BY TATIANA COZZARELLI

In print | March 8, 2007

What do the films “Pursuit of Happiness,” “Casino Royale,” “Babel,” “Stranger than Fiction,” “The Departed” and “The Prestige” have in common? For one thing, they have all been recently shown at Swarthmore by the College Movie Committee. Additionally, they are all directed by men and have male protagonists, with the possible exception of “Babel.” While the lack of female directors and even the lack of female main characters is a problem in Hollywood films as a whole, I hope that in the future the Movie Committee will make an effort to choose films with more diverse directors, genres and protagonists.

The absence of female directors in mainstream cinema is a prevalent problem in Hollywood. It’s no secret that women directors usually get shafted by the box office and the movie industry. As the Guerilla Girls poster proclaims, “Women directed 7% of the top 200 grossing films in the year 2005 and no woman director has ever won an Oscar. Only three have been nominated.” As we all know, the film industry is among the most sexist in terms of who gets to make films and whose stories get represented.

If we aim to show mainstream films, the male-dominated films shown at Swarthmore thus far are to be expected. Perhaps, then, we should make a greater effort to show less mainstream films and include some of the more unique films that are being made.

Even if we opt for mainstream films, I still have a major qualm with the films being shown this semester; the films are not only directed by men, but they are about men, too. All of the films (with the exception of Babel, which has various main characters) have a male main-protagonist. All of these films are about the problems, desires and adventures of men.

Furthermore, out of the six films shown this semester, four are “dramatic thrillers”, a very masculine genre. Before everyone jumps down my throat for saying that, let me clarify. By masculine I do not mean male. Clearly women can be interested in dramatic thrillers and men can be interested in romantic comedies, or “chick flicks.” However, in the same way that a “chick flick” is considered feminine, a dramatic thriller is considered masculine. But back to my original point: most of the films screened this semester are about men and for men.

The Movie Committee would never have a lineup of films that included “Music and Lyrics,” “Because I Said So,” “Dreamgirls” and “The Devil Wears Prada.” Most would argue that these films do not appeal to the “wider audience” because they are romantic comedies. Yet, over half of the films shown this semester are in a “masculine” genre and are about male protagonists. I counter that these selections do not appeal to a “wider audience,” particularly the audience of women who want to see women as protagonists on screen, or even people who like romantic comedies and other such “chick flicks.”

Some might argue that female directors have not made any “good” movies and that no “good” movies lately have female protagonists. I have two words for those people: “Casino Royale?” Is anyone really going to defend the cinematic quality of “Casino Royale”? Clearly, the movie committee is not showing the “best” and most innovative films of the year. Furthermore, our perceptions of what a “good” or “bad” film looks like is informed by the sexist society in which we live; films that are coded “feminine” are universally under-valued.

This is a problem both in the movie committee and in the film industry as a whole. Very few films by female directors are popular and, recently, there has even been a decline in chick flicks. Still, I hope that the Movie Committee will make a greater effort to include more diverse genres of film that represent a more diverse focus.

Tatiana is a junior. You can reach her at tcozzar1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »