The article, written to coincide with this year Oscars, is about women in the film industry.
As more female writers than ever were nominated in the screenplay categories this year (4 out of the 10 nominated) and Diablo Cody wins for Juno, the article begins by drawing links on the subject matter that the women writers have chosen to cover. They are all realistic, socially relevant, character pieces that reach a level of intimacy not obtained in the scripts written by men. So how is it, with such an abundance of talent, that the same does not apply to nominations for female directors?
Only three women have ever been nominated in the Best Director category at the Oscars; Sofia Coppola (who has the massive advantage of being the daughter of Frances Ford Coppola), Jane Campion and Lina Wertmuller. No woman has ever won. After quoting some statistics it is easy to see why the article thinks it is hard for women to be nominated: they just don't direct enough films (6% of films made in 2007 had a female director). And its not just the numbers that are blighting them. Just as with the screenplays, women only seem to direct character driven, female centric films, romantic comedies or documentaries. Is this because that's all that women WANT to direct? Speaking to female director Callie Khouri we find out that she believes the blame lies with the studios.
Because the majority of a cinema audience is male, studios just don't trust women with the big budget or themes when they feel a male director will better understand its audience. It then becomes clear that there is a direct correlation between this and the films women direct. They may be more closely linked to issues relevant to women but they are also much cheaper to produce.
OK, so where does the article's hypocrisy come in? Well, the article was written by a man. You only have to take a scan of the staff list inside any film magazine to notice just how many men are writing about films, and just how few women. Can you name a female film critic? chances are you stopped at Janet Street-Porter, and even she only ever does it occasionally.
Is this because women don't care about movies enough to get there? Are we really all far more concerned with fashion and gossip? Or could it be that because the readership of film publications is mostly male, the editors just don't trust female writers to be able to write for a male audience as proficiently as a man can. Do women only want write about chick flicks and famous film stars? I know I don't, but I'm starting to wonder if that might be the ceiling I'm going to hit.
Something tells me this is going to be harder than I thought.
Coxy
See http://moviesbywomen.com/stats_celluloid_ceiling_2005.php for more statistical information.
Article:
Christopher Goodwin, 'The Celluloid Ceiling', The Sunday Times. 24th February 2008.
4 comments:
You said it yourself, womena re into fashion and gossip and read shit like, HEAT and CLOSER - they like reading about Big Brother and Keri Catona (whoever the fuck she is).
Men are geeks, they watch movies and like escapism and to dream - women keep their feet closer to the ground which is why the women that DO make films only make the dramas like Jane Campion, Catherine Hardwicke etc. I like Kathryn Bigelow, not many like her but "Blue Steel" was a great female cop movie. Callie Khouri wrote "Thelma & Louise" and clearly had somethign to say about women in a man's world. Penelope Spheeris was just kinda punk and knew how to do the material when she did "Suburbia" and "Waynes World".
And that's just it - this IS a man's world and so is Hollywood. Studio execs probably dont trust women with million dollar budgets. A woman is directing The Punisher sequel, an action movie which surprises me though.
you make a good point but i think i am most dismayed about the apparant lack of difference in many peoples eyes between author and audience.
there are millions of men who watch films, and millions of women who read gossip magazines, but if either sex was determined enough to enter either as a profession, surely that shows dedication enough that sets themselves apart from the rest of the people who just watch/read for enjoyment.
those who do chose to set themselves apart in this way, and both journalism and film are extremely competetive areas to work in, having made it that far, doesnt that prove that regardless of sex, you are both passionate and know what you are doing. therfore surely equal oportunities should follow.
the article i quoted covered not only the women writers and directors desire to write about subjects close to them, but also their frustation at not being ble to do so when those subjects strayed into "man" territory.
callie khouri spent years trying to trying to make a film, first about baseball and another about nascar and was frustrated by the fact that she was told she would have more chance if she wrote a woman in it.
"journalism and film are extremely competetive areas to work in, having made it that far, doesnt that prove that regardless of sex, you are both passionate and know what you are doing."
It takes more than just passion though - talent and backing is involved and women ahave to have enough to compete with everyone else.
well i guess i just assumed that women were capable of being as talented as men.
as for backing...if you are refering to journalism, well i think people are pretty much on their own until a body of work has been established (through passion and talent). and in film, the fact that studios arnt backing the women is on grounds of sex, not talent or passion. thats exactly the point of the article, and mine.
Post a Comment