Female representation in hollywood

[Solo4114]

You're suggesting that white people shouldn't (or didn't) point out that segregation was wrong, and just waited until enough black people said it was unfair? (OK, so a lot didn't realise how bad it was until the protests gained momentum)
White people can campaign against racism, men can support feminism, you don't have to be part of the oppressed to listen to them and see that the system needs changing.


What a brilliant idea! Let's make it so that none of the privileged, entitled people who have all the power, need to do anything. Make the ones with no voice, who are already put down and ignored, do all the work! :facepalm
If it was that easy for the under-represented to affect change, there wouldn't be inequality. And as for these men 'having no dog in the fight' you forget that many of them have sisters, daughters, wives. etc that they would want, or expect to be treated fairly.

I think the point is a little different from what you're saying. I mean, I understand your interpretation, but my guess is that was not the intention of the comment.


The people in power in Hollywood -- by and large, white dudes -- don't, in the aggregate, have an interest in ceding their control of the system or catering to an audience that they (A) don't see as a money-maker, and (B) don't really understand. Sure, individual studio bosses have daughters, wives, sisters, mothers, etc., and may be sympathetic, but at the end of the day, they answer to shareholders and the bottom line.

So, again, I think this is largely driven by demographics and economics. And ultimately....that's actually good news for women. I'm pretty sure I've read that there are more women than men, and that this trend is likely to continue for some time. Likewise, I've seen stories about how, for example, women in their 20s are making more than their male counterparts. These kinds of changes, and the ripple effect through society itself, take time, but they do come. In large part, they're unstoppable.

That doesn't mean that we can just sit back and ignore the whole thing and assume it will take care of itself. But what I think people don't always realize is that the fact that we're having this discussion at all is evidence of the change happening around us. The fact that Geena Davis' comments are spreading around the internet at all is evidence that these issues matter to large numbers of people.

Davis herself doesn't really have a voice in Hollywood. She cannot, singlehandedly, make these changes (well, unless she starts her own studio and does what she says the industry should do herself). But her message is resonating beyond her. So, it's not like "Oh, wait, Geena Davis said that?! We need to pay attention!" It's more like "Wow. That's a really good point. Say, whatever happened to Geena Davis, anyway?"

I think Hollywood is waking up to this stuff, albeit very slowly. I think you're seeing changes happen within the industry itself, although sometimes the changes are handled poorly (e.g. marketing that suggests a kind of tokenism, instead of letting the film and casting announcement speak for itself).

We're seeing backlash, too, and in some pretty disgusting ways. But in a way, the vehemence and vitriol of some of the backlash, to me, only indicates one thing: women are winning. They haven't won yet. The fight isn't over. But what I see in some of the truly disgusting commentary out there....is fear. Fear of losing top dog status, and an unconscious recognition that such an end is inevitable. That doesn't mean folks can slack off, but it does mean that Hollywood will change in time. It's changing currently. Maybe not fast enough, but it's happening.

 

[firesprite]

According to statistics compiled by the United Nations, there are an average of 102 women to every 100 men in America. When is the last time you saw a film that was a mainstream, non-"ChickFlick" film that even cam close to reflecting the actual make up of this gender balance?

Do I refuse to go see films that don't have a roughly equal mix of men and women? No.. because I love movies and I would hardly ever get to see them if that were the case. Does it mean that I will enthusiastically throw my support behind movies like Fury Road and the Martian which give women more or less equal representation? You bet your ass, it does.

 

[Solo4114]

According to statistics compiled by the United Nations, there are an average of 102 women to every 100 men in America. When is the last time you saw a film that was a mainstream, non-"ChickFlick" film that even cam close to reflecting the actual make up of this gender balance?

Do I refuse to go see films that don't have a roughly equal mix of men and women? No.. because I love movies and I would hardly ever get to see them if that were the case. Does it mean that I will enthusiastically throw my support behind movies like Fury Road and the Martian which give women more or less equal representation? You bet your ass, it does.

Well said.

Just to be clear, my point earlier was not that this isn't an important issue, but rather that I think the forces that will really bring the change about are the demographics you're citing to, rather than just goodwill on the part of studios. To be fair, it'll be a mix of those elements, but at the end of the day, it's the bottom line that matters, and in the long run, that will be a good thing for women. I think you're going to start seeing more films like Fury Road, as well as films written and helmed by women that go beyond the usual tropes. Why? Simple. Because there is an audience for this stuff and Hollywood is sloooooooooowly waking up to that fact. But they'll wake up eventually, and figure out how to sell to that audience in ways that don't fall back on the same old chick flick/romcom formula.

 

[jlee562]

This is not directly related to the representation of women in Hollywood, but I think there are parallels here.

From Richard Lawson's review of "Stonewall," in Vanity Fair, a film which fictionalizes the Stonewall riots (widely recognized as a major catalyst of the U.S. gay rights movement).
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/09/stonewall-review-roland-emmerich?mbid=social_twitter

Stonewall insists, with its hokey story about Danny’s personal growth and struggles with his family back home in Indiana, that what actually happened isn’t good enough. That no one will care unless there’s a beautiful young white man at the center of the story. Because who is more wonderful, compelling, appealing than that? Which may sadly be the opinion of certain corners of the market, but who cares about those people. They have plenty of movies made for them. Meanwhile, there are plenty other recent movies that aren’t catered to their narrow tastes but that have done just fine.
What this really is, I think, is the filmmakers tending to their personal preferences and prejudices, and then blaming the system. Darn it, this is how it has to be, because that’s how the world is. We have to literally see a black character hand Danny a brick so Danny can be the first to throw it and the first to cheer “Gay power!” (This is the moment my screening audience, of professional critics, was lost to groans and laughter for the rest of the movie.) We simply must redirect as much history as possible through a white, bizarrely heteronormative lens, or else, the thinking goes, no one will care. People like Emmerich throw up their hands at this supposed inevitability and say, “That’s just the way it is.”
Which, of course, is nonsense. When Straight Outta Compton is earning $60 million on its opening weekend, it’s nonsense. When Tangerine is earning rave reviews and art-house dollars, it’s nonsense. When a show like Transparent is winning Emmys, it’s nonsense. But Stonewall demands that we accept Emmerich’s evasive, self-serving sociology and then has the audacity to ask that we be moved by it. We’re not.

There definitely is a line of thinking in Hollywood in general on most issues (not just those related to gender/ethnicity/sexuality) which falls into the "supposed inevitability," to borrow from Lawson above. But at the same time, there's also a kind of chicken and egg issue. Films that fall outside of the norm are seen as not having a market, but is there "no market" precisely because so few films actually get made that do actually stray from the norm.

 

[Solo4114]

Wait, Stonewall is a Roland Emmerich film?


Well there's your problem.


I don't think you can necessarily generalize the problems of Hollywood onto Roland Emmerich. I mean, jeez, take a look at The Patriot with Mel Gibson. It's atrocious (also, unintentionally hysterical). He's....ok....at doing big budget disaster films, but this knuckleheaded, dumbest common denominator approach has been running through his films since the mid-90s. It's nothing new. He just applies it to different films and genres from time to time, and they all almost always suck. Basically, the man's an idiot. The systemic failure here is that someone decided to give him a budget and a green light to make his film. But Emmerich himself is a known (terrible, cheesy) quantity.