I really dig this post by quadmoniker over at PostBourgie about the need for Hollywood to get more women directors in the mix. She writes, of the stunning excellence that is The Hurt Locker (probably my vote for best movie I've seen this year):
I’m not going to say that this was due to Bigelow’s special woman-sense or anything, because we don’t know why she was able to make it so good. That’s kind of the point....If we leave out half the population from movie-making, we’re leaving out half the perspectives that might be able to bring something new to the table. The major studios would be better off if they brought it, because I’d love to see more movies like The Hurt Locker.The one thing I'd add is that we don't know that "half the perspectives" would necessarily be gendered. It turns out that just as I didn't need a woman to make a movie about enduring female friendships in New York City, I didn't need someone with specific combat experience to make an astonishing movie about war: I needed Kathryn Bigelow. The reason to finance movies by female directors is not because you've suddenly discovered that shucks, ladies go to the movies and they have all this money to spend on fancy shoes so why not on tickets, and broads will attract broads, right? The reason to back movies by female directors is that they're just as well equipped as male directors to capture the entire spectrum of humanity.