×
You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

It’s Time for Action, Not Promises, to Get More Women in Filmmaking (Guest Column)

In recent months, media accounts of sexual harassment scandals and eye-popping pay disparities have given way to stories about “tectonic” shifts in the film industry. The sheer volume and often contradictory nature of the coverage on the issue of women working in film have created the simultaneous feelings that everything has changed and nothing has changed.

An ad campaign for Rolex watches touts Kathryn Bigelow as one of the “masters of cinema,” yet she is the only woman to have ever won a director Oscar. A help line now exists for those who have been sexually harassed, yet the fate of many high-profile offenders remains undecided. Representatives of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which has issued charges of gender discrimination against the big studios — continue to negotiate with executives, but there is no (public) word of a resolution.

In the midst of this uncertainty, one reality remains clear. The percentages of women working in film have yet to budge in any meaningful way. In fact, the ratio of individuals working in key behind-the-scenes roles in 2017 was almost exactly the same as it was two decades ago. Women comprised just 18% of individuals working as directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors and cinematographers on the top-grossing 250 domestic films of 2017, an increase of a slender percentage point from 17% in 1998. One percent of films employed 10 or more women in the above roles and 70% employed 10 or more men in those roles, according to the latest “Celluloid Ceiling” study conducted by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film.

Women accounted for 11% of directors on top-grossing films, and while this number represents an increase of 4 percentage points from 7% in 2016, it is not unfamiliar territory: In 2000, women comprised 11% of directors, but the successes of Mimi Leder (“Pay It Forward”), Bonnie Hunt (“Return to Me”), Gina Prince-Bythewood (“Love & Basketball”) and Mary Harron (“American Psycho”), among others during that year, failed to translate into more opportunities for women. This comes as no surprise in a business culture that has considered every success by a woman to be a fluke and every triumph a one-off.

On-screen, the numbers tell a similar story. Females made up 24% of protagonists in 2017, a decrease of 5 percentage points from 29% in 2016. Female characters also remain heavily stereotyped — they are younger than their male counterparts and more likely to have goals related to their personal rather than professional lives.

The lived female experience in the film industry remains clearly at odds with the mounting dialogue touting a new and improved era for women. At this year’s Golden Globes, Oprah proclaimed, “A new day is on the horizon.” Though few speakers can deliver such a line with as much conviction as Ms. Winfrey, this platitude has been offered as a salve for the chronic underemployment of women in film for decades. How often has some industry executive enthused, “Change is just around the corner,” or that the high-profile success of some new film or director will “change everything”? Back in 2010, media reports gushed about the Bigelow Effect, suggesting that the director’s Oscar wins for “The Hurt Locker” would immediately and substantially change gender hiring patterns. Now it seems that industry observers and insiders are hanging their hopes on the efforts of newly minted groups such as Time’s Up and the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace.

The problem with promises of some better future is that they rarely transform into actual change. The reality is that those who have the will to act typically do so in the present. Just ask Ryan Murphy and Ava DuVernay, who recognized the need for and opportunity provided by greater inclusion, and instituted more equitable hiring practices within their own spheres of influence at a previously unheard-of pace. Through Murphy’s Half Initiative, his production company achieved parity in hiring women and minorities within a single year. DuVernay hired only women to direct episodes of the television drama “Queen Sugar” in Seasons 1 and 2. These creators refused to wait for that uncertain future and willed the indefinite “new day” into the concrete and immediate now.

While these examples come from the world of television, they prove that change needn’t be incremental or occur at a glacial pace. They are part of a high-profile, but sadly small, minority. The future has proven to be a promise without a payoff for women working in film, an empty bromide providing comfort while ensuring seemingly endless lost generations of women filmmakers. I hope Oprah is right but fear she is not.

Dr. Martha M. Lauzen is the executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film and a professor of Television, Film & New Media at San Diego State University.

More Voices

  • FX Confronts Streaming Thanks to Disney

    Kicking and Screaming, FX Is Forced to Confront Future in the Stream (Column)

    During his network’s presentation at the winter Television Critics Assn. press tour, FX chief John Landgraf made waves — and headlines — by mounting perhaps his most direct criticism yet of Netflix. Landgraf, whose briefings to the press tend to rely heavily on data about the volume of shows with which FX’s competitors flood the [...]

  • Longtime TV Editor Recalls Working for

    How a Bad Director Can Spoil the Show (Guest Column)

    I have been blessed with editing some of TV’s greatest shows, working with some of the industry’s greatest minds. “The Wonder Years,” “Arrested Development,” “The Office,” “Scrubs,” “Pushing Daisies” and, most recently, “A Series of Unfortunate Events.” I have earned an Emmy, ACE Eddie Awards, and many nominations. But whatever kudos I’ve received, over my [...]

  • Stock market Stock buyback

    Stock Buybacks Leave Firms Without Funds to Invest in Future (Column)

    Corporate giants on the S&P 500 have spent more than $720 billion during the past year on stock buybacks. Media and entertainment firms account for only a fraction of that spending, but even $1 million spent on share repurchases seems a foolhardy expenditure at this transformational moment for the industry. The record level of spending [...]

  • Hollywood Has Come Far With Diversity

    An Insider's Look at Hollywood's Diversity Efforts and How Far It Still Needs to Go

    I am a white man working in Hollywood. I grew up in Beverlywood, an all-white, predominantly Jewish, Los Angeles neighborhood sandwiched between 20th Century Fox Studios and MGM, where my elementary school had only one black student. I am compelled to write about diversity in Hollywood because “diversity” — in front of and behind the camera [...]

  • Venice Film Festival A Star is

    How Venice, Toronto and Telluride Festivals Stole Cannes' Luster (Column)

    In all the years I’ve been attending film festivals, I have never seen a lineup that looked as good on paper as Venice’s did this fall, boasting new films by Alfonso Cuarón (“Roma”), Damien Chazelle (“First Man”), Paul Greengrass (“22 July”), Mike Leigh (“Peterloo”) and the Coen brothers (“The Ballad of Buster Scruggs”) in competition, [...]

  • Black Women in Medicine BTS

    Hollywood Needs to Include People With Disabilities on Both Sides of the Camera (Guest Column)

    In five years, nothing has changed. Despite open calls for greater diversity and inclusion, recent research shows that there was little change in the number of characters with disabilities in popular films in 2017. A study conducted by the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism found that [...]

More From Our Brands

Access exclusive content