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