XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => News and Theory => Topic started by: ©brad on January 23, 2003, 11:13:37 AM

Title: Female Filmmakers
Post by: ©brad on January 23, 2003, 11:13:37 AM
Few and far between, but they do exist. Favorites?

I think Sally Potter is a fantastic filmmaker. If anyone hasn't seen Orlando which came out in 1992 I definetly reccomend it. She is definetly more experimental. One of her first student films, she set up two cameras and filmed this baby crawling on a sidewalk. The film is viewed on two projection screens, and you watch the baby crawl from one side of the screen and reappear on the other screen. It's cool shit.

Jane Campion is a great filmmaker. The Piano is a great film. She's doing a new movie with Meg Ryan, sexual in content of course. The Portrait of a Lady was disappointing though...

Can't wait to see what Mary Harron does next. I don't think she has gotten the recognition or press that she deserves. American Psycho was so well done.

Any others?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 23, 2003, 11:33:16 AM
Julie Taymor. Frida was good, but Titus was amazing.

Also... Mary Harron, Kasi Lemmons, Sofia Coppola.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Duck Sauce on January 23, 2003, 01:22:50 PM
You got to be kidding me? Whats next? Women in the military? Women SENATORS!? phhh

(and a  :wink:  for all those who have no kidding-radar)


What is Sofia Coppolas new one about anyway?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Satcho9 on January 23, 2003, 02:54:13 PM
Mary Harron (sic?) did a great job with American Psycho
Title: Women Directors
Post by: RegularKarate on January 23, 2003, 03:20:33 PM
Quote from: cbrad4d


Can't wait to see what Mary Harron does next. I don't think she has gotten the recognition or press that she deserves. American Psycho was so well done.


Quote from: Jeremy Blackman


Also... Mary Harron


Quote from: Satcho9
Mary Harron (sic?) did a great job with American Psycho


shame on all of you... that movie was slightly humorous at best
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 23, 2003, 03:34:56 PM
agreed with RK.

I have a fondness for Sofia Coppola myself. With the Virgin Suicides, she made a film in which she had a good beginning understanding on how to really approach a subject. I heard that the movie, before, had many men who were going to write and direct it but Sofia came along and focused more on the atmoshpere created by the suicides, instead of what the men were going to do, and that was focus on the act of the suicides itself.

~rougerum
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Cecil on January 23, 2003, 07:12:19 PM
american psycho was fucking good. so was i shot andy warhol.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: BonBon85 on January 23, 2003, 08:47:58 PM
Jill Sprecher directed Clockwatchers and Thirteen Conversations About One Thing. Lynne Ramsay's another that shows promise.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Xixax on January 23, 2003, 08:49:08 PM
Oh, man. Clockwatchers! Yes!

What a great cast, too!
Title: Women Directors
Post by: BonBon85 on January 23, 2003, 08:49:46 PM
Yet another random double post...sorry again, I don't know what's going on. Anyone know how to delete 'em?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Xixax on January 23, 2003, 09:30:01 PM
Oh, man. Clockwatchers! Yes!

What a great cast, too!

(I think there's an echo in here)
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 25, 2003, 12:31:13 PM
Quote from: BonBon85
Anyone know how to delete 'em?


A little (http://www.xixax.com/templates/Xixax/images/icon_delete.gif) should appear in the upper right corner of your posts.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: bonanzataz on January 26, 2003, 10:34:36 PM
Mary Harron's new movie starts shooting this coming summer. It's a slight possibility that I'm getting an internship for it.

That was my brag post. I believe I'm entitled to at least one.

Anyway, Karyn Kusama, director of Girlfight, is pretty good.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: ksmc on January 29, 2003, 12:06:11 AM
Nancy Savoca, who directed Dogfight and Household Sains--both of which I love.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: budgie on February 02, 2003, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate

Quote from: Satcho9
Mary Harron (sic?) did a great job with American Psycho


shame on all of you... that movie was slightly humorous at best


Bloody right.

And I saw Eve's Bayou with great eagerness... oh, for fuck's sake... it makes me cringe when women make such bilge.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Rudie Obias on February 02, 2003, 05:03:34 PM
i really like sofia coppola and jamie babbit.

*rudie*
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Tommy Both on February 03, 2003, 03:40:43 PM
Quote

Lynne Ramsay


Did anyone see Ratcatcher?

supposed to be pretty good..
Title: Women Directors
Post by: soixante on February 10, 2003, 11:23:38 PM
How about Kimberly Peirce, who directed Boys Don't Cry, featuring great performances by Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny.  And Alison Maclean, who directed Jesus' Son, featuring great work by Billy Crudup and Samantha Morton.  Virgin Suicides by Sofia Coppola was cool, too.  Jane Campion always makes good films.  There needs to be more opportunities for women to direct features -- after all, three major studios are run by women.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: ©brad on February 14, 2003, 10:18:26 AM
I would like to say "just give it some time" for women's directors but I'm not so sure what's going to happen. Many female directors usually start out in comedies (Amy Heckerling, Penelope Spheeris).
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on February 25, 2003, 01:22:50 AM
Daniel Day-Lewis in Wife's "Rose and the Snake"

Oscar-nominated for Gangs of New York, Daniel Day-Lewis will next star in "Rose and the Snake." Variety reports the film was co-written and will be directed by "Personal Velocity" helmer Rebecca Miller at IFC Films. Production begins this summer.

Day-Lewis will portray the father of a 16-year-old daughter, Rose. They live on an abandoned commune on an island off the northwest coast of Canada, where he has tried to shield her from the modern world. However, when he brings a lover and her two sons to live with them, Rose undergoes a sexual awakening with liberating and devastating consequences.

Day-Lewis is married to Miller. "Rose" will be the couple's first collaboration on a film.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: ©brad on February 25, 2003, 01:01:50 PM
that actually sounds pretty interesting.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: moonshiner on February 25, 2003, 01:23:12 PM
Jesus' Son was a very good movie...very indie, Jack Black stole every scene he was in...Dennis Hopper cameo, what more could you want.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: phil marlowe on February 25, 2003, 01:26:20 PM
Nice to see Day-Lewis back in the movies.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: ©brad on February 25, 2003, 01:43:53 PM
Not so sure how long he will hang around though. he has said in many interviews that he really hates the process of making movies. He doesn't enjoy it, hence his 5 year hiatus before Gangs. He did Gangs just to work with Scorsese again, but even then, he doesn't get much from making movies- so he says. Maybe he's only doing this one b/c of his wife?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: bonanzataz on February 25, 2003, 03:34:53 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Daniel Day-Lewis in Wife's "Rose and the Snake"

Oscar-nominated for Gangs of New York, Daniel Day-Lewis will next star in "Rose and the Snake." Variety reports the film was co-written and will be directed by "Personal Velocity" helmer Rebecca Miller at IFC Films. Production begins this summer.

Day-Lewis will portray the father of a 16-year-old daughter, Rose. They live on an abandoned commune on an island off the northwest coast of Canada, where he has tried to shield her from the modern world. However, when he brings a lover and her two sons to live with them, Rose undergoes a sexual awakening with liberating and devastating consequences.

Day-Lewis is married to Miller. "Rose" will be the couple's first collaboration on a film.


HOLY SHIT! This is the movie I'm working on over the summer! This is the first thing I've heard about it, other than it stars Day-Lewis.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on March 07, 2003, 01:57:43 AM
Quote from: bonanzataz
HOLY SHIT! This is the movie I'm working on over the summer! This is the first thing I've heard about it, other than it stars Day-Lewis.


More info for you, bon:

Keener in Day-Lewis' Rose and the Snake

Catherine Keener will star opposite Daniel Day-Lewis in IFC Films' Rose and the Snake for writer-director Rebecca Miller.

The film sees Day-Lewis star as a dying, widowed father to a 16-year-old girl named Rose. They live on an abandoned commune, where Rose has been largely sheltered from the world. When the father's new love, a single mom named Kathleen (Keener), and her two teenage boys come to live with them, Rose undergoes a sexual awakening with both liberating and devastating consequences.

The Hollywood Reporter says production begins in the summer.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Ghostboy on March 07, 2003, 09:41:03 AM
A lot of these female directors get to work so infrequently. Kimberly Pierce has yet to follow up Boys Don't Cry, although she's been attached to several projects. Same with Karyn Kusama. Nicole Holofcener FINALLY came out with something new this past summer (Lovely And Amazing). Same with Lisa Chodelenko (High Art).

But there are also girls like Nancy Meyers, or what's her name who directed Crossroads, who work in Hollywood and come out with stuff pretty frequently.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: jmj on March 07, 2003, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Julie Taymor. Frida was good, but Titus was amazing.


Fucking A, Bro.  Titus was incredible...great DVD too.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on March 07, 2003, 12:11:31 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
Same with Lisa Chodelenko (High Art).


High Art was a great movie. Wish that was on DVD. Patricia Clarkson, Ally Sheedy and Radha Mitchell were all superb.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: bonanzataz on March 07, 2003, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
what's her name who directed Crossroads


Tamra Davis. She's married to Mike D of the Beastie Boys.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: bonanzataz on March 19, 2003, 09:50:40 PM
i was sitting down on the couch today in silence, and I start singing to myself - "She was born, to love that boy, I guess that she was born, to love that boy!!" I realize that was from Grace of My Heart which was an excellent movie directed by Allison Anders. I haven't heard from her since. iMDB says she did some eps of Sex and the City and this movie called Things Behind the Sun which I've never heard of. Apparently Don Cheadle, Eric Stoltz, Elizabeth Pena and Rosanna Arquette were in it. Was it any good? Has anybody here even seen Grace of My Heart?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on April 06, 2003, 11:40:35 PM
taz, you still gonna work on this? More info for ya.

