It’s been a continually uncomfortable decision for me to call this a “Girl DP’s blog”. Some days I want to keep it that way, other days I don’t. It’s an almost daily internal argument.
Reasons to nix the “girl” part:
My talent, style, creative choices and skills as a director of photography are not dictated by my gender. I pride myself on serving the story, not my gendered worldview. I can use my experience and unique perspective as a woman to create an approach, if needed. It sometimes lets me look through a different lens than a man might. But it doesn’t mean I am subject to (or victim to?) a specifically defined and solely “female aesthetic”. …Whatever “female” means here.
I don’t want to be judged more or less harshly because I am a girl. I want to work at a professional level, so I want to be critiqued fairly at that level. As my friend Elle says regarding her critiques of filmmakers, “I’m an equal opportunity hater.” Don’t judge my work through the “girl lens”.
I want to champion women working in Hollywood. But that needs to be separate from my work. When it comes to cinematography, I don’t want to be defined as a feminist cinematographer, a feminist filmmaker, a fem-anything. I just want to be a really damn good cinematographer. Adding a defining adjective like female or feminist just separates me and adds preconceptions and constrictions. I am a cinematographer, not a female cinematographer, because that implies that my scope is limited to whatever definition is given to “female”. (Then why all the fuss about being a girl DP? I’ll get to that in a second.)
And there is some sort of stereotype of femfilmakers going around (even perpetuated by femfilmmakers themselves) that women traditionally make arthouse or romance films, are subject to an apparently over-powering “female aesthetic” they have no control of (that makes it impossible for them to make films like Kill Bill… see previous stereotype link), and “aren’t interested” in making big budget films or films that are traditionally seen as “male”, because those aren’t the movies they want to see. (See Elle’s brilliant response to the article I am referring to here. Who gave these women permission to speak for the rest of us? Why do even women imply that one trait found true for them is indicative to the entire sex?)
It’s as if there is one narrow definition of what “feminine” is, and that defining point trumps all other aspects of a femfilmmaker’s talent, personality, and work. I DON’T CARE if Mandy Walker is feminine on set, and that she has a carrying case for her lipstick on her camera. I want to know why the hell she did or did not choose to go anamorphic, or what freaking stock she’s shooting on. That would be like interviewing Roger Deakins for ASC and asking him what kind of aftershave he uses before he goes to set, and if it makes him smell manlier, and does that help him preserve his masculine aesthetic? WTF.
Continue reading ‘Cross-Post: Why is “female” in front of “filmmaker”? by Lore Haroutunian’
Recent Comments