Is Sexism Still Alive In Hollywood Today?

N.B This was written before Salt was released.

One of the last great taboos within the world of Hollywood today is sexism. The question of sexism is ever recurrent with no satisfactory solution seemingly provided by film studios. As a man, no matter what my article states, the issue is so controversial that any opinion I have will be affected by my genetic makeup. Nevertheless, with the release of the movie Sex and the City 2, I felt this issue had once again come to the fore of film. So, is Hollywood still sexist?

Irrelevant of gender, the first Sex and the City movie was a painful experience for all who were not diehard fans of the original show. Indeed, the prospect of a sequel makes me shiver but I am not the target audience by any means. Two and a half hours of shopping, sex and shoes could not appeal to me any less. However, that’s not what annoyed me most about the first film – it was the banality of the four main leads. They were all aiming for personal closure whether through marriage, job success or orgasms – it’s so clichéd. With Sex and the City 2, reviewers have increased their criticisms as it seemingly patronises middle-Eastern women as well. If this be true, I must ask - what happened to the once great voice for women?

The original TV series’ produced and developed four women who lived glamorous life styles but at least the audience could connect and understand them. It left open ended questions, and although sometimes frivolous, occasionally the questions had a greater meaning and were able to explore more realistically the highs and lows of the female life.

However, now the ‘great liberator’ of women has turned in to the age old stereotype of closure. Admittedly, television has the luxury of a series of episodes equating to about 12 to 24 hours of screen time and character development which film makers have to fit in into 2 hours. Films cannot simply leave open ended questions like TV can; to do so would seem to be shameless pandering for a possible sequel. I worry that the outrageous-ness of the original TV characters was too risky or felt not as appealing to the audience. I have only seen a few episodes in passing and did not care for it much. However, it was nice to see some real women on TV for a change, which only made the first Sex And The City big-screen outing more disappointing

Television enjoys a much more liberal audience. People pick and choose TV at the press of a button, but, with cinema, people pay hard money to see something good. The studios are so desperate to please all, they neutralise the outlandishness of the female characters, turning more of them into the kooky/serious/party-girl arena which ends up misrepresenting women. Meanwhile, on the box today, there are several shows such as Desperate Housewives and Ghost Whisperer – all of which have female leads and are really good. Most importantly, the actresses get to act and portray women properly. The fact that females are the leads is just accepted with no special song and dance attached whereas within films, it is sometimes seen as a brave move. The statistics speak for themselves.

For example, in 2009, 18 of the top 100 grossing films were focused on women. Although this figure is an improvement by 6 upon 2008’s total, the figure is far from impressive as it still leaves 82 films that do not involve a main female character. I am not shocked by this but one must use this statistic carefully. It would be easy to say “OMG! 82 films that don’t involve women – that’s so sexist!” The statistics does highlight an imbalance but not all of the 82 films should have involved women. Some films should remain male focused but the level of imbalance suggests that there are other factors at work than simply a lack of good stories.

To fully evaluate the state of the female role, we must start at the top in the form of the annual Hollywood award ceremonies. To be honest another reason for writing this article was the 2010 Golden Globe Awards. The evening was a rather uneventful one with nothing of note to happen. However, the Best Actress category raised my eyebrows as Emily Blunt was nominated for her role in The Young Victoria. I’m not questioning the choice due to the quality of her performance (she’s actually really good) but inquiring it due to the fact that the film was released in March 2008 in the U.K. In comparison, all the Best Actor nominees had their films released in the same month of the award ceremony (January 2010). So, are they saying that there were no other better female performances that year? This is not a criticism of actresses last year; instead it highlights a distinct lack of women roles available within Hollywood.

As Emily Blunt’s nomination highlights, there are two main recurring trends within cinema in the last decade. Firstly, Hollywood’s general obsession with history. Secondly, it seems the only strong female roles come from previous historical figures. History gives the strong female role the credibility seen as impossible from other filmmakers in contemporary cinema. Cate Blanchett (Robin Hood, Elizabeth), Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich), Dame Helen Mirren (The Queen), Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose) and looking at the last decade of Best Actress Oscar winners, 6 of the 10 winners were based on real life famous figures.

However, if we look at the Best Actor category, it seems it is not a gender dependent obsession as 50% of winners have been from biographical films. It seems studios do not use history simply to give women roles but more improve their chances in award season. However, Oscars are nice but what studios truly want is the box office returns. When totalling worldwide box office returns of the winning Best Actor/ Best Actress films from the last decade, the actors’ film came in at $1.2 billion dollars whereas the actresses’ films made just under $1.5 billion dollars. So, there is a definite audience and they are good films (hence Oscar shortlisted). If this be the case, why are so few female focused films produced?

Well, these films are only Oscar winners in a category explicitly set up to choose only actresses’ therefore, my scope is already extremely negative and pointless for the overall argument. Indeed, the films that are nominated are normally produced by studios in the hope of Oscar baiting rather than provide actresses’ with great roles. The same could be said with actors but they have other project they can do and little restrictions upon them. However, with women, there are limited options with the most reliable vehicle for female roles being the Rom-Com genre.

Rom-Com’s are one of the most profitable genres of film and are constantly rising in popularity. The film schedule is littered each month with a Rom-Com offering as Hollywood reacted to the potential goldmine audience that was the feminist movement. However, Rom-Com’s have sadly taken the form of IKEA furniture but a lot less fun. Insert annoying smug hunk here, insert brilliant yet neurotic and flawed women, and add comedic escapades (coffee spilt on self, golf clubs into gentleman’s regions etc) and finally, the pair reach closure. The end. Films such as The Proposal, What Happens In Vegas and The Back-Up Plan are just some of the examples that pander to this cliché. Dr. Tamar Jeffers McDonald, an lecturer at the University of Kent, summaries it perfectly – “you see depictions of women who are supposedly at the top of their game, yet they can’t walk down a corridor in the white suit without pouring coffee on themselves or walking into a bush”. It is strange to see women pigeon holed into these pre-determined life slots.

