ADVERTISEMENT

Screen agencies challenged on shortage of women directors

All Australian screen agencies are failing to develop female feature directors, according to Megan Simpson Huberman.

The agencies “cannot continue doing the same things and expecting a different result. And the current result – 15% of Australian dramatic features directed by women – is unacceptable,” she writes in the latest issue of AFTRS’ Lumina magazine, which is devoted to gender equality in the screen industry.

Among the other factors which contribute to the under-representation of female directors, she says, are Australian film distribution companies which are run by blokes; and international film festival directors who are mostly male.

A former director of development and production investment at Screen NSW and development executive at Screen Australia, Simpson Huberman is attached to direct Salvation Creek, a drama about a high-flying magazine editor whose husband and brother die within three days of each other, with producer Heather Ogilvie.

In the Lumina article she advocates four measures to increase the representation of female feature directors:

– Boards of the screen agencies should set increasing KPIs for the percentage of female directors and female protagonists in supported projects;
– Given the strong female audience for Australian features, analyse national development to ensure that sufficient films delivering to this audience are being developed and supported for development;
– Design professional development sessions aimed at female directors including pitching to gain the confidence of male decision makers and directing with digital visual effects;
– Design programs to help female directors refocus their career after parental leave, “especially if we want mature female storytellers to speak to our mature female audiences.”

Simpson Huberman asserts women who start out directing shorts are disadvantaged because the majority of the main international film festival directors are men, who may respond more strongly to shorts from male directors.

“This means more male short filmmakers may be selected for festivals and start to accrue heat. Female directors are starting to fall behind before they’re even out of the gate,” she says.

The majority of those in executive decision making roles in the studios and in the distribution, sales, and exhibition sectors are men, she says. In Australia, while there are some key female executives at eOne and Icon, those and the other larger distributors are run by men.

“Female distribution executives, like female audiences, are used to 'translating' themselves into the point of view and experience of a protagonist of the opposite sex. Male executives are less used to this. If a script aimed at women and dealing with women’s experience is read by a male decision maker, it may not resonate with him – as it is not aimed at him,” she writes.

”So this is the conundrum. Even if female directors have attached themselves to projects that are well targeted to an attainable and receptive female skewed audience, they may find marketplace support for the projects, and therefore finance, harder to secure.”

Furthermore, Simpson Huberman contends it’s often harder for women who’ve directed one feature to get backing for their second.

“Women may also often receive fewer offers of subsequent projects, even when they have a success,” she says. “Yet there are male directors who have made a string of low grossing films and still were offered numerous subsequent projects.”

She points to Kate Woods, whose debut feature Looking for Alibrandi grossed $8.3 million in 2000, an astounding figure at the time, and Cherie Nowlan’s second feature Clubland, whích Warner Independent Pictures bought for the US for $US4.1 million after debuting at Sundance in 2007.

Neither has since made another feature although both have pursued highly successful careers directing TV shows in the US.
 

  1. What a load of bull. If a film is good enough, it will be spoken about regardless of the sex of the director. And distributors? They want product they can sell, not product directed by males. This person’s view is just delusional. Maybe if they’d focus their craft on projects that actually sound enticing to distributors, they wouldn’t come up against brick walls. Salvation Creek sounds woeful.

  2. John Doh is right about one thing. By the way Salvation Creek is described in this article, it does sound woeful. Fortunately, what you’re reading is not the story of our film but the events that lead to its opening.

    Based on Susan Duncan’s best selling memoir, Salvation Creek is the story of an international journalist and editor whose husband and brother die within days of each other. Derailed by grief, she burns the bridges to her past, and starts again in a place where no one knows her. It’s about female friendship, mature romance, and finding yourself and the place where you belong.

  3. I don’t think introducing KPIs is a solution. Giving distributors and exhibitors confidence in female-driven product is key. Women’s attendance at the cinema increases as that group ages (http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/audiencescinemaagexgender.aspx). And while the attendance and frequency rates of older age groups is less, they represent a greater proportion of the population than the younger groups (http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/audiencescinemaageprofile.aspx)and will continue to grow.

    Yet, we continue to target the 14-25 year-old male.

  4. Completely agree with the first post. This is ridiculous. Perhaps the best measure to increase the representation of female feature directors is better training and education of the directors themselves. It is lack of skill as filmmakers holding many back, not gender. Kate Woods, on the other hand, has talent, which is why she has continued to get work as a director. It has absolutely nothing to do with the gender of distributors or festival directors. The stench of entitlement in this article makes me sick.

  5. I know, it’s so inconvenient when someone suggests that instead of falling back into established power constructs you actually make an adjustment to address issues relating to discrimination, value, perspective, story, opportunity, education and business. I mean what do these insane, sickeningly entitled people think they are? Equal or something?

  6. I think what Megan is advocating is very prescriptive. I am not aware of any agency being negative against female driven films nor directors. In so far as having quotas as to how many female directed films should be funded it will not automatically ensure a greater representation of female directors. A great story will always be supported no matter what the gender or race of the Director might be. And the last time I looked the majority of people working at agencies with the power to recommend funding are female. In regard to Studios there has always been a strong representation of females in powerful positions to greenlight films. Admittedly in distribution companies around the world men dominate but again I note that they have screened a lot of female driven stories. In my experience it has always been extremely hard to get a film financed and distributed and I do agree that female protagonist films find it a bit harder (having two such films in development) but the answer is not to set KPIs but to have a story that distributors and audiences alike engage with.
    Brian Rosen

  7. @ Liz: But these are NOT issues relating to discrimination. People need to stop playing the “inequality” card when they don’t get what they want, and address the real problem of their own limitations and abilities. Brian Rosen has a much better understanding of the issue. I appreciate your comments, Brian.

  8. Yes KPI’s can sound and be quite prescriptive but the bigger issue and problem is to ensure that ensure that if they are intriduced they do not dominate the decision making process.

    As already mentioned the important thing aretraining and devlopment of all filmmakers, technially, artically and business; like any industry it needs to adopt a continuos improvement philosophy and a more collegiate approach may help rather than laying blame on a particular single issu – particularly in light of the domination of the vertyically integrated US Studio system Lets face it, resources are scarce so why does everyone have to be a Director, surely quality is the objective. (And good on Helen for taking the time to address the first response as idiotic it was)

  9. Should do a gender study on the amount of women working for funding bodies who aren’t approving female directors for funding, women basically run every funding body in the country…at least 80% in favour. What the hell has gender got to do with it? Utterly sick of gender politics in the arts…either you can do the job or you can’t…Directing and gender have zero to do with each other.

  10. The budget for this Salvation Creek on IMDB. $10.5 million? It sounds like a therapy session, not a movie. How many tax payer dollars are going to be wasted on this? There are some great female directors in the world who I find very inspiring for me wanting to one day make films that conpete in the market with the bully boys. Maybe we could look at the stories we’re telling. I’m always happy for my fellow sisters rallying up a little girl power in this industry, but crying out women aren’t being allowed to make a dent and then not making a dent when given the chance…. seems a bit childish.

    Cassie.

  11. the discrimination women face (in situations as expressed in this article) is so deeply ingrained that we can’t admit to it/recognise it, and so continue to remain completely ignorant to its existence. This is unless we start investigating and questioning what is going on, like we all are here… This is the point of this article.

  12. For goodness sake, Claire, it’s not 1950 and we are not oppressed! The problem here is that a select few – the vocal minority – are screaming ‘inequality!’ every chance they get in an effort to further themselves and careers – and we can all see right through that. On the other hand, look at Dee McLachan. She couldn’t get a break for her feature so she raised the money privately and shot THE JAMMED, which was a huge critical success. She took action and worked hard and that is what empowerment is all about, not screaming for concessions, which we have to endure so much today.

  13. Discrimination is about not having access or not being given opportunities.

    The current regime in AU film funding bodies is that one must have X number films as either producer, director or writer, in the last 10 years to be qualifying (eg Screen NSW), or in the case of Screen AU they look at when your last feature film was released (if it’s over about 5years, they wont hesitate to tell you, that you haven’t any recent experience)

    Most women will, in their late 20s / during their 30s, have children. Whether we like it or not, that often means a lull in one’s filmmaker careers (irrespective of whether one takes on another job during that period that gives them valuable industry experience)

    What happens is that the funding agency “qualifying” films are no longer in the eligible window.

    How is that not discrimination ?

    Anyone with children will also tell you it’s not so easy just to choof off and make a micro budget film in order to get a feature rung on the ladder, or jump ship and go to LA or EU to explore opportunities, with a baby or two on one’s hip. On a very basic level, it’s more expensive as one has to cover the airfares and accommodation (and that’s ignoring the complications of taking kids out of school)

    So yes single men, definitely have more flexibility to pursue opportunities and take a risk.

    One only has to look at the number of women in AU screen funding agencies with kids. There comes a time when one needs to take the steady income job to put food on the table. You cant tell me any filmmaker would rather be doing an “admin job” rather than making a movie !!!

    All this makes women most notably subject to becoming inadvertently ineligible for development, production and marketing funding.

    So while the realities of parenthood are an acceptable part of the deal – the whole skewed funding “eligibility” is not.

    This discrimination also applies to men who take parental leave, any film practitioner who is ill for an extended period, or takes a sideways career step to develop other industry related skills which are not in the role of “writer, director, producer”, to which eligibility criteria are applied.

    Screen Australia denies there is any discrimination.

    Minister for Women, Pru Goward is not convinced.

    On a more general level (applies to all filmmakers irrespective of gender), but adds further insult to injury …

    Qualifying films must have a commercial release – however not all commercial screens are treated equally.
    The funding bodies have “unpublished” rules about what will be “acceptably commercial”.

    The Funding Body heads may preach / advise using new technologies and distribution channels to make profit (aka commercial), however, when it comes to the crunch, using those distribution channels may not allow ones’ films to qualify.

    So when it comes to funding – it’s like you never made the film.

    Having eligible qualifying films does not only hinder the filmmaker – it also hinders anyone they wish to support.

    eg a female producer who wishes to back a male director or writer’s project, can’t access development or production, or finance market attendance funds.

    eg a female filmmaker who wishes to apply for funding to for internships for upcoming filmmakers they wish to train / develop.

    The problem is so much bigger than just female “directors”.

    Making a movie / telling a story is involves so much more than the female director.

    Everytime a female filmmaker is denied funding, it impacts on ALL the men she works with – who don’t get funded either – and who will ultimately jump ship and go back to working with blokes.

    And THAT my friends is the real reason why working with competent women is considered as a “risk” for male filmmakers.

    It creates a viscous circle which keeps women out of the paid filmmaking workforce in Australia.

  14. It was Gandhi who said there is no limit to what mankind can achieve if it didn’t matter who got the credit. In a Utopian film industry films would be made with no title, no named actors and an anonymous crew and writer. The director would be unnamed also. In other words, it would be ego-free. We are simply not mature enough yet for this, but I like the idea. Peace to all.

  15. I have no problem working with female filmmakers, so I can’t agree with you there about men not wanting to work with females in the industry, LfO.

    I do however have a problem working with filmmakers, male or female, who are trying to make projects that have no commercial appeal. You want to make art? Go fund it yourself.

    But LfO, if what you mention is true – that women drop out of the film industry to raise children and take positions at funding agencies for a steady income – then why would those women who make it into the decision making seats at funding agencies, which seems to be a larger share than males, continually turn down funding to projects driven by female key creative teams?

  16. Hey Cassie, please send me your email address and I’ll personally make sure you actually have a chance to judge the film we’re making. Not the film you think we’re making. Free tickets for you and 5 of your girl friends. Guaranteed. In the meantime, can you send me a link to your films so I can share my thoughts in return. Looking forward to it.

  17. I won’t allow myself to be victimised for speaking the truth, so take your childish bullying elsewhere, Helen.

    Looking forward to seeing your film.

    Cassie.

  18. Thanks Megan for speaking out about this issue. Looking forward to seeing yours and Heather’s film.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *