…I think this deserves a new thread because this isn’t just about Weinstein: its about how easy it is for those with power (both in Hollywood and beyond) to shut down careers with just a few words.
It wasn’t just Weinstein. Rae Dawn Chong talks about after an unfortunate encounter with Steven Seagal all of a sudden she became “difficult to work with.” And I suspect there are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories out there from people that are household names to people that we’ve never heard of before.
To all those lamenting the loss of “talent” like Spacey and Louis CK you should really be lamenting the blacklisting of talent like Sorvino and Judd. When you have “Hollywood liberals” like Matt Damon expressing opinions like thisthen it becomes apparent to me that we have to “tear it all down.”
Its 2017. I remember when I was arguing with people about sexism in Silicon Valley and people were insistent that women (and minorities) were under-represented in the tech industry because they were under-represented at the schools and universities: fix the “pipeline” and you fix under-representation. But half of all film school graduates are women. But only 2% of big budget films are directed by women. There isn’t a problem with the pipeline. The people that control the business of Hollywood are simply looking after their own. Only one female director has ever won the Oscar for best director. Only four women have ever been nominated. The Golden Globes this year had zero women director nominees. No Greta Gerwig, no Patty Jenkins, no Dees Rees. The industry needs to change and now is the right time to do it.
(This post has already turned into more of a rant than intended, so before I go any further I may just click “submit new thread” and I’ll come rant again later. )
I remember being shocked when I read that Wonder Woman was only Patty Jenkins’ second movie as a director. She directed Monster in 2003 and it was a commercial and critical hit. And then she wasn’t offered another directing job for fourteen years.
…directors like Brett Ratner made about four blockbuster movies in the time that Patty Jenkins made zero along with a succession of smaller-but-high-profile projects. And he has 68 producing credits to his name. Yet nothing he has directed nor produced comes close to the majesty of Wonder Woman. So much talent ignored and forgotten about by an industry that looks after their own.
Now I’m wondering… Linda Fiorentino, who seemed to do a good enough job in Men In Black, wasn’t in the sequel, despite the first ending with a pretty clear set-up for her continuing with the franchise. At the time, I’d heard it was because the other actors and director found her really hard to work with. Was she actually?
The scuttlebut was that Tommy Lee Jones refused to work with her again( he himself has a reputation for being “difficult” on sets ). She claims she was simply unavailable. Hard to say where the truth lies on that one, but Kevin Smith has been open about hating working with her on Dogma.
Didn’t Jackson walk away from Weinstein’s Miramax after too many demands for changes from the studio, including cutting back to two movies, or even one movie? LOTR ended up being a New Line production.
I always wondered why Mira Sorvino’s career never seemed to go anywhere after her Oscar win for “Mighty Aphrodite”. She seemed to have it all: great looks, acting chops, famous dad, Harvard-educated, etc. I can’t even recall anything she did after that except for “Romy and Michelle’s High School Reunion” and “Mimic”. It would be a damned shame if her career had been cut short due to Weinstein’s sour grapes, as it appears to be. She surely deserved better. Fortunately, it seems her off-screen life has been fulfilling, but… fuck Harvey Weinstein.
Only one female director has ever won the Oscar for best director. Only four women have ever been nominated. The Golden Globes this year had zero women director nominees. No Greta Gerwig, no Patty Jenkins, no Dees Rees. The industry needs to change and now is the right time to do it.
(This post has already turned into more of a rant than intended, so before I go any further I may just click “submit new thread” and I’ll come rant again later. )
[/QUOTE]
More of a producer than director - but Kathleen Kennedy has been quite successful
One item about guys in general - they are more conquest or task oriented than woman and may be better suited to the director/producer role by their very nature.
Yes, this is a very sensible explanation. Also, women are more breakfast and laundry oriented and may be better suited to making me breakfast and doing my laundry.
:rolleyes:
Weinstein was an absolote arsehole. Not just sexually, but in his personal dealings. People* hated* him. Here from a decade ago.
As for Mira Sorvino. Weinstein or no Weinsetin. She was a limited actress. I doubt his (atrocious) treatment stopped her in the long term.
Patty Jenkins put on the brakes to be a full time mother.
…In 89 years only 5 women have been nominated for an Oscar for best director. 437 men have been nominated. I’m well aware that Kathleen Kennedy has had a successful career as a producer. She is also one of the people who is not giving opportunities to women to direct. She is part of the establishment: a gate-keeper, and is every bit part of the problem.
Utter nonsense. Guys in general are more task orientated than women? Really? Being conquest-orientated makes you a better director?
Directors aren’t fighting a war. Chris Hemsworth had this to say about working on Thor Ragnarok. “This was the best experience I’ve ever had on a set,” Mark Rufflalo said “Yeah… Me too,”. It wasn’t a great experience because the director (Taika Waititi) was “conquest-orientated” because he wasn’t. Taika gave the actors and everybody on set respect. He welcomed families on set. They played music between takes. They filmed the script as written: then gave the actors agency to improvise as well. He incorporated aspects of Aboriginal and Maori culture into both the movie and into the production.
Being conquest-orientated doesn’t make a successful film and it doesn’t mean men are better suited to the role of director than women. Women are about 50% of the population: they make up about 50% of everybody graduating film school, yet only 2% of blockbusters are directed by women. Do you think your theory explains the discrepancy? You do know that women want to direct, and they want to direct blockbusters, and they are just as talented (if not more so) than guys like Colin Trevorrow or Phil Lord or Chris Miller but they aren’t being given the opportunity?
I recall Adam Carolla saying something about the Weinsteins making use of Hollywood accounting in relation Adam’s movie The Hammer. Something like “everybody knows when you deal with the Weinsteins that you’re gonna get ripped off” or “you’re never gonna get paid.”
…Peter Jackson obviously had a different opinion of Sorvino’s acting ability than yours. This thread really isn’t about Weinstein’s atrocious treatment of Sorvino because it wasn’t his treatment of her that stopped her “long term.” She was probably going to be cast in three of the biggest movies of all time but that opportunity was taken away from her because of the “Miramax smear campaign”. We are talking a huge paycheck. Residuals. It would be a significant casting on her resume. Many of the cast of LOTR talk about how the experience on set was “life changing.”
All of that was denied her because Miramax were telling people not to hire her. Lets not pretend that this only happened once, and that it only happened to Sorvino and Judd. And lets not pretend that the actions of Miramax didn’t effectively scuttle her career.
That doesn’t explain Debra Granik. Or Lexi Alexander. Or Catherine Hardwicke. Or Lynne Ramsay. Or Brenda Chapman.
What I am getting at is, more often than not, the directors are are similar to leaders. In that they they provide direction and let the actors, screenwriters, make their own contributions and guide them along without trying to over Micromanage every detail. Historically, men have had more success in that than women.
Again look at Kathleen Kennedy, she lets everyone associated with the production do their best and tries to guide them along and most people working with her, often don’t notice (or care) after the initial impression that she is a lady.
That could be the difference in the levels of micromanagement. There are exceptions to every rule (ie Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel in terms of political leaders ) but men in general seem to be better accepted a leader even if the women are just as qualified.
If you look at the recent example of Taika Waititi, he made it fun for everyone on the set to work, that may be the difference
The story I remember is that Jackson started shipping the film around as two movies because three scared most companies. New Line said “We looked at your proposal but we think it should be three movies.”
)
)