Girls on Film

I just want to say thanks to the people in this thread who understood that I was asking a fairly polite question, not claiming to have all the answers. You're all really very awesome.

I still think legal action might be a good idea, but the problems mentioned here would definitely be very difficult to overcome, so the issue is something I'll have to give more thought to before deciding what to do. I still don't know entirely where I stand on the issue yet. I'm sorry if that makes anyone upset, but there's really no need to take it so personally.

I do think the suggestion of a SAG strike or publicity campaign seems like it might be an easier and more effective way to pursue it, though. What would be the best way to organise something like that - would just sending a letter suggesting it to SAG be my best bet? Also, would it be possible as I'm not a member of SAG?

'Chick flick' movies do tend to be much more willing to employ women than other movies, but surprisingly even most of them still have a cast where the majority of actors and extras are male.
Also, I find it so hard to believe that American and European men would be put off seeing a movie just because there were a realistic number of interesting women aswell as men. Most men are not offended by the sight of women. I would venture to submit that some of the people in charge of market research might have got the 14-30 year old guy demographic confused with the Saudi Arabian Mutaween.
Maybe I'm just lucky because I know some awesome guys, but a lot of them say they really like it when an action movie has interesting female characters. And didn't Kill Bill do well among the 14-30 year old guy demographic? Moreover, here are some guys in the 14-30 demographic proclaiming their love for Jessica Alba's roles in Sin City, Into The Blue, Dark Angel, Fantastic Four, etc.

Even if there are a few men that are offended by the inclusion of women in action movies, I would think it would be more than balanced out by the increase in custom from the majority of men who actually enjoy looking at women, aswell as women themselves.

(also, if another person annoys me, I'm going to make them endure Fenix TX's 'Phoebe Cates'. Yeah, you've been warned.)

But unless you are dealing with a very small cast, adding more women in major roles isn't going to do much to affect the total number of women in the cast. If you count only the top 5 actors (or 2, even) in each movie, then the numbers are going to be much closer.

This might be the most telling part of this entire thread.

So you're not a film studio actress?

Is there a reason then, that you are so passionate about women's rights (and I use the phrase very loosely with regard to this thread's stated premise) as it relates to the movie industry?

Also, seeing as how the Screen Actor's Guild is a union fighting for its members' rights (many of which are women), don't you think they would be leading the fight against discriminatory casting practices (in the way that you describe them) if such a thing was actually a problem?

Now, if you can find me an example of where this was an issue echoed by SAG as well, then I'm sure us thread detractors will shut up. But if you can't, then why are you trying to lead this fight if SAG doesn't even give a fuck?

Now, I don't doubt for a minute that real discrimination exists and if you actually find any, let me know, and I'll be in the streets rioting with you. However, I don't believe the examples you've given are actual forms of discrimination. When it comes to movies, I don't believe every film needs to be a Benneton's ad, ya dig? I don't believe art needs to be politically correct -- in fact, it's much better when it's not. I'll rue the day when films become directed more by political correctness committees than by creative human beings. And this is just my personal opinion (speaking as an ethnic minority who really isn't represented in Hollywood films at all), but fake integrated scenes on film/tv are much worse than "real" segregated ones.

So, instead of going on pure speculation and wishful thinking, would you mind finding some actual real-world examples where actual women actors successfully brought a case against any of the film studios for not being cast in a gender-unspecific role in a coed motion picture (e.g. "Cop #1") to support your idea? I hardly think choosing a few movies off the top of your head consists of a statistically-sound random sample and legitimate proof of your claim.

In other words, would you mind doing some of the legwork first if you want the rest of us to support your case? Plzkthx.

Bravo, sir. Bravo!

Good question. I'm interested in this for the same reason I do work with an Iraqi women's rights group, despite the fact I'm not Iraqi, and for the same reason men can be feminists; you don't have to belong to a group to want to improve a situation.
This issue specifically is in need of change, as men should not (and can not) be consistently hired over women that are equally qualified for the job.
Also, speaking as a consumer, I find the finished product of these bigoted hiring processes to be, well, quite crap. It disturbs me when 9/10 out of movies I see have barely any women in them - considering that women make up 50% of the population, going to the cinema can be a very 'twilight zone' experience. Honestly - I go to the cinema about once or twice a week, and I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that actually had two women speak to each other.

http://www.sag.org/history/chronos_pages/70s.html

Nowadays, the SAG Women's Committee campaigns for gender-related issues, and a brief description of it can be found on SAG's website:
http://www.sag.org/sagWebApp/Content/Public/Diversity_Committees-Womens.htm

Also, if you want evidence that workers in the film industry outside of SAG are concerned with this issue, I would point you in the direction of the Adrienne Shelly Foundation, which provides grants to female filmmakers.

How gallant of you.

Well, looking at what is probably the only film marketed specifically to women in the top 10 this week, No Reservations..

Yes, SAG says they're very concerned about casting inequalities in Hollywood, and I pretty much believe them.

There are other organizations, too, that are trying to combat it:
http://www.seejane.org/

Sounds like a Hollywood chick flick to me.

Ugh.

Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. Can't wait to see Cop #8 and Bank Teller #3 burning their bras on the next installment of Die Hard

I was merely disagreeing with tmnt that "chick flicks" tended to feature more women.

I know, right? Uppity broads, ruining everything.

Why don't you just call me a sexist outright?

Can someone please ban this racist?

What? I'm agreeing with you! There is no problem and Jenni should just shut up!

Guys, you're being too sensitive. I'm on your side. You've converted me. There is no sexism or gender inequality in television or film! You win!

That's pretty ungrateful given that you asked to see a piece of research, I tracked it down and posted it here for you, and you reply with 'ugh'? Excuse me if I'm not very impressed with you.

And I think, if she tries really hard, Cop #8 might just be able to get through the filming of the scene without burning her bra. Sometimes I've managed to go whole days without immolating my underwear! Being a little woman and all, it's hard, but if I really concentrate I can be as calm and polite as a boy!

It's not hollywood, it's america.

whether you want to admit it or not; america in general, when it comes to movies, is more comfortable with a complete lack of racial, cultural, or gender diversity (a.k.a., as many white males as possible). Hollywood just follows.

A film or role has to be overwhelmingly good for America At Large to accept something different. And then those films and roles have to be constantly produced for AAL to be comfortable enough with the change, to accept it in more commercial ventures.

Hollywood will start making more movies that have strong female or minority roles, once america stops ignoring the movies that feature them.

Something I haven't seen yet mentioned, but remains nonetheless relevant, is the fact that the film industry is, to put it very obviously, a uniquely visual medium. Perhaps the reason why women are so seldom put in extra position is the simple fact that if I have this in the foreground:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/6297/ActorDann_Leste_14560289_400.jpg.html?path=pgallery&path_key=DeVito%2C%20Danny&seq=3

And this in the background:

http://www.famous-people-search.com/heidi_klum/heidi_klum_pictures/heidi_klum_008.jpg

Which do you think will draw my attention? And which do you think the director actually intends me to pay attention?

Now, there is a sexist theme in this, but it isn't the numbers game of measuring the relative proportion of men to women and determining an acceptable number. Rather, it's the fact that you don't see 4-of-10 rated women on screen, whereas you might see 4-of-10 rated men on screen. That is still very subjective, but I think much less so than trying to determine the acceptable quota of women to men in a pirate film.

I stand by my initial analysis. The ubiquitous patriarchy concept, which I am not trying to argue against, paradoxically prevents, to some measure, more fluid roles for women by defining the degree to which women must address that patriarchy instead of addressing other more character specific plot elements.

You would think we could just assume that women are just as complex, diverse and contradictory but it seems like there is no moral vacuum in film when it comes to anything other than the majority. All but lead women have to represent something other than just themselves.

Again, it's an armchair theory, ripe to be to refuted or supported.

Your reading comprehension seems to be broken; I was making fun of his suggestion that employing female actors would lead to them 'burning their bras in Die Hard'.

I must say, I've tried not to rise to your bait in this thread, because you seem angry in a way that is not appropriate for the conversation, unable to make sense of the nature of the debate or the many points being raised, and I think you have problems that go beyond what I can help you with.

I'd still definitely like to discuss this with people with a genuine interest in the topic, and a range of things to contribute, whether they agree with me or not . But I am going to be ignoring people that seem to be trying to spam; I don't have the time or the desire to deal with that, sorry.

Um, am I the only one who hears the song "Insane in the membrane" when Jenni posts?


.........................................um....

Shit, that started as a joke and now I really have that stupid song stuck in my head.

I am Jack's total lack of sensitivity.

With all due respect, I have to say I disagree that your legal background constitutes a special authority to declare this a closed argument anymore than my working in the film industry allows me any special authority to provide a definitive conclusion. Obviously, you can give a much deeper and more nuanced answer to many of the issues as they pertain to the law probably shedding more light on the topic than other members can, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for possible alternative interpretations.

As a film producer, I can offer potentially helpful insights into my industry that others might not have access to, but I would never claim that my profession allows me a more absolute command on the topic than anyone else; I'm not so imperious that I believe my own experience in the industry to be infintely informed, and even if I were, valuable illumination of an subject can sometimes be provided by those outside the circle of experts by framing the issues in an unconventional manner.