Why are there so few female film directors?

"Beau Travail" is hardly a straight (ha) adaptation of "Billy Budd," no more than "Adaptation" was a straight adaptation of "The Orchid Thief." Or Winterbottom's "Tristam Shandy" was a straight adaptation of Sterne. And so on.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if something is adapted or not, as long as it's good. But talking with Hollywood and/or screenwriter friends these days, it sounds like if it's not adapted or based on an existing property then it has no shot getting made at all in this climate. I mean, there's always the indie route, but that creative freedom doesn't make it any easier to get a movie made, let alone to land distribution. I'm ignoring the myriad exceptions, of course, but who ever said Hollywood was consistent?

if melville is what h-wood producers would call an 'existing property' then we're in better shape than i thought

Well, I mean, currently as well as historically most of the top grossing movies as well as Best Picture noms are/were existing properties, so it can be both good and bad. A good story is a good story. What I'm talking about is an original story as potential preemptive deal-killer, which is too bad.

lets focus on removing endemic institutional sexism from the industry before we address the much bigger issue of creative bankruptcy

In some loose way they're related, I think. In that female directors might get less work because they're stereotyped as capable of making only certain types of films. Bigelow is an awesome director because not only does she make action movies and thrillers, she pretty much only makes action movies and thrillers. Who is next in line there? Mimi Leder, who went from a couple of big budget action flicks to fucking "Pay It Forward," and has been paying penance in TV ever since? But I'm sure Jane Campion or someone could make an awesome "Harry Potter" movie, at least as easily as Alfonso Cuaron did.

The Hurt Locker is not an 'action movie' in the sense her earlier ones are (tho I missed a couple like the Harrison Ford one)

Of course it's not a shoot 'em up. But there are explosions. I mean, is "Near Dark" an "action" film? "Strange Days?" No, but like Michael Mann's movies, action is inevitably one major component.

Strange Days is an action mess.

http://fadeinonline.com/articles/minority-report/

Laurel Canyon: not bad, although--the limits of my staid imagination--completely implausible in one regard (if you've seen it, you'll know what I'm referring to). Liked seeing a couple of landmarks I knew about from a book on Laurel Canyon I recently read. Haven't seen any of Lisa Cholodenko's other films.

I know I've seen that one and High Art, but I can't remember anything about them (it's been a while). Kids Are All Right has some good and some bad.

The Kids Are All Right won me over as it went along, which was a challenge after such a terrible first half hour.

Laurel Canyon: not bad, although--the limits of my staid imagination--completely implausible in one regard (if you've seen it, you'll know what I'm referring to).

ive seen it and i dont

You do, it's just that you didn't find it implausible. Myself, I don't think two of those three characters would cross that line. The "Whoa" that Frances McDormand finally throws up, I think it would have occurred to her a lot sooner than it did, no matter how casual her lifestyle or alleged bad parenting skills.

Meant to say that I loved the final shot of this.

It's her weakest movie. clem, watch High Art, still her best.

I've been meaning to--a friend put that on a 50-favourite list a few years ago.

yeah laurel canyon plays like a trial run for Kids are alright

I remember really liking High Art, but I had it recorded off telly onto the same VHS as Kissed (also directed by a woman, coincidentally), and now I get them a bit confused. Which is a little weird if you know what Kissed is about...

1400 films by female directors:

https://mubi.com/lists/films-directed-by-women

this thread is definitely the point where I started hating ILX and decided it was a waste of time to talk here (posting as Abbott)

I'm sorry :(

Didn't mean to dredge up bad memories (I'm re-reading the beginning of the thread now). The link showed up on my Facebook wall; didn't give it any thought, it just looked like a real labour of love, and the layout is great.

nbd; i just don't post much or try to ever change anyone's mind

or, maybe, ilx prepared me for dealing with petulant know-it-alls, and i do that in my day job now

always enjoyed when you would show up in threads about mormons and comics and whatnot

hahaha holy shit the opening run of this thread is obscene

GOod ol gabbneb remember when he was permabanned? Good times

Crabbits I miss u, hope you'll keep postin' if you can deal with paying the petulant know-it-alls no mind

I don't think I've ever gone to anything in the yearly Images festival here, but they'll be showing Barbara Loden's Wanda in 35mm in a couple of weeks--that I'll see.

