Women and creative networks
Within the corpus of 1,270 works we used as the basis for our analysis of creative networks,11 the 167 projects headed by women indicate a first unequivocal fact: films directed by women engage more women.12
This is true when it comes to the central roles of editor, screenwriter, and producer, which were occupied by women 47.7% of the time for women’s projects, compared to 23.2% for men’s projects (Figures 10.7 and 10.8). It is still true, but less so, for technical roles (costumes, visual effects, photography, music, sound, makeup), where women were employed 41.03% of the time in women’s projects and 33.97% in men’s projects (Figures 10.7 and 10.8).
When it comes to the main professions (which, for the purposes of this article, we consider to be those of director, editor, producer, and screenwriter), the tendency of women directors to give space to women professionals emerges particularly strongly in relation to the role of screenwriter. In
Figure 10.7 % rate of women and men in main and technical roles; projects directed by women.
Figure 10.8 % rate of women and men in main and technical roles; projects directed by men.
Figure 10.9 % rate of women among main professions (editor, producer, screenwriter). Projectsdirectedbywomen(“F”)vs.projectsdirectedbymen(“M”).
projects directed by women, screenwriting is assigned to women in 68.59% of cases, compared to 17.83% in projects directed by men. The discrepancy is smaller for editor and producer roles. About the latter, it should be borne in mind that a filmmaker does not exert a direct influence on the choice of the producer; however, it is still noteworthy that in the creative clusters managed by women there is a higher percentage (even if only slightly) of women in the producer roles (Figure 10.9).
This interesting fact can be read in a twofold way. In one sense, the lesser predominance of women editors and producers in films directed by women confirms the tendency to recruit men in roles that are perceived to require technical skills (editor) and leadership (producer). This fact also emerges in the analysis of below-the-line roles, as we will see later. Regarding projects directed by men, the scarce occurrence of women screenwriters betrays men’s difficulty to share “authorial” space with a woman. This is further confirmed by the very small number of collective projects, especially projects where the role of director is shared between men and women (1% of the total).
When it comes to technical roles, differences are less stark. In general, women tend to employ more women even in roles traditionally considered male, such as director of photography (in women’s projects, 19.86% of directors of photography are women, compared to 5.2% in men’s projects). Conversely, women appear slightly less attached to the stereotype of the woman costume designer (77.22% in women’s projects, compared to 81.12% in men’s) (Figure 10.10).
The gender composition of creative networks requires one last observation. If we compare the categories of production—shorts, feature films by established filmmakers, debut and second features—we notice a substantial homogeneity in gender composition. As women’s bargaining power grows—from the production of shorts to debut and second features, and up to films produced as established filmmakers—the rate of women professionals employed does not grow with it, especially in the main roles. We can hypothesize that the institutionalization of production initiatives brings with it at least a partial compliance with consolidated practices, including the tendency to turn predominantly to male professionals.
Figure 10.10 % rate of women in technical roles. Projects directed by women (“F”) vs. projects directed by men (“M”).
To sum up, although the digital transformation of the film industry has supposedly put everyone in a position to express their talent, as Hartley suggests (Hartley et al., 2015), the production system and practices remain tied to pre-digital models, heavily conditioned by patriarchal logics.
