It goes on and on and on……

‘It’s a mistresspiece!’: the 14-hour film about forgotten female directors

9 thoughts on “It goes on and on and on……”

  1. Generally, forgotten authors, artists etc deserve their obscurity. The article mentions the Virago Press, which I suspect subsidises the publication of shite no-one reads with the profits from authors who never needed special treatment.

    The (male) director of the film says: I wanted to be an ally with the great female activists who are pushing for change in the film industry today.

    For all the work of these ‘great female activists’ it takes a bloke to make a documentary about female directors. The ‘great female activists’ of Hollywood tend to be millionaires whining about not getting enough opportunities to add to their wealth. In between looking the other way when another tearful wannabe runs out of the producer’s office….

    Hollywood’s 20 richest women could easily put together a $50m fund to support female-led film projects, but they’d rather bitch about adding to their already fat purses. Not that you need huge sums of course, Wes Anderson’s stellar career is based on the short ‘Bottle Rocket’, which cost $4,000 to make.

  2. Writers write. Film-makers make films. The ones who whinge ‘It’s not fair’ are whingers.

  3. “the 14-hour film”

    How many ads will that attract on YouTube? That’s a whole day wasted.

  4. You tube has some lovely footage, not yet memory-holed, of Jake Thackray performing his song about a woman who just won’t shut up. Like the title to this post, it’s called something like, ‘on again’.

  5. Movies are sold to the public for entertainment. If the public refuses to buy their product, the directors get into 14-hour movies.

    As MC says, these directors deserve their obscurity. If they were good, the public buyers would demand more from them. The success of spaghetti westerns didn’t depend on Sergio Leone’s sex. Failure of female directors isn’t due to their sex either, at least as far as discrimination is concerned.

    Women might go see a film because it has a female director. Few men would select a movie for such superficiality.

  6. Hmm…

    The film does not waste time wondering why women have been sidelined by mainstream cinema – we knew the answers to that long before #MeToo.

    Idk. Hollywood hates money? Would explain why Kathleen Kennedy has a job.

    13 decades and 183 directors, from the studio owner Alice Guy Blaché’s early silent work to the Russian director Kira Muratova, populists Dorothy Arzner and Kathryn Bigelow

    I’ve heard of Kathryn Bigelow at least, Hurt Locker was a good film albeit overrated.

    I also enjoyed Sofia Coppola’s Lost In Translation, which I thought was truly sublime, still a perfect iridescent pearl of a film to this day. She’s never managed to recapture the same magic, but she doesn’t have to.

    American Psycho is a magnificent black comedy, I was surprised to find out a woman directed it, because women seem to hate that film.

    Apart from those, it’s slim pickings for the girls, unless they’re into obscure arthouse films by ladies with Scrabble names. Though I did chuckle to see The Matrix included. Apparently jumping on the tranny train means the brothers Wachowski were women all along. “Whoa”, explained Keanu.

    Anyway, for why does The Patriarchy stop women from making successful mainstream films, yet permit them to dominate the bestsellers lists? Allowing JK Rowling, that 50 Shades of Grey woman, and the authoresses of The Hunger Games and Twilight and so on to be squillionaire pop culture phenomenatrices seems like a glaring flaw in our pernicious plans for penis world domination.

    I shall bring this up at the next meeting of G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS)

  7. “Generally, forgotten authors, artists etc deserve their obscurity. The article mentions the Virago Press, which I suspect subsidises the publication of shite no-one reads with the profits from authors who never needed special treatment.”

    There’s probably even some sort of time on this with film, like 20 years, maybe even 10. Almost no-one saw Blade Runner, Highlander, Heathers or Big Trouble in Little China on release. But within 5-10 years, loads of people had seen them on home video.

    “Hollywood’s 20 richest women could easily put together a $50m fund to support female-led film projects, but they’d rather bitch about adding to their already fat purses. Not that you need huge sums of course, Wes Anderson’s stellar career is based on the short ‘Bottle Rocket’, which cost $4,000 to make.”

    Yeah, funny how they think that men would rather be sexist than to make money, but they won’t invest.

    One thing I almost never see is women making ultra-low budget films. $10000 or less, maybe less than $2000. Something you shoot where you live, with a few people you know, on a dSLR camera. There’s no excuses for this. No patriarchy stopping you. Work a bar job, save some money and do it. And that’s where a lot of people start. You don’t make Avengers Endgame for that, but you do make a good short film that attracts some attention, and you get a little more money and so forth.

  8. Personality (character) disorder. Blaming others for your failures.

    CM embraces them. Anything that will disrupt Western Civilization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *