Nina Menkes is a filmmaker whose works synthesize inner dream worlds with brutal, outer realities. Her work has been shown widely in major international film festivals, including Sundance, the Berlinale, Locarno, Toronto, and the MOMA in NYC. Menkes has had numerous international retrospectives, and her early work has been selected for restoration by the Academy Film Archive and Martin Scorsese’s Film Foundation. She is a Fulbright and Guggenheim Fellow and on the faculty at California Institute of the Arts.
“Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power” is screening at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival, which is running online from January 20-30. More information can be found on the fest’s website.
W&H: Describe the film for us in your own words.
NM: “Brainwashed” exposes the way the visual language of cinema, as seen in the cinematic canon — feature films that win at Cannes and the Academy Awards, cult classics, and other favorites — intersects with, and contributes to, the twin epidemics of employment discrimination against women and an environment of pervasive sexual harassment, abuse, and assault.
W&H: What drew you to this story?
NM: I’ve been making films since I arrived at the UCLA film school in the 1980s – even though my first feature, made on 16mm film for $5,000, won an LA Film Critics Award and was invited to the Toronto Film Fest among many others. I, as they say, “couldn’t get arrested” in Hollywood. No one was interested in giving me money. So I came up against the glass ceiling in cinema at a very young age.
My movies intuitively confronted a heterosexual, male-centric worldview. I don’t know why, but I was allergic to the male gaze very instinctively – I felt it as an assault. Once I was at the Hammer Museum, and there was an installation where people were invited to write on slips of pink paper the last time they experienced sexual harassment or assault. Someone wrote, “when I saw a Hollywood movie last night.”
W&H: What do you want people to think about after they watch the film?
NM: How we have been programmed to conceptualize “men,” “women,” “sex,” “desire.” We’ve been taught all these things – do we just accept it? How has the visual language of cinema, particularly as it is represented in the cinematic canon, influenced the way we see others, and most importantly, ourselves?
W&H: What was the biggest challenge in making the film?
NM: Choosing which film clips to leave out! There are more than 175 film clips in the film, but there were so many more we could have included.
W&H: How did you get your film funded? Share some insights into how you got the film made.
NM: The film was primarily funded by Tim Disney, Susan Disney Lord, and Abigail Disney, through tax deductible donations to the International Documentary Association (IDA).
W&H: What inspired you to become a filmmaker?
NM: As a teenager I was a dancer/choreographer: I understood movement and its relationship to sound, and how to tell a story through images. I had a deep talent with photography that felt very basic and core to who I was as human being. I created a short dance film with a few friends and was stunned at how exciting it was to add the element of editing to movement, sound, and image. I also was raised by a mother who had been in Jungian analysis and always encouraged me to write down my dreams.
Creating worlds that were outside the mundane space we call reality was exhilarating to me. I decided to apply to UCLA’s film school. When I got in and arrived there, I knew I was home. All my diverse talents and interests came together in a powerful way that felt deeply, deeply right. I’m grateful to live the life of a committed artist.
W&H: What’s the best and worst advice you’ve received?
NM: Best advice: Always listen inward (thanks Mom!).
Worst advice: Work on other people’s film sets to learn how to be a filmmaker.
W&H: What advice do you have for other women directors?
NM: Instead of watching the cinematic “canon,” reach inside yourself for what images are truly resonant. Do those images have a through-line? What story are they telling you that you could then share with the world?
W&H: Name your favorite woman-directed film and why.
NM: It’s not my only favorite, but one of my favorites is “Vagabond” (1985) by Agnès Varda. She shows the price a woman pays when she refuses to toe the line, when she refuses the role that is expected of her. It’s a stunning film that never gets old.
W&H: How are you adjusting to life during the COVID-19 pandemic? Are you keeping creative, and if so, how?
NM: Actually we made almost the entire film during the pandemic! I spoke to the editor, Cecily Rhett, every day for hours. We would pass cuts back and forth via the internet and she would show me edits of small sections, every day, using FaceTime on our phones! It worked!
W&H: The film industry has a long history of underrepresenting people of color onscreen and behind the scenes and reinforcing — and creating — negative stereotypes. What actions do you think need to be taken to make it more inclusive?
NM: The action that the EEOC took in 2015 to investigate the grotesque, and illegal, sex discrimination in the industry had an enormous impact. As our co-producer on “Brainwashed,” Maria Giese, says, “Things don’t change unless you force change.” The industry was looking at real, heavy financial sanctions if it didn’t change.
At this time there has been a huge shift in the number of women of color who are directing versus before this action. Obviously, the stories these women tell are shifting, and will continue to shift, the landscape of representation. The #BLACKLIVESMATTER and #OSCARSSOWHITE movements shook mainstream consciousness, and Ava DuVernay’s heading up the formal change in the Academy Award regulations — in order to qualify for an award a film must show diversity both in front of and behind the camera. These are all concrete actions that have dramatically shifted the cinematic landscape towards a more equitable direction.
