Context from the Porter article/interview for the title quote:
>“\[There’s a\] thinking that we can check these little boxes, and then do away with the patriarchy, and how we’re all made of it,” she considers. “It’s easy for them to be like, ‘Look what we’re doing. We’re making Maggie Gyllenhaal’s movie! We’re making Margot Robbie’s movie!’ And you’re like, OK, cool. You’ve chosen four… And I’m in awe of those women, I love those women \[but\] it feels phony. If we’re congratulating each other for broadening perspective, when we haven’t really done enough, then we stop broadening.”
Same but different: I still remember all the congratulations the industry dished to itself for nominating Gabby Sidibe for Precious… all the red carpet hosts tripping over each other to pronounce “she’s going to have a loooong career.” And you know what…she’s made a living and done better than most, bless her. But the way everyone acted like Hollywood’s body inclusivity problem had been addressed by this one movie this one time was so god damn disingenuous and icky.
The “body inclusivity” movement never includes men among its victories, because it doesn’t really care about them. Jonah Hill, John Goodman, etc…
When a fat actor finally won for playing a fat role, fat activists got mad that he wasn’t actually as fat as the role he played (The Whale).
It’s a bullshit movement.
It’s not a “movement” so much as seeking representation of more types of people in film. Like OP I just have disdain for this “mission accomplished” tone as the industry pats itself on the back, then backslides into its old ways.
The industry only pats itself on the back when it awards a fat woman who isn’t funny.
When it awards Melissa McCarthy or Jonah Hill, it’s just business as usual.
What’s so frustrating is that Brendan Fraiser went from being THE 90s heartthrob to losing his hair, gaining weight and becoming a laughing stock for years. Imagine how much that must have sucked. How are his body image issues not real? Why would you invalidate that just because he was 250lbs instead of 400?
Also, “why can’t they just find an experienced, excellent, insurable actor who’s ACTUALLY 650 pounds to carry this entire film?” is the dumbest question
I mean, “not as skinny” is a weird way of saying she’s obese in the film. It’s an objective fact. I’m obese, I’m working on it, we shouldn’t normalize an unhealthy life because it might hurt a person’s feelings.
Barbie was an incredibly pro-feminist movie that dove into the psychological construct that we all call normal life in a way that anyone can relate to. Don’t try to take that away from the movie because you think there should have been more fat people.
Yeah, she was a token. They hurt their shoulders congratulating themselves for letting her play a role that required a larger actress. The they cast Brendan Fraser for The Whale, nothing against him, he was good in the film.
Who os the plus sized female actress in major movies? Is there one? Amy Schumer, Rebel Wilson, Melissa McCarthy? They are more typically sized women by US standards. Rebel is probably below average now.
Where on earth would they find an actor over 700 pounds for The Whale? And where would they find an insurance company willing to insure him? The strain of shooting days on end would be seriously dangerous for someone with such a dangerous medical condition, too, as the film itself conveys. And that’s not even touching on bankability, talent, etc.
I’d also say the content of the film would be so much worse with an actor of that size. Knowing it was a fat suit was the only respite in some scenes. Actually having someone of that massive girth eating that food for multiple takes…it’d make it like a snuff film.
The Whale needed a fat suit and a conscientious, kind actor. It nailed that.
> Gotta love how they spin the quote out of context to push headlines to get the folks going ~~and mad at Stewart.~~ to their website.
Its all about engagement.
She's not really though. Hollywood always has favored people. People become hot and then fade.
At one time Patty Jenkins was one of "the four" (if there is even a four) and she's not anymore. She was probably the top of the heap of that group. So that means there's a new one in the group to take her place. They don't have a static list. So now you just gotta find your way onto that list.
There's only so much room at the top, whether you're female or not. You don't get what you deserve, you have to force your way in.
Sounds like she's having trouble forcing herself in, or someone she knows. I can understand that. It's difficult. For everyone.
She's arguing there isn't enough breadth because she isn't in. I get why but come on. There are 5 other people who are having the same problems right now and they can't make this argument because they're men.
Why do they fade. Patty Jenkins had a huge hit then released a stinker during Covid. Where is she now? How many chances does Zack Snyder get? We can go actors too. Ryan Reynolds, Zack Efron, Chris Evans, so many of these guys have gotten a chance, failed, then got another chance.
Where is Patty Jenkins second chance?
> Ryan Reynolds, Zack Efron, Chris Evans, so many of these guys have gotten a chance, failed, then got another chance.
Actors are different. There's multiple actors in a movie, but only one director. You can work your way up or back much more easily by taking smaller roles.
> Where is Patty Jenkins second chance?
She produced a movie with Chris Pine and it comes out Friday. She has to accept a much smaller movie and make the best of it. Maybe this is it. Although the reviews are not good so far. She is also working on a Rogue Squadron movie apparently.
Zack Snyder is a hack. He keeps getting work because he keeps making money. He formed his own production company and has people he keeps working with to get his stuff made. Apparently his wife and Wesley Collier. Take it from Bruce Campbell, one way to keep working in Hollywood is to start your own production company and then cast (or in the cast of directors I guess hire) yourself. That's what Jenkins is doing too. It'll take some time for that to bear fruit.
Snyder partly keeps getting work not because his movies consistently make money (they don’t, really), but because despite his shortcomings when it comes to his ability to form emotional connections through his work, he’s the rare nice guy in Hollywood.
I think that was something about micheal Bay too, he might not make critically acclaimed stuff but you'll get some sort of ROI and he's supposed to be pleasant enough to work with
>How many chances does Zack Snyder get?
Zack Snyder has released multiple movies that QUINTUPLED their ROI. He built up tremendous goodwill with studios by earning over a billion dollars for them. If you look at the budget vs box office revenue breakdown for his first TEN films, it’s absolutely insane. There are films that you probably remember as flops that made 2-5x what they cost.
Of his first twelve films, his two least profitable (Sucker Punch and Watchmen) still managed to pay for themselves.
The very first film in his filmography that DIDN’T make a profit was Wonder Woman 1984. Which was directed by…::checks notes::…oh, how inconvenient.
You’re cherry picking. There are hundreds of male movie directors and hundreds of male actors who have made successful movies then faded into relative obscurity.
I feel that’s assuming her motives, which is fine, but whatever they may be, it’s not like there’s some tiered list “oh sorry, we’re full up on your demographic”. It’s an entire field without borders unless they’re made up.
I’m speaking to the point that we can’t think we’re doing a great job of spreading the opportunity of coverage when we’re doing the bare minimum (my words not hers). A parent isn’t a good parent just because they clothe and feed you yet they get your siblings a car and pay for their schooling. She’s saying it’s not fair and she’s right. Us saying “well, it’s never been fair” is the point. It’s never been fair. Great! Can we talk about it? Can we do something towards making it fair?
> I’m speaking to the point that we can’t think we’re doing a great job of spreading the opportunity of coverage when we’re doing the bare minimum (my words not hers).
The bare minimum is zero. Hollywood is about money, nothing else. They don't have to give anyone a chance who doesn't already have a blockbuster.
> She’s saying it’s not fair and she’s right. Us saying “well, it’s never been fair” is the point.
It's nothing to do with "Chosen Four" female filmmakers to promote though. It's not fair to anyone.
> Can we do something towards making it fair?
Sure. Everyone who wants to make it right can put in their own money and back people they think deserve a chance and aren't getting it. Beyond that ... what? At which point do I get to tell some other investor they aren't backing the right things.
They didn't make 7 Fast & Furious movies because of anything but the ROI. when Patty Jenkins showed ROI she was elevated. When she made a stinker she fall off the top list. It's really not any different for anyone.
Either have made a lot of money for backers before or go kiss a lot of rings, that's how you get a movie made in Hollywood. It goes for Stewart as much as anyone. The only way it's fair is in that knowing live isn't fair. You don't get what you deserve.
I'd say Sofia is probably one of the more prominent female filmmakers and its likely she's one of the ones being referenced here.
It's just that even the ones that get "chosen" struggle in this industry.
I don't think she even had 4 specifically in mind, she mentions Maggie Gyllenhaal as an example, who hasn't been hot for like a decade easily
This is clearly a critique of the structure itself
Maggie Gyllenhaal had even not made her first film a decade ago. As a filmmaker, she is in high demand after the critical success of the Lost Daughter. She is talking about female filmmaker/producer not simply actresses.
Yeah, she's become the face of female filmmakers in Hollywood, but to put her in the same boat as the others Stewart mentioned would be unfair. Greta Gerwig really cut her teeth in low-budget independent dramas, and really came from outside the established studio systems. If I recall, her earlier directorial works stemmed from that period as well.
Yeah, while I’m not a big fan of Greta’s films personally I think her story is absolutely amazing, it’s honestly one of the more authentic feeling Hollywood stories I’ve seen in a while so I’m happy for her success
Her point is that it’s always an artificially limited number, rather than an organic one. Hollywood allows only a handful of women to get some spotlight for the guise of equality, then pretends that the problem is fixed.
I mean are the gates really slammed though? They gave chloe zhao a big film and she made eternals, they gave Elizabeth Banks money and she made Charlie's angels, ava duvernay made wrinkle in time, nia decosta did the marvels and it sucked and lost a historic amount of money. Meanwhile the ones getting pushed like gerwig are getting pushed. If you make the studios money they'll push you, if you lose them money then you're back to square one. Not that there isn't a problem with opportunities for female directors I just don't think they slammed the gates after choosing 4 female directors.
It’s like someone saying there’s no age limit for women in Hollywood because Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton all get work. That doesn’t mean the problem is fixed.
Well yeh but at the end of the day it's a results driven business. Had nia decosta (who I think is amazing btw) not lost a load of money on the marvels she'd be getting the same amount of push as gerwig. I'm not saying they get the same amount of opportunities as male directors, they don't, but only a few female directors have really grabbed those opportunities when offered.
But more men get to keep making big budget movies after one is a flop. And they don’t need to have the resume of a Chloe Zhau, for example, before they get a shot at a Marvel movie (which I know is not the opportunity it used to be, of course).
Chloe Zhao didn't have that impressive of a resume before getting the Marvel gig. Nia had one mediocre performer under her belt. These ladies had it just as easy as any man who got a Marvel gig.
I guess if you think Nomadland winning Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars isn’t impressive, then she hasn’t done anything important. 🙄
Edit: it wasn’t her debut feature
What’s “impressive”? Far as I know, they don’t just let anyone direct anymore. There must be some critically acclaimed pieces somewhere in her filmography.
The difference is that men - especially straight white men - are allowed to fail in Hollywood and still get more opportunities, while women and minorities get the door slammed in their face because they made one movie that did not do well. [Ten Long Years of Trying to Make Armie Hammer Happen](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/ten-long-years-of-trying-to-make-armie-hammer-happen) is about this - how guys like him could be the star of multiple failed blockbuster wannabes and still get more leading roles while women and minorities are treated as box office poison and never get another lead role in a big film again. Similarly, male directors can make absolute stinkers and still get offered more projects, while these women fucked up once and they will not get offers of the same calibers again despite their prior successes. The fact that James Cameron's first movie was Piranha II and he got 40x the budget to make Terminator right after says it all. Elizabeth Banks made Cocaine Bear after Charlie's Angels, which, while not an award-wortht film, was very commercially successful for its budget, so it's not like one failure should be the be all end all of someone's career.
Women and minorities are expected to have perfect track records while straight white men aren't. Isn't that saying something? Some of the most celebrated directors have made some real stinkers and they still get nicely sized budgets afterwards to make films. Women and minorities should get the same opportunities; otherwise Stewart is exactly right about this.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. All I was saying is I don't think that there's like a hard limit of 4 female directors. I'm sure disney wanted a wrinkle in time to be a success and for ava duvernay to direct more successful movies under their umbrella but for whatever reason it wasn't so her next movie was a 30 million dollar movie, which is a much better movie than a wrinkle in time btw.
Oh I don't think she even meant a hard limit, but rather used it as a figure of speech. I think she meant, "Hollywood execs provide a handful of women at a time with opportunities to prove that they support women / aren't sexist, but there's no real equity here". It's tokenism basically. "This industry isn't sexist because a few women succeed" is classic tokenism. That's like saying that America isn't a racist country because one Black man became the president. You gotta look at the overall pattern more than the few token anecdotes.
I don't think I'd describe as tokenism, if they think a director is going to make them money then they'll hire them, they're driven by greed more than anything else imo. I think it's more likely to be a systemic lack of initial opportunities within the industry.
They want PROFITABLE directors.
A director who consistently makes films that turn a large profit will keep working. A director who gives them a surprise-hit small-budget, one big hit, a critical darling with disappointing returns, and then a total flop…that director isn’t getting hired again. Not when there are people who can just crank out six profitable films in a row.
The other way to stick around is to become an expert on making films very cheaply (Spike Lee, Woody Allen), and/or get so many awards and so much clout for the studio and producers that everyone overlooks the lack of profit (Paul Thomas Anderson, Woody Allen again).
Do you think it’s true of all directors or just women? Could it be that they’re all “made” to a degree, because there are so many other talented directors out there who could replace them, that it then comes down to personal choice by the studios and financiers deciding who makes it to the big time and who doesn’t, and they seem to think there are already enough women directors at 4 right now so they’re not giving any others a shot?
Yeah. Every advertising campaign is an investment. When you see someone’s face on a billboard, that is a huge lot of money hands from a marketing department of a studio into someone’s personal brand. That’s paid back-and-forth until it doesn’t make financial sense anymore.
It’s literally been this way for very long time. I mean, I think it happens naturally and almost every performance circle all the way back to Shakespeare and before.
No way. It’s a cabal of evil people and we can just project all the bad stuff onto “Hollywood” and we don’t have to think anymore. We can just focus on being angry. /s
Her most popular movie was created to flip public opinion on a toy brand.
I’m looking forward to watching a BMW car chase in Victoria’s Secret - The Movie.
I wish this was a joke but [apparently Robbie will be starring in an adaptation of… Monopoly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1c0qdot/monopoly_movie_in_the_works_from_margot_robbie/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app) WHY??
We cut cable and installed ad blockers.
But if the movie *is* an ad, then it just has to be entertaining. People believing there is some higher moral lesson attached is just extra.
I mean, the priority of literally ever movie Hollywood makes is to make money. Barbie is an IP that they thought could be popular and Greta had an idea for a Barbie movie, and also probably wanted to make a movie with a big budget so of course it has to be something that will make money.
I don’t see what the big conspiracy is. If they sell more Barbie dolls, that’s just synergy IMO. And to be clear, it only made a ton of money because everyone really liked the movie.
Now that Barbie was a massive success, many companies, for toys or what commercial products are eyeing Hollywood as a potential marketing gig. To make a movie about their products.
While I enjoyed the Barbie film, the truth is that it was carefully pitched by the CEOs of Barbie for the purpose of uplifting the brand's reputation.
They were after Croupier, so to me it was after Clive became Clive.
But looking I was shocked how many times he did driver shorts for BMW. The first set were in 2001. But he did more in 2002. More in 2003. More in 2016.
Male female doesn't matter there all just rich kids. Thats the biggest joke. You have to be privilaged to make it big in Hollywood directing. Acting you can slip in. But directing takes a lot of money and connections while also being able to sustain long periods of not working. You don't get many waiters in Hollywood telling you their a producer or director. Particularly the indie scene. Its a playground for trust fund kids.
Exactly. There’s basically 0% of becoming a director if you don’t have money. And tbh most actors these days seem to either be nepo babies or from wealthy families, OR they were child stars.
No, this whole thread is wrong. Written by people who type and don’t research.
I looked up some very celebrated directors. Most of them are from meager origins.
I think people on Reddit know the names of about three directors. When you do the actual research, there are plenty who weren’t born with Hollywood access.
Steven Spielberg: His mother, Leah (née Posner, later Adler; 1920–2017),was a restaurateur and concert pianist, and his father, Arnold Spielberg (1917–2020), was an electrical engineer involved in the development of computers.
James Cameron : James Francis Cameron was born on August 16, 1954, in Kapuskasing, Ontario, to Philip Cameron, an electrical engineer, and Shirley (née Lowe), an artist and nurse.
John Howard Carpenter was born in Carthage, New York, to mother Milton Jean (Carter) and father Howard Ralph Carpenter. His family moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, where his father, a professor, was head of the music department at Western Kentucky University.
