My friend Karen over at Scarlett Cinema has written an excellent response to this article in the New York Times, about laid-off i-bankers who, thanks to being forced to take six-figure severance packages as their companies collapse, are finally able to pursue their creative and artistic dreams.
Karen is eloquent as always, so I won't repeat her arguments. But I will say that, having worked at the same Times-Square-based financial company she mentions in her post, I also reacted to the New York Times article with a big dose of "reeeeaalllly?"
Does Hollywood, one of the most white-male-dominated industries in the US, really need an infusion of "talent" from the financial world...another one of the most white-male-dominated industries in the US?
Of course, all four former bankers interviewed for the article--all executives--are men. I cannot say whether they are all white, but, having worked in the financial industry, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess yes. I found it interesting that the first guy interviewed has dreams of sketch comedy--probably the most white-male-dominated art scene in New York. His group has secured a spot in the Chicago Sketch Comedy Festival. Now that he'll no longer be distracted by his day job as an executive director at Morgan Stanley, I'm sure they'll have a TV show on FUSE and a movie in the works within a year.
If the New York Times article shows anything, it's simply the persistent unreality that a large swath of New York City (like these people right here) lives in, where the arts are a hobby to entertain the rich between various money-making adventures.
Interestingly, one of the auto-generated links on Scarlett Cinema as I was reading Karen's piece was to this Washington Post article, about the Oscar-nomination gender gap. Not only is it interesting, but it's FROM THE FUTURE!
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
obama watch: slap in the face in 3, 2, 1...
I have a confession to make.
I am guilty of the greatest sin of a student of history: forgetting the lessons of the past. I was seduced--reluctantly, half-heartedly, and when I absolutely should have known better. I was charmed, at least a bit, by image and illusion, into forgetting a bitter reality that eight years of activism have proven to be true again and again.
On election night, I watched thousands of ecstatic African-Americans...nay, ecstatic Americans...pour into the streets of New York, Washington, DC and other cities, overwhelmed with joy. And it melted even my cynical fuck-the-two-party-system heart. This was a historic moment, to be sure. A great barrier had fallen, and I'll admit that even I was at least partially taken in by the messianic Obama glow. Despite the warning cries of the little Marxist on my shoulder (I think it might be Peter Camejo) I started, almost, to believe that this guy was at least somewhat genuine. I know, I know! As a revolutionary socialist and a long-term third-party organizer, I of all people should know better. What can I say? The Obama phenomenon (Obamenon?) is powerful indeed. I daresay very few on the left escaped that tractor beam.
Thankfully, history saw fit to correct my momentary delusion, and hastily indeed. Obama is not even in office yet, and already he's working overtime to tarnish that shiny halo as much as possible. The sparkle started to fade with his first appointment, power Zionist Rahm Emanuel, and took a big hit when Obama decided to retain Iran-Contra-entangled former CIA director Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's heir apparent, as Secretary of Defense, and appoint mysoginist globalization guru Larry Summers as head of the National Economic Council.
My fellow degenerates, we have now reached 100% disilluionment. What was the slap in the face that shook me out of the temporary hypnosis that foolishly made me believe we could expect any genuine change from the two-party system? Why, of course, Obama's choice to appoint anti-gay, anti-abortion evangelical zealot Rick Warren to give the invocation on Inauguration Day.
Who, might you ask, is Rick Warren? He is not just your average crazy Christian. He is the pastor of Saddleback Church, the Orange County megachurch that provided a significant portion of the money and foot soldiers behind Prop 8.
Your next question, quite justifiably, might be, why? Why, out of all the thousands of religious leaders in the US, did Obama decide to pick this guy? Because he's only too eager to pander to the Christian right? Because he doesn't care nearly as much about the activist base that propelled him to victory as they do about him? Because he thinks that progressives will continue to fogive him because they're so happy to be rid of Bush? Or D, all of the above?
Obama might feel like a rock star right now, but if you ask me, he is playing with fire. When you build up people's hopes and dreams and then dash them, when you hold out the promise of a better world and then snatch it away, people tend to get angry. Professional liberals are already in a tizzy of hurt and confusion over how Obama's administration is shaping up. And recent events--from the surge of Prop 8 protests, to the Republic factory occupation, to the current occupation of the New School--have shown how quickly the deep anger churning under the surface of US society can flare up.
If Obama is not careful, I think there is a good chance he will be remembered not as a Lincoln or a Kennedy, but as much more like another liberal who rode to victory on a wave of dicontent with war, racism and inequality--Lyndon B. Johnson--who, coincidentally, holds the record for the largest inagural crowd in history. 1.2 million people descended on Washington to watch him take office in January 1965, aglow with his promises of a War on Poverty. Instead, Johnson delivered a war in Vietnam and an increasingly violent crackdown on the protest movements of the '60s--in many cases, on the very people who had helped him get elected just a few years earlier. The result was four years of rage--and the Democrats' loss in 1968, as their young, progressive base came to the realization that they change they wanted was something that politicians were neither interested in nor capable of delivering.
Of course, no one can predict what an Obama administration will bring, and it's useless and simplistic to try to fit the template of history past onto the current situation. Indeed, in many ways, the world we live in today is far more volatile than America in the 1960s. I am indeed hopeful for the years ahead. I think change is on the horizon. But not at all--indeed, least of all--because of who is in the White House.
I am guilty of the greatest sin of a student of history: forgetting the lessons of the past. I was seduced--reluctantly, half-heartedly, and when I absolutely should have known better. I was charmed, at least a bit, by image and illusion, into forgetting a bitter reality that eight years of activism have proven to be true again and again.
On election night, I watched thousands of ecstatic African-Americans...nay, ecstatic Americans...pour into the streets of New York, Washington, DC and other cities, overwhelmed with joy. And it melted even my cynical fuck-the-two-party-system heart. This was a historic moment, to be sure. A great barrier had fallen, and I'll admit that even I was at least partially taken in by the messianic Obama glow. Despite the warning cries of the little Marxist on my shoulder (I think it might be Peter Camejo) I started, almost, to believe that this guy was at least somewhat genuine. I know, I know! As a revolutionary socialist and a long-term third-party organizer, I of all people should know better. What can I say? The Obama phenomenon (Obamenon?) is powerful indeed. I daresay very few on the left escaped that tractor beam.
Thankfully, history saw fit to correct my momentary delusion, and hastily indeed. Obama is not even in office yet, and already he's working overtime to tarnish that shiny halo as much as possible. The sparkle started to fade with his first appointment, power Zionist Rahm Emanuel, and took a big hit when Obama decided to retain Iran-Contra-entangled former CIA director Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's heir apparent, as Secretary of Defense, and appoint mysoginist globalization guru Larry Summers as head of the National Economic Council.
My fellow degenerates, we have now reached 100% disilluionment. What was the slap in the face that shook me out of the temporary hypnosis that foolishly made me believe we could expect any genuine change from the two-party system? Why, of course, Obama's choice to appoint anti-gay, anti-abortion evangelical zealot Rick Warren to give the invocation on Inauguration Day.
Who, might you ask, is Rick Warren? He is not just your average crazy Christian. He is the pastor of Saddleback Church, the Orange County megachurch that provided a significant portion of the money and foot soldiers behind Prop 8.
Your next question, quite justifiably, might be, why? Why, out of all the thousands of religious leaders in the US, did Obama decide to pick this guy? Because he's only too eager to pander to the Christian right? Because he doesn't care nearly as much about the activist base that propelled him to victory as they do about him? Because he thinks that progressives will continue to fogive him because they're so happy to be rid of Bush? Or D, all of the above?
Obama might feel like a rock star right now, but if you ask me, he is playing with fire. When you build up people's hopes and dreams and then dash them, when you hold out the promise of a better world and then snatch it away, people tend to get angry. Professional liberals are already in a tizzy of hurt and confusion over how Obama's administration is shaping up. And recent events--from the surge of Prop 8 protests, to the Republic factory occupation, to the current occupation of the New School--have shown how quickly the deep anger churning under the surface of US society can flare up.
If Obama is not careful, I think there is a good chance he will be remembered not as a Lincoln or a Kennedy, but as much more like another liberal who rode to victory on a wave of dicontent with war, racism and inequality--Lyndon B. Johnson--who, coincidentally, holds the record for the largest inagural crowd in history. 1.2 million people descended on Washington to watch him take office in January 1965, aglow with his promises of a War on Poverty. Instead, Johnson delivered a war in Vietnam and an increasingly violent crackdown on the protest movements of the '60s--in many cases, on the very people who had helped him get elected just a few years earlier. The result was four years of rage--and the Democrats' loss in 1968, as their young, progressive base came to the realization that they change they wanted was something that politicians were neither interested in nor capable of delivering.
Of course, no one can predict what an Obama administration will bring, and it's useless and simplistic to try to fit the template of history past onto the current situation. Indeed, in many ways, the world we live in today is far more volatile than America in the 1960s. I am indeed hopeful for the years ahead. I think change is on the horizon. But not at all--indeed, least of all--because of who is in the White House.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
catherine hardwicke canned by "twilight" producers
Despite the fact that I skewered Twilight in my review on Scarlett Cinema, I was just as pissed as the next aspiring female filmmaker to learn that Catherine Hardwicke has been booted as director for the film's two planned sequels, New Moon and Eclipse. (Plans to film the series's gruesome and bizarre fourth book are not yet finalized.)
Say what you will about the film's quality (and believe me, I have). There is no doubt that it was a resounding commercial success, and will probably end up as one of the top ten grossing films of 2008. And, while I have my beef with the Twilight series, I believe very little of what leaves a bad taste in my mouth can be laid at the feet of Hardwicke herself.
While production company Summit Entertainment is reporting that the decision was due to "scheduling conflicts," at least one blogger, Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, is reporting that Summit found Hardwicke "'difficult' and 'irrational'" and her agent Beth Swofford "alternately ineffectual and hysterical."
While the real truth may never be known, it's pretty hard not to see Hollywood's double standard at work here. "I can't help thinking that a guy director who's brought in over $140 million on a budget of under $40 million would be treated differently," noted Melissa Silverstein at Women and Hollywood.
And who will be replacing Hardwicke? Why, the producer of American Pie! Okay, to be fair, Chris Weitz also directed the well-respected About a Boy. But still...
Say what you will about the film's quality (and believe me, I have). There is no doubt that it was a resounding commercial success, and will probably end up as one of the top ten grossing films of 2008. And, while I have my beef with the Twilight series, I believe very little of what leaves a bad taste in my mouth can be laid at the feet of Hardwicke herself.
While production company Summit Entertainment is reporting that the decision was due to "scheduling conflicts," at least one blogger, Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, is reporting that Summit found Hardwicke "'difficult' and 'irrational'" and her agent Beth Swofford "alternately ineffectual and hysterical."
While the real truth may never be known, it's pretty hard not to see Hollywood's double standard at work here. "I can't help thinking that a guy director who's brought in over $140 million on a budget of under $40 million would be treated differently," noted Melissa Silverstein at Women and Hollywood.
And who will be replacing Hardwicke? Why, the producer of American Pie! Okay, to be fair, Chris Weitz also directed the well-respected About a Boy. But still...
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
my review of "twilight" on scarlett cinema
I've been morbidly fascinated by the whole Twilight phenomenon ever since Stephanie Meyer started pretending she's the next JK Rowling (which, let me tell you, she is most certainly not.)
I was going to write an article about Twilight for this blog, but then I had a better idea, and wrote one for my friend Karen's excellent film blog Scarlett Cinema instead. You can read it here.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
violence abroad, violence at home
I wanted to take a moment to mention two other articles of note in this week's New York Times.
The first is a rather grim report on domestic violence by returning Iraq war vets--particularly the case of Sgt. Carlos Renteira, who, instead of receiving Army-mandated anger management and substance abuse counseling after beating up his wife...was redeployed to Iraq and promoted.
The article also mentions not one but *two* rashes of murders of women (both female soldiers and wives of soldiers) at North Carolina's Ft. Bragg--one that made headlines in 2002 when many troops returned from Afghanistan, and another that's happened in the past four months. Apparently babies aren't the only thing that come with the return of the 82nd Airborne.
The second article, I'd like to think, is a bit more hopeful. It describes a pilot program in New York's Washington Heights that trains hairstylists to identify signs of domestic abuse and offer basic counseling and sources of information for victims of violence--not unlike the work done by organizations like RAINN. Hairstylists might seem like a random choice, but as the article points out, they often end up serving as the "therapist of last resort," particularly for women who can't afford or are afraid to seek other counseling services. And "the salon might be one of the few places women might be without their abuser around." The program, modeled on the fairly large and successful Cut It Out initiative in Chicago, targets a neighborhood where people may be particularly mistrustful of police or city social service workers.
The first is a rather grim report on domestic violence by returning Iraq war vets--particularly the case of Sgt. Carlos Renteira, who, instead of receiving Army-mandated anger management and substance abuse counseling after beating up his wife...was redeployed to Iraq and promoted.
The article also mentions not one but *two* rashes of murders of women (both female soldiers and wives of soldiers) at North Carolina's Ft. Bragg--one that made headlines in 2002 when many troops returned from Afghanistan, and another that's happened in the past four months. Apparently babies aren't the only thing that come with the return of the 82nd Airborne.
The second article, I'd like to think, is a bit more hopeful. It describes a pilot program in New York's Washington Heights that trains hairstylists to identify signs of domestic abuse and offer basic counseling and sources of information for victims of violence--not unlike the work done by organizations like RAINN. Hairstylists might seem like a random choice, but as the article points out, they often end up serving as the "therapist of last resort," particularly for women who can't afford or are afraid to seek other counseling services. And "the salon might be one of the few places women might be without their abuser around." The program, modeled on the fairly large and successful Cut It Out initiative in Chicago, targets a neighborhood where people may be particularly mistrustful of police or city social service workers.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
i'm just a girl
The LA Times recently published an illuminating article with the forthright title "Film directing is still a man's world," about the dearth of female directors in feature film. For a young woman preparing to enter the film industry, the statistics are not encouraging. All 30 of the top 30 top-grossing films of 2007 were directed by men. Of the 250 top-grossing films, only 6% were directed by women. In fact, this figure has actually declined from 9% ten years ago--despite, as the article points out, the healthy number of women producers and the presence of women as heads of several major studios. In the whole history of the Oscars, only three women - three! -have even been nominated for Best Director, and none have won.
"If you were looking at Hollywood's history through a gender lens," the article's author perceptively observes, "you might say the industry went straight from male domination to post-feminism without ever enjoying a true feminist age."
Sadly, this statement seems to be proven by several influential women interviewed in the article. Sony Pictures Co-Chairman Amy Pascal, who "has hired more female directors than any studio head..."
Um...hello?! Antihero superhero? Stoner action movie? Those both sound awesome! I personally would love a chance to direct either of those movies. Will Smith has some mysterious charm that can make even syrupy dreck like The Pursuit of Happyness mildly watchable. And who wouldn't want to hitch a ride on the Apatow-and-friends train to Awesomeville these days?
All the studio heads (and some of the female directors) quoted in this article seem to be laboring under the assumption that women only want to direct certain kinds of movies. And I am sure there are female filmmakers out there who want only to work on small, "character-driven," explosion-free dramas or comedies which will be marketed to other women. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As I am not one of those people, however, it stands to reason that not all female filmmakers fall into this category.
The subjects of the last 5 screenplays I've worked on in class have been: robots, Macbeth set in Vegas, political intrigue in Latin America, immigrant family running from unscrupulous immigration cops, and a coming-of-age story about a 20-something guy who discovers his father had a secret other family. Four out of these five scripts have a male protagonist. (One has a robot protagonist who looks like a human female.) Their genres can be loosely classified as sci-fi, thriller, action, thriller, drama. I would not call any of them chick flicks. In fact, I would call all of them "guy movies."
I would say that I tend to write guy movies because I tend to like guy movies. And if I, a humble film student, would much rather work on Indiana Jones (aliens and all) than Sex and the City, I am sure that there are any number of talented, experienced female directors out there who feel the same way. I find it hard to believe, as DreamWorks Co-Chairman Stacey Snider snidely states, that "there just isn't a very wide pool of talent to choose from."
The article also contains a link to a very interesting DGA Quarterly interview with six successful female directors. Some of these women point out that there are more opportunities for women in television, where the sheer number of creative opportunities helps level the playing field a bit. Of course, television is not exactly a magical land of opportunity, either. Discussing one popular crime show that has supposedly only hired one female director in its run, prolific TV director Lesli Linka Glatter comments: "No one would ever say, 'We hired a white guy, and it didn't work. So we're not going to hire any more white guys.'"
As an aspiring member of the next generation of filmmakers, I have to operate on the assumption that there's some hope out there. Perhaps the most promising development, as the women in the DGA interview point out, is the rise of so-called new media, the Internet, and digital video, which has the potential to put the tools of filmmaking into many more hands than ever before. If any idiot with a webcam can become world-famous on Youtube, I can only hope that some of those hands will belong to some of the many talented women out there.
"If you were looking at Hollywood's history through a gender lens," the article's author perceptively observes, "you might say the industry went straight from male domination to post-feminism without ever enjoying a true feminist age."
Sadly, this statement seems to be proven by several influential women interviewed in the article. Sony Pictures Co-Chairman Amy Pascal, who "has hired more female directors than any studio head..."
...says summer movies just aren't an area of interest for most women. "It simply may be a matter of self-selection, since most studio films are aimed at young boys," she says. "Look at my summer slate. I don't think there's a woman who would've wanted to direct 'Hancock' or 'Pineapple Express.'"
Um...hello?! Antihero superhero? Stoner action movie? Those both sound awesome! I personally would love a chance to direct either of those movies. Will Smith has some mysterious charm that can make even syrupy dreck like The Pursuit of Happyness mildly watchable. And who wouldn't want to hitch a ride on the Apatow-and-friends train to Awesomeville these days?
All the studio heads (and some of the female directors) quoted in this article seem to be laboring under the assumption that women only want to direct certain kinds of movies. And I am sure there are female filmmakers out there who want only to work on small, "character-driven," explosion-free dramas or comedies which will be marketed to other women. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As I am not one of those people, however, it stands to reason that not all female filmmakers fall into this category.
The subjects of the last 5 screenplays I've worked on in class have been: robots, Macbeth set in Vegas, political intrigue in Latin America, immigrant family running from unscrupulous immigration cops, and a coming-of-age story about a 20-something guy who discovers his father had a secret other family. Four out of these five scripts have a male protagonist. (One has a robot protagonist who looks like a human female.) Their genres can be loosely classified as sci-fi, thriller, action, thriller, drama. I would not call any of them chick flicks. In fact, I would call all of them "guy movies."
I would say that I tend to write guy movies because I tend to like guy movies. And if I, a humble film student, would much rather work on Indiana Jones (aliens and all) than Sex and the City, I am sure that there are any number of talented, experienced female directors out there who feel the same way. I find it hard to believe, as DreamWorks Co-Chairman Stacey Snider snidely states, that "there just isn't a very wide pool of talent to choose from."
The article also contains a link to a very interesting DGA Quarterly interview with six successful female directors. Some of these women point out that there are more opportunities for women in television, where the sheer number of creative opportunities helps level the playing field a bit. Of course, television is not exactly a magical land of opportunity, either. Discussing one popular crime show that has supposedly only hired one female director in its run, prolific TV director Lesli Linka Glatter comments: "No one would ever say, 'We hired a white guy, and it didn't work. So we're not going to hire any more white guys.'"
As an aspiring member of the next generation of filmmakers, I have to operate on the assumption that there's some hope out there. Perhaps the most promising development, as the women in the DGA interview point out, is the rise of so-called new media, the Internet, and digital video, which has the potential to put the tools of filmmaking into many more hands than ever before. If any idiot with a webcam can become world-famous on Youtube, I can only hope that some of those hands will belong to some of the many talented women out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)