Girls on Film

(*excuse the Duran Duran quote in the title...)

Anyway, I have a question for y'all. Most film studios refuse to employ female actors, with the vast majority of films having a cast (including extras) that is between 80% to 95% male.

I chose five recent mainstream films (Die Hard 4,
Oceans 13, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Bourne Ultimatum and Transformers) and looked at their cast listings on IMDB, which includes a fairly long (but admittedly not 100% complete) list of about 80 of the 'first-billed' actors. Pirates of the Caribbean Three had 71 men, and 5 women. Transformers had 75 men, and 10 women. Oceans 13 had 57 men and 12 women. Die Hard had 36 men and 7 women. The Bourne Ultimatum had 31 men and 4 women.

Now, it's only legal to refuse to hire women to that extent if it can be proved that they were less capable of doing the job than a male. So - if you're casting Peter Parker, or Tyler Durden, or Hamlet, obviously the actor needs to be male. However, most characters in films do not have to be specific genders - they're often referred to in the script only as 'Secret Agent #3', for example.

So, this seems like a case of unfair discrimination in the workplace. I was curious if anyone thought that this case would be successful if it was brought to court? Or is there some law that I'm not aware of that sanctions the hiring of only male actors? Any advice would be appreciated, because it seems incredibly unfair that acting is one of the last industries where misogyny is allowed to thrive so openly.

Unless, of course, the director's vision calls for a mostly-male cast.

You'd be pretty hard-pressed to argue that women can't get work in Hollywood films.

I would imagine that the average director would be loath to have to admit publicly that he wanted a male-only cast. For example, Abercrombie and Fitch used to hire only white people to work on the shop floor; claiming that their employees were 'models' that had to project an all-American image. However, they could not prove that 'all-American' meant 'all white', and as they were too embarrassed to say they actually wanted to project an Aryan image, they were forced to change their hiring practices, aswell as being fined a large amount of money. I would hope that the same principle would apply to directors of male-only films being too embarrassed to say they want male-only films.

Not really. For example, only 6% of the cast of the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie was female. From the movies I picked at random, I couldn't find a single one where women made up more than 1/5th of the cast. Obviously there are a few movies that do, but they are very much the exception.

If you like, you could name me a few films from the past year and I'll find out if women make up more than 1/5th of the cast - I would doubt that you could find many.

The Queen

Evening

Stardust

Hairspray

Need more?

Stranger Than Fiction

Where the boys aren't #16

My Blueberry Nights

The Devil Wears Prada

The majority of the actors in Evening were women, but The Queen had 34 male actors and only 11 female ones, Stardust had 25 men and 9 women, and Hairpsray had 46 men and 22 women.

Moreover, I would imagine you suggested those films specifically because you thought they'd have female-dominated casts. I'd prefer a fairer, more random test of the state of the industry. For example, the last ten films that have been released, or just films from this year chosen honestly and genuinely at random. If you only choose films you think will be willing to employ women (although, surprisingly, even most of those films still preferred to employ men) you won't get the most accurate understanding of bigotry in the industry.

And if you are thinking of women in action films, these are a bit older, but there are plenty of women in these.

The Matrix

Elektra

Alien

Aliens

Alien Resurrection

X-Men

Should I continue?

Correct me if I'm wrong but far less than 6% of the people working in the military, shipping and piracy industries in the 15th and 16th ceturies were women. Why should a movie depicting these areas of life have a number of women higher than would have been found in real life?

Yeah, and you chose Oceans 13 because.....? (It's a sequel to a remake that famously starred a group of men)
And Die Hard? The Bourne Ultimatum? Come on, you targeted male-dominated action films on purpose

Why not take a random sampling of films from different genres and eras in order to find out if the problem is changing at all (and I would agree that women are under-represented in film-and literature for that matter). I would almost guarantee that the number of women directing, producing and involved in behind the scenes work has been growing, not shrinking.

I think your methodology is screwy, but I'm pretty surprised that some people here are seriously trying to argue that women arent under-represented in film. That seems pretty obvious.

Stop using logic and facts. It only confuses people.

Matrix had 28 men and 9 women, Elektra had 24 men and 6 women, Aliens had 7 men and 3 women, XMen had 50 men and 14 women, Aliens Res. had 29 men and 7 women.

I can say with complete honestly that I just thought of some of the biggest summer blockbusters this year. They were just the first ones that came to mind - truly.

That's a good idea, I agree.

I agree - for example, in Elizabethan times it was illegal for women to even appear on the stage (their characters were played by men in drag). Still, the problem is far from fixed.

It's pretty funny that 12 of the 17 films listed so far in this thread are based on other movies, books, comics or rides. Should go to show that it isn't just a problem in films.

Yes, because it was obviously a film that tried to be as realistic as possible.

My mistake. I guess they should have gone the extra distance and filled the cast with dwarfs and midgets.

That's a good point.

Although, as I said before, I have no problem with casting Peter Parker as a male. Obviously it's a good thing. But what about the periphery characters who are just assigned a job, not a gender - such as Police Officer #1 or Scientist #5? Even these are still mostly cast as men.

No you wouldn't. There are more female actors than male. There are more male roles than female.

Fact.

It is easier for a male actor to get work than it is for a female actor. In film and on stage.

I wonder...

What is the possibility that the percentages of male vs. female actors in non-starring roles reflects the same or similar precentages of male vs. female members of SAG? Could it be a question of availability rather than discrimination?

This thread reminds me of the time I got mad at John Singleton for not having any three-dimensional female characters in his latest film. The only women were just set dressing.

I was complaining about it to my brother when he said, "That's why the movie is called Four Brothers, not Four Really Interesting Bitches."

Also:

Some more hit films:

Chuck & Larry: 53:20
Harry Potter 6: Electric Boogaloo 55:18
Hairspray 46:23
The origianl Hairspray: 79:45 (That's 2:1 for the remake vs 1.75:1 for Waters)
Rattasomething 14:1!!!!

God no.

Hey, every 20 years we let a woman play Peter Pan, so it all evens out.

There's a bit in this book called The Art of Coarse Acting that tells how all university theatres put on either The Trojan Women or The House of Bernarda Alba every year so the girls get a chance to be on stage.

The fact of the matter is that there are considerably more roles for man than there are for women. Geena Davis started an organization to combat gender inequality and stereotyping in the entertainment industry.