Where We Are as Women (In Film)

There must be something in the water because over the last week there have been several substantive pieces and one panel (which I will blog about later) discussing women and film.  These discussions are not new, they happen all the time, but having two pieces come out in major newspapers like the Washington Post and the NY Times on the same day makes one take note. Why now?  Who knows?  Maybe it's because there are several women's names at play for best director.  Maybe it has to do with the release of the Shriver Report on the state of women.  I don't care about the reason, I'm just glad we are talking.

What I like about these conversations is the anger they are inciting.  People are pissed.  Why are women still being marginalized?  We are over 50% of the population, we buy 50% of the tickets.  We spend money.  We want to see movies by and about women, as well as seeing movies by and about men.  I'm not asking for special treatment, just decent treatment.  That shouldn't be too much to ask.

In Ann Hornaday's piece "Women & Film: With female characters, why does Hollywood fear that the stronger they are, the harder they fail?" in the Washington Post (which I am quoted in) she makes the argument that strong women are out at the movies.  I agree with Ann but I will add that you can still see strong women in smaller dramas released by indies that will never make it to the multiplex near you.  So if you want to see a strong woman on film, you need to probably live in NY or LA or another major city if you are lucky.  Most other people (which is basically everyone) can only find these women on netflix (if they know what they are looking for).  That totally sucks.  Here's what producer Lynda Obst said:

Dramas are dead. Some of the greatest parts for women -- the Academy Award parts for women -- are often in dramas, and this is the worst time for dramas since I've been in the business for the last 10,000 years.

Lynda Obst knows what's going on.  She's in the business of producing dramas and I would imagine she's thinking about how she's going to make a living in the future.

And according to Manohla Dargis in her piece Now Starring at the Movies: Famous Dead Women in the NY Times this past Sunday, if you are going to be seen at all on screen as a woman  you need to be dead. That's such a wonderful feeling for all of us out there.

You can’t blame filmmakers (or actresses) for raiding crypts. It’s rarely been more difficult to be a woman in the movies than now, particularly in the United States, where for the past few decades most blockbusters and microbudgeted D.I.Y. enterprises have been overwhelmingly male.

Dargis who is not known (at least by me) as a champion for women takes it even a step further:

Female stories have become so marginalized on American movie screens, we should be grateful filmmakers are raiding the history books. ... A woman has to have been legitimized by history, ruled a country, inspired a poet, or ignited a revolution in fashion or cooking to have a shot at some serious screen time. It also helps if she’s played by Meryl Streep.

I do like a historical biopic, but this devaluing of women's lives and experiences makes me want to hurl.  It's seems to me that the more power and confidence women gain in real life it is slowly and surely being stripped away on the big screen.  It's like we are all being punished.  Strong women have been disappearing from movies for some time (not that there were ever that many to begin with) so when we see one like Amelia we all get so excited because it's like finding water in the desert.  We are starved for these images.  And when they disappoint, they hurt so much worse.  I knew that I would have issues with Amelia.  That didn't make it hurt any less.  I take my strong women onscreen very seriously cause I know that when they fail, I (and all other women) get screwed.

As Obst said most dramas are now on TV, but I don't see TV making films like Amelia.  The closest one I've seen recently is the Lifetime Georgia O'Keeffe film, and that was just ok..  We see women in dramas on TV shows.  But movies are different.  Even Cate Blanchett's latest endeavor, a period piece where she was to play Lady Edwina Mountbatten in Indian Summer directed by Joe Wright was shelved.  I'm not going to pretend it's only women suffering.  When Brad Pitt movies get canceled, things are bad, really bad.

Many people want to escape when they see movies.  But not everyone.  There has to be a diversity of offerings.  At the rate we are going the only films that will be seen are the Transformers type films.  That would be such a shame.

Women & film - With female characters, why does Hollywood fear that the stronger they are, the harder they fail? (Washington Post)

Now Starring at the Movies: Famous Dead Women (NY Times)

 

Follow Melissa Silverstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/melsil

Comments

[GoingApricot]

Women as topics of story, women as stars are widely regarded as unable to "open" movies.

The problem isn't that women don't go to the movies.

The problem is that women don't go to mediocre movies.

Women didn't open "Whip It."

Women didn't open "Amelia."

Women didn't open "Jennifer's Body."

Women didn't open "Love Happens."

Young men will see practically anything with some violence in it. They will see spoof movies for a handful of half-hearted chuckles.

And older, established women stars like Meryl Streep -- their core audience, the one that has aged with them, is just as likely to wait for the DVD, no matter how good the movie is reported to be.

Most people see fewer than 5 movies a year in a theater. If women are indeed so starved for images of themselves, they should get down to the local cinema on opening weekend. Any woman producer, any woman studio head will tell you -- Hollywood makes movies for people who regularly go to the movies.

Or, like the man said, 90% of success is showing up.

doitinprivate.blogspot.com

[3fingerbrown]

I was trying to figure out why the Amelia Earhart film was doing so poorly at the box office and came across this article, which contains some provocative opinions from industry insiders about why female ticket-buying power doesn't translate into more female-themed pictures.

http://www.newsrunner.com/display-article/?eUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fmovies-dvd%2Fci_13662570%3Fsource%3Drss&eSrc=The+Mercury+News+-+San+Jose+CA&eTitle=Weak+box-office+for+%27Amelia%27+will+likely+heighten+Hollywood+wariness+of+women%27s+dramas

[Dots]

I've been hurling for years now.
Even writers I know well and who know the problem, start with their lead being a man or boy and I say, "why not a woman or girl in the role?" We are brainwashed by this patriarchal model we've been living under.
Netflix doesn't even have a catagory called "By or About Women Movies" or even "Chic Flicks." I would rent every one if they did. They are still hard to find.

[alsm9]

"Netflix doesn't even have a catagory called "By or About Women Movies" or even "Chic Flicks."

Now see that I DON'T like. Being female is not a catagory in film...jus­t like being male isn't. If we want to be treated as equals we have to stop this kind of nonesense. To call a film a "chick flick" instead of a romantic comedy...o­r a drama.... it devalues the film. There is no film catagory for men. I guess one *could* argue that "action" is, but I would despute that because I'm female and I LOVE some action films (the Matrix, Kill Bill etc. etc.). It's like in music (which is also extremely sexist at times) when they call a band that has all female members a "girl band" instead of just a band. No one calls Radiohead a boy band. Women, we have to stop treating ourselves and our work as if it is second best.....f­or example, Sofia Coppola is not a "female director", she is a director..­.her gender is irrelevant. If we want more arts and entertainment for "us" than we must start believing we are just as valuable.

[Dots]

I understand about actor and director. I also like many movies about men. [That's practically all there are.] BUT unless we become more aware, search out, and demand gender-specific movies with more women in them, it ain't gonna change. Until then, I personally believe "woman movie" requires a catagory. It has nothing to do with being valuable.

[poomplet]

Women decide where 75% of movie $$ are spent. ..that's not good enough?

Apparantly, "Sex In the City", "Mamma Mia" "Twilight" and every lame rom-com coming out aren't 'women' enough for you, and you gloss over the fact that Amelia got panned & women DID vote with their wallets...­not to see it. Jane Campion's "Bright Star" is supposed to be amazing...­but clearly, not enough women care to see it to make it a big success

The woman in Paranormal Experience is stronger than the guy..it's doing great. "Drag Me to Hell"....s­ame thing. WOMEN filmgoers made "The Hangover" one of the biggest movies of the year...WOM­EN are the reason Mama Mia, The Proposal, & every other lame rom-com make enough money to keep 'em coming.

You don't have a problem with Hollywood.­..you don't have a problem with how women are portrayed in most major movies. You have a problem with WOMEN...wi­th how most women PREFER seeing fluff flicks where women are stereotypical "I need a man" roles.

THAT is a real issue...Ho­llywood is RESPONDING to the majority of womens' cinematic wants & desires...­they're not creating them!!

[averygard]

Until more women start saying this sort of thing--and voting with our wallets--it's not ever going to happen, and even then it won't until men (who control the movie business, for the most part) get that message or even--what a concept!--start to enjoy films with three-dimensional female characters. Most of what's out there is awful--and most magazines, websites (ahem), etc. ignore the well-written parts and actresses who haven't had a huge amount of plastic surgery/totally inflated features or talk endlessly about their sex lives or take off their clothes at all times.

[CydMiller]

Great post. I think this is a subject we need to raise more awareness around and then take action. Hollywood is considered such a liberal community, yet women and minorities continue to be marginalized. When I watch the Acadmey Awards, I feel like I'm watching Congress. Every part of the movie business is virtually white men. I am 48 and grew up watching movies with my mother from the '30s and '40s. It appeared to me that women had much stronger roles during that time period then they do today. Today woman are either standing by a man, playing a prostitute, playing a victim, and always being denegrated in some way. Movies today are geared towards men. Either fantasies for over weight, not so attractive men, or for those that crave violence. Women actors are judged on how skinny they are and as a result, we have few women actors worthy of carrying a dramatic movie. The exception is women of color. But very few get an opportunity to carry a movie. I suspect women are just not watching. I know I'm not. I've chosen to watch foreign films and older movies that showcase strong women characters. I'm thrilled when a movie does come along with a strong woman character and I support it. But they are few and far between.

[BlackJAC]

Here's the thing:

All the command decisions of what gets greenlit in Hollywood are made by business school graduates, not film school graduates. Said decisions are based on whatever the Marketing Department's focus groups say are good movie ideas. Focus groups tend to be made up of unemployed yahoos there for the free food and for something new to do with their time besides watch daytime TV and play the lottery; as this is LA, those focus groups also include wannabe/failed writers and directors who are either hoping to impress the studio honchos to get a job or to go scorched-Earth on the industry that wouldn't recognize their self-proclaimed genius.