Where are all the women In Hollywood?
In March of this year, the Center for the Study of Women in Television and
Film, which is part of San Diego State University, released its current
statistics and studies, and they weren’t encouraging. Reading from their
website:
For film:
Women comprised 16% of all directors,
executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working
on the top 250 (domestic) grossing films of 2013. This figure represents a
decrease of two percentage points from 2012.
For
Television:
In 2012-13, women accounted for 28% of
creators, executive producers, producers, directors, writers, editors, and
directors of photography working on prime-time programs airing on the broadcast
networks.
These
statistics got pushed into the limelight alongside Cate Blanchett when, in her
Oscar Acceptance Speech she said:
"Those of us in the industry who are
still foolishly clinging to the idea that female films with women at the center
are niche experiences - they are not. Audiences want to see them and, in fact,
they earn money. The world is round, people."
I actually
believe, but I don’t have the numbers, that there are plenty of women working
in Hollywood, because I work with them every day. I just think they’re not being counted, or even being seen.
That’s
because the professional women I’m talking about work in the specific genre of
“Reality” Television. From this point on in the blog post, I am going to refer
to it as unscripted non-fiction TV,
because that’s what it is, and what it should be called. The term “reality” (in
quotes) was coined by journalists’ years ago as they tried to describe the new
genre taking over cable TV, and the phrase stuck. No one working in the genre
called it that, and when someone says to me that there’s nothing “real” about
“reality” TV, I reply that I never make that claim. Also, the phrase “unscripted” (also in quotes) doesn’t mean
it’s “unwritten” either, which is another contentious subject -- but I digress
-- back to the women.
I’ve worked in this genre for most of my
career, moving up from editor to Executive Producer and Show Runner, and now I
split time between editing and producing. I personally have worked with more
women than men. I’ve hired more women than men, and now that I am an editor again,
the people who supervise and guide my creative work are mostly women.
I
am working on an unscripted non-fiction show right now, and as I write this I
am sitting in my edit bay before my workday begins. So far on this show, which
is about young people working on a luxury yacht, I have edited material for
five different episodes. The show runner is a woman, the lead editor is a
woman, the story producers (I like to call them writers) for four of those five
episodes are women, and the assistant story producers who find footage for me
are women.
These
women are damn smart, too. Back in the early days of this genre, we didn’t even
have non-linear editing. We didn’t have small lightweight cameras and we felt
like we were creating something new and different. Can we tell a drama with
this style of shooting? Can we graft a sitcom structure onto this kind of
production? We thought we were breaking new ground because we could tell a
story a new way. The technology has changed so much that I feel we were carving
in stone back then.
Now,
a generation later, I am encountering people, mostly women, much younger than
me who were raised on the genre, and they are completely comfortable as
storytellers when they are in my edit bay. I’m like a rock-n-roll guitarist
from the 1960s who thinks he helped invent rock-n-roll, who then encounters a
phenomenal kid who plays guitar better than him, and the kid says, “yeah, I
grew up listening and copying all your records. But now that I know all your
chops, I’m doing my own stuff now...”
These
women are well-educated, smart, good leaders, great storytellers, and I enjoy
collaborating with them. However, I suspect they may not be counted in the
overall numbers because of a bias against the genre, even though it makes up
over one-third of the television that gets produced.
And
that may be why women end up working there. It’s part of the history of women
in the work place. The genre doesn’t really count as television, and therefore
neither do they. From my experience, I also suspect there are more people of
color and more LGBT people working in unscripted non-fiction television than in
other genres as well -- yet I don’t think they’re being counted either.
There’s
a self-perpetuating feedback loop going on that is both positive and negative
for the industry. In this genre it’s easier to break in, to find work, to rise,
and it’s easier to get responsibility. If you’re a woman, or a person of color
or you’re gay, there’s also a better chance that you’ll be working with other
people like yourself. That’s the upside. The downside is that you’ll be
underpaid, a union probably won’t represent you, and you won’t be able to take
credit for the work you do.
Wait
a second! Women and people of color, working and excelling, yet not being paid
as well as others, and not getting credit? Why does that sound familiar?
I
am editing an act of unscripted non-fiction television this week that will be
hilarious farce, and my story producer and I keep going over the footage,
parsing out the lines in the exact order to maximize the laughs. I’m not saying
it’s Chekhov, but it’s a comedy of manners that will be pretty damn funny when
we’re done. I turned to her today and said, “we’re writing this episode, you
know.” She laughed, and said, “I know, but we’re not writers.” And she did what women and people of
color have done for years when faced with similar work dilemmas. She laughed,
shook it off, and went back to her desk. She knows what’s up. She’s writing something
that’s not writing, in a genre of television that’s not really television,
invisible and making a product that makes a lot of money in the industry. She
wishes it were different, of course, but she’s not quite sure what she can do.
This
where it gets tough. The Writer’s Guild of America agrees that what she does
isn’t writing, and although they’ve raised the idea of story producers and
editors getting credit as writers and getting union representation; the idea
has been left on the negotiating table during the last two WGA strikes.
The
Motion Picture Editing Guild is doing a good job. As I write this, the editors
on “Last Comic Standing” are getting union representation after a short strike,
although the editors are getting the contract, not story producers.
And
then there are the directors, who aren’t really directors, but they are called
field producers, unless it’s a big enough network show, and then they are
called directors and represented by the DGA...it gets complicated.
But
it’s all worth examining and analyzing, and it’s time for Hollywood to recognize
the redheaded elephantine stepchild that’s sitting in the middle of the living
room, mostly because of the money it brings in. The cable networks depend on
the fast money they can earn from reality shows, and they often provide the
liquidity they need while they’re waiting for the bigger expensive dramas like
Breaking Bad and Mad Men which require a lot of money up front but take more
time to produce.
There
are several camps of “unscripted” non-fiction. First, the competition shows,
which include both Survivor and The Voice. Then there are the lifestyle
shows that appeal to men first and women second, like the shows about fishermen
and ice-road truckers, working cops and people searching for aliens or ghosts.
Then, there are the lifestyle shows which appeal to women first and men second,
which include the shows about rich housewives, Mormon families, little couples,
and young people working on yachts.
I
believe that female storytellers are well represented in all three of these
sub-genres, but they are especially well represented in the last one.
Part
of the problem is built into the genre itself. I believe that much of
unscripted nonfiction which in a broader sense can also be called “melodrama,”
which has its own historical baggage. From Wikipedia comes this definition:
A melodrama is
a dramatic work that exaggerates plot and characters in order to appeal to the
emotions, often with strongly stereotyped characters.
I’ve
also heard melodrama described as relying too much on conflict between similar
characters in a limited context. Two rich housewives arguing about a party is
melodrama, because there doesn’t seem to be much at stake besides their vanity
and pride. However, if one is a CIA spy in danger, or a Queen on Game of Thrones, or one of the housewives
is battling cancer, then it suddenly no longer qualifies as melodrama, because
emotions and problems aren’t being exaggerated. The drama of the underlying
situation is doing a good enough job creating obstacles that the characters
must overcome, and it’s now a “higher” form of drama. Until that happens, it’s
just melodrama. It may be incredibly popular, but it’s still just melodrama.
However,
melodrama can become art -- like the
plays on Anton Chekhov, which are biting melodramas about an upper class world
worth laughing at, which is why he called his plays “comedies.”
Some
unscripted non-fiction melodramas are very good, a lot are decent but average,
and some are crap -- but that’s true of all movies and TV. The ultimate truth
is that doing good original storytelling is hard work no matter the genre in
which you work. Some of it is great, a lot of it average, and some of it is
bad, and the success of any of it has little to do with the quality. But
generally, unscripted non-fiction melodramas are dismissed as entertainment
fodder, the digital equivalent of the tabloids, like today’s newspaper, which
the fishmongers will us to wrap tomorrow’s “catch of the day.”
And
maybe for that reason, women end up here. It’s not because women are better at melodrama
-- that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that since it doesn’t get the same
respect as other genres, there’s a subtle message that this is the genre where
she ought to go -- where she can go -- and get work. Maybe where she herself decides she should go. She won’t upset the status quo. She’ll
be tolerated. She won’t have to fight some larger societal battle. In this way,
women may be half guilty of perpetuating the work situation that employs them
and at the same time limits them.
Times
are changing however, and it’s only a matter of time before all workers in the
genre will be recognized for their work and how much money it brings into the
industry as a whole.
Nora Ephron comes to mind when I think of the people working in unscripted
non-fiction. Nora Ephron was a great writer, a great screenwriter, and a great
director. However, she got her start writing for those crappy tabloids. People
still turn their nose up at them, but if you wait long enough, that
rough-and-tumble world, full of crazy characters and crazier stories, looks
quaint in the rear view mirror, and people wax nostalgic for the good old days
of tabloid journalism. That’s when the tabloids were good, right? It’s also a world where she learned how
to drink, how to take a punch, and how to write a story -- a world she wrote
about and celebrated in her Broadway play, Lucky
Guy. What this genre needs are a few Nora Ephron’s to make a big splash in other genres.
Read about the work done at the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film:
Read about the work done at the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film:
http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research.html