In a brief Q&A after Wanda yesterday--for which I came that close to forgetting I'd bought a ticket two weeks ago; I do that sometimes--the festival woman pointed out that it's a little slow. "Exhausting" was the word she used, and also "durational." I will never again tag anything as being boring; "It was a little durational at times."

Definitely something that should be sought out. The print was a UCLA restoration; I first saw it on TCM a couple of years ago. Sad that Loden never got to direct another film--I think she basically made an American Jeanne Dielman four years before the fact (also, very consciously Loden once said, an answer film to Bonnie and Clyde).

The usual disclaimer--don't actually make use of this--but it's up on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22eKcUjFHiw

directorial fiasco of latest Wonder Woman film

"To translate all of that into English: Since studio development executives are now asked to be property managers rather than movie developers, not many of them are capable of sitting down and talking about what a story should be. And none of them wants to risk his neck by committing early to the wrong choice. So, like many modern-day blockbusters, Wonder Woman will be developed via the monkeys-at-typewriters approach: Let's have a bunch of different people write different Wonder Woman scripts, pick the parts that we sort of like better than the others, proceed to humiliate the 'winning' writers by asking them to interpolate the stuff from the 'losing' scripts that we also kind of liked, let the WGA work out the credits and mop up the blood and tears, sew everything together, and sell the resulting Frankenmovie to an audience we will have programmed (via an incessant drumbeat of teasers, trailers, and post-credit sequences) to show up for whatever this thing turns out to be. That certainly sounds like every writer and director's dream."

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/wonder-woman-michelle-maclaren-female-hollywood-directors/

maybe it's rampant entrenched sexism in the film industry

just sayin

― Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:29 AM (5 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"durational" is a horrible word

From a group called The Make It Fair Project:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuHAMpg9FwQ

fair is fair

http://shitpeoplesaytowomendirectors.tumblr.com/

A list from a female film collective:

http://bitchmagazine.org/post/female-film-directors-put-together-a-list-of-must-see-movies-made-by-women

Some obvious omissions, as with any list.

'Europa, Europa' by Agnieszka Holland

The ones that jumped out for me were Ackerman's Jeanne Dielman, Amy Heckerling's Fast Times and Clueless, Barbara Kopple's Harlan County, USA, Maya Deren's Meshes of the Afternoon, and Dorothy Arzner's Dance, Girl, Dance. Anyway, it seems pretty informal, and not meant to be textbook complete.

im doubling-down on cholodenko after the olive kitteridge series fyi

if women are socialized to be looked at, maybe it's unsurprising that they don't choose/aren't chosen to do the looking

― Reggiano Jackson (gabbneb), Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:26 PM (6 years ago)

sure don't miss this guy

Holofcener is missing too, but the lack of Ackerman is cray-cray

I thought of something that isn't on the list

I thought of another thing.

I thought of Your Mom.

Aren't surprising omissions/inclusions the beginning and end of whatever interest lists like these have? If you're not interested in the lists to begin with, then of course the particulars of what's on there holds no interest. That would seem self-evident.

From the article
After the show came out, a couple listeners had the same question: So, what are some recent female-directed films we should be seeking out? To put together a list of current women-directed films, I turned to Film Fatales, a collective of women film directors who support each other and collaborate on projects. The Film Fatales asked their members in New York and LA for their recent favorite films helmed by a female director and for older films that have inspired their work.

It sounds like the target of the list was not fans of lists, but people looking for recent movies directed by women

Of course--there's always the intent, primary or secondary, explicit or implicit, that, "If you're interested in this, start here." Just responding to the surprise/derision above that people looking at such lists might then discuss what they see as omissions. And, as I posted, discussing them does not mean you view those omissions as a big deal; historical completeness was clearly not the goal here.

Curious omission
Posted by JonTheDad (not verified) on July 9, 2015 - 11:00am
I'm surprised Hurt Locker didn't make this list. Any reason why?

REPLY