Camilla Belle Starring in Rose and the Snake

Camilla Belle (The Lost World: Jurassic Park, The Patriot) is in negotiations to star opposite Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role of IFC Films' Rose and the Snake for writer-director Rebecca Miller. Paul Dano (The Emperor's Club) also will star in the film, with Beau Bridges making an appearance in a small but pivotal role. The Hollywood Reporter says that production begins in the summer with Catherine Keener also starring.

The project sees Day-Lewis star as a dying, widowed father of a 16-year-old girl named Rose (Belle). They live on an abandoned commune, where Rose has been sheltered from the world. When the father's new love, a single mom named Kathleen (Keener), and her two teenage boys, come to live with them, Rose undergoes a sexual awakening with both liberating and devastating consequences.

Dano plays the sexually charged Thadius, the elder of the two boys, who immediately sets his sights on Rose. Bridges plays Marty Rance, a real estate developer interested in buying the commune from the father.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: bonanzataz on April 07, 2003, 12:59:31 PM
damn, sounds exciting. i'm meeting with the producer on thursday to find out what the hell i'll be doing. thanks mac.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: aclockworkjj on April 07, 2003, 08:16:34 PM
#1 Way to ensure you won't be getting any after taking your liady out to dinner and a movie.....

Take her to see a Jane Campian film.....you'll be on the couch fo sho!!
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Pwaybloe on April 08, 2003, 09:56:08 AM
Heh heh.  Really?  She does seem to put an obligatory & frank sex scene in all her movies I've seen.  Does it bother your lady-friend?

I keep on thinking of "Holy Smoke" when Harvey Keitel is pounding on Kate Winslet and she yells, "Don't cum!"
Title: Women Directors
Post by: bonanzataz on April 08, 2003, 09:28:08 PM
:shock:
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Derek on April 08, 2003, 09:32:57 PM
Kathryn Bigelow. Point Break was Bad ASS.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Raikus on April 10, 2003, 01:04:01 PM
Quote from: budgie
Haven't see Titus... is it visually strong?


Titus is about as eye candy as they come. That movie is just amazing.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on April 10, 2003, 01:44:03 PM
Quote from: budgie
I remember Guffy joking (maybe, who knows with him?) that it should have been the Diego Rivera story... quite.


For that particular review of that movie, that was no joke. I still believe that.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 10, 2003, 02:01:24 PM
Quote from: budgie
I saw Frida and thought it was a bad screenplay saved by Taymor's direction. A strong visual sense at last . . . Haven't see Titus... is it visually strong?


Titus is one of my favorite movies, and I have almost no affection for Frida. What I was looking for in Frida were the wild abstract things that were just kind of sprinkled, and I agree should have dominated. I thought the movie was good enough, but not anything like Titus. That movie is three hours of visual greatness, which makes it more than that, and I think you'll like it. Think Romeo + Juliet, but better.

edit: AHHHHHH!  I'M SORRY BUDGIE, I DELETED YOUR POST! how did that happen? ahhhhhhhh
Title: Women Directors
Post by: rustinglass on April 10, 2003, 02:49:34 PM
Teresa Villaverde is one of the best women directors. Did anyone here ever see her films?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Derek on April 10, 2003, 02:50:40 PM
John Waters
Title: Women Directors
Post by: eward on April 10, 2003, 04:25:12 PM
jill sprecher and julie taymor.  undoubtedly.  kimberly peirce shows alot of promise...........
Title: Women Directors
Post by: budgie on April 11, 2003, 06:55:12 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

edit: AHHHHHH!  I'M SORRY BUDGIE, I DELETED YOUR POST! how did that happen? ahhhhhhhh


C'est la vie. It's all in my mind. Butter fingers.

Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: budgie
I remember Guffy joking (maybe, who knows with him?) that it should have been the Diego Rivera story... quite.


For that particular review of that movie, that was no joke. I still believe that.


Will you honor me with your take?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on April 11, 2003, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: budgie
Will you honor me with your take?


Anything for you.

Starting with Salma, I never really saw her get into character. The role demanded more than just adding more hair across her brow. (How was that nominated for Best Make-Up in the first place, let alone win?) And, like I stated, I felt I learned more about Diego at the end of the film, than Frida. The script was weak, never really giving Frida stand out scenes to help Salma with the problem I started this review with. It felt like a string of scenes showing what Diego has done and assume you should react like Frida would instead of letting us see how she did. So when she does finally talk back to him, I felt no empathy because I felt I never really knew her emotional pain, only the physical. I did like the fantasies in the paintings imagery to relate her feelings, but we never see her paint; a great opportunity she show what I felt was missing (done perfectly in "Life Lessons," Scorsese's segment in "New York Stories").
Title: Women Directors
Post by: EL__SCORCHO on April 16, 2003, 05:06:52 PM
I like Lisa Cholodenko's "High Art" but haven't seen "Laurel Canyon", has anyone?
Title: Women Directors
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on April 16, 2003, 05:15:58 PM
i like tamra davis , i think she needs better material and by that i do not mean stuffy art films. Like for example i love cb4 , she could be like a john landis someone who makes great comedys .
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Sigur Rós on April 16, 2003, 06:47:44 PM
Lone Scherfig is great. Check out "Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself".
Title: Women Directors
Post by: godardian on May 08, 2003, 05:14:06 PM
I saw Laurel Canyon and enjoyed it thoroughly until the last 5 minutes. Frances McDormand is amazing- sexy, funny, sad- throughout. It just wimps out a little at the very end, I think. Gets too cutesy and sentimental. Very worth seeing, though.

Did anyone see Morvern Callar, directed by Lynne Ramsay, who did the great Ratcatcher, which I think is one of the most sorely overrated movies of the past few years?

Other women directors I like: Mary Harron, Jill Sprecher, Agnes Varda...
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Pedro on May 25, 2003, 11:21:36 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
i think i am completely prejudiced,  but just as a rule of thumb i dont like movies directed by women.  offhand i can only think of one that i love, VIRGIN SUICIDES.  it just seems to me that their POV a lot of times is just something naive or something i cannot relate to at all.  (see TAO OF STEVE for an example of this).  perhaps the same thing that bugs people about spielberg, bugs me about a lot of women directors.  they seem to romanticize things and make them a little too tidy for my taste.  MIMI LEDER really bugs me too.  maybe i am just missing out on the "good" women directors, but in my experience i dont like em.

Well, even though you may think that this a bit too rough on the study of the male psyche, try American Psycho on for size.  See if that's too pretty for you.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Cory Everett on May 25, 2003, 01:16:04 PM
yeah, you're right. i did like American Psycho. i didnt LOVE it, but i liked it.  actually having a woman direct that was an interesting choice that sort of worked.  but there are exceptions of course.  but just usually.  like out of my dvd and vhs collection i think i maybe have 2 movies directed by women?  and 3 hundred some by men.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: godardian on May 25, 2003, 01:30:54 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
yeah, you're right. i did like American Psycho. i didnt LOVE it, but i liked it.  actually having a woman direct that was an interesting choice that sort of worked.  but there are exceptions of course.  but just usually.  like out of my dvd and vhs collection i think i maybe have 2 movies directed by women?  and 3 hundred some by men.


That just about reflects the proportion of opportunies for men directors as opposed to women...

The movie biz- even the indie-movie biz- is a boy's club. Sure, there are shitty movies made by women... but given the sheer number of movies made by men, there are far, far more shitty movies directed by men.

I think the real problem is that there are so damn few women directors, they need their own special category. The situation won't really be fair until it's so commonplace that we can judge the films without noticing the unusual gender of the person who made it.

Mary Harron is a very fine director, though. As are Claire Denis and Catherine Breillat... as is Lynn Ramsey... as are many of the ever-growing handful of women directors.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Cory Everett on May 25, 2003, 01:34:39 PM
The movie biz- even the indie-movie biz- is a boy's club. Sure, there are shitty movies made by women... but given the sheer number of movies made by men, there are far, far more shitty movies directed by men.

true.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: BonBon85 on May 25, 2003, 05:37:23 PM
I think that the problem with a lot of female directors is that they only make "women's movies". The reason why the Virgin Suicides is great is because although it presents many female characters the film isn't excessively romantic or sentimental like your usual "chick flick". The movie can be enjoyed by both men and women. Chick flicks often make the assumption that women are all more sentimental than men, and perhaps, in turn, more one-dimensional than men, which is certainly untrue. I really hope to see some growth in women directors who make films that aren't specifically geared towards women but to a wider audience as well.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: children with angels on May 25, 2003, 05:48:54 PM
I think that comes partly from - as Goddardian said - the minimal amount of material that gets offered to female directors: narrow-minded studios will only consider a female director suitable for a 'women's movie'. Another way to look at it would be to say that women get so few chances to make movies - therefore few chances to express themselves in their chosen medium - that when they do the chance they think "fuck it: I'm gonna make something personal to me": which may more often than not end up in what we men class a 'women's movie'.

And it's self-perpetuating. Because women are backed into this corner where they are gonna make female-driven movies, studio execs aren't going to consider them for more general (for 'general' read 'male-driven') storylines because they think "she can't direct that: she'll only make it into a fuckin' women's movie".
Title: Women Directors
Post by: sexterossa on May 25, 2003, 09:44:11 PM
i really like Jodies Foster's LITTLE MAN TATE. its like if jeremy blackman's scenes in magnolia were a full length movie.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: godardian on May 26, 2003, 01:14:41 AM
Quote from: sexterossa
i really like Jodies Foster's LITTLE MAN TATE. its like if jeremy blackman's scenes in magnolia were a full length movie.


And Home for the Holidays, despite how much I thought I was going to hate it (the TV ads made it look really annoying), is one I bought right away on DVD. It's not GREAT-great, but it's very enjoyable, humorous, a nice little gem. Foster is a more than competent director, judging from what I've seen (haven't seen Altar Boys yet).

