Elizabeth Banks says Charlie’s Angels was never meant to be a “feminist manifesto”
Elizabeth Banks told The New York Times that she has never intended to be a spokesperson for all women in Hollywood
Aux News Charlie's Angels
There are many pitfalls on the road to a good remake; Elizabeth Banks, who directed 2019's ill-fated Charlie’s Angels reboot, may know this better than anyone. But ahead of her return to the director’s chair for the upcoming abortion drama Call Jane, a specific set of qualms about the film’s reception still ring clear. As Banks tells The New York Times in a new interview (after some slight hedging), she felt Charlie’s Angels was pigeonholed as a movie “just for girls”— not the kind of action film Banks had thought she was making.
“Let me say I’m proud of the movie,” Banks begins, after some slight hedging and a suggestion she may be “in trouble” for her comments. “It was an incredible experience.”
But, Banks laments, there’s a definite but. “It was very stressful, partly because when women do things in Hollywood it becomes this story,” she explains. “There was a story around Charlie’s Angels that I was creating some feminist manifesto. I was just making an action movie.”
Banks continues: “ I would’ve liked to have made Mission: Impossible, but women aren’t directing Mission: Impossible. I was able to direct an action movie, frankly, because it starred women and I’m a female director, and that is the confine right now in Hollywood. I wish that the movie had not been presented as just for girls, because I didn’t make it just for girls. There was a disconnect on the marketing side of it for me.”
The director also plainly recalls the demeaning forms of doubt she experienced from producers who didn’t see her as enough of an industry heavyweight to handle an action movie.
“I was told by a big producer of big action movies that I couldn’t direct action, that male actors were not going to follow me,” Banks says. “He was flummoxed at the idea that a woman would be able to lead The Rock on a C.G.I. screen, I guess? That was said by someone with a lot of power in our industry to my face.”
Although Banks doesn’t mince words about her experiences, she’s also careful to stress her story doesn’t represent “all women in Hollywood who are doing interesting things.” Just as she’s not a spokesperson for that conglomerate, Banks also doesn’t think her position in a “rarified category” of female actor-directors implores her to solve Hollywood.
“It’s a male-dominated industry. It’s a male-dominated world. That’s what I’m up against, but I can’t solve it and I don’t really want to analyze it. It’s not interesting to me,” Banks explains. “It puts me, frankly, in a position where the studio head is going to read it in The New York Times and be like, ‘Wow, that Liz Banks has got a lot to say.’ I don’t need that added pressure. I truly feel that it’s dangerous to talk about these things now.”
29 Comments
As of 2019, she hosts a revival of the 1980s game show Press Your Luck on ABC. The show is now in its fourth season.What the…? Are movie stars ok?
No whammy no whammy STOP!
“Oh, he is the unwelcome thief of Press Your Luck. You don’t want to meet THAT guy…he’ll take ALL your money!”
“That’s what I was afraid of.”
Sounds like an easy paycheck to me.
So does selling crack.
Selling crack probably comes with a lot more physical and legal risk for a lot less money
EB and her husband are the producers of the show. She created work for herself.
Honestly, hosting a PT game show is an easy check and not a ton of work- usually 8-10 hours of shows. And TBH, she does a GREAT job.
Never forget that WB’s first choice to direct the Flash movie was the guy who added zombies to a Jane Austen novel.
Yes, and that property was WILDLY successful.
But I get it. You can’t hire a guy who did ZOMBIES to also do a guy who *checks notes* runs real fast. That would just be BEYOND any comprehension, wouldn’t it?
Wait, there was a Charlie’s Angels reboot in 2019?
“Elizabeth Banks told The New York Times that she has never intended to be a spokesperson for all women in Hollywood”Well, I guess it’s a good thing that NOBODY ever aid she was.
“I was told by a big producer of big
action movies that I couldn’t direct action, that male actors were not
going to follow me,” Banks says. “He was flummoxed at the idea that a
woman would be able to lead The Rock on a C.G.I. screen, I guess? That
was said by someone with a lot of power in our industry to my face.”Lesson #138213 in “There is no such thing as the Meritocracy.” How fucking hard must it be to be movie producer?
The hardest parts of being a movie producer:1) Having enough money to be a producer
2) Making enough crappy suggestions to the actual creative team to justify your job
Posted by someone who has clearly never had to deal with precious, self-important “artistes”.
To be fair, I was honestly rooting for Charlie’s Angels. I Like EB, I liked Pitch Perfect, I was intrigued to see her modern take on the series. And sadly…the closer it got to coming out, the less enthusiastic i was to see it. The first 10 minutes they released on youtube clinched it. (the stock footage opening sequence also was a turn off). The movie just didnt look good- and the reviews confirmed it. Also, the hosts of The Real put it best- “where was the press tour? Why didnt she appear on our show which appeals to mostly young women, and we know nothing about this movie?”
Yeah it was one that I was hoping was going to be good but the trailer didn’t do anything for me (despite the notable excitement of seeing Patrick Stewart yelling).I watched it at some point during one of the lockdowns and it was underwhelming.
It’s been on my watch list across various streaming services over COVID lockdowns and I still haven’t watched it yet. it’ll probably leave unwatched too, ah well.
I also watched Birds of Prey at home after missing it in cinemas in the weeks before the lockdown and absolutely loathed it. Which was hugely disappointing given it was one I’d been looking forward to it before its release.The actors and the direction are mostly really good but holy shit that script and story is a fucking mess.
same – i was fairly looking forward to it, but couldn’t get further than about half an hour in.
One of the death blows for the movie that the industry papers chalked up the movie’s failure was having its biggest name in the cast being someone with zero social media presence and doesn’t seek out junkets to sell her movie to her demographics. Say what people will about The Rock, that dude HUSTLES to cast the widest net possible for his movies by any means necessary.
Point Break, one of the best action movies ever, was made by a woman. You made a shitty movie. Stop making excuses.
Maybe the Charlie’s Angel opportunity presented itself so she took it as she thought it was the only opportunity she’d have to do an action film, but rebooting a franchise was bad idea. And it’s a franchise that already has problems with feminism… so there is no way those aspects wouldn’t be magnified.It was nearly impossible for it not to be a shitty movie (based on reviews, I have no interest in seeing it).
Wow, an outlier! One that had the backing of one of the industry’s biggest film-makers, because he worked on it with his wife! Surely that can be applied to the industry as a whole! Very good job lad, give yourself a cookie!
The existence of a woman-directed action woman you like does not invalidate the idea that there are few opportunities for women to make action movies. In fact, the success of Point Break didn’t even generate a lot of action opportunities for Bigelow herself.That said, Banks is a somewhat awkward person to deliver this message, since the action movie she made stunk.
Too bad they never made Slither 2, but it didn’t make much money & James Gunn got pretty busy I guess
I went into this film with some hope and I did like the three main stars, but it was a terrible, boring action movie. She really should’ve just produced it and got a director who’s done action, maybe a former stunt co-ordinator or something. I don’t wanna defend McG but those two films came out as fun as they are because Drew Barrymore was a great producer and had a lot of say in how they turned out. She insisted no guns used by them and it makes the action more interesting.
Also, it’s a great prism for how much star power truly matters for a rather dusty property. Charlie’s Angels (2000) wasn’t a hit because people held a torch for the show, it’s because it was a big-budget, slickly made action-comedy starring the two biggest under-30 actresses in the business at the time at their career apexes. Charlie’s Angels (2019) had such little star power behind it that it would’ve made more noise had the movie starred the three ladies who did the soundtrack single for it. Not that Sony didn’t try, but when every big-name actress they took the script to turned it down (Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, Margot Robbie, Lupita N’yongo, etc.), that should’ve been a massive flag that Elizabeth was turning in a pretty weak script.
definitely forgot that movie happened.