Why do you think that so many directors are men?
- Thread starter alexpw
- Start date
I want to add my tarnished two cents here. I didn't read the whole thread- started on p. one then jumped to p. 4 to make sure everyone was polite. Hooray, for the most part, we are. 
I am a female director. Most of the time in my local 'club' meeting, I am the only female director. Often, in pre-prod. or on the set, I am one of the only women- even the only one- if we exclude those in front of the camera.
Recently, I worked on a very testosterone heavy film- nearly all male cast and there were three women on the crew. One was the wardrobe crew head, one was the set RN, and me- script super. These are the 'traditional' female roles in production.
Most of the time, I don't give a damn about it... Then will come the moment when I realize that I am the only woman at the table- or I watch a talented and skilled woman shooed away from using her skills cause she'll 'get hurt' doing a 'man's' job. Then I get steamed.
I am the maniacal/ obsessive directoral stereotype. It creates havoc at home with my spouse and daughter, but they are learning to live with it. I am new to the business, so there is much I still need to learn to create better films, so I take some jobs I'd rather not, just to learn.
The way I see it, one of our jobs as Indies is to educate the mainstream filmmakers about diversity and thinking outside the box (which is 3-D)
. Women must be as willing to run roughshod over their families as their male counterparts (for a while), so that we can prove our mettle and create our vision too.
My new short "Killer Squirrel" premieres in Cleveland in Sept. and I am in pre-prod. for an HD feature (I am producing that one) and in pre-prod for another short entitled, "Rubble"( I promised my hubby that I'd complete at least 3 shorts before I went for a feature- This will be the 6th short I have worked on). Somewhere in there, I have to be a wife, mom, housekeeper, gardener, accountant, help-mate and sex goddess. We do what we have to do.
It ain't fair, but it's life.
I am a female director. Most of the time in my local 'club' meeting, I am the only female director. Often, in pre-prod. or on the set, I am one of the only women- even the only one- if we exclude those in front of the camera.
Recently, I worked on a very testosterone heavy film- nearly all male cast and there were three women on the crew. One was the wardrobe crew head, one was the set RN, and me- script super. These are the 'traditional' female roles in production.
Most of the time, I don't give a damn about it... Then will come the moment when I realize that I am the only woman at the table- or I watch a talented and skilled woman shooed away from using her skills cause she'll 'get hurt' doing a 'man's' job. Then I get steamed.
I am the maniacal/ obsessive directoral stereotype. It creates havoc at home with my spouse and daughter, but they are learning to live with it. I am new to the business, so there is much I still need to learn to create better films, so I take some jobs I'd rather not, just to learn.
The way I see it, one of our jobs as Indies is to educate the mainstream filmmakers about diversity and thinking outside the box (which is 3-D)
. Women must be as willing to run roughshod over their families as their male counterparts (for a while), so that we can prove our mettle and create our vision too. My new short "Killer Squirrel" premieres in Cleveland in Sept. and I am in pre-prod. for an HD feature (I am producing that one) and in pre-prod for another short entitled, "Rubble"( I promised my hubby that I'd complete at least 3 shorts before I went for a feature- This will be the 6th short I have worked on). Somewhere in there, I have to be a wife, mom, housekeeper, gardener, accountant, help-mate and sex goddess. We do what we have to do.
It ain't fair, but it's life.
bird said:
...for a girl...
I kid, I kid!!
_______
The last film I helped on (Showtime's "Sarang Song") had a heavy cast of women (heavy as in many of them; not fat) and a woman director.
It didn't seem weird in any way... it was all about getting the job done.
I'm not sure I quite agree with that. Mainstream filmmakers, in an effort to make a (big) buck, give the audience what the audience wants. They have to pander to the people with the dollars.
If there's a general shift in what audiences demand, the mainstream filmmakers will follow and adapt... once again clogging that market with a "new" kind of lowest common denominator.
I really don't believe that mainstream movies have to (or even ought to) change.
At the same time, I also believe that a parallel Indie-industry is going to build up... partly stepping-stone to mainstream, and partly being about the "vision".
Just my opinion, anyways.
I can't remember when this question about female directors started but I was surprised to find another opinion in my email today. The indies give women, infact anyone for that matter, a chance to direct. Good luck on your next project. Where will Killer Squirrel be showing? Can I see it online anytime soon?
midnight-
I am hoping to put Killer Squirrel on line when it's completed. It's getting the score laid in now, so very soon it will be available for your viewing pleasure. I will let everyone here know when it's on line.
Zensteve-
Does the viewing audience flock to 'blockbusters' at the cineplex because it is all they want? Or is it more that it's all they're given? Sure, there are some (like my own mother) who only want films with happy endings, or shoot-em-ups (with happy endings)... In short, what they've been programmed to expect by the studio system. I think that it is up to indie filmmakers to raise the bar of expectation.
For example, Q. Tarantino. When "Pulp Fiction" opened in my scrawny neck of the woods, I sat in a packed house on a Friday night and discovered that my husband and I were the only two people in the WHOLE place who were laughing. Everyone else seemed to be in states ranging from disgust to discomfort.
When we got to the now infamous "heart needle" scene, my mother in law leaned over and said, "Is this supposed to be funny? Cause I feel like I want to laugh, but it's so awful... It's supposed to be funny, right?" See? conditioning. The audience didn't know how to trust their own instincts and go with it. Of course, now Q.T. is a film god and imitators abound, but I watched people get up and leave the theater.
We have to push the envelope. I don't see studios doing that. That's all I am trying to say.
I am hoping to put Killer Squirrel on line when it's completed. It's getting the score laid in now, so very soon it will be available for your viewing pleasure. I will let everyone here know when it's on line.
Zensteve-
Does the viewing audience flock to 'blockbusters' at the cineplex because it is all they want? Or is it more that it's all they're given? Sure, there are some (like my own mother) who only want films with happy endings, or shoot-em-ups (with happy endings)... In short, what they've been programmed to expect by the studio system. I think that it is up to indie filmmakers to raise the bar of expectation.
For example, Q. Tarantino. When "Pulp Fiction" opened in my scrawny neck of the woods, I sat in a packed house on a Friday night and discovered that my husband and I were the only two people in the WHOLE place who were laughing. Everyone else seemed to be in states ranging from disgust to discomfort.
When we got to the now infamous "heart needle" scene, my mother in law leaned over and said, "Is this supposed to be funny? Cause I feel like I want to laugh, but it's so awful... It's supposed to be funny, right?" See? conditioning. The audience didn't know how to trust their own instincts and go with it. Of course, now Q.T. is a film god and imitators abound, but I watched people get up and leave the theater.
We have to push the envelope. I don't see studios doing that. That's all I am trying to say.
here in Cleveland, there are a bunch of female directors, at least I know of:
Laura Paglin
Bernadette Gillota
Annetta Marion (she's now in AFI doing her short film premiere)
Christine Chapman
Carol (something)
at least 3 more that I can't remember their names...
Naomi Hallender (DP)
Cindy Panter
Mara Evans (she's also a PA/AC)
I also have watched a lot of movies (from Hollywood) made/directed/produced by women. but funny enough, these films were not 'action' oriented, but more of drama, comedy, relationship styled...
One thing people see more are films that makes $ (in their POV) so mostly are action or horror oriented, so these films usually are shot male directors, it's not necessarily means there's a 'discrimination' point, but more of the director's taste...
I think the only 'action' film directed by a female director (that I know of), is that short film that turned into a feature called DEBS (DEBS seems to be mroe comedic than anything else)... I'm not sure if there's any others...
johnny
Laura Paglin
Bernadette Gillota
Annetta Marion (she's now in AFI doing her short film premiere)
Christine Chapman
Carol (something)
at least 3 more that I can't remember their names...
Naomi Hallender (DP)
Cindy Panter
Mara Evans (she's also a PA/AC)
I also have watched a lot of movies (from Hollywood) made/directed/produced by women. but funny enough, these films were not 'action' oriented, but more of drama, comedy, relationship styled...
One thing people see more are films that makes $ (in their POV) so mostly are action or horror oriented, so these films usually are shot male directors, it's not necessarily means there's a 'discrimination' point, but more of the director's taste...
I think the only 'action' film directed by a female director (that I know of), is that short film that turned into a feature called DEBS (DEBS seems to be mroe comedic than anything else)... I'm not sure if there's any others...
johnny
It certainly is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" dilemma, granted.
However, Hollywood is no dummy. They certainly cater to the widest audience possible... and from start to finish, they are doing what it takes to make sure the latest film has the widest possible audience; from recycling past successes, to inventing new types of eye-candy, to holding test-screenings of films with the public to get feedback on what works for them and what does not... and making changes accordingly.
Aside from the odd exception to the rule, I'll maintain that Hollywood gives the average audience exactly what they want.
Now that may seem at odds with what we hear about, on indie-film forums such as this and others, but our opinions about the relative poor quality of Hollywood films are coming from a stacked deck. Most of us (including myself) are essentially like-minded individuals that are not satisfied with our entertainment options... and add to that, that unlike the average viewing audience, we tend to want to be actually involved with the creative process on a first-hand basis.
We are a very different breed of animal than the average entertainment-seeking public.
_______
Two more relavent threads (here and here) have since popped up, that better suit this slight derail of mine. I ought to continue there.
I apologise for steering this thread away from its intended topic.
i think we keep forgetting that major studios (almost all Hollywood) are there to make a living, which means, they have to release films that can bring the big bucks back, and they use their 'forecasters' to predict which type of films that would sell for a great return (obviusly quality isn't the subject matter, but what can sell most with the bang).
Witht that in mind, it's their job to keep their clients, and to keep their employees that can continue working, so they have a mission to make: to make money at any cost.
Us, as viewers, individuals, we probably can't complain much if we were in their shoes, but we have the liberty to choose what to watch what not to watch at the same time, express ourselves with our creative work.
Johnny
Witht that in mind, it's their job to keep their clients, and to keep their employees that can continue working, so they have a mission to make: to make money at any cost.
Us, as viewers, individuals, we probably can't complain much if we were in their shoes, but we have the liberty to choose what to watch what not to watch at the same time, express ourselves with our creative work.
Johnny
Great post Lilith,
Its like I've always said " If you can't be a cat and run with the wolf pack you have to become a wolf to run with the wolf pack"
Its like I've always said " If you can't be a cat and run with the wolf pack you have to become a wolf to run with the wolf pack"
I think comment prior to mine has it's own validity and truth.
The fact that so many directors are men is an interesting observation. But men are dominant in almost all fields except for Nursing and Administrative practices.
Being a woman and an aspiring filmmaker, I'g going to have a hell of a time trying to make a living off my passion.
The fact that so many directors are men is an interesting observation. But men are dominant in almost all fields except for Nursing and Administrative practices.
Being a woman and an aspiring filmmaker, I'g going to have a hell of a time trying to make a living off my passion.
What a great topic. I'm new to the film industry and recently directed my first short. I begin directing my first feature on Sunday - and I'm a woman who is 34.
I read through these posts and reflected on what was said about this six years ago and it seems like not much has changed from what I can see.
When I told people that I decided to start turning my 30 years of writing experience into screenplays and become a director, they blew me off. Even though the ones that know me know that I have loved films since I was two years old - it seemed impossible to them.
Family, friends and everyone in the industry that I went to for help and advice thought I couldn't be serious - one person even said to me, "So daddy bought you a camera and now you're going to be a filmmaker?"
I think the fact that I'm a woman has given many people pause. When going to the "experts" in my area - I quickly found that they were all men and that most of them don't take me seriously as a director or a filmmaker. I chalked this up to paying dues - that they would be more inclined to take me seriously once I had produced a few reasonably well directed pieces. Still, I didn't just pop out of the ground born this day I decided to direct.
I had a ton of acting experience from ages 10 - 24; I ran businesses for people for the past 17 years and the four most recent of those years was in marketing (another male-dominated industry). After producing and directing my first short, I can honestly say that it is a lot like running a business, only it scratches my creative itch far more than simply running a business does. But no one thinks you had a life before this when you're new to it - and that perhaps you might know a thing or two after all.
I actually had one man tell me that I needed to quit trying to be a man and just go sell my screenplays or something.
It has been a hard road this past year delving into it as a woman, but next Sunday I direct my first feature. It's also my first experience directing something that I did not write myself. I was actually invited to direct this one. It's a nice feeling.
Name one who didn't get a break through nepotism.
I read through these posts and reflected on what was said about this six years ago and it seems like not much has changed from what I can see.
When I told people that I decided to start turning my 30 years of writing experience into screenplays and become a director, they blew me off. Even though the ones that know me know that I have loved films since I was two years old - it seemed impossible to them.
Family, friends and everyone in the industry that I went to for help and advice thought I couldn't be serious - one person even said to me, "So daddy bought you a camera and now you're going to be a filmmaker?"
I think the fact that I'm a woman has given many people pause. When going to the "experts" in my area - I quickly found that they were all men and that most of them don't take me seriously as a director or a filmmaker. I chalked this up to paying dues - that they would be more inclined to take me seriously once I had produced a few reasonably well directed pieces. Still, I didn't just pop out of the ground born this day I decided to direct.
I had a ton of acting experience from ages 10 - 24; I ran businesses for people for the past 17 years and the four most recent of those years was in marketing (another male-dominated industry). After producing and directing my first short, I can honestly say that it is a lot like running a business, only it scratches my creative itch far more than simply running a business does. But no one thinks you had a life before this when you're new to it - and that perhaps you might know a thing or two after all.
I actually had one man tell me that I needed to quit trying to be a man and just go sell my screenplays or something.
It has been a hard road this past year delving into it as a woman, but next Sunday I direct my first feature. It's also my first experience directing something that I did not write myself. I was actually invited to direct this one. It's a nice feeling.
Name one who didn't get a break through nepotism.
Last edited:
Fun thread, I read it all..
OK, boys and girls are DIFFERENT.
If I consider anecdotal evidence (Im a father of 5 girls and one boy) I see that imaginative play of boys and girls differ significantly.
Look at girls toys vs boys toys.
Or consider the doll vs action figure debate. Same object, played with in VERY different ways. Boys play go here do this action, girls play dialogue and personal interaction.
Does this completely answer the question, no of course not, but it does suggest an underlying factor that supports the facts.
OK, boys and girls are DIFFERENT.
If I consider anecdotal evidence (Im a father of 5 girls and one boy) I see that imaginative play of boys and girls differ significantly.
Look at girls toys vs boys toys.
Or consider the doll vs action figure debate. Same object, played with in VERY different ways. Boys play go here do this action, girls play dialogue and personal interaction.
Does this completely answer the question, no of course not, but it does suggest an underlying factor that supports the facts.
The 'debate' has been pretty well exercised here, but I'd just like to through out my brief experience working with other filmmakers.
Of the two days I spent as PA on a couple shorts, day one I was 'wardrobe' and day two I was 'child rangler.' I was told that they'd really like to let me get some experience working with the gaffers/sound guys 'if there's time' but that since I was the only female PA, there just wasn't an option. I could go on about the gender dynamic I picked up on while on set, but I won't. You get the point.
Oh and the director was a female. Go figure.
@wheat, I loved my Bawbies for sure but my favorite toys as a kid were my army men, as well as any broken electronics my parents would let me take apart and try to put back together or make 'space ship controls' out of.
Of the two days I spent as PA on a couple shorts, day one I was 'wardrobe' and day two I was 'child rangler.' I was told that they'd really like to let me get some experience working with the gaffers/sound guys 'if there's time' but that since I was the only female PA, there just wasn't an option. I could go on about the gender dynamic I picked up on while on set, but I won't. You get the point.
Oh and the director was a female. Go figure.
@wheat, I loved my Bawbies for sure but my favorite toys as a kid were my army men, as well as any broken electronics my parents would let me take apart and try to put back together or make 'space ship controls' out of.
Penny Marshall and Kathryn Bigelow. Wait, what am I naming? Those are the only two female directors (other than the aforementioned Copola) who I can name. Do I win anything?
That's messed up. Her loss.
This thread's too long for me to go back and read all the old posts, but here's my two cents.
In a way, I think wheat might be on to something, but it's a little too tidy. I think if we're to come even close to answering this question, it ain't gonna be so simple.
When you bring up a point like that, wheat, it's almost as if we're getting into the nature/nurture debate. The thing about the nature/nurture debate is that there is no right or wrong answer, because it's a completely invalid question. It's like asking if it's the lemon or the sugar that makes lemonade what it is.
Yes, we are physiologically different, and those differences do not merely manifest themselves in the shapes of our bodies. There is no question that we think differently, and experience emotion in different ways.
But it is also true that as soon as we exit the womb we are treated differently, and that also has a profound impact on our personalities and how we view the world (and how we end up treating others).
So, the differences in physiology, combined with the way we are raised, probobaly does cause a smaller amount of women to even want to be directors, in the first place.
Then, you add on top of that the discrimination that they face (as evidenced by the women in this thread), and that's one steep hill to climb.
Man, are you two outnumbered!
-- spinner
No kidding! I thought my dad had it bad with 3 girls. Even our dogs were female.
He is a broken man.
It's because it's a male dominated profession.
I realize that that may not be answering the question and simply stating the same fact that spourned this thread, but I think it's probably all that can be said for an answer.
I've just been to film school and the ratio of boys to girls there is about 8:2 and looking at the genders of members here on Indietalk I would say the ration is even more extreme. I think there's an element of both boys and girls enjoying movies but boys being more concerned with how things are made. In a nature versus nurture debate I would say that it's because the act of making things is associated with men rather than women (with obvious exceptions).
I also think that you need to look at it from a generation back. The women film directors of today were 18 in the 70s or 80s and whilst there was obviously some gender equality then from the point of view of aspirational women filmmakers I would imagine it was tricky persuading your family to pay a great deal of money to send them to film school so that they might one day hold down a profession in which they would have to be pioneers.
I think there's an element of that still today. I genuinely think that the effects of Kathryn Bigelow winning the Oscar won't be seen for a generation, but girls who otherwise either didnt think that they could get into film or couldn't persuade their family to help them will have Bigelow as a reference for success. Who did Kathryn Bigelow or Jane Campion have when they were setting out? No one and perhaps it will take the Sofia Coppola's of the world to show young girls that they can become filmmakers.
This has probably all been said before but I couldn't deal with re-reading this whole thread...
I realize that that may not be answering the question and simply stating the same fact that spourned this thread, but I think it's probably all that can be said for an answer.
I've just been to film school and the ratio of boys to girls there is about 8:2 and looking at the genders of members here on Indietalk I would say the ration is even more extreme. I think there's an element of both boys and girls enjoying movies but boys being more concerned with how things are made. In a nature versus nurture debate I would say that it's because the act of making things is associated with men rather than women (with obvious exceptions).
I also think that you need to look at it from a generation back. The women film directors of today were 18 in the 70s or 80s and whilst there was obviously some gender equality then from the point of view of aspirational women filmmakers I would imagine it was tricky persuading your family to pay a great deal of money to send them to film school so that they might one day hold down a profession in which they would have to be pioneers.
I think there's an element of that still today. I genuinely think that the effects of Kathryn Bigelow winning the Oscar won't be seen for a generation, but girls who otherwise either didnt think that they could get into film or couldn't persuade their family to help them will have Bigelow as a reference for success. Who did Kathryn Bigelow or Jane Campion have when they were setting out? No one and perhaps it will take the Sofia Coppola's of the world to show young girls that they can become filmmakers.
This has probably all been said before but I couldn't deal with re-reading this whole thread...