By Ken Guidry | The Playlist April 19, 2013 at 10:17AM
It’s that time of year. For ten years now, Time Magazine unveils a brand new list of their 100 most influential people, who for better or worse, are recognized for changing the world. People are highlighted in such categories as Titans, Leaders, Artists, Pioneers, and Icons. What caught our eye this year was the listing of Lena Dunham and Daniel Day-Lewis as Icons and Jennifer Lawrence under Artists. There is no denying their ever-growing prominence in their respective fields, but 100 most influential people in the world? Is that going a bit too far?
Of course, Time always likes including people who gain a special amount of attention for their work in that particular year. Certainly, Daniel Day-Lewis has established himself as one of the greatest, most respected actors out there today becoming the first person to win three Best Actor trophies. “Lincoln” was a bona fide hit last year, grossing over $260 million worldwide, and Day-Lewis’ performance has been universally lauded. But to what degree is he actually changing the world with these masterful performances?
This past year, Jennifer Lawrence and Lena Dunham have really broken out in the entertainment world. Lawrence starred in “The Hunger Games,” which grossed nearly $700 million worldwide and her performance in “Silver Linings Playbook” ($230 million worldwide gross) won her the Best Actress Oscar. Lena Dunham’s work on her show “Girls” has definitely made her a target for media attention. The controversial episodes, the critical acclaim, the awards, it’s all very impressive. But let’s face it, her show is not exactly a ratings juggernaut. You can certainly argue that she’s had a growing influence here in America, but across the entire world? Plus, Lawrence and Dunham are practically newcomers at this point, is it fair to include them at this particular point of their careers? Have they really proven themselves as being influential worldwide already?
Perhaps we’re reading too much into this or taking this too seriously. After all, when a list like this is made every single year, you start to question its significance in the first place. But what do you think? Is Time magazine correct in including them in their most influential list? Should someone else have been included instead? Does it even matter anyway? You decide.