I concur with WriterOnTheStorm’s trenchant observation in his first sentence.  These statistics are indeed nothing more than raw numbers.  To the 21st century feminist mindset, such numbers automatically translate into a dastardly conspiracy against women in a hostile industry. This article also concentrates exclusively on “high-concept,” big-budget “action” films, ignoring the avant-garde cinema and documentary, where women have long been trailblazers - just think of Leni Riefenstahl, still the most celebrated and influential female director whatever you might think of her work and its political aspects, or the legendary Maya Deren, revered to this very day as one of the greatest formgivers of the avant-garde.

As is so often the case, the article demonstrates an ignorance of film history, making it seem as though this “problem” is strictly one of contemporary society and that somehow there have been no female film directors in the past, but during the days of the classical studio system, 1930s women like Ida Lupino or the great Dorothy Arzner broke the glass ceiling and had long careers as directors.  In fact, the Hollywood system of yesteryear went out of its way to cater to female audiences due to the discovery in the mid 1920s that it was women who usually chose what film the family was going to see.  The past 40 years have seen the film industry reorganize itself around the tastes and fantasies of teenage boys, who sadly make up most of the paying audience for theatrical releases.  Are there any women out there who want to direct something like, “Spider Man 4?”  I doubt it.

Nor does the paucity of female directors mean that there are no areas where women have been prominent behind the camera - beginning in the 1910s, many women found work as editors, screenwriters, script supervisors, continuity (a job almost always done by a woman, BTW!), art directors, costume designers, and makeup artists.  Indeed, to some extent the field of film editing has long been dominated by women, but no one ever asks, “Why have there been relatively few male editors?” (Incidentally, my editing professor at NYU film school once told our class that women were drawn to editing from the beginning of the industry, because in addition to requiring little physical strength, the fact that editing can be done sitting down and staying in one place meant that many women could simultaneously do their editing work and watch their children at the same time if necessary!)

This article takes raw stats and politicizes them without asking a deeper set of questions, such as, “What does it take to be a film director?”  In my experience, being a film director requires a very particular skill set, starting with an obsessive visual sensibility, a certain amount of narcissistic self-confidence, and a fascination with technique.  Directing also requires a willingness to give orders, make snap decisions, and manage crews which can consist of literally hundreds of people - and that’s putting aside the dedication and - unfortunately - self-involvement necessary just to get a project off the ground.  Being a movie director is also not a popularity contest - many male directors have been renowned for their aggressive, domineering personalities and have been literally hated by those who worked with them (just think of James Cameron!), no matter how successful their films. 

How many women even want to behave this way in the first place? It is much easier and more satisfying in our current state of war between the sexes just to politicze some raw numbers so people can avoid asking themselves some difficult questions which might lead to answers that don’t fit our predetermined notions of gender equity.  What might happen were we to ask the question, “Why have so few women been interested in directing movies?”