sexism, quite frankly. i think in both the studio stystem in the eyes of alot of independent film makers, women occupy a certain place in this world, and they can only do certain “types” of films. obviously, this is wrong headed, but i think its hard to deny (although i’d be lying if i tried to pretend that i didn’t watch a movie because a woman’s name was attatched—hopefully, i’m smarter than that now). because of this, women won’t get the chances men will. so, what women have to do, is break that mold by proving a) doens’t matter if that’s the type of film we’re doing because we’re women, they’re still damn fine films!, and b) no we DON’T have to do just those types of films, so let me show you what i got!
i think black filmmakers go through a similiar dilema, but if you’re a black male filmmaker, the guys with the money are more willing to deal with you because, after all, you have a swinging dick.
Do you think we’re still waiting for someone to break ‘the glass ceiling’? Id love to see a female director come along and make something really fantastic.
Only three women have ever been nominated for an Oscar for directing in the 80-odd year history of the award, and they are Lena Wertmuller (SEVEN BEAUTIES), Jane Champion (THE PIANO) and Sofia Coppola (LOST IN TRANSLATION). That’s a staggeringly low number. And as far as box office is concerned, I think one of the highest grossing films directed by a woman was Hardwicke’s TWILIGHT, which, frankly, was one of the worst two hours of my life. I’m still unsure how I even ended up seeing it.
yes and no. the women that have done well as filmmakers showed everyone that they’re just as good as any male filmmaker. the proof is there, not sure if the glass ceiling is still there. (i learned about the term breifly in college—not sure i still remember exactly what it refers to so i may not be answering this question right). we KNOW women can do it, but the men with the money—and also some of the women with the money—don’t care as much about art, they care about profit. what it really comes down to isn’t wether or not a woman can, but wether or not someone will let her. i’m sure there’s also pressure in the learning process—do women get side tracked because they know there are more oppurtunities for them elsewhere in the field? do they just say, “fuck it—i’m not going to bother competing when they won’t let me win!” and not continue, but rather try something else? another question: are women as interested, as a whole, in filmmaking, and does that have to do with why the numbers are so low?
I think this is a really good question. Sure, there are a lot of women directors out there but I think you’re right that there are none that are as accomplished as Kubrick/Scorsese/etc. One thing that did come to mind is that women getting the opportunity to make big films is a relatively new thing, in which case there hasn’t been enough time for a woman to develop a filmography as extensive as a Hitchcock or Truffaut. But that’s sort of a stupid reason. It seems to me that when women directors really started to become prominant was in the 1980s (Spheers, Bigelow, Heckerling, etc.) so there’s been nearly thirty years for some woman to make her mark. But absent Penny Marshall, I can’t think of any woman making a string of consistent, big budget, Hollywood studio films that would allow her the opportunity to gain prominance and power the way Woody Allen or David Fincher does.
At the end of the day, the answer may be as simple as the obvious – the industry is still a male dominated industry with a lot of ego and male chauvinists. For every Amy Pascal and Lauren Schuler Donner there’s a hundred male counterparts. I think the only way this changes is step by step; as women continue to make strides in the business, more opportunity will be afforded to women to direct films. As well, it may take a lot of the older guys just dying off for things to really change because obviously younger people are more used to the idea of a woman being in charge. But more than anything, it’s going to take women directing films that make money. If a woman directs a film that makes the studios money, she will be more likely to get hired again. Unfortunately, I can’t think of many women directors that have made consistantly good films, let alone films that do well at the box office. It seems like Nancy Meyers does pretty well but her films are pretty awful. And of course the most obvious critical darling is Sofia Coppola (although I can’t figure out why as I think all her films denegrate the Coppola name – she should go back to acting, hahah) and we can hope that she will open doors for more women. But like I said, the problem now isn’t getting the door open for a woman, it’s leaving it open. It’ll be interesting to see what Courtney Hunt and Kelly Reinhardt do next.
And FYI, it was recently announced that Mimi Leder is directing a new Mandrake film. And Kathryn Bigelow’s new film, The Hurt Locker, is getting rave reviews.
Adriana, I think Agnès Varda and Chantal Akerman are GREAT female directors. True, they don’t get mentioned when thrown in the hat with Scorsese et al, maybe this is because they are foreign, maybe because they’re women, maybe because they don’t make films about goodfellas, I don’t know. But you’re right, really. I’m actually hard pressed to name a GREAT American female director. Kelly Reichardt and Kimberly Pierce come to mind but I haven’t seen Reichardt’s work and I’ve only seen Pierce’s ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ so I really don’t know if they should be or are considered great working directors or not.
Yes, I’ve heard of the “one picture shuffle” phenomenon, my husband mentioned it to me a few months back. What can really be said about it other than it’s an atrocious practice that seems entirely outdated. Do you have any more information, specific directors who have been subject to it etc?
I’ve been wondering lately if the reason there aren’t more female directors is because, traditionally, women have been considered better actors than directors. Again, this seems to me a very outdated notion and somewhat limited in scope of imagination. I think it’s true, for example, that actors also direct directors with their performances, so if looked at in that light maybe some of the greatest female actors can be considered directors in a certain sense.
I mean, this thread could go on and on if we really attempt to talk about why there might not be more great female directors.
And just for kicks, here’s a funny quote I found online earlier this evening:
“Bresson is a genius, but his women have to carry all that shit.”
— Agnès Varda
Fredo: definitely there were more female directors than before in the 80s. However female directors do have a long history. Check out this article on Lois Weber, the first female director and also (astoundingly!) the highest paid director at Universal Studios in 1916. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Weber
JH: As for ‘one shuffle’, I think Alison Anders is the example Im thinking of. Shes made more films than one, clearly, but the Weinsteins ditched her pretty hard after her first (or perhaps after “Four Rooms”). I read about it in Peter Biskind’s “Down and Dirty Pictures”. I don’t have it in front of me, but Ill try and find the quote.
PS Marq: “the term glass ceiling refers to situations where the advancement of a qualified person within the hierarchy of an organization is stopped at a lower level because of some form of discrimination, most commonly sexism or racism”
Id like to hear more from people about whether they think this term applies to women filmmakers. It is discrimination from producers, from critics, or audiences? Or is it discrimination at all? Maybe there are just less female filmmakers to begin with, and if so, does this stem from what Marq said about women choosing other parts of the field because they know it will be difficult to succeed as a director?
Also, Julie Delpy’s new film looks interesting. “The Countess”.
I don’t mean to suggest Fast Times at Ridgemont High was the first film directed by a woman. What I mean is that prior to the late 1970s and 1980s, female directors making well known, widely released films was pretty uncommon (at least in the United States).
This whole topic got me thinking what great films I’ve seen that were even directed by women. I mean a lot of films directed by women are just bad films (although to be fair, most films directed by men are awful too). But whether you’re talking about Catherine Hardwicke, Kimberley Pierce, or Sofia Coppola – they’re not making films up to the standards of a Scorsese or a Kubrick. And I’m not even talking about female directors who make stereotypical “female films” (Nora Ephron for example). I don’t think anyone can accuse Kimberley Pierce of shoveling out chick flicks by any means. But she had her chance to make a war film that could have been good but ended up being retarded.
Penny Marshall is the greatest female director if for no other reason than because of “Big.” It’s a shame she isn’t directing anymore – I think they should do a “Big 2” and let Tom Hanks go back to being funny Tom Hanks and not so serious Tom Hanks.
Agreed, Fredo.
There definitely are more female directors now. I think one of the main problems is that they are so stuck in the indie film world. Not that that is a bad thing, but it keeps them from having being as renowned as other directors. I suppose this could also come from tackling “indie-friendly” material which doesn’t appeal to a broad audience.
I don’t necessarily think there’s a “glass ceiling” at least not in the traditional sense. It’s all about money and there are plenty of women producers and studio executives that would hire a woman to direct a film if they thought she could make them money. I think from the people upstairs who are making the decisions, money is all the really matters.
Regarding women not being interested in directing, there might be some truth to that. There are some women who go into filmmaking but find producing to be more fulfilling than directing (of course that’s totally based on each individual but I have heard of a lot of women initially thinking they wanted to be a DP or director but then liked producing more, such as the case of Lauren Schuler Donner).
It might also be just the physical aspect of directing. I know this is certainly the case with females trying to get into cinematography. You get to be a DP by working as a gaffer, AC, operator, etc and those jobs require lugging a lot of heavy equipment around. I’m not saying a woman can’t do the job, it’s just more difficult to break into, particulary the ACS. But again, I don’t know if that applies to directing since us directors get to just sit in our trailer and tell everyone else what to do.
One director did come to mind that has made too really great films – Tamara Jenkins. Both “Down and Out in Beverly Hills” and “The Savages” are extremely well made films.
Adriana ! thanks for all the great information :) I’d completely forgotten about Jane Champion, ‘The Piano’ is a great film. I’m not sure whether I’d call Sofia Coppola a great director, although I would call Francis Ford Coppola a great director. I didn’t know that only 3 women had been nominated for [O]scars, mind-staggering. Lois Weber ! Another one I didn’t know of. You’re reminding me of a few others : Catherine Breillat and Danièle Huillet – I am fascinated by both these women but have yet to really see any of their films.
Alison Anders got dumped by the Weinsteins, huh? I would love to hear that quote.
Marq, totally agree with you about sexism but will always, always fight the notion that ‘women occupy a certain place in this world.’ But I completely get where you’re coming from – I thought that was true myself, once.
Women have had far less chances. Of course that’s discrimination. everyone is unique, down with unhelpful stereotypes, the genders are complementary, not a case of one-up personship)
-Women are not inherently inferior. (nor are men
-Women get less credit sometimes than they should.
-The vast majority of my very favourite films are by men, but i like a lot of films by women..
-Few women have truly outstanding filmographies, as opposed to a few goodies to their credit.
-Hollywood’s sexism, obsession with money, with giving the people less than they deserve stinks rotten, the stench infects the world
-But there are beacons, there are many fine women making films in a wide range of countries, Iran included.
-Greatness is subjective
-Jeanne Dielman by Akerman is more daring and greater than anything Truffaut (as he’s mentioned here) ever came up with, and he moved from promise of 400 Blows to a duller centre.
-Alice Guy was one of the magnificent pioneers, still neglected.
-Cinema needs more women at the helm.
-We need variety of viewpoints.
-At Cannes i understand there are 3/20 in competition by women and the 2 i’ve read about by Campion and Arnold have had excellent reviews.
-The opinion-formers, critics are mainly men and the best selling film mags in Britain anyway are lad mags. Many male critics are shallow hacks and fools
-Since Star Wars films have been targeted more at juvenile males.
-Enough of the obsession with violence
-Many women directors are interested in sex, that strikes me as a very worthy pursuit. Let’s have more
-Americans especially (but other countries too) could do with expanding their viewing to include films by women in other countries. It seems even here on Auteurs American or Anglophone women directors are mentioned ahead of so many others worldwide.
-Perhaps we could do with seeing the world and judging greatness and what is important differently
-Look at me aren’t i clever films that call for superlatives may sometimes deserve them but more modest aspirations can have more depth. That isn’t to say men are necessarily more egotistical as directors but in general they may be. Hollywood is too full of flashy pretenders
-Agnes Varda was ahead of the New Wave and an element in Bergman’s Persona he gets credit for.
-On the other hand Maya Deren was influenced and greatly assisted by her relatively unsung husband, who deserves more credit.
-Germaine Dulac was at the forefront of surrealist films in the 20s.
-With the credit crunch and the bankers, men could do with eating some humble pie.
-Scorsese and F.F.Coppola are also mentioned here. Coppola’s reputation rests on a small number of films, when he’s had a number of clunkers, as has Scorsese (though credit to Scorsese for his world cinema foundation and how he’s helped us here at Auteurs, and also for his knowledge of, sensitivity to and promotion of international films generally). They have indulged too much in glamourising violence, even if that was not their intention.
-Silences of the Palace by Moufida Tlatli is a superb film from Tunisia, about the lives of women and girls serving in a palace under French colonial rule
-The great Iranian poet Farrokhzad’s short The House is Black is extraordinary, not least in the editing.
-Women are outstanding actresses, fine cinematographers, do brilliant editing (see Man with a Movie Camera, it wasn’t just Vertov, and also Raging Bull). So why not more directing?
-Leontine Sagan’s Madchen in Uniform (1931) is a marvellous anti-authoritarian film of lesbian desire, that got up the noses of the Nazis. It should be better known
-Vera Chytilova’s Daisies is inventive and anarchic yet makes serious points about patriarchal pomposity which it cuts down to size
-The Ascent by Larissa Shepitko is a superb WW2 film with a spiritual dimension. She was killed in an accident in her prime.
-Samira Makhmalbaf has been a precocious talent with plenty of time for an outstanding filmography
-Ann Turner’s Celia is a fine Australian film about a fantasising girl in a society demanding conformity and fearful of plagues, whether rabbits or commies
-I would love to see India Song by Marguerite Duras
-Julie Dash’s Daughters of the Dust is worth watching, about a black community on islands off the East coast of the US that haven’t had much attention
this is all bullshit we’re talking about. there are a lot of women out there making mainstream and indie movies, on a global scale. and there are a TON of women directors working in the documentary world and the experimental film/video world.
what it comes down to is ideology. an ideological attack on women (and other oppressed groups) that says their films should be dealt with in a separate category, which inherently means they aren’t as good as male directors. is it really realistic to believe that in the entire history of cinema, over 90% (or some other majority number) of the work turned out by women is completely inferior to men’s work? that doesnt make sense on a mathematic level. on the level of subjective opinion, it proves that women are considered less worthy in a de facto manner.
why isnt maya deren a goddess of cinema, in general? why isnt agnes varda reified as the true precursor to the french new wave? theyre dealt with as curiosities. no more.
nobody cares. and the female critics/scholars, of which there are also no shortage of, are also marginalized by the same ideological attack. so their opinions and writings dont count for as much as males, should they happen to champion female directors.
why isn’t sadie benning considered one of the best avant-garde directors in history? because she’s a woman (and a lesbian, at that)? her film “it wasnt love” is a stunning masterpiece. i rate it in my top 5 cinematic works of all-time, bar none. but noooo, forget about sadie. lets talk about her dad instead. lets leave sadie as a curious footnote in history (not even in general history. in her dad’s history.). its all bullshit.
I agree with your general drift, yes this sectioning off of women does constitute an ideological attack, but we are pushed into threads like this by that very oppression. I also stick to my point about Alexander Hammid with Maya Deren. He also should be better known, and you can see the influence of Epstein and Germiane Dulac on Deren too.
Another thing, and this isn’t meant to be too contentious, just a wider condemnation; men are often at the bottom as well as the top of the heap in society. There’s a class problem too. By that i mean, we’re all on this earth and with this incredible thing called life, together, and we should be in it together
I was impressed by It Wasn’t Love, in fact i only saw it cos of recommendation here (by you, Bobby?). A pity it has an unduly low rating at imdb but that’s imdb for you
some other goodies i forgot to mention; Take Care of my Cat (my favourite Korean film), Story of the Weeping Camel (from Mongolia), Harlan County USA, The Holy Girl (Argentina), The Day I Became a Woman (Meshkini, Iran).
Yes there are lots of women directing all over the place, but the dominance of Hollywood is acting against their proper recognition
I agree with what some have said about this being a question of perception. First of all, let’s be glad there’s no female Spielberg, but the main reason there isn’t one is that Hollywood remains a good ol’ boys network where men are more comfortable bonding over a Scotch, a cigar, an off-color joke, and what have you. A deeper problem, however, is that fans don’t worship women directors the way they do male ones. Fans like to think of their favorite auteurs as “Mr. Cinema,” poking his camera lens at the world like an extension of his dick, making mammoth statements that center mainly around various forms of male experience. There is, I have always suspected, a deeply ingrained macho bias in film studies departments, where you still often have a hard time clearing a Douglas Sirk, for instance, for serious discussion. So it’s a war that needs to be waged on multiple fronts.
Many female scholars have observed that the cinema has an inherent male bias, a “Male Gaze”. What perhaps even they have not confronted is that fact that the male and female experiences of the world are perceptually different.
The male world-experience is that the Ego is the center and the Gaze projects out of it, traveling from object to object. The female world-experience, on the contrary, understands one’s surroundings to be deeply involved with the sense of self. The “nesting instinct” is at play here; certainly everyone has observed women’s propensity to decorate their living space and “make it their own”.
This makes it understandable why women have been less likely to succeed as filmmakers: the legacy of all film industries (like all industries) comes from institutions founded by men. In Hollywood, particularly, the creative momentum for projects comes from plot: the impulse of the male gaze wants to know “what happens?”. The female impulse, on the contrary, is interested in moods and feelings. So the female directors that tend to succeed are ones that have masculine sensibilities (Mimi Leder, Kathryn Bigelow), or a strong sense of satire (which is also masculine; Spheeris, Mary Harron). Catherine Hardwicke is an interesting example; she began as a set decorator, and her first two films have a wonderful sense of being really lived-in. Twilight, on the other hand, is merely a product, requiring nothing from anyone but basic competence.
So filmmaking is a practice that is inherently male-biased, but consider whether film-watching might be a practice that is inherently female-biased. I often suspect that it is a more feminine aspect of personality that responds to film emotionally.
It seems like there’s a bit of over-analysis going on here. If you look over the last 100 years of history, almost every industry and art form has been dominated by men. Society was (and still is, largely) structured that way. Filmmaking is no different. How many famous female painters are there? Architects? What about politicians? Sure, we might be able to name a few outstanding female figures here and there in every industry or art form, but men are still the majority owners. Not until the 70’s does this start to shift even in the slightest. Filmmaking has not been dominated by men because of some inherent quality in the form itself that mimics the penile function, but because the world, and society has been dominated by men. If there has been an ideological attack on women, it’s not particular to the film industry.
There have been a few great female directors, and there will probably be more in the future. It’ll take time for that to develop.
yep, i agree with everything you just said. this is bigger than film. will it ever change? which means, we have to ask the really big question. will women ever run the world?
I think it only natural that there haven’t been any great female directors. I speak strictly from an American standpoint in that this nation only garnered significant respect for women rights a couple decades ago. The same could be said for minority populations too. Notable black filmmakers are a very recent development (with the exception of the likes of Micheaux); Spike Lee only came into prominence 3 decades ago or so. There’s almost a sense of a burden of proof on part of those who don’t make up the white male population to be able to show that they can do what they do. This is especially the case for women filmmakers.
With that said, I think the time we live in is exciting if only because I see it as one of those rare transitional periods of history. We, at least Americans, live in the aftermath of the civil rights movements here and the changes are evident. They’re slow but they’re there. Barack Obama became our first black president. And some of the female filmmakers that have emerged will surely be included in the pantheon of other greats several decades from now when they’re closing out their lives.
I tend to agree that there may be a bit of over-analysis going on here. While it may be thought provoking to bring up Laura Mulvey’s “male gaze”, we may be looking too much into this. The cinema, like most industries, has been dominated by men and so it stands to reason that the well-regarded directors will be dominated by men. I like the comparison to architecture, painting, etc
Orpheus’ points on female nest-building, emotional response rather than plot-led cinema etc are interesting but i tend to agree with Fuller in Pierrot about cinema as in a word emotion- it may be it expresses feelings better than ideas, at least compared with books, as we have the human face to empathise with? Anyway, it’s also right to bring up other arts and areas of life where women have been under-represented. Certainly not just cinema, but some countries have been doing better than others. In my life and i guess most lives, there’s more sex than violence (only the unfortunate or raging bull boxers or people hard at waging/enduring war, might have it otherwise), so i could do with a different balance on screen, and i think male dominated cinema has had too much gung-ho macho testosterone
Yes, sexism blankets the world, but once made, a work of art can be taken up and adopted by whoever. The question was, “Why is there no female Truffaut…?” This question is deep. You can say, “Well, there’s simply no woman who’s ever gotten a chance to be as good,” but this is basically baloney. There’s tons of great women filmmakers. So the answer really is: “we don’t perceive them in the same way.” Because in film studies departments, if not on actual film sets, male academics are invested in the ways in which filmmaking mimics penile function.
I’m not sure if the imdb top 250 separated into gender voting says very much; women like Dark Knight well enough, and Gone with the Wind more than men, but Godfather, Good the Bad and the Ugly and Pulp Fiction rather less. Are female audiences getting what they want, and would female directors give them more of it?
There’s also the whole “society doesn’t really like it when women take time off from their careers to have and raise children” thing. My academic/neuroscientist friend was told by a female colleague that if she wanted to have kids she basically had no chance of making it as anything but a mediocre talent in the field.
It’s why a lot of the female directors I know work in television. It’s a more flexible schedule for their families—- and probably unlike Ms. Coppola, they have to worry about financial security along with “artistic freedom”.
Truffaut financed his first films using his wife’s father’s money after all, then cheated on her every chance he could get. He said later that he’d married her not because he was particularly in love with her, but because he thought she’d make a good mother. That was the 1960s, but says heaps, no?
I think that’s a great point.
The mentality of male as breadwinner of a family still persists strongly just as much as female as homekeeper. As if mothering children (and doing it right no less) and cooking on a daily basis wasn’t hard enough, to undergo what are usually brutal schedules on film sets is an arduous feat at the very least. There’s certainly a greater sense of sacrifice on part of women than there is on men.
With that said, I believe women are capable of anything. If they can do basketball and mixed martial arts, they can certainly do filmmaking too. Like with anyone else, priority is a factor. What is ultimately more important to you in leading a fulfilling life? The mentality that all women aspire to be mothers is dated. There are plenty of women who want more than that or don’t want that at all.
As for a female Truffaut… how many Truffauts are there anyway? That’s not really an issue of gender as it is a matter of great timing among other things. There was only one French New Wave for that matter. Female filmmakers shouldn’t aspire to follow in the footsteps of anyone else. Be influenced? Sure. Be inspired? Certainly. But any great artist forges his or her own path.
we keep saying the female truffaut as an example. i’ll say it again. why cant agnes varda be the female truffaut?
Look at all these excuses. “Truffaut financed his first films using his wife’s father’s money.” “That’s not really an issue of gender as it is a matter of great timing among other things.” Truffaut is just a name, it could be “female Godard” or “female Fassbinder.” The point is this — saying Agnes Varda is as great as Truffaut is the first step that needs to be taken. Erasing the ingrained perception that the art of a woman is somehow “less than” — because she can have babies, because she lets herself be taken by a man, all of the bullshit that muddles men’s perceptions.
Adriana
Alright, I know there are other threads about female directors.
But this one isn’t to name as many as you can or simply to talk about their films.
What I want to know is, does anyone have opinions about why there are no really GREAT female directors? And don’t get me wrong, there are very very good ones. But there is no female Truffaut, if you know what I mean… no woman who is simultaneously mentioned with Scorsese, Kubrick, Coppola, etc.
And how about the “one picture shuffle”, or the practice of studios giving a female director one picture and then sending her on her way?