Film

The Never Ending Gender Gap in Entertainment /  by Roxanne Teti

Joy, 20th Century Fox (2015)

Before addressing Hollywood, I want to begin this post discussing professional sports and the blatant gender pay gap that exists between men and women—so blatant we're talking about the difference of millions of dollars. For example, in 2015, WNBA players received salaries between $39,000 and $110,000. On the contrary, NBA players were paid anywhere between $525,000 and 17 million. I can already hear the opposing argument to this disparity—“no one watches women’s basketball, it’s a supply and demand thing, women don’t compete at the same level as men”. Ok, let’s examine one of the most recently controversial pay gaps in sports history—the 2015 Women’s World Cup. The U.S. Women’s National Team was awarded $2 million in prize money for winning the esteemed world championship meanwhile Germany’s men’s team was paid $35 million for their victory. Even the U.S. men’s team took home a bigger check—racking in 9 million dollars for coming in a whopping 11th place. The Women’s World Cup was one of the most watched sporting events of 2015—gaining over 25.4 million viewers. The event accomplished significantly higher ratings than the Stanley Cup (7.6 million) or the NBA Finals (13.9 million). Wait a second, I thought this was all about money. Sports, especially televised events, are another form of entertainment. Keep in mind these are numbers talking, not the rhetoric of some third wave feminist agenda. 

U.S. Women's National Soccer Team (2015)

An enormous pay gap between men and women also exists in Hollywood. For example, female actresses, directors, writers, and producers are still paid significantly less than their male counterparts. For instance, it was reported that in 2015 the highest paid actor was Robert Downey Jr., making 80 million bucks. On the other hand, Jennifer Lawrence was the highest paid actress but made $52 million. Looking at box office numbers, nearly 50% of the top 15 grossing films had stories with female leads (i.e. Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Inside Out, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2, Cinderella, and Pitch Perfect 2) Similar to the Women’s World Cup case study, there’s something else going on here. The audience, the customer, is clearly "buying" female driven stories—remember it’s numbers, it’s economics. 

Finally this discussion brings us to our most recent controversy —the 88th Academy Awards and the heated debate concerning Hollywood’s gender pay gap and lack of diversity for minorities. Specifically looking at female driven plots or female leads, this year’s 8 Best Picture nominations featured only 3 films with a female lead—Room, Brooklyn, and Mad Max: Fury Road. However, the Academy did have the opportunity to nominate some other films of quality cinema, it's not like the content didn't exist. For example, some snubs include: The Diary of a Teenage Girl, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Joy, Carol, and Suffragette, to name a few. 

Moving on... the Best Director nominations featured no female directors. ZERO nominees are women. This is 2016 not 1950. At least the Documentary Features and Documentary Shorts nominations have one or two female directors. The categories for Original Score, Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects also have no female nominations. The individuals that earn awards for these categories in film production and post-production are typically known to require a more “technical” skill set, perhaps a skill set the woman's brain doesn't possess (???). It's sad, a female Director of Photography has never been nominated for an Oscar in the history of time. Then we look at the Costume Design category and 4 out of the 5 nominees are women. That’s interesting isn’t it? Not taking anything away from the artistry of Costume Design by any means but come on those are some interesting numbers... With that being said we should at least celebrate and root for writers, Andrea Berloff (Straight Outta Compton), Phyllis Nagy (Carol), and Emma Donoghue (Room) for their screenwriting accomplishments and nominations. 

For those who are hosting an #AltOscarParty, why don’t we have an alternative vote for Best Picture of 2016? Click this survey and submit your response! 

Gaga Brings Sexy Back to Technology /  by Roxanne Teti

The Lady Gaga + Intel Performance | 58th GRAMMYs

For some time now there has been an ongoing debate regarding digital technology and whether it threatens the authenticity of artistic mediums like music or film. Personally, speaking from the perspective of both an artist and a lifetime champion of the arts, I have always been concerned with technology’s potential to limit creativity and tarnish the purity of artistic expression. To give you some context, I’m the kind of person who will only listen to the mono version of Happiness is a Warm Gun while wearing headphones or drive out to Santa Monica on random night to see a 70 mm screening of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. So I was surprised to feel intrigued or dare I say inspired by the intense visual effects of Lady’s Gaga’s tribute performance to David Bowie at the 58th Grammys on Monday evening. 

