinging to the idea that female films with women at the center are niche experiences.” Later in the piece, Dowd quotes Pascal, who discusses the “paltry” amount women in Hollywood make versus men, and how female directors face a “mountain of rejection” and “the whole system is geared for them to fail.”
“That was a great and very interesting column today,” Sorkin wrote to Dowd on March 6. “I’d only take issue with one thing and that’s the idea that something like Bridesmaids is seen as a fluke and that’s why we don’t see more movies like Bridesmaids. There’s an implication that studio heads have a stack of Bridesmaids-quality scripts on their desk that they’re not making and it’s just not true. The scripts aren’t there.”
Then, Sorkin connects the lack of good scripts to his belief that “the degree of difficulty” in Blanchett’s performance in Blue Jasmine was “nothing close to the degree of difficulty” to any of the nominated male lead performances that year.
“That’s why year in and year out, the guy who wins the Oscar for Best Actor has a much higher bar to clear than the woman who wins Best Actress,” Sorkin wrote. “Cate gave a terrific performance in Blue Jasmine but nothing close to the degree of difficulty for any of the five Best Actor nominees. Daniel Day-Lewis had to give the performance he gave in Lincoln to win–Jennifer Lawrence won for Silver Linings Playbook, in which she did what a professional actress is supposed to be able to do. Colin Firth/Natalie Portman. Phil Hoffman had to transform himself into Truman Capote while Julia Roberts won for being brassy in Erin Brockovich. Sandra Bullock won for ‘The Blind Side’ and Al Pacino lost for both Godfather movies. Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep can play with the boys but there just aren’t that many tour-de-force roles out there for women.”
It’s tough to compare the “degree of difficulty” of different performances on film. And while Sorkin has a valid central point here—that there aren’t enough quality scripts championing female characters, which leads to less complex roles for women—it’s a bit strange to say that Blanchett’s turn in Blue Jasmine was any less difficult to pull off then Bruce Dern’s in Nebraska, or that Colin Firth’s turn in The King’s Speech measured up to Natalie Portman’s tour de force in Black Swan.
Yeah… I can criticize some of the Best Actress winners sometimes too. Like, I personally think Natalie Portman’s Oscar win should have an asterisk beside it because we found out she really wasn’t doing much of the ballet work in Black Swan. But DO NOT EVER use Cate Blanchett as the poster girl for your “Women Just Don’t Work As Hard As Men” argument. Cate Blanchett killed it in Blue Jasmine. She gave a virtuoso performance and everyone was like, “Yep, La Blanchett is everything.” And the overarching argument Sorkin makes is so… stupid. It’s sexist, of course, but mostly it’s just idiotic. It’s like Sorkin in mansplaining disparities between the sexes with the argument of “women just don’t work as hard, thus they shouldn’t be paid as much or have lead roles in movies.”
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I’m just waiting for the Christmas big Hack Reveal! 🙂
It’s a terroristic threat.
What, where did u hear that?
I read it was another industry leak about Sony.
I read last night, I think on d-listed, that ‘they’ were threatening a 9/11 situation. The FBI seems to think this might be the work of a disgruntled Sony Employee.
They’re threatening people who living near the premiers to leave their homes. It’s some scary shit.
“Warning:
We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places “The Interview” be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to.
Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made.
The world will be full of fear.
Remember the 11th of September 2001.
We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time.
(If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)
Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
All the world will denounce the SONY.”
It’s just Franco. He’s creating a terrorist art piece to boost his film.
Oh wow.
This is totally not North Korea. There is a good chance they are not sophisticated enough to do this. The 9/11 threat did not appear until The Daily News reported that Howard Stern said this was a terrorist attack like 9/11 was a terrorist attack.
The wording of the threat sounds like someone trying to make it sound like English is not their first language.
I think it is an inside job for sure or some dumb kid in his parents basement.
What gets me is when they liken this to a terrorist attack. The Hollywood elite are the only people sweating this and they are telling the media not to report it. Where were these same guys when all the nudies were being leaked?
Dang Kiddo! I was just telling my husband last night I think its a disgruntled employee too! It feels like an inside job masquerading as North Korea apologists. Plus if you read some of the email back and forths from employees about how they feel Sony is effing up big time it makes sense. They all seem really tired of making reboots and sequels.
Only when they are in his shows. Writing proper female characters might redress that.
Hahaha! Burn.
Ugh, he is such a blow-hard. I hate it when liberals are smug, pompous, foolish, self-worshipping blow-hards. It’s embarrassing. I disown him!
How is he a “liberal,” and how is this even relevant? I think this email proves he is anything but. Ugh.
He’s a liberal icon Miss Jupitero. West Wing was a liberal wet dream that many credit with their ability to survive the Bush years. Still, I hate to defend these comments but I *think* his point is that few good challenging female roles exist, and Hollywood solidifies our acceptance of lighter female roles with Oscars for them.
Well, I’m pretty sure he considers himself liberal. But you are right, I should have said “liberal.” Sadly, I think a lot of “liberal” men are pretty sexist if you dig just a little below the surface.
S”adly, I think a lot of “liberal” men are pretty sexist if you dig just a little below the surface.”
Yes unlike Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Rick Perry and other women’s rights crusaders 😉
Look, I don’t know what kind of “liberal” men you’re hanging out with, but your statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Judging men based on one liberal twatwaffle is kind of unfair, no?
@Bettyrose-the problem is that Sorkin doesn’t see that many Oscar-nominated actors like Denzel Washington for Training Day, Russell Crowe for Gladiator, and Christian Bale for American Hustle are also completely undeserving of an Oscar. He would have been more accurate to say that the Oscars are a farce in general.
Kitten, yes I have always made that point about liberal men. My hippie liberal father calls himself a feminist and he totally supports a woman’s right to work and support herself (which also benefits dead beat dads, right?) But he still feels very entitled to be the center of attention and main decision maker in his relationships with women.
Was I married to your dad? My ex-husband was “totally a feminist!!!!” and said feminism involved (1) pressuring me to have an abortion; and (2) graciously allowing me to support his unemployed self for a very, very long time. He was allll about the joint custody, too, because that meant paying no child support (and fortunately, there were always casserole-bringers ready to “babysit” for him for free when it was “his” week).
Topic! I don’t think that the liberal/conservative paradigm always fits when it comes to gender issues.
@kitten — I wish I could agree with you, but most of the men I interact with consider themselves liberal, and a LOT of them, when push comes to shove (meaning it might be inconvenient to them in some way) are sexists. As a woman who actually IS liberal this has been a huge disappointment to me. And yeah, in some ways I would rather be around men who are upfront and honest about their sexism, because at least you know what you are dealing with right away, and you don’t get lulled into a false sense of security.
It kind of makes me wish I were a lesbian, lol.
Sorry, but that is my experience. I hope it is different with the younger generation.
@bettyrose-Ok but what does that have to do with his politics? Perhaps your dad is a domineering, controlling person and maybe Jadzia’s (ex?) husband as well. *shrugs*
I don’t think that because someone is pro-choice and feminist that automatically means they’re not an asshole, just like I don’t think every conservative is automatically an asshole because they’re anti-choice and pro-gun
My point was simply that it’s kind of silly to paint an entire gender’s political philosophy based on a singular experience with one crappy guy.
@Soporficat-That sucks. I wish you could meet my dad, my brother, my boyfriend and six of my guy friends who are all liberals and the furthest thing from sexist that you could ever imagine–maybe that would open your mind up?
I always feel bad for women that spend their lives surrounded by crappy men because my experience from childhood until now has been the exact opposite. I guess I’m just lucky in that sense.
@ Kitten – oops! I actually thought I was agreeing with your post, but I guess I was agreeing with Soporifcat (sp?)
I don’t have any conservative or right-wing men in my life, so my observations are about the hypocrisies I’ve observed with liberal men. I don’t disagree about Rush & the rest, but I also don’t pay any attention to them so I’m not an expert on their brand of nonsense.
@Bettyrose-I think you and soporificat are saying that the hypocrisy is what you find so off-putting? Liberal men representing themselves as something they are not. I still credit that to jerks who are entirely bereft of self-awareness though (I know some like that too, believe me).
Also, you’re smarter than me for ignoring the Rush Limbaugh brand of nonsense 🙂
SERIOUSLY.
He probably honestly thinks that Jeff Daniels “worked harder” than Emily Mortimer throughout all four seasons of The Newsroom, when it was HIS decision to cast and write and direct them into roles that pigeon-holed her and celebrated Jeff.
Besides… this is a SCREENWRITER, explaining that the lack of good female roles comes down to a lack of quality SCREENPLAYS. Okay, Aaron… that means you’re part of the problem.
This day, man. This day.
That’s what got me. So, you’re a WRITER, talking about how much easier actresses have it when it comes to acting because their characters aren’t as complex. And who does the writing and creating of these characters?
It reminds me of the quote from the animators of Frozen, talking about how it was soooo hard to make two female characters look different, because they have all of these emotions and yet they have to look pretty.
Dude, don’t blame women for your own lack of skills. There are PLENTY of gifted writers that can write complex female characters. There are plenty of gifted actresses that can play complex female characters. Sorkin’s problem is that he can’t see past his own stereotypes of females to get the job done.
Spot on!
Wow, yes!
Amen sister!
t fanty wins.
Perhaps it is because I am a European gay male, but it seems to me the ONLY films & TV programs worth watching are all about women! ANYTHING with Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Kate Blanchett, Juliane Moore, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard, Natalie Portman, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron & so many many wonderful actresses is a joy to watch! Besides, it is always the female characters that are the most interesting & complex to watch in movies, plays, opera & TV shows. The VAST majority of male actors, such as DiCaprio, Cruise, McConoughey, etc, etc, etc, etc just play various versions of themselves, and most of their movies need to be spiced up with special effects & car chases to make up for the absolute dearth of characterisation.
Yeah, alot of those action movie roles are pretty one-dimensional…. 🙂
I’ve just recently been watching Orange is the New Black, and I am so thankful for the many different types of women that are getting to show me their talent. I am thankful that I get to hear stories, not just about young hot 20 somethings, but also about women of all age ranges, physical types, etc.
Yes that is a GREAT and pioneering show, and men watch it too which is proof that a show/film based around women is not “niche”.
i just… can’t.
I agree. All I can think is “F U”.
Iran has more female directors than the US. 42% of Iranian directors are female. Only 12% are here. Let’s think about that and the media for a bit
I like this.
I don’t know anything about the landscape of Iranian films but just because they have a higher percentage of female directors doesn’t mean they are more gender progressive. I think it’s because their film industry isn’t as established yet.
In the silent movie era, women directors and screenwriters were prevalent and prominent. It wasn’t until the studio system when the movie industry became more high profile and lucrative that you started to see no women behind the camera. It’s sad that many female film pioneers like Lois Weber, Alice Guy, and Frances Marion have been forgotten.
Wow, I had no idea about this! I really need to learn more about women’s history. I’m always amazed at what women have managed to do despite on the constraints and discouragement they have had to deal with. Very cool.
@esthetix I suggest you see some Iranian films then! Younger audience films like Offside are about Iranian girls who sneak into soccer stadiums dressed as boys, risking imprisonment only for the policemen to feel compassion for them and let them go. There’s also Ali Santoori, where the wife leaves her heroin addict husband for a musical life in Canada. And of course don’t forget Not Without My Daughter!
@Val I like it too 😊
@soporificat yea it’s not well known at all! The Atlantic did a piece on it recently though http://m.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/08/in-movies-by-iranians-a-feminist-streak/244307/
”Not Without my Daughter” most certainly is NOT an Iranian film! Quite the contrary.
Nobody connected with it was Iranian, and it was not filmed in Iran. Not even the Iranian characters were played by Iranian actors.
@It is what it is, You’re probably not going to see this but thank you for that article link. So interesting.
@It is what it is – Offside was by directed by Jafar Panahi who is male. He has done a lot of films about women and little girls but is currently serving a 6 year jail term for his films and is banned from making any more for 20 years. Almost all his films including Offside have been either banned or made illegally in Iran. All of his films are excellent
The link you gave was about Maryam Keshavarz who was born in America and is Iranian by descent. Her movie Circumstance wasn’t even filmed in Iran with no Iranian cast or crew other than some who had Iranian parents. If she tried to film it in Iran or if the Iranian authorities see it and she goes back to visit Iran, she will be imprisoned.
Iranians are not allowed to make films like this or they are jailed like Jafar Panahi or threatened to imprisoned and public lashings like Marzieh Vafamehr because she dared to show her hair in My Tehran for Sale. It took Amnesty International and pressure from the Australians (as it was a co-production) to get her sentence reduced to 3 months (from a year) and no public flogging.
Not sure where you got your female director figures from but there are very few Iranian female directors in Iran. Saying that there are some very good ones like Rakhshan Bani-Etemad, Samira Makhmalbaf and Marzieh Makhmalbaf (although she has only done 2 films both were excellent)
It is very important to get women behind the camera, because that affects how frequently and in what way we see women on camera.
2010 stats from the Hollywood Reporter say that when women directed films in 2009, 47% of the characters were female. When men directed films that same year, fewer than 33% of the characters were female (not even 1/3 of the people on screen!).
There was also an international film study called Gender Bias Without Borders, and it found that when women direct, there is an average of 6.8% more females on screen.
@ethelreda it was a joke haha but seriously instead of waiting around to comment you should suggest more Iranian films, if you’ve seen any that is
Wow.
+1
I can’t stand Aaron Sorkin and his big fat face.
He reminds me of American Dad (without glasses) in that photo.
Quite apart from the rest of it, which I’m sure you ladies will rip into without my help, this all hinges on Sorkin’s mahousive false assumption that the old white men of the Academy actually vote for the best technical performance. SIGH.
That was my first thought as well. I thought the Oscars was basically a popularity/lobbying contest anyway? You definitely can’t compare Jennifer Lawrence in SLP to DDL in Lincoln… but Emmanuelle Riva? Yes. Who’s fault is it that the lesser performance got rewarded, eh, Sorkin?
But I digress. Isn’t Aaron Sorkin a writer? Maybe he should consider writing decent female parts. Ha. Ha.
Yes Val!!!!! that’s exactly what I thought. jennifer SHOULD NOT have won that year. Emmnuelle Riva? she was the actual great performance of the year and it was just as hard and great as DDL’s Lincoln. So whose fault is it that the best performance isn’t the one awarded?
A bit off topic, but I still think it’s obscene that JLaw won over Emmanuelle Riva. That was the last straw in my thinking superior performances win in the top races. So, I guess in this case I agree with Sorkin: JLaw was rewarded for a serviceable performance.
But seriously, what defines the “best technical performance”? Is mimicking a real life person more of a feat than doing a sob scene that evolves slowly from a single tear to wails at just the right time? Does the person who blinks less in a scene get bonus points? Delivering a wordy monologue is more technically complicated than conveying a lot with few words, but I don’t think that reflects the talent behind it. Some technically gifted actors who hit their marks and do the head tilts at the right time can also be on autopilot and look dead behind the eyes.
What is the “best” acting performance will always be subjective because it requires the comparison of skills that are unable to be measured.
Tiffany:), may I recommend a film called 3 IRON in which the leads are mute by choice. They choose to make themselves invisible which includes non verbal communication. The only performance in a western film that matches that technical achievement is the scene in SECRETS & LIES where Brenda Blethryn’s character denies ever having slept with a black man. As soon as the words are out of her mouth, she starts to remember…..it’s a wordless masterpiece.
Even if his assertion is true, which I don’t believe it is, then it is because writers don’t write movies with that kind of depth for female characters. Well he is in a unique position to change that. Go write something!!!! Maybe he doesn’t think women in general have that kind of depth. He must be a joy to be with.
“it is because writers don’t write movies with that kind of depth for female characters.”
Yeah I love how he conveniently glosses over that insurmountable hurdle. No good parts for women = not great acting performances from women. Actresses can only do so much with a poorly-written part, they can’t perform miracles.
That being said, two out of the three best performances I’ve seen in the past few weeks came from women-Tilda Swinton in Snowpiercer and Frances McDormand in Olive Kittredge. The difference is that both these characters were interesting and meaty, not the average one-dimensional role that seems to be offered to most actresses.
The third phenomenal performance that I saw was from Tom Hardy in Locke.
Now can you imagine a role like that being offered to a woman? An entire movie that stars only one actress? I’ve seen it before with Tom Hanks in Castaway, Ryan Reynolds in Buried, and Sam Rockwell in Moon. What is the female equivalent? Good luck finding it because it’s never happened. No studio would back a movie where a woman is the sole actor in a film.
Sorkin is an idiot, and a sexist one at that.
Fun fact: Tilda’s character in Snowpiercer was originally written for a man. Note how people still called her Sir. They didn’t change the lines or anything for her. I think the goal was to make the role more androgynous after she and the director started talking about it. Plus he just really wanted to work with her.
I think it still has to do with massive ageism with regards to women; it’s always the young and popular women that win, not the tour de force performances by ladies over 40. They just get ignored.
Whereas with men, because they are “silver foxes” and still considered “useful” by society, it’s cool for them to win oscars when they’re older.
I also think that because of the material offered, many of the female-led movies just don’t appeal to the mainstream. For instance Olive Kittredge, might be an excellent movie, but it won’t get the traction of The King’s Speech.
What we need is EPIC movies with women, not just small-town movies. A film about Catherine the Great, maybe, or other great female historical figures. To break through the “old=useless”, “young=sex object” stereotypes.
I actually think it’s harder for women than for men, because men get these all-encompassing mega-characters, whereas women get small, touchy, detail-driven roles.
@ Val, I so agree with everything you’ve said!!
I don’t know if it’s ageism….maybe… but Meryl Streep has been nominated, what, 19 times, with her last nom for Iron Lady at age 62, right?
Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, both over age 40 when they got their noms.
Jessica Tandy, Judi Dench, Gloria Stuart-all over age 75 when they got their noms.
I do absolutely agree with you that Hollywood overall values youth and fresh inexperience over age and seasoned acting in general, I’m just not sure that the Oscars really discriminate on an age-basis. Maybe I’m wrong…
Also, Olive Kittredge is actually an HBO mini series (not a movie) that nobody has seen. If you guys have HBOGo you can watch it on streaming-I highly recommend it.
@Kitten,
There is a DEFINITE difference in age with regards to ‘Best Actor’ and ‘Best Actress winners at the Oscars.
Only ONE man in his 2Os has ever won the ‘Best Actor’ award: That was Adrien Brody, who was only a few weeks shy of his 30th birthday.
Yet, in this century alone, FOUR women in their 20s – Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Reese Witherspoon and Charlize Theron- have won the ‘Best Actress’ award. Many other winners aren’t much older. I haven’t done the maths, but I’m willing to bet that if you were to take the average age of the male Oscar winner and compare it to that of his female counterpart, the latter would be much younger, even if there are of course exceptions which prove the rule.
“Yet, in this century alone, FOUR women in their 20s – Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Reese Witherspoon and Charlize Theron- have won the ‘Best Actress’ award”
@ Ethelreda-Ok but that information in itself is not proof of ageism when it comes to the Oscars. More likely that’s proof of the fact that, as I said, Hollywood itself is ageist and the more interesting roles go to younger actresses.
+1
Guess he’s not as smart as I always believed him to be. Aaron you are a writer dude, what don’t you go and like write something great for actresses. If course he seems to be complaining more about male roles being technically more difficult which is saying men my nature are better at acting than women. These Sony leaks have given true evidence of the backwards sexist attitudes from the big wigs in Hollywood.
I said it when the last picture hacking too place that men will only care about how criminal hacking is when they themselves are exposed. Before it was the actresses fault for having private naked pictures of themselves but now it’s NOT the men’s fault for having OFFICIAL WORKPLACE emails exposed. LOL.
That’s a great point T.C.
He needs a big wallop on his bottom from a mass of actresses who worked for him! Yeah, I am waiting for that “huge Christmas gift” from hackers too. EXPOSE these Sh…..!!
I’m looking for a word. It starts with an “F”. I’m sure you all know the word I am searching for. He can go F*@# right off. There it is.
It is truly infuriating…why is it any less of an issue, than if Sorkin had been saying negative things about someone’s race or religion or anything else. Sexism is laughed at and swept under the rug! Why, oh why, is it fine and dandy to denigrate and dismiss women, as if we aren’t up to the men’s standards…Women need to unite to stop this horse shit! I don’t have any daughters, I have two sons…and yes, I have heard them say some sexist remarks, and let me tell you, I put them in their place immediately…all mothers, especially of sons, need to bring up the next generation of men to respect women as their equals!!!!
I have to agree on one point here: Jennifer Lawrence won for Silverlinings. He is right, she simply emoted like a pro actress is supposed to be able to do. I didn’t find anything spectacular in her performance, rather I felt it was kind of flat. As far as Kate Blanchett, I just really love her. I wish I had seen Blue Jasmine, but I have been boycotting Allen films because he is such an abusive douche.
BLUE JASMINE is essentially A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, so go watch that if you have not. The Vivien Leigh/Marlon Brando version.
+1000
Just because people disagree that the performance rewarded that year was the best doesn’t mean that the best actress winners are inferior to the best actor winner. Because that’s what he’s saying, not that he didn’t like Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Lining Playbook. And I find it typical Sorkin that he even gets the logic wrong – even that year there were other, better performances in the best actresscategory (see Riva, EEmmanuelle). Aaron Sorkin is the worst.
I agree about Jlaw, I never understand the big deal with her performance in that movie at all. It was an okay movie but it wasnt all that. I think any decent actress could have played the role and been just as effective.
Totally with you re Jennifer in SLP, Macey! She did exactly what a capable actress should do in that role and nothing more — definitely not an award-worthy performance. I actually think that film is trite, and she carried it.
But Sorkin has some severe myopia if he outweighs actors’ capabilities in favor of actresses’ capabilities. What a sod!
Two questions: Why is Sony’s Crisis Management Team? With all that money, they must have many Crisis Managers on retainer, no?
I’ll bet their crisis management has met , but it’s too late.
Did u see the letter from lawyers they put out, telling the press to stop printing the emails.
A little too late for that, damage done and asses exposed.
Besides with twitter it’s hard for Sony to shut down these leaks.
More to come the hackers say……
I am really enjoying these Sony emails. It really shows two things. First, what security experts have been saying, be careful what you put in your emails. Don’t put much detail in them. Second, this really shows the dark and ugly side of Hollywood.
“First, what security experts have been saying, be careful what you put in your emails.”
thats just victim blaming. the same thing was said when the pictures were leaked. its the responsiblity of the hacker to not be criminal.
I agree. I can’t understand why printing and commenting these emails everywhere and making sometimes really nasty assumptions on people based on them is ok, but everybody who looked at the stolen photos was basically a horrible sexual predator.
These were private conversations which were stolen. I can’t believe it’s legal to print them. Doesn’t email have the same legal protection as paper mail in the US?
I don’t look at that statement as victim blaming at all. It’s just a fact of life and a sign of the times. Hackers will continue to exist, and will continue to not be good people. If you want to protect yourself, be careful of what you put out there.
So we’re still struggling to understand the difference between private intimate photos and public corporation emails?
There’s a big difference between me wearing a skirt and having someone flip it up and announce the color of my underwear to company emails (which could become public in any number of ways including lawsuit) being reported on.
Burglars will always exist ,so don’t buy expensive things because they may take it.
Wife beaters will always exist ,so don’t provoke them.
Identity thieves will always exist ,so don’t have good credit.
Rapists will always exist,so don’t ….
Hackers are criminals
Sadly, nothing is really private these days. NSA, hackers, whatever. It seems like it’s all fair game.
That being said, there’s a difference between emails that are sent from a work email address between professionals and a private picture that was taken on a cellphone and sent to a boyfriend.
I don’t expect anything I send through my work email address to be private–my boss can easily see everything I write in an email, plus it is company policy that work email is to be used for work only, not for private conversations.
However, I do expect that photos on my phone will remain private. It’s MY phone, not a work phone, it’s used for private conversations, texting, and photos. I do have a reasonable expectation that that information should be remain private.
Sony is a large, international corporation that brought in security experts to advise them and then ignored their advice. This whole mess started because someone kept a folder called Passwords. They compromised their own employees and contractors private information because someone couldn’t follow basic security protocol. That’s not victim blaming, that’s holding someone accountable.
There is a huge difference between the release of information from a private account and a public corporation. It doesn’t justify the criminal activity that lead to this release. That being said, it is an appalling insight into how far behind the rest of corporate America in cyber security and internal policies on email communications. And appalling insight into how Hollywood thinks. The discrepancy in salaries between men and women; the racism of top executives. And the continued idiocy of Sorkin
I guess it’s another case of cultural differences. Here emails even those sent from a work account are just as private as paper mail or phone calls. My boss is not allowed to read my email any more than she is allowed to listen to my phone conversations. Even in a case where the emails were subpoenaed for a criminal case they still would be protected against being published. These people were colleagues or coworkers discussing about work related things. Obviously they are using their company email addresses. Do you email your boss or coworker from your private account?
MP-in US, if you are using a company issued laptop or cell phone and using a corporate account, those emails are not private and your activities on company issued equipment are not private. That is why I always have two phones-one personal and one business. Have witnessed too many HR fiascos when people turn in their phones when trading up and during cleaning process it is discovered they were engaging in activities in violation of policy. Even if they weren’t terminated, corporate gossip got around and some things you don’t recover from. And no, I most definitely do not email co workers or my boss from my private account. That is just asking for trouble
I think people need to start actually reading their paperwork when they get hired. Every company I’ve ever worked for has something to sign saying work emails are always obtainable and nothing in them is confidential. Always.
@ Scarf girl
Thanks for the explanation. It is very different then. Here when you leave you need to sign a form to give the company IT department the right to access your email in case they need to find some work related messages after you’re gone. You make a folder called “private” and file all your private correspondence there and nobody is allowed to access that.
I’m still baffled by the right of newspapers and websites to publish these stolen messages. It’s very different from your boss or HR getting an access to them
To be fair, there’s a huge difference between private sexual endeavors between two civilians and racist/sexist commentary in emails sent between business professionals. Hacking is wrong, but what it revealed validated a lot of the criticism that is often directed at the industry.
