Click here for Done Deal Pro home page
Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Movies & Television > Writers & Scripts
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2015, 06:02 PM   #71
Danigirl
User
 
Danigirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 105
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
It doesn't work that way in reverse. Channing Tatum grinding the floor in a movie may be eye candy for women (and men), but it doesn't get scrutinized and judged and categorized the way that an actress would for the same role.
True, and it can be very frustrating when you're a woman and you've studied and done the work and put in the time and effort only to have people ask "Who did you f*ck to land that role/sell your script"/etc. Maddening, I'll tell ya!
Danigirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2015, 06:16 PM   #72
figment
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 980
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post

In part because while women deserve the right to be sexual, they also deserve the right to not be sexualized. And in a world full of testosterone, it's a double-edged sword.
Good luck with this concept, Hollywood at large. You are going to need it. The gauntlet has been thrown.
figment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2015, 06:41 PM   #73
sallain
Regular
 
sallain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 225
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but I, too, will chime in because I think this misunderstanding boils down to lack of reading comprehension. This is what Geoff said:

"And yet, I will say, without any data to back this up, that I think female screenwriters are more attractive than male screenwriters. Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work."

What I read was that this attractiveness bias--that we've established is pretty ubiquitous--is not in play as much for male screenwriters. They don't have to dress up for meetings, or get a pedicure, or worry about their looks, and it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe it wouldn't matter for us female screenwriters, either, but for some reason it appears to. Perhaps it's even self-imposed; the first time I had to go to LA for meetings I spent at least as much time worrying about what to wear as I did what to say.

I do not think what Geoff said is at all out of place, nor is it irrelevant. I found it interesting. And he even said he was "not saying they are succeeding because of their looks" so he was never claiming that female screenwriters' attractiveness got them jobs, or that he even knew why this state of affairs existed, but that this was a phenomenon even so.

I think those who took offense at his statement did not really read what he wrote, but read into what he wrote.
sallain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 11:08 AM   #74
sc111
Member
 
sc111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,422
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by sallain View Post
I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but I, too, will chime in because I think this misunderstanding boils down to lack of reading comprehension. This is what Geoff said:

"And yet, I will say, without any data to back this up, that I think female screenwriters are more attractive than male screenwriters. Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work."

What I read was that this attractiveness bias--that we've established is pretty ubiquitous--is not in play as much for male screenwriters. They don't have to dress up for meetings, or get a pedicure, or worry about their looks, and it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe it wouldn't matter for us female screenwriters, either, but for some reason it appears to. Perhaps it's even self-imposed; the first time I had to go to LA for meetings I spent at least as much time worrying about what to wear as I did what to say.

I do not think what Geoff said is at all out of place, nor is it irrelevant. I found it interesting. And he even said he was "not saying they are succeeding because of their looks" so he was never claiming that female screenwriters' attractiveness got them jobs, or that he even knew why this state of affairs existed, but that this was a phenomenon even so.

I think those who took offense at his statement did not really read what he wrote, but read into what he wrote.
Yes. This. Perfect.
__________________
Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. “Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.”

Last edited by sc111 : 08-23-2015 at 11:40 AM.
sc111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 11:37 AM   #75
sc111
Member
 
sc111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,422
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
There's no new angle from which I can read Geoff's original comment and not, based solely on that comment and not on his subsequent attempts to explain it, come to the conclusion that his original comment, as worded, makes claims that women screenwriters are succeeding because they're attractive. In the context of the thread up to the point of his original comment, that would mean Diablo Cody.
You don't need a "new way" to read it, he explicitly said: Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work. By adding the word 'may' as a qualifier he is not making an absolute statement about Cody or any other woman writer. Using the word 'may' more than implies it's just as likely it 'may not' be a factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
For the record, yes, you were one of the people I was talking about.
Well, if you've read Sallain's post, it seems Geoff's bootlicker's club is growing. Or... or could it be you and Unequal actually did misread the original post in question. Could you even concede it's possible?

Sad - though - that you had to accuse me of compromising my principles (i.e. kissing butt) and supporting Geoff only because he's a manager. I think you could have found a way to support Unequal without casting doubt about my character.
__________________
Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. “Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.”
sc111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 12:13 PM   #76
sc111
Member
 
sc111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,422
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by figment View Post
I agree the discussion went off the rails around page 2.

Though, I think the Fempire article in which four "pretty" female screenwriters are photographed together on a bed and quoted as saying things like: "We've all seen each other naked," DOES enter the discussion of public persona AND bias.
I agree. After reading the above, I went back to read the article and it seems these women, and especially Cody, know how to work the press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by figment View Post

Because if your public persona is that you are hot and sexually free -- does that help or hurt you as a writer in the long run? Does that create a favorable bias that gets you opportunities for work or does it create an unfavorable bias that destroys opportunities for work?
I think it helps to a point because the saying -- all press is good press -- is very true. And I say that as someone who's day job is marketing. It keeps your name front of mind in the minds of decision makers.

As a writer who sometimes ghosts press articles, I have to say the Fempire article was strategically crafted. If you read through it a second time, you see a pattern of titillating comments (like the naked comment and porno comment) sprinkled in between comments about their skills and accomplishments. However, that article is 6 years old.

The question is, what happens when you start to age out of the "hot and sexually free" label. When you're no longer, as Cody described, driving around in a limo drunk with your besties? What happens when that public persona has been tempered by having three kids and simply maturing as we all do? I don't know.
__________________
Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. “Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.”

Last edited by sc111 : 08-23-2015 at 02:23 PM.
sc111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 12:15 PM   #77
Eric Boellner
Regular
 
Eric Boellner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 421
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by sallain View Post
I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but I, too, will chime in because I think this misunderstanding boils down to lack of reading comprehension. This is what Geoff said:

"And yet, I will say, without any data to back this up, that I think female screenwriters are more attractive than male screenwriters. Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work."

What I read was that this attractiveness bias--that we've established is pretty ubiquitous--is not in play as much for male screenwriters. They don't have to dress up for meetings, or get a pedicure, or worry about their looks, and it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe it wouldn't matter for us female screenwriters, either, but for some reason it appears to. Perhaps it's even self-imposed; the first time I had to go to LA for meetings I spent at least as much time worrying about what to wear as I did what to say.

I do not think what Geoff said is at all out of place, nor is it irrelevant. I found it interesting. And he even said he was "not saying they are succeeding because of their looks" so he was never claiming that female screenwriters' attractiveness got them jobs, or that he even knew why this state of affairs existed, but that this was a phenomenon even so.

I think those who took offense at his statement did not really read what he wrote, but read into what he wrote.
Female screenwriters are more attractive than males. This may indicate a bias.

All it would have taken were a few extra sentences (maybe even just one) to make it clear that the bias was against women, not for them. Even Geoff's follow-up post did almost nothing to negate that interpretation. And from there he only became combative.

But you're right, I must have failed English, because I'm clearly the one whose posts have to be dissected to figure out what I'm trying to say, and ultimately need others to come explain what I meant.

Men are more outgoing than women in the workplace. I'm not saying they're succeeding because of their confidence, but even there a bias may be at work.

Now tell me what I mean by that.
Eric Boellner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 12:39 PM   #78
Eric Boellner
Regular
 
Eric Boellner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 421
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc111 View Post
You don't need a "new way" to read it, he explicitly said: Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work. By adding the word 'may' as a qualifier he is not making an absolute statement about Cody or any other woman writer. Using the word 'may' more than implies it's just as likely it 'may not' be a factor.
I recently had an issue with a coworker when she started a sentence with "I'm not a racist or anything, but..." and I stopped her and said "If you're starting your sentence with that, you're probably about to say something really racist." She continued, and sure enough made an incredibly negative and broad comment about black people.

Now, if I continued this post by saying "I'm not saying Geoff is a sexist, but..." you'd of course accuse me (and rightfully so) of calling Geoff a sexist.

Which I'm not. I'm stating, and demonstrating, that when you use the word "but," you generally communicate a reversal of your statement. Thus, "I'm not saying people voted for the President because he's black, but..." would indicate that the end of this sentence will actually support the opinion I claim not to be making. Id est, "I'm not saying people voted for the President because he's black, but even there a bias may be at work."

(Do I need to make it clear I'm not actually making that statement?)

My point this entire time has been merely that it's unfair to attack Unequal's intentions, much less his reading comprehension when the post he was responding to is structured in a way that doesn't communicate what Geoff intended it to communicate, unless (and I stand by this) you're reading between the lines with a favorable bias toward Geoff. A "benefit of the doubt," if you will.

If any random troll had come into this thread and made that post, you would have raised hell over it. If you really try to say you wouldn't, we've got nothing to discuss here because your credibility would be in the gutter at that point.

I would have jumped on that post if it weren't for Geoff having made it. I didn't hold back because of who Geoff is or what position he holds in Hollywood, but because I've seen his posts elsewhere and he didn't seem the type to actually be making the assertion that women were succeeding because of their looks. So I waited, as I've said, for clarification. You can even see Unequal holding back in his initial responses, saying only that he hopes it's a joke, and then Geoff made no attempt to clarify, which others finally called him out on, at which point his response was essentially "I don't need to be clear, people should know what I'm trying to say."

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc111 View Post
Well, if you've read Sallain's post, it seems Geoff's bootlicker's club is growing. Or... or could it be you and Unequal actually did misread the original post in question. Could you even concede it's possible?
Again, I've never argued that a misunderstanding didn't occur. I've never argued that Geoff claimed that women are succeeding in Hollywood because of their looks. I've stated quite clearly that Geoff worded his initial post very poorly, and when it was interpreted under nothing more than the weight of its own context, he offered no clarification, and reacted poorly. And now others (yourself included) have come in to attack the reading comprehension of anyone who wasn't predisposed to support Geoff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc111 View Post
Sad - though - that you had to accuse me of compromising my principles (i.e. kissing butt) and supporting Geoff only because he's a manager. I think you could have found a way to support Unequal without casting doubt about my character.
It's not your character I doubt, it's human nature.
Eric Boellner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 12:43 PM   #79
sallain
Regular
 
sallain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 225
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
Female screenwriters are more attractive than males. This may indicate a bias.

All it would have taken were a few extra sentences (maybe even just one) to make it clear that the bias was against women, not for them.
I don't think Geoff thought he had to explain the bias was against women, because no rational person would ever believe that a bias for women, attractive or otherwise, exists in Hollywood. That's why it seemed odd to me that people arrived at that interpretation from his remark.
sallain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 12:52 PM   #80
Eric Boellner
Regular
 
Eric Boellner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 421
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by sallain View Post
I don't think Geoff thought he had to explain the bias was against women, because no rational person would ever believe that a bias for women, attractive or otherwise, exists in Hollywood. That's why it seemed odd to me that people arrived at that interpretation from his remark.
But this is the internet. How many times have people come into film review threads, discussions of female screenwriters, etc. and made statements exactly like that here? We had trolls ranting about whether Bond could be black for threads longer than the Bible. If you make a statement that vague, you can't expect people not to take it at face value.
Eric Boellner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker