Hey, all y'all out in LA-la Land . . .
Mar. 19th, 2004 10:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
omorkaSo I was reading Fametracker hunting for, uh, well, half-naked shots of the sweet hobbit boys (*shame, embarrassment*) when I stumbled into a discussion on their Forums about feminism in film. (Hey, decent intellectual content after all! Even if it is about celebrities and Hollywood, I mean . . .)
One person, a woman of size and color, posted that she was essentially drummed out of USC's film school because, well, she had three strikes against her. The movie she was describing making for her senior project was essentially the Boudicea story glammed-up and romanticized a la Gladiator or Braveheart. Her profs said it would never sell because (a) it was automatically a chick flick, since the protagonist was a woman, and (b) there wasn't enough "production value" (in the Tapeheads sense) in the story. Her explanation that it was a gory action film cut no ice with them.
Add that to the fact that Sofia Coppola was only the second American female director ever to be nominated for an Oscar, and we have a pretty sorry state of affairs.
Is it really all that bad? Are there women directors/producers in the indie movie scene who are up-and-coming, maybe? I'd been ticked when I watched all the extras for the two released extended-edition LotR films about how few women were involved in the project - but now, with Fran, Philippa, Richard Taylor's co-head of WETA (who I think is his SO or ex-SO), and the co-head of the art department (who is married to the other co-head) all being women and pretty influential, it's looking like it might be one of the more egalitarian outfits in film these days . . . heck, they even bothered to interview one of the female stuntfolks.
This reminds me that I was impressed that the female characters in The New Guy, while far from strong characters, were at least as well-fleshed-out and assertive as the male characters. The Slut even changes to a Sacred Harlot in the course of the movie, instead of reforming and becoming a Secondhand Virgin. Remarkably egalitarian for a throwaway teen comedy. (For that matter, one of the strongest characters in Drumline is female, although she does go all soft for a guy who isn't worthy of her. No, not the main female character; she shows serious doormat tendencies. I mean the drummer girl.) In contrast, every single female in >Magnolia goes completely to pieces over the course of the film, or is an absolute bitch while at the same time being a doormat. (At least most of the women who fragment aren't doormats.) And where is Stanley's mother? And I didn't even think the film was misogynistic, just that the female characters weren't very strong. Claudia's mother (Rose? Is that her name?) is as close as we get - maybe the interviewer, too, but we don't see much of her. If it weren't for the misogynist asshole clearly being made fun of throughout the movie (man, Cruise was the perfect choice for that role), I'd be worried - but the film's heart is clearly in the right place.
It's hard to find a movie that makes serious money with strong female characters. Again, LotR has Eowyn, so it gets a by from me (also, it's Tolkien's fault, not Jackson's or New Line's, that there are really only three female characters and two of them are elves). The female lead in Lost In Translation is realistic, at least. The women in Big Fish are rewards; they don't move the plot, although they have a certain psychological power within the film. Perhaps criticizing what is clearly a son/father film for not having strong women is unreasonable, but where are the mother/daughter films to fill the other half of that niche? Or, hell, mother/son films? (Does Mary count in Passion? Anybody seen it yet?) We do get a few daughter/daddy films for the teen-girl set, but they're usually not very good - the last good one I saw was Beauty and the Beast.
I can't help but notice that even SmallWorld is short on strong female characters. It only has three - four if you count Help, I suppose. (Oh, wait, the head of Network 23 is female, too. Okay, five.) I suppose my way of making up for that is for one of them to occur over, and over, and over again . . . ;)
One person, a woman of size and color, posted that she was essentially drummed out of USC's film school because, well, she had three strikes against her. The movie she was describing making for her senior project was essentially the Boudicea story glammed-up and romanticized a la Gladiator or Braveheart. Her profs said it would never sell because (a) it was automatically a chick flick, since the protagonist was a woman, and (b) there wasn't enough "production value" (in the Tapeheads sense) in the story. Her explanation that it was a gory action film cut no ice with them.
Add that to the fact that Sofia Coppola was only the second American female director ever to be nominated for an Oscar, and we have a pretty sorry state of affairs.
Is it really all that bad? Are there women directors/producers in the indie movie scene who are up-and-coming, maybe? I'd been ticked when I watched all the extras for the two released extended-edition LotR films about how few women were involved in the project - but now, with Fran, Philippa, Richard Taylor's co-head of WETA (who I think is his SO or ex-SO), and the co-head of the art department (who is married to the other co-head) all being women and pretty influential, it's looking like it might be one of the more egalitarian outfits in film these days . . . heck, they even bothered to interview one of the female stuntfolks.
This reminds me that I was impressed that the female characters in The New Guy, while far from strong characters, were at least as well-fleshed-out and assertive as the male characters. The Slut even changes to a Sacred Harlot in the course of the movie, instead of reforming and becoming a Secondhand Virgin. Remarkably egalitarian for a throwaway teen comedy. (For that matter, one of the strongest characters in Drumline is female, although she does go all soft for a guy who isn't worthy of her. No, not the main female character; she shows serious doormat tendencies. I mean the drummer girl.) In contrast, every single female in >Magnolia goes completely to pieces over the course of the film, or is an absolute bitch while at the same time being a doormat. (At least most of the women who fragment aren't doormats.) And where is Stanley's mother? And I didn't even think the film was misogynistic, just that the female characters weren't very strong. Claudia's mother (Rose? Is that her name?) is as close as we get - maybe the interviewer, too, but we don't see much of her. If it weren't for the misogynist asshole clearly being made fun of throughout the movie (man, Cruise was the perfect choice for that role), I'd be worried - but the film's heart is clearly in the right place.
It's hard to find a movie that makes serious money with strong female characters. Again, LotR has Eowyn, so it gets a by from me (also, it's Tolkien's fault, not Jackson's or New Line's, that there are really only three female characters and two of them are elves). The female lead in Lost In Translation is realistic, at least. The women in Big Fish are rewards; they don't move the plot, although they have a certain psychological power within the film. Perhaps criticizing what is clearly a son/father film for not having strong women is unreasonable, but where are the mother/daughter films to fill the other half of that niche? Or, hell, mother/son films? (Does Mary count in Passion? Anybody seen it yet?) We do get a few daughter/daddy films for the teen-girl set, but they're usually not very good - the last good one I saw was Beauty and the Beast.
I can't help but notice that even SmallWorld is short on strong female characters. It only has three - four if you count Help, I suppose. (Oh, wait, the head of Network 23 is female, too. Okay, five.) I suppose my way of making up for that is for one of them to occur over, and over, and over again . . . ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Damsel in distress?!!
Date: 2004-03-20 09:39 pm (UTC)Wasn't she standing tall for her cause under extreme torture during her stay in the Death Star? Then she still has choice words for her bubmbling 'rescuers'. Then SHE actually saves THEM by making an escape into the trash system.
The only reason she waffles on Bespin is that she's actually realised that Han is a real hero. She's been figuring him for a total wash-out until Bespin. (IMHO)
Re: Damsel in distress?!!
Date: 2004-03-21 12:43 am (UTC)Okay, the guys who go on about Jedis who kiss their sisters need to think about this one: Darth Vader and the torture droid - with his daughter. Ick, ick, ick. You'd think he'd have noticed, too - he notices Luke pretty fast. Is the Force sexist, too? (She did hold up heroically under torture. I'm not claiming she's not strong most of the time. And she does occasionally use other people's sexism to her advantage - Jabba, bikini, chain, yeah. Just that she's not consistent, she's not the main character, and the scripts shortchange her. If this had been Leia's story rather than Luke's, it would look very different.)
My perception of her waffling on Bespin is that it has more to do with Lando than with Han. At least, that seems the obvious reading. Whether it's because she's attracted to him or repulsed by him is up for grabs . . .
Re: Damsel in distress?!!
Date: 2004-03-21 09:16 am (UTC)Amidala's biggest flaw seems to be absolutely horrendous taste in men. What was she thinking?!?
Re: Damsel in distress?!!
Date: 2004-03-21 06:32 pm (UTC)