Women directors on AFI’s Best 100 Films List: ZERO
The results are in and, not surprising to AWFJ, not one of the films named on AFI’s Best 100 Films List is directed by a women.
“The films themselves are boy-centric, and the only ones that are women driven (after The Wizard of Oz) include: Sunset Blvd; All About Eve; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (give me a break); The Sound of Music; and Sophie’s Choice.” writes Melissa Silverstein on the Huffington Post.
“There is more gender parity when it comes to actors and actresses represented,” comments Philadelphia Inquirer film critic, Carrie Rickey, noting that Katherine Hepburn, Faye Dunaway and Diane Keaton are represented by three or more films, as are Robert De Niro and Jimmy Stewart.
As counterpoint to AFI’s Best 100 Films List, Rickey, an AWFJ member, initiated AWFJ’s Top 100 Films List, nominations for which were made by AWFJ members, who were not given directives to concentrate on films made by and/or about women, nor to select only American-made movies.
AWFJ’s Top 100 Films list will be revealed and posted on this site on June 25. As a tease: there are 22 films that coincide on the AFI and AWFJ lists, but the AWFJ list includes many more fem helmed films.
I’m guessing that Lost in Translation was too recent, which may be why it wasn’t included. I prefer Fast Times at Ridgemont High (more playfully subversive than Clueless), but either of those two films deserved consideration, as did Julie Dash’s amazing Daughters of the Dust. But,in general, the AFI list was even more disappointing than I anticipated.
Any guesses as to why not a single documentary was listed?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Since the official release of AWFJ’s Top 100 Films List is only a day away, I feel confident that I’m not breaking any rules in revealing that there are no docs on it, either.
However, you raise an important question, one that certainly warrants consideration by our organization– especially since docs ranging from “Harlan County” to the latter day “Jesus Camp” are among many notable examples by women filmmakers.
Another ponderable question: why are women filmmakers more accepted in the doc realm than in the features factory? AWFJ actually began looking into that when Carrie Rickey first raised the issue of fem helmers and stats– and that discussion can be found elsewhere on our site.
Not that there’s necessarily a correlation between missing docs and neglect of women directors on AFI’s best 100 list, and certainly not on ours.
It seems that docs, despite their growing popularity and the fact that some, like those mentioned above, garner good box office results and deserve lasting recognition, are still considered by the industry and many moviegoers to be cinematic seconds, undeserving of a place on 100 Bests lists.
Is that, perhaps, why some directors decide to make narrative features based on their docs– Asger Leth, for example, is planning a narrative feature based on “Ghosts of Cite Soleil” (a feature that may turn out to look and feel something like “District 13B,” which raises that unanswerable chicken/egg question).
That said, the distinction between narrative features and docs seems to be becoming blurrier, with directors of both– Davis Guggenheim and Michael Winterbottom, for example– saying that regardless of their current cinematic category, storytelling is their key concern in filmmaking, along with telling the truth.
Which raises the question: what is truth in cinema?
It seems to be somewhat subjective. Eugene Jarecki asserts that docs are replacing biased, sensationalistic, market-driven and entertainment-oriented news media as the deliverers of essential truths about past and current events to the American public. On the other hand, the plot of that spunky narrative spoof “Galaxy Quest,” hangs on the notion that aliens from space trust their species’ survival to the characters of a sci fi TV show that they, the aliens, have perceived to be our civilization’s historical ‘documents.’ (By the way, why isn’t “Galaxy Quest” on anybody’s list?)
What’s your guess?
June 24th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I happen to have a particular interest in the docs question because I teach at a university (my day job) where we are starting a documentary major (theory and production) this fall. As the resident doc theorist (as opposed to maker — sexier for students and teachers at this point), I’ve been thinking a lot about how students/gonnabe makers understand their relationships to docs. The first gonnabe-maker students (in classes before the official degree exists) indicate they see the genre as a means to another end, as they plan to move on to features.
(I’ll add that, when formulating year-end lists, I always include docs, because I actually tend to like them best, but also as a political point.)
For many viewers, the question has to do with how docs are seen: aside from cable and festivals, it’s still hard to get venues for docs that do not feature an activist/agitator/larger-than-life maker/protagonist (Moore, Spurlock, et. al. — these figures, however you regard their self-presentations, do not tend to be girls).
Consider the many excellent docs from 2006 — including “Jesus Camp,” “My Country My Country,” “The Ground Truth,” “Iraq in Fragments” (by James Longley), “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib,” “Shut Up and Sing” — that were all in some way concerned with the wars (on terror and in Iraq), none so recognized by mainstream press or awards-giving bodies as, say, “Fahrenheit 9/11″ or “Fog of War.” This isn’t to question the quality of the Oscar winners, but it is to raise questions about money, for production and promotion.
Jennifer asks why women are more “accepted in the doc realm than in the features factory.” Again this seems to me to be about money. Doc makers frequently develop their own projects and funding, then get picked up by distributors.
Jennifer also asks, “What is truth in cinema?” I like Eugene Jarecki’s comment on that, and would point not only to his recent film (”Why We Fight”) but also his brother’s, “Capturing the Friedmans,” as examples of films that directly challenge conventional doc-modes of “truth-seeking,” if not always or possibly “telling.” That said, Mike Tucker and Petra Epperlein’s “The Prisoner, or How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair,” Winterbottom’s “Road to Guantánamo” (both released this year) and Demme’s “The Agronomist” (2004) are three very smart films about truth as a community process, political enterprise, and especially, a problem for journalism (whatever that even is anymore).
June 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Chuck, you raise a compelling question. I don’t have the AFI criteria on me. (I’m reasonably certain they are on the site). My memory is that its top-100 lists are rankings of feature films of more than 60 minutes in length. (The length issue is what pre-empted Buster Keaton’s best work from being on the list.) Documerntaries would be a great subject for the next AFI list, but I’m guessing the network won’t think that commercial or sexy enough and the listmaking endeavor is a fundraising opportunity for AFI programs.
Cynthia, I usually include docs on my 10-best list. Deliver Us from Evil was definitely on my 2006 list. While I very much liked Jesus Camp, it didn’t make my cut. While I like your argument about agitator/activists such as Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock getting wider distribution for their films, then how do you explain “Capturing the Friedmans?” I think it’s the essayistic treatment of hot-button subject matter — gun control, McDonald’s, pedophilia — that makes bookers more confident about selling tickets to certain docs and guarantees those films broader distribution. One could argue that Deliver Us From Evil is also about pedophilia, but its focus was on the victims rather than the perpetrator. What do you think?
June 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
AFI’s best list is limited to narrative features. Why? I think Carrie’s comment that the network doesn’t think docs as sexy and/or commerical enough to carry a three hour special is accurate. But docs have been gaining ground in the commercial sphere, and it’s likely that will continue– so the network may eventually change its opinion, especially as IFC, HBO and other cables produce and promote docs.
I, too, include docs on my best of the year list, and can think of a number of docs I’d like to see on a best 100 films list. That said, do docs require their own list, or belong on an inclusive list?
Or are distinctions between commercially-distributed storytelling-docs and indie based-on-a-true-story narrative features blurring to the extent that categorizing them becomes more difficult, if not less relevant?
If AFI continues to back off a best docs list (or including docs on its overall best list), perhaps AWFJ should forge ahead with one for next year.
Your thoughts?
June 24th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Chuck’s question regarding docs is an excellent one, as are several of the remarks following. Like many of my fellow critics, I feel it is important to include appropriate non-fiction films (the technical definition of “documentary” having, shall we say, expanded in the past decade or so) in my ten best lists, and other lists on which I am asked to vote. I agree that these “docs” are not “sexy” in money-making eyes and therefore, not as commercially viable as fiction pieces, which almost always attract more buzz, more audience interest and therefore, more money. A network broadcast show devoted to a list of critically acclaimed but little seen documentaries would never make sense to programmers who debate whether their network news programs should be offering news the audience wants to see, or news “greater minds” feel the audience should see. My particular way to deal with this conundrum is to cover the big, current releases on a regular basis. And then, when people might least expect it, I’ll sneak in a review, an interview or just a little bit of business about a “smaller” film, be it an indie, a doc or even a straight to DVD that meant something to me and might, indeed, also touch the more experimental in my audience.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
[…] “¿Cuántas películas de la lista han sido dirigidas por una mujer? CERO”, afirman en este artículo, que cae por su propio peso. Así que ni cortas ni perezosas, han redactado la suya propia. En […]
June 26th, 2007 at 11:13 am