癌症 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 肾癌 食道癌 子宫颈癌 乳腺癌 卵巢癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 皮肤癌 甲状腺癌 胰腺癌 前列腺癌 膀胱癌 骨癌 鼻咽癌 脑瘤 癌症 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 食管癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 宫颈癌 乳腺癌 脑瘤 甲状腺肿瘤 胆囊癌 胆管癌 前列腺癌 白血病 鼻咽癌 肾癌 恶性淋巴瘤 皮肤癌 喉癌 舌癌 胰腺癌 膀胱癌 神话 家庭建康 心碎了无痕 pallyboy 幸福 医药类 我的快乐 胃癌的博客 天天医苑 享受生活 心情博客 美梦成真 偶病大了 肺癌人 真心爱人 疾病肺癌 ly1980的博客 豆豆 开心人 嘿嘿 熊猫晶晶 ly1980的BLOG 癌症
癌症 肺癌 肝癌 胃癌 食道癌 宫颈癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 胰腺癌 乳腺癌 脑瘤 珍香胶囊 清肺散结丸 抗癌平丸 慈丹胶囊 金复康口服液 消癌平片 西黄丸 食道平散 复方斑蝥胶囊 天芝草胶囊 乳腺癌 脑瘤 珍香胶囊 清肺散结丸 抗癌平丸 慈丹胶囊 金复康口服液 消癌平片 西黄丸 食道平散 复方斑蝥胶囊 天芝草胶囊 中国骨科网 骨科 骨折 骨坏死 骨质增生 椎间盘突出 颈椎病 类风湿病 风湿免疫 骨髓炎 骨质疏松 腰肌劳损 痛风 风湿骨病 强直性脊柱炎 糖尿病 糖尿病 肺癌 肺癌治疗 肺癌预防 肺癌症状 胃癌 胃癌治疗 胃癌预防 胃癌症状 肝癌 肝癌治疗 肝癌预防 肝癌症状 肾癌 肾癌治疗 肾癌预防 肾癌症状 食道癌 食道癌治疗 食道癌预防 食道癌症状 宫颈癌 宫颈癌治疗 宫颈癌预防 宫颈癌症状 乳腺癌 乳腺癌治疗 乳腺癌预防 乳腺癌症状 卵巢癌 卵巢癌治疗 卵巢癌预防 卵巢癌症状 直肠癌 直肠癌治疗 直肠癌预防 直肠癌症状 结肠癌 结肠癌治疗 结肠癌预防 结肠癌症状 胰腺癌 胰腺癌治疗 胰腺癌预防 胰腺癌症状 甲状腺癌 甲状腺癌治疗 甲状腺癌预防 甲状腺癌症状 前列腺癌 前列腺癌治疗 前列腺癌预防 前列腺癌症状 贲门癌 贲门癌治疗 贲门癌预防 贲门癌症状 膀胱癌 膀胱癌治疗 膀胱癌预防 膀胱癌症状 胆囊癌 胆囊癌治疗 胆囊癌预防 胆囊癌症状 胆管癌 胆管癌治疗 胆管癌预防 胆管癌症状 骨癌 骨癌治疗 骨癌预防 骨癌症状 皮肤癌 皮肤癌治疗 皮肤癌预防 皮肤癌症状 神经系统肿瘤 神经胶质瘤 先天性肿瘤 脑膜瘤 颅内转移瘤 听神经鞘瘤 脑垂体腺瘤 血管网织细胞瘤 造血系统肿瘤 急性白血病 慢性粒细胞性白血病 白血病 血癌 慢性淋巴细胞性白血病 恶性淋巴瘤 骨及关节肿瘤 骨肉瘤 骨肿瘤 恶性黑色素瘤 颊黏膜癌 上颌窦癌 扁桃体癌 基底细胞癌 淋巴癌 乳腺良性肿瘤 喉癌 咽部良性肿瘤 牙癌 卵巢良性肿瘤 舌癌 脂肪组织肿瘤 涎腺肿瘤 阴茎肿瘤 纵隔肿瘤 颌骨肿瘤 眼眶肿瘤 鼻部肿瘤 呼吸系统肿瘤 非小细胞肺癌 鼻咽癌 小细胞肺癌 消化系统肿瘤 胆管癌 妇科系统肿瘤 子宫颈癌 子宫肌瘤 子宫内膜癌 外阴癌 阴道恶性肿瘤 外阴恶性肿瘤 子宫癌 乳腺肿瘤 输卵管肿瘤 泌尿系统肿瘤 肾盂肿瘤 膀胱肿瘤 输尿管肿瘤 睾丸肿瘤 阴茎癌 男性尿道癌 恶性葡萄胎 绒毛膜癌
#
posted by @ 6/29/2007 3:20 AM
Thanks, Benjamin, for this. I have to say as woman filmmaker the reality has always felt intense and depressing. In film school, we studied 'film history' and not one film by a woman was included. But this wasn't overwhelming just because of the lack of 'role
model' but rather because simultaneously as a woman i was forced to ingest the male's perception of reality over and over and over. All of the male geniuses and greats who STILL see woman's sexuality as her agency and purpose. Plus the other understanding that that sensibility is what is commercial . . .
Most of my friends can't even name one woman film director. In 2007.
#
posted by @ 6/29/2007 8:15 PM
Whether we look at movies as art or entertainment, the ranking of our preferences shouldn't be subjected to a quota system. Yet the AFI list and surveys like the one published by AWFJ do serve to reflect pervasive inequities or biases in the social systems.
There are obviously two complex issues at stake:
The first being that female spectators really DO view films from a different perspective than males. Sadly, with most commercial films being written by, directed by, produced by, and green-lit by men, the content is genuinely skewed. Ever notice the endless stream of male coming-of-age, male on-a-mission, male midlife crisis stories that are intended for the “mainstream” audience? Put a female as protagonist in any of those stories, and it’s likely to be labeled a “women’s picture,” or worse yet, a “chick-flick.”
Women who comprise more than half the global population, deserve not to be marginalized as the “other.”
The second issue addresses the reality that women are simply not given the same opportunities to direct as men. Even though things may be slowly changing, take for example Sundance 2007-- as promising as it was to see so many "showcase" films directed by women-- the history of Sundance successes alone has shown that a small percentage of new women directors are given the chance to direct subsequent films, verses the number of men. And if a woman's debut "commercial" film doesn't do a bang-up job the first weekend at the box office, chances are you'll never hear from her again. Men, on the other hand, are given many more subsequent chances to direct-- box office failures or not-- with the "understanding" that they need time to develop their craft and "auteurship."
Taking both of these issues into consideration, it would seem the most "clever" path a woman director can take, is to follow classic Hollywood tenets, develop male-centered projects that are mainstream and commercial, and hope they can eventually tell more diverse stories (often labeled "personal") in the future. Otherwise, it would seem that the only films Hollywood dares to entrust to women helmers is the occasional romantic comedy-- not a genre likely to elicit many awards.
Art is often in the eye of the beholder, with entertainment catering to taste, but for the time being, movie-making is primarily about money. As long as the majority of people in today's Hollywood who control what scripts get bought, what films get made and directed by whom, and what theaters show which films, remain conservative white men, we're going to see stories that reflect their personal tastes-- or worse, those that are deemed most marketable to the precious demographic of the young 18-29 yr. old male.* Meanwhile, who's making movies for grown-ups? For women? Or for that matter, grown-up women?** Box office records show that "if you build it, they will come." (The Devil Wears Prada and Something's Gotta Give grossed $324M and $227M successively)
The future appears to be both confusing and hopeful. With the continuing growth of internet and new media content (creation and distribution) venues, more diverse, while democratic, attention is being paid to underserved markets. With the world getting smaller every day, Hollywood and the "Made in America" movie may eventually lose it's stronghold on the universal consciousness. Art and entertainment can emerge out of any culture or any country. The more integrated America becomes, the less xenophobic will be the mainstream movie-going population-- interested in the human condition no matter what language the heroine (or hero) speaks. The traditional studio system as it stands cannot remain in place, and will have to adapt to the changing marketplace, one that has already begun to provide the means for the voices of (women, black, Hispanic, Asian, and) other previously sidelined filmmakers to be heard on a global scale.
Any "best of" list should rightfully be about the quality of the story and the art. But consider that many of the films of the AFI's list were not initially critical or box office successes, and that the "art" was only appreciated later, sometimes decades after their releases. Who knows what films made this decade will be discovered as great works by film lovers of the 2050's? In fifty, maybe just twenty years, the AFI list might be considered a relic-- from the bygone days of the American domination of film created out of a long-dead all-male club-- certainly worthy of study in from academic perspective, but lacking contemporary relevance.
*Movie audiences are getting older. "According to a survey by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, between 1990 and 2000, moviegoers in the obsessively sought-after 16-20 age group had dropped from 20% to 17% of total viewers. Moviegoers in the 25-29 category dropped from 14% to 12%. Even 12- to 15-year-olds, who are supposed to be part of the biggest demographic bulge since baby boomers, dipped from 11% to 10%. Meanwhile, moviegoers ages 50-59 didn't just stay steady, they shot up from 5% to 10% of total audience." --Los Angeles Times 09/24/02
**For example, according to the 2000 Census, there were 27.81 million males between 16-29 while there were 31.09 million females between 35-48. Yet studios assert that those women "don't go to the movies." Could it be that there is nothing for them to see?
#
posted by zygarch @ 7/07/2007 9:30 PM
