This Story Maggie Gyllenhaal Just Told Perfectly Explains the Hollywood Sexism Complex

Chris Pizzello/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Maggie Gyllenhaal recently lost a film role because she was apparently “too old” to play the love interest of a 55-year-old man, the 37-year-old actress revealed in a new interview with The Wrap.

“There are things that are really disappointing about being an actress in Hollywood that surprise me all the time,” Gyllenhall said. “I’m 37 and I was told recently I was too old to play the lover of a man who was 55. It was astonishing to me.”

While she declined to identify the project’s name—because Gyllenhall is all class—she said she was eventually able to laugh off the rejection. 

“It made me feel bad, and then it made me feel angry, and then it made me laugh.”

Back in January, Gyllenhaal picked up a Golden Globe award for her performance in the BBC miniseries The Honourable Woman. During her acceptance speech, she stressed the importance of Hollywood embracing the roles of real women.

“When I look around the room at the women who are here and I think about the performances that I’ve watched this year what I see actually are women who are sometimes powerful and sometimes not, sometimes sexy, sometimes not, sometimes honorable, sometimes not,” she said onstage. “What I think is new is the wealth of roles for actual women in television and in film. That’s what I think is revolutionary and evolutionary and it’s what’s turning me on.”

Despite Gyllenhaal’s optimism, it sure looks like Hollywood is hell bent on keeping ageism securely intact. 

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate