I genuinely believe that we, as judgy bitches, sometimes “cancel” people too quickly. People make mistakes. Celebrities make mistakes. Sometimes people feel terrible about their mistakes, and sometimes people get defensive and try and fail to articulate why they made some boneheaded decision. I feel like all of that is happening with Sofia Coppola and her new film, The Beguiled. We talked about Coppola’s decision to exclude the one non-white character from her film (a slave character appeared in the source material/book and the first film), which is painful enough, but the way Coppola justified it was… bad. I personally think she genuinely believes that her version is more feminist/more universal because she excluded the one woman of color from the story. As in, only white women get to have universal stories.
So should Coppola be “canceled” for merely being clueless? I don’t know. It does feel like every interview with Coppola brings some other eye-roll moment of just how out-of-touch she is though, and how she hasn’t been paying attention (like, at all) to any of the conversations in her industry. Coppola sat down with GQ to discuss her film, and guess what? She didn’t know what the Bechdel Test was. I’m sure a lot of women don’t know what it is, but every director in America should at least know how to f–king define the Bechdel Test. Some highlights from GQ:
GQ: I loved The Beguiled. Would you say this is the rare feminist film that struggles to pass the Bechdel test?
Sofia Coppola: The what test?The Bechdel test.
I’ve never heard of that. What’s that?It’s a test to see if two or more women in a movie talk about something other than a man.
Oh, I guess I’ve never studied film. That’s so funny, but there are a lot of women talking about a man in this.Right. I thought you handled the climactic tension in such a different manner from the original. Did you think about changing the story much, or were you mostly concerned with giving the women more of a perspective?
Yeah, I just wanted to tell the story from their point of view, so that was really my aim. I tried to forget about the original movie. I mean, I know the story from the movie and I loved the premise, and then I thought I’d track down the book, which is a bit pulpy. A man wrote it in the ’60s, but it’s written from the girls’ point of view, so I got to retell the story and make it theirs. Because I thought the opposite with the original movie, that it was a about a group of women fooled by a man encountering them. I thought we’d start in their world, and a stranger comes in.I’m curious—do you still deal with, or have you ever been bothered by, people saying you’re where you are now because of nepotism or anything like that?
No, I know that I’ve worked really hard. I’m so lucky that I grew up with a great film education, and because there aren’t that many women directors, it was an advantage that I had connections in the film business. You’ve got to do what you can, but I’m confident that it’s my work.Do you feel like the word “camp” or “campy” is used a little too much when describing projects involving women?
I never thought about that. I mean, I definitely thought we could go that way because it’s just so heightened and dramatic, and so it was definitely kind of straddling that. We wanted it to have humor and have fun with it, but also be believable, that these characters were women that you could connect with.What about someone you haven’t worked with who you would like to?
I would like to work with Eddie Murphy. I don’t know why.
Two quotes in the same interview: “I guess I’ve never studied film” and “I know that I’ve worked really hard. I’m so lucky that I grew up with a great film education.” The thing is, I feel bad for yelling about one of the few female directors to really break the boys’ club. It’s the same reason why I largely give Kathryn Bigelow a pass, because even when there’s something problematic, I always think about how hard it is for any woman to get financing and support for her films. But still… does Sofia Coppola help women in the industry by being so clueless? Is she a good representation within the industry? I’m really asking.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Are we sure she didn’t direct CLUELESS???
She sounds really dumb here.
@Alix
😂
she wishes…
She ‘s too full of herself for amy heckerling bubble gum pop chef d’ œuvre.
I was amazed when i discovered it was an jane austen’s emma adaptation.
Except Clueless is brilliant and more than passes the Bechdel test.
Hey now. Clueless is a classic. This movie will not be (even though I kind of want to see it, mostly for Colin Farrell).
Hey now, CLUELESS is a modern adaptation of Jane Austen’s Emma. Let’s not tarnish it with this blander than bland writer director’s vision.
I loved Clueless!
Sophia is bland, she is nepotism personified.
As if! Clueless was my adolescence so let’s not even. But omg you guys did anyone see the behind the scenes ‘Lost in Translation’ making of little thing on the DVD? It is insufferable. So. So. Bad. It’s like Veruca Salt goes to Hollywood. She literally is a grown ass woman squealing and humble bragging for like five whole minutes about how her daddy got her Bill Murray. It’s terrible. Ever since then, my opinion of her has been tarnished. And I see her rose or cava or whatever it is at the liquor store and I’m even like… that can’t possibly be good. I am not a woman in the film industry and I really wanted to like her in the past but she’s pretty shallow. Her films are visually pretty and star talented people but I’m not even sure how much of that is her and how much of that is just excellent cinematography and artistic direction.
For the 1000000000001th time, I’m not going to support a female director if her feminism only includes white women. Also lol at her ‘I’ve never studied film’. We know that Sofia, because you are the product of nepotism and never needed to study for anything in your life.
but if she made a movie about race you’d be mad because a rich white woman is making movies about race.
Well that’s a ridiculous assumption to make, Ruth.
Including one black character who was already in there is not “making a movie about race” but what a stupid comment in many ways. It’s amazing that one short & incorrect sentence can be clueless & offensive in so many ways. It also shows the poster’s chip on their shoulder like a lighthouse.
Very untrue and very unfair. What are you playing at?
@Ruth, what a truly ridiculous statement.
Why are you assuming any movie that has non white women in it would be about race?
That’s pretty racist.
The real sign of progress is having diverse representations that aren’t a statement on diverse representations. When I’m sitting in meetings at work, no one does a roll call of the demographics present. We discuss work. Why don’t movies accurately depict that reality?
My God, Ruth. Way to get off subject! This is a very pale white woman making a film about other very pale white women. It’s a freaking outrage !!
She made a film about the Antebellum south and as a director, a story teller, opted to wipe out the fundamental foundation of southern society. If she felt that she was too ignorant on the subject of Slavery and the treatment of black slave women during the time, then all Sofia had to do was pick-up a book. Instead, she opted to ignore a major centerpiece of societal life. It’s like Brian Cooglar writing and directing a movie taking place in Nazi Germany and completely ignoring the plight of the Jews. It’s just lazy and from her explanation, cowardly. I would rather her do it wrong than act as if those damn southern women didn’t have black people serving them against their will. She is the epitome of out of touch. For this woman to say that she did not benefit from her father is laughable and sad. I mean really, she was the worst part of God Father III.
Agree with Kate. Intersectionality is key. We have to get to equality together or we will not get there.
Thank god there are so many amazing up-and-coming female directors who have studied film and intersectional feminism! Soon all of these socially privileged and clueless industry people will be replaced
Well female director are not very common and I for one want many more of them so I am not going to nitpick everything they do and say. I may not agree with everything Sofia does but I celebrate another female director.
+1 The uproar on the fact that Sofia never heard of the Bechdel Test is the dumbest complaint I heard from women.
Does she need to be good representation?
No, she doesn’t. She isn’t selling herself as the world’s greatest feminist. She is selling herself as a director who makes movies that are interesting to her.
That’s partly what I took from this as well. Also slight hint of annoyance from her which is justified imo. She made a film, she cares about her work, she works hard (her words, i’m not assessing that) and this interview is disrespecting that all over the place.
I read it as coming from this place for Sofia – this is her work, her film in her vision and message she wanted to focus on and her reasons for same.
Fair enough. Yet as a woman of substantial privilege, it would be nice if she showed some curiosity about stories outside her pale circles.
She doesn’t owe anyone anything.
But we’ve all got gifts & opportunities to make the world better, or to push our understanding toward greater truths, or to lift up voices that have been silenced. I personally see that as my responsibility as an artist and a human being in a broken world – to be true to my calling and push my work toward a greater good, even when it’s hard. Even when I’m outside my comfort zone. Even when I have to read and research experiences I’ve never had, will never have.
Race is hands down the biggest social issue this country is dealing with. If she chooses to ignore that in her work, she’s wasting an enormous opportunity afforded by her rare privilege. Especially in a story set during the Civil War era. She could have found a way to include the character of color. Choosing not to speaks volumes about what’s normative and important to her.
I’m not a director, I’ve never studied film or done any acting aside from high school drama classes, and I know what the Bechdel test is. She honestly sounds quite vapid…”I never thought about that…I’ve never heard of that…I don’t know why…”
Like Alix’ comment implied, she’s clueless.
