GENDER AGENDA
“Screen Australia is considering a radical
push for a quota to ensure 50 per cent of the directors of funded films are
women.”
Sydney Morning Herald
Would such a quota result in better Australian
films?
"It's ridiculous," says Gill Armstrong.
"It's been 30 years since Jane Campion and I went through a glass ceiling
and I feel there haven't been enough people following us."
Did Gill or Jane (Jocelyn Moorhouse should be on
this list) rise to and break through the ‘glass ceiling’ as a result of quotas
or because they were talented directors?
A question worthy of discussion, debate? I think
so.
Between 2009 and 2014, Rosemary
Neill’s ‘Gender Agenda’ article tells us, only 15% of Australian feature films
were directed by women.
Is this a problem? Were women
directors being discriminated against?
Between 2009 and 2014 three of the
key Screen Australia decision makers vis a vis feature film production were
women - CEO Ruth Harley, Chief Operating
Officer Fiona Cameron and script development Martha Coleman.
Is the fact that they only greenlit
15% feature films with women directors evidence that Ruth, Fiona and Martha (along
with the heads of state film funding bodies, mostly women) were discriminating
against female directors?
Or did this cohort of largely female
film bureaucrats recommend feature projects to the Screen Australia board (amply represented by women – Claudia Karvan, Rachel Perkins and Rosemary
Blight amongst others), because they believed them to be the best, regardless
of the gender of the director?
59% of documentary projects funded by
Screen Australia during this same period had woman directors.
Is this evidence of gender bias in
documentary? Or does it suggest that women were submitting documentary projects
of a higher quality than men?
Will there be a call by the Screen
Director’s Guild and Screen Australia to rectify gender inequity in the
documentary sector? 50/50 quotas for male and female documentary directors?
Out of context, raw statistics such
as those quoted in ‘Gender Agenda’ (15% women directors) tell us little.
90% of nurses are women? Is this
because men are discriminated against in the nursing profession? Or is it
because there are other factors that draw more women to nursing than men?
There are more female than male
journalists, authors, teachers, lab technicians, therapists, editors,
librarians and insurance underwriters? Are men being discriminated against in
these professions or is it simply that more women than men are attracted to
them?
Could it be that more women are drawn
to documentary filmmaking than men and that there is not a problem that needs
to be rectified?
What proportion of feature film
projects submitted to Screen Australia for investment funding had women directors attached, compared to
those with male directors?
If , say, only 15% of feature films
recommended by Screen Australia for investment funding had women directors
attached, ‘only’ 15% of feature films with women directors is evidence of
gender equality; not inequality. The same applies, of course, if 59% of
documentary projects submitted to Screen Australia had women directors.
Statistics can be made to tell almost
any story that suits the agenda of those using them. Imagine the following
hypothetical scenario:
10 feature projects are submitted to
Screen Australia for investment funding.
Owing to SA budgetary constraints
only 3 can receive funding.
All 10 projects are of roughly equal
quality; all deserving of funding.
8 of the projects have male directors
attached; 2 have female directors.
Screen Australia greenlights 2 projects with male directors and 1 with a
female director.
This statistic can be looked at in
two ways:
(1) Male directors have twice the
opportunities (2:1) of women directors.
(2) Male directors have a 25% chance
(1 in 4) of getting their project funded whilst women directors have a 33%
chance (1 in 3) of receiving funding.
This same statistic could be used by
both men and women to ague that they were being discriminated against.
As Benjamin Disraeli said (or was it
Mark Twain?) “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Playing the statistics game a little
longer:
2.4% of Australians identify as
Aboriginal, whilst 2.2% of Australians are Muslim.
Aboriginal directors receive
infinitely more funding than Muslim directors? Is this fair? Are Muslim directors being discriminated
against? In the interests of equity, shouldn’t Muslim directors (filmmaking
teams) receive as much funding as Aboriginal directors/teams?
And what about the 2% of Australians
who are gay? Shouldn’t there be almost as many feature films made by gay
directors as by Aboriginal directors? And what about disabled directors,
directors suffering from a mental illness, transgender directors? And so on.
Whilst on the subject of statistics:
Imagine a funding world, the one
espoused by the Australian Director’s Guild, in which 50% of feature film
directors must be women.
A hypothetical but highly probably
scenario:
Screen Australia conducts an
assessment round in which (money is tight) only 10 projects with directors
attached can receive script development monies. The 7 projects deemed by SA Project
Managers to be of the highest quality have women writers and directors attached. Only 3 in the ‘top 10’ have have male writers
and directors attached.
In accordance with the 50/50 policy
espoused by the Australian Director’s Guild, script development monies must be
split evenly between projects with male and female screenwriters; male and
female directors.
