Not only is Maggie Gyllenhaal an Oscar nominee, but now she can also add 'Hollywood hag' to her resume... Grrr.
Hear that? That's the sound of my blood vessels popping after reading that Gyllenhaal was passed over for a role recently by a producer because, at 37, she was deemed too old to play the love interest of a 55 year-old lead man.
“It was astonishing to me. It made me feel bad, and then it made feel angry, and then it made me laugh,” Gyllenhaal said in an interview with The Wrap.
What's incredible is that this offence could - and did - happen to someone who just won a Golden Globe.
Heaven forbid, if the tables were turned and, say, Gyllenhaal's brother Jake was acting opposite a much older female lead, audiences would be the first to sneer with shouts of "Cougar!" Yet this romantic age gap remains the mainstay of Hollywood. (And Gyllenhaal is no stranger to that gap, from her "Crazy Heart" days.)
This outrageous double standard shouldn't come as a surprise hot on the heels (sorry) of Cannes, where women were reportedly turned away from the red carpet for wearing flats. So ridiculous, it hurts worse than a fresh blister.
Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has requested a federal investigation into the “rampant discrimination” in the movie industry.
While things appear to be improving for women in other industries, Hollywood remains locked in the dark ages. Ageist, sexist...Want to know just how bad it is? Of the 100 highest-grossing domestic movies last year, only 12 per cent featured female leads, according to a study from The San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film. That's a three per cent drop from the same study the year before, and four per cent from that in 2002.
And yet Gyllenhaal remains positive about the future.
No thanks to you, Mr. Crowe.“A lot of actresses are doing incredible work right now, playing real women, complicated women,” said the actress. “I don’t feel despairing at all. And I’m more looking with hope for something fascinating.”
More "UGH": 
Printer-friendly version