MP: I am not thrilled with the fact these are being published as a result of a criminal act. But I am genuinely appalled at what the time of these emails say about Hollywood. One: most industries in the US buckled down on what goes in email after Enron, because the emails that came out during discovery and trial were so damning. So the fact a culture doesn’t exist at studios where someone stops and says, hey, this is a conversation that is more appropriate to be had in person, and your statements reflect badly on us in the event of a lawsuit speaks volumes. Secondly, very insightful to see disparity between a man and woman in the same position re salary. And horrifying to see the racist comments in email. It just says so much. And is it fair? No. But at the same time, these emails should initiate conversation about ethics (I know this is laughable) in Hollywood, how race is viewed, and inherent misogyny. Not sure it will but that is my hope.
These are business emails, and people should really be professional in their emails. Which they are obviously not here. Anyone who expected privacy in these emails to me has truly lost it. I think this should be a warning to all to watch what you say and do in mobile communications as it really isn’t protected.
Second, I realize there is a level of privacy one should expect in private email, text and other types of web or cloud based communications. The reality it doesn’t exist. The reason cyber security people are saying don’t send anything you wouldn’t want to be seen is because they know that it isn’t safe. This really isn’t victim bashing this is reality, hoping to prevent people from becoming victims. Also in some countries it isn’t illegal to do this so you don’t even have any law on your side there. I don’t really blame the people who were hacked, but it is a forewarning to everyone to know it isn’t secure.
“Cate gave a terrific performance in Blue Jasmine but nothing close to the degree of difficulty for any of the five Best Actor nominees”
Ok, out of the five Best Actor nominees of that year I only saw Christian Bale in American Hustle, and to say Cate Blanchett’s performance was NOTHING CLOSE to his is just laughable.
I’m never going to take anything that man says seriously, ever.
Sorkin needs to stop talking here. Blanchett was phenomenal in her role. I avoid Allen’s movies, but I ended up recording Blue Jasmine and Blanchett was brilliant.
Cate Blanchette was captivating in Blue Jasmine. I couldn’t take my eyes from the screen for a moment.
I’m not a fan of Woody Allen films at all, but agree that Cate was amazing. So, too, was Sally Hawkins, in a less showy but equally accomplished performance.
Yes Sally Hawkins was amazing.
Isn’t it horribly ironic? That someone like Sorkin writes very one-note female characters in his scripts, and then someone like Woody Allen consistently writes interesting female roles that have substance to them, yet Allen is a sexual abuser so supporting his movies is problematic.
maybe this has nothing to do with what Sorkin’s talking about, but btw: Cate Blanchett and Christian Bale both appeared in the same film playing an aspect of the same man: Bob Dylan in I’m Not There.
guess who acted circles around whom.
oh and Sorkin can rent a stadium and help himself to any seat he wants.
Thank you hackers, this is a discussion that is long overdue.
But aren’t you a screenwriter Sorken? Perhaps you can provide women with “better” material.
And the only comparison he should mention regarding Cate’s Oscar win is how she should be at 3 wins instead of 2, due to Gwyneth P. criminal win over Cate’s “Elizabeth”.
LOL! 15 years on and I’m still sore about ‘Shakespeare in Love’ sweeping the boards at the Oscars. I mean, it was a charming film, but nothing special. And while Gwyneth did well in the role – she was funny and sexy, and she and Fiennes had great chemistry together – it simply doesn’t compare with Cate’s subtle, complex portrayal of Elizabeth.
A travesty for the ages.
So true. I love ‘Shakespeare in Love’, but NO! Hell No to Goop over Cate. Travesty of the highest order was that hogwash.
I’m still sore over GOOP’s win over Cate. However, that was a masterclass in public campaigning for an oscar. Cate was both new to the game AND being all ‘i’m a thespian, the work will speak for itself’ took on a theatre role during the crucial period and was barely available for interviews.
Meanwhile GOOP was everywhere. There was no media opportunity that was too small for her to grace it.
Many people in Hollywood noticed and have played that game ever since.
And Cate, when she is in contention, plays the game too. Lesson learnt.
Yes, ‘Shakespeare in Love’ is the ultimate example of a studio shamelessly pushing an undeserving film to Oscars glory. Not only did Gwyneth win over Cate, but the film itself won over ‘Saving Private Ryan’.
Then we had Judi Dench getting ‘Best Supporting Actress’. Now, I know it’s almost sacrilege to criticise the Dame, but she did not deserve the award for a glorified cameo- she should have won it the year before for ‘Mrs. Brown’. Even she admitted that, with only 8 minutes of screen time, she should have shared the Oscar with someone else! Plus, I didn’t really like her performance. I don’t think she ‘got’ Elizabeth. To me, she was reprising her Queen Victoria role in a ruff.
Yeah I remember being pretty shocked that Judi Dench got an Oscar for that – she hardly did anything! I love her regardless of course.
I am disgusted by him saying the women don’t have to work as hard as the men to win. He makes up for it slightly by blaming it on a lack of scripts, but as a big time writer who to my knowledge has mainly done male-centric stories, he’s part of the problem as well.
Also, I disagree about Portman.
I’m with you on Portman. Whatever people think of her, her performance in Black Swan was a tour de force and even if she hadn’t danced a single step (which isn’t true — she did a fair bit of the dancing, just not the really difficult bits, which no one expected her to do), she clearly deserved the Oscar.
And the Daily Beast is right — that’s an excellent example of a recent year in which the Best Actress performance had a much higher degree of difficulty than the Best Actor one (I love Colin Firth and was happy to see him win, but his role just wasn’t as challenging as Black Swan).
I strongly dislike Portman but even I can concede that she was phenomenal in that role.
I think Natalie was good, I just didn’t even really see a point (or anything special) about the movie. It didn’t make me think about it for days afterwards, like There Will Be Blood. Black Swan is one of those films that you watch once, and that’s about it.
I am one of the few people who thought she was deserving of her Oscar. I thought her portrayal of a ballerina going through a mental breakdown was phenomenal. Her Oscar campaigning however, now that’s a different story as we all know lol.
@VC-I had the exact opposite experience. While I was watching Black Swan in the theater, I was rolling my eyes at how over-the-top I thought it was but afterwards, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It was a movie that stayed with me for a long time, which was surprising because it was a movie I had ZERO desire to see (a couple friends basically dragged me to it).
Me too Kitten – I thought about it for quite a while afterwards. And talking about it now, I kind of want to watch it again.
I think it’s unfair that some people continue to dismiss the acting work she did in that simply because she had a double for the more difficult dancing. Most films featuring a special skill or dangerous stunts have doubles. She never claimed to do 100% of the dancing, and the double was properly credited and paid. Plus the Oscar was for the mental breakdown of the character, not the dancing.
I just didn’t feel anything for her character at all. I didn’t think the story or her character was interesting at all. I liked Vincent Cassell’s a-hole charactor, but other than that??? Nope. I don’t want to say it was a mediocre performance, but I just think the movie was generally uninteresting. I watched it because my sister had a copy of it, and there was nothing else to do.
I do agree with him that ‘Best Actress’ awards are silly, even by Oscars standards. These awards do tend to get given out for ‘gimmicky’ reasons – sour faced Natalie Portman flailing her arms around in ‘Black Swan’, Nicole Kidman for wearing a fake nose in ‘The Hours’, Catherine Zeta Jones for a song ‘n’ dance show in ‘Chicago’. Yes, the same can be true for male actors, but less so, I think, than for women. Note the fact that the average age of ‘Best Actress’ winners is much younger than it is for ‘Best Actor’. Of course I am not saying that young actresses can’t be talented, just that this emphasis on youth in women – but not men – shows what Hollywood’ priorities are.
All that said, you can’t blame the actresses for this. It’s not their fault if Hollywood power players prefer pretty young women to accomplished older actresses. Blame the script writers and directors who don’t produce decent roles for women of all ages, not the actresses who have to do the best they can with the roles they’re given.
Exactly!
I agree with you.
And I love Nicole Kidman, but I never thought her role in The Hours was some amazing performance. Actually, I thought Julianne’s performance in the same movie was better. But between three leads, they weren’t long roles carrying the whole movie. A movie broken into three parts for three actresses. But technically they qualified for best actress noms. I actually preferred Diane Lane’s performance in Unfaithful for an Oscar win. But Adrien Brody’s performance was fantastic in the Pianist, which he won for Best Actor that year.
Kidman also had the divorce from Tom Cruise sympathy vote going for her.
To this day, i’ll never know whether MOULIN ROUGE and THE OTHERS were BO hits because they were good and she was good in them or they were the recipient’s of public’s sympathy for the divorce. She did both press tours in whilst getting divorced and was visibly emotional and upset. I remember her struggling to hold back tears on red carpets world wide.
Every other film on her CV since she married and post divorce has failed at the BO. It’s a wonder that she’s still considered a star and paid the big bucks because she’s BO poison. The only time she had hits was during her divorce.
So I guess I may have answered my own question.
I agree. And it’s also part of the problem. Because Hollywood only seems to write certain roles in big movies for women–and they are often played by the same relatively smallish cast of actresses–really powerful performances that equal any of the men’s AS is mentioning go unnoticed because they don’t have the studio force behind them. It’s a Catch-22. The work is there, just not the notice. Whereas movies fall all over themselves writing really great movies for actors. Every year the complaint is that it’s a ‘weak’ year for women’s performances–well, yes, it often is–for the performances that you are noticing and rewarding. I mean, look at the 3 performances seemingly ‘locked down’ for a nomination this year–Julianne Moore, Rosamund Pike, Reese Witherspoon–and 2 really strong for a nom–Felicity Jones and Jennifer Aniston. Of those 5, the only one I can see as 100% across-the-board praised was Julianne Moore. (I personally LOVED Rosamund Pike’s performance but, lock or not, a number of reviews thought she was OK or weaker than they would’ve liked) Whereas the men’s year this year, it’s an abundance of riches that you could choose from and there will still be a solid handful that will get snubbed. Supporting Actress is more where it’s at for performances many years.
While I’m NEVER here for Sorkin, I do agree with his line about their not being enough incredible and complex roles for women. I will also say that I think Best Actress is often more political than Best Actor typically is. Actresses have to campaign a lot harder than the guys because they apparently have to do a large number of things and be good at all of them. From what they wear(ridiculous), their marketability to the 18-34 demo, their personality, blah blah blah. It’s ridiculous.*
Like Kaiser your criticism that NP should have an asterik because apparently she didn’t do as many of the dance scenes is imo a little over the top. She campaigned like she did which is utter horses-t, but I’m sure she knew that without her magical year of baby belly, the ability to transform into a ballerina, and the idea that she was doing the dance scenes the academy wouldn’t have been as ready to give her an oscar. NP doesn’t have to become a prima ballerina to win an award for acting. She has to transform her body enough to look like a dancer, not be one. She doesn’t have to excel at being a ballerina, she just has to have the dancer’s body which is what she did.* Also that year NONE of the best actors had to go through the physical transformation she did, so Sorkin can shut up. Lmao Colin Firth winning for The King’s Speech. What a joke. Firth is deserving, but not for that movie. Best Actor was incredibly WEAK that year.
* So they have to work ridiculously damn hard Sorkin to live up to the bs standard your industry has made up for them.
** I still personally didn’t like her performance and believe it should have gone to Jlaw (whose win for SLP is a joke) or Annette Bening that year. I wish Mia Wasikowska had been picked for BS. Her background in ballet would have made her a very interesting choice.
”Also that year NONE of the best actors had to go through the physical transformation she did”
But… so what?
Acting isn’t about having to lose weight, cut your hair off, or wear a prosthesis. Anyone can do these things without being able to act at all. Too often, Oscars – particularly for women – are given out to actors/actresses who can show that they’ve ‘sacrificed’ for their role by doing stunts like the above. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter whether Portman lost weight or did the ballet scenes herself- her performance was her usual one-note sulking imho, and in no way deserving of an Oscar. Like I’ve said, it’s these sort of ‘gimmicks’ which make a mockery of ‘Best Actress’ awards.
This is with regards to Sorkin’s actresses don’t work as hard as the men. Oh Girl if you think I think NP is a good actress you’ve got another thing coming. And best actor WAS weak that year.
I feel like I’ve addressed all that in my comment essentially saying that campaigning was the key to her win. Didn’t I say best actress is often more political than anything? And yes sorry to Kaiser, but Matthew Mchonganey lost a ton of weight for his role and there have been a slew of men who have gone through physical transformations as well. Why don’t they also have asterisk’s next to their name? That was my issue with it.
And I disagree about acting not also being a physical transformation of your body. How a person moves and reacts is often dependent on their body. You’re not gonna see the current version of Jonah Hill as Batman, unless he transforms for it. Chris Pratt as Starlord, etc, etc. But I’m in agreement with you that an actor’s performance shouldn’t rest on their physical transformation. Which is WHY I don’t think NP was deserving because I personally felt her performance was mediocre.
”Oh Girl if you think I think NP is a good actress you’ve got another thing coming.”
I thought I was fairly clear that I DON’T think she’s a good actress at all. Like I said, all she did was pout and sulk, which is pretty much all she ever does. Mind you, she did flail her arms about a bit, which must have impressed the academy.
I more or less agree with you on your other points. Yes, actors do often have to transform themselves for particular roles, but they shouldln’t be awarded for this alone. Too often, especially for women, they are.
I think Kaiser meant that Natalie had campaigned based on the fact that she had done most of the ballet work, that’s how it came across in most of her interviews if I recall. So it’s adding an extra “layer” of transformation to show how much she “wanted it”. Other than that it was a great performance, yeah, though I am not a Portman fan.
Didn’t Anne Hathaway also “transform” for Les Misérables? That got her an oscar. I can’t say her performance was mind-blowing or anything. How the hell did SLP get all those nominations anyway?! Ugh.
I like your comment, by the way.
I think the point Kaiser is making is that part of her campaign was that they (the producers) were speaking as if she had basically become a prima ballerina in 18 months, that was a HUGE part of her campaign that she had done this magical thing. They claimed she did 80% of the dancing which is simply semantics. They included the head and arm shots which require training but nothing like the level of skill to dance ballet.
She was dedicated, yes no question but they outright lied, which is why the dance double came forward and was subsequently asked to not give any more interviews until the Oscars were over (which to me is confirmation they knew they were lying). It was offensive.
Oh man, the semantics. It was so calculated, conniving and sh*tty. I wasn’t interested in ballet when that film came out. The backlash against Sarah Lane worked on me too. Now that I know better, the campaign against Lane, w/ indignance and semantics, are what piss me off the most. Aronofsky’s 90% percent quote, was just one of the many times he said he hardly had to use dance doubles. That, “there are 139 dance shots in the film. 111 are Natalie Portman untouched”. He loved to hit the point that Natalie DID everything. He said that over and over. Yeah, Portman said she did everything too… In flat shoes and then one of the doubles did all the hard stuff en pointe. One of my other favorite moments is in a rehearsal scene. All the other dancers do a grand jeté. Portman does not, LOL. When you know what to look for it’s almost laughable. There’s hardly any dancing in that film. And 90% of the time you see Natalie dancing she gets the Anne Bancroft treatment. You only see her from the chest up. Even then, if you know jack squat about ballet, you know her upper body wasn’t impressive either. You’d know she’s not a dancer. Lane was just trying to make that clear. They knew exactly what they were doing, even removing BTS footage of how they did the dance doubling (and listing Lane in “stunts” and trying to silence her), and they pretended they hadn’t been tricky and hyping that side of Portman’s performance, which they continued to do even through the controversy. (The whole thing has it’s own Wikipedia page too.) The first wave of PR was all about how much work and training Portman did, as if it amounted to everything you saw onscreen. And acting like what you see onscreen was impressive too. Aronofsky also said she was en pointe for the wide shots in the prologue. Well, I should hope so with all the hype you’re giving it, plus the months of training Portman received and considering she had years of classes as a child. Some actresses that do Phantom of the Opera get some training and can mark some steps en pointe too. That’s not really the hard stuff, technically or artistically. Still though, I liked Natalie’s bonkers performance and I thought she could have won based of that, plus the years she and Aronofsky waited to get the film made, (and her pregnancy helped too). It was disappointing that they put the emphasis on that in their campaign, probably knowing that they could spin it (which they did) and the ballet community is relatively small and most people wouldn’t understand, let alone empathize. And it permanently put me off Millepied, who should know better. 😀 Rant over. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, screw Sorkin!
+1 Lind
Woah I had no idea, thanks for the breakdown Amber!
@amber.
YES!!!!!!!
I work in the dance world. Yes. Yes. Yes.
And Millepied is not such a good choreographer. They are both hyped up in the press. And I hear thru the grapevine that he is a player. Poor Natalie.
Back to business:
To Aaron Sorkin:
You sir are an idiot. You just alienated half of your viewers. Get your club and go back to the cave man.
He’s a joke. If his emails weren’t hacked, this is the kind of story he would be turning into a screenplay.
And if The Newsroom weren’t ending, it would be the next subplot of the next season. Portraying the sexist, rich, powerful men as wronged and misunderstood, because of comments “taken out of context”.
I’m with Lainey Gossip. Every website just needs a column entitled “F*ck off Aaron Sorkin,” complete with weekly updates.
Yes!! This needs to happen.
I would read that!
” There’s an implication that studio heads have a stack of Bridesmaids-quality scripts on their desk that they’re not making and it’s just not true. The scripts aren’t there.”
Maybe the scripts aren’t there because (aspiring) Scriptwriters get told not to write scripts with female leads (or non-white leads or homosexual leads etc) over and over again.
They get told nobody want’s to make such a movie, nobody want’s to finance it and that it won’t sell because all people are interested in are stories about straight, white men.
Ah yes, the literary genius of protracted poop scenes and lead female characters whose lives revolve around baking and getting married. So hard to replicate.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that film was trashy.
Yes, very true, and the industry [and seemingly the general public] looks at this as a ‘victory’, just like superhero movies that feature a female hero [And maybe someday, if we’re very good, we’ll get a female superhero lead/solo in a movie! Oh boy, a superhero of our very own]…It’s textbook, really. Women who think we’ve made progress (or that this is the only sign of success and equality) b/c we can replicate the context within which men are successful. It happens to actors of color in film, as well. And some women seem to enjoy feeling like they are ‘the cool girl’ b/c they like pro football, action movies, etc. While the reviewers-mostly men-typically skewer ANYTHING related to a romantic comedy as ‘unrealistic drivel’, most women think they are stereotypical and disempowering.
Really, though, myth and fantasy are also a part of all the guys’ films.
As for Sorkin, he makes no sense in this email-completely contradicts his point, and conveniently mismatches films and performances (matching excellent male roles with average female-with no mention of the myriad mediocre male performances/wins out there). Cherry picking *some* good films and only mentioning the films/performances that won vs. those that were nominated or even ignore. It’s all been said in this thread already…uugh with him. And, he makes the point: that the mens’ category [IF this were actually true] requires more b/c it’s more competitive b/c there are SO MANY more high quality scripts/storylines for male actors.
People skewer AJ b/c she wants to make cleopatra, but what about franco, channing, adam sandler….I could go on for days listing the lame male actor driven scripts that are somehow able to fund and star in movies.
Exactly. And if men are creating female characters, they really cant delve into the complexity they deserve. All writers say this: you write about what you know. Men just cant experience life as a woman – and vice versa. Nothing wrong with that.
I am more of a book person myself, and I have noticed that male.writers often make female characters the leading role, trying to submerge themselves in their psychology. The opposite isnt as frequent – I’ve always found this odd. Maybe the same applies to films?
“Maybe the scripts aren’t there because (aspiring) Scriptwriters get told not to write scripts with female leads (or non-white leads or homosexual leads etc) over and over again.”
Bingo.
Just last week or so I posted a link to an author’s comments on why his book would never be a movie – everyone he met with told him they couldn’t do it because the lead character wasn’t white.
Sorkin dated/hangs with Dowd? EXPLAINS SO MUCH. Couples that creep together weep together.
That comment though about best actor/actress. Wow. Even allowing for fewer complex female lead roles…wow. To this day, for instance, I remain in awe of Watts’ performance in Mulholland Drive. THAT WASN’T DIFFICULT OR CHALLENGING? I could start a list but it would be hundreds of names long.
Asshat.
The bottom line is that he doesn’t find women interesting or relatable, doesn’t engage with what they’re expressing or feeling, and therefore deduces that what they’re doing is less difficult. In movies or in real life.
This is a man trapped in his own narrow old white dude experience trying to pretend it’s reality for everyone.
Yes! Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive is EVERYTHING!
That is one of my favorite movies of all time and it made me a life-long fan of Watts. Love love LOVE her.
Man, I thought I couldn’t dislike a writer more, but Aaron Sorkin is proving me wrong.
He won’t take chances on unknowns, non white actors (see email about why he won’t do ‘Flashboys’), and now this.
And I already thought he was a pompous tit!!!!
Right? IMO he’s one of the worst writers working in Hollywood. He’s awful, redundant, and has a horrible inflated sense of self. Essentially the best descriptor of Hollywood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S78RzZr3IwI
So glad I’m not the only one that thinks he’s a massively overrated twat. The only thing of his I’ve ever liked was A Few Good Men. Lol at that title. Only one woman in the whole thing. The rest of his crap is preachy and one-note.
These emails just prove what I always thought of him.
If he had said actresses work harder than actors, I wonder if anyone here would be annoyed by that.
No because that would be the truth.
Women usually have to work harder to achieve the same things as men.
Yep. Because we’re supposed to do all the home stuff and children stuff, along with everything else. With perfect makeup and hair to boot.
Well precisely. The pressure alone is incomparable to anything a man experiences.
Not that men don’t have their own set of pressures—they certainly do–but they’re not expected to be everything to everyone at home AND in a professional environment. And let’s not even talk about the pay discrepancies between genders…
Exactly, Kitten. Exactly!
@Kitten
I’ll say it again Kitten–I love you. This, exactly THIS!
This is exactly what my mom told me a few years ago, when we started talking about dating, marriage, children, working,etc. You have to look and dress well. You have to have your own job, and be able to handle your own bills. But when you come home, you have to cook. You have to do all the cleaning, the laundry. And you still get paid less. Whatever.
And I also remember my gut reaction to when Ivanka Trump said she worked something like 16 hours a day–which it wasn’t a very good one….I didn’t consider her to be a very good mother. But when a man says these things, his marriage/children aren’t even entered into the conversation–by the interviewer or by our subconscious, I don’t think. Not all the time, or very often.
Oh great. First they spew the racist bullshit and now they spew the sexist bullshit. WTF is wrong with those people?
He’s right overall, that the great female lead roles are few and far between, and often the group of nominees vs. in the male category isn’t as strong overall as a group when comparing, but he is so far off when he brought up the Blue Jasmine performance in by Cate Blanchett and Natalie Portman’s performance in Black Swan. Those were spectacular performances as have been other great performances by females. Not just Mirren and Streep..
I don’t get that he’s saying they don’t work as hard. He’s saying most of the female roles aren’t as complex as the male roles that are nominated.
Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock, I agree with him 100 percent. Men have much more complex roles and interesting characters to portray. That’s coming from the writers and scripts and movies being made. Movies for female actresses as strong leads just aren’t being written like they were back in the Bette Davis/Joan Crawford era. You can watch classics from back then and many movies were written with very strong leading lady roles.
Female actresses have been saying this for years and complaining about it. BUT he left out many great roles by women over the years. I realize the email generalized and only looked at some roles. Why doesn’t he write a great movie for a woman? How about that.
If you rewrote all the male parts he mentions so that women played them he would still find their performance less difficult and complex because in his mind, a lower-status, extension-of-myself gender that he didn’t relate to was now playing them. For guys like this, it’s always women’s fault that he despises their contribution and experience.
^This so much. It’s so engrained in Hollywood to reduce the work of an Actress no matter the role while building up the work of Actors. You could have an actress and an actor play the same role with the same caliber of a performance, and the female version will still be reduced to “her familial station in reference of a male character” or some gimmick “fake nose/accent/character/weight loss” while such things would only bolster the male performance. Your character is cried all movie? Female? Typical female behavior. Male? An emotional triumph for the ages.
“Mirren and Streep can play with the boys”
The best actor roles have a “higher degree of difficulty”
He’s saying that the Best Actor performances are better because the men have to do harder work to get recognized and is implying that they’re worth more. Do you really want to agree with that?
And its an inappropriate comparison as he’s cherry picking winners that he sees as less deserving – how can you do so without exploring the depth of the field of nominees? Or acknowledge that there are plenty of men that hAve won questionable Best Actor Oscars? Winning the award isn’t about submitting the best performance of the year its about submitting the best campaign. He says J Law in SLP, Portman, and Roberts didn’t give tour de force performances? I say Kevin S pacey in American Beauty, Russel Crowe in Gladiator, and Matthew M in DBC didn’t either, and yet they’re not being used as examples to state that the Best Actor category is inferior.
Agree with you so much.
ETA: You know whose performances I remember from American Beauty? Chris Cooper and Allison Janey. Not the first time either that I thought the supporting characters were way more compelling than the leads.
Chris Cooper and Allison Janey are amazeballs. So underrated.
But for every Roberts and Bullock win [which I agree with you on-Blind Side was a Lifetime TV movie, in my view], there are equally over praised/over rated male winners and performances. But he conveniently and purposefully mismatches the names and performances to illustrate his biased point. That is how data is used to drive and manipulate policy, funding, research, etc.-by conveniently leaving out a few critical details or re arranging the data so that it suits one’s point/agenda. His critical thinking is severely lacking in this email.
I love Aaron Sorkin as a writer but he needs to stop this BS. His comment that “there just aren’t that many tour-de-force roles out there for women” is a valid one. But I don’t get why he needs to throw shade at women to make this point by saying men have a much higher bar to clear or implying that such-and-such actress had an undeserved win because her performance is not as good as the men’s. Call out the screenwriters (of which he’s a prominent one) for not writing meatier roles for women; call out the studios for not making more female-centric films.
And agree with the poster above who said that Cate Blanchett’s performance in Blue Jasmine was superior to Bale’s in American Hustle.
Well there was already so much misogyny in those emails this is just a tad more blatant than the others.
Maybe Aaron Sorkins too was addressing that there’s not enough female roles in the hollywood. Phil Hoffman and Daniel Day Lewis, they are probably the most greatests we’ll ever know, and It is a true Jennifer Lawrence and Reese Witherspoon’s performances were outshadowed. But I still can think of great actresses like Tilda Swinton and Viola Davis, people with undeniable talent. There should be more good roles, and should give em to someone with the talent.
I KNOW. This is what I said to my husband-re: Hoffman….[sorkin said he ‘had to become Capote to win’]. Wrong. Hoffman did become Capote b/c that is what Hoffman does. He’s in a unique class of actor, a different league. We don’t know if another actor playing Capote would also have won. Some Oscar’s are given to the script/story line/person venerated in the film, not the actor per se. Somebody who gave a more ‘adequate’ performance in a Capote film may have done it justice but not sublime like Hoffman’s. And if the academy voters were really into the subject of capote, they may well have still awarded it.
It’s never just based on the actor’s performance [okay maybe once in a great while, but mostly it’s a combination of factors that create the outcome/winner]. So again, the take away is that Sorkin’s logic is very flawed and that hollywood is completely sexist. [I wonder if Chris Rock will ever mention that, too, but his routine has included sexist material himself, so I doubt it…]
Toby Jones played Truman Capote a few months after Hoffman’s CAPOTE filmM Toby Jones’s Capote film is called INFAMOUS. General consensus was that Toby Jones was better than Hoffman and INFAMOUS was the better film. See also Sandra Bullock in the same film playing Harper Lee.
The problem, as happens with films of the same subject/theme coming out within a year of each other, is that the first film out of the gate receives all the accolades and often the BO. All others are ignored by audiences and the academy no matter the critical reception. Current film suffering from this phenomenon is BELLE….who wants a 3rd film about slavery in the wake of DJANGO and 12YAS within the past 18mths!
Sorkin is a self-absorbed douche, news at 11.
I thought about this last night and I honestly think it’s a bit of a joke for Aaron and others to act like this wouldn’t be reported on. I know people compare it to the nude photo leaks but honestly…breaking it down for a second there’s just no equivalence at all.
Those nude photos had nothing to do with the women’s work, they were exposed out of a hatred of women and an attempt to blackmail and embarrass them, they were private gifts intended for significant other and most importantly of all…were hurting no one.
These emails are from a company and as we all saw with Donald Sterling once you’ve got public dollars involved there’s going to be a lot of interest from the public about how those dollars are being spent. It was a mere tiff at first, the poor employees who’s personal information was stolen and a few typical emails here and there.
But then slowly the hackers exposed a culture of racism and sexism that effects of course not just the actors and actresses who work with them, but the movies that are shown. The support given. Who gets work and how they’re treated. If they’re making comments like this then I have no doubt it effects everything from the top down.
Just gotta say in 2015 I’m done giving idiots my money, so I’m all too happy to know who and what to peace out on.
Yes +1,000,000.
You said it much better than I did, Amy.
+1000000
Yes! I LOVE that all this is coming out. I can’t wait for what’s happening on Christmas Day. I love the stupidity of these a-hats being exposed. This is their own fault because it’s like people said these are your friggin work emails! The hell is wrong with you people?
Also just because I can’t stop thinking about it. People should go see the Babadook if they want to support something worthwhile. I heard about it for the first time here so thank you! Female director, writer, and female lead. One of the films I’ve seen in a long time. It scared me to death. Davis deserves a best actress nomination for it imo. Sorkin should see her work and he can easily see that actresses work just as hard if not harder. I obviously can’t stand this guy because I’ve commented so much.
You realize that they’re threatening a terrorist attack, right?
I didn’t before I posted that comment, I learned that later on.
Relatedly, the upcoming movie “Selma” is excellent work, and its director Ava Duvernay is African-American and female.
Sigh…Sorkin. I disagree with the assertions that “Best Actress” winners don’t work as hard as the men. Hell, lack of leading/strong roles aside, I tend to find Best Actress the most interesting category from year to year. It is hard to make something from nothing, yet time and time again, Actresses have turned textbook stereotypical roles into complex character studies and when they chance upon a strongly written female lead (read: Something not written by Sorkin), that role is knocked out of the park. I rarely see the same “performance reduction” comments applied to male roles. When was the last time you saw a critically valid male role reduced down to some throw away comment and then tossed aside by a Hollywood player? Nicole Kidman’s bravura performance was reduced to her nose and that was held as acceptable, yet any mention of Day Lewis’ high pitched Lincoln was instantly met with admonishment. Hell, people were jumping out of the woodwork to prove that it was historically accurate. The same occurs with character study, weight loss, and emotional display. Natalie Portman gets a lot of flack for reflecting the steady mental/emotional breakdown of a ballet dancer in Black Swan. I’ve seen it critically reduced to “Natalie Portman just cries all the time”, but I’ve never seen that occur when actor does the same, only praise for “showing emotional range and depth.”
On a fundamental level, the work is not looked at equally or attributed to the performance in the same manner. I mean, when was the last time you saw a leading male performance get reduced to “So-so is nominated for playing someone’s husband” ? I’m not denying that most Actress/Supporting Actress roles are wives/mothers, but there’s always a level of agency reduction when these roles are talked about in the press. “A complex woman who did this and that” will always be read as “Somebody’s wife/mother” even though that is not even pertinent to the performance.
Wow. I don’t understand how any woman does not want to be labeled as a feminist. If the top of the top of ladies in Hollywood are consistently compensated much less for their hard work and face discrimination in other forms from top to bottom- imagine how it is for the rest of us? White dudes need to SIT DOWN.
Oh, shut up and buy a pair of grown up glasses! Men think that EVERYTHING they do is more important, deserves more attention, needs to be valued more and paid more than ANYTHING a woman could ever do. That male supremacy entitlement attitude men absorb by growing up in a culture that embraces and promotes sexism and misogyny. Anyone who thinks women in Hollywood get a fair shake and it’s all their fault that they haven advanced further should realize by reading some of these leaked emails that men very much are interested and vested in pushing and setting their own, anti-female agenda and keeping most of the $$$$ to themselves.
Sorkin is a misogynist, and an arrogant one at that, and there’s prejudice in these comments, too. Every single year, the argument could be made that the “deserving” performance didn’t win. Everyone seems to use Riva versus Lawrence (like any of them actually saw Amour–most are just anti-Jennifer Lawrence). Laying around, muttering, pretending to be a stroke survivor is “acting” to some of you? Oh, okay.
Who took a dump in your cocoa puffs this morning?
Infuriating, tautological argument – let’s define “difficult” as men’s roles and then laugh women roles off for not being men’s roles. I wish Cate could play Lincoln, and Daniel Day Lewis Blue Jasmin – bet they’d be willing to go for it too 🙂
Blanchett has been blowing it out of the water since I first saw her in “Elizabeth”, the year that GOOP won instead of her for freaking “Shakespeare in Love”. I’ll never understand that personally. And yes, Mirren and Streep are fantastic and have proven so time and again. BUT not in relation to Men but to other actors period! This man is insufferable. I’m sorry but I’m betting that there are plenty of great scripts involving strong Female characters that do not get green lighted each year by simpering misogynists like Sorkin.
Goop’s godfather, Uncle Stephen Speilberg, bought and paid for her Oscar. No one in HW defies Uncle Stephen.
Aaron Sorkin is the John Mayer of writing: sounds great when he’s working, but inside he’s all sleaze.
I sent this to Lainey yesterday after her post:
“I can’t stand that there are separate award categories for men and women. I know it doubles the amount of awards etc., but ultimately I think it hurts women. Why must the work be judged separately? It’s not like a sport or something–where physical capabilities come into play. Let the women go head to head with the men. Then we’ll see how the performances stack up. Maybe have one category “Best Actor” with ten nominees and two winners. Some years it could be two male winners, some years two female winners, or a more “traditional” year where one winner is a man and one is a woman.
I just don’t see why, when it comes to acting, there needs to be a division based on whether you have a penis or a vagina.”
Thoughts, fellow gossipers?
In an ideal world, that would work. In the one we’re currently living in? Well, people like Sorkin are Academy voters, and he thinks women don’t work as hard in their roles, so……all male winners for a long time……
I hear what you are saying. But maybe it’s a step backward, to eventually move forward? I feel like by having the two categories, it’s a confirmation that we a different and must be judged differently….I dunno. I do agree that it would be about 20 years of mostly male winners.
I think that this is an idea that assumes the good faith of the nominators. With the way Male/Female roles are talked about critically, an expanded actor/actress category would more than likely end up being 2 women (if we’re lucky) and 8 men with 2 men almost always winning. There is no doubt in my mind that weaker male performances would be given a spot at the expense of female performances and that’s also tied directly to the studios and how they campaign. I don’t believe any studio would mount a competitive FYC campaign for an Actress if she were in direct competition with an Actor. It would be an expanded best director category and that’s been a bit of a mess when it comes to nominating a stronger female at the expense of a weaker “prestige” male.
It’s an interesting idea, but I suspect Sorkin is far from the only guy in “Hollywood” with that attitude. So I’d bet most winners would be men most years if the man/women categories were combined
Every year the nominees would be 9 men plus Meryl Streep. That’s in part because the Academy is full of old white men with very particular tastes, but also because directors, producers, and writers tend to be old white men with very particular tastes who tend to make movies about men and where women are mothers, daughters, and love interests.
I don’t think things would slowly improve over time, either. Having an Academy Award puts actors of both genders in a position where they have more power to choose their roles and to move into producing or directing. Not everyone makes the most of that opportunity or even wants to, but it is a small opening into the power structure. Fewer female winners mean it will be just a little bit harder for actresses to get good roles.
As someone who has personally worked with Sorkin, I can attest to the fact that he is a first rate scumbag. None of his material is original. If you notice, all his screenplays are adaptation s of other peoples’ work. He also has a lot of people complaining that he plagiarized their work. Google William Richert and see what he has to say about Sorkin ripping off his screenplay.
@Sally Thanks for the personal look into this man. His big claim to fame is writing explosive “dialogue.” Clearly he has a pipe of cash running from Sony into his bank account so he’s protecting the pipe. Apparently he uses another pipe to smoke it all away. Supposedly he’s “broke.”
@imire – If the public knew the full extent of his scumbaggery – they would be appalled. Maureen Dowd is mentioned in the article – he advised Dowd to plagiarize another man’s work – (google Dowd and plagiarism) and she was roundly called out on her theft. Kyle Morris and William Richert created the “Executive Wing” which Sorkin ripped off to create the “West Wing” and deprived both writers of any credit and financial remuneration. He is not a good guy by any means.
I may be parsing words here……but my read is he is not criticizing the work ethic of women (which would be outrageous and wrong and worthy of the outrage), but rather he’s really commenting on the lack of really great, meaty roles for females that require them to dig deeply into their talent. I don’t know enough about Hollywood to say I can complete support or refute that contention, but I see plenty of female actors bemoan the lack of great roles for women of all ages …..so his point seems to me to be likely valid on some partial level. I’m feeling generous with the holiday spirit this am.
I’m feeling less generous. Sorkin is a writer and a showrunner himself, and as the Sony emails made clear, is a very powerful one who people are eager to hire. If he really wants to create better roles for women, why are the women in his works marginalized or stereotypical?
I agree. He can and should. I’m a fan of The Newsrooms first couple of seasons and I hated what he did to the female characters by the end of the 2nd. The fact he singularly can do better is true…..but until the industry collectively does better and turns the tide……his sentimen is accurate. Hypocritical, but accurate.
Sorkin saying something sexist? Shocker! I’m watching the West Wing again on netflix after many years, and as much as I loved the show, I just cannot get over the amount of casual sexism and mansplaining I have to endure in almost every episode.
Gross. I don’t agree with his claim period (Matthew McConaughey’s role involved weight loss and actually picking a good project rather than a lousy one, but otherwise was not so far from his actual personality).
However, even if I did believe it, there’s a way to remedy the lack of great scripts and challenging parts for women. For instance, a powerful, well-connected writer could actually create some instead of writing stereotypical women or choosing movies that are mostly about men. AHEM, AARON.
This is outrageous! Aaron Sorkin is an overrated screenwriter who has failed to write powerful roles for very talented actresses. Actresses need to respond to this. He has a limited view of art. An outward transformation does not always take more effort or talent than an inward transformation. This is a poor attempt to justify the income inequality between men and women in the film industry. He’s panicking. The #SonyHack may lead to EEOC suits.
I agree with him about Jennifer Lawrence. Her role seemed to be just an extension of her own personality- no acting involved.
Then again, I am not a fan whatsoever.
I don’t think he’s saying that Lawrence did a bad job in SLP: instead, he’s saying that she got an Oscar for an excellent ‘professional’ performance, but not necessarily for a stand-out, knock it out of the park, standard Oscar-winning performance. Of course, women generally don’t get those roles written for them…by writers like Aaron Sorkin.
I only got from it that he thinks the contenders for Best Actress are likely to be doing less challenging roles because that’s all that is available for them. He doesn’t seem to think women are less capable than men, they just don’t get the same opportunities. The fact that he sees this happening doesn’t mean he’s misogynist or to blame for it. Maybe he can’t write good female roles himself (or any roles too far from his own experience, which is a common limitation for writers), or maybe he can’t sell backers on the idea. Whatever, I don’t see his words as a slam against women anymore than pointing out pay discrepancies between men and women would mean women can’t do the same work or are mysteriously worth less doing the same job.
Remember, this is the man who thought Tom Cruise would be perfect casting for to play Steve Jobs – he obviously knows nothing about acting, and is in love with the idea of the established, privileged white male star. The notion that Leonardo DiCaprio had to perform a more challenging role in the Wolf of Wall Street than Blanchett in Blue Jasmine is laughable.
Incidentally, Lawrence’s win for SLP wasn’t a ‘joke’ – it was an excellent performance in a lightweight film – but Sorkin is right that it wasn’t the type of role that usually gets marked as Oscarworthy. Having said that, her performance in Winter’s Bone two years before that is right up there with anything I’ve seen from any male actor over the last decade, and better than some of the over-wrought stuff that has earned Oscars for Sean Penn amongst others. The same goes for Portman in Black Swan as well, the dancing technique controversy aside.
I wish all the studios would get hacked so I could see all the racist, mysoginistic d-bags for who they are, and know whose work not to support.
This guy is so completely devoid of self-awareness that it’s painful to watch.
In calling Angelina Jolie a “spoiled brat” with a “rampaging ego”, he proved himself to be a spoiled brat with a rampaging ego.
Now he’s saying women don’t work as hard because they aren’t given well-written roles, and at the same time, he shows zero awareness that, as a writer, THAT’S ON HIM. The women don’t deserve his disdain — he should be disgusted with himself and his fellow blithely-sexist writers.
I don’t think Sorkin is really comparing more or less difficult performances here, but notices that in general, there are not many ‘demanding’ scripts/roles out there for female performers. And he’s right about that. Blue Jasmin was a good performance, but didn’t require the work like Lincoln, or Capote did.
All I can say is: Ewwwwwww go away you sexist arse.
This is hilarious coming from a screenwritter. Why instead of complainning he tries to write a good (by his standarts) worth female role? i actually don’t remember one unique female role he wrote. It’s funny like that. It’s easy to just sit back and complain behind emails he thought would never be seen. He is a sexist douche.
I like your little research sample there, Mr. Sorkin, and by sample I mean totally arbitrary string of disjointed examples.
Damnit. All the freaking time. I’m so tired of this crap.
Mr. Sorkin: May I remind you of the following:
Bette Davis – Pocket Full of Miracles
Ingrid Bergman – A Woman Called Golda
Meryl Streep – Sophie’s Choice
Oprah Winfrey – The Colour Purple
Elizabeth Taylor – Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe
Nicole Kidman – The Hours
Charlize Theron – Monster
Hilary Swank – Boys Don’t Cry
Those are but a few. You are a complete a$$hole.
Well if they wrote the sort of roles for women that men get on a regular basis, things would be different. Also, I wonder what Meryl Streep would have to say about his opinions on actresses.
Unfortunately, tho Sorkin is a certified ahole,
the leaks are from North Korea.
It is a terrorist threat. And now Sony has cancelled the movie Interview.
The cavemen have caved in. How ironic.
When Dustin Hoffman played Tootsie he said he never realized how much crap women put up with regarding men. There is a live interview somewhere on the net of Hoffman explaining this in detail.
The more news that comes out about Aaron Sorkin, the more despicable he gets. And I didn’t know that was even possible since he was already pretty insufferable before.
What an ass. There are so many problems with this. There have been some underwhelming best actress wins over the year, but it’s asinine to ignore context, which is the broader issue that there are fewer challenging and interesting roles written for women. There are also several examples of actresses winning for being popular, young and beautiful over some of the grittier roles tackled by less glamorous contenders, which is another example of a sexist industry, not proof actresses aren’t pulling their weight. He is also patronizing about some excellent, nuanced roles women have been awarded Oscars for, and I suspect he would see those roles differently if played by men.
Worst of all, however, he cherry-picks examples of soft wins for women, and goes as far back as the Godfather to contrast them with men’s roles. It is extremely telling that these are the examples that he keeps in mind – he sees what he wants to. He talks about ‘transformations’ but never mentions roles like Charlize Theron in Monster or Marion Cotillard as Edith Piaf.