Lack of female directors in film

DredFX

Read an article on Polygon the other day about the gender imbalance in film directing and I was wondering what you guys thought,

Link.

It's something that Kathleen Kennedy, CEO of Lucasfilm, and Kevin Feige, CEO of Marvel Studios, have been asked about time and time again. Kennedy claimed that Star Wars will have a female director when the time is right, while Feige stated that finding one is of utmost importance to them, though neither studio has coughed results except in Marvel's TV market.

Less than 12 percent of major movies released in the last year were directed by women, and the comments section has blown up a little over this fact. One in particular piqued my interest:

This really taps into that "diversity is great and all but we need the best ___ for the job" mentality, which is really a fallacy. It angers me that diversity equates to inferiority, which is simply not the case.

Trevorrow claims that studios would help if they found the right opportunity, and sure, there’s no way to correctly prove/disprove if this were true, but this doesn’t explain the HUGE lack of female directors in cinemas.

So, I'm not sure myself. I would usually tap into the belief that merit rules over obligation, but who knows? Is there a blatant problem with the Darth (sorry, dearth) of female directors in film?

mikhail

Is it a problem? Yes. Is the solution Disney's problem? No. It'd be foolish to select a key role in a billion euro project for their gender. If 12% of films released last year were directed by women, there's a problem with getting entry-level women directors. That's probably a matter one or both of (a) fewer women looking to get into the job (which can be exacerbated by the perception that it's a boy's club but is almost certainly more complicated than that), and (b) fewer prospective women directors getting funded to make their first film. There is most likely an element of gender bias in the latter factor, but it could be a lot of things, e.g. women directors perhaps showing a preference for what is perceived as less comercially viable subject matter. There's no silver bullet for that sort of thing; certainly it isn't a stunt hire by one studio.

pixelburp

This will be fun :rolleyes:

I dunno, given how aggressively vanilla the average Blockbuster is directed, why not throw some enforced equality into the mix? Couldn't hurt. These mega-blockbusters are so lacking in even the merest hint of creativity or vision, directing these things is an exercise in point and shoot - so if you just need a warm body to fill a chair, it might as well be a woman. At worst, her CV and career will get a bump & everyone's happy. It's funny Colin Trevorrow is mentioned here, because frankly a sock puppet could have directed Jurassic World for all the flair he added; I'm genuinely underwhelmed at the notion of him helming Episode IX.

Gender politics in the workplace is a big problem in ordinary offices as it is, I can only imagine how tricky it is to plough a career in a famously masculine industry like Hollywood. Giving female creatives a leg-up isn't the worst idea in the world, merit or no merit.

silverharp

I'd agree with Mikhail's point , whats the pool of people that start out at the ground floor making their own shorts or whatever paths directors have? if there are 10 men beavering away for years for every woman then Im not sure what is to be done. If anything its the finance guys or investors that want to allocate money at the lowest risk possible and that dictates many of the parameters of a film.

A different industry but remember reading an article about a theatre manager in the UK that solicited scripts from new writers, first point was that the manager got 2/1 (I think) male to female and secondly the scripts from men were better and there seemed to be gendered reasons for the poor male and female scripts.

Im sure if there was a genuine gap in the market for box office hits that "only a woman" could make some investors would have put up the cash by now

DredFX

silverharp wrote: »

A different industry but remember reading an article about a theatre manager in the UK that solicited scripts from new writers, first point was that the manager got 2/1 (I think) male to female and secondly the scripts from men were better and there seemed to be gendered reasons for the poor male and female scripts.