So, two of the female
screenwriter/director teams must, in the interests of equal opportunity, be
knocked back whilst two projects of lesser quality, developed by men, receive
funding.
Would this be fair?
And if the same principle is applied
to documentary, should a Gill Armstrong documentary be knocked back in order to
meet a 50/50 doco quota in favour of a male directed doco of lesser quality?
(How would you feel about this, Gill?)
Should this equal opportunity concept
is applied to all groups within society who feel, quite justifiably perhaps,
that they are inadequately represented when it comes to funding decisions? If
transgender, disabled, mentally ill, Muslim etc (fill in the minority group of
your choice) filmmakers say, "How come we never receive funding? We feel
discriminated against!" how will the Australian Director’s Guild respond?
What argument will the ADG (and Screen Australia) mount in support of the
proposition that equity applies to the gender of directors but not to sexual
orientation, religious affiliation or class?
Class!
Yes, why not?
“…I am also
concerned about class,” says Kate Cherry, Black Swan artistic director, “I
think that is going to be our next issue.”
The next issue!
Once the 50/50 male/female director goal has been
achieved, will the next goal be 50% privately schooled filmmakers and 50% state
school filmmakers? 50% middle class directors/50% working class directors?
I am only half-joking!
Once the quota concept has taken hold, become an
integral part of our thinking, where do we stop thinking in terms of quotas
without seeming to be discriminatory?
Is this an equal opportunity
Pandora’s Box we filmmakers want to open?
Do we want to see, in any one year, films made by a rainbow coalition of
directors representing different interest groups?
A feature film with a transgender
Muslim director may well get ticks in lots of boxes, but if it is a second rate
film, if if fails to put bums on seats, will we not, as an industry, have shot
ourselves in the foot?
Might a quota system working against
our long term interests, even if it does elicit the short term warm inner glow
that accompanies behaving in a politically correct way?
Will the questions raised here be
discussed, debated, amongst film and TV story-tellers? Or will Guild and
government film bureaucrats take it upon themselves to impose their
quota-inspired ideas on the rest of us – hoping that we filmmakers will not
want to be branded as ‘sexist’ if we think that the imposition of quotas is a
bad idea?
***
I was hoping that the Australian Director’s
Guild might publish this opinion piece in its online magazine ‘Screen Director’. My contribution to a debate that I felt was important for Australian filmmakers to have.
It didn’t work out that way!
20th Jan 2016
Dear ADG
Just a few days ago I became aware of
an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which suggests the ADG supports the
imposition of quotas to provide women with opportunities equal to those of men.
In the interests of discussion, debate, I would like to have the following
piece published in the ADG's online publication, "Screen Director"
cheers
James
28th Jan 2016
Dear Members of the Australian
Director's Guild
My email of 8 days ago has been
ignored. As was the case with my Musical Chairs' article close to a year ago,
it seems that the Australian Director's Guild does not wish to publish anything
in "Screen Director" which might question the status quo or, in this
instance, what the ADG would like to become the new status quo - quotas!
Over the past 10 or so days, since
the publication of Rosemary Neill's article ("Gender Agenda") I have
been involved in a few spirited conversations about this issue. Some filmmakers
think quotas to be a good idea and some not. Such a divergence of views is to
be expected and all points of view on any 'quota' proposal should, in my view,
be discussed at length amongst Australian filmmakers. No voices should be
silenced.
My voice has, yet again, been
silenced and the ADG has revealed itself to be but a shadow of the organisation
we formed all those years ago when it was an integral part of the ADG's role to
engage in vigorous debate.
I have written another draft of my
article if you should decide that a debate is worth having about this
contentious topic.
cheers
James
4th Feb 2016
Samantha Lang
President
Australian Director’s Guild Board
Dear Samantha
I wonder if you are aware that two weeks ago I asked
the ADG if it would be interested in publishing, in ‘Screen Director’, a piece I had written about The ADG’s
proposal that “a quota be set on Screen Production Funding allocating 50% to
projects directed by women.” It was and remains intended to stimulate
discussion/debate about the proposal.
I have received no response to my email of 20th
Jan or my follow-up email of 28th Jan.
Will there be debate within the ADG about whether or
not quotas are a good idea?
Has there been or will there be an opportunity for
dissenting voices such as my own to be heard?
cheers
James
5th Feb 2016
From Samantha Lang, President of the
ADG
James
Thank you for following up on your
first correspondence. Women In Film Action Committee (WIFAC) had not met since
then, given the festive season and summer holidays.
When we do meet we will draft a
collective response to your questions.
Kind Regards,
Samantha Lang
Dear Samantha
Whilst I will read the ‘Women In Film
Action Committee’s’ (WIFAC) response with interest, surely the Australian
Director’s Guild does not require permission from WIFAC to publish it in
‘Screen Director’?
I have written my ‘opinion piece’ in
the hope that it might generate some lively discussion and debate about a topic
important to all filmmakers. And I would hope that other filmmakers (of both
genders) will contribute to the debate.
If the same quota proposed by WIFAC
were applied to screenwriters, how would Screen Australia bureaucrats choose
between these two hypothetical projects
“BOYS” is a feature film written by a
man, with a predominantly male cast, a male cinematographer, a male producer,
exploring ‘masculine’ themes but to be directed by a woman.
“GIRLS” is a feature film written by
a woman, with a predominantly female cast, a female cinematographer, a female
producer, exploring ‘feminine’ themes but to be directed by a man.
Screen Australia is struggling to
remain true to the the 50/50 male/female director quota. To meet the quota
“BOYS” must receive funding. The problem is that it is generally agreed that
“GIRLS” is a much better project.
How should Screen Australia decide
between the two projects?
I should add here that I consider
screenwriters to be filmmakers and find it difficult to understand, if 50% of
films must be directed by women, why the same principle should not apply to
screenwriters. Will the ADG support such a move on the part of the Writer’s
Guild, or oppose it?
So, if “GIRLS” has a male director
and female screenwriter and “BOYS” has a female director and male screenwriter,
how does Screen Australia decide which one will best meet its quota
obligations?
And what if there is a project that
is infinitely superior to both “BOYS” and “GIRLS” entitled (let’s say) “BLACK”.
The director is Aboriginal but given that Aboriginals comprise just 2.4% of the
Australian population and yet Aboriginal directors have received more than 2.4%
of Screen Australia production funding in the previous year, should the project
be passed over in the interests of SA meeting its quota targets? And the
production funding given to either “BOYS” or “GIRLS”?
It seems to me that the appropriate response on the part of the ADG would be to open this
topic up for discussion, welcoming the different viewpoints of all filmmakers.
The ADG could even consider having a public debate:
Two teams – one for quotas and one opposing quotas.
Have a good moderator and, after the formal debate (three on each team), invite
filmmakers present in the audience to ask questions of the two teams or make
their own observations. This could be (and should be) a lively debate in which
both sides listen to and respect each others opinions and in which name-calling
and self-serving monologues would not be tolerated by the moderator.
In the meantime, please publish my ‘opinion piece’ in
‘Screen Director’. And, I believe, the ADG should publish pieces written by
other filmmakers with opinions different to my own to generate much needed
debate.
Cheers
James
Dear Members of the ADG Board
It is now 3 weeks since I sent
'Screen Director' a draft of my 'Gender Agenda' article. To date, the only
feedback I have received from 'Screen Director' is that WIFAC will get back to
me with 'collective' answers to my questions.
Does WIFAC represent the official ADG
position on quotas? Is there a Men In Film Action Group (MIFAC) to which I
could direct these same questions? Will the ADG allow dissenting views such as
my own to be added to the mix to be debated?
Whilst I imagine that WIFAC’s argument in favour of
quotas (to be made public I hope!) will provide an interesting perspective on
the topic, and an important contribution to a debate that must be had, I do
hope that the ADG will, through its newsletter and ‘Screen Director’ canvass a diverse range of opinions regarding quotas?
As far as I can tell, from my
conversations with a handful of fellow
filmmakers this past few weeks, there has been no discussion between the ADG
and its members about the 50/50 gender equality policy position it has adopted
re feature films. But not, curiously, in relation to documentary!? Why not? How does WIFAC rationalize this
policy discrepancy?
The ADG has, it seems, simply decided
to implement its gender equality policy without consultation with ADG members
or the film and television community. If I am wrong about this, if there has
been consultation of which I am unaware, please correct me.
It seems also that WIFAC has the
right, as part of the ADG, to veto an opinion piece such as my own that
questions the notion that gender equality, applied to the direction of feature
films, is good policy? Again, if I am wrong, please correct me.
The ADG board’s silence here is
worrying. Why are you so fearful of a debate amongst the filmmakers you
represent?
I ask again, in the interests of
discussion/debate, that you publish an opinion piece (mine) which argues
against the proposition that gender-based quotas are a good idea. And, perhaps,
as a companion piece, ‘Screen Director’ could publish WIFAC’s argument as to
why quotas a good idea.
Let the debate begin.
cheers
James
9th Feb 2016
Dear James,
I am responding on behalf of the
President Samantha Lang.
The WIFAC committee is a
sub-committee of the ADG and has been formed through its normal processes by
the ADG Board. It has consulted widely with members of both genders and
advances debate. Its push is for all directors in whatever genre they are
working but has used the feature film statistics as an example of the inequity.
It is slightly better in television and documentary but still appallingly low.
The debate over this issue is being
held in the public domain and not behind closed doors. The ADG regularly
comments and releases information to fuel this debate. As you are not a member
of the ADG I suggest you take the debate to the press as we have done and into
forums such as the SPA Conference, specialist industry forums and through
events such as the Lumina launch at the AFTRS.
Regards
Dear Members of the Australian Screen
Director’s Board
This response from Kingston (see
below) does not really answer any of my questions.
I asked the following question 9 or
so months ago when you declined to publish my opinion piece ‘Musical Chairs’,
but I never got an answer.
“If I am a member of the ADG will
‘Screen Director’ publish my opinion piece’?
If so, I will join the ADG immediately.
If not, could you please explain why a dissenting view from a filmmaker cannot
be presented to ADG members?
This is an important
discussion/debate and it should be open to any and all filmmakers – including
those who are not members.
Incidentally, I have spoken with
several filmmakers who are members of the ADG who are blissfully unaware of any
debate or discussion having occurred regarding the question of the ADG’s
proposed 50/50 policy. And I have been through 2 years of ‘Screen Director’
back issues and found not one that addresses the question of gender equality.
Cheers
James
16th Feb 2016
Dear Members of the Australian
Screen Director’s Board
It is now a month since I first
offered my ‘Gender Agenda’ piece for consideration, via ‘Screen Director’, as a
contribution to a debate that we should and must have.
Kingston has suggested (implied?)
that my not being a member of the ADG disbars me from commenting. Is this the
position of the board; that only a member can make a contribution, through the
ADG, to the ‘gender agenda quota debate’? My forty plus years of experience as
a filmmaker do not qualify me to express an opinion because I am not an ADG
member?
Given that my question regarding
becoming a member of the ADG has been ignored (yet again) it is difficult not
to conclude, regardless of whether or not I am a member, that ‘Screen Director’
will publish nothing I write if it is in any way critical of Screen Australia
or presents an opinion that is contrary to the one that informs the ADG’s
policy position vis a vis ‘quotas’.
I have, somewhat reluctantly, but
as someone who believes this is a debate that should be had in public, taken
off my ‘filmmaker’s hat’ and put on my journalist's.
In the event that I have missed
the ‘information’ that Kingston refers to (to “fuel this debate”) please do
direct me to it. I do wish to be well informed when I write about this.
cheers
James
18th Feb
Dear Members of the Australian
Director’s Guild board
It is difficult to believe, in this
past month, that you have not, each of you (fellow filmmakers), been made aware
of my correspondence regarding my ‘Gender Agenda’ opinion piece. Is there
nothing in what I have written that has caused you to think, “Yes, we need, as
an organization representing directors, to have a public debate about this?”
It is a sign of the times, I guess,
and a disturbing one, that I should become persona non grata with an
organization of which I was a founding member, for having the temerity to
suggest that there be discussion, debate, about the ADG's 50/50 gender policy
when it comes to directing feature films! But not, curiously, when it comes to
directing documentaries! Why is this?
Will the ADG release a paper of any
kind regarding its policy position for discussion? Will ADG members (and non members) be given an opportunity to
take part in a debate that has significant ramifications for the kinds of
feature films that receive funding? Will the ADG explain why the 50/50 male/female
director policy should apply to feature films and not documentary?
The most disturbing aspect of this
debate is that the ADG appears not to be interested in there being one at all.
If I am wrong about this, start one and allow all voices to be heard.
There is clearly no point in trying
to have a dialogue with the ADG so this will be my last email in relation to my
opinion piece. I will, however, make one last observation.
Whilst I
believe that quotas are a bad idea, there is clearly a strong argument that can
be made for improving access to the means of development and production for
those whose lack of opportunity is not matched by a lack of talent. The
decision, a quarter of a century ago now, to actively support Aboriginal
filmmakers has been very successful. It has borne creative fruit that have
enriched our cultural heritage, of which Australia can be proud and which will
be valued by future generations of Australians. This was good policy. It was
not brought about as a result of a quota. Indeed, if a quota had been in place
at the time it is highly likely (given that Aboriginal Australia’s make up only
2.4% of the population) that there would have been less Aboriginal films made
than there have been this past quarter century. Quotas are, in my view, a bad
way to address the kinds of imbalances that exist within the Australian film.
cheers
James
No comments:
Post a Comment