Do you think that she really wants to work with Eddie Murphy or she is just saying that to be “quirky” or because she was called out for not having diverse representation in her films? I don’t know why I am asking you…sheesh, now I sound like her.
LOL it’s okay, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe it’s true, but who knows? I mean, she did work with Bill Murray so why not Eddie Murphy?
Ha ha!! I am thinking that Bill Murray has hipster cred but Eddie Murphy doesn’t, and he certainly has less goodwill directed towards him than Bill does. Of course, that’s because a lot of Eddie’s mess has been made public unlike Bill’s.
It comes across like blatant signalling to me, like “look how open minded/diverse minded I am!”, a bit like the way some (usually white) people fancast Idris Elba or Riz Ahmed for everything because they’re the only poc actors they can name.
She has been consistently making movies for over twenty years. She is actually the only female director with such constant work and make no mistake, the fact that she sprung from the loins of the father of modern cinema (Francis Ford Copolla) is getting her work. She has less trouble getting financing than her ex Spike Jonze precisely because studio heads feel like they are dealing with their childhood hero. Its the closest thing to dealing with the real man. Anyway, the point is that if she wanted Eddie Murphy, she would have already written the script and reached out to him. She knows she is known for her clueless waspy blondes and so she picked a name to massage her image.
This interview just confirms my opinion from the last Coppola post that the reason she focuses on a singular narrow topic and one race again and again is because she is limited in imagination, complexity and curiosity. She is more a visual artist going for a certain mood, which is fine-there are some male directors whose talents is also limited to visuals.
The problem is when she goes on to state that her films are representing universal or relatable themes of womanhood.
I’ve never paid proper attention to her beyond loving VIRGIN SUICIDES and being aware that she was a media darling. This is the first time i’m really paying attention to her press and i’m negatively surprised.
Regarding her ‘art’, i’ve always thought it was insubstantial and samey, but not something worth running her out of town. It’s her thing and her expression.
What’s surprised me about her interviews is the singular lack of curiosity despite her background surrounded by artists. Especially artists that have such strong expressions of art from her father to her husband to her friends.
Her interviews reveal and confirm that the insubstantial, very narrow art of her films is a perfect reflection of her.
She’s a reflection of nepotism in a bad way. By this i mean that her films are financed and produced by her father and her father’s company so she gets away with this lazy, insubstantial art because she never has to worry about her films selling out and the people dealing with her ie studio execs and festival jurors are sucking upto her because she’s a Coppolla and they’ve convinced themselves that she must be good.
I too never paid much attention to her before, but I’m negatively surprised too. Agree with everything you’ve said TC & LAK.
Isn’t that Marie Antoinette movie her doing? That’s a fun movie, a silly teen drama with great costumes, but not exactly great art.
Agreed, I never saw a great intellectual curiosity there, nor a broad interest in the world around her. That doesn’t mean what she does isn’t good, but I would say her range is limited as a director in the same way I would describe the limitations of an actor.
She is not versatile.
@Bettyrose- Yes, she did Marie Antoinette with Kristen Dunst. I was surprised by how much I liked that film. I loved the Virgin Suicides as well. Hated Lost in Translation though.
This is an excellent conversation. I honestly had never heard of the B test either. In fact, before I read CB I’d never thought about feminism. After I escaped difficult marriage, I did training for survivors of domestic violence and was introduced to the idea of gender identity by a college girl. I’m so grateful for the “woke” feeling- as the sole parent of two boys, when I learn, I teach them!
She looks like Brandi Glanville pre-fillers and other work.
I think the criticism of Sofia seems harsher because it’s something that happens when a group is underrepresented. If a white male director is clueless, no worries-there are plenty of others you can back and support. One white, generically attractive Chris says something silly? There are 36 other ones you can still like and relate to. When it comes to women and people of colour, we want the few we have to represent us well. They’re all we have. When one of them sounds vapid, they don’t disappear in a sea of other people-they stand out. And maybe we expect more from women and people of colour-especially when when they’re talking about representation and diversity.
That having been said-I am a lot more likely to ‘cancel’ people these days. I just have so little patience. Particularly with her previous comment on the lack of diversity in her film. I can’t say I have watched anything she has done, and she hasn’t really been on my radar, but this press tour hasn’t done her any favours. Representation needs to be intersectional.
That’s really true about Chris’s. I dislike that GotG guy but love Pine.
“white, generically attractive Chris…”<–😂😂
Can we remember for a second that although I admit she’s a decent director she didn’t have to break through industry barriers because she’s the daughter of the greatest director of all time. Francis Ford Coppola. That totally gives context to all the privilege oozing out of her.
Yep. Nepotism is nepotism – even if the individual ends up being competent at the job.
Amen. She was raised in a bubble, and clearly still lives and works in one. Celebrating her for succeeding as a woman director feels a bit like celebrating Ivanka Trump for succeeding as a businesswoman.
There are better female directors that are not at her level fame-wise, but surpass her talent-wise. Nepotism got her this far. Just own it. I got the impression was was half admitting that, but then backtracked.
And maybe she can only gold a place in the boys club because they allow it. She plays ball. Not a threat. Sort of ignorant to many factors of film and story telling. Guys do what they please. Women stick to telling these “feminist” stories and rarely deviate.
But, I don’t care for her.
Her father finances her films so she’s not out there struggling to find financing and needing her films to be hits otherwise she loses future prospects.
I guess the “great film education” she is talking about stems from her growing up with one of Hollywood’s greatest directors as her dad and being surrounded by all his friends and their family — which isn’t the classic “film education” as in “I went to school and got into debt for this”… although the Bechdel test isn’t a film school thing?
I don’t know. I don’t speak stupid so I can only guess.
But you would think that just because she didn’t go to film school but learned by watching her father & his friends that she would be more educated than what she gives off. She had direct first hand experience and it doesn’t seem to be showing. But then again, that could also be a reflection of the influences around her.
I’m surprised her father didn’t encourage her to study film to broaden her understanding of the details and history and fill in the many inevitable gaps when you really are just observing certain directors, no matter how good they were.
I’ve never heard of it either, but I’m not a director.
I’d also argue that staying “I guess I’ve never studied film” doesn’t negate any education she gained through her own experience or even from her father. You can be educated on a subject without formally studying.
I aggree about the education.
Problem is it seems she was very sheltered and never took opportunities to see beyond cinema from daddy and his friends from the old hollywood and fashion from mummy haute couture closet.
She worked as a trainee at…. Chanel.
Her world perception is very narrow, she s a rich hipster.
She may have high culture (she has directed la traviata opera with valentino design) but without imagination or reflexion about it.
It’s weird to see her father has explored a lot of subjects and universes in his filmography (Vietnam war, the black side of american dream, etc.) , when she is stuck in an repetitive vapid aryan bourgeois esthetism and moral.
I think this is the greatest surprise.
Her complete lack of curiosity about art in general and film specifically and the art of story telling via both mediums despite the artists in her orbit from her own relatives to friends to husband.
And yet people keep throwing opportunities at her and applaud her for the aneamic results.
It’s normal to feel ambivalent about her. I do too, at the same time I’m glad that a female director with a lot of creative control over her projects is enjoying success. However this doesn’t change the fact that Coppola is at this point in her carrer in great part because of nepotism and we see again with what she chooses to put in her movie that she isn’t really here for universal stories about women on screen. Now, I think it’s interesting to see that this time the lack of diversity in her female characters is part of the discussion.
Well, her films pass the Bechdel Test. Which shows that she added it in naturally instead of ticking off a checklist on an assignment, which I feel happens a lot these days. I even understand the exclusion of the slave character – it’s not her style to handle these topics and I for one would appreciate if more directors stayed in their lane. But I do understand that all white casts in 2017 are not a good look. As for the studied film/film education comments – I think she meant that her film education was her father screening so many classic movies for the family when she was younger (which she has said in other interviews) and by ‘never studied film’ meaning she has never enrolled on an actual course about films.
There was an element of disdain on the part of the interviewer that made me cringe a bit. That writer went in with an agenda.
I agree, Birdix. The questions the interviewer asked, and the way that they were posed showed that he was definitely not a fan–and was inclined to be critical of her.
