Chick flick flack

Yeah, I watched the Oscars last night, along with a million Tweeps who were firing off the cutting comments. Even I joined in on dissing the dresses. (Was Charlize Theron wearing grape-flavoured Cinnabons on her chest?) It's a sexist thing to do, I admit.

Was I thrilled that a woman, Kathryn Bigelow, was the first in 82 years to pick up Best Director and then, bonus, also Best Picture? Meh. Not really.

That's because, as Jane Fonda points out:

Women directors actually dropped by 2% since 2008, accounting for just 7% of directors on the 250 top-grossing movies of 2009. That's the same number as 1987. Only 2% of the top 250 films credited female cinematographers, and just 8% of writers were female; 86% of the films had no female writers credited. The list goes on.

Indeed, it does, as the annual report The Celluloid Ceiling reminds us. And men write 70 per cent of the reviews in the major dailies. (Which could help to explain why one of my fave flicks this past year, Nine, got so many thumbs down.)

So why is there this impression of a big breakthrough? Melissa Silverstein, editor of Women and  Hollywood, says this to Reality Check's Sarah Seltzer:

The perception is based on the fact that that Kathryn Bigelow was nominated for an Oscar [for directing "The Hurt Locker"] and [woman-helmed British film] "An Education" was nominated for Best Picture, and "Precious" is obviously about a girl. Plus "It's Complicated," and "Julia and Julia" both made $100 million dollars. Several high-profile women released films this year: Nora Ephron, Nancy Meyers, Mira Nair, Jane Campion. ... Also, two films that starred women were in the top 10: "Twilight: New Moon" and "The Blind Side." That's great, but then you look at the content of those films. That's why I think it's too soon to tell. We can all judge for ourselves based on whether more women get jobs starting next week.

You know how I will know women have moved ahead?

When I hear women's names rattled off at length in the thank-you speeches, thank you.

And names don't include ''Mom'' and ''my lovely wife.''

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: From regular commenter (and blogger) Cat Boreal:

There was a lot of talk about Kathryn Bigelow being nominated for Best Director, how her win would be a historic step forward for women directors, blah, blah, blah…

And yes, all this is true, but did anyone notice that her film could best be described as a testosterone fueled joy ride?  In other words, a guy-flick?  Basically she proved that girls can blow things up as good as the big boys.  As I mentioned before, I haven’t seen the film yet, so it might be more character driven than I’m given to believe after seeing the trailers and reading the reviews.  And while I’m happy that Bigelow won, I’ll be happier when a woman director wins the prize for a film that has a decidedly feminine voice.  When women’s stories are seen as being as worthy of praise/awards/money as anything made by a man.  Actually, I’ll be truly happy when gender doesn’t enter into it.  All this brouhaha reminds me of a speech by Joss Whedon where he discusses why he writes strong women characters:  “Because you’re still asking me that question.”

Comments

[Catboreal]

I commented about this on this in my blog. Basically Bigelow was rewarded for making a 'guy-flick' (as opposed to a chick-flick). There was a lot of testosterone, adrenaline and things going 'BOOM'.

Here's the link if you're interested: http://fangirlshandbag.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/oscar-wrap-up/

And yes, I also talk about the dresses.

[Steve]

You are being too harsh. Of course there is still a problem that there is such a gender imbalance in Hollywood. Bigelow winning doesn't mean there isn't a problem anymore, but it is part of the solution. This can only encourage more women to pursue such professions, and also encourage more neanderthal studio executives to trust women in these roles.

Also; I didn't like The Hurt Locker either. Why celebrate a movie with no message?

[deBeauxOs]

Charlize Theron's dress was a costume. I thought it was brilliant.

Theron has a "boyish" figure and she has never given in to the imperative to get silicon implants in order to get roles. Ergo, lush, stylized fabric breasts on the outside of a sleek gown.

[PaulR]

Dimishing Bigelow's duly earned award because she made a "guy flick" reminds me of how people used to be baffled by accomplished white performers(ie. Eminem) of what used to be termed "black music." You are so eager to bash men that you'll use Bigelowe's achievement as a route toward sniping at the taste of the assumed male audience. It's sexist two fer', sexist against Bigelowe and against men simultanously. Hell, even my wife will be angry at that - she really wanted to see it. You know why? Because she heard it was a good movie. Gee, if only there was some way to test your assumption - like if there was another "guy flick" with big "splosions" also up for Best Picture, to see which one prevailed.... Oh, waitaminute...

[mozo]

I'm confused (easily accomplished I admit). Antonia and Cat Boreal are both dismayed that a woman can only win best director Oscar with a "testosterone, adrenaline and things going 'BOOM'" movie instead of one with a "decidedly feminine voice". But I thought you wanted equality. Shouldn't that equality include the ability make a things going boom movie that equals or beats the men? Or are women directors to be relegated to the chick flick ghetto?

[Antonia]

Nobody is saying that Bigelow won *because* she made a boys' movie.

Cat is simply pointing out that women's voices -- not chick flicks, and there's a difference -- rarely make it into the finals.

That this is still an issue in 2010 says it all.

As for me, like I said, when they start thanking women as well as men, that's when I know women are in positions of power alongside men.

[FluffyWalrus]

I do think there is a shortage of women in directing, screenwriting, etc. but for anyone to knock The Hurt Locker because it doesn't have a decisively feminine tone to it...is ludicrous. I don't think there is any merit to such a statement at all.

Away From Her, in my eyes, deserved a Best Picture nom in 2008(over Atonement's nom). Sarah Polley's work in that film was sensational, but at the same time, two movies were just plain better(There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men). Lost in Translation deserved a nomination and probably a win in 2003, but RotK and Mystic River were deserving as well. Boys Don't Cry deserved a nomination but American beauty deserved that win.
I know women can do amazing filmwork in any style found in movie-making(Bigelow is incredibly versatile, and Julie Taymor is no slouch) I don't need a woman to win an Oscar for a feminine movie to feel better about myself. Much like my favourite musicians will never be mentioned at The Grammys, but I still know they're the best around and are doing fine(I will say I am aware that The Oscars have exponentially more credibility than The Grammys).

I don't think there's an easy solution to getting more women in film/movies. It's a huge combined effort between screenwriting, producing, directing, etc.
The more, the merrier, I suppose, but in the end it's not The Oscars that are holding anyone back. The "old boys club" in the film industry might throw a few roadblocks here and there, but they're more or less a side-effect these day to the real culprit: today's movie-watching experience.
It's rare that a film with actual decent content makes it big unless it's about someone who's really famous, they somehow nab a good cast, or it's filled with violence/special effects. Very rare.

People don't go to the movies to think, they go to be entertained with often mindless stories with archetypal characters regurgitated from movie to movie with little variance. Maybe there's the odd laugh, but many have a hard time laughing during movies without a laugh track or unless it's really perverse humour they're not yet desensitized to.
Most movies worth seeing (with a feminine touch) by a female director would likely involve an actual story and interesting characters, and very few(if any) explosions. Who wants to see that?
Not many casual movie-goers. What producer wants to shell out enough money on a movie that's not going to make them anything back? Away With Her had a low budget and came off very well because Polley is very good and she had great people working with her. That's the route you have to expect female director to take if they're to pursue such a movie, because people would rather watch something like Julie & Julia or American Psycho.

So even IF, for instance, Sarah Polley or Sofia Coppola won Best Picture...would it really make a difference? There would be a short 4 month period of time where people would flock to their movies from hype and then fall back into their regular watching habits. An award won't change a thing.

Encouraging reading at young ages and in school, so kids can actually digest a story at something other than face value, would be productive. That way, when they're old enough to spend their hard-earned money on cinema, they might have a fraction of a chance at enjoying a movie for all its intricacies instead of using explosions/sex/violence/gallows humour/etc. as a measuring stick for quality.

[Jim M]

Thanks Achilles, Candide, Cinderella, Circe, Faust, Orpheus, Romeo, Juliet, Tristan, Iseult, and especially Carlton the doorman.

[PaulR]

"That this is still an issue in 2010 says it all. As for me, like I said, when they start thanking women as well as men, that's when I know women are in positions of power alongside men."
-------
I'm wheeling out your fainting chaise again. Like a typical neo-Victorian feminist, you assign the blame entirely to powerful masculine external forces acting upon passive women, and you neglect to consider the reasonable possibility of women self-selecting themselves out of a risky career in show biz. Is it possible that men engage in more risk-taking behavior? If we need representation from both voices, why assume both voices will be exactly the same, seek the same things, behave the same way?

Even if the tastes of movie audiences were the metric - it's the same story. If more women tried asking a guy out and treating him to the ticket once in a while, maybe Howards End would have won instead of being nominated. Oh, sorry - that was directed by a guy - but it is a period costume drama that's heavy on the talk, so does that count as a "women's voice?" It should, shouldn't it? I mean, if we are now sexing our movies to dismiss Bigelowe's movie for the cojones hidden under its skirt, then shouldn't we also high five "women's voices" as depicted by men?

What Cat Boreal said:
"I’ll be happier when a woman director wins the prize for a film that has a decidedly feminine voice. When women’s stories are seen as being as worthy of praise/awards/money as anything made by a man"
-------

Antonia's clarification:
"Cat is simply pointing out that women's voices -- not chick flicks, and there's a difference -- rarely make it into the finals."
--------
Plainly, she's saying that The Hurt Locker is not a woman's voice, despite being made by a woman, and therefore this dimishes the *political* accomplishment. For Cat Boreal and the like-minded, it's not enough for the Best Picture to be made by a woman, the content of that picture must also comply with and ideology or style that fits within a narrow range of what they consider to be a "woman's voice".

This is a good example of the distinction between feminist advocacy and gender equality aspirations. Bigelowe, like the rest of us, simply wanted the best movie, and she succeeded. Feminists try to frame this as a failure or lost opportunity because the content of her film did not satisfy their political goals and their Neo-Victorian stereotype of what a women's voice should sound like. Bigelowe's comment downplaying the gender accomplishment was lost on feminists entirely, and upon the band that played her off the stage, which reduced her artistic accomplishment to political tokenism by playing "I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar."

[Antonia]

Thanks for your comment Fluffy but, again, nobody is knocking the film because of its supposedly masculine bent. I really can't find that sentence. We are merely lamenting the fact that feminine-oriented films rarely get nominated.

As for your comment PaulR, get off your poor-men-are-being-attacked-horse because I never put the ''blame'' on ''powerful masculine external forces acting upon passive women.''

I know that, for the past 20 years or so, women have been getting into and graduating from film schools in numbers equal to, if not greater than, men. So where are they? The ''self-selecting'' business is crap. It's what men's rights people trot out to explain away everything from the wage gap to the number of women on corporate boards.

As for the Reddy tune, here: http://twitter.com/AntoniaZ/status/10156380935

Thanks for reminding me.

[Catboreal]

*Rolling Eyes* @ PaulR...

I absolutely don't believe that a content of a movie directed by a woman needs to fit within a narrow confine of what could be best defined as 'feminine'. All I'm saying is that I find it ironic, that in order for the Academy to honour a female director with it's higherst award, a woman had to direct a movie that attracted a very male audience. The Hurt Locker is still a movie that Hollywood's old boys club, which has been acknowledged in these comments as being alive and well, would be very comfortable watching. This isn't to say that Bigelow didn't direct a great movie, and that the award wasn't deserved. This is in no way denigrating her achievement.

My point is that I *personally* will only feel that women have been accepted as true members of the 'film-makers club' when a film like Away from Her, Lost in Translation, Frida, Water etc, films from a women's point of view win an award. True parity will arrive when gender no longer enters into it, when films are no longer categorized (and dismissed) as either chick-flicks or macho action blow-em-ups. Meaning, a director will never be asked what it's like to be a woman directing a war movie, or a how hard it must have been for a man to direct a film that was so emotionally charged.

How the hell is that tokenism?

As for FluffyWalrus' assertion that economics somehow enter into the consideration for awards, remember Hurt Locker only took in around $13 million domestically. Not a lot of people saw it in the theaters, as a matter of fact, theaters are refusing to run the film again because it's already out on DVD. So, should awards be handed out because a film made a lot of money (as some were arguing for an Avatar win), or should it be given to a film that displays a higher level of artistry than it's peers. That is an argument for another day, and is not germaine to this issue.

FWIW, I wanted Up to win - a film with two male protagonists, saving a female character from exploitation because gee, I'm such a hard @ssed feminist.

[PaulR]

CatBoreal said:
"I *personally* will only feel that women have been accepted [...] when films from a women's point of view win an award. True parity will arrive when gender no longer enters into it."
-----

Erm... ok. So which of those two conflicting statements was your point?

Was it that true parity is when gender *doesn't* enter into it? (That's my point and that's Bigelowe's point)

Or was your point that films "from a women's point of view" need to win an award? (meaning the film must invoke your personal gender stereotype of a woman's POV).

[PaulR]

"I know that, for the past 20 years or so, women have been getting into and graduating from film schools in numbers equal to, if not greater than, men. So where are they?"
------
You tell me - but their absence from award winning directorial roles is not de facto evidence of a conspiracy to keep them out. I'm not making a case of "poor men" - they speak quite well for themselves. I'm mocking your case of "poor women".

If you want to test our hypotheses, then check into the Short Films category, where most directors first begin plying their trade. Here's where the risk, hard work and sacrifices are made, where filmmakers often raise their own money to fund their films, getting their friends to volunteer and work for free - for films that won't make money. It's outside of whatever Hollywood Boys Club exists, and they are often made shortly after graduating film school. Graduating film school is the beginning. After that, comes the hard part, where it is hard to do no matter who you are.

A red flag for zealotry should be raised any time you venture into the fallacy of unfalsifiable hypothesis. If Bigelowe lost, it would be evidence of patriarchal conspiracy. If she wins, it is evidence of patriarchal conspiracy. The only outclause, according to CatBoreal in her rebuttal, is if her movie complies with a certain notion of the kinds of stories women *should* tell.

Either way, what comes clear is that no matter what happens, it will be evidence that women are lacking. Forget men for a moment - I'm focusing now on your version of feminist "empowerment" which from my seat, reads like any Classical Period misogyny. You are saying women can't do it, even when they've done it. And from that standpoint, once again, you sound just like the worst of the Mens Rights kooks who hate women.

[Antonia]

PaulR, please stop putting words in my mouth/comment. "Poor women'' is your phrase. Not mine.

And you are wrong. It's not in short films where directors first ply their trade. I'd bet the vast majority come up via screenwriting. But again, women don't get much of a chance there either.

And you know why?

Because chick flicks rarely make as much coin as big budget blow-em-up boy movies, or har-har look-at-her boobs boy movies.

The Sex and the City movie and Mamma Mia were big exceptions.

But they were ''girlfriend'' movies, that women went to see together.

When it comes to date movies, women usually go to what the men want to see.

Hence, the economics.

But, please, don't let me stop you from twisting what I say.

[Catboreal]

PaulR

Seeing how you need to be spoon fed, I'll break it down for you. Do you want plastic or stainless steel?

Step 1: Movies that have a distinctive female voice or POV wins the award. That would be a big step forward, but by no means win the race.

Step 2: Gender is no longer a concern when it comes to making movies. Men make big 3 hanky emotional weepers. Women make sci-fi blockbusters and no one bats an eyelash. We no longer talk about how ones reproductive organs influence the making of a movie. Yay! We've reached the end of the road!

Say it with me: Chro-no-lo-gi-cal or-der. Sheesh!

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"When it comes to date movies, women usually go to what the men want to see."

Actually, with me it's often the other way round.

[PaulR]

Antonia, "poor women" was as much your phrase as "poor-men" was mine - if you dish it out, be prepared take it. Aside from that, you moved the cheese again. Recognizing the threat posed by wide recognition of a woman's artistic achievement, you shift the focus to the box office revenue. Incredibly, while you point out that women go in droves to see movies like Mamma Mia and Sex in the City (proving women audiences have the means and the will to buy a ticket and plonk their bums in seats), you somehow see it as an indicator of sexism that "chick flicks" of more recognized artistic calibre are not also box office draws. If something as simple as buying a movie ticket isn't self-selection, then what is?

But is your base thesis correct? Same with CatBoreal - who goes out of her way in multiple posts to dismiss Bigelowe's win, claiming that a movie made by a woman is not as important as a movie *about* women, or about feminist issues, or with content or themes traditionally enjoyed or associated with women - a woman's "point of view". Apparently those kinds of stories aren't loved and our sexist culture gives them short shrift.

So if we can raspberry Bigelowe's achievement because it was "a guy's movie", then fair turnabout would examine box office and critical reception of movies made by men, which dealt wholly or in part with "chick flick" and feminist elements, yes? - because you are now saying the story is more important than the gender of the storyteller, yes? So, what of Best Pictures Slumdog Millionaire (a love story), Million Dollar Baby, Chicago (because macho men all love a good musical), Shakespeare in Love, Titanic (vs As Good as it Gets that year), or The Silence of the Lambs? These are hardly exceptions.

A random click on 1980 in film shows "9 to 5" was the second highest box office draw, right after a little film called The Empire Strikes Back. And Private Benjamin was #6, just ahead of Coal Miner's Daughter - which was also a Best Pic nominee. And Tootsie (1982) should count too, not just for being a Best Pic nominee, but also for its box office draw and its gender flipping theme. People do pay to see movies about women, about issues face by women, with women role models, movies where women challenge gender stereotypes, and where gender issues are flipped over to be explored from an unexpected angle. Those movies are often recognized as well, and have been for decades. And, Cat, and Antonia - I pose that your astounding dismissal of Bigelowe's achievement is rooted in the notion that the biggest threat to those invested in feminist activism isn't men's rights kooks (with whom you both share a lot in common), it's successful women.