criterionforum.org

knives wrote:

MichaelB wrote:We badly need to hear her side of the story, but I agree that it doesn't look good. I'm racking my brains trying to think of another example of a director walking off a project in similar circumstances - i.e. at the worst possible time in terms of money having been spent and/or committed, and with no apparent prior warning.

Von Sternberg on Claudius.

Unless you're alleging that von Sternberg engineered Merle Oberon's near-fatal car crash (generally accepted to have been the reason production was shut down and the film written off) I don't see what you're getting at. I know things had been fairly fraught before then, but I don't recall von Sternberg not turning up to work.

What I had heard was that among other things he turned up to shoot one day and then just left.

Mark Romanek is the name that comes to my mind when I think of a "difficult" filmmaker. He's walked away from several projects at various stages of production, one just a couple of months ago. He's only managed to see two features to completion in the last 25 years, and even one of those was fiddled with in post against his wishes.

I can't imagine how Romanek keeps getting hired in the first place, but I do hope we haven't seen the last Lynne Ramsay film already.

[edited for accuracy]

Matt wrote:Mark Romanek is the name that comes to my mind when I think of a "difficult" filmmaker. He's walked away from several projects at various stages of production, one just a couple of months ago. He's only managed to see two features to completion in his entire career, and even one of those was fiddled with in post against his wishes.

Two? At my count, he's made three, including the excellent STATIC (1985), which he's essentially disowned for reasons I don't quite understand.

knives wrote:What I had heard was that among other things he turned up to shoot one day and then just left.

I think you are remembering wrong (or, at least, very incompletely). ;-}

Probably, but what I remember from that doc on the Jacobi version was that after a lot of difficulties (the chief amongst them being the already mentioned car crash) they finally got to shooting the film, but von Sternberg was so frustrated by that point that half way through one day's shooting he pointed the camera up and walked off. Also I'm pretty sure Romanek has been fired more often than walking off.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Brian C wrote:Men are described as "difficult" all the time. Google "david o russell" and "difficult", for example.

Very true, and it's a good point. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that certain words carry inescapable connotations with them, especially in certain contexts.

Well, we're not dealing with "certain" contexts, we're dealing with this context, and to be honest, I think the connotations in this context are quite escapable. For my part, my first thought when reading matrix's complaint is that men are often described the same way in similar contexts (i.e., behavior by filmmakers during production), and I demonstrated as much. That is context, too.

What I find frustrating about arguments like this is that there's a certain aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy about them. As soon as someone complains that a word is inappropriate, it becomes inappropriate on that basis, merely by assertion. Does matrix or anyone else have to demonstrate a misogynistic aspect to the use of the word? Apparently not. Just asserting it as such means that's how it is. Inescapably so, even! But to imply, as I think matrix did, that the label wouldn't have been applied to a male director in the same circumstances ... that's just extremely hard to believe. It's just not a gender-specific label in the way that he described.

To me, though, the question is more about how this affects her career. David O. Russell has continued to find work despite a "difficult" reputation (although seemingly it was touch and go there for awhile). Will Ramsay, or will her "difficult" reputation sink her when it might not have sunk a male filmmaker?

There's a lot of hypotheticals here, so it's hard to know how exactly the label will affect her. Russell never walked off a set on the first day of shooting, which I think most of us can agree is a worse sin than just being an giant asshole all the time (absent some reasonable reason for Ramsay to have done so, of course). But still, these are the questions that are pertinent, I feel, if we're going to be talking about misogyny. Arguing about vaguely applicable "connotations" seems like a distraction from the real problems of inequality that may be at play here. The treatment afforded to her based on the label is much more important than the label itself.

Brian C wrote:But to imply, as I think matrix did, that the label wouldn't have been applied to a male director in the same circumstances ... that's just extremely hard to believe. It's just not a gender-specific label in the way that he described.

I'm normally the type who would roll my eyes and hop in the same boat of you, Brian, when somebody starts saying that a fairly neutral word is somehow harboring sexism or racism. But your comment made me think about it a bit more, and in my experience, calling somebody difficult or saying that they are being difficult is almost always applied to a woman or a child. When people are talking about a man, I tend to hear a little more qualification, such as "he is difficult to work with".

jindianajonz wrote:But your comment made me think about it a bit more, and in my experience, calling somebody difficult or saying that they are being difficult is almost always applied to a woman or a child. When people are talking about a man, I tend to hear a little more qualification, such as "he is difficult to work with".

I can scarcely imagine a less consequential distinction.

knives wrote:Probably, but what I remember from that doc on the Jacobi version was that after a lot of difficulties (the chief amongst them being the already mentioned car crash) they finally got to shooting the film, but von Sternberg was so frustrated by that point that half way through one day's shooting he pointed the camera up and walked off.

It is my understanding that filming stopped only as a result of Oberon's injuries. At that point, the producers decided to pull the plug on the over-budget production.

From The Huffington post, a plot turn almost as intriguing as the film Ramsey left...

HuffPost Entertainment reached out to Ramsay's manager for comment on the situation. In a twist, the director's representative was Jessica Steindorff, Scott's daughter.

"My father Scott Steindorff prevails under extreme amounts of stress and the show will go on," Jessica Steindorff said to HuffPost Entertainment via email. "Sorry, but in this town it's family first." The younger Steindorff wrote that she no longer manages Ramsay.

Michael Kerpan wrote:

knives wrote:Probably, but what I remember from that doc on the Jacobi version was that after a lot of difficulties (the chief amongst them being the already mentioned car crash) they finally got to shooting the film, but von Sternberg was so frustrated by that point that half way through one day's shooting he pointed the camera up and walked off.

It is my understanding that filming stopped only as a result of Oberon's injuries. At that point, the producers decided to pull the plug on the over-budget production.

Perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong production then, but I distinctly remember the von Sternberg walks off story being told.

The production that Sternberg walked away from was The Masked Bride. He tells the story in his autobiography that after two weeks of filming, he pointed the camera toward the ceiling rafters and explained to studio officials that he was looking for something interesting to film. There was some doubt at the time about whether he would work in Hollywood again. Many of the most talented directors of the time had simply been asked to leave by MGM, and Sternberg was among them due to this act of protest.

Thanks for that clarification. I was hoping that my brain hadn't just made that up.

Calum Marsh on Ramsay's exit

Brian C wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:

Brian C wrote:Men are described as "difficult" all the time. Google "david o russell" and "difficult", for example.

Very true, and it's a good point. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that certain words carry inescapable connotations with them, especially in certain contexts.

Well, we're not dealing with "certain" contexts, we're dealing with this context, and to be honest, I think the connotations in this context are quite escapable. For my part, my first thought when reading matrix's complaint is that men are often described the same way in similar contexts (i.e., behavior by filmmakers during production), and I demonstrated as much. That is context, too.

Labeling a woman "difficult" has long been a way to silence, shame, or ostracize women who are viewed as 'uppity' or something other than submissive and meek. The term has a cultural and linguistic baggage that simply isn't there when used to describe men. Such connotations are not 'escapable,' just ignorable. I'm very difficult to offend, so it didn't bother me and I easily ignored it. But that doesn't mean that my reaction ought to be to the right reaction, nor that the connotations aren't there just because I chose to ignore them. In this context--that of a woman director in a male-dominated field being called difficult in general--the unpleasant connotations will be there as part of the term's baggage, whether intended or not, liked or not, and regardless of whether such terms get applied to men, too. The point is apt, I think.

What a ridiculous argument. Let's all settle on this: until further details come out, Lynne Ramsay, having put hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars up in the air, acted unprofessional and downright thoughtlessly. Whether that's "difficult" or not...well, the facts speak for themselves.

krnash wrote:What a ridiculous argument. Let's all settle on this: until further details come out, Lynne Ramsay, having put hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars up in the air, acted unprofessional and downright thoughtlessly. Whether that's "difficult" or not...well, the facts speak for themselves.

What words mean is not a ridiculous argument. How the words we use can be covertly sexist is even less so.

Mr Sausage wrote:

krnash wrote:What a ridiculous argument. Let's all settle on this: until further details come out, Lynne Ramsay, having put hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars up in the air, acted unprofessional and downright thoughtlessly. Whether that's "difficult" or not...well, the facts speak for themselves.

What words mean is not a ridiculous argument. How the words we use can be covertly sexist is even less so.

I'm not arguing against a discussion of what words mean, I'm arguing their use in this thread, which is (was) about Lynne Ramsay's movie Jane Got a Gun. What word would you choose instead to describe her actions in relation to the drama surrounding this particular movie?

Finch wrote:Calum Marsh on Ramsay's exit

I bet he checks under his bed for patriarchy before he goes to sleep at night.

Oh, honestly, that was a well written and well supported article, that 'oh they're just trying to find something bad' kind of dismissal is both infuriating and why so often all but the most egregiously sexist or racist or homophobic behavior passes without notice- and the egregious shit flows out of and is supported by the smaller things.

krnash wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:

krnash wrote:What a ridiculous argument. Let's all settle on this: until further details come out, Lynne Ramsay, having put hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars up in the air, acted unprofessional and downright thoughtlessly. Whether that's "difficult" or not...well, the facts speak for themselves.

What words mean is not a ridiculous argument. How the words we use can be covertly sexist is even less so.

I'm not arguing against a discussion of what words mean, I'm arguing their use in this thread, which is (was) about Lynne Ramsay's movie Jane Got a Gun. What word would you choose instead to describe her actions in relation to the drama surrounding this particular movie?

You're not arguing anything, you're wading in to toss around your disapproval, which is helpful to whom? I wouldn't call anyone "difficult" as a human being because of one bizarre instance of unprofessional behaviour, and there's something to be said for people who do. If you don't like the discussion, don't contribute to it. We're adults here, we don't need to be wagging fingers at each other for talking about things.

Brian C wrote:What I find frustrating about arguments like this is that there's a certain aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy about them. As soon as someone complains that a word is inappropriate, it becomes inappropriate on that basis, merely by assertion. Does matrix or anyone else have to demonstrate a misogynistic aspect to the use of the word? Apparently not. Just asserting it as such means that's how it is. Inescapably so, even!

Mr Sausage wrote:Labeling a woman "difficult" has long been a way to silence, shame, or ostracize women who are viewed as 'uppity' or something other than submissive and meek. The term has a cultural and linguistic baggage that simply isn't there when used to describe men. Such connotations are not 'escapable,' just ignorable. I'm very difficult to offend, so it didn't bother me and I easily ignored it. But that doesn't mean that my reaction ought to be to the right reaction, nor that the connotations aren't there just because I chose to ignore them. In this context--that of a woman director in a male-dominated field being called difficult in general--the unpleasant connotations will be there as part of the term's baggage, whether intended or not, liked or not, and regardless of whether such terms get applied to men, too. The point is apt, I think.

I'm not sure I have anything more to add.

My problem here—with that article and this thread—is things like

it’s highly unlikely in this case that Deadline would be inferring that “drama” unfolded if, say, Kenneth Lonergan had walked off-set in similar circumstances

are very broad, hard-to-prove statements that are meant to back up their argument.

med wrote:My problem here—with that article and this thread—is things like

it’s highly unlikely in this case that Deadline would be inferring that “drama” unfolded if, say, Kenneth Lonergan had walked off-set in similar circumstances

are very broad, hard-to-prove statements that are meant to back up their argument.

Also, his counter-example of Tony Kaye seems very strange, since Kaye's reputation makes him all but unemployable. It may or may not literally be the case that no one ever said he was "hysterical", using that exact word, but still, that's an awful example of ... whatever it is he's trying to prove there.