Would it be comparable to software or science, fields that are very androcentric and have only just started attracting more women?

silverharp

DredFX wrote: »

Would it be comparable to software or science, fields that are very androcentric and have only just started attracting more women?

this might have been the article I read, oops 75% and basically story telling errors

https://bittergertrude.com/2013/01/22/a-common-problem-i-see-in-plays-by-women-playwrights-its-not-what-you-think/

My theatre company is in heavy season planning mode, so I’ve recently read dozens of new plays. I’m always reading new plays, but this time of year, I’m reading a lot of plays, all day long. We’re making an effort to find more plays by women playwrights. We get between 300-400 unsolicited submissions each year, as well as submissions from agents and theatre professionals (playwrights, other ADs or LMs). 75% of those plays are by men, without fail. Unsurprisingly, 75% of the plays we’ve done over our 17 seasons have been by men. So we’re making an extra effort to find women playwrights and ask them to submit.

I’m seeing a significant amount of plays by women with female characters structurally positioned as the central character. However, that female character isn’t driving the narrative– she is, instead, just reactive to whatever the male characters are doing. It’s a woman sitting around wondering what to do about some man in her life, talking to her friends about some man, interacting with some man about his decisions or actions. It’s still a story with a central male character, just told from the woman’s point of view.

Here’s the weird part: I ALMOST NEVER SEE PLAYS LIKE THIS FROM MEN. When I get a play by a man, the central character, male or female, almost always drives the narrative and has an active arc.

Ensemble pieces don’t change anything– they work the same way, just in the plural.

So what the effing eff is going on here? I rarely see this from the more experienced, accomplished women playwrights, but it’s shockingly common from early career women writers.

Sad Professor

The idea, suggested by Kennedy/Disney, that there isn't a female director "ready" for Star Wars or [insert franchise of choice] is nonsense. Was Trevorrow ready for Jurassic World? Was Webb ready for Spider-Man? Indie director dudes with one or two decent films under their belt are scooped up and given the reigns of massive blockbusters all the time.

In fact, Trevorrow is a great example of Hollywood's boys club problem. He went from directing an indie comedy to directing Jurassic World. And even before he got the Jurassic job there was people in the industry suggesting he could direct Episode 7. I'm not bashing Trevorrow, who I like, but he clearly has friends in high places.

mikhail

Surely Trevorrow is an example of what they shouldn't be doing, not of what they should also be doing with women.

Sad Professor

mikhail wrote: »

Surely Trevorrow is an example of what they shouldn't be doing, not of what they should also be doing with women.

My point, which I didn't make clear, is that female directors should not be held to a higher standard than male directors. If Trevorrow was a woman, it is extremely unlikely he would he have got the Jurassic World gig after a film like Safety Not Guaranteed.

There's plenty of talented female indie directors who deserve the same chance Trevorrow and Webb got. Denying them because they aren't ready is bullish*t. The real problem is that Hollywood, a notorious boys' club, isn't ready for them.

faceman

Sexism (and racism) is rife in Hollywood. I have friends who are professional actors and directors in Hollywood who have told me horror stories. (And some of these people are involved in A list TV and film)

So before we can even consider which individuals make better movies we do know that already women are on the back foot because they don't have the same opportunities.

johnny_ultimate

I don't think it's possible to deny that there is an (artificial) gender imbalance in Hollywood directors. Why that is is surely a complicated mish-mash of things: from institutionalised sexism to legacy & historical issues. There's no quick fix, and while some active measures should be taken for sure to get things going, it's also something that will start to adjust itself as time goes on too.

On the flip side of the coin, I'd actually rather Hollywood stopped poaching talented directors - male or female - for their increasingly unambitious products. We just need more female directors working on mid-budget films, international & independent productions etc... where they can more meaningfully express themselves Thankfully, there are talented women making impressive works beyond the blockbuster sphere. Good to see four films directed by women in this year's Sight & Sound top ten, including the top spot. No artificial boosting there - just a couple of great films (of the three I've seen anyway, although wouldn't rate Things to Come quite as highly as others) enjoying the acclaim they deserve. Committing to a perfect balance can be just as artificial as the existing imbalance, but I believe that with a mix of institutional change and natural progress we will in time get to the point where more & more great female directors enjoy the attention and resources they deserve.

RDM_83 again

Isn't all of the arts world horribly nepotistic to a large degree. Apparently writing has the same issue with an over-predominance of males too while the English/Literature world would for different areas outside writing have a much greater amount of women.

Whats the end game, should we be aiming for a truly representative bunch in people in the film industry, if so the over representation thing argument applies to other things apart from gender.
Jewish population of the USA is between 5-7 million, take a mid-point of 6 million, the representative amount of films directed by Jewish people should be 1.8%!
Rounding up the population of NY and the greater LA is about 40 million, thats 12%.

I'd agree that we should have more diversity, what I don't care about at all is something like the Girl's situation, where instead of a over-privileged son of somebody in the creative industry and their male mates we end up with the over-privileged daughter of somebody in the industry and their equally unrepresentative friends.

Brian?

I think there's a lack of directors, full stop. Cinema is at its lowest creative ebb in my life time. Comic book remakes, sequels and prequels. Some of them might stand alone as decent films, but no one is taking a risk.

As long as studios won't take a risk with the films content, they won't take a risk with the films director.

It's funny, of the female directors I can think of, I can't think of a bad one. Not a Michael Bay in the bunch.

Decuc500

Brian? wrote: »

It's funny, of the female directors I can think of, I can't think of a bad one. Not a Michael Bay in the bunch.

Just to play devils advocate, I think Jennifer Lynch's films are particularly awful and pointlessly sadistic affairs.

Brian?

Decuc500 wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate, I think Jennifer Lynch's films are particularly awful and pointlessly sadistic affairs.

I don't think they're awful. They wouldn't be my cup of tae, but at least there is some originality and creativity to them.

santana75

I would guess (and I know this is controversial) the reason there are very few female directors is the same reason there a very few female entrepreneurs. Because when it comes down to it, women in general are reactors, not initiators. Men are the ones who are expected to make the first move and risk rejection with women. So by the time a guy is 30 he has experienced way more rejection than the average woman. A lot more. But in rejection theres a gift, and that is if you dont fall into bitterness, you grow and become strong and taking risks is nothing. But women dont face rejection like and that and are very risk adverse. I mean if you've ever been out with a group of girls they wont even go to the bathroom by themselves, they have to take a friend with them. Directing is a job that requires a very strong personality, someone who isnt afraid of risks or rejection and who is willing to go it alone and make decisions. I think when it comes right down to it, the average woman will not expose herself to risk at a high level and will avoid rejection like the plague.
Obviously there are exceptions like Katherine biggelow and Sophia Coppola.

faceman

santana75 wrote: »

I would guess (and I know this is controversial) the reason there are very few female directors is the same reason there a very few female entrepreneurs. Because when it comes down to it, women in general are reactors, not initiators. Men are the ones who are expected to make the first move and risk rejection with women. So by the time a guy is 30 he has experienced way more rejection than the average woman. A lot more. But in rejection theres a gift, and that is if you dont fall into bitterness, you grow and become strong and taking risks is nothing. But women dont face rejection like and that and are very risk adverse. I mean if you've ever been out with a group of girls they wont even go to the bathroom by themselves, they have to take a friend with them. Directing is a job that requires a very strong personality, someone who isnt afraid of risks or rejection and who is willing to go it alone and make decisions. I think when it comes right down to it, the average woman will not expose herself to risk at a high level and will avoid rejection like the plague.
Obviously there are exceptions like Katherine biggilow and Sophia Coppola.

Utter nonsense and sexist drivel.

Pat Mustard

Sad Professor wrote: »

The idea, suggested by Kennedy/Disney, that there isn't a female director "ready" for Star Wars or [insert franchise of choice] is nonsense. Was Trevorrow ready for Jurassic World? Was Webb ready for Spider-Man? Indie director dudes with one or two decent films under their belt are scooped up and given the reigns of massive blockbusters all the time.

