Why aren't there more Women Film Directors?

If you're interested ... a recent interview with Ana Kokkinos, discussing Blessed & her attitude to film making in general. :

Believe what you want, hawkeye. I'm hardly about to attempt to change you opinion on this ... say nothing about your views of women, for that matter.

Your yard stick for the success of any particular film is completely different to mine. For you it's all about profit. For me it's all about the communication that happens, between the film maker & the audience. When those two 2 things click, to me it's magic!

for the corporations in the movie business it is all about profit, which is how it should be. I have no problem with film as art and not profit, but those need to be supported by someone who will take the loss. If women don't make movies that make money then they cant be working for the major Hollywood movie companies, because they are businesses.

Question: Why aren't there more women film directors?

Answer: because there are not more people who are willing to pay for their work, neither movie goers nor charity operations.

Well, obviously this has nothing at all to do with the biases of the mainstream Hollywood studios!

And obviously because women (& their experience of life) are utterly worthless, hawkeye!

Question: why on earth do you have a bee in your bonnet about this? What's it to you, anyway? You can watch action movies any day of the week, no one is stopping you. They're a dime a dozen.

Can you not get your head around this at all ?: women are half (possibly more) of the population of any community & I find the constant diet of action or fantasy movies in the commercial media outlets deadly boring.

I want to see films I can relate to when I go to the cinema. Something which correlates with my own experience & my own understanding of life & "Hollywood" doesn't exactly provide the option I'm looking for.

Is wanting that asking too much?

I think he 's a socialist, scorning profit.

And I believe you must be living on Mars, or somewhere, if you actually believe that!

Sometimes, I have trouble trying understand what he is saying,
but he has identified himself as being a socialist.

When he refers to corporations,
he appears to do so with scorn, if not with hatred for them.

Do u allege that he is NOT a socialist ?

I'm seriously not interested in a continuing conversation about what he might be saying. Or why he said what he said. Who cares?

I am interested in the thread topic: Why aren't there more women film directors?

It constantly amazes me why some people aren't capable of discussing the topic when "womens' issues" are involved without introducing their own agendas.

Some people aren't capable of discussing any topic without asserting their own agendas.
That's the problem.

Indeed, eoe. I've noticed this.

But I think some of my responses to hawkeye were rather rude. And for that I apologize.
Thing is, for each woman director & film I mentioned, hawkeye quoted some financial statistic to "prove" what a "failure" it was. When the tiniest peek at the trailers & the ideas these directors were exploring would have indicated that these films were never exactly intended to be blockbusters, raking in millions of $$$$ at the box office. They were often these directors' first films and were pretty impressive as such. The question to me, is more about how do we nurture such obviously talented women directors who produce such marvellous films, which are obviously not mainstream in their appeal? Film making (even for small films) is such an expensive business.

I agree with you mostly, but you keep ducking the question of how do the bills get paid? Film consumers? wealthy individuals? government? NGO's? Right now no one will pay what it costs for women to make many movies. The product is not deemed to be worthy of the support/investment.

Filmmakers no matter what their sex is need financial support for two distinct phases of filmmaking: production and distribution.

If the filmmaker can not distribute the film into the theaters (even at a limited run), it doesn't matter if they have enough money to cover the production costs. It's a catch 22! If no one sees their film, then they won't make a profit or at least cover their production and distribution costs. If they keep losing money because their movies are constantly relegated into the straight to DVD rack, then the filmmaker will be less likely funded financially for his or her next project.

Two problems arise:
1. The studio system will not take a chance and fund these small films to help them in the marketing and distribution.

2. The movie theater chains (especially those megaplexes not located in the cultured cities) will not give up valuable real estate to show these personal small storied films even if they were potentially profitable to a certain degree. They choose to give 2 or 3 extra screens for extra daily screenings of the latest alleged blockbuster/mainstream film.

Quelle domage!

Hawkeye ... you seem to forget the decades long practice that used to be prevalent in the Hollywood studio system.

A studio will release several massive blockbusters a year ... rake in the massive profits ... then they can allow the smaller allegedly artsy films to roll out into the theaters and if they make a profit? That's lovely! If they don't then the losses are covered by the release of a blockbuster film. The smaller more personal films are ego boosters as they tend to be the films getting the critical acclaim thusly will be placed into the legacy of the studio executive's life long film resume and into cinema history their place will be forever noted.

This is 2009, each movie is financed individually now. UNless you are willing to give film corps a tax write-off for the charity work of supporting female directors why should they do it? Part of their job is maximizing shareholder value, what do the shareholders get in return for taking the losses that women directors create?

Not every studio is publicly owned.

and most films are not financed primarily by the studios, they get financing from outside, either other corps, hedge funds, individuals, pension funds....even independent film backing NGO's can not afford to finance likely money losers, they need to protect their endowments as best they can.

If women overall show the inability to produce profits they can't be supported except on a charity basis. Who do you think wants to do that?

But I don't see it as charity at all, hawkeye. I see it as an investment in a bigger, more interesting, more diverse film industry. A long term strategy, as opposed to the biggest possible profit, as quickly as possible. Who knows what some of these smaller directors (& not just women) might actually achieve in the long term, if the financers were as interested in film as instant profit?

You are obviously confused about where you are....capitalism in 2009 is not interested in building anything for the future, is is all about satisfying greed now. You think that female directors can buck the entire global economic system?

I am the guy who says that capitalism has failed, I am the radical who wants to either reform it into a kind of socialism or else overthrow it....I am with you. However, this problem does not get fixed until we fix deeper problems. We can start with the need for instant gratification and lack of concern for the greater good.

Taking Hawkeye's arguement at face value. The state of the movie industry is pathetic and sexist.