Mary Ann's new rant

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Mary Ann's new rant

    Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
    Maybe it's natural or just narcissism, but I'd say most writers, when they have the choice, prefer to write characters of their own gender. I'm taking a stab here, but I'm guessing 85% of LauriD, Sc111, and Emily's scripts have female protags.
    My writing partner and I are both white males. I'd say that 2/3 of the projects we have written have female protagonists.

    In the last pilot we finished, we went out of our way to make the cast as culturally/racially diverse as possible.

    Why?

    I won't deny that some of the thought process was commercial. Makes the script feel more international and stick out amongst stacks of scripts with the same white male as lead.

    From a writing standpoint, we did it because it's just more interesting. Different cultures, different perspectives. It opens the door to way more plots and backstories. It challenges us to think outside ourselves. I think it helped make these characters much more rounded individuals.

    Now, the script we're about to finish has a teenaged Hispanic girl as the lead, and I can't be more pleased with how it's coming out.

    So I agree that we need to be the change we want to see in the world. But at the same time, I wouldn't call Mary Ann's rant as whining. She is making a point of her frustrations, which are all valid. And just like getting notes on our scripts, sometimes it takes an outside voice to see things we can't because we're buried too deep in the work.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Mary Ann's new rant

      Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
      Maybe it's natural or just narcissism, but I'd say most writers, when they have the choice, prefer to write characters of their own gender. I'm taking a stab here, but I'm guessing 85% of LauriD, Sc111, and Emily's scripts have female protags.
      I have four scripts available for public consumption. Two are female leads. One is split between a man and a woman, but the man gets the larger share. One is a male lead with a male co-star.

      I don't prefer to write more female protagonists because I'm a woman. I prefer to write more female protagonists because I want to see more women leading action films. I was told to write more men, though, because many in this industry do not have the imagination to picture an actress in the lead unless she's already an action hero. "There are more men available" so I have to write men. I have been told this several times by several different people.

      I'm working on a piece of historical fiction - a war movie very loosely based of a true event. It's all white men as far as our common knowledge of history goes, so I went searching for ways to get more women into the story. (people of color as well, but that's a different issue) In researching how women were involved in this particular event, I discovered one of the coolest historical facts I've ever read. It lead to copious amounts of research, and is now a major focal point of my story.

      If I had just written another story about white men at war, I never would have found out this interesting story. Instead, I went looking for a way to diversify my cast and found a way to make my story that much more interesting.

      So the moral of the story is, hey, how about we TRY to put more women into our scripts instead of just standing with our arms crossed, insisting that our vision is just fine the way it is.
      Chicks Who Script podcast

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Mary Ann's new rant

        I've written several feature specs with lead roles for women and I recently queried a rep who works with several lead actresses. He was kind enough to respond to my query with a note saying that his client had a full schedule lined up and won't look at things without finance and a director attached. He also encouraged me to keeping writing scripts with lead roles for women, saying we need more great roles for women.

        Something I think this illustrates is that the women with the most power in the industry, famous actresses, might be reactive and tend to wait for packaged work to come to them. My perception is that most lead actors have their own substantial production companies, as evidenced by Clooney and Pitt getting Producer Oscars, while only a few actresses do this.

        In an industry that chases its tail, and so keeps repeating what had gone before, actress attachments are the strongest way to trigger development and sales of actress led material. If actresses won't set themselves up to find this material and take some risks on it they shouldn't expect a rearview mirror focused industry to do it for them.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Mary Ann's new rant

          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
          Only 7% of romance readers are men, so there's no market for male leads.
          So women only enjoy entertainment with female leads, and men only enjoy entertainment with male leads?

          And my first question again - if that's the case, shouldn't the publishers be excoriated for not publishing books with male leads, or publishing books by male authors? Men seem very underserved by romance novels.

          But aside from that fact, romance writers, my sister included, like to use female protags, not so much because of the market, but because of how easily they can express their own thoughts, feelings and desires through these women.
          So women writers are incapable of expressing their thoughts, feelings and desires through characters that don't have vaginas?

          Similarly, the pirates/swashbucklers in these novels are ones the writers find attractive and fantasize about.
          So women writers are unable to write female characters that are attractive and desirable?

          When men write action scripts/novels, it's the same deal. The fearless, ripped hero, the orgy of guns, the smokin' hot chick. It's all just expressing what's in their heads (and penises).
          I guess it's refreshing that you believe that men writers have the same lack of imagination and talent that women do…?

          Maybe it's natural or just narcissism, but I'd say most writers, when they have the choice, prefer to write characters of their own gender. I'm taking a stab here, but I'm guessing 85% of LauriD, Sc111, and Emily's scripts have female protags.
          I know a lot of working women writers, and I would posit that that number is wildly off base.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Mary Ann's new rant

            All romance writers are not female.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=male...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Mary Ann's new rant

              Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
              So what's the role of art, represent the world? Get the demographics right? Right wrongs like a musketeer?
              Yes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                Originally posted by castilleja32 View Post
                Yes.
                That's not the role of art, that's an agenda.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                  Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                  Maybe it's natural or just narcissism, but I'd say most writers, when they have the choice, prefer to write characters of their own gender. I'm taking a stab here, but I'm guessing 85% of LauriD, Sc111, and Emily's scripts have female protags.
                  From my point of view statements like this enter the "pure BS" zone. It may be part of a female writer's personal mission to write strong female leads. But beyond that it's up to the individual writer, the inner conflicts that drive them, and their own unique set of skills and inspiration.

                  Some of the great roles for classic female film stars, which still undeniably have an impact on writers today, were written by male screenwriters (e.g., Casey Robinson, Robert Riskin, Preston Sturges, Wilder/Brackett). And while some of the female screenwriters of the era also wrote great roles for women, they were no slouches in writing for the male stars of the day as well (Anita Loos for Gable, June Mathis for Valentino, etc.).

                  Also, I think part of these "rants" are as much about movies being enjoyable for women as protests about the film industry seeming like a boys' club in recent years. MaryAnn's a self-professed fangirl, and she wants to get more pleasure out of movies.

                  Women probably often give movies by men a chance, rather than dismissing them before seeing them just because they were mostly made by men or feature men in the lead roles. But if you need to steel yourself to keep watching past scenes where women are treated like dirt without story justification/context, gratuitous violence toward women, or just constantly shunting them to the margins as minor characters or props, then it's not so much fun to watch the movie. And you start to wonder why you're seeing so much of these types of scenes and not enough of female characters who are really interesting and central to the story.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Mary Ann's new rant - same as the old rant

                    Originally posted by Howie428 View Post
                    I've written several feature specs with lead roles for women and I recently queried a rep who works with several lead actresses. He was kind enough to respond to my query with a note saying that his client had a full schedule lined up and won't look at things without finance and a director attached. He also encouraged me to keeping writing scripts with lead roles for women, saying we need more great roles for women.

                    Something I think this illustrates is that the women with the most power in the industry, famous actresses, might be reactive and tend to wait for packaged work to come to them. My perception is that most lead actors have their own substantial production companies, as evidenced by Clooney and Pitt getting Producer Oscars, while only a few actresses do this.

                    In an industry that chases its tail, and so keeps repeating what had gone before, actress attachments are the strongest way to trigger development and sales of actress led material. If actresses won't set themselves up to find this material and take some risks on it they shouldn't expect a rearview mirror focused industry to do it for them.
                    Who says actresses aren't looking for material? Here's one example:

                    Without a word to anyone, Meryl Streep has begun a one-woman revolution in Hollywood. The 18-time Oscar nominee (and three-time winner) has steadily and tenaciously pursued projects by female screenwriters and directors. As Marian Evans noted last week in Indiewire, "Meryl Streep has quietly set the standard. Of her last eleven features, women have written and directed five, and a woman wrote the sixth. That's no accident."
                    http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandh...by-diablo-cody

                    Read about Brit Marling for another.

                    I think you're making a lot of assumptions based on a smooth pass on your query. It's interesting that you blame the actress and not the rep whose job it is to read scripts for her. The reason he won't read your scripts is that unsolicited material from unknown writers is not automatically good just because the protagonist is female.

                    If you believe your scripts have appeal, tag them on the Blacklist for actresses and reps actively looking for such material. They can read your scripts there and only risk their time, as I understand it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                      A simple point that seems to have been neglected: Romance novels are a slice of the fiction book market, not the whole fiction book market. If women were vastly underrepresented and regularly stereotyped in just one equivalent slice/genre of the feature film market (action, let's say), and made up a tiny fraction of the filmmakers in just that genre, the concern would be minimal.

                      But that's not the case. We're talking about Hollywood feature films in general. The better apples-to-apples to comparison, if we wanted to do more than be flip and toss out red herrings, would be an entire fiction book market where there were few women writers or complex female characters.
                      Last edited by marcal; 04-03-2014, 11:13 AM. Reason: clarity

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                        Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                        Could you be more specific? Or constructive?
                        Why should I? Was your post specific or constructive? Not from my POV. It was a long-winded ramble that boils down to: "... Mary Ann is a ridiculous whiner. Disregard her. I'm right, she's wrong." All that fru-fru you threw in about Bergman and Austen was intellectual smokescreen.

                        It amazes me when articles on this topic are linked here, the vast majority of guys who respond, in one way or another, flat out say: "Nonsense. Not true. No-no-no. Ridiculous!"

                        Methinks the gentlemen dost protest too much.
                        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.-

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                          Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                          So what's the role of art, represent the world? Get the demographics right? Right wrongs like a musketeer?
                          The role of art is to make you feel safe and sleepy (in your hotel room), isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                            Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                            Why should I? Was your post specific or constructive? Not from my POV. It was a long-winded ramble that boils down to: "... Mary Ann is a ridiculous whiner. Disregard her. I'm right, she's wrong." All that fru-fru you threw in about Bergman and Austen was intellectual smokescreen.

                            It amazes me when articles on this topic are linked here, the vast majority of guys who respond, in one way or another, flat out say: "Nonsense. Not true. No-no-no. Ridiculous!"

                            Methinks the gentlemen dost protest too much.
                            Really, that's all you got from my post? "Ramble"? "Intellectual smokescreen"? Jesus...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                              Originally posted by canela View Post
                              The role of art is to make you feel safe and sleepy (in your hotel room), isn't it?
                              It's you who says that, not me.

                              Anyway, I can see it's not possible to discuss the issue. Dissenting opinions, no matter if they are reasonable or at least attempt to be reasonable, are only met with sarcasm and contempt. Okay.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Mary Ann's new rant

                                The favorite part of all of these conversations for me personally is that my opinion is always dismissed as some form of mansplaining, and yet I think I'm the only person around here who actually has three produced features with female leads.

                                But I couldn't possibly have a viewpoint that isn't defensive or sexist, because, you know, penis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X