Actress Katherine Heigl spoke out in an interview with Vanity Fair back in 2007 stating how she saw Knocked Up as “a little sexist” and asks “why is this how you’re portraying women?” Personally, I can’t echo her thoughts entirely on this film – it’s not the best representation but certainly not the worst. Although she highlights a greater problem, Heigl herself has done little to correct it or help this cause. Here’s looking at 27 Dresses, The Ugly Truth and her latest offering of Killers – again, they all follow to type and it’s just all so predictable. However, is it just that these films are bad? Indeed, When Harry Met Sally and Annie Hall are clear examples of Rom-Com’s done well and are successful in their own right. However, within the last five years, there are very few of these fish in the metaphorical sea. Therefore, is it not dependent on the film standard and that Hollywood has got it right? Is it that women actually want closure?

Of course, this is a sweeping statement and I can give no direct answer as I am a man. Indeed, I’m not trying to anger any female readers but something must make these films so popular and it may be that people genuinely want closure. Is it such a bad thing to want closure? Speaking from second hand experience, my mum is in the middle of her divorce and does not see a direct urge for closure and she seems pretty real to me. Therefore, has my mum got it wrong or is that closure is the right way to go? Or is that we’re reading too much into this? Personally, there is nothing overtly wrong with a good Rom Coms and I am a partial to a viewing of Four Weddings and a Funeral and When Harry Met Sally. Furthermore, I did not feel thundering overtones of sexism whilst watching these films and found them to be just well made funny films.

Whilst researching this article, the majority of pieces that focus upon this issue are mainly written by feminist historians and critics. Therefore, it may simply be a problem for feminists and not for Joe and Jane Public. Indeed, it is impossible for them to remain completely neutral in their pieces but nevertheless they do make some very good points. Case in point - are Rom-Coms desirable due to their message or that there are no other films available for a female audience?

This is where the Bechdel test can be used. Prove that it still exists arrives in the form of the Bechdel test. The test arrives from Alison Bechdel’s 1985 comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For. The test consists of three simple rules – 1) It has at two least women in it who have names 2) They talk to each other 3) They talk about things other than men. A simple enough test which one would expect films to pass with ease. However, the big box office films of 2010 such as The Green Zone, Iron Man 2, Kick-Ass and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time all fail. The thing is it’s not even about it being a ‘woman’ film as even the testosterone fest that is Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen passes the test.

The female audience can handle more than studios believe and that in the 21^st century world, studios need to provide more female focused films without relying on history. There is a clear underrepresentation of females within Hollywood. However, are they to blame? Other critics around the web have taken a different approach to the situation stating that in fact, nobody really wants to see female-led films. To an extent this could be true, as female action franchises such as Elektra, Catwoman and Aeon Flux have all bombed at the box office. Indeed, outside of Rom-Coms and Oscar hopefuls, few films perform amazingly well. Looking at the releases of summer 2010, there are little to none female led films as it seems that the studios and the people want more male action based films as shown with the upcoming The A-Team, The Expendables and Predators films. Therefore, is it sexist to give the people what they apparently want?

It’s not directly sexist but the lack of another option does not help the case against a ‘sexist’ Hollywood. The aforementioned female centric action films did not perform badly at the box office simply because they starred a woman; it was that they were all terrible films. Furthermore, throughout cinematic history, there have been great female leads ranging from Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday) to Ripley (Alien series) to The Bride (Kill Bill). So, why are they any different? As Callie Khouri says after her Oscar win for Thelma & Louise, how she has been continually asked “as a woman, what was it like?” and she promptly replies “as opposed to what?” Give an actress great dialogue, great story and the freedom to finally show off and you’ve got a great film.

Foreign cinema has taken up this formula which has grown great results in return. Amelie, Caramel and Pan’s Labyrinth all have female leads and have been critical and commercial successes. However, Hollywood does recognise it has a problem and is trying to address it – whether through good intention or audience pressure, that’s another thing. However, I worry that there will be a backlash to the sudden rise of female actresses and in particular directors. For example, Sigourney Weaver earlier this year criticised the Academy stating the reason why James Cameron didn’t win the Best Director Oscar is that “Jim didn’t have breasts”. Personal opinion is the decider on this particular argument as to whether it was a sympathy vote or deserved winner. Nevertheless, considering Kathryn Bigelow was the first female winner of the Best Director accolade, it is about time that stretch without a female winner was ended. Studios just need to give women a chance.

Behind the scenes, only 8% of the top 250 grossing films worldwide in 2009 were written by women. Indeed, it is hard to remember that there was a pre-Diablo Cody era of female screenwriter for many after the media frenzy surrounding Juno. However, it may be hard to believe as in 2008, 86% of films had no female writers. Frances Marion is a name few would recognise but she actually won Oscars in 1930 and 1932 for Best Original Screenplay. Therefore, it’s not a question of talent, simply opportunity and the fact it was another 71 years until Sofia Coppola took home the gong for Best Original Screenplay highlights the problem.

Throughout this article, I’ve tried to fairly balance both sides of this highly controversial debate and no matter what I write it’ll not please everyone. However, after all my research and general experience of cinema, would I say Hollywood is sexist? My answer would be sort of. The question should be is Hollywood under representative or just plain sexist? It’s both as it is still extremely hard for women to break through as Hollywood still has the stigma of being ‘The Ultimate Boy’s Club’. However, Hollywood is rectifying it slowly as it is not a quick fix by any means. The best solution is just quick women the chance to show that they can do – simple really.