American TV is written for the most part by (white) men. The same applies to American movies, as well as European movies and European TV. Is it then a surprise that male characters outnumber females at least 3 to 1, even though females comprise over 50% of the population? Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio remains the same since 1946! According to Stacy Smith of the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female – in contrast, of course, to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.
What is rather surprising is the realization that although there are some local differences the percentage of women writers and women directors of narrative features is about the same everywhere in the Western world. Consider these figures in connection with the percentage of films with women as protagonists, which is a mere 16 percent: obviously, there is a correlation here that cannot be ignored.
A writer’s gender matters. There’s no way it could not. It influences how you see the world and how the world sees you. It allows for different experiences, and as a result, it makes you interested in different topics and stories. It is part of what shapes your worldview, your perspective on life, your sense of reality, your imagination. But how does the fact that we as an audience are being told stories coming from the worldview of a certain limited population group influence our own sense of reality and worldview? And how does that sense of reality turn us into an audience that wants more of what it is used to getting?
When more than nine-tenths of movies are made from the white male perspective, it does not only reinforce that perspective. It also reinforces the invisibility of the other perspectives, and the invisibility of women and/or any minorities.
An unbreakable cycle begins – for the sake of argument I will call that cycle ‘replication of the male perspective’:
-
An audience that is being told stories coming from the imagination of a certain limited population group is understandably more and more familiar with that population group’s sense of reality, considers it the only one, adopts is as its own.
-
That audience wants more of what it is used to getting. New films and shows are conceived and described largely in terms of others that have proven successful in the past.
-
As a result of the replication, a certain kind of film or show or certain characteristics will be repeated again and again, while a certain kind of storytelling is formed, established, evolving further (while others are not.)
-
In an industry defined by demand, and in order to produce what the audience wants more of, it is clear that the best writers for the job will be emerging, endlessly, from the limited population group that is best in producing that perspective.
-
Writers from other population groups will understandably make an effort to reproduce the perspective of the established population group – since that is what the audience and the market wants.
A lot has been written about perception. Critics have noticed, for instance, that female stories get diminished by the media, and male stories get celebrated. And that there’s a tiny aperture for women’s stories – and a presumption that men won’t watch them. It seems that critics, including female critics, almost like the male shows more – or they somehow find them more discussable. (Lena Dunham’s Girls has been discussed a lot, but more as a cultural phenomenon than as a show in its own right. In fact it spawned an intense and frenzied debate about feminism and gender politics.)
Shows written by (mostly) men in the last ten to fifteen years, shows like The Sopranos or The Wire or Breaking Bad have broken ground in terms of narrative technique, and they have reached a degree of perfection that is rare and to be cherished. But what are we missing out? Wouldn’t it be exciting to be able to see more from other perspectives, and how they would evolve if their writers would also be able to produce and experiment in the same continuous manner?
Next Up: Post #12: How to Change the World (And, Most Importantly, Why) – Part III
If you are interested in reading more, including the full interviews on their process as writers with creators such as Terence Winter, Tom Fontana, Warren Leight, Robert Carlock, Janet Leahy and many more, you can purchase the book Inside the Writers’ Room. Conversations with American Writers here.
Christina Kallas has written and produced several feature films and TV shows in Europe before she relocated to New York in 2011, where she is currently teaching at Columbia University’s and Barnard College’s Film Programs, and editing her next feature film (and her first as a director,) 42 Seconds of Happiness. She is the author of six books in her three writing languages, including the above book as well as Creative Screenwriting: Understanding Emotional Structure (London/New York, 2010). Most recently, she was honored for her outstanding contribution to the international writers’ community in her eight years of tenure as President of the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe. You can reach her at improv4writers@gmail.com and follow her on Facebook or Twitter and join the Writers Improv Studio group page for updates.
