| 14.7°C Dublin

When will we recognise great A-list actresses ... not just beautiful ones?

Hollywood A-listers in a production with a predictable ending - what's new?

Forbes has released its list of the top earning actresses and, fof course, they're all beautiful and under 50.

Sandra Bullock tops the list with $51m earned between June 2013 and June 2014. Jennifer Lawrence made $34m, while third place goes to Jennifer Aniston who earned $31m. Gwyneth Paltrow is fourth and Angelina Jolie fifth.

Jennifer Lawrence aside, does anyone really believe that the others are great actors? Great enough to earn that much?

Compared to, for example, someone like Elizabeth Moss, who plays Madmen's Peggy Olsen and is being considered for season 2 of True Detective?

But I guess Moss is not stereotypically beautiful in the traditional Hollywood sense, not 'box office' enough.


There are few great female roles these days, and the few notable exceptions seem to be more in TV rather than film, such as Edie Falco who plays Nurse Jackie.

For the most part, roles for women continue to remain scarce.

Of course the pay packet of all of these leading ladies, whether you think they're great actors or not, looks pretty lack lustre when compared to their male counterparts.

The extent of the gender pay gap is quite staggering. Robert Downey Junior, who topped the list for men, earned $75m, compared to Bullock's $51m.

One way to bridging the gender gap would be to make films in which women are the lead characters, whether villains or heroes.

Roles where what they do matters and has consequences, and not were they're just married to a main character or their sister or girlfriend. Make women the real leads. Now that would be a fairytale ending.