Gender Matters, Screen Australia’s ongoing program for addressing gender inequality in screen industries, has achieved successes in the four years since its inception. However, if the program is going to continue to evolve and more directly confront the essential elements of gender inequity in Australian screen industries, Gender Matters must develop more sustainable outcomes for female key creatives. This article will analyse the effectiveness of the Gender Matters program to date with Australia’s feature film industry in mind. This will commence with a discussion of how gender inequality and inequity manifests in feature film industries. In turn, there will be a consideration of the kinds of barriers female creatives face, as well as the structural nature of the industry’s inequalities. From here, this article will shift to analysing the Gender Matters program more specifically. The Screen Australia’s efforts will be considered adjacent to the efforts of another governmental body: the Swedish Film Institute. As a result of this comparison, this article will conclude that while Gender Matters has attained some commendable outcomes – particularly with regards to promoting the distribution of female creatives’ works – the program has many limitations. Gender Matters has, to date, been ineffective in promoting the visibility of female creatives, as well as in addressing structural – not just numerical – inequality and inequity.  

Women (or a lack thereof) behind the camera

While not the only large industries to suffer from widespread gender discrimination, worldwide feature film industries struggle to obtain even a semblance of gender equity (French, 2014). In most film industries, gender inequalities in key creative positions – those positions being director, producer, and screenwriter – are not only remaining consistent, but often increasingly becoming worse (Verhoeven et al., 2020, p.3). In the U.K. in 2017, women accounted for 15.7% of directors and 21.1% of writers for feature films (Verhoeven et al., 2020). Even worse is the U.S. film industry which had only 18% of all key creative roles in 2017 occupied by women – a figure that is the same as 20 years prior (Verhoeven et al., 2020, p.3). In Australia, the situation has not been much better. In the years leading up to the Gender Matters program – 1970 to 2014 – 30% of producers, 16% of directors and 21% of screenwriters were women. As well as this, in 2014 the number of women in key creative roles – 35% – was lower than in 1971 – 36% (Screen Australia, 2015, p.3). This is not due to a lack of education or expertise: women in the Australian film industry are more likely to have specific training or education than men (Jones & Pringle, 2015). Yet, women are more likely to occupy the lower pay brackets than men: 73% of women – compared to 62% of men – earn $65,000 a year or less (French, 2014). Gender equality is a certain degree better in Australia’s short-film industry, but female creatives meet significant barriers when entering Australia’s feature film industry (Aquilia, 2015).

Several structural elements of film industries contribute to inequality. Bielby & Bielby concluded that cultural industries – which includes film industries – have a problem of ‘governance’ (1992, p.366). By this, Bielby & Bielby are referring to the incongruence that naturally arises from the marriage of creative and commercial concerns; where rigid bureaucracy – structures that could protect those participating in the creation of commercial products – are viewed as impediments to the creative process. In general, this results in creatives within the industry being hired on short-term contracts and project-by-project basis (Jones & Pringle, 2015). Because of this, future employment is uncertain and networking, industry connections and reputation are the most important element to an individual remaining sustainably employed (Jones & Pringle, 2015). Furthermore, within film industries there is extreme uncertainty and ambiguity when it comes to the possible success of a future project, leading decision makers to be risk averse (Bielby & Bielby, 1996).

These two structural elements of film industries generally lead to inequity that is resultant from the subjective judgements of decision makers. ‘Subjective judgements’ refers to the judgements that decisionmakers in the industry have to make about whether or not a certain individual is a reliable choice (Luckman et al., 2020). Decisions of this type are frequent in film industries due to the unstructured or project-by-project nature of hiring. This is a concern as decisions of this kind are more susceptible to bias (Luckman et al., 2020). This leads to what Adkins contends is a dissolving of bureaucratic, formal structures in favour of ‘individualisation’ in the feature film hiring processes (1999, p. 137). According to Adkins, individualisation in this context – where most creatives are ‘free-agents’ (Jones & Pringle, 2015, p. 38) – does not eliminate, but instead affirms gender bias; substantiating gendered barriers through a gender retraditionalisation (1999). The result of this retraditionalisation is ‘homophily’ or ‘homosocial reproduction’: decision makers having a preference for – and in this case hiring or funding – people culturally similar to themselves (Jones & Pringle, 2015, p.39; Luckman et al., 2020, p.5; Smith et al., 2020, p.39). Homophily is augmented in film industries due to the high risk of projects, as well as the speed at which decisions have to be made in the unstructured, ‘free-agent’ labour market (Jones & Pringle, 2015, p. 38; Lauzen, 2012). The overall result for the industry is decisionmakers – who are overwhelmingly white men – employ and support creatives they deem to be safe; creatives who look like themselves (Bielby & Bielby, 1992).

The above creates what has been termed a ‘celluloid ceiling’ – a play on the concept of ‘glass ceiling’ (Lauzen, 2012, p.310). Women are less likely to be in positions of power in the industry. As a result, sexist norms are perpetuated by the structure of the industry that suggests ‘male’ ways of doing things are correct or more reliable (Jansson & Bivald, 2013). As Jansson suggests, this is because film industries are largely gendered male due to male dominance in executive positions (2019). Traditionally, rights movements have relied on collective action in times when large, negatively gendered structures need to be re-gendered. However, the dispersed nature of film industry creatives results in collective action being near impossible (Jones & Pringle, 2015). Furthermore, Lauzen contends that decision makers in film industries often benefit from a ‘privilege of denial’: the ability to deny or disregard factual or credible information and complaints by virtue of the strength of one’s position (2012, p.314). This is evident in many industry reports – such as the U.K.’s Skillset reports – which have historically put the onus on women to seek training to change inequities of the industry instead of dissecting inequity caused by industry executives (Jones & Pringle, 2015). Thus, gender equality movements struggle to emerge from the industry, when they do, they are often denied and disabled by those who hold the power.

Moreover, female screen creatives often experience tokenism. Women in the industry are tokenised insofar as they are expected to only cater to female audiences – which themselves are viewed as unprofitable or niche (Smith et al., 2012). This inhibits the mobility of female creatives in the industry, as they are typecast and expected to adhere to certain kinds of productions that themselves are viewed as lesser (Bielby & Bielby, 1992). One devastating outcome of this phenomena is that films with women in key creative roles receive less funding. Receiving less funding is a particular concern, as while there is no significant correlation between the gender of key creatives and box office success, there is a correlation between higher budgets and greater box office success (Lauzen, 2008). This creates a cycle that perpetually locks female creatives into making films that, with their small budgets, can only achieve a certain level of success. This curtailed success can then be used against these same creatives when executives consider creative teams for larger projects. When norms of what productions women can create are challenged, female creatives can be considered too risky or hard to work with (Bielby & Bielby, 1992). This is emblematic of a greater double standard often existent in film industries, where behaviours that are applauded or desired in men – such as assertiveness – are considered negatives for women (Smith et al., 2012). In this sense, film industries are often structured to perpetuate inequality and gendered discrimination.

To tackle this structural inequity, gender inequality in film industries can also be regarded as a market failure as well a moral failure. It is important to keep in mind that gender inequality is an ethical concern. Inequality in Australia’s film industry is reflective of an exclusion that has significant economic and social consequences that impede civil rights of women (French, 2014). However, as noted above, because of the privilege of denial, appealing directly to the ethical concerns of decision makers of the industry is likely to be met with a shifting of responsibility. Importantly, gender inequality also generates a commercial failure in current film markets. In Australia, the largest audience for feature films is women over 50, and yet films which are helmed by women and target this audience are scarce (Screen Australia, 2015). Unsurprisingly, films with female key creatives are much more likely to be about and for women (Jansson & Bivald, 2013; Screen Australia, 2015). Underrepresentation – or misrepresentation – is both a commercial and cultural concern. There is both unmet demand, as well as unsatisfactory gender representation.  Film industries need diversity and inclusion as they play a central role in how a country perceives itself, as well as how other nations perceive the country (Luckman et al., 2020). In this sense, intervention to produce positive change with regards to gender equity is essential, as it is a multilevel failure of any cultural industry to not be inclusive.

Gender Matters

Screen Australia’s Gender Matters program was created to curtail the Australian screen industry’s gender inequality. It arose from a report titled ‘Gender Matters: Women in the Australian Screen Industry’ which detailed the extent of the inequalities (2015). It was not the first gender related feature film program run by an Australian government body. In 1976 the Australian Film Commission – which later evolved into Screen Australia – established the ‘Women’s Film Fund’ which – while criticised for ‘ghettoising’ women’s films – provided direct financial support and training to women (Screen Australia, 2015). Screen Australia’s report, after discussing the evidence of inequality, set the initial terms of a five-point plan that would take effect early 2016.

