-
I have to agree with @shian even though I don't want to. I am a fan of things that really push boundaries or go to extremes which are both qualities women don't typically possess. I like films like Requiem for a Dream, A Serbian Film, Exorcist etc...I keep praying Asia Argento is going to wake up one day and follow in her fathers footsteps even for one film.
-
That so few prominent directors are women is not a proof of, and not even a strong indication of, some inherent quality of women vis-a-vis men. Someone who follows this logic would also have said that since slaves did not usually own houses, that was an indication of black people's lack of ability to buy property. And trust me - such logic happens all the time.
100 years ago there were almost no women doctors. Well of course, doctors must be like X but women are Y! Want proof? There are no women doctors. And also, I met a woman doctor once, she wasn't a very good doctor (as per my opinion of what makes good doctors)!
The discussion on this thread where people claim simple character traits to half of humanity and how this relates to their idea of the profession of directing clearly shows that there is a bias against women in filmmaking.
-
@omnidecay, I've got to recommend you check out Claire Denis's Trouble Every Day, then, in terms of women filmmakers pushing extremes.
-
@arnarfjodur Is it bias or is it observation? Gender differences are not the same as racism. The color of our skin does not effect the choices we make but our gender certainly does.
@Oedipax thanks for the recommendation I will check this out!
I always found it weird that women never really consider the horror genre. Comedies and dramas all day long but pretty much no across the board in horror. Which is weird since its arguably the easiest entry into the industry. Ironically, there was a girl in my film class who made a short film that got her expelled from the program. Broken beer bottle + extreme insertion != well received lol.
-
Someone who follows this logic would also have said that since slaves did not usually own houses, that was an indication of black people's lack of ability to buy property. And trust me - such logic happens all the time.
No. The logic used in this example is flawed. Slaves were slaves... they were not "allowed" to own anything. That example doesn't apply to what we're talking about here. There is no "law" that says women can't direct. Nobody is stopping them. It's just the nature of the different genders that males tend to possess the traits required for the crafts of film-making more often than than women. It's not OUR bias... it's NATURES bias.
That so few prominent directors are women is not a proof of, and not even a strong indication of, some inherent quality of women vis-a-vis men.
Yes, it kind of is. Producers and studios want to make money... and money only. They only want the best person for the job. If women were better at making films the "greed" of producers and executives would have wised up to it a long time ago and there would be more women directors.
-
@omnidecay You're right, it's not racism, it's called sexism. Together with ageism it's part of the very popular category discrimination. Heck, I even heard that blue eyed people are less intelligent than their brown eyed counterparts!
In reality women are too busy doing stuff like taking care of our children, cooking our food and cleaning our houses. Oh, and without a paycheck to go with it.
-
It's about expected behavior and conforming to old traditions and structures. In modern society, this is starting to break up and more people are acting outside their expected roles. But traditions are hard to break free from: on the bus to work today I would say 90 percent of the male monkeys wore blue jeans and black/grey jackets, even though they could have picked any color in the store. Conscious choices?
Just look at how the English language uses Ms and Mrs, compared to Mr.
Female monkey version implies whether she's is available or hooked up. All in context of how male monkeys define her.
Is this reflected upon in day to day talks? My guess is that most people are too busy conforming to give this a thought.
-
@oscillian idk what any of that means...but if anything is sexist it surly is this:
"In reality women are too busy doing stuff like taking care of our children, cooking our food and cleaning our houses."
-
I am going to simplify shit.
1) Women and men GENERALLY think differently, but NOT ALWAYS. Thus there are certainly women out their capable, whether they enter the industry and are seen is another question.
2) Stereotypes whether based on fact or fiction can affect industry hiring standards for many years. There was no law against female doctors, but the stereotype was they were not capable. In this day and age I prefer female doctors, they listen better without having their head up their ass full of ego.
3) As female directors that are capable come along, and IT WILL HAPPEN. There will be further analysis into what makes a good female director. Some of the future greats will start to write books, and teach classes specifically for how women can not only succeed but excel working with their generally different way of thinking. These books and classes will help some women, and some will fail... others will take their own path and still excel, and some will fail. Just like with men, only as more and more women succeed there will be less stigma, thus less roadblocks.
4) It's all a numbers game. Most men cannot direct for shit, nor engineer for shit, but some can. It has been mostly men doing both for some time, so the numbers favor men no matter whether women are capable or not. Just look at any industry. Though women have risen greatly in recent years, top positions are still generally held by men.
5) I am not saying one way or another if the numbers would be equal without any roadblocks, just that they are still skewed by societal constraints and will be for sometime.
-
@mee +100
-
@OScillian OMG you saw me on the bus?!
-
Producers and studios want to make money... and money only. They only want the best person for the job. If women were better at making films the "greed" of producers and executives would have wised up to it a long time ago and there would be more women directors.
So you're saying we've reached a point in history where any and all inequality across different genders (and I presume races, too) can be explained entirely by said groups' lack of talent/ability/appropriate disposition?
This is really heading into more, shall we say, inflammatory sociopolitical territory. But I do not buy for one second that we can explain the vast majority of Hollywood directors being white males by simply saying no one else is good enough. And if we can't say that, then we have to admit that the world is a complicated place with a complicated history and that we can't just go around making such facile blanket statements about billions of people.
-
5) I am not saying one way or another if the numbers would be equal without any roadblocks, just that they are still skewed by societal constraints and will be for sometime.
It's about expected behavior and conforming to old traditions and structures.
Societal constraints were built because of what worked, and was observed, throughout evolution. They weren't all made-up through some "agendas" that people pretend to have existed to make themselves feel better. The different genders evolved differently. Period. They each specialize in different areas. This is SCIENCE. This fantasy world were everybody is equal at doing everything doesn't exist. It goes against EVERY law of nature and science.
Female monkey version implies whether she's is available or hooked up. All in context of how male monkeys define her.
Yes. And why did this come about in the first place? A secret "sexist" agenda? Nope, not really. Just evolution again. Most things in are culture are from the male context, you're correct. But why? Because males were the dominant sex in evolution. Is it right? Is it wrong? Neither. It just IS. If men bore children and women were the warriors/protectors it would be the other way around. The fact that there are TWO genders implies there was a NEED for two distinct genders. Think about it. We aren't both "equal at everything" because it's not possible in nature.
Now, men tend to be better problem solvers, engineers, and inventors because they were the most expendable gender throughout evolution. The males who didn't posses the visual/spacial traits that led to tribal organization or the planning/perception skills for hunting and gathering were simply bred out of the gene pool. This is why more men than women posses these skills today. The selection for women during evolution was much more simple, as they were basically selected on attractiveness (aka. genetic stability and quality) as well as child-bearing features. It's not sexism to point out differences, or declare a gender better at a certain area, when it's anthropologically observable. This is getting crazy that people cannot objectively look at things anymore.
Sure, everybody should be allowed to pursue their interests if they would like. I'm all for this. And the female directors that have made it are great. Kathryn Bigelow is wonderful at her job! But again, the fact that certain fields and jobs are not equally populated with both sexes is not because of tradition or an "agenda". It's just nature. Doesn't mean there won't be exceptions. I actually believe that women make really great producers, they seem to posses the traits that, IMO, make them excel over allot of men in that area. Are you going to call me sexist here?
I think all our of problems today come from our ever increasing inability to observe reality on reality's terms. Not because we're "not accepting" enough. Everyone is not equal at everything. This is the truth that nobody can bring themselves to believe, yet all science and biology supports. The "quest" to equalize everything will be the demise of civilization as it goes against the very essence of nature and the universe. Equal opportunity? Yes, absolutely. But equal outcome for everything? Not scientifically possible. So don't get mad when it's not observed in all cases.
Also note... I'm not "justifying" anything. And I'm in no way saying that women should not pursue what they like. This has all been just an explanation of why things seem to be a certain way. Does it mean the future has to be the same? Who knows. It's anyone's guess.
But I do not buy for one second that we can explain the vast majority of Hollywood directors being white males by simply saying no one else is good enough.
Well, not that nobody else was good enough, but it ended up like this for "some" reason. Things aren't random. Are they the best now? Again, who knows? We'll see as time goes on, now that things are being more democratized...
Can you offer an alternate explanation though? I'm actually interested in all possibilities or reasons. And no, I'm not Not trying to be sarcastic or rude here...
-
@bwhitz What you are proposing is so far away from science, that even CAPITALIZING the word doesn't help. 100 years ago there were no laws against women being doctors. Yet very few existed. What has changed in the last 100 years? If you know anything about science at all, then you know that natural selection works on a very long timescale. DNA changes very slowly and no significant biological evolution happens in 100 years.
The massive changes that happened in our societies over the last few hundred years are because of changes in social structure, not biological structure. This social structure influences the lives of individuals - how we think, what we want, what we can do, etc. To be rich or poor, man or woman, black or white or, or whatever, does matter. A kid born in one part of society does not have the same chances and possibilities as a kid born in another, even if they had same DNA, and even if law says they are equal.
