Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Is Still Working on Its 'Stale, Male, and Pale' Problem, Says James Cameron (indiewire.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: As science fiction finally earns mainstream acceptance in Hollywood, James Cameron believes the genre's awards drought will soon be over. "I predict that sometime in the next five to 10 years you will have a science-fiction film win Best Picture," he told reporters while promoting "AMC Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which premieres Monday. Films like "Arrival" and "Ex-Machina" have earned nominations, but as the older guard ages out of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Cameron believes that the membership's "prejudice" against sci-fi -- which he says "definitely exists" -- will fade. "They're definitely a red-headed stepchild when it comes to the acting, producing, directing categories," he said.
"Science fiction is kind of a commercial genre, it's not really an elevated dramatic genre. I would argue that until I'm blue in the face that science fiction is the quintessence of being human in a sense. We are technological beings. We are the only truly conscious species that we know of. We are struggling with ourselves over the issue of our own question for understanding, our own ability to manipulate the fabric of our reality. Our own technology is blowing back on us and changing how we behave amongst ourselves and as a civilization," he added. "I would argue that there's nothing more quintessentially human than dealing with these themes. But Hollywood tends to pull short from that."
But as Hollywood changes its perception of science fiction, Cameron stressed that the genre itself needs to continue to evolve from its origins of being too "stale, male and pale." "It was white guys talking about rockets," Cameron said of early sci-fi. "The female authors didn't come into it until the '50s and '60s and a lot of them had to operate under pseudonyms." But even now, "women are still unrepresented in science fiction as they are in Hollywood in general," he said. "When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified."
"Science fiction is kind of a commercial genre, it's not really an elevated dramatic genre. I would argue that until I'm blue in the face that science fiction is the quintessence of being human in a sense. We are technological beings. We are the only truly conscious species that we know of. We are struggling with ourselves over the issue of our own question for understanding, our own ability to manipulate the fabric of our reality. Our own technology is blowing back on us and changing how we behave amongst ourselves and as a civilization," he added. "I would argue that there's nothing more quintessentially human than dealing with these themes. But Hollywood tends to pull short from that."
But as Hollywood changes its perception of science fiction, Cameron stressed that the genre itself needs to continue to evolve from its origins of being too "stale, male and pale." "It was white guys talking about rockets," Cameron said of early sci-fi. "The female authors didn't come into it until the '50s and '60s and a lot of them had to operate under pseudonyms." But even now, "women are still unrepresented in science fiction as they are in Hollywood in general," he said. "When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified."
Should every new work of art pass some art test to see if it can be published?
An author has to go back and add in more diversity just to get published?
Books to be considered for new movies and series will all have to have a mandated set amount of diversity?
Once work is approved as been within a "male and pale" limit will further revisions be needed to remove more "male and pale" before a movie can be made?
Will an artist have a say in how their work is further corrected?
An artist freedom is now reduced to filling a quota of characters who are not "male and pale"?
Will past art get rewritten to remove most male and pale roles?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Because a "good alignment" has the one clear definition but "good movie" does not?
Perhaps a female director could clarify for me how a female character feels about a male character by directing the cameraman to do a long, slow scan up the male's body, which a male director would not think to do, since he doesn't classify ogling males as entertainment. A female director could still direct "male gaze" shots because she's got a hundred years of past movies to study; "female gaze" shots she would have an instinct for.
But also, in general, any group that's been discriminated against becomes automatically the smart hire, because they have to be "twice as good to go half as far".
I guess it is to Mr. Cameron, but in reality, does it matter if a Sci-Fi movie wins an Oscar (for anything)?
We're living in a golden age of TV; CGI and more liberal rules regarding stories and content allow for longer, more engaging stories to be told that appeal to more specific audience. Movies are tied into a shorter time base with more restrictions on content with the expectation that there needs to be a definite punch that knocks the viewer out of their seat and is tweeting to their friends that they must see this movie NOW.
Yesterday I saw "Ready Player One" and, despite not loving the book, the movie is engaging and fun - it is a true Spielberg movie that keeps your attention, gets a few smiles but won't make me think about it much afterwards. I can't think of anybody (including Mr. Cameron) that could have done it better. It will make a few hundred million dollars (like the latest Avengers or Star Wars) but non of them are worthy of any accolades (other than box office records).
In the current world, I don't think Sci-Fi should be shooting for an Oscar as a standard for being good. I thought "Arrival" was very good with an interesting twist at the end - but I know of very few people who really understand what had really happened at the end with regards how Any Adams' character's perspective on everything had changed (left vague to avoid spoilers). The movie did win an Hugo and that's probably what Sci-Fi movies should shoot for - great Sci-Fi makes the reader/viewer think and challenge their views and perspectives on things.
These are things I don't think movie execs/suits want.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?
Does a movie become good or bad because of their race or gender?
Does a piece of music become good or bad because of the race or gender of the player, the singer, the writer... whatever?
It is irrelevant.
The only issue here is "stale"... not pale or male. A white guy can write something everyone loves or write complete garbage. A black woman can write something everyone loves or complete garbage.
No one really cares who you are. We care what you did.
Now, on the issue of Cameron personally... Ironically he "IS" stale.
Anyone see Avatar? The movie is dogshit on so many levels and its all his fault.
The movie had top tier special effects which people loved. Great. Very pretty. But Cameron really didn't have anything to do with that besides getting money in the special effects budget.
Terminator 2 is a cult classic as well as a huge commercial success. Titanic was a very popular romance movie.
Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie and I don't see it having any legs in time.
Cameron is stale. Not because of his race or gender. He just got old and lazy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.
In one of the most progressive industries, in one of the most progressive states, in one of the most progressive countries in the world?
I'm somewhat skeptical that any such thing exists or at least not anything that would cause such a large gap or even the majority of it. Especially in a business that cares far more about revenue than it does about art. So if female directors could generate better profits, the studios would be tripping over themselves to hire them. Contrast this with other fields (accounting, veterinary medicine, etc.) that historically had no female practitioners (much like directing), but are now majority female, and you have to explain why this systemic something did not prevent women from breaking into those fields.
I'm not going to claim that Hollywood is a perfect or even a model example. It's quite obvious from recent history that there are plenty of sleazy assholes who were willing to use their positions of authority to coerce women, men, and children into sex. Perhaps Hollywood and the allure of fame makes this more prevalent, but it's hardly unique to the film industry either, so I'm not inclined to believe women in film have had to deal with anything that women in business, medicine, or any other field haven't also had to deal with.
If you know what this systemic something is, by all means share it. Otherwise you could just be tilting at windmills. But to my original point, did you ever stop to think about the fact that there's an even lower percentage of female mechanics? I'm guessing that the thought never crossed your mind, so I really have to ask why you should care in this instance but not in the other? I think you can realize that it really doesn't matter what sex your mechanic is as long as they do a good job, so why not be similarly unconcerned in this case as well?
The simple fact is that there is a dogmatic push to lay accolades on women and minorities having anything to do with science fiction.
If there's filtering going on, ACTUALLY keeping them out of the field, that needs to stop.
But what I strongly suspect - like sexism, racism, etc today - is that people are reacting to the way it was more than the way it IS.
I personally feel handing someone an award preferentially because she has a vagina is as sexist and stupid as NOT handing it to her for the same reason. I think to assert that somehow the canon of Science Fiction literature is corrupted by the fact that it's mostly male and white is a sort of Stalinist revisionism. Yes, women shouldn't have been kept out (if they even were; I don't recall any ACTUAL evidence to that fact, imo) but that doesn't make the greats any less great, or mean we have to have X years of opposing bias to 'counterweight' the canon.
How about we just enjoy books that we enjoy, and not give a shit about the chromosomal makeup of the author at all?
-Styopa
So there are only two options. That pretty much sums up the stupidity of 2018.
Today, there are more women published than men
Citation needed. As far as I can tell this is just something you made up. Male authors still dominate even if we count "romance" novels and "super-mommy" self-help books while discounting the entire "graphic-novel" industry.
I mean there is definitely a specialised industry of publishers who only publish works by female authors, whereas there's nothing similar for male authors, so really we should be seeing slightly more women being published than men. But I've yet to see any data which shows that to be the case.
The book market is anything but a free market, nor is it a gender neutral market. Women control much of the discretionary spending in our society, and women read a lot more than men. Women are highly subsidized as both authors and consumers of books by men and by the state. With all that, it's not surprising that women publish a lot, and even that they are read a lot. That doesn't prove that women are overall more talented at writing books, let alone that women are statistically as capable as men as producing great literature.
Danielle Steel is a commercially successful author, she is not an author of great literature, she doesn't write literature that appeals equally to both men and women, and she is certainly no science fiction author.
Before you answer, remember that there was a time when there was a similar discrepancy among published authors. You'd have maybe two women out of 100 published authors. There was a belief that men were just better writers, naturally. Today, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men.
In your quest to portray yourself as an open-minded liberal, you in fact made the demonstration that you are full of shit.
See what the data about the NYT best sellers list shows:
"Books by women consistently made up about a quarter of the list in the 1950s. Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, female representation on the list fluctuated dramatically. The rate of books by women got as high as 38% in 1970, and as low as 14% in 1975. (Some of this was simple math: from 1963 to 1977, the New York Times capped the list to 10 books per week. This made the annual list of best sellers shorter and the gender ratio more sensitive to changes in the counts from year to year.)
This volatility didn’t result in permanent change: in both 1990 and 1950, 28% of the books on the list were written by women. In the 1990s, women finally made steady gains on the list over ten years. 2001 saw the highest ratio of all time: 50% women, 50% men, later dipping to 48% in 2016."
https://pudding.cool/2017/06/b...
lucm, indeed.
Here's a report that looks at female directors and compares their careers to male directors. One of the differences they report is that directors will often start with short films before moving on to longer or feature films. The initial disparity in numbers between male and female directors at the short film level then becomes even more stark. Female directors report difficulty in finding or attracting funding (not the only problem, sample size is small and selective). We're not talking about a situation where women don't want to become directors of feature films. They do. They can't. Your mechanic analogy is off the mark.
The problem with cultures is that they tend to be self-reinforcing. Women, knowing that their chance of being able to make a career beyond short film will make less of an effort in a direction that's unlikely to yield results. When putting together people to work on or with, people are likely to ask for people that they have worked with before and who they know they can work with, again.
It's complicated and complex, as many social structures are. Identifying biases are difficult and confronting. The numbers, alone, are a sign that there is _likely_ to be some kind of systematic bias or biases. Holding your hands over your ears and demanding proof before you'll act is childish. Let's investigate. There's smoke; maybe there's a fire. Maybe we'll find that it's just weird, but women really don't want to direct, but here's a list of qualified female directors talking about some of the different ways that they've experienced barriers to their careers based solely on gender.
Feminists may say that women want wimpy, obsequious men. But feminists don't represent women. The only thing that ultimately matters is who women who reproduce choose to reproduce with, and the criteria there haven't changed much: they want competitive, successful alpha males. Women can't even overcome their preference for such superficial criteria as height in mate selection.
I am not-married (we married others in the past and figured out how stupid marriage really is, so we don't do it) to a quite excellent woman. She won't take shit from people but she won't fight over petty things like many women tend to do. She works for women but many of the customers and decision-makers she deals with are men. She strongly prefers dealing with men because men cut the bullshit and appreciate it when someone else is also willing to cut the bullshit. Women are the reason we have dumb shit like "compliment sandwiches"...yes, that's a real thing, go look it up and be as amazed at the level of intelligence insulting required to do it as I am. Women are biologically closer to the center of the intelligence bell curve. Women are genetically hard-wired (no opt-out) with nesting instincts and competitive instincts that target other women. Damore was fired for pointing out such realities, but no amount of Google HR panty-twisting changes the hard facts encoded in your fucking DNA.
Women that "live in the world of men" are the absolute best women. No walking on eggshells, no wondering where things stand, no wondering about her opinion of that thing you just said, no letting you slide when you falter and act like an idiot. She jumps your shit in your moments of stupidity because she cares.
And then there's most women, who would destroy the entirety of a business with their cunty catty horseshit behavior. Gee, which one would you pick to work beside? Hmm...things that make you go "hmmmm....."
We need more women working manual labour, I'm thinking a 50/50 distribution on construction, garbage truck duty, oil rigs, etc. this gross inequality has gone on far too long and women deserve their spot in the industry.
Yes, we agree that that is the basis of modern feminist theory. There is no disagreement on that.
What you fail to provide is evidence that modern feminist theory is true or even plausible.
The very facts feminists themselves cite ("toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures") show that this is not a result of historical factors, because it it found across many cultures that share no history.
Furthermore, attempts by feminists to change this since the 1960's have failed to produce the predicted effects.
Feminists have an incorrect theory, and it's not surprising that they derive incorrect and harmful policy prescriptions from it.