power ranking
TRANSCRIPT
1
Power Ranking
Examining Power Ranking Lists of Media and the Implications for Positioning Actresses in
the 1990s Hollywood
By Sultan Sahin Gencer 9 August 2006
2
Examining Power Ranking Lists of Media and the Implications
for Positioning Actresses in the 1990s Hollywood
Power ranking is a method of performance measurement, an instrument with
which to gauge the relative power status of various individuals. Ranking depends
on a high level of awareness of success achieved. It also creates an awareness of
different levels of achievement in the media and entertainment business by cross
publicity.
In this context, power lists represent actresses as a function of media exposure, by
publicizing and promoting their names in various categories, such as talent,
reputation, commercial performances (bankability or box office), popularity
(celebrity, star or megastar) or physical appearance (the most attractive, sexy and
beautiful). At the same time, from a different perspective, these lists also identify
and distinguish the insufficiently talented; the unbankable, those with low
commercial potential; and those of less prestigious status. Numerical measurement
typically ranges between the highest (number one or, perhaps, 100) and lowest
(usually 100 or various other numbers.) By way of statistical enumeration, power
is conferred and legitimised. Those power figures that have become representative
of the way in which the ‘most powerful’ individuals are perceived, as in the case
of ‘number one’ or ‘top ten’ grades. For instance: Julia Roberts is the ‘No.1’
among actresses in the ‘Top 20’ of the Hollywood Reporter’s Star Power’99’
survey.1
Importantly, these statistical power rankings, on the one hand, are frequently
employed as data sets in the vast majority of research, from marketing to film
economics, as well as in media writings. For example: Arthur De Vany (2004)
centers a part of his study on the power lists published by Premiere and James
Ulmers’ Star Power Survey. His book ‘Hollywood Economics: How Extreme
Uncertainty Shapes the Film Industry’ is in fact one of the comprehensive
publication in this field.
3
Clearly, however, these power lists are highly questionable and open to
interrogation, since their representation of ‘power’ rests on a narrow means of
analysis and adopts an ultimate, single definition of power, whether it is
popularity; media value (Forbes); global market size (The Hollywood Reporter:
Global ‘Star Power’); earnings (Fortune: The 40 richest under 40); or influence
and reputation (The Time 100: The World’s 100 Most Influential People).2
Moreover, some of these lists consist of people of different status and from
various areas of the film and entertainment industries. As I will discuss in the last
section of this paper, Premiere magazine’s power lists include studio owners,
actresses, actors, directors, producers, agents, lawyers and financiers within the
same ‘the most 100 powerful people in Hollywood’ lists. They unconvincingly
rank, within the same scale, individuals who actually have a different status at the
power networks, operate in multiple areas, and obviously exercise power in
different and diverse ways. For instance, Steven Spielberg is director, producer,
writer, and co-owner of the DreamWorks-SGK studio, and a highly creative
talent. To date, he has topped the ranking lists without fail.
One consequence of the diverse composition of power lists is a lower ranking for
actors and, most significantly, actresses. At this point, power lists raise a
methodological issue in terms of their selective use of statistics (as factual data)
and criteria for inclusion. It is questionable whether, under scrutiny, these power
lists’ reflect the actual status of actresses and film personalities, as they claim.
This can be demonstrated by looking at specific cases, such as that of Meg Ryan,
who met various lists’ power criteria (as they were declared), whereas at the same
time she was not ranked either in Premiere power lists or in other magazines until
1998.
I will argue that power is structured as a hierarchal and dominating discourse in
power ranking lists. These prevailing discourses have always been situated behind
the numbers, which take the form of a mere representation of the magazine’s
judgment. Importantly, these media discourses have continually been stored by
various media channels while grounding existing and foregrounding future
discourses. The most significant implication of this function is that they have
4
eventually become an integral part of film history, media archiving, and industrial
commonsense, and have achieved the normative status of constituting statistical
data. Moreover, under-valuation of actresses’ power positioning has failed to
recognize their diverse and potential discursive and commercial power and has
detracted from their positioning in the wider context of the Hollywood film
industry. Premiere magazine, for example, has recently (re)published its previous
power lists under different categories of power list history, such as ‘The Most
Powerful Actresses’, ‘The Most Powerful Actors’, ‘Power List Number Ones’ and
‘Power list Number One-Hundreds’.3
Gender and Power Ranking
In terms of gender and power relations, power is a broader phenomenon than
gender. Power is constructed and conducted by practices of gender and other
social and cultural determiners such as nation, ethnicity, identity, color and
sexuality through multiple social, economic and cultural relations.4
As Susan Lyne, the editor and publication director of Premiere, observes that ‘for
decades, Hollywood was the most self-satisfied of the old boys’ clubs, a network
of exclusive relationships, handshake deals, and autocratic decision making’.5 In
the context of 1990s Hollywood, studio ownership and high-ranking positions are
occupied by men. Thus, the network of power is controlled by male professionals,
whether on screen or behind it. These practices circulate discursive power as a
possession of the male gender. According to Fiske, discursive power is the ‘power
to make common sense of’ the real as it is ‘held by the same groups who exercise
economic power. But the difference between the exercises of power in these
domains is that crucial economic power is open and obvious, discursive power is
hidden.’ By reason of its ‘hiddenness’, discursive power is a ‘repression of its own
operations’ that ‘enables it to present itself as common sense, as an objective,
innocent reflection of the real.’6
Power and femininity are traditionally seen as conflicting features. As a matter of
fact, gender is used in various practices and discourses which usually devalue the
5
actresses’ relations with power. It is especially insignificant at a commercial level
in terms of box office revenues and salary.
