Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you welcome to stump Mom never told you?
Speaker 1: From House Towards dot com. Hello, and welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 1: This is Molly and I'm Kristen Kristy and I don't
Speaker 1: know about you, but I sure I am tired. Are
Speaker 1: you tired? Because last night was the Academy Awar Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: we're living in the future. This is our after party
Speaker 1: Extravaganza episode. We're still in our gowns from last night's
Speaker 1: still in our gowns. We've still got some champagne buzzes going.
Speaker 1: We've been to parties all night. Confetti in our hair.
Speaker 1: John Hamm passed out in the studio booth. Um. Yes,
Speaker 1: this episode airs the day after the Academy Awards, and
Speaker 1: last year around this time we did an episode about
Speaker 1: female directors, and we thought it'd be fun time to
Speaker 1: follow up on the current state of Hollywood and and
Speaker 1: talk about things that one, things that were nominated, and
Speaker 1: what's going and on in that crazy town of Hollywood. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because last year we talked about directors because Katherine Bigelow
Speaker 1: was up for Best Director when she wont Hurt the
Speaker 1: hurt Locker, Yes, was she won? Instead of big question
Speaker 1: was will there be a Bigelow effect? And Molly was
Speaker 1: the answer. The answer was no, quite definitively no. Despite
Speaker 1: the fact that two of the movies that were up
Speaker 1: for Best Motion Picture of the Year, The Kids Are
Speaker 1: all Right and Winter's Bone, we're both directed by women,
Speaker 1: those two women were not nominated for Best Director. All
Speaker 1: of the Best Directing nominees were men. So no Bigelow
Speaker 1: effect that was noticeable. Um. Now we're recording this a
Speaker 1: few weeks before the Oscars, so we don't know what won.
Speaker 1: But a movie that's highly anticipated to win Best Picture,
Speaker 1: The Social Network, has been highly criticized for the way
Speaker 1: it depicted women in that movie, because it just shows
Speaker 1: a lot of female students partying while the Ivy League
Speaker 1: girls are sexy, That's all I have to say, while
Speaker 1: the while the poor men are sitting at home programming.
Speaker 1: Uh so that that. You can read all about that
Speaker 1: on the internet. Um, but yeah, it's it's not. Ah.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it was a great year for
Speaker 1: women in Hollywood. You know, some some great performances have
Speaker 1: been nominated and will have been awarded. Last night. But
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of the big winners, I don't
Speaker 1: see women being one of those people who took a
Speaker 1: trophy home. Well, while there has not been a big
Speaker 1: Gelow effect in terms of the Oscar nominations this year,
Speaker 1: one thing I have noticed throughout this past year is
Speaker 1: there have women have been more vocal about gender gaps
Speaker 1: in Hollywood in terms of how they represented on screen. Um,
Speaker 1: who is more respected in the industry, who makes more
Speaker 1: in the industry? Can I can I offer a quote
Speaker 1: from Helen Murren. Oh, I always like quotes from Helen
Speaker 1: Mars was at a speech she gave not too long
Speaker 1: ago at a breakfast for women in entertainment, and she said, quote,
Speaker 1: with all respect to many brilliant and successful women in
Speaker 1: this room, really not much has changed in the cannon
Speaker 1: of Hollywood filmmaking that continues to worship at the altar
Speaker 1: of the eighteen to twenty five year old male and
Speaker 1: his penis Helen to say, Helen, it's true. It's true.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think that you know, unfortunately probably
Speaker 1: doing a podcast every year about this, and uh, if
Speaker 1: the podcast existed ten years ago, they'll probably be a
Speaker 1: pretty similar similar story that women aren't the the queens
Speaker 1: of Hollywood. It seems like a town that's run by men.
Speaker 1: And so to fall up on last year we talked
Speaker 1: mainly about directors, We're gonna look at some other jobs
Speaker 1: and the movie industry, particularly actresses, writers, and producers. Yeah, den,
Speaker 1: I think the point here when we talk about the
Speaker 1: gender govern Hollywood isn't isn't too great, But to think
Speaker 1: about it in the grand scheme of things, of how
Speaker 1: women are represented in film and how that trickles down
Speaker 1: to and influences our popular culture. Just kind of keep
Speaker 1: that in mind as we go through these statistics such
Speaker 1: as the ratio of female to male characters in film
Speaker 1: has been one to three since nineteen forty six. And
Speaker 1: since we're talking about the Oscars, this is our Oscar
Speaker 1: after party after all. Uh, since we're talking about the Oscars, well,
Speaker 1: let's throw out this statistic. This is from UH analyzing
Speaker 1: the gender dynamics in Best Picture Academy Award nominated films
Speaker 1: from nineteen seventies seven to two thousand and six, and
Speaker 1: of the six thousand, eight hundred thirty three single speaking
Speaker 1: characters evaluated in all of those Best Picture nominated films,
Speaker 1: only twenty seven point three percent or female. In other words,
Speaker 1: when a film was nominated for Best Picture, chances are
Speaker 1: the cast is largely male. Now, there are some notable
Speaker 1: exceptions this yearation mentioned um black Swan features females duking
Speaker 1: it out. Natalie Portman, Mila Kunas, We've got the Kids
Speaker 1: are all Right about a family headed by a netbetting
Speaker 1: and Julianne Moore, Let's see Winter's Boom, about a young
Speaker 1: woman telling to hold her family together. So we've got
Speaker 1: some Hopefully we'll we'll change the odds a little bit
Speaker 1: this year. But you know, we went from nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: seven to two thousand six in this study, and the
Speaker 1: researchers who wrote it broke it down by three periods,
Speaker 1: from nineteen seventy seven to nine six, and then from
Speaker 1: seven to nine and then from to two thousand six.
Speaker 1: And even when you split it up by these decades,
Speaker 1: you see no growth. You know, it's not like we're
Speaker 1: rising as time goes on. The differences are, you know,
Speaker 1: just not perceptible. We're really not making that much progress
Speaker 1: if you look at it from a timeline perspective. Emily,
Speaker 1: I would like to point out that these statistics are
Speaker 1: coming from one of our new favorite think tanks. Yes,
Speaker 1: the Gina Davis Institute for Gender and Media. If you
Speaker 1: did not know this, fair listeners, Gina Davis is very
Speaker 1: concerned about how and are portrayed on film, especially how
Speaker 1: younger women are portrayed in p G and G rated films,
Speaker 1: because she was This happened because she was watching movies
Speaker 1: with her younger daughter and was just outraged by the
Speaker 1: sexualization and representation of women on screen, and so she
Speaker 1: started this institute. Just kind of interesting. Yeah, it raises
Speaker 1: these questions of who are we watching on scream, which
Speaker 1: is why Kristi made that comment earlier that you know,
Speaker 1: it's it can be hard to to gripe about a
Speaker 1: gender gap when you're talking about people who make millions
Speaker 1: and billions of dollars. But you know, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, we're the one sitting down watching these movies,
Speaker 1: perhaps with our children, and we need to think about,
Speaker 1: you know, how women are being represented in that. So
Speaker 1: let's go back to UM and Gina Davis, if you're listening,
Speaker 1: hire me. I'd like to work here. Institute, give us
Speaker 1: a called Gina. We'd love to chip. Good job in
Speaker 1: a league of their own. Um. So, now, after that
Speaker 1: study looks at the female characters on screen, it looks
Speaker 1: at who had jobs behind the scenes, and again the
Speaker 1: ratio of males to females and occupations like writer, director,
Speaker 1: and producer six point five to one. So there's disparity
Speaker 1: in front of the camera, there's disparity behind the camera.
Speaker 1: But the one thing that they did notice is that
Speaker 1: if a direct if the director's female, there might be
Speaker 1: a greater chance that there will be a female on
Speaker 1: screen playing a significant role. So you know, the argument goes,
Speaker 1: if we want to change what we see on the screen,
Speaker 1: perhaps we have to change what we see behind the
Speaker 1: scenes and all of the not surprisingly, um, those kind
Speaker 1: of gender imbalances also lead to a gender gap among
Speaker 1: the highest earners in Hollywood. And again, Molly, like you said,
Speaker 1: we're talking about people who are bringing home exorbitant amounts
Speaker 1: of cash. To talking about a pay gap does seem
Speaker 1: kind of silly, but symbolism is the same exactly. You know,
Speaker 1: we found all these lists of the highest paid entertainers
Speaker 1: in Hollywood, and the list always starts with a ton
Speaker 1: of males. Yeah, a bunch of white guys. Uh. And
Speaker 1: this is coming from Vanity Fairs list from the top
Speaker 1: earners from two thousand nine, and number one, we have
Speaker 1: Michael Bay who produced all the Transformers movies including and
Speaker 1: also Friday the Thirteenth Nightmare on Elm Street, followed by
Speaker 1: Steven Spielberg. We've got James Cameron and at number four.
Speaker 1: It's not until we get down to number fourteen that
Speaker 1: we get the first lady on the list, Ms Emma
Speaker 1: Watson of Harry Potter Fame right, and Cameron Diaz is
Speaker 1: also one that pops up on those high ranking lists
Speaker 1: a lot um who else was on those lists? Uh what?
Speaker 1: You also have Angelia Jolie beating out Jennifer Aniston. On
Speaker 1: this list, we've got Sarah Jessica Parker and Katherine Heigl
Speaker 1: and Reese Witherspoon and also Sandra Bullock and then finally
Speaker 1: Kristen Stewart from Twilight. And those are the only women.
Speaker 1: The women that I just ticked off are the only
Speaker 1: women on Vanity Fairs lists of the forty top earners
Speaker 1: in Hollywood. And so that's um all all together, all professions.
Speaker 1: So you've got all these male producers and directs who
Speaker 1: topped the list. Female producers, directors don't even make the list,
Speaker 1: and it's not until we get to acting that we
Speaker 1: see those um women start to pop up. And then
Speaker 1: when if you just look at the acting lists, those
Speaker 1: again lists are dominated by people like Will Smith, Johnny Depp.
Speaker 1: It'll be like five or six guys until you finally
Speaker 1: get to a woman, and you know it's and you know,
Speaker 1: it's hard to quibble when Cameron Diaz is making thirty
Speaker 1: million to Will Smith sixty million, because that's more money
Speaker 1: than I would ever need in my lifetime. But you know,
Speaker 1: the standard is the same, and I think it does
Speaker 1: send that that message to people that if Cameron Diaz
Speaker 1: is only worth half of what Will Smith is worth,
Speaker 1: then you know, then women are devalued both before they
Speaker 1: even get on the screen to play a character. Now,
Speaker 1: when Forbes was analyzing this list of male versus female
Speaker 1: actors and the money that they were bringing in, they
Speaker 1: related a lot of that pay gap to the budgets
Speaker 1: and films. Essentially, the higher the budget in a film,
Speaker 1: the higher the lead actor is going to make. And
Speaker 1: when you think big budget films, you think action movies
Speaker 1: and big explosions, big fight scenes, c g. I things
Speaker 1: like that that are really going to bring up, um,
Speaker 1: the expense. And a lot of times big budget films
Speaker 1: are led by dudes because superheroes, yeah, spider Man, yeah.
Speaker 1: Whereas chick flicks and I hate to use that term,
Speaker 1: but chick flicks, all right, they really don't require that
Speaker 1: many you know, fancy fancy things. You don't have to
Speaker 1: put C G I on a on a kiss. Although
Speaker 1: perhaps the wardrobe of Sex for the City was good
Speaker 1: buy a small nation, but yeah, I mean, and you
Speaker 1: can see it. I mean, this is not news to
Speaker 1: anyone if you even just look at how these commercials
Speaker 1: for films are marketed to you. These action movies are
Speaker 1: marketed to everyone. Movies like Sex in the City are
Speaker 1: marketed to very niche audiences. And so I think that
Speaker 1: because you know, the salaries are different, the people writing
Speaker 1: and producing them are different. They see these these female
Speaker 1: audiences and these movies that are geared towards females as
Speaker 1: their own little nit, whereas male movies are for everyone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they and the big budget films tend to you know,
Speaker 1: you have the summer blockbusters, and they tend to break
Speaker 1: in more cash. And so all of it translates to
Speaker 1: a bigger payday for the guys. But again, kind of
Speaker 1: like when we were talking about UM holding constant the
Speaker 1: the directors and producers behind the screen and how that
Speaker 1: relates to the UM gender representation on screen. When you
Speaker 1: hold the budgets equal for both male and female actors,
Speaker 1: they're going to bring in the same amount of money. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're saying that, if let's say both Will Smith and
Speaker 1: camerd Has decide to make a little um thirty million
Speaker 1: dollar movie, a very small comedy, they would make it
Speaker 1: would bring in the same amount of money. Yeah. The
Speaker 1: the amount of the earnings as nothing. There's no correlation
Speaker 1: between movie earnings and the gender of the lead actors.
Speaker 1: But Molly, what about the people who are writing these movies?
Speaker 1: The screenwriters are talking about, the producers and the directors
Speaker 1: and the actors and actresses. What about the right is Molly, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a sad story for writers in Hollywood who are
Speaker 1: female or not white. Because the Writer's Guild of America
Speaker 1: West has been commissioning these studies almost every two years,
Speaker 1: I guess now to look at diversity among writers and uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's never very good. The Writer's guild
Speaker 1: is seventy two in male. Let's just kick it off
Speaker 1: with that. Yeah, women are underrepresented about two to one
Speaker 1: in the industry, both in film and television. And just
Speaker 1: like every other, uh sort of Hollywood career, the female
Speaker 1: writers make less money than the men. The pay gap
Speaker 1: is not quite as large in television, but it is
Speaker 1: pretty significant when you come to screenplays. And Chris and
Speaker 1: You came across a kind of interesting article in the
Speaker 1: New York Times about something called the Empire. The Empire, Yes,
Speaker 1: this came out in two thousand nine, and the Empire
Speaker 1: is a group of four screenwriters in Hollywood that is
Speaker 1: centered around Diablo Cody, who won the two thousand and
Speaker 1: eight um Oscar for her screenplay of Juno. And it
Speaker 1: was interesting because it was this portrait of this this
Speaker 1: gaggle of gals. It's very sex in the city, like
Speaker 1: of Diablo Cody and her screenwriter friends who call themselves
Speaker 1: the Empire, because it really painted them as these hip,
Speaker 1: fashionable writers who were breaking in. But the story completely
Speaker 1: glossed over the fact that there is this huge disparity,
Speaker 1: like gender disparity among screenwriters and just kind of made
Speaker 1: them seem sort of sort of kitchy and cute. Well,
Speaker 1: what was sort of unset to me was the fact
Speaker 1: that these four female writers have found each other basically
Speaker 1: because no one else understood what they were going through.
Speaker 1: And you know, they were subject to these things that
Speaker 1: the male writers weren't. But you know, it's it's sort
Speaker 1: of you know, if we want to show female writers,
Speaker 1: is you know, force us to be hired. I don't
Speaker 1: know if doing a New York Times article where they
Speaker 1: all talk about like purses is the way to do
Speaker 1: it well and the I mean the the author did
Speaker 1: make one point, she writes a screenwriters usually don't have
Speaker 1: stylists or publicists, Yet women say they feel pressure to
Speaker 1: look photogenic in a way that is not demanded of
Speaker 1: male screenwriters. One recent evening, each woman had to check
Speaker 1: the label she was wearing when asked to identify it.
Speaker 1: So perhaps it's just reflective of the um the added
Speaker 1: pressure on on these younger female screenwriters to break into
Speaker 1: the business in a way that maybe a man might
Speaker 1: not have to write. I think that you know, we
Speaker 1: we've talked about female playwrights and we never had to
Speaker 1: talk about whether they had to show up at award
Speaker 1: shows and look glamorous, and that was something that Diablo
Speaker 1: Cody said she really struggled with when Juno got so popular,
Speaker 1: is that she was essentially being judged almost as an
Speaker 1: actress in terms of appearance, and you know, she really
Speaker 1: was just a screenwriter. The other screenwriters up that year
Speaker 1: we're not subject to that same sort of demand. So
Speaker 1: it's like any female in the industry becomes almost um,
Speaker 1: you know, gets the Jennifer Anniston treatment in some way,
Speaker 1: and that they have to perform to these standards of
Speaker 1: females in Hollywood that you know, the indie guys don't
Speaker 1: seem to have to put up with now. At the
Speaker 1: same time, we can take it as as a positive
Speaker 1: thing that the Writer's Guild is paying attention to the
Speaker 1: issue by commissioning these stories and these studies excuse me,
Speaker 1: and really looking at, um what kind of stories they're
Speaker 1: putting on screen, because they do want a diversity of voices,
Speaker 1: they want a diversity of perspectives, um. And so maybe
Speaker 1: that's the lesson that we take from all of this
Speaker 1: as consumers, as people who are watching watching the movies,
Speaker 1: watching television shows, UH is deciding how we want to
Speaker 1: support that diversity. It doesn't necessarily have to be a
Speaker 1: female writer. I mean, we're talking a lot about the
Speaker 1: breakdown of men and women, but again we're not even
Speaker 1: talking about minority racial minority. And I think some people
Speaker 1: will say that, you know, a good movie is a
Speaker 1: good movie. It should make no difference who wrote it,
Speaker 1: who directed, and whatnot. But um, as as these Writer's
Speaker 1: Guild studies point out in the in the intro text,
Speaker 1: that it's good business to diversify. Uh, you know, our
Speaker 1: country is increasingly coming diversified, and we've got to you know,
Speaker 1: they're saying, if you want to get people to the
Speaker 1: movies on watching TV, it's got to reflect their reality.
Speaker 1: And so I think that, you know, we can try
Speaker 1: to support the shows that do reflect our own reality,
Speaker 1: that are produced in a quality way. So our little
Speaker 1: concerned Christal, because I feel like our after party got
Speaker 1: a little serious and I really wanted it to be fun.
Speaker 1: And there's nothing wrong with serious, Molly. You know, we
Speaker 1: we since we're recording this from the future, we can't
Speaker 1: talk about any of our favorite dresses or or what
Speaker 1: Starlett's made, uh fools of themselves and whatnot. But I
Speaker 1: do want to tell everyone out there who appreciates watching
Speaker 1: the dresses as I do. I enjoy a good red
Speaker 1: carpet pre show that the total cost on average of
Speaker 1: a person walking down that red carpet, well of of
Speaker 1: a female star you don't start walking down the red carpet,
Speaker 1: is probably more than you spent on your house. How
Speaker 1: much seven that is fees for a stylists, for the dress,
Speaker 1: for the shoes, for the jewelry. Now granted, actresses usually
Speaker 1: don't pay all of that money themselves. Movie studio will
Speaker 1: pick it up. But you know, if you look at
Speaker 1: these women last night and you wonder how they look
Speaker 1: so perfect, you only cause almost a million of dollars.
Speaker 1: I say, if you've had seven huf dollars, I think
Speaker 1: you'd look pretty great. It's pretty great too, So excellent
Speaker 1: we can we can in this podcast on a slightly
Speaker 1: frivolous note, um as as we should for our oscar
Speaker 1: after party, food for thought, facts to throw out. It's great.
Speaker 1: What more do you want from a party? I don't know. Um,
Speaker 1: I would really like John Hampton to wake up and
Speaker 1: take us out to brunch. Well, while we wait for that,
Speaker 1: she reads some listener, Now, yes, well, I have any
Speaker 1: email here from Meredith, it's about our courset episode, and
Speaker 1: she writes as someone who has watched entirely too many
Speaker 1: period pieces and has spent many years studying nineteenth century literature.
Speaker 1: I always thought, of course, it's really cool, but when
Speaker 1: I became a mother, I suddenly realized how uncool they
Speaker 1: could be. One of the biggest problems with courses in
Speaker 1: history has been its effect on mothers for nursing infants,
Speaker 1: even a loose course that can exert pressure the wrong
Speaker 1: way and cause breast infections and milk supply issues, which
Speaker 1: was kind of a big deal before things like reliable
Speaker 1: formula or around Personally, I feel I foolishly bought a
Speaker 1: corset type garment after having my dollar because I wanted
Speaker 1: my waist to look smaller, and figured because it wasn't abraa,
Speaker 1: it shouldn't pose a problem. Wrong. Massitis is horrible and
Speaker 1: pretty embarrassing when the cause is vanity, so a perspective
Speaker 1: on course, it's u nursing. I've got an email here
Speaker 1: from Cara, and it was in response to our episode
Speaker 1: on objective sexuality, and she was taking issue with the
Speaker 1: idea of a relationship between the woman and the golden
Speaker 1: gate Bridge so she writes, any relationship in order to
Speaker 1: be successful and fulfilling in the long run, must involve giving,
Speaker 1: putting your partner first. Ask not what your partner can
Speaker 1: do for you, ask what you can do for your partner.
Speaker 1: This woman in the example has little to offer the bridge,
Speaker 1: aside from perhaps scrubbing off graffiti. She takes from the bridge,
Speaker 1: gives nothing back, and is jealous and possessive. Is this
Speaker 1: a fetish, a sexual orientation or is it just narcissistic
Speaker 1: emotional abuse directed at objects instead of people. Well, we
Speaker 1: need to build shelters for bridges escaping from abusive relationships.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, if you have any email to send
Speaker 1: our way, our address is Mom's Steven House. Stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com. Of course we'd love to see you over
Speaker 1: on Twitter at mom Stuff Podcast, and of course we'd
Speaker 1: love to see you on Facebook as well. You can
Speaker 1: like us Sarah, leave us a comment, and as always,
Speaker 1: we'd really love for you too. We just love a
Speaker 1: lot of things. We really love for you to read
Speaker 1: our blog, It's stuff Mom Never Told You at how
Speaker 1: stuff works com for more on this and thousands of
Speaker 1: other topics. Is it how stuff works dot com to
Speaker 1: learn more about the podcast cook on the podcast icon
Speaker 1: in the upper right corner of our homepage. The How
Speaker 1: Stuff Works iPhone app has arrived. Download it today on iTunes,
Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
Speaker 1: It's ready, are you