Variety
has
that Marvel Studios is indeed in talks with Patty Jenkins to
in directing
Thor 2
, which is due for release on July 26th, 2013 (review of
Thor
). I generally don't comment on news about who is 'in talks' or who is 'on the wish-list', but Patty Jenkins inclusion on this specific wishlist is worth commenting on. Jenkins is best known for having helmed
Monster
, which won Charlize Theron a Best Actress Oscar in 2003 for her portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos. Since that triumph, she has unfortunately been relegated to directing occasional episodes of television, most recently helming the Emmy-nominated pilot for the AMC series
The Killing
. This is a pleasantly out-of-left field choice that plays to Marvel's greatest strength as a studio, picking talented filmmakers who aren't necessarily known for comic book spectacle and/or
'.
While much of the coverage will focus on 'YAY, Marvel is possibly/probably hiring the first-ever woman to direct one of its superhero movies!', there are two things worth noting. First of all, Lexi Aexander, who directed Punisher: War Zone in 2008 (review) is also of the female persuasion. Second of all, the lack of credits on Jenkins's IMDB page brings up a troubling double-standard. Had a male, arguably any male, directed a critically acclaimed and Oscar-winning drama like Monster, they surely would have been on every studio's wishlist for every major project (see Hopper, Tom or Forrester, Marc). But, Jenkins has barely worked in the last eight years. The problem is of course not that there is a fiendish conspiracy to keep female directors out of the big leagues. The problem is that there is an expectation that female directors cannot possibly helm the kind of pulpy, big-budget and special-effects-filled genre pictures that currently dominate the landscape.
Why couldn't Sophia Coppola helm the next James Bond picture? For that matter, why can't Drew Barrymore, who juggled a large ensemble cast with the dynamite Whip It (review), take over for the rebooted Fantastic Four franchise? Why did it take Kathryn Bigelow winning a bloody Oscar for Hollywood to take her seriously? Hell, why has Mimi Leder, who helmed two big-budget genre pictures (the emotionally engaging Deep Impact and the ahead-of-its-time The Peacemaker) been in the proverbial doghouse for ELEVEN YEARS (!!) following the disappointment of the character drama Pay It Forward? She is only just now prepping for her first big screen feature since 2000, a remake of All Quiet On the Western Front. Not only is it almost impossible for female directors to be considered for films that aren't stereo-typically 'womens' pictures', but once they do get their foot in the door, it's One Strike And You're Out! (as opposed to someone like Marcus Nispel, who fails with Pathfinder and then is given $90 million to fail with Conan the Barbarian).
The real progress of Marvel hiring a female to direct one of its comic book tent-poles is not that a woman is directing a big-budget comic book film (Punisher: War Zone cost just $30 million and more-or-less tanked). It's the potential for female directors writ-large to be considered on the same 'wish-list' as male directors when the next big action picture or fantasy spectacle goes into pre-production. Once we see at least one or two female names on the studio wish-lists for the next 007 film or the next big comic book adaptation... that's real progress. What are your thoughts? What female directors do you think deserve a shot at directing more mainstream genre product?
Support HuffPost
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.
Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.
Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.