Only a few actresses in the 1990s, such as Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon
Stone and Meg Ryan, have been able to negotiate with this power, and to different
degrees. Gaining access to ‘top positions’ (A list star, super star or megastar)
means being placed hierarchically in the power network. This can be rather
difficult but not impossible for actresses.7 Thus, if we consider power from a
subjective point of view, power takes various forms of resistance to the
dominating systems and practices of the Hollywood film industry.8
Amongst various media power lists, the Hollywood Reporter and Forbes publish
lists which include only female professionals in Hollywood. In fact, it is important
to stress the absence of a power list which contains only male professionals (or
actors) in Hollywood. This differentiation in the power lists implies that women in
general and actresses in particular still face substantial challenges in terms of
equality and adjustment in the discursive power practices implemented by the
mass media. Female professionals need to be promoted and represented separately
from their male counterparts.
Actresses, even in women–to-women power listing, face limited inclusion. For
instance, the trade magazine Hollywood Reporter’s ‘Women in Entertainment
Power 50 Special Issue’ ranked Julia Roberts for the first time in 2000, then in
2001 at third place among 50 women from different leadership positions.9 Sherry
Lansing, Chairman and CEO of Paramount Corporation, ranked first and Stacey
Snider, Chairman of Production Universal Pictures, ranked second in 2000.10
Likewise, Forbes magazine’s ‘50 Most Powerful Women in American Business’
list was first published in 1998.11
The list defined power as ‘something much
greater than simply profile, position, or pay’.12
No actress were included in the
lists in that they did not fit within the power definition adopted during the 1990s.
As is evident from these representations, actresses are usually ‘negotiating at the
margins of power, sometimes constrained by but also resisting to and even
undermining a symmetrical power structure.’13
6
Considering female gender and power positioning, there has been a gradual
movement in the leadership position of women. The percentages of vice
presidents (VP) and higher positions, at the beginning of the last decade, were
significant. Statistics compiled in 1992 shows that
the highest female VP
percentage was 68 % at Sony. It is followed by 58% Twentieth Century Fox, 56%
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), 55% Walt Disney, 43% Universal, 42% Warner
Bros. and 27% Paramount.14
These percentages indicate that women were not a minority group within
Hollywood, yet less associated with Hollywood’s institutional and hierarchical
power. On the one hand, it appears that gender and power relations are ubiquitous
in the ‘stubborn pattern of male dominance’ and are hardly able to be disengaged
from ‘the stain of power.’15
On the other hand, power relations are not ‘inevitable, unchanging, unalterable,’
as is evident if we look at the historical changes in women's situations.16
Even if
there is slow progress in women’s positions; this ongoing process suggests that in
future women could achieve equal treatment and conducting status within the
corporate film and entertainment businesses. The increase in the number of female
presidents and chairs indicates that an important step has already been made in
this direction.17
Business-to-Business Power /Trading from Power
According to Macdonald, the media can ‘construct versions of reality’. The notion
of construction ‘aptly captures the shaping and structuring role’ in terms of the
discursive operations of the media. ‘These constructions are always open to
contest. They refuse a sharp dividing line between ‘reality’ and its
‘representation’, especially since apparent realities are often discursively shaped’.
18
Business-to-business operations between film and media industries may have an
effect on such discursive representations as a significant part of ‘structuring’
7
discourses. Thus, discursive practices need to be examined by revealing hidden
points of view, whilst at the same time giving relevance to the broader context.
Media publicity has been at the core of trading relationships between the major
studios and the media since the early years of Hollywood production. Confirming
this point conversely, Peter Bart, (Chief Editor of Variety who introduces Variety
magazine’s ‘Power Players’ 1999 list) claimed that
Inevitably, some very smart folks were omitted along the way. We apologize up
front for any snubs, advertent or inadvertent. Our intentions were honorable: We
were not swayed by the pleas of press agents or other representatives who, upon
learning of this effort, attempted to influence our reporters... Hopefully, the
resulting list is accurate and representative.19
In fact, film studios breed the media and the media breed the studios through
trading relationships in which advertisement is crucial for both sectors. Areas of
magazine publication are in fact operated by film studios corporations through
ownership, such as TV Guide partly owned by News Corp. Twentieth Century
Fox; Fortune, People and Entertainment Weekly by Time Warner Inc.; US Weekly
(50% owned) and Video Business by Walt Disney and Rolling Stone by Vivendi
Universal.20
Moreover, Time Warner and News Corporation were the largest
magazine publishers by circulation and also obtained the highest revenues in
1997.21
News Corporation/Twentieth Century Fox published ‘Premiere’ movie
magazine until 1992. During the ownership by News Corp, Premiere magazine
filled half of its contents with advertisements, including adverts for their and other
companies’ products and films announcements. Simultaneously, those companies’
CEOs and VIPs were ranked by the magazine’s power list.
In view of institutionalised, Hollywood forms of power, the power ranking lists
echo systematic ways of looking at film people and reflect the internal dynamics
of the business by supplying insider information through media publicity.
Considering this interrelated trading context, let me look at specifically at how
two major trade magazines have articulated power discourses through their power
ranking lists.
8
The Hollywood Reporter: Star Power Survey
Although the power ranking lists formulate power through numbers, they tacitly
regulate the formulation, briefing only how and why these particular people were
top of the power rankings. In the Hollywood Reporter Star Power Survey, ‘voters’
included development executives, distributors, film buyers, financiers/bankers,
producers, sales agents and studio executives. It is stated that the survey
considered actresses and actors in terms of their commercial and discursive status.
The power of actresses and actors was classified into four main groups as
maximum, strong, moderate and minimum star power. The highest number was
indicated by number 100 and it was carried down through to the lowest numbers.
For instance, the first category contained ‘maximum star power’, which ranged
between 87.50 and 100. It comprised of actors and actresses who had significant
power, on the basis of their worldwide build-in audience and bankability.
Therefore, their appearances in any film guaranteed financing, big box office
opening and wide release by the major distribution studios. They anticipated film
promotions (junkets, festival appearances, interviews for TV and printed media)
domestically and internationally.22
In the 1999 lists, a total of 18 actors and actresses were represented as having
‘maximum star power’ shown in Table 1.1.23
Among the top 20 names were only
three actresses: Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan and Jodie Foster. The majority of
actresses were at the lower rank of this list.
9
Table 1.1 Top 20 Actresses & Actors in the Hollywood
Reporter Star Power, 1999
Number Actresses & Actors Power Rank
1 Tom Hanks 100
2 Mel Gibson 99.44
3 Tom Cruise 99.05
4 Harrison Ford 98.69
5 Jim Carrey 97.22
6 Leonardo DiCaprio 96.85
7 John Travolta 94.74
8 Julia Roberts 94.63
9 Robin Williams 94.44
10 Brad Pitt 94.22
11 Nicolas Cage 93.70
12 Arnold Schwarzenegger 92.96
13 Jack Nicholson 92.16
14 Will Smith 91.67
15 Bruce Willis 90.56
16 Meg Ryan 90.49
17 Clint Eastwood 89.18
18 Jodie Foster 88.52
Source: The Hollywood Reporter Film 500 Special Issue, August 1999: F-37.
Original list includes 150 leading actors and actresses.
The Hollywood Reporter is a prominent example among prestigious trade
magazine. Because of this reputation, information drawn from the Star Power
Survey was circulated as exceptional news across various media contexts. For
instance24
:
The BBC titled the news as: ‘Entertainment Bosses bank on Hanks’.
The Hollywood Reporter: ‘Bank on Ford, Roberts’.
The Times: ‘Cinema banks on two Toms’.
PR Newswire: ‘The Hollywood Reporter's Star Power 2002 Survey reveals the
bankability of more than 1,000 motion picture actors’.
Eonline: ‘Survey Says: Hanks Hollywood's Most Bankable Star’; ‘Julia Roberts, the
highest paid actress in the film biz, is also the only one to make the Star Power Top
10’.
10
This kind of extensive media circulation of power lists was matched when another
credible trade magazine, Variety, had its results widely reported through printed
and online mass media. Placement in one of these trade magazines’ power lists,
therefore, provides further media publicity for actresses and other film people and
enhances their media value and credibility.
Variety: Power Players, 1999
This ranking list measured power by ‘durability’ and ‘staying power’ in career as
well as ‘talent and leadership’. As indicated by Figure 1.1, the total number of
actors and actresses was 32 out of 277 ‘players’.
Figure 1.1 The Number of People by Category in Variety Power Players 1999
57 56
4234 32 29
19
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Source: Variety Power Players 1999
As shown in Figure 1.2, the total number of actresses was 7, representing just 3%
of the survey as a whole. These actresses were Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz,
Jodie Foster, Helen Hunt, Gwyneth Paltrow, Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan.
Nevertheless, the number of actors was 25, 9% of the total whereas a group of
‘others’ comprised 88% of the total list.
11
Figure 1.2 The Percentage by Actresses, Actors and Others in
Variety Power Players 2000
3%9%
88%
Actresses Actors Others
Actresses: Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz, Jodie Foster, Helen Hunt, Gwyneth Patron, Julia Roberts, Meg
Ryan. Total number was 7.
Actors: Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, Robert De Niro, Michael
Douglas, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Dustin Hoffman, Tommy Lee Jones, Eddie Murphy, Jack
Nicholson, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Adam Sandler, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Will Smith, Sylvester Stallone,
John Travolta, Denzel Washington, Robin Williams, Bruce Wills. Total number was 32.
Others: Executives, Directors, Producers, Agents and Managers, Screen Writers, Producer/Financier, Moguls
(Studios CEOs). Total number was 245.
Source: Chris Petrekin, Andrew Hinders and Dan Cox. Variety Power Players 2000 Movers and Shakers,
Power Brokers and Career makers in Hollywood. New York: A Perigee Books, 1999: 3-222.
Throughout the lists’ brief notes about actors and actresses, box office is the
central factor emphasized particularly concerning the opening weekend, grossing
over $100 million (making hits), and sustaining achievement in domestic and
international markets. There were distinct representations between actresses and
actors in terms of box office appeal and earnings (salary and gross participation).
According to the interpretation of this data, in fact:
men [actors] continue to dominate the global box office, their distaff counterparts
[actresses] have made great strides in recent years to catch up on the salary front.
For instance, Julia Roberts... [was paid] $20 million per pic mark; including Jodie
Foster, Meg Ryan, and Sandra Bullock, are not far behind. And while studios
cringe at the reality of another batch of $20 million players, they muffle their
discomfort, insisting that these star salaries are merely insurance premiums and
are worth the cost because with these A-listers on board, a film is less likely to
sink in the global box office. 25
12
This magazine’s gendered view was implied in its use of industrial perspectives,
presenting them as factual information rather than journalistic interpretation.
Throughout the lists’ brief notes concerning actors and actresses, substantial
appreciations of actors’ commercial status were included such descriptions as the
following: 26
‘One of the industries’ most bankable star (Jim Carrey)
‘Top paid star’ (Nicolas Cage)
‘One of the industry’s top-paid actors...[who] broke the $20 million upfront fee
barrier’ (Mel Gibson).
‘One of the highest-paid leading men of the 1990s’ (Brad Pitt)
‘Bankable leading man’ (Keanu Reeves)
Away from money matters, actresses were mostly associated with screen images.
Sandra Bullock’s success is interpreted in terms of her ‘spunky and likable girl-
next-door way’.27
Even if there was a notable commercial occurrence in an
actress’ position; it was also connected with her filmic image. Take, for instance,
Cameron Diaz: ‘her role in Mary [There’s Something About Mary], as the
luminously beautiful, fun-loving, yet down-to-earth babe…catapulted her into the
elite $10-million-per-pic [per picture] actresses club’.28
Meg Ryan was
represented as an ‘A-list’ actress, achieving ‘decent box office’ by acting in
typecast roles. 29
Jodie Foster was considered distinctive among the six other actresses and even the
majority of actors. Variety described her ‘as a producer and director whose focus
and integrity add an aura of prestige to any project with which she’s affiliated’.30
Although her education (degree from Yale) Oscar acclaimed acting achievements
(for The Accused, 1988 and The Silence of the Lambs, 1991) were deemed highly
valued qualifications, her commercial status was not specifically stated.31
However, Julia Roberts’ representation focused on her salary ($20 million) and
box office (‘$2 billion in worldwide box office receipts’), her position is sustained
as ‘one of the industry’s most popular’ and ‘the most bankable’ female stars.32
By
including few actresses and implicitly devaluating their commercial abilities,
employing different treatments between actresses and actors, Variety’s ‘Power
Player’ list represents similarly gendered discourses.
13
The Premiere Magazine Power Lists, 1990-1999
Apart from the trade magazines examined in preceding section, Premiere movie
magazine published annual power lists during the 1990s. As presented by overall
power lists for the 1990s, ranking figures reveal that the distribution of power has
noticeable variations in terms of the high ranking and the number of actresses,
actors and others. Figure 1.3 illustrates that the percentage of ‘actresses’ (6 %)
was the lowest, followed by ‘actors’ (21 %), but, the highest percentage, of
‘others,’ was 73 %.
Figure1.3 The Percentage by Actresses, Actors and Others in Premiere Power Lists
Actresses: Cher, Bette Midler, Barbra Streisand, Julia Roberts, Michelle Pfeiffer, Meryl Streep, Jodie
Foster, Sharon Stone, Whoopi Goldberg, Whitney Houston, Demi Moore, Winona Ryder, Sandra
Bullock, Meg Ryan, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore.
Actors: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ben Affleck, Billy Crystal, Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Chevy Chase,
Clint Eastwood, Daniel Day-Lewis, Danny Devito, Denzel Washington, Dustion Hoffman, Eddie
Murphy, George Clooney, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson, James Van Der Beek, Jim Carrey, John
Travolta, Keanu Reeves, Kevin Costner, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mel Gibson, Michael
Douglas, Michael Keaton, Nicolas Cage, Robert De Niro, Robert Redford, Robin Williams, Sean
Connery, Silvester Sylvester Stallone, Steve Martin, Steven Seagal, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Val
Kilmer, Warren Beatty, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith and Woody Allen.
Others include studio owners, chief executives, producers, directors, lawyers, scriptwriters, agents
and managers.
Source: Premiere, ‘The 100 Most Powerful People in the Hollywood’, May 1990-1998,
June 1999.
6%
21%
73%
Actresses Actors others
14
Considering actresses, despite the rise in the number of actresses from three in
1990 to seven in 1999, they were placed at the bottom of the ranking as shown in
Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4 The Total Number of Actresses, Actors &Others in
Premiere Power Lists, 1990-1999
Source: Premiere, ‘The 100 Most Powerful People in the Hollywood’, May 1990-1998, June 1999.
The high-ranking category is usually associated with the major studio owners and
OTHERS (almost always male agents, directors, producer and ACTORS.) There
were 16 actresses listed in different years between 1990 and 1999 as can be seen
in Table 1.2. Julia Roberts was the only actress ranked for nine consecutive years
and Jodie Foster features on the lists for eight consecutive years with a
consistently high ranking. Fourteen other actresses were presented inconsistently
15
in the lists and they were often in a lower ranking. For example, if such actresses
as Meryl Streep or Winona Ryder were involved in impressive critical and/or
commercial success, they were ranked by the power lists as ‘one-offs.’
Table 1.2 The Actresses Ranks in the Premiere Power Lists, 1990-1999
Actresses
Total
Years
Years
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Cher 2 74 75
Bette Midler 2 76 89
Barbra
Streisand
7 89 77 45 44 53 85 93
Julia Roberts 9 38 32 39 14 33 45 61 41 33
Michelle
Pfeiffer
5 94 97 84 91 89
Meryl Streep 1 96
Jodie Foster 8 52 34 38 47 55 57 40 43
Sharon Stone 5 54 81 75 61 81
Whoopi
Goldberg
2 92 95
Whitney
Housten
2 100 81
Demi Moore 5 58 28 48 75 92
Winona Ryder 1 90
Sandra Bullock 4 56 59 75 76
Meg Ryan 2 74 57
Gwyneth
Paltrow
2 94 86
Cameron Diaz 1 87
Drew
Barrymore
1 82
Source: Premiere, ‘The 100 Most Powerful People in the Hollywood’, May 1990-1998, June 1999.
Movements of ranking figures have been unstable for most film people regardless
of gender. However, staying in the rankings was much more short-lived for the
actresses than for the actors and others. A notable exception is Barbra Streisand,
who was listed for seven years even though she made only three pictures over ten
years during the 1990s. The consistency of her power ranking may be attributed to
16
her established career and other achievements in music and in the production and
direction of movies.
Regularity in making successful movies was a keystone; otherwise they were off-
from the list or in a very low ranking. As revealed by Table 1.2, Demi Moore was
the highest-ranking actress at 28 in 1995 but her rank was 92 in the 1998 list.
Although Sharon Stone regularly appeared on the big screen, her performances
were neither critically nor commercially recognized and she was not ranked in
1998 and 1999.
The brief contents maintain the legitimization provided by ranking figures, which
depend utterly on the selection of information, viewpoint concerning the
compilation of facts, and publishing strategy of Premiere. Linguistic forms are
employed in various expressions, such as ‘the most powerful’, ‘number one’,
‘mega-moguls’ and ‘super star’, and power is usually defined within brief texts
including headlines and magazine covers with relevance to the industrial context of
the Hollywood film business.33
In the Headlines and Covers, the attitude was to present first the most important
information. Especially through the headlines, leads and opening words, which
intended to ‘hook the readers’ at the beginning of news.34
Headlines are
considered as ‘the most powerful persuasive and auto-promotional tool used to
attract [the] magazine reader…They have the purpose of selling magazine and
attracting readers.’35
As shown in Figure 1.5, the headline ‘100 Most Powerful People in Hollywood’
appeared without fail on the covers of Premiere magazine for all the lists
published in the 1990s.
17
Figure 1.5 Power Lists on Cover and Headlines of Premiere
Source: Premiere Movie Magazine, May 1990-1998, June 1999 and May 2000.
As indicated by Figure 1.6, it was then repeated in the feature pages in which
actresses’ glamorous and sometimes sexy poses were regularly attached, though
none of the actors posed in this way. For instance, Sharon Stone (1993), Meg
18
Ryan and Pamela Anderson Lee (1996), Milla Jovovich (1997), Mark Vahlberg
(1998), Salma Hayek (1999) and Ashley Judd (2000).
Figure 1.6 Power Lists on Feature Pages of Premiere
May 1992
May 1993
May 1993
May 1994
May 1995
May 1996
May 1996
May 1997
May 1997
May 1998
June 1999
May 2000
Source: Premiere Movie Magazine, May 1992-1998, June 1999 and May 2000.
19
Actresses’ names were never mentioned, neither on the cover nor in the feature
pages, although actors’ and other male film people's names were often mentioned.
For instance: On the cover of 1998 Premiere, in the sub-headline36
:
Figure 1.7 Men Constituent Ruling Class of Power Discourses
‘Hollywood's New Ruling Class THE POWER 100
Dicaprio, Cruise, Cameron & More’.
When looking at the importance of a headline, it is clear that the magazine did not
give much importance to the actresses’ potential appeal. The implicit logic behind
the omission is that they could not attract the reader to buy the magazine to the
same degree as their male counterparts.
Power lists represent discursive power through their use of humorous language
and illustration as a form of mediation. The power lists implicitly present the
magazine’s points of view through caricaturized illustrations.
In main texts, actresses are often associated with their looks and physical features.
For instance, Barbra Streisand was distinguished by the size of her nose and by
the length of her fingernails as shown by Figure 1.8. Jodie Foster’s facial features
focused especially on her high cheek bones and blue eyes as presented by Figure
1.9. Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow and Drew Barrymore were pictured with
ladylike appearances (see Figure 1.10). As illustrated in Figure 1.11, the screen
image of Sandra Bullock embodied the signifier noted: ‘Aphrodite: Sandra
Bullock is the girl-next-door who brought love back to the matinee’.37
Demi
Moore, ironically, is also associated with physical strength along with her sexy
appearance which corresponds to her image (see Figure 1.12). Indeed, illustrations
of female professionals in the film business were highly exaggerated by ironically
emphasizing gender issues. Sherry Lansing (Chairwoman-CEO of Paramount
Motion Pictures) who is a reputable female name in the film business, is
illustrated as ‘the mountaineer’ of Hollywood’s high ranks (see Figure 1.13).
Furthermore, Sherry Lansing and such other chairwomen as Amy Pascal (at
20
Columbia Pictures) and Stacey Snider (at Universal Pictures), were represented as
‘The Lion Tamers’. As given in Figure 1.14, these three chairwomen’s heads are
attached to men’s clothes.38
The use of humorous language and illustration as
mediators of power discourses implicitly articulated gendered views.
Figure 1.8- 1.14 Humorous Illustrations of Actresses and Other Females
Figure 1. 8
Barbra Streisand
Figure 1. 9
Jodie Foster
Figure 1. 10
Cameron Diaz, Drew
Barrymore and Gwyneth
Paltrow
Figure 1. 11
Sandra Bullock
Figure 1.12
Demi Moore
Figure 1.13 Sherry
Lansing, Chairwoman and
CEO at Paramount
Source: Premiere Movie Magazine, May 1990-1998, June 1999 and May 2000.
21
Figure 1. 14 Stacey Snider, Sherry Lansing and Amy Pascal
Chairwomen at Major Studios
Source: Premiere Movie Magazine, May 1990-1998, June 1999 and May 2000.
Apart from humorous illustrations, words are also strategically used to be
memorable and persuade the reader. Specifically rhetorical operations function by
metaphorical word use, catchy words, hyperbole and understatement. For
example: ‘Who are the true ringmasters of the circus known as Hollywood’;
‘Power! The top 100 Hollywood heavyweights’. ‘Who is in and who is out or who
is top who is not’.39
Figure 1.15 Titles of Premiere Power lists
22
Source: Premiere Movie Magazine, May 1990-1998, June 1999 and May 2000.
In brief ranking narratives, sentence structures are used in order to set up contrasts
that may culminate in reader encouragement. In the meantime, the order of words
also indicates the presence of implied meaning embedded in the sentences,
whether to give information, express opinion, or to make a suggestion, statement
or emphasis.40
Significantly, negative comments were usually given indirectly through the use of
questions. For instance: Julia Roberts: ‘Still a movie star. Wants to stretch as an
actress…but does she have anything to stretch?41
In here, word-play has become
crucial to imply point of view.
In the Premiere power lists, ‘hidden discourses’ were formed by different
evaluation strategies depending on the individual and their power position. In case
of increased rankings, successes were highly emphasized to legitimize power list
ranking. For instance, Jodie Foster was ranked by a high number 38 and she was
announced as ‘woman of the '90s’ and ‘professional's professional’ who was
‘turning down offers of money left and right’.42
Likewise, the commercial position and pretty appearance of Julia Roberts is
justified in her power evaluation due to the rise in her rankings. In the Premiere's
1991 list, she was presented as the ‘this generation's first bankable woman’.43
Her
strengths were centered on her smile, ‘legs’ and bottom line. In the 1992 list, her
rank was 39 which corresponded by noting that ‘there is more life in her left
23
eyebrow than in a fleet of porpoises. And those lips’.44
In 1994, Julia Robert's
rank was increased dramatically to number 14, and she was described as a
brilliant, bankable and charismatic star because ‘anything with her face on it
sells.’45
Figure 1.16 Julia Roberts
Source: Premiere Movie Magazine, May 1996 and 2000.
In the 1999 list, her rank was significantly high at number 33. Thus, as illustrated
in Figure 1.16, she was recognized as the ‘Belle of the Ball,’ the first actress to get
a $20 million salary for a film. Her strength was also attributed to her ‘megawatt
charisma’ and her potential weakness put down to her ‘diva behavior.’46
However, other actresses’ rankings were usually evaluated by highlighting box
office flops, a lack of awards, criticism of performances or the films itself, and a
focusing on negative personal circumstances such as broken relationships, divorce
or current rumors in the media texts.
This negative evaluation is explicit in the case of Sharon Stone, with its selection
of various items of negative evidence, including her broken relationship,
unsuccessful films, and low commercial appeal. A power list from 1994 observed
of Stone that she ‘showed keen ability to open dreadful movies (SLIVER,
INTERSECTION)…Split with Bill Macdonald, but at least Loe ESZterhas got
something out of it’.47
As seen in the quotation, there was no hesitation in entering
24
into the details of actresses’ personal and professional lives and evaluating them
together and harshly. The power position of Barbra Streisand was similarly
devalued: ‘town is losing patience with her diva antics…Yes It's True: Looking
for an acting gig and nudzhing new agent Jeff Berg’.48
The most noteworthy
devaluation was made for Demi Moore by use of exaggerated words and informal
sentence structure as well as writing style. As presented by Figure 1.17, in her
power evaluation gendered degrading crosses beyond sarcastic statements.
Figure 1.17 Devaluation of Demi Moore
Status Report: Unerring ability to pick hits (A FEW GOOD MEN, INDECENT
PROPOSAL) and fantastical name for her progeny. Hasn't carried a movie on her own
yet, but hot, hot, hot, and willing to throw her weight around. Next up, playing a feminazi
(why, why, why?) in DISCLOSURE and than a major s-t-r-e-t-c-h, when she dons puritan
garb to play Hester Prynne in THE SCARLET LETTER. Sample line: ‘Thou art my only
friend, so fuck' em.’
Source: Premiere, May 1994:104.
Furthermore, regarding to the ranked actresses’ job titles, their representations
were ironically understated. For instance, Sharon Stone’s was referred to as a
‘Professional vamp’, ‘the Seducturess’ and ‘Glamourpuss’ in different years. The
multiple activities of the actresses were seen as a ‘treat’ and Jodie Foster was
presented as a ‘triple treat’ in that she was actresses, producer and director. For
Barbra Streisand, instead, stronger titles were used, such as ‘Diva director’, ‘Uber-
diva, conspicuous F.O.B’ and ‘Multitalented Narcissist’.
However, in the case of people with a high profile career status (such as an owner,
a president or a chief executive of a major company) humorous approaches to
their private life and physical appearance were scrupulously avoided. As
illustrated by Figure 1.18, they were in fact always represented as well-suited,
serious businessmen, as if the untouchables of Hollywood. As displayed in the
illustration, the magazine used the cliché of cigar smoking boys clubs in which
serious business men always wear suits and are habitually engaged with striking
deals on the phone.
25
Figure 1.18 Michael Ovitz (Talent Agent); Bob and Harvey Weinstein (Co-
Chairman, Warner Bros.)
Michael Ovitz
Bob and Harvey Weinstein
Premiere May 1993: 77, 78.
Conclusions
The above analysis of Premier and other magazine’s power lists is intended to
suggest not only their unreliability, but also their more problematic nature and
questionable status. Although different criteria and approaches to power have
been utilized, few actresses have ever met the criteria or occupied the top rankings
of the power lists. This lack of high ranking, both for actresses and women from
other areas of Hollywood, indicates that high rankings are still out of reach for
women. These lists implicitly confirm a uniform power pyramid, rather than
opening places to newcomers or generating a debate to change the tradition of a
top-to-bottom power line (men–to-women).
In other words, the ranking lists verbalize the relationships between male-to-male
corporations, commonly known in Hollywood as ‘boys’ clubs’. This approach
needs to be changed, whilst rankings should be shared and transferred, which is
26
still an ongoing process. Theoretically, actresses and other females are considered
within these lists throughout the 1990s, but in practice they occupy the very
lowest ranks with the exceptions of Julia Roberts and Jodie Foster.
Power, as it is represented in the various magazine and media power lists, is a
gendered discourse. Power discourse is hierarchal (boss to labour-male to female).
Male gendered power discourse is dominant and female gendered power discourse
is marginalized. By means of constant repetitions, these gendered representations
can be internalised, as they are represented across publicity over and over again.
Media power rankings are comprised of constructed representations. Power
discourses are therefore constructed ‘to seem natural’, unmediated and common
sense. Thus, power representations secure themselves through the foregrounding
of certain highly selective information, as they downplay other perspectives. A
specific mode of discourse production has worked to naturalize gender inequality.
The vast majority of females have often had low power rankings, meaning that
females (almost always) have had less power than others males in Hollywood as
well as in media during the 1990s.
27
Notes 1‘Star Power’. The Hollywood Reporter, http://Hollywood
reporter.com/starpower/august99.asp created on 06/10/99; ‘Star Power’ 99’. The
Hollywood Reporter Film 500 Special Issue. August 1999: F-37. 2 Nicholas Stein. ‘The 40 richest under 40’. Fortune, 17 September 2001.; The Time
Special Issue, ‘The Time 100: The World’s 100 Most Influential People’. 18 April 2005. 3 http://www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_id=2820&page_
number=4 created on 29 June 2006 4 H. Lorraine Radtke and Henderikus J. Stam. (Eds.) Power/Gender. London: Sage, 1994: 1.
5 Premiere Women in Hollywood Special Issue, 1993:10.
6 John Fiske. Television Culture. London & NY: Routledge, 2003: 42.
7 R. W. Connell. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. UK: Polity
Press, 1991:107. 8 Sue Fisher and Kathy Davis. (Eds.) Negotiating At the Margins the Gendered
Discourses of Power and Resistance, New Brunswick, N J: Rutgers UP, 1993: 6-9. 9 Mr. Showbiz. News. http://www.mrshowbiz.go.com/
10 PR Newswire. 4 December 2000. 20/04/02. http://www.findarticles.com/
11 Patricia Sellers. ‘The 50 Most Powerful Women in American Business in an Age of
Celebrity, It May Surprise You That Our No. 1 Woman.’ Fortune. October 1998.
10/4/2003. http://www.business2.co.uk/articles/mag/ 12
Ibid., p.2. 13
Fisher and Davis, 1993: 6-9. 14
Caroline K. Cordero. ‘The Numbers Never Lie.’ Premiere: Special Issue, 1993:6.
15 Jean Lipman-Blumen. ‘The Existential Bases of Power Relationships: the Gender Role
Case.’ Eds. H. Lorraine Radtke and Henderikus J. Stam. Power/Gender. London: Sage
Publications, 1994:114. 16
Faith, in Ratke and Stam, 1994: 45. 17
Frank Swertlow. ‘Women get break at Hollywood law firm. Los Angeles Business
Journal. 14 December 1998: 1-3. 24/02/03, http://www.findarticles.com/ 18
Myre Macdonald. Exploring Media Discourse. London and Cornwall: Arnold, 2003:
12, 14. 19
Peter Bart. ‘Introduction’. Variety Power Players 2000. NY: A Perigee Book, 1999: vii. 20
Benjamin M. Compaine and Douglas Gomery. (Eds.) Who Owns the Media? Mahwah,
NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000: 147-193. 21
Compaine, 2000: 147-192. 22
‘Star Power: How the survey was conducted.’ The Hollywood Reporter.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/star/method99.asp 23
‘Star Power’99.’ The Hollywood Reporter Film 500 special Issue. 12-13 August 1999:
F-37. 24
‘Entertainment Bosses bank on Hanks’. http://www.bbc.com; ‘Bank on Ford, Roberts’.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com;
Gile Whittell. ‘Cinema banks on two Toms.’ The
Times, 16 June 1999: 5.; ‘The Hollywood Reporter's Star Power(R) 2002 Survey reveals
the bankability of more than 1,000 motion picture actors.’ http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/;
Daniel Frankel. ‘Survey Says: Hanks Hollywood's Most Bankable Star.’ 14 June 1999.
http://www.eonline.com/
28
25 Chris Petrekin, Andrew Hinders and Dan Cox. Variety Power Players 2000: Movers
and Shakers, Power Brokers and Career makers in Hollywood. NY: A Perigee Books,
1999: 197. 26
Ibid., p: 199, 198, 200, 207, 214, 217. 27
Ibid., p: 198. 28
Ibid., p: 198, 199, 203. 29
Ibid., p: 215-216. 30
Ibid., p: 206-207. 31
Ibid., p: 206. 32
Ibid., p: 214-215. 33
Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak (Eds.) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Macmillan,
2003: 15. 34
Davis, 1988: 56. 35
Caldas-Coulthard, 1999:526. 36
Premiere, May 1998. 37
Ibid, May 1996: 82. 38
Ibid, May 2000. 39
Ibid, May 2000: 5 and May 1994. 40
Teun A. Van Dijk. News Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Publishers, 1988: 11, 16, 163. 41
Premiere, May 1996:86. 42
Ibid, May 1994: 102. 43
Ibid, May 1991:78. 44
Ibid, May 1992:98. 45
Ibid, May 1994:97. 46
Ibid, June 1999: 89. 47
Ibid, May 1994: 107 48
Ibid, May 1997: 98.
29
Selected References
Bart, Peter. ‘Introduction’. In Chris Petrikin, Andrew Hinders and Dan Cox. Variety
Power Players 2000: Movers and Shakers, Power Brokers and Career makers in
Hollywood. New York: A Perigee Books, 1999: vii.
Compaine, Benjamin M. and Gomery, Douglas. (Eds.) Who Owns the Media? Mahwah,
NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
Davis, K., Leijenaar, M. and Oldersma, J. (Eds.) The Gender of Power. London: Sage,
1990.
De Vany, Arthur and Walls, W. David. ‘Bose-Einstein Dynamics and Adaptive
Contracting in the Motion Picture Industry.’ The Economic Journal 106 (1996): 1493–
1514.
________‘Uncertainty in the Movie Industry: Does Star Power Reduce the Terror of the
Box Office?’ Journal of Cultural Economics 23. 4 (1999): 285-315.
De Vany, Arthur. Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes the Film
Industry. New York and London: Routledge, 2004.
Fisher, Sue and Davis, Kathy. (Eds.) Negotiating At the Margins the Gendered Discourses
of Power and Resistance, New Brunswick, N J: Rutgers UP, 1993.
Fiske, John. Television Culture. London & NY: Routledge, 2003.
Macdonald, Myre. Exploring Media Discourse. London and Cornwall: Arnold, 2003.
Premiere, May 1990-2002.
Radtke, H. Lorraine and Stam, Henderikus J. (Eds.) Power/Gender. London: Sage
Publications, 1994.
30
Appendix 1.1 Ranking of Actors and Actresses in the Premiere Power Lists,
1990-1999
1990 Rank
1991 Rank
Tom Cruise 15 Eddie Murphy 17 Arnold Schwarzenegger 20 Silvester Stallone 34 Jack Nicholson 36 Robert Redford 40 Danny Devito 43 Michael Dougles 44 Warren Beatty 45 Mel Gibson 46 Dustion Hoffman 50 Tom Hanks 51 Robin Williams 52 Harrison Ford 53 Steve Martin 67 Michael Keaton 73 Cher 74 Bette Midler 76 Woody Allen 83 Kevin Costner 87 Clint Eastwood 88 Barbra Streisand 89 Chevy Chase 92 Steven Seagal 96
Arnold Schwarzenegger 13 Kevin Costner 14 Tom Cruise 16 Eddie Murphy 22 Michael Dougles 27 Harrison Ford 37 Julia Roberts 38 Robin Williams 39 Mel Gibson 40 Danny Devito 41 Bruce Willis 42 Silvester Stallone 43 Warren Beatty 44 Jack Nicholson 49 Dustion Hoffman 57 Tom Hanks 59 Robert Redford 60 Steve Martin 69 Cher 75 Robert De Niro 76 Barbra Streisand 77 Steven Seagal 86 Bette Midler 89 Woody Allen 91 Michelle Pfeiffer 94 Meryl Streep 96 Clint Eastwood 99
1992 Rank
1993 Rank
Arnold Schwarzenegger 10
Kevin Costner 17
Tom Cruise 23
Eddie Murphy 24
Michael Dougles 31
Julia Roberts 32
Harrison Ford 34
Danny Devito 35
Robin Williams 36
Mel Gibson 37
Warren Beatty 40
Jack Nicholson 44
Barbra Streisand 45
Jodie Foster 52
Dustion Hoffman 58
Steve Martin 70
Robert Redford 75
Silvester Stallone 77
Bruce Willis 79
Woody Allen 81
Billy Crystal 92
Kevin Costner 7
Arnold Schwarzenegger 8
Tom Cruise 18
Mel Gibson 23
Jodie Foster 34
Robin Williams 35
Jack Nicholson 38
Julia Roberts 39
Harrison Ford 41
Clint Eastwood 42
Robert Redford 43
Barbra Streisand 44
Michael Dougles 49
Steven Seagal 50
Sean Connery 52
Sharon Stone 54
Danny Devito 57
Eddie Murphy 58
Silvester Stallone 61
Warren Beatty 65
Wesley Snipes 67
Bruce Willis 78
Whoopi Goldberg 92
Billy Crystal 98
Whitney Housten 100
31
1994 Rank
1995 Rank
Kevin Costner 6 Tom Cruise 7 Harrison Ford 8 Arnold Schwarzenegger 11 Julia Roberts 14 Mel Gibson 18 Clint Eastwood 26 Robin Williams 27 Tom Hanks 29 Michael Dougles 33 Jodie Foster 38 Silvester Stallone 41 Sean Connery 43 Jack Nicholson 47 Robert Redford 50 Barbra Streisand 53 Demi Moore 58 Warren Beatty 66 Steven Seagal 69 Bruce Willis 80 Sharon Stone 81 Eddie Murphy 85 Daniel Day- Lewis 90 Whoopi Goldberg 95 Michelle Pfeiffer 97
Tom Hanks 6 Tom Cruise 7 Jim Carrey 12 Mel Gibson 13 Harrison Ford 17 Kevin Costner 23 Arnold Schwarzenegger 25 Michael Dougles 26 Demi Moore 28 Clint Eastwood 29 Robin Williams 30 Julia Roberts 33 Silvester Stallone 34 Robert Redford 36 Sean Connery 43 Brad Pitt 44 Jodie Foster 47 Keanu Reeves 59 Bruce Willis 67 Jack Nicholson 68 Danny Devito 69 Steven Seagal 71 Sharon Stone 75 Denzel Washington 79 Winona Ryder 90 Eddie Murphy 98
1996 Rank 1997 Rank
Tom Hanks 10 Tom Cruise 11 Jim Carrey 14 Mel Gibson 18 Kevin Costner 23 Robin Williams 24 Brad Pitt 25 Harrison Ford 27 Clint Eastwood 28 Arnold Schwarzenegger 29 Robert Redford 33 Michael Dougles 35 Bruce Willis 42 Silvester Stallone 44 Julia Roberts 45 John Travolta 47 Demi Moore 48 Danny Devito 52 Jodie Foster 55 Sandra Bullock 56 Keanu Reeves 57 Sharon Stone 61 Whitney Housten 81 Michelle Pfeiffer 84 Barbra Streisand 85 Denzel Washington 86 Robert De Niro 90 Jack Nicholson 91 Val Kilmer 100
Tom Cruise 9 Tom Hanks 10 Mel Gibson 15 John Travolta 19 Robin Williams 20 Brad Pitt 21 Jim Carrey 22 Harrison Ford 24 Clint Eastwood 32 Kevin Costner 39 Robert Redford 43 Arnold Schwarzenegger 47 Michael Dougles 51 Jodie Foster 57 Sandra Bullock 59 Bruce Willis 60 Julia Roberts 61 Denzel Washington 73 Nicolas Cage 74 Demi Moore 75 Eddie Murphy 76 Danny Devito 77 Sean Connery 78 Will Smith 79 Silvester Stallone 80 Sharon Stone 81 George Clooney 84 Michelle Pfeiffer 91 Barbra Streisand 93
32
1998 Rank 1999 Rank
Tom Cruise 6 Tom Hanks 14 Mel Gibson 15 Harrison Ford 19 John Travolta 20 Jim Carrey 21 Will Smith 24 Leonardo Dicaprio 25 Robin Williams 28 Nicolas Cage 37 Clint Eastwood 38 Robert Redford 39 Jodie Foster 40 Julia Roberts 41 Brad Pitt 43 Bruce Willis 49 Kevin Costner 53 Michael Dougles 54 Sean Connery 62 Arnold Schwarzenegger 63 Eddie Murphy 64 Meg Ryan 74 Sandra Bullock 75 Jack Nicholson 76 Danny Devito 77 Matt Damon 88 Michelle Pfeiffer 89 Demi Moore 92 Gwyneth Paltrow 94 Silvester Stallone 98
Tom Hanks 11 Tom Cruise 12 Mel Gibson 15 Harrison Ford 20 Robin Williams 21 Jim Carrey 23 John Travolta 24 Will Smith 25 Julia Roberts 33 Nicolas Cage 34 Leonardo Dicaprio 35 Robert Redford 42 Jodie Foster 43 Clint Eastwood 44 Bruce Willis 47 Kevin Costner 48 Brad Pitt 49 Eddie Murphy 52 Michael Dougles 55 Meg Ryan 57 Arnold Schwarzenegger 64 Sean Connery 68 Jack Nicholson 69 Danny Devito 71 Sandra Bullock 76 Keanu Reeves 78 Robert De Niro 79 Drew Barrymore 82 Gwyneth Paltrow 86 Cameron Diaz 87 Warren Beatty 90 Ben Affleck 91 Matt Damon 93 James Van Der Beek 100