Monthly Archive for October, 2009

I had a great conversation with Katherine a couple of weeks ago and then I traveled out of town twice and never finished transcribing it which is why it is so late.  I am a one woman operation and don’t type really well.  In high school typing was an elective and it conflicted with lunch in my schedule and for those of you who know me, food always comes first.  I think in the back of my mind I believed not learning to type was my little contribution to feminism.  If I couldn’t type, I couldn’t be a secretary.  Guess it kind of backfired now since I do lots of interview and it take me forever to transcribe (so any of you good typists out there who want to contribute to the cause let me know, I can use your services.)

So I want to apologize to Katherine, she gave me her time and answered everything so honestly.  I still haven’t finished the interview but I did not want to let the second Friday of her film playing in theatres go by without posting something — so here is part 1.  I will get part 2 done asap.

Information on where the film Motherhood is playing here.

Women & Hollywood: You said in the NY Times recently that a man can write great women’s movies but you don’t think a man could have written this story.  Can you elaborate?

Katherine Dieckmann: Think about a movie like You Can Count on Me.  I think that in some ways it’s a very female movie in the orientation of the writing.  But I think that until you have really been inside the experience of being a mother you can’t understand the cultural and pragmatic obstacles are.  That’s what I meant by that.

W&H: So many female directors don’t want to be knows as women’s directors but with this film you seem to be embracing that title.

KD: I am but I have made two films with men at the center so I really don’t think that’s true.  I made this  particular film very much from my perspective as a woman.  The film I am writing now has a gay man at the center.  The movie I made before this, Diggers, has 4 hetero guys at the center.  To me, I don’t want to be known as a women’s director.  However, I still feel that female subject matter is really underserved in film and is vitally important to me even though I like all kinds of movies.

W&H:  I feel I must clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that as a woman you should only direct movies about women, but there is something about the term.  Can you ever see a guy called a male director?  It’s the labeling.

KD: Yes, it’s about diminishing and controlling and I don’t feel like being diminished or controlled in that sense.  But I think we still haven’t figured out in this culture how to allow the female director to have a kind of iconic power.  I was struck a couple of years ago when Variety did an issue commemorating Brett Ratner breaking the billion dollar mark for his movies.  All the photographs were of these guys clasping Brett on the arm saying something like well done dude.  There were no women in those pictures.  And I thought what woman director could you cut out and put in Brett Ratner’s place shaking hands with Bob Evans passing along the legacy vibe.  No, that doesn’t exist and that’s what I mean by the iconic image of the woman director.  I wrote somewhere that directing is always talked about in terms of war and sports metaphors.  I went into battle.  I was on the playing field.  I don’t really think about my work that way.  That’s a foreign language to me and I think culturally that how directing gets talked about.

W&H: There still seems to be a glass ceiling for women directors.  Things are not getting better, they are getting worse.

KD: I think that’s true.

W&H: How do you think about breaking it down?

KD: We don’t think about breaking it down because that’s too discouraging.  I think every woman director I know and I know a bunch of them — Mary Harron, Allison MacLean, Nancy Savoca, Mira Nair — find that they (not just the women but the men too) are enormously supportive of each others endeavors.  Most women directors I know are really focused on how am I going to get my next movie made.  This movie I am trying to make called The Shags is about an all girl band and I was trying to get the script to Kirsten Dunst.  A friend of mine knew the director Peyton Reed who directed Bring it On and I got in touch with him and he didn’t;t know me but he read the script and gave it to Kirsten.  So I feel within this circuit of people making movies there is an enormous tendency to try and support each other from both women and men.

The system is another issue.  When people ask if I have ever encountered sexism on shoots I honestly say I haven’t.  I’ve worked with lots of guys and I’ve never found gender to be a problem in the pragmatics of doing things.  I think gender is a problem in the global picture of what gets made, how people get hired and how the profession is perceived.

W&H: There doesn’t seem to be any will for change?

KD: There is a real tendency to ignore, as has widely been remarked, the successes of women made movies.  It’s like they are pushed under the carpet and you have to fight the battle all over again against the perception that they don’t do well.  The do do well.  That’s why I am curious about Motherhood because we are self distributing and I’ve been doing interviews with mom bloggers and the actresses have been talking with mom bloggers and we are doing this more grassroots approach including a breast cancer benefit where $1 from ticket sales on Fandango will go breast cancer research.  We are trying to movie things out through different channels.

W&H: The term mommy blogger is kind of loaded nowadays. Did you know what you were walking into?

KD: I’ve noticed.  I have to admit when I wrote my script I had never read a mom blog.  I had no idea.  Originally when I wrote the script the character was a journalist because that’s what I knew but it didn’t work and I thought that mom blogging was interesting because it has to do with this issue of voice and finding an outlet for your voice.  Why do you say it’s loaded?

W&H: Because of the way they are treated in the culture.

KD: I think it’s a very complicated issue.  I feel it’s really important for women to be able to talk about the experiences they have that are so denigrated by the culture and I think it’s really important to be able to move beyond those experiences sometimes to talk about other things.  So it is both.  There needs to be an outlet for expression about “dailyness” because that is what your life is and that is what sustains the human race and it is not to be trivialized.  However, for myself, I can’t imagine anything worse that having to talk about mommy topics all day long.  That’s not what I want to do.

I feel that Motherhood has invisible content like at the beginning of the film in the credits where Uma’s character is scurrying around and making the coffee and feeding the banana to her kid.  It’s all very whimsical but in fact her husband gets up and toasts himself some bread and sits back down to read and nobody sees that as off.  It’s what we see all the time.  It’s the beginning of the cycle of exhaustion and when people ask me why she is so tired I say did you miss all the things she just did?  That’s what I mean about a woman writing the script.  You have to know the fatigue and the erosion of self esteem that kind of menial mundanity induces in most people except the weirdly and endlessly self sacrificing ones.

To be continued

Sandra Laing and Sophie Okonedo

Skin is the heartbreaking true story of Sandra Laing (played by Sophie Okonedo) as a woman with black skin born to white parents in apartheid S. Africa.  She is a white girl who looked black.  As a young girl she knew she looked different but her biggest problems began when she showed up to school. They couldn’t and wouldn’t believe she was white, and were of course convinced that her mother (Alice Krige) had an affair with a black man instead of the fact that maybe somewhere in her family’s past there was actually mixed race blood.  This poor girl was just torn between two very different worlds.  The place she felt safest and most comfortable was amongst people who looked like her, so she left her family to live in the black community.  Her family then broke all ties with her because they just couldn’t believe their white daughter would rather live with black people. The whole thing just broke my heart.  This is a small film that makes you really think about race and how much racism hurts.  Skin opens today in NY and LA.

Sandra Laing is an very quiet woman (now I understand Okonedo’s understated performance) and she answered some questions about her life and the film.

Women & Hollywood: How did the film come about?

Sandra Laing: Tony Fabian the director of the film phoned me in 2000 that he wanted to meet me and told me that he wanted to make a film about my life.  I agreed because other people — newspaper and tv people — always came to me and they just took the story and went, and in Tony’s case I felt that he was the one who would change my life.  He did but it took 7 years to make the film.

W&H: Did he change your life?

SL: Yes, I was staying in a small rented house wasn’t working and couldn’t support my children, but now I am in a bigger house and my life is much better.

W&H: What was the hardest part for you to watch in the film?

SL: The time when I called my mother from my cousin’s house which was the first time I spoke with her after 10 or 15 years since I left home but I still didn’t know where she was staying she didn’t tell me.  And then the time when I found her in the old age home.

W&H: Why do you feel it was important for your story to get out there?

SL: I wanted to let the world know what apartheid did to a person in S. Africa and to let people know that if something happens to you long ago and you are scared to talk you must talk about it and let it out and you can then go on with your life.

W&H: In the press notes you say that this is a story of family, forgiveness and the triumph of the human spirit.  Have you forgiven your family?

SL: Yes, I have forgiven my family.  I didn’t get a chance to ask forgiveness from my father but I did see my mother before she died and now just my brothers are left.

W&H: Have you spoken with them?

SL: They don’t want to speak to me.  They are still angry with me from when I left home and when I chose black people over them.

W&H: It is so hard to rationalize what you must have felt — you were white but had black skin.  What can your experience teach people about racial issues?

SL: I think you mustn’t see a person through color whether she is black or white or brown.  We are all the same.  We all have the same blood.  Inside we are all the same.

W&H: Were you ever on the set?  What did you thnk about Sophie Okonedo playing you?

SL: Sophie is a brilliant actor.  I do see me in her acting.  She is doing the same things that happened to me.

W&H: Anything else you would like to add?

SL: Ask people to pray for me so that my brothers will one day come and see me.

W&H: Will this film open in S. Africa?

SL: It will it open in S. Africa on January 22, 2010.

This was originally posted on the CA NOW site

Disney is releasing a new film this Winter, The Princess and the Frog, which features the first ever African-American Disney princess, Tiana. There has been some controversy over the development of the character and story, with some important changes from Disney along the way.

As a feminist, a woman of color, and a mother, I find myself torn on this movie. It’s easy to say that the princess idea is always negative for girls. We know that focusing on girls’ looks as a measure of their value is harmful to self image and self-esteem. We know media that promotes a single type of look as the only way to be attractive is damaging too. But not seeing yourself in media is just as damaging.

Yes, I can look at The Princess and the Frog and wonder if giving girls another princess role model is really the best idea, but I’m not that little Black girl who wants to be able to see herself as a princess. I’m not her mom or dad, who have to explain why all the princesses are white. Let’s face it, Mulan, Jasmine, and Pocahontas get short shrift in the princess line, and Esmeralda doesn’t get to be part of it at all. (Why can’t she be a Romany princess?) How wonderful for that little girl to be able to look up at the screen and finally see a princess who, at least on some levels, looks like she does. And how great for me to be able to have a movie in our collection to show my daughter that being a princess, or being pretty, isn’t limited to certain skin tones.

Can equality of objectification ever be empowerment? This is where intersectionality comes into play. Is it more important for Black girls to see themselves as equally beautiful and princess-like, or more important for them not to be presented with stereotypes based on how women should look? In this case, does race trump gender, or gender trump race? Guess what, that’s not my call to make.

My ability to object to the princess image comes from my own privilege, in that I can (sort of) see myself in these princess characters already. Society already tells me that I’m attractive, or at least that I’m supposed to be. For women with darker skin tones, the message is relentless that their skin alone makes them unattractive.  Women of color are shown as having masculine traits, or as promiscuous, but rarely simply as beautiful. Look at the reaction to Serena William’s ESPN magazine cover where she appeared nude (please also note ESPN featured disabled runner Sarah Reinertsen, another blow at what we define as beautiful (or able, for that matter)). Compare that to the reaction to the GQ cover that Jennifer Aniston did where she appeared in only a tie. And if Penelope Cruz and Halle Berry aren’t pretty enough for a fashion magazine cover unless their skin is lightened (thanks, Photoshop!), who is?

The point is that I, a light-skinned Latina, don’t get to tell a darker-skinned woman that she shouldn’t desire the societal acceptance and presence that a Disney princess provides. (Although I’m waiting for our first Latina princess too!) There is plenty of critique of this movie and of the princess genre in general already coming from the women who are most impacted by it. And ultimately, these women are the ones who will be able to evaluate the positive or negative impact of the movie on themselves, their daughters and sons, and the society around them. For everyone else making assumptions, predictions, and judgement calls on this movie, it’s time to sit back, shut up, and listen.

I attempted several times to make contact with a Disney representative to get their input on how the story had been developed and how decision-making was done around issues of race on the movie, but was unable to get a response. I would still love to be able to provide an interview with Disney which allows the company to respond to these questions.

Here we are again.  This progressive girl is agreeing with a conservative organization, but I am, and I believe that the research on violence against women on TV is something to take note of.

As a big TV watcher I knew that violence against women and girls is a problem, but I really had no idea how bad it is.  It has become so second nature and part of TV watching that honestly I hardly even notice it anymore.  I am a person who calls attention to these issues, I admit, I am part of the problem.  Why do I watch shows where women being mutilated or attacked?  Of course you don’t always know what is going to be the plot of the show in advance, but I can turn it off or delete it from my tivo if it depicts violence against women and girls.  I’m going to think about this issue a lot more now because if it has become so commonplace to a person like me, that means there are many people out there who take the message from the violence on TV that it is ok to commit these acts.  If a TV show does it, then why can’t I.  On TV most of the bad guys get caught and that’s good.  But it’s still does not make it ok.

The very conservative organization, Parents Television Council (their board is full of really scary conservative guys and just one woman) has put together a comprehensive study looking at how pervasive this problem is.

They took the data that they had compiled in 2004 and compared it with data from 2009 and found that overall violence irrespective of gender increased 2% and violence against women increased 120%.

Here is more:

• The most frequent type of violence against women on television was beating (29%), followed by credible threats of violence (18%), shooting (11%), rape (8%), stabbing (6%), and torture (2%).  Violence against women resulted in death 19% of the time.
• Violence towards women or the graphic consequences of violence tends overwhelmingly to be depicted (92%) rather than implied (5%) or described (3%).

Props must go to ABC since it is the only network that did not show and increase in violence against women in its storylines, and on the other side FOX was singled out for being the most egregious.

Here’s other important data:

Although female victims were primarily of adult age, collectively, there was a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims across all networks from 2004 to 2009.

There was an 81% increase in incidences of intimate partner violence on television.

So what can be done about this?  I do believe that networks have a public responsibility and that since the airwaves are owned by us, the public, we shouldn’t feel assaulted every time we watch TV.  But the public loves these shows and TV is a business and so they continue to make these shows.  Looking at the ratings Criminal Minds is in the top 25 as is CSI Miami and both NCIS series.

Let’s remember that violence against women is everywhere not just on TV.  Violence against women and girls is not a right left issue — it is a societal problem.Let’s not talk about TV without talking about the real women and girls who are being beaten, abused and raped every day.  I want conservative organizations (yes, you PTC and your board of directors and advisory board) to not just give a shit about women when it serves them, but to care about them everyday.  You can’t say that you care about violence against women and then not be supportive of legislation and programs that help women get out of those situations.

The PTC hopes that network executives will see the numbers and take corrective action or if that doesn’t happen hopes advertisers take a stand.  They are also not ruling a “role for the FCC” according to spokesperson Melissa Henson. Henson also said she will reach out to organizations that work on women’s issues to talk about next steps.

I can’t help but agree with Henson’s statement: “media helps normalize behavior,” as I have been watching the coverage of the girl who was gang raped at her prom.  This is not OK and if TV is helping to make young men think that this behavior is “normal” something must be done about it.

Violence Against Women Surges on TV (HR)

Women in Peril (PTC)

File this under no shit sherlock, but new research from the Center for Study for Women in Television and Film at San Diego State shows that women are more represented on independent films that appear in film festivals than in the top grossing big budget films.  Now keep in mind some of those films might overlap because 250 is a big number, but lots of the top grossing films don’t go the festival circuit.  They don’t need to.  They will have big marketing and ad budgets and will get released in enough theatres to make them successful.  One example of a film that might overlap would be Juno which started out on the fest circuit and became a big box office hit.

Indie films need the festival circuit to build buzz so they have half a chance at being successful when they are released.  This year some examples of the indie films directed by women that are building buzz include Lone Scherfig’s An Education and Jane Campion’s Bright Star.  These films would be considered in the research because neither are domestically produced, but you get the picture.  Another thing to consider in this discussion is that not all films that play festivals get any type of release at all.  Some will be in a festival or 2 and then languish.

The research studied 25 high profile film festivals in 2008-2009 and that data confirms that women comprise 24% of “directors, writers, producers, cinematographers, and editors on domestically produced films at film festivals.”  That compares to the only 16% on the top 250 grossing films.

Here are some of the reasons behind these numbers:

1- Indies are lower budget and we know that women have more success with lower budgets because there is still some bizarre notion in Hollywood that a woman can’t be trusted to handle a big budget flick.  Can’t believe that sexist bullshit still reigns, but it does.

2- Documentaries are included and women direct a lot more docs than they direct features.  You want to know why women direct more docs?  Cause they have lower budgets.  See the theme here?

3- Film Festivals strive higher for diversity because box office is not their priority.  Lots of festivals raise money through grant makers and grants makers ask you questions about diversity.  They just do.

Breaking down the numbers:

• Women made up 33% of the producers; 23% of the editors; 22% of the executive producers; 22% of the directors; 19% of the writers; and 9% of the directors of photography. That compares to 23% of the producers; 17% of the editors; 16% of the executive producers; 9% of the directors; 12% of the writers; and 4% of the directors of photography.

• But even on docs where I have previously heard from festival staffers that it is 50/50 the results show that women only direct 28%.

• Women directors of photography were more likely to work on documentaries than narrative films.  That makes sense.  Women hire women.  If the film is directed by a woman she is more likely to hire a female DP.  Also, with some docs the director also acts as the DP, especially if the budget is extremely limited.

Here’s the takeaway according to Dr. Martha Lauzen who conducted the study, “When a studio head says something like, “I’d really like to hire more women directors but there aren’t any,” this study provides useful data to suggest that, in fact, there are.”

Even though 24% is better than 16% it still sucks and is just not right.  Bottom line, there are women director, cinematographers, producers, editors all ready to work.  They just need to be given the opportunity. That’s all they are asking for, an equal chance.

Full research below Continue reading ‘New Research: Women Fare Better in the Indie World’

There must be something in the water because over the last week there have been several substantive pieces and one panel (which I will blog about later) discussing women and film.  These discussions are not new, they happen all the time, but having two pieces come out in major newspapers like the Washington Post and the NY Times on the same day makes one take note. Why now?  Who knows?  Maybe it’s because there are several women’s names at play for best director.  Maybe it has to do with the release of the Shriver Report on the state of women.  I don’t care about the reason, I’m just glad we are talking.

What I like about these conversations is the anger they are inciting.  People are pissed.  Why are women still being marginalized?  We are over 50% of the population, we buy 50% of the tickets.  We spend money.  We want to see movies by and about women, as well as seeing movies by and about men.  I’m not asking for special treatment, just decent treatment.  That shouldn’t be too much to ask.

In Ann Hornaday’s piece Women & Film: With female characters, why does Hollywood fear that the stronger they are, the harder they fail? in the Washington Post (which I am quoted in) she makes the argument that strong women are out at the movies.  I agree with Ann but I will add that you can still see strong women in smaller dramas released by indies that will never make it to the multiplex near you.  So if you want to see a strong woman on film, you need to probably live in NY or LA or another major city if you are lucky.  Most other people (which is basically everyone) can only find these women on netflix (if they know what they are looking for.)  That totally sucks.  Here’s what producer Lynda Obst said:

Dramas are dead, Some of the greatest parts for women — the Academy Award parts for women — are often in dramas, and this is the worst time for dramas since I’ve been in the business for the last 10,000 years.

Lynda Obst knows what’s going on.  She’s in the business of producing dramas and I would imagine she’s thinking about how she’s going to make a living in the future.

And according to Manohla Dargis in her piece Now Starring at the Movies: Famous Dead Women in the NY Times this past Sunday, if you are going to be seen at all on screen as a woman  you need to be dead. That’s such a wonderful feeling for all of us out there.

You can’t blame filmmakers (or actresses) for raiding crypts. It’s rarely been more difficult to be a woman in the movies than now, particularly in the United States, where for the past few decades most blockbusters and microbudgeted D.I.Y. enterprises have been overwhelmingly male.

Dargis who is not known (at least by me) as a champion for women takes it even a step further:

Female stories have become so marginalized on American movie screens, we should be grateful filmmakers are raiding the history books…A woman has to have been legitimized by history, ruled a country, inspired a poet, or ignited a revolution in fashion or cooking to have a shot at some serious screen time. It also helps if she’s played by Meryl Streep.

I do like a historical biopic, but this devaluing of women’s lives and experiences makes me want to hurl.  It’s seems to me that the more power and confidence women gain in real life it is slowly and surely being stripped away on the big screen.  It’s like we are all being punished.  Strong women have been disappearing from movies for some time (not that there were ever that many to begin with) so when we see one like Amelia we all get so excited because it’s like finding water in the desert.  We are starved for these images.  And when they disappoint, they hurt so much worse.  I knew that I would have issues with Amelia.  That didn’t make it hurt any less.  I take my strong women onscreen very seriously cause I know that when they fail, I (and all other women) get screwed.

As Obst said most dramas are now on TV, but I don’t see TV making films like Amelia.  The closest one I’ve seen recently is the Lifetime Georgia O’Keeffe film, and that was just ok..  We see women in dramas on TV shows.  But movies are different.  Even Cate Blanchett’s latest endeavor, a period piece where she was to play Lady Edwina Mountbatten in Indian Summer directed by Joe Wright was shelved.  I’m not going to pretend it’s only women suffering.  When Brad Pitt movies get canceled, things are bad, really bad.

Many people want to escape when they see movies.  But not everyone.  There has to be a diversity of offerings.  At the rate we are going the only films that will be seen are the Transformers type films.  That would be such a shame.

Women & film – With female characters, why does Hollywood fear that the stronger they are, the harder they fail? (Washington Post)

Now Starring at the Movies: Famous Dead Women (NY Times)

Women & Hollywood has been in the news twice this weekend.  Thought I’d share:

From Ann Hornaday at the Washington Post:

Women & Film: With female characters, why does Hollywood fear that the stronger they are, the harder they fail?

This state of affairs distresses Melissa Silverstein, who tracks women’s issues in the entertainment industry on her Web site Women & Hollywood. “One of the things making me nervous this fall is the box office of movies like ‘Jennifer’s Body’ and ‘Whip It,’ ” says Silverstein. “I call them ‘girl-power’ movies. They’re the movies I dream about for my feminist future. And the fact that people didn’t go to see those movies makes me want to weep.

“Figuring out how to reach women and young women is the challenge for this business. They don’t know how to do it well. Car companies have figured it out, yet Hollywood has not figured it out.”

The BBC World Service News Hour commenting on the lack of strong women leads (the segment starts at 36:40)

Prior to the airing of last Friday night’s Law & Order episode entitled “Dignity”, newsday.com presented it as providing an “intelligent hearing” on the late-term abortion debate.  What can be determined after watching it however, is that the episode is rife with medical inaccuracies and anti-abortion propaganda.  And the true experiences of women who face complex decisions of whether or not to continue pregnancies with serious abnormalities are severely undermined.

The episode began with the point blank shooting of Dr. Benning, a doctor that performed third trimester abortions, while he was praying with his wife in church.  Regardless of Law & Order’s disclaimers to the contrary, this is a direct reference to the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed while ushering in his church on May 31 of this year.

The dialogue of the officers who investigate the murder initially appears to reflect stereotypical pro-choice vs. anti-choice rhetoric, which seems to be the writers’ attempt at presenting a “balanced” viewpoint.   But the recurring messages throughout the program are clearly anti-abortion biased.

More often these days when (it’s usually more like if) a female character in primetime contemplates abortion, she is portrayed as contemplating her own moral failure.  And ultimately, she usually either continues her pregnancy or has a miscarriage – she will almost never have an abortion.  More importantly, if she does cross that forbidden media barrier, she will never feel good about doing so.  This is what we see here – in the character of a young woman who is denied her abortion because her father confided in a protester who ultimately murdered her doctor.  In this young woman’s case, her fetus was diagnosed with a rare skin condition that is potentially fatal and requiring constant medical care.   She is presented as a helpless and selfish woman for not wanting to care for a sick baby on her own, while her father is portrayed as a hero – willing to work 3 jobs and find the money to provide the round-the-clock medical care his daughter’s child would need.

The writers created an even less balanced plot by throwing in an unrealistic and medically inaccurate story of a doomed baby born alive in the process of an attempted abortion, who was then (according to the assistant D.A. on the show) murdered by the doctor.  Thus the plot shifts away from blaming the anti-abortionist who murdered the doctor to placing blame on the doctor who was murdered, and suggesting that he deserved it.  This throws the female assistant D.A. into confusion about her belief in the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.  The fact that the jury ended up convicting the man accused of murdering the doctor was completely lost in this extremely dark “Law and Order twist”.

So we are left with a message that the woman who decides to continue her pregnancy, go through labor, give birth and watch her baby die is noble and good, but the woman who ends her pregnancy when she realizes it will not have a viable life outside the womb is immoral and selfish.

There were so many opportunities for the writers to present the humane side of women faced with complicated pregnancies.  But instead we see respected characters on a beloved TV series cast aspersions on women.  This is deeply stigmatizing, even worse than how anti-abortion protesters shame women in front of clinics every day in this country.  This show did nothing to enhance the complexity of depth of women’s true experiences and only added to the sensationalism and stigma that already exists for women facing these decisions.

NBC should be ashamed for dishonoring the memory of Dr. George Tiller, a man who embodied principles of goodness, kindness, respect, and faith; and for dishonoring the women he helped, whose values told them that the best way to honor themselves and to spare suffering to the doomed life they carried in pregnancy was to end that life.   There was no dignity for either of them in this program.

Jennifer Boulanger, M.Ed., the Executive Director of the Allentown Women’s Center, an independent abortion and reproductive health care center in Pennsylvania and member of the Abortion Care Network.

If you want to make a complaint here is a place where you can lodge one.

photo credit: Colin Summers

While you might not know her name, you’ve probably watched a show she has written on.  She created Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, and wrote for Coach, Newhart, Murphy Brown and many others.

In this absorbing and brave Vanity Fair Letterman and Me she talks about her time as a writer on Late Night with David Letterman.  Finally we have a real, live person who has years of experience (there have been so few women on the writing staff so it’s hard to get someone on the record) talking about the behind the scenes of that show.  And it ain’t pretty.  Sex between staffers was rampant, and yes, it does matter to people working in that environment.

Here are some excerpts:

At this moment, there are more females serving on the United States Supreme Court than there are writing for Late Show with David Letterman, The Jay Leno Show, and The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien combined. Out of the 50 or so comedy writers working on these programs, exactly zero are women. It would be funny if it weren’t true.

I was the second female writer ever hired at Late Night. When I applied for the job in 1988, I had no way of knowing how much the odds were stacked against me. In 27 years, Late Night and Late Show have hired only seven female writers. These seven women have spent a total of 17 years on staff combined. By extrapolation, male writers have racked up a collective 378 years writing jokes for Dave (based on an average writing room of 14 men, the size of the current Late Show staff).

Without naming names or digging up decades-old dirt, let’s address the pertinent questions. Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no.

I just want to personally shout out and thank Nell for having the guts to put her experience in writing.  The only way things will change is if people with personal experience out the bad behavior and say, this has happened to me, and no, it’s not ok.  Thank you Nell.

Read this piece: Letterman and Me

I’ll be speaking in NYC with Olivia Cohen-Cutler about Jewish women in Hollywood this Wednesday night.  Would love to see some friends in the audience.  Details are below.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28 AT 7:00 PM

LIGHTS, CAMERA, SOCIAL ACTION!

JEWESSES IN HOLLYWOOD

Olivia Cohen-Cutler and Melissa Silverstein

Temple Shaaray Tefila

250 East 79th Street

RSVP to program@tstnyc.org

The event is free and all are welcome.

This year’s Social Action Film Series will explore the roles Jews play on screen as they forward the message of Tikkun Olam, healing the world.  Join a conversation on the role of Jews, Women and Jewish Women in media.  Using clips from the hit series “Grey’s Anatomy” to explore the complexity of who can be a Jew on screen today, guest speaker Olivia Cohen-Cutler, SVP of ABC Television, Chair of the Morningstar Commission, and Board member of the Jewish Women’s Archive, will lead a discussion on the role of Jews in TV and film today.  Joining Ms. Cohen-Cutler will be award-winning blogger and feminist pop-culture expert Melissa Silverstein of “Women & Hollywood.”  The Morningstar Commission, founded by Hadassah, promotes diverse images of Jewish women in media.

Amelia grossed about $ 4 million at about 818 theatres this weekend at the box office.  Not that good.  But the fact that it grossed almost $5,000 per screen even with the bad reviews shows that there is a desperate need for films that appeal to older women (that means women over 25 in movie business terminology).  I also believe that the icon Amelia Earhart resonates very strong feelings among women who feel she is a role model for generations of women.

Here’s what Variety said about the box office this weekend:

Searchlight’s “Amelia” was the clear choice among older females, who made up more than 60% of the audience. Film played well across top markets despite generally poor reviews. The studio specialty arm believes the film did well enough to have legs.

I honestly am not surprised that the film did not do better.  My feelings for Amelia which I wrote about last week was very, very mixed.  I really liked the premise, but a premise does not make a successful film and this one is far from successful.  It’s just plain not good.  One of the things I struggle with on this site is trying to be supportive of films by and about women when they fall short.  I try to see the glass half full when the bottom is staring at me like it was in the crowded theatre last week.

So how did this happen?  How did a film with such a great pedigree, great cast, accomplished writers and director make a film that doesn’t work?

I can’t really answer the question I just posed,  but to me it’s illuminated in the difference between the trailers.  The first trailer was about Amelia, the woman, the icon, the trailblazer, and second trailer put out closer to release trailer focuses more on the romance between Amelia and George Putnam- her backer and husband. If I never see another man say to his wife as she is about to embark on the most important event of her life “come back to me” it will be too soon.  That line illuminates to me where the film went wrong.  Why did they think a romance between Amelia and George would engage audiences more than a strong female icon in history?  NEW THOUGHT: Also their marriage seemed so bizarre with him seeming so needy.  I just look to the great, equal marriage between Julia and Paul Child in Julie & Julia as an example of creating a partnership that works in a film.

The minute they decided to focus play up the romance more than the accomplishments of this amazing woman they were screwed because it lost its focus.  Check out the difference between the trailers.

Did you see the film this weekend?  What did you think about it?

‘Paranormal’ cuts down ‘Saw’ at box office (Variety)

<a name=”3518144155″></a>

It’s opening day for Amelia and Motherhood.

I am out of town today at a meeting so here are truncated reviews of both films.  I will have an interview with Katherine Dieckmann writer and director of Motherhood next week.

Amelia Earhart is one of those women in history who fascinates.  She broke every boundary and convention for a woman in her time.  Hilary Swank takes on the role of Amelia as a woman who just wants to fly and be free in a time when women were literally grounded.  She wore pants, refused to say obey in the vows at her wedding, and didn’t take her husband and promoter George Putman’s name.  It was exciting to watch the story of a woman who was one of the first real celebrities ever, who because she did things and lived the way she did made it easier for everyone who came after her.  There are not many women who can say that.  I kept waiting for the film to soar like Amelia herself but it got bogged down in a sappy love story between Amelia and Putman (played by Richard Gere).  And speaking of Swank and Gere, in real life Earhart and Putman were only 10 years apart, but in the film there is 25 years between the actors (not cool).  Even though you know what happens (well no one really knows what happened exactly) the last ten minutes when they are flying over the pacific looking for Howland island are nail biting and it made me for once wish for a happy Hollywood ending. Film is directed by Mira Nair and it has a wonderful score by Gabriel Yared.  (Opens on 800 screens in most cities.)

Writer/director Katherine Dieckmann wanted to make Motherhood because there were no “decent “comedies about mothers.  So she took pieces from her own life and added Uma Thurman as Eliza a harried mommy blogger desperate to regain her writing voice and herself, and we have Motherhood.  I respect that Dieckmann tried to show the realities of one day in an urban mom’s life, focusing on the mundane issues that women go through on a day in and day out basis that grind on you and suck out your creativity.  Eliza is desperate to regain the edge she had before kids yet no matter how hard she struggles, the lists she creates, or even how early she gets up, she is only able to catch a few minutes here or there for her and her writing.  The film illuminates the frustrations women face but I kind of wish she would have left out the whole Eliza as a mommy blogger storyline.  I think that the problem was that between when the movie was made and released mommy blogging and blogging in general has exploded.  As a blogger and a person who knows lots of mommy bloggers, blogging is a serious endeavor to all of us.  It’s not something you do in the 10 seconds you have between laundry loads just so you can have written something.  That being said, one of the film’s strengths is that it is able to show the joys and challenges of being a certain type of woman today (white, middle class, educated) who was promised lots of opportunities yet still feels held back.  I’m sure there are lots of women who will relate to it. (Opens on 35 screens in NY, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston.)  Also if you buy your ticket through Fandango, $1 will go to the Susan G. Komen Fund for breast cancer research.

This interview of Nair comes courtesy of the folks at MakingOf a behind the scenes look at how movies are made:

Three Hollywood women -- Glenn Close, Nicole Kidman and Heather Graham -- got into the political action this week each on a different issue.

Nicole Kidman went to Capitol Hill to talk about violence against women.  No matter what she has or hasn’t done to her face Kidman, for many years, has taken on this really, really important issue.  We all know how cool it is to deal with refugee issues and children’s issues (and they are so important and worthy and need people bringing attention to them desperately) but it takes serious guts to focus on women’s issues and violence against women which Kidman has.  She has my eternal gratitude for her work on the issue.  She testified yesterday before the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee and acknowledged that Hollywood contributes in some way to violence against women because women are portrayed as “weak” by Hollywood.

Weak is usually an understatement in big Hollywood films.  Absent and silent is more the norm.

She went asking for an increase in the UNIFEM budget and clearly know her issues saying:

“In the real world, the laws go unenforced and impunity is the norm,”

Kidman: Hollywood probably contributes to violence (AP)

Glenn Close is talking about mental illness and with her sister Jessie she appeared yesterday on Dr. Nancy’s show to promote the new project Bring Change to Mind. Close appears in a PSA with her sister trying to blow the lid off the stigma associated with mental illness.
Here’s what she wrote in a Huffington Post piece.

Whether it is Norman Bates in Psycho, Jack Torrance in The Shining, or Kathy Bates’ portrayal of Annie Wilkes in Misery, scriptwriters invariably tell us that the mentally ill are dangerous threats who must be contained, if not destroyed. It makes for thrilling entertainment.

The original ending of Fatal Attraction actually had Alex commit suicide. But that didn’t “test” well. Alex had terrified the audiences and they wanted her punished for it. A tortured and self-destructive Alex was too upsetting. She had to be blown away.

So, we went back and shot the now famous bathroom scene. A knife was put into Alex’s hand, making her a dangerous psychopath. When the wife shot her in self-defense, the audience was given catharsis through bloodshed — Alex’s blood. And everyone felt safe again.

Yet when it comes to bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress, schizophrenia or depression, an uncharacteristic coyness takes over. We often say nothing. The mentally ill frighten and embarrass us. And so we marginalize the people who most need our acceptance.

Here’s her talking about mental illness on The View.

Heather Graham in her ad from MoveOn.org for a public health insurance option

This past weekend I was lucky enough to get flown to Columbia, Mo to attend the second year of the Citizen Jane Film Festival run out of Stephens College. (a woman’s college)  Columbia is a good town for a fest because they already have a reputable one True/False and with three colleges (U of Missouri, Columbia College and Stephens) it can sustain a weekend of films.

As part of my weekend as a guest of the festival I did a workshop and talked about my blog and issues it raises, and also moderated a panel with some of the other guests.  What was cool about the festival was that there were women who worked in a variety of disciplines including directors, animators and designers so I got to meet all find of folks and talk about their work.

The weekend went by way too fast and I got into so many great conversations that I missed some of the films.  Thanks to everyone for their great hospitality.  Check out the picture from the weekend here.  (Thanks to Ken Leija for his photos)

Here are some of the women I met and their work:

Say My Name- a look at women in the hip-hop world.  Director Nirit Peled

$9.99- animator Shira Derman

Barbara Hammer- a legend

Beetle Queen Conquers Tokyo- director Jessica Oreck

Cold Souls- Production Designer Beth Mickle

Sunshine- director Karen Skloss

Older Than America- director Georgina Lightning

American Casino- director Leslie Cockburn

It seems that this smart, young woman basically raised herself.  Wolves would have been an improvement over her parents.  How she got herself back on track and to the success she is today is a testimony to her strength and intelligence.

My respect for her continues to grow.

If you haven’t seen Whip It yet, please do.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

I have been watching Law & Order SVU since its inception.  Since Jay Leno began screwing up TV as we know it SVU has suffered since it is now on at 9pm on Wednesdays up against many strong shows.  I’ve been tivoing it when it repeats on Saturday nights.

I have been big fan of Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni and love all the supporting case around them.  I especially liked Stephanie March as ADA Alexandra Cabot who in my opinion was the best ADA on the show and it that role has never worked since her departure. SVU has always cast a woman as the ADA since all the detectives surrounding Hargitay and Meloni have been male.  Good decision.  I am always happy to see a strong, smart woman in a role on TV especially one with passion who tries to put nasty people in jail.

So I was excited when I read that Christine Lahti was joining the show for several episodes as the new ADA, Sonya Paxton.   I would watch Lahti in basically anything and still remember what a great show Jack & Bobby was from a couple of season ago.

It seems that Lahti finished up her arc last week and I must say that I was extremely disappointed and angry.  From the moment Lahti came on screen she was mean and bitchy to everyone in such an extreme way so much that it kind of made me anxious.  I dismissed it for one week but then it kept on happening.  Why must they make a strong older woman so horrible that she alienates everyone around her?  Haven’t we moved beyond that?

But the kicker (and why I am writing this) is that on last week’s episode she gets paid back for her bad behavior in spades.  (For those of you who still haven’t watched the episode stop reading now.)  Lahti is turns out has a drinking problem and a case with a guy who killed a woman while drunk sets her off too.  She completely devolves in court, shows the wrong evidence (maybe inadvertently), gets tanked and shows up the next morning still drunk.  They humiliate her by making her take a breathalizer test in the courtrom (is that even constitutional?) and then remove her from the case.  The capper is that she is forced to go to rehab.  Bye bye Sonya.

I expected way more from SVU.  The fact that the whole arc was leading towards the destruction of a woman with a long and solid career protecting victims pisses me off.  Why did she have to play a raving bitch from the get go?  And were we supposed to feel good that she got her comeuppance?  I thought the whole thing was just so sad and illuminated the lack of imagination when writing about strong, comptent women.

They got it right with Alex Cabot.  She was strong and passionate but never alienating and mean.  Isn’t it just time to bring her back?  I know it would make my mom very happy.

Danish director Lone Scherfig is one of several women being mentioned this year for a potential best director nomination for her critically acclaimed film An Education.  Here’s what I wrote earlier about the film.  She took some time to answer some questions on the road while doing publicity for the film.

Women &Hollywood: So here we are in 2009 and the issue of women directors is still a big issue.  Do you believe that work family balance is as big an issue for male directors in the same way as female directors?

Lone Scherfig: I think as a director you need to have such a strange combination of skills and no one can have all of them.  One is an ability is to be able to leave home for a while, stay up very late or do things that would harm your family life no matter what sex you are.  And maybe it’s easier for men to compromise more but it must be a big loss to them as well.  But the thing for me is that I started out very young and had my daughter quite late so it meant I had a career that was strong enough.  One regret is that I didn’t have my child earlier and had more children.  I’d encourage everyone to do that but you obviously have to pay a price for it.

W&H: Another thing I read is that you said you make films to maintain the language- please explain.

LS: In Denmark we have a state supported system in order to maintain out language so that’s how those films are financed.  It’s a privilege for a director because you are expected to do something that’s not primarily commercial — quality is the first priority — and that’s been really lovely for me because it has meant that I have gotten chances I would not have been able to get in a different system.  It’s also a handicap that the films cannot be seen by very many people because they would have to be subtitled like Italian for Beginners.

W&H: Some if the strongest female voices in directing have come from places where there is state sponsorship for films and here in the US we don’t have that system.  Do you believe that the state sponsored system has enabled you to have the type of career you have now?

LS: Yes I do.  I think it doesn’t only go for women it goes for anyone who is a minority when it comes to media access.  If you want films and media in general that reflect the real world you have to stay open for someone coming in the door to apply for that job who is not an obvious candidate.

W&H: Do you think it made a difference that there were two female producers on your film?

LS: No.  I know that they had talked about that because the writer is a man that it might make sense to have a female director.  But in general it doesn’t attract  me to a job at all when someone says that.  I am interested in projects where they want a good director rather than necessarily a female director.  I’m sure all women say that.  My films are not necessarily about my gender.  The reason why I am privileged enough to say that is that thank god there is a slightly older generation who have prepared that possibility for me.  I am very thankful to women who are 10 to 15 years older than I am that they stood up for someone like me to get those possibilities.

W&H: What women directors do you mean?

LS: Very often it’s women academics, female politicians, film writers.  It’s not the directors.  The directors I feel related to the most are male.  My mom would teach me to mend my dress and to cook like a proper mother and shared her love for the arts and films and literature, but it’s women who are slightly younger (than her) who fought the battle for women.  That combination is what I am really thankful for and that enriches my life immensely.

W&H: There were so many different educations happening and so I wanted to ask you which education do you feel closest to?

LS: I’m a bit like Jenny.  I totally share the appetite that she had for learning that might not be in the syllabus.  And that once she knows and can define what she loves then the education seems to be something that’s driven by appetite rather than duty or ambition.  The things you read and the things you see because you love them is the easiest and the best education to get.

The same thing happened to me.  When I was young when I found out that film was something I could make a career in and I got to university and later to film school and found myself surrounded by people who loved what I loved and that’s when I really got an education and finally did all my homework because I loved it.  That is a privilege.  Loving things does not necessarily mean you have a talent for it.  But I am trying to tell my own daughter that if she fnds something that she loves to do that the money will come.  That may be a false promse because not everyone has that privileged choice.

W&H: You talk a lot about your love for the character of David in the film played by Peter Sarsgaard.    I found him to be a transition figure because he opens doors to the coming revolution in terms of race and class and religion and he provides all the educations and never gets schooled in anything.  Why are you so fond of David?

LS: That’s a brilliant and interesting way you are putting it.  I didn’t think of that.  I think one key for me to all of the characters has been what is that person’s relation to an education.  That’s how I started all the conversations with all the actors and in David’s case he is someone who wants the life he could have had he had an education which he did not have access to.  He doesn’t feel he is lying, he’s just saying what he wants to say and what he believes is right at the moment.  I know that’s how Peter saw him as well.  Neither Peter nor I had any problems in liking him and I always feel that I want to defend David.  You get seduced the way Jenny and her parents are.  Peter says that when David is with Jenny he can get the childhood he never had.  That being said Peter is so experienced for his age and the way he plays his cards when we’ve shot the film out of sequence of course, the way more and more of David’s flaws are revealed is really elegant.  He’s technically and structurally such a skilled actor but the acting is completely emotional and spontaneous and of the moment.  I didn’t cast him.  It came as such a fringe benefit that I was able to work with the best actor.  He was on board the film before I was.

Continue reading ‘Interview with Lone Scherfig- Director of An Education’

It has begun. The crazy awards season. We’re going to keep track of the women creatives (and films about women) on the way to the Oscars.

The good news.  Two women directors are up for best feature.  The Hurt Locker was expected, but Amreeka is a big, good surprise.  So psyched that Cherien is getting noticed for this wonderful film debut.  Three of the film nominated for best ensemble have a woman director of co-director – The Hurt Locker, Cold Souls and Sugar.

Bad news.  No woman director included in the list of breakthrough director.

Best Feature

Amreeka – Cherien Dabis, director

The Hurt Locker – Kathryn Bigelow, director

Best Documentary

My Neighbor My Killer Anne Aghion, director/producer

Full list of noms from indiewire

Tonight in Hollywood Elle Magazine will host the annual salute to women in Hollywood.  I am looking forward to the day when we don’t need to highlight women because they will have as much power as men, but in reality, women are nowhere near as powerful as the guys.

The women being ackowledged tonight include: Katie Holmes, Zoe Saldana, Emily Blunt, Renee Zellweger, Robin Wright Penn, Julie Andrews, Julianne Moore, and Bonnie Timmerman. (How come there is no link to the Julie Andrews and Bonnie Timmerman pieces?)

The highlight of the issue includes the most powerful women in Hollywood according to Nikki Finke the feared blogger who writes Deadline Hollywood.

Here’s the intro:

Last year I was on ELLE’s Women in Hollywood power list; this year I was asked to write it. That’s ironic, because I hate power lists more than one-size-fits-all spa robes. These influential jobs are not necessarily comparable. Are the casting directors I included more important than the cinematographers and film editors I didn’t? So what I have is a very subjective roster of women I deem essential to a town run by alpha males who don’t play well with others. Women in general do. In case you’re wondering, 2009 was a lousy year for female producers because the Industry has contracted, so they’re MIA here. But there are still some movie moguls standing, and, even better, TV execs are thriving. My favorite category, however, is the “coaches.” The trick in Hollywood is not just getting power, it’s keeping it, and if women need psychic intuition or telephone therapy or wise advice from showbiz legends for an edge, who am I to judge? Well, I am the judge. It’s my list!

Here are some of the categories on THE LIST.

THE TALENT

Tyra Banks, mogulette
So much more than that model show, she seems the likely successor to Oprah both in talk and in other TV programming her production company has cooking.

Beyoncé Knowles, singer, actress
She’s come into her own as an actress (Cadillac Records, Obsessed), pitchwoman extraordinaire (L’Oréal, American Express, Pepsi), and inaugural ball star, and is worth $87 million (No. 4 on the 2009 Forbes richest entertainers list).

Kathryn Bigelow, director, producer
This veteran action director (Point Break, The Weight of Water), unafraid of shocking us, may already have a bead on the Oscar with her latest, The Hurt Locker.

Miley Cyrus, Inc.
Young and gorgeous, rich and bankable, versatile and talented, earns $25 million a year, all in one teen-tween package.

Ellen DeGeneres, comedian, talk show host
She has broken every gay barrier—even Madison Avenue is comfortable with her.

Tina Fey, actress, comedian, writer
She saved NBC’s bacon during the 2008 election with her Sarah Palin bit on SNL and with her Emmy-winning 30 Rock.

Michael Patrick King, writer-director and 2009’s honorary female
He gave us the best years of Sex and the City on TV and can be credited for reviving the chick flick in Hollywood when the movie version grossed $415 million.

Stephenie Meyer, novelist
Delivered Hollywood its hottest franchise in years, the Twilight vampire series. She’s sold 70 million books to date, and the films have grossed $383 million worldwide.

Nancy Meyers, director
One of the few women directors who constantly works (The Parent Trap, What Women Want, Something’s Gotta Give) because she’s expert at defining the sexual zeitgeist.

Meryl Streep, actress
She shattered Hollywood’s ageism and sexism; at 60, she’s getting her best and showiest roles.

Continue reading ‘The Most Powerful Women in Hollywood According to Nikki Finke’

The Academy released the 65 titles eligible for the best foreign film.  Only SEVEN of the 65 are directed by women.  Guess that things aren’t so much better outside the US for women directors.

Here are the women, the countries and their films:

Hungary, “Chameleon,” Krisztina Goda

Indonesia, “Jamila and the President” Ratna Sarumpaet

Peru, “The Milk of Sorrow,” Claudia Llosa

South Africa, “White Wedding,” Jann Turner

Switzerland, “Home,” Ursula Meier

United Kingdom, “Afghan Star,” Havana Marking

Venezuela, “Libertador Morales, El Justiciero,” Efterpi Charalambidis