Hi there. My name is Ryan. This will be a bit difficult for me getting going because as Katie pointed out earlier, I will be bringing the male perspective to this blog, so I kind of feel like a fish out of water. Honestly, though, my ideology is more or less the same as everyone else who writes here, so I don't foresee any problems. Now then. On to the matter at hand.
For my all important first post, I decided to comment on some statistics I cam across through another entertainment blog. Essentially, it breaks down the top twenty grossing films of the past four years, the top grossing films since 1977, and the films that were voted the twenty best of all time over at the Internet Movie Database. It goes on to analyze the gender of the two top billed stars in each film, and breaking it down by male/male, male/female, female/male (in which the female is the main protagonist), and female/female. On the entire list, only two--yes, two--films were centered around two female leads: the vastly overrated and patronizing The Devil Wears Prada, and the horrifically offensive and inisipid Scary Movie 4, both of which were released in 2006. Compare that to the 10+ male/male films from each year alone.
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. And when I do, it sounds really awful. Looking at last year, for example, the highest grossing film was Spider-Man 3, which I'm going to go out on a limb and call male/female, despite the fact that it's a comic book movie, which generally appeals to a male demographic. In my mind, this further skews these results. If you're curious to see the actual top 20's from each year, they can be found here.
Just an observation, most of the films directed or written by women in the past few years have failed miserably both with critics and audiences. Hell, any female-centered film easily gets brushed off as a chick flick that men are forced to sit through until the big action films come out each summer. And when a genuinely good film with intelligent female characters as the focus gets release, there is a backlash against it. Say... oh, I don't know... Juno, for example. A very good film that was admittedly not without its flaws, one of which was the often hokey dialog. But what bothered me a bit was how people took that one flaw, blew it out of proportion, ran with it, and tried to ruin the film's success.
A more classic example would be Thelma & Louise, one of those rare female/female films. Right off the bat, it was dubbed as neo-feminist propaganda and thrown under the bus by a male-dominated movie industry. Movies made about men who kill others by brutal means are often hailed as cinematic heroes, whereas a movie about two women on the run after one of them shoots and kills a man who was in the process of raping her is just preposterous and dangerous.
It's no secret that Hollywood has not been kind to women through the years. We've all heard the stories of young actresses sleeping their way to the top or undressing at their auditions to give the casting agent a little more incentive to hire them. While advances have been made on that front in the sense that these stories are less prevalent than they used to be, it seems that the overall mentality of the industry hasn't changed.
I can't explain it, but for some reason, the American movie-going audience likes really stupid movies about men (save for a few, of course). It's sort of a vicious cycle. These films have traditionally done well, whether people consciously pay attention to the gender of the main actors or not. As such, studios get lazy and start greenlighting garbage like Catch & Release and Because I Said So, movies even my mom disliked. The majority of the movies made by women, about women, and for women are lazy attempts to quell a testosterone-dominated market. Here's another tidbit: most of the very top grossing films from each year about tough guys blowing shit up.
There's a domino effect, and maybe most of it has to do with the overall lack of taste of most Americans. Nevertheless, it's a sad trend, not so much because it'll cause more summer blockbusters to be made, but rather because it'll cause fewer and fewer quality female-centric films to be made. And when they do get released, I am hard-pressed to go to one and not be called gay by every person that I tell about it. Goddamn it, if I want to watch a movie about a Lebanese beauty salon and the trials its patrons go through, then I'm going to see it. End of story. Enjoy your crappy Speed Racer.
Here's to hoping there's a bit more diversity at the cinema in 2008.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
You can keep your Lebanese beauty salon. Sounds like a terribly dull, snore inducing flick.
I'm going to go watch Indiana Jones.
Perhaps you missed the point of entertainment, but it's supposed to be entertaining. We don't have to sit around and watch pretentious arthouse flicks and try to act elite and superior to people who enjoy popcorn movies.
You can enjoy loud, fun movies, too! No one will think less of you, and I promise, you'll only lose a little of your coffeehouse cred.
It wasn't that bad of a movie.
And honestly, I enjoy the summer blockbusters, as well. And yeah, I get the merit of entertainment. You know how long I've been waiting to see The Dark Knight and Quantum of Solace?
But seriously, would a little diversity hurt Hollywood? That's all I'm saying.
By the way, at what point did I insinuate that big action films are actually bad?
I'm totally with you on this Ryan. You know what? I'd love to see a movie where a woman kicks some ass without looking like a hooker and devoting half the plot to getting the man in the end.
Actually, I'd like to see a movie, period, where two women star together and talk about something other than men. Oh, or do things not for the benefit of men, or dress like porn stars for the benefit of men.
That would be awesome. Sadly, I do not think it will happen all that often.
Although, "Baby's Momma" came close. There were two women, neither of which were conventionally "sexy" that had fun and actual babies without a lot of men. Oh, and they were funny.
You just sort of came off sounding as though you are "better" than those movies, and the people who watch them.
Apparently it wasn't intentional.
Diversity has been tried in Hollywood. Don't blame the messenger for delivering what the public asks for.
Pirates of the Caribbean made a billion dollars.
Waitress made 22 million.
It's not "the industry" that isn't seeing these movies, it's the public. People will fork over money for something they want to see. Ergo, the industry gives them what they want to see.
Though, I should add, jen apparently just wants movies that don't have any men in them at all, ever.
Because it's totally unrealistic for a woman to go after a man, right? Never happens in the real world.
In a lot of movies with men as the main characters, they do things for women, too.
Why is only the inverse a problem?
Frankly, a movie where two women sit around and talk would be...well, boring. Incredibly. No one would pay to see it except a scant few people like yourself.
There's no money in spending a fortune on something that will tank. Movies are a business like any other business. Business exists to make money. Boring movies don't make money.
I was actually going to comment on Thelma and Louise (which was great, imho), but assumed it would be considered irrelevant, until I kept reading your post.
I would wager that, as Hollywood's goal is to generate revenue, the target audience by default, would be breadwinners; that is to say men. I think our cinema would evolve if our society would, and sadly this pay discrimination bill that was shot down could have helped to close the gap.
In your statistics however I would like to point out that some of those "great films" addressed very important social issues that can coincide or at least not be in conflict with feminism. Crash and Brokeback Mountain come to mind.
Also our nation has a rich military history, and a love-hate relationship with warfare. Cinema will always reflect the values of a society, and since our military only allows men in combat roles, women will, until drastic military reform, remain underrepresented in this vast genera of American cinema.
As for you anon, cinema was not always this cheap field that churned out productions for our excitement. Entertainment has a much deeper meaning than your mind seems able to comprehend. Cinema, like literature and music, can entertain ideas, call for reflection on the nature of humankind, or even incite societal change, the problem is these concepts do not always earn top dollar. That's why there will always be independent films and music; some people's desire for entertainment will not be satiated by the simple-minded (yet delightfully amusing on a base level) crap that is watching The Governater launch an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile with a villain dangling from it, at a helicopter full of other villains, through an office building, or the like.
XKCD is not an entertainment blog, for what it's worth. It's more of a "nerd culture" blog. Otherwise, good commentary, and it'll be interesting to see a male's perspective popping up on a feminist blog.
Have you ever seen Kandahar, by the way? Kate has, I know. Spectacular foreign movie with a single female lead. I recommend it to anyone who wants to see a good non-hollywood movie.
Perhaps some filmmakers are making a little progress -- your post brings The Departed to mind.
It places some extremely sexist characters (i.e., Jack Nicholson's character) in contrast with a least one very strong female.
The psychiatrist, Madalyn (Matt and Leo's love interest) is, in my opinion, one of the most intelligent and important characters in the film.
Granted, she is only one character, but she provides a stark comparison between her life as an independent, well-educated and functional member of society and many of the primary male characters, whose intelligence and common sense are often questionable at best.
And I definitely didn't find this flick dull or snore-inducing.
Really good first post, Ryan!
And, John, who are you? Why do you know what movies I've seen. (Kandahar is really amazing though.)
The psychiatrist, Madalyn (Matt and Leo's love interest) is, in my opinion, one of the most intelligent and important characters in the film.
Granted, she is only one character, but she provides a stark comparison between her life as an independent, well-educated and functional member of society and many of the primary male characters, whose intelligence and common sense are often questionable at best.
I love The Departed and I love Martin Scorsese (there's a giant movie poster of the Departed hanging up in my living room), however I have to disagree with you.
She was a stark comparison to the other characters, but I think essentially her character in the movie was there so Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio could have someone to have sex with. She did provide to the plot a little, but it was all at the end (no spoilers in case someone hasn't seen it).
I've just started reading http://womenandhollywood.blogspot.com/ and it's hit upon lots of the points you've made here, and she made it clear that it was important for Baby Mama to do well this past weekend, just because it showed that movies with two women as lead characters could do well.
Anyway, check out that link and nice post otherwise.
I want to make a movie, Ryan. Maybe you could help somehow? :) It would either be a satire, or something that is real and positive.
Great first post. I am so happy to have you contributing!
"She was a stark comparison to the other characters, but I think essentially her character in the movie was there so Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio could have someone to have sex with. She did provide to the plot a little, but it was all at the end (no spoilers in case someone hasn't seen it)."
I'm not so sure. For one thing, I feel like her sexual relationship with Matt Damon's character was relatively unimportant until the end, and she and Leo only get together once.
In my opinion, she and Martin Sheen's character (and maybe Mark Wahlberg's) were the only truly level-headed people in the film, and I'm not willing to disregard that just because her relationship with two of the main characters is sexual. Many films of this genre are completely devoid of significant female roles, so I don't feel like the writer just tossed her in for sex appeal.
Even if they didn't include her just for the sex appeal, they did make it an important part of her character. Her attraction to Billy Costigan was obviously a conflicting point for her throughout the whole narrative, not just before they finally get together.
She's the only female character in the movie, and in all of Scorsese's canon, most of his movies have one or maybe two main female characters. Goodfellas has some (not many), Gangs of New York has one, Raging Bull has one, Last Temptation of Christ has one main character and three minor characters, Taxi Driver has two. I haven't seen Boxcar Bertha, but from the top names on IMDB, Barbara Hershey is the only one. I haven't seen Age of Innocence, either, but that has more prominent female names - then again, he is adapting an Edith Wharton novel.
Most of these portrayals are pretty misogynistic as well. I guess it's good that Madalyn is a sensible, intelligent character. However, in my opinion, still a sensible, intelligent character who is there for a sex scene.
First of all, thanks for everyone for the compliments and the discussion emanating from this issue.
John, I know XKCD is a nerd blog, but I was linked to it from AwardsDaily.com, which is indeed an entertainment blog. I probably should have pointed that out in the first place, but no matter.
As for The Departed, I'm of both minds on Vera Farmiga's character. Yes, she was put in there mostly to be the love interest, but at least she was an intelligent, strong character who actually played a more important roll at the end. Scorsese is my favorite director of all time, but I'll be the first to admit, his movies are male-centered and more often than not deal with misogynistic characters.
And Amelia, you name the place and time, and I'll be there.
Wow, wait, what the HELL? My name isn't John. That was me, sorry.
....weird. Stupid google accounts.
Anon - women do not spend their entire life thinking about men, talking about men, and having sex with men. Movies ought to show some bits and pieces of real life. In real life, women actually have thoughts, feelings, and experiences that have nothing to do with having sex with or supporting men.
Which is why, although the female Departed character was strong, I still will not extend the "feminist card" to it. Her character would be purposeless without the two male leads. She has sex with them and supports them, just like almost every other female in the movies. She might do it while being smart, but she never gets to use those smarts for her own benefit or to pursue her own storyline and goals. She is a prop in their storyline.
Hahaha. Mike. That makes more sense. For half a second, I thought it might be Mr. P, using a psyeudonomn. lol.
And I definately agree with Jen. The female character in The Departed would not have been there if it weren't for her relationships with the other characters. She wouldn't have been able to add to the plot at the end, if she hadn't been sleeping with both leads.
"She is a prop in their storyline."
Because the movie isn't about her. It's about them. That's the difference between a supporting character and a main character.
So, if you don't like that, well, honestly, too bad. Again, boring movies don't make money.
Anon - women do not spend their entire life thinking about men, talking about men, and having sex with men. Movies ought to show some bits and pieces of real life. In real life, women actually have thoughts, feelings, and experiences that have nothing to do with having sex with or supporting men.
I read online recently the way someone tested if a movie had the potential to be a good was if it had two women in it who had a conversation with each other that wasn't about men.
Surprisingly, it's harder to find than you think, especially in romantic comedies. Although that's not really a good genre to test out.
You guys have convinced me (concerning The Departed). But I do still think she's a step above the usual "Mafia mistress" type character.
"So, if you don't like that, well, honestly, too bad. Again, boring movies don't make money."
What exactly does this comment have to do with the discussion of The Departed (to which it seems to be referring)?
"What exactly does this comment have to do with the discussion of The Departed (to which it seems to be referring)?"
That the character is a 'prop' in someone else's story, instead of the main character. They seemed upset that she wasn't as important or prominent, and not a main character.
This was coupled with the various mentions of movies about two women sitting around talking to each other.
I guess what I was getting at was the inherent sexism in saying that movies about women talking about things other than men and sex are boring.
This was coupled with the various mentions of movies about two women sitting around talking to each other.
You're imply that two women sitting around talking to each other is boring. I disagree. As a women myself, I find a lot of my conversations to be interesting. I mean, usually I think the stuff I say is interesting anyway. And pretty funny.
If people are still interested in talking about this, I'll throw this one out there: The Lord of the Rings.
I'm always interested to hear what feminism has to say about this, because while none of the female characters could really be considered "lead" roles (although Liv Tyler is close in the billing category, usually at third I believe), they are strong characters and they assuredly pursue their own interests and have their own subplots.
Why are people assuming that a movie with two females leads will involve the two characters just sitting around talking?
Yeah, I was wondering the same myself.
"Why are people assuming that a movie with two females leads will involve the two characters just sitting around talking?"
Someone said as much earlier. That they wanted a movie where two women "star together and talk..."
"You're imply that two women sitting around talking to each other is boring. I disagree. As a women myself, I find a lot of my conversations to be interesting. I mean, usually I think the stuff I say is interesting anyway. And pretty funny."
I'm not implying it, the entertainment industry and the public is. Movies are a business, they exist to make money. Things more suitable for the Lifetime channel are not going to end up on a big screen in your local theater.
Honestly, if I wanted to watch Oprah, I have a television.
I'm always interested to hear what feminism has to say about this, because while none of the female characters could really be considered "lead" roles (although Liv Tyler is close in the billing category, usually at third I believe), they are strong characters and they assuredly pursue their own interests and have their own subplots.
I personally think Eowyn is badass and the part about how the big black knight won't die at the hands of a man, and then she says, "I'm no man" and chops his head off? Awesome. I suppose I'm not too critical because my boyfriend likes Lord of the Rings. He's a geek though.
Someone said as much earlier. That they wanted a movie where two women "star together and talk..."
If you're confusing about what I said, I merely mentioned that a test some people had for movies was to have two female characters have a conversation not about men.
Personally, I'd like to see a movie where two women star together, period. Baby Mama's a good step foward, but it's still distinctly a maternal topic.
Someone said as much earlier. That they wanted a movie where two women "star together and talk..."
Right. She said she wanted to see one. No one said that that's all it had to be about.
I'm not implying it, the entertainment industry and the public is. Movies are a business, they exist to make money. Things more suitable for the Lifetime channel are not going to end up on a big screen in your local theater.
Honestly, if I wanted to watch Oprah, I have a television.
So any movie made about two female characters is suitable only for Lifetime? No one has any delusions about the quality of the movies on that channel. I don't think it's too much to ask for at least ONE good movie with female leads to be released. Waitress is a good example.
And to say Hollywood is just a business is indeed a bit detrimental to the actual filmmakers and artists out there. I mean, sure, at the end of the day, everyone's trying to make money. But to assume that they're not trying to tell a compelling story or make a valid point is asinine. Like you said, boring movies don't make money. Movies that were boring that didn't make money:
-The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
-The Condemned
-In the Name of the King
-Death Sentence
-Flyboys
You see a pattern? There are plenty of god-awful films that they thought would be exciting to the general public, but they weren't. They were pretty fucking bad, actually. There's no accounting for what will and will not be boring, and there's no rule against having a female-centered story being entertaining and making money.
It may not have two leading females, but how do the feminists feel about Shallow Hal? It was entertaining for both men and women, made a lot of money, and has a really positive message in it.
Shallow Hal bothered me from a filmmaking standpoint more so than a moral one, but I still put it in the same vein as films like I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry: they spend an hour and a half making fun of people for a certain thing that you really shouldn't, then they have the balls to lecture us to be nice to them in the end.
It's kind of weird to think that Baby Mama will further the feminist cause in Hollywood, but hey, there could be worse people than Tina Fey leading the pack.
I'm also interested in the feminists' opinions on the following movies--Norma Rae, Erin Brockovich, Legally Blonde, and The Stepford Wives.
It all goes back to what sells. You need to change the market before you can change the product/manufacturers.
How do you supposed we change the market? I am interested in your ideas.
"I don't think it's too much to ask for at least ONE good movie with female leads to be released. Waitress is a good example."
Waitress was also a financial failure.
"There are plenty of god-awful films that they thought would be exciting to the general public, but they weren't."
You CANNOT use "In the Name of the King". Uwe Boll doesn't count.
All his movies are crap, and he's the only one who wants to see them.
He gets to make them because the German government subsidizes all failed movies from that country.
Waitress was also a financial failure.
Just because it's a financial failure doesn't mean it's not a good movie.
There have been lots of good movies that had bad box offices and lots of bad movies with good box offices.
I think part of it has to do with the movie itself, but part of it also has to do with distribution and marketing. I just saw Copying Beethoven last night which I really liked, but it didn't make any money because it was poorly distributed. The latest National Treasure movie made a ton of money but that doesn't make it a good movie. It's entertaining, but I wouldn't necessarily hold it up as a pinnacle of movie making.
I don't think it's fair to call Waitress a financial failure. I mean, there is no record of its budget out there, but I'd be very surprised if it cost more than $20 to make.
And fine. No Uwe Boll? How about:
-Doom
-Kingdom of Heaven (At least in America.)
-Domino
-The Covenant
Believe me, there are plenty of people making boring movies besides Uwe Boll.
"I don't think it's fair to call Waitress a financial failure. I mean, there is no record of its budget out there, but I'd be very surprised if it cost more than $20 to make."
Waitress made 19m domestic, and 3m foreign, for a total of 22m.
That would be considered a box office failure.
"And fine. No Uwe Boll? How about:
-Doom
-Kingdom of Heaven (At least in America.)
-Domino
-The Covenant"
Yes, you listed a few movies most people expected to be bad before they were released.
What's your point? My point stands. Boring movies don't make money. "Made of Honor" is already getting dismal reviews in the face of very, very well-received "Iron Man".
Incidentally, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.'s character) is an unabashed womanizer in the first half-hour of Iron Man.
To be fair, though, he goes through a transformation over the course of the film that, at least to some extent, redeems his initial shortcomings.
"Incidentally, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.'s character) is an unabashed womanizer in the first half-hour of Iron Man."
So what? I've read enough of feminism where they get very angry at people calling women "slut" if they choose to be promiscuous, so it's only fair that you leave Tony Stark's behaviour alone as well.
(Though, no need to mention who is playing him, I full well know who Iron Man is.)
"To be fair, though, he goes through a transformation over the course of the film that, at least to some extent, redeems his initial shortcomings."
There's nothing wrong with promiscuity. It's not a shortcoming, it's a choice.
"Boring movies don't make money."
Okay, I think we can all agree on this. But movies with female/female leads will not be boring. Are you assuming that they will be? And let's keep this thread on the subject: movies with female leads.
" But movies with female/female leads will not be boring. Are you assuming that they will be? And let's keep this thread on the subject: movies with female leads."
Can you guarantee they won't be boring?
Or are you assuming that since you're a woman, and you like women-centric things, that such a movie will be deeply interesting?
I'd hate to see you fall into the trap of "If it's a woman, it must be good, because paying more attention to women than men makes everything better".
I want to congratulate Ryan on a successful first post, but I would like to remind the Impersonators that if a discussion is continuously being run off course (like when anonymous commenters consistently say things along the lines of "are you assuming that since you're a woman, and you like women-centric things, that such a movie will be deeply interesting?" or "I've read enough of feminism where they get very angry at people calling women "slut" if they choose to be promiscuous") that it might be best to let it go.
Those sorts of attitudes will not produce productive conversation, and it is often difficult get those sorts of people back on track.
But if other comments seem productive, please engage!
I should add that yes, I figure they will be boring. Most "indie" movies, or movies that are made for the sole purpose of NOT being what's commonly made and enjoyed, tend to be terrible.
