Alice In Actionland

Films I'm Supposed to Love... But Don't

2012-02-21T11:52:00.000-05:00

In any given year there are relatively few films by and/or about women that become part of the public psyche. I do want to be a cheerleader for other women filmmakers and women-centric films (regardless of the filmmaker's gender). It is often said that if women want to see more female-created/oriented films it is incumbent upon us to rally behind these films. (Though that implies that the lack of female-created/oriented films is due to the lack of support by other women - and that isn't fair.)

But the curmudgeonly truth is... I don't like all of these films.

There continues to be a huge disparity in the budgets that male vs. female directors have to work with. Subsequently, women tend to make much smaller, more personal films. Sometimes this works out great and we get gems like Debra Granik's Winter's Bone or Courtney Hunt's Frozen River. 2011 gave us the brilliant, disturbing Martha Marcy May Marlene - a women-centered story by Sean Durkin.

But in 2011 I also saw the following films, which I think I'm supposed to love... but don't:

Still from THE HELP

THE HELP (Written and directed by Nate Taylor, based on the novel by Kathryn Stockett.) Featuring an almost entirely female cast, a lot has already been said about some of the sketchier details relating to the story's depiction of racial issues. My gripe with the film is that it simply doesn't do the book justice.

Kathryn Stockett - a white woman raised in the south by a black nanny - has every right to contemplate how her upbringing fits into the broader discussion of race in

America

. The book was spellbinding: every page permeated with the danger that these women were in by their subversive act of telling their stories, and sharing them across racial boundaries. When I first saw a preview for The Help I could not understand why it looked like a comedy. Promoted in sunny shades of yellow, the film seemed more interested in a particular chocolate pie than it was in the realities and complexities of the characters' lives - something I think the book handled quite well.

To me, this seemed to be an example of dumbing down the source material to make it more palatable and commercial for a perceived "delicate" audience. This is always an insulting approach. So, while I support the performances and female energy in this film, it could have been a much deeper, much better movie.

Still from THE FUTURE

THE FUTURE (Written and directed by Miranda July.) I loved Miranda July's first film Me and You and Everyone We Know so I was really excited about this film. Me and You... was odd, adorable, surprising, sweet. In contrast, The Future had a plot hole so large that I just couldn't take the film seriously... and clearly Miranda July has never owned a cat. (Though Paw-Paw - the narrating cat - was the best part of the film.)

SPOILERS: In the real world, if you're adopting a cat from a shelter and it has an injured paw, the shelter would bandage the paw, stick a cone on the cat's head and thrust the beast in your arms, thanking you profusely for saving the animal's life. In The Future, Sophie (July) and her boyfriend are told to come back in 30 days (!!!) while the shelter keeps the injured cat under medical care.

During those 30 days Sophie's life falls apart, thus making her unable to pick up the cat at the designated time. Arriving a day late, she discovers that Paw-Paw has already been put to sleep. This seemed so outrageously stupid to me that I immediately wrote off everything else that happened in the film as emotionally manipulative and contrived. I'm never a fan of straight out emotional manipulation in films (especially if it involves animals: hello War Horse), so ultimately I just couldn't embrace The Future.

BRIDESMAIDS

BRIDESMAIDS (Written by Kristin Wiig and Annie Mumolo, directed by Paul Feig.) I'll keep this short and cut right to the chase: I hate potty humor. Yes, there was a great cast of women and there were many things I liked about the movie. But I am one who tends to remember a film based on one indelible image - and in this case, of course, it involves vomit and diarrhea. People are applauding the fact that women can be as funny and raunchy as men. Great. Women are funny and raunchy. But I still hate potty humor.

Still from TINY FURNITURE

TINY FURNITURE (Written and directed by Lena Dunham.) Made for just $50K by a then-23-year old, this is the sort of film where I'd like to pat the young filmmakers on the back and say "good job!" Then I would like to sit back and see what these kids make next - a $500K film perhaps? By the luck of good press and better connections, Dunham was able to line up her own show on HBO. While I would love to celebrate that, I just don't get it.

Tiny Furniture didn't seem any better to me than most of the other mumblecore flicks. Made by 20-somethings who are existentially confused and artistically ambitious, mumblecore usually involves slight budgets, simple production values, and meager, conversation-driven plots. If I was in my 20's I might love these kinds of films - hell, I might be making these kinds of films! But, at this point in my filmmaking and film-watching, I want more.

In this instance, Dunham actually managed to make her film look like a million dollars: her main location was her family's million-dollar Tribeca apartment. The somewhat autobiographical film (featuring her accomplished photographer mother and younger sister) also benefited from some fairly straightforward financing: family. Filmmakers are always encouraged to have family and friends finance their first film - and kudos to Dunham for being able to pull it off!

But I still really don't get what the hype is all about. The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity were both made for around $20K - and, like them or not, they each made more than a hundred million dollars. Yet, these filmmakers were not just handed their next projects. Other more artistically mature filmmakers like Kelly Reichardt (Meek's Cutoff, Wendy and Lucy) and Ramin Bahrani (Goodbye Solo, Chop Shop) continue to receive prestigious awards and screen at the world's best film festivals, yet they struggle to raise even $1M to make a film.

Lena Dunham was declared the next Woody Allen shortly after Tiny Furniture began making the festival circuit. Woody Allen wasn't even Woody Allen after one film. It's not that I'm not happy for her: it is a fantastic accomplishment when any independent film does well, and clearly an even more significant accomplishment for a young woman in this male-dominated industry. But, Tiny Furniture?? Clearly, a whole lot of important someones were seeing something that I just didn't get in this film. And apparently some of these important someones were long-time family friends... Being "discovered" goes a lot faster when you can invite one of the industry's most influential producers to your screening.

Am I a little jealous? I am a little jealous. But I hope the branding of This Generation's Woody Allen doesn't weigh her down; I hope Lena Dunham has the last laugh and a long, productive career.

In summary, the truth is, women are just as likely to prefer mainstream material (intelligently done) as men are, so it is unrealistic to expect that tens of millions of women are going to flock to (or love) The Future or Tiny Furniture just because it has a woman director. (Note that the bigger budgeted The Help and Bridesmaids both have male directors.) I do seek out these films and watch them, but that doesn't guarantee they're my cup of tea. I'll be happier when we see more women making bigger budget science fiction, thrillers, and other genre films - which isn't to say I don't love a good art film: another of my favorite 2011 films was the women-centric Melancholia by Lars von Trier.

I am happy that 3 of the films (The Help, Bridesmaids, and Tiny Furniture) are giving these women new recognition and opportunities - and I absolutely will see Miranda July's next film! But I can't always like something just because it's about or by women. When the pool of women created/oriented films is only a handful - compared to the hundreds of male created/oriented films - I feel a little guilty about "not liking" stuff, especially in public. But, I have to keep it real.

Applying the Bechdel Test

2012-02-14T18:55:00.000-05:00

In 1985, cartoonist Allison Bechdel created a litmus test to determine the presence of women in movies. Many of us in the industry are aware of the Bechdel Test, but the average movie-goer may not be. The test looks for three things:

1) Does the film have two or more women who have names? (In screenplays, it's fairly common to give small roles titles like TEENAGE PUNK or CASHIER rather than actual names.)

2) Do the women talk to each other?

3) Do they talk to each other about something other than a man?

For a brief overview of the Bechdel Test I encourage you to watch this little video:

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2009/12/the-bechdel-test-for-women-in-movies/

But my purpose here today is to take a look at my own screenplays and see if they pass the test. I write both higher concept, bigger budget scripts that I hope to sell, as well as little indies that I plan to direct. I feel like I write great roles for women (and men). But I'm also always aware that for a lot of projects, if they don't have a strong male presence - or protagonist - they will be difficult to sell or finance.

I have never looked at my scripts from this perspective before, so here goes:

VACCINE (horror/thriller): An inner-city doctor fights to save his infected wife after the mandatory bird flu vaccine he administered to his patients proves to cause horrific mutations as devastating as the pandemic it was intended to prevent.

1) Bee (hero's wife); Cecilia (Bee's sister); Mrs. Zeitlin;

Mollie

2) Yes, Bee & Cecilia talk to each other, and Bee & Mollie

talk...

3) ... about things other than men.

TAKEN IN (horror/thriller): When the arrival of four homeless teenagers to a small town triggers disturbing personality changes, one rebellious teen fights to keep her identity after discovering that the strangers' intention is to use humans as shells that house their own alien species.

1) Paige (protagonist); Dr. Cameron (Paige's mother); Mrs. Strohmeyer; Sgt. Colaprete; Rose; Winter

2) Paige has several conversations with her mother, and speaks to Mrs. Strohmeyer and Sgt. Colaprete...

3)... about things other than men.

SKYBREAK (action/sci-fi): After the first-class passengers use all the escape pods to abandon a fatally damaged spaceship and leave the prisoner-class passengers behind, an incarcerated engineer fights his way through the crippled ship and panicked gangs to save his wife and repair the last remaining escape pod before the ship is destroyed.

1) Alana (hero's wife); Delfina (prisoner)

2) Yes, they have a conversation...

3) ... though men are mentioned in the conversation, but

the women also talk about themselves.

HANDS AND KNEES (indie/psychological thriller): A stay-at-home mom is driven to the edge when her mute daughter suddenly claims to be a 17^th century witch. As she struggles to prove to her husband that their daughter needs help, it becomes increasingly unclear just which one of them is mad.

1) Suzette (protagonist); Kate (Suzette's daughter)

2) Well, they are in many, many scenes together...

3) ... though Kate is a child who does not speak.

THE MACHINE WHO LOVED (indie/psychological thriller): A lonely woman forced into early retirement makes a radical decision to ease her loneliness: she commissions her ideal mate - an artificial life form tailored to her every specification. But things quickly grow complicated when she fails to foresee the pitfalls of owning a sentient being.

1) May (protagonist); Erica (May's best friend); Betty

2) May & Betty speak, and May & Erica have intense scenes

together...

3) ... though, due to the nature of the story, May & Erica

talk almost exclusively about May's acquired partner,

Sander.

