Film, since its inception in the late 19th century, has evolved into a powerful medium shaping societal narratives and reflecting cultural norms. However, behind the glitz and glamor of Hollywood lies a stark reality: the underrepresentation of women filmmakers. Despite advancements in gender equality, only a mere 6% of directors across the 1,600 most popular movies from 2007-2022 were women (pocaccelerator.org). This gender gap persists, raising pertinent questions about the visibility and recognition of female voices in cinema. The history of film is replete with pioneering women like Lois Weber, whose contributions during the Silent Era laid foundations for the art form. Yet, their names often fade into obscurity in mainstream discourse. Why is it that we know so little about female filmmakers, despite their undeniable impact on cinematic history?
Once upon a time, not that long ago, cinema was new. At first no one knew if making photographed pictures "move" would catch on and if it did what it might be good for. Would it educate or entertain? Would it become an art form or merely be a passing fad? There are many possible routes about cinema’s past and thus its future. The social, cultural, economic, and aesthetic factors that shaped the formation of what we now call cinema, impacted the types of films that were made, and determined which films are considered historically valuable today. Through analyzing the emergence of film and thinking critically about how production practices and industrial structures have reinforced sexism, it can be hypothesized what exact forces have caused women filmmakers to be marginalized.
To start, Lois Weber was a female filmmaker during the early history of film, particularly within silent cinema. Starting off as an actress and working alongside her husband, Phillips Smalley, she concludes, “the opportunity to enter the director’s field came through my ability to write photoplays. I had abandoned the legitimate stage for the shadowy drama, and was appearing in leading parts on the Gaumont films… I was dissatisfied with the quality of many of the scenarios submitted. They lacked the force—the “punch,” as the expression goes—and were sadly deficient in technique and construction” (Weber). In 1912, the couple assumed responsibility for the Rex brand at the Universal Film Manufacturing Company, where they churned out one or two one-reel films weekly with a stock company of actors, rapidly elevating the brand's status within the studio. Then transitioning towards multi-reel films, they are known for the production of The Merchant of Venice in 1914, which marked the first American feature film directed by a woman (Stamp). In 1916, Weber emerged as one of the most prominent directors on the lot at Universal. During this period, Weber tackled a series of socially significant and often controversial subjects, addressing issues such as capital punishment in The People vs. John Doe (1916), drug abuse in Hop, the Devil’s Brew (1916), poverty and wage equity in Shoes (1916), and contraception in Where Are My Children? (1916) and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle (1917).
Weber's belief in the narrative and dramatic power of cinema set her apart during an era when many remained skeptical of its cultural impact. A pioneer of complex feature-length narratives in the early 1910s, she sought to elevate the medium to the level of other art forms. Her vision for "ideal picture entertainment" was akin to "a well-assorted shelf of books come to life" ("Lois Weber on Scripts"). However, Weber's aspirations extended beyond mere entertainment; she viewed motion pictures as a potent tool for effecting political and social change, aiming to produce work that would positively influence public opinion. Weber's acclaim skyrocketed during this period, with her name mentioned alongside industry titans like D. W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille as one of Hollywood's top talents. In 1916, she became the first and only woman elected to the Motion Picture Directors Association, a distinction she retained for decades. In 1917, Weber further cemented her status by departing from Universal to establish her own company, Lois Weber Productions. Weber became, for a time, the highest-paid director in Hollywood (York). Undoubtedly, women filmmakers have played a role in the world of filmmaking since the beginning of its time. So, the question remains, why is it that we know so little about female filmmakers, despite their undeniable impact on film history?
One reason can be accredited to the transition from silent film to talkies. By the 1920s, a top-down model of studio production resulted in a series of ongoing problems, including both threats to creative autonomy and continuing struggles with low salaries. For starters, the women writer’s dominance in the film industry virtually disappeared with the onset of sound. Karen Ward Maher notes in Women Filmmakers in Early Hollywood that women in all areas of cinematic production faced low gender boundaries, until the industry that afforded them jobs and sometimes lucrative careers altered drastically with the transformation of Hollywood into a business with both a national and international market. The growth of film into a centralized producer and studio system pushed women from positions of power, stripping the industry of the independent and collaborative working culture women were used to. Nonetheless, some women writers like Lillie Hayward, Adelaide Heilbron, and Marion Orth did make the transition into sound, but they faced several changes in their working environment. Marion quickly learned that writers now were “knitting their stories all day just to have somebody else unravel their work by night” (Casella). Those writing from home found their services were no longer wanted as both story ideas and scenarios now emerged from story departments.
Moreover, women writers were frustrated particularly with the overly sentimental plots expected of them. According to Marion in Off With Their Heads: A Serio-Comic Tale of Hollywood, she and Mary Pickford were fed up with Pickford’s “eternal child” character and the endless happy endings studios demanded (Casella). Lillian Gish experienced similar constraints while working on The Wind (1928). Also problematic was the intricate production assembly line, leading to a final script that diverged significantly from the original concept. Despite assurances of pre-production authority, English fiction novelist Elinor Glyn struggled to guide her work through studios with minimal intervention. Similar to numerous literary figures in 1920s Hollywood, her creations underwent substantial modifications. As stated in her son’s biography, “It was their names and not their literary abilities which were required by the studio” (Casella).
Flash forward to the present day in the year 2024, similar power struggles still exist between women filmmakers, writers, and producers within rigid studio systems.
The USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative reported that in 2022, Hollywood employed fewer female filmmakers and directors from underrepresented communities to make its biggest films, stating that “out of 111 directors hired to make the 100 top-grossing movies 9% were women” (Lang). This statistic dropped down from 12.7% of women directors in 2021, but nonetheless is higher than the mere 2.7% of women filmmakers in 2007. In relation to major studio distributors 2022 releases, Sony Pictures worked with the most women directors, the number being a whopping five, followed by Universal with two, and Lionsgate, Paramount Pictures, and 20th Century and Walt Disney Studios with zero (Lang). It is important to note that a film’s success and power in execution is not inherently boiled down to the gender that directs or produces it, however, the ways in which women’s voices are underrepresented in certain studio systems based on their gender is necessary to analyze and question as a society.
One might hastily attribute this disparity to blatant sexism within the film industry. While sexism undoubtedly plays a role, a deeper examination reveals a more nuanced landscape. The early years of cinema saw women relegated to prominent roles in filmmaking, not sidelined in frilly roles or relegated to clerk positions. However, with the rise of studio systems, the instantaneous and almost ironic sidelining of women in an industry that thrives on storytelling became ingrained in societal structures when the more independent art form became global in nature. Yet, the current widespread admiration for independent filmmaking provides a glimmer of hope for female filmmakers to circumvent the barriers of the studio system.
While a gender gap persists in major studio productions, particularly over the last 15 years where male directors significantly outnumber female counterparts, the landscape is evolving, notably in independent films showcased at festivals. A recent study in 2023 reveals a significant increase in screen time for women directors at independent film festivals compared to previous years. Since 2008, founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University Martha M. Lauzen has monitored these patterns through the "Indie Women" initiative. Lauzen examines the annual participation of women in various roles behind the camera across 20 prominent U.S. film festivals, including the Atlanta Film Festival, New York Film Festival, Slamdance, Sundance, Tribeca, and SXSW Film Festivals. Commenting on the findings, Lauzen remarked, “For years, industry observers have anticipated that the larger numbers of women working on independent features would eventually result in significantly higher numbers of women working on top grossing features. While the percentages of women working in some roles on larger budget films have increased slightly, we are still waiting for that surge to occur” (Scorziello). Lauzen analyzes the landscape of independent filmmaking, which is defined as films made outside of the studio system, but does include films produced by independent companies owned by major studios. Indeed, there are countless female filmmakers today working in the film industry, producing and directing feature films that are successful in the independent film world, but not so much in the larger top-grossing studio film world.
On the other hand, director Sofia Coppola effectively challenges patriarchal film conventions by directing attention towards female characters in her films Virgin Suicides (2000), Marie Antointee (2006), and Priscilla (2023). Coppola serves as an example of mainstream production being a potential source for feminine, if not feminist, expression. Coppola’s films consistently invite audiences to adopt a feminine perspective, urging them to empathize with female characters and become aware of their complicity in their objectification. Most recently with the bi-poc Priscilla that was released in theaters this past fall and is based on Beaulieu-Presley’s memoir, Coppola stylistically highlights the downfalls of fame, affluence and love. The film, which was produced by A24, an independent American entertainment production company, expresses the female gaze and women filmmaker’s voice that tends to thrive in independent production. Over her career, Coppola has established herself as a pioneer of a feminine auteurship that defies traditional production models, receiving both widespread acclaim and criticism—whether for her status in independent cinema, her father being Francis Ford Coppola, or her directing skills—the inherent contradiction in reactions to her films underscores the transformative power of her unique filmmaking. Coppola invokes the quintessential masculine auteur film to craft a narrative that fundamentally addresses the lack of agency and voice young women possess, as well as their exploitation and objectification under the male gaze.
Truthfully, not all highest-grossing films recently have been directed by men. Barbie (2023), which was released globally this past summer, broke the $1 billion barrier in the box office during its theatrical release, earning itself the label of top-grossing film of 2023, all while expressing themes of individuality and feminism amidst patriarchal structures. Based on the Mattel doll that everyone knows, the film follows Barbie and Ken, having the time of their lives in the colorful and seemingly perfect world of Barbieland, until they get the chance to go to the real world and discover the joys and perils of living among humans. However, it seems like it was not capable of breaking through the barrier of Academy Award Nominations. The director, Greta Gerwig, and the lead actress, Margot Robbie, became the breakout story for being snubbed for not having nominations for Best Director or Best Actress. While a film’s success should not be based simply on award nominations or winning an award, it is interesting that the film, which makes comments on patriarchal systems and empowering female voices, received a nomination for supporting actor for Ken as Ryan Gosling, but not a nomination for the main protagonist that the movies is quite literally named after, Barbie, and the female director, Greta Gerwig.
At the 2020 Oscars, Actress Natalie Portman made a statement on the red carpet by donning a black and gold Dior Haute Couture cape adorned with the names of female directors who were not nominated for an Oscar. Her attire served as a powerful symbol, drawing attention to the absence of recognition for women in the film industry. Portman's choice to highlight these directors was a deliberate act of advocacy, aiming to shed light on the talented women whose work often goes unnoticed in Hollywood's awards season, with names including Lulu Wang, who directed The Farewell; Greta Gerwig who directed Little Women; Lorene Scafaria who directed Hustlers; Melina Matsoukas, who directed Queen & Slim; Marielle Heller, who directed A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood; Mati Diop, who directed Atlantics; Alma Har’el, who directed Honey Boy; and Céline Sciamma, who directed Portrait of a Lady on Fire (Feller). By wearing this cape, she amplified conversations about gender equality and representation in the film industry, sparking discussion and raising awareness about the need for greater inclusion of women's voices and perspectives in filmmaking.
Change ensued following Portman’s gown at the Oscars, with Chloe Zhao winning the Best Director category in 2021, and then Jane Campion winning Best Director in 2022. These groundbreaking achievements in the recognition of female filmmakers alongside the snubbing of Greta Gerwig in 2023 epitomizes the dichotomy of progress and regression in the film industry. While these recognitions mark milestones, they also underscore the persistent challenges faced by women in achieving equal footing in cinema. Institutional thinking and entrenched gender norms continued to hinder their progress. Film jobs, from directing to technical roles, remain predominantly male-dominated, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion.
All in all, the underrepresentation of women filmmakers is not merely a statistical anomaly but a symptom of entrenched biases within the film industry. While progress has been made, much work remains to dismantle the barriers hindering female voices from thriving in cinema. Martha M. Lauzen's latest research on female representation at top U.S. film festivals highlights a positive trend for women directors, along with Oscar awards for female directors Chloe Zhao and Jane Champion. By shedding light on the contributions of women filmmakers, from Lois Weber to Greta Gerwig, and challenging institutional thinking in studio systems, we can strive towards a future where gender parity in filmmaking is not just a distant dream but a tangible reality.
Works Cited
Bernstein, Joseph. “For ‘Barbie’ Fans Online, a Bitterly Ironic Oscar Snub.” New York Times.
Bunbury, Stephanie. “‘Priscilla’ Review: Sofia Coppola Finds Meaning In The Small Things,
Giving Fresh Point Of View To Familiar Elvis Story – Venice Film Festival.” Deadline, 2023.https://deadline.com/2023/09/priscilla-movie-review-sofia-coppola-cailee-spaeny-jacob-elordi-elvis-1235536070/.
Feller, Madison. “Natalie Portman's Oscars Dress Is a Tribute to All the Female Directors Who Got Snubbed.” Elle, 2020.
Kennedy, Todd. “Off with Hollywood’s Head: Sofia Coppola as Feminine Auteur.” Film
Criticism, vol. 35, no. 1, 2010, pp. 37–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44019394.
Lang, Brent. “Failure to Change: Two Reports Examine Hollywood’s Lack of Progress
Improving Diversity on Movie Sets.” Variety, 2023.
Maule, Rosanna. “Women Filmmakers and Postfeminism in the Age of Multimedia
Reproduction: A Virtual Archive for Women’s Cinema.” Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media, vol. 51, no. 2, 2010, pp. 350–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41549238.
Scorziello, Sophia. “Films Made by Women Are on the Rise at U.S. Film Festivals.” Variety.
Stamp, Shelley. "Lois Weber." In Jane Gaines, Radha Vatsal, and Monica Dall’Asta, eds. Women
Film Pioneers Project. New York, NY: Columbia University Libraries, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-zsv8-nf69
Weber, Lois. “How I Became a Motion Picture Director.” Static Flashes (24 Apr. 1915): 8.
Reprinted in Red Velvet Seat, edited by Antonia Lant and Ingrid Periz, 658-660. New York and London, Verso, 2006.
“Lois Weber on Scripts.” Moving Picture World (19 Oct. 1912): 241.
York, Cal. “Plays and Players.” Photoplay (March 1917): 87.
Comments