"like when anonymous commenters consistently say things along the lines of "are you assuming that since you're a woman, and you like women-centric things, that such a movie will be deeply interesting?" or "I've read enough of feminism where they get very angry at people calling women "slut" if they choose to be promiscuous") that it might be best to let it go. "
That's really not how a discussion works. If you want the preach to the choir hour, you're in the wrong business. Asking valid questions is acceptable.
Also, the point about "slut shaming" as it were, was valid. If feminists do not want women who are promiscuous labelled "slut", then it's fair and equal to not speak ill of a promiscuous male.
Also, the person I spoke of flat out stated that women-centric movies won't be boring, with nothing to back that up. Valid question.
"like when anonymous commenters consistently say things along the lines of "are you assuming that since you're a woman, and you like women-centric things, that such a movie will be deeply interesting?" or "I've read enough of feminism where they get very angry at people calling women "slut" if they choose to be promiscuous") that it might be best to let it go. "
That's really not how a discussion works. If you want the preach to the choir hour, you're in the wrong business. Asking valid questions is acceptable.
Also, the point about "slut shaming" as it were, was valid. If feminists do not want women who are promiscuous labelled "slut", then it's fair and equal to not speak ill of a promiscuous male.
Also, the person I spoke of flat out stated that women-centric movies won't be boring, with nothing to back that up. Valid question.
I am sorry, Anon, perhaps I need to make myself clearer.
I've read enough of feminism where they get very angry at people calling women "slut" if they choose to be promiscuous, so it's only fair that you leave Tony Stark's behaviour alone as well.
That is what I really had a problem with because you seem to claim that you have some sort of superior knowledge of feminism that means that you can make generalizations. Those sorts of unqualified statements never make for a good argument. And if that is all you have to bring to the table, you are really not bringing much at all.
Now, if you'd like to continue with the topic at hand (movies with female leads and Hollywood's lack of diversity) please do so.
"That is what I really had a problem with because you seem to claim that you have some sort of superior knowledge of feminism that means that you can make generalizations. Those sorts of unqualified statements never make for a good argument. And if that is all you have to bring to the table, you are really not bringing much at all."
Okay, how about this: "Every single feminist site or blog I've ever been to in the history of the internet has a serious problem with labelling promiscuous women as "sluts". Based on that, I find it unfair to insult a promiscuous man for that behaviour, while defending women who engage in it."
Better?
"Now, if you'd like to continue with the topic at hand (movies with female leads and Hollywood's lack of diversity) please do so."
Hollywood doesn't "lack diversity". They sell what sells.
Don't blame the manufacturer for producing and selling what people want to buy.
You know what there's not enough of? Female directors.
Mira Nair, Julie Taymore, Sophia Coppola, ... there are some actresses who have also directed movies. I think Helen Hunt just directed her first movie, which I heard was pretty good.
I can think of only one African-American female director - Julie Dash. Or maybe she was the first to do it with Daughters of the Dust.
Anyway, there's a topic for you, Ryan.
Now, to lindsay, I hate when people make inferences like that.
As if Hollywood is stopping people from directing movies. It's not the responsibility of the movie industry to ensure all directors fit a certain mold, nor is there affirmative director action.
If you want women to be directors, and women of color to be directors, encourage them to do so.
It's sort of underhanded to assume that somehow Hollywood is trying to stop them.
Establishing yourself as a director worth giving a budget to is difficult. It's not an easy business to get into, and you get in based on your ability, not your skin or genitalia.
Anon, I don't understand at all how you come off thinking that Lindsay was making any sort of inference about Hollywood not allowing females to be directors.
All she said was that there weren't enough. She never spoke of why the reasons might be.
You know what I hate? When people patronize me.
Regardless of if "Hollywood" as a collective industry got together and decided it was a bad idea to have women directors, but statistically there are far more male directors than female directors. Even if "Hollywood" isn't actively trying to be sexist, these stats say otherwise.
Women are very rarely, if ever, given the chance to direct an action movie. Somehow there's an assumption that just because you have a vagina, you can't direct explosions, and are far more suited to romance scenes. It's complete crap.
Establishing yourself as a director is indeed hard, male or female. I'm just saying that it seems to be easier for men to do this than women, for any number of issues from presupposed genre stereotypes to flat out sexism.
"Even if "Hollywood" isn't actively trying to be sexist, these stats say otherwise."
It's not sexist simply because there are more men.
Otherwise, I could say any female-dominated industry is sexist. It's not the fault of the industry if women aren't trying to be directors, or if their efforts result in bad movies.
As you say, Anon, women supposedly aren't trying to become directors. If that is true, why is that? I think that's an interesting question.
Who said women directors make "bad" movies? I pretty much love everything Mira Nair touches (with the exception of Vanity Fair) and Julie Taymor did a fantastic job with Across The Universe.
I think there are more opportunities for men to be directors than for women. I don't think it's that women aren't trying to be directors - that's like saying women aren't trying to be astronauts. I think the industry functions in such a way that it's harder for women to break in or get good opportunities.
"As you say, Anon, women supposedly aren't trying to become directors. If that is true, why is that? I think that's an interesting question."
Maybe they don't want to be directors? Maybe they have no interest? You don't see too many men going into early childhood education, or midwifery, either.
So what's your point? If they aren't interested in the field, they aren't going to enter into it just to satisfy your sense of what should be and what shouldn't.
" I pretty much love everything Mira Nair touches (with the exception of Vanity Fair)"
Never heard of her.
"Julie Taymor did a fantastic job with Across The Universe. "
One big music video is not a good film. The music video parts were nice, but the actual film? The plot? Awful, derivative tripe. Nearly unwatchable.
Maybe they don't want to be directors? Maybe they have no interest?
Because they, the collective women of the world, just aren't interested in moving pictures. Too high tech, if you ask me.
Mira Nair:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0619762/
As for Julie Taymor, you can have your opinion and I can have mine. However, you can't deny that the woman knows her visuals. Across the Universe was gorgeous, not to mention the fine work she did in Frieda.
"Because they, the collective women of the world, just aren't interested in moving pictures. Too high tech, if you ask me."
Oh, please. I'm sorry, but, get over yourself. You're taking it as some slight against women.
I'm sorry, but fact of the matter is, not all people will be interested in a career in all things.
"Mira Nair:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0619762/"
Still never heard of her or a single movie she's made, and just browsing them, I don't find that I'd have an interest in any of them.
"As for Julie Taymor, you can have your opinion and I can have mine. However, you can't deny that the woman knows her visuals. Across the Universe was gorgeous, not to mention the fine work she did in Frieda."
I watch a movie for more than what it looks like. I require good acting, a good story, good dialogue...
Just because it looks pretty doesn't make it a good film. As it stands, Across the Universe was barely a film at all.
Just because a woman directed it, doesn't suddenly make it good. I can't help but wonder if you're defending it simply because a woman directed it.
I'm sorry, but fact of the matter is, not all people will be interested in a career in all things.
True, but to make large generalizing statements about a group of people and their supposed interest in a field is irresponsible, especially when there's a history of sexism/racism/whatever-elseism in the industry.
As it stands, Across the Universe was barely a film at all.
Just because a woman directed it, doesn't suddenly make it good. I can't help but wonder if you're defending it simply because a woman directed it.
I disagree. You can not like it, but don't say it's "barely a film" because you didn't like it.
And by the way, if I say I like something, it's because I honestly like it, not because my uterus tells me I should. I loved Across the Universe because I love the Beatles and I thought the cinematography was beautiful. It lost me at points (Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite), but overall I loved it. I've already stated my love for Scorsese movies AND the issues I have with the misogyny in many, if not all, of his films. Additionally, I didn't like Julie Dash's Daughters of the Dust, but you don't see me claiming it's the best movie ever. Why? Because I didn't like it, not because she's a woman.
I'm sorry, but the world isn't as clear cut and dichotomous as you make it out to be. It's a lot messier than that.
"True, but to make large generalizing statements about a group of people and their supposed interest in a field is irresponsible, especially when there's a history of sexism/racism/whatever-elseism in the industry. "
Ever heard the phrase "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"?
Saying that there aren't a lot of women in the industry, because perhaps a lot of women don't have an interest, isn't that big of a deal.
"I disagree. You can not like it, but don't say it's "barely a film" because you didn't like it."
A great many people didn't like it either. It's a great big music video with small segments where it pretends to be an actual movie, and does so terribly.