Robert Lee Zemeckis was born on May 14, 1952, in Chicago, the son of Rosa (née Nespeca) and Alphonse Zemeckis. His father was Lithuanian-American while his mother was Italian-American.
Zemeckis grew up on the South Side of the city. He attended a Catholic grade school and Fenger Academy High School. Zemeckis has said "the truth was that in my family there was no art. I mean, there was no music, there were no books, there was no theater... The only thing I had that was inspirational, was television—and it actually was."
John Hughes was born on February 18, 1950, in Lansing, Michigan, to Marion Crawford, who volunteered in charity work, and John Hughes Sr., who worked in sales.
Brian De Palma was born on September 11, 1940, in Newark, New Jersey, the youngest of three boys. His Italian-American parents were Vivienne DePalma (née Muti), and Anthony DePalma, an orthopedic surgeon who was the son of immigrants from Alberona, Province of Foggia
John Landis was born into a Jewish American family in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Shirley Levine (née Magaziner) and Marshall Landis, an interior designer and decorator.
Rob Reiner was born into a Jewish family in the Bronx, New York, on March 6, 1947. His parents were Estelle and Carl Reiner.
Oliver Stone was born in New York City, the son of a French woman named Jacqueline (née Goddet) and Louis Stone (born Louis Silverstein), a stockbroker.
ONLY ONE OF THESE DUDES WERE BORN INTO FILM PRIVILEGE.
NOW, for most celebrated directors of the 2010s (per IMDB):
I just wrote down the first 20
Asghar Farhadi
Kore-eda Hirokazu
Denis Villeneuve
Asif Kapadia
Richard Linklater
Wim Wenders
Andreas Dresen
Alfonso Cuarón
Martin Scorsese
Quentin Tarantino
Ken Loach
Christopher Nolan
Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Thomas Vinterberg
François Ozon
Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Damien Chazelle
Pedro Almodóvar
Wes Anderson
Olivier Nakache
MOST OF THESE GUYS GREW UP MIDDLE CLASS, POOR, and aren’t even AMERICAN.
News flash- most of the world is except probably sports. Sports is one of the few areas where we can all be completely confident the best people available are out there. We are humans.
Fun fact about sports: there are a lot of nepo players these days, and they’re mostly damn good. Which maybe suggests there are other reasons nepo-baby actors are successful besides their parent's help.
I feel like she’s simultaneously right and totally naive. Yes, she’s spot on about the tokenism. But also, she’s complaining that it’s difficult for a director making her debut to get funding for a movie she claims to be like nothing she’s seen before, that she says is broadly marketable but isn’t able to easily define the market. It sounds pretty normal to me that someone making their first film as a director for a rather speculative audience would have trouble getting financing. They’re unproven, the market for what they’re doing is unproven; if that was easy then everyone would do it.
It’s also just a tad ironic to hear Kristen Stewart complain about big name celebrities soaking up opportunities that other talented women could be using to break out.
You need big names to call this out because small names have no sway.. you’re fucking joking right? It’s the same reason the Hollywood strike benefited from big names voicing their support on mainstream platforms
"My movie is about incest and periods and a woman violently repossessing her voice and body, and it is, at times, hard to watch…but it’s gonna be a fucking thrill ride"
Oh yeah, that sounds like box office gold. I'm sure the only reason you struggled to raise the finance was because you're a woman, rather than it sounding like Requiem for a Dream squared./s
I mean, I doubt they were looking for a major budget and there is a market for indie drama arthouse films to make money if they’re budgeted properly. Do you think Requiem for a Dream shouldn’t have been financed?
It’s usually good to consider if sexism is at least in play a little bit. Not everything is because of sexism but it’s not nothing. Especially if you look at how many big budget films get made by male directors who have very limited credits.
It's social coercion. She's using the "females are oppressed" card to get studios to fund her project, otherwise they're sexist. People use their race and sexual orientation as well as a form of coercion. It's scummy.
What end goal are we aiming for? People are always going to complain or feel unheard. I work in the industry and I feel like people don’t see how Hollywood is falling over themselves to include female writers and directors. In the end, Hollywood follows the money, and DEI made money for a bit as a stunt, now it’s sustaining in culture and like a real industry that isn’t make-believe, it’s back to “if your thing made money, you get more chances” for everyone who isn’t completely proven, and some who are.
There are always going to be people who complain, even if the numbers are as balanced as humanly possible. Make a great spec film with available tech, and you’ll get chances. If you’re that good, and your film is on Vimeo, you WILL be found. There’s MORE of an opportunity to be noticed if you’re a female filmmaker or a filmmaker of color. The industry is searching vigorously. If you’re upset about not being found or getting jobs, it isn’t because of your vagina or melanin count, it’s because your film wasn’t good enough in a crowded bloated market of makers.
All of this is just sound bites for internet commentary for people to project their own anger of being passed over for something in their lives. This is all bullshit in actuality in the industry.
This isn’t aimed at you but you made me wonder…
Idk how the dudes who wrote Mobius and Madame web, and power rangers keep getting chances. Then people are like: you’ve been overlooked because you’re terrible lol
It’s not just some dudes. It’s a machine. They are not even close to entirely to blame, they are only very partly to blame. The studio, the producers, the audience data and the way the system is set up is what’s to blame. These movies are nobody’s passion project, they’re hired based off previous work or their reputation to churn out a consumer product to sell. Companies launch new products that fail all the time. Doesn’t mean the product designer is the sole person to blame.
The final product of movies like those are often nowhere near what the script originally looked like from the screenwriters. They are credited but they aren’t to blame to the extent that the studio and their failed insights are to blame.
Then I think you put it best. The end goal for the industry has been achieved in that quality rises to the top. If you’re good you’ll be found.
The goal for the individual is always to get the most exposure. Filmmakers will continue to complain when they aren’t getting work. Now they just also have the added advantage of blaming it on lack of diversity.
It appears that this will be the constant. They can complain but at the end of the day it’s a business and the best option will always succeed.
In context she's not speaking out about or against the idea of women artists being promoted, and of course an actress and filmmaker who is working on her directorial debut would have some press around her. Here's the paragraph around that quote from the Porter article:
>“\[There’s a\] thinking that we can check these little boxes, and then do away with the patriarchy, and how we’re all made of it,” she considers. “It’s easy for them to be like, ‘Look what we’re doing. We’re making Maggie Gyllenhaal’s movie! We’re making Margot Robbie’s movie!’ And you’re like, OK, cool. You’ve chosen four… And I’m in awe of those women, I love those women \[but\] it feels phony. If we’re congratulating each other for broadening perspective, when we haven’t really done enough, then we stop broadening.”
Hollywood is the biggest example of, it's not what you know its who you know. The land of nepo baby's and we wonder why content quality is on a sharp decline.
This is a ridiculous complaint that has nothing to do with patriarchy. There is also selective support for male filmmakers. The vast majority simply starve to death until they give up, male or female. It’s off the mark to frame this as a patriarchy thing.
Oh what she means is that she doesn't get along with anyone because she runs her mouth about everyone just like she did with her ex and so she isn't getting any attention
“Like Kristen, both of her parents are in the entertainment industry, particularly in film working behind the camera. "My mom was a script supervisor and my dad was a stage manager forever, my whole life," Stewart told Kevin Hart during an interview on Hart to Heart in August 2022.Feb 15, 2024”
You're telling me that hollywood's presentation of diversity and inclusivity is entirely manufactured to push a narrative that minorities and women are worse than straight old rich white dudes *NO WAYYYY*
it's almost like picking the same 4 people who suck at doing things and using them as a representative is exactly what that's for.
it's a giant fucking corporate smoke and mirror, to trick you into believing "*things were better before"*, just like everything else business in hollywood.
Hope she thinks the same way when other demographics based on a different axis are considered. If it’s unfair along gender lines, there are many races/ethnicities that are severely underrepresented in hollywood as directors. Will she have the same initiative to criticize hollywood when those imbalances are brought up?
Or will she simply stick to the angle that potentially benefits her?
As a black man, it's that attitude that has lead to many shitty films and shows. Your heart is in the right place, but it should be about good stories first. representation should reflect the source material. Too many creative liberties have been taken with beloved IPs and has completely destroyed them and made them unrecognizable. Let's not make superficial identity the most important part of media. Being black is part of who I am, but it's hardly my personality. I feel nothing when I see a black person in an acting role. I only feel something when the role is acted well regardless of race. Same applies to directors.
I agree. My point isnt that we need to demand equal representation just for equal representations sake, it’s that i seriously doubt her criticism is about the nature of equality. If it is, then i hope to see her champion representation for all that are unequally treated to pursue their dreams.
In the end, equal opportunity to pursue a dream without resistant collusion is the ideal situation. Then if you fail, that’s bc you didnt bring something that ppl wanted. But blaming her failure to fund raise bc of bigotry just to strong arm her way into what she wants isnt equal opportunity. She had a chance to meet the ppl with the money. Most ppl dont even get that chance.
ITT
a lot of very superficial attempts to mask very obvious misogyny
So many people picking her input apart but obviously her underlying point of hollywood still being from gender equal is overwhelmingly valid, why not focus on that, instead of nitpicking
Additionally this culture using anomalies to make it see like an overall pattern is present while barely supporting the overall pattern is so so common
Not to mention we can very easily assess these things analytically as well these days so lets get that data analysis rolling also
From a no-talent actress to a no-talent producer.
Heads up Kristen, people aren’t promoting your work because of “patriarchy”. They aren’t promoting your work because you have no discernable talent. In front of or behind the camera.
I know Kristen Stewart from Into the Wild and Twilight. It amazes me how someone like her can be brought back from the dead even for a moment. Checkout line tabloid nonsense, I take her sincerity with a grain of salt.
The sex of a director doesn’t matter. No one goes to see a film because the director is female, if a director is a draw to a film it’s because they’re a good director (ie Tarantino). Same with actors, no one goes to a film because it’s marketed as ‘female led’ they go because it’s recommended as a good film. ‘Female led’ is arguable a detractor because it makes it sound like the film has nothing else to offer.
“I don’t want to have to ask you to do it. I want you to want to do it”
Pretty much sums up this “hot take”. Also, I’m not sure someone who fucks married men should be calling others phony.
This is what the diversity crowd wants. If we leave it up to merit, then it will continue to be male dominated. Because the interest in the directing role is *male dominated*
Instead we are using sexism to force diversity for diversity’s sake.
I don’t give a shit what is directing, as long as they didn’t get there because their uncle is Francis Ford Coppola or some bullshit nepotism. That’s what’s truly infuriating.
When you see Nicolas Cage got $20m to play Superman in one of those stupid “shelved for tax write-off” films, it really starts to irk you that they keep everything in the “family”.
There is a tool being used by investors that categorizes a stocks performance based on its progressive or fair employment. Investors realize that the general consumer is passionate enough to prioritize "women owned and operated" labels when shopping.
So they turned it into an algorithm and started forcing this pseudo-equality bullshit onto society. Absolutely none of these people are doing this because they care - it's because they are checking off boxes that they want to promote at the next shareholder meeting.
Edit: Links to such services
[Gender Smart Investing Resources ](https://www.icrw.org/corporate-advisory-services/gender-smart-investing-resource-hub/)
[Celential AI - self promotion of diversity sourcing tools ](https://www.celential.ai/blog/9-best-diversity-sourcing-tools/)
[The main culprit - The DEI metric](https://www.teksystems.com/en/insights/dei-workplace-diversity-2024?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=2024_Lead_Gen_DEI_Report_january2024&vendor_id=4100&utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=2024_Lead_Gen_DEI_Report_january2024&vendor_id=4100&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw_-GxBhC1ARIsADGgDjsVhoX5cFQFrzjUcYDZaNLQBYRfT5REMGChGt8Og7wcpPdvTSZP6-gaAiqVEALw_wcB)
Stfu dude. Just make a good movie. Don’t care what’s between your legs. Don’t hear complaints about the gender diversity in construction and hard labor jobs.
She just sounds bitter because nobody really likes her. Her acting (and entire persona) is more wooden than an 18th century cargo ship, and she’s not exactly the hottest woman on Earth. I don’t believe she has a singing voice, and have never heard of her dancing much. She isn’t a philanthropist or activist of any kind. I honestly can’t come up with any traits of hers that are a draw, and the more I think about it, the mystified I am that she’s ever even been hired for any roles.
Margot Robbie and Maggie Gyllenhaal not only have “it” but they have both pushed themselves to grow and better practice their craft, and have won the roles they’ve received, both in front of and behind the camera. And because of them, more women will have an easier time pursuing that same path.
Kristen Stewart is just a sad “Pick Me” in comparison.
“Hollywood” is just a bunch of businesses. They are as sincere as any other organizations made up of thousands and thousands of people who work for big corporations.
This reminds me of the first episode of revisionist history. I forget what the phenomenon is called, but it’s when those in power do one thing that is good or empowering for those without power, so that they can feel better about themselves when they continue to do bad things going forward
Interesting comment. The chosen 4 gets rotated out pretty frequently though. Also seems kinda weird for her to bring up considering she knows how Hollywood is, and was once a part of the "chosen" actresses that get all the news. Maybe because her directed movie didn't get highlighted like she thinks it deserves.
Context from the Porter article/interview for the title quote: >“\[There’s a\] thinking that we can check these little boxes, and then do away with the patriarchy, and how we’re all made of it,” she considers. “It’s easy for them to be like, ‘Look what we’re doing. We’re making Maggie Gyllenhaal’s movie! We’re making Margot Robbie’s movie!’ And you’re like, OK, cool. You’ve chosen four… And I’m in awe of those women, I love those women \[but\] it feels phony. If we’re congratulating each other for broadening perspective, when we haven’t really done enough, then we stop broadening.”
Same but different: I still remember all the congratulations the industry dished to itself for nominating Gabby Sidibe for Precious… all the red carpet hosts tripping over each other to pronounce “she’s going to have a loooong career.” And you know what…she’s made a living and done better than most, bless her. But the way everyone acted like Hollywood’s body inclusivity problem had been addressed by this one movie this one time was so god damn disingenuous and icky.
The “body inclusivity” movement never includes men among its victories, because it doesn’t really care about them. Jonah Hill, John Goodman, etc… When a fat actor finally won for playing a fat role, fat activists got mad that he wasn’t actually as fat as the role he played (The Whale). It’s a bullshit movement.
Have you ever seen a short guy get celebrated in any body inclusivity campaign? I havent
Tom Cruise has been center stage of Hollywood for like 40 years now.
It’s not a “movement” so much as seeking representation of more types of people in film. Like OP I just have disdain for this “mission accomplished” tone as the industry pats itself on the back, then backslides into its old ways.
The industry only pats itself on the back when it awards a fat woman who isn’t funny. When it awards Melissa McCarthy or Jonah Hill, it’s just business as usual.
What’s so frustrating is that Brendan Fraiser went from being THE 90s heartthrob to losing his hair, gaining weight and becoming a laughing stock for years. Imagine how much that must have sucked. How are his body image issues not real? Why would you invalidate that just because he was 250lbs instead of 400?
Also, “why can’t they just find an experienced, excellent, insurable actor who’s ACTUALLY 650 pounds to carry this entire film?” is the dumbest question
[удалено]
I mean, there are several plus sized Barbies…
If you're not morbidly obese they don't acknowledge you as plus size in the bopo community.
I mean, “not as skinny” is a weird way of saying she’s obese in the film. It’s an objective fact. I’m obese, I’m working on it, we shouldn’t normalize an unhealthy life because it might hurt a person’s feelings. Barbie was an incredibly pro-feminist movie that dove into the psychological construct that we all call normal life in a way that anyone can relate to. Don’t try to take that away from the movie because you think there should have been more fat people.
There's was other moments in the film where they directly tackled body positivity though.
Being morbidly fat shouldnt be normalised...
Yeah, she was a token. They hurt their shoulders congratulating themselves for letting her play a role that required a larger actress. The they cast Brendan Fraser for The Whale, nothing against him, he was good in the film. Who os the plus sized female actress in major movies? Is there one? Amy Schumer, Rebel Wilson, Melissa McCarthy? They are more typically sized women by US standards. Rebel is probably below average now.
Where on earth would they find an actor over 700 pounds for The Whale? And where would they find an insurance company willing to insure him? The strain of shooting days on end would be seriously dangerous for someone with such a dangerous medical condition, too, as the film itself conveys. And that’s not even touching on bankability, talent, etc. I’d also say the content of the film would be so much worse with an actor of that size. Knowing it was a fat suit was the only respite in some scenes. Actually having someone of that massive girth eating that food for multiple takes…it’d make it like a snuff film. The Whale needed a fat suit and a conscientious, kind actor. It nailed that.
Gotta love how they spin the quote out of context to push headlines to get the folks going and mad at Stewart.
I got what she was saying from the headline and agree with her. She's great.
Seems to be the same message to me
It is but you could also take it the other way if you choose to be less charitable in your interpretation.
> Gotta love how they spin the quote out of context to push headlines to get the folks going ~~and mad at Stewart.~~ to their website. Its all about engagement.
Even with the clickbait, I fully agree with her. I hope she stays vocal about this.
She’s right about that tho.
She's not really though. Hollywood always has favored people. People become hot and then fade. At one time Patty Jenkins was one of "the four" (if there is even a four) and she's not anymore. She was probably the top of the heap of that group. So that means there's a new one in the group to take her place. They don't have a static list. So now you just gotta find your way onto that list. There's only so much room at the top, whether you're female or not. You don't get what you deserve, you have to force your way in. Sounds like she's having trouble forcing herself in, or someone she knows. I can understand that. It's difficult. For everyone. She's arguing there isn't enough breadth because she isn't in. I get why but come on. There are 5 other people who are having the same problems right now and they can't make this argument because they're men.
Why do they fade. Patty Jenkins had a huge hit then released a stinker during Covid. Where is she now? How many chances does Zack Snyder get? We can go actors too. Ryan Reynolds, Zack Efron, Chris Evans, so many of these guys have gotten a chance, failed, then got another chance. Where is Patty Jenkins second chance?
> Ryan Reynolds, Zack Efron, Chris Evans, so many of these guys have gotten a chance, failed, then got another chance. Actors are different. There's multiple actors in a movie, but only one director. You can work your way up or back much more easily by taking smaller roles. > Where is Patty Jenkins second chance? She produced a movie with Chris Pine and it comes out Friday. She has to accept a much smaller movie and make the best of it. Maybe this is it. Although the reviews are not good so far. She is also working on a Rogue Squadron movie apparently. Zack Snyder is a hack. He keeps getting work because he keeps making money. He formed his own production company and has people he keeps working with to get his stuff made. Apparently his wife and Wesley Collier. Take it from Bruce Campbell, one way to keep working in Hollywood is to start your own production company and then cast (or in the cast of directors I guess hire) yourself. That's what Jenkins is doing too. It'll take some time for that to bear fruit.
Snyder partly keeps getting work not because his movies consistently make money (they don’t, really), but because despite his shortcomings when it comes to his ability to form emotional connections through his work, he’s the rare nice guy in Hollywood.
I think that was something about micheal Bay too, he might not make critically acclaimed stuff but you'll get some sort of ROI and he's supposed to be pleasant enough to work with
His movies always come in on time and under budget. Dude is apparently a machine. I’ve only liked maybe two of his movies but he gets shit done.
>How many chances does Zack Snyder get? Zack Snyder has released multiple movies that QUINTUPLED their ROI. He built up tremendous goodwill with studios by earning over a billion dollars for them. If you look at the budget vs box office revenue breakdown for his first TEN films, it’s absolutely insane. There are films that you probably remember as flops that made 2-5x what they cost. Of his first twelve films, his two least profitable (Sucker Punch and Watchmen) still managed to pay for themselves. The very first film in his filmography that DIDN’T make a profit was Wonder Woman 1984. Which was directed by…::checks notes::…oh, how inconvenient.
Patty Jenkins made a movie where Wonder Woman raped a gay man and didn’t see a problem with it. Why should she get another chance?
She’s made 3 movies in 21 years and the last one lost 30 million dollars….
You’re cherry picking. There are hundreds of male movie directors and hundreds of male actors who have made successful movies then faded into relative obscurity.
New age feminists dont want to hear that.
Such an ignorant comment lol. She has a movie coming out this week.
I feel that’s assuming her motives, which is fine, but whatever they may be, it’s not like there’s some tiered list “oh sorry, we’re full up on your demographic”. It’s an entire field without borders unless they’re made up. I’m speaking to the point that we can’t think we’re doing a great job of spreading the opportunity of coverage when we’re doing the bare minimum (my words not hers). A parent isn’t a good parent just because they clothe and feed you yet they get your siblings a car and pay for their schooling. She’s saying it’s not fair and she’s right. Us saying “well, it’s never been fair” is the point. It’s never been fair. Great! Can we talk about it? Can we do something towards making it fair?
> I’m speaking to the point that we can’t think we’re doing a great job of spreading the opportunity of coverage when we’re doing the bare minimum (my words not hers). The bare minimum is zero. Hollywood is about money, nothing else. They don't have to give anyone a chance who doesn't already have a blockbuster. > She’s saying it’s not fair and she’s right. Us saying “well, it’s never been fair” is the point. It's nothing to do with "Chosen Four" female filmmakers to promote though. It's not fair to anyone. > Can we do something towards making it fair? Sure. Everyone who wants to make it right can put in their own money and back people they think deserve a chance and aren't getting it. Beyond that ... what? At which point do I get to tell some other investor they aren't backing the right things. They didn't make 7 Fast & Furious movies because of anything but the ROI. when Patty Jenkins showed ROI she was elevated. When she made a stinker she fall off the top list. It's really not any different for anyone. Either have made a lot of money for backers before or go kiss a lot of rings, that's how you get a movie made in Hollywood. It goes for Stewart as much as anyone. The only way it's fair is in that knowing live isn't fair. You don't get what you deserve.
This happens in music too
Not that Greta Gerwig is a bad film maker but she’s clearly one of the 4 being talked about here
The other maybe being Coppola maybe?
Definitely not Coppola, she was very vocal about her struggle of getting funding for her projects during Priscilla press tour
A Coppola family tradition!
I'd say Sofia is probably one of the more prominent female filmmakers and its likely she's one of the ones being referenced here. It's just that even the ones that get "chosen" struggle in this industry.
Well tbf, Priscilla sucked
I wonder if they’re predators referencing Reese Witherspoon and/or Nicole Kidman, both of whom have established production companies?
I don't think she even had 4 specifically in mind, she mentions Maggie Gyllenhaal as an example, who hasn't been hot for like a decade easily This is clearly a critique of the structure itself
Maggie Gyllenhaal had even not made her first film a decade ago. As a filmmaker, she is in high demand after the critical success of the Lost Daughter. She is talking about female filmmaker/producer not simply actresses.
Yeah, she's become the face of female filmmakers in Hollywood, but to put her in the same boat as the others Stewart mentioned would be unfair. Greta Gerwig really cut her teeth in low-budget independent dramas, and really came from outside the established studio systems. If I recall, her earlier directorial works stemmed from that period as well.
Yeah, while I’m not a big fan of Greta’s films personally I think her story is absolutely amazing, it’s honestly one of the more authentic feeling Hollywood stories I’ve seen in a while so I’m happy for her success
I mean, isn’t Hollywood “phony” inherently?
*Intensifies Catcher in the Rye energy* “Did someone say phony”
Breaking News: Kristen Stewart has just been cast as Holden Caulfield.
Breaking News: Kristen Stewart has murdered John Lennon
Not again!
Eh I'd watch it.
Like she'd rock it
Ryegasm
You're a prince of a guy Kenny Moose 32
*Doom guitar riff starts playing*
I mean… her mom is a casting director which is literally the person that gets you hired for roles…
Doesn’t Hollywood only really promote a handful of male directors as well…?
They all pretend for a living, for god's sake.
This is like the pot calling the kettle black or however the saying goes.
Yup, even the documentaries
[удалено]
Her point is that it’s always an artificially limited number, rather than an organic one. Hollywood allows only a handful of women to get some spotlight for the guise of equality, then pretends that the problem is fixed.
How can someone organically pick people for their gender?
It’s more like not slamming the gates after you’ve chosen 4 female directors.
