Chantal Akerman, "Jean Dielman", "From the East", many others. Clair Denis, "Beau Trevail", "Le Intrus" (The Intruder)....

Alice Rohrwacher

since by nature women are more visual

There is actually allot of science and research that supports men, on average, have more "visual memory" while women have more "verbal memory". Actually, women tend to have better memory all around, except for one area... visual/spacial. You can hire whoever you like... I'm just sayin'.

and are more in touch with their emotions (which makes for great lighting!)

I wouldn't argue the first part. But I don't see how this can possible lead to better lighting? They're kind of mutually exclusive concepts.

Women that show great intelligence among many other skills are more attractive to many.

Oh well, yea. I'm not arguing that men are "superior". Men and women both perform equal, yet different, roles in the grand scheme of things. I guess my post did go off into some tangents, but the main point was, that in very early evolution men tended to perform more physical/visual work. And now as a result (thousands of years later) we have better genetic traits for it. Sure there are some women that can do it also, but the skill sets required for directing (as well as other visual/physical areas like architecture, engineering, ect) seem to favor males over females. That's about it. They key concept is "favor", not "men are the ONLY ones who can do it".

Now, more on topic...

I don't understand the Sofia Coppola hate either, except some kind of misplaced "but her DAD..." whining.

Well, it's because this is WHY she's even directing films in the first place. Are her films terrible? No, not really. Well, I personally find them unwatchable garbage, but objectively... they are not terrible. Does she, herself, have the skills it would have took to become a director on her own if her father was say, a doctor? No. I don't think so.

Honestly, if you have the connections or money to get a crew of great artists around you, directing is little more than "opinion giving". If she had to go the route indie DIY route of someone like Robert Rodriguez, or even Kevin Smith. I'm pretty sure there is no way she would have been able to craft a workable film. Is there any proof to this claim? Not really. But you can't prove the opposite either.

Shian does bring the zigs where you expect the zags, not always sure to what end in the more agent provocateur postings (if there need be one), but God bless him. Just when you think he might drop the Megan Ellison, he comes out with Gale Anne Hurd!

I only skimmed bits of the thread to find nuggets actually about filmmakers that are women, but I'm keen on Kimberly Pierce and Lynne Ramsay, if they haven't been mentioned. I don't understand the Sofia Coppola hate either, except some kind of misplaced "but her DAD..." whining. Not liking the films, fine, whatever, different strokes. Hopefully this thread also gets anyone who hasn't seen BEAU TRAVAIL and other Denis pictures to do so. Elaine May's MIKEY & NICKEY is one of the best of all movies. Ida Lupino is good. Jane Campion of course. I'm sure there's a hundred I haven't the first clue about. Film directing was a big dick gotta-be-General Patton "profession" for a long time and still can be, but as an art form... I don't know. Read the essays. No one was putting Charles Burnett in their top 5 either.

It's not sexism. If someone came to me and asked if I could have anyone in the world produce my next film, I'd say Gale Ann Hurd without any hesitation. She's my number one choice. Top of my list. In fact 3 of my top 5 choices at producer are women. So it's not sexism.

5) I am not saying one way or another if the numbers would be equal without any roadblocks, just that they are still skewed by societal constraints and will be for sometime.

It's about expected behavior and conforming to old traditions and structures.

Societal constraints were built because of what worked, and was observed, throughout evolution. They weren't all made-up through some "agendas" that people pretend to have existed to make themselves feel better. The different genders evolved differently. Period. They each specialize in different areas. This is SCIENCE. This fantasy world were everybody is equal at doing everything doesn't exist. It goes against EVERY law of nature and science.

Female monkey version implies whether she's is available or hooked up. All in context of how male monkeys define her.

Yes. And why did this come about in the first place? A secret "sexist" agenda? Nope, not really. Just evolution again. Most things in are culture are from the male context, you're correct. But why? Because males were the dominant sex in evolution. Is it right? Is it wrong? Neither. It just IS. If men bore children and women were the warriors/protectors it would be the other way around. The fact that there are TWO genders implies there was a NEED for two distinct genders. Think about it. We aren't both "equal at everything" because it's not possible in nature.

Now, men tend to be better problem solvers, engineers, and inventors because they were the most expendable gender throughout evolution. The males who didn't posses the visual/spacial traits that led to tribal organization or the planning/perception skills for hunting and gathering were simply bred out of the gene pool. This is why more men than women posses these skills today. The selection for women during evolution was much more simple, as they were basically selected on attractiveness (aka. genetic stability and quality) as well as child-bearing features. It's not sexism to point out differences, or declare a gender better at a certain area, when it's anthropologically observable. This is getting crazy that people cannot objectively look at things anymore.

