Reports Previous Workshops
Seventh Workshop – 27 to 29 September 2017 – Finstadjordet, Norway
Module 4 – Is diversity essential for reaching the audiences? Are there tools for evaluating the diversity of audiences?
Introduction
Today it is the viewer who decides what he/she wants, where and when to watch. His/her choice depends on personal taste, culture, age, desires… Hence, the funded projects should provide a diversified offer that would meet the diverse demands of fragmented audiences.
Or, in other words:
- How do we define this diversity (cultural, gender projects, forms of content, duration of the works, etc.)?
- Are there any ways to better understand the potential audience?
- How can we access the data to measure the success of new platforms and thus equip ourselves with better knowledge?
Case study 1 / Diversity in film and why does it matter?
Ellen Tejle – Fanzingo Production Company, Cinema Rio–Stockholm
See also Ellen Tejle’s presentation (PDF)
Challenges
- Today, one of the major challenges is to make film and media more diverse and more representative.
- There is a basic question here: Is the world equal? Even Sweden, that has a rich track record of laws on women equality and movements, still struggles. There is still difference between how much a man earns during his lifetime, and how much a woman earns. The Swedish Prime Minister has never been a woman.
- There is another level of inequality based on the discrimination as an unconscious structure. We unconsciously judge people differently. 1
- Should the funds introduce anonymous recruitment? Should producers submit unsigned scripts when applying to the funds?
1 The study called “text study” showed how we judge people differently when participants in an experiment were asked to read a text and then evaluate it while the text sometimes bore a female, and sometimes a male signature. Those texts that were signed by female names got comments like “messy”, “unsympathetic”, “unwise”, “don’t understand what she is trying to say?” Those signed by male names received only comments like “well written”, “thoughtful”, “compelling”, and “smart”. The results were the same as they were 30 years ago. The experiment showed the same results in Sweden as well.
How can film industry and film funds contribute to making the world more equal?
The current situation
- The statistics still show inequality. If we take a look at numbers:
- more than 70% of the speaking characters in film and TV content are men and
- more than 80% of the working characters are men.
- Only 7% of the directors in the rest of the world are women.
- In Sweden, the situation is slightly better with
- 28% of female directors and
- 39% of speaking female characters.
- However, the situation in some countries, such as the UK, is almost the same as 100 years ago:
- Women direct only 4.5% of films.
- The BFI filmography also shows that 59% of films made in the last ten years had no black actor in the lead or named roles.
- Children’s programmes discriminate against women. The more film and TV content a girl watches, the fewer options she thinks she has in life. The study done several years ago about how the kids play and what they dream of becoming once they grow up showed that until the age of four kids do not perceive gender roles. But after that there is a huge difference. The content they see in film and TV reduces the number of girls’ ideas about opportunities in life and sense of equality. Girls think they should be only wives, mothers, girlfriends or princesses. The male characters are much more diverse. They can be big or small, funny with complex identities. The number of speaking time in children’s movies is also highly disproportionate. Most of the speaking time is given to male characters.
- The content is still driven by prejudices. The main problem with scriptwriters when writing the script is that they play with “believability” instead with “reality”. They underestimate spectators; they show fear and succumb to prejudices and stereotypes. They need to be re-educated and the film funds should play a big role in that process. The fear of screenwriters has to be challenged. They subconsciously discriminate. They are full of preconceptions.
Actions
- Introduction of the Bechdel-Wallace test. This test consists of three questions:
- Are there two women with names in a film?
- Do these two women talk to each other?
- Do they talk about something else but men?
- A-rating. Four years ago, in the cinema “Rio Stockholm” that I am managing, I introduced the concept of A-rating. It means that only the films that pass the Bechdel-Wallace test can be shown in the cinema and get A-Rate. So we put the stamp on films to show that they passed the test. It made me become a spokesperson for gender equality across the world. I was in many media. Suddenly the cinema theaters across Sweden started to use A-rating, as well as cinemas in ten other countries in the world. There are also festivals that show only A-Rate films and newspapers that review and advertise only A-Rate films. In Brazil, the film institute incorporated A-rating into their selection criteria within the funding schemes. The benefits of A-rating are the following:
- Consumer information
- Knowledge by raising awareness about women’s representation in film today.
- Open-Source: anyone can A-rate a film and everyone can use the logo, vignette and stamp.
- Change: To be an eye-opener, in a longer perspective, can make the film industry more equal.
- The sexy lamp test. The second type of test is based on the following question: Can you take out the female character and replace it with a sexy lamp, without it changing the story?
- Test for Minorities. It consisted of three questions, one of them is:
- Are there two non-white characters in a movie talking to each other about something else but crime.
- Break the prejudices. The American TV series “24” was the first example where a black president was portrayed as smart and thoughtful – a person that everybody liked. Two years later, Obama launched his first election campaign. Some studies showed that the series motivated some people to go and vote for a black president in the real life. But these cases are only isolated. There are still many more opposite, discriminating examples.
Conclusions
- Today, the film industry is more sexist, racist and unequal than reality itself. Film funds are in power to affect people’s behavior and as such hold responsibility.
- There is no study saying that people in film industry want to make a racist film. But it happens, not only because of a lack of awareness but also because there is a trend to repeat the same mistakes, sticking to the same old practices.
- The film funds can help increase the awareness. We need initiatives and tools and people in power that are aware of this problem. Only that can lead to structural changes. The structure will not change itself.
- Keep counting and never trust your “gut feeling”, because you need data and facts for everything.
Questions from the audience
- Has the introduction of the A-rate stamp created any changes in the way scriptwriters and filmmakers think and work?
- Yes. Both scriptwriters and directors started “controlling themselves” and thinking about whether they have two female characters sitting in the same room, etc. Some film institutes also started returning the scripts for a rewrite if they lack female characters.
- What does Sweden do to improve the diversity other than gender?
- There are a lot of LGBT films. But we still do not know how to measure diversity where it cannot be measured quantitatively, or how to deal with diversity behind the camera. The funds should be more active in solving it.
- Can the Bechdel-Wallace test be applied to male characters?
- Yes, and all the films we tested pass the test.
3. Outcomes of the group discussion
What kind of responsibility do film funds have in erasing the gender and other stereotypes in films?
- CNC: In France we have a diversity programme that ensures that the topics of supported films represent diversity. The diversity scheme started in 2005 after the massive riots in the suburbs of Paris and deals mostly with minorities. It has been evolving throughout time, and gave results, but we still lack diversity among the people making the content and the people sitting in selection committees. Maybe we should learn from some schemes in the UK and US that give extra points to projects created by diverse teams (in front and behind the camera).
- CORFO (Chile): The issue in Chile is that gender is not an issue. We need to start counting first to see where we are, and then take some actions.
- Croatian Audiovisual Center: In Croatia, there has been a strategy the last couple of years for raising awareness and increasing the number of both female filmmakers and decision-makers.
- Icelandic Film Center: In Iceland, there is no quota, but if you have a female director it is more likely that you will get the funding.
- Georgian Film Center: In Georgia there is already equality among directors (50%-50%).
- Swedish Film Institute: We collect gender-related data about people making films, but we do not do the same with the content. We also do not check the situation regarding other categories and minorities.
- FOC (Switzerland): One of our unofficial evaluation criteria is the project’s contribution to the diversity. It is not quantifiable, you do not get points for that, but you should contribute somehow. The selection committee discusses this aspect of every project, but the applicants are unaware of these discussions and they would never see the diversity issue as a rejection reason in the rejection letters.
- The Netherlands Film Fund: Diversity is one of our five criteria when we discuss production support (together with production value, quality, content and track record). Diversity is understood in the broadest sense – in front of or behind the camera - according to the subject of the film, etc. I liked the idea that projects in the end get the stamp (just as A-rating) proving that they delivered what they promised, or a rejection if they failed to deliver.
But,
Much information that can be useful in measuring diversity exists in applications but is confidential and we cannot publish it. It would be illegal and against the discrimination law in some countries to ask about the ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
Case study 2 - Diversity in Film Funding
Presented by Yoav Abramovich, Deputy Director-General of The Rabinovich Foundation for the Arts (Israel)
www.rabinovichfoundation.org.il/index.php/english
See also Yoav Abramovich’s presentation (pdf)
Introduction
- Demographic diversity. Diversity is a big issue in the Israeli society because Israel is a very diverse society. If we take a look at the Israeli demographics by religion, already Jewish population itself is diverse. That happens because different groups of Jews practice religion in different ways and are religious with different intensity. Ultraorthodox Jews called Haredi (8%) are extremely religious, Dati (10%) are another religious group, Masorti (23%) are traditional but a slightly less religious group and the biggest group are Hiloni (40%) that are secular. Arab population (14%) is also diverse in terms of the intensity of their religiousness. Most of them speak Arabic. There are also small populations of Christians (2%) and Druze (2%).
- Diversity by descent. The Jewish population can also be divided by their origin. Half of them are of European and American descents and the rest are Jews coming from Muslim countries, which also creates tension sometimes. Israel is an immigrant country. Only 39% of Jews are originally from the territory of today’s Israel.
- Gender equality. We also take care of gender equality. Israel is not an ideal place if we take a look at the gender equality gap-ranking list made by the World Economic Forum (56thplace). But it is also related to religious and ethnic demographic divisions. Some extremely religious communities have very strict rules when it comes to women and it is difficult to reach them.
How do we deal with challenges within the film industry?
We are trying to take the complex diversity of Israel into consideration as much as possible when financing films. We support films from all religious and ethnic groups, within both Arab and Jewish populations.
The Cinema Law
- The cinema industry is regulated by the law (updated in 2014) that dictates the way the film funds select and support film projects. The law expressly addresses diversity in a number of ways. It explicitly stipulates the following:
- “The purpose of the support is to enable expression of the cultural diversity in Israeli society, of the different views in it, and its different values.”
- “The reader composition will reflect a proper representation of women”
- “The readers will reflect a proper representation of the geographical, social and cultural periphery in Israel”.
- So the law requires that we diversify the decision-makers and readers sitting in the selection committees. It is regularly checked if this requirement is met and the readers can stay in their position for a maximum of two years.
- As a result of this law, the Rabinovich Foundation achieved the following results in 2016:
- When it comes to feature films, out of 17 readers, 8 were women and 15 represented geographical, social and cultural periphery.
- When it comes to documentary films, out of 11 readers, 7 were women and 9 represented geographical, social and cultural periphery.
- The examples of some recent films that reflect our diversity policy, and have achieved both festival box office success, include:
- “Sand Storm” directed by woman Elite Zexer (awarded at Sundance). The film is about an Arab woman and is in Arabic.
- “Women’s Balcony” was the most successful Israeli film in terms of audience (350 000 admissions). It is about women from a small religious community trying to address some religious issues within their community. It is also written by a woman and was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival.
- “Wedding Plan” is a film directed by an ultraorthodox female director. It is a film for a wide audience about a woman who was left by her fiancée a month before the wedding, but is still determined to hold the wedding.
- “Junction 48” is an Arab-speaking film written by an Arab screenwriter and directed by a Jewish director. It was set in Venice.
Challenges
- Percentage of female directors in Israel is 40%, which is a good result. But there are not enough films by Arab female filmmakers because we simply lack Arabs within the profession.
- A specific thing about Israel is that the majority of population belongs to a periphery. The only group that is not considered periphery is the (male) Jews of European origin.
- We do not measure diversity in the films themselves because it is difficult to quantify things when it comes to content.
- Quota systems would also never work in Israel when it comes to directors. Hence, the decision-makers remain our only target in this respect. This quota system among decision-makers works well, but it is a challenge to find readers coming from the film industry and a minority group at the same time – especially when it comes to veteran Arab filmmakers. Most of our veteran producers come from a similar, Jewish-European background. On the other hand, we do not wish to hire Arab filmmakers who are not professional enough. Luckily, the number of younger Arab filmmakers is growing, which will change the picture in the near future.
- The Orthodox Jews are another challenge. They do not go to see films, even when directors belonging to their own community make them.
- Sometimes there is a conflict between the Minister of Culture and the film industry in general. This year, we had in Venice a film called “Foxtrot” that won the Silver Lion grand jury prize. It is not a diversity film because the Jewish director of European descent directed it, but it deals with some controversies within the Israeli army. The Minister simply did not like the way the film depicted these issues.
- Generally speaking, there are two types of criticism by Israeli society against the Israeli film industry. The first is that there are too many films done by Jews of European descent. The second is that the film industry is too liberal and that one can get money only if he/she is making a film about an Israeli soldier and Arab terrorist falling in love with each other.
Examples of best practices in other countries
- Manitoba Film & Music (Canada)
We have an issue of how indigenous, aboriginal people are represented. We have a very strong aboriginal production company led by an aboriginal woman who is quite remarkable and working with that company we have funded some really important content. Most recently we funded a TV series called “Taken”. It is about a tough but important topic in Canada. Its purpose is to humanize women who are in jail as culprits. The series depicts them as mothers, sisters, daughters, neighbours. Not through stereotypes that people usually have about those individuals.
Some years ago we had a special scheme for aboriginal people, but to access that scheme, they needed to have done something already. It was not realistic because they need us to do their first project. So we created a workshop called “First Stories” also supported by the National Film Board of Canada, for aboriginal filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) over a certain period of time. At the end of the workshop, 4 projects were selected to be produced. All those films were successful and they created a platform for launching more projects. And this pilot project spread throughout the country.
We also have the National Screen Institute, which is the national training body. They are leaders in aboriginal training in film and television, engaging many aboriginal filmmakers who made content for a wide audience and continued their careers.
However, despite all these initiatives, we are still making only baby steps in this regard. - Fanzingo Production Company (Sweden)
Sometimes you have a minority community that does not have any representatives with a proper filmmaking education. So, in Sweden, we established a programme to reach the target groups directly and educate them to be both in front of and behind the camera. We are working in prison with criminals, with immigrants in suburbs, with people who are having psychological problems and other discriminated groups. We want to teach them how to create their own stories and help them bring those stories to a broader audience. If we had to wait for them to apply to film schools and get a proper education, it would never happen. We just make it faster.
The Role of Public Film Funds in the Future
- Introduction
- Module 1 – What are the essential and relevant core values of public funds?
- Module 2 – How to design funding programs today?
- Module 3 – How to take risk and experiment?
- Module 4 – Is diversity essential for reaching the audiences? Are there tools for evaluating the diversity of audiences?
- Presentation of the study “Current state of investment of national and regional public funds in Europe for professional training”
- Module 5 – How to integrate new technologies and players in the value chain?
- Module 6 – Distribution and Promotion Schemes
- Module 7 – Engaging with Future