Anemone's Research Emporium

Elaboration of complaint to BC Human Rights Tribunal

November 2, 2008

Case number 6322

Additional information for my claim of sexual harassment against Vancouver Film School Limited (VFS) (which may help to put my claim in perspective even though it has nothing to do with Vancouver Film School per se):

1. Sexualized content is the industry norm in film - not all roles are sexualized, but many are, and most films have some sexualized content. There is nothing to regulate this, other than laws against using minors in sexualized roles without parental permission, and filmmakers' desires to avoid an NC-17 rating (because most theatres in the US won't show an NC-17 rated film). Unfortunately, MPAA ratings are being dumbed down: Thompson & Yakota (2004) found increasing levels of sex, violence and profanity over the period 1992 - 2003 for each MPAA category. So even this check is becoming weaker over time.

2. This sexualized content affects women more than men. A study by Greenberg et al. (1993) found that female nudity made up 82% of the nudity (219 characters x scenes total) in 16 popular films released 1982-1984 that were rated R by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) for sexualized content. I know of no other research on this, but this number seems typical.

3. There are fewer roles for women than men. My own survey of 917 films released 2001 - 2005 found that, overall, 32% of the credited roles went to women. Another study (Lauzen & Dozier, 2005), looking at the top 100 grossing films of 2002, found that only 28% of credited roles and 27% of major roles went to women (there are fewer roles for women in bigger budget films, and bigger budget films generally do better). I have seen auditions posted for 38 VFS films (of 93 films total) between June 19 and Oct 31, 2008 (though I may have missed some) and have been saving the posts. 34% (52/152) of the roles listed are for females (32% (107/337) for the total 93 films). Only a few roles (5/152; 25/337) were open to both sexes. In the three films I was granted auditions for, 5 of 14 roles were for women (plus one for a girl and one for a baby of either sex). Two roles involved sexualized content and a third involved being in the same room while someone else was groped. Only one of the three films I was granted auditions for did not include sexualized content. I have not applied for very many roles since these first three, mostly because I want to avoid any chance a role is sexualized. Many roles are for wives or girlfriends, and there is no way of knowing the actual content until they send me the sides (if they choose to allow me an audition). I have not been granted any more auditions.

4. As a result of points 2 and 3, women have far fewer non-sexualized roles than men do, as well as fewer roles overall. (And yet there seem to be more women than men in acting classes, indicating that women are probably more interested in acting than men are. This is similar to ballet in some ways, except they hire more women overall in ballet and women play male background roles, no doubt out of necessity.) Also, as far as I can see, there is nothing to stop filmmakers from making 100% of female roles sexualized, which would take away all choice completely. It is the producers and directors who have the choice. Performers have to make do with what is on offer, unless they also have a talent for producing and/or directing. Not all of them do. I don't, though I hope to become a successful screenwriter at some point, which might help.

5. Refusing to do a sexualized role usually means it goes to someone else. Performers with clout (those who cannot be replaced) may be able to get sexualized content reduced or removed, but most performers do not have that kind of clout. There is usually someone more willing they can hire instead. And then when a non-sexualized role comes up, the people who have taken sexualized roles have more experience and are further up in the queue, so are more likely to be considered.

Producers may even hire models or sex trade workers if actors/actresses are not willing to take roles involving sex/nudity. Bo Derek (in her memoirs, Riding Lessons) describes how in one film ("10") she invited friends from the Playboy mansion to do an orgy scene when the performers originally hired for it didn't know what to do. I was told of one role in a film filmed here where they hired a model instead of an actress for a walk on part with nudity because actresses won't do the nudity required for that sort of role (the woman I spoke to knew the model who took the role). In addition I've seen many other roles in films (e.g. strippers, barebreasted prostitutes, topless porn actresses) where I can't imagine the women in them being professionally trained performers. Perhaps some of them are, but probably at least some of them do not normally work as mainstream actresses. These roles are included in the credit count when they are speaking parts, suggesting that the actual percentage of roles available to trained actresses is even less than the percentages above.

6. Sex/nudity in films is negatively correlated with US domestic box office gross (which includes Canadian box office receipts) (r=-.31, p<.001 for the 917 films in my sample). Audiences don't seem to like it. I don't have any hard data for DVDs but my impression is that action, comedy and family films are the ones that do best on DVD, so this trend probably continues for DVD sales/rentals as well. How can sex/nudity in a film script be a bona fide occupational requirement when it is bad for business?

7. It has been argued that even though it is negatively correlated with box office gross, sex/nudity still makes a profit because it is cheaper to film. It is cheaper to film, on average, but when I partialled budget out for the 749 films in my sample of 917 that I had budget data for, sex/nudity was still negatively correlated with US domestic gross at the same level of significance (r=-.18; p<.001).

8. Sex/nudity in films is frequently considered to be harmless to the performers, if its impact is considered at all. However, this is also true of prostitution (especially the way it's portrayed in films), even though researchers have documented that prostitution is generally extremely harmful, regardless of whether the prostituted person is male or female, whether they work indoors or outdoors, or whether it is legal or illegal (e.g. Farley et al., 2003; Hoigard & Finstad, 1992). Putting sex/nudity in a job description and attaching money to it does not automatically make it harmless. If anything it may make it worse, because money is coercive - it persuades people to do things they would otherwise refuse to do. It is true that not everyone in prostitution is harmed (not everyone is harmed by child sexual abuse either), but the probability of harm is fairly high. Why would this not also be the case for sexualized film roles?

9. Vancouver Film School isn't any worse than anyone else, but they aren't any better, either. They just happened to be the ones who posted auditions for sexualized roles I was granted auditions for. All I want is for them to have standards. I'd also like them to teach psychological safety on camera (and physical safety, too, if they don't teach it), to prevent problems from coming up in the first place. Psychologists have had such standards in place for years, ever since the Milgram experiments of the early 1960s showed how easy it is for an authority figure to coerce people into doing something stressful against their wishes.

I hope these points clarify my point of view, and that I will have a chance to make a full case before the tribunal.

Thank you,

Anemone Cerridwen

References:

Farley, M., Cotton, A., Lynne, J., Zumbeck, S., Spiwak, F., Reyes, M. E., Alvarez, D., & Sezgin, U. (2003). Prostitution and trafficking in nine countries: An update on violence and posttraumatic stress disorder. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Trauma Practice, 2 (3/4), 33-74 and in M. Farley (Ed.), Prostitution, Trafficking, and Traumatic Stress (pp. 33-74). Haworth Press. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdf/Prostitutionin9Countries.pdf

Greenberg, B. S., Siemicki, M., Dorfman, S., Heeter, C., Stanley, C., Soderman, A., & Linsangan, R. (1993). Sex content in R-rated films viewed by adolescents. In B. S. Greenberg, J. D. Brown & N. Buerkel-Rothfuss (Eds.), Media, sex and the adolescent (pp. 45-58). Cresshill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Hoigard, C. & Finstad, L. (1992). Backstreets: Prostitution, money, and love. Translated by K. Hanson, N. Sipe and B. Wilson. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (2005). Maintaining the double standard: Portrayals of age and gender in popular films. Sex Roles, 52(7/8), 437-446.

Thompson, K. M., & Yokota, F. (2004). Violence, sex, and profanity in films: Correlation of movie ratings with content. Medscape General Medicine, 6(3), 3-54. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1435631

I am attaching a copy of my own research. I have submitted it to the journal Sex Roles, but haven't heard back yet. They may require me to add more data or clarify material, but with the possible exception of the multiple regressions, the data already in my study is solid, and I stand by it.