It is, as BonBon stated above, a challenge not to marginalize yourself by preaching to the converted or making something "typical."

Even worse than sappy female-bonding "women's pictures," though, are gay directors. As far as that goes, you have pretty much Gus van Sant, Todd Haynes, and Rose Troche. Most of the rest is unadulterated ghettoization. That's quite a different story, however; some of Hollywood's best and most prominent directors were gay (though this is something we know now and was never discussed in the old days) while, because of exclusion, women didn't even figure in the equation.

But I'd rather sit through 24 Hour Woman (a picture I didn't care for at all, and one I thought typified the way a woman director could go wrong) ten times than have to endure Jeffrey or Trick ever again...
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on May 26, 2003, 01:44:11 AM
Quote from: godardian
Foster is a more than competent director, judging from what I've seen (haven't seen Altar Boys yet).


Foster only produced "Dangerous Lives..." Peter Care directed.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: BonBon85 on May 26, 2003, 11:50:28 AM
Quote from: godardian
Even worse than sappy female-bonding "women's pictures," though, are gay directors. As far as that goes, you have pretty much Gus van Sant, Todd Haynes, and Rose Troche. Most of the rest is unadulterated ghettoization. That's quite a different story, however; some of Hollywood's best and most prominent directors were gay (though this is something we know now and was never discussed in the old days) while, because of exclusion, women didn't even figure in the equation.

But I'd rather sit through 24 Hour Woman (a picture I didn't care for at all, and one I thought typified the way a woman director could go wrong) ten times than have to endure Jeffrey or Trick ever again...


To go off topic a bit, I have to agree with you. I have several gay and bisexual friends who scoff at the idea of watching a heterosexual romantic comedy, but are constantly forcing me to sit through films that are equally bad but are elevated in their minds simply due to the fact that the characters are gay. They can't understand how I could dislike films like the ones you mentioned and yet they hate typical heterosexual romantic comedies that are really not any worse.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: godardian on May 26, 2003, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: godardian
Foster is a more than competent director, judging from what I've seen (haven't seen Altar Boys yet).


Foster only produced "Dangerous Lives..." Peter Care directed.


If I ever realize my dream of becoming a film writer, you're on the A-list of prospective fact-checkers.

Looks like Foster's directorial filmography includes only Tate, Holidays, and the upcoming Flora Plum, which sounds the tiniest little bit reminiscent of Paper Moon.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: godardian on May 26, 2003, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: BonBon85


To go off topic a bit, I have to agree with you. I have several gay and bisexual friends who scoff at the idea of watching a heterosexual romantic comedy, but are constantly forcing me to sit through films that are equally bad but are elevated in their minds simply due to the fact that the characters are gay. They can't understand how I could dislike films like the ones you mentioned and yet they hate typical heterosexual romantic comedies that are really not any worse.


Exactly. When Spike Lee talks about the "ethnic" shows on the WB and how insulting they are in a roundabout way, like black entertainment = one-dimensional blandness and the easiest approach to the characters, I think I know how he feels... if you judge on the actual quality of the film, you get the feeling that the people who make gay-romantic-comedy genre films feel that they have a captive audience, so they don't need to try to make anything original or interesting, that it's enough that they depict gay people positively. This approach makes sitting through the film feel like you're watching a moving, breathing pamphlet of some sort, like a feature-length by-the-numbers platitude. It's a problem similar to that of those women who make little sharing-circle films which make you hope that's not all that's going on with women... it's so insular that it's boring at best and insulting at worst.

Your friends have a double standard that's all too prevalent, but in fact, I would say that "straight" films like Nora Ephron's, glib as they often are, are generally of a higher quality than the gay wannabe-equivalent because they at least try to individuate the characters and put some pep and lightness into it. There's more respect for the audience to be found there.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: MacGuffin on March 18, 2004, 05:33:04 PM
The women behind the camera
IFC documentary focuses on women and indie film

NEW YORK (AP) -- Nancy Savoca's movies pick up where Martin Scorsese's and Francis Ford Coppola's films leave off, according to film historian Emanuel Levy.

They portray immigrant life on a grand scale, while Savoca -- whose 1989 debut "True Love" about a skittish young Italian-American couple getting married made a splash at the Sundance Film Festival -- offers "a view from the kitchen," Levy says in IFC's "In the Company of Women."

Savoca is one of several directors profiled in the cable network's new 90-minute documentary airing 8 p.m. EST Thursday.

It's part history lesson, part movie montage and part dialogue about women's roles in front of and behind the camera, told from the perspective of women in the business including Jodie Foster and Susan Sarandon.

"It's a very rare holiday still for men to be given the opportunity to go into a woman's psyche and see the world and the existential experience of life through her eyes," actress Tilda Swinton says during the documentary.

Directors Gini Reticker and Lesli Klainberg focus specifically on independent films, but didn't make a documentary that bashes Hollywood -- even though few female directors get to make mainstream, big-budget films.

"We focused on independent films essentially by default. In doing our research, it's where most women's careers were fostered and developed. Also, it's where women were greeted on an open playing field," Klainberg said.

'More, more, more from women'

Klainberg and Reticker's film takes a comprehensive and interesting look at women in the film business, though sometimes the documentary seems to be taking on too much and the directors would be better served by a narrower focus.

If they came to any conclusions, Reticker said, "It's that we want more. More, more, more from women."

Klainberg and Reticker begin with the 1970s, when the women's movement coincided with a film boom, and more women attended film school. Those graduates burst onto the scene in the 1980s with character-driven stories and an alternative viewpoint.

"With the advent of 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' Hollywood was moving toward these big blockbuster films, and there was suddenly this space in the independent film world to create these stories," Reticker said.

They point to Susan Seidelman's "Desperately Seeking Susan." The 1985 film starred Madonna in all her 1980s black-lace glory, and showed that a story centered on two female protagonists could appeal to the masses. It's one of the most successful independent films to date, grossing $27.4 million.

Several "indie queens" are featured, including Lili Taylor, Parker Posey and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Sexuality is easily the most discussed topic in the documentary. The film "Go Fish" featuring lesbian couples in everyday life complete with graphic sex scenes is juxtaposed with Gyllenhaal's performance as the submissive half of an S&M relationship in "Secretary."

Using sexuality as a tool is tricky and confusing for women, and the documentary captures that. Rosie Perez offers an anecdote about how refreshing it was to work with a female director because there was no sexual tension.

The idea of beauty, intrinsically tied to sexuality, is also discussed, peppered with scenes from Nicole Holofcener's 2001 film "Lovely and Amazing," and Savoca's 1991 film "Dogfight."

Directors and actresses speak candidly about body image, nude scenes, age and the tendency to glorify sex scenes.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: eward on February 05, 2005, 12:02:49 PM
claire denis.  beau travail.  trouble everyday.  chocolat is okay, too.  that was her first film, i believe.  but seriously, beau travail.  masterpeice.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 05, 2005, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: eward
claire denis.  beau travail.  trouble everyday.  chocolat is okay, too.  that was her first film, i believe.  but seriously, beau travail.  masterpeice.


Beau Travail is really good, but Chocolat for me. Friday Night is also pretty good.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: eward on February 05, 2005, 01:56:24 PM
yeah, i've been meaning to see friday night.  she, for me, is easily the best female director working today.
Title: Women Directors
Post by: cron on February 05, 2005, 02:23:52 PM
not only that ,but she's an extremely intelligent and eloquent person.
Title: Female Filmmakers
Post by: New Feeling on February 14, 2009, 12:33:25 AM
I was noticing how there's no female filmmakers on my previously controversial best american filmmakers list, and then I was thinking abut how there are virtually no female filmmakers on my radar at all.  I mean I can think of a few who have made one or two good films but no one who has put together a seriously compelling body of work.  Please tell me I'm wrong and drop some names in this thread.  Or feel free to discuss theories as to why men still outnumber women directors like 100-1 (an exaggeration but still..). 


 
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: private witt on February 14, 2009, 12:38:40 AM
Lynne Ramsey, Miranda July, and Kelly Reichardt all have pretty amazing bodies of work, though not in Hollywood of course.  Great thread, BTW.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: New Feeling on February 14, 2009, 12:49:49 AM
I liked Me and You and Everyone We Know a lot and would like to see another from Miranda.  And yeah Kelly Reichardt seems to be one to watch.  Old Joy was good and I still need to see the new one.  Need to check out some Lynne Ramsey too. 

Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: private witt on February 14, 2009, 01:06:53 AM
There's a film written/directed by a husband and wife couple who live up here in the PacNW entitled 'Apart From That' that is very centered around strong female leads.  There's trailers and clips on youtube and the home page is here at:  http://www.foreignamericanpictures.com/apart_from_that/

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7222/apartfromthatah8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 14, 2009, 01:10:09 AM
Margarethe Von Trotta is one of the larger names in filmmaking. She came to be during the German New Wave, but never got the press that Wenders and Fassbinder did. The reason had nothing to do with her lack of talent, but her filmmaking (for me) comes out of the vein of Ingmar Bergman. The major difference is that Bergman's films are always reminscient of stage because of the few sets he likes to work with in a given film. The intimacy in all his films are a hallmark of his first craft.

But the major similarity between the two is the power they exude in simple stories. Her direction never tries to overshoot her films and she has a distinct femine personality in all of her tough films. It's not as well established that female filmmakers can be as tough as their tortured male counterparts, but Von Trotta directed (and wrote) films that played to her psychological conflicts and political ideology. Compared to Bergman, she is much more the political animal. I recommend everyone give her a shot.

I also like Claire Denis, but I know less about her. One of my favorite films is Chocolat from 1989. It's about the childhood of a french girl growing up in Africa. Denis has a personal style that exhibits distance well. It requires a lot of static shots and reminds me of Antonioni a little bit, but Denis developed to experiment with handheld the way Steven Soderbergh does (like in Friday Night). Besides, Antonioni's static shots were meant to exude the idea of environment in character. That's why his films always have a distinct beauty in its cinematography. Denis is more established in using static shots to exude conflict between characters. It's a little more traditional, but still effective.


Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 14, 2009, 05:12:16 AM
Lynne Ramsey, Miranda July, and Kelly Reichardt all have pretty amazing bodies of work, though not in Hollywood of course.  Great thread, BTW.
Hey Oh!!!!! Wait, was that a joke or not?
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: MacGuffin on February 14, 2009, 05:20:59 AM
Agnès Varda
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 14, 2009, 07:24:35 AM
There's a film written/directed by a husband and wife couple who live up here in the PacNW entitled 'Apart From That' that is very centered around strong female leads.  There's trailers and clips on youtube and the home page is here at:  http://www.foreignamericanpictures.com/apart_from_that/

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7222/apartfromthatah8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Looks very cool.  Thanks for letting us know about it.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: samsong on February 15, 2009, 12:27:48 PM
word to both claire denis and agnes varda.  denis, one of my favorite filmmakers, has worked almost exclusively with a female cinematographer named agnes godard, my favorite working dp. see beau travail, i can't sleep, friday night, and chocolat.  there's also chantal akerman.  i've only seen two of her films(jeanne dielman and je, tu, il, elle) and they're both incredible.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: 72teeth on February 15, 2009, 12:49:39 PM
i like Mary Harron... I Shot Andy Warhol is great and Notorious Betty Page and American Psycho are pretty decent movies, as well as a lot of the tv she has directed...

And Allison Anders' Mi Vida Loca is defiantly within my top 50...

Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: pete on February 15, 2009, 07:11:40 PM
looks like ellen kuras is coming out with a work of love documentary in the next few weeks.
I went to the silent film festival in San Fran yesterday, they preceeded each film with a different short film by this lady named Alice Guy Blanche, the very first female director in this country.  They were all really really awful, and I remember thinking that maybe she ruined it for all the ones to follow.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 15, 2009, 08:02:55 PM
Akerman and Varda come to mind first. I think Ms. Coppola has started on a promising career, even if she hasn't done anything amazing yet, her quality and watchability is pretty consistent.

Rohmer frequently works with a female DP and editor, and his films are delightful.

However, it's a male art form, plain and simple. I can't see females in mass numbers ever making great cinema. Kind of like literature.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 15, 2009, 08:21:33 PM
I can't see females in mass numbers ever making great cinema. Kind of like literature.
Thems fighting words but you are possibly correct.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Astrostic on February 15, 2009, 10:19:43 PM
My favorite filmmaker in the current Argentinian wave, and one of my favorites in general, is Lucrecia Martel.  Her recent The Headless Woman is one of the most brilliantly stubborn films of the decade, but still not as great as her slightly more accessible debut, La Cienaga.  If you haven't seen this film, do yourself a large favor.

I agree with those mentioning Akerman, Denis, and Reichardt.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Fernando on February 16, 2009, 10:28:39 AM
Coincidentally the Golden and Silver Bear were won by female filmmakers.

Golden Bear for the Best Film
La teta asustada (The Milk Of Sorrow) by Claudia Llosa

Silver Bear - The Jury Grand Prix
Alle Anderen (Everyone else) by Maren Ade


http://www.berlinale.de/en/das_festival/preise_und_juries/preise_internationale_jury/index.html
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: children with angels on February 17, 2009, 05:26:15 AM
No one's yet mentioned Sally Potter, Jane Campion, Dorothy Arzner, Catherine Breillat, Kathryn Bigelow.

The reason there aren't more big female directors is so obviously because of the historically limited options available to women in all areas of society that it doesn't even need saying. That there is even a thread trying in vain to list examples of films made by a group that constitutes approximately 50% of the human population should tell us something - and it's not that cinema is "a male art form".
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 17, 2009, 09:23:50 AM
The reason there aren't more big female directors is so obviously because of the historically limited options available to women in all areas of society that it doesn't even need saying. That there is even a thread trying in vain to list examples of films made by a group that constitutes approximately 50% of the human population should tell us something - and it's not that cinema is "a male art form".

Agreed!
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 17, 2009, 12:53:29 PM
The reason there aren't more big female directors is so obviously because of the historically limited options available to women in all areas of society that it doesn't even need saying.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps.

I for one think that if the majority of any group is under-represented in an activity it usually has more to do with interests lying in another area, rather than instantly assuming that if only they weren't "limited" by some third party they would be out doing what WE think they should be doing. Certainly there may be exceptions to this, or extreme cases. But in this Western world of ours where personal choice is valued above all, I don't believe this excuse holds water.

I'd watch a film made by a cat if cats were making good films. I'm all for more good films out there. If many, many, many more men (even per capita) continue to produce them (rather than women) I would see it as a continuation of an existing, natural trend. No amount of carping about patriarchal, sexist, misogynistic, or whatever forces are going to produce more women making better films.

It is a legitimate thread in the same way that a thread about Lithuanian filmmakers would be legitimate. There are not many, there will not be many more in the future, but some are rare treasures and so it is nice to share them with fellow cinema lovers. But the lack of say Lithuanian filmmakers does not lead to questions about the rest of the world sharing racist intentions to hold back Lithuanian artists. Obviously you could make the case of population size but I hope my ultimate point is clear enough.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Gamblour. on February 17, 2009, 01:51:39 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmm

SoNowThen, you're wrong.

It is because they have been given less opportunities in a male-dominated industry. Are you going to fucking tell me that Julie Taymor can't keep up with the boys?

For as long as women artists have been around, there have been men to say that theirs is an art that is more ladylike, there have been male critics to condescend and 'critique' female art as being too delicate or soft. That you declare it a 'male art-form' should raise a red flag to you that you're embracing a stupid logic. What is a female art-form? Quilting? You're right, there are no major male quilters, so I guess I'm actually wrong and we've been oppressing men this whole time. If only we could let them finally realize their dreams as quilters.

There are plenty of good female filmmakers out there to prove that this is not an art strictly for men. There are so many male filmmakers who suck at it, why would you ever think it was exclusive to them? In the history of everything, literature, painting, sculpture, how can you be so ignorant as to call one art a male or female art?? Are you fucking kidding me?

The incredible amount of restraint I'm using right to not just hit the caps lock key and go ballistic is astounding.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: pete on February 17, 2009, 02:21:55 PM
but he'd be watching films made by cats!  how can you call him wrong?
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Stefen on February 17, 2009, 03:10:10 PM
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1804/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1804R-13285.jpg)

Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 17, 2009, 03:29:45 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmm

SoNowThen, you're wrong.

It is because they have been given less opportunities in a male-dominated industry. Are you going to fucking tell me that Julie Taymor can't keep up with the boys?

For as long as women artists have been around, there have been men to say that theirs is an art that is more ladylike, there have been male critics to condescend and 'critique' female art as being too delicate or soft. That you declare it a 'male art-form' should raise a red flag to you that you're embracing a stupid logic. What is a female art-form? Quilting? You're right, there are no major male quilters, so I guess I'm actually wrong and we've been oppressing men this whole time. If only we could let them finally realize their dreams as quilters.

There are plenty of good female filmmakers out there to prove that this is not an art strictly for men. There are so many male filmmakers who suck at it, why would you ever think it was exclusive to them? In the history of everything, literature, painting, sculpture, how can you be so ignorant as to call one art a male or female art?? Are you fucking kidding me?

The incredible amount of restraint I'm using right to not just hit the caps lock key and go ballistic is astounding.

Not sure where I said that there are no shitty male filmmakers, nor where I said that no woman can make a good film.

I do think it is an art form that favors males, in that it is inherently visual, as well as requiring a kind of "marshalling of troops" type attitude, which men seem to be more geared to (generally, of course). I also think that there are many roadblocks towards making a film, and that one has to choose to forgo many other things in life to create cinema, and that most are not willing to make those trade-offs, but that more males than females will take that chance. This view is perhaps limited by my own life experience, but it is an earnest and honest view that I arrive at with some consideration.

Yes, I will tell you that Taymor cannot play with the big boys. She is a minor filmmaker.

Since very few men seem to lean towards quilting as a hobby, it would seem that it is a female-dominated form of expression. I didn't say that would be an example of oppression. You suggest that.

Surely you can use that righteous indignation towards some creative and/or positive end? Again, it is unusual that you (a male, I presume) would choose to fight this "battle" on behalf of other people. Would you like to suggest that by holding this opinion I am responsible for holding back the next generation of female filmmakers? Have you ever tried to make a film or apply for a government grant, or solicit private funding in the last few years? Do you know what the process of filmmaking entails? Are you weighing these factors into your opinion? Do you think that there is any particular reason why a person (or cat) might be drawn towards cinema as a form of expression over other possible avenues? Sorry, I guess this is a thread highjack...
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Cory Everett on February 17, 2009, 04:18:30 PM
me and godardian talked about this a few years ago in some other thread.   i wonder where that is...
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Pas on February 17, 2009, 06:25:23 PM
Anyone who fails to see differences between sexes is an idiot. But that is not the point I want to make because you cannot avoid being called a bigot today if you point out obvious facts about typical traits of men/women.

That you can name a handful of talented female directors should prove that filmmaking is not typically a male thing ? How does that work ? I can say that about 20 days a year it's pretty warm and sunny in Quebec, so I guess it's false to say that it's fucking cold here.

The argument about ''not being given equal chance'' would hold up in the 50s, but women in their 20somethings have never once in their life faced a lack-of-opportunity type of situation. I cannot even imagine a woman applying for a film loan and being laughed off or something like that. Shit, a black man is president, who can honestly say that people with talent are not given a fair chance.

I completely agree with SoNow and don't even see any sexism in his post, he's stating facts as far as I'm concerned. He's not saying ''No women allowed'', it's more something like : ''More men do it so I guess there's a male thing about it''


Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: pete on February 17, 2009, 06:26:48 PM
is it also a white thing?
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Gamblour. on February 17, 2009, 06:39:18 PM
There is a black president, but how many black senators are there?

Not as many black directors as white directors, and I didn't like The Inside Man very much. I think we're onto something, guys!!
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Pas on February 17, 2009, 07:51:25 PM
oh please what intellectual dishonesty, now I'm a racist for saying that Barrack Obama is a black president.


ps : there are not more white directors than other races.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: hedwig on February 17, 2009, 08:30:46 PM
here's a slightly different way of looking at it: i think it's a very feminine thing to make movies.. reconfiguring images/sound to communicate the unspeakable realities of human life. the most sublime moments in cinema go way beyond language. historically, the suppression of this creative visual impulse has been inextricably linked with the rise of patriarchy, misogyny, and language. surgeon leonard shlain has written extensively on this theory (see: The Alphabet vs. The Goddess (http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/index.html)).

when i read your post, SoNowThen, i could immediately see in my head how people would respond, both against and in support. the response was predictable because of how you phrased your statement. there are many interesting points to debate about the subject, but saying filmmaking is "a male thing" seems almost intentionally vague and oversimplified, as if you are baiting us to misinterpret you and react with "righteous indignation."

your point about the marshaling of troops attitude required to make a film is a bit more interesting. i see what you mean there. on the other hand, that's only one style of directing..

somebody go start a thread for feline filmmakers.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 17, 2009, 09:05:17 PM
Appreciate the above reply from Hedwig. And it is probably very true that "abstract creativity" as described above would be considered feminine. And yet I still feel that in general the making of cinema and literature favors the male mind. Maybe it can't be contained in a statement that simple, maybe it demands reams and reams of paper. But I doubt if I wrote reams and reams it would elicit anything beyond the typical self-satisfied, cowardly postings of pete or gamblour from two replies up.

I'll leave it rest with a few brief thoughts/examples from life:

1. I work with two women, one in her early twenties who does interpretive dance as a hobby and still auditions all the time cos she wants to also pursue it as a career, and a second in her late twenties who studied new media in college. Both are very idiosyncratic and fairly independent, and both enjoy "the arts" as far as I can tell. Last week they both separately said within my earshot, with no prompting, that they find women directors and authors mostly uninteresting and far prefer male authors and directors. That interested me so I asked a little bit and while their answers differed based on their personalities, it generally ran that, for them, the male mind pushed in more fascinating directions are far as these art forms were concerned -- no mention of lack of opportunity ever came up. I should also point out, in case you think that I was playing with a stacked deck, that these two women put no stock whatsoever in religion, or the having of babies (at least at this point in their lives), and both lean left politically.

2. Is the largest demographic that a movie studio worries about not teenage to early twenty-something males? If they are the group that predominantly spends hard earned cash and valuable time investing in the cinema does it not make sense that they would form the glut of those that go on to excel at it?

... finally, I forgot to mention before, and feel embarrassed at the omission of, Elaine May, Kira Muratova, and Larissa Shepitko. They are all solid. Though not as good as Cassavetes, Tarkovsky, or Klimov.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Gamblour. on February 17, 2009, 09:43:25 PM
oh please what intellectual dishonesty, now I'm a racist for saying that Barrack Obama is a black president.


ps : there are not more white directors than other races.

No you're not. I wasn't trying to offend you or call you a name. My point had to do with the parallels of logic, and refuting the claim that because we have a black president in the US that every playing field is suddenly level.

SoNowThen, I don't know how calling a post pointing at the simple ignorant fallacy of these arguments "cowardly" can be anything but an attempt to drum up some sort of masculine vitriol, but in any case, I would prefer reams of insight to what you provide. In fact, I would kill for the vast insight these two women provided. Did they cite specific directors, or cases where they found this to be true? This is your evidence? You can generalize all you want, but you have to back it up somehow. Am I to counter your anecdote by finding two Republican women who adore Agnes Varda? Your anecdote is worthless to me. It's hardly any basis for an argument against women as a whole in an art.

Also, your second point is equally worthless. Male demographics? What "art-form" are you even talking about at this point?

Have you ever considered that men are good at the way films are run because men constructed the ways films are run? Have you looked into a feminist production model? I don't think one exists, but wouldn't it be interesting?

Is politics a man's arena? It requires gathering troops, if we're keeping the militaristic expression, and making sacrifices in one's life, by which we mean having kids and shit. Are women not equipped for this? And what exactly is this inferiority in literature you've kept referring to? Explain that.

There is no leaving this conversation. You're point of view has been around for as long as women have been artists, that they are somehow not as good as men in a field or an art. And guess what, you're point of view is just as ignorant today.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: md on February 18, 2009, 01:03:54 AM
From a statistics perspective, filmmaking -- specifically crewing -- is a male oriented craft.  That doesn't mean women can't be successful at it, but as a highly laborious craft, you could make the comparisons to the amount of women who are firefighters.  I bet there are few female fire marshals (in '08 the FDNY appointed its 4th female fire marshal) and it might be due to the lack of female fire fighters in general.  I believe the same argument holds true with filmmaking.





Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 18, 2009, 01:12:45 AM
MD is talking more along the lines of what I am speaking of as well.

But anyone who uses the term "feminist production model" would not understand that line of thinking. Gam, I said I'd leave it and I've left it. I said my piece, the info is there if you want to read it. The two points were random thoughts that contributed to the subject, not be-all, end-all proofs. I thought that was pretty obvious. Sorry if it wasn't. Is it now that I've said it?
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: pete on February 18, 2009, 03:21:21 AM
you guys are full of shit.  "statistically speaking".  What statistics are you speaking of that suggests that girls can't crew?  what breakthrough in the history of the world have I missed that deems the douchebag ex-frat guy execs to be above every other industry out there?

now onto pas rap.
my favorite reply thus far is the shock that pas rap feigns when he's like "you're calling ME backwards?!"  People name their favorite male filmmakers elsewhere on this board (mostly white, imagine that!) but when people name their favorite female ones Pas Rap gets all like "well, a handful of female ones ain't gonna convince me".  And nobody was trying to convince you until that point, when you've become self-righteously obnoxious, which is xixax's favorite kind of poster.  The type where we don't even have to research the facts and challenge our intellects, but just trying to re-iterate shit that everyone in the world already knows in a condescending tone so you can maybe grasp it.  But you're not going to, because you're not basing your argument on any truth that you know, but instead, hubris and self-importance.  Women just aren't good enough to entertain you, or, they're "differently entertaining."  Everything you've said is stupid and offensive, but because you're educated and you like art films, you deem yourself to be above offense.  How could that be you who's uttering stupidity with your fingers on an internet forum?  It must be everybody else - the other people with similar or higher education who can't comprehend your folksy common sense, and those PC monsters who crave for the chance to attack your completely fair musings.  I like you as a poster and I like some of your posts, but that doesn't mean you're not stupid in some respects or you're above prejudice.  You're actually the opposite of above prejudice.  And this is coming from someone who respects you sometimes.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: md on February 18, 2009, 04:10:52 AM
the reason there aren't more women directors is probably because the female lead has to be the biggest star in the room. 
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 18, 2009, 06:09:24 AM
Regarding what SoNowThen and I'm sure a lot of us have experienced, along with whatever statistics can be dug up, I can't deny that these are the cases.  But, I think, just because this is the way that you and I have experienced things (a larger number of more interesting male involvement in filmmaking and possibly film-watching), does not mean that it is the way things should be or can be.  So, with Pas Rap's point that if it's sunny only 20 days out of the year in Quebec then I can't really call it a sunny place, I would agree that we should look at the way things actually play out, and then consider whether this is okay, whether it's fair, and what the underlying reasons for this reality might be.  If my experience of women and their role in society was developed in the 1950s in America, I could say that it sure seemed like there were a lot more women involved in house-keeping and cooking and taking care of the children, but that doesn't mean that that is the way that things should be, or that women are inherently better built for these tasks.

What needs to be considered are the reasons why there are more men involved in film-directing than women (if one accepts that proposition to be true in the first place).  I think Hedwig's point about the dominant way of directing as only being one out of many ways and Gamblour's point about the current dominant filmmaking model are very important ones, probably especially because I find the current dominant filmmaking model to be very problematic and exclusive.  Additionally, little boys and little girls are still encouraged in different ways, and encouraged to be interested in different things.  Both of those points, when taken together, point to a societal problem wherein a life and personality direction is influenced heavily by a social pressure than still tends to push women and non-whites down.  For all of us, our life and personality direction is largely pre-determined by, oh, let's call it The System.  I do think that it is this, rather than inherent qualities of the male and female human, that creates a society in which women are generally less interested in pursuing various things (such as directing and perhaps often other roles that are perceived as requiring "leadership"), and less successful when they do decide to pursue it.

At this point, I think some serious study of Feminism would be useful, not only for its own sake, but because a lot of the "more interesting female directors" have likely thought about these very issues in a serious way, and perhaps there was an element of "liberation" involved before and during the making of these films.  Thinking about other filmmaking models, as well, would be enlightening at this point.  If we look at Kelly Reichardt, who works at a completely independent, small-scale level, she can largely side-step all the politics and pre-perceptions regarding women in filmmaking.  I think that she's frequently asked about being a female director, and I seem to remember her responses being along the lines of it's less of an issue in her experience because of the manner in which she makes her films, and that she doesn't want to make any "bigger" films.  Additionally, a less hierarchical approach to filmmaking (which, I should confess, is totally my kind of thing) is less problematic with regard to the aforementioned politics and pre-perceptions.  In my experience, a greater number of people on set thrive in this kind of environment, and it is pretty much the only kind of filmmaking I want to get involved with in the future.

And to respond to MD's last post, I won't say that that's necessarily untrue, but if it is true, then it sounds to me like it's rooted in a really disgusting mentality, and I hope that rather than shrugging it off as being just the way women are, we can think about why some women feel the need for that kind of attention, perhaps in relation to the kind of attention that men tend to seek out.  Are these desired forms of attention necessarily hard-wired, or could they be a manifestation of the different ways in which boys and girls are treated from day one?
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Pas on February 18, 2009, 07:12:42 AM
you guys are full of shit.  "statistically speaking".  What statistics are you speaking of that suggests that girls can't crew?  what breakthrough in the history of the world have I missed that deems the douchebag ex-frat guy execs to be above every other industry out there?

now onto pas rap.
my favorite reply thus far is the shock that pas rap feigns when he's like "you're calling ME backwards?!"  People name their favorite male filmmakers elsewhere on this board (mostly white, imagine that!) but when people name their favorite female ones Pas Rap gets all like "well, a handful of female ones ain't gonna convince me".  And nobody was trying to convince you until that point, when you've become self-righteously obnoxious, which is xixax's favorite kind of poster.  The type where we don't even have to research the facts and challenge our intellects, but just trying to re-iterate shit that everyone in the world already knows in a condescending tone so you can maybe grasp it.  But you're not going to, because you're not basing your argument on any truth that you know, but instead, hubris and self-importance.  Women just aren't good enough to entertain you, or, they're "differently entertaining."  Everything you've said is stupid and offensive, but because you're educated and you like art films, you deem yourself to be above offense.  How could that be you who's uttering stupidity with your fingers on an internet forum?  It must be everybody else - the other people with similar or higher education who can't comprehend your folksy common sense, and those PC monsters who crave for the chance to attack your completely fair musings.  I like you as a poster and I like some of your posts, but that doesn't mean you're not stupid in some respects or you're above prejudice.  You're actually the opposite of above prejudice.  And this is coming from someone who respects you sometimes.

It's all good to say this and that is stupid and ignorant, but no one here has yet to show in what way women are not given equal chance. Your vision of the woman situation is dated. Of all young women I know, none claim to be a feminist. None claim to be underprivileged or not given opportunity. In fact, a lot even claim that the education system is giving a privilege to women (universities are filling up with women, one third of all men don't finish high school in Quebec, there was only one male doctor graduated in the whole class of 2007 in my hometown, etc)

Women excel at some things, men excel at others. There are exceptions. It might very well be folksy common sense but that's the way I see the world around me. Hope I sounded less self-righteous it is just that is seems clear in my head.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 18, 2009, 07:21:08 AM
no one here has yet to show in what way women are not given equal chance. Your vision of the woman situation is dated. Of all young women I know, none claim to be a feminist.

Actually, I did attempt in my post before yours to show how women are not really given an equal chance, unless they more or less say "fuck it" to pre-established expectations of who they are and what they can do.  While I think we should all say "fuck it" to these pre-established expectations, it is still that case that men can get more out of simply going along with the system.

And while Feminism has been a dirty word for a while, it is making a comeback and being re-evaluated to be more specifically relevant for today, but the whole movement has always been relevant and important in general, and it is a movement that I will be happy to be a part of.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Pas on February 18, 2009, 07:29:24 AM
no one here has yet to show in what way women are not given equal chance. Your vision of the woman situation is dated. Of all young women I know, none claim to be a feminist.

Actually, I did attempt in my post before yours to show how women are not really given an equal chance, unless they more or less say "fuck it" to pre-established expectations of who they are and what they can do.  While I think we should all say "fuck it" to these pre-established expectations, it is still that case that men can get more out of simply going along with the system.

Well yes you say the system push them down and encouraged to do different things. Maybe it is different where I live, but here the girls have way better grades, there are more women in a lot of very hard/respected professions and there is a 50% male/female ratio elected in politics and given minister duties (since the late lates 80s). Yet there are not a lot of canadian women filmmakers. I cannot possibly blame society for not giving them ''the courage to believe'' or whatever
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 18, 2009, 09:43:04 AM
no one here has yet to show in what way women are not given equal chance. Your vision of the woman situation is dated. Of all young women I know, none claim to be a feminist.

Actually, I did attempt in my post before yours to show how women are not really given an equal chance, unless they more or less say "fuck it" to pre-established expectations of who they are and what they can do.  While I think we should all say "fuck it" to these pre-established expectations, it is still that case that men can get more out of simply going along with the system.

Well yes you say the system push them down and encouraged to do different things. Maybe it is different where I live, but here the girls have way better grades, there are more women in a lot of very hard/respected professions and there is a 50% male/female ratio elected in politics and given minister duties (since the late lates 80s). Yet there are not a lot of canadian women filmmakers. I cannot possibly blame society for not giving them ''the courage to believe'' or whatever

Well, to be honest, I see all that as somewhat part of the problem--the idea of grades and respected professions as the way to judge success and opportunity.  As I said, there are certain expectations and certain things that are accepted, and certain forms of attention that are desired, and these are all socially pre-determined things that, frankly, do more for the continued thriving of this system than it does for invidividual action and personal fulfillment.

Getting good grades and becoming a lawyer or politician is a very accepted and encouraged path.  Making and spending money is an encouraged act.  Buying a house is an encouraged act.  Everyone has a pretty good idea of what a successful and desirable life would look like, and it's a great way to get people to be happy for you and proud of you.  But it's pre-determined, narrow, and un-diverse.  To this extent, it can act like a trap for many people, with or without their knowing or feeling like it is a trap.  The actual diversity of potential action and life-paths simply don't enter the mind, because a small number of options come across as particularly worthy and realistic.

It is largely in this sense in which the opportunity is not equal anywhere, and saying that no one is stopping anyone in a country like Canada from going and making films, or even developing the interest in filmmaking in the first place, is not addressing the real problems.  And "the courage to believe" has got very little to do with this, because it's still the courage to believe within the narrow context of accepted and promoted behavior.

Additionally, in a very hierarchical system such as the dominant filmmaking model, women have to work harder than men to be accepted as having the leadership qualities (without coming across like a bitch) and vision that is considered necessary to be a director.  And again, at this point, I do not think that it's sufficient to say that men simply are more naturally able to lead or dominate, because the more one looks at the reasons why this might be (rather than just pointing to the way that things are), the more one sees a myriad of reasons for this that extend far beyond how we are hard-wired to be.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: md on February 18, 2009, 10:52:14 AM
And to respond to MD's last post, I won't say that that's necessarily untrue, but if it is true, then it sounds to me like it's rooted in a really disgusting mentality, and I hope that rather than shrugging it off as being just the way women are, we can think about why some women feel the need for that kind of attention, perhaps in relation to the kind of attention that men tend to seek out.  Are these desired forms of attention necessarily hard-wired, or could they be a manifestation of the different ways in which boys and girls are treated from day one?
Just because I say it, doesn't mean I believe it or adhere to it.  But that's not to say big shot movie executives don't.  And isn't that what we are really talking about....
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 18, 2009, 12:30:27 PM
you guys are full of shit.  "statistically speaking".  What statistics are you speaking of that suggests that girls can't crew?

MD didn't say "girls can't crew". Here is what he said: That doesn't mean women can't be successful at it, but as a highly laborious craft, you could make the comparisons to the amount of women who are firefighters.

In fact I don't think anyone said, at any point of this discussion, "girls can't". So YOU, actually, are full of shit.


now onto pas rap.
... you're not basing your argument on any truth that you know, but instead, hubris and self-importance.  Women just aren't good enough to entertain you, or, they're "differently entertaining."  Everything you've said is stupid and offensive, but because you're educated and you like art films, you deem yourself to be above offense...  And this is coming from someone who respects you sometimes.

Again, you are full of shit. Pas has frequently said he leans towards films that are not considered "high art". And he never said that women aren't good enough to entertain you. But I guess as one of those special xixax posters you speak of, you got all your facts straight before you chose to enlighten us.

***

Expectations and accepted ways of judging success in any given society are that society's way of compressing knowledge and communicating a certain idea in the easiest manner. Anyone who decides to go against the grain is going to encounter opposition. This is the way things function. Everyone is not going to be accepted and encouraged for everything they do all of the time. Everyone here knows this, but just looking at it maybe helps. All this worrying about it being "possibly better another way" is akin, I think, to the idea that "if only I could start a revolution and force people to do things MY way, things would work properly". It's been tried again and again and still some large chunk of the given society is left unconvinced and unhappy. It is human to want to go against the grain and be an individual... for some. For others (I think the majority, again based on what I have observed personally and read about history, philosophy, etc) going with the flow and working within current accepted models is the only sane way to live. Chasing reasons for why this is (childhood, etc) may be both noble and an intellectual exercise, but it won't change anything in the balance of the way things are. The balance will remain because it is easier to go with the group. It just sounds like some want to change the group to go with. I think that is valid, but if that is the case don't fold it into some kind of higher morality that things would be "better", say things would be better for you and the people you want to succeed.

Also, systems are hierarchical by nature. Hierarchy creates a focused flow of information. Maybe I misread matt35mm's post, but it seemed like hierarchy in general was being looked down upon as inferior.

Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 18, 2009, 01:35:20 PM
Expectations and accepted ways of judging success in any given society are that society's way of compressing knowledge and communicating a certain idea in the easiest manner. Anyone who decides to go against the grain is going to encounter opposition. This is the way things function. Everyone is not going to be accepted and encouraged for everything they do all of the time. Everyone here knows this, but just looking at it maybe helps. All this worrying about it being "possibly better another way" is akin, I think, to the idea that "if only I could start a revolution and force people to do things MY way, things would work properly". It's been tried again and again and still some large chunk of the given society is left unconvinced and unhappy. It is human to want to go against the grain and be an individual... for some. For others (I think the majority, again based on what I have observed personally and read about history, philosophy, etc) going with the flow and working within current accepted models is the only sane way to live. Chasing reasons for why this is (childhood, etc) may be both noble and an intellectual exercise, but it won't change anything in the balance of the way things are. The balance will remain because it is easier to go with the group. It just sounds like some want to change the group to go with. I think that is valid, but if that is the case don't fold it into some kind of higher morality that things would be "better", say things would be better for you and the people you want to succeed.

Also, systems are hierarchical by nature. Hierarchy creates a focused flow of information. Maybe I misread matt35mm's post, but it seemed like hierarchy in general was being looked down upon as inferior.

You didn't misread me, exactly.  I do think that pre-determined structures of hierarchy are, well, bad.  It creates a focused flow of information and action, yes, but in a narrow way that doesn't represent me as an individual.  I don't want to be part of the focused flow, I don't want to be part of the balance, and most of the things that you've describe above don't sound good to me, and I agree with your assessment that a portion of the population is still unhappy--quite possibly the majority of the population if you count all the people in the world who suffer un-necessarily because getting them fed and clothed doesn't help with efficiency and productivity and money-making.  (I guess I should confess that I am one of those annoying anti-Capitalists)

I do not suggest that people do things MY way instead, but rather point to this as perhaps a major reason why women and a whole bunch of people are not getting the same opportunities on a more fundamental level than grades and jobs and money (although things aren't really very equal there either).  That going with the flow is "the only sane way to live" points to the ugliness and pressure of it all, such that going against the grain and being an individual is not just for the sake of it, but almost the morally correct thing to do in the face of such disgusting pressure.  All I can do is try to develop myself as an individual and think quite frequently and seriously about why I am doing whatever it is that I'm doing, so I'm not suggesting another system in place of this system.

More specifically regarding filmmaking, I'm not suggesting that any organizational system is bad, and I agree with you that it's necessary.  But the problem of hierarchy today is that it becomes more than just what tasks are deligated to whom, but seeps into the very idea of a person's worth as a human.  A P.A. is just a fluff of dust compared to THE PRODUCER!  The LEAD ACTRESS must be treated delicately because she's essential and one-of-a-kind but the people who make the photocopies are dime-a-dozen non-persons.  People talk about "working their way up the ladder," which is pointing to a clear, pre-determined hierarchy and the desire to be at the top, rather than at the bottom where all the losers and beginners are (which, if we extrapolate to society at large, is the same as the poor people).  This then controls your actions as an individual by essentially having a system in place that says, "If you want to climb your way up, here's what you're gonna have to do."  So, because I want to be involved in making movies, now the next 10 years of my life is already planned out regarding how I am going to make my way up this ladder, blinding me from all the other options and actions I can take as an individual.  Except that the next 10 years of MY life aren't planned out because I just can't be a part of that.

Even most independent films these days assume this structure (even student films made for $100!  Without even thinking about it, they assume they need a 1st and 2nd AD to fulfill those specific duties and everyone waits around to see what the director has storyboarded, etc.).  What I really admire about Reichardt is that this whole thing is simply avoided by working with a small group of friends in a manner that doesn't suggest that she is closer to God than anyone else, and in that manner of filmmaking, I personally do not think than a man has any advantage over a woman with regard to effectively directing a damn good film.  The "male art form"-ness of it is taken out by making up your own rules according to what will work for you, and the specific group of people that you're working with.  I have experienced this, and it is beautiful, and I have experienced the dominant accepted structure of making a film, and it is ugly.  In My Humble Opinion, of course.  I will not say that I am right and you are wrong on an individual level, but I will say that I think that this system is wrong and out-dated and, in large part, a reason why there are fewer numbers of successful (and interesting) female filmmakers.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: SoNowThen on February 18, 2009, 06:11:12 PM
I definitely can't argue with you at all about disliking the dominant accepted structure of making a film (mostly because it seems so wasteful of time and energy). And I definitely don't want to come off as endorsing "going with the flow" all the time, cos personally I don't find it the only sane way to live... I only worded it that way cos that is the feedback I have received from those who did feel it strongly. So I totally hear what you're saying.

Lately though I've been thinking that too much focus (at least for me) on being an individual can lead to being totally selfish, and that instances of going for the good of the group can be huge learning/growing experiences that actually take me out of my comfort zone and LEAD to new individual strengths. It's a crazy schizo balancing act.

And for sure what you say about the Lead Actress being treated like a princess over the copy dude is true, and generally disgusting. But again, if I was making the film, when push came to shove I can go do copies myself, but I NEED the lead actress. That is a huge factor and it can't be disregarded. Because, in perhaps one case, helping a copy dude save face to stick it to the lead actress and keep her on what we might call a level playing field might cause her to walk off the film, screwing everyone else involved. So being in a position of authority means taking the production as a whole into consideration as well. But if the crew sees you treating the copy dude as a sub-human then they will see that as an affront to them, so it goes on and on.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 18, 2009, 07:15:48 PM
I definitely can't argue with you at all about disliking the dominant accepted structure of making a film (mostly because it seems so wasteful of time and energy). And I definitely don't want to come off as endorsing "going with the flow" all the time, cos personally I don't find it the only sane way to live... I only worded it that way cos that is the feedback I have received from those who did feel it strongly. So I totally hear what you're saying.

Lately though I've been thinking that too much focus (at least for me) on being an individual can lead to being totally selfish, and that instances of going for the good of the group can be huge learning/growing experiences that actually take me out of my comfort zone and LEAD to new individual strengths. It's a crazy schizo balancing act.

And for sure what you say about the Lead Actress being treated like a princess over the copy dude is true, and generally disgusting. But again, if I was making the film, when push came to shove I can go do copies myself, but I NEED the lead actress. That is a huge factor and it can't be disregarded. Because, in perhaps one case, helping a copy dude save face to stick it to the lead actress and keep her on what we might call a level playing field might cause her to walk off the film, screwing everyone else involved. So being in a position of authority means taking the production as a whole into consideration as well. But if the crew sees you treating the copy dude as a sub-human then they will see that as an affront to them, so it goes on and on.

Cool.  Yeah, and of course, I am not necessarily consistent at all this stuff and want to clarify that I don't think of myself in any higher moral ground than anyone else.  So just in case any of what I said came off as high and mighty, I certainly didn't mean it that way.

Just as a quick response to your second paragraph, I see what you mean, but I would specify that focusing on oneself in a materialistic way is what can be selfish.  Focusing on oneself in terms of personal development (thinking and re-thinking about who you are, what you're doing, and what you think you should be doing) is something that I think is worth doing as much as possible, though.  Even what you say about working in groups is phrased in a way that points to it being a personal development, and that's good!  And doing things for the good of a group is excellent, too; I'd just say that it's worth thinking about what that group is and how its actions are taken.  For example, things being "for the good of the nation" can be used to justify really nasty things.  I find it helpful to keep asking, "What is this group that I'm a part of, how is it run as a system, and are these things that I (who keeps developing as an individual through serious, sustained consideration of things) agree with enough to commit my action toward its benefit?"

Because at the end of the day, you are a human being who will do a lot of actions in your life, and that gives you power.  I do wish that everyone could feel empowered in that sense, if only because it makes me really sad when people don't feel like they are capable of much.  So the point of developing yourself as a person is in large part to figure out what YOU want to do with that power, with your actions.  And that's something that I think that YOU should be at liberty to decide and act upon, but my experience of the world is that most people are not seriously encouraged to make those decisions for themselves, and that's where a system that already has a slot for you and an arc for your life mapped out can be, and is, dangerous and detrimental.

And yeah, people working on a set do have different degrees of necessity, but that's no excuse to have a general poor treatment of these people, to the point where they're not even treated as real people with real hopes, dreams, feelings, thoughts, etc.  I don't make the argument that we should treat everyone from the lead actress to the copy dude exactly the same or pretend that they are both equally necessary to make the film.  There's usually not a problem of the director treating the copy dude as sub-human so much as the copy dude feels sub-human because of the whole of that system which does not respect him as a human being.  I also think that women get less respect in the predominent filmmaking structure, and I point to that as more of a reason that it is a male artform than any inherent abilities of females and males.

I just see it as so problematic that people who want to get into the industry actually feel like they have to look at themselves in the mirror and say, "I want to make films so much that I am willing to be a complete nothing for several years and climb my way up that ladder."  I KNOW people who do that exact thing!  That is hierarchy gone mad.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: children with angels on February 18, 2009, 08:19:13 PM
First can I just say: way to go with the extended dialogue on the internet between two people with opposing views not degenerating into a ridiculous slanging match!

However, you've got a long way from the main area. I really think it's crazy that there's even debate being offered against the idea that the fact women have been historically socially disadvantaged has ramifications for how few female filmmakers emerge, even now.

I assume that those with a problem with this idea would have no problem with admitting that from the beginning of the movies until around the late 60s the reason so few films were made by women was not because cinema was a "male artform", but because of women's position in society. I assume that you could also have no problem with admitting that this subservient position of women in society had been true in human relations (obviously changing and varying, but sticking to the essential male-female hierarchy) for thousands of years prior too. This isn't opinion - it's fact.

So what we're basically talking about is the last 40-50 years, following the successes of feminism, women's liberation etc., in securing something like gender equality for some women (e.g.: the equal pay act, which only came in 1963). Can you truly expect the previous thousands of years of male domination of power, of the workplace, of everything, to suddenly drop away in 40-50 years to such an extent that the playing field is totally equal, and to the extent that we would be justified in 2009 of talking of women simply CHOOSING not to make films? This is the height of ahistoricism. Apart from (1) the millenia-old psychic legacy of masculinism, which means that (2) women still earn significantly lower on average lower than men, and (3) that men still hold the vast majority of positions of power in all fields of work - there is still simply the fact that women growing up and deciding on professions have not had the high profile role models in the film industry that would legitimate a decision to move into the business in large numbers - precisely because of this history. Again, none of this is opinion.

This is a position that can and will change - but slowly: it is not "natural", just as it is not "natural" that women should still be prized in the public sphere infinitely more often for their beauty rather than their talents. These kinds of assumptions about "naturalness" were exactly the kinds of lies that helped keep women in the lowest-paid job roles for so long while the men ran the show - it's called sex-typing. It's not something dreamt up by some evil bad guys, but it IS something that history falsely hard-wired into culture, just like the belief that black people are lesser humans, or homosexuality is an abomination. These are not myths we should be buying into - they are ones we should be exposing so things can change - and they will change. The more Sofia Coppolas make it into the public eye, for example, the more women filmmakers we will see emerging - I guarantee it. We are still near the beginning of this area of social change: let's let it run its course before implicitly decrying it as a failure.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: matt35mm on February 18, 2009, 08:24:26 PM
First can I just say: way to go with the extended dialogue on the internet between two people with opposing views not degenerating into a ridiculous slanging match!

Hooray!
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Pas on February 18, 2009, 09:13:01 PM
I don't know if what I'm saying is true I'm just having this flash : could it more condescending towards women to say that they can't choose to do what they want because of men than to say that their choices are just different ?

I consider women not to be lesser than men but different. I don't see why a woman couldn't be able to do whatever she wants. Yet you, supposedly women defenders, claim that a ''male society'' prevents them from doing what they want. Is that not stating some kind of male superiority (holding a power over womenkind)

I'm just thinking out loud don't lash out at me.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: children with angels on February 20, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
What you say can be taken in two ways, so I'll respond to both of them.

Are you saying that I'm tacitly supporting "power over womankind" because it is me, a man, who is saying that women deserve more of a position in areas of society (like the film industry), and it thus looks like I (a man) am telling women what to do? If so, this would be crazy logic: I am taking my lead from feminists, not the other way around, and feminists are taking their cue from the simple, common sense theory of equal rights. And to imply that I am telling women what they should want would be absurd because that statement rests on the premise that they are free to do whatever they want in the first place, which my whole argument is denying. You would need to prove that I am wrong in saying that women's place in society is unavoidably still unequal with men's in order for that accusation to make sense (if that was your accusation - as I said, it's ambiguous).

Or are you saying that I'm assuming male superiority because to say that women are being oppressed is to say that men are implicitly more powerful than women - or else they wouldn't be able to do the repressing? This again would be a mad logic that would equally assume that the people of colonising nations are implicitly stronger than the colonised, or the people of an oppressed race are implicitly weaker than their oppressors. It's not something "natural" in the people that are stronger or weaker: it is their place in a particular historical, social, and ideological moment and structure that has conferred power upon them.

Which proposition seems more plausible: that fifty percent of the world population who were oppressed and treated as second-class citizens for thousands of years, and only began to gain some semblance of equality 40-50 years ago, simply don't FANCY entering all the areas of society (almost all) still dominated by men? Or that the historical oppression of this 50% which began to be dismantled 40-50 years ago is still (entirely unsurprisingly) having a psychic and social knock on effect which acts to slow the assent of this group to a level of equality with those who had been previously oppressing them since the beginning of civilised man?


Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: private witt on February 20, 2009, 08:59:28 PM
I consider women not to be lesser than men but different.

You're right.  When a woman demands equal pay for the same job she is totally out of line and needs to realize that she's just different.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Lottery on June 14, 2018, 06:31:21 AM
I was reading some reactions to the new Oceans movie, one of the reviews had this quote "no amount of fierce, fantastic female ensembles can overcome the mediocrity of a dull male director". Which was a bit odd to me I must admit, but it got me thinking about female directors.
I realised that none of my favourite directors are female- I'm not sure that a female director would be in my top 20 if I had one. The obvious factors being that I haven't seen enough films by women and that the ratio of male to female filmmakers is very uneven.

Anyway, have a quick think about your absolute favourite filmmakers, how many of them are women?
We appear to be living in a time where diversity and representation are becoming more important in mainstream media.
So if we assume that we'll be seeing a greater number of female filmmakers as well as more prominent female filmmakers in the coming years, do you think that our regular list of favourites will begin to include a considerably greater number of women? Will film canon fans/audiences resist (or even care)?
Or are my assumptions wrong?

Also recommend recentish films by women directors.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: eward on June 14, 2018, 12:32:50 PM
Definitely more men in my favorite directors list, as would be expected, but several female filmmakers have been and continue to be hugely inspirational.

Those working today: Claire Denis, Lynne Ramsay, Sofia Coppola, Jane Campion, Kelly Reichardt, Amy Seimetz, Josephine Decker, Lynn Shelton, Greta Gerwig, Sarah Polley, Karyn Kusama, to name a few...

The Great Godmothers: Chantal Akerman (RIP<3), Elaine May, Agnes Varda, Ida Lupino....Leni?
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: samsong on June 14, 2018, 05:00:11 PM
"no amount of fierce, fantastic female ensembles can overcome the mediocrity of a dull male director".

how about it was just a stupid fucking idea in the first place and was bound to be garbage?  i imagine though that had a woman directed it, virtue signalling groupthink wouldve deemed it oscar-worthy.  when it comes to assessing films, i subscribe to the herzog adage that “all that matters is what’s on screen.”   i find the good faith exultation of films with conspicuosly diverse casts and crews to be condescending and troubling.  i get that representation is important and valuable, but i dont think arbitrarily celebrating it is good for the shifting paradigm in the long run.

eward’s list covers most noteworthy filmmakers who happen to be female.  my personal faves are the frenchies, particularly claire denis, who i consider to be among the five best fillmakers working today.  theres also lina wertmuller, who i havent seen much work by but shes held in high esteem. 
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: ©brad on June 15, 2018, 08:25:24 PM
how about it was just a stupid fucking idea in the first place and was bound to be garbage?

No more stupid of an idea than any other Ocean sequel. I haven't seen it but I love the cast and there's no reason why it couldn't be fun. I wish Soderbergh directed it.

i imagine though that had a woman directed it, virtue signalling groupthink wouldve deemed it oscar-worthy.

This is nonsense. You're smarter than this.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: samsong on June 15, 2018, 11:23:30 PM
how about it was just a stupid fucking idea in the first place and was bound to be garbage?

No more stupid of an idea than any other Ocean sequel. I haven't seen it but I love the cast and there's no reason why it couldn't be fun. I wish Soderbergh directed it.



were you as optimistic about the ghostbusters remake?  i don't see how dusting off old material and swapping out the male leads for females (or vice vera, for that matter... god forbid charlene's angels ever happens.) is of any value.  it's the studios blatantly doing the least they can do to appease and monetize the new social standards and demands.

i imagine though that had a woman directed it, virtue signalling groupthink wouldve deemed it oscar-worthy.

This is nonsense. You're smarter than this.

am i, though? 

thought the hyperbole in that statement was fairly obvious.  it's as nonsensical as someone attributing the shortcomings of a mostly female movie to the mediocrity of its male director.   

being good for the "movement" (whatever it may be) is being equated with quality work, and i find that disconcerting.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: eward on June 16, 2018, 08:05:15 AM
how about it was just a stupid fucking idea in the first place and was bound to be garbage?

No more stupid of an idea than any other Ocean sequel. I haven't seen it but I love the cast and there's no reason why it couldn't be fun. I wish Soderbergh directed it.



were you as optimistic about the ghostbusters remake?  i don't see how dusting off old material and swapping out the male leads for females (or vice vera, for that matter... god forbid charlene's angels ever happens.) is of any value.  it's the studios blatantly doing the least they can do to appease and monetize the new social standards and demands.

i imagine though that had a woman directed it, virtue signalling groupthink wouldve deemed it oscar-worthy.

This is nonsense. You're smarter than this.

am i, though? 

thought the hyperbole in that statement was fairly obvious.  it's as nonsensical as someone attributing the shortcomings of a mostly female movie to the mediocrity of its male director.   

being good for the "movement" (whatever it may be) is being equated with quality work, and i find that disconcerting.

I tend to agree. Samsong do you listen to the Bret Easton Ellis podcast? He waxes eloquently about this stuff on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: Drenk on June 16, 2018, 08:55:42 AM
BEE is also full of shit sometimes. I understand what you mean but A Wrinkle In Time wasn't praised as a masterpiece. Representation is a slow frustrating process: it begins with POC playing minor ridiculous characters in blockbusters while corporations congratulate themselves, but it works. It's a step.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: eward on June 16, 2018, 03:42:13 PM
BEE is also full of shit sometimes.

He can be. I disagree with him on a number of points, but his views in general on the matter I find pretty sensible. James Van Der Beek is the guest on the latest episode and provides a pretty solid counterpoint to several of Bret’s musings, it’s a very insightful conversation.
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: samsong on June 17, 2018, 02:50:06 AM
havent listened to BEE’s podcast.  ill gve it a whirl.  his tweets are fairly polarized for me whenever they come up (i dont actively follow him in any regard).
Title: Re: Female Filmmakers
Post by: eward on June 17, 2018, 07:31:24 AM
Yeah his tweets are largely crap and he’s admitted as much, he mostly seems to use it now for promotional purposes or to recommend things he’s seen/heard/read. But in terms of just pure movie conversation, his podcast (available now via Patreon) is one of the best, certainly my favorite.