Last week, I attended a film festival in Waco, Texas that showed the 2019 documentary This Changes Everything. Spending Friday evening at a film festival seemed like an enjoyable and appropriate way to kick off a weekend that would culminate with the Academy Awards (the Oscars). I had no idea that this film would inform the way I viewed the movie industry and its most celebrated awards show. It did change everything for me.
This Changes Everything is about the representation of women in film, particularly their underrepresentation and misrepresentation on screen and in the film- and television-making process. It is not the first time this theme has been explored in a documentary. What struck me at this viewing, though, was the way the film portrayed patterns that resonated with my experiences in academia and in religious communities. There are parallels between the way sexism manifests in entertainment and I, along with other members in the (predominantly female) audience, couldn’t help but see parallels in Hollywood’s patterns of exclusion and the discriminatory conditions we confront in numerous other industries and professions. What were these patterns?
1 – The film industry didn’t originally exclude women from positions of power. It became more patriarchal when it became more centralized and lucrative. I was surprised to learn that in the silent film era, women were commonly hired as writers, directors, and crewmembers. It was when the industry became more institutionalized and that women were pushed out of roles that shaped the content and production of films. Apparently, when technologies emerged that allowed sound to be incorporated in films, it required financial investment in these technologies as well as massive construction of sound stages where the films would be recorded. The scale of production and its costs ballooned, shutting down smaller studios and consolidating power into several large studios. Owned by powerful men and backed by the male-dominated banking industry, studios began to exclude women from writing and directing and the unions followed suit.
This has been a pattern in many fields and spheres of life. In education, we know that the primary education of young children has been entrusted to women for ages. But as education became centralized and monetized, men often occupied leadership roles. It has been documented that women had leadership roles in early Christian churches. Not all churches had women in leadership, but there were certainly women who functioned as deacons, widows, teachers, and apostles. As the church became more centralized and more institutionalized, it conformed to predominant patriarchal cultural patterns and women were excluded from the priesthood and public leadership roles.
2 – Systemic patterns and practices keep women from advancing their careers. This Changes Everything documents numerous instances of systemic, discriminatory practices in scriptwriting, casting, hiring, and many other stages of filmmaking and the efforts engaged to combat this bias. Women directors—even when they have successful and critically acclaimed first films–are less likely than men to be trusted to produce a second film. Even when the industry has tried to increase gender diversity, the number of women film-makers, writers, etc. tends to level off at 15-20%. The numbers for women of color are even more discouraging. That certainly seems familiar. The number of ordained women in Christian ministry has grown over the past several decades, but women’s representation in the highest levels of leadership is still limited. And as of 2018, fewer than 25 percent of faculty and deans at Christian seminaries were women, and only 11 percent of seminary presidents were women, according to research by Eileen Campbell-Reed. Feminists have consistently argued that sexism is not just an interpersonal problem, but a discriminatory, biased way of thinking perpetuated by systems and institutions. Maintaining the status quo on “how things are done” does not promote gender parity or equity.
3 – Women’s exclusion from writers’ rooms, directing roles, producers’ roles, and studio leadership positions effects which stories get told on-screen and how women’s lives are portrayed. We know that women and girls are overly sexualized and objectified in too much on-screen content. What I was not aware of, though, is the degree to which women are routinely excluded from the stories on film except when they support a narrative about a man. Women and girls get less screen time, and when they are there, their storylines often center around men and boys. Have you heard of the Bechdel-Wallace Test? It is a really low standard for women’s presence in fictional films and tv shows. The test is whether a film has at least one scene where two women (who have names) have a conversation with each other that is about something other than a man. Kind of a joke, right? (This article describes other “tests” about representation on film.) The Bechdel-Wallace test is not a feminist standard—it simply identifies whether women are present, interacting with other women, and discussing anything other than men. But it is effective precisely because of how many films do not meet these minimal criteria. Fewer than half of this year’s Best Picture nominees pass the Bechdel-Wallace test. American Hustle (2013) passed the test because two women have a conversation about nail polish. Can we even imagine a film that did not have two men discussing something other than a woman being nominated for Best Picture?
Feminist religion scholars and textual critics have helped us see male-dominated perspectives and male bias in the central writings and narratives of patriarchal religions. The stories are rarely about women because they were not written by women. Even when the “male gaze” does not portray women as sexual objects, it can be harmful by reducing women to background figures. Without women writers and storytellers (which is what directors are in film and television), audiences do not see female characters’ interior lives, their challenges, and victories. Who are the heroes of our religious texts? Can we recognize ourselves?
People of all genders can write compelling dialogue and action for characters who are different than they are. And yet, the most authentic writing comes from our own truths and experiences. When we limit who gets to share their stories and who gets to represent the “important” stories on screen, we exclude significant facets of human experience. Furthermore, we miss out on opportunities for diverse audiences to empathize with characters different from themselves and to see representations of their own lives on screen. That last point was a key theme in Little Women, the Best Picture nominee snubbed in nominations for Best Director.
When I watched This Changes Everything, I was angry, which carried over to Academy Awards night, when the same patterns of exclusion were on display as Hollywood recognized the year’s “best” work. But I was also excited about the work feminists are doing to change the industry. That commitment to change is paralleled, too, in my feminist colleagues, religious leaders, activists, students and scholars who create great work, guide their communities, and make our industries and professions more inclusive. Rage on, my friends!
Elise M. Edwards, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics at Baylor University and a graduate of Claremont Graduate University. She is also a registered architect in the State of Florida. Her interdisciplinary work examines issues of civic engagement and how beliefs and commitments are expressed publicly. As a black feminist, she primarily focuses on cultural expressions by, for, and about women and marginalized communities. Follow her on twitter or academia.edu.
feminismandreligion.com 
Love having you back. Maybe you should write more often. I miss you.
Related to the subject you are discussing, I saw Unbelievable (series) over the holidays. The subject is a rape that is dismissed by the police. In the next 5 episodes women take complete control of the narrative–two women detectives with different styes (both white though) take over the investigation and tell the men what to do. The rapist is given almost no screen time (in contrast to to other popular series that focus on the mind of the rapist or killer and what makes him do it). I was totally blown away: I am not sure I have ever seen a movie or a series where women were actually front and center all of the time!!! It was a-mazing and reminds me of how little this is the case.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Do you recall that fun show a few years back, “Cagney and Lacey”? I’m not a fan of detective shows, but I enjoyed this one, mostly because it had two dynamic women detectives in the lead roles. Sadly, I can’t recall any other show with that framework. I hope I don’t recall any others because I just don’t watch much TV, but I fear it is the other way around.
LikeLike
I thought that series was amazing! I think the narrative was so compelling (and difficult to watch) but so skillfully composed. There were numerous women writers and directors involved int eh miniseries, and the actors performances made it all outstanding.
Thank you for such a warm welcome back, Carol. I’ve missed you, too.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing. I have shared on the divine feminine app as well (and linked to here!)
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
Excellent post – I guess at this point I would like to see more genuine changes occurring – it seems to me that the exploding global population isn’t moving away from patriarchy but further towards it. Dominion and more dominion…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comments, Sara. It’s a similar sentiment to Barbara, below. I, too, am worried about how patriarchy seems to be growing. But it was encouraging to see the documentary talk about the system practices that have actually obstructed a more equitable society and to see feminists (and others) who know what they are up against and commit to changing those structures. One of the most positive things I learned from the film is how effective some changes have been. For example, in 2015, a reporter for Variety did investigative journalism on the diversity of directors and other roles in television. She reported that FX had the lowest numbers on director diversity, with white men making up 88% of its directors. She basically shamed the network, and the network head asked his employees to t=help him make changes. He told them they were going to be accountable for diversifying their offerings A year later, the number of white male directors fell to less than 50% – AND FX HAD SOME OF THE MOST ACCLAIMED SHOWS IT EVER SAW. Imagine that – one they got a more diverse staff, they got better stories. Other studio execs did the same and they reported that it wasn’t even that hard. They just needed to want to change. That’s where I see the difficult path ahead. Patriarchy wants to perpetuate itself and tries to convince us it is the best way the world works. We need to continue showing people why the alternative -an equitable society – is better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
my concern – there are some of us that really get it – but it’s this critical mass that we must have to make genuine change…
LikeLike
Very interesting. I’ve read several books on the history of the movies and learned what you learned from the documentary: Hollywood So Male, so to speak, just like Oscar So White a year or two ago. I hope things are in fact changing and will continue to change not only in the movies, but throughout our patriarchal society. Thanks for writing this post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. Miss Representation is another documentary on this topic. I’m glad there are several books and films and shows that are bringing this up. Awareness is a crucial part of change, but we know it’s not enough. Those of us who want ot do the work, though, are benefitted by takignt he time ot become informed abotu what we want to change and how the status quo got to be how it is.
LikeLike
Do you recall that fun show a few years back, “Cagney and Lacey”? I’m not a fan of detective shows, but I enjoyed this one, mostly because it had two dynamic women detectives in the lead roles. Sadly, I can’t recall any other show with that framework. I hope I don’t recall any others because I just don’t watch much TV, but I fear it is the other way around.
LikeLike
Excellent, eye-opening, thought-provoking, galvanizing post. I have often pondered how economics, institutionalization, and requiring costly credentials affects women in professions–the medical profession is another example. Early male MDs pushed out and even persecuted women who had been midwives and healers for generations. My great grandmother was disinherited by her family when she studied with the Blackwell sisters to obtain an MD. The publishing industry is currently in disarray and has suffered from same sort of consolidation of money and power. But it is interesting to me that women early made the novel their own–possibly because they needed only pen and paper and no outside investment to write the actual book, though many to be published took male pseudonyms. At least in novels women with names have been able to converse with each other!
Right on, write on, Elise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you! I did think of midwives when I was writing this. We’ve seen this over and over again. Once “women’s work” can be profitable or an avenue to power, patriarchal systems usurp women’s roles and redefine the work in often sexist and misogynist ways.
Was your great grandmother disinherited because she was doing something women shouldn’t do or because she didn’t choose midwifery?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe because she was entering a largely male profession, in that few women then had MDs. . She also lived with a woman and adopted and raised two daughters, one of them my grandmother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Over and over – yes – once women’s work is profitable we disappear.
LikeLike
Great article, Elise. It’s so good to hear your voice again here!
Your first point is one that I found over and over again in teaching the Women and the Arts class at University of Wisconsin-Madison. Early on in all sorts of businesses, there are more women and women in more important roles. And if an innovation is introduced, for example pastel paintings, women are found in greater numbers. But once it becomes profitable, the men take over. When it’s a matter of actual ability, like Marie Laveau’s ability as a voodoo practitioner, women excel. But as soon as things get institutionalized, patriarchy takes over.
I would add one more point. I think it’s implicit in your wonderful article, but another problem is the decision about what constitutes an important story, since only important stories get filmed. And, of course, women’s stories are deemed less worthy than men’s, because we live in a patriarchy.
LikeLike
When I started reading this post I immediately thought, well, of course, the movie industry and the movies it produces are exclusionary, sexist, etc. One of the best ways to get your message out in the last century has been movies, and then television and streaming services.
What better way to give women the message, to literally SHOW them, what their place is and how they should behave?
It was interesting to read the history of the industry and see that it is more nuanced than that. But still the end result is the same.
LikeLike