Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Reference source: French, L., ‘Does Gender Matter?’ Lumina: Australian Journal of Screen Arts and Business, No. 14, May 2015, pp. 139-153. This copy is slightly expanded on the published version. DOES GENDER MATTER? WOMEN AND AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION NOW Lisa French Today women are heading Australia’s film agencies: they are our top production talent and play central roles as commissioning editors. Women are directors of our film festivals and are graduating in droves from film schools— many of which are also headed by women. So why are women earning less than men and why do women make up only 29 per cent of producers of feature films, 20 per cent of writers and 16 per cent of directors?1 Do Australian film and television industries need to consider the subject of gender and why is it important for industry now? Is the participation of women crucial to the future of an innovative, creative, sustainable and internationally viable Australian industry? 1 WOMEN IN THE INDUSTRY NOW At the 2015 AFI AACTA Awards, Jennifer Kent scooped the pool with her low budget (A$2.5 million) horror film The Babadook (2014), a frightening tale of a single mother ‘who’s fully-realized, un-sexualized and isn’t waiting around for any man to save her’ (Dominic Preston, Longreads). Kent shared ‘Best Film’ with the big budget Russell Crowe film The Water Diviner (2014). She was the only woman nominated for ‘Best Direction’, which she won, and she also took out ‘Best Original Screenplay’. She did all this with a horror film—a genre not ordinarily associated with either female practitioners or Australian cinema—and in so doing emphasised the limitations of thinking about a particular genre as ‘masculine’ and played a role in expanding what ‘Australian cinema’ is understood to be. It earned millions of dollars in the box office on international circuits, garnered outstanding critical success and deployed a new(ish) mode of distribution as an iTunes download. By anyone’s reckoning, Jennifer Kent has seriously punched ‘above her weight’ and ‘outside the square’—an achievement that women in the Australian film and television industries have in fact been doing for decades. Kent followed a string of other women who have been winners of AFI/AACTA ‘Best Film’ (such as Jan Chapman, Lynda House, Brigid Ikin, Robyn Kershaw, Sue Maslin, Jane Scott) and ‘Best Direction’ (Elissa Down, Sue Brooks, Jane Campion, Jocelyn Moorhouse, Cate Shortland, Nadia Tass, Sarah Watt). These women are among our most notable practitioners and many have developed international careers. But, strangely, all this acclaim is a problem. This very success has created the impression that there are more women in the industry than there actually are, and this masks the fact that women are still in the minority in most positions in the Australian film and television industries. Gender data released by Screen Australia (2013) reveals that women in feature films made up 29 per cent of producers, 20 per cent of writers and 16 per cent of directors; in documentary the participation rate is much better (34– 40 per cent) and women have the strongest participation in television, getting up to 44 per cent. However, there continue to be areas where the gender balance is dominated by one sex or other (women are only 6 per cent of DOPs 2 and men are only 5 per cent of makeup artists).2 Considering that women are a minority by percentage in key creative and most other areas, it is notable that women were represented in all competitive categories at the 2015 AACTA Awards (except Best Light Entertainment TV Series); and women won 50 per cent of sole awards, or shared 57 per cent of wins—further evidencing women’s performance above their numerical representation.3 This example of AACTA success is a clear indicator that there is a strong business case for including more women in all sectors of the industry. They are clearly talented and successful, and such awards drive box office, careers and open doors internationally. On their merit, women have the talent to drive a successful industry, and the fact that they are still not achieving equal participation is a significant problem for the industry: it is failing to make full use of the potential of its human capital and to draw upon the best available talent. It is also missing out on diversity of content. Diversity is a significant driver of innovation. The implication of a lack of diversity in content is that when ‘decision makers come from only one part of society, they will only draw on a narrow range of experiences … [and it] will be harder for them to take into account the diverse television audience when they make decisions on programming and production’.4 That presents a significant risk for audiovisual industries on two fronts: a consequent failure to connect with audiences and a potential homogeneity of content. Women have been making films that are highly successful in terms of box office, and which are innovative, for example, unique films such as Rachel Perkin’s musical road movie Bran Nue Dae (2009) and Sarah Watt’s animated and live action Look Both Ways (2005), both of which seriously advance film form and, notably, have a lot of women in key creative roles. There are numerous feature film examples where the dominant presence of women in key creative roles has resulted, intended or not, in more women in the crew. Among them are Sue Brook’s Japanese Story (2003), Kate Wood’s Looking for Alibrandi (2000), Shirley Barrett’s South Solitary (2010) and Jocelyn Moorhouse’s The Dressmaker (2015). Examples in television include Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries (2012–2015), created by Deb Cox and Fiona 3 Eagger, and Offspring (2010–2014), created by Debra Oswald, John Edwards and Imogen Banks. Both shows have large numbers of women in major production roles and feature complex, autonomous, central female protagonists. My research has indicated a solution: in both film and television there is a correlation between women in key creative roles and the number of women on the crew as well as in front of the camera—so having more women in these key roles increases female participation in the industry, and increases the female stories told there. This suggests that a way to achieve more women participating in the industry is to ensure more women hold key creative roles. Indeed, Screen Australia’s financial approvals for feature film production (including documentary features) over the past six years (2008–2014) reveal that women directors have made films with central female protagonists 74 per cent of the time and that men have only featured a woman character or subject 24 per cent of the time. The importance of this, and the logical inference, is that women directors are more likely to make films featuring women in the central role and vice versa. Thus stories from female points of view are more likely to be made by women directors. International research supports this conclusion: a BFI study of barriers to diversity in film found that ‘when women are involved in writing, production and directing, they create more female characters’.5 Stories with great female characters have strong support from television audiences for both Australian (Puberty Blues, Wentworth, Paper Giants: The Birth of Cleo) and imported shows (e.g. Borgen, The Bridge, The Good Wife, Madam Secretary, Orange is the New Black, Buffy, Homeland). These audiences will look away from Australian product if Australia doesn’t cater for them, and the industry cannot afford to lose any audience share. Another potential effect of having more women is its impact on workplace cultures. In industry surveys over time, not just women but men as well have complained about ‘blokey’ cultures. This provides evidence that men as well as women are interested in work environments where one gender or the other does not prevail and where individuals can use varied communication styles, including those that may be regarded as more feminine e.g. less ‘blokey’.6 As Sharon Bell has observed, a lack of gender balance ‘impacts negatively on 4 men as well as women by narrowing choice and reinforcing historic workforce patterns’. 7 AN HISTORICAL SNAPSHOT—HOW WE GOT HERE Female filmmakers participated in the Australian film industry from the early silent era. At a time when there was no government funding, women built careers in the mainstream commercial industry. Women who could fund their own films did so with significant success (McDonagh sisters, Mary Mallon and Juliette de la Ruse). Several actors launched their careers into production, including Lottie Lyle, Annette Kellerman and Kate Howard. However the industry slumped from the 1930s to the 1960s (a period often referred to as ‘the interval’), and no feature films were directed by a woman between Paulette McDough’s Two Minutes Silence (1933) and Gillian Armstrong’s My Brilliant Career (1979)—an interval itself of 46 years. This underlines the significance of Armstrong’s achievement and she has become an important role model for women directors (something she herself did not have). During this ‘interval’ from the mid-1930s to the end of the 1960s, there were many documentaries made, mostly at the Shell Film Unit or Commonwealth Film Unit (which had been the Australian National Film Board and later became Film Australia). Whilst they were skilling up an industry for the ‘revival’ in the 1970s there weren’t a lot of women involved. Producer and director Catherine Copillet (nee Duncan) and writer director Rhonda Small were among the few working from the 1940s to 1960s. Television came to Australia in 1956 and remained a distinctly masculine domain until the 2000s, after which time women have made significant headway, dramatically increasing their participation in television. My research into the industry in Victoria indicated that women working in television are more optimistic than other sectors, and less likely to believe conditions in the industry had deteriorated for women, or to report gender as a disadvantage. They had achieved promotion more often than in other sectors and those working on serials/series television were more often earning around $75,000 (reporting the highest salaries generally in the audiovisual industries).8 Since the 1970s, each decade has had its own significance for women in film and television in Australia. The 1970s were noteworthy for the emergence of 5 feminist culture and the revival of the Australian film industry. The 1980s saw a consolidation of the position of women who were gaining training, and access and ethnic and queer visions were beginning to make it to the screen. The 1990s were significant for the emergence of Indigenous women who were beginning to move from documentary to fiction, which occurred alongside the quirky ‘glitter cycle’ (e.g. PJ Hogan’s 1994 Muriel’s Wedding) and social realist films of the time (e.g. David Caesar’s 1996 Idiot Box). The 1990s saw a rise of women successfully working within mainstream film and television production. The 2000s were a transnational era where filmmakers were able to use international money and talent, and women excelled in global circuits that continued into the second decade of the 2000s. Several factors led to a favourable position of women in the Australian industry from the 1970s. The revival of the industry in the 1970s occurred alongside the influential women’s movement, and because the industry was government subsidised, equal opportunity policies were in place. In addition, government programs advocated affirmative action that enabled women, for example, the AFC’s Women’s Film Fund (1976–1989, which was renamed the Women’s Program in 1989). Since the 1990s, affirmative action assisted Aboriginal practitioners, including women, who were similarly enabled through initiatives such as the first Indigenous drama initiative From Sand to Celluloid (AFC), produced by Rachel Perkins, and including filmmakers Sally Riley, Darlene Johnson and Warwick Thornton—propelling Indigenous filmmakers into narrative fiction where they have arguably formed the most vibrant site of contemporary production (another case for the importance of diversity). As Bruce Beresford said on the study notes for the series, ‘the future of the Australian film industry depends on the development of creative talent’.9 The global perception of Australian film and television has been that it produces and supports women filmmakers. When Australian film and television is mentioned in the international literature, it is frequently observed that it is an industry that has produced significant female talent and it is portrayed as a benevolent industry for women. For example, in her book on international women screenwriters, Marsha McCreadie noted Australia’s programs for women (women’s film funds), and concluded that the situation for them was 6 better than in America.10 Esteemed film critic Andrew Sarris noted that: While women directors in film industries around the world are still seen as anomalous (if mainstream) or marginalised as avant-garde, the Antipodes have been home to an impressive cadre of female film-makers who negotiate and transcend such notions. Before the promising debuts of Ann Turner (Celia) and Jane Campion (Sweetie), Gillian Armstrong blazed a trail with My Brilliant Career.11 This view of Australia as a premier location for female filmmaking talent has occurred despite the reality that the participation of women in Australian audiovisual industries is much the same as it is globally, and it has followed similar patterns compared to other Western industrialised nations. For instance, between 1998 and 2007 the numerical participation of women in Australian and the global film and television industries declined by percentage, going backwards—so it has not been a situation where women have continuously improved their position.12 For example, in Australia, women directors were reported as being 22 per cent in an AFC survey in 1992, but in the subsequent data (1991–2009), they were only 18 per cent of directors.13 REPRESENTATION As a woman you have a unique and different vision. It’s good that these voices are heard in the world. Jane Campion14 Producers of screen content naturally tell stories linked to their experience and a central experience that influences subjectivity or how anyone might see that world is gender—living life in the body of a man or woman. While not all men or all women have the same experiences, they do share the commonality of experiencing themselves as male or female. Women naturally tell stories linked to their (female) experience of the world, and these are not stories that men would necessarily be likely to tell or be able to tell from an authentic female perspective (although exceptions can always be found for any argument). Whilst there is no unanimity on the kind of films women might make given they work across genres and styles, it is this interest in a female view (drawn from or connected to the experience of living in the world as a woman) that is at the 7 centre of what female filmmakers themselves often argue women bring to film and television and that men don’t. For instance, Jane Campion has observed: ‘I think I know things about women that men cannot express’15, and: [m]ost of my films are written about women, and people often ask why I make films about women. It’s as basic as that to me. I think the reason that actresses have excelled in my films is that I’m speaking in their language; I’m speaking through the body of a woman, the psyche of a woman, and that’s my particular insight.16 For Campion, the difference she brings as a woman is a focus on smaller things; in Marie Mandy’s film Women Filming Desire (2002) she said: ‘I like detail and I read things into detail and, I think that is quite a feminine quality. … I’m satisfied with that, I don’t expect to be dealing with the big explosions and the big fights and I’ll see my whole world in something much smaller’. The example of these ‘smaller’ interests is something female filmmakers frequently note. In an interview I conducted with writer Alison Tilson (Road to Nhill, Japanese Story), she commented that the difference was in character rather than action or quest-driven films.17 This is an observation also made by director Ana Kokkinos who pointed to the emphasis on inner life rather than action in films by women. In an interview in The Age she said women ‘write different stories and therefore make different films’ and have a different sensibility in the ‘way they direct, in the way they work with actors and in the way they tell a story’.18 The late screenwriter and producer Joan Long observed in 1985 that in her view ‘[w]omen choose particular kinds of films that are subtly different from the kinds of films that men choose’.19 This does not make any particular kind of film better; it is just that both should have an opportunity to be made. In this author’s view there is a ‘female gaze’, which includes within it these ‘small details’ that draw on female culture. Belgian director and academic Chantal Akerman has said that: I give space to things which were never—almost never—shown in that way, like the daily gestures of a woman. They are the lowest in the hierarchy of film images … But more than content, it’s because of the style. If you show a woman’s gestures so precisely, it’s because you love them. In some way you recognize those gestures that have always been denied and ignored.20 8 This addresses a female audience, which recognises these moments and identifies with something that is difficult to pin down but which connects to being female. I know exactly what Akerman meant when I see these moments in film or television: I experience a kind of ‘shock of recognition’, a shock because these textures are so rare and I recognise them as emerging from experience I understand from being female. It is of course a controversial claim to say that a film might be influenced by the fact that the person making the film is biologically female (or male). A point to be made here is to emphasise that this does not imply any homogeneity, because each life is unique as is each practitioner and her practice. However, despite this cautionary note it is arguable that there are some tendencies women might share. These include that female subjectivity is foregrounded, as are women’s stories, characters and issues. The already described interest in detail could be understood as a characteristic of a female aesthetic. This aesthetic and female perspective happens in several ways: it could be subtle in the world-view of the woman making the film so, for example, it would not degrade women or be sexist. In her book When Women Call the Shots, script consultant Linda Seger offers that films by women ‘change the focus’, that they often emphasise ‘the character’s emotions, behavior, and psychology above the character’s actions’.21 I am currently working on a study of documentaries, examining whether there is a ‘female gaze’, and attended the Amsterdam International Documentary Film Festival (IDFA) in 2014. They had curated films by women with this idea of ‘the female gaze’ in mind. My observation of the way in which this gaze was evident in documentary films by women directors (twelve of whom I interviewed) was that in general the films where they had an interiority were where they were interested in the psychology of the subject; there was an overwhelming interest in outsiders and marginalisation (perhaps drawn from not being the dominant group in society e.g. male); there was an intense humanism in portrayals of relationships in the personal and in advocacy for change, and family and private spheres were foregrounded; and they had an emotional quality (including examining the personal feelings of filmmakers themselves). In documentaries by female Australians these traits are evident also, for instance, in the films of Gillian Armstrong (Love, Lust and Lies, 2010—and the others in the series), Anna Broinowski (Forbidden Lie$, 2010), Rebecca Barry (I Am a Girl, 2013), 9 Rachel Perkins (First Australians, 2008) and Sophia Turkiewicz (Once My Mother, 2014). It is relevant to note that the discussion here in relation to what women filmmakers bring to their productions is completely different to what is meant by the terms ‘woman’s film’ or ‘chick flick’. In Hollywood, between the 1930s and 1960s, a ‘woman’s film’ described the concerns of a particular type of film, often a melodrama. Men could and did make the ‘woman’s film’. They appealed to women audiences because they asserted the importance of women and their issues, placing females centre story and dealing with emotional, social and psychological issues that related to the respective characters’ lives as women. Women filmmakers did not necessarily make these films, indeed, they generally didn’t, and therefore the clear difference is that they were not produced out of actual female experience or perspectives. The ‘chick flick’, which emerged in the 1980s, is the contemporary (postfeminist) version of the ‘woman’s film’. What the ‘woman’s film’ and ‘the chick flick’ both signal is that there is and always has been a market for female stories with women in key roles. Their target was, and is, female audiences to whom they appeal through emphasising female empowerment via female bonding and narratives of success (or what manifests as ‘girl power’ in ‘chick flicks’), and they focus on emotion and romance. Both terms define the audience rather than those who made the film— although women have been involved in them, for example, the late writer Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle, 1993 and When Harry Met Sally, 1989). Whilst drawing on female narratives, they are often not made by women—but for them. What women filmmakers bring, by dint of having the experience of being women in the world, are diverse stories from female viewpoints, which are valuable to the culture and in the marketplace. To lose these stories is a threat to that culture and market and to a richer understanding of humanity and the place of women within human history. The potential losses are becoming visible. For example, my study of women in audiovisual industries in Victoria showed that the industry was ageing and women of child-rearing age were leaving it. This is partly that the industry isn’t family-friendly, but the implications are that stories from that demographic will be absent from the Australian screen landscape, and this is a loss of diversity of 10 stories in our screen culture.22 The risk here is that there will be fewer women in the industry in the future. WOMEN AND GLOBAL SCREEN INDUSTRIES Australian women have played a leading role globally in audiovisual industries, successfully negotiating sustainable international careers. As I have outlined in an article on the reception of Australian women filmmakers internationally, for at least the last two decades they have received significant accolades at awards and festivals, performed successfully commercially, and are Australia’s brightest talent.23 Evidence of this is clear. For example, women take up between 16 and 29 per cent of key creative roles in feature films (Screen Australia, 2013a), but at the American Academy Awards between 2000 and 2010 they achieved 37.5 per cent of the total Australian nominations and won 27 per cent of the awards that went to Australians.24 Their output globally is central to the way in which Australian film and television is perceived internationally because it is seen as a location that is notable for producing female filmmakers, and because Australian women have performed so solidly on the world stage. The rise of Australian women on international circuits can be traced to the late 1980s that began a decade of particular success for women. A commercial and international context that demonstrates this is the Cannes Film Festival. Australian women filmmakers have distinguished themselves beginning with Jane Campion’s win for the Palme d’Or for Best Short Film in 1986 (with her AFTRS production Peel: An Exercise in Discipline), and then in 1993 she became the only woman at that time to ever win the festival’s highest honour, the Palme d’Or for Best Feature Film for The Piano. She also won the ‘Golden Coach’ award in 2013. Laurie McInnes won the Palme d’Or for Best Short Film with Palisade in 1987. Jocelyn Moorhouse’s film Proof (1991) was invited as part of the Official Selection for the Directors Fortnight at Cannes (1991), Shirley Barrett won the Camera d’Or for best debut feature with Love Serenade (1996), Samantha Lang was the only female director in the competition at Cannes with The Well (1997), and Emma-Kate Croghan sold her film Love and Other Catastrophes (1996) to Miramax following an impressive reception there. Despite the reputation of Cannes for leaving women out (such as the furore in 2012 when not a single film selected for the festival was directed by a woman): the only Australian film in the 2011 festival was Julia Leigh’s Sleeping Beauty (2011). 11 Australian women are major global talents across all key creative fields: producers Jane Scott (Shine 1996 and Mao’s Last Dancer 2009) and Jan Chapman (The Piano and Lantana 2001)—who also has notable credits as an executive producer (The Babadook, Somersault, 2004); editor Jill Bilcock (Muriel’s Wedding 1994 and Red Dog 2011); cinematographer Mandy Walker (Australia 2008, Red Riding Hood 2011); dual Academy Award winner, production and costume designer (and producer) Catherine Martin (Moulin Rouge! 2001, The Great Gatsby, 2013) and writer/director Jane Campion (Bright Star 2009, Top of the Lake 2013). Women working in the non-feature sector have also achieved significant visibility, for example, Academy Award winners Melanie Coombs, who produced the animated short Harvie Krumpet (Adam Elliot, 2003), and Eva Orner who co-produced the feature documentary Taxi to the Dark Side (Alex Gibney, 2007). The high standing of female producers internationally was acknowledged by Screen Australia when they sent a delegation to China in 2010. Three of the four producers sent were women (Jan Chapman, Antonia Barnard and Janelle Landers). A similar situation has been occurring at state level, for instance, in 2010 Screen Queensland sent a factual delegation to London and two of the four sent were women (Cathy Henkel and Sue Clothier). Women have performed strongly in establishing co-productions that contribute