Atlanta Film Festival 365

Yesterday, The Wrap posted Study: Indies Are Better for Women-but Not Much, a story about the slightly better numbers women have on the indie side of the lens as opposed to the studio side. Comparing films screening at festivals to the top 250 domestic grossers, the results were 24 percent to 16 percent, advantage festival films.

Those are distressing number to read. So distressing, I debated if I should even post the numbers lest I send the wrong signal that female filmmakers need not apply (a silly notion yes, but one I had anyway) to film festivals.

Then there's this article from the Washington Post, Women & Film: With female characters, why does Hollywood fear that the stronger they are, the harder they fail?, on the increasingly shrinking, non romantic comedy, ala drama and action, lead roles for women in film. Appearing online and in print the same day as Amelia's dismal opening weekend numbers were announced this past Sunday, there's this tidbit from the piece:

If "Amelia" earns respectable receipts, chances are it will be dismissed as a lucky break. If it fails, it will be cited as yet more proof that strong female protagonists are box office poison. 

And indeed, Amelia failed to crack the top 10, coming in number 11 right behind the three week old Zombieland. Just weeks before this, consequently opening on the same day as Zombieland took the top spot with $25 million, Whip-it opened with $4.6 million. Directed by Drew Barrymore and featuring a predominately female cast, including Ellen Page as lead, the lack of opening weekend oomph hasn't been seen as good for either Page, Barrymore or female-centric films that aren't full-blown comedies, romantic or not.

As the US film industry and community continue to work through the current concerns, the lack of not only women behind the camera has to be addressed, but also why so many films featuring women aren't succeeding. Made for $15 million, should it really be that hard for a film like Whip-it to show a healthy profit?

Women out number men 154.7 million to 150.6 in the United States. That's too large of a pool for the employment numbers to favor men so disproportionately and for films featuring women to not find an audience. It's also too large an audience for studios and producers to ignore.

Tell any other industry they've got a potential market of that size and that, keeping costs manageable and with the right product and marketing, they only have to reach 3 to 10 percent of that market to make a profit, and I think you'd see that industry creating dozens of innovative programs and products. So why is film, an industry built entirely on the creative spirit can't seem to do that very thing?

And for an industry that relies heavily on a communal (as dysfunctional as that community can be at times), all on the same page, drive to produce their products, why are the positions behind the camera still 80 percent male in 2009?