Marketing: the enemy of women in film?

A few weeks ago I attended a female-centric film festival in New York.  This was my second time at the film festival.  I was really excited to go back because I had a really good time the first time around.  I was hoping to learn more about the barriers that hold women back in the industry and learn the innovative ways women were coming up with to break those barriers down or at least circumnavigate them.  I was particularly excited to attend a panel of female short film directors speaking about barriers, and a panel on unconscious bias.  With all the talk about diversity and gender discrimination in the industry, I thought this festival would be full of vibrant solutions and ideas for the future.

Unfortunately, this really wasn't my experience.  (I write about it more in this post for TYCI.) Most of the solutions proposed rather seemed to support the status quo, and panels were often fraught with disagreement as panelists argued over what the right solutions were, or even what the problems were.  Most disappointingly, digital media was almost never mentioned, which had been something I had expected to hear a lot about. I suppose that this teaches me one thing: it's silly to treat 'women in film' as a monolith, full of women who all have the same experiences and share the same opinions and perspectives.  There is power in having a diversity of approaches to making change; when one solution doesn't work, perhaps another might be more effective.  One size does not fit all.

However in thinking back over what I saw and heard at the festival, and trying to figure out what helpful lessons I could glean--- even if they weren't the ones I was expecting to find--- one issue floats to the surface: marketing.

Several times throughout the festival, filmmakers mentioned clashing with marketing teams and described how marketing ended up becoming an oppressive and/or anti-feminist force under which they or their projects suffered.

When asked about why her film Jennifer's Body, while very amusing and written by a popular, Oscar-winning writer, had flopped so badly, director Karen Kusama described how much of the film's problem was the way it was marketed.  (You can watch here.) While she had envisioned the film as a horror/girl comedy made mostly for women in which Amanda Seyfried played the main character, the marketing team's main approach revolved around "We've got Megan Fox. She's hot."  The film ended up being marketed as a sexy horror film, directed towards young men, and starring Megan Fox.  I found this really interesting, because I remember when Jennifer's Body was being marketed and distinctly remember deciding not to see it because it looked like a stupid sexy-Megan-Fox vehicle--- it didn't look like something was made for me, included me, or respected me.

Kusama says the film confused the marketing team by being both a comedy and horror, and being a story that mostly centered around girls and girls' experiences.  The "default setting" Kusama says for marketing then becomes "just market it to boys."  Kusama recalls being flummoxed by trailers that never showed the main character of the movie (Amanda Seyfried's character) because it focused on teasing whether or not Fox's body would be exposed.  Kusama also mentions begging the marketing team not to ask Megan Fox do press with porn sites because it would have just been too demoralizing to the actress.  "We're selling a lie,"  Kusama commented on the marketing strategy, and emphasized how impactful how the movie is framed in the press and to critics can be.

I found Kusama's story about Jennifer's Body really thought provoking, because it got into the details of an issue I had heard hinted at many times in other places.  It pointed out a harsh reality that even once you've made your female-centric, female-lead film . . . if the marketing team is not on the same page as you and doesn't share your goals, they can still kill you film, bury your message, and make your project inaccessible.  Often times we are so focused on just getting the film made, and making a good film, everything that comes after is a bit of an afterthought.  However, the way the film gets marketed can be a big fight that can make or break whether your story gets heard and reaches those you are seeking to reach.

So perhaps this is one thing women can do to improve the representation of women in film/television on and off screen: get more marketing savvy, become feminist marketers, select marketing teams carefully, and stay in control of the marketing of your projects!

I was excited about The Force Awakens but I'm not grateful for it. (Possible minor spoiler.)

Eddie: Christ, I like a drink, but I ain't out on the beer every night or screwin' other women, or... 'Ere, I've never once raised me hand to you. Ever. Or the kids.

Rita: Christ.

Eddie: What? Why are you looking like that?

Rita: Right. You're a saint now, is that what you're tellin' me, Eddie? You're a bleedin' saint? 'Cause you give us an even break?

Eddie: What are you saying?

Rita: That is as it should be. Jesus, Eddie! What do you think this strike's all been about, eh? Oh yeah. Actually you're right. You don't go on the drink, do ya? You don't gamble, you join in with the kids, you don't knock us about. Oh, lucky me. For Christ's sake, Eddie, that's as it should be! You try and understand that. Rights, not privileges. It's that easy. It really bloody is. - quote from Made in Dagenham

Ever since the cast was announced, everyone has been talking about gender representation in the new Star Wars reboot.  A mysterious, unknown actress was cast as a main character.  (A mysterious, unknown black actor was cast as another main character.)  It looked like Star Wars was making way for a new era of equal gender representation and diversity in Hollywood.  And I hope it is.