significantly to the funding mix (generally with higher budgets than locally funded films) and make an important contribution to screen production in Australia. Production records speak for themselves—women do create financially successful films. For example, producers with films that earned more than A$20 million include Jan Chapman, Rosemary Blight, Catherine Knapman, Catherine Martin, Julie Ryan and Jane Scott. Writers and directors whose films earned more than A$20 million include Laura Jones, Judy Morris, Sue Smith, Gillian Armstrong, Jocelyn Moorhouse, Nadia Tass and Jane Campion.25 Innovative industries need diversity and to make the most of high quality human capital. Women in audiovisual industries provide that capital but are being underutilised, given they are still, in 2015, not achieving equal numerical participation in most industry fields. This problem is pressing for both the production talent and for the need to generate the best possible and most interesting ideas and stories, and it flags a business risk to Australia’s 12 performance in global screen industries. GENDER FINALLY ON THE AGENDA In 2015 the highest AFI AACTA Award ‘The Raymond Longford Award’ was renamed the ‘AACTA Longford Lyell Award’. This move by the AACTA Academy was significant as an acknowledgement not just of a creative team, or important historical figures, but a gesture towards conceding that the women in the Australian industry are important and under-recognised. Gender is slowly getting onto the agenda in a range of forums. On international circuits, for example, film festivals everywhere are now actively considering gender. Sundance, for example, runs a ‘Women’s Initiative’ and the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) undertook a study around gender in 2014. IDFA discovered ‘unconscious bias’, revealing data that if women weren’t on selection or awards panels they were statistically less likely to be selected or to win.26 In response, the festival now ensures gender equality in selection and judging panels. While there is little research on the impact on women of ‘unconscious bias’ in film and television, it is likely to affect the careers of women. For example, a UK Film Council study of screen writing found indirect discrimination in hiring, including that men in charge were more likely to hire men, and those making decisions about hiring writers believed myths, ‘possibly unconsciously’, that women ‘do not write the sorts of stories that sell’. The study also found that this perception was incorrect and that shows by women writers were as likely to get released and are marginally more financially successful.27 Research, such as that by the UK Film Council, gathers gender data to provide important evidence for action and change. Therefore, Australian-based gender research is going to be important to increase female participation in audiovisual industries because it provides the business arguments (e.g. are their films also marginally more successful in the Australian context?). The success of women in the industry is improving innovation in Australian audiovisual industries, and there are measureable benefits, as the track record of women ‘punching above their weight’ indicates. 13 Given there is a reportedly equal number of women coming through film schools and media courses, it is important for the industry to understand what the benefits are to increasing female participation, and what the barriers are for women, so that the insistent gender divide can be broken down. In order to improve the participation of women in Australian film and television, it will be necessary to ensure gender is on the agenda as an issue. One way of achieving this is to undertake what UNESCO has termed ‘gender mainstreaming’. What this means is that for every funding round, for every position advertised, or for every board that is set up, the question is asked: are there any, or is there, an adequate number of women? While it might be decided that there is no need to consider adding any (or more) women in the mix, this consciousness of gender will bring the issue to the foreground and ultimately would be likely to increase gender balance. CONCLUSION When the products turned out by our media are mainly created by men, it’s not only a pity for the women in the business; it’s a pity for all of us. Because the consequence is that all of us – both women and men – miss out on a lot more multi faceted and much more interesting stories about our lives.28 Gender does matter in the Australian film and television industry now. Women are a resource: they are high quality, high performing human capital. Their track record evidences they are a significant promoter of innovation. The risks of failing to capitalise on and grow this talent is that we will fail to connect with audiences, to make the most of our potential, to be a diverse and rich industry— and to see women on our screens. Lisa French is Professor and Dean, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University. She co-authored the book Shining a Light: 50 Years of the Australian Film Institute (2009 and 2014), and co-wrote/edited Womenvision: Women and the Moving Image in Australia (2003). Her professional resume includes three years as director of the prestigious St Kilda Film Festival and nine years on the board of the Australian Film Institute. Her film projects include producing the film Birth of a Film Festival (2003), a film about the first Melbourne International Film Festival.29 14 1 Screen Australia, ‘Did you know: Women in Australian Audiovisual Industries’, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.sreenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/b636257b-0143-4771-bde57611eda229a4/DidUKnow_March2013.pdf Accessed 22/3/15. 2 Screen Australia, Employment: ‘Proportion of men and women employed in various occupations in selected audiovisual industries 1996–2011’, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/employmentoccupationsxgender.aspx Accessed 20/3/15. 3 This calculation does not include awards for actors that are gender segregated (except ‘Best Performance in a TV Comedy’, which is for men and women and therefore was included). It also does not include the awards not awarded through the peer voting: Longford Lyell, Byron Kennedy, and Trailblazer. There were 14 awards voted for by the Academy and 8 were won by or shared by women in th creative teams. Sole winners were 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women. The source is the ‘4 AACTA Awards nominees & Winners’ list from the AACTA website http://www.aacta.org/winnersnominees/4th-aacta-awards.aspx 4 Morgan, Leonie, Tuned Into Leadership: women and television, Sydney: Australian Film Commission, 2004. Retrieved from http://afcarchive.screenaustralia.gov.au/downloads/pubs/tuned_into_leadership.pdf Accessed 16/3/15. 5 French, Lisa, ‘Gender then, gender now: surveying women’s participation in Australian film and television industries’, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, March 2014a, vol. 28, issue 2, pp. 188–200 http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/iD3KX2V7gWXCtV3i7iGx/full, p. 10. 6 Two relevant surveys are: Eva Cox & Sharon Laura, 1992, What Do I Wear for a Hurricane? Women in Australian Film, Television, Video & Radio Industries, Sydney: Australian Film Commission & The National Working Party on the Portrayal of Women in the Media. Lisa French, 2012, Women in the Victorian Film, Television and Related Industries, Melbourne: RMIT http://www.lisa-french.com/WIFT Final Survey Report.pdf 7 Bell, Sharon, Women in Science: Maximising Productivity, Diversity and Innovation, 2009. Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/28877 Accessed 26/3/15 p. 10. 8 French, 2014a, ibid. 9 Film Australia, From Sand to Celluloid Study Notes, 1996: http://sastaging.com/programs/teachers_notes/FSTC_studyguide_LR.pdf Accessed 29/3/15. 10 McCreadie, Marsha, Women Screenwriters Today: Their Lives and Words, Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006, p. xxiii. 11 Sarris, quoted in Barber, Lynden, ‘Reel Women’, The Australian (Review), April 25–26, 1998, p. 6. 12 French, Lisa,‘Treading water but fit for the marathon’, in Carilli, T. & Campbell, J. (eds.) Challenging Images of Women in the Media: Reinventing Women’s Lives, Lexington Press, Langham: Maryland, 2012b, p. 37 (article is: pp. 35–46). 13 French, 2014a, ibid, p. 5 (comparison of surveys). 14 Campion quoted in: Andrews, Nigel, ‘FT Weekend Magazine – The Arts’. Financial Times, 2008, October 18, p. 26. 15 Campion quoted in Wright Wexman, Virginia (ed.), Jane Campion Interviews, University Press of Mississippi: Jackson, 1999, p. 129. 16 Campion quoted in Goodridge, Mike, Screencraft Directing, Rotovision: Switzerland, 2002, p. 85. 17 French, Lisa (ed.) Womenvision: Women and the Moving Image In Australia, Damned Publishing, Melbourne, 2003, p. 306. 18 Kizilos, Katherine, ‘Giving girls a chance to act out and act up on screen’, The Age, 27 April 1994, p. 19. 19 Long, quoted in Alysen, B., ‘Australian Women In Film', An Australian Film Reader, Currency Press: Sydney, 1985, p. 302. 20 Akerman, quoted in de Lauretis, Teresa, Technologies of Gender, Essays on Theory, Film and Fiction, Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis, 1987, p. 132. 21 Sinclair, Alice, Pollard, Emma, & Rolfe, Helen, Scoping Study into the Lack of Women Screenwriters in the UK. London: UK Film Council & Institute for Employment Studies (IES), 2006, p. 118. 22 French, Lisa, Women in the Victorian Film, Television and Related Industries, Melbourne: RMIT, 2012a http://www.lisa-french.com/WIFT Final Survey Report.pdf 23 Screen Australia, Doing Business with Australia: Producer Offset and Co-productions, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/740ca06e-156f-4dc8-914ddabdb5ea4fbf/PO_CoPro_booklet.pdf Accessed 15/3/15. 24 Data collated by the author of this chapter from Screen Australia, Australian government and other online sources. 25 Screen Australia, 2015, ibid. 15 26 IDFA, ‘Female filmmakers at IDFA over the last decade’ http://www.idfa.nl/industry/daily/2014/indepth/the-female-gaze-idfa-statistics.aspx Accessed 17/3/15. 27 Sinclair et al, 2006, ibid, p. 15. 28 Knudsen, Mette, & Rowley, Jane, Gender and Work in Danish Film & TV 1992–2002, published 2005, p. 7. Retrieved from http://www.nywift.org/article.aspx?id=82 Accessed 22/3/15. 29 The author of this chapter thanks Mark Poole, David Muir and the AFI Research Collection staff for assistance. This was written directly sourcing the author’s research conducted over more than a decade. 16