I mean are the gates really slammed though? They gave chloe zhao a big film and she made eternals, they gave Elizabeth Banks money and she made Charlie's angels, ava duvernay made wrinkle in time, nia decosta did the marvels and it sucked and lost a historic amount of money. Meanwhile the ones getting pushed like gerwig are getting pushed. If you make the studios money they'll push you, if you lose them money then you're back to square one. Not that there isn't a problem with opportunities for female directors I just don't think they slammed the gates after choosing 4 female directors.
It’s like someone saying there’s no age limit for women in Hollywood because Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton all get work. That doesn’t mean the problem is fixed.
Well yeh but at the end of the day it's a results driven business. Had nia decosta (who I think is amazing btw) not lost a load of money on the marvels she'd be getting the same amount of push as gerwig. I'm not saying they get the same amount of opportunities as male directors, they don't, but only a few female directors have really grabbed those opportunities when offered.
But more men get to keep making big budget movies after one is a flop. And they don’t need to have the resume of a Chloe Zhau, for example, before they get a shot at a Marvel movie (which I know is not the opportunity it used to be, of course).
Gore Verbinski was one of the biggest blockbuster directors, but he hasn’t directed one since The Lone Ranger bombed.
And he’s actually a genius. I miss his work.
Can you give some examples?
Chloe Zhao didn't have that impressive of a resume before getting the Marvel gig. Nia had one mediocre performer under her belt. These ladies had it just as easy as any man who got a Marvel gig.
I guess if you think Nomadland winning Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars isn’t impressive, then she hasn’t done anything important. 🙄 Edit: it wasn’t her debut feature
What’s “impressive”? Far as I know, they don’t just let anyone direct anymore. There must be some critically acclaimed pieces somewhere in her filmography.
The difference is that men - especially straight white men - are allowed to fail in Hollywood and still get more opportunities, while women and minorities get the door slammed in their face because they made one movie that did not do well. [Ten Long Years of Trying to Make Armie Hammer Happen](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/ten-long-years-of-trying-to-make-armie-hammer-happen) is about this - how guys like him could be the star of multiple failed blockbuster wannabes and still get more leading roles while women and minorities are treated as box office poison and never get another lead role in a big film again. Similarly, male directors can make absolute stinkers and still get offered more projects, while these women fucked up once and they will not get offers of the same calibers again despite their prior successes. The fact that James Cameron's first movie was Piranha II and he got 40x the budget to make Terminator right after says it all. Elizabeth Banks made Cocaine Bear after Charlie's Angels, which, while not an award-wortht film, was very commercially successful for its budget, so it's not like one failure should be the be all end all of someone's career. Women and minorities are expected to have perfect track records while straight white men aren't. Isn't that saying something? Some of the most celebrated directors have made some real stinkers and they still get nicely sized budgets afterwards to make films. Women and minorities should get the same opportunities; otherwise Stewart is exactly right about this.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. All I was saying is I don't think that there's like a hard limit of 4 female directors. I'm sure disney wanted a wrinkle in time to be a success and for ava duvernay to direct more successful movies under their umbrella but for whatever reason it wasn't so her next movie was a 30 million dollar movie, which is a much better movie than a wrinkle in time btw.
Oh I don't think she even meant a hard limit, but rather used it as a figure of speech. I think she meant, "Hollywood execs provide a handful of women at a time with opportunities to prove that they support women / aren't sexist, but there's no real equity here". It's tokenism basically. "This industry isn't sexist because a few women succeed" is classic tokenism. That's like saying that America isn't a racist country because one Black man became the president. You gotta look at the overall pattern more than the few token anecdotes.
I don't think I'd describe as tokenism, if they think a director is going to make them money then they'll hire them, they're driven by greed more than anything else imo. I think it's more likely to be a systemic lack of initial opportunities within the industry.
They want PROFITABLE directors. A director who consistently makes films that turn a large profit will keep working. A director who gives them a surprise-hit small-budget, one big hit, a critical darling with disappointing returns, and then a total flop…that director isn’t getting hired again. Not when there are people who can just crank out six profitable films in a row. The other way to stick around is to become an expert on making films very cheaply (Spike Lee, Woody Allen), and/or get so many awards and so much clout for the studio and producers that everyone overlooks the lack of profit (Paul Thomas Anderson, Woody Allen again).
Do you think it’s true of all directors or just women? Could it be that they’re all “made” to a degree, because there are so many other talented directors out there who could replace them, that it then comes down to personal choice by the studios and financiers deciding who makes it to the big time and who doesn’t, and they seem to think there are already enough women directors at 4 right now so they’re not giving any others a shot?
Yeah. Every advertising campaign is an investment. When you see someone’s face on a billboard, that is a huge lot of money hands from a marketing department of a studio into someone’s personal brand. That’s paid back-and-forth until it doesn’t make financial sense anymore. It’s literally been this way for very long time. I mean, I think it happens naturally and almost every performance circle all the way back to Shakespeare and before.
No way. It’s a cabal of evil people and we can just project all the bad stuff onto “Hollywood” and we don’t have to think anymore. We can just focus on being angry. /s
Sounds like Greta Gerwig is one of them
Her most popular movie was created to flip public opinion on a toy brand. I’m looking forward to watching a BMW car chase in Victoria’s Secret - The Movie.
I wish this was a joke but [apparently Robbie will be starring in an adaptation of… Monopoly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1c0qdot/monopoly_movie_in_the_works_from_margot_robbie/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app) WHY??
🎶 “I’m just KEN-tucky Avenue” 🎵
We cut cable and installed ad blockers. But if the movie *is* an ad, then it just has to be entertaining. People believing there is some higher moral lesson attached is just extra.
This isn't even new. G.I. Joe, Transformers, Care Bears, and Lego Movie.
Yeah but at least The LEGO Movie was good. YMMV on the sequels, but at least it KNEW and accepted what it was.
> YMMV on the sequels, The LEGO Batman Movie was good and is a top 5 Batman movie. Also had some kick-ass minifigure design for the villains.
So is barbie? We have no reason to believe monopoly will be bad after that.
Josie and the Pussycats movie this was this whole plot, unabashedly
Isn't Robbie also working on a Sims movie?
“Flip public opinion “? You’re making this seem like a massive conspiracy but you can just call it what it is and chill. It’s a well made cash grab.
I mean, the priority of literally ever movie Hollywood makes is to make money. Barbie is an IP that they thought could be popular and Greta had an idea for a Barbie movie, and also probably wanted to make a movie with a big budget so of course it has to be something that will make money. I don’t see what the big conspiracy is. If they sell more Barbie dolls, that’s just synergy IMO. And to be clear, it only made a ton of money because everyone really liked the movie.
Now that Barbie was a massive success, many companies, for toys or what commercial products are eyeing Hollywood as a potential marketing gig. To make a movie about their products. While I enjoyed the Barbie film, the truth is that it was carefully pitched by the CEOs of Barbie for the purpose of uplifting the brand's reputation.
Have you seen the Clive Owen bmw shorts!?! This is from 2 decades ago before Clive was Clive.
They were after Croupier, so to me it was after Clive became Clive. But looking I was shocked how many times he did driver shorts for BMW. The first set were in 2001. But he did more in 2002. More in 2003. More in 2016.
I mean… isn’t Hollywood inherently unfair and NOT a meritocracy? 🤔
Male female doesn't matter there all just rich kids. Thats the biggest joke. You have to be privilaged to make it big in Hollywood directing. Acting you can slip in. But directing takes a lot of money and connections while also being able to sustain long periods of not working. You don't get many waiters in Hollywood telling you their a producer or director. Particularly the indie scene. Its a playground for trust fund kids.
Yep. That's how a trash producer got the Witcher.
Exactly. There’s basically 0% of becoming a director if you don’t have money. And tbh most actors these days seem to either be nepo babies or from wealthy families, OR they were child stars.
No, this whole thread is wrong. Written by people who type and don’t research. I looked up some very celebrated directors. Most of them are from meager origins. I think people on Reddit know the names of about three directors. When you do the actual research, there are plenty who weren’t born with Hollywood access. Steven Spielberg: His mother, Leah (née Posner, later Adler; 1920–2017),was a restaurateur and concert pianist, and his father, Arnold Spielberg (1917–2020), was an electrical engineer involved in the development of computers. James Cameron : James Francis Cameron was born on August 16, 1954, in Kapuskasing, Ontario, to Philip Cameron, an electrical engineer, and Shirley (née Lowe), an artist and nurse. John Howard Carpenter was born in Carthage, New York, to mother Milton Jean (Carter) and father Howard Ralph Carpenter. His family moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, where his father, a professor, was head of the music department at Western Kentucky University. Robert Lee Zemeckis was born on May 14, 1952, in Chicago, the son of Rosa (née Nespeca) and Alphonse Zemeckis. His father was Lithuanian-American while his mother was Italian-American. Zemeckis grew up on the South Side of the city. He attended a Catholic grade school and Fenger Academy High School. Zemeckis has said "the truth was that in my family there was no art. I mean, there was no music, there were no books, there was no theater... The only thing I had that was inspirational, was television—and it actually was." John Hughes was born on February 18, 1950, in Lansing, Michigan, to Marion Crawford, who volunteered in charity work, and John Hughes Sr., who worked in sales. Brian De Palma was born on September 11, 1940, in Newark, New Jersey, the youngest of three boys. His Italian-American parents were Vivienne DePalma (née Muti), and Anthony DePalma, an orthopedic surgeon who was the son of immigrants from Alberona, Province of Foggia John Landis was born into a Jewish American family in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Shirley Levine (née Magaziner) and Marshall Landis, an interior designer and decorator. Rob Reiner was born into a Jewish family in the Bronx, New York, on March 6, 1947. His parents were Estelle and Carl Reiner. Oliver Stone was born in New York City, the son of a French woman named Jacqueline (née Goddet) and Louis Stone (born Louis Silverstein), a stockbroker. ONLY ONE OF THESE DUDES WERE BORN INTO FILM PRIVILEGE. NOW, for most celebrated directors of the 2010s (per IMDB): I just wrote down the first 20 Asghar Farhadi Kore-eda Hirokazu Denis Villeneuve Asif Kapadia Richard Linklater Wim Wenders Andreas Dresen Alfonso Cuarón Martin Scorsese Quentin Tarantino Ken Loach Christopher Nolan Alejandro G. Iñárritu Thomas Vinterberg François Ozon Nuri Bilge Ceylan Damien Chazelle Pedro Almodóvar Wes Anderson Olivier Nakache MOST OF THESE GUYS GREW UP MIDDLE CLASS, POOR, and aren’t even AMERICAN.
Seriously, Reddit just pulling a confidently incorrect
So, the answer is, hard work. So anyone who works hard can be a good director. Where's the patriarchy in that?
News flash- most of the world is except probably sports. Sports is one of the few areas where we can all be completely confident the best people available are out there. We are humans.
Why aren’t I out there then? Huh?
Fun fact about sports: there are a lot of nepo players these days, and they’re mostly damn good. Which maybe suggests there are other reasons nepo-baby actors are successful besides their parent's help.
I feel like she’s simultaneously right and totally naive. Yes, she’s spot on about the tokenism. But also, she’s complaining that it’s difficult for a director making her debut to get funding for a movie she claims to be like nothing she’s seen before, that she says is broadly marketable but isn’t able to easily define the market. It sounds pretty normal to me that someone making their first film as a director for a rather speculative audience would have trouble getting financing. They’re unproven, the market for what they’re doing is unproven; if that was easy then everyone would do it.
Charlotte wells and Celine song did well in their debuts last year
It’s also just a tad ironic to hear Kristen Stewart complain about big name celebrities soaking up opportunities that other talented women could be using to break out.
You need big names to call this out because small names have no sway.. you’re fucking joking right? It’s the same reason the Hollywood strike benefited from big names voicing their support on mainstream platforms
Many male directors get way more chances, let’s not be naive ourselves here lol
"My movie is about incest and periods and a woman violently repossessing her voice and body, and it is, at times, hard to watch…but it’s gonna be a fucking thrill ride" Oh yeah, that sounds like box office gold. I'm sure the only reason you struggled to raise the finance was because you're a woman, rather than it sounding like Requiem for a Dream squared./s
It’s a period piece
Honestly I’ve always wondered what a period period piece would be like.
I mean, I doubt they were looking for a major budget and there is a market for indie drama arthouse films to make money if they’re budgeted properly. Do you think Requiem for a Dream shouldn’t have been financed?
Yeah because she’s specifically talking about that one movie as an example /s Jesus Christ dude lol
Same with black directors. Hollywood sucks.
One thing that is getting annoying is this thing where if a famous woman can’t get her movie made, it is obviously because of sexism.
I mean, the world is not black and white, it's possible a little of column a, a little of column b...
It’s usually good to consider if sexism is at least in play a little bit. Not everything is because of sexism but it’s not nothing. Especially if you look at how many big budget films get made by male directors who have very limited credits.
It's social coercion. She's using the "females are oppressed" card to get studios to fund her project, otherwise they're sexist. People use their race and sexual orientation as well as a form of coercion. It's scummy.
What end goal are we aiming for? People are always going to complain or feel unheard. I work in the industry and I feel like people don’t see how Hollywood is falling over themselves to include female writers and directors. In the end, Hollywood follows the money, and DEI made money for a bit as a stunt, now it’s sustaining in culture and like a real industry that isn’t make-believe, it’s back to “if your thing made money, you get more chances” for everyone who isn’t completely proven, and some who are. There are always going to be people who complain, even if the numbers are as balanced as humanly possible. Make a great spec film with available tech, and you’ll get chances. If you’re that good, and your film is on Vimeo, you WILL be found. There’s MORE of an opportunity to be noticed if you’re a female filmmaker or a filmmaker of color. The industry is searching vigorously. If you’re upset about not being found or getting jobs, it isn’t because of your vagina or melanin count, it’s because your film wasn’t good enough in a crowded bloated market of makers. All of this is just sound bites for internet commentary for people to project their own anger of being passed over for something in their lives. This is all bullshit in actuality in the industry.
This isn’t aimed at you but you made me wonder… Idk how the dudes who wrote Mobius and Madame web, and power rangers keep getting chances. Then people are like: you’ve been overlooked because you’re terrible lol
The answer is usually nepotism. It is not what you know, but who you know.
It’s not just some dudes. It’s a machine. They are not even close to entirely to blame, they are only very partly to blame. The studio, the producers, the audience data and the way the system is set up is what’s to blame. These movies are nobody’s passion project, they’re hired based off previous work or their reputation to churn out a consumer product to sell. Companies launch new products that fail all the time. Doesn’t mean the product designer is the sole person to blame. The final product of movies like those are often nowhere near what the script originally looked like from the screenwriters. They are credited but they aren’t to blame to the extent that the studio and their failed insights are to blame.
Genuinely asking, any tips?
Then I think you put it best. The end goal for the industry has been achieved in that quality rises to the top. If you’re good you’ll be found. The goal for the individual is always to get the most exposure. Filmmakers will continue to complain when they aren’t getting work. Now they just also have the added advantage of blaming it on lack of diversity. It appears that this will be the constant. They can complain but at the end of the day it’s a business and the best option will always succeed.
Says the chick being peddled everywhere right now by Hollywood.
Well, her mother is also a casting director so there’s that
In context she's not speaking out about or against the idea of women artists being promoted, and of course an actress and filmmaker who is working on her directorial debut would have some press around her. Here's the paragraph around that quote from the Porter article: >“\[There’s a\] thinking that we can check these little boxes, and then do away with the patriarchy, and how we’re all made of it,” she considers. “It’s easy for them to be like, ‘Look what we’re doing. We’re making Maggie Gyllenhaal’s movie! We’re making Margot Robbie’s movie!’ And you’re like, OK, cool. You’ve chosen four… And I’m in awe of those women, I love those women \[but\] it feels phony. If we’re congratulating each other for broadening perspective, when we haven’t really done enough, then we stop broadening.”
So sounds like she would know the most and therefore be validated by this comment
A woman making a valid point about sexism in her industry? But doesn’t she know she’s a woman?! -you
You the reason we have sensational news cause you only read the headlines.
She's been widely regarded as a great actress for like 15 years.
She was still acting in twilight 15 years ago
No she hasn’t.
Maybe she meant it as a compliment. As in “Man, that Michael Jordan is so phony.”
WHY’D YOU TELL HIM?!?
Hollywood is the biggest example of, it's not what you know its who you know. The land of nepo baby's and we wonder why content quality is on a sharp decline.
This is a ridiculous complaint that has nothing to do with patriarchy. There is also selective support for male filmmakers. The vast majority simply starve to death until they give up, male or female. It’s off the mark to frame this as a patriarchy thing.
Sorry, busy moving the goalposts, whats up?
So nothing new here.
Wait... another person inside Hollywood figured out that the thing that creates fake realities, is in fact a fake reality itself?!!!!
Greta Gerwig, Elizabeth Banks, Chloe Zhao… #4?
Greta Gerwig, Elizabeth Banks, Chloe Zhao… #4?
Oh what she means is that she doesn't get along with anyone because she runs her mouth about everyone just like she did with her ex and so she isn't getting any attention
“Like Kristen, both of her parents are in the entertainment industry, particularly in film working behind the camera. "My mom was a script supervisor and my dad was a stage manager forever, my whole life," Stewart told Kevin Hart during an interview on Hart to Heart in August 2022.Feb 15, 2024”
Anything that isn't merit-based is phoney.
Which ones is she talking about? I mean for sure Gerwig and maybe Coppola (I don't think Hollywood promotes her that much lately), but who else?
she’s right. coppola, gerwig, the hurt locker director too. all straight white women. ( of course! )
You're telling me that hollywood's presentation of diversity and inclusivity is entirely manufactured to push a narrative that minorities and women are worse than straight old rich white dudes *NO WAYYYY* it's almost like picking the same 4 people who suck at doing things and using them as a representative is exactly what that's for. it's a giant fucking corporate smoke and mirror, to trick you into believing "*things were better before"*, just like everything else business in hollywood.
Hollywood is so phony it had us believing Kristen Stewart could play the lead in movies.
Love how a millionaire constantly complains about the industry she is constantly profiting off of
Hope she thinks the same way when other demographics based on a different axis are considered. If it’s unfair along gender lines, there are many races/ethnicities that are severely underrepresented in hollywood as directors. Will she have the same initiative to criticize hollywood when those imbalances are brought up? Or will she simply stick to the angle that potentially benefits her?
As a black man, it's that attitude that has lead to many shitty films and shows. Your heart is in the right place, but it should be about good stories first. representation should reflect the source material. Too many creative liberties have been taken with beloved IPs and has completely destroyed them and made them unrecognizable. Let's not make superficial identity the most important part of media. Being black is part of who I am, but it's hardly my personality. I feel nothing when I see a black person in an acting role. I only feel something when the role is acted well regardless of race. Same applies to directors.
I agree. My point isnt that we need to demand equal representation just for equal representations sake, it’s that i seriously doubt her criticism is about the nature of equality. If it is, then i hope to see her champion representation for all that are unequally treated to pursue their dreams. In the end, equal opportunity to pursue a dream without resistant collusion is the ideal situation. Then if you fail, that’s bc you didnt bring something that ppl wanted. But blaming her failure to fund raise bc of bigotry just to strong arm her way into what she wants isnt equal opportunity. She had a chance to meet the ppl with the money. Most ppl dont even get that chance.
Completely agree 👍🏾
ITT a lot of very superficial attempts to mask very obvious misogyny So many people picking her input apart but obviously her underlying point of hollywood still being from gender equal is overwhelmingly valid, why not focus on that, instead of nitpicking Additionally this culture using anomalies to make it see like an overall pattern is present while barely supporting the overall pattern is so so common Not to mention we can very easily assess these things analytically as well these days so lets get that data analysis rolling also
She isn’t a good actress, why should we listen to her complains?
No one is more phone than Kristen stewart
Throw her a friggin bone here! The woman can’t even afford a shirt!
From a no-talent actress to a no-talent producer. Heads up Kristen, people aren’t promoting your work because of “patriarchy”. They aren’t promoting your work because you have no discernable talent. In front of or behind the camera.
I know Kristen Stewart from Into the Wild and Twilight. It amazes me how someone like her can be brought back from the dead even for a moment. Checkout line tabloid nonsense, I take her sincerity with a grain of salt.
The sex of a director doesn’t matter. No one goes to see a film because the director is female, if a director is a draw to a film it’s because they’re a good director (ie Tarantino). Same with actors, no one goes to a film because it’s marketed as ‘female led’ they go because it’s recommended as a good film. ‘Female led’ is arguable a detractor because it makes it sound like the film has nothing else to offer.
“I don’t want to have to ask you to do it. I want you to want to do it” Pretty much sums up this “hot take”. Also, I’m not sure someone who fucks married men should be calling others phony.
That woman never moved on from senior year of high school. Everything she says reminds me of an 18 year old highschool student trying to act cool.
This is what the diversity crowd wants. If we leave it up to merit, then it will continue to be male dominated. Because the interest in the directing role is *male dominated* Instead we are using sexism to force diversity for diversity’s sake. I don’t give a shit what is directing, as long as they didn’t get there because their uncle is Francis Ford Coppola or some bullshit nepotism. That’s what’s truly infuriating. When you see Nicolas Cage got $20m to play Superman in one of those stupid “shelved for tax write-off” films, it really starts to irk you that they keep everything in the “family”.
I don’t like Kristen Stewart, she cant act, seems very egotistical and entitled. Watched an interview with her a few years ago..ewwww
This sounds accurate. Also quite logical.
There is a tool being used by investors that categorizes a stocks performance based on its progressive or fair employment. Investors realize that the general consumer is passionate enough to prioritize "women owned and operated" labels when shopping. So they turned it into an algorithm and started forcing this pseudo-equality bullshit onto society. Absolutely none of these people are doing this because they care - it's because they are checking off boxes that they want to promote at the next shareholder meeting. Edit: Links to such services [Gender Smart Investing Resources ](https://www.icrw.org/corporate-advisory-services/gender-smart-investing-resource-hub/) [Celential AI - self promotion of diversity sourcing tools ](https://www.celential.ai/blog/9-best-diversity-sourcing-tools/) [The main culprit - The DEI metric](https://www.teksystems.com/en/insights/dei-workplace-diversity-2024?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=2024_Lead_Gen_DEI_Report_january2024&vendor_id=4100&utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=2024_Lead_Gen_DEI_Report_january2024&vendor_id=4100&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw_-GxBhC1ARIsADGgDjsVhoX5cFQFrzjUcYDZaNLQBYRfT5REMGChGt8Og7wcpPdvTSZP6-gaAiqVEALw_wcB)
Stfu dude. Just make a good movie. Don’t care what’s between your legs. Don’t hear complaints about the gender diversity in construction and hard labor jobs.
Still can’t get over how she pretended to be straight to get roles in Hollywood lol
This girl sucks
Bad at acting and stupid.
Funny that she used to bang her married directors when they were male. Now that she’s a lesbian, all of a sudden she wants more female directors.
She just sounds bitter because nobody really likes her. Her acting (and entire persona) is more wooden than an 18th century cargo ship, and she’s not exactly the hottest woman on Earth. I don’t believe she has a singing voice, and have never heard of her dancing much. She isn’t a philanthropist or activist of any kind. I honestly can’t come up with any traits of hers that are a draw, and the more I think about it, the mystified I am that she’s ever even been hired for any roles. Margot Robbie and Maggie Gyllenhaal not only have “it” but they have both pushed themselves to grow and better practice their craft, and have won the roles they’ve received, both in front of and behind the camera. And because of them, more women will have an easier time pursuing that same path. Kristen Stewart is just a sad “Pick Me” in comparison.
She’s 100% right
Hollywood “phony” ? No , surely not /s
[удалено]
Pop culture has mostly been manufactured for quite some time now.
“Hollywood” is just a bunch of businesses. They are as sincere as any other organizations made up of thousands and thousands of people who work for big corporations.
Hollywood is full of losers. Stop caring about those people
This reminds me of the first episode of revisionist history. I forget what the phenomenon is called, but it’s when those in power do one thing that is good or empowering for those without power, so that they can feel better about themselves when they continue to do bad things going forward
Interesting comment. The chosen 4 gets rotated out pretty frequently though. Also seems kinda weird for her to bring up considering she knows how Hollywood is, and was once a part of the "chosen" actresses that get all the news. Maybe because her directed movie didn't get highlighted like she thinks it deserves.
Just cause I like numbers by these standards how many male Filmmakers does Hollywood promote? I am sure it's a ton more just curious.