Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!thakur From: reiher@onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Reiher) Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema Subject: Re: women's movies - definition Message-ID: <4626@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> Date: 21 Aug 90 17:23:43 GMT References: <1990Aug20.155905.2725@eddie.mit.edu> Sender: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) Reply-To: reiher@onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Reiher) Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 85 Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu In article <1990Aug20.155905.2725@eddie.mit.edu> electro!alternat%watserv1.waterloo.edu@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: > >It seems to me that in the 50s and 60s (at least) the movie >studios were totally controlled by male studio heads who hired >men in all the key positions. Those men hired everyone else and >chose the scripts and the directors. > >A man would chose the scripts, give authority to script changes >and casting, consider the opinions of male intellectuals about >'classy' material, consider the opinions of male authorities about >popular material, consider the input of male actors over female, >respect male improvisations over female, etc., etc., etc., all down >the line until the final product is evaluated by male critics. >In the process a very considerable bias is built into the product. Going back further, the picture is a bit different, yet with many common factors. In the thirties and forties, and even in the fifties, the female part of the audience was viewed as being very important. Many films were made with the intention of appealing to that audience. Yet, with very few exceptions, these films were made by men. The leading character was female, the story was about what happened to a woman (or women), and men were secondary to the story. But the director was almost always male, the screenwriter was more often male than female, the cinematographer was always male, and the producer was certainly male. Some examples would be the films of Bette Davis ("Now, Voyager", "Dark Victory", etc.), the films of Katherine Hepburn ("Sylvia Scarlet", "Alice Adams", etc.), the films of Greta Garbo ("Queen Christina", "Catherine the Great", "Camille", "Anna Christie"), and the films of Norma Shearer ("The Women", "Marie Antoinette", etc.). This tradition continued through the fifties. But it began to die out with the growth of television. In the fifties, the popularity of TV made producers look for properties that worked especially well on the big screen. Epics became the order of the day, with the emphasis on war, exploration, and other large struggles. Such films were tilted towards men's stories, and away from women's. Films about simple human stories were the right scope for TV, so film producers began to make fewer of them. One area where women's stories were still told was musicals. Even in the sixties, many of the large musicals were fundamentally about women. "My Fair Lady" is at least half Eliza's story, "The Sound of Music" is much more about Maria than Captain von Trapp, "Star!" was about Gertrude Lawrence, "Hello Dolly" was a woman's film, so was "Funny Girl", and "Darling Lili" gave more attention to Julie Andrews than Rock Hudson. But the musical died, as well, and that avenue for women's films also disappeared. The seventies and eighties have been a very rocky period for films about women. Not through a dearth of good actresses. Meryl Streep, Cher, Sally Field, Jessica Tandy, Geraldine Page, Jessica Lange, and many other actresses gave superb performances, when given decent parts. The reason for the decline is that the studios don't believe films about women will make money. What will make that change? Maybe someone will notice that three of the biggest grossing films of the year, "Pretty Woman", "Driving Miss Daisy" (released in 89, but made most of its money in 90), and "Ghost" feature major parts for women, and deal with concerns closer to women's hearts than blasting away bad guys. Maybe not, though. Despite the fact that these will probably be the three most profitable films of the year, the studios will also notice that they required good scripts and direction to make a lot of money. Summer junk can clean up without much beyond lots of action and a big male star. That's much easier than really working at producing a good film, since it's just throwing money at things, not producing art. One can argue, of course, that even in the heighday of Hollywood women's films the true concerns of women were ignored, due to the lack of women in behind- the-camera creative roles. Undeniably, women had little creative say in these films, except as actresses. (And, due to the actresses' power, indirect input into the script and choice of other, male, creative talent.) But many of the trademarks Ann listed as telltale, such as the camera following the woman instead of the man, were present in these films. I think these trademarks are less issues of the gender of the writer and director than issues of who the story is about. If the studios were telling stories about women, instead of about men, these would fall into place. But it still would be men telling stories about women, resulting in a male perspective on the women's experience. I think that what Ann and other women would want is not equal screen time for women, or cameras following women, or women getting the good lines, or women as protagonists, but rather female control of the creative process. (Of course, this is another man telling you what women want, so take it with a ton or two of salt.) That is precisely what women have rarely had. Even when they had it, they never were able to combine creative freedom with resources that come close to equalling what Hollywood rolls out for a major film. Peter Reiher reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov . . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher