"The pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction. It is absolutely not a golden age."
 
So claims Nancy Meyers, the most successful woman director in Hollywood, who has single-handedly proved that talent-driven romantic comedies have the capacity to do international blockbuster business -- i.e., that chick flicks have legs. If she's not happy, chances are it's not going to get any better the further you go down the food chain.

From the mid-'90s onward, as independent film took its turn at the table, it seemed like a new generation of female directors was about to finally explode the old boys' network of Hollywood gender disparity. Enabled by female and female-friendly producers like Christine Vachon, Ted Hope, James Schamus, Albert Berger and Ron Yerxa plus a host of others, directors as diverse as Kimberly Peirce, Nicole Holofcener, Mary Harron, Sofia Coppola, Kasi Lemmons, Lisa Cholodenko, Lynne Ramsay, Antonia Bird, Adrienne Shelley and Sarah Polley seemed to finally promise an end to the dominant patriarchy.

A decade later, the Directors Guild of America reports meagre advances. As of 2006, female membership stands at only 22.4%. Limit that to directors proper, and the equation drops to 13%. Granted, these numbers are up from 10.2% in 1993 and just 6% in 1983.

So reports Variety today. Now, I am fully expecting readers to be turning off in droves by the gendered theme of the title, especially when considering this is written by a female (that’s me!) Expectations, preconceptions and presumptions will be the judge of who wants to read a woman talking about women in film. Or maybe it is I who is too full of preconceptions? No matter, I shall write on…

And so, to the point. We all know the film industry, like so many others, is a patriarchal one, where female actors thrive (generally up to ‘a certain age’), and female directors flail. “The pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction” begs the question, “was it ever in the right direction?”  If Variety is right, that the mid-90’s independent films were to turn the table, one wonders what went wrong, or even if it was ever really ‘right.’ Variety nails Nancy Meyers as “the most successful woman director in Hollywood,” but what is the measure of success?

As with their male counterparts, most female directors will begin in short film, Indie, or television to get their breaks. It is from there, though, that the disparity of “success” comes into play. Antonia Bird, named above, has been prolific in the production of British television series’, and in 1999 was the name behind sleeper hit Ravenous, though from there returned to the small screen. Jane Campion, most famous for 1993’s acclaimed drama The Piano, has only had further recognition of note with 2003’s highly-publicised thriller In The Cut. Kathryn Bigelow had a hit with Blue Steel in 1990 and followed up with the similarly successful Point Break in 1991 before disappearing off the radar after 1995’s Strange Days. Conversely, “the most successful woman in Hollywood,” Nancy Meyers, has had multiple and consistent successes on the big screen with films such as Private Benjamin, Baby Boom, Father of the Bride, and, most recently, The Holiday.

Variety stresses the success of these so-called ‘chick flicks’, but is there more at play here than talent-driven romantic comedies to get the bucks rolling in? Clearly, when you look at Meyers’ films, you can see the patriarchal hand that steered permeating throughout, but since she is “the most successful woman in Hollywood,” has she been played or has she indeed played the game? Recently ‘laddish’ blockbusters (dick flicks?) have veered into the territory of the preserve of the chick-flick – the all-important re-affirming moral message (this cuts close to politics, I know, but I am not prepared to go there.) 2005 saw big returns for David Dobkins’ Wedding Crashers and Judd Apatow’s The 40 Year Old Virgin, proving guys would also flock to morality in disguise with masculinised chick-flick-formula fodder.

So where did Bird, Bigelow and Campion go wrong? I think with Bird there’s a clue in the title. If you look her up on the IMDb, the message board starts:

re- ravenous

why has she not made any more films, ravenous was brillant and very cool, it would be great to see more of her work.

Probably as she's a female director in a male dominated business. Poor girl...

Ah, so true. Ravenous was a horror with a near all-male cast, which most people probably assume was directed by a man (I think a bit of the J.K. Rowling-effect is at play here), and, post-television return, is now working on another male-led horror, The Meat Trade. By rights, showing talent and working within less gendered parameters, Bird should’ve had a more promising big-screen career ahead of her. Similarly, Bigelow’s Point Break was male-led and directionally gender-free and should, by rights, have led her down a more successful path. This isn’t to say that promising male directors don’t make it either, but statistically, the facts are that women have a tougher time getting the breaks, gaining recognition and holding on to that recognition.

The draw of Hollywood is, of course, the big blockbuster movie, and these are almost entirely male-dominated from every angle. This season’s big movies – Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, Spider-Man, Die Hard are all male directed in both senses of the word. That’s not to say women can’t, won’t and don’t enjoy them, but with Hollywood the why is in the Y; it’s less the Male Gaze than it is chromosomal. (According to the New York Post women don’t differentiate between males and females in respect of sexual attraction (which, by the way, I think is utter balls, but again I’m not prepared to veer into science) therefore rendering the Male Gaze ineffectual and redundant as a theory anyway.)

So what of Jane Campion? She’s trodden the difficult path of more female-themed films, but those without the Hollywood fluff and blatant ideology. From analogised castration in The Piano to pot-shot phallic symbolism in In The Cut, Campion has walked the line of gender-themed films to only moderate success. Whilst The Piano was a critical arthouse hit, the cross-over to mainstream with In The Cut was met, quite rightly, with a luke-warm reception. But why couldn’t she pull-off the mainstream move? The blame could lie more with the studio and audience than her talent (or lack of.) In The Cut, famed for dressing-down but sexing-up Meg Ryan, wanted to be a study of female sexuality but sadly had to hide beneath the (unnecessary) guise of a crime thriller. Why so? Outside of the arthouse crowd audiences don’t want to see a woman directing such a study, and that includes women.

Where women directors begin in Indie and shorts, the tendency is to gear towards Women’s Issues. When I saw the Kinofilm short film festival Women in Film I found just that. Some, of course, were doing this to a lesser or better degree than others, but still, women’s issues prevailed and the feminine theme was Queen (see my Susie review for an example.) This is, no doubt, comfortingly inclusive for a minority, but for the majority is alienatingly, and irritatingly, exclusive. But should one define one’s self by a single facet? That you are female, gay, ethnic etc? It seems this will take you so far to showcase your talents, but rarely will Hollywood buy it, and neither will audiences. Writer-director Hilary Brougher says, “There's an adage in Hollywood that women will see a men's film, but men won't see a women's film.” This can be proven by the predominantly masculine names behind Hollywood fare. After all, it is an industry, and like any other, it exists by financial returns garnered by audience popularity.

So, women fare better in front of than behind the camera. No surprise with the ever-growing youthful talent prised, as ever for a woman, on looks. Would a beautiful female director fare better? Probably, but only so far. Hollywood is, and always will be, an Old Boys’ network, but that isn’t to say that women directors don’t do themselves a disservice.

For full Variety article click here