criterionforum.org

Barmy wrote:And am I the only one who thinks Leni is absurdly overrated? She made a grand total of 2 watchable flix.

Yes, you're the only one.

I'm sure all of this has more than a little to do with the fact that studio filmmaking is about as far from being a knock-on-the-door-and-hand-in-your-resume sort of industry as you can get. The more an industry is based on back-scratching and social connections, the longer it's going to take for non-likeminded outsiders to work their way in, and so it comes as little surprise to me that female and minority representation in Hollywood, particularly in positions of power, has changed so little over time (and really doesn't show any signs of increasing).

At least when it comes to actors there's a need to represent the major demographic groups somewhat, since that is what the mainstream audience is going to be identifying with.

There's also a matter of social training. We all learn to identify with the dominant cultural identity (white, male, middle-class in the US), and so that becomes the dominant perspective in our filmmaking or mainstream narratives in general. I'm not sure that can be changed (or what society would look like if it were), but I welcome attempts to subvert it.

Ursula LeGuin learned something about this then when she wrote EarthSea. A white, male character is just a character, but a black character is a black character. Conversely, a character is white unless the author describes the character as black.

The poor representation of women or ethnic minorities in Hollywood is something that undoubtedly has many causes and twice as many ways of being addressed (none of which can individually "fix" the problem, especially not without causing more), but it's good that people are at least asking questions about it. The fact that so few major characters in Hollywood films would fall into the bottom 90% income bracket in the US is not unrelated--Hollywood characters are usually fairly idealized except in those regards that are central to the story or the quirkiness of the character.

Kathryn Bigelow just sprang to mind as one of the best female directors ever. Too bad her career is in the terlet. Part of the problem is that chicks tend to make chick flix and men don't want to see those. Bigelow doesn't (or didn't) fall into that rut.

Jun-Dai wrote:I'm sure all of this has more than a little to do with the fact that studio filmmaking is about as far from being a knock-on-the-door-and-hand-in-your-resume sort of industry as you can get. The more an industry is based on back-scratching and social connections, the longer it's going to take for non-likeminded outsiders to work their way in, and so it comes as little surprise to me that female and minority representation in Hollywood, particularly in positions of power, has changed so little over time (and really doesn't show any signs of increasing).

Pretty much the same in any high powered industry. Why are there so few female company directors and CEO's etc.? It's all pretty much the same thing - we live in a malecentric, patrilineal society.

FSimeoni wrote:Pretty much the same in any high powered industry. Why are there so few female company directors and CEO's etc.? It's all pretty much the same thing - we live in a malecentric, patrilineal society.

Yes, I think we should look at this subject in wider historical perspective. Women were only given the right to vote in the US in 1920, some 64 years after non-land-owning white men. It is hardly surprising that there should be a comparable lag in the opening up of artistic fields, particularly one as capital-intensive as film. It may be another century or more before the situation can be adequately reassessed.

It is also quite curious that many women directors do not work in the mainstream, if you look at some of the most popular women directors a lot seem to be working in avant garde or art house cinema. There aren't many who work in the mainstream, the only women directors to have dabbled with the mainstream are Jane Campion with The Piano, Kathryn Bigelow and Penelope Spheeris, but all started in the art house, independent cinema (Campion - ??, Bigelow - The Loveless, Spheeris - Suburbia - off the top of my head) and have also returned to it.

I think the more important consideration is the trend. I don't have any statistics handy, but I do recall reading that female CEOs are on the rise, however slowly, whereas female directors have been something on the decline. Even if I did read that, I don't know whether it was true or whether it's still true (it would have been some 6 or 7 years ago). I'd be curious to know how accurate it is, and more importantly, what the situation is now.

What's also interesting is just how few women give a crap about cinema. As far as I can tell, every woman with more than a passing interest in film is a filmmaker...or an actress. But I know its more popular to heap all the blame on the malecentric world they struggle in.

With the advent of digital technologies, allowing virtually anyone to make a film now on a shoestring or nostring budget it'll be interesting to see if the number of female directors rises. My bet is it won't.

I found this today and thought this would be the appropriate thread to post it in.

skuhn8 wrote:What's also interesting is just how few women give a crap about cinema. As far as I can tell, every woman with more than a passing interest in film is a filmmaker...or an actress.

What about Pauline Kael?

malcolm1980 wrote:

skuhn8 wrote:What's also interesting is just how few women give a crap about cinema. As far as I can tell, every woman with more than a passing interest in film is a filmmaker...or an actress.

What about Pauline Kael?

And there are also many other female film critics and scholars who are not dead!

Would it be accurate to say that there are many talented female filmmakers today, that there are more than ever before and that it is likely that there will more and more as time goes on?

no

Would it be accurate to say that there are NOT many talented female filmmakers today, that there are NOT more than ever before and that it is likely that there will NOT be more and more as time goes on?

Person wrote:Would it be accurate to say that there are NOT many talented female filmmakers today, that there are NOT more than ever before and that it is likely that there will NOT be more and more as time goes on?

If it's the contrary position you will be sure Barmy will take it.

Matt wrote:

malcolm1980 wrote:What about Pauline Kael?

And there are also many other female film critics and scholars who are not dead!

Janet Maslin, Annette Insdorf and Lisa Schwarzbaum, just off the top of my head.

I still say though that lack of female directors is partially to blame by lack of film interest amongst the female of the species.

Janet Maslin, Annette Insdorf and Lisa Schwarzbaum, just off the top of my head.

It's nice to see Lisa in the list of top 3 chick film scholars.

Chicks want to nurture, build consensus, get in touch with their feelings, and experience positive emotional feedback when they have something to say.
They don't get that from filmmaking and they don't get that from this Forum, so they have absented themselves until we mature.

Molly Haskell - forget the other three ladies mentioned.
FWIW, I think Belmondo is onto something here.

Amy Taubin?
Anyway, my Dad had the opinion that male filmmakers tend to be better filmmakers of androgenous(sic) subjects where as it appears that female directors tend to have to direct their films towards a niche. That's not to say that female directors can't direct any genre. Look at Mary Harron and Julie Taymor with American Psycho and Titus respectively. As a matter of fact Debra Hill was often a collaborator on John Carpenter's best works.

Matt wrote:

malcolm1980 wrote:

skuhn8 wrote:What's also interesting is just how few women give a crap about cinema. As far as I can tell, every woman with more than a passing interest in film is a filmmaker...or an actress.

What about Pauline Kael?

And there are also many other female film critics and scholars who are not dead!

Including the brilliant Nicole Brenez!

This Hollywood Reporter list of women in entertaiment might help put this discussion in a bit more perspective.

Belmondo wrote:Chicks want to nurture, build consensus, get in touch with their feelings, and experience positive emotional feedback when they have something to say.
They don't get that from filmmaking and they don't get that from this Forum, so they have absented themselves until we mature.

Its pretty easy to hit/fall into a cliché with a subject like this one, however i think Belmondo summed it up quite well. All the adjectives used in his post are pretty much connected to a world we do not live in. If we talk about mainstream cinema and mass appeal the good old "Cinema is a Girl and a Gun" still fits perfectly. What would be the equivalent female quote? (i can hear silly jokes…).

I just thought about other artforms and the "position" of female artists and without having any statistics or numbers i thought to myself that only in Literature and Musique (i am thinking about postmodernism) there are almost equal representatives of both sexes. Its interesting to see that Literature and Music do not work with or create a physical image - Painting and Cinema does. My conclusion on this thought would be that there is a connection between the physical (existing) image and men who, for some reason, have a strong drive/desire to create an image (as opposed to women). Why is that? What makes men to create? The most regular reason would probably be mens disability to "create" real physical life in the form of getting babies.

Cheers and Happy New Year by the way! Oz is already in rehab, right?

it's amusing that feminists still believe that these studio execs. will consider gender, even if it is at the expense of a profitable project.

THAT'S naive.

The NYTimes says directors are all old men, and they conveniently forget that one of this summer's most critically acclaimed films, The Hurt Locker, was directed by a woman.