GRAND CANYON (indie/drama/adventure): The true account of how a family's dysfunction reflects the vastness of the landscape itself when they all become separated during a poorly planned backpacking trip.

1) Piper (protagonist); Morgan (sister); Ginger (mom)

2) Yes, they all talk to each other...

3)... about things other than men.

I have additional projects, but I think these are representative. I was a bit saddened to realize that I have quite a few scripts where women only speak to one another briefly. And I also found some missed opportunities to name characters with smaller roles! Although, I think the Bechdel Test fails to properly acknowledge films with a female protagonist. Of my 6 examples, 4 of them have female protagonists: TAKEN IN; HANDS AND KNEES; THE MACHINE WHO LOVED; and GRAND CANYON.

There continues to be gender imbalance in the decision-making process in the film industry, and thus much of what Hollywood produces is skewed toward the interests of men. Women are much better represented - as writers, directors, and story subjects - in independent films. But, because the budgets (and subsequent profits) are much smaller for independent films, the myth continues that woman-driven films and woman-oriented stories are not as profitable as male-driven, male-oriented stories. Until we see a balanced production slate - 50/50 male vs. female created films, with comparable budgets - it will be hard to disprove what the market seems to indicate. But we, as creators and movie lovers, can try to pay attention to what we create, what we watch, and what we like.

Have you seen something recently that fails or passes the Bechdel Test?

And for you writers (or filmmakers) out there, do your scripts tend to fail or pass the test?

Please feel free to comment and share your thoughts - I'd love to know what you're watching & writing! :-)

Story of Women and Warrior

2012-02-07T10:55:00.000-05:00

On Saturday afternoon I watched Story of Women (Une affaire de femmes), a 1989 film by the French master Claude Chabrol. On Saturday evening I watched Warrior by Gavin O'Connor - a film for which Nick Nolte is currently an Oscar nominee for Best Supporting Actor. I had no ulterior motives for watching these two films on the same day, and as disparate as they seem on the surface, I was ultimately struck by how similar they are.

Still from Story of Women

Story of Women is based on the true story of Marie-Louise Girard. Isabelle Huppert - truly one of the world's great actors - portrays Marie, a woman struggling to support her children during World War II. While her husband is away at war, she initially earns extra money by knitting sweaters - but she is frustrated by her meager subsistence.

After a friend becomes pregnant with a child that her soldier-boyfriend doesn't want, Marie discovers she has a knack for performing soap-and-water abortions. Soon Marie is helping other women - from prostitutes to wives who already have more children than they can support. It provides an unexpected and welcome income. When her husband returns home, Marie remains the family breadwinner - and even expands her entrepreneurial ambitions by renting rooms to the hookers who have become her friends.

Still from Warrior

In Warrior, Tom Hardy plays Tommy, a veteran who is haunted by the losses he experienced during the Iraqi war. He feels an obligation to help support his best friend's widow and children. Simultaneously, his brother Brendan (played by Joel Edgerton) is an upstanding family man - a high school teacher with a wife and two children, one of whom has health problems. Brendan struggles under the weight of debt - and the fear of losing his home. Both brothers seek an unlikely payday in the form of becoming professional Mixed Martial Arts champions.

At heart, these are two films about the lengths people will go to provide for their families. And they are both tragedies.

In Story of Women, the authorities decided to make an example of Marie: France, as an occupied nation, wished to make a statement about their commitment against immorality. I'm giving away nothing that isn't in the film's synopsis: Marie was executed by guillotine.

Warrior depicts Mixed Martial Arts as nothing short of legalized attempted murder. Not only are both brothers risking their lives to earn the payday that will save their respective families - but (again, this is in the synopsis) they are ultimately forced to battle each other for the ultimate prize.

I consider what happened to all of these people to be barbaric.

No woman should be forced to seek the services a non-medical professional in order to have control over the size of her family. And no person should be persecuted - or put to death - for their role in facilitating this. Nor should a man feel pressured to provide for a war widow what the government rightly owes. And no person in a civilized nation should be forced to choose between paying their child's medical bills or paying the family's mortgage.

This, my friends, is how women and men become enslaved in a male-dominated society.

I was struck in both of these films by how male-dominated the underlying problems were: two wars; a recession caused by fiscal malfeasance; a persistent commitment to the needs of authoritative bodies (or businesses) over those of human beings. I wept during the final scenes of both films - especially Warrior, with its brutal depiction of two brothers practically beating one other to death. And poor Marie - and her children - never imagined that the "service" she was providing to women (or the income she was providing for her family) would result in her death.

Both of these films accurately reflect the world we live in: Mixed Martial Arts is a sport increasing in popularity; birth control and abortion are still politicized, denied, and criminalized; corrupt banking practices destroy the foundations of democracy; profits determine political agendas; healthcare is not, as it should be, an inalienable right...

And who suffers? Everyone. Men. Women. Children. Women are not free. Men are not free.

I have a fundamental belief in balance, opposing forces, and harmony. Too much of one thing creates a lack of something else. Too much drought creates too few crops. Working long hours means fewer hours of leisure. There is a constant give and take to energy, matter, time. So to me it is obvious that a male-dominated society creates an inherent imbalance.

Men and women are not the same, and when we are not represented equally - in all areas of decision-making - an imbalance is created. There is a belief that this power imbalance benefits men - but does it? Really?

I think women would not be so inclined to send other people's children to war. I think women would not be so inclined to favor rules that benefit corporations over the needs of building strong families. I think women would not be so inclined to deny the necessity of universal healthcare. Nor do I think women would endorse an entertainment that throws men in a cage to physically demolish one another - anymore than this would be encouraged for roosters or dogs; men should have more dignified ways of proving their masculinity.

Changing the world will require us all to see the benefits of gender-balanced power. These two small films illustrate the necessity.

Letter to Michael Fassbender

2012-01-31T13:53:00.000-05:00

Dear Michael,

One day a few years ago I was walking through Blockbuster when the cover of Hunger captured my eye - an intriguing image. I turned the dvd case over to read about the film, and there you were, mentioned with 300 in parentheses next to your name. I flipped the case back over: it looked like an art film - but wasn't Michael Fassbender the guy who played the skinny Spartan? I was intrigued that an actor of whom I knew little should have such disparate credits, and Hunger looked damn good.

Hunger blew my mind. Hunger had me weeping and thanking the nameless gods of art and human emotion that such a film could be made, and that I could experience the overwhelming passion of this man, willing to die for his beliefs. At that moment, there were no other films by director Steve McQueen (more on that later), but you had a filmography that I immediately and eagerly sought out.

Let's establish now that I am not one who easily "loves" actors or their performances. As a filmmaker - and theatrically trained actor - I have a rather strong opinion for what I think constitutes a good actor or a great performance. I have very definite ideas about actors vs. movie stars - and, true to my European influences, I admire subtlety above all manner of scenery chewing. Yes, I've had my little crushes (and lusts) - often based on someone playing a flawed but delectable villain (traditional heroes rarely do it for me). As I delved into your filmography, suffice to say, I fell in love.

(Now let's take a moment to put "love" in its proper perspective: judging by commitment and frequency, it would appear that Honey Nut Cheerios is the love of my life - a staple that I have enjoyed for more than 25 years, on average of twice a day. Michael, I am not opposed to developing such a committed and satisfying relationship with you, but let's be realistic...)

You are a sublime actor. Immensely gifted. And I hope your love for the career (and patience for its bullshit) is as deep as your inherent abilities. What you magically do is... disappear. And in your place emerges a fully realized, dimensional, physical human - who doesn't even always look like you. I have some knowledge as to how actors prepare for a role - but I honestly can't begin to imagine how you take on the bones and soul of another person.

This became fully evident in Blood Creek. By that point I'd also seen you as the sexually oozing, handsome devil in Hex, and your scared "normal man" turn in Eden Lake. But in Blood Creek, where you were head-to-toe in leather, with a scarred, skull prosthetic, it became clear the degree to which you embody a character. Back in the day, I took an acting class where we did mask work, and it was fascinating to watch how, without facial expressions, a moving body became imbued with emotional information. A lesser actor could have made your character in Blood Creek a lurching monster - but you still gave him nuances, and made his figure - even in shadow - immediately recognizable.

Speaking of which... Though I haven't read or seen much in the way of interviews with you (I tend to avoid these in general, because after a couple they start to seem silly and repetitive), I have heard that you are not recognized that often in public. I am not surprised. When you are in character you move differently, your energy is different - sometimes you are ugly, sometimes you are handsome. So unless someone has met you, they would probably not know what Michael Fassbender looks like, walks like -- your acting ability has become your own perfect camouflage!

You have been working incredibly hard these last few years, Michael (please don't burn yourself out - there will always be roles for you, even if you give yourself some downtime). I haven't loved every film you've done, though I've hated only one (Jonah Hex, pure slop, though you were mischievous and I dug the facial tattoos). I much prefer you in the smaller films, like Andrea Arnold's Fish Tank - which might have given you a bit of practice portraying someone with guilty feelings about their lust. Another actor might have made it too easy to hate your character after he crossed the line - yet, though Connor was clearly in the wrong, we had already come to know him. We saw his capacity to care, nurture, and love - we could not just disregard him as a person.

My interest in storytelling stems from my observations about the human species, and our capacity to possess both good and evil, even simultaneously. You embrace these characters, make them rich and real. Which brings us to Shame, Steve McQueen's second masterpiece.

Through complexity, specificity, and a bit of your magic, I felt and understood everything that Brandon was experiencing. Don't we become better humans by being able to have empathy with each other, not just sympathy? You truly put us in the shoes of a suffering man, and made us understand something about our own self-destructive behavior (which we all possess). It would be easy to judge a person like Brandon, and ultimately dismiss him. But your portrayal of him demands that we not only open our minds, but open our hearts. Kudos to both you and Steve McQueen, whose cinematic eye and directorial subtleties have made him one of my favorite filmmakers.

The one downside of your appearance in Shame, quite honestly, is that now people are talking about you for all of the wrong reasons. I trust you are not embarrassed, but I, for one, wish people were talking about your magnificent performance, and not...

Anyway... I think I have been effusive enough in my praise that naming every great role of yours is unnecessary. And anyone reading this, who might be unfamiliar with your work, should trust that they will not be disappointed with you in any film. I have A Dangerous Method to look forward to soon and, further down the line, your next collaboration with Steve McQueen.

Michael, it should not surprise you, seeing how I consider you one of the greatest living actors, that I aspire to work with you someday. I have not one, but two projects that I would love to cast you in. I write character-driven stories that tend to explore some of the slightly darker (but omnipresent) aspects of human behavior - loneliness, regret, anger, frustration - couched in small films that contain a hint of genre elements like science fiction and horror. Since I am considered a "first time director" (never mind my collective experience), it's going to be a tough road for me to get financing for even a low-budget film. And it will probably be just as hard to convince and/or schedule you... I imagine your time is quite precious at this point.

I hope you'll always be open to little, juicy films (even if they are never mine). Sure, build a nest-egg with X-Men... but it's the indie stuff where you really soar.

Keep flying, älskling...

Alice In Actionland

(A.K.A. Zoje)

The Rise and Fall of Alice Guy-Blaché

2012-01-24T14:09:00.001-05:00

This blog is named after Alice Guy-Blaché - a pioneer in filmmaking who has not only been forgotten, but was forgotten during her own lifetime. By taking a look at her life, I hope in a small way to help restore her reputation as a groundbreaking filmmaker whose influence is still felt today.

- Born on 1 July 1873 near Paris, France, Alice Guy-Blaché was definitively the 1^st Woman Filmmaker in the World - and for 17 years she was the only woman filmmaker in the world.

- After spending her childhood in Switzerland, Chile and France, she learned typing and shorthand to become a secretary. In 1894, she was hired by Léon Gaumont in his photographic company.

- In 1895, Gaumont and Guy-Blaché were invited by the Lumière brothers to witness a demonstration of their 35mm film camera. At that time, people were still filming street scenes, not narrative films. The daughter of a bookseller and an avid reader - who had dabbled in amateur theatre - Guy-Blaché thought "something better can be done".

She asked Gaumont if she could shoot a few scenes with his camera. He agreed, "so long as your office work doesn't suffer".

- In 1896 Guy-Blaché became the first person to ever write, produce and direct a film. (She is credited for being the second person - after her colleagues the Lumière brothers - to make a narrative film.) The Cabbage Fairy was such a success - selling 80 copies - that Gaumont appointed her Head of All Moving Picture Production.

Still from The Cabbage Fairy

- For 10 years, Guy-Blaché was head of production for Gaumont - one of the world's major film studios - supervising script preparation, set design and costumes, and overseeing the work of all of the company's film directors. This, in addition to the films she wrote and directed.

- Between 1900 - 1907, Guy-Blaché directed more than 100 phonoscènes (short films made for Gaumont's chronophone.)

- In 1906, her film The Life of Christ was a huge hit in France, noted for its groundbreaking creativity and technical advances.

She's one of the most important figures in the history

of French cinema.

- Alan Williams, author of Republic of Images: A History of French Filmmaking

- In 1906, Alice Guy met Herbert Blaché, a Gaumont manager. They married in the spring of 1907.

- In 1907 Guy-Blaché reluctantly left France to follow her husband to the United States. (Gaumont hired Herbert Blaché to manage his studio in Flushing, NY for the production of English phonoscènes)

- In 1908, Guy-Blaché gave birth to her daughter Simone. She took two years off before getting back into film production.

- On 7 Sept. 1910 Guy-Blaché founded her own studio, Solax. She created melodramas, westerns, and slapstick comedies - years before Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton.

- In 1911, rich, famous, and happily married, Alice gave birth to her son, Reginald.

- In 1912, Guy-Blaché was the only woman in the United States earning over $25,000 a year. Her films were so successful that she relocated to Fort Lee, New Jersey where her film studio was the largest in the United States. Her rate of production equaled that of D.W. Griffith, who worked just a few miles away at Biograph.

from newspapers of the time:

"Idea" Woman is Efficient Head of Big Film Company

"Solax owes the success it has enjoyed since its early days entirely to one major asset: Madame Blaché's mastery of cinematic techniques. The result has been excellent production standards."

"The leading figure in the world of cinema could one day be a woman, and that woman will be Alice Guy-Blaché."

- After Herbert Blaché's contract with Gaumont expired in 1913, Guy-Blaché made her husband president of Solax. After three months, Herbert Blaché resigned to start his own company, Blaché Features. By 1914 Blaché Features effectively took over Solax.

It has long been a source of wonder to me that many women have not seized upon the wonderful opportunities offered to them by the motion picture art, to make their own fame and fortune as producers of photodramas. Of all of the arts there is probably none in which they can make such splendid use of talents so much more natural to a woman than to a man and so necessary to its perfection.

- Alice Guy-Blaché in the film journal Moving Picture World, 1914

- 1914 - 1916: As films became longer, Alice Guy-Blaché began directing features for a number of companies. Guy-Blaché directed 7 features, shot in the studio in Fort Lee, New Jersey (which still belonged to the Blachés).

- During this time, smaller film companies were being bought by larger conglomerates, and Guy-Blaché's husband began making poor business decisions, including handing over the rights to Guy-Blaché's The Lure for almost no money, after being convinced the film was worthless. The Lure went on to become one of the biggest box office hits of its day.

I put signs all around my studio that said BE NATURAL - that is all I wanted from my actors.

- Alice Guy-Blaché

With those two simple words [BE NATURAL] Alice Guy-Blaché transformed the art of screenacting for all time.

- Anthony Slide, film historian

- 1917: The former Solax studio was rented out to another company. Now 44, Guy-Blaché had the reputation of being an excellent director - much loved by the people she worked with, and always willing to share her technical expertise - but her last few films had not been commercially successful.

- In 1917, after both of his children became seriously ill, Herbert Blaché sent his wife and children to North Carolina to recuperate. While there, Guy-Blaché served the war effort by volunteering for the Red Cross. Herbert Blaché stayed behind in New Jersey to manage business in Fort Lee.

- In 1918, Herbert Blaché moved to Hollywood with one of his leading ladies, leaving Alice and his two children behind. Guy-Blaché moved to New York City with her children.

- In 1919, Guy-Blaché was hired to write and direct what would be her last film, Tarnished Reputations. Guy-Blaché contracted Spanish Influenza during production, which killed four of her colleagues. Herbert Blaché, passing through New York, was so alarmed by Alice's poor health that he invited her to California.

- In 1920 Alice moved to Los Angeles with her children, hoping to repair her marriage. She worked on two films with her husband - though they did not live together.

- In 1921, with her marriage and her business in ruins, Guy-Blaché was forced back east to deal with the auctioning off of all of her possessions at the former Solax studio, which had been seized to cover back taxes that the new tenants had neglected to pay. Alice Guy-Blaché watched as everything she owned was sold for a pittance.

They say that

America

takes back whatever it gives you.

- Alice Guy-Blaché

- Hopeless, penniless, and divorced, Guy-Blaché returned to France with her children in 1922, having lost her husband, her studio, and her career. She lived with her sister in Nice.

- 1922 - 1930: Guy-Blaché tried to get back into film, but France had forgotten about her. Even her former boss, Gaumont, neglected to mention her in his history of the Gaumont company.

Still from Falling Leaves

- In an effort to support her children, she wrote children's stories and magazine articles - all under masculine pen names. Alice Guy-Blaché would only sign her real name to her screenplays - but during the difficult years between the wars in Europe, she couldn't find a producer for any of her scripts.

- One of the most prolific filmmakers of her day, as writer, director, or producer (or all three) she made an estimated 700 films. She worked in every style, format and genre.

- On 8 December 1954, Louis Gaumont - Léon Gaumont's son - gave a speech in Paris about The First Woman Filmmaker in which he said that Guy-Blaché "has been unjustly forgotten". Film historians begin to take interest in her.

- In 1955 Alice Guy-Blaché was awarded the Légion d'Honneur, France's highest non-military honor.

- Alice Guy-Blaché made extensive efforts to find her films - both in the U.S. and France. Only 50 were ever found.

- Alice Guy-Blaché was unable to find a publisher for her autobiography during her lifetime.

- She moved with her daughter to New Jersey in 1965 (after having lived with Simone for nearly three decades), where she died in a nursing home in 1968, at the age of 94.

- Alice Guy-Blaché's Mémoires were finally published in French in 1976, and in English in 1986.

Early film reviewers and commentators were lavish in their praise of Alice Guy-Blaché's artistic accomplishments. They praised her sets, her use of natural locations... There seemed to be no challenge that this extraordinary woman would not take up... Alice Guy-Blaché strived for increasingly spectacular scenes, for more difficult stunts - she knew that was what audiences wanted, what the early reviewers appreciated in her films. It's very hard for a contemporary audience to understand just how sophisticated these films appeared to audiences back then... Pioneers such as Alice Guy-Blaché were discovering cinema, they were discovering the potential of filmmaking.

- Anthony Slide, film historian

The information here is gathered from two sources: the documentary The Lost Garden by Marquise Lepage, and the book Alice Guy-Blaché: Lost Visionary of the Cinema by Alison McMahan.

Near the end of the documentary, the narrator utters these chilling words:

"...the collective amnesia that shrouded her work..."

Please take a moment to ponder how someone with such a brilliant reputation and heralded accomplishments could be erased from history - first by the very community in which she worked, and subsequently by the world at large. Guy-Blaché became the world's first auteur filmmaker - 50 years before women in France were given the vote, and 70 years before the French New Wave.

She may have been forgotten because she was a woman, but Alice Guy-Blaché should be remembered for her important contributions as a trailblazing filmmaker.

The Romantic Comedy: Chick Flick or Ick Flick?

2012-01-18T07:57:00.000-05:00

I actually TRIED to watch a romantic comedy on Netflix last night and was so bored I turned it off to watch True Grit.

- Angelica

This past year I optioned my first script. It was only for $5, but money wasn't the objective: the contract attached me as writer/director as the producer sought financing. The producer, a woman with a dozen low-budget features under her belt, was seeking $750K - a modest budget, but certainly sufficient to make The Machine Who Loved as I'd always dreamed of making it. Unfortunately, this producer cared very little about my dreams, and even less about the integrity of the story.

She found a backer. Someone willing to secure $2-3 million in financing - much more than we had been seeking. But there was a catch. The backer asked for changes to the project - although he was reluctant to get too specific about those changes until after we agreed to sign with him. This seemed a little fishy to me, but the producer eagerly wanted me to consider accepting the offer and making the changes.

ME: How can I accept the offer without understanding what changes he wants me to make with the script?

PRODUCER: Well, basically he wants you to take out all of the violent scenes.

ME: All of them?

PRODUCER: Yes.

ME: Why?

PRODUCER: Well, he wants to do a deal with [TV channel that markets to women] and he thinks women would like it better without the violence.

Long pause on my end.

ME: There's a lot of plot- and character-driven violence, it's integral. Without it, what would the plot be?

Long pause on her end.

PRODUCER: Um...

ME: So what about the script did he actually like?

PRODUCER: Well, he liked that funny scene in the kitchen. He wants more scenes like that.

In short, I was being asked to turn my indie, edgy, sci-fi tinged drama into a romantic comedy. The producer begged me to consider the deal - and I did - but ultimately, I declined. The violence in my script is not exploitative, excessive or inappropriate. It is, truly, what drives the plot. As I said to the producer, I cannot re-write The Machine Who Loved to more of a female sensibility - I already am a woman, and it already is my sensibility.

My impression has always been that women like all sorts of films - so long as they're smart. It was deeply offensive for me - artistically, personally, and professionally - to be in this position, where financing my dream meant bending over for a pair of losers who wanted to perpetuate this idea that what women like are... things women really don't like.

I have never known a woman who wanted less. This idea of "taking away" story and character elements to appeal to women is asinine and insulting. I have never known a woman to say "Please give me more frivolous and vapid entertainment." Yet, people claim that the market defends this idea - that "chick flicks" exist because women go to see them.

It would take a book to analyze all of the reasons why the market numbers are biased and prone to fallacious reasoning. But if it appears (and I'm not convinced it does) that women flock to romantic comedies, it may just be to get a break from an onslaught of testosterone-driven, explosion-filled sequels and chase-filled extravaganzas. Or women may be responding to the fact that rom-coms often have a female lead - who might be a favorite actor, or a character a bit easier to relate to.

But here's the real question: DO women like romantic comedies??

I did an informal poll via Facebook and asked women to list their favorite movie genres. Here are the results:

Science Fiction: 7

Historical/Period Piece: 7

Foreign: 6

Thriller: 5

Action: 4

Drama: 4

Horror: 3

Dark comedy: 3

Comedy: 3

Independent: 3

Fantasy: 2

Adventure: 2

Sword & Sandals: 1

Fanboy: 1

Documentary: 1

Western: 1

War: 1

Romantic comedy: 1

3D: 1

A diverse expression of tastes, to say the least! And only one person put romantic comedy on her list. (People also volunteered some small-screen favorites like British stuff, Breaking Bad, and Dexter. Clearly, women are not put off by dark material!)

I truly believe that for many women, if they choose a rom-com it's because it's the lesser of the bad choices they're being offered. (Kind of how most of us pick a president.)

Romantic comedies are OK, but it doesn't satisfy my need to be on an adventure or in a survival situation with someone that I end up bonding with, that's where you really get to know someone. There's no love like the one that develops when someone saves your ass, literally.

- Fatima

Romantic comedies have also been marketed as "date movies" - as if light, predictable entertainment is some form of foreplay. I think Hollywood is misinterpreting women's interest in romance. "Romance" as a stand alone genre did not appeal to my little group of diverse women - but I bet they'd be happy to see romance as a component of a larger story: a period piece, action/adventure, or sci-fi!

For me, a date movie is something we will BOTH enjoy. Not a movie that one person is enduring for the other. So my date movies wind up being mysteries, thrillers, action movies.

- Lorraine

The truth is... women want more. We want more types of characters. More types of stories. More types of genres. We are complex creatures who like a lot of different things. And a lot of it is the same stuff the guys like. And yet... sometimes we do get tired of the videogame action, paper-thin people, and repetitive dialogue. I know women who say they lose interest during heavy special effects movies because they have trouble staying engaged without a compelling character to follow. (Personally, I have fallen asleep during such films - in spite of their excessive volume.)

Women mentioned liking foreign films because they're more original. Others said they like something with a rich, transformative journey. Someone specified highly visual films, with great scenery. One woman emphasized her interest in films with strong roles for women - while another gave a shout out to Robert Downey, Jr. And an almost-septuagenarian said she'd like to see more older protagonists, like Helen Mirren and Al Pacino.

In short, this concept of a "chick flick" is a crock of shit. Women don't want to be put in a box and spoon-fed through a hole. We want more.

With women being 55% of the movie-going audience, I'm thinking that Hollywood is missing a potentially lucrative opportunity by not having more genre films that are written and directed by women! Women love sci-fi, action, thrillers... Imagine how much more they might love those films if they came from a female perspective?

The women I polled seemed to have a lot to say about what kinds of movies they like. If my Facebook friends had any real say, I think Hollywood would produce smarter, more diverse films - that would likely appeal to men and women. Maybe we should be consulted more often.

Facing the Fork in the Road

2012-01-10T12:06:00.000-05:00

Last week I shocked my close friends and family by announcing that this is the last year in which I am pursuing filmmaking, and that I am actively looking for a new career. Most of you don't know me well enough to appreciate the magnitude of this, so let me give you a little history.

In 1988 I took my first filmmaking class - and knew immediately that I had found my life's calling. I was just turning 19, and had spent my teens engaged in every artistic pursuit imaginable: writing poetry and plays, acting, dancing ballet, playing guitar and writing music, drawing and photography. I had been intimidated about starting the Filmmaking 1 class, in which we would learn the basics of filmmaking via four short projects in Super-8 film. I knew I was interested in writing films, but I was afraid of the technical aspects: 1988 was still a pretty low-tech time and yes, as a girl, I wasn't sure if I could do it.

Our first assignment was to shoot a list, things like: medium shot, long shot, pan, tilt, zoom. We were just supposed to get a feel for the camera, the lingo, framing a shot, etc. I went to about a dozen locations over a 24-hour period and enlisted my sister Deb and my best friend Lisa as subjects. I was looking for interesting if not spectacular things to photograph. With a bit of film left over, I even created a little animated sequence with a line drawing.

We took turns showing our little reels to the class. Most people had shot their entire assignment in their back yard or living room, taking the task very literally. The class - and my teacher - was stunned by my first reel. Creative, visual, well beyond what was asked for. But it was the second assignment that made the case for my storytelling abilities: we were to shoot a narrative short using one cartridge of Super-8 film and utilizing in-camera editing.

I wrote a stupid little script about two roommates eating breakfast together. When the one roommate retrieves a prize from her box of cereal, the other roommate becomes jealous, and digs a better prize out of her box of cereal. Increasingly jealous, they go back and forth to the cupboard, retrieving boxes of cereal, digging out the prizes, and revealing them triumphantly. Then, as they sit there coveting each others displayed plastic doo-dads, the little toys magically begin moving... They spin around the table and then resettle in front of the opposite person. Amazed, the roommates set aside their differences and charge the cupboard, eager for more prizes - and more magic. In the final shot, they sit on the kitchen floor amidst piles of spilled cereal, playing like children.

I made a very detailed shot list and used the apartment of one of my actors. I was miraculously fortunate to find a 50 dollar bill on the ground one day, and I used that to pay for the cereal. My sister worked as my assistant. It was a blast! The first real story I'd ever told on film!

Again, we took turns screening our films for the class. After mine, my teacher expressed that I had everything it took to be a filmmaker. My planning was meticulous and my in-camera editing was perfectly timed (well, except for the final lingering shot of Lisa and Melissa playing in the destroyed kitchen). The animated bit was spot-on, and the story - though silent - was well-structured and executed.

I was not raised with much in the way of encouragement or praise, and by 19 I suffered from nearly debilitating low self-esteem. But I knew to the depths of my soul that with filmmaking I had found the thing that encompassed all of my interests and talents. It was the perfect art form, because it combined all of the other arts. There was no question: I had to make films. And my teacher's support encouraged me all the more.

After our final assignment - in which I made a beautiful experimental piece about fluidity and movement, accompanied by the music of Vangelis - my teacher suggested that instead of pursuing the course curriculum, he wanted to be my mentor for an independent study. This was a big deal, because at that time unless you knew the ins-and-outs of 16mm filmmaking you couldn't really expect to pursue a career. Doing an independent study would mean getting down to the real stuff. Though my teacher would be the one guiding me through this process, all independent studies had to be approved through the director of the school. So we submitted my film projects to him, and I went to his office for a meeting.

I wish I didn't have to report this next part. But the director of the school was notorious for being sexist. At the time, that wasn't even shocking - and everyone was aware of his sexism and it didn't impede his position as head of the school. After I was turned down for my independent study, I started to wonder if I had been discriminated against. The director turned down my independent study because he said my Super-8 films weren't lit that well - not a surprising problem considering we had no access to lighting equipment as Film 1 students. So it struck me as a stupid reason - and if my teacher wanted to instruct me, and my parents were still (thankfully) willing to pay for my classes and film, what was it to him?

But I had no choice but to enroll in Filmmaking 2 - another Super-8 class (that I also took as non-credit), taught by a snobbish protégé of the school's director. (I should note that this school, back in 1988, was not preparing students for a career in Hollywood; under the director's influence, the school championed experimental filmmaking - and narrative filmmaking was overtly scorned.) My Film 2 class - as with Film 1 - was just over 50% female (I have never seen a lack of interest on the part of women filmmakers, contrary to popular myths). We had two projects for the class: a group film (which I directed); and an individual short film with sound.

At the beginning of the semester we presented our proposed film ideas to the class. My new teacher actually laughed at mine: he thought it sounded stupid. But on the last day of class, after screening our films, my teacher asked me to stay - and he apologized. I had clearly made the best film in the class. My film combined color footage of a young ballet dancer as she moved through the tasks of her lonely life (homework, eating dinner, etc.), intercut with spectacular B&W footage of her performing "The Dying Swan." At that time, my sister was a theatrical lighting designer, and she created gobos (cut outs reflected on the floor) that really gave the dance footage a dramatic look. I was glad my teacher recognized my abilities and apologized - but to be fair, he should have done it in front of the class.

That was the end of my film training. I wanted to go on to an actual 4-year film school. But before I could even enroll in Filmmaking 3 (which would have been my first 16mm class), I ended up in the hospital having emergency surgery. And a few weeks later I developed complications from the surgery, which took almost 4 years to heal. The people in my life know I have Crohn's Disease, it isn't a secret. By the time my surgical complication healed, my parents got divorced, and there was no more financial support for school. I was 24, and had never had a job or been to college. Or been on a date, for that matter.

My Crohn's, which first appeared when I was 14, caused me to make a lot of compromises in my social and educational life. Film school became an impossibility, but I continued writing. Seriously writing. Writing is a great career for a chronically sick person, and I was determined to make something of myself. In 1990, at the age of 21, I signed with my first agent. I had every expectation that not only would I be successful, but that I would accomplish that while still "young."

Now, two weeks shy of my 43^rd birthday, I find myself calling my dad, saying "I have $113 in the bank for this month's bills, and $8 in cash." Rough start to the new year.

I have had many ups and down in my life - including numerous other surgeries and hospitalizations, followed by long periods of recovery. But I have continued to write, and write, and write. If I had not achieved some mini-milestones with my scripts, I'm sure I wouldn't have continued on for so long. In 1995 I almost sold a script to Norman Jewison. In 1997 I became a semi-finalist in the Nicholl Fellowships for the first time. And I received a lot of praise. But then a funny thing happened: as I became more sure of my style and cinematic interests, I became less and less successful.

Somehow, all of those independent and European films that I'd been watching for decades had crept into my soul. And even when I wanted to write something "higher concept" or more commercial, some character-driven indie shit would come out instead. 2001 was the last time I did well in the Nicholl Fellowships - the industry's most prestigious competition. Even though I considered myself a better writer, it became harder and harder to get read or do well in contests. Then in 2002 I had an epiphany.

9/11 had just rocked the world. I felt it had ripped a hole in the fabric of the universe, and everything seemed weird to me for a long time after that. It became obvious that life was short, impossibly fucked up things could happen, and there was no time like the present. Digital filmmaking had finally trickled down to the consumer level - and I felt like it was the great equalizer that would let people like me finally become filmmakers. I put a mini-DV camera package and an iMac computer on my credit card, and proceeded to reinvent myself as an independent filmmaker.

My first film was feature length, and eventually screened at Anthology Film Archives in New York City. With budgets often between zero and fifty dollars, I completed nearly a dozen shorts and two feature films in about 5 years. I had some amazing experiences, working with friends (I've never had a crew or professional actors), making projects out of nothing. Though my no-budget films never got into any big film festivals, I found screening venues (some of them paying) for every project I submitted. And many friends got to go to premieres and see themselves on the big screen!

After what I felt like was a great education in Do-It-Yourself filmmaking, I wanted to stretch my wings. I wanted a budget, crew, professional actors. I wanted to make a film that truly represented my interests and abilities as a storyteller. A lot of independent filmmakers get their start with a self- or family-financed micro-budget film. But this just wasn't feasible.

During most of my adult life I have worked part-time, low-paying jobs (often in retail). Without a degree, and with energy-constraints due to my health, I have never had a "real" or full-time job. I also admit that I have been very protective of my time: having felt unwell for so much of my life, when I have game I want my energy going to what I love! I recognized long ago that people either have money or time - and in my world, time was its own riches. Time to write, create, research, query. Time to pursue the only dream that has ever compelled me. But I've always needed financial assistance from other family members. There was never any money to spare.

In 2008 I won a Fellowship in Screenwriting from the New York Foundation for the Arts. This was validating to me in a way I can't even explain. Previous NYFA Fellows include people like Spike Lee, Tamara Jenkins, Todd Haynes, Mira Nair, Julie Taymor and Tony Kushner. NYFA Fellowships are received by artists at any point in their career - emerging or professional - based solely on talent. As I left the new-Fellows party in 2008 I was determined to embark on my professional career as a filmmaker. I had written a low-budget script called "The Machine Who Loved" specifically as a vehicle for this goal. It was primarily 3 characters in one main location, and I knew it could be done well for a small amount of money. For the next 3 years, trying to bring that film to the screen was the main focus of my life. But...

In 2008 the market crashed, and independent film financing has never been the same. And in 2009 my health problems returned with a vengeance, and after multiple hospitalizations, I am now chained to a $50K/year medical treatment. That wouldn't be such an issue if we lived in a country that guaranteed medical care - but the

U.S.

is not so civilized. The only health insurance I have had as an adult is because I moved to NY state (a happy blue state) and qualified for insurance for the working poor. Now I'm so poor I qualify for Medicaid - even though I have a job with the City of Rochester, working my ass off at a library. If I make more than $900/month I will lose my health coverage. But I have never had a job that offered health insurance. What's a person to do?

I am studying Swedish. Emigrating to

Sweden

is a far-fetched plan, but hey, it's important in times like this to think outside of the box.

If you've read Eric Cubitt: The Man Who Loved here in my blog, you have some sense for the trials and tribulations of trying to launch "The Machine Who Loved." Meanwhile, as I have in years past, I've been making another serious go at straddling both sides of the fence: the indie film world; and trying to sell a script to Hollywood. I've known for awhile that writing is my main skill, and I've wanted desperately to utilize my skills to get myself out of this financial pickle. "Selling a script to Hollywood" means a payday in the hundreds of thousands. And as difficult and unlikely a prospect as that may be, I think the current indie film climate is even worse. So it seemed worth my effort to parallel process - try everything, throw every fucking noodle at the wall.

But, as the business reality of Hollywood has been reinforced in recent months, I have had to face the truth: I'm a square peg in that round hole. I am, heart and soul, an independent filmmaker. But at the moment, after working with multiple producers over the last 3 years, I have no other tricks up my sleeve. I just learned about creating "look-books" - and I've done that - but I am fresh out of ideas on how to get anyone seriously invested in one of my projects. I've been querying people now for almost 24 years. I don't know who else to contact. I don't know what else to try. And it's become apparent that my poverty is now interfering with my ability to continue pursuing this career.

Perhaps if I had more money I would make a trailer for my indie film. Or get a new camera package, computer, and software. Maybe I would have a better website. Maybe I could enter more screenwriting contests. (Not to mention being able to travel, and visit my friends.) I just realized that "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" is finally playing nearby, but unless I deplete my laundry quarters and the one-dollar bills I've saved for the bus, I do not have enough money to go see it.

I had another epiphany: this situation has become ridiculous. I'm tired. I'm tired of every fucking little thing being such a monumental fight.

I started to imagine a future where I could actually accomplish something. Where I had money in the bank, and didn't need to rely on the government for Food Stamps, or my dad for financial assistance. Maybe it's not too late for me to go to school and learn something essential that will make me employable. Maybe I could take a vacation some day. Maybe I could buy a piece of furniture, or not feel despair because all of my favorite socks have holes in them.

I decided in late 2011 that I would try to find a manager in early 2012, and take one final, balls-out crack at getting representation and finding a way for my writing to support me. Around New Year's, I also peacefully reached the understanding that 2012 would be the year in which everything changes. Either my film career will materialize, or my next career will materialize. But either way, that will be a significant change. I need to be positioned within the next year to move on, if necessary - and it's crucial that I feel good about whatever direction I decide to pursue. In the past, the thought of giving up my filmmaking filled me with immediate melancholy, even though I often felt like I was spinning my wheels. "But this is my talent, this is my life's work!"

Suddenly, I feel liberated to consider my life in broader terms.

As of this moment, I have received 5 scripts requests (from 41 queries to managers) within the past week. This is the highest response rate I've gotten since the mid-90's. I plan to continue querying my commercial projects, as well as separately querying my indie film that I want to direct. But I am also starting to research other careers. And my dad sent me a check to help me through the month.

At this time next year, I should be writing a radically different blog about the amazing new direction my life has taken. It might be film-related. It might not. But this has to be the start of a more successful, more intentional life. I got stuck in a rut with the patterns of sickness, poverty and writing - but I have proven in the past that I can re-invent myself. Fortunately, I don't have to make a firm and fast decision now - I have time to see how things play out, while working purposefully toward both goals.

I keep saying to people that the Mayans got it wrong: 2012 isn't the year the world ends; it's the year when everything changes.

Bloom - a video poem

2012-01-06T19:25:00.000-05:00

The (Non-Feminist) Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

2012-01-04T09:39:00.001-05:00

I am not one who tends to watch the same movie multiple times. I much prefer the first viewing - the magic as a story reveals itself in unexpected ways. So I guess it isn't really surprising that my reaction to David Fincher's remake of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is... I was bored. I've read all the books, and seen all of the Swedish films. I was hoping the American version would prove its worth as a remake, giving us new insight or igniting a spark of something fresh and different. But I don't think it did.

Everyone did a good job. Everything was fine. But I felt absolutely nothing - no tension, no anticipation. Nothing. I enjoyed the shots of

Sweden

in the winter, and the ancient streets of Gamla Stan. And Rooney Mara created a compelling, more fragile and transparent Lisbeth Salander (which is an observation not a complaint). The new touches that Fincher added struck me mostly as baffling - like giving Blomkvist a religious teenage daughter. Why?? Most inexplicable though, were the changes he made to the mystery's resolution. I didn't get it. There was nothing confusing about this resolution in the book or the Swedish film. But during the shockingly brief denouement in Fincher's film I actually wondered if I'd spaced out and missed some crucial tidbit that would make his version make sense.

It's no secret that I was a little cynical about the remake from the get-go. But then I saw the previews online, and had the chance to see Rooney Mara in other roles. I started thinking this had the potential to be a better film than the original. But in recent days, my expectations began to sour again after reading that both David Fincher and Rooney Mara were stating in interviews that they didn't consider Lisbeth Salander to be a feminist. Stieg Larsson's life partner, Eva Gabrielsson, publicly scorned their misinterpretation of Salander - while also lamenting the marketing machine that is turning Larsson's feminist into a McHero, complete with her own line of clothing at H&M. Poor Stieg Larsson is probably turning over in his grave.

Stieg Larsson devoted his life to causes of social injustice, specifically involving right-wing extremism and feminism. His books were an outlet for his accumulated research and passion, and his desire to bring these issues to a wider audience. But Hollywood is afraid of issues, and the team behind the American version of TGWTDT is clearly afraid of the word "feminist". Stieg Larsson wasn't afraid to call himself a feminist. Several people (all men) proudly admitted to being feminists when I started this blog. But more and more, I sense a reluctance in people to use this word.

A few years ago the word "feminazi" came into vogue as a description for assertive, opinionated, strong, or simply confident women. Even some of my friends uttered it. Feminazi became the new bitch. It was a devastating and unfair word, and though its usage seems to have declined, the negativity that it implied now seems at times to be applied to the word "feminist". To some, this word represents a radical belief system, hatred against men, or some sort of scary and incomprehensible girl's club where we talk about menstruation and clits. I have no interest in being part of any of those things, and that isn't what feminism is about.

From the Random House Dictionary: "Feminism: the doctrine advocating social and political rights for women equal to those of men".

Personally, I wouldn't call it a doctrine, because that implies that we're all following the same script - and we're not. We can each have our own ideas about feminism, egalitarianism, humanitarianism - and apply those things in our lives as we see fit. But beneath the differences is a common understanding that a) human civilization has been male dominated, and b) it's probably not in our collective best interest for that to continue.

My interest in a blog concerning film & feminism stems from my lifelong passion for film, and my awareness of how women have not been equally respected and represented in this industry. The film business is only a small microcosm within the greater macrocosm of our global society. And there are certainly much more extreme examples of gender bias, sexism, and violence against women in headline stories on a daily basis. Stieg Larsson's work spoke to those larger issues, but he clearly understood the local ramifications: eradicating global violence against women first requires a society to acknowledge the smaller ways in which women are denied equality - through banishment from education and employment (in extremely repressive societies), antiquated rules defining marriage, salary disparity, and, ultimately, the inability to succeed and be valued in all of the ways that women may desire.

It's easy for people in western society to feel good about gender fairness in their own communities, especially when they juxtapose it against places that still stone women to death or deny them a driver's license. But things aren't as rosy here as they seem. I personally know women production designers who have been told to their faces that "women can't use power tools" and "the producer said I can't hire you because you're a woman." No rocks were thrown, and the women could drive themselves home... but still.

There is still a need in the world for feminists. For those people so philosophically inclined, being a humanitarian or an egalitarian isn't a bad thing. It shouldn't be a bad thing to be a feminist either. When people like David Fincher and Rooney Mara - undoubtedly instructed by their marketing team - publicly refuse to use the word "feminist" it demonizes the word even more. And to deny the feminist attributes of a character created by an outspoken feminist is just salt in a wound.

A feminist is not a bitch, a cunt, a fucking radical lesbian, or a man-hating militant. A feminist is a person who cares about the state of balance between our species' only two genders. This should be a concept that's easy to embrace. As gay people have taken back the name queer (and with it the rather lovely rainbow), we may need to find a way to reclaim "feminist". Maybe we can dot the two i's with little red hearts.

Letter to Lars von Trier

2011-12-31T15:56:00.001-05:00

Dear Lars,

I know of no filmmaker who is accused of misogyny more than you - but you might be surprised to know that you are my favorite filmmaker.

I remember being transfixed watching The Kingdom at the Three Rivers Film Festival back in Pittsburgh in the mid-90's. That was my first "von Trier" experience. A couple of years later I saw Breaking the Waves, and to this day it is on my Top Ten list. Most of your films involve a hint of the "otherworldly" and I think it is partly your influence that drives me to make very realistic films that include a touch of genre elements - sci-fi, fantasy, horror. (Though, my attraction to realism itself was more greatly influenced through filmmakers like the Dardenne brothers, Ramin Bahrani, Kelly Reichardt, and European cinema in general.) But you truly have a knack for making me see and experience something unexpected. I have had many magical moments while watching your films.

The most powerful was watching Dancer in the Dark in New York City with my friend Paula. I'd been a Björk fan since my teens, so I was eager to see this film. Afterwards, Paula and I sat in the empty theatre, in tears, stunned, devastated. We wandered off to the ladies room to try and get ourselves together. Then we headed out onto what seemed like the blinding streets of New York City, emotionally depleted, spaced out, the world rushing around us in incoherent confusion. What the hell had just happened to us?

To this day, I've never had an experience like that. And I still don't know what happened. But it happened because of a movie.

For the sake of disclosure, there was a period when I hated you because I was so annoyed by Dogme 95 - your asinine set of "rules" for... for what? Supposedly, it was to help guide filmmakers toward making simpler, less high-tech dependent films. And while I can respect that perimeters can sometimes be liberating to artists - as you brilliantly proved in The Five Obstructions - as a movement, Dogme 95 just struck me as silly. Every time I watched an "authentic" Dogme 95 film I was distracted by watching to see if the filmmakers were breaking the Vows of Chastity.

Fortunately, you abandoned that and returned to using lights and tripods and non-diegetic soundtracks.

While you have a reputation for being a provocateur, I think this is mostly due to your unfortunate tendency to say crazy shit at press conferences. Looking at your films, you clearly have a sublime understanding of human behavior - which you meticulously dissect in Dogville. Unafraid of pushing cinematic limits to make a point, Dogville puts human society under a microscope. Though what you discover might label you a misanthrope, I would never call you a misogynist.

In fact, I can name no other filmmaker - male or female - who is more invested in the depths of the female soul. In Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Antichrist, and Melancholia your women suffer, to be sure. But they are highly intelligent, non-conformist, complex, unpredictable women - played by equally talented and brave actors. Who else is consistently giving women these sorts of roles, or this type of consideration? Yes, there are stories that your directing style is difficult for some actors - but that is not unique to you. Charlotte Gainsbourg is about to take on her third film with you - alongside another repeat collaborator, Stellan Skarsgård - so clearly you can (and do) develop ongoing relationships with fellow artists who embrace your style.

My mind returns to your films again and again, remembering a small moment that speaks volumes (like the final shot in Antichrist). Some people go to the movies to be entertained. I love to be entertained - but my primary hope when seeing a film in a theatre is to feel something, and to walk away with a different perspective, a different understanding about even a small element in our collective human story. Somehow you create an impressive experience of imagery and sound while never obliterating the subtlest nuances of your troubled characters. When watching something like Melancholia - the most unforgettable film I saw in 2011 - I am transported. You give me something I never expected to see or experience - and I am more thankful for your existence than any other living filmmaker.

I aspire to your level of creative expression - and creative freedom. Until then, I eagerly look forward to your next film. (But maybe skip the press conference?)

Yours truly,

Alice In Actionland

(A.K.A. Zoje)

The Boys' Club

2011-12-27T18:06:00.001-05:00

As a struggling writer/director I find myself online a lot, participating in cyber forums with fellow writers. These are places to network, share experiences, ask questions and get feedback. But one of the lessons that continues to be reinforced in these online communities is that the film industry is a boys' club. These groups - like the film industry at large - are more than 90% male.

I re-posted a piece from Women & Hollywood in one of these forums, accompanied by the comment that the group had made me even more aware of how important it was to write material that appeals to men if I have any real hope of succeeding in this business. I did not think it was a radical statement - after all, the majority of power-players and decision-makers in the film industry are male, and if my work doesn't appeal to them, it will never have a chance to appeal to a general audience. But for some of the guys, the subject of gender inequality in film really touches a nerve! They accused me of complaining and suggested that if I wanted to succeed in this business I simply needed to "write better."

Write better.

I have written more than 40 screenplays and I'm a Fellow in Screenwriting from the New York Foundation for the Arts - alongside previous Fellows such as Spike Lee, Todd Haynes, Julie Taymor and Tony Kushner. Is "writing better" the key to my future success?? Because I can't shake this feeling that success for women in this industry is at least somewhat dependent upon a) women having the power to greenlight films and release money, and b) women being equally represented on all panels that select winning scripts and films for contests and film festivals.

Here are a couple of illustrative examples from my own life:

I recently participated in a logline contest. The judges of the loglines were among the most successful screenwriters on this particular site: repped writers who had sold scripts. All men. They did what all judges do: they selected what they liked best. The result: ten logline finalists representing ten stories with male protagonists. I do not know the genders of the writers of the loglines (but I would guess that around 9 are male, considering the demographics of the group as a whole). But regardless, it was disappointing to see a list of "winning" story ideas without a single female lead.

This speaks to another thing that happened recently online. Someone started a thread called "Name the best living actors." In about four minutes this list appeared: Daniel Day Lewis, Gary Oldman, Jack Nicholson, Sean Penn, Johnny Depp, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks, Edward Norton, Robert DeNiro, Bill Murray, Morgan Freeman, Christian Bale, Ben Foster... And then someone posted "Meryl Streep, yo."

I don't deny the talent of these men. And even I would probably list Michael Fassbender ahead of some great women actors. But there's something beneath this that needs to be acknowledged: women rarely get to play characters who fuck up on Shakespearian levels - and those are often the types of characters that earn actors their reputations for greatness. And it is more difficult for a woman to develop a broad body of impressive work, because there aren't nearly as many impressive roles available for women.

And there aren't nearly as many impressive roles available for women because men aren't as interested in telling and/or financially backing those stories. And women are held back from telling those stories - often through a simple process of omission. I have stated loud and clear in all of these forums that I do NOT believe that men engage in an intentional pattern of gender bias!! There is no conspiracy here - it is simply the history of human civilization.

It's not rocket science as to how to change the system. But men are threatened by it. The man who told me to "write better" also admitted that one of his issues with the argument of gender bias in the film industry is he feels that the subtext becomes: men who struggle must really suck if they can't excel in their own club. And it probably is true, given the finite amount of financing and opportunities, that in a world with less gender disparity some men would find themselves on the sidelines. And I know men will argue that talented men will be overlooked in favor of what they consider to be "less talented" women. Less talented women, like me, who just need to "write better".

But here's the truth that all women know: we are not qualitatively "less" good than men; we are different - with a different world view, different sensibilities, and different stories to tell. This doesn't mean we don't love supernatural horror, dystopian science fiction, hard core action, or political thrillers. But we would probably tell those stories slightly differently than men - and I am led to believe that our differences will mark us as "less". Less interesting. Less entertaining. Less marketable. Now imagine this scenario:

The judges for contests and film festivals are 80-100% women...!

I think we'd see a shockingly different set of "winners"!

In any fight for equality - civil rights, gender rights - it is always the case that the oppressed group is already as worthy and able as the dominant group; the problem lies in that the oppressed group is unappreciated for who they already are. While I will always strive to be a better writer, there is a battle here beyond my personal abilities. One final illustration:

A few years ago one of my scripts - featuring a middle-aged female protagonist - won a small screenwriting contest. The judge was an older woman. The next year, the same judge chose another winning script written by a woman (about a mother and her grown daughters). The following year, the same woman judge picked a winning script about a young woman trying to become a cop - written by, you guessed it, a woman.

Was the bias intentional? or was the judge just picking what she liked? Gender bias is that simple. Unintentional, and almost inevitable.

On a mission to correct the gender bias in their film industry, Sweden is consciously trying to ensure that 40% of their films have a woman in a key position: producer, writer, or director. Obviously, we cannot mandate anything like that here. But simply making an effort toward balanced judging panels would get the ball rolling. In cases where men are the majority of the entrants, at least women would have more of a say in determining the material they like. And since women are 55% of the ticket-buying audience, this could be financially beneficial for the film business.

Women have been raised on films made by men - and we love those films. We want to continue seeing those films. But we want to make - and see - our stories too. There is a belief that girls will watch stories about boys, but that boys won't watch stories about girls. Well, wait until you see just how broad and interesting the scope of our stories can be! You have only seen a tiny fraction of our potential. Gender inequality is the barrier that prevents progress in every industry and every human endeavor. The goal isn't to take away from men, or deny men. The goal is to enrich our collective experience as humans sharing a small planet.

Some men in my online groups deny gender inequality by naming a handful of brilliant and successful women. We want to be more than a handful. We don't want to be a sub-category. And the women in the groups tend to shy away from these arguments: they may intuit that it imperils your future membership in the club if you complain about the current members. Fine, I'll be the squeaky wheel. I am not knocking on the door of the boy's club asking to be let in. I am arriving with a hammer, volunteering to tear it down.

Eric Cubitt: The Man Who Loved

2011-12-21T12:59:00.001-05:00

Christmas is approaching and, like many people, I have been very busy. Yes, there's the requisite gift shopping & wrapping, but I'm also busy trying to launch the next phase of my film career... that would be the "successful" phase. But every day my thoughts are drawn to my friend Eric Cubitt, who is at home in hospice care, and may very well die during this holiday season.

Meeting Eric was one of those fortuitous life events. I entered a small regional screenwriting contest because I was looking for credentials to bolster my IFP Emerging Narrative application, and I thought my script stood a reasonable chance of being a finalist. I won the contest, but then IFP cancelled its Emerging Narrative program that year. At any rate, I had the opportunity to direct my winning script, "The Machine Who Loved", for the 2009 360/365 George Eastman House Film Festival. And that year Eric Cubitt was the main producer of Screenplay Live! - the contest/staged reading event that was affiliated with the festival.

I'm sure Eric initially thought I was nuts (and possibly a pain in the ass). The winning writers rarely (ever?) direct their scripts, but I'd written this project specifically to be my professional directorial debut - with a real (low) budget, and professional cast and crew. I had no interest in seeing someone else putting my words into action, and I wanted to take a practice run at directing the script. For Eric, this meant I called him at least once a day for a few weeks, concerning every conceivable logistical detail: auditions & casting; rehearsals & scheduling; visiting the performance space; publicity, etc.

Eric took it all in stride - possibly because he loved the script so much. When he called to tell me I'd won the contest, he immediately expressed his interest in helping to get it to the big screen. I loved his enthusiasm and support. And the staged reading became the beginning of our collaboration - a mutual dream to get "The Machine Who Loved" produced.

At the Q&A following the staged reading of "The Machine Who Loved" (April 2009)
L to R: Eric Cubitt, me, and contest judge Marilyn O'Connor

Very shortly after that, both Eric and I suffered some health setbacks. I'll always remember - with poignant irony - talking to him on the phone while I was in the hospital, and he complained about that cough of his that just wouldn't go away. But then he laughed it off and said that I - in the hospital recovering from surgery - clearly had it worse. I wish that had been the case. Because while my condition may be chronic, it's not terminal.

Eric ended up being diagnosed with mesothelioma - the asbestos cancer. He was way too young to have developed this cancer, but apparently had been exposed to asbestos decades prior while working at Kodak (which, in its film production heydays, had a reputation for being one of the nation's worst polluters).

His prognosis was initially... decent. Eric was young and strong. And he was eligible for the only good treatment available for people diagnosed with mesothelioma: a fairly radical surgery, followed by chemotherapy.

We were already determined to get things going with "The Machine Who Loved", and we made some initial inquiries with the local film office and an entertainment attorney. But the truth was, neither Eric nor I was an independent film producer. I'm a writer/director; Eric was an actor and casting director/agent - running Rochester's only talent agency for professional actors. Our hearts were in the right place, but we really didn't know where to start.

While Eric was recovering from surgery, a young producer contacted me out of the blue. Based in California, he was from western New York and had read about me on the local film office's website. He expressed interest in helping us produce "The Machine Who Loved."

I wish I could say that everything worked out fine - that we made the film, that Eric beat cancer. Neither of these things happened. We struggled with the film, while Eric struggled to "kick cancer's ass" (his words). He has a lot to live for: his wife & soul mate; his young son; his business; his dreams & goals; family, friends...

Eric just couldn't find the right chemo that would keep his cancer at bay. And we were not able to get financing for the film - in spite of attaching name actors and an A-list director of photography. Independent film financing pretty much dried up after the 2008 economic disaster, and between that and our producing team's collective inexperience... we just couldn't get the fire lit.

I'm writing this now because Eric's support of my writing - and his belief in this film - is something that truly changed me. He saw in my script the exact film I wanted to make - the exact film. And when I talked to him about my artistic ideas, he fully got that I was the only person who could make this film as it deserved to be made. Everyone else considers me a "first time" director because I don't have professional credits. But Eric saw me. Do you know what I mean?? He saw me as a person. He saw me for all of my abilities and potential.

I have met very few people who have truly "seen" me - on a personal or professional level.

In what I know is his final email to me, Eric said "I’ve known ever since reading 'The Machine Who Loved' that you will be successful." And he expressed, again, how he had wished to be a part of "helping you succeed". In ways that he may not fully understand, he has helped. I am a more confident person for knowing Eric. Though we took only a relatively short journey together, those few years were a very important part of my life. As was his support and understanding - for awhile we were "sick buddies," able to commiserate with the simple desire to put all that medical shit behind us and just do our thing.

I will continue to fight for this film. Eric Cubitt's name will still appear in the credits of "The Machine Who Loved". And my goal is nothing short than making the film I know Eric wanted to see - and wanted to be a part of. His faith in me will not be wasted.

Women Behaving Badly... Woohoo!!

2011-12-19T15:57:00.004-05:00

I can't help but think it's good when one sees women behaving badly in movies. There are still too many American films that only offer women actors roles like devoted wife or doting mom. TV offers a lot of cop- and lawyer-roles. But I really like to see big-screen leading ladies doing shocking things like fucking a random stranger at their own wedding reception. Or, on a sunny day, stepping out of a placid relationship because of an unheralded calling to live life to the fullest. (Titles withheld to avoid spoilers.)

I mean, it's still a something of a mixed message that some of the shocking behavior is a result of mental illness (Melancholia) or trauma (Martha Marcy May Marlene) - but these women still manage to seem durable in spite of their problems. I believe one of the truest signs of egalitarianism is when people are accepted for their complete selves - warts and all.

Men have been portraying assholes of spectacular dimensions since drama was invented. What's a gangster, really, but a swaggering asshole with an irrepressible penchant for being very, very bad? Or a Shakespearian king? Or a powerful CEO? People can accept the imperfections of men more easily than those of women. Men-as-stunted-boys is a film genre unto itself! But people aren't as comfortable with the idea of an irresponsible woman. Or a woman who will do anything to get what she wants.

Men can fuck up in staggering ways - and the male actors who portray them develop reputations for greatness. So it's good news for women - and female actors - when films explore rich and unexpected character possibilities. Some female actors are still a little reluctant to appear as ugly or unlikable - but I think we, as an audience, feel more connected to those characters than we do to the endlessly-enduring wife or the robotically-capable mother.

Flaws make us human; imperfections make us relatable. And we all want something. The onscreen-fuck-up waves an invisible flag declaring her equality as a real, complex, vulnerable person - a person who takes sometimes questionable actions toward accomplishing her goals. But she's doing something. Unafraid of society's judgment. It's a powerful vision. And if people can accept on-screen women who are ambitious and imperfect, then they can probably better accept these traits in real life as well.

Pretty much all of us - men and women - are ambitious and imperfect. I'll accept your warts if you'll accept mine.

Rooney Mara (You Go Girl!)

2011-12-18T21:10:00.003-05:00

Rooney Mara has been under scrutiny since the moment she was cast to play Lisbeth Salander in the American version of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". With the film opening imminently, the world is about to find out that David Fincher made the right choice in casting this virtually unknown actor in this pivotal and demanding role.

I had the opportunity this weekend to watch "Tanner Hall" (in which Ms. Mara plays the lead) and also re-watch "The Social Network". Both times as I watched "The Social Network" I was mesmerized by the opening scene, in which two ferociously brilliant young people verbally spar with each other. One thing I know about actors is that you can't seem smart unless you are smart. And Ms. Mara's character more than held her own against the genius of Mr. Zuckerberg.

In "Tanner Hall" Ms. Mara plays a young woman at a boarding school, battling all the ups and downs of adolescence: independence, dependence, friendships, first loves, discoveries and regret. She plays the character with a subtle dignity - and again, that intelligence shines through. She seems wise and vulnerable, a woman and a child - and fearlessly throws herself into the demands of difficult scenes. You can't take your eyes off of her. In short, she has already presented all of the attributes that will make her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander an electrifying success.

When it was first announced that Hollywood was to remake yet another brand-new Swedish film (don't get me started on "Let the Right One In") I really thought I wouldn't want to see it. I've read all the books. I've seen all the Swedish films at least once. I considered myself finished with the Millennium Trilogy. But as I have been following the publicity surrounding Rooney Mara, I have become increasingly intrigued - and convinced.

While the initial publicity photos displayed an inappropriately seductive Lisbeth, the PR strategy cannot be blamed on the film's young star. Ms. Mara shaved her head. Got real piercings. Spent a dark, cold winter in Sweden. And stoically held her tongue while people doubted her. But I strongly suspect this talented actor never doubted herself. And I think her moment of victory is upon us. She just may be the best reason to see "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", and I expect to leave the theatre satisfied and impressed - with her, if nothing else.

Women in the World, Women in Film

2011-12-18T09:38:00.004-05:00

"Women in the World, Women in Film" was my truly and absolute, very first blog post: a guest piece I wrote for Kid in the Front Row (see My Favorite Blogs at right) on 28 May 2010. I am reposting it here because it speaks loudly & clearly to my desire to start blogging, as well as giving you some info about this blog's namesake, Alice Guy Blaché.

The subject of women's opportunities in the film industry is of great interest to me, and it is something I have spent a lot of time thinking about. I have a personal mission to help make people aware of gender inequality in general - as an extension of how it relates to the film industry.

There is a huge underlying problem as to why women do not have equal opportunities:

The history of humanity is based on gender inequality and the intentional suppression of women. As time has gone on, things have changed in many parts of the world - creating the illusion that, for the most part, men and women live in an equal-opportunity world. But in reality, this just isn’t the case.

The structures that define human civilization were designed by men, to better, praise, or entertain other men. Do we have any clue how a government would be run if the world had evolved with true gender equality? Do we know what a building might look like? Do we even know how a story might be told?

Everything about how we - men and women - live is dependent upon us all accepting that the male-created models are what we can and should strive for. In addition, there has been a systemic injustice done to women across the centuries in that, even when women were able to accomplish significant things in fields not truly open to them, the historians of the day dismissed their efforts - and subsequently, much of the history of women and their contributions have been erased or forgotten.

Literally, the contributions of women have been erased from the collective consciousness of human history!

I encourage you to visit the Brooklyn Museum in Brooklyn, New York. Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party is permanently installed there. Go look at the hundreds of names of important women from throughout the ages and ponder why you have never heard of most of them.

Our collective vision of the world has been seen - and recorded - through men's eyes.

Are you familiar with Alice Guy Blaché?

She was the second person in the history of cinema to make a narrative film. She was a contemporary of the Lumiere brothers. In the early 1900's Alice Guy Blaché - though French born - was one of the highest paid women in America --- as a director and producer!!! As one of the world's first filmmakers she accomplished truly groundbreaking things. Why has everyone heard of D.W. Griffith but not her?

When contemporary filmmakers engage in discussions about why women filmmakers - writers, directors, producers - are not better represented in the film industry, someone (usually male) attempts to explain it away by stating that women simply aren't interested in making the kinds of high concept, blockbuster films that their male counterparts like to make. There is an assumption that women prefer softer stories, girly stories, comedies. In short, there is an assumption that women would prefer to make crap.

In reality, if women filmmakers existed in the exact same numbers as male filmmakers you would see proportionally more blockbusters - and proportionally more of everything else. From good films to bad films. You would see women making horror films, thrillers, adventure films, etc. And another thing would happen if women filmmakers existed entirely proportional to male filmmakers:

You would see a broader interpretation of human experience.

People would become familiar with "other" types of stories - the stories of the silenced half of human history. I believe, over time, these stories would be embraced. These stories would become just as ubiquitous as male buddy films and little boy coming-of-age films. Just as toddlers are trained what to eat by their parents, an audience is trained what to like based on what is fed to them. Give them a broader diet and they will embrace a more well-balanced offering!

When murmurings began about the lack of a single woman director in the running for this year's Palme d'Or at Cannes, as usual people failed to really understand the significance. People snarkily suggested that some of us would prefer to see good films by men go unaccepted, or lesser films by women be included. That was not the issue at all. One does not achieve equality by suppressing others, or accepting a lower standard. But when such things happen it gives us all a chance to examine the world we live in.

Here is an example of how people in a decision making position will pick material that is familiar to them - a reverse gender scenario:

In 2009 I won the first Screenplay Live! Screenwriting Competition, and then got to direct my winning script as a staged reading at the 360/365 George Eastman House Film Festival. My script was about a past-middle aged woman and, obviously, it was written by a woman. The presiding judge was a past-middle aged woman. A few weeks ago I attended the reading of the 2010 winning script from the same contest. It was written by a woman, and was about two adult sisters and their aging mother. The presiding judge was the same past-middle aged woman as last year.

The lesson here? Of course we all, if given the choice, will pick material that is familiar to us, that resonates with us.

The tragedy is that women have been so silenced throughout history that there is little recognition or appreciation of our voices. And not enough women in power to truly influence the selection, development, and programming process.

There had been an argument on an online board last year concerning the Pixar film "Up" - and how some people lamented that Pixar had yet to make a true adventure film with a girl in the leading role. Pixar has had girls in supporting roles, and we've all seen gender-stereotyped lead girls in tons of animated films. But this was an argument about the specific lack of adventure stories where girls are the leaders. One particular comment really struck me:

A man wrote that his young son - who has been around girls and women his whole life - would be fully able to relate to a story about a girl. He wondered why it seemed more likely to the powers-that-be that his young son could better relate to a character portrayed as a truck, or a fish.

Eventually, consensus on the Pixar debate seemed to conclude that the directors, animators, and writers at Pixar are predominantly men, and that they aren't trying to be sexist, they are merely creating stories that they personally can relate to.

On an individual basis I do not believe that I am often discriminated against. I know a lot of men who dig my work and respect what I do. But there is still a collective, insidious perception that if I am a woman then my work is only going to be understood by other women. Never mind that I have been utterly transformed by the work of men! We can, if given the opportunity, relate to each other, learn from each other, embrace each other - we live in this world together. Men have made extraordinary contributions to the world, there is no question about that - and we women have embraced your vision. But, again, the perception exists that the female perspective is somehow not interesting to men. A producer even suggested trying to market my sci-fi/drama feature as a "chick flick" to tap into that ready market! (I explained in no uncertain terms that "chick flick" is synonymous with "crap only women like" and that I never wanted to hear the words uttered again.)

One obvious thing that needs to happen is we need to have more women in decision-making positions - as selection panelists at film festivals, as development executives, as directors. Very, very slowly this is starting to happen - but too slowly. When Kathryn Bigelow picked up the Academy's Best Director Oscar I wept - but only partly because I was happy. I was also really pissed that it took the Academy 80+ years to see exceptional directing talent in someone without a penis. Since the beginning of film, women have been an integral part of this industry. But we happen to live in a world that refuses to document our existence, or value our work as much as that of men.

There was an op-ed piece in The New York Times this year during awards season that suggested, with dark humor, to end the practice of recognizing Best Actor and Best Actress. After all, talent is NOT gender specific. I got into an argument about this with a male actor (and friend) who was adamantly opposed to the idea, on the grounds that there would be half as many acting awards given out! It seems ludicrous to counter that argument by suggesting they add MORE categories - like Best Woman Editor, Best Woman Composer, Best Woman Screenwriter, etc. That would be offensive! And where would it lead? Best Asian Director? Best Black Costume Designer?

But the point is... Talent is not gender specific. Or ethnicity specific. Or anything else. Talent is talent. And we still live in a world that can't quite fully embrace that. Women ARE already equal in terms of what we are capable of doing. But there is an underlying perception that has not caught up to that.

The men of the world still tend to make higher salaries than women. So men have more money to spend on movies. So more movies are made to attract the male audience. One might conclude that this cycle will not change until there is gender equality EVERYWHERE -- where women earn an equal salary, and are represented and respected in all of the fields where they wish to have influence.

So the solution to gender inequality in the film business is, not so simply, to reach a global state of gender equality. It is a world worth striving for.

Time to Begin

2011-12-17T20:24:00.002-05:00

I've been thinking about starting a blog for a long time. Then a couple of days ago I listened to the now-departed Christopher Hitchens encouraging people to be fearless in what they have to say. I have wanted to be fearless... but have been afraid.

In this blog I will ponder things relating to gender inequality, I will marvel at brilliant films, I will put together disparate ideas that may only make sense to me. I will make references to Alice Guy Blaché. I will veer off on tangents, and occasionally rant & rave. Some posts will be sagas, others will be haikus. You will disagree with me at times -- hell, you might get so mad you run off and start your own blog! I have a reputation for being opinionated and writing strongly - and within the context of my own blog I will not apologize for that.

I'm not sure where this journey will take me, but I hope you'll follow along. And now, it's time to begin...