Throughout 2023, Jo and I, along with our friend Audrey, ran a year-long “filmstagram” event called the Other Filmmakers Challenge. Participants were given prompts—like a film about family, or a film from India—and tried to find women-directed films to fit the designation. The hope starting out was to bring attention to trans and nonbinary directors, too, but this often proved more challenging than expected. At the end of the year, I sat down (virtually) with Jo to chat about the event, how it went, and what we hope people will take away from it as we head into 2024.
The following transcript has been edited for clarity.
Danny: So here we are, a little over a year after we came up with this Other Filmmakers Challenge. How do you feel now that it’s over?
Jo: Well, the perfectionist in me is unnecessarily enraged that I ended up not actually finishing the challenge (because of life). But at the same time, I’m still proud of how much the three of us, and others who joined in, were actually able to watch!
Danny: Absolutely! You’re in good company. I haven’t quite finished all the prompts yet, either, but after getting to a couple the last few days, and watching Petite Maman (Sciamma, 2021) right before we started talking, I think there are only three prompts left that I have to do.
Jo: Sadly, a little more for me. But I just checked now and I am torn between the emotions of, “Oh no, I missed 9 films!” and “27 films is actually still a good amount.”
Danny: If it makes you feel better, I was at 29 a mere 24 hours ago. So basically the same amount. But of the films you did watch, what would you say are the three best films you watched for this challenge?
Jo: Okay #1 was The Watermelon Woman (Dunye, 1996)- a long overdue watch.
Danny: Amazing film.
Jo: Absolutely. Should be a mandatory film school movie in my opinion.
Danny: Now that Criterion and Kanopy have made it so much more accessible, it might be!
Jo: I hope so! So glad its finally in the Criterion Collection! My #2 was one I think you recommended to me. Please Baby Please (Kramer, 2022).
Danny: I definitely did. I liked it, but it struck me as something you would love.
Jo: And you were right lol. Very campy and bizarre. #3 might be a tie if that’s allowed. Either Are You There God, It’s Me Margaret (Craig, 2023) (phenomenal adaptation of a book my mom read to me on the porch when I was 10) or Waitress (Shelly, 2007). Still underrated in my opinion. I think you’d love Waitress. It’s very fascinating. BUT now you have to share your Top 3 Watches!
Danny: Number one would be Mikey and Nicky (May, 1976). That was for the prompt of a movie addressed on Audrey’s podcast. With Peter Falk and John Cassavetes involved, I expected it would be good. I didn’t expect that I would finish it and think, “Is this the best American crime film of the 1970s?” And I think it might be.
Jo: I still have yet to see a single Elaine May film (and I can hear Audrey shaking her head at me in the distance…). But I guess I need to move it up in my watchlist.
Danny: I think you’d like A New Leaf.
Jo: A New Leaf (May, 1971) was my second choice for multiple prompts lol.
Danny: Number 2 is maybe cheating a little bit. I watched it in March, and then rewatched it for a prompt last July. It’s another film from an underrated woman director of the 1970s, Chilly Scenes of Winter (Silver, 1979).
Jo: I need to watch more Joan Micklin Silver films because the one I did watch—Crossing Delancey (Silver, 1988)—I enjoyed.
Danny: She’s become a favorite of mine. I watched a few of her films last year. Crossing Delancey was also great. Chilly Scenes of Winter is like this bleak mix of When Harry Met Sally (Reiner, 1989) and (500) Days of Summer (Webb, 2009) but without optimism. It’s a lot of kind of shitty people living kind of shitty lives and our main guy realizing it and trying to be better. It’s become an instant favorite of mine.
Jo: I am definitely intrigued by the concept of the main man trying to rectify his shitty behavior. I haven’t always seen that done well but Silver in charge gives me hope.
Danny: He’s not super successful at it. But progress is made. It’s a movie I had never ever remotely heard of until Criterion put it in the collection. I promise I’m not sponsored by them.
Jo: Just added it to my list! And you can’t convince me you’re not secretly sponsored by Criterion lol.
Danny: Yeah that’s fair. But I do want to fit in here somewhere that they’ve done an incredible job rediscovering and platforming women directed films, especially from previous decades.
Jo: I’m glad! Because even about a year ago they were lacking a bit. Still waiting for more queer stuff though (I want a whole New Queer Cinema collection lol). But your #3?
Danny: I watched a lot of movies that came out in 2023 that I definitely would have watched aside from this challenge–Priscilla (Coppola, 2023), Margaret, Fair Play (Domont, 2023)–so I want to do a tie at number 3 between a movie I definitely would have seen–Bottoms (Seligman, 2023)–and a movie I probably wouldn’t have watched aside from this challenge–La Ciénega (Martel, 2001).
Jo: Bottoms I ended up not using for the challenge, but we both already know how we feel about incredible masterpiece lol.
Danny: It was handily the most fun I had at a theater last year.
Jo: La Ciénega I think I heard of from another filmsta friend. It’s been on my radar but I don’t know much about it.
Danny: Well, I just watched it yesterday so might have mentioned it a few times between that prompt–way back in May!—and me finally getting my act together and watching it.
Jo: I’m seeing your 4.5 star Letterboxd log right now as I look it up lol.
Danny: And that was a conservative 4.5. I feel like how I felt when I first saw Lynne Ramsay’s Ratcatcher (1999) a couple years ago, which is a need to rewatch it very promptly and that, when I do, it could well move even higher up in my estimation. La Ciénega defies categorization or explanation. It’s one of those movies that fully taps into the rare magic of filmic art. You can’t even comprehend it in another medium.
Jo: Well now I REALLY have to watch it!
Danny: So as we keep thinking about favorite movies and whatnot, I’m curious if this intentional focus on women directed films changed the way you see or watch films. As I mentioned earlier, the challenge was based around prompts, and some of them–such as a woman-directed movie from India–were pretty tricky to fill. It was not a challenge one could do without a lot of effort and intentionality, so I’m curious how the whole process might have impacted the way you approach film, either these movies or films in general.
Jo: Well, I think it mostly just highlighted how hard it was to find them.
Danny: Absolutely! Do you recall the Oscar winner prompt? That was supposed to be women who had won an Oscar for directing, but that pool was SO SMALL that we had to broaden it out to women who have won an Oscar, and then this is a film they directed.
Jo: Yep, and this year’s nominees don’t promise much change.
Danny: They really don’t, especially as films like Priscilla (Coppola) and Margaret got brushed over completely.
Jo: Ugh, don’t even get me started on the Priscilla snubs. . .
Danny: It reminds me of Rocketman (Fletcher, 2019), vastly superior to Bohemian Rhapsody (Singer, 2018) a year before, as Priscilla is, for my money at least, superior to Elvis (Luhrmann, 2022), but completely ignored for reasons of sexism or queer phobia.
Jo: Listen I LOVE Baz Luhrmann (a concerning amount), but Priscilla is a much better film. I’d known the Oscars had not been good to women directors, but I hadn’t realized quite the extent to which that was true, at least in terms of winners.
Danny: Yeah, Priscilla checks off all the typical boxes (prominent, well-known director, biopic of ultra-famous star, incredible cinematography). But I guess it was ultimately too feminist for them (in that it told Priscilla’s story from her perspective).
Jo: Part of the reason why I had the idea for the challenge in the first place is because I already am naturally interested in films directed by women. Like my most anticipated films for any given year are often filled with female directors. But I wanted to expand out from just watching ultra-current Hollywood films. And you’re right, some were hard to find. But what I actually find most infuriating was that the challenge was supposed to be women, trans, and nonbinary directors. But, as hard as it was to find women, it was so much easier than finding trans/nonbinary directors. I think I only ended up watching 2 films from trans or nonbinary directors.
Danny: Now it’s my “don’t get me started” moment. Sundance 2023 was more or less headlined by several trans films, whether documentaries like The Stroll (Drucker and Lovell) and Kokomo City (D. Smith) or narrative features like Mutt (Lunglov-Klotz). But Mutt played in like 5 theaters and then took till late this fall to show up on Netflix. I still need to get to it.
Jo: YES! You just told me the other day those films are FINALLY available (I’ve been waiting to see them since last January).
Danny: The Stroll came out a while ago, but to zero fanfare and everyone missed it. This year there is considerable buzz around Jane Schoenbrun’s I Saw the TV Glow, my most anticipated film of the year. But a year ago, 2023 felt like it could be a watershed moment for trans film, and it was, but then it wasn’t due to distribution. I should also mention the documentary Every Body (Cohen), which also got completely ignored. It’s about intersex identities, and it’s really good. It was on Peacock last I checked (probably also on Amazon by now or soon).
Jo: Honestly, there was so much from Sundance last year that got screwed over by distribution. Still waiting for Fancy Dance (Tremblay) as well
Danny: And the fact that Fancy Dance, with icon of the moment Lily Gladstone, hasn’t yet been released is criminal. I will hold the Native Director spot open until it does.
Jo: I’m glad more Indigenous-directed films/shows (Native American, Mãori) are being made right now. But boy it is long overdue, still not enough, and still getting screwed (like Fancy Dance not coming out).
Danny: And while we’re on the subject of Sundance darlings getting screwed, The Persian Version (Keshavarz) was all the rage, finally came out in November, and then vanished in a blink. It was a great movie. More people should have seen it and should have been able to see it. Ditto for Polite Society (Manzoor), though that has sort of found a streaming audience.
Jo: Yeah, I often think about how I live in a big city and still have to race to the movies in order to see something in time. I don’t even remember The Persian Version being at the nearest theaters.
Danny: Before we wrap up, I do want to return briefly to the topic of how this challenge may have changed how we approach watching film. There’s often talk about the “female gaze,” and I welcome those discussions of movies like Portrait of a Lady on Fire (Sciamma, 2019), but I think they miss something. Take La Ciénega, just because it’s fresh in my mind. We open with a family around a dilapidated swimming pool. But the camera isn’t on faces. It’s all torsos and whatnot. It has no interest in give you “character,” it wants that character to fade into the landscape. There were other shots, too, where I just thought, “Yeah, there’s no way a straight white cis male director does this shot.” Do you find a similar intangible quality to women directed films?
Jo: To me the female gaze isn’t just about gazing at bodies. It’s about the absence of the male gaze and what women are more likely to gaze at (and by gaze in that scenario I mean look/emanine – so a topic as well as an object). So a shot like that feels less like “the female gaze” as in “direct opposite of male gaze,” but “the female gaze” as in “the absence of the male gaze.” As a male director is much more likely to add sex appeal, objectification, etc. into a shot like that.
Danny: As well as just a willingness to be subtle. It’s brilliant, but there’s no sense of “look at this brilliant thing I did.”
Jo: Yeah, there isn’t actually an emphasis on “looking.”
Danny: It’s a filmic language that genuinely has different priorities in mind.
Jo: Absolutely! This is why I’m excited for what you and Audrey have put together for this year’s challenge.
Danny: Nice transition.
Jo: Haha thanks. I think I am more familiar with the female (feminist?) filmic language, and a bit familiar with the queer one as well (given I am both a woman and queer and thus naturally seek out those films/directors), but I am not as familiar with filmic languages that break through race barriers. And I can’t wait to have a “challenge” that forces me to examine those as well! (Plus more queer films because there sadly aren’t a lot).
Danny: So as you hinted at, there is a version of the Other Filmmakers Challenge for 2024, this time focusing on Black and queer directors that, let’s face it, will still often be women.
Jo: That’s true, but at least our lists of films won’t be dominated by cis straight white American women who (while still clearly are underrepresented and have less opportunities than others) are better off than many other women and have more chances in the spotlight.
Danny: Definitely. So rather than have 3 prompts a month based on different regions or topics, we have basically one prompt a month based on genre. For February, the genre is romance and so to participate you watch any romance movie made by a Black director and then any romance movie centered on queer characters.
Jo: Is it queer characters or queer director?
Danny: That’s a good question. Sort of both? There are certainly some horrible representations of queer characters, but “queer film” is so much beyond just queer directors (many of which are probably not publicly known as such).
Jo: Yeah, finding 11 (Feb-Dec) queer directed films for 11 different genres is, sadly, hard. I might still try and do just that, but keyword is try lol (and I may have to rewatch some films to do it). And you make a great point about out-queer directors. Some directors just don’t have online presences or known lives. I’m not sure Amanda Kramer has said much about her identity. But Please Baby Please is still a queer film.
Danny: My internet friend Kyle Turner put out an amazing book The Queer Film Guide (2023) and while it has a lot of entries on super obviously queer movies like Pink Flamingoes (Waters, 1972) or But I’m a Cheerleader (Babbit, 1999), it also has entries about movies like Bringing Up Baby (Hawks, 1938) and Rope (Hitchcock, 1948).
Jo: Ooohhh that’s interesting. Rope was something I studied in my freshman year of college for a class called “Queer Horror” lol.
Danny: Because that’s queer theory! It’s just as interested, sometimes more interested, in things like Showgirls (Verhoeven, 1995) and Gentleman Prefer Blondes (Hawks, 1953).
Jo: Absolutely! But I do at the same time like to push for out-queer representation. Both are important so I like the open-ended nature of the challenge.
Danny: My goal with it is that people think more about what makes something a queer film. Bones and All (2022) is directed by Luca Guadino, a gay man, but even if you don’t know that, it’s super queer. It’s one of the most queer movies I’ve ever seen.
Jo: Cannibalism makes me violently ill, so I haven’t seen it, but I know what you’re talking about. I love when gay people make gay films that aren’t actually gay films but also are absolutely gay films.
Danny: There are times like with that, or The Owl House, where I just say, “Yeah, this movie is super queer, and I hope non-queer people will enjoy it, but also if you don’t, I don’t really care.” I’m just hoping to broaden people’s conception of queerness in film, get people thinking about it more.
Jo: And I am so absolutely ready for that.
Danny: The goal with the Black directors is the same. Last year I saw Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3 (Gunn) and was amazed to find that basically no reviews seemed to mention the fact that the super evil villain was the only obviously Black character in the film.
Jo: I’m behind on MCU (only seen one from 2023), but when you told me ALL the villains of this year’s MCU films were Black/mixed race, I was appalled that you were the first person I saw mention that.
Danny: And I don’t want to be the first person to mention it! There are people far better suited than me to make this point, but the point should be made. And whatever I can do to try and get people to pay more attention to racial dynamics in films–Black centric or otherwise–is a good thing.
Jo: Right on! We should all be thinking more about queer lenses and racial dynamics!
Danny: Absolutely. Do you have anything else to add as we wrap up?
Jo: I don’t think so! I actually haven’t eaten yet, so all I’m doing currently is listening to my stomach growl. A good sign to stop lol. But thank you for talking about this with me! I may not have “succeeded” at the challenge, but I’m glad I did it and I can’t wait to participate in this years!
Danny: And thank you for all the organization stuff you did all year! The only last thing I’d add is that in addition to the new challenge, we’re doing something called the Monthly Movie Ticket that highlights new films in theaters and streaming to see. Basically everything outside the straight cis white male box that Filmstagram loves to stay within. I’m hoping that can help diversify conversations to!
Jo: I love that idea!
Danny: I’m very excited about it, and for the year to come. Thanks again for joining, and here’s to an even better 2024!
Jo: Thanks again for having me! Here’s to 2024!
