I was just thinking about this: it seems to me like an awful lot of directors are men in comparison to the amount of women in the profession, both in hollywood and in the indie circuit. Why do you think this is?

Alexpw,

Great topic.

I'm neither a social historian nor an economist, but I can tell you the root of this discrepency is probably socio-economic (and cultural). (how's that for both a qualifier and a disclaimer:D).

I can only speak from my experience of being a female brought up (working class) in the United States. First let me say, that this is one of the few countries on the planet where women have a chance to become successful as filmmakers...for that I am blessed.

Pardon the following generalizations, but for the most part (given contemporary experience) they appear to be true.

I believe 'girls' are raised to be seen (that THAT is where their worth lays) and not heard, this certainly affects choices in regard to professions. There is a (biological)attraction to supra-natural beauty which I'm sure is a factor in that socialization.

Girls who show artistic 'talent' are directed towards the 'non-technical' arts, moreso.

To paraphrase, female hands, still, mostly, rock the cradle.

I think a lot of what bird says is true but in addition...

I think a lot of males are HARDWIRED into being storytellers...

Filmmaking is simply an extension of this...

filmy

I think alot has to do with the fact that women are expected to be practical nowadays. Filmmaking is about as impractical an endeavor as they come. Also, people in general are not really encouraged to do anything artistic because it is too risky. You must be brave to do anything that could be considered out of the ordinary.

Also, I think that there is probably still a 'boys club' mentality to a certain degree. But I still think that the salvation of film across the board, meaning women, minorities or what have you, is independent film.

When you look at what is coming out of Hollywood, everything is a remake. Dukes of Hazard!?! I will NOT be going to see that. Starsky and Hutch, Charlies Angels, Walking Tall, Rollerball!?! I could keep going.

These films make money, but we all can see that the films that stay with people are the one's with substance or a new voice. Boys Don't Cry, Blair Witch, Memento, Big Night (a personal favorite). Frankly, who needs pay tv when you can have IFC and Sundance? I do not pine away for cable.

We need independent film. It is the voice of real people. The voice of new stories. And all us rebels who dare say something different at least have a chance on the soap box. We have to make of it what we can.

...I hearby turn the floor over to the next rant-ee....

--spinner

Interesting topic. I'll throw my $0.02 worth of observations in.

My friend Hitomi in Japan is an independent filmmaker; an excellent director. But she's always looked down upon and shunned by the men in the industry there just because she's female. She's told to stay home and cook for respect, as she'll get none making a name for herself in film. She can't get theatrical showings or air time on television. It's pretty easy to see she's discriminated against just because she's a woman.

What's shocking here is that I see this happening here in the US also. Damn shame. I'm sometimes embarassed to be a part of the human race.

This is circumstantial evidence, but most women I know have no interest in film. In fact, I've only known one woman in my life that I'd consider as a film lover. Of course, she is a painter and not a filmmaker, and we can either chalk that up to personal preference or to her feeling she would have been descriminated against if she tried her hand at film.

I think this just speaks to what Filmjumper said about men being hardwired to be storytellers, at least more so than women (this is a huge generalization I know).

I think a bit of it is what spinner said as well. But I would argue that women are not forced to be practical by society, they're simply practical from the get go.

It would be silly of anyone to say that there isn't a bias among execs towards women filmmakers. If a producer was given truth syrum and asked which he/she preffered, I'm pretty sure most of 'em would say men. I think the common (mis)conception is that men are easier to work with, as far as handling stress and being even headed goes.

I don't know if we'll ever see a time in our society where we don't see a person as lumped into a group. I know that I am not like every other white American male and my friend Diego isn't like every other Hispanic immigrant. My wife isn't like every other woman, and niether are her sister, her friends, or her co-workers.

Poke

I might agree that men are 'hardwired' to tell linear stories and I think women may have an easier time making abstract connections. Men-a,b,c... Women-a,z, a- m,a-f. Kinda like classical cutting compared to montage.:D

And I'm a painter and a filmmaker.

BTW, I've been in line waiting to rent eqiupment and everyone thought I just wanted to use the restroom. (just one of MANY stories) I'd better stop myself before I start bashing.

BTW, I've been in line waiting to rent eqiupment and everyone thought I just wanted to use the restroom.

I'd LOVE to hear that story! :yes:

Well, my first clue as to their assumption was when they handed me a toilet brush instead of a tripod.:D

So they thought you wanted to clean the bathroom.. :D

I would agree with Filmy, as to the hardwired storytelling bit. Also generally men are better as visuallizing things spacially. That is, the can see (with their minds eye) in three dimensions better than (MOST) women... or so the studies I have heard of say.

So if you took a 3d object, and unfolded it into a flat drawing, men generally can picture the 3d object if it were folded back to its original shape easier than women. That can be good for storyboarding, blocking, etc.

There's always exceptions to the rules though, and in my opinion some of the best directors are indeed female, but my opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt since my favorite genre consists of films fondly refered to as 'chick flicks' (Romantic Comedy if you're wondering).

:D

Also generally men are better as visuallizing things spacially. That is, the can see (with their minds eye) in three dimensions better than (MOST) women... or so the studies I have heard of say.

So if you took a 3d object, and unfolded it into a flat drawing, men generally can picture the 3d object if it were folded back to its original shape easier than women. That can be good for storyboarding, blocking, etc.:D

....huh?,....er, uh,....Huh?

maybe your comment is in 3-D and unfolded flat...and I'm tryin' to see it in its original shape.... :huh: :D :lol:

--spinner

Just a plain article from my fave newspaper... no commentary from myself.

Part 1 of 2


April 24, 2005

Hollywood's New Old Girls' Network

By NANCY HASS

Correction Appended

LOS ANGELES

NOT long after the talent manager and television producer Brad Grey was named the new chief of Paramount Pictures this year, he did something that has become almost routine in Hollywood: he put a woman in charge of the show.

Last month Mr. Grey - who succeeded Sherry Lansing, 60, in Paramount's top job - named Gail Berman, a respected television executive, to lead the studio's creative team. As a woman deciding what gets to the world's movie screens, Ms. Berman becomes the latest player in a quiet revolution transforming a business that until recently was regarded as a male preserve.

Four of the six major studios have women in the top creative decision-making roles, as Ms. Berman joins Stacey Snider, chairman of Universal; Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony Pictures; and Nina Jacobson, president of Walt Disney Company's Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group. Earlier this month, Ms. Snider announced that Mary Parent and Scott Stuber, would be stepping down as vice chairmen at Universal to become producers on the lot; their replacement is Donna Langley, the Universal executive who oversaw "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" and "In Good Company."

Though men still figure most prominently in the corporate echelons of the media companies that own the studios, and talent agencies like William Morris and Creative Artists Agency are still male dominated, these women, who over the years have fought and fostered one another as part of a loose sisterhood, have finally buried the notion that Hollywood is a man's world.

So striking is the change that some now see Hollywood as a gender-balanced model for the rest of corporate America. "It's astonishing," said Elizabeth Daley, dean of the film school at the University of Southern California. "You don't see that kind of progress in any other industry."

Women have come to predominate in Hollywood at a time when less than 1 percent of chief executive officers in the Fortune 500 are female, and none of the nation's top 100 publicly held companies have a female chief. According to the National Association of Law Placement in Washington, 87 percent of the partners in law firms are male, although for two decades more than 50 percent of law school graduates have been female.

It's true that women have yet to own studios - there is no female Rupert Murdoch or Sumner Redstone - and that executives like the Sony Pictures chairman, Michael Lynton, and the Walt Disney Studios chairman, Dick Cook, outrank their studios' female executives. But the power to buy scripts, hire directors and even to greenlight films has become so thoroughly vested in a generation of women that the very notion of a female power ranking, like the one done at the end of the year by The Hollywood Reporter, has been deemed quaint.

"That kind of thing may be vaguely interesting in other businesses, but at this point, here, separating the genders is, well, pretty silly," Ms. Snider said.

While it's true that women have been kicking around - and getting kicked around - behind the scenes in Hollywood since the beginning, mostly as story editors, they only began to infiltrate the power structure in the mid-70's. The names from that era are near legendary, from Marsha Nasatir (executive producer of "The Big Chill"), a New York book editor who came to Los Angeles at 40 and became vice president at United Artists, and Rosilyn Heller and Paula Weinstein who rose to be vice presidents at Columbia and Warner Brothers respectively.

Ms. Weinstein recalls the competition among them as "incredibly intense." While women in the rest of the country were having their feminist consciousnesses raised, she said, Hollywood was "quite retarded."

"A lot of the women had a sort of 1950's hangover," she continued. "They got together at Ma Maison and talked about engagement rings."

By the mid-1980's, as women were gingerly entering the executive ranks throughout corporate America, two female powerhouses emerged in Hollywood: Dawn Steel and Ms. Lansing. (Ms. Steel, who was president of production at Paramount and then president of Columbia, died of a brain tumor in 1997.) Lucy Fisher, a producer, said one reason that the two women were allowed to rise was Hollywood's "immigrant, outsider ethos."

"Here," she said, "if it makes money and you're a gorilla, you're in."

The competitive ethos among women seemed to have reached its apotheosis in the 1980's; to this day, few in Hollywood will mention Ms. Steel and Ms. Lansing in the same breath without quickly adding - as if the pugnacious Ms. Steel were eavesdropping on them from above - that both staked a claim throughout their careers to being the first woman to run a studio. (Ms. Lansing was the first to land a spot as president of production, at 20th Century Fox, in 1980; Ms. Steel became the first female studio president when she took over Columbia in 1987.)

By then, more women were making their way to Hollywood. They had grown up during the auteur 1970's, when Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola made films that set cinephiles' hearts on fire, and the Ivy League universities, with their newly minted film studies departments, proved a particularly fertile breeding ground. Studio jobs, with their unusual combination of high pay, glamour and artiness lured graduates away from more traditional career paths like investment banking and law, said Ms. Fisher, who made her way to Los Angeles soon after graduating from Harvard. She became vice chairman of Columbia during the mid-1990's before leaving to produce such films as "Stuart Little" and the coming "Bewitched" with her husband Doug Wick.

The roles of producer or of executive attracted women, she and others surmise, because they held the promise of a steady paycheck and a chance to work on a team. It was alluring, Ms. Fisher said, "to those of us who didn't have the heart for the all-consuming horror that is a director's life, but wanted to be intimately involved with movies."

Many of the women gravitated toward Warner Brothers, where Ms. Weinstein was a vice president, including Ms. Fisher and, later, the daughter of the puppeteer Jim Henson, Lisa Henson, who went on to become president of Columbia in 1993. Vanity Fair memorialized some of them in a photograph in the mid-1980's as "The Warner Sisters." By then, there were enough women around to spawn a more collegial attitude, said Ms. Fisher, who added that her own attitudes were shaped by Ms. Weinstein's generosity.

But it was not only women who nurtured the new generation of female executives. Two men at Warners, Peter Guber and his partner, Jon Peters - the producers of "Batman" - proved to be unlikely mentors. Although known for slash-and-burn machismo, Mr. Guber and Mr. Peters, who both eventually moved to Sony, regularly filled their staffs with tough, talented women.

"These guys loved women, in the wrong way maybe sometimes, but also in the right way," said Laura Ziskin, who worked for Mr. Peters in the 1970's and credits his tutelage for helping her become the founding chairman of Fox 2000 in 1994. "Jon Peters was a hairdresser, you know? These men had a tendency to get into fistfights with other men. They were less threatened by women."

Mr. Guber, who over the years hired Ms. Heller, Ms. Snider, Ms. Pascal and Ms. Fisher, said he saw in the young women an obvious temperamental advantage, especially when it came to the core of a producer's job: handling actors and directors. "Most men at the time, including me, just roughed people up, they had no governor on their testosterone," he explained in a recent interview. "These women used their power elegantly. And it turned out they were right. That's why they're on top now."

If there was a moment when the accumulated force of women in Hollywood began to show itself, it probably was during the spring of 1993 on the macho terrain of the Sony Pictures lot in Culver City.

As swashbuckling executives and producers including Mr. Guber, Mike Medavoy and Jonathan Dolgen clashed over Arnold Schwarzenegger's ill-fated, high-budget "The Last Action Hero," a cadre of ambitious female executives was massing. The women included Ms. Henson; Ms. Pascal, who was a newly minted vice president; Ms. Snider, who had come to work for Mr. Guber and Mr. Peters; and Laurie MacDonald, who later led DreamWorks SKG's movie division with her husband Walter Parkes. There was also a powerful stable of female producers on the lot, including Lynda Obst ("Sleepless in Seattle"), Wendy Finerman ("Forrest Gump") and Christine Peters ("How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days").

As the men sweated and screamed over Mr. Schwarzenegger's gold-plated action extravaganza, some of the women worked on a modest project that came to symbolize the new order: "Little Women." Made for $19 million and shot in Canada with a female director, Gillian Armstrong, and producer, Denise DiNovi, it made nearly $50 million in the United States, virtually the same amount that "The Last Action Hero," which cost $60 million, a fortune at the time, was able to eke out in the domestic market.

"I didn't realize it at the time, but those two films really represent the beginning of a real shift," Ms. Pascal, 46, said. "At that moment, the female talent at the studio was just amazing."

Part 2 of 2



From there, the women fanned out to different studios, often employing one another. "There's a little bit of an old girls club at this point," Ms. Pascal said. By the late 1990's, female executives, particularly Ms. Fisher, who cut her work week to as little as three days when she had young children, had smoothed some of the edges off the industry's go-go, late-night culture. "We needed each other for cover, so we could cut out for that concert our kid was in and not seem like slackers," said Ms. Jacobson, who has a 6-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter. (Such habits spread: even Steven Spielberg has joked publicly about the joy of taking "a Lucy Fisher day" with his children.)

Today, some female executives gladly talk about how gender has affected their jobs and their choices, but others are uncomfortable with undue focus on them as women. Ms. Pascal, for example, is well known for her effusive personality and her outspoken support of other women. Ms. Snider, all business, quickly switches the subject to the financial nuts and bolts of running a studio. "She's always talking about moving units in the home video market, which everyone knows is immensely boring," a female executive said of Ms. Snider, "but she wants to make sure people know she can play with the big boys when it comes to the bottom line."

Despite the differences in their styles, Ms. Snider and Ms. Pascal frequently ponder a bigger question, one that hovers in the background of any discussion about women and the movies: whether their gender has much of an effect on what, in the end, gets made. "It can't help but have at least a subtle influence on your decisions." Ms. Pascal said. "When I first started, I wanted to do movies about girl bands. I still do."

Ms. Ziskin noted that the decline of the pumped-up action figure epitomized by Mr. Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Steven Seagal coincided with the rise of female executives. Tobey Maguire's character in the "Spider-Man" films, for example, which she produced under Ms. Pascal's aegis, was clearly a more multidimensional superhero, Ms. Ziskin said. While at Fox 2000, she pointed out with considerable pride, she had produced the ultra-violent "The Fight Club," which was hugely popular with young men, but ultimately questioned the futility of male aggression.

Even Ms. Snider of Universal, who is hesitant to say that gender influences her, agrees that her studio's "Bourne Supremacy" and "Bourne Identity," with Matt Damon, presented a protagonist who was more complex and more ambivalent than many of his screen predecessors.

But Stacey Sher, a president of Double Feature Films, who was a producer of "Along Came Polly" and "Pulp Fiction," said she believed that the Schwarzenegger ethos is still alive and well, albeit sometimes in drag. "The Bride is the new Arnold," she said, referring to the female assassin in Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill." It's unclear, she added, whether that shift can be directly traced to women behind the scenes or is simply a mirror of society's increased acceptance of aggressive females.

But one thing the women can claim as their own is a new genre, the "tween" girl flick. "It's not an accident that I'm a woman and I have a daughter and we've had the 'Princess Diaries' and 'Freaky Friday' here," said Ms. Jacobson of Disney's Buena Vista group. Those two movies, produced on modest budgets, have taken in more than $300 million at the domestic box office. Ms. Jacobson, who keeps a slightly tattered VHS of "Little Women" on her desk as inspiration, says the genre was born in the wake of "Titanic" in 1997, a blockbuster whose success was attributed largely to the packs of young girls who saw it over and over. The market has grown to encompass less-than-sugary movies like "Mean Girls" and, for better or worse, helped created such stars as Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan.

Still, when it comes to the large-scale economics of making a studio profitable, whether Hollywood's women remain on top will depend on these executives' ability to serve a popular taste that demands new sensations. A female studio boss, even one whose business sense is as exquisite as her cinematic aesthetic, remains as much at the mercy of the moviegoing public as any mortal man. "We make as many good movies as bad movies," said Ms. Snider, who has had hits as big as "Meet the Fockers," and disappointments as troubling as "Van Helsing." "Ultimately you answer to the marketplace. It's a matter of what the audience wants to see, no matter who you are."

Directed by Mr. So-and-So

Women may have reached parity with men on the executive end of the movie business, but they are still rarely chosen to direct feature films. Only four of the top 100 films last year were directed by women, according to the Directors Guild of America, continuing a trend that has long plagued Hollywood.

"It's our No. 1 concern," said Elizabeth Daley, dean of the film school at the University of Southern California.

Some producers say the problem is a dearth of women studying directing in film school. "They just don't want a director's life," said Laura Ziskin, a producer who made the recent "Spider-Man" movies for Sony Pictures. "It's a 24-hour a day job. How can you go on a 120-day shoot when you have kids?"

Ms. Daley said the pipeline is indeed part of the explanation - only about a third of the women who come to the U.S.C. program are interested in directing - but not all of it. "There are talented girls who want to do this, but so far they haven't done what the boys do - band together and sacrifice everything to make a small film," she said. It's those films that eventually find their way into the hands of studio executives looking for the next hot young thing.

Young women are less likely to get support, both financial and emotional, from their parents, Ms. Daley added. "In my experience, parents of girls aren't as eager to give them their life savings to make a movie," she said.

But some executives, male and female, suggested that directing might require personal characteristics that few women possess. "The fact is that to be a director you have to be unbelievably ruthless," said a woman who has been both a studio chief and a producer, but didn't want her name used for fear of alienating temperamental directors. "They have a cold streak that most women I know don't have and don't want to have. They are both artist and commander, and they have a maniacal vision that precludes them from caring about anything but the film."


Correction: May 1, 2005, Sunday:

An article last Sunday about women who are powerful executives in Hollywood misspelled the given name of a producer whose films include "The Big Chill." She is Marcia Nasatir, not Marsha.

....huh?,....er, uh,....Huh?

maybe your comment is in 3-D and unfolded flat...and I'm tryin' to see it in its original shape.... :huh: :D :lol:

--spinner

Probably, yeah. :)

Also generally men are better as visuallizing things spacially. That is, the can see (with their minds eye) in three dimensions better than (MOST) women... or so the studies I have heard of say. So if you took a 3d object, and unfolded it into a flat drawing, men generally can picture the 3d object if it were folded back to its original shape easier than women. That can be good for storyboarding, blocking, etc.

Ha, and my neighbor still can't friggin parallel park without jumping the curb or butting a bumper. :hmm:

I'm not sure what studies your referencing, but, again, speaking as a woman, and in my personal experience; I believe this aptitude has more to do with being an artist rather than a particular gender. For example: I had to take a 6-part battery test for a pilot program for a hugh corporation. 1000's took the test because the pay (for the positions) was the highest in the area. I tested 97% and up on all of these tests (most being comprehensive type like you describe) and I consider myself an artist but also an average woman. When I called the Job Service to ask when this company would be scheduling interviews, I was asked if I understood that 'so and so just layed off a couple hundred men who had families to support' and SHE hung up on me. In other words, those men, regardless of 'comprehensive skills ' would receive priority in consideration. But, seriously, this is nothing new.

). "The fact is that to be a director you have to be unbelievably ruthless," said a woman who has been both a studio chief and a producer, but didn't want her name used for fear of alienating temperamental directors. "They have a cold streak that most women I know don't have and don't want to have. They are both artist and commander, and they have a maniacal vision that precludes them from caring about anything but the film."

Covered :lol: .

Well I didn't say it was a definitive study.. just something I remember hearing about... then that was many moons ago, and my memory is going. :D

I wonder if anyone stops to think about the kind of films being made today, their trashy, vulgar and just down right stupid, and with that said, i don't see a woman's name in the credits as to being a director. So........maybe if there were MORE women filmmakers maybe we would have some GOOD movies to watch. Just because i'm a GIRL nobody takes my film making passion seiously ("aww how cute she wants to try and be a director") but if a man does it ("ohhh good for him!!! way to go pal!) What do us women have to do to prove to this male dominated society, that what we do and say count too? (Just my opinion)

The simple problem with this whole topic is generalization.

Everything gets generalized in society. If you say that more women directors would mean more good movies, then you are generalizing. I mean, define "good." Because what's good to you might not be good to me.

The same holds true for the idea that men are better storytellers - I think Nora Ephron is a better storyteller than Michael Bay, but Joe Bloe might not think so.

Our society is too diverse to be blanketed by simple statements.

Poke

P.S. Just so everyone knows, I'm a man, and I can parallell park like the gods.

I understand what your saying Poke. But i'm still stickin to what i said.

But i'm still stickin to what i said.

That's your right. And I'm not trying to tell you to stop thinking that you have a hill to climb to make it as a woman filmmaker. In fact, I think the metaphorical hills, whether real or imagined, we choose to see an climb are the things that make us great in life as well as filmmaking.

...but if a man does it ("ohhh good for him!!! way to go pal!) What do us women have to do to prove to this male dominated society, that what we do and say count too? (Just my opinion)

I am a man and it took me a long time before I was told, "Good for you!!! Way to go pal!" For many years I struggled to make people see I had talent and could make it as a filmmaker. I was born and raised in Waco, TX, and kids from Waco have about as much chance of making it in Hollywood as...well, as a Hollywood star has of "fitting in" in Waco. Add to that the fact that I am a Christian. Strike three is that growing up I was not known for my work ethic. So my folks, my friends, my relatives, everyone that knew me didn't think I could make it. I got no "attaboys" from them.

In fact, it wasn't until I joined this board that I felt good about my desire to be a filmmaker. And that's the message I pass to you. As long as you're here, you are a filmmaker, and that's how we'll view you.

Poke

I wonder if anyone stops to think about the kind of films being made today, their trashy, vulgar and just down right stupid,

I just said the same thing about Fear Factor and Springer. I think that when something really pushes your buttons, you tend to speak in generalizations, just like I did a few posts back...

i don't see a woman's name in the credits as to being a director. So........maybe if there were MORE women filmmakers maybe we would have some GOOD movies to watch.

...what do you define as 'good'? I think Fight Club was a good movie. (zensteve just posted an article that said a woman, though not the director, had a hand in getting it made or something, I need to re read it).
Maybe you think the Princess Diaries was a good film. Good is relative. The merits of a film are relative.

Just because i'm a GIRL nobody takes my film making passion seiously ("aww how cute she wants to try and be a director")

...who cares if no one takes you seriously right now? You sound as if you are new also. You have to know that you are serious and that is all that matters at this point. If you are trying to get people to see your film, that's a different story, but you still have to move past those who would not take you seriously. Maybe the next person will believe in you.

What do us women have to do to prove to this male dominated society, that what we do and say count too?

...we have to make 'good' movies....I think, I hope that our voices can be heard so long as we 'speak' good filmmaking.....

--spinner :cool:

I wonder if anyone stops to think about the kind of films being made today, their trashy, vulgar and just down right stupid, and with that said, i don't see a woman's name in the credits as to being a director.

Trashy - Baise-Moi (http://imdb.com/title/tt0249380/) - Directed By Coralie Trinh Thi AND Virginie Despentes
Vulgar - American Psycho (http://imdb.com/title/tt0144084/) - Directed by Mary Harron
Just Down Right Stupid - Point Break (http://imdb.com/title/tt0102685/) - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

"Monster" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340855/), directed by Patty Jenkins (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0420941/), was fantastic. :cool:

Well... for a girl, that is. http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_creepy.gif

Penelope Spheeris (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0790715/) has established her own entire market.

Jane Campion (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001005/) is an amazing director, as well as being a kindred Kiwi.

_______

Here's another article (from a few years ago) talking about the poor state of women directors.

Too large to copy/paste (even in parts)... so if you're interested in reading more, here's the link to a Salon.com article.

Four pages total - Link to Page One. (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/08/27/women_directors/)

Good lord! An article just today, about a female director! :cool:

From the NY Times again... quoting it, as the original link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/movies/23dogt.html) requires a login.

_______

May 23, 2005

Recounting Skateboarding's Upstart Days

By SHARON WAXMAN

VENICE, Calif., May 22 - Catherine Hardwicke didn't have a prayer of directing "Lords of Dogtown," a big Hollywood production about a trio of scrappy skateboarders in the 1970's who incidentally turned the sport on its head. Actually, on their heads.

Two summers ago, the movie, which opens on June 3, was deep into preproduction with the powerhouse talent David Fincher ("Fight Club," "Panic Room") preparing to direct it. But after he asked for about $18 million to build a replica of a long-defunct pier on the Pacific Ocean, the studio balked and the director rethought his priorities.

Ms. Hardwicke grabbed her skateboard, surfboard and a bad skateboard video she had made in the 1980's and raced over to the Sony lot, prepared to beg. "When they called I almost jumped out of my skin," said the director, 49, a diminutive blond figure collapsed on a couch in her living room in Venice, a half-block from the beach where Dogtown, which was what skateboarders called the neighborhood back then, was born.

She said: "I was freakin' jealous. I live here." She knew: she could feel this movie better than anyone. And Ms. Hardwicke had another advantage: a friendship with Stacy Peralta, a founder of what became a true American subculture, daredevil skateboarding. He wrote and directed the award-winning documentary on which "Lords of Dogtown" was based, "Dogtown and Z-Boys," and wrote the screenplay for the feature.

Mr. Peralta pushed to hire Ms. Hardwicke, who was hot off her acclaimed debut film, "Thirteen," a hard-edged yet heartfelt take on two teenage girls running wild in Los Angeles. Her enthusiasm, along with the strength of that film, finally convinced the reigning powers at Sony Pictures Entertainment. They promptly gave her $18 million, a fraction of the estimated $70 million that Mr. Fincher intended to spend on the film, said people involved in the film. (With cost overruns, the movie cost about $25 million, the studio said.) She made it work. Here was her philosophy: "Sets are evil. Soundstages are evil. I like that gritty reality. You want it to be real. The kids really skate. They really lived in this place. You never stopped skating."

Mr. Peralta, 47, stared admiringly from his perch beside her on the couch. A green, life-size stuffed dingo, one of Ms. Hardwicke's offbeat art purchases (many of which show up in the background of her films), sat on an end table beside the filmmakers. The coffee table was an old surfboard on curved legs.

"My fear of the whole movie from Day 1 was it would be juvenile," he said. "Or it would be a macho Jerry Bruckheimer film, and wouldn't be the character film I thought it should be. In the wrong hands, it could've been sap."

He was gratified that the film turned out to be neither of those things. Instead it is a companion piece to "Thirteen" in its unvarnished, documentary-style approach to the rise of street skateboarding and the three teenagers who were its originators and became its superstars: Mr. Peralta, Tony Alva and Jay Adams.

The film tells a relatively simple story of their friendship and rivalry as they discovered the excitement of ever-more challenging skating stunts - notably when they began riding the walls of empty pools during a Southern California drought - and began inspiring a generation of skaters who followed their lead.

Ms. Hardwicke not only hand-chose the young actors who would play the real-life characters - John Robinson as Mr. Peralta, Victor Rasuk as Mr. Alva and Emile Hirsch as Mr. Adams; she made sure to immerse them in the street culture they were to portray. Mr. Rasuk (the lead in the indie film "Raising Victor Vargas") came straight from the "yo-yo-yo" New York street life, she recalled, and required "an extreme West Coast makeover." She checked him into a boarding house just off the Venice boardwalk, replaced his Nikes with Vans and attached him to Mr. Alva for two and a half months. Mr. Rasuk was not a skater and the others had no special claim to the sport.

She threw herself into the culture too, heading down to Oceanside, Calif., where Mr. Alva and his sister still sell a successful line of skateboards out of their shop. She flew to Hawaii to spend three days surfing and picking mangoes with Mr. Adams, where he was confined by parole requirements after drug-related charges.

"I fell in love with Tony," she said. "I fell in love with Jay. I already loved Stacy." She met Mr. Peralta some 20 years ago in acting class, and the affection (platonic) between them is palpable.

The production had the hallmarks of an indie, homegrown affair. Wherever possible, Ms. Hardwicke hired skateboarders as the crew of the film. She herself mounted a Jet Ski, surfboard and motorbike to shoot many scenes, giving the film a sense of constant kinetic energy. (She hired one champion skateboarder, Lance Mountain, to be a cameraman, and he can be seen in photos from the shooting location skating with a hand-held camera inches behind the actors inside an empty swimming pool.)

Running out of money, Ms. Hardwicke - a former production designer - bought a Ferris wheel for $7,000 on eBay and reassembled it to create part of the dilapidated Pacific Ocean Park Pier that Mr. Fincher proposed rebuilding for millions. (He remained an executive producer on the film, and gave Ms. Hardwicke his piles of research.)

With Mr. Peralta and Mr. Alva on the set, there were plenty of surreal moments, and nostalgic ones. When Mr. Robinson, 19, could not master a special Peralta skating stunt for a scene recreating a competition in Del Mar, Calif., Ms. Hardwicke finally turned in desperation to Mr. Peralta, who put on a wig and played himself - at age 16 - as a stunt-double.

Then near the end, catastrophe very nearly struck. With just a few days remaining on the shoot, Ms. Hardwicke slipped and fell backward into the deep end of an empty pool. She landed on her head, with nothing to break her fall.

"Blood was pouring out of me," she recalled. "The boys were crying. Tony was crying. It was pretty freaky, I guess." She woke up in the hospital and learned that, fairly miraculously, she had broken an orbital bone on her face, but was neither paralyzed nor had any permanent damage.

"Tony said, 'I'm sorry, but now you're one of the team,' " Ms. Hardwicke said. "Jay Adams said the same thing: 'Now you know what it's like.' " She laughed. "You get no sympathy from skaters."

But Mr. Peralta does have gratitude. "The biggest feeling I have is one of utter relief that this period of our lives, this touchstone, wasn't done improperly," Mr. Peralta said. "She got it."

I'm surprised no one has brought up "Lost in Translation".
What are your thoughts on that? I thought it was a fantastic artistic film... but obviously Sophia Coppola had a LITTLE inside help through her daddy (considering he exec. prod. the film...)
I think women have just as much a chance at getting up there as men do. Sure there are roadblocks, but they are there on either side! I've seen a million female ADs on set when I do extra work- and two shoots had working female directors. It's all about the skill and the vision.

P.S. Just so everyone knows, I'm a man, and I can parallell park like the gods.

And mine was a good-natured response to an OPINION masquarading as fact (backed by a 'study'). I provided a concrete example of why it was simply not true, and actually, insulting of a woman's comprehensive skills, or (implied) lack thereof.



Yes, there are always generalizations about why there aren't more women in certain male-dominated professions, but I stand by the ones I've made because they are part of my personal experiences. You can argue all you want about these being stereotypical, but, for some of us, they are true.

Haha, a Ferris Wheel? You can get anything on ebay, hmmmm, wonder if they have a 1928 Suiza Cabriolet.

I don't know if this helps or not, it's an observation rather than an opinion.

When I was teaching I noticed that there was a really strong gender split in some areas. So Music Production, that was a music technology course had a 90% male uptake, whereas Music Performance had a 90% female uptake.

I was teaching sound track for film to the music tech students and what I noticed was that the male students would geek out endlessy about technological trivia, they wanted to know what kind of kit was used to do a particular job, which was the best programme, the differences between 5.1 and THX etc. etc.

The female students were mainly interested actually producing a piece of music that worked creatively and the kit was just the tool to get the job done.

I think this division is fundamental and telling. The film industry is a technologically obsessed industry and most film schools teach far more about technical aspects of production than they do about story telling or creativity. In the industry itself there is a real "willy waving" attitude about technical knowledge. You prove yourself as a director by your ability to know which prime lems to use in a particular situation or your stunning knowlege of aspect ratios. This kind of "boy's world" mentality tends to exclude women from the industry, starting with film schools that adopt a male techno-fetish approach to film all the way through to the industry itself that has "male/tech geek" expectations for it's directors.

Personally I'd like to see changes in both film education and in the industry to swing away from technocentric approaches to more focus on storytelling and creativity. In that world there would be more female directors and better films.

And mine was a good-natured response to an OPINION masquarading as fact (backed by a 'study'). I provided a concrete example of why it was simply not true, and actually, insulting of a woman's comprehensive skills, or (implied) lack thereof.

You can not say that Will's reference of the study is false, and merely his opinion masquerading as fact. Because there's a strong possibility that he's telling the truth. I've never known Will to lie, but even so just because he doesn't have a link to said study does not make it nonexistent. I've read of many studies that I can not for the life of me remember who did the study or what university sponsored it, but I do remember the hypothesis and the result of the study...because that's the important part of the study.

You can always say you don't agree with the theory, but don't call someone a liar just because you don't agree with them.

Yes, there are always generalizations about why there aren't more women in certain male-dominated professions, but I stand by the ones I've made because they are part of my personal experiences. You can argue all you want about these being stereotypical, but, for some of us, they are true.

And that's what I am trying to say...generalization is wrong because it is 99% circumstantial. Just because it happened to you doesn't make it an absolute truth. You are entitled to your opinions, but don't tell me I'm wrong when I say the sky is blue simply because you see it as red.

I'm not trying to be inflamatory, I just don't think you're being very open to what anyone else has to say.

Poke

I know this thread would polarize, yet here I post again.

You can not say that Will's reference of the study is false, and merely his opinion masquerading as fact. Because there's a strong possibility that he's telling the truth. I've never known Will to lie, but even so just because he doesn't have a link to said study does not make it nonexistent. I've read of many studies that I can not for the life of me remember who did the study or what university sponsored it, but I do remember the hypothesis and the result of the study...because that's the important part of the study.

No, i'm sure Will's recollection of said 'study' is quite real. But when someone makes a reference to a 'study' which seems to be as inflammatory as this one, you should be able to back it up. Even if he provided a link, I'd still consider the source. I'm not going to believe Coke is better than Pepsi, if Coke sponsered the survey.

And that's what I am trying to say...generalization is wrong because it is 99% circumstantial. Just because it happened to you doesn't make it an absolute truth. You are entitled to your opinions, but don't tell me I'm wrong when I say the sky is blue simply because you see it as red.


Well I've polled all my women friends for my 'study' and gee the lyrics are different, but the song remains the same.

Friggin Boys Club..so long

Not to get into a heated debate but there have been lots of studies done by very many scholars about storytelling...

When I said it was hardwired into the male species, there is actually a lot of documentation supporting this.

Tribesmen would travel from village to village and tell stories. As they traveled and told more stories, they picked up on parts of the stories that the people responded to and developed their stories even more hence, the reason we have a protagonist and an antagonist.

Women simply did not do this. Granted, they probably weren't allowed to in many instances but the innate urge to tell stories goes as far back as when men were either created or evolved.

Just as WE as people are hardwired to know what parts of a story are worth hearing about, men are hardwired to tell stories. I definitely think the line is getting blurry here as we progress into a more equal society but I sincerely doubt that the want or need to tell stories will equalize between men and women in our lifetime.

Notice I don't say who is better at it... I think those kinds of generalizations are useless. For every woman you can find that can tell a good story, a man can be found. I just about said VICE VERSA but in reality, I just don't believe it.

However, when it comes to filmmaking, there are some very competent women out there telling some outstanding stories.

I think the QUALITY is more an individual thing. No doubt about it, some people are better at it than others... Sex notwithstanding.

filmy

Good is relative.

Nice point. I get it all the time while DJing... people come up ALL the time "When are you gonna play something good?" I just look at them, then look at the FULL DANCE FLOOR, look back at them and generally tell 'em I left all the good music at home. But, yeah. Good is relative.

There has been a lot of controversy about research into links between gender and spatial awareness. Any study into conscousness is always plagued by he same issues, the difficulty of isolating cultural and physiological issues.

But actually, in this debate it's actually irrelevant whether there is a gender issue about spatial awareness or not. This is because different directors bring different skill sets to the job. Some are highly visual, some are highly technical, some have a deep understanding of language, some come from a theatrical background and understand actors and some have a profoundly natural spatial awareness.

My friend the artist Robert Gammie was profoundly colour blind and yet his paintings are about specifically about the relationships between colours. Yet, Robert could only keep track of the colours he was reading by the names on the tubes.

I am dyslexic and have made my living as a writer all my adult life. Ironically the upside of being dyslexic is having profoundly good 3D spatial awareness.

Finally, Leni Refrensthal is probably the director with the greatest spatial awareness of anyone, male or female, in living history. You only have to see her work on shooting and editing the Berlin Olympics to see that she that her work hasn't been equaled since.

I said, in a previous post, that I would probably agree that men are, most probably, hardwired to tell linear stories, but a,b.c, isn't the only way to convey a narrative.

There was a time in history (to paraphrase Merlin Stone) 'when God was a Woman' where women were the primary storytellers simply because an agrarian society valued women as shamans.

As for biological proof of men being 'better' storytellers, maybe that should be left for geneticists to determine once they've unraveled our genetic code.

I said, in a previous post, that I would probably agree that men are, most probably, hardwired to tell linear stories, but a,b.c, isn't the only way to convey a narrative.

There was a time in history (to paraphrase Merlin Stone) 'when God was a Woman' where women were the primary storytellers simply because an agrarian society valued women as shamans.

As for biological proof of men being 'better' storytellers, maybe that should be left for geneticists to determine once they've unraveled our genetic code.


LOL. It's okay to disagree too! That's what we're here for...

As I said... I sincerely doubt that men are BETTER storytellers per se... But the fact that there are more men telling stories probably does support that hypothesis... At least for the time being...

As for men only being hardwired to tell linear stories...

First of all, linear stories are in fact the BEST WAY to tell stories to the masses at this current time. I will be the first to say that with kids being plugged into a movie, a video game, a book, etc. all at the same time, better ways to tell stories are in fact evolving as we speak.

But I still think men are hardwired into storytelling whether linear or nonlinear.

If we are to believe Stone's hypothesis in her book, then we must also believe that at some point in time, we evolved past those beliefs as well...

filmy

If we are to believe Stone's hypothesis in her book, then we must also believe that at some point in time, we evolved past those beliefs as well...

Evolved past the idea that women WERE as much part of the godhead as men? (because that is, what I believe, the primary thesis of her book).

Dunno if I'd call that evolution.

Well I've polled all my women friends for my 'study' and gee the lyrics are different, but the song remains the same.

I repeat: generalization is wrong because it is 99% circumstantial.

As I look bacl on this thread I see that a question was asked, and some of us have tried hard to answer the question. Sometimes an answer may be right, but feel very wrong. I think there are many woman directors out there that can do a better job than I, and I was never trying to say otherwise. I was simply trying to answer an asked question to the best of my ability.

Poke

bird!
Consider yourself having less competition! :)
My girlfriend just recently took a craving for screenwriting, and it's turning out quite fantastic. I think the motivation to become a filmmaker isn't very romantic when you look at the facts. Maybe guys are just stubborn, maybe we get out of touch with reality more often, or perhaps we're whimsical creatures... sometimes it's our faults that bring out the desire to do the best in us! :yes:

Maybe guys are just stubborn, maybe we get out of touch with reality more often, or perhaps we're whimsical creatures...

Or maybe our fathers didn't tell us they loved us enough. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/frown2.gif

Poke

Consider yourself having less competition!

Spatula,

I appreciate the spirit with which this is said, thank you:). But my competition is with other filmmakers, not just other women filmmakers.

But my competition is with other filmmakers, not just other women filmmakers.

erg... elaboration... I meant that if there were as many women filmmakers as men filmmakers, there'd be twice as many filmmakers...

:beer: Don't worry about poor ol' me.... :D

I repeat: generalization is wrong because it is 99% circumstantial.

As I look bacl on this thread I see that a question was asked, and some of us have tried hard to answer the question. Sometimes an answer may be right, but feel very wrong.Poke


Guys, nobody is wrong. There are so many standpoints to look at there is no way anyone can be completely right or wrong. The best thing we can do is what we are doing. Discussing it. Frankly, you learn more from the question, than you do from thinking you know the answers....

--spinner :cool:

For the same reason there are more men in the building and manufacturing trades. Film making is manufacturing.

Welcome Midnight9!

Don't take this personally, but how about building a better argument. :D

ahoy there midnight9 -

re: your post - i don't get it. do you mean to suggest that males are better at manufacturing?

I don't think Midnight's suggestingbthat men are better at anything. The question is "why are there more men directors?" Midnight's answer:

For the same reason there are more men in the building and manufacturing trades. Film making is manufacturing.

If you want to debate that there are more men than women in manufacturing or if filmmaking is manufacturing, fine. But let's not fall into the trap again of thinking anyone's saying that men are better than women.

Poke

I was just thinking about this: it seems to me like an awful lot of directors are men in comparison to the amount of women in the profession, both in hollywood and in the indie circuit. Why do you think this is?

coincidence.

The real reason is this....

A long history of sexual discrimination that is in the process of being overturned.

Poke

I agree completely with that. My above 'coincidence' comment is meant to suggest that there is no innate difference that makes men better at it than women or vice-versa (the very trap Poke rightly warned about falling into earlier).

...there is no innate difference that makes men better at it than women or vice-versa....

There's only the knowledge of the higher form of life that is Poke.

Poke

For the same reason there are more men in the building and manufacturing trades. Film making is manufacturing.

This is absolutely specious.

Why do you think so, Zen?

Poke

Well if 'fast-food workers' are re-classified to 'manufacturing workers' (which the gov would like to do) then Midnight9's theory is shot to hell. :D

(I've no stats on that, but based on WHO I see working at local fast-food joints...the majority are women)

My favorite word...circumstantial. I see a good mixture of men vs. women in fast food restaurants. However, I do notice that the women tend to be the servers whereas the ment tend to be the cooks.

I wasn't disagreeing with Zen, I'd just like to here some evidence for a the strong statement.

Poke

No need to ridicule me. What determines a job to be a 'manufacturing' job'? If you consider the world (which you would have to, rather than a pre-determined area with a proliferation of industry geared towards ONLY hiring men) then a woman in a third world country weaving a basket is 'manufacturing' something. THEN Considering Midnight9's 'argument': there are more men in the film industry because there are more men in the building and manufacturing trades...it's not a rational conclusion .

Again, I am not disagreeing, I was merely wanting Zen to explain a bit more. If I say something, and you say it's "specious," I'd like to know why you think so. In this case I wanted to know why Zen thought so.

No ridicule was meant in what I said. I echoed what I've been saying throughout this thread.

What determines a job to be a 'manufacturing' job'? If you consider the world (which you would have to, rather than a pre-determined area with a proliferation of industry geared towards ONLY hiring men) then a woman in a third world country weaving a basket is 'manufacturing' something. THEN Considering Midnight9's 'argument': there are more men in the film industry because there are more men in the building and manufacturing trades...it's not a rational conclusion .

If you want to take it that direction then it's a valid point.

But I believe Midnight's actual words were "manufacturing trades," which I took to mean the manufacturing industry, and I don't believe a woman basket weaving in a third world country to be in that category. So, taking what I believe he meant into account, I don't think that argument is valid.

Poke

But I believe Midnight's actual words were "manufacturing trades," which I took to mean the manufacturing industry, and I don't believe a woman basket weaving in a third world country to be in that category. So, taking what I believe he meant into account, I don't think that argument is valid.

I can accept that. However, from that purist perspective on the def of manufacturing....that would make filmmaking even less, categorically, 'manufacturing'. The basket would probably serve a more immediate function in an economy before a film would.

Seriously, I'm willing to bet that most filmmakers see their work as a creative endeavor rather than (just) product .

Directors are in charge of manufacturing a product in this case a film. That is a true statement. Most of them are men, also true. I didn't say men made better movies. Still the manufacturing label fits both film and television production. Repetition, How many of you know the theme song to Gilligans Island or Ralph Cramden's line "To the moon, Alice?" These lines and songts branded their products as much as "I'm stuck on Band-aids because band-aids... The fact that studio's insist on test audiences screams manufactured production. When the best directors in the country are re-making movies instead of writing
original material is another nod to manufacturing. And finally use of thge word Franchise in several magazineswhen refering to Star Wars, Batman and others.

It's a manufacturing industry.

Fast food workers manufacture a product: Say, a Big Mac. Repetition: 'Two all beef-paddies, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame bun.' (Sells a hamburger, not a commercial). Tested products on consumers for mass campaign: BBQ Beef Sandwiches, Shamrock Shakes, Chicken Breast Strips. McDonald's: BIGGITY BIG FRANCHISE.

IMO, filmmaking is not, in the traditional sense, a manufacturing trade or you would have to add fast food workers and that would change the stats (based on gender) for this trade immensely.

I use the word manufacturing to make the point that a product - a film - is being produced for mass consumption. Many artisits are involved in the process but in the end it's a product on a shelf just like a can of soup. Also, I use the manufacturing term because I've worked on projects with artists, actors, directors and writers who waste valuable production time talking about their "craft". Such self important talk show nonsense. Once cameras begin to roll time is money and any artist who doesn't have their artistic chops down, their craft mastered is going to cost you money. Somewhere along the way art has to stop and the business of getting it done begins. That's manufacturing. If it's done right it looks like art. Sometimes it's even a masterpiece.

Women are capable of manufactuing masterpieces. Some have. In my view women have played a more important roll than just directing. Women have excelled in the editing department. It's no secret that a good editor can save a mediocore director. In some cases they can even save your life. Check out Final Cut with Robin Williams. I always wanted to ask Dee Dee Williams what she thought of a story where the editor is the savior of an otherwise flawed life.

I've worked on projects with artists, actors, directors and writers who waste valuable production time talking about their "craft".
...I guess you've seen a lot of pretension where you are. The best situation is to be talking to people who are trying to get better at 'their craft' as opposed to being around those trying to impress people with how smart they are. This way nobody 'knows everything' and you might even pick up some pointers. I don't even want to pretend to know everything. Who wants to be a poser? (don't everyone get up at the same time :lol: )

Such self important talk show nonsense. Once cameras begin to roll time is money and any artist who doesn't have their artistic chops down, their craft mastered is going to cost you money. Somewhere along the way art has to stop and the business of getting it done begins.

...I hope somewhere along the way the art doesn't really have to stop, so much as you learn to create a hybrid of creativity and knowing when to get everything done. The minute you rush, you could end up with a catastrophe...uh, that would suck...

--spinner :cool:

I want to add my tarnished two cents here. I didn't read the whole thread- started on p. one then jumped to p. 4 to make sure everyone was polite. Hooray, for the most part, we are. :)

I am a female director. Most of the time in my local 'club' meeting, I am the only female director. Often, in pre-prod. or on the set, I am one of the only women- even the only one- if we exclude those in front of the camera.

Recently, I worked on a very testosterone heavy film- nearly all male cast and there were three women on the crew. One was the wardrobe crew head, one was the set RN, and me- script super. These are the 'traditional' female roles in production.

Most of the time, I don't give a damn about it... Then will come the moment when I realize that I am the only woman at the table- or I watch a talented and skilled woman shooed away from using her skills cause she'll 'get hurt' doing a 'man's' job. Then I get steamed.

I am the maniacal/ obsessive directoral stereotype. It creates havoc at home with my spouse and daughter, but they are learning to live with it. I am new to the business, so there is much I still need to learn to create better films, so I take some jobs I'd rather not, just to learn.

The way I see it, one of our jobs as Indies is to educate the mainstream filmmakers about diversity and thinking outside the box (which is 3-D) ;). Women must be as willing to run roughshod over their families as their male counterparts (for a while), so that we can prove our mettle and create our vision too.


My new short "Killer Squirrel" premieres in Cleveland in Sept. and I am in pre-prod. for an HD feature (I am producing that one) and in pre-prod for another short entitled, "Rubble"( I promised my hubby that I'd complete at least 3 shorts before I went for a feature- This will be the 6th short I have worked on). Somewhere in there, I have to be a wife, mom, housekeeper, gardener, accountant, help-mate and sex goddess. We do what we have to do. :)

It ain't fair, but it's life. :)

Great post, Lilith!

Great post, Lilith!

...for a girl...

I kid, I kid!! :bag:

_______

The last film I helped on (Showtime's "Sarang Song") had a heavy cast of women (heavy as in many of them; not fat) and a woman director.

It didn't seem weird in any way... it was all about getting the job done.

one of our jobs as Indies is to educate the mainstream filmmakers about diversity and thinking outside the box

I'm not sure I quite agree with that. Mainstream filmmakers, in an effort to make a (big) buck, give the audience what the audience wants. They have to pander to the people with the dollars.

If there's a general shift in what audiences demand, the mainstream filmmakers will follow and adapt... once again clogging that market with a "new" kind of lowest common denominator.

I really don't believe that mainstream movies have to (or even ought to) change.

At the same time, I also believe that a parallel Indie-industry is going to build up... partly stepping-stone to mainstream, and partly being about the "vision".

Just my opinion, anyways.

:)

I can't remember when this question about female directors started but I was surprised to find another opinion in my email today. The indies give women, infact anyone for that matter, a chance to direct. Good luck on your next project. Where will Killer Squirrel be showing? Can I see it online anytime soon?

midnight-

I am hoping to put Killer Squirrel on line when it's completed. It's getting the score laid in now, so very soon it will be available for your viewing pleasure. I will let everyone here know when it's on line.

Zensteve-

Does the viewing audience flock to 'blockbusters' at the cineplex because it is all they want? Or is it more that it's all they're given? Sure, there are some (like my own mother) who only want films with happy endings, or shoot-em-ups (with happy endings)... In short, what they've been programmed to expect by the studio system. I think that it is up to indie filmmakers to raise the bar of expectation.

For example, Q. Tarantino. When "Pulp Fiction" opened in my scrawny neck of the woods, I sat in a packed house on a Friday night and discovered that my husband and I were the only two people in the WHOLE place who were laughing. Everyone else seemed to be in states ranging from disgust to discomfort.

When we got to the now infamous "heart needle" scene, my mother in law leaned over and said, "Is this supposed to be funny? Cause I feel like I want to laugh, but it's so awful... It's supposed to be funny, right?" See? conditioning. The audience didn't know how to trust their own instincts and go with it. Of course, now Q.T. is a film god and imitators abound, but I watched people get up and leave the theater.

We have to push the envelope. I don't see studios doing that. That's all I am trying to say.

here in Cleveland, there are a bunch of female directors, at least I know of:

Laura Paglin
Bernadette Gillota
Annetta Marion (she's now in AFI doing her short film premiere)
Christine Chapman
Carol (something)
at least 3 more that I can't remember their names...
Naomi Hallender (DP)
Cindy Panter
Mara Evans (she's also a PA/AC)


I also have watched a lot of movies (from Hollywood) made/directed/produced by women. but funny enough, these films were not 'action' oriented, but more of drama, comedy, relationship styled...

One thing people see more are films that makes $ (in their POV) so mostly are action or horror oriented, so these films usually are shot male directors, it's not necessarily means there's a 'discrimination' point, but more of the director's taste...

I think the only 'action' film directed by a female director (that I know of), is that short film that turned into a feature called DEBS (DEBS seems to be mroe comedic than anything else)... I'm not sure if there's any others...

johnny

Kathryn Bigelow

Does the viewing audience flock to 'blockbusters' at the cineplex because it is all they want? Or is it more that it's all they're given?

It certainly is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" dilemma, granted.

However, Hollywood is no dummy. They certainly cater to the widest audience possible... and from start to finish, they are doing what it takes to make sure the latest film has the widest possible audience; from recycling past successes, to inventing new types of eye-candy, to holding test-screenings of films with the public to get feedback on what works for them and what does not... and making changes accordingly.

Aside from the odd exception to the rule, I'll maintain that Hollywood gives the average audience exactly what they want.

Now that may seem at odds with what we hear about, on indie-film forums such as this and others, but our opinions about the relative poor quality of Hollywood films are coming from a stacked deck. Most of us (including myself) are essentially like-minded individuals that are not satisfied with our entertainment options... and add to that, that unlike the average viewing audience, we tend to want to be actually involved with the creative process on a first-hand basis.

We are a very different breed of animal than the average entertainment-seeking public.

_______

Two more relavent threads (here (http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=7908) and here (http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=7906)) have since popped up, that better suit this slight derail of mine. I ought to continue there.

I apologise for steering this thread away from its intended topic. :)

Sophia Coppola!

i think we keep forgetting that major studios (almost all Hollywood) are there to make a living, which means, they have to release films that can bring the big bucks back, and they use their 'forecasters' to predict which type of films that would sell for a great return (obviusly quality isn't the subject matter, but what can sell most with the bang).

Witht that in mind, it's their job to keep their clients, and to keep their employees that can continue working, so they have a mission to make: to make money at any cost.

Us, as viewers, individuals, we probably can't complain much if we were in their shoes, but we have the liberty to choose what to watch what not to watch at the same time, express ourselves with our creative work.

Johnny

Great post Lilith,

Its like I've always said " If you can't be a cat and run with the wolf pack you have to become a wolf to run with the wolf pack"

I think comment prior to mine has it's own validity and truth.

The fact that so many directors are men is an interesting observation. But men are dominant in almost all fields except for Nursing and Administrative practices.

Being a woman and an aspiring filmmaker, I'g going to have a hell of a time trying to make a living off my passion.