The number of female filmmakers working on Hollywood films was flat in 2024 despite buzzy releases like ‘The Substance’ and ‘Babygirl,’ study finds.
Removed by mod
the concepts of DEI or equity based hiring are entirely absent from the post you are flaming. it’s just reporting the numbers and proposes no solution—it barely even implies judgement on the numbers themselves.
you made up an entire narrative out of straw and are screaming and ranting that it was flammable. super embarrassing not gonna lie.
flaming
I’m just speaking my mind. The headline is clearly alluding to an inadequacy in the amount of women hired to direct major motion pictures and TV.
Otherwise, why would it even be mentioned?
Watching Wicked, I thought to myself “this looks like shit! Why is this the case?” Then, I looked up who shot it and looked at her other projects and saw that she was obviously chosen based on her gender. Nothing more. She was also inducted into the ASC after only 10 years of shooting low budget projects. Clearly, she isn’t being promoted based on her skill or experience level. It is ALL artificial. I’m tired of it. By all means, have Ellen Kuras shoot it or some other incredibly talented female DoP, but having Alice Brooks shoot it STINKS of gender nepotism.
Whether you want to shoot the messenger or not, I’m speaking my mind.
sounds like you just have a problem with Alice Brooks and that’s totally fine. i love Alice Brooks’ work and a lot of other people do too, so sorry but i am gonna cast judgement on you blaming “gender nepotism” instead of saying “eh i don’t prefer Alice Brooks” like a normal person
By all means, artificially inflate the number of women that work in an office or some other white collar job but studios should stay the fuck away from this kind of thing when it comes to the film industry.
Why the film industry specifically? That doesn’t strike me as particularly consistent.
Removed by mod
Many white men are just nepo babies with privileged background though… i never hear people shilling your points discuss this little fact.
Entire argument is premised on the assumption that white man is naturally qualified and deserving of the role, while the undesirables are less qualified and only getting ahead due to their status.
Incompetent white men fail up all the time, I never hear people fielding the talking points you made here get their panties bunched over it.
And I am not even disagreeing with the core premises and I am not sure if you actually shilling in bad faith but these arguments are used in bad faith by some elements.
Another example is admissions into elite schools… when black kid gets in, with lesser score these types are having meltdown over how “this n****r taking spots from deserving whites, rheee” but the same person never question legacy admissions.
Removed by mod
That is unless you want to see objectively worse movies as long as they are helmed by women. Sounds like that’s exactly what you want, though.
I don’t give a fuck what pedos are in hollywood are producing my man… i don’t respect these regime whores.
You can’t encourage the film industry to force people that weren’t skilled enough for the biggest jobs to put those people in those jobs just because of their sex. That directly punishes the audience for wanting quality solely for the sake of PR.
Capital owners decide who makes movies and they control what is put into these movies with a few exceptions. It is likely the most nepo baby industry in existence. So you have naive understanding how the industry works if you are larping “talent and skill” bullshit.
You are essentially stating that because a bunch white dudes with connection get these jobs, it makes them the best. It is a circular argument. So you confirming to me that you are in fact shilling these tropes to support the regime narratives. Bad faith arguments with veneer of “meritocracy” to justify status quo.
The healthy solution (that wouldn’t sacrifice the quality of the material) is to get more women into film at the entry level areas.
Sounds like woke DEI to me /s
But genuinely, I agree with this point, and you really should just open with it next time. Literally no one disagrees with you on this. Instead, though, you take us through this cleverly nauseating progression:
- The Numbers: You started by reacting to a basic observation about gender disparity with hostility toward DEI and “gender nepotism,” which comes off as less constructive criticism and more knee-jerk dismissal.
- The Denigration: You used these buzzwords to undermine the achievements of a lauded woman DoP, despite offering no evidence that her gender was the determining factor in her success (and, frankly, it looks like you have a personal grudge against her based on your profile).
- The Pivot: When challenged, you reframed the debate entirely, presenting yourself as a reasonable advocate for fair entry-level practices—something no one here was arguing against.
If your actual concern is quality and fairness, why not just focus on dismantling systemic barriers and advocating for more equitable entry-level opportunities? Lead with solutions instead of buzzwords and thinly veiled hostility. That way, you might actually foster a productive conversation instead of alienating people who might otherwise agree with you.
Removed by mod
friendly reminder that stooping to personal attacks is admitting defeat ❤️ thanks for handing me the W and enjoy your day 🍻
This happening despite “equity”-focused policies like DEI in corporate America surprises me. Something about the 2024 and 2025 film schedules seem a bit odd/thin, I wonder how much success women will have in 2026.
Do y’all think this is a marketing issue, or women not getting enough opportunities in Hollywood, or audiences rejecting female filmmakers?
It is the first teo for sure, maybe the third.
We have the inertia of past directors being prinarily men. That means to pool of established directors that are likely to be picked for a bigger budget movie that will receive a ton of advertising will be men.
Second, even with DEI the culture of most cultures simply defers to tall men for the most part, even when it is subconcious. So a pitch for a movie will just end up leaning towards men on top of the ratio of available directors because the people funding movies are likely older men who have concious or inconcious biases.
I’m sure most people pay little attention to the director outside of well known names. The well known names tend to be men, because they have probably been making movies for a couple decades in the current environment. I’m sure there is a mix of people who are interested or turned away from a film if a woman is directing, but I have no idea how much of it is because it is a woman by iteself or because of being marketed as being directed by a woman. Barbie was a massive success, so it isn’t like being directed by a woman is a complete dealbreaker, but while big budget action movies that dominate the box office are directed by men who have become houshold names the ratio will stay skewed.
Even if society leaned hard into DEI it would take decades to reach any semblance of balance.
Amongst people who talk about directors, I find that most of them 1) talk about startlingly few directors and 2) don’t seem to mention female directors at all.
After seeing Barbie I wanted to see Lady Bird, but I didn’t see a lot of videos talking about Gerta Gerwig as a director the way I see the same done for Christopher Nolan. Ofc the longer your career is the easier it is to do that, even if you’re getting trashed over mediocre media.
How many women have made 6 or more full length feature films in their lifetimes?
afaik this 16% is far far better than it was a decade ago. DEI doesn’t really claim to be more than a palliative solution, so it’s only going to be expected that it will take some time before equity is reached, during which period things may vary and sway year to year.
Do y’all think this is a A) marketing issue, or women B) not getting enough opportunities in Hollywood, or C) audiences rejecting female filmmakers?
it’s certainly primarily a systemic issue as you suggest in B. marketing, A, might be a problem but i have no evidence for it. i find C to be the least likely. audiences anecdotally love women filmmakers.
