Women Film Journalists Pick Their Own Top 100 List

These lists are all subjective, of course, but always amusing and sometimes aggravating. What about a list of the top 100 movie titles?

www.roundtablepictures.blogspot.com

Reply

"A Clockwork Orange qualifies for the AFI list, but not Brazil? Weird."

Brazil qualified, as it was on the list of 400 nominees that voters could choose from. It just (bafflingly) didn't make the cut.

Reply

Not a single film on the list by the greatest director - Stanley Kubrick? While the AFI list is far from perfect, your list is just sad.

Reply

Whether we look at movies as art or entertainment, the ranking of our preferences shouldn't be subjected to a quota system. Yet the AFI list and surveys like the one published by AWFJ do serve to reflect pervasive inequities or biases in the social systems.

There are obviously two complex issues at stake:

The first being that female spectators really DO view films from a different perspective than males. Sadly, with most commercial films being written by, directed by, produced by, and green-lit by men, the content is genuinely skewed. Ever notice the endless stream of male coming-of-age, male on-a-mission, male midlife crisis stories that are intended for the “mainstream” audience? Put a female as protagonist in any of those stories, and it’s likely to be labeled a “women’s picture,” or worse yet, a “chick-flick.”

Women who comprise more than half the global population, deserve not to be marginalized as the “other.”

The second issue addresses the reality that women are simply not given the same opportunities to direct as men. Even though things may be slowly changing, take for example Sundance 2007-- as promising as it was to see so many "showcase" films directed by women-- the history of Sundance successes alone has shown that a small percentage of new women directors are given the chance to direct subsequent films, verses the number of men. And if a woman's debut "commercial" film doesn't do a bang-up job the first weekend at the box office, chances are you'll never hear from her again. Men, on the other hand, are given many more subsequent chances to direct-- box office failures or not-- with the "understanding" that they need time to develop their craft and "auteurship."

Taking both of these issues into consideration, it would seem the most "clever" path a woman director can take, is to follow classic Hollywood tenets, develop male-centered projects that are mainstream and commercial, and hope they can eventually tell more diverse stories (often labeled "personal") in the future. Otherwise, it would seem that the only films Hollywood dares to entrust to women helmers is the occasional romantic comedy-- not a genre likely to elicit many awards.

Art is often in the eye of the beholder, with entertainment catering to taste, but for the time being, movie-making is primarily about money. As long as the majority of people in today's Hollywood who control what scripts get bought, what films get made and directed by whom, and what theaters show which films, remain conservative white men, we're going to see stories that reflect their personal tastes-- or worse, those that are deemed most marketable to the precious demographic of the young 18-29 yr. old male.* Meanwhile, who's making movies for grown-ups? For women? Or for that matter, grown-up women?** Box office records show that "if you build it, they will come." (The Devil Wears Prada and Something's Gotta Give grossed $324M and $227M successively)

The future appears to be both confusing and hopeful. With the continuing growth of internet and new media content (creation and distribution) venues, more diverse, while democratic, attention is being paid to underserved markets. With the world getting smaller every day, Hollywood and the "Made in America" movie may eventually lose it's stronghold on the universal consciousness. Art and entertainment can emerge out of any culture or any country. The more integrated America becomes, the less xenophobic will be the mainstream movie-going population-- interested in the human condition no matter what language the heroine (or hero) speaks. The traditional studio system as it stands cannot remain in place, and will have to adapt to the changing marketplace, one that has already begun to provide the means for the voices of (women, black, Hispanic, Asian, and) other previously sidelined filmmakers to be heard on a global scale.

Any "best of" list should rightfully be about the quality of the story and the art. But consider that many of the films of the AFI's list were not initially critical or box office successes, and that the "art" was only appreciated later, sometimes decades after their releases. Who knows what films made this decade will be discovered as great works by film lovers of the 2050's? In fifty, maybe just twenty years, the AFI list might be considered a relic-- from the bygone days of the American domination of film created out of a long-dead all-male club-- certainly worthy of study in from academic perspective, but lacking contemporary relevance.

*Movie audiences are getting older. "According to a survey by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, between 1990 and 2000, moviegoers in the obsessively sought-after 16-20 age group had dropped from 20% to 17% of total viewers. Moviegoers in the 25-29 category dropped from 14% to 12%. Even 12- to 15-year-olds, who are supposed to be part of the biggest demographic bulge since baby boomers, dipped from 11% to 10%. Meanwhile, moviegoers ages 50-59 didn't just stay steady, they shot up from 5% to 10% of total audience." --Los Angeles Times 09/24/02

**For example, according to the 2000 Census, there were 27.81 million males between 16-29 while there were 31.09 million females between 35-48. Yet studios assert that those women "don't go to the movies." Could it be that there is nothing for them to see?

Reply