It’s interesting to me how a woman has to have a gun in her hand for some men to even remotely respect the female lead.

I mean, What?!

I guess it doesn’t matter, since I watch mainly independent movies anyways, but still. STILL! Is it still 1970?

It’s thinking like this, and a number of other little annoyances that have kept me out of movie theaters for years. I vote with my wallet on this issue, and until moviegoers stop pumping money into the studios for utterly vapid dreck, that’s all they’re going to bring to the screen. Thankfully I have IFC, so the major studios can take a flying leap as far as I’m concerned.

Hold up, movies with female leads can prove to be huge box-office winners: Alien, The Hours, Girl Interrupted, … etc. While not all movies with women at their head make a lot of money, the same can be said of movies that star men - duh. If Warner Bros. really did say what the article claims, which seems both likely and foolhardy, then they are missing out. Does Tom Cruise attract an audience like Nicole Kidman? I think not. At least not anymore.

I am in complete agreement that the problem with the films that are cited in the article was likely in the writing, and not in the performances, but that is beside the point. The point is that even if a studio executive decided that films with female leads were not selling (which distorts the facts), he should not immediately decide that the reason for this is because no one wants to see a movie about an ass-kicking heroine, or some other interesting and strong woman character. Instead, why doesn’t he ask himself what it is about these women characters that lacks magnetism? Why doesn’t he look at Alien and The Hours and and the tons of other female-driven blockbusters that have been made over the years and wonder what those films had that the female-driven films of this year have not? The point is that it DOESN’T EVEN OCCUR TO HIM that the problem could be anything but gender-based. While it might not be his job to alter the cultural perception of women, he’s certainly not doing us any favours in that regard. And if the only female-driven films that the big studios are making are crappy, then we’ll have a whole generation of people of both sexes thinking that women and their films and their problems are boring and unimportant. And while it’s not necessarily the co’s intention to make a social statement, the fact that it is making one, perhaps despite itself, IS its responsibility.

Furthermore, from a business standpoint, just as lots of women go to see films that are primarily targeted towards men so that they can see Brad Pitt sweaty and shirtless, men also like to see the screen flooded with their favourite Hollywood femmes.

While it goes without saying that a profitable movie doesn’t mean a good movie, what we’re talking about here is business and popular culture, not art. And it’s clear to me, in this case, that this studio exec’s comment was based less on business than on a personal sentiment regarding an entire sex, and a desire to blame said sex on business failures. Lame.

“We couldn’t be more pleased to entrust the next chapter in the Superman mythology to Brett Ratner, a dynamic director whose skillful blend of action, comedy and drama has captured the imaginations of audiences worldwide.”

BRETT. RATNER. Yes, Robinoff is all about character and compelling directorial taste. Like Rush Hour 2.

The link if you don’t believe me. http://movies.warnerbros.com/pub/movie/releases/RatnerSUPERMANfinal.htm

When has Neil Jordan ever had a blockbuster of any note? Or hell why isn’t it Daniel Craig’s fault about the Invasion? I wish everyone above who blames or says that women are responsible for poor receipts a nasty case of what’s coming to them.

I’m boycotting Warner Brothers until they clear this up in writing, in a full page ad on my doorstep. Til then I’ll keep being a female filmmaker ignoring these campaigns of straight on sexism. Fuck. Everyone.