WOMEN DIRECTING FILM???

By in News
on Monday, June 25th, 2007

Today I attended an unveiling of the Alliance of Women Film Journalists list of top 100 films. The press release claimed this list would act as a “counter” to last weeks AFI top 100 list, which they felt slighted films directed by women.

A press release:

The Tenth Anniversary of AFI’s 100 Greatest Movies List got us to thinking, especially when we noticed that of 400 films nominated for AFI’s list, only 4.5 were directed by women. Without knowing who’d been on AFI’s nominating committee nor what instructions they were given, we thought it would be interesting and fun to see whether AWFJ members– a diverse group of strongly opinionated and outspoken professional women film journalists who care passionately about the movies and industry they cover– would develop a list substantially different AFI‘s. Without issuing directives nor suggesting that only films made by and/or about women be eligible, we asked members to suggest titles they’d like to see on AWFJ’s Top 100 Films List. All titles submitted were placed on the ballot, members voted, votes were tallied. The result, presented in alphabetical order, is an eclectic, perhaps somewhat surprising collection of titles. It’s neither politically nor academically correct, and it’s far from definitive. But it can be said to reflect our women’s perspective, and we’ve annotated each title, indicating why it’s favored. We had so much fun compiling our list, we’ll probably do it again. Meanwhile, we hope you’ll enjoy reading our list as much as we enjoyed putting it together.

Many people at the event (including myself) were taken aback when the list was released and included only 16 films directed by women. Attendees claimed this list was no better then the AFI list and even though it was compiled by female film journalists, it still boasted the same level of discrimination.

At the end of the day the list may not say what certain feminists and promoters of the women’s film movement want it to say, however, it exists as an important cultural document none-the-less. It raises questions such as: What does this mean concerning female film directors? Is it an issue of quality or femininity? Are there even a hundred films by women directors that could be compiled into their own 100 lists? It represents a polemic in the filmmaking world.

The full list can be found here.

Tags:

You can follow any follow up comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    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.

  • zygarch

    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?

VOD CALENDAR

Filmmaker's curated calendar of the latest video on demand titles.
Contagion The Guard Hell And Back Again
See the VOD Calendar →
Filmmaker's Best Of 2011

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

The Filmmaker Magazine Blog is powered by WordPress.org.