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.