General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJane Campion says Serena and Venus Williams don't 'play against the guys like I have to'
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2022/03/13/jane-campion-sam-elliott-power-dog-criticism-dga-awards/7025713001/After making waves by weighing in on actor Sam Elliott's "sexist" criticism of her film, "The Power of the Dog," director Jane Campion continued her commentary on gender inequality in the entertainment industry and sparked backlash by calling out two iconic athletes.
Speaking onstage at the Critics Choice Awards on Sunday while accepting the best director award, Campion, 67, gave a shoutout to her fellow directing nominees (the "guys," as she describes the rest of the all-male directors nominated this year) before she turned her attention to two all-star audience members: Tennis icons Serena and Venus Williams.
"Serena and Venus, you are such marvels. However, you do not play against the guys like I have to," she said with a laugh, hoisting her trophy above her head as the rest of the audience cheered and applauded. (Both sisters have won multiple mixed doubles tournaments against male tennis players.)
"jane taking time out of her best director speech to tell two Black women that she is more oppressed than them is PEAK white feminism," Jodie Turner-Smith tweeted.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No word yet on Sam Elliot's take on woman's tennis.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,179 posts)If anyone is wondering about the rise of discussions around the concept of "white feminism," this is a great example.
wryter2000
(47,940 posts)Especially with Venus and Serena there. I hope she apologizes.
halfulglas
(1,654 posts)But now even fake humility is gone. Too bad she thinks she's punching down.
It's true that behind the camera there is still great gender inequality, but she picked the wrong comparison.
brush
(61,033 posts)not physical strength. There's the sexism element for sure but great gender inequality? Of course not.
Do you realize you just said the female brain is unequal to the male brain.
You need to retract that.
obamanut2012
(29,148 posts)The poster you replied to is the correct one.
"Gender inequality is discrimination on the basis of sex or gender causing one sex or gender to be routinely privileged or prioritized over another. Gender equality is a fundamental human right and that right is violated by gender based discrimination."
brush
(61,033 posts)is superior to the female brain.
We disagree.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)Sounds like you've got a big ol' strawman to beat the hell out of there...
brush
(61,033 posts)The OP quotes the winning female director saying she has to fight against the males unlike Serena and Venus Williams. I think that's an invalid comparison as directing uses the brain and has nothing to do with why Venus and Serena don't compete against men.
It's invalid because men and women don't compete against each other in athletics because the male body has a strength advantage.
In directing, there is no strength advantage that favors men because the brain is being used to compete and male brain has no advantage over the female brain.
Awards and recognition and all that most often goes to males but that's sexism not that male brains are superior.
Some here are missing my point. Get it?
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)The only person bringing up women's brains is you. You are the one creating this strawman that people are saying women's brains are inferior. No one, not one person in this thread said that women's brains are inferior.
Does gender inequality just mean physical traits to you? Is women not getting paid as much as men not a form of inequality? Not getting the same job opportunities?
But keep on beating that strawman, maybe you can get someone to agree with you eventually.
brush
(61,033 posts)specifically that the male brain has no advantage over the female brain.
Review each of my posts in this thread and you will see that.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)That's a strawman.
Women face gender inequality in the workplace. That has nothing to do with brain size and by making that your argument you are showing that you have nothing to say about the valid points others are making except vague cries that it's not gender inequality, it's just sexism.
brush
(61,033 posts)halfulglas
(1,654 posts)Women directors (or almost any entity not in front of the camera) have trouble getting funding from the studio execs and the financial backers because of the perception that it's man's work. There have been brilliant female directors from the 30s on but they are still much fewer than males because of the implicit bias in the industry.
brush
(61,033 posts)being superior to a female brain.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)
kcr
(15,522 posts)It doesn't seem like you understand the concept of gender inequality.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2022, 09:37 PM - Edit history (2)
gender, also the female brain is just as capable as the male brain. Now sexism exists and disadvantages women, and misogynists don't consider the female gender equal to them, but that doesn't make it so and it's not me...and l hope it's not you.
Campion's comparison was invalid and best left unsaid as she competes in directing with her brain, which is equal to men's brains, while dealing with sexism and misogyny. Meanwhile the Williams sisters deal with not only sexism and misogyny but racism also. But they don't compete against men in athletics like other women athletes because males have a physical strength advantage. Duh!
Again, it was a comparison best left unsaid as it makes little sense.
brush
(61,033 posts)So there's no male advantage. What the fuck is she going on about?
Bucky
(55,334 posts)The headline writer was trying to get attention for the article by presenting a single comment out of context to give a false impression.
I mean, I know you don't believe women directors are not working at a significant disadvantage in Hollywood.
But the gist of her comment was absolutely not saying she's better than the Williamses because they don't play against men. That's just the BS the magazine implied in order to lure you into reading the article
brush
(61,033 posts)disadvantage, not a mental one.
You don't get that?
Women's brains work as well as men's.
obamanut2012
(29,148 posts)Gender inequality is discrimination on the basis of sex or gender causing one sex or gender to be routinely privileged or prioritized over another. Gender equality is a fundamental human right and that right is violated by gender based discrimination.
brush
(61,033 posts)brains work as well as men's. There is surely sexism that works against women, and males have a physical strength advantage, but women's brains work as well as men's.
Directing uses the brain. Awards and all of that and who gets them is often influenced by sexism.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)I think you have to go out of your way to twist her comment to imply she was demeaning Serena or Venus. This headline is simply fake-outrage journalism. In context she clearly admires the two tennis champs.
Hav
(5,969 posts)How does her direct quote make anything better?
Bucky
(55,334 posts)She was accepting an award so, not surprisingly, she was then talking about herself when she said that.
That one comment is literally all we know about her speech, which presumably took at least a few minutes. Imagining that it was even a minor point in her acceptance speech that somehow the Williamses are less accomplished is the trick that the headline writer is trying to use, to bait you into reading the article. It's literally clickbait.
It just doesn't make any sense that she would take a moment out of her triumph to punch down at two admired people who showed up to share in her celebration. We shouldn't be suckers for the old trick of pitting women against women.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,179 posts)Bucky
(55,334 posts)I think you're falling for a tricky headline, a spin, if you read that as one woman discounting other women successes. That's a nasty little stereotype that mainstream culture likes to push. The Williamses are not shrinking violets. If they had perceived a slight, we would have heard about it.
Seriously, what makes more sense. That she would spend a moment demeaning two famous, popular celebrities who are sitting right there and applauding her... or that a writer would want to get attention for an article by ginning up a fake controversy out of a boring awards ceremony assignment?
Bucky
(55,334 posts)Again, I think one would have to "read into" her actual quote to find a trace of her "discounting Black women's successes". One would have to ignore what she literally said, that they are "marvels." One would have to put absolute faith in the article writer's spin on the speech that that one comparison was even all that big a deal in her over all comments.
Sorry, but I don't see a lot of discounting going on there. She was talking about her own struggles as a woman director in Hollywood. She is not talking about Venus and Serena.
I strongly advise against letting clickbaiters play on your personal biases
{On edit}
Check out this article posted by NolaBear down thread. It's quite clear that Jane Campion is a huge admirer of Venus and Serena. You let a headline fool you.
https://www.goldderby.com/article/2022/jane-campion-best-director-critics-choice-awards-speech/amp/
She literally said "however" after "marvels," and I'm hard pressed to ever find an example where "but" or "however" doesn't erase what was said before it.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)The spin you're falling for is from a writer trying to stir up some shit.
Campion is a huge admirer of Venus and Serena Williams. When you read about the whole speech you'll see that.
Always get more information before digging in on an opinion. Never trust a first report completely.
Here is the thing you didn't know when writing that excellent and thoughtful deconstruction of my comments:
Campion’s self-deprecation drew laughs and yelps from the crowd, as she continued, “I’d also just like to give my love out to my fellow — the guys,” she added with a laugh, as Campion was nominated alongside five other directors, all men. “And Serena and Venus, you are such marvels. However, you do not play against the guys, like I have to.” The response in the room to that remark was strong, with numerous attendees cheering, including Serena Williams. Later, despite backlash to the remarks on social media, Campion and Venus Williams were shown embracing during a Critics Choice Awards afterparty.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,179 posts)eyes and listening to the voices of Black women who say they have had this happen to them again and again and again in workplaces and social spaces. Black women are ALWAYS expected to go along to get along in the name of female solidarity, which includes smiling and being gracious when white women say inartful things about them, saying things are fine and no harm done.
I'm curious, why the effort to ensure Campion's comment isn't seen as hurtful or clumsy? What does she lose if she fucked up here, admits it and moves on?
RobinA
(10,464 posts)
You know nothing about white women. Even if you are a white woman, in which case you only know about one white woman.
snowybirdie
(6,549 posts)One of those oh so soulful stories trying so hard to make us figure out the hidden messages. Tries way too much. Boring too.
obamanut2012
(29,148 posts)You may think it was boring, but I personally think well acted, directed, and written movies about the plight and history of LGBT Americans are worth watching?
Why in teh WORLD are you directing people away from watching this movie???
Good grief.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)beautifully paced. And the ambiguity gives rise to great conversation. I am now about halfway through the book because I wanted to see how they created such a complicated story using all the elements of acting and editing and direction. It doesn’t disappoint. It does give details but they were alluded to really nicely in a short span of time.
As to her comment, I think it was a one-off joke and will defer to Serena and Venus for an opinion.
Sympthsical
(10,829 posts)I'll admit, I'm not in a cohort of people who think it's an amazing movie, and I'm puzzled why people think so. I went into the movie knowing nothing about it and thought the main character's sexuality was telegraphed as hard as humanly possible very early on. From his very first comments to the son to his over the top devotion to the dead mentor. "The homophobe is actually gay!? So surprise, much subversive."
This movie was hardly subtle. When we got to that little handkerchief scene in the meadow, my eyes rolled so hard they ended up in western Nevada.
So all we're really left with is the acting and cinematography. It is filmed beautifully. The acting is hilariously bad. I love Kirsten Dunst, but what was that loopy drunkenness stuff? She looked like she had no idea she was supposed to be in a dramatic film. She sounded like her Bring It On character. It was just an absolutely bizarre choice on her and the director's part. I think if she'd underplayed the alcoholism, it would've worked better. Instead, drunken falling over. Bam, Oscar nominee. Did Jessie Plemmons do any acting at all? If you told me he showed up on set severely constipated, so they just had him run lines while the cameras rolled, I would believe it.
Again, beautifully shot, but shockingly mediocre for all the praise it has received.
I did like the ending though. How the son's plan worked out. That was great. I knew what he was doing with the dead cow, but didn't put together the why until they focused on the hands in the end. That was pretty neat.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)Didn’t strike me as just “gay,” but likely a repetition of a kind of predation. And Peter had a capacity for casual infliction of death that played out well. There’s a plot point in the book that wasn’t in the movie that impressed me, and I’m eager to see how it plays out.
I’ll agree somewhat about Kirsten Dunst. She was a bit delicate to have run that place. She was more a plot device than character. But I did like the odd depiction of having a great deal of money without any real advantages. The loneliness was palpable.
Phil fascinated me because of the utter lack of conflict he felt about some extreme thoughts and acts. Only in that kind of vacuum could that thrive. Til it doesn’t.
Sympthsical
(10,829 posts)And I did think Phil was repeating on Peter what Bronco Henry did to him. Older man grooming a teenaged boy. Predatorily pick the lone weak calf from the herd. And you got a stray thought or two from the brother on Bronco Henry, which were far less idealized than Phil's.
It was an interesting little start at the end when you suddenly realize what Peter may have done before the movie begins (trying to avoid spoilers). That's why I thought the end worked well. Really good endings can recontextualize what came before.
I think the movie would have been better without the masturbation scene. Let the audience wonder. Because that's exactly where it lost me. It's like the writer and/or director didn't trust the audience to read into what was being set up. They had to set off roman candles to announce, "Yes! This is what you're watching now!" I felt similarly in the beginning with the paper rose and how Phil lingered on it for so long.
If it actually had been a bit more subtle, I think it could've worked. It didn't seem to fit. All the pieces are there for a really solid literary movie, where the audience could question and interpret what happened and what is happening. Instead, the writer/director set out blazing orange cones to follow.
It could have been what so many critics are claiming it is.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)about what Peter did before the movie. I had a very definite impression.
Sympthsical
(10,829 posts)That he was behind that thing that happened before the movie started.
LOL, amused by us obscuring it. But, I think we're on the same page.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)There is a story there, though, that’s left out. Yeah, it’s funny being coy. Like code! 🤣
jeffreyi
(2,506 posts)Very artsy. There was not much there to capture my attention for very long. Sometimes a creator tries really hard to get you to buy into their take on things and such efforts are often not successful.
Response to cinematicdiversions (Original post)
YorkRd This message was self-deleted by its author.
edhopper
(37,025 posts)not because it wasn't very well done or the subject of toxic masculinity in the West bothered me, but because I felt it would get grimmer and grimmer and would end badly for most of the characters. Cumberbatch was brilliant, but his character repellent. I just thought it would be very disturbing and didn't want to invest the emotions.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)I don’t see it as racist, but more of a slam on womens sports. A silly thing to say.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)I don't even read it as a slam on women's sports. I think it's a slam on the old boys network that makes it harder for women directors to get well funded projects on screen. Clint Eastwood's comments even made it clear that the old boys are mad at her for having a strong female protagonist and her movie.
I'm just applying Occam's razor here. It just doesn't make sense that she would take a poke at Venus and Serena when they we're right there applauding her. It does make sense that headline writer would take that one cut out of context (the only other direct quote is her calling them marvels) try and build up clicks to her article.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Tone-deaf then, lol, she should know how easily offended celebrities tend to be.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)But I think about all the vicious shit that Venus and Serena have to face... I don't know if they're quite the same as Hollywood celebrities. Both are the absolute picture of grace under pressure
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)I meant the others in the room being offended for them. Or the interviewer.
Serena and Venus have faced far worse. No comparison.
Cartoonist
(7,579 posts)Someone takes a remark completely the wrong way, and runs with it.
She was clearly ribbing the two champions.
I would never insult two people who could beat me up.
LizBeth
(11,222 posts)with an offhanded comment.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)Just in case anyone wants actual details.
https://www.goldderby.com/article/2022/jane-campion-best-director-critics-choice-awards-speech/amp/
Bucky
(55,334 posts)The old trying to pit women against each other trick is in full use apparently. And apparently it works quite well here in DU, going by all the comments above by people now convinced that Jane Campion hates the Williams sisters.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)Hell, I don’t know much more, but hope they can speak for themselves.
LizBeth
(11,222 posts)dictate a battle between us that is not there. It is a means to stop healing and stop uniting.
ecstatic
(35,003 posts)When someone says something ignorant, we're forced to grin and bear it in many cases.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(26,179 posts)LizBeth
(11,222 posts)Serena Williams has never been shy expressing herself, one of the many things that make her awesome and makes me respect her so. One of the many things.
See how easy it is to flip the conversation to a "talking down".
Bucky
(55,334 posts)
Scrivener7
(58,158 posts)LizBeth
(11,222 posts)Sympthsical
(10,829 posts)One of those, "Trim quote for context, toss for grinding in the outrage machine." His comments in full show he was more annoyed a western was filmed by a Kiwi director in New Zealand. He said "that woman" in the same context as one would say, "that guy."
But, it's Oscar campaign season, and controversy is good bait. "This brave director of this mediocre movie is fighting the power!"
That people buy it is not super surprising.
It's tough being a woman director in Hollywood. There is no doubt at all about that. But using Elliot's remarks as the mega bait is just all the eye rolls.
JI7
(93,116 posts)and trying to find negative which isn't really there.