Worldwide: Kung Fu Panda 2, Jennifer Yuh Nelson ($637.6 million)
U.S. Domestic female co-director: Shrek, Vicky Nelson ($267.7 million)
U.S. Domestic, female sole director: Alvin and the Chipmunks The Squeakquel, Betty Thomas ($219.6 million)
U.S. Domestic, non-animation: Twilight, Catherine Hardwicke ($192.8 million)
Movieline analyzes the numbers and asks: Is there a "Smurf Ghetto" for women in Hollywood?
"It's almost as if Hollywood doesn't trust women with big live-action franchises, like the superhero sagas that are now the industry's bread and butter, or even with smaller genres, like horror movies (which tend to appeal to young women, after all), comedies, or prestige dramas of the sort that win Oscars."Maybe, as has been said regarding the lack of females creating mainstream comics, they (multiple choice):
a. "Don't try hard enough"
b. "Aren't really interested in" genres like live-action blockbuster franchises or prestige dramas
c. "Aren't good enough"
d. "It's a mystery to me why more women aren't directing these movies! An absolute baffling mystery!"
e. "What do you mean there aren't successful females directing live-action blockbusters? Just look at Twilight! They could direct more Twilight!"
What is the answer to all this? Do we "get more female live-action blockbuster directors, stat!"?
"As EW notes, the top domestic hit directed by a woman that doesn't involve talking CGI animals is 'Twilight,' which grossed $192.8 million. Sure, Stephenie Meyer's books were already huge, but Catherine Hardwicke's adaptation of the first novel was not only a smash, but it set the tone for the whole franchise through her visuals and casting choices. And what's her reward? She's canned by the studio because she wants to take her time on the second film and make sure it's good instead of rushing it to capitalize on a hot trend."The next
Sure, three Twilight movies were made by men.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, someone felt the need to make another three Twilight films.
A couple of points:
1. The bigger the budget, the less control a director has. Raimi, after making two wildly successful Spider-Man movies, had to shoehorn Venom into the third one, per the producers of the film. Favreau complained a bit (as did Downey) about all the extra Avengers stuff added into Iron Man 2. Only Spielberg and Lucas really have the clout to do whatever they want, and, judging by the last Indiana Jones movie, they don't really care that much anyways.
2. Maybe its just me, but I'd argue that directing the "squeakquel" to an obnoxious 3-D animated movie is not exactly bragging rights, man or woman. Just because something is wildly profitable does not make it worthwhile. In my opinion, Julie Taymor's Titus or Frida, for that matter, is worth most of this summer's blockbusters to me, in terms of taste, memorability, and enjoyment.
3. While there are not a lot of "big-name" women film directors out there, three of the most profitable franchises in TV and film come from novels written by women. Rowling's a billionaire, Meyer succeeded beyond anything anyone could hope, and if there's an HBO exec who doesn't go to bed at night without praying for the gift that is Charlaine Harris, they don't deserve the house they live in.
Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of lingering brick walls that limit the opportunity structures for women in Hollywood. No one should argue that they don't, in less they really like losing arguments.
All I'm saying is that being shut out of the "Shitty but Highly Profitable Movie-Making Club", regardless of the reason (not a man, not a straight man, not young enough, not old enough, not obedient enough, not mainstream enough, not quiet in the press) has some advantages, as well.
Very interesting and something I never thought of. I really don't pay attention to how many women are directing films; I just watch what I like.
ReplyDeleteTwilight especially is interesting even though I'm not a huge fan of the franchise. I knew they had fired her and know the subsequent directors but never really put it together.