Of the 100 biggest films at the box office in 2014 only 21 featured a female lead character, almost exactly the same as in 2007.
It also found 26.4 per cent of leading female actors were required to perform some element of nudity, while only 9.1 per cent of male actors were.
Behind the cameras the imbalance was even worse.
In 2007 three of the top 100 films were directed by women, and by 2014 that was down to two.
No female actors over the age of 45 performed a lead role last year, according to the study.
USC Professor Stacy L. Smith, author of the report, said: “It is clear that no progress has been made, either on screen or behind the camera, when it comes to representing reality
It’s not supposed to reflect reality love.
It’s fiction.
There’s no middle aged freelance writers starring as the lead in romance novels either: it’s fiction.
Are you saying that certain middle aged male freelance writers ARE currently engaged in steamy affairs, but that the absence of portrayal of such in Hollywood is part of their less than fulsome account of reality..?
The Media, Diversity, & Social Change (MDSC) Initiative at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism is a leading think tank dedicated to addressing issues of inequality in entertainment.
“Our work is about bringing evidence and insight to media industries on where diversity is needed. I am in this to change the landscape of humanity, flanked by the next generation of world leaders: USC graduates and undergraduates,” says Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Director of the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative.
Hmmmmm…………….. Great work indeed.
I rightly or wrongly assume most successful box office films are made for a target audience: adolescent white American males. Teenage boys will undoubtedly be attracted by female nudity; less so if the actress is a similar age to their granny.
Maybe USC should make some films in which the heroic female lead saves a world full of nude men. They could be called the American Model Films.
If film reflected reality, police thrillers would be boring. The hero would shoot a criminal in the first five minutes and the rest of the film would be taken up by the hero being put on suspension, having to see a therapist to make sure that he was not unduly affected by the shooting, a very long inquiry to try and understand the circumstances of the shooting to decide if it was lawful and , finally, a civil action wrongful death suit as the family of the criminal tries to enrich them selves at the tax payers expense.
And don’t get me started on romance films…..
It also found 26.4 per cent of leading female actors were required to perform some element of nudity, while only 9.1 per cent of male actors were.
There’s a reason for this: when men see a picture of a naked woman, they get excited and pay more attention. When women see a picture of a naked man, they start giggling.
There is also the point that when a man takes his shirt off, it is not classed as nudity, whereas it is when a woman does. If we classed male toplessness as nudity, the Twilight movies would be seen as nude-athons.
For a man to be classed as nude, he must show his genitalia. For a fully nude woman this is still not the case, as the genitalia are generally not shown unless you’re into the “porn” category. Because male genitalia are much more externalised.
Apples and oranges.
It’s the “top 100” films part that intrigues me.
What is the ratio of men to women in the bottom 100 films. Is it the same, better or worse. And why pick 2007 and 2014?
”In 2007 three of the top 100 films were directed by women, and by 2014 that was down to two.”
Which seems to demonstrate that women make crap directors.
What this study really tells us is how to have the best chance of a successful film: don’t hire a female director, do get a bloke to star and make sure there’s some female nudity.
Because when you set out to make a film you don’t know if it’s going to be a Top 100 hit or not.
More crap I am afraid – albeit as much of the idiotic ‘thinking’ that passes for research in higher education these days it first originates in the USA. How long until compulsory quotas for women of a certain age in films and other such measures? The need for a socialist tax along the lines of Brown’s levy on the privatised utilities, as well as the funding of assisted emigration for many ‘professors’ and others working in higher education has never been more pressing.
On female nudity in film Denise van Outen had the last word : she said she would only appear nude if it was entirely gratuitous and irrelevant to the plot.
To follow on from Widdershins, the study is claiming that there is production bias, and quoting viewing figures to justify it. Not the same thing at all. If the viewers were there, the production would follow. So why must films be made that no-one wants to watch, or alternatively, should people be forced to watch films they don’t want to see?
And what about TV? How many comedies or dramas are based around a female character on TV? Almost all drama on the BBC on a Sunday night is aimed at women over 45, normally featuring Judi Dench in a bonnet.
The effect of TVs being bought in America starkly affected the market for films aimed at women. Films like All About Eve or Whatever Happened to Baby Jane stopped being made because women were watching TV instead. These idiots can talk about Hollywood being a bunch of sexist pigs, but they can’t explain why Hollywood used to make lots of films for women, with strong female leads, because they’re so committed to the problem being about sexist pigs in Hollywood.
As for over-45s, how many 45+ year old women do you know that go to the cinema, except to take the grandchildren to the movies?
For a man to be classed as nude, he must show his genitalia. For a fully nude woman this is still not the case, as the genitalia are generally not shown unless you’re into the “porn” category. Because male genitalia are much more externalised.
Exactly. And it is generally the case that a woman’s attractiveness is improved when she removes her underwear, whereas a man’s visual attractiveness to a woman is not improved by taking off his boxer shorts.
Widdershins,
“Which seems to demonstrate that women make crap directors.”
Not crap. I’ll turn up to any film made by Kathryn Bigelow. Mary Harron made a couple of great films (The Notorious Betty Page and American Psycho).And while Twilight isn’t exactly my bag, clearly Catherine Hardwicke did a good job on it.
Getting to be a director of big movies requires people to hit the very top of their game, and generally, to be of a certain age and experience. And all of those directors I named, and almost every female film director, is childless. That’s why you don’t get many of them. Women generally choose children over their career.
Films don’t reflect reality? This from the sort of people who think a gay pride march cheered through a Yorkshire pit village during the Miner’s Strike is reality?
I suspect the male:female lead and director ratios are exactly reversed if you take pornographic output into account.
The Stigler
”Not crap”
So only 2% or 3% of top films are directed by women. The figures would seem to back me up!
But I do of course agree that women can be great directors – my comment was a provocatively sweeping generalisation. But what would blogs be without them?
Stigler:
“Women’s films” are still made; they just go straight to the Lifetime Channel.
Back in the 1930s, “women’s films” were known as “weepers”.
Widdershins,
“So only 2% or 3% of top films are directed by women. The figures would seem to back me up!”
Well, no. It’s more that they just don’t get to make many films. What they do get to make is frequently very good (there are bad female film makers, of course).
There is another problem which is that women don’t tend to go into low-budget film making, and that’s a big way into filmmaking now. People making things on cheap digital kit and stick it on YouTube or shows it at festivals and gets some attention. The guy that made Primer for $7K subsequently ended up doing script consulting and directing bigger budget Hollywood movies.
Ted S,
““Women’s films” are still made; they just go straight to the Lifetime Channel”
Precisely. But also, we produce a lot of women’s TV that satisfies women’s demands without being movies, like hospital dramas, soap operas and stuff like Friends and Sex and the City.
“It’s fiction.”
It’s not just fiction, it’s business. The film people are trying to make money, and they are doing it their way. Ms Smith says they are doing it all wrong. She is free to enter the movie business, and do it any way she likes, and quit WHINING ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO.
“… stuff like Friends….”
I reckon the Friends-watching demographic is probably 60-40.
The obsessive Friends-repeat-watching demographic probably more female.
I never “got” Friends. I spent the 90s doing something more interesting.
“reflect reality” : the basis of all these statistical inferences is the proposition that inequality of outcomes can only be explained by prejudice. This is itself an a priori assumption that has never been proved; there is however evidence is to the contrary (cf T.Sowell).
Another example of the collectivist urge to create the perfect beehive.
Who will rid us of these turbulent academics?
Ian B,
It’s OK. But it is one of those “in” programmes which create a media whirwind around it. But what you realise with these sorts of shoes is that it’s not about the stories, it’s about the lifestyle. Even though a waitress and a chef living in a spacious Manhattan apartment is basically fantasy.
shoes=shows
The Stigler:
I seem to remember that the premise was that the apartment belonged to one of their grandmothers and they were living there under her name.
I thought it was great: really sharp writing (certainly in the early series)and great performances. Jennifer Aniston is probably one of the best modern comic actresses.
When is the study coming out about the dominance of women in the nursing profession and subsequent initiatives to correct this terrible gender discrimination.
Though my wife, a nurse, has always claimed that male nurses seemed to move up the ladder to management positions more quickly than normal.
GlenDorran,
Haha. Hence the name of the TV Tropes article: “Friends” Rent Control. The real story is that big spaces are easier to film in, so everyone has decent size apartments/homes in TV series. But the “rent control” excuse is funny.
Male primary school teachers move up the grades faster too.
In my, entirely and purely anecdotal, experience of years working on indie movies, most aspiring male directors wanted to make movies, for the fun and excitement of making them. Most aspiring female directors wanted to have made movies, for the praise and awards they expected to receive afterwards.
While the guys were borrowing from their credit cards to shoot Lesbian Zombie Cat-Girls In Heat, most of the girls were waiting for Hollywood to call them to direct the next big superhero movie, and complaining that men got all the directing jobs. Making movies themselves was too much like hard work, even though the world seemed to be throwing money at aspiring female directors while the guys had to take on a second job to pay off those card debts.
There certainly were exceptions, but they’re probably the women who ended up making those 3% of big Hollywood movies.