This plan had two segments: short-term and long-term. In the short-term, Screen Australia, with $3 million in ‘jump-start’ funding, would create two one-time funding initiatives: Brilliant Stories and Brilliant Careers (Screen Australia, 2015, 2016a, 2016b). Brilliant Stories awarded up to $100,000 in development funding for fiction feature films – or $50,000 for scripted TV or scripted digital – who passed the three-tick test: having three women in key creative roles – which at this juncture included lead actor (Screen Australia, 2015, 2016a). This initiative was awarded to 45 projects, and a notable alumna was the film Ride Like a Girl (Griffiths, 2019; Screen Australia, 2017a, 2017b). On the other hand, Brilliant Careers offered up to $250,000 to generate programs that stimulated and developed sustainable infrastructures in the industry for female creatives (Screen Australia, 2016b). One notable recipient was the Kristina Ceyton and Samantha Jennings helmed production company Causeway films, which has produced notable Australian features such as The Babadook (Kent, 2014) and The Nightingale (Kent, 2014; Screen Australia, 2017b).

There were three long-term initiatives. Firstly, Screen Australia updated the assessment criteria for all their funding guidelines to include a consideration of gender and diversity (Screen Australia, 2015, 2019a). Secondly, the Better Deals support guarantee added another funding pool of up to $1 million to projects that passed the three-tick test. This was to incentivise distributors to support female led productions (Screen Australia, 2019a). Lastly, Screen Australia set up an attachments program. The program required projects receiving over $500,000 of funding to provide mentoring attachments for upcoming women in key creative roles – Screen Australia contributing $20,000 per attachment (Screen Australia, 2015, 2019). All in all, the five main initiatives of the Screen Australia Gender Matters program aimed to reach the key performance index (KPI) of 50% of funded projects having 50% of key creative roles held by women by the end of 2018 (Screen Australia, 2015).

So far, the Gender Matters program has exceeded its KPIs. Brilliant Stories and Brilliant Careers ­each awarded $1.8million in funding (Screen Australia, 2019). They also received the highest ever applications for any Screen Australia funding initiative at the time, with 452 submissions (Screen Australia, 2019). Furthermore, the attachments scheme was so successful that it was expanded, completing 22 attachments by 2019 (Screen Australia, 2019). The KPI of 50% of funded projects holding a key creative team of 50% women was reached by mid-2018 (Screen Australia, 2019). By 2019, Screen Australia held a three-year average of 56% of projects funded meeting these criteria (Screen Australia, 2019). The above successes allowed Screen Australia to set a new KPI for 2022; to achieve a three-year average of all funded projects holding 50% or more women in key creative roles – no longer taking into account lead actor (Screen Australia, 2019). From the perspective of Screen Australia, the Gender Matters program has exceeded expectations for success.

Yet, Screen Australia’s most recent update on the wider state of the industry is not as heartening. The period three years after the installation of the program – 2015/16 to 2018/19 – only saw minor improvements compared to the three years prior to the program – 2011/12 to 2014/15 (Screen Australia, 2020). The share of female producers increased from 35% to 36%, directors from 16% to 18%, and screenwriters remained the same at 23%. While the impetuous behind the Gender Matters program is commendable, it is evident that the immediate effects are negligible when the whole industry is considered. To be fair, this is a small data set – only three years – and realistically structures of discrimination take time to dissolve. Yet, the effectiveness of the program is certainly called into question when it promotes such little change in the industry as a whole

The Swedish Film Institute, and the way forward for Gender Matters

The Swedish Film Institute (SFI) and their gender equity programs are an interesting counterpoint with which to discuss the effectiveness of Gender Matters. The SFI are the main film preservation and funding body of Sweden. Because of this, while there are some differences – such as the SFI only deals with feature film – the SFI is largely analogous with Screen Australia.

The SFI’s engagements with gender equality in filmmaking are often used as an industry exemplar (Jansson, 2019; Swedish Film Institute, 2020). This is largely because the SFI have been trendsetters with regards research into the industry, as well as setting KPIs for gender equality in their funding (Jansson, 2019). They began to include considerations of gender diversity as early as 2006, and by 2015 they reached their KPI of having 50% of all key creatives involved in SFI funded projects being women (Jansson, 2019). The most notable effect of their KPI was by 2015 58% of SFI funded films and 36% of all Swedish films had female directors (Jansson, 2019). Furthermore, the SFI and its CEO Anna Serner have become international experts in progressing industry equality. Serner and the SFI held informational talks at the 2020 Berlinale and Cannes film festivals which have historically been male dominated (Swedish Film Institute, 2020). This has culminated in their most recent program Goal 2020, a five-point action plan that seeks to; get female creatives into roles in larger productions, increase visibility through their site ‘Nordic Women in Film’ (a website that tells the unknown stories of Scandinavian female filmmakers), continue to create annual equality reports, and to run programs that educate the Swedish public on the issue from a young age (Nordic Women in Film, n.d.; Swedish Film Institute, 2015, 2017, 2020). For the period of 2013-2017, women in the in all Swedish films occupied 38% of director roles, 52% of producer roles and wrote 34% of scripts (Swedish Film Institute, 2018). Overall, while critics do exist (Jansson, 2019), the SFI have propelled Sweden’s film industry towards gender equity.

Goal 2020 highlights many of areas in which Gender Matters could be more effective. Firstly, it should be noted in some areas Gender Matters exceeds the efforts of the SFI. As Jansson and Bivald (2013) noted in a co-report for SFI and the Women in Film and Television (WIFT), SFI has struggled create incentives for distributors to latch onto films that have resulted from their gender initiatives. The SFI with Goal 2020 have indicated that a chief concern is the fact that films featuring women in front of and behind the camera receive a lot less funding (2018). This is perhaps an area where Gender Matters has respectively excelled thanks to the Better Deals initiative which specifically targets distributers.

However, something that Screen Australia is yet to grasp is that while increasing the number of women creatives in the industry is important, structural change is more fundamental. As noted in the first section of this article, gender discrimination in the film industry is not just about personnel, but the structure of the industry in totality. This is a contributing factor to why larger industrial trends do not reflect the great work that Screen Australia has done; iniquitous structures remain intact. Brilliant Careers, the Gender Matters funding initiative that provided one-off funds to infrastructural projects, was certainly a start. But, as Carroll Harris suggested, a single large funding push – while better than nothing – does little to dramatically alter the fundamental inequity (2016). This is an area that Screen Australia could learn from the SFI to become more effective in this regard. As they mention in their literature, the SFI heavily relies upon extensive research, as well as educational initiatives like Nordic Women in Film and optional gender equality meetings for film executives (Pham, 2020; Swedish Film Institute, 2017). These initiatives have allowed the SFI to be effective without ever having to install a quota, as it provides them with the means to counter the privilege of denial by developing public knowledge (Swedish Film Institute, 2017). The Gender Matters program reaching their KPI is commendable. But gender inequality will not be solved by merely increasing the number of women in the industry. If improvements, success, and continuing inequalities are not documented, understood, disseminated, and utilised to form a holistic approach to dissolving structural inequity, then Gender Matters will only go so far.

When addressing inequality of a film industry, it is important to focus not just on quantitative, but the qualitative too. Inequity in these settings is structural. Therefore, if a gender initiative wishes to be effective, it must alter the conditions that perpetuate inequality. There is much room for everyone to grow in this regard. A current limitation of both academic and policy discussion is the concerns of women in crew positions – or ‘below the line’ work (French, 2014; Jones & Pringle, 2015). Both the Gender Matters and SFI programs currently show little concern for a sector where gender inequality is existent, and yet there are even less protections or visibility. Gender Matters is by no means completely ineffective. In fact, the programs focus on providing incentives for distribution is a positive improvement on other gender equality programs. However, as the program develops into the future it must look to learn from the SFI. Gender Matters must look to increase research, education, and visibility initiatives in order to highlight the injustice of sexist industry norms and document continued inequality. Australia’s film industry suffers from structural inequity that is a serious ethical and commercial concern. To be truly effective, Gender Matters needs to evolve to address the structures that have contributed to gender inequity in the Australian feature film industry.

References:

Adkins, L. (1999). Community and Economy: A Retraditionalization of Gender? Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327699016001008

Aquilia, P. (2015). The value of film school in the success of female filmmakers in Australia. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 9(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2015.1059024

Bielby, D. D., & Bielby, W. T. (1992). Cumulative Versus Continuous Disadvantage in an Unstructured Labour Market. Work and Occupations, 19(4), 366–386. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0730888492019004003

Bielby, D. D., & Bielby, W. T. (1996). Women and Men in Film: Gender Inequality among Writers in a Culture Industry. Gender and Society, 10(3), 248–270.

Carroll Harris, L. (2016). A Gender Policy That Aims For Equality? Not Yet. Metro Magazine (189). 124-125. https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=f91d66cc-fbdb-49ed-82ad-141848ce5f97%40sessionmgr101

French, L. (2012). Women in the Victorian Film, Television and Related Industries. RMIT: Melbourne. Accessed at http://www.lisa-french.com/WIFT%20Final%20Survey%20Report.pdf

French, L. (2014). Gender then, gender now: Surveying women’s participation in Australian film and television industries. Continuum, 28(2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.888040

Griffiths, R. (Director). (2019). Ride Like a Girl [Film]. Transmission Films.

Jansson, M. (2019). The quality of gender equality: Gender quotas and Swedish film governance. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 25(2), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2016.1248952

Jansson, M., & Bivald, K. (2013). What A Sad Story!: Distribution, Production and Gender Equality in the Swedish Film Industry. WIFT. http://www.filmdirectors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-Real-Tear-Jerker-WIFT-14.pdf

Jones, D., & Pringle, J. K. (2015). Unmanageable Inequalities: Sexism in the Film Industry. The Sociological Review, 63(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12239

Kent, J. (Director). (2014). The Babadook [Film]. Causeway Films.

Kent, J. (Director). (2018). The Nightingale [Film]. Causeway Films.

Lauzen, M. (2008). Women @ the Box Office: A Study of the Top 100 Worldwide Grossing Films. Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, San Diego State University. https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/files/Women%20@%20Box%20Office.pdf.

Lauzen, M. M. (2012). Where Are the Film Directors (Who Happen to be Women)? Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 29(4), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509201003601167

Luckman, S., Anderson, H., Sinha, R., Rentschler, R., & Chalklen, C. (2020). ‘The devil is in the level’: Understanding inequality in Australia’s Film, TV and Radio industries. Media International Australia, 176(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19892772

Nordic Women in Film. (n.d.). About. http://www.nordicwomeninfilm.com/about/

Pham, A. (2020). Anna Serner: ‘Gender equality and diversity is the key to success’. Nordisk Film & TV Fond. https://www.nordiskfilmogtvfond.com/news/interview/anna-serner-gender-equality-and-diversity-is-the-key-to-success

Screen Australia. (2015). Report: Gender Matters: Women in the Australian Screen Industry. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/f20beab8-81cc-4499-92e9-02afba18c438/Gender-Matters-Women-in-the-Australian-Screen-Industry.pdf

Screen Australia. (2016a). Development Past Initiatives Gender Matters: Brilliant Stories. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding-and-support/feature-films/development/past-initiatives/gender-matters-brilliant-stories

Screen Australia. (2016b). Gender Matters: Brilliant Careers. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding-and-support/industry-development/businesses/past-initiatives/gender-matters-brilliant-careers.

Screen Australia. (2017a). 47% of Screen Australia Titles That Recieved Production Funding are Female-Led Projects. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2017/08-06-gender-matters-update

Screen Australia. (2017b). Gender Matters Interim Update. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2017/03-08-gender-matters-interim-update

Screen Australia. (2019). Gender Matters Back Grounder. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/backgrounders/2019/08-14-gender-matters-2019

Screen Australia. (2020). Screen Australia Releases Gender Matters KPI Update and New Industry Data. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2020/10-15-screen-australia-gender-matters-kpi-update

Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). A maze of metaphors around glass ceilings. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(7), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211273432

Swedish Film Institute. (2017). Gender Equality Report 2017. https://www.filminstitutet.se/globalassets/_dokument/rapporter/swedish-film-insitute-gender-equality-report_2017_eng.pdf

Swedish Film Institute. (2018). The Money Issue: Gender Equality Report 2018. https://www.filminstitutet.se/globalassets/_dokument/sfi-gender-equality-report-2018—lowres.pdf

Swedish Film Institute. (2020). Towards Gender Equality in Film Production. https://www.filminstitutet.se/en/about-us/swedish-film-institute/gender-equality/

Verhoeven, D., Musial, K., Palmer, S., Taylor, S., Abidi, S., Zemaityte, V., & Simpson, L. (2020). Controlling for openness in the male-dominated collaborative networks of the global film industry. PLOS ONE, 15(6), e0234460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234460