August 25, 2009

Surprise! Only 7% of mainstream movies directed by women

Put film directors in the category of dead presidents: most are white males, and their average age is 45, when most of them are mid-career.  It's the kind of information that gets rehashed occasionally with an aura Betty-thomas of outrage, as it was in a New York Times article yesterday.  Some blogs, like Women & Hollywood, offer dedicated, consistent commentary on female filmmakers, and consistently point out their absence.

Certainly directors in this "dead president" demographic are capable of directing movies that appeal to audiences beyond themselves, just as directors like Kathryn Bigelow can direct war and action movies (though her gender turned some heads and became the focus of many of her publicity interviews and articles).  Many female directors work in designated genres, like movies appealing to kids and teens, or romance and comedy.  Not one has won an Oscar for "Best Director."  When the female demographic is directing only 7% of the films, and working on less prestigious, non-award-seeking projects, the gap seems even worse.

It's easy to forget about the dearth of women in the film industry because women do work in virtually every area of the business, and most of the "firsts" in female filmmaking have already been taken (the Academy Award for Best Director notwithstanding).  Some suspect that the lifestyle required by a director turns many women off to the position, but I don't buy that.  There's also evidence that people react more negatively to certain types of female leadership, leaving women a narrow range in which to discipline and delegate without being called that B-word.  Finally, with so few female directors out there, they simply don't look the part, and are more likely to be called into question or sent back to central casting.

By drawing their talent from such a narrow range of people, studios are selling themselves short.  As the article puts it, "Directors who are overwhelmingly of the same sex and ethnicity can hardly be expected to tap all of the cinematic potential in a rich and roiling humanity."

Hollywood seems to be stuck in a feedback loop, where the young male, first-weekend audience is considered the ultimate prize, and in turn many movies (e.g., Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) areAnne fletcher created with them in mind.  Female-oriented successes are still considered aberrations.  Who do you think were the majority of people that saw Titanic again, and again, again?  All the girls in my middle school.  Twilight? Check.  Sex and the City?  Check.  Today, Women & Hollywood posted the news that The Proposal (directed by a woman) had quietly surpassed the theatrical gross of Sex and the City, which many had touted as the movie that proved women existed at the box office.  It's clear to me that conventional wisdom about female moviegoers contains some serious errors.  Perhaps some female directors could help the studios get back on track.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

December 30, 2008

Fox wrests control of 'Watchmen' distrib rights from WB in preliminary ruling

Remember when you were a kid and sick of all your toys, and then a friend would come over, start having fun with one of your discarded toys, and all of a sudden it was "MINE!"  But maybe the toy kind of Watchmenlegal belonged to both of you, or one of you had left it at the other's house for a really, really, long time?  That's kind of what's going on with Warner Bros. and Fox over Watchmen.

Watchmen had been an orphan child for years, shopped around to multiple studios by Larry Gordon, when Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder finally adopted it.  As they completed production on the film, Fox filed suit, claiming that through a previous agreement, they should have been able to look at the package once Snyder came on board--Snyder being that red bow who would have finally made the movie appealing.  In an expedited ruling (Warner plans--or planned--to release the film in three months), a judge ruled that Fox does have distribution rights.  So how did this happen in the first place?  Was this an oversight, a misinterpretation of complicated or vague legal documents, or a gamble to avoid the hassle of sorting out the rights, and as THR pointed out, a desire to avoid turnaround fees that Gordon might have had to pay in order to free the project from Fox?

The complexity surrounding this game of "dibs" makes all three scenarios likely.  In any case, much was left unsaid: Gordon declined to testify, which aggravated the judge, a point he made clear when he awarded distribution rights to Fox.

What now?  The judge's ruling is a bit Solomon-like: it cuts the baby in half.  Warner has already started marketing the film in advance of its March 6th release date, which Fox now plans to block.  Warner will appeal the ruling, and go to trial if necessary, but a trial would also delay the release date.  A settlement seems the only way to avoid the gore of cutting the baby in half or moving to a less optimal release date

If Warner failed to properly secure rights, why didn't Fox try to contest its part-ownership of the project sooner?  Reports differ--some say Fox did mention its claim to ownership over the project to Warner.  Lawsuits are expensive, and the timing of the lawsuit--after the production finished--makes it seems as if Fox was gauging the cost/benefit of legal action for some time before deciding to file suit.

A couple other significant rights/turnaround issues have occurred in recent months: Twilight, a film with one of the highest returns on investment of the year, was plucked in turnaround by Summit after Paramount rejected the project.  Earlier this year, the estate that owned the rights to Rear Window filed action against Disturbia, which reinterpreted the plot and placed Shia LaBeouf in the Jimmy Stewart role.  Making Fox's timing look not so bad, the suit was filed a year after the film released, even though a simple Google search of "Rear Window + Disturbia" pulls ups tons of critical reviews pointing out the similarities between the two films.

The trial is scheduled for January 20th.  Fox needs the film to be released in order to profit.  For Warner, sharing rights would lead to a hefty cut in the profit: will the two studios be able to reach a settlement, or will they take their grievances to court?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

December 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
© 2007 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy.