Why do we need women as directors to preserve sexism? - Unbroken (2014) Discussion

[–] winy68 10 years ago

It should rise and fall on merit

That said she failed. I can't think If a single female director I enjoyed their work.

The thing that would worry me is that she would attract bears on set

reply

[–] Funkey_Munkey 10 years ago

I can't think If a single female director I enjoyed their work.

That could be because of any preconceived notions about female directors that you may have, whether or not your consciously realize it. It's possible that, because you KNOW you're watching a female directors work, you nitpick every little thing that is wrong with the movie, that you would ignore if it were a male director. I don't know if that fits you in particular, but this (unfortunately) does happen, whether people will admit it or not (or even realize it). Same goes for blacks. They are held to a different standard, so they are easier to pick apart and call bad, whether it's warranted or not. It's part of human nature to be biased towards those who are like you. Not saying it's right, and I'm not making excuses for sexism or racism. I think if one can't look past gender then that's pretty pathetic, and is no one else's fault than themselves.

If you can't think of ONE movie from a female director that you liked, then it's your problem, not female directors.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

I agree with you, Funkey.

reply

[–] aviane 10 years ago

Unfortunate but true. Methinks if this film was made by a male director, people wouldn't have so many qualms about it.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

I only learned who directed it after i already rated it. I rated it 5/10. I dont care what sex you are, only if you can do the job well.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] trendhouse-uab 10 years ago

Well, I didn't know this was directed by Angelina, until I came on IMDB after watching it, and I have to say movie is average and forgettable. It's like a newcomer director picked the safest (a WW2 story about overcoming all odds) possible subject matter and directed it in Spielberg style to bait Oscars. Nothing was particularly bad, but nothing was particularly good either. You could say the movie is inspiring, but that's because of the source material, not the movie itself.

I don't know if that fits you in particular, but this (unfortunately) does happen, whether people will admit it or not (or even realize it). Same goes for blacks. They are held to a different standard, so they are easier to pick apart and call bad, whether it's warranted or not.

Do you have any evidence for that? No? Then the same applies to you as well. You're believing what you want to believe. It's possible that, because you KNOW you're watching a female directors work, you praise every little thing and downplay criticism because you simply refuse to believe that a female director can make a bad movie.

Another thing, putting racism and sexism in the same category is offensive. Genocides and slavery aren't comparable to gender roles that were historically applied to women. Both things are bad, but one is much worse. It's like someone who got his bike stolen would be trying to insert oneself into a conversation about rape victims "yeah, that's horrible and can you believe what happened to me today..".

reply

[–] t-l-s 10 years ago

That could be because of any preconceived notions about female directors that you may have, whether or not your consciously realize it

This is as sexist, against him, as you claim needs to be overturned

Just because he is a man, and he can't think of any good films by female directors you discriminate against him as a sexist

Actually the point you COULD have made was, you can't think of one decent film made by a female because THERE ARE SO FEW FEMALES MAKING FILMS

That would have been a fair point

I have to think REALLY hard to come up with 10 female directed films..... The Hurt Locker is the best I can come up with, which if I remember it was at the Oscars at the same time as Avatar? Was far better than that space Dances with wolves with blue body paint

reply

[–] superscribe 9 years ago

You are SO right. If a woman can dircet well, why should she not do so? Because there are haters out there, who refuse to believe women are as good as men? What a bunch of idiots ytou are, if that is your POV! I (a hetero male, by the way) was a film unit publicist for nine years and every female director was every bit as good as the men!

Angelina did an amazin g job on this film and should be congratulated, not derided!

reply

[–] vic_cc-288-122638 8 years ago

Why did you have to specify that you are a hetero?

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Nothing will rise and fall on any merit diverse from being born rich, white and male.

Hurtlocker? American Psycho? The Mirror has two faces? Selma? Monster? Sunshine Cleaning? Rush? The Virgin Suicides?

There are more good movies than reasons to hate all women directors.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Nothing will rise and fall on any merit diverse from being born rich, white and male.

Hurtlocker? American Psycho? The Mirror has two faces? Selma? Monster? Sunshine Cleaning? Rush? The Virgin Suicides?

There are more good movies than reasons to hate all women directors.

reply

[–] trendhouse-uab 10 years ago

Technically he just said that he doesn't know any good female directors, that doesn't equate to hatred of them. It seems you have a persecution complex.

I loved Hurt Locker, American Psycho and Monster btw. Selma was meh. Haven't seen the other ones.

reply

[–] tremblaylm 9 years ago

Not even Sofia Coppola?!

reply

[–] DirectorDoc 9 years ago

Jane Campion, Katherine Bigelow, Sofia Coppola, that's just off the top of my head.

There are plenty of excellent female directors out there, not as many as men but it was a boys club previously and only recently have women been given the chance to direct so it will take time for them to get to there.

You just need to do your homework RE: women directors.

Edit: In answer to OP's question: Why do we need anything apart from air, water, food and shelter? If a person desires to direct what does it matter what their gender is? Answer: It doesn't.

reply

[–] Sidewindr 9 years ago

That said she failed. I can't think If a single female director I enjoyed their work.

Just off the top of my head Kathryn Bigelow comes to mind, she has directed a number of great films.

reply

[–] topsail33-1 9 years ago

Big - director Penny Marshall - not bad
Fast Times @ Ridgemont High - director Amy Heckerling - classic !

reply

[–] sirhiss-1 10 years ago

Maybe Jolie is an informed, reasonable adult and as such is not a feminist?

reply

[–] chiefsrygley 10 years ago

I think sirhiss-1 is correct here. It's a WW2 story based on real experience from someone who lived it. To feel the need to change the story to include female leads/add supporting characters would be asinine, not to mention insulting to those there.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

A gender can't be offensive to another by the mere fact of existing.

Nobody needs to be invented when half the world's poppulation happens to be female.

You don't know all these people personally to talk how women existence can be insulting for them, but if you want to make assumptions it is way more close to reality that they missed, loved, admired and fought for at least one woman each. They were never on the movie but they were inside their mind and hearts and deserved recognition through at least one speaking real role.

Mothers, sisters, girlfriends, little girls, nurses, secretaries, spies, code breakers... The list goes on and on.

It's just an extra X chromosome, get over it.

reply

[–] NBates1 10 years ago

The movie was already too long, and it is based on a true story, so they can't really change a lot just to promote feminism. It is Louie's story, and that does not make it sexist.

"We all go a little mad sometimes..." - Norman Bates

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

It is not sexist because of the hero, by the way I have to mention the guy is not to blame, he deserves all recognition he may get.

Male heros are great and I love them, from Hercules to Forrest Gump if they are there they have a good history to tell.

It is sexist for absence of any female who matters during a long, long movie. Even as a supporter or a dream.

reply

[–] redsmurph 10 years ago

AJ has enough money and clout to do something. I actually doubt her looks had anything to do with it. Also, she's growing older and becomes less interesting as the sexy female protagonist, so it's only logical to move to (or at least experiment with) something else within the same business. She's intelligent enough to not just be the pretty face.

The movie industry is heavily male-dominated when it comes to control. That's the playground. The director is far from the only person in control.

The movie was well-made, and in my opinion with the best "inside bomber" experience I've ever seen in a movie. There were a few over-symbolic/sappy scenes, but compared to certain Hasbro- and Marvel-based movies it was perfectly fine in that regard.

reply

[–] activista 9 years ago

@redsmurph

Also, she's growing older and becomes less interesting as the sexy female protagonist,

What a dumb sexist statement----women protagonists in film, just like male protagonists, are interesting no matter what their age. A woman dosen't automatically become less interesting and sexy as she ages (that's what Hollywood would have you think) some women become even more so as they age (that depends on the women and how well she takes care of herself,though----men too.)

And yeah, I actually jumped when one of the enemy planes shot right under the bomber---those were some good special effects. The part where the soldiers were stranded for weeks in the ocean could have been boring as hell, but it surprisingly wasn't---in fact, most of the action sequences in the film are top-notch and genuinely suspenseful (like when they get shot at while in the raft, and had to literally dodge both bullets and sharks underwater---that was exciting and scary as heck.) And the camp sequences were the true highlight of the film, in the sense that they were effective enough to make one feel the hell the soldiers were going through day by day. Still painful to watch, which was the point--but definitely well-made.

reply

[–] Ceck 10 years ago

Women who complain about things like this..... #FAIL

And NO you just don't understand this is a story about MEN! (who happened to be born from women!!)

That is what's wrong with feminists! they just complain too much about all.

Personally the main message that he in the end FORGAVE his enemies was much stronger than the gender dilemma this "lady" is proposing.

Shut up and LIVE!

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Ok, don't use the word lady inside quotation marks if you want to disprove the existence of a gender dilemma.

I won't ever call you a "man". It is disrespectful.

The vanishing act of women from war narratives is sad, since they were everywhere trying to survive, working, being single mothers, starving to death, rebuilding their homes...

Half of the word population did not vanish during this or any other time in History. They were just forgotten.

The main character story is beautiful, a man majority in casting is expected if most of everything happens inside a camp. Though, the absence of women is unnatural. Not a single mention.

Silent photos after the movie is over.

I feel like Angelina was so afraid to be criticized for not "man up" and making a "chick movie" that she went all the way around...

She had not the strength to brake the rules of the game.

reply

[–] RazorFriendly2 10 years ago

The main character story is beautiful, a man majority in casting is expected if most of everything happens inside a camp. Though, the absence of women is unnatural. Not a single mention.

Really? The absence of women is unnatural? Keep in mind that this is based on the account of someone who lived through this situation. The situation in the film is one that women did not face. It was the men who fought the wars. It was men that either died, were maimed in battle, or were POW's. A lucky few made it home with no scars, physical or psychological. In the situation and setting depicted in the film, the absence of women is not unnatural. It was the norm.

When you recount a story based on your own personal experiences, do you insert characters or people who weren't there just to make your story more politically correct, racially diverse, or more interesting? Of course not. You tell a story based on what you recall and who was in the situation with you. Why change someone else's story to make it more PC when you wouldn't do the same to your own stories?

You're such a mess, the train wreck stops to watch you!

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Yes it is historic revisionism the total absence of women during the narrative.

He came back destroyed and even after divorce he tells he owes his life to his wife. She was totally wiped off. He had a mother who happened to be female. The majority of medical assistants were female.

I am not unreasonable and understand perfectly that this kind of movie is naturalist bounded to a male majority for historical accuracy sake. What I can't understand the long stretch from it to total oblivion.

Women were reporters, air fighters since WWII, spies, camp prisoners. And above all they were missed dearly. men were fighting and they need to build bombs! From sisters to mothers, last minute wifes to unsuspected loved ones, it is not farfetched to presume that every single guy had at least one in his heart. Their silence in the movie is unnatural.

come on, James Franco made a movie about a guy who was all by himself for days under a rock and women were more present.

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 10 years ago

Thats some quality trolling.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

I ãm mot trolling.

reply

[–] sfmar 10 years ago

Well......if it sounds like a troll, walks like a troll, smells like a troll......

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

I guess a troll offends people instead of offering arguments. Maybe you are just looking yourself on the mirror by accident. Try to talk about the subject if you feel like it and not about who you think I am.

reply

[–] sfmar 10 years ago

Your initial analysis is somewhat laughable and pointless.

Yes, it could be considered a weakness that the film concentrated on his period in a POW environment, but, good or bad, that's what the director and those who wrote the screenplay chose to do.

To find fault in the lack of female characters in such an environment is ludicrous. There weren't any women there, plain and simple. This was a POW camp, not a Nazi concentration camp.

Beyond that, you keep reviving this topic which you began in January. To me this indicates you can't see the flaw in your logic or you're trolling - I suspect the latter.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

"Your initial analysis is somewhat laughable and pointless."

Ok, it is a valid opinion because it is not about me, but my analysis. Still, it is your opinion.

"Yes, it could be considered a weakness that the film concentrated on his period in a POW environment, but, good or bad, that's what the director and those who wrote the screenplay chose to do."

Yes, it is a huge weakness but maybe also a rational option to earn more money from the majority male investors when even outside POW there is no woman reference. Not even in flashbacks or talk. Nowadays how big a movie sells overseas is even more important than how big it will be at home and in some places even kisses are censored. The women vanishing act has an important economic advantage for who is promoting it.

"To find fault in the lack of female characters in such an environment is ludicrous. There weren't any women there, plain and simple. This was a POW camp, not a Nazi concentration camp. "

Of course I can't imagine a magical solution to a poor casting like a "mermaid" when they were lost at sea or playboy bunnies serving them between one torture and another, I am referring to real people with real stories when he was outside and there were none. In real life he had it, on the book they were there and on the silver screen all women magically disappeared. Even inside the POW there were special kind of women he would have access if he betrayed U.S.A. Over and over all female plots, heros and villains, disappeared.

"Beyond that, you keep reviving this topic which you began in January. To me this indicates you can't see the flaw in your logic or you're trolling - I suspect the latter."

I can't see any logic in a prescribing time for an argument.

The third option, and you might even consider that a golden rule for life, not everybody who disagrees with your point of view is evil.

reply

[–] sfmar 10 years ago

I never called you evil, nor did I ever suggest you were. Granted, you acknowledge others have a right to their opinions, but I still sense you are self-righteously convinced that only your opinions are correct; and that only your opinions matter.

I can't see any logic in a prescribing time for an argument.

Prescribing time for an argument is one thing. Repeated resurrecting an argument after you've beaten it to death is quite another.

The tone and content of your rebuttal also suggests you have a problem with men in general - and that is indeed a problem - but it's your problem.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Ok, trolls are evil. It is not a kind word.

I insist that ideas don't fade over light criticism. I mean, women were burnt alive for writing not so long ago, reading some harsh words over web are really not a problem in comparison.

I enjoy some comfort at my time because many risked their own for it.

I like men, to tell you the truth, if some one made the history of my life it would impossible to not mention the ones I love the most without hurting my feelings. I am affected by the other half of the world who does not belong to my gender in positive and negative light every day.

Why is so hard to figure women's invisibility is just inaccurate?

reply

[–] sfmar 10 years ago

Why is so hard to figure women's invisibility is just inaccurate?

No, why is so hard for you to understand women's absence from a WWII POW Camp scenario is completely accurate? Since when does absence equate to invisibility? Are you really that dense?

I see you as the type of "passive" troll whose pastime is endlessly wasting the time of others in endless, pointless debate over ludicrous non-issues. You seem to get off on it, which is both rude and really pathetic when you think about it.

Feel free to waste someone else's time, you're done wasting mine - though I'm certain you'll get and extra, exhilarating thrill by getting the last word, so to speak. It's part of your nature, which is even more pathetic.

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Because it is not accurate.

Women could not be totally away from any scenario. When they were not phisically present they were inside every heart and mind that may win or loose a war.

They were remembered, missed, cherished.

Many women were at WWII POW Camps themselves.

Many killed a their fair share of nazis, one way or another.

If men were dropping bombs over others it was because women were building ammunition.

Women were forced to leave home to help. The casualties were high, new fighters had to replace the dead ones and the replacers (burocratic workers mainly) had to be replaced by women. They were even fire fighters and the russians were specially feared. Don't get me wrong, the americans were good but the soviets were the best.

War is not a game or an art as it's sold nowadays. It doesn't happen among noble men to defend the weak (women and children).

Everybody is involved. Everybody is shot, killed, burnt, homeless, raped, and the list goes on and on.

War is the only artificial disaster that surpasses all the natural ones combined.

Whenever you go back to "troll" argument I feel disapointed, because you are clearly articulate enough to discuss an idea without shooting the messenger. You can do better than that.

About the last argument, it is a myth. It doesn't exist.

Words last longer than people.

reply

[–] Ren_Sapeas 8 years ago

After reading all your comments and the comments others made, I just had to get my two cents in. I rarely comment on fora at all, but for you I'm making the exception.
Why? Because of your skewed view of sexism regarding this movie.

First off I'd like to begin by casting a mirror on your words and calling you the sexist. You're seemingly 'obsessed' with both genders being 'in balance' (however ridiculous that reads in retrospect) whilst claiming it's for neutrality. Whereas in fact you're extrapolating modern feminist views on a recent movie about a historic story; historic being the key word here!

If you would've watched the movie with as much focus as you critiqued every decision the female director, Angelina Jolie, made, then you would've been able to pick out the handful of females that were seen in the movie. From the girls that wave at the male protagonist during his late teen years breaking his first track record, to the Japanese woman that exited the elevator at the Broadcast tower in Tokyo (whom the male lead stared at intentively because he hadn't seen a woman in over two years!). The few appearances serve to empower their overall absence.

Yet as evident as these scenes were for me, a male viewer, I feel I must point them out to you regardless. I'll even go further.
The whole movie revolved around the story of one man. A single human being. Nowhere in this story, at any point, would a flashback of ANY of the men in the movie about their missed love add ANY sort of emotional value! Au contraire, I'd perceive such a cheap ploy as a sexist move, seemingly extrapolating the females' emotions as only relating to the suffering of the men.
But to reiterate; this is the story about ONE man. The absence of female roles drives the point home for the viewer as to what sort of environment he was finding himself in. In fact, I could even do without the scenes where we see his brother and parents' reaction to him being alive. As a viewer we feel his desolation, and through his bravery we are to be inspired!

To summarize: If you wanted to see more females pulling their weight during the war effort, go watch a documentary. This was a movie about a man's unbelievable survival story during one of mankind's ugliest wars. Shame on you for belittling this movie - and retroactively Louis Zamperini's anecdote - and juxtaposing your modern feminist beliefs under the guise of promoting gender equality.

My advise to you: Put on some different colored shades; the world ain't as black and white as you view it to be.

reply

[–] romeomihalcea 9 years ago

Feel free to waste someone else's time, you're done wasting mine - though I'm certain you'll get and extra, exhilarating thrill by getting the last word, so to speak. It's part of your nature, which is even more pathetic.

Ofc she didn't fail to deliver.

reply

[–] jondoe888 10 years ago

If there was ever a movie NOT to complain about the lack of female characters, this might be it! How about racial diversity? Many Asians, but few blacks. Any?
(that's mostly a joke).

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Segregation took care of blacks invisibility. Some time ago "science" believed them inferior intellectual and morally and were not allowed to fight, just dig and drive. The few and honorable exceptions would be bitten to death if they ever tried to share a table with a different race. Or a school, a university, a bathroom, a drinking fountain, a sidewalk, a park. Equal but segregate, you know the drill.

If there existed then any kind of fair game, if blacks were allowed to compete with whites, probably the main character would be as black as all other first place champions in every single running categories for the last decades. By the way, this was very inconvenient to Hitler's theory of Arian supremacy, and funny as hell to watch him loosing his temper.

reply

[–] Acid_Reflex 10 years ago

Some women are GREAT directors. Chick that directed THE PIANO. Then there is HURT LOCKER wench. BOYS DON'T CRY chick.

Unfortunately Angelina is not one of them. If she does have any talent, she is picking horrible projects to showcase it.

--Ju know what a "Hasa" is Frank!?! Dat's a PIG, that don't "FLY STRAIGHT"

reply

[–] simonemesquita 10 years ago

Well, I don't think Angelina is a bad director. Loved "In the Land of Blood and Honey" and I don't have idea why it is so low in IMDB rate (4,3).

She suffered such criticism to deal with a controversial theme that she went to the safe side. I mean, she had more money, advertising time, awards and visibility going to the safe side.

Nevertheless, she has a calm way of directing. She never appeals to much to over dramatizing and relies a lot in actors to make a good impression instead of special effects.

I agree with you about the other female directors though, they are fantastic. May I add as well "American Psycho" from Mary Harron?

reply