Why are Hollywood Lead Actors Getting Older?
Titanic hit the cinemas in 1997. The tragic tale of doomed love between Jack and Rose, played by Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslett, is one of the most successful films ever made. As with many such films, it focused on the story of two young lovers of approximately the same age; perhaps the male was slightly older. This was reflected in the casting: Di Caprio was born in 1974 and Winslett was born in 1975. Precisely because they were so young, this was very much their big break, especially in the case of Kate Winslett. Very few people knew who she was before she starred in Titanic.
A fascinating new article has drawn upon a large body of research to show that this has been changing. Hollywood decreasingly casts young actors in key roles. Across the years, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the male and female leads have gotten older. The article’s author is confused as to why this should be. In reality, of course, it makes perfect sense in terms of social changes that have been happening in Western countries, especially over the last 60 years or so. In particular, it makes sense in terms of increasing female influence.
The intriguing piece — “Why are actors getting older?” — was published on the Substack “StephenFollows.com — using data to explain the film industry”; it makes a number of eye-raising points. Across the twentieth century, the average age of top-billed film actors was about 38. However, from the year 2006 onwards a dramatic rise began, and it is now 44. This rise is the most pronounced in action movies and Westerns and the least pronounced in horror movies, but in both cases it is stark. It is found among both sexes. In 1940, the average age of a lead actor was 40 and the average age of a lead actress was about 28. By 2021, the male was 48 and female was 34.
This change reflects the fact that lead parts are increasingly given to established actors and increasingly not given to relative unknowns. It seems quite obvious to me what this reflects: a decreasing desire to take risks. If the lead is an actor who everybody has heard of ,then he will likely be older. Precisely because he has a reputation for being in successful films, more people will be drawn to watch his next film than if he is a relative unknown, meaning that the film is less likely be a box office flop. What changes, over the last 25 years or so, would militate in favour of this?
This most obvious seems be aversion to risk. As I explore in my book Woke Eugenics, there is abundant evidence that Generation Z are far more risk-averse than are previous generations. However, people have been becoming more risk-averse across a longer period of time. Generation Z lose their virginity later than Millennials, leave home later, learn to drive later, are less likely to drink alcohol (partly because of the risks involve) and even increasingly suffer from “Menu Anxiety,” disliking the “risk” of having to make a choice from a menu in what they see as the pressure of the moment. They need to be able to look up the menu online at home before they go to the restaurant or they become terribly anxious.
If you think about how they’ve been raised, this makes sense. Older people were deliberately prepared for the harshness of life such that they could develop coping mechanisms in order to deal with adversity. They were also allowed to take risks, as these build confidence or result in adversity which further prepares you for adult life. On average, Generation Z has been raised very differently. In many UK schools, unsupervised play is banned lest bullying occur, competitive sport is prohibited because losing at sport might hurt your feelings, children are allowed to identify as dogs or as the opposite sex rather than be smacked and told not be so stupid, there are no serious sanctions for bad behaviour and, in some schools, children are banned from bringing in birthday party invitations lest this upset the children who are not invited. In other words, everything is done to protect children from real life rather than prepare them for it. And it goes without saying that their parents drive them to and from school, often even at secondary school, and, almost unbelievably, accompany them to university open days.
The key reason for this shift, it seems to me, is fairly obvious: the rise of women in the workplace, especially in school-teaching. As of 2020, females were 73% of high school teachers in the UK and 85% of elementary school teachers. Females, being evolved to look after babies, are far more risk-averse than males; they are far more concerned with harm avoidance. Being evolved to alloparent each other’s children as part of harems centred around high status males, they must be able to totally trust their fellow alloparents not to take extra resources from the male. Accordingly, they are focused on equality and nobody feeling excluded, such that they can maintain their alloparenting clique.
What is the result? More and more younger people who are increasingly risk-averse. This shift has been happening for a long time and can be seen in every profession, including politics. Female influence was likely a key factor in Covid-19 lockdowns. In 1968, when men dominated UK politics, the government policy for any future novel pandemic was very clear: Achieve Herd Immunity; let the plague run through the population.
Of course, this risk-aversion is going to influence the movie industry as well. Perhaps the early-2000s witnessed the ascension into the movie-making industry of Generation Z, whose lives had been so much more coddled, and female-influenced, than those of Boomers. This would appear to make sense of what has happened. It also helps us to understand why onscreen nudity has decreased by 40% since the year 2000. Females are more influential and, in general, it’s only young and un-established actresses that are prepared to do nude scenes. Unlike older women, they are body-confident and, unlike established actresses, they are under greater pressure to be cooperative.
The nature of contemporary movies attests to this desire not to take risk. There is a growing concentration on trusted franchises: Remakes, reboots, sequels and even prequels abound. In part, this reflects a desire to avoid risk and, in part, it may simply reflect increasing materialism and concern with money above everything else. This, in itself, militates in favour of sticking with well-known actors. So, perhaps we can expect Hollywood stars to continue to get older and older.
Maybe lead actors are simply becoming older simply because the population itself is aging (due to low fertility rates) and want lead characters like themselves with whom they can empathise.
As for the decline in “onscreen nudity” since 2000, this might reflect the wider availability of pornography on the Internet. Back in the 1990s, the pornographic content of some mainstream movies (e.g. ‘Basic Instinct’) was actually part of the appeal for some men. Now that everyone can easily obtain porn on the internet, the appeal of such content has declined.
All the movie studios are owned by Gen X and Boomers, certainly not Gen Z, so this idea that they are risk averse is only about making money, it has nothing to do with their personal social risk aversion qualities as they weren’t raised by women as much as younger people.
Who the f…ck cares if they are young or old.. They are working in a pedophilefactory, and nothing seems to be able to stop this abomination. The question ought to be; why are they doing it, working in a f…ng place like that..
Another question should be; why did the pedophiles make the lousy picture…was it because the found the ship.., in two parts 2500ft/800m apart with 4 holes torned out from the metal. Ice are noot stronger than steel…ehh. Read Kenneth M Price Jr,s book; Titanic-Hindenburg, two trategies, one plan
With a few rare welcome exceptions, movies today are plot-formulaic character-deficient screenplay-crude repetitive “comix” with bullets, bombs, trash and torture, car chases and burning buildings. There is one persistently serious note, however, as shown by the books from Alan Nafzger, Tony Shaw and Giuora Goodman (you look ’em up).
Younger actors and actresses are uglier, talentless and lack charisma. When you see the dysgenic, midget, and boring Timothée Chalamet as the lead role in many recent movies, there is a problem.
And I don’t think that ” women ” are to blame in this over protective society.
Like their male counterparts they are brainwashed since the childhood to become woke snowflakes. I remember my feminine teachers, they were harsher than the men and some were frightening. This constant bashing of women becomes tiresome.
Zendaya is overrated
because the young actors mostly look like girls. this is no mystery.
The only time I have gone to see a movie in the past ten years was to see The Northman. And the only reason that I went was because KMac liked it lol….