Well, to be fair, Sofia Coppola probably shouldn't have been nominated for Lost in Translation.

My favorite female directors out there right now are probably Julie Taymor (Titus, Frida) and Mary Harron (I Shot Andy Warhol, American Psycho, the upcoming 'The Notorious Bettie Page')

Additional interesting facts about directors here.

Some other not-so-fun stats on women in film:

Actresses over 40 account for 9% of movie roles. Actors over 40 account for 30%.

Anne Bancroft was 36 when she played Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate. Dustin Hoffman was 30.

Chances that a Best Actress winner portrayed a prostitute, a nun, or a mute: 1 in 8.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject (I am very much not in the entertainment biz): What accounts for the insane gender discrepancy among directors? Or, put a better way: How do Hollywood types try to explain away the gender discrepancy? In my business (law), people tend to explain the gross gender inequities in firm partnerships, judgeships, professorships, etc. by insisting that women take themselves out of the running for the good jobs because of family issues, or women aren't cut out for the pressure, or women aren't hungry enough to make it to the top.

I would think (maybe incorrectly), that because director-ships involve vision and creativity blah blah blah, and the film process does not follow a strict linear line (unlike a trial or a closing), that there would be less room for arguing these same lameass points.

Am I wrong?

To better illustrate your point, Ann, Catherine Zeta-Jones was 32 when she starred in Entrapment, Sean Connery was 104.

And I'm surprised that the odds of whore, nun, or mute as high as 1 in 8. It is tangentially related to the "actor who plays a serial killer or disabled person = good acting!" point which enabled Sean Penn to get a nomination for the worst movie in history, I Am Sam. Not that the Meryl Streep "foreign accent = good acting!" was a stellar time in Oscar history, either.

In a just world, Helen Mirren and Lili Taylor would each have about 5 Academy Awards.

"To better illustrate your point, Ann, Catherine Zeta-Jones was 32 when she starred in Entrapment, Sean Connery was 104."

Nornizness - seriously, thanks for that. That was great.

By the way, 2005 was a really bad year in terms of movie quality.

Some people (not me of course) would dare to suggest that innate gender differences account for some of these discrepancies. Historically, deep thinkers and brilliant visionaries have been mostly men. There seems to be growing scientific support for the idea that men and women have different cognitive strengths and weaknesses on average.

It seems like a bit of a cruel thought really. But how much crueler is it to create false hope for a world that may never come.

I am now going to run myself out of town ;)

traqula, your post raises a good point. people, particularly feminists love to talk about dispareties where men are ahead, such as math and science, but ignore the vast areas where women are ahead, such as languages, humanities, etc. I realized that when they complain about women being under represented in say physics, they are basically and neccisarily complaining that women are over represented in say languages and most humanities. Think about it, it is a closed system with finite participants, all must ballance. So in a sense perhaps the anger is at the demonstated preferences of each sex, which may or may not be do to some inherent characteristics.
for most feminists It is "ok" to say women are better at languages, that is all well and good. but dare say men on average may be better at physics? you are a sexist pig, regardless of a large body of evidence that points in this direction.

Your comments on director roles and the relative natural aptitude of each sex could really be applied to most of society. WHo invented the city's we live in? airplanes? most all of modern medicine? computer chips? computational theory which was basis for computers? who invented the freaking video camera the director uses? obviously we all know men. The evidence suggests taht more creative geniuses and those with extreme technical intelligence seem to be men.

Now, why this is so consistantly the case is hard to say. but, it does seem consistant with the observation that men's intelligence levels are more extreme, in other words a greater dispersion of intelligence in the population. There are more smart men but also more stupid ones. whereas, women seem to be more steady and less extreme. this observation has been empirically tested and verified many times on intelligence tests, and in my opinion even practical experience in the work enviroment.

Not that anyone cares but in my opinion feminism derails itself when instead of focusing on legal equality, the focus becomes trying to compete with men. It seems they are just as mad at what women are good at and dominate as what men seem to dominate. the idea that the chemicals we are made of could play some role that would be pointless to try to overcome is not all that welcome, because it may nock a hole in a cherished non scientific gender ideology.

Eglitarianism is a cherished ideal for many in the feminist movement, that "if only" we all had an equal "chance" every singel thing would be split 50/50 between the sexes and races. It is an ideology, and not a scientific one at that. Regardless of opinion or feeling evidence seems to strongly suggest otherwize.

I for one doubt most mba players are black "just because" and I also doubt it is some act of descrimination that causes asians to score higher than whites on intelligence tests, I doubt it is an accident that women are better in humanities and languages on average than men, and I doubt it is an accident that near the entire modern world we live in (and the scientific principles it is based on) has been created by a small number of brilliant men.

I know better than to respond to JJS, but dammit, i just can't help it. Someone please stop me.

Oh, where to begin...

Maybe the reason that throughout history men have been more successful in technical areas is because we have repressed women in those areas, treating them as though they are not intelligent enough. Knowledge is a powerful thing and when you restrict it from certain segments of the population, there will be consequences. And when you grow up in a culture that places a premium on education and knowledge, it is easier to excel there.

Instead to encouraging women in technical areas, we told them to make babies and clean the house for a couple thousand years. Oh, we also decided to let them be teachers, secretaries, flight attendants, and nurses. How kind of us. If indeed men tend to think more technically than women, I contend it is because of a culture that told them they had to and denied women the ability. We didn't let women study or become doctors, lawyers, engineers, corporate execs, politicians, etc. When we let them in, we expect them to be twice as good for half the pay. That doesn't necessarily tend toward a positive environment for nurturing technical thinking. Give women some time and treat them seriously and with respect (not preferentially) and they will absolutely show you what they can do (they didn't have any trouble showing me up in technical classes).

My mother grew up in a culture where women were sent to college to go find a husband. At the ripe age of 58, she finally got a degree and was promoted to a managers job overseeing a bunch of male lawyers in compliance for a Fortune 500 company. She easily had the ability. She just needed the environment to allow/encourage her to do that. I tell that story because I am proud of her but also to illustrate that we are just a generation removed from that culture (if we are indeed removed from it everywhere/anywhere).

Wait several years and I believe that you will see women easily catch up in those studies. The studies that come out now can give you raw data but fail to address or account for what led to the data being that way. So a guy looks at the raw data and assumes women don't know shit about math, science, etc and assumes it must be some biological thing. If you give half a classroom the answers to a surprise test, would you be surprised to see only half the class did well? Would you look for a biological reason?

As for women in Hollywood, it is all about making money. The white men who run the Hollywood studios don't think there is a market for movies for, about, or by women unless it is about a really young woman meeting the perfect guy and gettting married. Then we wonder (and worry) why a movie like Thelma and Louise resonates so well. Your argument that women excel in writing and humanities (poetry, writing stories, arts) but don't have the creative aptitude to direct a movie doesn't fly with my. It is about money and power in Hollywood and women don't have it so they don't get to produce, direct, or star in a lot of good roles in the movies. It really is as simple as that.

I am getting off my soapbox now and going home to enjoy what is left of my evening. Sorry for the long rant. I hope it makes sense through the pauses and corrections.

Well, I think that JJS post was fairly lucid this time, and not all that shady...

Mr. Bear on the other hand, your position is a bit boilerplate. There is no doubt that Hollywood has a good old boys network, and that some bias is at work. But how much? After all, the movies are about making money, and studio bosses wouldn't care who made the movie so long as it mints dinero.

I think you'd expect to see more indie and budget female directors is they were really being shut out of the big deals. And you don't. Men just seem to be drawn more to movie making and photography fields.

No one is suggesting that there aren't talented women who have the chops and the vision. I'm sure they exist. I just think there are a lot less of them.

For men, taking risks and proving their "artistic" talent may be perceived as worthwhile, even if it is just for fueling their own massive egos.

But I do think that women's generally superior "emotional intelligence" should help them craft moving relationship movies with good chemistry. It would be nice to see more of that kind of movie, and less of the blow stuff up kind. Hollywood is definitely in a bit of a rut, and could use some fresh ideas.

Well put Jesus Jones Superstar!

Girls are treated so fundamentally different than boys in both their educational and family upbringing that it makes it extremely difficult for women to compete on the same playing field as men once they reach adulthood.

For example, educational studies have documented that girls are given the answer to a math or science problem significantly more often than boys in a classroom setting. Whereas, a boy who asks for help will be encouraged by the teacher to analyze the problem and taught how to come to the conclusion on his own. These are two completely different teaching methods. In the long run, boys will develop higher analytical and reasoning skills.

Secondly, look at the role models/leaders that children learn about in their impressionable, developmental years. Think back to what covered your 7th grade history walls---all male figures! While you can say it has to be that way because it was men who shaped our country, you are denying the fact that women were not allowed to participate in these country-creating, law-making discussions.

Men's power in these positions can ultimately be traced back to the caveman era of them being the physically stronger gender due to their hunting role in families. This was developed out of practicality to ensure the protection of the child-bearing woman to stay safe. It wasn't intellect that initially allowed men to gain this dominance in society, but rather physical strength that continues to pervade almost every culture in the world.

There are countless other developmental differences that society imposes on boys and girls. However, relating this back to directors being predominately male it's not because they are innately smarter or more creative than women, but rather that men have been better equipped to attain these eminent positions. They have a higher confidence level to pursue riskier endeavors and have a boys club to support it. Reverse this treatment of our children and you would absolutely see a female-dominated culture.

The same can be said about inner city children who are exposed to a lower standard of education and less hands-on parenting. Compare those children to other kids who are attending a suburb or private school with parents who stress the importance of education/reading--You will obviously see those with the better schooling in higher level positions in society than those who were raised in sub-par educational systems. If this is a widely known and accepted fact then why is it so hard for people to grasp that a different upbringing between genders will create the same phenomenon!?

We are each products of our environment!!