Al's Omniflick: Frozen Women--Omniflick Commentary

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Frozen Women--Omniflick Commentary

Tne New York Times op-ed page today features a piece by Maureen Dowd called Frozen in a Niche? which decries the woeful scarcity of women in front and behind the camera in Hollywood. Dowd cites an alarming statistic by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, which states the number of women in producing, directing, editing and writing roles has decreased since 1998. Data was collected by analyzing the top 250 films of 2013. Dowd cites other statistics; women make up 52 percent of movie-going audiences, filled only 15 percent of protagonist roles, and 30 percent of speaking roles in top-grossing films of last year, etc.

Reading the article, I was overcome by a sense of deja-vu; I seem to read an article on this subject at least once a year yet outrage by the film industry is non-existent and any change now seems to be reactionary and retrograde. None of the statistics or quotes by industry insiders surprised me. One would think that the appalling numbers would be more representatitive of the 20th century. That they reflect the current state in Hollywood is indicative of the male-liberal hypocrisy gripping the movie industry.

Years ago, in accepting an Oscar for his performance in Syriana George Clooney proudly exclaimed the following:

And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in -- in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we -- we bring up subjects....This Academy, this group of people, gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

What is particularly interesting in Clooney's speech is that not only is this embarrassing lip-service (how many blacks have you seen in Clooney's films?) but it also applies to Dowd's lament about women. We have a white-liberal industry figure singing the praises of a supposedly progressive industry though this same individual assigns the best roles to white men in his own films. Sure, Renee Zelweger is the love interest in Leatherheads but she is mostly a kewpie-doll with little if any dimension.

I'm not trying to single out Clooney for criticism but his curious acceptance speech represents what seems to be the prevailing Hollywood ethos. We are proudly liberal in this industry, Clooney seems to be saying but the unspoken and common practice is we'll only cast you if your white and male and if you're female, you'll be relegated to a role as the token babe.

Kathryn Bigelow's directorial Oscar for The Hurt Locker is often held-up as confirmation that female directors are just as capable as their male counterparts and it is compelling proof. But one wonders if the movie was only green-lit because the subject matter was male-dominated and set in a war-milieu.
Lake Bell had a minor success with her 2013 film In A World ; a funny and charming comedy in which she wrote, directed and starred. I can only hope the industry rewards her with a multi-film deal but she may find herself struggling to cobble together a budget for future projects while available dollars for superhero swill like Thor are plentiful and balloon uncontrollably.
The problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. Somehow I may be reading an article like Dowd's a year from now and I won't bat an eye. If the stat is true--52 percent of movie-going audiences are female--then it would seem glaringly obvious the demographic could be better served with more films featuring strong, central, female characters; directed, edited, and written also by women. Does the lead female character from Frozen, for whom the story revolves around, have to be animated to be a significant character in a Hollywood production? I hope not.

No comments:

Post a Comment

On DVD

Fury (1936)

Director: Fritz Lang

Though we might normally think of the films M and Metropolis when director Fritz Lang becomes the topic of conversation, less known is the legendary director's work in Hollywood. Having fled the ever-growing menace of Nazi Germany for America in the early 1930s', Lang eventually found himself under contract for MGM.

Though his work in Hollywood is very uneven, one standout is Fury, from 1936. Starring Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sydney, the film's condemnation of mob justice seems spectacularly daring now, considering lynching was still a reality in Depression-era America. We don't see one black person in the film entire but we know precisely for whom Lang film is sympathetic.

Spencer Tracy plays Joe Wilson, who is arrested in a small town while en route to meet his fiance, Katherine (Sylvia Sydney). Suspected of being part of a kidnapping of a little girl, Wilson is arrested on the flimsiest evidence. While he sits in cell; angry and indignant, Katherine is puzzled as to why her fiance hasn't arrived at their prearranged meeting place.

But Wilson's fortunes take a darker and more dangerous turn when a mob--already on edge--is roused to anger. Egging one another on, the mob moves on the jailhouse where Wilson is being held. As the angry gathering becomes a mass, drawing citizens of the town into their swelling numbers, a lynch-mob begins to form. The sheriff, determined to see due process take its course, refuses their forceful demands. Becoming angrier and angrier and bolder and bolder, the crowd storms the jail, overwhelming the sheriff and his deputies. Unable to unlock the cell doors to reach Wilson, the mob sets the jailhouse ablaze as an alternate method of lynching.

Katherine, having arrived on the scene, faints when she sees flames engulf the cell where her fiance is held.

In spite of the mob acting as a faceless entity, its principle members are brought to trial though the town and the defendants maintain a conspiracy of silence, hoping to escape convictions and censure.

A sure acquittal seems imminent until damning evidence assures their guilt. When the majority of the members receive death sentences, Wilson turns up at his brothers, having survived the fire. Knowing the public is unaware of his survival, he vows to stay in hiding to ensure the mob conspirators are executed.

The scene where Katherine, nearly insane from grief, comes face to face with Joe is a powerful moment in the film. As she slowly recovers from her state, she realizes Joe's vindictive determination to see the mob hang is in itself a great injustice.

The story climaxes during a stirring courtroom scene that brings the fascinating story to a close.

I would have never expected Hollywood to make a statement as powerful as Fury made in 1936. Given the fact that lynchings in America at the time went unpunished, the movie railed bravely, in spite of the main character being white rather than black, against what was then the status quo. The Oxbow Incident would make a similar and commensurately powerful statement seven years later.

The film's willingness to peer into the darker side of American life could be partly attributed to Lang, who co-wrote the story and who was no stranger to exploring the darker side of humanity. Having seen evil flower in his home country, it makes sense Lang would choose to tell this story.

Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sydney give wonderful, emotionally layered performances. Katherine's near descent into madness is depicted touchingly by Sydney. To see Tracy's mild-mannered Wilson become angry and vengeful is heartbreaking.

Even watching Lang's film on a small screen does little to diminish its power. Weeks after the viewing, I still can't shake its indelible images or its angry indictment of one of America's great crimes. One couldn't devise a better title than one it was given eighty years ago. Fury indeed.