*grumbles*

So, the Guardian portrays six female directors – which is pretty cool and yay! go, Guardian!

But in the same article where they say how sad it is that there’s only 6% female directors, they go on two spew some sexist shit.

First, there’s this:

Becoming a film-maker means developing a thick skin, [Jane Campion] added. “My suspicion is that women aren’t used to that. They must put on their coats of armour and get going.”

So, women are too wimpy and emotional to make movies? So, they are pussies, are they?

Look, maybe women actually are more emotional than men (for a variety of reasons like adaption to social environments, education, gender politics etc etc etc). But where is the fucking harm in that? As long as we can’t embrace that which is supposedly feminine, we’ll always run into these things.

Imagine the women actually put on their coats of armour – wouldn’t they suddenly all become “viragos” and looked down upon again?

Plus, as they say in the article: the female view is missing from the world of cinema. Making women more male* to be able to include their view into the world — that doesn’t make any sense.

The the article goes on.

In Cannes last weekend, Birds Eye View founder, Rachel Millward, hosted a forum for female film-makers, where documentary maker Anne Aghion noted it would not have been possible to combine her career “and the accompanying 16-hour days” with any kind of family life.

I’m sorry, but when do men have to ask themselves that question? Are all the male filmmakers childless and partnerless? How do they make it work? Ahhh… that’s right… they have women in their lives who take care of that stuff.

It is just so unfair that women have to decide between career and family and men don’t, ever. And even in a (supposedly) feminist article, this things are just taken as a given, quoted as a universal truth that’s never going to change.

And then there’s the cherry on top the whole thing: before they start with the portraits, the article ends with a resounding “YAY! 3 OUT OF 20 MOVIES IN CANNES ARE BY FEMALE DIRECTORS! WAHOOO!!!”

I’m gonna go cry for a bit.

*Short for “that what is generally perceived as male in the Western culture”

11 comments

  1. When I open the Guardian article, there are portraits. Being daughter of someone famous is obviously the best thing for your carreer if you’re female (well, same goes for males)

    • I just read an interview with Garry Marshall (director of Pretty Woman), who openly states that nepotism is part of the business and of course he does it. Apparently he doesn’t even see the harm in that…

  2. @L: faengt der name zufaellig mit C an und hoert mit OPPOLA auf? jaja.

    der fehlende frauenanteil in der filmwelt ist generell eine katastrophe, aber im bereich regie am schlimmsten. einfach traurig.

    • Nein, in dem Fall fängt der Name mit L an und hört mit YNCH auf. Aber das beweist nur die ganze Problematik.

      Oh ja, im Bereich Regie ist es echt, echt traurig. Das Problem ist, das Hollywood bzw. die Filmbranche an sich als so progressiv und linksliberal gesehen wird, dass keiner das tatsächlich in Frage stellt.

      Das ist zumindest meine Theorie.

      • … zu dem Thema habe ich vor einiger Zeit was interessantes gelesen. Nämlich, dass es zuweilen die Rechten sind, die gesellschaftspolitisch Linkes durchbringen – weil sie erst beweisen müssen, dass sie “modern” sind.
        Und dass aus umgekehrten Gründen die Frauen bei den rechten mehr Chancen haben als bei den Linken (weil die REchten sich sozusagen “eine Frau in Spitzenposition leisten” können ohne “gefärhlch neuartig” zu sein.).. ist sicher nicht generell wahr, aber in einigen Fällen dachte ich… hmm…. da ist was Wahres dran.

Leave a reply to L Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.