Publications
Partners
WHEN I was still working in magazines, it was a truism that men wanted to look at women and women wanted to look at women, so your cover shot should be a woman.
Now why does that not hold true in the film industry? Stimulated by a discussion about the Bechdel Test, I went looking for info about women in movies, and turned up some interesting results.
The Bechdel Test was a cartoonist’s idea, and it comprises three questions:
Does the film have at least two female characters in it? (A refinement adds that these characters should have names.)
Do these female characters talk to each other…
… about anything other than men?
You can see what the cartoonist was getting at – are the female characters anything other than arm candy? Does the film create substantial female roles with rounded characters?
But it’s actually hugely easy for a film to pass the Bechdel Test – and still be either a bad film or not the kind of film you’d take your daughter to see in the hopes that she develops ambitions to be a scientist/president/astronaut.
Jaws, for example, passes on the basis of some three minutes of idle chatter between Ellen Brody and Mrs Taft, the motel owner. Jaws was rather hyper-masculine, as I remember – unless the shark was female, but if so, it was hardly a speaking part, was it?
No Country for Old Men passes because Llewellyn’s wife Carla Jean asks her mom Agnes if she’s packed her medication, for heaven’s sake!
But there’s much to be said for the original impulse, an irritated recognition of the paucity of decent female role models in film. Why that should be, I don’t know; after all, social news network Vocativ has found that films with strong women characters in them grossed billions more in box office last year.
So what are the major movie studios thinking? Because they’re definitely not cashing in on this fact!
Earlier this year, a report was published which analysed movies in 2011 (I know, I know, but that’s how academia works, it’s never as speedy as social media). Dr Martha Lauzen found that female parts accounted for 33% of parts in the top 100 grossing films – but only 11% of protagonists were female.
Most female characters are in their twenties and thirties, while most male characters are in their thirties and forties.
Male characters are much, much more likely to be portrayed as leaders: “Overall, male characters account for 86% and females 14% of leaders. Broken down by type of leader, males comprise 93% of political and government leaders, 92% of religious leaders, 83% of business leaders, 73% of social leaders, and 70% of scientific and intellectual leaders.”
So the movies score even worse than real life – where 18.4% of parliamentarians and 10% of heads of state are women, according to womenintheworld.org. (I’m not sure what she means by ‘business leaders’ – if it’s people on the board, the figure is pretty close, but if it just means boss-types, well, women in 2012 occupied around half the managerial positions in the USA.)
And of course, “Male characters are more likely than female characters to be identified by their occupational status. 33% of female characters have unknown occupational status versus 19% of male characters.
"Female characters are more likely than male characters to be identified by their marital status. 60% of male characters have unknown marital status versus 41% of female characters.”
And finally, no matter what has happened in the world beyond the Celluloid Curtain, “When occupational status is known, female characters are most likely to be in out-of-workforce positions such as homemaker or student.”
The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media has some interesting research (showing among other things that on prime time television, women are four-and-a-half times more likely to be scantily clothed than men).
“Females are not only missing from popular media; when they are on screen, they seem to be there merely for decoration - not to engage in meaningful or prestigious employment, particularly in STEM fields [science, technology, engineering and mathematics].
“[…] young females need more aspirational role models inhabiting a greater range of leadership positions across a variety of occupational sectors and media platforms. Both young girls and boys should see female decision-makers, political leaders, managers, and scientists as the norm, not the exception.
"By increasing the number and diversity of female leaders and role models on screen, content creators may affect the ambitions and career aspirations of girls and young women domestically and internationally. As Geena Davis frequently states, 'If she can see it, she can be it'." (Gender Roles & Occupations: a look at character attributes and job-related aspirations in film and television at www.seejane.org)
For a flourishing economy, we are constantly told, we need people who achieve in STEM careers. If that doesn’t include our girls, we are missing out.
But as long as all children (indeed, all of us) are constantly exposed to media images that portray women as sex objects, clinging maidens in need of rescue, or white-picket-fence soccer moms, girls are not going to aspire to achieve in these areas – or face being mocked and put down by their peers and society if they choose these careers anyway.
Now, anyone got suggestions for righting the balance in a USA-dominated media landscape?
- Fin24
*Mandi Smallhorne is a versatile journalist and editor. Views expressed are her own.
Now why does that not hold true in the film industry? Stimulated by a discussion about the Bechdel Test, I went looking for info about women in movies, and turned up some interesting results.
The Bechdel Test was a cartoonist’s idea, and it comprises three questions:
Does the film have at least two female characters in it? (A refinement adds that these characters should have names.)
Do these female characters talk to each other…
… about anything other than men?
You can see what the cartoonist was getting at – are the female characters anything other than arm candy? Does the film create substantial female roles with rounded characters?
But it’s actually hugely easy for a film to pass the Bechdel Test – and still be either a bad film or not the kind of film you’d take your daughter to see in the hopes that she develops ambitions to be a scientist/president/astronaut.
Jaws, for example, passes on the basis of some three minutes of idle chatter between Ellen Brody and Mrs Taft, the motel owner. Jaws was rather hyper-masculine, as I remember – unless the shark was female, but if so, it was hardly a speaking part, was it?
No Country for Old Men passes because Llewellyn’s wife Carla Jean asks her mom Agnes if she’s packed her medication, for heaven’s sake!
But there’s much to be said for the original impulse, an irritated recognition of the paucity of decent female role models in film. Why that should be, I don’t know; after all, social news network Vocativ has found that films with strong women characters in them grossed billions more in box office last year.
So what are the major movie studios thinking? Because they’re definitely not cashing in on this fact!
Earlier this year, a report was published which analysed movies in 2011 (I know, I know, but that’s how academia works, it’s never as speedy as social media). Dr Martha Lauzen found that female parts accounted for 33% of parts in the top 100 grossing films – but only 11% of protagonists were female.
Most female characters are in their twenties and thirties, while most male characters are in their thirties and forties.
Male characters are much, much more likely to be portrayed as leaders: “Overall, male characters account for 86% and females 14% of leaders. Broken down by type of leader, males comprise 93% of political and government leaders, 92% of religious leaders, 83% of business leaders, 73% of social leaders, and 70% of scientific and intellectual leaders.”
So the movies score even worse than real life – where 18.4% of parliamentarians and 10% of heads of state are women, according to womenintheworld.org. (I’m not sure what she means by ‘business leaders’ – if it’s people on the board, the figure is pretty close, but if it just means boss-types, well, women in 2012 occupied around half the managerial positions in the USA.)
And of course, “Male characters are more likely than female characters to be identified by their occupational status. 33% of female characters have unknown occupational status versus 19% of male characters.
"Female characters are more likely than male characters to be identified by their marital status. 60% of male characters have unknown marital status versus 41% of female characters.”
And finally, no matter what has happened in the world beyond the Celluloid Curtain, “When occupational status is known, female characters are most likely to be in out-of-workforce positions such as homemaker or student.”
The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media has some interesting research (showing among other things that on prime time television, women are four-and-a-half times more likely to be scantily clothed than men).
“Females are not only missing from popular media; when they are on screen, they seem to be there merely for decoration - not to engage in meaningful or prestigious employment, particularly in STEM fields [science, technology, engineering and mathematics].
“[…] young females need more aspirational role models inhabiting a greater range of leadership positions across a variety of occupational sectors and media platforms. Both young girls and boys should see female decision-makers, political leaders, managers, and scientists as the norm, not the exception.
"By increasing the number and diversity of female leaders and role models on screen, content creators may affect the ambitions and career aspirations of girls and young women domestically and internationally. As Geena Davis frequently states, 'If she can see it, she can be it'." (Gender Roles & Occupations: a look at character attributes and job-related aspirations in film and television at www.seejane.org)
For a flourishing economy, we are constantly told, we need people who achieve in STEM careers. If that doesn’t include our girls, we are missing out.
But as long as all children (indeed, all of us) are constantly exposed to media images that portray women as sex objects, clinging maidens in need of rescue, or white-picket-fence soccer moms, girls are not going to aspire to achieve in these areas – or face being mocked and put down by their peers and society if they choose these careers anyway.
Now, anyone got suggestions for righting the balance in a USA-dominated media landscape?
- Fin24
*Mandi Smallhorne is a versatile journalist and editor. Views expressed are her own.
