http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/01/a-big-year-for-hollywood-women [Radio program]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102300194.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/movies/13dargis.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Take a look/listen at the above links. Do you think representations of women in Hollywood have changed for the better? Do they provide more realistic portrayals of women? What about diversity and age? Does it matter that there are still very few women directors in mainstream cinema?
In the radio program one of the contributors talks about how women get a chance to make one Hollywood film and if it isn't a success then they bounce back to wherever they come from (t.v., etc.) yet men can fail many times and keep getting work in Hollywood. Why do you think this happens?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the radio program one of the contributors talks about how women get a chance to make one Hollywood film and if it isn't a success then they bounce back to wherever they come from (t.v., etc.) yet men can fail many times and keep getting work in Hollywood. Why do you think this happens?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, I will sound too philosophical, but I want to cite Bourdieu, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, who introduced the notion of habitus in order to explain why we operate in society the way we do, which may shed light on gender issues as well. According to Bourdieu, habitus is "a system of acquired dispositions functioning on the practical level as categories of perception and assessment... as well as being the organizing principles of action." Habitus is adopted through upbringing and education. What I see is that our habitus, both male and female, consists of the distinctions or patterns of perception, which are conceived and developed within the same male dominant culture ( I would also add heterosexual and conservative) that defines the relationship between men and women as that of power and inequality (which is well reflected in both Hollywood movies and in women’s access to directing jobs in Hollywood). As the male dominant culture promotes the image of an active and strong male and that of a passive and weak female, both men and women who are brought up within this culture start taking these images for granted. Even though some men’s and women’s consciousness raises to the level when they realize that this is not the way things are, it is still hard for them to resist their habitus (a very subtle system, which is omnipresent and deep rooted in subconsciousness) and change the way they usually function. As a result, most men keep treating women as weak, and most women keep accepting this attitude, thus perpetuating the relationship of inequality. I guess this can be a philosophical explanation of why female directors bounce back when their films are not a success. I guess the only way for women to conquer Hollywood is to revolutionize the habitus we all possess (which is very hard to do because habitus operates on a deep subconscious level), but in order to do that women have to subvert the male power in all spheres of life, including business, politics, public and even personal relationships.
The director Jane Campion seems to agree with you Elena. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/cannes/article6294759.ece
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with Bordieu's theory of habitus but I personally think that there is more at work in keeping women out of the director's chair.
There's no consolation in the fact that only three female directors (Wertmuller, Campion, Coppola) were nominated for Oscar and none won, and only one woman filmmaker was awarded the main prize at Cannes (Campion). I believe that the first and main stumbling block on the road of the Female Filmmaker is the Patriarchal Producer. As films cost a lot of money, until more seats are taken by women in that higher echelon of the filmmaking industry, there won't be a lot of progress with films made by women directors. Dorothy Arzner, in her film Dance, Girl, Dance, provides a very salient portrayal of different kinds of Patriarchal Producers (Dwarfie Humblewinger, Steve Adams, Theatre Patrons). As Theresa Geller points out in _Senses of Cinema_, Arzner makes an attempt to potray the woman producer in a male-dominated world, Lydia Basilova (played by the Russian-born actress Maria Ouspenskaya), whom she represents as her alter ego on screen. It is not by chance that Madame Basilova gets killed by a bus, her death being symbolic in a world dominated by the Patriarchal Producer. So I guess the talk should start not with the question "why are there so few women directors?" but "why are there so few women producers?"
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I think Elena made an intriguing comment about the theory of habitus. Continuing with that line of thought, I think other women on and off screen should try to tear away the suffocating web of the patriarchal discourse. As Ruth rightly pointed out, film critics do make a difference in what is preserved for future generations. Mulvey's seminal article (as well as the Afterthoughts), however powerful and groundbreaking it might be, is entirely based on the discourse of the two Fathers of Philosophy, namely Lacan and Freud. Ultimately, what happens is that women continue to chain other women to the rock of submissiveness and passivity, as in the myth of Andromeda and Perseus. Here is a visual link to exemplify what I mean (painting by Theodore Chasseriau, Andromeda Chained to the Rock by the Nereids):
http://www.paintinghere.com/painting/Andromeda_Chained_to_the_Rock_by_the_Nereids_590.html
"It's almost as if in real life, women want to be empowered and in control, but on-screen they seem to like the old-fashioned damsel-in-distress, love-struck female."
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that this would be a man's take on the situation. It's consistent with what seems to be a male fascination with what they perceive to be the inherent duality of women, ie, the whole "Don't! Stop! Don't stop!" thing. Possibly wishful thinking on the part of a male-dominated industry? There's a film-history-enhanced self-reinforcing perspective of women as Not Knowing Their Own Minds which has a tremendous effect on societal expectation.
The reality is much more complex, and maybe not so much rooted in a woman's notion of herself as a damsel-in-distress, but more in a general lack of awareness of recent history. There are differently-aware segments of the contemporary female audience and to lump them all in together, I believe, is to make a grave mistake. We must remember that most of the pertinent women's feminist history spans only two to three lifetimes. Contrast that against the scope of all history, and we're talking about massive sociological change in a relatively short period of time. The generational differences alone are enough reason enough to invalidate ANY generalizations when it comes to assessing "What Women Want."
And then there's the shift in the way entertainment is being conveyed. I believe that the difference in scale and intimacy between the movie-going and television-watching experience is also relevant here. The assumption that bigger-is-better has always ill-suited any conversation having to do with women's desires and continues to do so here. The basis on which the decisions are made in "Hollywood" tend to be simplistic and market-driven, giving little credence to what I'm starting to understand is a phenomenon of deliberate historical ignorance not only on the part of the decision-making powers that be, but on the part of women themselves.
The power structure does have something to answer for as the number of women helming feature films is deeply deficient, but as far as being able to ascertain exactly why that is may have something to do with the deficiency of woman attempting to be directors in the first place. I went to film school in 1987. There were three to four women in my class. Out of twenty. There are certainly more women attempting the career now, but there is a VERY long road from school to feature production. Finding independent financing to make one’s own independent films in order to establish oneself as someone with whom a large budget can eventually be trusted is an issue in and of itself because the financing itself is rarely obtainable from female sources. Boys still hold the pursestrings and they tend to be parsimonious in the face of opportunities to finance films that question the phallogarchy in the first place.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the light of the recent nominations, here are some links pertaining to the topic of our discussion:
ReplyDeleteCritics name Katherine Bigelow as first female to win Best Director
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/critics-name-katherine-bigelow-as-first-female-to-win-best-director-1872794.html
Cameron vs. Bigelow: Battle of the Exes
http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/cameron-v-bigelow-battle-ex-es-hits-oscar-season-11826
I think it will be quite gripping to see "the battle of the exes" and find out who gets the final word! :) Speculations, anyone?
Having read these two articles, it really brings up the question of WHY women are kept out of the director's chair (in Hollywood anyway). There are obviously women interested in creating film and expressing their views. However, mainstream America and the companies don't want to hear it. Having a women behind the camera means that she's in charge; she is able to call the shots. And ultimately, men (who control 90% of the film industry - from production companies to film reviews) are scared of what's going to happen if women start taking over.
ReplyDeleteWomen go to the same schools, learn the same qualities and are able to work in the field if and when they choose...until Hollywood stops them dead in their tracks. This class shows us how far women have come in the film industry and what the outcome is if women aren't restricted. We still face gender division and inequality today, years after being told we would have equal employment opportunities.
Having men as the majority reduces women's chances of getting money, exposure and having a box-office masterpiece. Men have always had control over what is acceptable for Hollywood and their viewers. It is all about how many viewers there are at the end of the day. Since men have continued to fill the seats and make the companies money, they are more apt to continue that same transaction than go with something new and different. I believe FEAR - of losing money, of risking their name, of having women gain access to the film industry and one day maybe even take over with new ideas rather than the traditional storyline - is what keeps men outnumbering women in film.