I love the Beatles as well, but a bunch of song covers, to me, are not the Beatles.
"I've already stated my love for Scorsese movies AND the issues I have with the misogyny in many, if not all, of his films."
All? What about The Aviator?
"I'm sorry, but the world isn't as clear cut and dichotomous as you make it out to be. It's a lot messier than that."
I could say the same to you. You set it up as "If women aren't in place A, it must be because of sexism", and you act as though there's no other possible explanation.
Saying that there aren't a lot of women in the industry, because perhaps a lot of women don't have an interest, isn't that big of a deal.
Say that to a woman who is trying to be a director.
A great many people didn't like it either. It's a great big music video with small segments where it pretends to be an actual movie, and does so terribly.
That's going off of your preconceived notion of what a movie is, based on the classic Hollywood movie. There are lots of movies that shun the narrative structure more than Across The Universe does (which still fits into the classic Hollywood structure). Take La Region Centrale, which is a 3 hour movie of a camera attached to a spinning model airplane. Made me sick, I hated it but I'll still call it a movie.
All? What about The Aviator?
I haven't seen it in a long time so I'd have to watch it again before I said anything substantial.
I could say the same to you. You set it up as "If women aren't in place A, it must be because of sexism", and you act as though there's no other possible explanation.
There's blantant sexism and then there's systematic sexism. Blatant sexism is consciously making decisions based on one's gender whereas systematic sexism means that society as a whole has ingrained ideas of sexism and conducts the world based on those notions. I'm not willing to say there aren't any other possibilities for the lack of female directors, such as the availability of opportunities, but maybe that lack of opportunities is a symptom of the systematic sexism (racism, ableism, etc) existing as a whole.
"That's going off of your preconceived notion of what a movie is, based on the classic Hollywood movie. "
That's a silly statement. My preconceived notion about what a movie is? What, are we attempting to redefine "movie", now? A movie is a filmed story, with characters, a plot, following an overall narrative, with a opening, a middle, and a conclusion.
Much like a play.
A music video is no more a movie than my shoe is a book.
"Take La Region Centrale, which is a 3 hour movie of a camera attached to a spinning model airplane. Made me sick, I hated it but I'll still call it a movie. "
Idiot + camera =/= movie.
That would simply be a video recording. You can't simply call something a movie because someone taped it.
"I haven't seen it in a long time so I'd have to watch it again before I said anything substantial. "
Your loss, then. One of his best.
I'm biased though, because I like things that wax nostalgic about "old Hollywood". Back when "movie star" meant "Ava Gardner", instead of "Current drugged-out teen idol".
"I'm not willing to say there aren't any other possibilities for the lack of female directors, such as the availability of opportunities, but maybe that lack of opportunities is a symptom of the systematic sexism (racism, ableism, etc) existing as a whole."
...ableism? Oh, come on. Enough with the mindlessly ridiculous neologisms, please. What next? Weightism? Uglyism?
Anyways. Or, it could very well be that many of the women trying to be directors are trying to make experimental feminist movies that are too far off mainstream to sell, and don't test well with audiences?
Women are perfectly capable of making films, but if you try to be too subversive on purpose, your movie will hit a wall, and only be appreciated by 10 or 11 people that try to be "indie". And that is whether or not you're male OR female.
Or, it could very well be that many of the women trying to be directors are trying to make experimental feminist movies that are too far off mainstream to sell, and don't test well with audiences?
Yup, because all women want to make subversive, feminist films. The vagina gene requires it.
"Yup, because all women want to make subversive, feminist films. The vagina gene requires it."
A great deal of them do, in fact, wish to do this.
I mean, we can't rightly blame the women trying to get in for not getting in, right? It's never their fault, their movies are all brilliant masterpieces, it's just big mean sexist Hollywood, and the entire population of the moviegoing public that's at fault.
Naturally.
I'm glad to you that you're in touch with potential female directors who are either a-not interested in the industry or b-unable to make a movie due to their subversive, feminist politics. Thank you.
...ableism? Oh, come on. Enough with the mindlessly ridiculous neologisms, please.
And by the way, ableism isn't a "mindlessly ridiculous neologism." It's an established term in the disability studies field. Here's a whole lot of links for you to check out and potentially harass: Blogging Against Disability
Post a Comment