Female representation in hollywood

[Jeyl]

Current statistics of Female Representation (Plus Racial Representation) in Hollywood presented by Matt Damon and Friends.

Matt Damon Interrupts Successful Black Woman Filmmaker to Explain Diversity to Her

 

[astroboy]

Geena davis:
In all of the sectors of society that still have a huge gender disparity, how long will it take to correct that? You can’t snap your fingers and suddenly half of Congress is women. But there’s one category where the underrepresentation of women can be fixed tomorrow: onscreen. In the time it takes to make a movie or create a television show, we can change what the future looks like.


Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Solo4114]

That's cool, but who's gonna bankroll it? I mean, as disappointing as it may be (and it certainly is to me, at times), Hollywood isn't about advancing social causes or creating great art. It's about making money. Wherever Hollywood, in the aggregate, thinks the dollars are, that's where it'll go to make movies.

Something else to consider is the increasingly international quality of filmmaking. With markets like China really opening up, Hollywood wants to give THEM what THEY want to see. The end result of this may actually be a slowing of female representation, because markets outside the U.S. may (A) not be as concerned with this issue, and (B) may even be turned off by female-centered films or depicting women in power in certain ways. Now, I'm just guessing here. I don't know about Chinese culture (or, indeed, if there is a single monolithic Chinese culture, as opposed to regional attitudes that affect tastes in film). But if you're trying to sell a film overseas, you structure it in a way that you think will most appeal to the audience. If that means women are taking a back seat or, when in dominant roles, are portrayed as the "tough b**ch" or whatever, then that's what Hollywood will do.

I'm not saying this is a good thing for women, or society in general. I'm saying it's something that is being driven by forces outside the realm of social consciousness (except insofar as that social consciousness ends up leading to increased purchasing power and market presence for women).


Hollywood's gonna go where the dollars are by whatever path it deems (rightly or wrongly) to be the shortest and easiest. One need look no further than the reboot industry for evidence of this fact.

 

[Axlotl]

Geena davis:
In all of the sectors of society that still have a huge gender disparity, how long will it take to correct that? You can’t snap your fingers and suddenly half of Congress is women. But there’s one category where the underrepresentation of women can be fixed tomorrow: onscreen. In the time it takes to make a movie or create a television show, we can change what the future looks like.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104694/

 

[dascoyne]

Geena davis:
In all of the sectors of society that still have a huge gender disparity, how long will it take to correct that? You can’t snap your fingers and suddenly half of Congress is women. But there’s one category where the underrepresentation of women can be fixed tomorrow: onscreen. In the time it takes to make a movie or create a television show, we can change what the future looks like.

Hollywood logic at its finest.

We elect members of Congress.

We don't vote on what films get made.

Expediency isn't the issue. Hollywood isn't a democracy.

 

[astroboy]

Hollywood logic at its finest.

We elect members of Congress.

We don't vote on what films get made.

Expediency isn't the issue. Hollywood isn't a democracy.

Considering that she's a prominent figure in hollywood, I'd say that she get's a voice.

Look at the acceptance and portrayal of Gay characters in hollywood. That didn't happen overnight by some free market executives. Will and Grace, Roseanne, Ellen,....these were all artistic endeavors that gradually reshaped things.

And they probably had a lot to do with the modern acceptance of homosexuality in society (compared to the late 90's when over 85% of americans opposed gay marriage)

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, but that also happened at least partially because Hollywood recognized that gay people represented a good market.

Here's my thought on this sort of thing. Hollywood is rarely a true "trend-setter" for these kinds of issues. It's not like Hollywood was responsible for breaking down racial barriers with Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Rather, Hollywood tends to reflect what's happening in the culture at the same time. It's reactive, rather than proactive, in most cases. SOMETIMES it's proactive, but most of the time, Hollywood caters to audiences, rather than tries to lead audiences TO this or that kind of entertainment.

 

[Riceball]

Considering that she's a prominent figure in hollywood, I'd say that she get's a voice.

Geena Davis a prominent voice? She hasn't been relevant in decades which is about when her last hit movie was and in Hollywood you're only as relevant as your last hit movie.

 

[astroboy]

Geena Davis a prominent voice? She hasn't been relevant in decades which is about when her last hit movie was and in Hollywood you're only as relevant as your last hit movie.

You don't have to have current hits to have a voice. Considering she was in a league of her own AND Thelma and Louise, I'd say she has a thing or two to say.

The fact is, any change regarding this is going to be voiced first by the women in Hollywood.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Solo4114]

None of this is to say that Davis isn't making a good point. I agree with her, actually. I just think her comments fall on....not exactly deaf ears, but rather the ears of people who are listening for other things. And I don't think that she's relevant the way she was, oh, 20 years ago. She's basically out of the game, it seems. Although that's partially due to issues in Hollywood with women in their 50s and 60s. Too old to play "hot", too young to play "grandma," at least by Hollywood standards.

Hollywood will pay attention to this sort of thing if it thinks there's a buck to be made. That said, frequent and widespread discussion of this topic, along with things like how often and widely it's repeated, retweeted, reblogged, whatever, gives an indication of how widespread support for the notion is....which in turn tells you whether there's a market there at all. After that comes the question of "But do we know how to sell to this market?" which, in turn, could lead to more female directors, writers, etc., as dudes in suits maybe recognize (especially after a few crappy attempts on their own) that they don't know how to sell to women as a demographic bloc (other than traditional romcoms/chick flicks).

I do think this will change, if only because society is changing anyway. I don't think Hollywood will lead the charge, although it may help to broaden the scope of the message, as it tends to do (eventually).

 

[Riceball]

You don't have to have current hits to have a voice. Considering she was in a league of her own AND Thelma and Louise, I'd say she has a thing or two to say.

The fact is, any change regarding this is going to be voiced first by the women in Hollywood.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

She may have a voice but no one's going to really listen to her because she's effectively irrelevant by Hollywood standards because she hasn't been in a hit movie in decades and she hasn't had the kind of track record that makes her a legend either. This applies to all actors and directors in Hollywood, you're only as good as your last movie and if you haven't had a successful movie in decades you tend to be quickly forgotten. The movie and television business is a very finicky one where you can be on top at one moment and a complete nobody, or has been the next.

 

[jlee562]

The whole Matt Damon thing brings another angle to this though.

While it's easy to compartmentalize the vastness of the studio system down to just "Hollywood," and say that "Hollywood" wants to do x,y, or z; we must also remember that "Hollywood" is (at least for the purposes of this thread) the collectivized actions largely of white males.

 

[dascoyne]

If anyone in Hollywood is sincere about leading the charge they should organize and finacially back female directors or start a scholarship program for females in film school.

It's all too easy to make statements at Hollywood functions to project the image of social awareness. It's harder to actually do something significant.

Hollywood actors love to posture for social equality. It's typically an empty gesture. Matt Damon (mentioned above) is a notorious one for this - for example, decrying charter schools in favor of public schools (his mom was a teacher) then sending his own kids to private school.

I've grown to regard most Hollywood "activism" as empty posturing.

 

[jlee562]

It's also easy to make statements about what women "should" do to change the industry, especially when those statements put the onus for change on women, and not on the industry itself.

 

[Solo4114]

The whole Matt Damon thing brings another angle to this though.

While it's easy to compartmentalize the vastness of the studio system down to just "Hollywood," and say that "Hollywood" wants to do x,y, or z; we must also remember that "Hollywood" is (at least for the purposes of this thread) the collectivized actions largely of white males.

True, but if anything, that cuts against the notion of the system actually being proactive in terms of change. Reactive, sure, especially when there's money to be made, but I don't see the current system -- especially insofar as it's dominated by white dudes -- being particularly altruistic or socially conscious and making business decisions on those bases.

The only time that changes is when social consciousness sells. You see this across most industries, really. They'll change tack, sure...but only when they sense there's a market. Arguably, it took the rise of Whole Foods to really help spur the "organic" movement in grocery stores. I know I was stunned when I saw my local Pathmark start stocking organic stuff.

These kinds of changes do come in time, but they happen slowly rather than overnight. I've no doubt we'll see Hollywood become a lot more egalitarian, but I suspect it will largely be driven by economics and demographics, rather than "We really ought to do this because it's the right thing to do."

 

[Riceball]

It's also easy to make statements about what women "should" do to change the industry, especially when those statements put the onus for change on women, and not on the industry itself.

Considering that it's for the benefit of women shouldn't they be the ones to spearhead the change instead of sitting and waiting for a bunch of men, with no dog in the fight I might add, to do it for them? If people took this approach towards everything then nothing would happen or at the least things would happen a lot more slowly. Take civil rights, do you think that we would have the civil rights reforms that we've had had blacks not gone out and marched, protested and demanded equal rights? Or women's suffrage, how much longer do you think it would have taken for women to be granted the right to vote had they not gone out and demanded the right to vote but instead sat back and relied on men to call for change on their behalf?

 

[Angelus Lupus]

Take civil rights, do you think that we would have the civil rights reforms that we've had had blacks not gone out and marched, protested and demanded equal rights?

You're suggesting that white people shouldn't (or didn't) point out that segregation was wrong, and just waited until enough black people said it was unfair? (OK, so a lot didn't realise how bad it was until the protests gained momentum)
White people can campaign against racism, men can support feminism, you don't have to be part of the oppressed to listen to them and see that the system needs changing.

Considering that it's for the benefit of women shouldn't they be the ones to spearhead the change instead of sitting and waiting for a bunch of men, with no dog in the fight I might add, to do it for them?

What a brilliant idea! Let's make it so that none of the privileged, entitled people who have all the power, need to do anything. Make the ones with no voice, who are already put down and ignored, do all the work! :facepalm
If it was that easy for the under-represented to affect change, there wouldn't be inequality. And as for these men 'having no dog in the fight' you forget that many of them have sisters, daughters, wives. etc that they would want, or expect to be treated fairly.

 

[dascoyne]

It's also easy to make statements about what women "should" do to change the industry, especially when those statements put the onus for change on women, and not on the industry itself.

Read what I've written with more care.
I merely challenge those with a voice to action. I don't absolve the industry itself for any responsibility.
At no point did I place the "onus of change on women."
It's beneath you to try and pull a "straw-man" in this discussion.

 

[jlee562]

Considering that it's for the benefit of women shouldn't they be the ones to spearhead the change instead of sitting and waiting for a bunch of men, with no dog in the fight I might add, to do it for them? If people took this approach towards everything then nothing would happen or at the least things would happen a lot more slowly. Take civil rights, do you think that we would have the civil rights reforms that we've had had blacks not gone out and marched, protested and demanded equal rights? Or women's suffrage, how much longer do you think it would have taken for women to be granted the right to vote had they not gone out and demanded the right to vote but instead sat back and relied on men to call for change on their behalf?

1) It's not really for "the benefit of women." And I think reasoning like that is one factor why threads like these are often not constructive. Allowing women to tell their own stories, for example, isn't just for them. It's for anyone who appreciates movies and the language of film.
2) What makes you think there aren't women standing up and demanding better representation?

Read what I've written with more care.
I merely challenge those with a voice to action. I don't absolve the industry itself for any responsibility.
At no point did I place the "onus of change on women."
It's beneath you to try and pull a "straw-man" in this discussion.

You directly asserted a general lack of sincerity (based on a completely unrelated factoid, which is specious reasoning at best, BTW), and implied that those making statements in favor of better representation aren't doing anything. If they were serious, you argue, they would "organize" and financially back them, etc.

I'll grant you that I made the assumption that the "anyone" you referred to implied "women," since the issue at hand is women in Hollywood. And since those speaking out the most vociferously, would be women (Amy Schumer comes to mind). I don't see how that makes a straw man of your argument. While I'm all for more women directors and more women in film school, that doesn't address things like why Black Widow doesn't have an action figure (or why Capt. America replaces her on the toy motorcycle that drops out of the Quinn jet). That doesn't address the issue of diversity in Hollywood and the whitewashing of the narratives of people of color (see: the upcoming Stonewall).

It's a nice thought, and I don't disagree with you; but it's not exactly addressing the problem.

 

[dascoyne]

You directly asserted a general lack of sincerity (based on a completely unrelated factoid, which is specious reasoning at best, BTW), and implied that those making statements in favor of better representation aren't doing anything. If they were serious, you argue, they would "organize" and financially back them, etc.

I offer that many in the industry with financial means and influence (I include actors) could be doing more than giving speeches. I suggest a call to activism.

At no point did I absolve the industry for culpability.

I'll grant you that I made the assumption that the "anyone" you referred to implied "women," since the issue at hand is women in Hollywood. And since those speaking out the most vociferously, would be women (Amy Schumer comes to mind). I don't see how that makes a straw man of your argument. While I'm all for more women directors and more women in film school, that doesn't address things like why Black Widow doesn't have an action figure (or why Capt. America replaces her on the toy motorcycle that drops out of the Quinn jet). That doesn't address the issue of diversity in Hollywood and the whitewashing of the narratives of people of color (see: the upcoming Stonewall).

It's pretty clear that I refer to anybody who is outspoken about any topic. I even used Damon as an example.
Regardless women aren't the only ones arguing for equal representation of the sexes.

I sincerely didn't suggest that "women" should be charged with making change - rather I criticize the many outspoken, self-proclaimed mavens (male or female) for the cause (or any cause for that matter such as public/private schools) who could do more than pontificate.

It's a nice thought, and I don't disagree with you; but it's not exactly addressing the problem.

I would not disagree.