Gender Neutral Film Awards - will it benefit or disadvantage women?

Yeah, I'm not an Emma Watson fan either (I've not seen her in Beauty and the Beast but in everything else I've found her a laughably bad actor).
I also think she's wrong here. I don't know the exact stats but they do show that most main roles are for men, most roles in general are for men, most dialogue is given to male characters, and most directors are male. Given how much better they are represented in the industry, I'd pretty much expect most of the winners to be men. If that doesn't happen and it's kept about 50% female winners, women will be accused of only winning because of a quota.

I also hate this conflation of sex and gender which seems to be gaining ground -or perhaps I'm just noticing it more now! I could have felt male as all fuck but it wouldn't have got me an audition for Maximus in Gladiator or Leo's character in The Revenant or any of the guys in The Hurt Locker or the king in The King's Speech.

Sex not gender is the bloody issue and the source of oppression and underrepresentation. If gender is just about feelings and what others think of us, that's easy enough to act your way out of, surely? Not so with those sex characteristics.

Maybe Watson has been taking her hints on how to be a feminist from Everyday Feminism.

Am I allowed to bump this? It is news.

Watson is the first-ever honoree awarded in the “best actor” category, which did not split up contenders by gender. In her acceptance speech, Watson said the award would mean a lot of things to different people, but in her opinion it said something about what it means to act. “It indicates that acting is about the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. And that doesn’t need to be separated into two different categories,”

amp.timeinc.net
www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4770417/emma-watson-mtv-movie-awards/%3Fsource%3Ddam

I freely admit I find Emma Watson extremely irritating and not particularly sincere but setting that aside I think she is wrong here.

Well to paraphrase the stock answer whenever men complain about not being allowed to enter the race for life...."You could always start your own awards ceremony" , one that specialises in women directors and actors and all entries guaranteed to pass the Bechdel test. :~)

Just don't watch any films that do not, at the very least, pass the Bechdel test. Two women. Who talk to each other. About something other than a man

Presumably that rules out all Jane Austen adaptations then?

Also something positive you can do is go and see female-led films in their opening weekend (Fri/Sat/Sun). If you have the money but can't make the time to go, you could even consider just buying a ticket anyway. It honestly is the main factor in whether a film is seen as a success.

Follow f-rated on Twitter or check your local cinema or IMDb to find films which have a female writer, director or significant character.

I've read (sorry can't link at the moment but it's easy to google) that women had 29% of leading film roles in 2016 - and that was feted as a record year.

That, in a nutshell, is why it's a shit idea.

I can go a full day without talking to another woman about anything substantive (other than shop assistants etc)

That would pass you the Bechdel test if you knew their names, though, which is one reason I think it's flawed, but still useful.
My pet peeve is Gravity - a film with a clever female protagonist and heroine, but which fails because there's only 3 characters in the film (only 2 of substance).

I agree - Moonlight was by far the most overrated film of last year in my view. The first third was mildly interesting but it just became so boring. I really didn't care about any of the main characters.

Should we have separate awards categories for female directors? Or female writers? I think change in the film and TV industry will only come when women are given the opportunity to drive projects creatively. Theatre in the UK is so much better for female creatives (though obviously still some way to go). It's heartening to see how well represented women are creatively in the first season of the new Bridge Theatre in London.

It won't benefit women. Weren't the female categories brought out so that women actually stood a chance of being recognized? What on earth makes people think that doing away with specific award s will not mean going back to same old men win it all

slug

I made the mistake of watching that film. It was the most boring, naval gazing superficial load of shite I've have ever had the misfortune to sit through.

Black kid growing up in poverty and discovering he is gay. Sounded like it could be quite powerful. Noooo.

Just loads of staring.

And the only female role was Naomie Harris off her face on drugs and neglecting her child. (And I would still rather have spent an afternoon with her than anyone else).

I was in the cinema waiting for Trainspotting 2 (a MAJOR Beschdel fail) to start when an ad came on for Moonlight.

A few beers may have been ingested as my louder than usual comment "Oh great! Another young man's coming of age movie. How original" Didn't go down too well. Though I did hear a few distinctly female snickers.

I sometimes muse on how often I pass the Bechdel test in my everyday life. It is amazing how frequently I can go a full day without talking to another woman about anything substantive (other than shop assistants etc). I think it is because I am in a male dominated profession so am more often than not the only woman in the room. However, when I meet up with female friends we always have far more interesting things to discuss than men!

I mention this because, while I agree with Datun that there are quite a few U.K. tv shows with female leads, it is still amazing how often that female lead will be surrounded by male characters and an episode won't pass the Bechdel test. Maybe it is reflecting the reality of the workplace to some extent (although there is nothing wrong with using artistic licence to create more female characters), but there is very rarely much interest in TV shows in reflecting the reality of female social interactions. We might work long hours surrounded by men, but we also normally seek out or surround ourselves with other women socially who we talk to about far more interesting and diverse matters than most of the men I know do when they get together! One of the great myths of film and television is that women are mainly interested in discussing their love lives and families.

I would point out fiction in film was invented by a woman:

www.facebook.com/tcthirdculture/videos/609373819254768/

Alice Guy-Blanche invented it, the whole art form was pioneered by her. If your brother argued that was over 100 years ago, simply ask why do we STILL minimise and ignore women's contributions to culture, science and civilisation? Which have been vast.

That to me is evidence enough of troubling attitudes in the present. I am not a feminist nor a historian but only a cursorary search into ANY field of human endeavour reveals a staggering number of women making massive contributions.

And if a man complains about him, tell him that those movies that are male dominated are "Not as interesting". Tell him that you "don't see gender". That those movies with mostly male roles just happen to be boring.

I've noticed lately there are quite a few U.K. shows with female cops. I can think of at least four off hand. And the women aren't always gorgeous. In fact, sexism is often a pertinent point.

Although, the big cheese is often a man. But is often portrayed as a bit of a prat/dinosaur.

To which he replied that maybe women aren't as interesting.

Which shows that, while he does not see gender (I believe him, even. Gender is the system of patriarchal oppression, created for the benefit of men. Of course he doesn't see it, it never harms him), he does see sex, and does so very well. If a man does something, it is interesting to him, if a woman does the same thing, it is not interesting.

There is something we can do, however.

Something you can do, too.

Just don't watch any films that do not, at the very least, pass the Bechdel test. Two women. Who talk to each other. About something other than a man. (and it doesn't matter if the man is talked about as love interest or prime minister. Man is man. The test measures how male-dominated the movie is.)

And if a man complains about him, tell him that those movies that are male dominated are "Not as interesting". Tell him that you "don't see gender". That those movies with mostly male roles just happen to be boring.

In the last 30 years of Oscar director awards there have only been 29 men that have won.

Lessthanaballpark

I know, it's exhausting. And frustrating. I found myself putting the word patriarchy in air quotes. You know, to make me sound more credible!

It pissed me off no end that I had to sugarcoat an explanation about why I needed to sugarcoat an explanation.

It's any help, I started to use the words male chauvinism instead. It's the same thing, but it's a far more widely acceptable description. They can't deny it's existence. Everyone knows about male chauvinism, but fewer men feel personally attacked when you use it.

"You know about the patriarchy right?"

< eyes glaze over >

"You know about male chauvinism, right?"

As a pp has said, good roles for women are few and far between. And women often have much smaller parts and speak less in films. And if you think about something like the Oscars, you have to mount a campaign, don't you? Publicity and promotion and appearances and all the rest. Which needs money and you're less likely to find that as a woman, perhaps? Don't know if that bit's true, it's just conjecture.

If we had equality then perhaps it would be a good idea. Even then, I don't see why it's a bad thing to have separate awards.

Gender neutral awards will be an absolute gift to misogynists everywhere. In a hypothetical Oscars set up, there will be a far greater pool of men to choose from, because there will be more roles for them. The roles they get will often be of more interest to other men than the roles that women get. And since the Oscars are voted for from within the film industry, which is overwhelmingly male, the men will win. And then people will say 'well, see, women don't have much of interest to say, if they did, they'd be winning the awards too. In fact, films with female lead characters don't really make much money either, we'll really have to reconsider making that sort of film in future'.

And before you know it, women are back to being minor characters, love interest or murder victim, whose role involes either weeping prettily or screaming.

Lessthanaballpark

The problem with telling people who think the world is a meritocracy is that you have to start with Feminism 101. Women, on the whole, will grasp the idea of patriarchy quite quickly. They experience the disadvantage on a daily basis.

Men, on the other hand, don't like to hear it. Even mentioning the word patriarchy or feminism they start in with the eye rolling - ironically, an instant proof of its existence.

Taking the Oscars as example, most of the awards are gender neutral (e.g. Director, cinematography) and we all know what happens there - 99% male.

There are fewer 'award winning' roles for women of all ages, so it's hardly a level playing field.