Women directors actually dropped by 2% since 2008, accounting for just 7% of directors on the 250 top-grossing movies of 2009. That's the same number as 1987. Only 2% of the top 250 films credited female cinematographers, and just 8% of writers were female; 86% of the films had no female writers credited.
Representation still isn't that great either-with just under 30% of speaking roles in top grossing films going to females-never even mind the kind of representation.
Anyways don't take my word for it, this article (that's been posted all over the place) said it best:
When I started taking film classes at UCLA, I was quickly informed I had what it took to go all the way in film. I was a damn good writer, but more importantly (yeah, you didn’t think good writing was a main prerequisite in this industry, did you?) I understood the process of rewriting to cope with budget (and other) limitations. I didn’t hesitate to rip out my most beloved scenes when necessary. I also did a lot of research and taught myself how to write well-paced action/adventure films that would be remarkably cheap to film – that was pure gold.
There was just one little problem.
I had to understand that the audience only wanted white, straight, male leads. I was assured that as long as I made the white, straight men in my scripts prominent, I could still offer groundbreaking characters of other descriptions (fascinating, significant women, men of color, etc.) – as long as they didn’t distract the audience from the white men they really paid their money to see.
I was stunned. I’d just moved from a state that still held Ku Klux Klan rallies only to find an even more insidious form of bigotry in California – running an industry that shaped our entire culture. But they kept telling me lots of filmmakers wanted to see the same changes I did, and if I did what it took to get into the industry and accrue some power, then I could start pushing the envelope and maybe, just maybe, change would finally happen. So I gave their advice a shot.
Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).
At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”
This also explains why so many Hollywood movies about racism still usually have to have some white guy be at the centre of everything(which brings us to Avatar.) Also worth noting because I get weirded out by the criticism of her making a typical "guy flick" to get to the top(what decade is this,) but not as much as I get weirded out when people make a point about how amazing it is that a man would produce any of very few iconic strong female characters out there (the Buffys, Ripleys, etc.) Well, it's not really because they're usually the only people allowed to depict anyone as anything. This movie probably does have a million problems that are totally valid and will be fun to pick apart in another post, but then so does a pseudo-liberal blockbuster with a strong anti-war message. As far as I'm concerned this isn't about her, it's about the limits of what stories any people are allowed to tell in the industry.
0 comments:
Post a Comment