Quote

It's weird, because American films in the 1930s and '40s, particularly melodramas, were made for woman, from Bette Davis to Joan Crawford to Barbara Stanwyck to Katherine Hepburn, and for some reason we've taken a step backward in this sense.

What bugs me is that movies don't reflect how interesting and vibrant women are. We don't treasure women as they get older.

I've always had a thing for old movies, old Hollywood. I've always just loved watching Marilyn Monroe and Greta Garbo. In all of those old movies from the '40s and '50s, women put themselves together so well, with a little bit of drama and elegance. That was fascinating to me growing up.

When I was a kid, I thought movie stars were women and men who were in these great films that we still look at now. But I don't think there are too many films coming out these days that we're going to look at in the future and say, 'This is one of the great ones.'

The cool thing is that, unlike film, the theatre roles for women get better and better as you get older.

In the olden days, a couple could be in every movie together, but it's just not like that anymore.

It's rare to see women in a film who are not somehow validated by a male or discussing a male or heartbroken by a male,or end up being happy because of a male. It's interesting to think about, and it's very true.

You know how few movies there are in the world about women and their work? I mean, it's like 'Silkwood' and 'Erin Brokovich.' There are exceptions, but they are so exceptional.

I don't feel like my films are about gender; they are about identity - but a different slant on identity.

Our distorted media culture sees men as subjects and women as objects; in films, Woody Allen gets older and older and still dates 20-year-old babes; movies about women are called 'chick flicks,' and men make fun of them.