However, partially because I wasn't holding my breath for this movie to solve all of Hollywood sexism issues, and because while I like Star Wars and loved Luke, Han and Leia as a kid I am not a hardcore fanboy and I didn't want to have to view the movie with a bunch of guys drooling over the effects and/or debating the accuracy to the lore, I waited to see the movie until a few weeks after the release date.  Consequently, I had to listen to many enthusiastic fanboys extolling the virtues of the film and encouraging me to go see it.

One reason they kept sighting as a reason I in particular would like the film was that "it was very feminist" and there was a lot of gender equality.  Perhaps foolishly, I got very excited about this claim, and consequently I got my hopes up much too high.  (Also, perhaps we must acknowledge that an average man's benchmark for something being 'very' progressive along gender equality lines may be somewhat lower than my own.)

After seeing the movie, which I enjoyed for several reasons-- one of which certainly being the new female co-protagonist--- I playfully chided the fanboys in my immediate network for having gotten my expectations for gender equality up a little too high.

You would have thought I had deeply insulted these guys' by the explosion of outrage that followed.  These guys couldn't believe their ears!  One guy kept repeating over and over and over again as if in a state of shock "How could you say that!  The main character is a women! The main character is a women!"  I had to keep emphasizing that I hadn't said there was no progress in terms of gender representation, and that I hadn't said that the movie was sexist garbage.  Another point that was made was that "It was science fiction" so it didn't have to have gender equity--- when I noted that with this logic, the movie could have been mostly female characters, these gentlemen denounced that idea as "domineering."

We didn't really have a chance to have a nuanced conversation about it, as the discussion descended into a shouty mess but if I had I would have pointed out that out of the roughly 12 principle characters of the film (if we ignore the robots), only 4 of them were female.  Also the film barely (and arguably) passes the Bechdel test--- boiling down to whether or not a discussion about Rey's visions of Luke are about Rey herself (or rather Luke), and to whether or not hugging counts as 'talking to each other.'  While there were definitely more women in the background as extras, very few of the small roles with 1-3 speaking lines were women.  A scene that stood out to me in particular was a scene in which the Resistance formulates its battle plan--- while many women stood around listening, none of them contributed to the discussion.  (Part of the reason for this is because Abrams filled most of these roles with actor buddies of his; apparently he doesn't have any actress buddies.)  This also bothered me because often small speaking roles pay more than background extra work--- meaning that even before considering the pay gap, male actors were much more likely to be paid more than female actresses on this film simply due to these gendering/casting choices.

But I think the thing that upset me the most about this conversation (and also much of discussions around gender and race in the film) is this idea that we (as female viewers) should be happy with what we have been given.

I am not going to be grateful for something being fair and right.

Am I glad that Star Wars has chosen to include more women in its universe, and hopefully more moving forward?  Yes, absolutely!  But I am not going to cite it as a paragon of gender representation.  Especially not when things like Jennifer Jones or Battlestar Galactica exist.  Just because something has taken a step in the right direction, doesn't mean we have made the whole journey and we should stop there.  There is still a distance to go! 

I object to an attitude that because a big Hollywood film has thrown women a bone, our hunger should be sated and we should be quiet.  It is not up to the patriarchal system to decide when it has achieved equity, it is up to us.  We don't have to just take what we are given--- and then sit down and shut up so the men can enjoy their slightly-less male dominated universes in peace.

Let's not award things for being average.

In thinking about this, I was constantly reminded of a scene in Made in Dagenham--- a true-story film about a group of female workers who go on strike due to unfair wages.  After many days of the strike putting pressure on the workers families, the main character Rita has an argument with her husband (quoted above, and who I should note is a pretty good guy) in which he complains that she should basically do what he wants (break the strike) because after all she has life pretty good--- he doesn't beat her or their kids, spend all their money on alcohol, or cheat on her, like other guys in their community might.  Rita is outraged by this and informs him that he doesn't get a special prize for being a decent human being.  "That's as it should be." she shouts at him.  And that's what I want to shout at people extolling the virtues of The Force Awakens because it has a few women in its principle cast.  That's as it should be!  The fact that this is some sort of feat of heroism just shows how messed up our media is!

The Force Awakens has done some helpful work in tipping the scale back towards gender equality (although its not a 50/50 balance).  But I don't believe in showering accolades upon something that is doing the bare minimum.  

Let's not get carried away in the general frenzy around Star War, and in the relief of women finally being acknowledged or included.  Just like when the internet praised Dustin Hoffman gratuitously, when he finally realized basically a bit of what it is like to be a human woman and how shitty they get treated.  I'm glad he shared his experience, because he was probably able to reach a lot more people and help them understand the challenge of being a woman and problems in our society, but at the same time I don't think he needs to get a Feminist of the Year Award for this.  (Here is Amy Poehler helping another man achieve such enlightenment as well.)

By going overboard with praise and awards for things that are only creeping towards parity, we are in some ways lowering the bar for what progress can be and what excellence is.  We are also setting up an expectation that even the slightest move towards inclusion of women and non-whites is some sort of huge achievement or concession even.  We can do better, and it's important to know that we can do better.

We can love media and be critical of it at the same time.

To quote Feminist Frequency, it is possible to enjoy and care about a film and still see it's flaws.  I was frustrated that these men I was discussing Star Wars were so unable to engage with the Star Wars storylines or politics or cultural relevancy in any way other than in zealous binaries--- especially when they are able to discuss the minute details of the effects and the self-referential moments.

Either I loved the movie or I hated it.  Either I was with them, or I was against them.  Either I thought Star Wars was AWESOME or I thought it was trash that should be thrown out the window.  I was angry to find myself being forced into a box that I had no hand in creating with words being put in my mouth, and being forced to participate in a reductive, binary system so typical of the patriarchy.

There were other things about the film that I definitely enjoyed and I'm looking forward to seeing what the subsequent films have in store (hopefully more great female and racially diverse characters!).  But because I had an unrealistic expectation of gender equality in the film (50/50) but instead saw something that was more (30/70), I had found myself disappointed that more work hadn't been done in this regard.

However, Feminist Frequency makes a good point that it's very important for such a huge, popular franchise to be making such conscious and conspicuous effort to be more inclusive because this can be just the thing to spur other Hollywood filmmakers, studios, and franchises to also move in this direction and to help them understand that gender equality sells!  Also, because Star Wars is a global phenomenon, this effect might be felt globally.

Keep up the good work Star Wars!  Let's keep moving until inclusion on screen is as it should be.

Are you double-0 crazy? If James Bond met a feminist, or even just a real woman

I didn't make my October post yet, so I thought I'd leave this here for you all to enjoy, if you haven't seen it yet!

This video is much needed relief to me as we find ourselves in the midst of Bond adoration as the new film comes out and I have to listen to my film guy friends explain to me how masterful the movies are.  It says much more than I can ever express clearly during these conversations.



I was even recently told I couldn't just say that I didn't like Bond movies because they were sexist and just leave it at that, I had to explain myself. When one friend came to my defense and pointed out that in some of the movies the sexual escapades border on rape, that didn't seem like a valid enough explanation.  Most of the time I try to avoid having to explain myself because it's never worth the time; rather I say that the films 'aren't made for me' because they aren't.  But being told that it's my responsibility to have to explain every. single. time to men what is sexist about a sexist piece of media, really irks me because even acquiescing to that demand seems like an extension of the very patriarchal system that I'm witnessing in the stupid Bond film I'm trying not to spend any more of my life on.  Why can't men take a moment and consider my claim and see if they can figure out why lots of women find the films offensive?  I mean, I'm expected to spend hours listening to and considering men's arguments about why the films are great!

I don't feel like I am obligated to explain to people that using female characters primarily for eye candy and male wish-fulfillment is sexist because it is so obvious.  People should understand this by now.

Another common defense of the Bond franchise is that, geez, you just have to understand that they were a product of their time.  But then, I want to ask, why do we need them now?  If they are antiquated, backwards historical artifacts, why are we reproducing them and extending them and make them literally 'of our time'?  I mean, Birth of a Nation was a "product of its time,"  does that make it any less racist?  Should we all be chill with making Birth of a Nation II?  No that's ridiculous.  So is insisting the Bond franchise isn't gross and unnecessary.

The films aren't really being transformed, except maybe by delving further into the mental anguish of what it's like to be a rich, British, smug, white man with endless guns. The center pieces of the films are still objectified, male-gaze-defined 'Bond girl' (it's all in the name).  If the films didn't have them, would they even be Bond films anymore?  I think most people would argue, no they really wouldn't.  So if you remove the misogyny there's not much left except some masculine brawn.  And so why do need to make more of these other than to make a cultural record of which female body shapes were idealized over the decades?

(I mean why is Berenice Marlohe even in Skyfall?  Her character is so forgettable I can't even remember why she is there other than to be unceremoniously shot by the baddie?  Does she even have more than three lines?)

(Also please note, the author of this post never watched Quantum of Solace because she watched Casino Royale and then also Skyfall at some point and then thought, why are you doing this to yourself?)

In addition, during Bond discussions, I'm usually told to count my blessings because at least now Bond has been given the gift of introspection.  We can witness him experiencing angst like a monosyllabic, sociopathic Harry Potter.  He makes sure to spend some screen time wallowing in guilt and distress over whichever ladyfriend has recently bit the dust aka driving around on a yacht looking pensive and frowning.  Am I a force for good or a force for evil, James wonders as goons majestically and cinematicly gun down beautiful women around him.  Again.  Performing violence and abuse against female characters for the sole purpose of instigating action and character development for a male protagonist is inherently mysoginistic--- denying women of humanity, agency, or identity as anything other than vessels of moral conscious for men.  Why do I need to explain this???

Yeah, the Bond franchise is all about male fantasy, and I'm not ok with what that fantasy is.

P.S.  Ok and way, maybe Namoi Harris' Moneypenny is a bit more progressive.  And Judi Dench is M or whatever and this is a step in the right direction.  But honestly is it really progressive?  I'd have to actually spend more time evaluating the storylines and the objectification of Harris to see if this is really valid--- and right now I'm not willing to spend more of time with Bond movies right now.   And frankly, it's not enough.

Blogs We Love: Feminist Frequency

To continue the "Blogs We Love" thread I'd like to introduce one of my new finds, Feminist Frequency and it's accompanying YouTube channel.  Led by media critic Anita Sarkeesian, this site presents "a video webseries that explores the representations of women in pop culture narratives."

Well researched and well presented, the "Tropes vs Women" video series focuses particularly on video games and traditional media.  Videos exploring recurring "stories, themes and representations of women in Hollywood films and TV shows" include:

1. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl
2. Women in Refrigerators
3. The Smurfette Principle
4. The Evil Demon Seductress
5. The Mystical Pregnancy
6. The Straw Feminist

Video game related topics have included:

• Damsel in Distress (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)
• Ms. Male Character
• Women as Background Decoration (currently Part 1).

Sarkeesian does a wonderful job presenting well balanced and well organized evidence for each "trope" gathered from both media sources and academic research.  I found the identification and naming of specific "tropes" to be an empowering approach as it ultimately offers targeted avenues for change.

The site also links to Ms. Sarkeesian's TEDxWomen talk regarding online harassment, a variety of other videos, and lists of games, TV shows, novels & comics, films, blogs, nonfiction books, etc. that might be of interest.  It's definitely worth checking out!

Belle

Next week the independent film Belle will hit theatres in the USA.  I had the privilege of seeing the film in February at the Athena Film Festival in NYC.

Belle is an historical drama based on the real life of Dido Elizabeth Belle, a mixed-raced British aristocrat who lived the late 1700s.  Dido was the child of an enslaved African woman and an admiral in the British navy;  the two likely encountered each other in the West Indies.  Her mother is believed to have died when Dido was very young and her father sent her to be raised by his uncle, an Earl and Chief Justice, in England where she was raised as a gentlewoman along with her white cousin Elizabeth.  The film was inspired by the painting the Earl had commissioned of his two nieces in 1779 and which still exists to this day.

The film examines what Dido's life may have been like given the real people she would have encountered in her life as well as the historical events that impacted her and her family.  Portrayed by the young British actress Gugu Mbatha-Ra, the film allows us to begin to understand the complex intersections of race, gender, and class that Dido had to negotiate, and to honor the courage and strength of Dido and her family in making the choices (large and small) that they did and the impact those choice can have.

Watch the trailer here:


When speaking after the film screening at the Athena Film Festival, director Amma Asante expanded on the goal of the film besides just bringing the story