Sure, everybody should be allowed to pursue their interests if they would like. I'm all for this. And the female directors that have made it are great. Kathryn Bigelow is wonderful at her job! But again, the fact that certain fields and jobs are not equally populated with both sexes is not because of tradition or an "agenda". It's just nature. Doesn't mean there won't be exceptions. I actually believe that women make really great producers, they seem to posses the traits that, IMO, make them excel over allot of men in that area. Are you going to call me sexist here?

I think all our of problems today come from our ever increasing inability to observe reality on reality's terms. Not because we're "not accepting" enough. Everyone is not equal at everything. This is the truth that nobody can bring themselves to believe, yet all science and biology supports. The "quest" to equalize everything will be the demise of civilization as it goes against the very essence of nature and the universe. Equal opportunity? Yes, absolutely. But equal outcome for everything? Not scientifically possible. So don't get mad when it's not observed in all cases.

Also note... I'm not "justifying" anything. And I'm in no way saying that women should not pursue what they like. This has all been just an explanation of why things seem to be a certain way. Does it mean the future has to be the same? Who knows. It's anyone's guess.

But I do not buy for one second that we can explain the vast majority of Hollywood directors being white males by simply saying no one else is good enough.

Well, not that nobody else was good enough, but it ended up like this for "some" reason. Things aren't random. Are they the best now? Again, who knows? We'll see as time goes on, now that things are being more democratized...

Can you offer an alternate explanation though? I'm actually interested in all possibilities or reasons. And no, I'm not Not trying to be sarcastic or rude here...

@OScillian OMG you saw me on the bus?!

I am going to simplify shit.

1) Women and men GENERALLY think differently, but NOT ALWAYS. Thus there are certainly women out their capable, whether they enter the industry and are seen is another question.

2) Stereotypes whether based on fact or fiction can affect industry hiring standards for many years. There was no law against female doctors, but the stereotype was they were not capable. In this day and age I prefer female doctors, they listen better without having their head up their ass full of ego.

3) As female directors that are capable come along, and IT WILL HAPPEN. There will be further analysis into what makes a good female director. Some of the future greats will start to write books, and teach classes specifically for how women can not only succeed but excel working with their generally different way of thinking. These books and classes will help some women, and some will fail... others will take their own path and still excel, and some will fail. Just like with men, only as more and more women succeed there will be less stigma, thus less roadblocks.

4) It's all a numbers game. Most men cannot direct for shit, nor engineer for shit, but some can. It has been mostly men doing both for some time, so the numbers favor men no matter whether women are capable or not. Just look at any industry. Though women have risen greatly in recent years, top positions are still generally held by men.

5) I am not saying one way or another if the numbers would be equal without any roadblocks, just that they are still skewed by societal constraints and will be for sometime.

@bwhiz

It's about expected behavior and conforming to old traditions and structures. In modern society, this is starting to break up and more people are acting outside their expected roles. But traditions are hard to break free from: on the bus to work today I would say 90 percent of the male monkeys wore blue jeans and black/grey jackets, even though they could have picked any color in the store. Conscious choices?

Just look at how the English language uses Ms and Mrs, compared to Mr.

Female monkey version implies whether she's is available or hooked up. All in context of how male monkeys define her.

Is this reflected upon in day to day talks? My guess is that most people are too busy conforming to give this a thought.

Someone who follows this logic would also have said that since slaves did not usually own houses, that was an indication of black people's lack of ability to buy property. And trust me - such logic happens all the time.

No. The logic used in this example is flawed. Slaves were slaves... they were not "allowed" to own anything. That example doesn't apply to what we're talking about here. There is no "law" that says women can't direct. Nobody is stopping them. It's just the nature of the different genders that males tend to possess the traits required for the crafts of film-making more often than than women. It's not OUR bias... it's NATURES bias.

That so few prominent directors are women is not a proof of, and not even a strong indication of, some inherent quality of women vis-a-vis men.

Yes, it kind of is. Producers and studios want to make money... and money only. They only want the best person for the job. If women were better at making films the "greed" of producers and executives would have wised up to it a long time ago and there would be more women directors.

@omnidecay, I've got to recommend you check out Claire Denis's Trouble Every Day, then, in terms of women filmmakers pushing extremes.

I have to agree with @shian even though I don't want to. I am a fan of things that really push boundaries or go to extremes which are both qualities women don't typically possess. I like films like Requiem for a Dream, A Serbian Film, Exorcist etc...I keep praying Asia Argento is going to wake up one day and follow in her fathers footsteps even for one film.