Nah, I won’t cancel her at all if she makes movies I actually want to see.
I read the “oh i guess I never studied film” as a joke.
And also I wish everyone gave Sofia Coppola a break. This reminds me of the Mindy Kaling conversation – when a woman is in charge, all of a sudden the films they make have to speak to everyone, include everything and everyone, represent all women and all minorities and also they must pass every feminist test there ever was. I think it was great they were asked about diversity issues, perhaps they will learn something and do things differently in the future, so let’s also give people the chance to grow.
Yes, their movies are not perfect. They are not 100% aware of everything and sometimes they even sound ignorant about certain topics. But I also think we can sometimes support women and NOT demand them to be perfect and understand everything. We are so much harsher to women than men!
this makes sense to me , Eva. I may be biased as I love mindy and enjoyed the Coppola movies that I’ve seen. Can’t wait for the last season of TMP
I can agree with this, while still finding it odd she’s never heard of the Bechdel test. Pretty damn clueless–I guess they do spend a lot of time talking about men in this, ugh.
Yes.
wrong thread
I totally agree with this, and when I was talking about it with a friend we also brought up the Mindy Kaling ‘controversy’ a couple of years back.
I love Sofia Coppola’s work, and I admit that her characters are consistently privileged, blonde, waif-like white women — but I really agree with what Ira Madison III said today on The Daily Beast about directors like her staying in her lane, and how that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Can you imagine the backlash if the one black character she’s had in her movies was a slave? And do we really want Sofia Coppola, queen of white ladies laying around in fields, to explore race and slavery in the Civil War? I feel like she would have experienced backlash regardless of what she did, and I’m surprised more people aren’t more recognising of that.
It just seems like we’ve collectively decided that we’re going to dump on Sofia Coppola this month, in the same way that we all dumped on Emma Watson two months ago, or how we all dumped on Anne Hathaway all those years ago. We spend so much of our time condemning women that ultimately have a lot of agency and power in the industry, but largely ignore privileged white men who barely feature women in their films, let alone non-white faces. I’m glad the Jurassic World guy (Colin Trevorrow?) is getting a lot of heat lately, but criticism of somebody like him is still sadly an anomaly in film discourse right now.
I don’t see why she’d be criticized for having a black slave character in a film that takes place during the Civil War. Especially, when the character is in the book that the film is based on. Now, if she were to write a present day film in which the only woc were maids, I could see that rubbing some people the wrong way.
I think Sofia has the right to make the type of films that she wants. However, I disagree with the notion that she’s only criticized, because she’s a woman. There are plenty of male celebrities who are criticized, sometimes for very trivial reasons. Just look at the recent posts about Ansel Elgort. As far as I can tell he’s a harmless young lad who hasn’t done or said anything offensive, but seems to rile people up for some reason.
And personally I think I’d actually be more turned-off if she were a man, and all of women in her films were pale, blond waifs.
I could careless about white female writers writing for people of color. Just give Ava DuVerany
and other women of color the same consideration as they do the Sofias and Katherine Bigelows of the world and all will be right. My issue is that she completely erased a major part of societal life in the South because she is lazy, incurious, and unwilling to put herself out there to learn something new. It’s just crazy to me. In the Beguiled, who is cooking all those white women food? Who is washing those beautiful dresses so they can sit and fan themselves all day? Who is dusting their lovely furniture? All those white women in 1800s south? Give me a break.
I cancel her for making a movie that looks like a snooze fest in the trailer alone. I can’t really tell any of the actresses apart in group scenes.
I’ve never heard of the Bechdel test either. And yes while gender equality is a long hard slog, why is this the sort of question that only gets directed towards women?
There are times that frankly, the “media darling issue of the day” (in the sense of what gets lines in the press) gets used as a means of diminishing people. Here, it’s a female director “not doing enough” but her male colleagues won’t be asked the same question or shaded for not “doing enough” because they get a pass for being men. And I’m sorry but applying one standard to female directors for an issue or cause while giving a pass to the 99.9% of male directors on the same cause/issue is the exact opposite of gender equality. I’m so tired of seeing women being held to a standard that is leagues above what their male colleagues get held to, and the issues for which they actually represent a success being used as a means to demolish them.
Thank you, Felicia.
Everything you said.
I don’t think it’s because she’s female but because of the nepotism issue.
Good point. Do her father’s films pass the Bechdel test?
Do female characters even have conversations with each other in his films?
Nah give her all the shit she deserves. She was born into privilege and her father put her in the God Father for FSakes!! She was horrendous in that movie and basically because of her father and last name has been given what many other directors [male and female] have to fight for. She is the epitome of rich white woman privilege and she does not represent feminism. F*c her and her wealthy ass ignorance.
Never heard of that test before :p
Some women are men in tits clothing.
Frequently women who succeed in a male dominated space ascribe to the same ideology they do. They are more “man” than the men.
She’s too old to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to lack of introspection. Lorde I’ll forgive, but this woman is over 30. At least show some passing recognition of your privelege. Not ‘Guess I didn’t study film” juxtaposed with “I worked really hard and grew up in the film environment”.
In fact she is already mid-forty…. so no benefit of doubt.
Is that a test that is actually taught in film school? It never struck me as something that was part of the actual theory that people study when in film school.
Honestly, I thought it was a term that came of age on the internet. I could be wrong, of course.
If spend a lot of time on the internet like me, I can see how you would know what it is, but if you’re working on projects and travelling, I could see how the term wouldn’t really enter your consciousness.
I know what the test is because I’ve seen people talk about it on Facebook, but I could also see myself blanking on the name of it at an inopportune time. I wonder if she knows of it tangentially from her friends’ Instagram feeds, but the name escaped her.
This isn’t to say that she sounds extremely articulate in general, but I could kind of see how she wouldn’t know what that test is even if she is a director. I seriously thought that term was the product of people’s discussing stuff on the internet. I could see male professors of directing not bothering to discuss a term like that in their classes.
The term comes from a graphic novel by the great queer artist Allison Bechdel. Two characters have this conversation about women in film. It was never an actual “test” It is a good tool for discussing films. This is my daughter’s area of expertise, Gender and Queer Studies. I am an academic and learned the term about 3 years ago when a younger colleague berated me for not knowing. My little girl then explained the origin starting with, “Oh, Mommy, it did not start as an actual test.” Then she explained. Sorry to be so long winded.
I studied film in college. It was actually my first major before I decided it was too bloody a field and switched to military history. The Bechdel test was never discussed in any of those classes, including a class dedicated to females in film. Third ginger is right in that it was never meant to be an actually test but to open dialogue about women in film. There are a lot of films that don’t “pass” the test but still have strong (and in some cases, iconic) female characters. The last Harry Potter movie, the one where Hermonie pretty much saves Harry and Ron every five minutes, fails. The entire original Star Wars movies fail and they gave us Princess Lea. The first Avengers movie with Black Widow and Maria Hill kicking ass and not bickering about petty crap like the male characters, failed. And the most ironic movie that fail…….drum roll, please……. Run Lola Run. A movie centered around a female character who is complex and intriguing but because she doesn’t interact with another female, it fails the test. You know what did pass? How to Lose a Guy in 10 days
I liked her more when I just saw her films and didn’t read any interviews. Same goes for almost any director tbh. Kinda better with actors though which is surprising because I’d expect actors to be less about the depth and more about appearances, entertaining the crowd etc. Maybe it’s just that actors also make an effort to learn how to give an entertaining interview
Is this a test that’s in film theory or a pop culture test? If it’s the latter I dont think it’s that bad. Coppola has never tried to sell herself as a feminist icon. She’s an art house director that’s heavily influenced by ( male) European directors. In my opnion the more women in leading positions the better, and it shouldn’t be a request that all female movie directors are feminists should be room for everyone from Jane campion to Coppola to Ava. I mean I like them too all be woke but why are we holding women to such high standards and men not so much?
In the movies as in politics, the Donald’s and bernies get away with so much more than the Hilary’s and pelosi’s.
See my comment above. Not an actual test that became “a test.”
The Bechdel test is flawed. The Bechdel test would permit that actresses would get parts in romantic love comedies only and as long as those romantic comedies contain two (unimportant) female characters talking about anything but men in a very short conversation then according to the Bechdel test: it is a pass.
But look at the flaws in that description:
– actresses get parts only in romantic comedies
– conversation not-about-men doesn’t need to be meaningful nor does it have to be between female protagonists
This is quantity before quality.
I would like a sharpened Bechdel test in which female protagonists talk to each other about the same topic as male characters and that topic and that conversation must play an important part in the movie.
This may be a good place to remind, because I’m seeing a lot of “the only female director” here or other phrasings that imply there are, like, 10 working female directors in the whole universe and they’re all in Hollywood: there’s a world of filmmaking beyond US shores and it would be awesome if people could qualify their statements in a way that doesn’t erase the work of amazing artists appreciated by so many. Directors like Claire Denis and Catherine Breillat and Agnes Varda and Chantal Akerman (to name just some women working/who recently worked in French-language cinema alone) are great examples of workhorse superstar female directors with buckets of influence on other filmmakers, great critical regard, and international followings. If folks are feeling depressed about lack of (granted, white female directors), it helps to dive into their filmographies and just glory/bask/delight in them.
As for Sofia… I can happily scupper any of her Dunst movies, but I will love Lost in Translation for ever, for mood alone.
Success by nepotism. Carry on.
Typical Hollywood nepotism; not smart and marginally talented but sucessful due to her DNA.
She’s cancelled, as far as I’m concerned. The way she explains her choices and then not knowing the Bechdel Test?
I’m done.
Sophia Coppola made the movie she wanted. It’s really sad that she left out a female character of colour but as someone of colour I am not surprised. I was considering watching this movie but now that I know this I won’t be.
I guess she’s just trying to say that she never formally studied film like in college or whatever. But growing up on sets probably gave her an education sort to speak on how to make films.
Does she predominately live in America? Cause I could understand not recognizing more “american” terms if she doesnt live there.
Yes, of course, I support female directors, but just the ones whose ideas and vision of the world are the same as mines. Sorry, but this is not feminism, this is fascism. She is an author, authors express their very personal concerns and reflections through their work, you can’t ask them to choose or to defend a particular point of view just because you consider it important or right. You can agree or not with them, but it is not their work to please you.
A female director starts to make a name for herself in a male dominated industry and the knives are out. What a surprise.
Don’t yell at me for this but wouldn’t it have been amazing if a WOC was cast as one of the leads? Imagine the conversations if Lupita or Halle had been cast alongside Nicole and Elle. I mean, it’s all acting, right? It’s not like Jessica Chastain has any real experience in playing an astronaut or Nicole Kidman playing a southern belle. I just think that would have been an amazing choice if Coppola was really wanting to make a statement.
If she wanted to ignore slavery as a hole, I would’ve preferred some sort of statement like her opting to put a woman of color as one of the ladies. Can you imagine seeing a black women, like Lupita, in beautiful Antebellum dressing? That’s why I loved the movie Belle. I got a chance to see a woman of color, like GuGu, dressed gorgeous silk gowns of the time. No rags, no dirt, just beauty for a change. She would have been criticized by some, but I truly believe it would have been moving and more impactful than just ignoring slavery. It happened. Those beautiful white women had enslaved people taking care of them.
I had no idea what the Bechdel test was before I read this but now that I do I think it’s appalling that she, as a director purporting to be “feminist”, doesn’t. I’ve seen a few of her films and I’m just a layman and not good at analyzing films so I wonder in what way are her films “feminist”? Just because she is a woman making movies about women – is that really enough to be considered a feminist director in the US? How can this movie be considered a feminist movie if it “struggles to pass the Bechdel test” as the interviewer claims above? Just asking, truly am curious about this.
Feminism is supposed to be fighting for women to be treated equally to men. Like – females being a lead of a movie. Which this film has. SO yeah, I guess it could be called feminist.
Every movie where females appear as more than servants or cumbuckets seems to be deemed feminist these days, I dunno.
It’s weird that she doesn’t know what a Bechdel Test is, but then again, maybe Sofia is one of those artsy filmmakers that care nothing about the industry and know little about it, because they have no trouble getting their movies made thanks to their standing.
That being said, the Bechdel test is a very flawed system to evaluate the standing of women in a film.