via leann elizabeth @ flickr
Part of me enjoyed an article in Friday’s The New York Times about a group of young women screenwriters: the self-dubbed Fempire, of whom the most famous member is Juno writer Diablo Cody. A larger part of me was incredibly frustrated. (Kind of how I felt about Juno, come to think of it.) Screenwriters tend not to be high-visibility marquee players in the eyes of the moviegoing public, but what they write lays the foundation for the films, which is one reason why women screenwriters are so important. Gender attitudes in mainstream movies are skewed enough as is, and one would hope that this article might signal that Hollywood is becoming more accepting of women having power behind the scenes.
But the article really enjoys bringing things back to the looks of the four writers. Besides Ms. Cody, there is Dana Fox (What Happens in Vegas), Lorene Scafaria (Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist), and Liz Meriwether (writer of an unadopted TV pilot called Sluts). When writer Deborah Schoeneman described Meriwether as “a thinking man’s Scarlett Johansson,” it was almost enough to make me close my browser window. We get it! The Fempire is smart but also conventionally attractive! And while I appreciate that Schoeneman points out that they feel pressured to use stylists and present themselves in a way not required of their male counterparts, she also repeatedly mentions their looks. Additionally, the article appears in the Style section, not the Arts section.
And let’s have some masochistic fun dissecting producer Adam Siegel’s quote about the Fempire’s collective beauty: “I know a few beautiful women, but none of them write like Dana, Liz, Lorene or Diablo.” Uh, what? He says that “When you read a screenplay, it doesn’t come with a picture on the cover”, but the fact remains that all four women are attractive, slender, and white. Schoeneman’s point about women screenwriters feeling pressure to be “presentable” hits home at this point: being a young female screenwriter aiming for success and coverage apparently still means that you have to look like a thinking man’s Scarlett Johansson.
Wait, you’re telling me that conventionally attractive women can be smart? And smart women can be pretty?
Mind = blown.
/snark
Thank God we have the New York Times to tell us such things!
I would be lost without them. Truly.
To your larger point, though, I completely agree. Good to know that it’s not enough for women to be smart and talented…we’d better fit into those conventional beauty standards, too!
So then, Ms. Schoenman, is Judd Apatow the thinking woman’s Gerard Butler? No? Didn’t think so.
I hate these types of pieces that profile intelligent/successfull/creative women (and even sometimes men) and spend the same amount of words on her apperance as on her accomplishments, personality, views, etc. Fine if you want to describe how she is dressed, or if she gives of “an air of sophistication” or whatever. But why must she be described as if the piece was a profile of a supermodel? Am I supossed to take these women more seriously because you describe them as attractive? Am I to be more excited to go see one of these womens’ movies now? The anawer for me is “no” to both of those questions, but I do realise that I am a little strange.
Agreed with both of you…..it almost feels to me like some writers need to justify a woman’s success/intelligence/creativity by making sure that we know that she is beautiful as well. Because god forbid we think of the person behind a movie we see, a book we read, etc. as anything less than georgeous. *sarcasm on that last sentence*
So, Ms. Schoeneman, is Judd Apatow the thinking woman’s Gerard Butler? Or if you were writing about Judd Apatow, would you feel the need to draw such a comparison?
Sometimes I wonder if writers feel like they need to justify a woman’s achievements/intelligence/creativity/etc with making a point of the fact that she is attractive. Because god forbid we think that a woman behind a movie I see, a book I read, etc is less than beautifull. //
Anyway, it is frustrating that if this piece was on say, Judd Apatow, that the writer would probably not feel compelled to compare him looks wise to a public figure. ie: “a thinking woman’s Gerard Butler,” or whomever……
@anna: If it was a male writer, the piece would not be in the Style section! Honestly, that might be the thing that is most infuriating about this.
@sarah–YES!! I agree totally. It absolutely should have been in the Arts section…heck I would have rather seen it in a Sports section
[...] was Diablo Cody, struggling to keep her short blue …http://theloveof-thefashion.blogspot.com» Newsflash: Young, Beautiful Women Are Successful in Hollywood …Besides Ms. Cody, there is Dana Fox (What Happens in Vegas), Lorene Scafaria (Nick and Norah’s [...]
From what I hear Scar-Jo is pretty smart… at least smarter than Bill O’Reilly, not that that takes much.
@Rachel–ha! I found the statement of “a thinking man’s Scarlet Johansson” a tad bit strange…not that I like that saying with anybody’s name in it anyway…..but I have always thought of Scar-Jo as an intelligent young woman (based purely on what interviews I have seen her in, and some of the roles she has picked or was given)–why not just say, “Meriweather resembles Scarlet Johansson.”?? Why was it necessary to make a somewhat vague dig at Scar-Jo?
If you look at the picture, she has dark glasses. Hence, she must be smarter and appeal to a thinking man. Logic FAIL.
@Sarah–thanks! *note to self: wearing dark glasses will make me the thinking man’s version of myself* (I have always wondered how to do that)
@Sarah– sorry, that wasn’t supposed to “sound” as snarky as it does…..It seems that today’s NYT Style section is further proof that failed logic is the name of the game for them……
Ugh, I hate that phrase the thinking man’s [insert woman here]. Insulting to all ladies involved in the bullshit comparison.
Wow… just wow.
We’ve SO not come a long way, baby.
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god: right on the money.
yet more proof that even if women write and produce and direct the stories, they MUST be jessica alba clones. the men who make the decisions can look anyway they want to look, but the women must. be. hot. no other type of woman is allowed.
gag me.
Ms. Scafaria asked anyway: “They want to know what’s an average workday like for you, so I’m going to ask, what’s a non-average workday like for you?”
Ms. Cody replied, “I cried four times today.”
Ms. Scafaria said, “You’re very tough, but you’re very emotional.”
Ms. Cody paused, looking out at the crowd, and said, “We should be drunk for this.”
These writers seem awesome. (And the Village Idiot is a fun pub, though I really only go after Groundlings shows.)
And, I don’t enjoy assuming things, but the way the style is in the first two paragraphs and then barely hinted at or even attacked later on makes me think that was an editor’s call. “Hey, this is in the style section, make it read like a style article.” “But it should be in arts!” “Well tough, it’s style.”
@rednrowdy: I don’t have a good or anywhere near scientific example of what men look like, but for the past ten or twenty years, maybe even since the 80s, most of the men who make the decisions are fairly attractive. Ugly people are hard pressed in any aspect of Hollywood. Now, attractive is of course, a relative scale… And more often than not, the few schlubby types are writers, but they’re not ugly and schlubby, just, schlubby.
@aspiringexpatriate: The writers sound perfectly fine, but I just hate that what could be a substantive article about WHY these women feel the need to group together is barely touched on and their looks and people’s comments on their looks are repeatedly thrown at us. And “ugly” but would the Times have featured four women writers who are “schlubby”? And if so, would they then be in the Arts section because they wouldn’t be attractive enough for the Style section? The whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.
Hey look, an article about the group not in the NYTimes which doesn’t focus on their looks… at all.
http://www.thestar.com/article/496379
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god:And “ugly” but would the Times have featured four women writers who are “schlubby”? And if so, would they then be in the Arts section because they wouldn’t be attractive enough for the Style section? The whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.
thank you.
@aspiringexpatriate: the larger point is that where are the articles and interviews about groups of young women screenwriters in hollywood who don’t look like maxim cover models..or better yet, articles that don’t constantly refer to their looks? why is it that if you are a woman and you are in this business of show, regardless if you are in front or behind the camera, why should your legs, your curves, what you eat and whatever else be fodder for the interview itself ? it’s ridiculous, sexist, ultimately bad journalism.