By Beanie Barnes
Data is a funny thing. It can, at once, confirm and discredit the exact same theory. For example, if a $500m film makes $100m at the box office on its opening weekend, it could mean that the film is a) a bust or b) gaining momentum. Such was the case with Avatar. By the end of 2009, several people were calling the film a “flop,” but by mid-2010, it was obvious that, of all the words to describe Avatar, “flop” was not one of them. And although the film has been hailed as a marketing and technological success, if it had failed, it very likely would have been called it a marketing and technological bomb (with marketing heads rolling at the studio).
Misreading data is prevalent in film. It isn’t so much that we misread the tea leaves, so much as it is that, rather than reading the tea leaves as they are, we’re more prone to read the leaves the way we want to see them or only read the leaves at the surface while overlooking others hiding below.
One such instance of this is hearing how “dismal” it is for black filmmakers and how the industry simply needs “more.” The DGA’s membership is about 4% black…roughly correlating with the percentage of blacks in film school, which is why the percentage of black filmmakers should not, in and of itself, stroke concern. While there may be diversity-limiting obstacles in the industry — like racism — the data suggest that the percentage of black filmmakers may be indicative of other things that are much more difficult to address and/or not as easy to coalesce industry sentiment around such as:
-
The level of interest blacks actually have in pursuing filmmaking as a profession
-
The access to (and affordability of) education to further that interest
-
The long-term retention of that interest, or
-
The feasibility of pursuing that interest given other life priorities (i.e. blacks are 50% more likely to have to take on the responsibility of caring for extended family than whites, and those relatives are 50% more likely to be in poor financial and physical health than their white counterparts)
Another instance in how data is misread is on the participation of women behind the camera. Women make up about 40% of film school students, so when an annual study keeps finding that women account for about 16% of key positions (e.g. directors, producers, DPs, editors and writers), it usually invokes industry calls of “inequality”. While sexism may very well exist, is the level of female participation in the industry simply due to purposeful exclusion or casual indifference? Or are we overlooking some tea leaves at the bottom of the cup? For example, the analysis of this data often doesn’t note/factor the effect of women voluntarily exiting the industry or the impact that gender differences — in regard to self-perception, business approach or networking — have on the presence of women in the industry. What if studies about women in the industry considered the following:
-
Over 40% of women leave their jobs to start families (or care for family), with only around 75% returning in some capacity
-
About 40% of the workforce actually switches careers at some point
-
Women are five times more likely to leave the workforce after 10 years
-
Confidence correlates with success and women are typically about 30% less confident than men, meaning that they are less likely to self-promote for jobs than men, even when those men are less qualified
-
Women are less likely to seek out mentors who give them advice, and even less likely to seek out sponsors who get them ahead
-
Women, in a position to mentor or sponsor other women, are less likely to actually do so than men
This data actually suggest a few things. First, every year, more men enter the industry, and fewer men leave the industry, than women. Second, when women leave the industry, by default, they end up increasing the pool of men to fill the positions they leave behind. Third, in a relationship heavy industry, the size and scope of career-impacting relationships that women have with men (given there are fewer women) do not, on average, rival the relationships that men have with other men. Fourth, women are less likely to lobby for industry job opportunities than men, and are more likely to “settle” for non-key film positions. And finally, women have fewer champions in the industry fostering their careers, in part, because they simply don’t ask and also because women at the top, preoccupied with their own careers, often don’t make themselves as available to other women as they could (i.e. Women in Film ditched its “Old Girls Network” networking mandate when senior members felt they were “always being put on the spot being asked for work”). All this creates a “gender cycle” in which men simply end up with a much greater presence in the industry. On the surface, this may have the appearance of a “celluloid ceiling,” but in reality, it’s more like a “retractable roof” – push the right buttons and the ceiling opens up.
What this all means is that the percentage of women working in key film positions, as dire as it may seem, is arguably on par with what’s statistically expected and what has also been about a 20-year norm. For example, women working as directors grew over 100% from about 1980 to 1995 – indicative of a shift in gender attitudes/policy. However, and in spite of a 1983 lawsuit attempt by the DGA, they’ve remained at about 16% since 1995, which is much more difficult to explain as simply being sexism. All in all, while gender bias may have some impact on the presence and participation of women behind the camera, data suggests that retention, relationship building/fostering, and an unfortunate confidence gap may actually have as much, if not more, of an impact.
Yet, minimal analysis of race and gender data rarely have much functional impact on the industry…unlike the misleading use of data surrounding “success.” This happens in the industry quite often — pointing to the careers of very successful filmmakers as “evidence” to support status quo opinions. For example, some people say that if fewer films had been made in the past, the successful filmmakers we all know and love today might not have ever been discovered. Yet, this argument is often made without any reverence given to the fact that circumstances change. The circumstances for the films released in 2013 were completely different for films released in 1992 including the number of films released, market timing, audience climate and response (i.e. would the release of Jaws be as successful today as it was in 1978?), the scope of resources and the presence of “luck” that may have contributed to the outcome of any film. How many times have you heard that an old film you love “couldn’t get made today?” scant
Circumstances matter. And who knows if any successful filmmaker — had his or her unique circumstances been different — would be where they are today…even given their amazing talent. The flaw in pointing to these people is not in pointing out that they were successful against the odds. The flaw is pointing to them without accurately pointing to the circumstances surrounding their success. In other words, people point to the results of these filmmakers…not to the processes that led to those results. And ultimately, context is important. For example, consider how these 13 filmmakers got their start:
Quentin Tarantino (1992, 196 films released):
Filmed first short film over three years, final reel destroyed in fire
Initially sold True Romance to finance first film
Sundance Directing Lab
Won Sundance
Darren Aronofsky (1998, 424 films released):
Got $100 investments from friends and family to make Pi
Spilt half of Pi’s profit participation with the entire crew
Sundance Screenwriting Lab
Kevin Smith (1994, 247 films released):
Maxed out credit cards
Sold the majority of his comic book collection
Borrowed money from family and friends
Won Sundance
Lisa Cholodenko (1998, 424 films released):
Directed several notable short films
Mentored by Milos Foreman
Sundance Directing Lab
Won Screenwriting Award at Sundance
Paul Thomas Anderson (1997, 338 films released):
Met Phillip Baker Hall while a PA for PBS, gave Hall is short script
Financed most of his short film with gambling money, his girlfriend’s credit card and $10k of his college fund
Sundance Short Film Program
Sundance Directing Lab
Nicole Holofcener (1996, 319 films released):
Short film, Angry, was praised at Sundance
Tried to raise money for Walking & Talking for six years
Producer urged her to keep developing script until money was raised
Sundance Directing Lab
Wes Anderson (1996, 319 films released):
Made a short film of Bottle Rocket
Sundance Short Film Program
Sundance Screenwriting Lab (audited)
Family friend of actor got the short to James L. Brooks, who championed it
Christopher Nolan (1999, 470 films released):
Directed notable several shorts
Self-financed Following with $6k
Shot Following on weekends, over a period of a year
Spike Lee (1986, 201 films released):
Short won a Student Academy Award
Raised $100k for The Messenger. Never made. Grandmother lost $20k
Grandmother helped finance She’s Gotta Have It
Cashed in bottles to help finance film and secured product placement
Richard Linklater (1991, 208 films released):
Worked on an oil rig for three years, saving money to move to Austin
Directed lots of self-financed shorts
Self-financed Slacker with credit cards, family money
Todd Haynes (1991, 208 films released):
Dedicated to making short films
Directed underground short, Superstar, which got him noticed
Poison was financed fully through arts grants
Won Sundance
Jim Jarmusch (1986, 181 films released):
Mentor, Wim Winders, gave him free film stock to make a short
Spent $8,000 on a short of Stranger Than Paradise
Won Rotterdam
Used money made from the short to finance Stranger Than Paradise
Won the Cannes Camera d’Or
Greg Mottola (1997, 338 films released):
Directed a highly acclaimed short
Knew Steven Soderberg, who produced his first film, The DayTrippers
Soderberg invested about $60k in the film
Sundance Directing Lab
Cannes Critics Week
Some fairly common threads among these filmmakers are personal financial risk, connections with others who have more connections, transparency with investors/crew, successful short films, industry support, etc. Most importantly, and below the surface, is that they patiently hustled – creating a network of community, resources and momentum that remains with them to this day. And the newer big names — Ryan Coogler, Behn Zeitlan, Ava Duvernay, Jeff Nichols, etc. — have largely done the same. Yet, most of these facts are often ignored when talking about these filmmakers. Instead, their success is often reduced to a simple narrative (i.e. “they didn’t wait for anybody’s permission”) which has contributed to the increased rate at which films are being made despite there being no increase in the level, or rate, of demand to see them.
The film industry is one driven by constantly changing variables and diverse social dynamics, most of which we have little control. So, we’re often looking to find answers to help us navigate through a very complex industry full of idealistic people who are, at the same time, hustling to move ahead. This can lead to us erring on accepting quick explanations that “feel right,” especially if they don’t require us to shift our attention away from our personal goals. Unfortunately, if we accept flawed interpretations as fact, it can be problematic because if we get lost in our own fiction, we can hinder the impact we could have on reality.
There definitely could be, and perhaps should be, more black filmmakers, more women filmmakers and, perhaps, even more films. Yet, misreading data, or not thoroughly analyzing it, in order to “prove” these things, can be ineffective at best because people will anchor on to biases (i.e. sexism, racism, a few successful filmmakers) in order to explain the “proof” when, in fact, the proof should be used to confirm, or deny, the biases.
Ultimately, a lot of data can be produced about the industry….which is precisely why we should scrutinize results/conclusions and ask more questions about what those results mean. Because if the goal is to make the industry better, then there is not only a need for data, but also for accurate analysis of that data in order to allow the industry’s past to be genuinely effective in helping shape its future.
*This is the last part of a three-part series about industry failure — in theory, in practice and in analysis.
Beanie Barnes is a strategist and film industry professional. A Project: Involve fellow with Film Independent, a two-time semi-finalist for the Nicholl Fellowship and an annual lecturer at the Ghetto Film School, Beanie distributed her first film, FOUR, in 2013. She holds a B.A. from the University of Nebraska and an M.B.A. from Yale University.
© 2014
