sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1970s, Kathryn Bigelow

by Maya Montañez Smukler

CSW u p d atJANUARY e2011

Thirty Years of Women Directors

5 5 csw update: january 2011

Liberating t the 82nd Within this exchange, the legacy of feature films targeting commercial audi- ceremony on March 7, 2010, American women directors dating back to ences, either within the studio system or as AAmerican filmmaker Kathryn the 1970s was acknowledged by the suc- independent filmmakers.2 Bigelow became the first woman to win cess of Kathryn Bigelow’s win, the disap- Throughout the 1970s the feminist an Academy Award for Best Director. The pointment in ’s lack of movement impacted the entertainment Hurt Locker, the film that she directed, equivalent recognition, and the way in industry in various ways influencing Hol- also won an Oscar for Best Picture. It which the two women recognized each lywood’s own political consciousness- was a contemporary historical moment other’s place in history. As if this symbol- raising. On-screen the women’s movement very much rooted in the historical past of ism was not enough, the two directors and its objective of female autonomy were Hollywood and American culture during the exited the stage as the orchestra played represented by characterizations and nar- 1970s. Bigelow, who attended Columbia ’s 1975 women’s liberation rative themes in several kinds of movies University’s Graduate School of Film in the anthem “.” A clichéd but including critically acclaimed studio films 1970s and directed her first feature film, resonate soundtrack, the song served as a (most directed by men) such as Klute , in 1982, was presented the link between women directors of the pres- (1971, dir. Alan J. Pakula), Alice Doesn’t award by Hollywood icon Barbra Streisand ent, their formative years of the 1970s, and Live Here Anymore (1974, dir. Martin who in the 1970s also began cultivating her the of the same era. Scorsese) and Unmarried Woman (1978, ambition to direct and made her directorial The 1970s was a crucial for dir. ). Off-screen, myriad debut, Yentl, in 1983. The significance of women directors working in Hollywood as female industry employees formed vari- the 2010 Oscar “first” was emphasized by it marked a period of significant increase ous kinds of networking organizations. For Streisand’s enthusiasm in her presentation in their employment statistics compared instance, , a non-political of the award to Bigelow: “Well, the time has to previous . Between the early association created by established women come [pause] Kathryn Bigelow. Whoahoo!” up until the late , there was in the industry, was formed in 1973; and in Off mic, as the music swelled, Bigelow never more than one woman making com- 1974 the , a main- could be heard saying to Streisand: “I am so mercially oriented movies in Hollywood or stream conservatory for a new generation honored. I am so honored,” while Streisand within the independent film communities of filmmakers, still run by an old-guard joked about the statue: “Can I hold this?” adjacent to the studio system.1 By the late Hollywood patriarchy, founded the Direct- Although her output as a director has 1960s and increasingly—ever so gradu- ing Workshop for Women, a hands-on pro- received much acclaim, Streisand has ally—throughout the 1970s the number gram that trained individual women to be- never been nominated for Best Director by of women directing feature films grew. come film and television directors. Several the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Between 1966 and 1980 there were an professional guilds, such as the Directors . estimated fifteen women who had made Guild of America (DGA), Screen Writers

6 csw update: january 2011 Off mic, as the music the low employment numbers of its female directors until the very end of the 1970s. swelled, Bigelow While the DGA was slow to organize within its membership ranks around issues of could be heard saying employment discrimination, ultimately the Guild’s involvement extended beyond just to Streisand: “I am press coverage and into the court of . At the end of the decade, in 1979, the so honored. I am so DGA Women’s Committee was formed. Original members of the Committee were honored,” while Streisand Susan Bay, Nell Cox, Janet Davidson, Jo- elle Dobrow, Cheryl Downey, Pat Eyerman, joked about the statue: Dolores Feraro, Anne Goodall, Nancy Heydorn, Victoria Hochberg, Ann Kind- “Can I hold this?” bery, Valeria Kircher, Flora Lang, Lynne Litman, Lisa Rich, Susan Smitman, Leslie Waldman.5 Composed of award-winning television, documentary, and feature-film Guild (SAG), and Writers Guild of America often linking the data to a specific studio, directors, the group was formed because (WGA), were significant in projecting the network and in several cases individual of mounting frustration with their inability influences of the feminist movement in the television shows. These efforts were to get hired within the industry. Determined on the film and television spearheaded by the two organizations’ to assess their current employment status, industries during this period by involvement individual Women’s Committees, which the Committee was granted permission with sexual and racial discrimination within the press reported on widely.4 The WGA from the Guild to examine decades of em- equal employment debates. addressed the low numbers of women ployment records of studios, networks, and Advocating for their female constituents writers working in film and television, and leading independent production compa- both the WGA and SAG each formed their SAG called for improved roles for ac- nies. Between 1949 and 1979, according own Women’s Committees in 1972.3 From tresses. More reticent then its colleagues to the Committee’s findings, 7,332 feature 1974 to 1976, both guilds compiled statisti- in matters of public activism, the DGA films were made and released by major cal surveys that explicitly documented the was late to the era’s feminist awareness distributors. Fourteen—0.19 percent--were disfranchisement of their women members; not making a concerted effort to address directed by women. These statistics were

7 csw update: january 2011 given to the media to draw attention to tan- gible evidence of sexism within the industry and to show specific percentages of women hired (or not hired at all in some cases) at individual companies, studios, and televi- sion shows. On June 18, 1980, as a consequence of the DGA Women’s Com- mittee’s actions in publically address- ing industry sexism thirty-two executives from prominent produc- tion companies, television networks and film studios agreed to a meet with more than one hundred members of the DGA Women’s Commit- tee. Industry representatives included Barry Diller, chairman of the board and CEO, Para- between 1949 and 1979, 7,332 feature mount; Ned Tanen, president, Universal Pictures; Frank Wells, president films were made and released by and co-CEO, Warner Bros.; Steve Bochco, MTM’s Hill Street Blues; James Brooks, major distributors. Fourteen—0.19 executive producer, John Charles Walters Productions; and programming representa- percent—were directed by women. tives from ABC, CBS, and NBC. The Com- mittee introduced affirmative-action quota recommendations for studios and networks:

8 csw update: january 2011 negotiations…the Guild refused to…unless Columbia acquiesced in imposing quotas On June 18, 1980, as a consequence of as to the numbers of women and members of minority groups to hired.8 the DGA Women’s Committee’s actions in While the DGA used statistical evidence documenting the low number of women publically addressing industry sexism and minorities actually hired by the studios to justify their demands for the usage of thirty-two executives from prominent such programs, both film companies held the Guild responsible for those low num- production companies, television bers. Warner Bros. and Columbia cited culpability in the DGA contract which set networks and film studios agreed to a certain provisions that controlled the hiring process supposedly making it difficult for meet with more than one hundred members the studios to access female and minority job candidates. of the DGA Women’s Committee. As a result of this impasse, in 1983 the DGA filed a class-action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of alleging discriminatory hiring for every thirteen television episodes con- affirmative-action quotas. Michael Frank- practices towards women and racial mi- tracted, producers were requested to hire lin, executive director of the Guild at the norities: against Warner Bros. on July 25 at least one woman director.6 However, time, explained that: and against Columbia Pictures on Decem- eight months later, discussions between ber 21.9 In 1985, Judge Pamela Rymer the two sides had fallen apart. Aljean the DGA was forced into the suit because ruled in favor of Columbia and Warner Harmetz, writing for in of Columbia’s [and Warner Bros.] refusal to Bros., and effectively against the DGA.10 negotiate…based on a system of numerical February of 1981, reported that “accord- goals and timetables.” She stated that the Guild was partially re- ing to the guild’s complaint, each employ- sponsible for the small amount of women er ‘unilaterally withdrew’ from a voluntary In response, Columbia released a press and minority film and television directors affirmative-action program.’”7 Each side release stating that “despite [the studios] hired due to the way in which the organiza- staunchly opposed the other’s stance on expressed willingness to continue tion’s contract perpetuated the “old boys’

9 csw update: january 2011 In 1985, Judge Pamela Rymer ruled in favor of Columbia and Warner Bros., and effectively against the DGA. She stated that the Guild was partially responsible for the small amount of women and minority film and television directors...

10 csw update: january 2011 gesture made by an industry organization Although technically a failure, that was not known for taking overt politi- cal positions informed by potentially con- the DGA lawsuit against Columbia troversial issues such as , sexism and . As DGA member Lynne Litt- and Warner Bros. was significant man said in the press before the case was lost:

regarding women directors in two The important thing about the action the guild is taking now is that it is being taken by the ways. Primarily, that it was the first whole guild, not by the women’s committee. The guild is not a notoriously radical orga- nization, and their support for us is a major time that the DGA, an influential and advance.13

reputable organization, had taken Second, speculation as to why the DGA would take such a drastic action as filing a legal action on behalf of their class action suit against two major studios without precedent set in the Guild’s his- female membership. Never had such tory suggests an effort at self-protection. In a recent interview with me, retired DGA attention been drawn to female member Barbara Peeters, who belonged to the Women’s Committee during the directors within the industry. and at the time of these legal battles, sug- gested that the Guild made those aggres- sive demands of the film companies in an club” and “word of mouth” hiring practices in two ways. Primarily, that it was the first effort to prevent their female members by stipulating that directors could choose time that the DGA, an influential and repu- from accusing them of similar acts of gen- their Assistant Directors and Unit Produc- table organization, had taken legal action der discrimination.14 The Guild preferred 11 12 tion Managers. on behalf of their female membership. to sue the studios rather than be sued for Although technically a failure, the DGA Never had such attention been drawn to sexism by its own associates. Ten years lawsuit against Columbia and Warner Bros. female directors within the industry. Fur- after the filing of the suit, Michael Franklin was significant regarding women directors thermore, it was an uncharacteristic described the impact of the case on the

11 csw update: january 2011 Guild in a positive light: “Prior to 1978, Notes Inc., Defendant. Nos. CV 83-4764-PAR; CV 83- the Guild had an image of a gentlemen’s 1. Dorthy Arzner (studio director) made films from 8311-PAR. 1927 to 1943; Ida Lupino (independent director 11. David Robb, “Rule Against DGA As Minority Rep In club. It didn’t make waves. The lawsuit working within Hollywood) made feature films Class Action Suits,” Variety 13 Mar. 1985. improved the Guild’s status because the from 1949 to 1966; and Shirley Clarke (inde- 12. At this point in my research it seems as if this is the industry recognized that not only did the pendent director working outside of Hollywood) first time a major film studio was sued for gender DGA represent important creative ele- made feature films from 1961 to 1967. and racial discrimination by a leading industry 2. My current research on this subject suggests organization. ments within the industry, but it was a this number. 13. Aljean Harmetz, “Suit Allege Sex Bias by TV and strong force for the positive improvement 3. Mollie Gregory, Women Who Run the Show: How Film Makers,” New York Times 25 Feb. 1981. of society as well!”15 Three decades later, a Brilliant & Creative New Generation of Women 14. Barbara Peeters, personal interview, Ashland, Or- Stormed Hollywood. New York: St. Martin’s egon, 11 Apr. 2010. accepting her Oscar last year, Kathryn Press, 2002, 5; David F. Prindle, The of 15 Joelle Dobrow, “The Man Behind the Women’s Bigelow described to the audience how Glamour Ideology and Democracy in the Screen Movement at the Guild,” DGA News Dec. 1990/ “this was the moment of a lifetime.” This Actors Guild. Madison: The University of Wiscon- Jan. 1991; 21. statement is surely true for any filmmaker sin Press, 1998; 107. 4. Gregory, 7-11. winning their first Academy Award. The 5. Gail Williams, “DGA Files Sex Discrimination Suit hope for many, and no doubt the founders vs. Networks, Prod’n Co’s,” Hollywood Reporter of the DGA Women’s Committee in 1979, 25 Feb. 1981. 6 Morrie Gelman, “DGA Wants More Work For is that it wouldn’t take so many lifetimes to Women: Asks One Femme Director For Every 13 arrive at such a moment. Television Segs,” Variety 20 June 1980; Eunice Post Field, “DGA Committee Wants More Women Maya Montañez Smukler is a Ph.D. Candidate in Directing for TV,” Hollywood Reporter 20 June the Cinema and Media Studies Department where 1980. 7. Aljean Harmetz, “Suit Allege Sex Bias By TV and she is currently conducting dissertation research Film Makers,” New York Times 25 Feb. 1981. on women directors in 1970s Hollywood. She is 8. David Robb, “DGA Sues Columbia Over Hiring,” co-editor-in-chief of Mediascape, UCLA’s on-line Variety (D) 22 Dec. 1983. media studies journal, and has been a part-time 9. David Robb, “Directors Guild Born Out of Fear faculty member of the New School University’s 50 Years Ago,” Variety, 52nd Anniversary Issue 29 Film and Media Studies Department since 2002. Oct. 1985. Maya received a CSW travel grant to interview 10. Directors Guild of America, Inc., Joelle Dobrow, Luther James, Lorraine Raglin and Cesar Torres, women directors who worked in Hollywood dur- Plaintiffs v. Warner Brothers, Inc., Defendant; ing the 1970s and 1980s. Directors Guild of America, Inc., Bill Crain, Dick Look, Sharon Mann, Susan Smitman, and Frank Zuniga, Plaintiffs, v. Columbia Pictures Industries,

12 csw update: january 2011