Female Filmmakers

News on Criterion and Janus Films.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Manny Karp
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:22 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#126 Post by Manny Karp » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:03 am

Any sort of male/female "quota" seems absurd and insulting because it disregards the content and context of each work, as well as the general career tendencies of the director herself. I think a lot about someone like Kathryn Bigelow, who went from acting in an ostensibly anarchist film like Born In Flames, to making propulsively bracing (if not quite subversive or substantial) genre films, to, finally, lamentably, being a CIA/military stooge with works like Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. That's an interesting arc... but how does it gel with the gender agenda of "inclusion"? Meanwhile, I'd gladly do away with 1/3 of CC's male directors for Beau Travail, etc.

beamish13
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#127 Post by beamish13 » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:59 am

Euzahn Palcy has always been among my top picks for a living filmmaker who has never been a part of the Criterion Collection.
Her films Sugar Cane Alley and Simeon have both been restored, and her most well-known work, A Dry White Season, is with
MGM.

Cecile Tang Shu Shuen would be another great pick, and her films The Arch and China Behind deserve more attention.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#128 Post by knives » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:47 pm

swo17 wrote:I'm going to consider Criterion behind the curve until they release at least five more Claire Denis movies, and a few Muratovas.
And ten Huillet.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#129 Post by Jeff » Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:16 pm

Peter Becker wrote:A programmer focused on classic Hollywood for the past twenty years told me recently that only four women had made films for major studios by 1979.
That would most likely be TCM's Charles Tabesh, who told the same thing to the L.A. Times last year. The four were Ida Lupino, Dorothy Arzner, Elaine May, and Joan Darling.

If you're looking for an idea of which films directed by women Criterion might actually have access to, it's being discussed in the Forthcoming thread.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#130 Post by MichaelB » Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:30 pm

I think the rumour that Jane Arden was the only woman to make a feature film in Britain throughout the whole of the 1970s has been debunked, but I can't remember by whom - and even if there was another one, that's hardly anything to cheer about.

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#131 Post by GaryC » Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:15 pm

Jeff wrote:
Peter Becker wrote:A programmer focused on classic Hollywood for the past twenty years told me recently that only four women had made films for major studios by 1979.
That would most likely be TCM's Charles Tabesh, who told the same thing to the L.A. Times last year. The four were Ida Lupino, Dorothy Arzner, Elaine May, and Joan Darling.
Dorothy Arzner may have been the only woman to solo-direct a film for the majors in the 30s and 40, but one other woman did codirect one film - Wanda Tuchock, primarily a scriptwriter, codirected Finishing School (1934).

There's a contemporary news article which claimed that the Australian Paulette McDonagh, who ran a production company with her two sisters and directed four features between 1926 and 1933, was one of just five female directors at the time. Presumably Dorothy Arzner and Leontine Sagan were two others. Anyone know who the other two were? McDonagh's final film Two Minutes Silence (1933) is sadly lost. Incidentally, it's usually claimed that Gillian Armstrong was the first woman to direct a film in Australia after McDonagh with My Brilliant Career, and it was the first Australian film by a woman in both 35mm and colour - but it was preceded by the 16mm feature The Golden Cage, directed by Turkish migrant Ayten Kuyululu in 1975. That film's all but impossible to see without visiting the archive, which is how I did see it when I visited Australia recently.
Last edited by GaryC on Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#132 Post by GaryC » Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:17 pm

MichaelB wrote:I think the rumour that Jane Arden was the only woman to make a feature film in Britain throughout the whole of the 1970s has been debunked, but I can't remember by whom - and even if there was another one, that's hardly anything to cheer about.
That would be Tales from a Flying Trunk, directed by Christine Edzard in 1979.

That would be solo-directed, anyway - Laura Mulvey codirected two features in the 1970s.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#133 Post by zedz » Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:57 pm

GaryC wrote:
MichaelB wrote:I think the rumour that Jane Arden was the only woman to make a feature film in Britain throughout the whole of the 1970s has been debunked, but I can't remember by whom - and even if there was another one, that's hardly anything to cheer about.
That would be Tales from a Flying Trunk, directed by Christine Edzard in 1979.

That would be solo-directed, anyway - Laura Mulvey codirected two features in the 1970s.
Edzard's epic Little Dorrit would be a great pick for Criterion.

beamish13
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#134 Post by beamish13 » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:07 pm

zedz wrote:Edzard's epic Little Dorrit would be a great pick for Criterion.
Oh, god, yes. One of the few Cannon-distributed films to still be with Warner Bros. I've asked them about releasing it via the WB Archive, and they claim to not have a widescreen master. Ridiculous. They also don't have one for Rapa Nui, a film produced in 1994!

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#135 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:14 pm

beamish13 wrote:Cecile Tang Shu Shuen would be another great pick, and her films The Arch and China Behind deserve more attention.
Les Blank apparently had the U.S. rights for The Arch (which sounds surprising until you realize he was the editor) and a DVD is still available from Les Blank Films. One would think Criterion could license it if they wanted, but for all I know there could be issues with the elements—judging from the supplied Youtube clip, the DVD is sourced from a theatrical print with very small burnt-in subs—plus it would require Criterion to pay attention to a Chinese-language filmmaker who is far less known than even Wong Kar-wai was when they did Chungking Express on laserdisc.

User avatar
Emak-Bakia
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:48 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#136 Post by Emak-Bakia » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:42 am

GaryC wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Peter Becker wrote:A programmer focused on classic Hollywood for the past twenty years told me recently that only four women had made films for major studios by 1979.
That would most likely be TCM's Charles Tabesh, who told the same thing to the L.A. Times last year. The four were Ida Lupino, Dorothy Arzner, Elaine May, and Joan Darling.
Dorothy Arzner may have been the only woman to solo-direct a film for the majors in the 30s and 40, but one other woman did codirect one film - Wanda Tuchock, primarily a scriptwriter, codirected Finishing School (1934).

There's a contemporary news article which claimed that the Australian Paulette McDonagh, who ran a production company with her two sisters and directed four features between 1926 and 1933, was one of just five female directors at the time. Presumably Dorothy Arzner and Leontine Sagan were two others. Anyone know who the other two were?
Lois Weber was one of them. It's amazing to me how under-discussed her work is, especially considering just how big she was in the teens and 20s, even being the highest paid director in Hollywood for a stretch. And she was working for the majors. I suppose the major studios as we generally think of them weren't so well established before the Golden Age, but she directed several pictures for Famous Players-Lasky/Paramount. Universal's status was probably more in flux, but she also had a number of stints with that studio. I'm very pleased to see the note at the end of the Hassannia piece about a Weber collection forthcoming from Kino. I've only seen one of her films - Shoes - but it's a masterpiece. (I really do need to watch Where Are My Children? from the Treasures vol. 3 set.)

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#137 Post by Gregory » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:23 pm

I had some interesting conversations about Weber's Hypocrites with Sloper and Tommaso in the pre-1920s list thread. The few main posts in the discussion were easy to find: here, here, here, and elsewhere in that thread. Weber was known as a social realist, but in Hypocrites I found a lot else going on aesthetically that allows the film to completely transcend the moral stance of virtually every other silent drama of that ilk.

User avatar
Emak-Bakia
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:48 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#138 Post by Emak-Bakia » Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:03 am

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Although I've only seen Shoes, I definitely know where you're coming from when you talk about Hypocrites transcending the moral stance. Before I had seen a Weber film, an old teacher of mine had warned me that her work was overly moralistic, but I found Shoes to be a film that just burns with the utter humanity of living in poverty. I'd say Ozu and Naruse are the first two points of reference that come to mind. Come to think of it, I think all three filmmakers use worn out, old shoes to elicit sympathy for characters at one point or another.

Every time I think about Weber, I wonder why I haven't yet gotten around to viewing more of her work. I didn't even know about the Hypocrites DVD, so thanks for the recommendation. I'm pleased to discover that quite a bit more of her work than I was initially aware of is readily accessible. With this list covering most of the initial leg-work, I think I've been able to put together a mostly complete list of what's available:

Suspense (1913) - available in the Unseen Cinema collection and also on YouTube

How Men Propose (1913) - on the OOP Origins of Film set

Hypocrites (1915) - still available on DVD from Kino

Where Are My Children? (1916) - available as part of the Treasures from the American Film Archives vol. 3 set (OOP) and also currently available in several YouTube streams

Shoes (1916) - unavailable on home video or streaming, though a release seems likely considering the recent, gorgeous restoration by the EYE Film Instute

Tarzan of the Apes (1918, screenwriter only) - On DVD from Alpha and also on YouTube

Too Wise Wives (1921) - also on the Origins of Film set

The Blot (1921) - on DVD from Image (OOP)

A Chapter in Her Life (1923) - OOP DVD from Nostalgia Family Video

Sensation Seekers (1927) - available from the Internet Archive

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#139 Post by swo17 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:29 am

Emak-Bakia wrote:Before I had seen a Weber film, an old teacher of mine had warned me that her work was overly moralistic
That's part of the appeal actually, as her morals were so downright bizarre. I unreservedly love her anti-abortion tract Where Are My Children?

User avatar
Emak-Bakia
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:48 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#140 Post by Emak-Bakia » Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:09 am

I've had that Treasures set for several years, so I've got no excuse for not having watched Where Are My Children? yet. I will definitely be making time for it in the next couple weeks.

beamish13
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#141 Post by beamish13 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:36 pm

would love to see some notable works helmed by women most known for being actresses: Jeanne Moreau's two features and Joan Chen's Xiu Xiu: The Sent-Down Girl

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#142 Post by zedz » Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:12 pm

beamish13 wrote:would love to see some notable works helmed by women most known for being actresses: Jeanne Moreau's two features and Joan Chen's Xiu Xiu: The Sent-Down Girl
I haven't seen anything by Moreau, but I have seen Xiu Xiu. It's a good, solid, earnest film, well-directed in an anonymous way, but nothing particularly special.

User avatar
ianthemovie
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#143 Post by ianthemovie » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:58 pm

I sought out a bunch of Weber's films a few years back and found all of them interesting. Where Are My Children? is fascinating for so many reasons, not least of which being its feminist politics (it's both pro-birth-control and anti-abortion). It mixes its polemics with sentimentality to memorable effect, as for example in shots of aborted babies flying up to heaven on angel wings! A must-see.

I also recall admiring the anti-censorship message of Hypocrites (and being surprised by its use of nudity, of course). Too-Wise Wives is a mostly conventional comedy-drama but the scenes of domestic married life at the beginning are amusing. The Blot is another great social-problem picture that deals with poverty and class issues. For those looking for a fun distraction, check out the short How Men Propose, which is essentially a 5-minute-long filmed joke. Suspense is also an interesting variation on Griffith's The Lonely Villa.

User avatar
Emak-Bakia
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:48 am

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#144 Post by Emak-Bakia » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:11 am

Thanks for sharing your takes on those films. I just need the semester to be over so I can hopefully squeeze in some of Weber's films before summer classes start.

User avatar
Ashirg
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:10 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#145 Post by Ashirg » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:42 am

It's worth noting that there were only 3 female producers in 1940s-1950s Hollywood and 2 of them are in the collection - Virginia Van Upp produced Gilda and Joan Harrison produced Ride the Pink Horse. Harriet Parsons was with RKO and all of them are with Warner (including Tashlin's Susan Slept Here which is being releasing by Warner Archive in April).

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#146 Post by GaryC » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:08 am

Emak-Bakia wrote:
GaryC wrote: Dorothy Arzner may have been the only woman to solo-direct a film for the majors in the 30s and 40, but one other woman did codirect one film - Wanda Tuchock, primarily a scriptwriter, codirected Finishing School (1934).

There's a contemporary news article which claimed that the Australian Paulette McDonagh, who ran a production company with her two sisters and directed four features between 1926 and 1933, was one of just five female directors at the time. Presumably Dorothy Arzner and Leontine Sagan were two others. Anyone know who the other two were?
Lois Weber was one of them. It's amazing to me how under-discussed her work is, especially considering just how big she was in the teens and 20s, even being the highest paid director in Hollywood for a stretch. And she was working for the majors. I suppose the major studios as we generally think of them weren't so well established before the Golden Age, but she directed several pictures for Famous Players-Lasky/Paramount. Universal's status was probably more in flux, but she also had a number of stints with that studio. I'm very pleased to see the note at the end of the Hassannia piece about a Weber collection forthcoming from Kino. I've only seen one of her films - Shoes - but it's a masterpiece. (I really do need to watch Where Are My Children? from the Treasures vol. 3 set.)
That article is from 1933, from Australian Women's Weekly - it's linked from Paulette McDonagh's wiki page.

Good shout re Lois Weber. I'd thought she'd only made films in the silent era but it appears she did make one in 1934: White Heat, now lost.

I'm not sure if that claim of only five stands up anyway - Beeban Kidron, when she made her first feature Vroom in 1988 was told by a journalist that she was only the third woman to direct a feature in the UK, which is clearly nonsense, and I can't vouch for the research done by that journalist in 1933.

I also don't know if Claudia Weill counts for that list of women directing films for major studios - Girlfriends was distributed by Warners, though it seems made as an indie. It's My Turn is a 1980 film so misses the cutoff date.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#147 Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:42 am

Shouldn't this thread have a more dignified title?
It sounds like some infighting nonsense, when it actually contains some interesting info on early female directors.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#148 Post by Matt » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:54 am

Lemmy Caution wrote:Shouldn't this thread have a more dignified title?
R.I.P. Lord Finesse references on criterionforum.org...

User avatar
Cinephrenic
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: Paris, Texas

Re: Strictly for tha Ladeez

#149 Post by Cinephrenic » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:30 pm

Lemmy Caution wrote:Shouldn't this thread have a more dignified title?
It sounds like some infighting nonsense, when it actually contains some interesting info on early female directors.
...And God Created Women

Post Reply