Anna was berating me for not reading her film script. She sent it to me ages ago, and I said, "oh, I'm going to read this right away!" And then... It's tucked away in a folder on my desktop, Things To Do, basically a reliquary of famous last words and good intentions gone awry.
I love Anna's films. She hasn't done a lot yet, because she hasn't been out of school that long. She also shares her creative time with her partner. But the few movies she has made, I like a lot. I have known Anna a long time, and she has always had stories to tell. In high school she used to write, like, a story a week. And I believe she has her own voice for telling them, and that her films will put something new into the world that it hasn't been seen or heard before.
I have been thinking a lot about the female point of view in film. I was reading someone else's blogpost about the film Marie Antoinette, and how people seem to be judging it by all kinds of irrelevant criteria, like how much it cost and how anachronistic it is. They are treating it as if it is a period drama, when obviously it is experimental. As this woman
Julie wrote in her blog,
"Why is it when a man spends money on his vision, it's socially acceptable, but when a chick does it, they try to embarrass or 'make her' feel guilty? I REALLY doubt that a film featuring Siouxsie Sioux music, set at Versailles, where people consume drinks not invented yet, could be bad."
Well, I have yet to see the film, so maybe it's terrible. But I definitely do think successful women filmmakers get singled out more. Maybe just because their scarcity gets them extra critical attention. Sometimes blaming bad press on sexism is a cop out, but in this instance I think the industry is guilty as charged.
When I see a good film about women by a woman filmmaker, I have to say the female point of view is noticeable. I find the pacing and the focus and the tensions in the film all give a sense of the underlying preoccupations being slightly different than in films by men. Of course, there are men who are capable of pulling really extraordinary performances out of their actresses, of creating female characters that are three-dimensional and nuanced. But the stories they tell, and the way they tell them, is different.
I guess you could argue that it is just a difference of individuals, nothing really to do with gender. I don't know much about gender theory, or any of that.
But to give an example of what I mean - there are scenes of female sensuality in the films of Campion, and Sofia Coppola, and my darling Anna (she is young, but she is mighty), where the woman is very much aware of herself and her body and its capacity for pleasure. But there is no sense of that capacity being in any way tied to the reaction of the spectator. It is the absence of the male point of view that I find refreshing. The camera lingers, but not on the same things. There is a knowledge of how it feels to be inside the skin, to have breasts and curves and female physicality, that has nothing to do with visually stimulating the appetites of the person watching. It is a sensuality that is almost unsexy - it is so familiar and every day.
I also think the quality of girlishness is often lost on critics. So-called serious films often show intelligent women as very pensive or serious or angry. The prettier an intelligent woman is in a film, the more unhappy or serious she has to be, to balance it out. Any girlish women, the kind that giggle, are usually ridiculous caricatures. We need some new archetypes. As examples of the old archetype, Marilyn Monroe and Goldie Hawn were both these intelligent, talented women who were really good at playing into the comedic aspect of the way men view women. I love the scene in
Shampoo where Goldie Hawn is telling Warren Beatty why her bad dreams scared her and made her invite him to come over, and she is sitting and (supposedly unconsciously) flapping her knees open and closed so you keep glimpsing her crotch. It's funny. It's funny because obviously on some level she is aware of the effect this will have on Beatty's character and on the male viewer generally, but you are not sure whether the character is intended to know or just the actress. It's funny because whether she knows or not is irrelevant; that irrelevance is so absurd.

Now we have filmmakers like Coppola (especially in conjunction with an actress like Dunst) who can depict more realistic girls. Girls who are sexy and goofy and wry and sensitive and sometimes ridiculous. They know they are sexy, but it doesn't seem to be preoccupying 95% of their brain - they have other things to think about. They are fun without being superficial, silly without being stupid. Vulnerable without being victims. I hated that film,
Lovely and Amazing, because it just made being a woman seem like this incredible drag. Enough, no more crucifixions. I want to see women who wrestle with life and all that, but also women like the ones I know, who are capable of just being randomly happy in the moment without it meaning they are somehow deficient in understanding.