It would be hard to support a claim Katherine Bigelow couldn't do the job.

conorhal

This latest bit if virtue signalling reminds me of the whole #oscarsowhite nonsense.
Blaming the Academy for the lack of diversity at awards season is, as usual, blaming the symptom rather then the cause.
Everybody knows what pictures win Oscars, so it's not the Academy's fault that studios are not producing prestige pictures for release at this time of year that feature minority actors. Of course nobody in Hollywood is going to slate Disney, WB, Fox etc for this fact, because you don't critisize the studio's that hire you, the Academy though is a handy target.
It's the same with complaints about female directors, as has already been pointed out on the thread, a lack of women getting plum directing jobs in big budget action movies is a symptom rather then a cause. More female directors need to get the chance to direct a first film that will at least put them on the short list.
Currently TV is more fertile ground for female directos with many doing a great job on shows like Breaking Bad or Top of the Lake, TV should provide a jumping off point for more female talent and indeed it is starting to do so.

santana75

faceman wrote: »

Utter nonsense and sexist drivel.

I'll find that article for you. Which was written by a woman btw

http://miter.mit.edu/articlerejection-gene/

pumpkin4life

santana75 wrote: »

I'll find that article for you. Which was written by a woman btw

http://miter.mit.edu/articlerejection-gene/

Yeah, agree.

Also, who cares? Good movies are what I want to see. Just about my favorite movie to come out this year was directed by a woman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honey_(film)

Sad Professor

santana75 wrote: »

I'll find that article for you. Which was written by a woman btw

http://miter.mit.edu/articlerejection-gene/

Fascinating theory, but it’s describing a very specific type of hegemonic masculinity that we associate with successful entrepreneurialism. Also you can’t talk about risk aversion without considering race and class. Most professionally successful men don’t get good at handling rejection by being rejected by women, they get good at rejection by watching daddy fail upwards.

But even if I accepted the argument, I fail to see how entrepreneurialism is comparable to film directing. Directing a film is not high risk. A women director isn’t on her own, risking her financial future to make a movie. She’s surrounded by a team. The financial risk is carried someone else, who as we've just established is more likely to be male.

I think that’s the real issue here: women are less accepted in leadership roles. The traditional image of a director is of a dude with a beard in a baseball cap shouting orders at the crew. Someone, in other words, who exhibits a particular kind of masculine confidence. I remember Sofia Coppola talking about her father advising her she needed to raise her voice, etc, and she just said no, she was going to direct her own way.

Men and women are different, I don’t think anyone would dispute that. But you can’t explain the lack of female directors by pointing to gender essentialism while ignoring the far more likely explanation that the institution is the problem.

Chain Smoker

Ava Du Vernay was hired to do a Marvel film, she resigned almost immediately.

I'm far happier seeing the more talented female directors evading a ****ing worthless role as director (but certainly not auteur) of a big budget Disney project. Trevorrow has kind of sold his soul and chances of any artistic development making that big jump so early in his career, I'd be stunned if he ever makes much of anything again.



Hiring a woman for star wars or whatever is ****ing worthless token nonsense. Not much better than a female Doctor Who or a female James Bond.
I find it pretty hard to be interested in "why are all the **** journeyman directors male", although it's definitely a bit of a problem in as far as how welcoming of a work environment the industry is to younger women and I guess that's the topic on hand here.

santana75

Sad Professor wrote: »

Men and women are different, I don’t think anyone would dispute that. But you can’t explain the lack of female directors by pointing to gender essentialism while ignoring the far more likely explanation that the institution is the problem.

Thats too easy a cop out though. To blame "The Man" or some faceless institution for conspiring to keep women down. Anyone, male or female, in the pursuit of a dream or something they're passionate about, will face a lot of resistance and obstacles. Its not some global conspiracy by evil men to keep women down.

DarkerSerge

A great director will create HIS own cinema that hasn't been done before (or not often). This usually takes years of being ignored until their breakthrough movie arrives. Women can only follow the beaten path while getting their hand held along the way.

johnny_ultimate

DarkerSerge wrote: »

A great director will create HIS own cinema that hasn't been done before (or not often). This usually takes years of being ignored until their breakthrough movie arrives. Women can only follow the beaten path while getting their hand held along the way.

Was tempted to delete this, but there's something to be said for leaving a record that this sort of sexist nonsense still exists.

DarkerSerge

Well, name a female director who has done something new in cinema? Who has created her own style by making several narrative features that no other filmmaker could have made? A great director creates their own cinema, puts their own stamp on their films. Are you going to consider deleting this post too?

johnny_ultimate

Oh you know. Agnes Varda. Claire Denis. Chantal Akerman. (those three in particular being all time greats). Kelly Reichardt. Jane Campion. Celine Sciamma. Lynne Ramsay. Andrea Arnold. Sofia Coppola. Kathryn Bigelow. Sarah Polley. Ann Hui. They're just a couple I'm particularly familiar with and fond of

RDM_83 again

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh you know. Agnes Varda. Claire Denis. Chantal Akerman. (those three in particular being all time greats). Kelly Reichardt. Jane Campion. Celine Sciamma. Lynne Ramsay. Andrea Arnold. Sofia Coppola. Kathryn Bigelow. Sarah Polley. Ann Hui. They're just a couple I'm particularly familiar with and fond of

How are Kathryn Bigelow and Sofia Coppola forging their own paths, I mean sofia coppola is exactly the opposite surely? They make decent films but they aren't exactly doing anything new are that hasnt been seen before?

Not really familiar with most on that list though I suppose The Piano could fit was an age since I have seen it.

Whats interesting about that list is that the female director who is actually renowned (and renounced!) for being visionary and having a big impact on styles and so on is Leni Riefenstahl, yet she operated and succeed in a system that is held up as the most possible right wing reactionary regime in history the exact opposite of what people are talking about

edit: I am not defending the comment by the way just find it weird that the two well known directors listed are not particularly interesting while leaving out the one that has instant recognition. Anyway I dont think being visionary matters, the creator of greys anatomy (who is a woman) impact many times more people than many on that list.

CalamariFritti

Another gender (war) thread, lovely...

Decuc500

DarkerSerge wrote: »

Well, name a female director who has done something new in cinema?

I saw Evolution from director Lucile Hadzihalilovic that was very strange and different. I'm not sure how much I actually enjoyed it but it certainly was an interesting and unique vision.

Sad Professor

Decuc500 wrote: »

I saw Evolution from director Lucile Hadzihalilovic that was very strange and different. I'm not sure how much I actually enjoyed it but it certainly was an interesting and unique vision.

Fantastic and yes very unique director. I loved her previous film, Innocence. I haven't seen Evolution yet. I planned to see it at DIFF earlier in the year and went into Mustang by mistake - another great female directed film as it happens.

Decuc500

Sad Professor wrote: »

Fantastic and yes very unique director. I loved her previous film, Innocence. I haven't seen Evolution yet. I planned to see it at DIFF earlier in the year and went into Mustang by mistake - another great female directed film as it happens.

Was a tough choice that evening. I chose Evolution as the director was there for a q&a. Still haven't seen Mustang yet despite hearing so many good things about it.

I must check out Innocence too.

Sad Professor

Part of the problem for women directors, as we've been discussing in this thread, is that they don't have access to bigger budgets and are mostly limited to the independent sector. Kelly Reichardt recently expressed her frustration at this and said she isn't sure she can keep working under such conditions. This is a problem for male directors as well, of course, but as we've established, many of them are getting through where as the women aren't.

Think of some of the great off-Hollywood male auteurs at the moment. PTA, Wes Andersen, Tarantino, the Coens. They are all working with middle size budgets with almost total creative freedom. It's very hard to enact a trailblazing vision with a few million dollars and 2-3 week production schedule. RDM_83 mentioned Leni Riefenstahl. How big was Triumph of the Will's budget? I don't know but I'm guessing it was pretty big.

Despite this, as johnny_ultimate's list shows, many female auteurs are doing great work with very little resources, but it's difficult, and it's not fair to compare them to great male directors who have or had a lot more resources at their disposal. It goes back to what I said before about women not being trusted as leaders of big productions.

Sad Professor

Decuc500 wrote: »

Was a tough choice that evening. I chose Evolution as the director was there for a q&a. Still haven't seen Mustang yet despite hearing so many good things about it.

I must check out Innocence too.

Yeah, I couldn't decide either, so I kinda decided it must be fate and stuck with Mustang.

johnny_ultimate

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How are Kathryn Bigelow and Sofia Coppola forging their own paths, I mean sofia coppola is exactly the opposite surely? They make decent films but they aren't exactly doing anything new are that hasnt been seen before?

Coppola is an immensely singular director, so much so that I'd be pretty confident I could identify her work blind in most circumstances. Lost in Translation, Somewhere and The Virgin Suicides are unquestionably the work of one person - in terms of tone, aesthetic and perspective. Ditto Marie Antoinette and The Bling Ring, and there are authorial links between them all. Even in her least distinctive work - A Very Murray Christmas - there's enough there to be able to identify the director, if primarily thanks to the extended Phoenix appearance But then again that's another point - there's only a select few directors whose work could be identifiable based on the music choices alone, and Coppola often fits that category.

This is not the same as saying you have to like her work, of course - I dislike as many of her films as I like (and I adore LiT). But she IMO makes films that are 100% hers.

Bieglow is a different kettle of fish, but again she has forged herself a distinctive filmography - particularly through her two most recent films which are very obviously the work of a director with particular interests and directorial vision. Generally though she has established an interesting throughline across her work, often bringing a new perspective to traditionally 'masculine' material and indeed genres. Less fond and knowledgeable of her work than many of the other directors I listed, but noteworthy nonetheless.

edit: I am not defending the comment by the way just find it weird that the two well known directors listed are not particularly interesting while leaving out the one that has instant recognition. Anyway I dont think being visionary matters, the creator of greys anatomy (who is a woman) impact many times more people than many on that list.

The only reason I failed to include Riefenstahl is simply that I am not sufficiently familiar with her work. I fully appreciate her role in cinema history - just have yet to sit down and watch her work myself. Less than sympathetic politics or themes are relatively regular concerns across classic cinema, and they always need to be considered and analysed according to that context

And certainly Denis, Varda and Akerman are very significant figures in late 20th / early 21st century cinema history, and have attracted much critical attention and analysis as a result. No they'll never have the commercial popularity of Shonda Rhimes, but I'd say the exact same thing about most of the great male directors. Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Jean Luc Godard aren't exactly breaking box office records despite still putting out masterpieces

Chain Smoker

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats interesting about that list is that the female director who is actually renowned (and renounced!) for being visionary and having a big impact on styles and so on is Leni Riefenstahl, yet she operated and succeed in a system that is held up as the most possible right wing reactionary regime in history the exact opposite of what people are talking about

Ach, I dunno, sure Iran has been making some of the most socially progressive films for decades.
I'd imagine it was mostly a case that it was a lot easier to break past social barriers when they hadn't been fully established yet. As far as I'm aware the nazis hadn't any particularly sexist notions at the time that would've prevented it, the very fact they had Hitler in a autocratic role would allow for the occasional fluke to occur too (Hitler saw her first film and picked her himself, didn't he? In a more democratic setup you could imagine a whole bunch of people getting caught up on discussing whether it would be proper)



The death of the midbudget film and how the blockbuster has eaten into the whole year round has really cut the legs out from under any younger female directors with bigger visions right now. The likes of PTA and Wes Anderson were able to gradually up their budgets in a way that seems much harder now.

Dunno how good of a reference Kelly Reichardt is though, she makes low key films in a way that absolutely no one would attract much funding for. As it stands she partially depends on the patronage of Michelle Williams for funding, surely?
The main draw for funding anything bigger would be to see just how far she could stretch a large budget. Definitely think it'd be worth the gamble myself but I totally understand why she doesn't get it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

About the Marvel films, I've read, and I'm sure many of you have too, what seems to be informed speculation on the extent to which Treverrow et al are actually 'directors' on those projects, and the extent to which they're mostly there to satisfy Directors' Guild rules and let the studio executives stick to the plan. The Shane Blacks and Jon Favreaus of the world aren't as likely to grin and bear it for the sake of future funding and favours, and coincidentally directors at that level have basically vanished from Marvel projects. Parachuting a woman director into that model isn't something with much to recommend it IME.

Any kind of gender essentialist nonsense about women being fundamentally incapable of working to the same level as men directors doesn't hold up, obviously. There are and always have been excellent female directors, but very few of them working in the high end commercial mainstream. And I'm sure many of them are sick of being asked gender-based questions.

Something I'd wonder about, which I haven't seen mentioned, is how much conventions in front of the camera influence who's put behind it. Is there a perception that women can only direct 'women's films'? If it's harder to get a film with a female protagonist(s) made, does that impact women directors. There is a deeply entrenched, complex and often unconscious sexism at play in how narrative cinema has been written and perceived over the past century at at textual level, I wonder if we saw more and better* women on screen could that effect the lot of women directors and vice versa.

*meaning how they're written, what they do etc rather than the actresses.

DarkerSerge

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh you know. Agnes Varda. Claire Denis. Chantal Akerman. (those three in particular being all time greats). Kelly Reichardt. Jane Campion. Celine Sciamma. Lynne Ramsay. Andrea Arnold. Sofia Coppola. Kathryn Bigelow. Sarah Polley. Ann Hui. They're just a couple I'm particularly familiar with and fond of

I'd agree with the first three, all French-language directors. None of the rest are making cinema that stands out from similar films by male directors. At least you didn't mention Kirsten Sheridan.

Sad Professor

Jose Plain Tuner wrote: »

Something I'd wonder about, which I haven't seen mentioned, is how much conventions in front of the camera influence who's put behind it. Is there a perception that women can only direct 'women's films'? If it's harder to get a film with a female protagonist(s) made, does that impact women directors. There is a deeply entrenched, complex and often unconscious sexism at play in how narrative cinema has been written and perceived over the past century at at textual level, I wonder if we saw more and better* women on screen could that effect the lot of women directors and vice versa.

*meaning how they're written, what they do etc rather than the actresses.

Veeery good point. Representation is a hugely important part of cinema. It can't be underestimated what an impact seeing someone who looks like you can have on a person whose not used to seeing positive or empowering representations of their race, gender, etc. I'm reminded of how inspiring Uhura in Star Trek was to black women in the '60s. It seems like a small thing now, but it was big deal back then. They'd never seen a black women portrayed like that before. It inspired them to do things they didn't think was possible.

DarkerSerge

Jose Plain Tuner wrote: »

Is there a perception that women can only direct 'women's films'?

The best "women's films" were all directed by men: Cukor, Ophuls, Sirk, Fassbinder, Stahl.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

DarkerSerge wrote: »

The best "women's films" were all directed by men: Cukor, Ophuls, Sirk, Fassbinder, Stahl.

Not 'only women can direct women's films', 'women can only direct women's films'. Different thing.

And wow you're actually serious aren't you, presumed you were taking the piss but nope you just think men are better at stuff.

With attitudes like that around it's really weird that people argue that sexism might affect the careers of women isn't it

MRnotlob606

Maybe female directors should make better films then.

DarkerSerge

Right, give me some examples of great female-directed women's films? It's got nothing to do with sexism. It's fact, read any book on classic films and they're all directed by men (even the ones aimed at women). Von Sternberg was another great director of women's films. What do you want? Destroy all these classic movies and do a remake with a female director?

DarkerSerge

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Maybe female directors should make better films then.

Nah, lets have a quota where 40% of all new movies in our cinema are directed by a woman.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Maybe female directors should make better films then.

Even taking the subjective nature of the question into account, women directors make excellent films, if you don't know several great directors who are women you don't have a very good knowledge of film. Purely because of the numbers, men directors have made a thousand weak or awful films for every ten excellent ones made by a man or bad one made by a woman, but that's not an argument against having men in the chair is it. That argument is every bit as much of a stupid cop out as the one that there's some kind of sexist illuminati deliberately and consciously holding women back.

DarkerSerge

They might make 'excellent films' but they don't make truly great ones or create something new. The kind of films that people are still watching 50 years on. The two major classic-era Hollywood women directors, Arzner and Lupino, are long forgotten. Not enough sigma-females out there to make good cinema.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

DarkerSerge wrote: »

Right, give me some examples of great female-directed women's films? It's got nothing to do with sexism. It's fact, read any book on classic films and they're all directed by men (even the ones aimed at women). Von Sternberg was another great director of women's films. What do you want? Destroy all these classic movies and do a remake with a female director?

You seem to have misunderstood me. I put 'womens films' in quotes in my original post because I wasn't using it in the sense strictly limited to classical Hollywood cinema, thought that was clear but apparently not, apologies.

RDM_83 again

Sad Professor wrote: »

Part of the problem for women directors, as we've been discussing in this thread, is that they don't have access to bigger budgets and are mostly limited to the independent sector. Kelly Reichardt recently expressed her frustration at this and said she isn't sure she can keep working under such conditions. This is a problem for male directors as well, of course, but as we've established, many of them are getting through where as the women aren't.

Think of some of the great off-Hollywood male auteurs at the moment. PTA, Wes Andersen, Tarantino, the Coens. They are all working with middle size budgets with almost total creative freedom. It's very hard to enact a trailblazing vision with a few million dollars and 2-3 week production schedule.
Despite this, as johnny_ultimate's list shows, many female auteurs are doing great work with very little resources, but it's difficult, and it's not fair to compare them to great male directors who have or had a lot more resources at their

Wouldn't those male directors you highlight point to another factor too, while they started out making low to mid budget films they were making films with mainstream appeal with a certain twist to them, a lot of female directors seem to be rooted firmly in the art house scene that no matter quality or gender perception will never have mainstream influence (unless they manage to attract controversy).

I'm sure there probably is barriers to women becoming mainstream successful directors, it's an example of the apex fallacy though, there is clearly massive nepotism going on in Hollywood that works to exclude the vast majority of men too that aren't part of a very narrow group of people, Hollywood is as far from a meritocracy as one can get.

Does the gender of the director make much difference to the viewers?I would guess the themes are far more important, I would hazard the hurt locker and zero dark thirty had a lot more male viewers.

santana75

Another good article on male v female risk taking.........

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/culture-teaches-girls-more-afraid-than-boys

Personally I dont care who directs a film, if its good its good, end of story. Personally I dont think the lack of female directors is down to sexism or conspiracies, its down to differences in how men and women are raised. That fire fighters story is remarkable in how it clearly shows the effect of conditioning. It doesnt seem to be inherent or genetic, but simply down to the messages we're given when we're very impressionable. Dan fury tells a great story in his book theater of the Mind, of a friend of his who raised his daughter in a non conventional way. Anytime she fell over he wouldnt run to pick her up, Instead he would be there for her as a presence but would encourage her to pick herself up and dust herself off. And years later as a basketball player, when she was knocked to the floor, instead of crying or looking for attention, she would just bounce straight back up and go at it all again. She was quickly made captain of the team and won player of the year. She went on to play professionally and was the star player. I think if girls were raised to believe they can become anything they wanted while not overly protecting them, allowing them to develop toughness and persistence, then there'd be a lot more female directors.

Jimmy Garlic

There is a huge gender imbalance in the bin collection industry, this should be addressed too. Fishing is another one, mostly men. Funny how there are never any calls gender balance when it comes to dirty and/or dangerous jobs.