We wanted to make sure you didn't miss the announcement of our new Sustainer program. Once you've finished reading, take a moment to check out the new program, as well as all the benefits of becoming a Sustainer.
If you're up on the Feminist blogosphere, you've probably already heard word of the "decree" Warner Bros' president of production Jeff Robinov recently made regarding the future of women as leads in Warner films. If you haven't heard yet, there isn't one:Warner Bros has always been male-centric in its movies. But now the official policy as expressly articulated by Robinov is that a male has to be the lead of every pic made. I'm told he doesn't even want to see a script with a woman in the primary position (which now is apparently missionary at WB).Yeesh. It's a good thing that Gloria Allred is on the case (and calling for a boycott!):"If that's what he said, when movies with men as the lead fail, no one says we'll stop making movies with men in the lead. This is an insult to all moviegoers and particularly women. It is truly unfortunate that women get blamed for decisions which are made by men. (via)This is, of course, very disheartening news. Thank goodness, then, for the in-depth, accessible and intelligent round table with some of Hollywood's leading businesswomen published today on Salon*. As Rebecca Traister, of Broadsheet, writes:More women than ever write, direct and produce movies. But we're in a period in which their on-screen stock is falling. This summer brought us "Knocked Up," about how a schlubby guy can land a hot successful woman and make audiences whoop in appreciation when he kicks her shrill (responsible, adult) sister from a delivery room. Hollywood has ushered in a mini-era of thinly veiled derision of women. "The Heartbreak Kid," the remake of a funny 1970s Elaine May movie, in 2007 features at its center a premise of assumed animosity toward the feminine.And here's an interesting exchange between Laura Ziskin and Kimberly Pierce regarding "women's movies" (which sounds oddly like the ongoing debate re: chick lit in certain circles):Ziskin: But there are movies in general, and then there are women's movies. We're still the other -- we're still a secondary audience. When they made "Little Women," my daughter was 11, she went five times in one week. That was because as a young woman, she never got to see herself and her experience on the screen. We know so much about the male experience because it's been fed to us through the literature that the men wrote and the world that the men created; it's a relatively new phenomenon in the modern world that we have power to say what we think and to express ourselves and our sensibility. But we're still considered an alternative class.Peirce: It's fascinating that you would say that a young girl would find a reflection of herself in "Little Women" because I don't fall for that sort of typical female kind of gender thing. I love blowing things up. I just did "Stop-Loss," a war film, and there was nothing more exciting than when they set those cars on fire. People need the adrenaline. If women identify with that sensibility, if that turns them on, then they're going to make those kinds of movies.Read the rest of the article here.*A shorter version of the article appears in this month's Elle magazine