There are women who have become icons in literature, even if contenders for the “Great American Novel” are reserved for men. Surely Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is a good candidate for the title, even if it is routinely beaten on predictable lists by The Great Gatsby and Moby Dick. But Sylvia Plath, Emily Dickinson, Maya Angelou, Joan Didion, Anais Nin, Virginia Woolf, Toni Morrison, Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, Flannery O’Connor, Carson McCullers, Jane Austen — the list goes on and on — these are among the countless women writers who are respected, worshiped and iconized alongside men (though perhaps not quite to the same degree). Same goes for the visual arts of painting and photography. Men tend to be the more worshiped in the chef arena but who can top Julia Child?
One of the last bastions where women aren’t iconized is the pantheon of film directors, or film writers. Sure, a woman can break through if the film is good enough but how does the person become a worshiped god the way, say, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese and Alfred Hitchcock have become, so that even in their sloppiest, least focused moments there are hundreds of apologists who continue to defend them and help preserve their image. I know because I have been one of those. Most of my directing heroes are men. There are very few women who have had a chance to show us the right stuff to raise them to the worship zone.
Let’s take two examples: Sofia Coppola and Diablo Cody. Both of these women are distinctive enough, fiery enough, creative enough to have earned icon status, at the very least in the movie fandom universe. But Coppola has been mostly dismissed since Lost in Translation. No one really got Marie Antoinette — not even in that way male directors can be forgiven for films that are big risks that don’t quite come off. The Bling Ring was dismissed then ignored. If anyone should have achieved icon status it’s Coppola, she of the fashion, music and photography realms. Yet, other than her iconic influence in fashion, she has yet to become a director worthy of worship.
It’s been even worse for Diablo Cody, who cultivated an image not unlike Quentin Tarantino’s. Cody brought with her a whole universe, even creating a world with its own vocabulary. She was a stripper made good. She had tattoos. She was funny. She was cool. And yet, after Juno won her an Oscar it was then decided she was no longer cool. From then on, no one really forgave anything she did. The way people have already started to talk about Ricky and the Flash, it’s as if they’re talking about the last gasp of a fading rock-star playing a mid-size stadium in Fresno.
Of course, the one way women ARE worshiped as icons in film? For their looks. The most beautiful women hold the most power over film fans and thus, it is left in the hands of great male directors to bring their beauty into the realm of the goddess — as Hitchcock did for Grace Kelly. Among onscreen goddesses there are Sofia Loren, Jane Fonda, Marilyn Monroe, Scarlett Johansson, to name just a few.
Some directors in the past recognized this. Hollywood wasn’t always only about hiring hot young pieces of ass. Remember how unusual it was when Kubrick cast Shelly Duvall in The Shining. Do you think anyone would cast that actress today in that part? Not a chance. Robert Altman was famous for casting odd-looking women in leading roles, for toying with our expectations of beauty as fantasy. Fellini satirized the whole thing in La Dolce Vita, even if that message was lost on many. And of course, Ingmar Bergman did both – dropping to his knees for a pretty face while also exploring a colorful array of women’s stories beyond their beauty.
I’m wondering what it’s going to take for women to become icons behind the camera and whether or not other women — those who watch films and write about them — might play a role in subsequently tearing them down. Why does it seem so many women are not allowed to succeed because as soon as they grasp the brass ring they’re then resented by the so-called sisterhood? I’m thinking of Gwyneth Paltrow who decided to take her own career into her own hands and not rely on the male gaze to define her success. She created Goop, which has now earned her endless amounts of criticism. I’m also thinking of Oprah who is punished for her singular success in life, overcoming unbelievable obstacles to become a force to be reckoned with — someone with endless curiosity for art, film, literature and politics — yet because she’s Oprah she’s never really allowed to get the credit she deserves. There is always resentment against her as we saw at play this past year with Selma.
Men are often encouraged, noticed and iconized right out of the gate, as we’ve just seen happen to Damien Chazelle this past Oscar season. Tim Burton and Kenneth Branagh are now officially former male iconic directors in need of a career intervention. A chimpanzee could have directed Cinderella and sold tickets, and yet they couldn’t even give that no-brainer job to a woman?
Kathryn Bigelow once seemed to be acceptable on all points — pretty, thin, talented — making movies the boys liked. It seemed for a time like she might become the first major female director to reach icon status, but then remember how they ushered in Ben Affleck in 2012 while harshly shunting Bigelow to the side. Everyone felt so sorry for Affleck for not getting a nomination for Argo but with Bigelow it was kind of like how it was this year with Ava DuVernay — a verdict deemed almost acceptable given the supposed “crimes” of their films.
So what’s it going to take? It’s going to take a village of people who are outside your average film critic, fanboy blogger or 12-year-old boy. It’s going to take getting to know directors beyond just looking at their films, because I can tell you that when people sit down to watch an Eastwood movie, a Spielberg movie, a Woody Allen movie, or a Tarantino movie they’re sitting down with a director they know and love. Most of them don’t know any of the women directors in the same way.
That sense of “knowing” a great director for his filmography may be the very thing that’s so far been withheld from women. Until this past decade, precious few women have ever been given the chance to establish a foothold with that kind of audience familiarity. The value of being handed first-class opportunities is a priceless factor in attaining first-class status.
For example, imagine if Jane Campion had been given the opportunity to direct Silence of the Lambs? What if Kathryn Bigelow had been tapped to direct Munich? If Nora Ephron been offered Broadcast News? Or if Sophia Coppola had directed Million Dollar Baby? Naturally, the results would have been different movies, but there’s no reason to think they could not have been just as good, or even better, than the films now regarded as modern classics.
Clearly we lionize male directors because of the films they have made — but even men will ordinarily need to direct 4 or 5 great films before cinemaphiles elevate them to gods. Until very recently, it’s been impossible for any women to reach Director Goddess status because women simply never got the chance to show the world what they can do.
It’s easy enough to think of dozens of major movies directed by top-tier men the past 10 years and re-imagine what the results could have be if those films had been given to the best female directors to handle. But if we try to do the same thing with movies made much earlier than the mid-1990s, it’s virtually impossible to think of any female directors who were remotely close to having the training or experience to handle a major studio film.
For instance, what female director could have possibly done The Godfather? There just wasn’t any woman in that era who had ever been been given a chance to establish herself — and more importantly, no chance to polish her talent. Honestly, what prominent female directors even existed before 1970? Leni Riefenstahl, Ida Lupino, Lina Wertmuller? That’s about it.
Thankfully things are changing now, and with each success by a female director we hope to see the change accelerating. In the past 10 or 20 years we have seen more great female directors emerge than were ever given the chance in the entire prior history of movies. If there were only 5 female directors in the 80 years between 1920-2000, we can now welcome 50 more women directors in the 21st Century.
I’ll give credit to many film critics who do seem to know and appreciate obscure female directors that the mainstream critics don’t. I remember how a few of them really stood up for Claire Denis at Cannes this past year. Think about the cinematic style of Lena Wertmuller – totally recognizable as its own universe. Do we have any modern females who have that same kind of portable universe that is enriched with each film? How many auteurs do we have? What kinds of unfair restrictions do we put on them?
Women like Nora Ephron and Nancy Meyers did bring their personalities, sensibilities and universes with them — but they were mostly women-centric universes. Ephron in particular really did create her own language with the films she made, even if she was completely underrated ultimately. Would that the industry coddled and encouraged artists like Elaine May, Carrie Fisher, Nora Ephron, Diane Keaton, Tina Fey — giving them a kind of boost to help bring their universes to audiences to help shape the common definition of what it means to be an icon.
I’m still hoping Bigelow has her icon status firmed up and reserved, that nothing can really knock her out of it now that she’s the first and only woman to win the Best Director Oscar. I’m also hoping Ms. DuVernay retains her badass status, a woman unafraid to cower to the powers that be this past year when she was put on trial for supposedly defaming LBJ. DuVernay is quickly establishing her own stylistic universe, her own film language, like Bigelow, and it’s exciting to contemplate her fascinating evolution.
That kind of evolution can become a revolution in the industry if the women who buy tickets to movies and the women who write about movies can begin to hold female directors in the same esteem they give to men. It will stay that way when we reward women filmmakers with the same kind of fan worship we so easily grant to male directors. It will stay that way once we all start encouraging the fresh voices of film language that filmmakers like Sofia Coppola and Jane Campion bring to cinema. It is going to take a shift in how we see women, the chance to break free of the chains of beauty where women are too often defined and judged by their tits, their asses, and their pretty faces.
[Sidebar: You have no idea all that goes into making a woman look pretty or presentable. It isn’t just the hours spent applying makeup and doing hair. It’s all of the other maintenance like dieting, getting our nails done, plucking unwanted hair. It takes time and money and energy to look good. How can anyone get anything meaningful done when all of their time is spent on looking pretty? Unless you’re someone like Georgia O’Keefe and you roll out of bed looking like a million bucks, it’s hard out there for a woman who prefers to focus on the work.]
We like to think that we as a society are above the whole looks thing but we really aren’t. For women it’s a hundred times worse than it will ever be for men. For women of color a hundred times multiplied by another hundred. It’s a great thing to be admired. Sexual power is a thrilling thing to possess. But when will women ever be regarded in any other way but the way they look when it comes to film?
Is it about looks or is it about something more sinister — perhaps a general hatred or resentment by men of all the things women care about, talk about and think about? I don’t have the answers, only the questions. The Directors Branch in the Academy represent among the very worst where change is concerned. Here are the films that were nominated for Best Picture — even when there were only five nominees — and not nominated for Best Director:
Children of a Lesser God
Awakenings
The Prince of Tides
Little Miss Sunshine (by half)
An Education
The Kids Are All Right
Winter’s Bone
Zero Dark Thirty
Selma
The Academy itself helped solved this problem when they had a flat ten nominees.
Count how many films nominated for Best Picture directed by women — but it didn’t solve the Directors Branch continual shut-out of women.
2009
Picture – 2 | Best Director 1 (winner)
2010
Picture – 2 | Best Director 0
2011
Picture – 2 | Best Director 0
2012
Picture – 1 | Best Director 0
2013
Picture – 0 | Best Director 0
2014
Picture – 1 | Best Director 0
Because the opportunities have been given more freely to men, it’s the men who are allowed to build up their canon, indulged with their vision of the world, able to repeat certain themes. With women, they barely get one crack at it, let alone many.
One film made by Penny Marshall that does well doesn’t necessarily mean the next film by Penny Marshall — even if it’s a success — will necessarily build up the legacy of Penny Marshall. Women are looked upon not as auteurs but rather hired guns who may or may not be able to make a movie as good as a man can.
Unless female directors can build a body of work that includes films that step outside their comfort zone of “relationship movies” they are going to be regarded as niche directors. I can make, incidentally, this same argument for black (or specifically African American) directors. Spike Lee is one of the few who built a body of work with its own language and universe — a total standout, vision wise, and someone who was not accepted readily as, say, a Quentin Tarantino is.
My own theory is that men dominate the conversation and make the deals. They idealize directors because they can live vicariously through them. It’s harder for your average straight man to envy or idealize a female in the same way. To them, a female represents something to possess, to obtain as a mark of success or someone to impress, rather than someone they necessarily want to BE. There are exceptions to every rule and there are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part that’s what I see.
Now that there are more ways to become famous beyond relying on journalists or critics I expect this to change. We can all do better getting to know and making icons of women — just look at how warmly the world of Lena Dunham has been embraced (though just barely). She took to Twitter to help build her own image. DuVernay and Lexi Alexander are also using Twitter to build their own personae outside of the mainstream media’s restrictions. This is a good thing, even if it’s a hard thing. You take a lot of shit for being outspoken on Twitter, especially if you’re female.
lol Ryan I’m sure most of us hate a celebrity or public figure for saying stupid things. Well maybe not hate, that’s a strong word. High level of annoyance?
People hate Gwenyth Paltrow because she’s an airhead and says ridiculous things
there’s something seriously mentally ill about anyone who would hate a stranger for such a stupid reason.
People hate Gwenyth Paltrow because she’s an airhead and says ridiculous things, not because she’s a successful woman. Puh-lease
Speaking of Sarah Polley’s next step…
http://www.thewrap.com/amy-pascal-sarah-polley-team-on-little-women-remake-at-sony-exclusive/
The Ascent is one of the 10 best movies ever, IMO.
We should just have an entire post not even about female filmmakers but about the universe entire and just call it ‘Elaine May’ and literally just have pictures and clips of Elaine May and all the text would just say ‘Elaine May’.
Great catalog, Paddy. Early on I had the same instinct of telling people about the great female filmmakers of past and present, but then it became clearer that wasn’t quite the “point” of the post — all the same, I’m glad someone did. Larisa Shepitko made THE ASCENT, one of the greatest war films in the history of the cinema, a model for women as rigorous formalists meeting classic storytellers (e.g., Brian de Palma). For now I’ll just add Elaine May as “essential 70’s”.
I’ll do my bit here to open the eyes of a select many people reading this page to the fabulous female talent that exists behind the camera.
Start with the 1970s – a good half or so of the great films made in the later years of that decade came from female auteurs: Marguerite Duras, Agnes Varda, Larisa Shepitko, Chantal Akerman, Lina Wertmuller. A few years earlier, we had women like Vera Chytilova, a few years later there was Margarethe von Trotta. and Marleen Gorris. Into the ’90s, inimitable, vital Chinese voices such as Clara Law and Ann Hui alongside unfairly dismissed North American indie directors like Julie Dash, Allison Anders, Alison MacLean, Donna Deitch. Mavericks like Marion Hansel, Ava DuVernay, Lynne Ramsay, Sofia Coppola, Sally Potter, big names like Leni Riefenstahl and Kathryn Bigelow, experimenters like Barbara Hammer, Carine Adler, Pirjo Honkasalo, Catherine Breillat, arthouse giants Claire Denis, Lucrecia Martel, Kelly Reichardt, Jessica Hausner and rising stars Chiang Hsiu Chiung, Jennifer Kent, Narimane Mari and Mati Diop.
Interesting fact that says a lot:
Lost in Translation: Budget $4 million. Box office $40 million.
Marie Antoinette: Budget $40 million. Box office $4 million
There are many up and coming women directors, but it may be awhile before most are allowed into the Boy’s Club.
The situation is even worse for the film industry as a whole. Films with female protagonists tend to be met with a collective yawn. Even classic films headlined by women are picked apart and put to the side in favor of the “trendy” guy flick. Look at “Best of” lists. Films starring women are the most fluid, if not left off lists altogether. Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, All About Eve, and Sunset Boulevard used to be fixtures at the top of these lists, yet they are slowly moving down (or off) to make room for some 1960’s shoot ’em up, Star Wars sequel, or whatnot. A new entry featuring a woman in the lead role, in films like Titanic or The Sound of Music or Meet Me in St. Louis, is met with derision. New entries like The Magnificent Seven or Die Hard are met with enthusiasm.
Women don’t even stick up for one another. So much of what they enjoy, craft, or partake in is ridiculed by the other side, and many women join in just to earn credibility.
bottom line: you all need to see the wonders. it’s brilliant.
Don’t take “part of the problem” as an offense, because being part of the problem is being part of the solution, too.
Sasha has been writing about that. Advocacy. Noise. Do you think that Amores Perros got distribution from nothing? What about critics rallying? Wasn’t that part of the solution. I am talking about The Wonders not because I loved it (I did) but because you talk about female filmmakers the whole year, then you go to Cannes and you don’t write about the only two movies directed by women in competition? I am not talking about AD specifically, but what if critics tried to be a little supportive of that movie? What if they did pay some attention? What if somebody wrote a text and mentioned the O-word. What if more critics went to see it? Maybe somebody could have bought it? I know I sound naive, but you don’t realize that some festival-picking decision are based on the expectation of an Oscar nomination, right? You influence people!
But you know, you’re overreacting. I am not accusng anyone of fucking up anyone’s Hollywood career. It was just an example! An example of how you sometimes ignore female filmmakers even being in a place where there are only two among 20 you’re supposed to cover.
An example of how much more women directors deserve attention, and how much sometimes you focus on directors that are just not good! Forget Alice! Stick to Kelly Reichart. I’d love to read your posts about her. You got a lot of traffic with your Oscar coverage, so, why not to post a Kelly Reichart article, just for the sake of it, without thinking about how many people are reading, as you said before? I am sure Sasha won’t complain that there are less people reading your Kelly Reichart article.
Isn’t Ryan “based” in the “Mid” “West”?
debased
but that’s another topic for another time
Isn’t Ryan “based” in the “Mid” “West”? Exceptions notwithstanding (e.g., Bob Altman, Ryan Adams), I don’t have the area in good concept, I mean in general.
Ryan, historically, Hollywood has been very open to foreign directors
I’d be interested to see a list of all the women directors from other countries that Hollywood has welcomed with open arms.
That’s what this post is about: Women being given opportunities in Hollywood. yes?
Forgive me if I would first like to focus on AMERICAN women being given movie jobs in Hollywood before I begin to worry about all the women directors from all over the world — women who seem to be pretty happy living and working in their own countries where their talent is more appreciated than it would be in Hollywood and where directing jobs in their native language are easier for them to get.
(not to mention it’s probably far more fulfilling for many female directors to work in their own national film industries instead of trying to come to America and make spaceship movies with Sandra Bullock.)
I think Leni Riefenstahl got to go on a tour of Disney studios one afternoon in the 1930s, but as far as I know Walt never gave her a job.
caleb, I know I probably sound harsh in these past two replies. I’m sorry about that. Truly.
That harsh attitude can happen when I’m told I need to “open my eyes” and scolded for being “part of the problem.”
You know why I say this? Because in 2000 a movie called Amores Perros was screened in Critics Week in Cannes. Critics made a lot of noise.
American critics and movie writers are able to make noise about movies that they can WATCH.
– Yes, Amores Perros won a prize at Cannes in May 2000. I wasn’t there.
– Yes, Amores Perros got a US distributor and FINALLY screened in America in March 2001. At 100 theaters. None of them anywhere close to me.
– Yes, I finally got to see Amores Perros on DVD when it was FINALLY released on disc, September 2001.
– Yes, the Oscar nomination for Amores Perros in March 2001 came and went with NO POSSIBLE WAY IN THE WORLD FOR ME TO SEE Amores Perros.
I paid 20 bucks to see Amores Perros on DVD — 17 MONTHS after it won a prize at Cannes. In late 2001. Long before I met Sasha, and LONG AFTER anything I could have said about Amores Perros would have made any difference at all in its success.
Tell me again HOW I AM “PART OF THE PROBLEM” IN THIS SCENARIO.
It’s Now 11 Months after Alice Rohrwacher’s The Wonders won a prize in Cannes.
Has The Wonders ever had a US release date? No, it has not.
Has The Wonders ever had a UK release date? No, it has not.
Is The Wonders out on DVD in any form with subtitles so that I can see it and write about it?
No it is not.
Tell me again HOW I AM “PART OF THE PROBLEM” IN THIS SCENARIO.
This movie has no US distributor. It is UNSEEABLE in America.
The Wonders has never been screened in America except for ONE NIGHT at the AFI Fest last November. I wasn’t able to get on a plane and fly out there to see it.
Tell me again HOW I AM “PART OF THE PROBLEM” IN THIS SCENARIO.
I’m NOT based in LA. but even if I was, do you think I can automatically go see every one of the 70 movies that screen at the AFI Fest? Do you have any idea how much that would cost?
Does Alice Rohrwacher even speak English fluently? WHO KNOWS? There is no trace of her speaking English anywhere on the internet that I can find.
This apparent lack of ability to speak English or even any desire to visit America (as far as I can discover) is probably more of an impediment to Alice Rohrwacher’s glorious Hollywood career that I’m being accused of carelessly fucking up for her.
We chose our battles on this sight, caleb.
We can’t be cheerleading for every film that wins a prize at Cannes, especially if the filmmaker herself has shown no desire for us to rescue her from Italy and have her imported to Hollywood.
We can barely convince Academy members to watch SELMA. Tell me again how we’re falling down on the job by not nagging Oscar voters to watch a movie That Italy Did Not Even Choose to Submit for The Oscars.
I’ll see The Wonders as soon as I can, but I expect that won’t be for months.
It wasn’t easy to track down Amores Perros for myself in 2001, but I did it. I did it because I love movies, not because I was writing for a movie site. Because 2001 was 6 years before I ever met Sasha.
You know why I say this? Because in 2000 a movie called Amores Perros was screened in Critics Week in Cannes. Critics made a lot of noise.
American critics and movie writers are able to make noise about movies that they can WATCH.
Yes, Amores Perros won a prize at Cannes in May 2000. I wasn’t there.
yes, Amores Perros got a US distributor and FINALLY screened in America in March 2001. At 100 theaters. None of them anywhere close to me.
yes, I finally got to see Amores Perros on DVD when it was FINALLY released on disc, September 2001.
yes, the Oscar nomination for Amores Perros in March 2001 came and went with NO POSSIBLE WAY IN THE WORLD FOR ME TO SEE Amores Perros.
I paid 20 buck to see Amores Perros on DVD — 17 MONTHS after it won a prize at Cannes
Tell me again HOW I AM “PART OF THE PROBLEM” IN THIS SCENARIO.
It’s Now 11 Months after Alice Rohrwacher’s The Wonders won a prize in Cannes.
Has The Wonders ever had a US release date? No, it has not.
Has The Wonders ever had a UK release date? No, it has not.
Is The Wonders out on DVD in any form with subtitles so that I can see it and write about it?
No it is not.
Tell me again HOW I AM “PART OF THE PROBLEM” IN THIS SCENARIO.
This movie has no US distributor. It is UNSEEABLE in America.
This movie has never been screened in America except for ONE NIGHT at the AFI Fest last November. I wasn’t able to get on a plane and fly out there to see it.
Tell me again HOW I AM “PART OF THE PROBLEM” IN THIS SCENARIO.
I’m NOT based in LA. but even if I was, do you think I can automatically go see every one of the 60 movies that screen at the AFI Fest? Do you have any idea what that would cost?
Does Alice Rohrwacher even speak English fluently? WHO KNOWS? There is no trace of her speaking English anywhere on the internet that I can find.
This apparent lack of ability to speak English or even visit America (as far as I can discover) is probably more of an impediment to Alice Rohrwacher’s glorilus Hollywood that I’m being accused of carelessly fucking up for her.
We chose our battles on this sight, caleb. We can’t be cheerleading for every film that wins a prize at Cannes, especially if the filmmaker herself has shown no desire for us to rescue her from Italy have her imported to Hollywood.
We can barely convince Academy members to watch SELMA. Tell me again how we’re falling down on the job by not nagging Oscar voters to watch a movie That Italy Did Not Even Choose to Submit for The Oscars.
Ryan, historically, Hollywood has been very open to foreign directors. And Hollywood prestige and foreign arthouse auteurs are NOT in different worlds. And YOU, press and bloggers, Awards Daily included, are part of the system – and of the problem.
When Alice Rohrwacher presents in Cannes a beautiful movie that gets a Grand Prix prize and she gets no coverage about her movie, she is not getting the media she needs to have projects offered to her, or to people to give her money if she wants to film in Hollywood. Not that she needs to go to Hollywood or to direct an English-language project, but she could. Of course this is not the only reason why it happens, but it is one of the reasons.
You know why I say this? Because in 2000 a movie called Amores Perros was screened in Critics Week in Cannes. Critics made a lot of noise. The director of the movie just win the Oscar for best director. It’s not the only example. Have you seen Milos Forman’s Czech movies? Arthouse cheap movies without any pressure to sell tickets. He won Best Director twice.
And they don’t even have to go to Hollywood, since many “arthouse-and-cheap-and-foreign” directors were nominated, from Michael Haneke to Almodóvar to Kieslowski…
My point is: many of the women I mentioned, American and foreign, could use a lot of coverage. It could help them. But they have to be good, like the ones I’ve mentioned. Yes, Kelly Reichart, yes, Lynne Ramsay. But you, the media and the bloggers have to open your eyes and not stick to the ones people already know – some of them are really bad. And not only in Cannes, where Rohrwacher and Kawase were screened, but during the whole year, in every week. You are based in LA! You do have a chance to see the movies and talk about them!
(It looks like Agnes Varda’s Vagabonds earned $6 million in 1985, so that would be $12 million in today’s ticket prices. Anyone have any idea of the budget for Vagabonds?)
caleb roth,
You’re absolutely right that there should be more comprehensive coverage of women directors from around the world.
I would love to do that, but I would have to be prepared to explain to Sasha why all the posts I want to post about Kelly Reichardt (for example) are not getting any page views.
This article specifically deals with the obstacles female directors face in Hollywood, in the American film industry.
Yes, brava to all the women in other countries where the societal barriers to women in film are not as oppressive as those faced by American women in L.A.
There are many reasons for these obstacles. Foremost, we should never overlook the primary difference between making movies in Hollywood and making movies anywhere else in the world.
Agnes Varda is not given budgets of $50 million and she doesn’t need to make movies that earn $50, (or even $5 million).
There ARE American women who make movies on the same scale as Agnes Varda. Kelly Reichardt made Wendy and Lucy for $300,000. It earned a tidy teeny profit of $800,000. A sum that does not support TV advertising.
Without advertising, the only people who go see those movies are the small niche film aficionados in big cities. Those movies show up on 20 screens, max, in a country of 350,000,000 people.
I don’t know how much Reichaadt’s brilliant Night Moves cost to make, but it earned $700,000. (We can hope and probably expect that it was a break-even endeavor). It’s a terrific film. But when movies are produced for less than a million dollars, it means 50 filmmakers, including actors, are working for a pittance compared to what major studios pay their talent.
Yes, great American movies are made on this smaller scale every year, but they don’t screen in any multiplexes and they are rarely seen by more than a few thousand people. (Doing the math, around 100,000 people bought tickets to see Night Moves).
It should come as no surprise that this economic model works fine in France or Italy, but let’s not ever dream in our wildest dreams that 10 million French people are standing in line to see Agnes Varda movies. But that’s ok. No need. She can have a career with the support of no more than several hundred thousand ticket buyers.
The American film distribution system is not only not designed to accommodate movies on this scale — I suspect that it’s designed to inhibit and squelch and bury any movies that are not going to make American executives (and stars) rich — rich rich rich.
Luckily though, there’s now an infrastructure becoming established that has allowed even the smallest obscure films to be seen by anyone who’s inclined to like that type of movie. The possibilities began to open up with the advent of VHS and DVD, and these new opportunities to find audiences for smaller films is now on the threshold of exploding in a new era with the technology of VOD and online access.
But for decades the studios and theaters have virtually colluded to EXCLUDE small movies from the conversation. Only devoted cinemaphiles knew about esoteric films by talented filmmakers who were relatively unknown.
I suspect it’s the same way in other countries around the world, but I also suspect it’s not so hard to reach an audience in countries that are smaller than the state of Colorado.
===
But anyway, all this is really beyond and outside the focus of this particular post. This article seeks to explore the problems encountered by women directors when they want to play on the same large scale as Spielberg or even the comparatively smaller scale of Paul Thomas Anderson (one of many male directors who is not expected to have an opening weekend of $75 million).
So, for example, comparing Agnes Varda to Ava DuVernay is unfair on so many levels. Selma cost $20 million. I doubt if Agnes Varda has spent $20 million on her last 5 films combined. And Varda doesn’t have to worry about those films being top 10 at the box-office either.
This article is not concerned with that. It’s concerned with the kind of films that launch male directors into the stratosphere of icon status, because the type of movies they make, and the way those movies are marketed, leads to millions and millions of moviegoers being able to SEE the movies.
Ryan. Good points!
It’s true that most of those successful Jews were men. And Riefenstahl was handed the keys to the movie kingdom. And she really ran with it and changed the art form. She proves the point that a woman who has a great talent can move mountains when given the opportunity. So no, I don’t believe that women don’t have what it takes. But Riefenstahl was not making movies to make money. In her mind she was making art. In Hitler’s mind she was making powerful propaganda art. (By the way Riefenstahl’s career ended after the war because of her association with Hitler.)
So part of the problem is certainly the profit demands of Hollywood.
I think that many who try to support women filmmakers don’t really know a lot of women filmmakers. One example: you go to Cannes and I don’t remember reading here a single word about The Wonders, directed by a woman and winner of the second prize of the festival, the Grand Prix. Or the movie by Naomi Kawase, who won the same prize for her prior movie (a masterpiece and was again in competition last year. How can directors like those, or like Lucrecia Martel or Americans like Courtney Hunt or Debra Granik or Nicole Kassell or Julia Loktev ever crossover if people who shpuld be supporting them are trying to highlight a terrible director like Nancy Neyers? I mean, there are a lot of brilliant women directors, but even well-meaning people can’t be ablevto support them? And that goes beyond the work of modern directors. What about people discovering the great Larisa Shepitko, who made one of the best movies ever in The Ascent, available in that glorious Criterion edition? Or Liliana Cavani? Or Margarethe von Trotta? Or a true icon like Agnes Varda? Or Chantal Akerman (icon, too, look at the Sight and Sound list). Let’s talk about women directors, sure, but not these Nancy Meyers or Nora Ephrons and Anne Fletchers.
Of course, no way could people who “HATE” Gwyneth Paltrow be guilty of any classist insanity, right?
Does Gwyneth Paltrow HATE people who have economic struggles? I never heard that.
But you admit in your comment that you think she deserves to be hated.
So remind me again who’s behaving insanely? Who’s got the insane hatred going on? Looks like you do.
Gwyneth Paltrow doesn’t want to feed her kids chemicals in a packet? So you hate her for that? Dude, get a fucking grip.
Peter Panavision,
Several days ago you contributed a comment that was one of my favorite comments of the week. It was great! (I’ll find it in a minute).
Now you’ve given us another one, but gotta say, today’s comment makes me a little ill.
Please please, think about what you’re saying: (I’m going to paraphrase, to highlight the crudity, sorry):
(apologies again for the horrid distillation: my harsh wording, not yours)
But the message this conveys, to me, is grotesque. Please think this through more carefully.
We know about Leni Riefenstahl for the exact reason outlined in this article: SHE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. She was given carte blanche, unlimited budget, vast resources of free talent (hundreds of thousands of free Nazi soldiers to fill her canvas).
Riefenstahl caught Hitler’s eye when she was a 29-year-old bold sassy athletic hottie. She was reportedly gorgeous on the same level as Marlene Dietrich. Hitler was charmed by her and he gave her the fucking world, he laid vast resources at her feet.
What happened to Riefenstahl’s brilliance when she lost the support of Hitler? She collapsed into oblivion. She vanished into nothingness.
Why? Where did she go? Where did her irrepressible “talent” go? I thought her talent was supposed to override any issues of connections, systemic support, mentoring, sex appeal, free reign extravagance, and her horrendous toadying to the one man who is totally responsible for her shot at fame. No?
Yes, she was crazy talented, yes, she was a sick genius, yes, she grabbed the opportunities handed to her on a silver platter and made the best weirdest use of her chances.
But the fact remains: If Leni Riefenstahl had been born in Idaho with the exact same talent, exact same brain, exact same beauty, and she had taken a bus to Hollywood in 1932 expecting to direct a movie, SHE WOULD STILL BE UNKNOWN today.
Unless Idaho Leni had caught the eye of FDR and he gave her 10 million dollars and complete access to all the resources of the Pentagon.
Interesting thing all these talented Jews have in common besides being Jewish? They’re all men. I guess Jewish girls were just stupid no-talent nothings back then?
Has anyone ever seen the Das Blaue Licht? Leni Riefenstahl’s SOLE film as director before she was handed the OPPORTUNITY to make Triumph of the Will? Has anyone seen it? (other than Hitler)? It’s got some pretty nice cinematography, I’ve heard. It also had some terrifically talented Jewish collaborators who contributed immeasurably to its production and screenplay.
Not that anyone would have known that in 1937, because those talented Jews got their names removed from the credits of Riefenstahl’s first film, so it appeared Riefenstahl created it all on her own. How very handy for her.
Riefenstahl always tried to claim that the International Olympic Committee asked her to direct Olympia. There is no evidence of that. Nope, Hitler himself commissioned the film and gave her a blank check to make it, to premiere on his 49th birthday.
I wonder what kind of movie Sarah Polley could make if she was given a blank check, complete dictatorial freedom with VIP connections, and total access to all the unlimited resources of the Canadian government?
Such a film might be pretty spectacular, you think?
Sasha. Thanks for responding. I respect your point of view. I’m just offering up another way to look at the situation. I think that this “blame the white males” attitude which is prevalent in our society is actually a kind of racism or sexism. It is similar to Nazi Germany where they blamed the Jews for everything. The Jews controlled the media, the movies, the art, the music. The Germans couldn’t get ahead in life because the Jews were taking all of the good jobs. Jews were promoting and hiring other Jews and not real Germans. German culture was being dominated by Jewish culture. Jews were the taste makers. Now we blame white males.
In any case isn’t Hollywood really all about money? Isn’t that what dictates taste? I’m sure we will be seeing American Sniper type movies for the next five years. But that is because the public asked for it. And that public is not just middle aged males. Shouldn’t we really be blaming Capitalism rather than the white male?
Another small point. Who has the single most successful career in Hollywood (in my opinion)? Wouldn’t that be Meryl Streep? She sure isn’t getting jobs because of her looks. She makes one or two movies every year. She gets all of the plum roles. She is worshipped by all. When somebody has real talent they shine through.
I certainly am no Hollywood insider as you are. I’m sure that what you see is true and exists. I don’t mean to doubt you. Just offering up another perspective.
I’ve been reading here for years (just not a big commentor) and I love that it has evolved onto a new chapter. Sasha is an advocate for good film-making and calling out a broken Oscar system which only rewards a narrow clique with a lack of diversity and its publicists. Some other blogs just play Oscar’s game instead of fighting from within.
Gwyneth Paltrow is not hated for her success. She’s hated for her classist insanity.
“I would rather die than let my kid eat Cup-a-Soup.”
Deeply frustrated by the thread — memories of Kathryn “Catherine the Great” Bigelow.
I think that DuVernay has the best projection to being an icon.
I think so too and the reason for this is that she has broader support and doesn’t need to be anointed by middle aged white guys.
I think you are incredibly insightful and a gifted writer, but I do feel like I’ve been reading the same article over and over on this site for the last six months. SXSW is happening right now, Sally Field is getting Oscar buzz for Hello, My Name is Doris and other possible revelations have been made and that’s the kind of thing I’m excited to come here and read about. Not to say I don’t appreciate your think pieces, I have all the respect in the world! I just wish there could be a slight shift of focus to the work being done and screened now and what we can expect to see in the coming months. I feel there has been a better balance in the past on the site. But what do I know! I’ll keep reading no matter what. Thanks so much for all you do!
Yeah thanks Nancy but it’s all I could do to write this at all. What I want to do is disappear entirely and not write a single thing for the next five months. I am hoping to frame the year starting with this and watching how it all goes to shit by November. I do have a broad plan. I need more writers to cover the stuff that I’m too emotionally exhausted to cover. I retweet those things but SXSW is not an Oscar player at any rate. It comes out too early in the year. You watch with hope at the beginning of the year – you go to Cannes with hope and you watch them one by one drop like flies. You do that long enough and pretty soon you get in the habit of saying yeah but. Yeah but….I will cover this at some point.
“Isn’t Sarah Polley achieving something of a good base to someday have a solid filmmaking career?”
With Away with Her and Stories We Tell, I would say Polley already has more than a merely good base of work. Stories We Tell in particular was a brilliant Rashomon-esque personal essay. As strong as the 2013 Documentary field was overall, Stories’ exclusion from the nominee list stings for me.
Seconded.
So when I read about there not being superstar women directors I ask myself, “Is it a question of discrimination or talent?” My guess is that it is largely an issue of talent. If a woman director came along with knock your socks off talent like a Spielberg or Hitchcock you better believe that Hollywood would embrace her. And I’m not talking about small art films. We’re talking films that connect with the masses. Movies that make huge bucks. The kind of movies that allow the director to fail every once in a while.
Nope, completely disagree. The same argument is made again and again to protest affirmative action. What I see it’s about – discouragement/encouragement. Within the Jewish culture there was plenty of encouragement to do great works regardless of how the Germans, or the Americans or the Christians thought of them. Within our culture women are DISCOURAGED. More than they are anywhere else. Here, women are encouraged to be pretty where the culture of Hollywood is concerned. They are not trusted nor do they get backed. You seem to be missing my point which is that it isn’t just a matter of “make a great movie and we’ll notice a great movie” – it’s a matter of appealing to a specific sensibility – 30 to 40ish white male across the board from film critics to bloggers to industry voters. Films made by women are usually either not understood or not appreciated. I think I made my point pretty well with Sofia Coppola – had Marie Antoinette been directed by a man that man would have celebrity status. Just like if Whiplash had been directed by a woman she would not become a directorial celebrity like Damien Chazelle has. It isn’t just about the work – it’s about the response to the work, the lack of strong women writers writing about women filmmakers, getting them and encouraging them. It is about abandoning this culture of film to men – white men – who completely control both the taste making and the criticism and the popularity. It is only getting worse. So yeah, I do think you are 100% wrong in a dangerous fashion and it goes way way way WAY beyond simple political correctness. Your response shows me a lack of complex thinking about the situation and all too easy dismissal of the problem.
Lucrecia Martel from Argentina, Agnes Varda from France or Lynne Ramsay from Scotland for great examples.
Yes except Ramsay has now been destroyed in the American media. Agnes Varda is a GREAT example.
Are you talking about American female filmmakers? Hollywood? Because there are female directors with avid cult followings. Just take Lucrecia Martel from Argentina, Agnes Varda from France or Lynne Ramsay from Scotland for great examples.
I am going to offer up some very politically incorrect thoughts here that just might get me banned from this site. So fasten your seatbelts.
I notice a lot of resentment being expressed on this site…a lot of musings on how the world isn’t fair and that this person or that person is being held back because of their race or gender. Certainly some of this is true. But here is another perspective.
In 18th century Europe Jews were considered almost sub-human. No one would ever have believed that they were capable of any great achievements. But as Jews were slowly emancipated and began to embrace Europe’s secular culture in the 19th century an amazing thing began to happen. Jews flourished in the arts and sciences. The most popular composers in Europe were Jewish: Mendelsohn, Meyerbeer, Offenbach. They were the big box office. Germany’s most popular poet was Heinrich Heine, a Jew. In fact Jews were so successful that non-Jews began to feel resentment (there’s that word again) which eventually led in part to the Holocaust.
So my point is this: Jews were looked down upon and certainly discriminated against. But because they had the actual talent, the goods, they succeeded beyond anyone’s belief. They proved that you can’t hold back talent.
So when I read about there not being superstar women directors I ask myself, “Is it a question of discrimination or talent?” My guess is that it is largely an issue of talent. If a woman director came along with knock your socks off talent like a Spielberg or Hitchcock you better believe that Hollywood would embrace her. And I’m not talking about small art films. We’re talking films that connect with the masses. Movies that make huge bucks. The kind of movies that allow the director to fail every once in a while.
People, men or women, with the kind of talent we are talking about simply can’t be stopped. They are driven to overcome all obstacles on their way to achieving their dreams, to do what they absolutely have to do. The only woman director that falls into this category is Riefenstahl…in my opinion.
I pray for the day that a woman director reaches the heights in Hollywood. But I can promise you that it will be a woman who will give not one thought to the idea of discrimination. Nothing in the world will ever hold her back.
Suuuuure,
but let us have
a symposium
On The Early Works Of Kate Bigelow
might i suggest Streisand as an icon that was derided just as she was getting started? i thought YENTL and PRINCE OF TIDES were both impressive. had she tackled other projects, she just might have created some classics.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Sofia Coppola began her directing career with the team her dad used…
fine, if you now want to carp about Polanski relying on the top stable of talent at Paramount’s disposal in those peak production years, Chinatown the very same year as Godfather II. Not hearing anyone sneer about Robert Evans being the organizational force behind The Godfather and Chinatown. Why is that?
“…it’s pretty odd to suggest she as a director should be uttered in the same breath as…”
Want to know what else is pretty odd? It’s pretty odd that you want to compare The Virgin Suicides to Chinatown when the relevant and pertinent comparison would be The Virgin Suicides and Knife in the Water.
(Two stunning debuts that led to offers of epic opportunities for Polanski, but for S. Coppola led to increasingly niche boutique showcase displays of her talent.)
But thanks, I guess, for perfectly illustrating the exact problem of fucked-up double standards that this article describes.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Sofia Coppola began her directing career with the team her dad used which accounted for the ultra competence of her first couple of films. Even with that, Virgin Suicides and Translation are not in the same league as Chinatown, The Last Picture Show or Taxi Driver. Since then she has done a few minor films that are nowhere near the top ten of any given year so it’s pretty odd to suggest she as a director should be uttered in the same breath as Scorsese or Anderson or Hitchcock.
I would add Louisa May Alcott (Little Women), Harriett Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) and Margaret Mitchell (Gone With The Wind) to our list of female contenders for the Great American Novel, and don’t even get me started about non-American writers (Madame de La Fayette, George Sand, Daphné du Maurier) and I would gladly add some of the most famous and bestselling names in literature are females (Agatha Christie, JK Rowling…) and of course their contribution to children’s literature is priceless (La Comtesse de Ségur, Beatrix Potter, Pamela L. Travers, Dodie Smith).
While I completely agree in abhorring the alarming lack of female directors, the reasons you suggest for the dismissal of Diablo Cody and Sofia Coppola bothers me. In my humble opinion neither have made a remarkable film since their breakthroughs (I am a fan of Young Adult, but not to the extent that its lack of iconic stature infuriates me). Should have more female directors be nominated when their films were? Probably (Billy Crystal made a great joke about it in his 1992 hosing medley). Does this mean we have to like and elevate any movie made by a female director who made one good movie? Hell no.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that there aren’t female directors who get the chance to begin with, thus limiting the chances of one of them emerging as an icon. Trying to compensate for that by pretending every female director who reaches the public awareness is infallible, is a step in the wrong direction,
“Help us Obi-Wan DuVernay, you’re our only hope.” Well, perhaps not our only hope, but our best hope at this moment.
“Isn’t Sarah Polley achieving something of a good base to someday have a solid filmmaking career?”
With Away with Her and Stories We Tell, I would say Polley already has more than a merely good base of work. Stories We Tell in particular was a brilliant Rashomon-esque personal essay. As strong as the 2013 Documentary field was overall, Stories’ exclusion from the nominee list stings for me.
Yeah yeah. I actually used her as an example to make my point about this lack of names and this happens, I believe, more on the Propaganda and all the history behind it. I would say that Agnes Vardá, one of the great minds behind the Nouvelle Vague is one of the closer that we can call icon
Isn’t Sarah Polley achieving something of a good base to someday have a solid filmmaking career?
“Leni Riefestahl is an icon… not in the best way, but she is”
That’s why this post cites Riefenstahl.
The point is, 1920-1999: dozens, HUNDREDS of male director icons.
The point is, 1920-1999: ONE female director icon.
Leni Riefestahl is an icon….not in the best way, but she is
@Nancy
You think Sasha wants to be sat in the dark trying to shine that light over and over? True, she does bang the same drum sometimes, but this article gave yet another tint on perspective. I enjoyed it. The issue is a big fat door that needs to be continually banged on – who else is writing this kind of stuff?
Kathy Bigelow the auteur.
I think you are incredibly insightful and a gifted writer, but I do feel like I’ve been reading the same article over and over on this site for the last six months. SXSW is happening right now, Sally Field is getting Oscar buzz for Hello, My Name is Doris and other possible revelations have been made and that’s the kind of thing I’m excited to come here and read about. Not to say I don’t appreciate your think pieces, I have all the respect in the world! I just wish there could be a slight shift of focus to the work being done and screened now and what we can expect to see in the coming months. I feel there has been a better balance in the past on the site. But what do I know! I’ll keep reading no matter what. Thanks so much for all you do!
I think that DuVernay has the best projection to being an icon. The way she did not back down from the criticism and in fact turned the conversation towards her art, she is elevating her work above the conversations du jour. I think it’s wonderful. More respect for her. I can’t wait to see what she does with the Katrina film.
Bigelow responded to her critics more directly, and I think that hurt ZDT.
The biggest change needs to come from the studios. It’s hard to build up a resume of films when the opportunities are so scarce. Going outside the system has its own issues. When Catherine Hardwicke was pulled off of the successful Twilight films—films that target young women—and replaced with a series of male directors, I remember thinking that they are bringing in a safe male director over someone that offered proven box office success. Very few brought this up—I do remember that Sasha did. The thank-you-for-your-contribution-but-let-a-man-handle-it-from-here-on-out mentality was basically ignored and then accepted as the norm. It’s really sad.