Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Golden Globe Nominees
-
03-02-2021 3:34pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,014 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28721
Deleted User wrote: »
The other things about women winning best director, is it takes strong dominant personalities to direct major films. I had this conversation with a female director recently. She said it didnt come naturally to her to push people around verbally which she felt she had to do, and that this was more suited to males who had more forceful personalities.
I've seen more than enough masterpieces by female directors to suggest a straw poll of one unnamed woman director is perhaps insufficient to capture the entire complexity of this issue
As much as society tries to tell us were are all homogenous milk cartons, men and women are different and are drawn to different roles and professions in life. Of course there are many exceptions. And of course like the guy in google who got thrown out for suggesting this in the world of computer programming its not acceptable talk. But in my opinion its a big part of the reason there has not been more female winners.
More than enough 'exceptions' to render the entire premise moot, frankly. I don't need any pseudo-scientific theorising about how women don't have dominant enough personalities to be great directors when I've seen dozens of great Agnes Varda, Celine Sciamma, Kelly Reichardt, Claire Denis, Chantal Akerman, Elaine May, Greta Gerwig, Lucrecia Martel, Ida Lupino, Sarah Polley, Lynne Ramsey, Maren Ade, Mati Diop, Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion etc etc... films. Hell, most of my absolute favourite films last year alone - Never Rarely Sometimes Always, First Cow, Time, Dick Johnson is Dead, House of Hummingbird, Saint Maud, Babyteeth etc... - were directed by women, and if anything I think the pool of films that awards are pulling from so far is rather narrow given the remarkable quality on display. To be honest, even within the pool of prominent male directors I'd say the types of personality and directorial approaches varies massively enough to make any attempt to psychologically lump them together an utterly futile exercise. Far from homogeneity, I think the sheer variety of types of directors out there is what makes cinema so wonderful and vast.
But not to lay all the blame at the feet of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association or anything like that. I think the industry, critics and audiences have often been slow off the mark to give great women directors the respect, accolades and indeed gigs regularly afforded to other, far lesser filmmakers. Agnes Varda - one of the most significant voices in all of cinema history - only seemed to get full recognition in the last years of her life, when her male contemporaries were widely celebrated far, far earlier. And then there's the fact that Hollywood itself often hasn't afforded women directors the same opportunities on a systemic basis for a long time. But thankfully it's an imbalance we're gradually seeing course-corrected.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
johnny_ultimate wrote: »I've seen more than enough masterpieces by female directors to suggest a straw poll of one unnamed woman director is perhaps insufficient to capture the entire complexity of this issue
More than enough 'exceptions' to render the entire premise moot, frankly. I don't need any pseudo-scientific theorising about how women don't have dominant enough personalities to be great directors when I've seen dozens of great Agnes Varda, Celine Sciamma, Kelly Reichardt, Claire Denis, Chantal Akerman, Elaine May, Greta Gerwig, Lucrecia Martel, Ida Lupino, Sarah Polley, Lynne Ramsey, Maren Ade, Mati Diop, Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion etc etc... films. Hell, most of my absolute favourite films last year alone - Never Rarely Sometimes Always, First Cow, Time, Dick Johnson is Dead, House of Hummingbird, Saint Maud, Babyteeth etc... - were directed by women, and if anything I think the pool of films that awards are pulling from so far is rather narrow given the remarkable quality on display. To be honest, even within the pool of prominent male directors I'd say the types of personality and directorial approaches varies massively enough to make any attempt to psychologically lump them together an utterly futile exercise. Far from homogeneity, I think the sheer variety of types of directors out there is what makes cinema so wonderful and vast.
Her opinion is indeed insufficient, but this conversation was a couple of weeks ago and I found it a new and interesting perspective I hadn't considered before, and I felt like it made sense.
The thing about your argument above is that I have heard of 3 of those women, and I would consider myself pretty knowledgable about film. And I watched first cow (which for the first 40 mins was mind numbingly boring), its a small arthouse film, which I might add are the ones that usually fill out the back and forth discussions I have with you through the years
Talking about big productions like putting these women in charge of the likes of Gary Busey and Patrick Swazye and I think this is something that requires or at least required very strong personalities, and probably an aggressive one. The likes of Kathryn Bigalow have been few and far between.
Saying all of that society is changing now, and women will and are finding it easier to make films, because men have to stay in check and can't get away with lets say 'masculine' behaviour of the past.
Its just a pity for womens sake that mainstream film itself is on a ventilator at the moment.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34601
This came up in the sexual assault thread; 90% of film productions pass with neither incident nor ego, yet there's this persistent myth that somehow it's a fact of existence one must coral and cope with gigantic ássholes on-set; where we speak in euphemisms of being "mercurial" or "auteurs" to forgive the Brandos or Kubricks of toxic, hostile behaviour. Behaviour that'd be unacceptable in other environments. And so the contention is that women couldn't possibly deal with this? Maybe, maybe not - it's hubris to presume that I'd know the mindset of men or women in general - but maybe the overall point really should be .. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO.
There are plenty of female managers in plenty of offices across the land that tick along, and I daresay anyone who tries to be an "auteur" in a department's team would soon find themselves in HR, explaining their actions. Yet here we are again, talking up directing & Hollywood like it's some mystical realm that only the bravest, boldest warriors of spirit can enter.
Nope, not buying it. The only difference with a film-set is one of scale, and as such, that increased pressure and importance for collaboration. A lot of very niche roles playing their part to produce a piece of art-media. For me, the pattern and median here is a productive and collaborative industry - not an argumentative or disruptive one. Like I said, there are THOUSANDS of productions a year, and like everything else in life, the news never, ever reads "dog bites man; everything's normal"
And if we're talking Big Productions and a poverty of female directors, then both Captain Marvel and the Wonder Woman films act as useful bellwethers towards the notion that, hey, a blockbuster is possible without nursemaiding egos - yet still huge commercial successes. Well, it's unclear what "success" constitutes with Wonder Woman '84, but Captain Marvel made 1+ billion dollars (albeit co-helmed if we're getting pedantic) without a sweat or actors who are "trouble" to work with.
To nod towards the other thread again, I'm unsure how I feel these days about the likes of Stanley Kubrick - or even a personal fave like David Fincher - whose work will outlive us all yet was an ogre to actors who wouldn't gel. It's the likes of Kubrick that have allowed this waffle of Auteur Theory to persist into the modern-day; that film production is some exception to the rule of every other workplace.
To quote Boards.ie itself: Don't Be a Dick ... unless you're a director or actor, then it's OK? Like I said, nope 0 -
-
This came up in the sexual assault thread; 90% of film productions pass with neither incident nor ego, yet there's this persistent myth that somehow it's a fact of existence one must coral and cope with gigantic ássholes on-set; where we speak in euphemisms of being "mercurial" or "auteurs" to forgive the Brandos or Kubricks of toxic, hostile behaviour. Behaviour that'd be unacceptable in other environments. And so the contention is that women couldn't possibly deal with this? Maybe, maybe not - it's hubris to presume that I'd know the mindset of men or women in general - but maybe the overall point really should be .. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO.
There are plenty of female managers in plenty of offices across the land that tick along, and I daresay anyone who tries to be an "auteur" in a department's team would soon find themselves in HR, explaining their actions. Yet here we are again, talking up directing & Hollywood like it's some mystical realm that only the bravest, boldest warriors of spirit can enter.
Nope, not buying it. The only difference with a film-set is one of scale, and as such, that increased pressure and importance for collaboration. A lot of very niche roles playing their part to produce a piece of art-media. For me, the pattern and median here is a productive and collaborative industry - not an argumentative or disruptive one. Like I said, there are THOUSANDS of productions a year, and like everything else in life, the news never, ever reads "dog bites man; everything's normal"
And if we're talking Big Productions and a poverty of female directors, then both Captain Marvel and the Wonder Woman films act as useful bellwethers towards the notion that, hey, a blockbuster is possible without nursemaiding egos - yet still huge commercial successes. Well, it's unclear what "success" constitutes with Wonder Woman '84, but Captain Marvel made 1+ billion dollars (albeit co-helmed if we're getting pedantic) without a sweat or actors who are "trouble" to work with.
To nod towards the other thread again, I'm unsure how I feel these days about the likes of Stanley Kubrick - or even a personal fave like David Fincher - whose work will outlive us all yet was an ogre to actors who wouldn't gel. It's the likes of Kubrick that have allowed this waffle of Auteur Theory to persist into the modern-day; that film production is some exception to the rule of every other workplace.
To quote Boards.ie itself: Don't Be a Dick ... unless you're a director or actor, then it's OK? Like I said, nope
In the realm of movie making I think there is a very long list of aggressive and infamously difficult directors who pushed people beyond what's acceptable in today's world, and would end careers in the corporate world immediately.
Olive Stone bullied JLo into her sex scene in U Turn. Lars Von Trier notoriously aggressive, Michael Bay, Hitchcock, Kurisawa, Cameron, Friedkin, Herzog....the list of infamous aggressive directors with tales of being horrible to actors to get their best work goes on and on.
I don't think its a coincidence that to manage such ego's as you get with actors and produce some of the greatest works of screen history directors were needed who by all reports were complete assholes on set. This whether socially acceptable or not was the cocktail for some of the greatest acting performances ever. I remember Joe Pesci talking about Stone saying he was a complete asshole, a nasty guy but that he brought out his best work.
I really don't think this stuff is a myth when it comes to film making. Not to say you can't produce a masterpiece being a kind understated likeable director, but there is plenty to show throughout history the opposite is very effective.
And does that sort of personality come more naturally to men? I would say it does.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34601
Deleted User wrote: »[...]
I really don't think this stuff is a myth when it comes to film making. Not to say you can't produce a masterpiece being a kind understated likeable director, but there is plenty to show throughout history the opposite is very effective.
And does that sort of personality come more naturally to men? I would say it does.
My contention was not that the behaviour itself was a myth, but that it is a necessary component of the creative process. As said, the vast, vast majority of TV and film productions do not need to contend with inflated egos or Marlon Brandos, and it is often mere fashion that dictates masterpieces of their day. And while there's a list of great actors pushed by aggressive directors, there's also a list of those almost destroyed by that aggression; be it the likes of Tippi Hedren, Shelly Duvall or Jake Gyllenhaal. It makes for cute stories - like when Friedkin slapped a priest during The Exorcist's shooting, to get a "better" performance - but I don't buy the idea they are a Necessary Evil either.
The "so it goes" excuse just feels empty, a slippery slope; and in any case, all history shows us is inertia towards any kind of attempt to downplay the power Stars - be they directorial or acting - were given on-set. In fact, maybe that's one of the few structural benefits the MCU has introduced: the proof that you don't need giant, overpaid stars (Downey Jr's paycheque notwithstanding) to push a movie into the limelight; that if the IP or idea itself is good enough, the rest follows. And because of that, suddenly it feels like the atmosphere to indulge a Brando doesn't exist to the same extent as it did. Could "The Island of Dr. Moreau" happen again in today's Hollywood? Probably not, and we might have got a better film too.
To get analogous: the pyramids were built off tens of thousands of broken backs, and while the end-result remains astonishing to this day, it doesn't mean construction still requires whips & slaves to happen, or that architecture only peaked because of it. Or indeed, negate our ability to appreciate the Good with the Bad. Things change, art changes; Hollywood is one of the slowest industries to trend towards progress but it's getting there.
Maybe you should ask your female director friend to sign up, 'cos I'd be interested to get her unfiltered opinion rather than second-hand via yourself. Given the last time we spoke you humblebragged your Playa status
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
My contention was not that the behaviour itself was a myth, but that it is a necessary component of the creative process. As said, the vast, vast majority of TV and film productions do not need to contend with inflated egos or Marlon Brandos, and it is often mere fashion that dictates masterpieces of their day. And while there's a list of great actors pushed by aggressive directors, there's also a list of those almost destroyed by that aggression; be it the likes of Tippi Hedren, Shelly Duvall or Jake Gyllenhaal. It makes for cute stories - like when Friedkin slapped a priest during The Exorcist's shooting, to get a "better" performance - but I don't buy the idea they are a Necessary Evil either.
The "so it goes" excuse just feels empty, a slippery slope; and in any case, all history shows us is inertia towards any kind of attempt to downplay the power Stars - be they directorial or acting - were given on-set. In fact, maybe that's one of the few structural benefits the MCU has introduced: the proof that you don't need giant, overpaid stars (Downey Jr's paycheque notwithstanding) to push a movie into the limelight; that if the IP or idea itself is good enough, the rest follows. And because of that, suddenly it feels like the atmosphere to indulge a Brando doesn't exist to the same extent as it did. Could "The Island of Dr. Moreau" happen again in today's Hollywood? Probably not, and we might have got a better film too.
To get analogous: the pyramids were built off tens of thousands of broken backs, and while the end-result remains astonishing to this day, it doesn't mean construction still requires whips & slaves to happen, or that architecture only peaked because of it. Or indeed, negate our ability to appreciate the Good with the Bad. Things change, art changes; Hollywood is one of the slowest industries to trend towards progress but it's getting there.
Maybe you should ask your female director friend to sign up, 'cos I'd be interested to get her unfiltered opinion rather than second-hand via yourself. Given the last time we spoke you humblebragged your Playa status
the Pyramids being built by slaves is a myth and ironically enough propagated by Hollywood films. A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34601
silverharp wrote: »the Pyramids being built by slaves is a myth and ironically enough propagated by Hollywood films.
AFAIK they were slave adjacent? Not fully in the sense of how we think of slaves ordinarily but more like the "slaves" currently working in the UAE and Qater ATM?
As an aside, I did read that to Cleopatra, the Pyramids were already as old to her (~2000 years), as she would be now to us (~2000 years). That's kind of insane.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
My contention was not that the behaviour itself was a myth, but that it is a necessary component of the creative process. As said, the vast, vast majority of TV and film productions do not need to contend with inflated egos or Marlon Brandos, and it is often mere fashion that dictates masterpieces of their day. And while there's a list of great actors pushed by aggressive directors, there's also a list of those almost destroyed by that aggression; be it the likes of Tippi Hedren, Shelly Duvall or Jake Gyllenhaal. It makes for cute stories - like when Friedkin slapped a priest during The Exorcist's shooting, to get a "better" performance - but I don't buy the idea they are a Necessary Evil either.
The "so it goes" excuse just feels empty, a slippery slope; and in any case, all history shows us is inertia towards any kind of attempt to downplay the power Stars - be they directorial or acting - were given on-set. In fact, maybe that's one of the few structural benefits the MCU has introduced: the proof that you don't need giant, overpaid stars (Downey Jr's paycheque notwithstanding) to push a movie into the limelight; that if the IP or idea itself is good enough, the rest follows. And because of that, suddenly it feels like the atmosphere to indulge a Brando doesn't exist to the same extent as it did. Could "The Island of Dr. Moreau" happen again in today's Hollywood? Probably not, and we might have got a better film too.
To get analogous: the pyramids were built off tens of thousands of broken backs, and while the end-result remains astonishing to this day, it doesn't mean construction still requires whips & slaves to happen, or that architecture only peaked because of it. Or indeed, negate our ability to appreciate the Good with the Bad. Things change, art changes; Hollywood is one of the slowest industries to trend towards progress but it's getting there.
I'll give you that, its is not a requirement at all. Much of my all time favourite productions are TV Drama's which often have a long list of jobbing directors who could be switched out.
But I am someone who appreciates the mavericks and flawed characters of the world, always have since I was a small kid. I think it can create amazing art across all forms. It can also hurt a lot of people and so these mavericks have to suffer the consquences of their behaviour too. Stone has always been my favourite director and he has done some fairly questionable stuff indeed, it surprises me a lot he has not been called out much.
Even with platoon where he made the actors live in the jungle before weeks of filming so they all hated him and each other, by the time the action rolled. It created a masterpiece that I believe would not have been nearly as effective if he didn't bully them into it. The last scene when Sheen is airlifted in the copter Stone is actually sitting opposite him and tells him you are actually going home for real, and he totally breaks down in relief after the horrors of the previous months. This is the kind of thing that the ego maniac horrible director can create, through lets say unfair practices and manipulating actors to me is a snapshot of the art for the annals of history and time.
If I look at all my heroes growing up they were all controversial, do whatever they want kind of people, and they all succeeded and suffered because of it.
This to me is a far more fascinating world to live in then everybody being nice and meeting social codes. Of course its a much more brutal world, and a more brutal film industry and maybe if I was female my hero's would have been the women that rallied against such things.Maybe you should ask your female director friend to sign up, 'cos I'd be interested to get her unfiltered opinion rather than second-hand via yourself. Given the last time we spoke you humblebragged your Playa status
Unfortunately this relationship didn't last after she said Incendies was ten times more powerful then Salvador 0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 10360
I think there is a bit of cargo-cultism about Arsehole Directors, as though "director X was a notoriously abusive arsehole to his cast" and "Director X got a career-best performance out of Actor Y in film Z" are clearly causally linked rather than being two facts that describe some, but not all, of the circumstance. As others have said, plenty of films are made by affable collaborative directors, but that doesn't fit the cult-of-personality, individual-exceptionalism bollox that permeates so much of contemporary Western culture.
My gut feel is that arseholery is not only not a requirement for good filmmaking but likely gets in the way more often than not. A few high profile examples of films which also turned out to be very good should be viewed as great performances from actors lumbered with a colossal bollix of a director, rather than achievements of said bollix director. The Shining is a good film, but I would rather have a version where Shelley Duvall wasn't traumatized by Kubrick during its production.
I also feel the conversation isn't helped by suggesting that the sexes have innate traits, rather than cultures having conventions with variable degrees of strictness about what behaviours are "masculine" or "feminine". But we're already decrying wokeness in this thread so perhaps I shouldn't poke that particular bear
0 -
-
-
-
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement