Jacqueline Windh at 2011-12-04 18:13:10:
What concerns me much more than the gender imbalance in characters, is the gender imbalance in writers and directors. Is this merit-based? Are men really that much better at writing and directing? Would it be to my advantage to go by a false name, or by my initials, when sending my work out for review? I kind-of think that it would be. And it's very sad that I think that...
Xander Bennett at 2011-12-04 22:57:52:
Great post, Scott. I wrote something similar on G+ just the other day: https://plus.google.com/u/0/106687889061686780887/posts/Ju8iAV6irS6 It seems Black List bloggers are in agreement on this. :)
pliny the elder at 2011-12-05 01:20:08:
I'm sorry if I come across as the sexist asshole, but I'm tired of this argument. Hollywood is driven by what has always driven it: money. If someone like Nora Ephron can write & direct, then worldwide gross $227M vs a $21M cost (Sleepless in Seattle), and $250M on a $65M budget (You've got Mail), in '90s money, not forgetting DVD/TV and Cable revenues, for what are essentially "chick flicks", then surely it's possible for other women to do similar things. Ultimately, making movies is like playing pinball: crack the bonus score, you get to play again. Clock the machine, and you get to play three or four times again. The trick, for a filmmaker, is not in being able to clock the machine every once in a while, but in being able to hit that bonus score every time, game after game. That way you get to play all night on that single quarter. The point is that not every commercial movie has to be about boy wizards, space robots or Emo vampires and werewolves. A movie like Bridemaids, a pure chick flick if ever there was one, was a decent success ($288M on a $32.5M budget). Put together a string of 3 or 4 of those in a row, and the game and the power structure change. Permanently. Billy Wilder once said "I don't do cinema, I make movies.", and that's the key": embrace commercialism, but do so with quality. He understood that his job, first and foremost was to entertain his paying audience, and then to entertain the critics. His Oscars proved that it's possible to do both at the same time. Now I know it's difficult, and the game *is* stacked against women, but two recent trends should give heart. First, US box office is declining, as the young male demographic, which for so many years has been the mainstay of the general US movie going audience, is now staying away from movie theaters. Women, families and the older demographic are picking up a little of that slack. Secondly, foreign box office is becoming far more important, and while a female oriented movie like Black Swan was only a moderate domestic success, it was huge worldwide. These two things can only translate into more opportunities for women filmmakers. The trick is going to be in not wasting these chances, but using them to find new ways to attract a movie audience, using the resulting financial leverage to effect necessary and permanent structural changes in the movie business.
Scott at 2011-12-05 01:55:23:
Pliny, I don't think that's sexist at all. You're presenting a realistic assessment of the marketplace and a imminently valid point: It all boils down to dollars and cents. I think most of us were thrilled by the success of "Bridesmaids" [I know I posted numerous items on it], in part because it was an original screenplay, not a board game, video game, remake, sequel, etc, but also because it completely blew out of the water the CW (conventional wisdom) that R-rated female driven movies wouldn't work. It also happens to be a good movie. You're right: It's now incumbent upon filmmakers to create more and equally good [and successful] movies with key female players to expand opportunities. That said I do think there is some level of consciousness raising that needs to come into play. As writers, why have the typical male cop who chows down donuts when we can have Marge Gunderson from "Fargo"? Why have the typical gung ho male sci-fi hero when we can have Ripley from "Alien"? Why have a typical male assassin when we can have The Bride [Uma Thurman] from "Kill Bill"? At a certain point, we as writers can make choices about characters that don't go to the male default. I'm not saying not to write male characters, rather I'm saying stop and consider, What if this character was a female? Would this make the character more interesting? Would this make the story more compelling? I'm not trying to be PC here. I'm trying to be creative. There's no good reason why a writer shouldn't -- in the brainstorming and character development process -- do some gender bending. And while they're at it, some racial bending, too. It's like why choose to use the word "walk" when we have dozens of other fantastic verbs: shuffle, stagger, meander, plunge, circumnavigate, stumble, speed, sprint, spring, dash. If we can do that with verbs, why can't we do that with characters?
pliny the elder at 2011-12-05 02:18:39:
It's certainly possible for genders to get into the minds of the opposite gender. For example, Sex & the City (both TV and film) was written/showrun by Michael Patrick King. But I think there's a big genre issue. In my case, one of the movies I'm working on is a black action comedy, that's kind of "9 to 5" meets "Nikita". My protagonist is a 40 year old government assassin who loves her job but is forced to retire because shes "too old" (just like actresses). It's a cool project to work on, but my big issue is that I'm not sure there's an audience for this movie. Actually, I'm about 75% sure there is no audience: women in general don't go to action movies, and aside from Angelina Jolie, guys don't generally like to see women take the lead in action roles. A similar thing is true of Sci-Fi. I know more than a few women who refused to watch Galactica because it was "sci-fi", even though the themes that were being explored were all too human.
januaryfire at 2011-12-05 12:08:06:
As a woman, it has become more and more disheartening when these promo videos/behind the scenes things feature the boys club exclusively. What role models are there for women wanting to break in? It seems to boil down to actresses or as Pliny mentioned, Nora Ephron. Don't get me wrong, she's very good at the movies she makes, but she doesn't make what I want to watch, the stories I want to tell. As for Bridesmaids, it was still directed by a man, so though we get a woman's perspective in the writing and acting, the direction is still through the lens of a man. Why wasn't a woman hired to direct? Would that have been so difficult? And what about Kathryn Bigelow? She gets the oscar and now it just seems like the Academy is satisfied that they've already given one to a woman. Why aren't there other women directors being nominated? Where are they? And does this Awards Roundtable series also feature Actresses? I just don't think a man can fully understand the subliminal message that is presented when only men are put forth like they are for awards, best filmmaker lists, etc. When women are recognized, it always seems to be on a separate list, which then suggests that we aren't good enough to be on the real list, the one that matters. I know I shouldn't be discouraged, that I should just make it happen, but these invisible hurdles are much harder to leap over when it seems there isn't a great deal of support or acceptance. I know there are exceptions, but there shouldn't be. It should already be an equal playing field. (end of rant)
pliny the elder at 2011-12-05 13:51:48:
At the risk of being patronizing, there are a good number of female role models, outside of actresses: Kathryn Bigelow, Catherine Hardwicke, Gwyneth Horder-Payton comes to mind as good directors, the full equal of their male counterparts (actually, in my mind Kathryn Bigelow is by far a better director than her ex); Jane Espensen is as good a writer as anyone on TV; Laura Ziskin produced tentpole movies as well as anyone. So there's no question regarding ability, only questions regarding opportunities, and the ability that comes from power to dictate terms and conditions. I'd like to see powerful actresses like Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock and Angelina Jolie, insist on better conditions and opportunities for women on the movies they make. But I keep coming back to this message: the *only* thing that counts in this business is revenue, not Oscars, Golden Globes or any other shiny object or organization designed to appeal to the vanity of its membership. Bottom line, if Hurt Locker had managed to gross more than $50M worldwide (on a $15M budget), then Kathryn Bigelow would be directing big budget action movies this very day. Box office, and only box office is what creates opportunities. I have to agree with you that Hollywood is an unfair place, not just for women but for minorities, or anyone who didn't go to film school at USC/UCLA/NYU. Moreover, I don't see many women in positions of power in Hollywood doing much to help promote other women (and that's a big question that needs to be addressed). OTOH, I look at someone like Tyler Perry, and see that by going outside the system, he's been able to work entirely on his own terms, staffing his films with black crews. Maybe he's actually the true role model that you've been looking for.
Atlanta at 2011-12-05 14:08:17:
Re gender imbalance in writers and directors, an illustration, 2007 data, 2010 chart originally published in LATimes (could not find LAT link): http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/03/08/underrepresentation-of-women-in-hollywood/ Re name, from everything I've read and heard, and my experience in other creative mediums, it truly is all about the work, the writing. That said, newbie stuff can trip you up fast, a few minor errors you don't see, and trust will dissipate. Get that writing sublime and beautiful. Then let your work will speak for itself. Name unimportant.
Atlanta at 2011-12-05 14:09:43:
Really enjoyed reading your post, Xander, thanks for link. "I personally believe that fiction -- storytelling, in other words -- is how society learns about, grapples with and ultimately embraces new ideas." Awesome.
Atlanta at 2011-12-05 14:13:01:
Great observation, about the unintentional segregation. When I heard there was a National Women's Art Museum, my first response, yay?, within minutes that niggle became clear, segregation, or anything leading to it, is never the right answer. Re Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, observation from Stacy Smith at USC Annenberg: "Isn't it possible that part of the film's critical acclaim may be due to the fact that a female directed it, presenting a different angle on the atrocities of war? Could it be that the choices Bigelow made from behind the camera amplified the film's resonance with males and females in the audience -- thereby increasing desirability and word of mouth across different quadrants of movie goers?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-smith/female-directors-writers_b_480848.html Get more women in the soup mix, and watch interesting things happen. I predict all kinds of fresh, and viewers like fresh.
Atlanta at 2011-12-05 14:22:46:
Scott, "If we can do that with verbs, why can’t we do that with characters?" is my favorite line of the day. Maybe the week :-) Sex and City, do not use as example, for anything, thank you, Pliny, and much appreciated. For compelling women characters, written largely by men (roughly 90 writers over run, about 5 women), Doctor Who. Seriously awesome women. Unexpected. Intelligent. Interesting. Not a bit of cookie cutter in sight. Spoils me for Hollywood fare. And re science fiction, that women don't like it is flawed shorthand: http://io9.com/391860/what-chicks-dont-like-about-science-fiction http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=carol_pinchefsky&article=014 My short take on it, liking sci fi has more to do with imagination and creativity than gender. Socialization and shared narratives are involved in shaping preferences, but personality tests likely more accurate gauge of who's amenable to science fiction. Great characters, great stories, it's what we all hanker for, and I think that goes beyond genre.
pliny the elder at 2011-12-05 15:13:43:
You might not like Sex & the City, or the stereotypes/images it promoted, but it was a banner show that certainly captured a slice of women's life in NYC, and was a huge hit on cable. Written by men, sure, but watched in huge numbers by women worldwide (and that was my point). And as for my female friends who refused to watch Galactica, in the precise words of one of them, who happens to be 40+: "I don't watch sci-fi.". Sorry, but that's about as clear a statement as you can get. Is that social programming? Perhaps. Now I wasn't trying to imply that all women hate sci-fi. because that's clearly not true, but let's not pretend that attitude doesn't exist and isn't prevalent. It certainly hurt Galactica in terms of ratings. Firefly (my favorite TV show) and Dollhouse both had great female characters, and got brutally treated and then canceled. I agree with you, btw, about how to attract a general audience to a sci-fi show. When you make sci-fi about people: characters and situations, with no spaceships in sight, as with the 1st 16 episodes of Heroes (which drew *huge* ratings), then an audience of more than fanboys will follow. But it's my feeling, that if you want to go outside that core 10->35 male sci-fi audience, you're going to have to work real hard to do it, and that's just another obstacle that you wouldn't have if you'd picked a different genre. As for Dr Who, I've found it and other Brit shows to be mostly unwatchable, since I left those shores 20 years ago. But, I will say that Margaret Thatcher's feminist legacy has been far more pervasive than most of us thought, and the BBC has traditionally been ahead of the times (Blake's 7, for instance, had fantastic female characters). I don't believe any other organization would have greenlit Torchwood, for instance.
Atlanta at 2011-12-05 16:50:34:
Sex and the City, roughly 3mil households per cable rerun episode and 10mil for series finale episode (roughly 7% of then population). Not shabby, but many shows did better. First movie did very well, second did okay, and with core audience from original TV series shrinking every year, a third movie seems unlikely. Yes, a success, and it's run its course. To put 10mil in perspective, USA population about 300mil. Clip I came across couple of days ago got 72mil views (a million just in last two days). I'm blown away by that scale. Clear protagonist motivation, protagonist made to suffer, and scene starting at last possible instant and ending at first possible instant, all surely helped, as did the pooch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGeKSiCQkPw Here's one interesting detail, re SATC actors and total gross of each, male actor got the biggest number: http://www.the-numbers.com/people/series/SexAndTheCity.php The only person I know who didn't see Gattica that I spoke with about it, a coworker, successful by all measures, and very conservative, and he didn't get the speculative world. Could not imagine it ever happening, and was thus not interested. That's how he explained it. Jurassic Park was okay with him, because he got the science lab and cloning. The women I know, friends and coworkers, largely all creative and bright, saw Gattica. I have cousins I assume didn't, not into sci fi or SATC, and all those cousins love football, have huge hearts, and are wonderful. Go figure. Pigeon holing any group, never good. If you're missing the new Doctor Who, you missing out on good stuff. I've become such a fan of BBC. Except for their co-producing with Discovery a series on the earth, a series where Discovery pulled every bit on climate change and put into a single episode, so it could be easily dropped when selling to other markets. When you make programming decisions based on playing it safe, everyone gets short-changed. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111160005
pliny the elder at 2011-12-05 17:18:39:
SATC, successful tv show, that resonated with *worldwide* female audience, written by a dude. Is all the point i wanted to make. SATC actor grosses... James Remar is a great character actor, who been in everything (hence the high gross) Basically Samuel L Jackson's early career. Doesn't lead a movie often, though. Youtube, hits are not unique, lots of re-watches. Still impressive, although Bieber's Baby video hit 1/2 Billion views. Lots of replays I guess. Gattaca. Only did $12M on a $36M budget, which even in '97 dollars counts as a box office fail. I never saw it except in snippets. Your friends must have been the only people that did. As for the Beeb... State funded TV has a lot going for it, but for every Dr Who, they produce 2 or 3 "Terry and June" type shows.