Studio Seeks Female Directors For Wonder Woman

[marscentral]

Hiring a woman to direct seems pretty much the most right, most character savvy thing that the DCCU has done. Wonder Woman was created to be an inspirational figure for girls in the way Superman was for boys. The fact is, while we all like to think of Hollywood as a bastion of leftist hippy liberalism, that's mostly in front of the camera not behind it. The business side is a giant sausage-fest boys club, like most other businesses. Very few women ever get the opportunity to direct films for the major studios and the only way to change that is to give them more of a chance. Only one woman has ever won a director Academy Award, in 2009 after 80 years! Frankly, it's nice to see Warner Bros. do right by Wonder Woman on this instead of handing another major film to another dude.

All those crying "sexism" can go watch Green Lantern, Catwoman and Batman and Robin and see what destruction and misery the "best man for the job" has wrought in the director's chair!

How about keeping their options open and seeing which director is the most eager/keen, with some decent experience, good history, powerful vision, inspiration, etc to direct this kind of movie? Why even bring gender into it?

Movies range from good to bad, directors also range from good to bad. What do those things have ANYTHING to do with the goddamn genders involved? Why even make that a thing, why even bring it up?

Seems incredibly stupid.

In an ideal world you'd be right. In our world, women are massively underrepresented in the key roles behind the camera. In 2013 only 6% of the top 250 films had female directors. Only 16% of directors, writers, cinematographers, executive producers, producers and editors were women. That's not a lack of talent, that's a clear lack of opportunity across the industry. No one is suggesting they hire someone who can't do the job well, there are women who are great directors in lots of genres. But if there is ever a time to break the status quo and inspire a generation of women to pursue the director's chair, it's Wonder Woman!

 

[Gorrath]

Hiring a woman to direct seems pretty much the most right, most character savvy thing that the DCCU has done. Wonder Woman was created to be an inspirational figure for girls in the way Superman was for boys. The fact is, while we all like to think of Hollywood as a bastion of leftist hippy liberalism, that's mostly in front of the camera not behind it. The business side is a giant sausage-fest boys club, like most other businesses. Very few women ever get the opportunity to direct films for the major studios and the only way to change that is to give them more of a chance. Only one woman has ever won a director Academy Award, in 2009 after 80 years! Frankly, it's nice to see Warner Bros. do right by Wonder Woman on this instead of handing another major film to another dude.

All those crying "sexism" can go watch Green Lantern, Catwoman and Batman and Robin and see what destruction and misery the "best man for the job" has wrought in the director's chair!

How about keeping their options open and seeing which director is the most eager/keen, with some decent experience, good history, powerful vision, inspiration, etc to direct this kind of movie? Why even bring gender into it?

Movies range from good to bad, directors also range from good to bad. What do those things have ANYTHING to do with the goddamn genders involved? Why even make that a thing, why even bring it up?

Seems incredibly stupid.

In an ideal world you'd be right. In our world, women are massively underrepresented in the key roles behind the camera. In 2013 only 6% of the top 250 films had female directors. Only 16% of directors, writers, cinematographers, executive producers, producers and editors were women. That's not a lack of talent, that's a clear lack of opportunity across the industry. No one is suggesting they hire someone who can't do the job well, there are women who are great directors in lots of genres. But if there is ever a time to break the status quo and inspire a generation of women to pursue the director's chair, it's Wonder Woman!

I tend to be with the crowd on this sort of thing though. While the aspirations of greater diversity are worth our full pursuit, it should not come by way of sexist hiring policies. If we claim that the only path to diversity is through sexism, we have done ourselves a disservice. The defense that sexism is wrong, but since we don't live in a perfect world it's okay, I think is a cop-out. The numbers you post are worthy of being understood, worthy of being addressed and worthy of being fixed, it's just that engaging in sexism is not, I think, a proper way to do it.

I find it a bit sad that we can look at an instance where a company has said, "We are going to base our hiring decision in some part on gender." and said company will get applauded for it. Sexism is wrong, no matter who suffers from it. We are better than that.

Edit: I should also be clear that if a studio said something like: "We want a male director for our up coming project 'Testosterone and a Million Bullets 2: Electric Bugaloo' because we think a man will relate better with this material." I'd call them idiots.

 

[tzimize]

I almost get the feeling WB are INTENTIONALLY trying to fuck-over any chances this movie has of being good.

An minuscule proportion of directors are female. What is to be gained by severely cutting-down the available pool of directing talent/experience/etc by so much?

Yes. This. Goddamnit.

I refuse to believe the PR value of having a woman director is better than the value of having a good director. Not that women cant direct movies, but as you said the pool is smaller, hence less talent.

Bah. Ah well, no matter what they do I bet it'll be a step up from Supes Vs Batman. Eh? :|

 

[CaitSeith]

Why? There wasn't any progressive directors among the males ranks? Or WB just want to make a point?

 

[Something Amyss]

"Well done, you got the job, not because you were the best candidate, because you were the best woman".

Great. That's really helpful.

Oddly enough, that's standard Hollywood. Funny how it's only an issue when the person in question is something like a woman or a black person, then everyone comes out of the woodwork to complain.

 

[marscentral]

I tend to be with the crowd on this sort of thing though. While the aspirations of greater diversity are worth our full pursuit, it should not come by way of sexist hiring policies. If we claim that the only path to diversity is through sexism, we have done ourselves a disservice. The defense that sexism is wrong, but since we don't live in a perfect world it's okay, I think is a cop-out. The numbers you post are worthy of being understood, worthy of being addressed and worthy of being fixed, it's just that engaging in sexism is not, I think, a proper way to do it.

I find it a bit sad that we can look at an instance where a company has said, "We are going to base our hiring decision in some part on gender." and said company will get applauded for it. Sexism is wrong, no matter who suffers from it. We are better than that.

Edit: I should also be clear that if a studio said something like: "We want a male director for our up coming project 'Testosterone and a Million Bullets 2: Electric Bugaloo' because we think a man will relate better with this material." I'd call them idiots.

If Warner Bros. were announcing that they were going to be setting targets for hiring women for their films and men need not apply, I might agree with you. If it wasn't for the fact that those numbers I mentioned earlier suggest that film studios are implicitly basing their decisions on gender every day, I'd agree with you. The status quo is not achieving diversity and it's folly to assume that will change without people taking steps to change that.

This is one film about a character William Moulton Marston aimed at appealing to girls. It's the gross sexism of the industry that most of the people who would normally be in line to tell her story, over seventy years later, are men.

 

[Darth_Payn]

I almost get the feeling WB are INTENTIONALLY trying to fuck-over any chances this movie has of being good.

An minuscule proportion of directors are female. What is to be gained by severely cutting-down the available pool of directing talent/experience/etc by so much?

Maybe sending a message that the film industry needs to diversify itself? At the very least it's a bold move in an industry that severely needs to branch out

That's the first sensible thing I've read here. I get that WB thinks the best move for a Wonder Woman movie is to have a woman direct it, but what about writing? Did they even draft a script yet?
Also, for everyone saying "THIS WILL SUCK!" this early in the game, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment. Preparing to hate something will make you not watch it, and it will underperform, and it will lead to a bigger mess for all involved, and you will act all high and mighty going "See? I knew that would happen!" It's self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[bossfight1]

From my point of view, it might just be out of fear that a male director might not do justice to, arguably, the most iconic female superhero; Team Ninja working on Metroid: Other M comes to mind. It's probably something of an infantile fear, sure, but it makes sense in my eyes.

But I really wouldn't know; I don't care what gender the director is, I'm just hoping the movie doesn't fall flat on its face.

 

[weirdee]

I want to like this decision, but the cynic in me says that it's the escape plan in case the movie screws up.

 

[Gorrath]

If Warner Bros. were announcing that they were going to be setting targets for hiring women for their films and men need not apply, I might agree with you. If it wasn't for the fact that those numbers I mentioned earlier suggest that film studios are implicitly basing their decisions on gender every day, I'd agree with you. The status quo is not achieving diversity and it's folly to assume that will change without people taking steps to change that.

This is one film about a character William Moulton Marston aimed at appealing to girls. It's the gross sexism of the industry that most of the people who would normally be in line to tell her story, over seventy years later, are men.

No, that status quo is not achieving diversity because the status quo is based around biased hiring practices. This is a status quo that should not continue because biased hiring practices are wrong. Biased hiring practices don't become okay if you simply change the target. Stats can help us understand the nature of bias but they don't serve as a basis for excusing unethical behavior. Discrimination based on sex is unethical. The gross sexism of the industry is a problem, but that problem is not fixed with more sexism.

I don't want to seem as if I have some objection to them hiring a female director, I only object to the idea that they would automatically discriminate against any male director simply based on the fact that he's a man.

You wisely state that it would be folly to assume that the status quo won't change without people taking steps to change it, but this observation is a fallacy if it assume that the only way or best way to change the status quo is to simply engage in more of the problem. The best way to fix sexism is with cultural change and education, not through excusing sexism when its aimed at men.

I am 100% with you that things need to change. I simply cannot agree that changing it this way is okay.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Anybody see the movie Disclosure? Remember the ending?

I was too worried looking for the right woman for the job, when I should've been looking for the right person

Or something along those lines.

 

[marscentral]

*snip*

No, that status quo is not achieving diversity because the status quo is based around biased hiring practices. This is a status quo that should not continue because biased hiring practices are wrong. Biased hiring practices don't become okay if you simply change the target. Stats can help us understand the nature of bias but they don't serve as a basis for excusing unethical behavior. Discrimination based on sex is unethical. The gross sexism of the industry is a problem, but that problem is not fixed with more sexism.

I don't want to seem as if I have some objection to them hiring a female director, I only object to the idea that they would automatically discriminate against any male director simply based on the fact that he's a man.

You wisely state that it would be folly to assume that the status quo won't change without people taking steps to change it, but this observation is a fallacy if it assume that the only way or best way to change the status quo is to simply engage in more of the problem. The best way to fix sexism is with cultural change and education, not through excusing sexism when its aimed at men.

I am 100% with you that things need to change. I simply cannot agree that changing it this way is okay.

I think more is being read into this story than is really there. This is one film. A major one, sure, but still just one. It's not indicative of Warner Bros. changing it's hiring policies or that it will be doing this for other films in the future. All we have here is the desire to have a film about a superhero created to empower girls be directed by a woman. Sexism is a systemic problem and what we have here is a singular instance of deliberately bucking that trend for a feminist icon. Are we really arguing that men in a male dominated industry should be given equal consideration to tell this story?

I agree that this won't change things, at least not on it's own as the real change will be in changing the culture. It will be in more women going into the industry and finding opportunities to progress.

 

[JennAnge]

It's rather jumping the gun to say that this movie will suck just because of WB's decision. Yes, there aren't as many female directors as there should be and thus the pool of talent you can draw from is smaller, but that pool has some awfully good candidates to choose from. I doubt WB contacts thousands of directors in order to pitch their prized DC properties to, strenuously interviewing each to find the best match. No, their marketing chimps in charge of their asinine focus groups preselect a few big names that are bound to attract the herd, and the studio pitches the project to their agents. And eventually, after a few thounsand dollar luncheons and a pre-contract hearing with lawyers, someone will think to ask the candidate director if they like the source material, or have even heard of it. A 'No' to either of those questions will merely result in someone's PA running out to collate a summary of the relevant wiki page. And then later, if the film doesn't bomb, we'll get interviews from the director saying 'I'd never actually read any but when they signed me on, I read all of it in one night and now I'm a big fan!'

OT: The smart way WB could have done this would be to self-impose a quota on director selection, without necessarily blaring it from the rooftops. Meaning that they interview a few male directors with proven track record for directing movies with good female characters, and an equal number of female directors with same, and find out who can best do justice to the source material. Same process for the writers. Whichever creative team WB came up with at this point, they could at least say they'd approached the matter fairly. The movie could still suck, because Hollywood, but at least they gave it a shot.

As it stands, WB's announcement feels like a magnificent internet-baiting publicity stunt. And thanks to that stunt, if it turns out all the big name directors they're pitching this to are too busy, don't care for that kind of movie, are offended that their ovaries seem to be their primary qualification, or don't care about the source material and are honest enough to realize this will impact their ability to direct it properly, then WB (and the fans) are shit out of luck; they can't go to the very real male talent out there that could do the material justice, because boy, wouldn't that just be a glorious message to send, however they tried to justify it. So they're left with C-lister female directors. Which wouldn't necessarily mean a bad movie either! When I see the paint by number movies some big name directors are making these days, maybe fresh talent of any and all gender are needed, but that's even more of a crapshoot than the process from my first paragraph.

Buuuut overall I'm going to stay optimistic. Ten years back, I'd have said any attempt to make super hero movies and particularly The Avengers would have blown like the H-bomb whether it'd been directed by a man, a woman or an AI built from the collective hive mind of a hundred dead producers, and I've since been proven wrong or mostly wrong multiple times. So whichever director they go with, let's give her a chance, the same chance I'd have given a male director who could have landed such an iconic female character. Let's not assume the only qualification she has is her gender. There probably are quite a few Wonder Woman fans in the ranks of female movie talents. Their chances of producing a good movie are not significantly less than their male counterparts.

 

[The Lunatic]

Oddly enough, that's standard Hollywood. Funny how it's only an issue when the person in question is something like a woman or a black person, then everyone comes out of the woodwork to complain.

That's an awful lot of projection based on nothing much anyone has said.

 

[Gorrath]

I think more is being read into this story than is really there. This is one film. A major one, sure, but still just one. It's not indicative of Warner Bros. changing it's hiring policies or that it will be doing this for other films in the future. All we have here is the desire to have a film about a superhero created to empower girls be directed by a woman. Sexism is a systemic problem and what we have here is a singular instance of deliberately bucking that trend for a feminist icon. Are we really arguing that men in a male dominated industry should be given equal consideration to tell this story?

I agree that this won't change things, at least not on it's own as the real change will be in changing the culture. It will be in more women going into the industry and finding opportunities to progress.

Sexism is a systemic problem but it is not only a systemic problem. In this case, refusing to consider male directors for a job is sexist, but is (likely) not part of a broader plan to expand that into a sexist policy at the company. That doesn't matter though, as sexism is unethical whether it's systemic or not. Systemic sexism is a much bigger problem than the more isolated kind but the former does not excuse the latter.

It makes no difference to me that the central character is designed to empower girls. That does not excuse a sexist hiring policy for this film. It makes no difference to me if the policy for this film is not part of a larger trend. That does not excuse a sexist hiring policy for this film.

And yes, of course I'm arguing that men in a male dominated industry should be given equal consideration to tell this story! I am arguing that because I accept that sexism is unethical! It is a violation of people's civil rights for crying out loud! How on Earth could I possibly argue that men "shouldn't" be given equal consideration for this or any other film? That would literally be me arguing that, in this case, it is perfectly acceptable to suspend people's civil rights just because of who the character in the story is! I don't mean to pick on you either. I honestly see this sentiment all the time from my fellow progressives.

I just can't for the life of me figure out how in the world people got it in their head that suspending the civil rights of men is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. It's not okay for this one film. It's not okay just because the studio want's a female perspective on the character. It's not okay just because it might lead more women into the industry. It's not okay just because men make up the majority of the industry. Violating people's civil rights is not okay no matter what circumstances we dress it up in. We have a whole civil rights amendment to the constitution specifically because of how unethical this behavior is. Yet there are people who think that suspending the civil rights of people is okay because it's Wonder Woman?

I'm not under any assumption that arguing this will change your mind. You seem to be firmly in the "for the greater good" camp of progressive thought. That's an area I simply cannot go to. That line of thinking asks too much in return for too little. I'll never, ever accept that you can statistically demonstrate that violating the civil rights of one group of people is somehow going to fix the civil rights issues of another. The whole line of thinking turns people who claim to care about the abolishment of sexism/racism ect. into people who defend sexism/racism ect. I cannot and will not accept that the best path to a progressive future is through the victimization of people who are not traditionally discriminated against. I will not defend sexism and I will not join in with those who wish to redefine it so that only systemic sexism "counts as actual sexism." I do not have it in me.

I bear you no ill will and appreciate this conversation we are having greatly. Please do not think that what I write here is meant to be unkind to you. I laud the ideals that you seem to stand for. I am passionate about these subjects but I do not want my passion to be construed as polemic. I still happily call you friend, even though I don't know you.

 

[Gorrath]

"Well done, you got the job, not because you were the best candidate, because you were the best woman".

Great. That's really helpful.

Oddly enough, that's standard Hollywood. Funny how it's only an issue when the person in question is something like a woman or a black person, then everyone comes out of the woodwork to complain.

How often do you see a studio come out and say, "We will only consider white men for the directorship of this film."? Never? That would be because if they said something like that, their ass would get sued into the ground for civil rights violations. I'm not dense enough to pretend that this doesn't happen unless the studio announces that they are doing it. Obviously they seem to think violating people's civil rights is downright laudable when you switch the genders around. They obviously have their heads screwed on wrong if they think that's somehow acceptable.

What kills me though isn't the backwardness of the industry for doing what they obviously think is perfectly okay. What kills me are those who claim that doing it is wrong, then gleefully defend it when the target of the violations are men. Hell, at least the studio, for all its idiotic ideology is consistent about said ideology. That's more than can be said for so many progressives these days.