Hmmm, could be many reasons. I think one might be the same reason that most films are not satisfying to most audiences: the status quo. Just keep things the same, it's easier. It's easy to put women in that box of chick flix and weepy films that empower and teach. It's ironic that probably the most notable film about woman empowerment, Thelma and Louise is directed by a man. And I don't like the way that film ends, it feels like a cop-out, like that is the only choice these two have in this world of pigs.

If I can guess that a woman directed a film before I've seen her name in the credits I think that's a problem because that means there is an expectation about what a female directed film should be.

This differs in the case of Sofia Coppola where her fingerprints are all over her films and I like that about her. I don't get the feeling she's dealing with clichés. I find her auteur approach refreshing and bold.

On a sidenote, before I read this post I was writing down notes for a future screenplay project that I may or may not get around to writing. It breaks audience expectations by playing with clichés. It was the first idea for a screenplay I've ever written down that had a female protagonist.
# posted by  William @ 7/11/2007 2:19 PM  

 
I've been thinking a bit about your question as to why there are so few women directing in Hollywood. Is it the same reason(s) that there are so few (although rising) women in politics? Just the deep-rooted sexism . . . ? Or is it that so much of Hollywood filmmaking is based on the 'heroe's journey' -the individual and his quest. From all of our supposed holy men (Buddha, Jesus, etc) to even children book protagonists to our use of language ('mankind'), the male has had its' place speaking for the so-called universal. Hollywood is all about being populist and money (that's far from a secret). So that's what sells . . . I think it comes back to money (no surprise). For many women, after hurdling so many internal and external obstacles to get themselves to a place that they are in a position to make films, they often do want to create something that has a lot of integrity and perhaps even do something that helps subvert the obstacles they have faced. Yet, with all that said, I imagine there are tons of women who would settle for the dollars.
One thing in the article that really struck a chord with me is the issue that women are more adverse to selling themselves. In some ways it really amazes me that certain narcissistic, macho personalities can have any validity, yet they do, and it is seen as confidence. The documentary "Overnight" maps this really well. It is amazing (and then not) that the Weinsteins would take this flamboyantly egotistical guy serious for even ten seconds, not to mention funding him profusely. It's that whole "i have the biggest cock mentality' that so much of the crappy part of our culture is based on.
So, hmmm . . . maybe it will all change one day? Probably not. I guess the saddest thing is that that Hollywood crap is being exported (our number two American export after the military industry) all around the world. And so perhaps it is a good thing that there is an antagonism to "American films." Because what is the worth of so many of them anyway?
I have no expectations that Hollywood will ever represent me. Perhaps some more token women directors will slip in and play by the old rules, and that will be at the cost of never bringing up gender. Or if so, doing it in the same way that reinforces stereotypes.
# posted by  Anonymous @ 7/14/2007 6:49 PM  

 
Obviously, your best chance of directing a film these days is if your father was a brand name director (Argento, Coppola, and now Cassavettes). Directors need to be creative, intelligent, and as the article pointed out, have a strong ego, but
on top of that as a woman you must be attractive (check out hot Delpy is). Or you won't stand a chance. (If we only counted attractive male directors from the stats, it would probably be about 13% ). Plus, as a woman in Hollywood, you better know how to laugh along with the guys . . . remember those notorious meetings that took place in strip clubs? You better be 'with it' and 'get it' and pose no threat to upsetting the bullshit that they have been spilling out all over.
Hollywood is full of Big Daddy male culture that has a tinge of sado masochism going through it. You better like that, too, along with EXTREME hierarchy. Dig it!. Learn to 'top dog' and convince others of your genius, but ultimately risk your creative control at every moment. Gotta love it!
What healthy person has the time for this? Screw Hollywood. Perhaps women directors are smarter and are choosing to stay away from toxicity? Why be part of the problem if there is any other option.
# posted by  Anonymous @ 7/15/2007 1:36 PM  

 
I think women are over half of the population of America & the planet, so, there's a HUGE market there. If Hollywood only caters to boys, then women (& men) can make indie movies that appeal to girls & women, also grown up men.

Also, wasn't Wayne's World directed by a female director? I really don't think that only women can make films that appeal to women & that only men can make films that appeal to men. Up and coming female directors should work with both male & female screenwriters, look at both indie & Hollywood options for each project, and build a following for themselves.

With cost of high quality production being really low now due to digital/HD, I think more
female directors will come on the scene very soon.

Also, if we want to see more women filmmakers down the road, we should introduce young girls to film/video making & storytelling at an early age so that the interest will develop, skills will develop, over the years. I think it takes a decade or more of constantly dealing with the medium (& the biz side of things - including marketing & distribution) in order to become excellent at making & marketing movies.

Another big need for a successful film, number of films, a career is publicity/advertising & distribution $s - so, female filmmakers should collaborate with interested entrepenuers & businesses (run by people of both genders) in order to come up with the funding necessary for distribution & publicity.

Hollywood is conservative in the kinds of stories it wants to tell because they risk a lot of money in making & marketing a movie. If a female director is not interested in doing the kind of movie that Hollywood wants to do, she should develop the project independently, it is waaaayyyy more doable now than ever before in the history of movie making in America, as far as I can tell.(I have not seen it yet but Aaron Katz's $2000 movie Quiet City is apparently very well done, on HD. $2000!!! Even compared to the indie low budgets of Stranger Than Paradise (like $160K I think)or She's Gotta Have It (like around $100K I think) $2K is extremely low.)

Success will bring in all kinds of new collaborators & will open all kinds of new doors. So the first thing to do is: 1) make a good movie, and 2) make sure it gets publicized & released well & makes a profit. After that, from project to project, the director can travel the indie, indiewood & Hollywood & foreign arenas & pick financing & distribution partners for each project. That's what it looks like to me.

I expect the number of excellent female & also minority filmmakers to go up significantly over the next decade. Largely due to the fact that cost of production is now low due to digital & so that more people will be able to try their hand at filmmaking- and out of that some will stay on & will get very good at it.

To answer Scott's question, why only a few female director's now? On the Hollywood front Hollywood does not have enough confidence in female directors to employ them in large numbers - for whatever reason. On the indie fiction feature front - not enough female directors are taking the producer/director path to start their careers as Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch, John Sayles, Wayne Wang, Todd Haynes, Hal Hartley, etc. have done. There does, however, seem to be many female directors working in the documentary field - Jennifer Fox, directors of Devil Came On Horseback, director of Water Flowing Together - just 4 female directors off the top of my head (that I learned about just last month).

This whole situation can change for the better "overnight" - in like w/in 1 year. I do not think this is at all a permanent problem - soon there should be a lot more female directors - maybe very, very soon.

- Sujewa
# posted by  The Sujewa @ 7/17/2007 12:59 AM  

 
Interesting, Sujewa. I really hope so, although I think it is going to take a little bit longer. Like a digital virus. Perhaps no film will ever make the huge sales of a Hollywood one. But the consciousness will shift . . . All it takes is reading Scott's last blog entry "Curation is King" to get a glimpse of corporate-Sony America's agenda with filmmakers.
You no longer have to be a mystic at this point in time to see the interconnectedness of corporate Hollywood America, media conglomerates, and the War . . . like Time Warner, etc. (There's been so many things nowadays pulling this all together for us- Chomsky, even the doc "This Film is Not Rated"). American corporate culture keeping Americans in a dizzying dance of Iraq billions and celebrity weddings. So beautiful! Dance me to the edge of time!!
War has been seen as an imbalance of masculine and femine energies from Jung and feminist psychologist Rianne Eisler. The balance within-off, the balance externally-off.
So it's really not THAT curious or that far-stretch of cognitive imagination to understand that Hollywood has a masculine imbalance.
# posted by  Anonymous @ 7/18/2007 1:20 PM  

 
Great comments here -- thanks to everyone for responding.

One of the Anonymous posters above hit on something that deserves elaboration -- that is, the Hollywood film business is a tremendously dysfunctional one. It's fine for us to decry the fact that few women seem to participate in such a system and bemoan the resulting fact that mainstream is guided, primarily, by men. But on a personal level, if we were giving personal and career advice to someone, would we wish the film business on them?

There are actually tons of women working in media -- alternative media, experimental work, documentary. Just less of them in mainstream moviemaking. I thought of this quote from Kelly Reichardt, director of "Old Joy," in Filmmaker a year or so ago when she was asked by James Ponsoldt if she wanted to make bigger budget movies:

"No. I just don’t have the personality for it. I enjoy making films, but I don’t enjoy a lot of film business, so I’m just trying to make films outside of the film business as much as possible. I like working in a really private way. I mean, we got as far as a cut of [Old Joy] without speaking to any kind of lawyer or anything. We got into Sundance before we thought we should form a company. Aside from a lot of sound work and stuff still to go, it was all very private, and that’s a dream for me."

It's probably reductive to boil this down to a question of gender, but I do think that when we wish that more women would participate in mainstream filmmaking that we understand what we are wishing upon them.
# posted by  Scott Macaulay @ 7/21/2007 11:52 AM  

Post a Comment