This isn't exactly NEW news, but as I've been researching some stats on the issue of the gender disparity in behind-the-camera film-making roles, it's really begun to resonate with me - that the same statistics persist YEAR after YEAR after YEAR and that the issue gets so little media airtime is -- or should be -- shocking.
What's the issue?
When it comes to film, there's still a thick, bulletproof, shatter-resistant glass ceiling.
It's been deemed the "Celluloid Ceiling" by those in the industry. As soon as you step behind the camera, the ratio of men to women working in film is staggering. Let's look at some statistics:
According to an annual study titled "The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2010,”conducted by San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Films, "women make up more than 50 percent of the U.S. population but they made up a mere 7 percent of directors of major motion pictures in 2010...only 16 percent of all movie directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors in major films -- 1 percent below the 1998 figure and the same as it was in 2009."
An LA Times article about the same phenomenon summarized the situation by saying "A woman is more likely to hold a seat on a Fortune 500 company board (15%), serve as a member of the clergy (15%) or work as an aerospace engineer (10%) than she is to direct a Hollywood movie (7%)."
The persistence of this disparity is pretty startling as well. Women are simply not making inroads into film-making. In fact - to the opposite extreme, we're actually losing ground. Consider this statistic from the study: "the percentage of women directing major movies declined from 9 percent in 1998 to 7 percent in 2009 and 2010. Women comprised 2 percent of all cinematographers, 10 percent of all writers, 15 percent of all executive producers, 18 percent of all editors and 24 percent of all producers in 2010."
Following Kathryn Bigelow's 2010 Academy Award for her work directing "The Hurt Locker," there was some buzz in the industry about "The Bigelow Effect," optimistic that a watershed win for one woman would open doors for others languishing in obscurity. According to Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, Bigelow's win "affected [her] career, but we're not at that point where there's a halo effect that reaches out to other women."
Put another way, Melissa Silverstein, who co-founded the Athena Film Festival to celebrate women's leadership in film chatted with the LA Times and observed that "if this were a Fortune 500 company and they looked at these statistics, they would have a diversity committee working on this immediately. How could you have a company in the 21st century and less than 10% of its leaders are women?"
Martha Lauzen said it beautifully in the same LA times article: "I don't think people know when they walk into a theater that nine out of 10 times they'll see a film by a male director It's not just an employment issue for women, it's a cultural one for all of us. Movies make a difference in how we see the world and how we see certain groups of people. These are the architects of our culture."
I got involved in a discussion on an article I found on the website "The Wrap" that dealt with the fact that the ceiling, in the movie-making industry, seems to be lifting higher and higher. It cited a handful of female directors such as Lisa Cholodenko, director of “The Kids Are All Right,” along with Nora Ephron, director of "Julie and Julia," "You've Got Mail," and "Sleepless in Seattle," and Sofia Coppola as women who have made films that were very well-received in Hollywood. But one commenter on the site said this:
"Maybe stop reporting on this same old superficial women in film story and start reporting more on qualified women directors. I saw this on twitter -- this article runs about the same time every year in newspapers. Look into Jessica Stover or Lena Dunham. Ones actually making good work or even innovating the business. Some are blatant in interviews about avoiding hollywood period because it's sexist -- where's that interview? Riding hood looks terrible not exactly a shining example neither was twilight. why not hire some of the more ballsy burgeoning female directors to write here even? the old guard is too entrenched in the system and the media is sexist at higher career levels. you have the choice on what you report and repeat -- I agree with [previous commenter]. writing about these films and directors would have more improvement than writing this same old story."
Something about that attitude didn't quite settle with me. I responded with this:
"On the one hand, I'm tempted to agree with you. Simply posting stats and bemoaning the numbers does little to create much awareness or instigate much change - BUT - on the flip side, a glut of stories about fantastic, cutting edge, and forward-thinking females in film-making would sort of feel like tossing a sheet over the very same stats - fact is, in "corporate Hollywood" there is still a huge gender disparity.
I'd love to read about successful women filmmakers as much as the next girl, but there's something to be said for bringing attention to the numbers game -- even if by rehashing statistics that haven't changed much -- that drives the point home: women aren't snagging those roles in the same proportion as men - and a handful of interesting pieces that glamorize the few who do still isn't going to shift the balance of power....."
This situation seems to me rather like a cancer, poisoning womens' fight for true equity in the workplace.
I love movies - I really, absolutely love them. I'd love to participate in making movies -- writing them, directing them, you name it - but to read anecdotes like this one from Catherine Hardwicke, director of the Twilight franchise, it could be a painful, uphill battle. Hardwicke wanted to direct the film "The Fighter," but recounts the fact that she "couldn't get an interview even though [her] last movie made $400 million." In her words, "I was told it had to be directed by a man -- am I crazy? It's about action, it's about boxing, so a man has to direct it ... But they'll let a man direct "Sex in the City" or any girly movie you've ever heard of."
I may pick this up again later and look at an interview with Martha Lauzen where she talks very candidly about some of these statistics.
For now, I'll stand firm in my resolve to recruit my sister and become the girl-version of the Coen brothers. We can do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment