| Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,508
|
Apologies to all here for this long post, but ya ya asked for clarification and I honestly cannot believe his chauvinistic rhetoric is straight from the fifties/sixties. It is extremely offensive to me, ya ya, that you single out girls and emphatically write GIRLS in all caps to emphasize your finger-pointing prejudice. If you substituted another large group--say African-Americans or Catholics or Armenians and put their name in all caps like you do with GIRLS to insist they are not equipped to do all sorts of jobs, incapable of the basic requirements to pursue all sorts of careers, you'd get your head handed to you. I find it disturbing that you believe this anti-female tripe to begin with, but it is just incomprehensible that you feel entitled to spout these very backward opinions in a public forum.
Ya Ya wrote: "I actually never said that women were treated badly in this industry. Reread my posts, please, and point to sentence that gave you this impression, please, because I personally don't recall."
You REALLY don't know what you are saying? Okay, here are just a few excerpts:
"Film Production is a male dominated world and there are big reasons for that (you don't see many women-firefighters or many women-truck drivers)"
Big reasons for that? You are implying that women are less capable then men to work in film production. That's sheer nonsense. For the record, there are many more jobs in film production that require creative problem solving and people skills than how much weight one can lift. Starting at the top on a feature film, there are screenwriters, directors, executive producers, produces, associate producers, line producers, producers, co-producers, directors of photography, film editors, production designers, art directors, set decorators, costume designers, makeup artists, hair stylists, wigmakers, production supervisors, unit managers, script supervisors, first assistant directors, second unit directors and assistant directors, assistant property masters, assistant set decorators, assistant art directors, assistant designers, camera operators, still photographers, casting assistants, wardrobe supervisors, set costumers, plus office assistants, location coordinators, legal services, researchers, assistants to the producers/actors/director, location managers, office production assistants, production attorneys, and publicists. Most students do not go film school in order to become electricians or construction workers, so I wouldn't worry too much about women being barred from these low-on-creativity, high on heavy lifting positions, but if they wanted to, they certainly could pursue those fields as well.
You wrote: "Well, let me explain what I meant. The long hours were already mentioned, 12-14 hours on the set, sometimes outside in any weather and any climate, is nothing unusual. And since people work on the projects they often travel a lot, I know people who spend 2-3 months "at home" and the rest 9 months away; they are on the plane, at at the hotel and on the set in different cities both for film and commercial work. Hence the comparison with truck drivers."
Ya ya, you again imply that women are not capable of working long hours, will somehow melt in extreme weather, cannot handle travel (!), and are incapable of living in hotels or getting on planes. What century do you come from? Would you dare to suggest this sort of nonsense if talking about any other group of people?
You wrote: "Nobody actually mentioned physical labor yet (comparison with firefighters). Well there are many people on the set, some of them are women and they do make-up, costumes, set decorations, catering, this kind of work; assistant director can be a woman. None of these jobs require any film degree, IMHO."
Do you hear how demeaning you are? Women are capable of doing all sorts of creative work, and are not limited to make up and catering. I shudder to think you truly believe this! And, as most people agree, NONE of the jobs in motion pictures require any film degree. Not directing. Not screenwriting. Not producing. And not catering. So if your message is that these girly jobs do not require a film degree, I've got news for you. None of the production jobs do.
You wrote: " People around the cameras and other equipment are men. They move pretty heavy things around, they lay on the ground in strange body positions trying to catch an interesting angle for the shoot, they hold cameras, boom, wireless sound equipment and sometimes even lamps for extended period of time the way that would make my shoulders (or shoulders of many other women) sore for a week with probably a following visit to a chiropractor. The light guys work in heavy gloves but they still get all kind of injuries, burns and blisters."
I think we can agree that gaffers, grips, and construction crews are often hanging around heavy things--and if I was advising a young woman about careers in Hollywood, I would certainly not expect she was thinking of these sorts of jobs! Be serious. As to laying on the ground in strange body positions--am I the only reader of this post that laughed out loud. Is your implications that young women cannot lay on the ground to do a job? Are they too delicate to move a cable? I agree, they may not want to, but most of the female film students I know--and I know many--are bending down, moving sofas, plugging in cables, whatever needs to be done. They are healthy, athletic and not embarrassed to do a little physical labor. While this would probably shock you, it is quite normal for students to dig in and do all the grunt work when making their own student films. And yes, they sometimes get blisters. Oh my.
You ask: "How many women would go and do this kind of work?"
Why wouldn't they, if they have a passion for it? Would you also ask this question of some other ethnic or societal group? If a young woman wants to be a filmmaker, that is her choice.
You wrote: "Many girls start this education having very strange ideas about film production. When they finally see what this is all about they change majors, or they stay with this major and in this business but go into different direction more suitable for women, like casting director or talent agent."
Ya ya, you are again offending all women by saying there are jobs that are more "suitable" for them. The entire women's movement in America, which you may have missed, addressed just how condescending and blatantly belittling such notions can be. Women do not belong in some little ghetto of desk jobs. Trust me on this.
But I've gone on far to long trying to show you just where you are woefully behind the times. It's a new world. Women are, indeed, capable of many accomplishments. The pervasive attitude in many professions from decades past is slowly giving way, and I fully expect the next generation of women filmmakers to make even more strides to gaining equality in hiring. The fact that women are still being discriminated against is not an excuse to keep them down.
You wrote: If you work at UCLA, what is the reason that this university with one of the oldest film programs right in the middle of Hollywood decided to accept students to this program junior year only? Do you want to admit and teach only people who are already absolutely sure what they want to do and don't just have strange ideas about red carpet and celebrity life style?"
I do not teach in the film school, so I cannot answer. But the top UCs have similar policies for many of their most impacted majors. It is more likely due to a limited number of openings in the major and giving students the chance to show they can thrive in UCLA's rigorous academics before decisions are made. UCs, being publicly supported, can choose to limit those admitted to a very top pool.
You wrote: "Somebody told here about USC, that they would not let you make your own films until you fulfill gen ed requirements (about 1.5 years)..."
This is untrue. Any student can make films from day one. However, USC as well as UCLA are first and foremost top 25 ranked academic universities. The curriculum for their degrees require significant work in general education, language and writing. If a film student is not interested in getting a very serious BA degree, they will not enjoy either school, no matter how fabulous their film departments are.
You wrote: " and when they do they kind of "assign" crew positions. Not everyone is allowed to direct. And this is the second film school with the longest history of the film major right in the middle of Hollywood."
This is incorrect. In one early film production class, each student makes 5 short films in one semester. And it gets more exciting from there. For senior project films, USC holds a competition among its students for funding. The students learn how to pitch their scripts, survey the market, get support and do rewrites in order to be selected. By senior year, not everyone in the program wants to direct. But it is something to consider when deciding to attend USC. Other schools may have other policies. But no other film school in the world has produced the number of success stories (Academy Awards, top grossing pictures, Emmys, etc etc) in the film/tv industry as USC--so their methods, teaching, and program seem to work.
You say: "The whole idea of my posts was not to go after "prestige" getting huge loans when you actually don't know yet what you are getting into."
I agree with you.
You say: "As for moral aspects.... I actually witnessed advances toward my own D a couple of times (she is still 17 y.o. by the way). I was advised to be quiet, walk away, never work with these people again but not officially complain or threaten anyone with any lawsuits."
That's deplorable and you were given bad advice. In the workplace, no matter what the industry, woman have been harassed and may face consequences if they speak out officially. Still, it is the only way to remove the rotten apples. In any event, it is wise to advise all our young adults--no matter where they work-- to be careful of who they meet. They should not stand for any crap.
You say: "I am glad that you and people around you have certain moral values and I am sure that people love working with you and feel absolutely safe. Unfortunately this world is not ideal and people over there are very different. I am sorry that mentioning this FACT coursed so much distress among people who prefer to be ignorant."
I think your tone here is just rude. How dare you suggest I or anyone posting here prefer to be ignorant? Perhaps you are projecting your own fears?
You say: "Again, I apologize for mentioning such a '"nasty" thing people prefer not to talk about.
I guess I should not even mention anything like drugs on the set...People probably prefer not to talk about this either."
Yes, I object to you turning women into helpless children. But I am more disturbed that men like you still exist. Not just that you think these things, ya ya, but that you feel so filled with the conviction that your antiquated chauvinism is actually right. The reason sane men and women do not post such nonsense is not that they are ignorant. It's that we have evolved, after 40 years of the women's movement, into not expecting women to shrink back to desk work and cooking when many are capable of great accomplishments in other areas. Perhaps you think you are being helpful to strongly urge young women not to "waste" their parents money attending expensive film schools. The debate over how much money to spend on any undergrad degree is open for debate, of course. However, when you emphasize that it is really a waste for GIRLs to do to spend money on such a degree, you betray a fearful lack of understanding. It is no different than advising students not to go to ivy league schools--a big waste of money--but REALLY a big waste of money for girls, who won't ever get ahead anyway. I hope you see how disturbing that sentiment is.
|
