MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Hollywood Isn’t Really Misogynist… It Just Hates The Middle Class

Just ran into the “How Can Women Gain Influence in Hollywood?” op-ed thing in the NYT again and it struck me… the point is being missed.

It’s not about women being undervalued by Hollywood. It’s not about female executives assimilating. And it’s not about sexism.

As always in Hollywood, it’s about money.

So here is how to give women more perceived influence in Hollywood… Convince a studio or all studios to be happy with singles and doubles and occasional triples and not worry about hitting home runs all the time.

If this happened, somehow, the issue of women in Hollywood would become moot. So would racism and xenophobia.

Putting women aside for a moment (insert sniggering comment here if you like, ladies) and look at 12 Years A Slave. The movie cost about $20 million. The money came from outside of Fox, though Searchlight did pitch in for sweat equity and some of the cash for distribution and marketing. But it was a studio release. A period drama about slavery did $50m+ domestic and $140m+ worldwide. There is no defining this as anything but a hit movie. But the New York Times is still defining it as a less than one.

“While Oscar vote counts are not publicly revealed, ticket sales are monitored closely; it was glaringly apparent that 12 Years a Slave climbed into the history books without ever having truly ignited the audience. Through the weekend, the film had only about $50.3 million in domestic ticket sales, though it has performed well internationally.

Mr. Gilula disagreed. “The American public has embraced the movie far, far more than anyone thought,” he said, noting that some box office analysts were initially doubtful that 12 Years a Slave could take in much more than $10 million.

Still, ticket sales for 12 Years a Slave are now less than half those for Lee Daniels’ The Butler, a similarly black-themed, reality-based movie.”

First, may I say, yet again, to the New York Times, which took an offensive, inaccurate position on the box office of this film before it went wide and has continued to repeat it as though the paper of record is infallible… “Fuck off.”

But more to the point, if a heavy, racially-themed, demanding drama can be highly profitable and win the Oscar, but still has to eat crap from the New York Times, perceived racism in Hollywood is not really the problem. The problem in this case is in the media.

Does the New York Times know that 12 Years A Slave is right in the middle of the pack if the 9 nominees in domestic box office, not sitting on the bottom? Does the New York Times know that 12 Years A Slave cost less than half of any of the movies above it in that Best Picture box office list? Does the New York Times know that 12 Years A Slave will surely be more profitable than Captain Phillips and could be as if not more profitable than American Hustle?

If they have a brain in their collective NYT head, they know all these things… and just don’t care.

But back to the women and all non-four-quadrant films.

Cate Blanchett was completely wrong and completely right in her speech. Movies about and for and by women can and do make money. But they don’t make the kind of money that big studios are looking for. Not as a rule. This is why her Oscar-winning film was released by Sony Pictures Classics, not Columbia (with all due respect to the long and very successful relationship Barker & Bernard have had with Woody Allen).

2005 was the last time Best Actress went to an actress whose film was primarily funded by and released by a major Hollywood studio (Walk The Line, Reese Witherspoon). Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side was 100% funded by Alcon and released by Warner Bros in an output deal. And Natalie Portman in Black Swan was released by Searchlight, a division under big Fox, but which was mostly funded by indie money (Cross Creek Pictures, Dune, and Phoenix).

The reason that Disney, WB, Paramount, and now Universal have shut down their arthouse operations is that the return on investment does not fit into the corporate mindset that studios now hold.

When studios were making $100m grosses on rom-coms and massive profits on DVD, they ALL did them… didn’t matter that the audience was mostly women or that there was a natural cap on the total gross.

Now the profits on DVD are relatively insignificant and movies have to make their money in worldwide theatrical before then becoming part of bigger package deals… pink ooze in HD. International is a much bigger part of the picture, so all comedies, including rom-coms, have been squeezed. And the math has changed dramatically so the major studios do not, for the most part, want to invest the effort capital on movies with limited returns.

Why did “black comedies” make a comeback? Because after years of success, the budgets had gotten high enough that the DVD money was their only profit stream and that stream dried up. So after years of drought, the budgets dropped back down and those films are now being made for very small budgets, have a committed, built-in audience, and are often making a profit in theatrical, even with little or no international audience.

There were six female-driven films in the Top 20 for 2013. There is a business there. But two were Sandra Bullock, two (one shared with SB) were Melissa McCarthy, one was Jennifer Aniston stripping, one was animated, and one was Oz. You could argue that American Hustle was female-driven, but might get some pushback. The only film of those 7 that was directed by a woman was co-directed and animated.

That is a problem that is very different than the “getting films made” problem. Put that weight on Bullock and McCarthy and Aniston if you like… or don’t. Gravity was an auteur film and only that one person could have made it, really. You can say that Oz happened with Raimi and something on that effects level might not find a female equivalent, so give it a pass. The other 3… at least 1 or 2 could probably have had female directors if the talent insisted.

But the real problem isn’t who is directing the biggest female stars. (All 5 Best Actress performances were directed by men.) The big problem is getting more female directors working on the vast middle of the studio business. And that issue is loaded with all the details that make a lot of people uncomfortable.

But I say the biggest remains basic profit motivations. Women are not gaining a reputation as making movies that generate big, big bucks. But a $30m movie that makes $30m in profit should be okay… but not so much to the majors right now.

With an opportunity to make those low-for-majors-budgeted films, successes will happen (as will flops) and riskier choices will come with them. But women need to get a chance to make those middle movies. And studios just do not want to be in the business of making those middle movies right now. It’s a middle-class that has all but disappeared.

All the talk in the world about opportunity and sexism and industry malaise, will never lead to anyone directing movies. Making movies is actually an affirmative thing, not an avoidance of discomfort. The stakes are too high. If you start with, “Let’s hire a woman because there need to be more female directors working at studios,” there will always be a cloud over the projects and the directors.

Betty Thomas and Penny Marshall became red-hot directors for a while because of their movies, not because of their gender. And their careers stalled for much the same reason.

Rebuild the middle class of American movies at studios and the change will come without being forced, without politics, and without much resistance. But until then, it is almost impossible, Don Quixote stuff.

10 Responses to “Hollywood Isn’t Really Misogynist… It Just Hates The Middle Class”

  1. bxt says:

    This is a really great article and the reality is that Hollywood will have to go back to mid-budget movies sooner rather than later. Disney can afford to release 8-10 $150 million movies because they have tested properties with large fanbases but other studios can’t. As far as New York Times is concerned, the truth is that it is mainly one guy who has been running hatchet jobs masquerading as articles for a while.

  2. Joel Pincsoy says:

    “Women are not gaining a reputation as making movies that generate big, big bucks.”-

    Was this the case for Marc Webb whose film before Amazing Spiderman was a low-budget romantic comedy. Or Mark Cahill who has directed two tiny budget indies. The track record for these directs and many male directors does not have to be extensive for them to be given, or proposed as directors for huge budget mega-movies. Female directors unfortunately have to prove themselves as aggressive, “masculine” directors in order to get a chance to work in the territory of mega-budget franchise films. Where as these two directors (and I’m not knocking there good work in film), and many other male directors can/have made pretty soft or “feminine” films only one stop away from a violent epic. This is also an interesting new shift in giving largely inexperienced and hungry the reigns of franchises as a way of keeping the control of the production on the studio’s side (unlike Noah, or other director centered mega-productions

  3. LexG says:

    Hey, ENDLESS LOVE was a female director and a hot movie, and none of you hens went out to support it, so there.

    And, really, this issue is WHITE PEOPLE PROBLEMS. It’s always a nice, easy way for a Mark Harris to crank out a lazy article about the subject, but in reality, nobody cares.

    Least of all, ACTUAL WOMEN, who are the fussiest and pickiest and hardest to please audience for anything, and basically go to movies based on their PERSONAL LIKE OR DISTASTE for the stars, not the director or to support STRONG WOMEN! I’ve worked in mostly female offices with L.A. women for 20 years now, and every pop culture discussion begins and ends with bon mots like “Ew, I just DO NOT like (insert actor/actress.)” It’s never based on the movie, the material, the director, etc.

    It’s based on some imperceptible tabloid yea or nay they have with the talent, and how they behave on red carpets or if they’re cute on Chelsea Lately or not, or who they’re dating.

  4. Tom says:

    Catching Fire doesn’t count as female-driven?

  5. Guest says:

    Mrs. Blanchett’s point was that they make money, meaning they are PROFITABLE. Not that they will necessarily land on Top 20 grosses lists.

    She’s referring to female-led or female-centric films actually being profitable, and the facts – the grosses and grosses relative to budget of the recent years – absolutely back her point.

    Blue Jasmine, an indie (again, indies are absolutely essential in her point as well, moreover, let’s not discount international grosses), was very successful, because Woody Allen works on a shoestring; the budget was maximum $1.5 million, and it grossed almost $100 million worldwide. It was Woody Allen’s second-highest grossing film but it was also his biggest opening ever and the biggest opening indie of the year.

    And THAT’s what she’s referring to. Whether the film is a blockbuster or an indie, that there is plenty of evidence that female-centric films are indeed PROFITABLE.

  6. YancySkancy says:

    Guest: I believe Blue Jasmine cost more like $18 million. Still profitable, but a far cry from $1.5 million.

  7. Sam says:

    Guest, I don’t think David’s post disputes whether the films are “profitable” or not — in fact, he basically agrees that they are. But his point is that the studios aren’t interested in “profitable” — that assured profitability is not persuasive to them when they can opt instead to make a play for something bigger. They want the next Harry Potter or Avengers, which make ever so much more money than mere profitability, even if such projects carry more risk.

    Personally, I’m not sure this business strategy makes sense when you factor in the risk of failure, but what I think doesn’t matter.

  8. hcat says:

    But even if they are profitable they are still seen as disappointments, last year Focus released Admissions and Place Beyond the Pines, both cost in the low teens, both topped out around 20 with very limited ad buys. While they will both be profitable, people still saw them as flops since they didn’t break through to a larger audience. Just as the Times apparently seems to think $50 million is a dissapointment for 12 years (even though it outgrossed 95% of all other Searchlight releases), a films with a huge budget that breaks even looks like a bigger hit than a $15 million comedy that doubles its return on investment.

  9. Hallick says:

    If women weren’t getting the gigs in the good old days before Hollywood became worldwide-blockbuster-profit-obsessive and middle class movie were being made, what guarantee is there that a return to that system would actually remedy this issue?

  10. Joshua says:

    Actually, it’s both misogynist *and* hates the middle class.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

Tsangari: With my next film, White Knuckles, it comes with a budget — it’s going to be a huge new world for me. As always when I enter into a new thing, don’t you wonder how it’s going to be and how much of yourself you are going to have to sacrifice? The ballet of all of this. I’m already imaging the choreography — not of the camera, but the choreography of actually bringing it to life. It is as fascinating as the shooting itself. I find the producing as exciting as the directing. The one informs the other. There is this producer-director hat that I constantly wear. I’ve been thinking about these early auteurs, like Howard Hawks and John Ford and Preston Sturges—all of these guys basically were hired by the studio, and I doubt they had final cut, and somehow they had films that now we can say they had their signatures.  There are different ways of being creative within the parameters and limitations of production. The only thing you cannot negotiate is stupidity.
Filmmaker: And unfortunately, there is an abundance of that in the world.
Tsangari: This is the only big risk: stupidity. Everything else is completely worked out in the end.
~ Chevalier‘s Rachel Athina Tsangari

“The middle-range movies that I was doing have largely either stopped being made, or they’ve moved to television, now that television is a go-to medium for directors who can’t get work in theatricals, because there are so few theatricals being made. But also with the new miniseries concept, you can tell a long story in detail without having to cram it all into 90 minutes. You don’t have to cut the characters and take out the secondary people. You can actually put them all on a big canvas. And it is a big canvas, because people have bigger screens now, so there’s no aesthetic difference between the way you shoot a movie and the way you shoot a TV show.

“Which is all for the good. But what’s happened in the interim is that theatrical movies being a spectacle business are now either giant blockbuster movies that run three hours—even superhero movies run three hours, they used to run like 58 minutes!—and the others, which are dysfunctional family independent movies or the slob comedy or the kiddie movie, and those are all low-budget. So the middle ground of movies that were about things, they’re just gone. Or else they’re on HBO. Like the Bryan Cranston LBJ movie, which years ago would’ve been made for theaters.

“You’ve got people like Paul Schrader and Walter Hill who can’t get their movies theatrically distributed because there’s no market for it. So they end up going to VOD, and VOD is a model from which no one makes any money, because most of the time, as soon as they get on the site, they’re pirated. So the whole model of the system right now is completely broken. And whether or not anybody’s going to try to fix, or if it even can be fixed, I don’t know. But it’s certainly not the same business that I got into in the ’70s.”
~ Joe Dante

Z Weekend Report