Regardless of whether you believe Gaga's tribute paid justice to Bowie’s legacy or not, her collaboration with Intel brought the present and future of live performance into full focus and into the living rooms of an audience that doesn't readily attend Coachella or Burning Man. Before delving further into Gaga and “tech”, allow me to digress for a quick moment concerning the tribute at large. I do believe Gaga’s performance would have received greater critical acclaim if she limited the set list to three hits, performed each song longer than 15 seconds, and rocked out with artists of various generations, all inspired by Bowie’s music, like Elton John, Iggy Pop, or Arcade Fire, to name a few. Overall it felt a bit sporadic and perhaps egocentric at times for my personal taste. And I am done digressing on that topic...

Monday evening, while watching the tribute, I suddenly felt reminded to truly “turn and face the strange” as the electrifying face paint of Aladdin Sane entered a dynamic world of 3D motion graphics and superimpositions of Bowie holograms and psychedelic doves shifting imagery with Gaga in real time. And let's not forget about her robotic rose gold piano as it came to life—jittering and jiving to the bass line of Suffragette City. However, all this fancy Intel technology, the crafty robotics, the live video processing, etc., didn’t distract from Gaga’s performance but rather personified Bowie's prophetic nature and enhanced a new glam rock experience that felt almost visceral yet intoxicating in a tangible way. That evening she reminded artists that technology doesn’t always have to inhibit creativity like with pop singers and auto-tune softwares or obscure laser shows displayed for drug induced teens at EDM concerts. Instead a beautiful union between creativity and science can exist and stretch the infinite boundaries of possibility—allowing for imagination to thrive. And for that, I do think David Bowie, an innovator and starman, would be proud. 

 

Oscars So White-What Can We Learn? /  by Roxanne Teti

There’s been a lot of talk about diversity or lack there of shall I say regarding the Oscar nominations. The definition of diverse is of different kind, of varying types. Sadly enough society is attracted to sameness and encourages conformity because that's how it thrives—the social machine is inherently opposed to anything or anyone “different”. Because of power distinctions, people and/or institutions consciously and subconsciously desire to uphold the “status quo”. One’s actions or lack of actions can often become motivated by fear of change—as change can threaten the “status quo”. This is the unfortunate reality of what deters social progress and perpetuates inequality, especially if we are discussing cinema as an art form and industry operating within the profit centric realm of capitalism. Nevertheless, here’s the wake up call—underrepresentation of minorities and women not only exists in Hollywood, but also in other industries such as technology. For example, in the film industry women made up only 13% of the director positions on movies that achieved theatrical release in 2015. In “tech” women held only 14% of executive positions in 2015. 

Before we point fingers and accuse the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for being racist or solely responsible for the Oscars being “so white”, I urge you to look at the big picture—as the Oscars, an annual American awards ceremony for film, is a mere byproduct of a deeper rooted problem with Hollywood and America at large. Since the beginning of our nation’s inception, institutionalized racism was fully initiated by the physical and psychological chains of slavery. And for centuries, African Americans have been fighting for freedom and equality—battling against social stigmas that fueled segregation and the unjust legal barriers that prohibited blacks the right to vote. To make matters worse, for decades of TV and film history, African Americans were often depicted “on screen” as superficial stereotypes of inferior people in background roles. And yes, over time civil rights amendments have been enforced, and social progress has been achieved, but implicit inequality (the social psychological repercussions) continues to pervade our society as a negative symptom of years of disenfranchisement and marginalization. 

So how can we, as a society, learn from “Oscars So White” without polarizing the issue of race and driving a deeper divide between black and white? Adding more diversity to the Academy’s voter composition may or may not help. I certainly don’t believe firing or vilifying current members is the right approach in addressing a greater issue at hand. I think change starts with creating more opportunities for minorities in front and behind the camera. It begins with gaining diverse representation amongst studio executives and the creators of content. In a recent article discussing this Oscar controversy, Dr. Todd Boyd, a former professor of mine at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, said “there can't be many nominees until people are given the opportunity in prominent, meaningful roles”. Let's get the “movers and shakers” involved; after all, they create the films the Academy nominates.