Discussion in 'Archive: The Amphitheatre' started by Zaz, Jan 24, 2010.
And a Best Director nomination...
That wouldn't be remotely fair or really the same thing at all. Theoretically, anyone can direct. Sure, there are certainly prejudices against women there as in many areas of the film industry. But if a woman like Bigelow pushes enough and is good enough, she can be a director.
Actors, however, have no such control. I am hard pressed in almost any year to even think of 5 lead actress qualifiers. Not because there aren't good actresses, but because there aren't any good parts for actresses. And they can't help that. They can't just change the gender of roles that are being cast and push themselves in. I think if you did that, there'd be even fewer women getting nominations or wins than there are with directing.
[hl=darkred]-sj loves kevin spacey[/hl]
"Point Break" was an excellent movie.
There are a lot of successful women producers in the film industry. In fact, I think that Penny Marshall has been doing more producing than directing. I agree with Solojones, women need to continue to push forward and get their films seen. We still don't have a woman "Spielberg" or a woman "Lucas". The creator of the Harry Potter books - she is probably the closest thing to a female "Spielberg" that the world has, as far as writing and success goes.
Glad she won for the Hurt Locker, fantastic movie. And you're right, the first time I saw her I couldn't believe she was 58.
I think most women who are good at what they do don't get recognition until late in life, probably because of discrimination in general. When I was studying architecture over a year ago, I remember my architectural professor telling the class that women don't usually make those big buildings until their late 40's, or 50's (if they make one at all) because they have more obstacles to jump over in life. Anyway, I don't go by what the world says, or statistics, you just do what you feel in your heart you want to do. I'm planning my next feature film probably by the summer time.
[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zcGMpRu30]All Lucky 7s![/link]
Jeez, that's a lot of posts...
I am hard pressed in almost any year to even think of 5 female director qualifiers. Not because there aren't good female directors, but because there aren't any good films given to females to direct. And they can't help that.
I mean, I'll grant you that directors most often have more control in shaping a film than performers do, but ultimately directors need producers to give them their jobs, too. Unless the director a producer as well, but then actresses can do that as well. Unless she's wearing multiple hats, a female has no more control over getting a film to shine in if she's a director than if she's an actress.
But imagine the fallout if the Academy announced that it was splitting the Best Director category into two gender-specific awards. People would call it patronizing, and rightly so. If anything, the gender-specific acting awards serve to keep Hollywood's best actresses complacent - why fight for more good roles when every year they're celebrated on equal footing regardless?
As I've said, though, in my experience part of the reason there are few female directors is because few females even think of it as a career path. I see more aspiring female directors the younger you go, but I think there are still far more women trying to be editors, writers, and producers. That's my observation, anyway.
With actors, though, there are more women than men trying to make it, and far fewer roles. And the roles that do exist are as someone's boyfriend, wife, or mother. Almost never as leads. And they can't really do anything about it.
The number of aspiring female directors is so much smaller than the number of aspiring female actors. And the directors at least have the option of trying to produce and direct their own independent films, and many female directors do. My point is that female actors can't do that.
[hl=darkred]-sj loves kevin spacey[/hl]
Sure they can. Actresses can produce films and hire someone to direct them, just like directors can produce films and hire someone to act in them.
Bigelow isn't getting awards for directing the best a woman could manage this year. She's getting them for directing the BEST, period. Why shouldn't actresses be able to compete for the same level of prestige?
And honestly I'd imagine that a big part of the reason there are so many more wannabe actresses than actors is that female acting IS shown as different from male acting. I'd even bet that a plain-looking actress requiring no "uglification" makeup could have delivered a BETTER performance in Monster than Charlize Theron and not even gotten nominated.
Bigelow v. Cameron should be interesting. I get the impression that the latter is not too popular in Hollywood.
[link=http://www.thelmagazine.com/gyrobase/ida-lupino-the-mother-of-us-all/Content?oid=1723902&storyPage=2]Ida Lupino, the Mother of Us All (the MOMA Show)[/link]