“It’s hard to survey the landscape in the middle of an earthquake,” observes A.O. Scott in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times. The piece sees him and fellow film critic Manohla Dargis doing just that. The wide-ranging conversation about the industry kicks off by acknowledging that “the tectonic plates in Hollywood show signs of shifting” — but the pair admit that it’s difficult to know exactly how much those plates will actually shift, and what the aftermath will look like.
“Filmmakers like [‘Moonlight’ helmer Barry Jenkins] and Patty Jenkins, who directed ‘Wonder Woman,’ are agents of that change,” Dargis and Scott write. “So are the scores of women who have called out the systemic abuse of entertainment power brokers like Harvey Weinstein, Brett Ratner, and John Lasseter. Change finally may be coming, whether the movie industry is ready or not.”
We’ve collected some of the highlights of the conversation below, which touched on topics such as disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, inclusivity on-screen and behind the scenes, and much more.
Scott on separating art from the artist: “…the idea that you could separate the art from the life, a conceptually and practically incoherent notion in any case, is as ludicrous for [Woody Allen] as it is for Louis C.K. The principal subject of Woody Allen’s work has always been Woody Allen, and his insistence on putting himself into the picture leaves his defenders in the distasteful position of having to choose between denial and apology: Either ‘because I like his movies, I can’t bring myself to believe he molested his daughter,’ or ‘because I like his movies, I have decided not to care if he molested his daughter.’”
Dargis on film criticism and the significance of movies like “Lady Bird” and “Wonder Woman”: “Criticism is always personal and so is movie love, which is why I’ve been delighted by female-driven movies as different as ‘Lady Bird,’ ‘Faces Places,’ ‘Wonder Woman,’ and ‘The Last Jedi’ — all of which speak to me in some way. These are the movies that in some modest yet real way feel like rejoinders to all the stories of assault and abuse that reminded us, outrage by outrage, of what a cesspool the movie industry can be. Women had been assaulted, their careers derailed. And all because some grotesque excuse for a human being had gone into a business that has historically encouraged, profited from, ignored, and rewarded sexism and misogyny.”
Scott on reparations for those affected by Hollywood predators: “The movie business might start by designating a pool of money — maybe equivalent to the value of the Miramax and Weinstein Company libraries, and the budgets of every Brett Ratner film and some fraction of Pixar’s worldwide revenues — to fund movies written and directed by women. Some people might see that as a threat to meritocracy. I would challenge those people to use the words ‘Brett Ratner’ and ‘meritocracy’ in the same sentence. The idea that Hollywood functions by rewarding excellence is laughable on its face.”
Dargis on how Hollywood is currently handling the problem: “The revelations of abuse are further proof of what some of us have been saying for a very long time: that the industry’s sexism isn’t in our imaginations. It isn’t a female fantasy or a ‘hysterical’ feminist myth. As for compensation, I think that’s a good idea, but it’s instructive that we haven’t heard about many (any?) concrete institutional actions that the industry is taking to correct its wrongs from the inside. Some moves — like removing names from credits — evoke the old Soviet-era purges, when so-called undesirable elements were ousted. Of course getting fired isn’t like a bullet to the head, though maybe it feels that way in Malibu.”
Dargis on how to effect change: “The problem is that industry talk is cheap and its apologies feel the same. So what now? The recently announced activist group Time’s Up, which seeks to end sexual harassment both inside and outside Hollywood, looks promising. But how about inside the corridors of power? Is it time for quotas? How about the Rooney Rule? Versions of that rule — which requires teams in the National Football League to interview at least one minority candidate for top positions — have been adopted by some tech companies. It’s apparently stalled in the N.F.L., but it is a place to start. In 2014, the Directors Guild of America added language to its contract that required major television studios to maintain or establish director programs that ‘focused on diversity — complete with enforceable provisions.’ I’d like to see enforceable provisions throughout the industry.
Scott on how who works behind the scenes affects who is seen on-screen: “The deeply ingrained homogeneity of the business is reflected on the screen. It’s hardly surprising that an industry that often functions as a protection racket for white male mediocrity should specialize in spectacles of white male self-pity. That description covers most of the comedies, action movies, superhero franchises, and science-fiction epics produced by the big studios in the past decade. But that edifice of monochromatic machismo showed signs of cracking throughout 2017. ‘Get Out’ opened the same weekend that ‘Moonlight’ won best picture. ‘Wonder Woman’ temporarily shook the DC/Warner Bros. machine out of its rut. ‘The Last Jedi’ is the most inclusive “Star Wars” chapter to date, thanks in part to the presence of nonwhite, non-male players on the creative team. Two of the most anticipated big-budget movies of 2018 are Ryan Coogler’s ‘Black Panther’ and Ava DuVernay’s ‘A Wrinkle in Time,’ both products of the ever-growing Disney empire. And of course right now there’s Greta Gerwig’s ‘Lady Bird,’ which has been embraced with some of the same kind of ardor that critics and audiences brought to ‘Moonlight.’
Dargis on Hollywood’s racism and sexism: “The art form that we love should not carry such a ghastly price. So hope is good.”
