Editorials, Everything Else — July 3, 2012 at 3:00 pm

WHAT WOMEN WANT

by

Last week, we lost one of the premiere female writer/directors in Hollywood.  As Justin beautifully and succinctly put it in the obituary, Nora Ephron provided us with some truly iconic romantic comedies over the years.  My personal favorite is Sleepless in Seattle (never much of a When Harry Met Sally fan, I have to admit).  Ephron also had her fair share of flops: Bewitched, the somewhat icky update You’ve Got Mail, the subpar Michael.  But she almost singlehandedly created the 1990s rom-com with the one/two punch of WHMS and Sleepless and made Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks into America’s couple.  The formula may have been misused over the years, but I’m willing to bet that everyone, men and women, can name one Ephron film that they honestly love.

Beyond just the sorrowful loss of a stellar talent, what struck me in the aftermath of Ephron’s death was the fact that she’s one of the few female directors I’m aware of.  It’s no secret that famous female directors have been few and far between; certainly there are few that can be named in the same breath and with the same quality of recognition as Scorsese, Coppola or Nolan.  While male directors exist across the spectrum – art house favorites to experimental artistes to Hollywood heavy-weights – female ones have been typically put into genre specific categories: romantic comedies, romantic dramas.  Romance in general.  Y’know: chick flicks.  Sophia Coppola hasn’t moved much outside the romantic drama distinction; Nancy Meyers lingers in it.  And Ephron never moved outside of it either.  She was perhaps the romantic comedy director and writer.  When you knew it was a Nora Ephron film, you knew pretty much what to expect: a warm and fuzzy boy meets girl story with a happy ending, twists and turns and perhaps a nod to the screwball comedies and romantic melodramas of yesteryear.  After all, Sleepless in Seattle is based on An Affair to Remember, an excellent romantic melodrama that always ends in tears of joy.  These, dear reader, are chick flicks.

Which is all well and good, as far as it goes; everyone likes a good (emphasis, Hollywood, on GOOD) chick flick.  But female directors are pigeon-holed; it is difficult for them to move outside of  ‘womens’ issues’.  Girls make movies about girly stuff.  Boys, however, make movies about girly stuff; and about car chases, gangsters, bromances, Victorian romances, contemporary romances, wars, fantasy, sci-fi, and just about anything else they’d like to.  While some directors, like J.J. Abrams or Michael Bay, might be classified as ‘action’ directors or ‘sci-fi’ directors, that classification has nothing to do with their gender.

There’s no doubt that the ladies have made some in-roads.  Kathryn Bigelow won an Oscar for a very male-centric film The Hurt Locker; Angelina Jolie made Bosnian war pic In the Land of Blood and Honey.  Julie Taymor proved herself more than capable of making one violent Shakespeare film with Titus.  The problem is that we’re still talking about the fact that a woman made a movie, particular one outside the ‘chick flick’ genre, as ‘a woman made a movie.’  It’s surprising.  Although I applaud this list on Media Academia of female directors and their high-grossing films, there’s still a problem: the vast majority of those films, with very few exceptions, are ‘women’s films’.  I.e., they deal with issues of femininity, some of them well and some of them not quite so well.  Of the three top-grossing female directors, two of them (Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron) are almost exclusively rom-com directors; Betty Thomas might be a high-grossing director, but I don’t think we’ll start speaking of her in the same breath with Scorsese any time soon.

When Bigelow made The Hurt Locker, Hollywood reeled not because someone made an excellent, suspenseful war film, but because a WOMAN made it.  And really, we should have come to this a long time ago.  Would you like to know who made the iconic film noir The Hitch-Hiker in 1953 (that’s almost sixty years ago)? Ida Lupino.  Who revolutionized experimental filmmaking? Maya Deren.  Hell, Kathryn Bigelow made Point Break, most bromantic film of all.  Yet somehow we still cannot get past the idea of a female director.  No one talks about male directors; there’s apparently no such thing as ‘mens’ issues’.  We’re not surprised when Adam Shankman directs a musical; why the hell should we be surprised when Kathryn Bigelow directs a war film?

Last year, Hollywood discovered that women are funny.  This year, they seem to be discovering that women are capable of being tough without dressing in skimpy outfits at the same time.   So now perhaps it’s about time we began to believe that women are capable of making films as diverse and complex as any male; that they can make a war movie and a rom-com and a gross-out comedy and a prestige drama.  Let’s stop looking at female directors as female directors.  They’re just directors.

6 Comments

  • I would not put Sofia Coppola into romantic drama, Lost in Translation perhaps, but not The Virgin Suicides, Marie Antoinette or Somewhere, and the Bling Ring doesn’t look like it will fall in that category either.

    But you are right on many levels. What I feel most conflicted about though is the fact that the first woman to win best director had to do it by doing the most masculine of genres. There is a distinct lack of respect for female driven films (there is also often a distinct lack of quality, but that is also fed by the lack of respect). The Hurt Locker deserved to win no matter who directed it, but then again I believe Sofia Coppola deserved to win over Peter Jackson in 2004. Would Kathryn Bigelow have won if she hadn’t made a “serious” (read male driven) film. I don’t know. If she had made a film with a female lead would she have been taken as seriously? That year there were two more excellent films directed by women, Bright Star by Jane Campion and An Education by Lone Scherfig, both deserving of top awards. Bright Star was actually my favorite movie of that year, heart breakingly beautiful. I think it was nominated for costumes.

    I think Kathryn Bigelow is great, and I think that it’s great that she has burst out of the female film ghetto, but I think it is also a little sad that there has to be a female film ghetto at all. A great film is a great film.

    A side note. I am very disappointed in Pixar for not trusting Brenda Chapman’s vision for Brave. They have been behind their directors, letting them think out of the box for years, go against the grain, but when they finally have a female driven film, driven by a female they get antsy and take her off it. People have been saying that Brave is evidence of Pixar selling out because it has a female lead (or princess), I don’t think that is the case, that was the risk for Pixar. I think the selling out though happened in not trusting their director.

    • I agree with you for the most part, although I have little love for Sofia Coppola, ‘Lost in Translation’ notwithstanding. I think you’re right that female driven films get very little respect; but it seems they get more respect if directed by a man. Coppola may have been robbed because Jackson really got awarded for all three LOTR films that year. He was kind of a given.

      But again, both ‘Bright Star’ (which I loved) and ‘An Education’ (which I despised) are romantic dramas with a female lead; essentially ‘womens’ pictures’. I do think we’re moving away from that type of pigeon-holing, but it’s a long time coming. We need to reach a point where a director is awarded based upon his/her merits, and not with the added concern of gender. Hollywood remains a very gender-divided business.

      • Both Bright Star and An Education are female driven movies, that was the point I was making. The fact that Bright Star was a “woman’s movie” heavily contributed to the fact that it was only nominated for costumes (women like pretty clothes), despite deserving much more. I don’t want women to have to make movies about men in order to be taken seriously. A women should be able to make a movie about whatever she damn well pleases. To say that because Bright Star and An Education were about women that they contribute to the pigeon holing of women directors, is ridiculous (and I know you don’t mean it). There are so few female driven movies made that to say that women should concentrate on serious masculine themes in order to be taken seriously does a disservice to the countless fascinating stories that can be told about women. A woman shouldn’t have to masculinize herself in order to be respected.

  • Great article. I think this pigeon-holing of women directors as specific types will largely go away after a lot more women get into the biz. There were a lot of female directors in the silent era; in fact, there were a lot more women in every aspect of film-making (writing, editing) during the silent era. It’s about time that became the norm again.

  • Hi, Lauren — first, thanks for the shout-out! :) Second, you’re right about most of the directors on my list: as I teach my students when we discuss onscreen representations of gender, women’s activity is mostly limited to two spheres: romance and domesticity. Sigh.

Leave a Reply

— required *

— required *