I've not seen anyone implying that "everyone is equal at everything" - this is your invention. Certainly, for example, your theorizing of the evolution of human society is not equal to most.
Maybe there are inherit differences between men and woman. Maybe this has influence on how they perform the job of directing and some people here don't like that style. Point is this: That there are few women directors around now is not a strong indication that women are not inherently good directors. That is an extremely simplistic deduction.
-
It's not sexism. If someone came to me and asked if I could have anyone in the world produce my next film, I'd say Gale Ann Hurd without any hesitation. She's my number one choice. Top of my list. In fact 3 of my top 5 choices at producer are women. So it's not sexism.
-
Thank you @arnarfjodur for saying allot of what I wanted to say.
@Bwhitz you mixed a quote of another in with mine. Not a big deal, just saying. You are half right, and then pretty off the trail of science in allot of what you are saying. Arnarfjodur covered allot of that, as well as the fact that non of us said there are no differences. I think if you read what I said again, and don't forget the beginning when you get to the end that is clear.
There are many examples world wide of cultures where the women are the hunters and tribal leaders, and though many men choose women based on looks, there are other factors. Women that show great intelligence among many other skills are more attractive to many. Much like a french accent makes a girl more attractive to an American and vise versa... there are many non physical factors. I think actually men as a whole are more prone to be followers than leaders. Women often are on their own, where many men tend to cling to alpha males and that can be seen in every online forum. As someone that is very science minded, I think there needs to be some more careful attention payed here to the facts that there is a huge difference between the evolution which brought us to largely undocumented tribal living which dominated our history, and the modern life of many men and women. But since hypothetical evolution was put on the table, I think it was much more like this..
Men were better suited for plowing fields during the dawn of agriculture, women still did allot of work, but as people were more successful at warding off starvation more children were born, and women were confined to smaller spaces where they could all keep a watchful eye on the many youngins... soon after exploitation of the harvesters spawned from tribal leaders, exporting goods across great distances.. again men were better suited for this...leaving the women more and more... soon men told tales of their great adventures, and dangers along the trade routes, and women said "we had our own adventures and dangers while you were gone". Men started saying " your adventures can't compare to ours" because egos crept in. It continued as towns sprouted up around trade routes and agricultural hot spots, men started opening shops with the money they had earned from carrying goods on the trade routes, women did much other difficult work, but men always had the money, because this is simply how the financial systems spawned. Women became shop tenders, and sure some kept some of the money they made, but many butt hurt men said " You don't need money, money is for men, I created this shop, your job is to take care of kids and make food"... and so on... This was the beginning of the societal trap of modern women, and mirrors greatly the societal trap of those of slavery whether the kinda that we commonly associate with the word or the kind which exists from ,living in economic wastelands, broken families... or even simple ignorance.
Yes overly simplified... yes you can find flaws with what I say...but I am sure it is much closer to the reality of the current "inequality of sexes".
We were already way off topic... so I figured lets dive back to the dawn of it all.
Lost in translation was a wonderful work, and surprisingly accurate to much of what I have experienced in Japan.
-
Shian does bring the zigs where you expect the zags, not always sure to what end in the more agent provocateur postings (if there need be one), but God bless him. Just when you think he might drop the Megan Ellison, he comes out with Gale Anne Hurd!
I only skimmed bits of the thread to find nuggets actually about filmmakers that are women, but I'm keen on Kimberly Pierce and Lynne Ramsay, if they haven't been mentioned. I don't understand the Sofia Coppola hate either, except some kind of misplaced "but her DAD..." whining. Not liking the films, fine, whatever, different strokes. Hopefully this thread also gets anyone who hasn't seen BEAU TRAVAIL and other Denis pictures to do so. Elaine May's MIKEY & NICKEY is one of the best of all movies. Ida Lupino is good. Jane Campion of course. I'm sure there's a hundred I haven't the first clue about. Film directing was a big dick gotta-be-General Patton "profession" for a long time and still can be, but as an art form... I don't know. Read the essays. No one was putting Charles Burnett in their top 5 either.
-
race is just one: human race. what there are is many ethnic groups.
I just had to say this or the beautiful female monkey I live with would bust my balls ;)
my top 1 female director would be cassavetes, followed (at a body distance) by bergman... but now that I think of it, they're good male directors too...
gashô -
Women that show great intelligence among many other skills are more attractive to many.
Oh well, yea. I'm not arguing that men are "superior". Men and women both perform equal, yet different, roles in the grand scheme of things. I guess my post did go off into some tangents, but the main point was, that in very early evolution men tended to perform more physical/visual work. And now as a result (thousands of years later) we have better genetic traits for it. Sure there are some women that can do it also, but the skill sets required for directing (as well as other visual/physical areas like architecture, engineering, ect) seem to favor males over females. That's about it. They key concept is "favor", not "men are the ONLY ones who can do it".
Now, more on topic...
I don't understand the Sofia Coppola hate either, except some kind of misplaced "but her DAD..." whining.
Well, it's because this is WHY she's even directing films in the first place. Are her films terrible? No, not really. Well, I personally find them unwatchable garbage, but objectively... they are not terrible. Does she, herself, have the skills it would have took to become a director on her own if her father was say, a doctor? No. I don't think so.
Honestly, if you have the connections or money to get a crew of great artists around you, directing is little more than "opinion giving". If she had to go the route indie DIY route of someone like Robert Rodriguez, or even Kevin Smith. I'm pretty sure there is no way she would have been able to craft a workable film. Is there any proof to this claim? Not really. But you can't prove the opposite either.
-
If anyone wants to really make a difference then hire women in those key positions. For instance, I actively seek out female cinematographers since by nature women are more visual and are more in touch with their emotions (which makes for great lighting!). I also think there is an argument for women making better editors vs men for the same reasons as above.
-
since by nature women are more visual
There is actually allot of science and research that supports men, on average, have more "visual memory" while women have more "verbal memory". Actually, women tend to have better memory all around, except for one area... visual/spacial. You can hire whoever you like... I'm just sayin'.
and are more in touch with their emotions (which makes for great lighting!)
I wouldn't argue the first part. But I don't see how this can possible lead to better lighting? They're kind of mutually exclusive concepts.
-
I don't care about what they have more memory for. Women spend FAR more time analyzing things based on how it makes them feel. Utilizing more of their emotions to guide them to make choices. To bridge this to another industry...How do you get more women to come to your website? Simple, add as many pretty things as you can for them to look at. Pintrests user base is predominantly female utilizing this exact tactic. Women are taught from a very young age that looks are important so they have literally been raised to HEAVILY analyze things based on appearance. Men? Not even close...I could find a study that says the exact opposite so I take that with a grain of salt. Idk about you but I take experience over almost anything any day.
Lighting is also referred to as setting the mood. Mood is an emotional state. If you know how something feels then you can mess around until you replicate the same scenario.
-
It's good there are no female PV forum members (or is there one?), otherwise we would have a nuclear flame war on our hands ;) This has been a good one sided off topic gender debate though.
I really enjoy the work of Věra Chytilová. Check out "Dasies"
Larisa Shepitko also did some great work. Check out "The Ascent"
-
Chantal Akerman, "Jean Dielman", "From the East", many others. Clair Denis, "Beau Trevail", "Le Intrus" (The Intruder)....
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- Topics List23,979
- Blog5,724
- General and News1,346
- Hacks and Patches1,153
- ↳ Top Settings33
- ↳ Beginners255
- ↳ Archives402
- ↳ Hacks News and Development56
- Cameras2,363
- ↳ Panasonic990
- ↳ Canon118
- ↳ Sony155
- ↳ Nikon96
- ↳ Pentax and Samsung70
- ↳ Olympus and Fujifilm100
- ↳ Compacts and Camcorders299
- ↳ Smartphones for video97
- ↳ Pro Video Cameras191
- ↳ BlackMagic and other raw cameras121
- Skill1,961
- ↳ Business and distribution66
- ↳ Preparation, scripts and legal38
- ↳ Art149
- ↳ Import, Convert, Exporting291
- ↳ Editors191
- ↳ Effects and stunts115
- ↳ Color grading197
- ↳ Sound and Music280
- ↳ Lighting96
- ↳ Software and storage tips267
- Gear5,414
- ↳ Filters, Adapters, Matte boxes344
- ↳ Lenses1,579
- ↳ Follow focus and gears93
- ↳ Sound498
- ↳ Lighting gear314
- ↳ Camera movement230
- ↳ Gimbals and copters302
- ↳ Rigs and related stuff272
- ↳ Power solutions83
- ↳ Monitors and viewfinders339
- ↳ Tripods and fluid heads139
- ↳ Storage286
- ↳ Computers and studio gear560
- ↳ VR and 3D248
- Showcase1,859
- Marketplace2,834
- Offtopic1,325
