MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Gail Berman As A Political Statement

How is it that after all these years, we keep on getting the same stupid

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Gail Berman As A Political Statement”

  1. Lota says:

    Anne Hathaway is box office and she should have been in your top 30 at least.
    Drew Barrymore and Hudson are personalities not stars. You could say that about the male personalities too.

  2. Lota says:

    I don;t know if it is even ‘women aren;t powerful’ problem as much as there are many niches which could make money (with appropriately budgeted stories) that aren;t being served.
    New Line used to be better at that prior to 2001.
    The old folks (SOmething’s gotta give was an unexpected success), hispanics, asians are not featured IN films or targeted BY films as much as they could be. Everyone frickin goes to movies or buys them so why not shift the focus off late 20s frat boy/girl types who are white in movies and hit up some more representative pictures.
    It should be a mainstream target to include everyone, but until it is, a few more niche pictures would be nice.
    Low budget niche pictures released at times where they won;t be swamped out by summer & holiday blockbusters.
    It isn’t the lack of women, it’s the lack of trying to hit all the possible markets.

  3. movielocke says:

    the production side will and is changing, as more women are directing, gripping, lensing etc than ever before, no longer relegated to editing and producing as prior ‘enlightened’ generations have had it.
    That was indeed a badly written and conceived article. Bordering on pathetic. Women are not ONLY represented by chick flicks, the tremendously talented women I know in production, be they gaffs, grips, DPs, ACs, ADs Production Designers or directors are all really pissed off at the industry idea that they’re only capable of making ‘women’s’ pictures, or incompetent in other genres simply because of their sex, and the tone of this article is in the vein of that heinous and neolithic attitude. Women like all sorts of movies, and a lack of weepies does not necessarily mean that women are less powerful, maybe it instead means that women in film are quietly boycotting more of the movies that have segregated them? THAT would make for an interesting article. The women I know what to make movies like Pirates, LOTR, English Patient, Capote, Borat, Shortbus or Elizabeth, they don’t give a flying fuck about making you’ve got mail.

  4. Don Murphy says:

    Anne Hathaway is box office and she should have been in your top 30 at least
    Is it April 1?

  5. Lota says:

    good point Movielocke
    Most of the modern chick flicks as they have been designated are not romantic or funny and there’s no mystery ot the story. In fact, it is almost offensive to think that they are “directed” at women, and that women would want to be relegated to ‘doing’ them. I wish more Ida Lupinos were around in the older days (and these days).

  6. Lota says:

    It’s April 1 for Dave’s top 23.

  7. Skyblade says:

    I think the article had already lost me when they were trying to make it seem like it sucked that the producer’s Adventures in Babysitting got shelved.

  8. Nicol D says:

    “… it’s the lack of trying to hit all the possible markets.”
    Which is the point I and others have been making for years.
    The problem is the assumption of ‘women’ meaning all women are the same…which is certainly not true.
    Of course many women love romcoms and there is nothing wrong with that. But Dave is right in saying films like Spidey, Pirates etc. do not make the money they make on boys/men alone.
    Nevertheless, there is much to be said that Hollywood does not have a diverse enough product anymore and could expand their market.
    Even The Wall Street Journal had a lengthy article on this a year or two back. That the majority of those in Hollywood can’t/won’t see this is unfortunate.

  9. ployp says:

    “Are women really to be relegated to romcoms with cute girls and boys falling in love after meetcutes? ”
    As a woman, totally agree.

  10. cjKennedy says:

    I’d be curious to know how many women actually feel underserved by Hollywood. I find it hard to believe the studios would willingly ignore half their audience. Isn’t Waxman one of the columnists who kept saying a year or so ago that box office was down and Hollywood was screwed?

  11. ployp says:

    I’m a woman and I don’t feel underserved at all. I hate it when people call certain films ‘chick flicks’ or ‘women’s film.’ I watch all kinds of movies. I actually like horror films and I have no problems with the super hero ones.
    About diversity in films, I live in Thailand and we only get ‘big’ hollywood films here. The rest doesn’t translate well to the local audience and I perfectly understand that. It’s business. As for other types of film, dramas, indies, I can always catch them on DVDs.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon