A Content Analysis of the Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners for Films

Released between 1927 and 2010

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the

Master of Science

Katie E. Labovitz

June 2011

© 2011 Katie E. Labovitz. All Rights Reserved.

This thesis titled

A Content Analysis of the Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners for Films

Released between 1927 and 2010

by

KATIE E. LABOVITZ

has been approved for

the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism

and the Scripps College of Communication by

______

Joseph P. Bernt

Professor of Journalism

______

Gregory J. Shepherd

Dean, Scripps College of Communication

ii

ABSTRACT

LABOVITZ, KATIE E., M.S., June 2011, Journalism

A Content Analysis of the Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners for Films

Released between 1927 and 2010 (92 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Joseph P. Bernt

Using a coding instrument designed specifically for this study, the researcher analyzed the gender of Academy Award nominees and winners in all categories in which potential for direct competition between women and men existed. This study examined if there was gender discrepancy in terms of whose work was recognized in the film industry by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. Data from 83 Academy Awards ceremonies honoring the films released from 1927 to 2010 yielded 1,471 cases that, when analyzed, supported the statement that more men than women have been nominated for, and winners of, Academy Awards in every category other than Costume Design.

Examining the results by year of nominations, wins, and categories showed trends in the numbers of women and men nominees and winners. Even though men nominees and winners still dominate every ceremony, there is a pattern of more women being nominated for and winning Academy Awards. Recent decades have also shown an increase in the number of categories that included female Academy Award nominees.

Approved: ______

Joseph P. Bernt

Professor of Journalism

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first and foremost would like to thank my parents, Paul and Sue Labovitz, for their constant support and epic amounts of laughter over the past year. I love you more than I could ever express with words on a page.

Thank you to my sister, Sarah, and my brother, Jason, for your encouragement and constant wit.

This study would not have been possible without the guidance of my thesis committee from the E.W. Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University. Thank you to Joseph Bernt, my thesis advisor and chair, for suggesting this topic and letting me run with it. Thank you to Marilyn Greenwald, for taking an interest in my ideas and agreeing to be a part of my committee. Thank you to Mike Sweeney for being an anchor when waves got bumpy. It is beyond refreshing to know that there are journalism professors who believe that entertainment journalism is more than just what one reads in the tabloids.

Thank you to my dear friend Robin Donovan, a fellow graduate journalism student, for the conversations that kept me sane and smiling throughout this entire process.

I would also like to thank the women who have been involved in the film industry. It is on your shoulders that we humbly stand as we look to the future of women in film.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract...... iii

Acknowledgements...... iv

List of Tables ...... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 Problem Statement...... 5 Purpose Statement...... 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review...... 7 History of Women in Film Industry ...... 7 Studies About Women Who Work in or on Film ...... 10 Glass Ceiling Issues and Women in the Workplace ...... 16 The Importance of Awards and Other Forms of Recognition ...... 23 Film Industry Guilds and Associations...... 29 Literature Review Summary...... 37 Research Questions...... 38

Chapter 3: Methods Section...... 39 Definition of Terms ...... 39 Procedure ...... 39 Measure...... 41

Chapter 4: Results...... 46

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 66

Chapter 6: Conclusion ...... 71

Works Cited ...... 79

Appendix A: Coding Instrument...... 86

Appendix B: Coding Key ...... 87

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Percentages of Women and Men Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Ceremony ...... 47

2. Percentages of Academy Award Nominees and Winners by Gender by Decade...... 52

3. Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Category...... 55

4. Women with most Academy Award Nominations ...... 60

5. Women with most Academy Award Wins ...... 64

vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow likely will be known forever as the first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director for her film The Hurt Locker. Her victory came in 2010, during the 82nd annual Academy Awards ceremony.

Absence of female film directors winning, or even being nominated, for Best

Director Oscars is not a new phenomenon. Bigelow was only the fourth woman director to be nominated throughout the Academy’s history; the first woman, Lina Wertmuller, was nominated in 1977 for Seven Beauties (1975) (The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences). Female filmmakers have existed throughout the whole of film history, though; there just have been large gaps between their successes. Besides directing, women have also been writing, producing, editing, filming, costume designing, and participating in every other production role available on a film’s crew (Cherneff, 1991).

Often, these women are absent from history books or film school curricula (Acker, 1991).

Film can still be considered a relatively new art form, having begun in the late

1800s. Early films were crude compared with today’s cinematic offerings, as soundless black-and-white short films with little or no editing were standard fare. However, it was during those beginning years of the film industry when women were among those in control.

During the silent film era (late 1800s – 1927), women were present before and behind the camera (Dargis, 2010; Hurd, 2007). The film industry during the 1910s and through the mid 1920s “offered women opportunities that existed in no other workplace” in that, outside of the film industry, women were not as well represented in positions of authority (Mahar, 2006, p. 1).

1

Mahar (2006), citing Wid’s Year Book, noted that women “directed forty-four feature-length films, headed more than twenty production companies, wrote hundreds of produced screenplays, became the first agents, and held positions as editors and heads of scenario and publicity departments” between 1918 and 1922 (p. 2).

Though filmmaking is an art form, by the mid-1920s, the filmmaking industry had become a legitimate moneymaking business. Meanwhile, movies moved from silent pictures to talkies and women’s presence behind the camera began to dwindle (Mahar,

2001). A few women, like editor-turned director Dorothy Arzner, managed to sustain successful filmmaking careers as the industry became predominantly male-driven

(Dargis, 2010; The Internet Movie Database). However, screenwriting seemed to be one of the only authoritative filmmaking positions in which women maintained parity with men (Mahar, 2001).

In January 1927, Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer studio head Louis B. Meyer, and a group of filmmakers and actors met and collectively created the Academy of Motion Pictures

Arts and Sciences (Levy, 2003). The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences

(AMPAS) was formed to organize the film industry and originally consisted of five branches to serve members of the film production community – actors, producers, directors, writers and technicians (Gledhill, 1940). This AMPAS began as a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a collaborative working environment among the various positions in filmmaking and to “encourage the improvement and advancement of the arts and sciences of the profession by the interchange of constructive ideas and by awards of merit for distinctive achievements” (Levy, 2003, p. 41; Osborne, 2008, p. 9).

2

When AMPAS formed in 1927, its members formed several committees; one was a seven-member group, the Awards of Merit committee (Osborne, 2008, p. 15). Though presenting awards to members of the Academy recognized achievement in the filmmaking industry, early Academy members likely never expected the general public would become so interested in who won the awards (Osborne, 2008, p. 15).

The first Academy Awards, recognizing achievement in 12 filmmaking categories for the years 1927 and 1928, were presented on May 16, 1929 (The Academy of Motion

Pictures Arts and Sciences). Since then, the number of categories has expanded to 24.

While other filmmaking awards are bestowed each year, the Academy Award is still considered the Holy Grail of filmmaking, with recipients being honored as the “Best” in their respective field. “Under any name, the Academy Awards and the Academy itself had become prestigious parts of the film community by the end of [their] first decade”

(Osborne, 2008, p. 17).

However, earning Academy Award nominations and trophies has become more of a political endeavor or popularity contest. Instead of winning Academy Awards solely based on artistic merit, film studios have leaned on heavy self-promotion. Levy (2003) noted that advertisement campaigns for film recognition is not a new phenomenon and that “there have always been efforts to persuade [Academy] members to vote for a particular film” (p. 328). Film studios have expanded their “For Your Consideration” campaigns, spending millions of dollars on advertisements and other promotional venues to make Academy voters more aware of their films, casts and crews (Levy, 2003, pp.

323-339).

3

Levy (2003) has noted that the Oscar is a “White Man’s Award,” arguing that

African-American filmmakers and actors are often overlooked or underrepresented for nominations (p. 136). He made the same analogy when it comes to women filmmakers in non-acting categories (p. 141). Even though much ado was made in 2010 when Kathryn

Bigelow became the fourth woman nominated for Best Director, it is also important to note that Lee Daniels, director of Precious: Based off of the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire, was only the second African-American ever nominated in this category (The Academy of

Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences).

When Bigelow won the Oscar, much was made about her shattering the “glass ceiling” of patriarchy in the Best Director category (Dargis, 2010; Smith, 2010). While

Bigelow’s win was a significant moment in the history of film and of the Academy

Awards, one cannot be sure that she has completely broken through the “glass ceiling” of the film industry.

As mentioned earlier, women were dominant players in the film industry after its inception. If that trend had sustained itself throughout the past one hundred years, it would not have been such a newsworthy event that a woman was deemed “Best Director” by the Academy in 2010. But, women filmmakers were pushed to the side when men took over the industry in the mid-1920s, coincidentally when AMPAS was formed and started awarding merit in filmmaking. By the time public recognition in the form of a golden statue of a man holding a sword plunging into a reel of film (Piazza & Kinn,

2008) was made available, women filmmakers were mostly out of the picture.

As filmmaking became a legitimate industry and filmmaking technology became more advanced, women were edged out of crew positions. For example, operating a

4 movie camera became stereotypically a man’s job because of the mechanical skills and strength the cumbersome equipment required (Mahar, 2001). Instead, women were used on film crews to help break down scripts or do other motion picture research needed before production (Adams, 1953). Women were fully capable of working in all aspects of film production. However, with men replacing women in production roles, women likely had fewer opportunities to work on prestige pictures that earn nominations and win

Academy Awards.

Problem Statement

Women played a dominant role in film production during the industry’s silent era

(Mahar, 2001; Cherneff, 1991; Mahar, 2006; Acker, 1991). During the mid-1920s when talking pictures emerged and the filmmaking industry became a legitimate moneymaking entity (Adams, 1953), men filled a majority of film production roles (Mahar, 2001;

Cherneff, 1991). Scholars have noted that film history studies have not addressed women’s representation in film production (McLean, 2009; Hallett, 2007; Hankin, 2007;

Sobchack, 1980; Mayne, 1985). Scholars also have argued that hegemonic studies about gender or sex cannot focus on only men and women but should include homosexuals and transsexuals (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), and that examining only gender or sex excludes such important attributes as race, class and ethnicity (Hawkesworth, 1997;

Acker, 2006). Others mention how studies about the arts have been considered less academic than those focused on the sciences (Bottomore, 1994) or how film studies have been ignored by historians because they are unable to view film and its history with a scholarly eye (Hallett, 2007; Sobchack, 1980). Film production plays an important part in

5

American and film history, however; and the extent of women’s recognition for their work in this field has not been examined.

Purpose Statement

The lack of diversity among the Best Director nominees during the entire span of the Academy Awards is representative of the (white) male-dominated film industry as a whole. And while race issues are equally as important and compelling as gender issues, this study focused on recognition of female filmmakers. To do so, a content analysis was be conducted of the gender of all the people who have been nominated for and won

Academy Awards in all competitive categories in which women potentially are in direct competition with men.

6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Because recognition of women in the film industry has not been widely researched, this literature review will cover several areas that, when combined, will encompass film, gender roles in the workplace, the Academy Awards, and general background about film production guilds and associations. This review first looks at the history of women’s involvement in the film industry and several studies of that topic.

Studies about women in the film industry and about women on film will be discussed.

Then, glass ceiling issues and the roles of women in the workplace outside Hollywood will be reviewed. The importance of awards and other forms of recognition will be addressed. Finally, the review ends with information gathered from various film industry guilds and associations, highlighting their histories and the involvement of women in these groups.

History of Women in the Film Industry

“The Hollywood film industry is among the most powerful and dynamic of the institutions of this mass culture. Yet, anthropologists have rarely studied the film industry as an institution that affects social values and culture” (Cherneff, 1991, p. 429).

During its beginnings, the Hollywood film industry was an unsexed entity even though women wrote most of the screenplays (Mahar, 2001, p. 72). Throughout 1900 until the end of the 1920s, between 50% and 90% of screenwriters were female (Bielby &

Bielby, 1996, p. 252). Women frequently held producing and directing jobs during these beginning years of the film industry in addition to working in other positions on film production crews (Mahar, 2001; Mahar, 2006; Acker, 1991). Women began losing power under the studio system between 1910 and 1920 and turned toward independent studios

7 to get their projects produced. Independent studios, several run by women, operated outside the established studio system and allowed women to make films that championed their own platforms, including women’s suffrage (Mahar, 2006, p. 66). Soon these productions also were marginalized by the film industry because studios had a

“stranglehold on distribution,” and, by the mid-1920s, female power in Hollywood ended

(Parchesky, 2006, p. 177).

As male studio heads took over the film industry, women were edged out of authoritative positions (Cherneff, 1991). Though they were once well represented in all crew positions behind the cameras, production roles became more gendered. Mechanical and technical skills were needed to operate cameras and projectors, and these roles became implicitly masculine (Mahar, 2001, p. 80). Editing was considered a menial task and something that women could do (Cherneff, 1991, p. 438). Screenwriting still was considered a non-gendered film production occupation, and women still experienced some success in getting their scripts produced (Cherneff, 1991, p. 438); but, on a whole, the number of women working behind the scenes declined once men took over the film industry.

Bielby and Bielby (1996) wrote about gender inequality with regard to writers in the film industry. They noted differences between the film and television industries based on elevated levels of risk, ambiguity and uncertainty in the film industry because of higher production costs and greater chances for a project to financially underperform (p.

249).

Though screenwriting is a gender-neutral film production role, female screenwriters are often typecast into specific film genres because of their gender (Bielby

8

& Bielby, 1996, p. 249). Bielby and Bielby’s study provided telling statistics regarding the fall of female screenwriters. As noted before, females made up 50 to 90% of the screenwriters between 1900 and the late 1920s (p. 252). In the 1930s, male screenwriters dominated in numbers, and women comprised less than 15% of the membership in the

Writers Guild (p. 253). Women were then further pigeonholed into writing film scripts for stereotypically women’s films even though women had successfully written scripts across all genres. Screenwriting had become a man’s field even though it was once non- gendered (p. 254).

The 1960s marked the sharpest decline in women screenwriters (Bielby & Bielby,

1996, p. 254). The 1970s brought about the “blockbuster,” which caused studios to seek out crewmembers who were already established. By the mid-1980s, “talent guilds for writers, directors, and actors were issuing statistical studies documenting women’s underrepresentation in the industry, and the industry press began giving widespread coverage to the issue of gender discrimination” (p. 255). From the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, women comprised about 18% of screenwriters employed in the industry (p.

256). Bielby and Bielby claimed female screenwriters would continue to face barriers.

Little headway was made against the gender discrimination of this profession because gender inequality in screenwriting mirrors that of other organizations where no rules about such practices exist (Bielby & Bielby, 1996, p. 267).

Lauzen and Dozier (1999) conducted a study that tabulated the number of men and women who worked behind the scenes in the television and film industries. They looked at the credits for the top 100 films from 1987, 1992, and 1997 (based on domestic box office gross only) and concluded that “although the numbers of female executive

9 producers and co-executive producers, producers and co-producers, and writers working on top 100 films have increased over the past decade, the numbers of female directors, cinematographers, and editors have remained stagnant. In addition, in 1997, 69% of the top 100 films had no female producers, 82% had no female editors, 83% had no female executive producers, 86% had no female writers, 96% had no female directors, and 100% had no female cinematographers” (p. 361). The authors commented that females are attending film school so one cannot blame low interest for so few women working in creative positions on film crews (p. 361).

Studies About Women Who Work on or in Films

Early female filmmakers were celebrated subjects in the press, fan magazines and novels. Parchesky (2006) compared female directors, screenwriters, actresses and producers of the early 1900s to contemporary women who were known for racing cars.

Parchesky noted how all these women were “hardworking, technically skilled and courageous, holding their own in a man’s world in conditions that were fast-paced, physically demanding, and subject to all kinds of human and natural disasters” (2006, p.

174). The three films that Parchesky highlighted in her article (Mabel at the Wheel, 1914;

Something New, 1921; Zander the Great, 1925) were all produced and released before the first Academy Awards ceremony occurred. However, this exemplifies how women filmmakers were working in all aspects of the industry until the mid-1920s.

Gaines (2004) wrote that there is proof in library collections and documents from the past that women were major contributors in all aspects of film production during the silent era of film. She even cited a 1917 issue of Photoplay, an American movie fan

10 magazine, that refers to producers as a collectively feminine rather than masculine entity, using “her” instead of “him” as the pronoun (p. 113).

But while females were represented behind the camera in the early days of cinema, the industry has since become a male-dominated workplace. It could be inferred that women are having a hard time getting hired on film crews because of trends in how people break into their Hollywood careers. Skilton (2008) developed a “breakthrough theory” for the film industry. He stated that an employer likely knows the prospective employee and that social connection is how he/she breaks into the business, as this new employee has little or no experience when compared with people who have been working in the business (p. 1744). If there are no highly experienced people, of course an employer must turn to new workers; but, more often than not in the film industry, experienced people are available for hire.

Skilton (2008) argued that men likely have an easier time breaking into film directing, that a majority of producers from 1985 to 2005 have been men, and that decision makers (i.e. producers who hire directors) are more apt to hire someone of the same gender (p. 1749). For this study, a “breakthrough” indicated that someone was hired who has little or no experience when compared with people who have been working in the film industry for a significant period of time (Skilton, 2008, p. 1744).

Among his numerous hypotheses, Skilton (2008) hypothesized that the chances of a breakthrough in the film industry is greater when the person is a man, women are likely to experience a breakthrough if women are involved in the producer group doing the hiring, and people who are related to one of more of the producers are more likely to

“break through” in the hiring process. For his study, Skilton (2008) used audience ratings

11 from the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater

Owners to make a list of 3,257 films that were to be theatrically released in the United

States between 1991 and 2000 (p. 1754). A second list was compiled, using the Internet

Movie Database, of all films released from 1981 to 2000, though these films included theatrical releases as well as films made for television or other distribution methods (p.

1754). This second list was used to create profiles of people who worked on projects on the first feature film list (p. 1754). The author then used a list of each director’s projects for the past ten years to measure their work experiences (p. 1754). The results supported

Skilton’s hypotheses in that people who were familiar with or the same gender as the executives who were doing the hiring were more likely to achieve breakthroughs and get hired to work on Hollywood film productions (p. 1767).

In Skilton’s study, women were represented in only a small number of producing and directing roles, which suggested to the author that men have an advantage over women when it comes to career progression in the film industry (2008, p. 1767). He stated,

“The results I report for sex are one example of ways that market and relational structure contribute to breakthroughs and vice versa. It seems plausible that if women did not exhibit solidarity in creating opportunities for each other, they would soon be excluded from these kinds of work. Even so, the proportion of women in the industry appears to decline as they reach the upper end of the career progression. Breaking through is one thing, making a career of elite projects in the face of male hegemony is another” (pp. 1769-1770).

In her article about feminist film studies in the 21st Century, McClean (2009) commented that feminist film studies of the 1970s mostly focused on “identity politics and sexual difference” with representation being the biggest focus, though textual

12 analysis and historical research seemed to revolve mostly around female film directors

(pp. 144-145). McClean (2009) critiqued and summarized several books that women had written about other women in the film industry (Red Velvet Seat: Women’s Writing on the

First Fifty Years of Cinema by Antonia Lant; Cupboards of Curiosity: Women,

Recollection, and Film History by Amelie Hastie; The Hypersexuality of Race:

Performing Asian/American Women on Screen and Scene by Celine Parrenas Shimizu).

She chose to look at these books because she thought that women’s issues (“women’s labor, women’s memories, women’s sexuality, women’s representation in dominant cinema especially”) had not been considered “valuable or politically relevant” in prior social or historical cinema-related commentaries (2009, p. 146).

Hastie (2006) offered a concise look at film history via scrapbooks, marginalia, and cookbooks (p. 222). Scrapbooks are either collections of stories or memorabilia gathered directly from personalities or stars in the film industry or compiled by fans (p.

222). Marginalia are notes in the margins of other texts, such as book, that indicate the thoughts or opinions of the person who wrote said notes (p. 227). Celebrity cookbooks, a form of how-to manual from a celebrity to the public, provide autobiographical insights

(p. 227). Besides providing recipes for cooking or baking, cookbooks were venues for stars to share insights into their personal lives while showing off their culinary knowledge (p. 277). Hastie (2006) argued that scrapbooks, marginalia and cookbooks are texts other than historical archives that can re-create women’s involvement in film history

(p. 229).

Hankin (2007) discussed female filmmakers and film supporters with regard to feminist activism. She highlighted a group called the Guerilla Girls who post stickers,

13 billboards and other forms of communication with text regarding female filmmakers and their underrepresentation in the industry. One such billboard from 2003 read that “The

U.S. Senate is More Progressive than Hollywood: Female Senators 14%, Female Film

Directors 4%” (pp. 59-60). The author focused on a string of documentaries about female filmmakers, but also mentioned that female involvement in film production has been an infrequent topic of discussion in feminist film scholarship (p. 72).

Solis and Hall (2009) assembled a databook of women’s roles in the workplace.

The estimates and numbers used for their study “were obtained from the Current

Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 households” (Solis & Hall, 2009, p. 96). Though their study covers race, sex, age and ethnicity of women (and men) who are employed or unemployed, they also feature a table of information that shows the 2008 annual averages of “employed persons by detailed occupation and sex” (2009, pp. 28-38). Part of this chart breaks down information regarding the number of people who work in “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations” and the percentage of those people who were women (pp.

30-31). Solis and Hall report that of the people they surveyed, there were 2,820,000 people who hold jobs under this category description, and that 47.8% of them were women. Of the 154,000 people who work as producers and directors, 38.5% were women. There were 186,000 employed writers and authors, and 57.3% were women. Of the 50,000 television, video and motion picture camera operators and editors, 15.3% were women. However, there were no women employed among the 47,000 technical writers. It is important to note that these numbers reflect the number of people who work in these

14 jobs in the entire entertainment industry and not jobs completely unique to the film industry.

In addition to scholarly work that has focused on women who work on the behind-the-scenes aspects of filmmaking, women who appear in front of a film camera have received considerable attention. Whether about the actresses themselves or the characters they play, these studies are relevant because awareness of women in all aspects of the film industry offer insight about gender and sex roles in entertainment.

Postfeminism comprises “any of a wide range of theories, some of which argue that feminism is no longer relevant to today's society or that feminism needs to be extended to fit the changing expectations and experiences of women since feminism's inception” (All-words.com). Holmlund (2005) questioned whether “postfeminism” indicates an attitude, optic or object, and then claimed there are three kinds of postfeminism – academic, chick and grrrl (p. 116). Using qualitative observation,

Holmlund (2005) looked at how the terms “postfeminism” and “postfeminist” are used when talking about the film industry. She focused on the perspectives of characters and actresses of films from the late 1980s to the mid 2000s, most notably through the films of

Jennifer Lopez, as well as the HBO movie Real Women Have Curves (2002).

“Because films play such a prominent role in popular culture, they are frequently scrutinized to discern how women are perceived and evaluated” (Simonton, 2004, p.

781). In his study about the paradox between award-winning feature films and critically regarded female performances, Simonton (2004) questioned how women and men actors can be considered equally successful by winning the same number of trophies and awards

15 each year when women’s film careers are statistically shorter and not as prominent as men’s (p. 782).

Likewise, Lincoln and Allen (2004) conducted a study that looked at how age and gender of male and female film actors affects their careers. They cited research done in

1999 by the Screen Actors Guild that showed women actors had shorter careers and earned half as much money as male actors (p. 612). For their own study, they compiled a list of 318 actors (150 women and 168 men) from various directories and notable listings of actors. These performers collectively appeared in 14,922 film roles between 1926 and

1999 (p. 617). For each actor, information about their rank in the credits, or “star presence,” for each title was considered (p. 618). In addition to credit rank, an actor’s age, gender, time period of their career, as well as the number of Academy Award nominations received during said career was considered.

Lincoln and Allen’s results showed that female actors under age 40 win Best

Actress awards while middle age men, or men over age 40, are often the recipients of the

Best Actor awards (2004, p. 616). Women had fewer film roles in general and less star- power than men, though the authors singled out Meryl Streep as an exception to the rule as she is still earning Academy Award nominations in acting categories throughout her continuing career (p. 626). Lincoln and Allen (2004) believed that female actresses have fewer roles because of social stigma of aging women and liken this occurrence to glass ceiling effects in other organizations (p. 628).

Glass Ceiling Issues and Women in the Workplace

American women’s involvement in the workplace has greatly increased over the last century. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated, “in 1900, only 19 percent of

16 women of working age participated in the labor force” (Fisk, 2003). By 1940, 28 percent of women were working outside of their homes (“Women in the Labor Force”). This number rose to 36 percent in 1944 (“Women in the Labor Force”), which coincides with more women being in the workplace because of World War II. By 1971, 43.4 percent of women were in the workforce, and by 2006 that number reached 59.4 percent (“Women in the Labor Force”). However, this number is still lower than the 73.5 percent of men who were working outside the home that same year (“Women in the Labor Force”). Even though the number of women in the workplace has steadily increased, they are still facing glass ceiling issues and gender inequality.

Gender inequality, in its most basic form, is disparity between men and women based on gender. Risman (2004) argued that gender is a social structure whose purpose is to further stratify the differences between the sexes (p. 430). She noted that cultural norms of our respective sex categories influence gender differences as well (p. 436).

Though, she also said, “Gendered images support racial domination, but racial domination can hardly be attributed to gender inequality” (Risman, 2004, p. 443). Her article indicated that because we live in a patriarchal society, gender inequality in the workplace is a social norm (2004, p. 438).

Workplace culture is formed by the combination of (1) established attitudes in the organization, (2) career, and (3) sexual harassment (Bergman & Hallberg, 2002). Within the workplace, there is a hierarchy when it comes to who is able to lead others, and it often has to do with such physical factors as gender or race.

Women and members of minority groups may possess comparable qualifications and skills as those of their white male counterparts, but Maume (2004) pointed out how

17

“artificial barriers impede [their] advancement” within the organization (p. 253). “The concept of a glass ceiling is a widely accepted explanation for the failure of women and

Blacks to match White men in their access to managerial positions” (Maume, 2004, p.

250). Maume (2004) suggested that studies should be conducted to examine how organizations are able to sustain glass ceilings and gender/race inequalities over time.

The United States Department of Labor recognizes the glass ceiling as a way for organizations to prevent people, namely women and minorities, from advancing in their employment (Wickwire & Kruper, 1996, p. 33). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in part, “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). However, discrimination in the workplace has not completely disappeared (Wickwire & Kruper,

1996).

Wickwire and Kruper (1996) noted that women and minorities, at least in business organizations, are usually not employed in the kinds of positions that lead to upper management or authoritative positions. Women are usually the ones who deal with raising a family, which affects hours that can be worked and other aspects of availability.

There are stereotypes surrounding women in the workplace. For example, women would pick family demands over those of work. However, it was found that most women leave a job because they are dissatisfied and not because of family demands (Wickwire &

Kruper, 1996). The authors suggest that the glass ceiling issue should be approached from a profitability standpoint as opposed to the consideration of it as a social issue

(1996, p. 38).

18

Though a workplace more often than not differs from a home, division of labor issues from the household can and do spill over into a professional environment

(Huffman & Cohen, 2004). Even if women and men have similar job skills, there is still a stigma that women are too emotional to manage a workplace effectively (Huffman &

Cohen, 2004). Huffman and Cohen (2004) argued that an increased representation of women in the workplace would help to promote gender equality. However, they comment that physical differences in skills needed for varying occupations are partially responsible for why some jobs skew toward male-dominance (Huffman & Cohen, 2004, p. 141).

When it comes to household chores as opposed to jobs in the workplace, physical skill is not as much of a factor as gender. In their study about division of labor in the household, Lavee and Katz (2002) looked at 15 different household tasks and how they were divided between spouses. They found that the division of labor relied on gender roles of the spouses and that traditional gender roles within a household led to greater dissatisfaction between the spouses (2002, p. 28).

When one thinks of the head of a household, one likely pictures a man. Likewise, studio heads and leaders of the unions within the film industry have been predominantly male. This hierarchy was also reflected within the labor unions outside of Hollywood.

Historically run by men, labor unions often pursue male interests (Milkman, 1982, p.

339). The more likely the occurrence of male resistance to more women in the workplace, the less likely an employer was to attempt to ratify gender inequality (Milkman, 1982, p.

342). Though this seems to be a preventive measure to keep the peace at the workplace, one could argue that it is unfair to not hire women if they would be suited for the job because there “might” be resistance at work.

19

Women have been introduced into male-dominated workplaces at various points in American history. For example, during World War II, women were hired to work industrial jobs that were traditionally male because there physically were not enough men to do the work and not because women were rising up in some sort of feminist movement

(Milkman, 1982, p. 336). However, these women did not take over all of the “men’s work,” and instead gender roles in the workplace were reallocated and women were still working alongside other women and not integrated into the male-dominated positions

(Milkman, 1982, p. 338). Though this agreed with the male-dominated union policy makers, this course of action may not have been the most profitable way to divide the labor. “[If] male workers pursued their class interest, rather than seek to maintain their position as a privileged gender, they would [be more apt to] mobilize against job segregation by sex” (Milkman, 1982, p. 339).

Gender is perpetually identified with occupation and continues to be a notable source of inequality when it comes to labor (Thomas, 1982). However, Thomas (1982) hypothesized that gender is not an indicator of a person’s skills and abilities, but it pertains to the social status of the laborer within the community or labor market (p. S88).

Even though his study was about lettuce pickers, women were still pigeonholed into certain jobs because people assumed that their traditional family roles would also apply to the lettuce industry; i.e. women running off and getting married or leaving behind the job to raise a family (p. S105). Thomas (1982) argued that three processes lead certain jobs to become “women’s work:” “(1) employers actively recruiting women, (2) men reacting to the negative status attached to the work, and (3) efforts on the part of women

20 to monopolize access to the work” (p. S107). These processes continue segregating what could be considered gender-neutral work into “men’s work” and “women’s work.”

In the entertainment industry, one still finds women being kept from rising to the top of the workplace hierarchy. Thynne (2000) conducted a study about British television and found that if the workplace was left unregulated, “our workforce will be increasingly made up of people who are under 35, male, childless, white and increasingly well-heeled”

(p. 65). She found that the hierarchy of a television crew kept women mostly in assistant jobs or working in make-up, research, or wardrobe departments. Caught in these crew positions, women were unable to climb the corporate ladder. Thynne (2000) reported the proportion of women credited in production roles on Sky 1, UK Living Channel 5, where women made up 70% of the producers, 20% of the directors, 82% of those working as production assistants, 15% of camera operators, and only 5% of people working in the sound department (2000, p. 76). For her study, she also interviewed female crewmembers and found they were conflicted about the television production process (2000, p. 80).

Although these female crewmembers appreciated learning new skills, they were worried that they did not have enough time for proper training (2000, p. 80). Women were not opposed to technical jobs nor did they feel that the more technical jobs were better suited for men; but, in order to fulfill the requirements for the jobs, they thought more training would be necessary.

American society and culture are patriarchal and therefore are driven by male authority or male supremacy (Traube, 1996). Traube (1996) wrote, “The popular is not produced by imposing a dominant onto a subordinate culture, but by the dominant reaching into the cultural formation of subordinate groups, selectively appropriating

21 elements, and stitching them into new discourses” (p. 134). This means that the men in charge in our society and culture do not dominate with force, but instead have woven themselves into leadership positions that have then shaped the formation of various cultural entities and have maintained them as the standard or cultural norms in our country. In this regard, men form a social group of power, not just a gendered group

(Hearn, 2004, p. 66).

Men holding power in society fits into the concept of hegemony, which is a

Gramscian term that deals with “understanding the stabilization of class relations”

(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 831). Often seen as a product of Marxist analysis, hegemony allows a dominant group control over others (Hearn, 2004, pp. 53-54). Hearn

(2004) argued that studies that look into feminist and queer theories actually can be deemed studies about men because men play an important role in comparison to the other genders, sexes, etc… that are being examined (p. 49). Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) supported this statement when they explained that hegemonic masculinity deals with gender hierarchies that include men and women, as well as gay men and transsexuals (pp.

831-832).

Hegemonic masculinity, a theoretical concept that grew in popularity in the 1980s with the rise of gay activism (Hearn, 2004, p. 56), has been used to study classroom bullies, criminals, and media representation of men (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p.

833). In this study, men who work in media — specifically those who have been nominated for, and even winners of, Academy Awards, represent hegemonic masculinity.

According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), to properly look at masculinity and hegemony, one must consider the relationship among men and women, not just men

22 and more men (p. 837). However, Hearn (2004) questioned how we are to study hegemony at all if we as a society remain entangled in it (p. 65).

The Importance of Awards and Other Forms of Recognition

Cultural prizes are prominent in society, yet there has been little scholarly work devoted to them (English, 2002, p. 109). English (2002) looked at Pierre Bourdieu’s rules of art and the value, merit, and prestige that cultural prizes carry within our society. He noted that award ceremonies work because the honorees, those giving the awards, and the members of that award’s cultural community have all agreed about the award’s meaning

(p. 119).

Simonton (2004) conducted a study about the “Best Actress” Paradox, in which his results supported his claim that “exceptional acting performances by women are less likely to be associated with outstanding films than are exceptional acting performances by men” (p. 790). Although equal numbers of men and women win acting trophies each year, Simonton (2004) questioned how they could be considered equally successful when women have shorter film careers then men (p. 782). He used the Academy Awards as the basis for his study because they “represent the oldest and most extensive honors in world cinema” (Simonton, 2004, p. 784).

Cattani and Ferriani (2008) argued that Academy Awards are driven more by commercial or political pressures than artistic merit. They noted that the genre of a film could determine whether it is nominated or receives awards, citing that an action movie is unlikely to be nominated or awarded certain prizes because of its genre (2008, p. 834).

Comedies, though a widely produced genre, also are often overlooked as potential nominees or winners for Best Picture. As of the 2002 Academy Awards ceremony, only

23

10 comedic films have been awarded this top prize (Levy, 2003, p. 190). Instead, epic dramas, westerns, war films and period pieces tend to receive recognition from the

Academy (Levy, 2003, pp. 168-189).

Earning Academy Award nominations and winning Oscars are notable accomplishments within the film industry. However, not all of the categories are regarded equally. Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress are considered more prestigious.

Nominations or wins in these categories often lead to increased overall box office and home video grosses for a film (Nelson, Donahue, Waldman & Wheaton, 2001). Academy

Award nominations have a different meaning to people. Individuals could see the nomination as “the [film] industry’s recognition of significant professional achievement”

(Nelson et al., 2001, p. 1). Although studios see Oscar nominations and wins as increasing revenues, Academy Award recognition also has been proven to help a film remain on Variety’s Top 50 list longer than do non-recognized films (Nelson et al., 2001, p. 8).

Holbrook and Addis (2008) argue that movie industry awards and acclaim are separate phenomena from the marketing and business side of the movie industry (p. 89).

They offer the “Two-Path Model of Motion Picture Success,” which allows for the separation of “critical and popular evaluation” (award recognition) and “critical and popular buzz” (word of mouth leading to box office success) (Holbrook & Addis, 2008, p. 89). For their study, Holbrook and Addis (2008) analyzed 190 movies that were released in 2003 using the variables “Marketing Clout” (which included “key participants,” such as notoriety or familiarity of actors, directors, other crew members),

“Critical and Popular Evaluation,” “Industry Recognition,” “Critical and Popular Buzz,”

24

“and Marketing Performance,” and the ordinary least-square regression equation to estimate their Two-Path Model of Motion Picture Success (pgs. 89-90).

The study’s results supported Holbrook and Addis’s Two-Path model; critical and popular recognition is distinct from the market aspects of the movie industry (2008, p.

100). They also found, “[While] the artistically oriented aspects of acting, scripts, and direction appear to pay off in the aesthetic appreciation of a film by consumers and reviewers – all those celebrity superstars and spectacular special effects (burning buildings, massive explosions, tidal waves, earthquakes, sinking ships, and car chases) that typically characterize films with high levels of marketing clout appear to detract from evaluative judgments of excellence,” such as awards (2008, p. 100).

Taking this notion of cinematic spectacle and awards recognition a step further,

Cerridwen and Simonton (2009) questioned if a relationship exists between graphic sexual content in a film and a film’s overall box office intake, critical reviews and major movie award recognition, in addition to examining if a correlation exists between the graphic content and the role of women working on the films – whether a difference exists between male and female filmmakers with regard to overtly sexual content (p. 201). The authors hypothesized that sex in films does not necessarily positively affect box office dollars, but it may increase the artistic value of a movie (2009, p. 201). However, they are quick to comment, “[It] does not seem likely that R-rated sex will increase the odds that a film will receive a major award or nomination” (Cerridwen & Simonton, 2009, p. 201).

Cerridwen and Simonton (2009) looked at 914 fiction films (870 live action and

44 animated) released from 2001 to 2005; they focused on variables of criteria, predictors and controls (pp. 201-202). This study included 7000 producers, 980 directors, 2450

25 writers, and 49,000 actors. “The proportion in each of these four groups who were female is 22.58%, 5.83%, 11.77%, and 32.38%, respectively” (Cerridwen & Simonton, 2009, p.

203). The authors found that films that have a larger percentage of women filmmakers and actors tend to show less violence but increased sexual content. “It is likely that men so dominate the [film] industry – and especially the money necessary to finance projects

– that the masculine presence will be felt even when women are numerically in control”

(Cerridwen & Simonton, 2009, p. 208). The authors also concluded that the amount of sexual content does not increase a film’s chance of receiving critical acclaim or award recognition.

Baker and Faulkner (1991) analyzed how the roles of filmmakers (producers, directors, and screenwriters) are combined to “create new positions and social structures in the elite setting of Hollywood filmmaking” (p. 280). The authors consider the producer, director, and screenwriter to be the three main, or “key,” roles on a film project.

Sometimes one person occupies more than one of these three roles; for example, some directors direct screenplays that they have written or produce the films on which they work. Film productions assemble crewmembers for (usually) one project and then are disbanded. Any number of combinations of people may work on a film crew (Baker &

Faulkner, 1991, p. 283).

Baker and Faulkner (1991) liken film projects to competitions, though which people negotiate access to various roles on the productions (p. 284). Because Hollywood and film productions are always in flux, roles are unstable, and, therefore, if one secures a role, that means one has an advantage (p. 285). One’s reputation and career are always at stake on a current project, as performance will affect future project opportunities because

26 film production is such an unstable business (p. 286). Success on one project can result in future employment.

Patterns in film production roles over time help ease some of the risk involved in filmmaking. With the rise of the blockbuster in the 1970s – notably The Godfather (1972) and Jaws (1975) – people recognized a pattern for success if one had the “right ingredients” during the film’s production (Baker & Faulkner, 1991, p. 289). Blockbusters created specialized producers “with the increasing separation of business and artistic domains, and the increasing consolidation of artistic roles” (Baker & Faulkner, 1991, p.

290).

Though their focus is on blockbusters and box-office successes, Baker and

Faulkner’s “blueprint” (1991, p. 290) for the different combinations of producer, director, and screenwriter can be adapted to combinations of the same film positions for filmmakers nominated for or winning Academy Awards. Director Ron Howard often produces his films with Brian Grazer. Actor/director Clint Eastwood produces his own films, and sometimes writes the score as well. Brothers Ethan and Joel Coen are known for co-writing, co-directing, and co-producing their films. All three of these groups of people have been nominated for and received Academy Awards for directing and producing; and the Coen brothers have also been recognized for their writing.

Individual achievements in directing, producing and writing have been prevalent throughout the Academy Awards’ history as well. The first person to win Academy

Awards for writing and directing in the same year was Leo McCarey in 1944 for Going

My Way (Osborne, 2008, p. 397). And it is not just a coincidence that William Wyler is the most nominated director in film history, with 12 nominations (and three awards) to

27 his name (The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences; Osborne, 2008, p. 396).

Wyler, “Hollywood’s most acclaimed director” (Herman, 1995), is renowned for his cinematic achievements, including Academy Award winning feature films Mrs. Miniver

(1942), The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), and Ben-Hur (1952). Throughout the course of the Academy Awards history so far (through the 2011 ceremony), more than a few people have earned multiple nominations and awards. Some, such as Wyler, have the talent not only to work on films but also become the best at their position. Academy

Award recognition is just one way to gauge if someone has had success in the film industry, but other ways to culturally consecrate American films exist.

Allen and Lincoln (2004) noted that cultural consecration is not necessarily related to awards and other visible aspects of praise and honor. They use the film The

Searchers (1956) as an example of a film that appears on several notable Best Film lists but that did not earn major award nominations or wins the year it was released (p. 872).

For their study, Allen and Lincoln (2004) analyzed 1,277 movies released from 1929 to

1991 that received critical praise during the year of their release, and then they determined if this praise influenced their cultural consecration. Every film fulfilled one of the three following criteria - at least three Academy Award nominations; selection as one of the Top 10 Films from the New York Times or the National Board of Review; standing as one of the ten highest grossing movies of that year. Retrospective consecration was also considered, including if the films were recognized on the American Film Institute

Top 100 films list or were included in the National Film Registry. “Formal consecration is especially important in the field of film production because films are both an art form and an industrial commodity,” Allen and Lincoln note (2004, p. 875). “Indeed the

28

Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences was established… for the express purpose of improving the reputation of films as an art form” (p. 875). However, whether one believes that Academy Awards are given out based on artistic merit or political means, the films and people who are honored have made significant contributions to cinema.

Allen and Lincoln (2004) looked at the number of Academy Award nominations each of the analyzed films received, as well as in which categories they were nominated

(because, remember, some categories are more prestigious than others), other awards for which each film was nominated, extent of critical discourse about the film and its director, and whether a film was discussed at length in film anthologies (pp. 880-881). A total of 411 directors worked on the 1,277 films in this study, and a Best Director nomination proved a good indication of a film being culturally consecrated (p. 882).

Having a trifecta of nominations for Best Picture, Director and Screenwriter, in addition to the age of the film, also increased the chances of a film being culturally consecrated (p.

884). Academy Award nominations and wins are lasting indicators of a film’s cultural success.

Film Industry Guilds and Associations

Just as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is made up of five different branches representing actors, producers, directors, writers and technicians, various guilds and associations in the film industry are specific to individual film crew positions. Though not all of these guilds or associations were formed at the same time or necessarily adhere to the same policies and practices, their overarching goal is to support and unite the people involved. And just as female involvement in the film industry has

29 changed over time, the same goes for some of the guilds and associations. It is important to note that these guilds and associations are not film-specific, as their members also work in television and other forms of audio-visual media.

In 1950, the Screen Producers Guild formed, which later became the Producers

Guild of America (Producers Guild of America). Forty years later, the Guild held its first

Golden Laurel Awards ceremony, which later was named the “Producers Guild Awards,” and awarded its Best Produced Motion Picture to the feature film Driving Miss Daisy

(1989).

The Producers Guild sponsors a Diversity webpage, PGAdiversity.org. This supplemental Producers Guild website offers information about female and minority involvement within the Producers Guild. A blog entry written by Deborah Calla on

October 7, 2009, discussed “The Truth About Diversity in Entertainment.” Though informal in its presentation, Calla commented that, because our country now has an

African American president, one would think greater openness about diversity would exist. She admitted that fewer women then men are producers, writers and directors. And while these numbers will take time to overcome, Calla stated that the Diversity website’s seeks to create a community in which minorities can support each other.

The Diversity website, when visited in August 2010, still included information about a Women in Focus event held at Chapman University in April 2010, an event that promoted conversation between women who seek to advance in the entertainment industry and women who already were immersed in the industry. The eleventh such event, the 2010 event focused on television industry, and panelists stressed the differences in development of television as opposed to theatrical motion pictures.

30

Although the Producers Guild of America’s website does not contain substantial amounts of information regarding women and minorities, its diversity website does.

However, browsing through the pages of www.pgadiversity.org, awareness of the lack of women and minorities in the entertainment industries appears, but no long-term solutions to the problem are offered.

The Screen Directors Guild, later known as the Directors Guild of America

(DGA), was formed in 1936 by a group of filmmakers who were looking to “achieve proper recognition and creative freedom for all Directors” (Directors Guild of America).

Two years later, Dorothy Arzner became the first female director to join the Guild. In

1991, women and minority members of the DGA formed a mentoring program. Only six times in the history of the DGA has the DGA Award winner not also won the Academy

Award for Best Director. In 2009, Kathryn Bigelow became the seventh woman nominated for the feature film DGA Award and the first female winner. She was honored for The Hurt Locker, and, as mentioned earlier, went on to win the Academy Award for

Best Director as well.

Lin (1997) reported on the DGA’s first Summit on Diversity in September 1997, which highlighted the “unequal job market for Guild members and recognized those who have made great strides in reaching out to women and minority directors.” As part of the

Summit’s mission statement, Martha Coolidge, DGA first vice president, commented that, among other examples, one of the group’s goals was to show that, “if given a chance, a woman can direct an action picture.”

Director Kathryn Bigelow is just one example of this kind of woman. Her war film The Hurt Locker (2009) earned her the DGA Award and Oscar for Best Director,

31 among other awards. These tangible accolades are proof that a woman is fully capable of directing a critically acclaimed action film, and earning recognition for doing so.

Participants at the Summit were asked if television production offered more opportunities for women and minority directors than did film production. Warren

Littlefield, then president of NBC-Entertainment, said that television producers could work with unknown directors because if single episodes went awry, an entire 24-episode season of a show would not be ruined. He also noted that television production budgets are lower than feature films so a network can risk hiring new people because of the reduced costs. CBS Entertainment president Les Moonves added that, because television seasons generally run 24 episodes, crewmembers have greater opportunity to start the season in one position, such as writer or assistant director, and work their way into the director position. Moreover, with a 60% increase in television shows, even more opportunities exist for directors to get hired.

With all of these opportunities for directors, however, women and minorities are still not being hired in numbers equal to those for male directors. John Goldwyn,

Paramount Motion Pictures president, noted that people who hire and finance production costs habitually hire people with prior successes instead of trying out new people.

Though this pattern sometimes occurs in television, the bigger culprit is the film industry.

Goldwyn commented that, by repeatedly hiring a limited number of people because their films have made money in the past, the cost of film production constantly increases.

One could argue that if movie studios would take a chance and hire a new director

– even a female or minority director – they might find that these directors can make movies that succeed at the box office, too. For example, theater and opera director

32

Phyllida Lloyd had never directed a feature film when she was hired to bring the stage version of the musical Mamma Mia! to the silver screen (The Internet Movie Database).

The film version of Mamma Mia! (2008) eventually grossed more than $602 million worldwide (The Internet Movie Database).

For an article in the Fall 2006 issue of DGA Quarterly, entertainment journalist

Amy Dawes interviewed six female directors from film and television. She noted that, of the 250 top-grossing films of 2005, only 7% (roughly 18 features) were directed by women, and of the top 40 television shows of 2004-2005, only 12% (94) of 800 episodes were directed by women. She asked the directors if these numbers mattered to them, and it sparked a dialogue among the women about how sexism is still very prevalent in the entertainment industry. Feature film director Nicole Holofcener (Lovely & Amazing,

2001; Friends With Money, 2006) admitted the statistics were not surprising and called the entertainment industry “backward.” Amy Heckerling (Fast Times at Ridgemont High,

1982; Clueless, 1995) questioned how the industry could account for these numbers. “It’s a liberal community,” she stated. “How is it that there are more senators than there are women directors, percentage-wise? It doesn’t make any sense.”

Dawes asked the directors if television was “a more hospitable environment for women,” and they agreed it was. Mimi Leder (China Beach, 1988-1991; John Doe, 2002-

2003) offered the opinion that television producers are more likely to hire new people, but that directing television is actually a very hard task. Dennie Gordon (Sports Night,

1998-1999; The Practice 1997-2002) explained that in television, a director often must finish dozens of camera sets ups and cover upwards of ten pages of script in one day whereas, on a film production, far fewer set ups and pages are shot on a single day.

33

Television directors must accomplish much in a little time, which is not an easy task, nor should it just be brushed aside as “easy work” because it is television rather than film.

Still, more opportunities exist for women television directors than for women film directors.

In 1933, a group of ten screenwriters decided to revive the Screen Writers Guild

(Writer’s Guild of America, West). Female screenwriter Francis Marion served as the

Guild’s first vice president and was “the highest paid screenwriter — male or female — from 1916 through the mid-30’s” (Writer’s Guild of America, West). The advent and popularity of home television sets in the 1940s and 1950s attracted young writers to the entertainment industry (Writer’s Guild of America, West). In 1954, writers from the east and west coasts of the United States came together to form the Writers Guild of America

(WGA). This Guild has two branches, one for each coast; the Writers Guild of America,

West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America, East. (Writer’s Guild of America,

West).

In 2009, the Writers Guild of America, West published its sixth Hollywood

Writers Report, which looked at employment and wages trends for writers who work in the Hollywood industry (Writer’s Guild of America, West). “These reports have highlighted three groups of writers – women, minorities, and older writers – who traditionally have been underemployed in the industry” (Writer’s Guild of America,

West). Findings indicated that white men represent the majority of people who work on films and television, with women accounting for 28% of television writers and 18% of film writers (Writer’s Guild of America, West). Since 2005, the number of women has plateaued at 25% of overall employed writers in the television and film industries. The

34

Diversity branch of the WGAW does have a Committee of Women Writers to encourage its current members and other women who are pursuing writing or working as writers in the entertainment industry. This initiative demonstrates active support for women writers, and shows that the WGAW is concerned about diversity issues within its guild.

The Society of Motion Picture Film Editors formed in 1937, with membership totaling 571 men and women (Motion Picture Editors Guild). In 1944, the Society became the Motion Pictures Editors Guild. As the case with other guilds and associations in the entertainment industry, the invention and popularity of television required more editors and therefore added people to the Guild. In 1980, Bea Dennis became the first female president of the Guild, and other women have become executives since. In 1992, current Assistant Executive Director Cathy Repola joined the Guild’s staff. Five years later, Administrative Director Lisa Dosch launched and managed the Guild’s website. In

2002, Lisa Churgin was elected president of the Motion Pictures Editors Guild (Motion

Pictures Editors Guild).

Since the Hollywood entertainment industry’s inception, women have been active in the editing process. Burman and Kunkes (2007) interviewed Mary Steward, who was in the Society of Motion Picture Film Editors in 1937. She cut negatives, did library work and was an editorial assistant. She commented that, during the 1930s, women in the editing field were supposed to take direction from male colleagues, and “that professional women were openly admonished not to take jobs away from men with families.” In the same article, 1930s editor Elmo Williams admitted that women were very capable at their editing jobs and were talented at the detailed and organizational aspects of the job.

35

Almo (2006) highlighted the work of several female editors throughout the history of film. She remarked on how women once edited everything, regardless of the film genre or subject matter. A string of women editors have had solid working relationships with successful and acclaimed directors throughout American film history.

These partnerships have produced some big movies, including action films, blockbusters, and stereotypically male-oriented feature films. For example, Thelma Schoonmaker has edited all of director Martin Scorsese’s films from Raging Bull (1980) onward (The

Internet Movie Database). Their collaborations have earned her three Academy Awards for Best Editing (Raging Bull, The Aviator, and The Departed), and an additional two nominations (Goodfellas and Gangs of New York).

The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC), one of the earlier film associations, originated in 1919 as “committed to educating aspiring filmmakers and others about the art and craft of cinematography” (American Society of

Cinematographers). Membership in this Society is by invitation only and almost all members are male, based on the names provided on the Society’s current roster, and available on its website. Though the ASC website has no search engine, as of August 3,

2010, no results were found when the words “women,” “woman,” “minority,” or

“female” were entered in the ASC magazine search engine.

In 1953, 30 costume designers for the film industry formed the Costume

Designers Guild. Now, the Guild represents approximately 750 designers who work on films, television and commercials (Costume Designers Guild). Based on Hall of Fame and Career Achievement awards listed on the Guild’s website, one can infer that women

36 are not only well represented as members, but have achieved great recognition for their costume designs.

Summary of Literature Review

This literature review covered merely a fraction of the available information on the history of women in the film industry, studies about women who work on or in film, glass ceiling issues and women in the workplace, the importance of awards and other forms of recognition, and film industry guilds and associations. While these topics may seem like hugely different areas of study, they collectively drive this content analysis.

Because a study of this nature has not been conducted before, one needs to draw from other areas of academia to build the foundation for a gender analysis of Academy Award nominees and winners. To better understand the value of this study, it helps to have some insight into the history of the film industry, gender issues in the workplace, and why awards are important in society. With this necessary background laid out, one can now build on its foundation to ultimately focus on the trends of the gender of Academy Award nominees and winners in categories where women and men are in direct competition.

Research Questions

RQ1: What are the overall percentages of female, male and other nominees and winners for each Academy Awards ceremony?

a.) What are the overall percentages of female to male and other nominees and winners for the entire span of the Academy Awards (i.e. from the 1929 presentation through the February 2011 ceremony)?

37

RQ2: During what decades (or other extended periods of time) did women receive the highest number of nominations or awards?

RQ3: What Academy Award categories have nominees or winners who are skewed toward one gender more than the other?

a.) What categories, if any, are gender-neutral in terms of their nominees or

winners?

RQ4: Who are the women who have been nominated for the most Academy Awards?

a.) Who are the women receiving the most Academy Awards?

38

CHAPTER THREE: METHOD

A content analysis was conducted of the gender of all persons who were nominated for, and were winners of, Academy Awards in all categories in which women potentially were in direct competition with men.

Definition of Terms

Film Production Occupation refers to position(s) in which one works behind-the-scenes in filmmaking (director, producer, writer, editor, costume designer, sound mixer, etc…).

The occupations for this study will be those that correlate to competitive Academy

Award categories, excluding those involving acting and foreign film.

Gender refers to “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” (Merriam-Webster.com).

Gender Role Associations refers to societal norms that are stereotypically considered appropriate for a specific gender.

Procedure

Lists of the nominations and winners of Academy Awards by year can be found in any number of authorized or unauthorized books and websites about the Academy of

Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. However, for this analysis, the main source used for coding data was 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards by

Robert Osborne (2008). This source is organized so that the year of the Academy Awards coincides with the year that the nominated and winning films were released as opposed to the actual year of the ceremony. For example, the 80th Academy Awards took place on

39

February 24, 2008 (Osborne, 2008, p. 394), but Osborne lists the nominated and winning films under the heading “Nominations 2007” (pp. 80-81).

As Osborne’s book only takes readers through the 80th year of the Awards ceremony, the final three years of information was collected from the Academy of

Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website, www.oscars.org (Cerridwen & Simonton,

2009). For the nominees and winners from 2008 (the 81st year of the Academy Awards, which occurred in 2009), the following link was used: http://www.oscars.org/awards/81academyawards/nominees.html. For the nominees and winners from 2009 (the 82nd year of the Academy Awards, which occurred in 2010), the following link was used: http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html. Finally, for nominees and winners from 2010 (the 83rd year of the Academy Awards, which occurred in 2011), the following link was used: http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/83/nominees.html.

One might ask why www.oscars.org was not used to code all 83 years of information. Although it seems inconvenient to collect data from two different sources, one must consider the following facts. Though we live in an increasingly technology- dependent society, Osborne’s book is a published, hard copy of 80 years worth of

Academy Award information needed for this study that can be referenced by anyone at anytime without the risk of the data changing. Information on websites can be altered at any time, and consistency is a necessity when it comes to content analysis, as it is expected that anyone else could replicate this study. However, Osborne updates his

Official History of the Academy Awards every five years, which means that the next

40 update would be after the 85th Academy Awards in 2013. So, in order to analyze data from the 81st, 82nd, and 83rd years, another source must be used. Because www.oscar.org is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences official website, it must be considered the most reliable web-based source for Academy Award information and data.

Measure

The researcher designed a coding instrument (see Appendix A) that captured the year of the Academy Awards; the category of Award nomination; the number of women, men and other nominations; and the number of women, men and others who received the

Award. The Award category for each year was the unit of analysis. Additionally, the names of women nominees and winners were documented on the coding instrument.

The most recent Academy Awards ceremony (the 2010 Academy Awards, which were held in 2011) had 24 categories in which people were nominated for competitive

Academy Awards. Not including the categories regarding acting, there were 20 categories that could possibly be analyzed for this study. In addition to not including acting categories, the Foreign Film category was excluded in the content analysis, which means only 19 categories from the 2010 Oscars were coded. For Foreign Films, a country is nominated and wins an Oscar, not a person (even though when one watches the

Academy Awards telecast, a person, usually a director or producer, does accept the award on behalf of the winning film).

When one looked at the coding key (see Appendix B), one saw that there were far more than 19 Academy Award categories listed as possibilities for each case number. Not only has the number of Academy Award categories grown from the original 12 used for the first ceremony honoring films released in 1927 and 1928, but also the actual titles of

41 categories have changed over time. Other categories have been added or discontinued over the years as well. Because of these factors, this study combined 80 possible categories (which already excludes the Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting

Actress and Foreign Film categories) into 44 categories (including “other”) that best captured data by which to address the study’s research questions.

One found that while coding for various categories such as picture, documentaries and short subjects during the first several decades of the Academy Awards sometimes film studios, corporations or organizations were listed as nominees instead of individual or groups of people. (Please note that at least one film studio, or whatever organization involved in producing the film, was listed with every nominee in Osborne’s book.

However, in the early years of the Academy Awards, only studios or organizations were listed for some categories.) When this occurred, a film studio or organization would be coded as “Other Nominated” or “Other Winner/s.”

Film studios were run almost exclusively by men during the first half of the 20th

Century. A notable exception to this is that Mary Pickford was one of four co-founders of

United Artists (The Internet Movie Database). However, for this study, when only a film studio or any other organization is nominated, it would fall under the “Other” variables.

However, film studios were not always included as part of the tally on the coding sheet for every case number. Osborne’s book always includes the name of the film studio next to each nominee and winner’s name/s. If there was a person or list of people’s names next to the nominated (and winning) film title, the film studio was not included in the total tally of nominees and winners.

42

For example, in 1928, the nominees (and winner, indicated with an asterisk) for

Outstanding Picture were (Osborne, 2008, p. 21):

The Racket, The Caddo Company, Paramount Famous Lasky

7th Heaven, Fox

*Wings, Paramount Famous Lasky

For this year, the coder would tally that there are three (3) Other Nominated (one “other” nominees each for The Racket, 7th Heaven and Wings) and one (1) Other Winner/s (as only one film studio is listed next to winner Wings). Please note that even though there are two studios listed after The Racket, only the first studio (The Caddo Company) was tallied. Though Osborne’s book listed multiple studios with some of the nominees and winners, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences only recognized one studio per nominated and winning film. The Internet Movie Database as well as Oscars.org only listed one studio per nominee and winner for Best Picture nominees and winners so this study followed suite.

During the 1950s, producers instead of film studios began being nominated for

Best Picture. This tradition continued throughout the most recent years of the Academy

Awards. For example, in 2007, the nominees (and winner, indicated with an asterisk) in

Osborne’s book were listed as follows (2008, p.380):

Atonement, Working Title Production, Focus Features. Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner and

Paul Webster, Producers.

Juno, Mandate Pictures/Mr. Mudd Production, Fox Searchlight. Lianne Halfon, Mason

Novick and Russell Smith, Producers.

43

Michael Clayton, Clayton Productions, LLC Production, Warner Bros. Sydney Pollack,

Jennifer Fox and Kerry Orent, Producers.

*No Country For Old Men, Scott Rudin/Mike Zoss Production, Miramax and

Paramount Vantage. Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Producers.

There Will Be Blood, JoAnne Sellar/Ghoulardi Film Company Production, Paramount

Vantage and Miramax. JoAnne Sellar, Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Lupi,

Producers.

For 2007, the coder tallied a “3” under Women Nominated (one each for Juno,

Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood), 12 under Men Nominated (three for

Atonement, two for Juno, two for Michael Clayton, three for No Country For Old Men, and two for There Will Be Blood), and left the Other Nominated variable blank. Because the winning film had three male producers, the coder wrote “3” in the column labeled

Men Winner/s.

Because some names could be interpreted as gender neutral (such as the above

“Kerry Orent” from Michael Clayton), the Internet Movie Database was used to gather information about people in the film industry (Skilton, 2008; Holbrook & Addis, 2008) or a general search on a search engine such as Google was conducted (Cerridwen &

Simonton, 2009).

Variables for the Names of Women Nominees and Names of Women Winner/s, respectively, were used to track the names of female nominees and winners throughout the entire history of the Academy Awards in order to determine if there were trends in female nominees and winners.

44

Inter-coder reliability was tested by having an independent coder fill out coding sheets for two years of every decade of the Academy Awards (eighteen years of information, totaling 301 out of a possible 1,471 case numbers, or 20.4% of the entire population). Of the eleven variables used in this study, all but five resulted in 100% reliability between the independent coder and the researcher. However, the remaining five variables all achieved reliability percentages above 95% (Variable 3: Category =

98.60%, Variable 4: Women Nominated = 96.07%, Variable 5: Men Nominated =

95.42%, Variable 8: Men Winner/s = 99.34%, and Variable 10: Name(s) of Women

Nominees = 96.07%). Intercoder reliability, based on percentage of agreement, was

98.69% for the study.

45

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

A total of 83 Academy Awards ceremonies and 1,471 total categories of nominees and winners were coded. Excluding all acting and foreign film categories,

1,101 women were nominated for Academy Awards, compared with 9,580 men nominees and 644 other (i.e. film studios or other organizations) nominees for a grand total of

11,325 Academy Award nominations. Of the 2,357 Academy Award winners, 226 were women, 2,017 were men, and 114 were other. At least one woman was nominated for an

Academy Award at almost every ceremony, with the exceptions being the first (1927) and fourth (1931) events (see Table 1 on the next page).

RQ1: What are the overall percentages of female, male and other nominees and winners for each Academy Awards ceremony?

a.) What are the overall percentages of female to male and other nominees and winners for the entire span of the Academy Awards (i.e. from the very first 1929 presentation through the February 2011 ceremony)?

Until the ceremony honoring films released in 1950, the number of women annually nominated for Academy Awards remained in the single digits. However, at the ceremonies honoring films from 1981 through the present, women have always been nominated in the double digits, with no fewer than 20 women nominations per year since the Academy Awards that honored films released in 1994. The most women ever nominated for a single ceremony was for films released in 1994. Of the 36 women nominated, 8 earned Academy Awards for their work in cinema. The Academy Awards

46 ceremony honoring films released in 2007 had the most women winners, with 10 women taking home statues.

In addition to being able to compare how many women and men were nominated for or received Academy Awards per ceremony, Table 1 also indicates the percentage of women nominees who also won the Academy Award. These totals show that there has not been a consistent trend in the number of women nominees who also won the award.

One will notice that the total number of women and men nominees and total number of women and men winners may not total the total nominees and total winners, respectively.

Other nominees and other winners were not included in the table, as the comparisons are only between women and men nominees and winners, but other nominees and other winners were included in the total nominees and total winners.

Table 1

Percentages of Women and Men Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Ceremony Release Women Men Women Men Percentage Year of Total Nominees Nominees Total Winners Winners of Women Film Noms (% Total (% Total Winners (% Total (% Total Nominees Nominees (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Who Won 1928 29 0 (0%) 23 (79%) 10 0 (0%) 8 (80%) n/a

1929 27 2 (7%) 20 (74%) 5 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 0%

1930 34 1 (3%) 28 (82%) 7 1 (14%) 5 (71%) 100%

1931 42 0 (0%) 33 (79%) 7 0 (0%) 5 (71%) n/a

1932 40 3 (7%) 22 (55%) 10 1 (10%) 7 (70%) 33%

1933 63 3 (5%) 45 (71%) 19 1 (5%) 16 (84%) 33%

1934 75 2 (3%) 48 (64%) 19 0 (0%) 16 (84%) 0%

1935 92 3 (3%) 62 (67%) 20 0 (0%) 16 (80%) 0%

47

Table 1: continued

Percentages of Women and Men Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Ceremony Release Women Men Women Men Percentage Year of Total Nominees Nominees Total Winners Winners of Women Film Noms (% Total (% Total Winners (% Total (% Total Nominees Nominees (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Who Won 1936 112 4 (3%) 77 (69%) 21 1 (5%) 15 (71%) 25%

1937 138 2 (1%) 94 (68%) 22 0 (0%) 17 (77%) 0%

1938 138 5 (4%) 106 (77%) 19 1 (5%) 14 (74%) 20%

1939 147 4 (3%) 113 (77%) 24 0 (0%) 20 (83%) 0%

1940 202 4 (2%) 169 (84%) 25 1 (4%) 20 (80%) 25%

1941 225 2 (1%) 179 (80%) 31 0 (0%) 26 (84%) 0%

1942 247 4 (2%) 195 (79%) 35 1 (3%) 26 (74%) 25%

1943 217 2 (1%) 182 (84%) 32 0 (0%) 28 (88%) 0%

1944 235 5 (2%) 207 (88%) 31 1 (3%) 26 (84%) 20%

1945 215 4 (2%) 189 (88%) 28 0 (0%) 25 (89%) 0%

1946 107 3 (3%) 92 (86%) 29 1 (3%) 25 (86%) 33%

1947 118 3 (3%) 104 (88%) 30 0 (0%) 27 (90%) 0%

1948 116 7 (6%) 98 (84%) 35 3 (9%) 29 (83%) 43%

1949 124 9 (7%) 100 (81%) 35 3 (9%) 27 (77%) 33%

1950 140 10 (7%) 114 (81%) 41 6 (15%) 31 (76%) 60%

1951 151 8 (5%) 135 (89%) 32 2 (6%) 27 (84%) 25%

1952 147 12 (8%) 126 (86%) 31 1 (3%) 28 (90%) 8%

1953 158 9 (6%) 140 (89%) 33 1 (3%) 30 (91%) 11%

1954 147 10 (7%) 127 (86%) 28 1 (4%) 23 (82%) 10%

1955 157 12 (8%) 135 (86%) 34 3 (9%) 28 (82%) 25%

1956 157 9 (6%) 139 (89%) 34 1 (3%) 31 (91%) 11%

1957 110 2 (2%) 103 (94%) 20 0 (0%) 19 (95%) 0%

48

Table 1: continued

Percentages of Women and Men Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Ceremony Release Women Men Women Men Percentage Year of Total Nominees Nominees Total Winners Winners of Women Film Noms (% Total (% Total Winners (% Total (% Total Nominees Nominees (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Who Won 1958 120 4 (3%) 109 (91%) 24 1 (4%) 22 (92%) 25%

1959 144 12 (8%) 126 (88%) 34 1 (3%) 32 (94%) 8%

1960 140 12 (9%) 117 (84%) 32 2 (6%) 28 (88%) 17%

1961 140 4 (3%) 123 (88%) 32 1 (3%) 27 (84%) 25%

1962 136 12 (9%) 118 (87%) 32 4 (13%) 27 (84%) 33%

1963 160 11 (7%) 143 (89%) 35 2 (6%) 32 (91%) 18%

1964 152 7 (5%) 138 (91%) 31 1 (3%) 29 (94%) 14%

1965 152 8 (5%) 135 (89%) 31 2 (6%) 27 (87%) 25%

1966 143 9 (6%) 128 (90%) 34 4 (12%) 29 (85%) 44%

1967 111 3 (3%) 103 (93%) 22 0 (0%) 21 (95%) 0%

1968 108 5 (5%) 97 (90%) 22 1 (5%) 20 (91%) 20%

1969 122 10 (8%) 111 (91%) 26 2 (7%) 24 (93%) 20%

1970 129 10 (8%) 119 (92%) 25 0 (0%) 25 (100%) 0%

1971 124 5 (4%) 119 (96%) 27 1 (4%) 26 (96%) 20%

1972 112 7 (6%) 105 (94%) 25 2 (8%) 23 (92%) 29%

1973 114 10 (8%) 104 (92%) 24 3 (13%) 21 (87%) 30%

1974 131 12 (9%) 119 (91%) 29 1 (3%) 28 (97%) 8%

1975 131 12 (9%) 119 (91%) 27 4 (15%) 23 (85%) 33%

1976 121 16 (13%) 105 (87%) 24 4 (17%) 20 (83%) 25%

1977 142 13 (9%) 129 (91%) 33 2 (6%) 31 (94%) 15%

1978 120 11 (9%) 109 (91%) 24 3 (13%) 23 (87%) 27%

1979 165 12 (7%) 153 (93%) 29 1 (3%) 28 (97%) 8%

49

Table 1: continued

Percentages of Women and Men Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Ceremony Release Women Men Women Men Percentage Year of Total Nominees Nominees Total Winners Winners of Women Film Noms (% Total (% Total Winners (% Total (% Total Nominees Nominees (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Who Won 1980 112 8 (7%) 104 (93%) 21 1 (5%) 21 (95%) 13%

1981 121 16 (13%) 105 (87%) 30 3 (10%) 27 (90%) 18%

1982 143 18 (13%) 125 (87%) 35 5 (14%) 30 (86%) 28%

1983 132 20 (15%) 112 (85%) 29 6 (21%) 23 (79%) 30%

1984 142 16 (11%) 126 (89%) 28 2 (7%) 26 (93%) 13%

1985 152 19 (13%) 133 (87%) 31 6 (19%) 25 (81%) 32%

1986 137 22 (16%) 115 (84%) 32 6 (19%) 26 (81%) 27%

1987 131 20 (15%) 111 (85%) 31 5 (16%) 26 (84%) 5%

1988 138 26 (19%) 112 (81%) 33 2 (6%) 31 (94%) 8%

1989 133 14 (11%) 119 (89%) 33 3 (9%) 30 (91%) 21%

1990 121 18 (15%) 103 (85%) 25 3 (12%) 22 (88%) 17%

1991 140 22 (16%) 118 (84%) 33 5 (15%) 28 (85%) 23%

1992 136 26 (19%) 110 (81%) 31 7 (23%) 24 (77%) 27%

1993 151 30 (20%) 121 (80%) 32 7 (22%) 25 (78%) 23%

1994 149 36 (24%) 113 (76%) 36 8 (22%) 28 (78%) 22%

1995 160 21 (13%) 139 (87%) 34 4 (12%) 30 (88%) 19%

1996 142 22 (15%) 120 (85%) 32 4 (13%) 28 (87%) 18%

1997 152 27 (18%) 125 (82%) 37 4 (11%) 33 (89%) 15%

1998 153 30 (20%) 123 (80%) 34 5 (18%) 29 (82%) 17%

1999 140 26 (19%) 114 (81%) 30 5 (17%) 25 (83%) 19%

2000 144 26 (18%) 118 (82%) 27 4 (15%) 23 (85%) 15%

2001 151 32 (21%) 120 (79%) 32 6 (19%) 26 (81%) 19%

50

Table 1: continued

Percentages of Women and Men Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Ceremony Release Women Men Women Men Percentage Year of Total Nominees Nominees Total Winners Winners of Women Film Noms (% Total (% Total Winners (% Total (% Total Nominees Nominees (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Who Won 2002 151 20 (13%) 131 (87%) 33 3 (9%) 30 (91%) 15%

2003 149 33 (22%) 116 (78%) 37 8 (22%) 29 (78%) 24%

2004 153 25 (16%) 128 (84%) 35 6 (17%) 29 (83%) 24%

2005 142 30 (21%) 112 (79%) 37 7 (19%) 30 (81%) 23%

2006 160 30 (19%) 130 (81%) 28 7 (25%) 21 (75%) 23%

2007 154 34 (22%) 120 (78%) 35 10 (29%) 25 (71%) 29%

2008 149 20 (13%) 129 (87%) 27 1 (4%) 26 (96%) 5%

2009 174 32 (18%) 142 (82%) 35 6 (17%) 29 (83%) 19%

2010 185 33 (18%) 152 (82%) 33 5 (15%) 28 (85%) 15%

Total 11325 1101 9580 2357 226 2017 21% (10%) (85%) (10%) (86%)

RQ2: During what decades (or other extended periods of time) did women receive the highest number of nominations or awards?

Each decade of the Academy Awards showed an increasing presence of women being nominated for or winning Oscars (see Table 2 on next page). The percentage of women winners when compared to men/other winners has also increased every decade, except for the 2010s. However, it is important to note that even though the 2010s are only at 15% women of the total number of winners, only one Academy Awards ceremony has taken place so far during this decade.

51

Table 2

Percentages of Academy Award Nominees and Winners by Gender by Decade Decade Women Men Women Men Percentage Release Total Nominees Nominees Total Winners Winners of Women of Films Nominees (% Total (% Total Winners (% Total (% Total Nominees Honored (100%) Nominees) Nominees) (100%) Wins) Wins) Who Won 1920s 56 2 43 15 0 12 0% (4%) (77%) (0%) (80%)

1930s 881 27 628 168 5 131 19% (3%) (71%) (3%) (78%)

1940s 1806 43 1515 311 10 259 23% (2%) (84%) (3%) (83%)

1950s 1431 88 1254 311 17 271 19% (6%) (88%) (5%) (87%)

1960s 1364 81 1213 297 19 264 23% (6%) (89%) (6%) (89%)

1970s 1289 108 1181 269 21 248 19% (8%) (92%) (8%) (92%)

1980s 1341 179 1162 303 39 264 22% (13%) (87%) (13%) (87%)

1990s 1444 258 1186 324 52 272 20% (18%) (82%) (16%) (84%)

2000s 1528 282 1246 326 58 268 21% (18%) (82%) (18%) (82%)

2010s 185 33 152 33 5 28 15% (18%) (82%) (15%) (85%)

Total 11325 1101 9580 2357 226 2017 21% (10%) (85%) (10%) (86%)

Looking at the numbers of women nominees per decade, there is a mostly increasing trend. There was an increase of 16 women nominated for films released in the

1930s to the 1940s (27 to 43), but then the ceremonies honoring films released in the

1950s were double the number of women nominated in the 1940s. The ceremonies honoring films released in the 1960s were the exception to this trend of increasing

52 women nominees, as there were seven fewer nominees in the 1960s (81) then the 1950s

(88). For the Academy Awards honoring films of the 1970s, women nominees grew and the increasing trend began again. The greatest increase in women nominees occurred for films of the 1980s, and then again for films of the 1990s. Each of these decades had nearly 70 more women nominees than did the prior decade. And, although the number of women nominees continued to increase for films honored by the Academy in the 2000s

(282), there was only a difference of 24 women nominated from the ceremonies honoring films of the 1990s.

The number of women who won Academy Awards also increased for films released during the 1930s through the 2000s. For films released in the 1930s, only five women won Academy Awards, whereas that number doubled during for the next decade’s ceremonies. Though there was a spike in the number of women nominated for films released in the 1950s (17 women total), the next couple of decades showed only an increase of two women winners per decade. One should note that even though there was a decline in women nominees for films released in the 1960s, the number of women receiving awards continued to increase.

The sharpest increase of women winners came during the Academy Award ceremonies honoring films released in the 1980s, with 18 more women winners than the ceremonies from the 1970s. Though ceremonies from the 1990s and 2000s also showed an increase of women winners from the prior decade’s totals (52 winners from ceremonies honoring films of the 1990s and 58 winners from ceremonies honoring films of the 2000s), the rate at which they increased actually declined.

53

Though the number of women nominated for and winning Academy Awards per decade has increased, the percentage of women nominees who won Academy Awards has declined. In the 1940s and 1960s, 23% of women who were nominated for Academy

Awards during those decades also took home the award. Since then, the percentage of women nominees who were also winners has fluctuated, mostly between 19% and 22%.

For this study, gender was coded for the nominees and winners of Academy

Awards in all categories excluding those regarding acting and foreign films. While there have never been more than 22 categories that fit into this criteria for any one Academy

Awards ceremony, categories themselves have evolved over the history of the ceremony.

For this study, all possible category titles were sorted into 44 broader categories (for complete list of all categories, see the Coding Key in Appendix B).

RQ3: What Academy Award categories have nominees or winners who are skewed toward one gender more than the other?

a.) What categories, if any, are gender-neutral in terms of their nominees or

winners?

Table 3 (see next page) lists the number of Academy Award nominees and winners per gender per category, as well as the percentage of women nominees who also won for that category. Women have never been nominated (and therefore never won) in the categories of Title Writing, Cinematography, Original Dramatic Score, Scoring, Score of a Musical Picture – Original or Adaptation, various Short Subjects (Color, One-Reel,

Two-Reel, and Novelty), Special Visual Effects, Sound Effects, Assistant Director,

54

Dance Direction, Engineering Effects, Unique and Artistic Picture, and Special Effects.

One should note that three of these categories (Title Writing, Engineering Effects, and

Unique and Artistic Picture) only existed during one Academy Award ceremony.

Table 3

Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Category Times Women % of Category Women Men Winners Men Women Used at Total Noms Noms Total (% Winners Noms Academy Noms (% Total (% Total Winners Total (% Total Who Category Awards (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Won 1. Picture 83 689 56 456 121 7 91 13% (8%) (66%) (6%) (75%)

2. Directing 84 413 4 409 86 1 85 25% (1%) (99%) (1%) (99%)

3. Writing – 60 437 42 395 76 7 69 17% Adaptation (10%) (90%) (9%) (91%)

4. Writing – 64 532 44 488 94 7 87 16% Original (8%) (92%) (7%) (93%)

5. Screenplay 21 179 19 160 35 1 34 5% (11%) (89%) (3%) (97%)

6. Story and 7 61 8 53 12 1 11 13% Screenplay (13%) (87%) (8%) (92%)

7. Motion 26 175 17 158 36 3 33 18% Picture Story (10%) (90%) (8%) (92%)

8. Writing 2 13 3 10 2 1 1 33% (23%) (77%) (50%) (50%)

9. Title 1 3 0 3 1 0 1 n/a Writing (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

10. Art 108 1425 129 1296 283 18 265 14% Direction (9%) (91%) (6%) (94%)

11. Cinema- 110 609 0 609 123 0 123 n/a tography (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

12. Costume 80 465 254 211 103 58 45 23% Design (55%) (45%) (56%) (44%)

55

Table 3: continued

Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Category Times Women % of Category Women Men Winners Men Women Used at Total Noms Noms Total (% Winners Noms Academy Noms (% Total (% Total Winners Total (% Total Who Category Awards (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Won 13. Film 77 494 69 425 102 13 89 19% Editing (14%) (86%) (13%) (87%)

14. Make Up 29 174 54 120 61 19 42 35% (31%) (69%) (31%) (69%)

15. Music – 77 825 75 750 145 12 133 16% Song (9%) (91%) (8%) (92%)

16. Music – 42 258 2 256 48 0 48 0% Score (1%) (99%) (0%) (100%)

17. Music – 9 52 1 51 12 1 11 100% Adaptation (2%) (98%) (8%) (92%) Scoring

18. Original 4 26 3 23 5 2 3 67% Music or (12%) (88%) (40%) (60%) Comedy Score

19. Original 9 65 0 65 12 0 12 n/a Dramatic (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%) Score

20. Scoring 8 96 0 71 15 0 11 n/a (0%) (74%) (0%) (73%)

21. Original 21 175 1 174 21 0 21 0% Score for a (1%) (99%) (0%) (100%) Motion Picture – Not a Musical

22. Scoring: 10 60 3 57 11 0 11 0% Original Song (5%) (95%) (0%) (100%) Score and/or Adaptation

23. Score of a 22 195 0 195 39 0 39 n/a Musical (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%) Picture – Original or Adaptation

56

Table 3: continued

Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Category Times Women % of Category Women Men Winners Men Women Used at Total Noms Noms Total (% Winners Noms Academy Noms (% Total (% Total Winners Total (% Total Who Category Awards (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Won 24. Sound 27 147 7 140 44 3 41 43% Editing (5%) (95%) (7%) (93%)

25. Sound 81 1209 12 945 223 1 181 8% (1%) (78%) (0%) (81%)

26. Visual 30 358 2 356 121 1 120 50% Effects (1%) (99%) (1%) (99%)

27. Short 79 399 31 345 93 11 80 35% Films – (8%) (86%) (12%) (86%) Animated

28. Short 54 342 67 270 77 15 61 22% Films – Live (20%) (79%) (19%) (79%) Action

29. Short 2 6 0 2 2 0 1 n/a Subjects – (0%) (33%) (0%) (50%) Color

30. Short 21 91 0 68 22 0 17 n/a Subjects – (0%) (75%) (0%) (77%) One-Reel

31. Short 21 86 0 58 24 0 16 n/a Subjects – (0%) (67%) (0%) (67%) Two-Reel

32. Short 4 12 0 10 4 0 4 n/a Subjects – (0%) (83%) (0%) (100%) Comedy

33. Short 4 13 0 7 5 0 4 n/a Subjects – (0%) (54%) (0%) (80%) Novelty

34. 69 471 101 329 105 15 81 15% Documentary (21%) (70%) (14%) (77%) Feature / Documentary

57

Table 3: continued

Gender of Academy Award Nominees and Winners Per Category Times Women % of Category Women Men Winners Men Women Used at Total Noms Noms Total (% Winners Noms Academy Noms (% Total (% Total Winners Total (% Total Who Category Awards (100%) Noms) Noms) (100%) Wins) Wins) Won 35. 67 414 96 282 95 29 58 30% Documentary (23%) (68%) (31%) (61%) – Short

36. Animated 10 45 1 44 11 0 11 0% Feature Film (2%) (98%) (0%) (100%)

37. Special 8 25 0 25 13 0 13 n/a Visual Effects (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

38. Sound 5 10 0 10 5 0 5 n/a Effects (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

39. Assistant 5 35 0 35 12 0 12 n/a Director (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

40. Dance 3 21 0 21 3 0 3 n/a Direction (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

41. 1 3 0 3 1 0 1 n/a Engineering (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%) Effects

42. Unique 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 n/a and Artistic (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Picture

43. Special 25 214 0 195 53 0 43 n/a Effects (0%) (91%) (0%) (81%)

Total 1471 11325 1101 9580 2357 226 2017 21% (10%) (85%) (10%) (86%)

Of the remaining categories in which women were nominated at least once during the entire span of the Academy Awards, a woman has yet to earn an Oscar in four categories. Those categories are Music – Score, Original Score for a Motion Picture –

58

Not a Musical, Scoring: Original Song Score and/or Adaptation, and Animated Feature

Film.

In 1,471 competitive categories, women have received a total of 1,101 nominations and 226 wins. A total of 254 of those 1,101 nominations (and 58 out of those

226 wins) were from the Costume Design category alone. The Costume Design category is the only category in which women received more nominations and received more awards than did men. Women were nominated for 55% of all Costume Design Academy

Awards and walked away with 56% of the total wins. Because so many women were nominated during the history of the Academy Awards, they often competed against each other. Only 23% of the women who were nominated for Best Costume Design have actually won the award.

Besides Costume Design, the categories with the most women nominees were Art

Direction (129), Documentary Feature (101), Documentary Short (96), Music – Song

(75), Film Editing (69), Short Films – Live Action (67), and Make Up (54). Likewise, these categories resulted in the most wins for women: Documentary Short (29), Make Up

(19), Art Direction (18), Documentary Feature (15), Short Films – Live Action (15), Film

Editing (13) and Music – Song (12).

Because Costume Design was the category in which women experienced the most

Academy Award nominations and wins, it is not surprising that several of the Top

Women Academy Award Nominees (see Table 4 on next page) and Winners (see Table 5 on page 64) are costume designers. Edith Head and Irene Sharaff lead women nominees and winners with Head being nominated 35 times for her work and taking home eight

Academy Awards for Best Costume Design. Sharaff, though tied with composer and

59 songwriter Marilyn Bergman with 16 total Academy Award nominations, has claimed the

Oscar for Best Costume Design 5 times.

RQ4: Who are the women who have been nominated for the most Academy Awards?

a.) Who are the women receiving the most Academy Awards?

In total, 698 different women have been nominated for Academy Awards (534 women had single nominations, while 164 women had from 2 to 35 nominations). Of these 698 women, 185 have won one or more Academy Awards (161 women have one win, while 24 have won multiple awards). Thus, roughly 27% of all women nominated for an Academy Award have received the award in the categories examined in this study.

Table 4

Women with most Academy Award Nominations Women Nominees Times Nominated Category/Categories Edith Head 35 Costume Design

Irene Sharaff 16 Costume Design; Art Direction

Marilyn Bergman 16 Music – Song; Music – Adaptation Scoring

Dorothy Jeakins 12 Costume Design

Anna Behlmer 10 Sound

Helen Rose 10 Costume Design

60

Table 4: continued

Women with most Academy Award Nominations Women Nominees Times Nominated Category/Categories Colleen Atwood 9 Costume Design

Jenny Beavan 9 Costume Design

Sandy Powell 9 Costume Design

Milena Canonero 8 Costume Design

Ve Neill 8 Make Up

Barbara McLean 7 Film Editing

Carole Bayer Sager 7 Music – Song

Francesca Lo Schiavo 7 Art Direction

Mary Wills 7 Costume Design

Margaret Furse 6 Costume Design

Nancy Haigh 6 Art Direction

Faith Hubley 6 Short Films – Animated

Kathleen Kennedy 6 Picture

Thelma Schoonmaker 6 Film Editing

Fran Walsh 6 Picture; Writing – Adaptation; Music – Song

Diane Warren 6 Music – Song

61

Table 4: continued

Women with most Academy Award Nominations Women Nominees Times Nominated Category/Categories Michele Burke 5 Make Up

Cheryl Carasik 5 Art Direction

Renie/Renie Conley 5 Costume Design

Linda DeScenna 5 Art Direction

Julia Heron 5 Art Direction

Freida Lee Mock 5 Documentary – Short

Anne Bauchens 4 Film Editing

Marjorie Best 4 Costume Design

Karen Goodman 4 Documentary – Short

Frances Goodrich 4 Writing – Adaptation; Screenplay

Catherine Martin 4 Art Direction; Costume Design

Stephanie McMillan 4 Art Direction

Jana Sue Memel 4 Short Films – Live Action

Patricia Norris 4 Costume Design

Jeannine Oppewall 4 Art Direction

Janet Patterson 4 Costume Design

62

Table 4: continued

Women with most Academy Award Nominations Women Nominees Times Nominated Category/Categories Ann Roth 4 Costume Design

Dorothy Spencer 4 Film Editing

Yolanda Toussieng 4 Make Up

27 women 3 *

96 women 2 *

534 women 1 *

Total: 698 women 1101

*Note – For purposes of this table, only the categories of the women receiving more than 3 Academy Award nominations are needed for discussion purposes.

63

Table 5

Women with most Academy Award Wins Women Winners Times Won Category/Categories Edith Head 8 Costume Design

Irene Sharaff 5 Costume Design

Colleen Atwood 3 Costume Design

Dorothy Jeakins 3 Costume Design

Fran Walsh 3 Picture; Writing – Adaptation; Music – Song

Marilyn Bergman 3 Music – Song; Music – Adaptation Scoring

Milena Canonero 3 Costume Design

Sandy Powell 3 Costume Design

Thelma Schoonmaker 3 Film Editing

Ve Neill 3 Make Up

Kathryn Bigelow 2 Picture; Director

Michele Burke 2 Make Up

Phyllis Dalton 2 Costume Design

Elizabeth Haffenden 2 Costume Design

Faith Hubley 2 Short Films – Animated

Ruth Prawar Jhabvala 2 Writing – Adaptation

Sarah Kernochan 2 Documentary – Feature

Barbara Kopple 2 Documentary – Feature

Frances Marion 2 Writing; Motion Picture Story

Catherine Martin 2 Art Direction; Costume Design

Jana Sue Memel 2 Short Films – Live Action

Helen Rose 2 Costume Design

64

Table 5: continued

Women with most Academy Award Wins Women Winners Times Won Category/Categories Francesca Lo Schiavo 2 Art Direction

Yolanda Toussieng 2 Make Up

161 women 1 *

Total: 185 women 226

*Note – For purposes of this table, only the categories of the women receiving more than 1 Academy Award win are needed for discussion purposes.

65

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Women nominees have become an increasing presence at the Academy Awards over the past eight decades. From having no women receive nominations at that very first

Academy Awards ceremony honoring films released in 1927 and 1928, to 36 women being nominated for films released in 1994, women in film have shown that their work has been considered among the best in the industry.

Excluding the Academy Awards ceremonies honoring films released in the 1920s and 2010s, because they do not offer complete decades worth of information, the numbers of women nominees and winners from the ceremonies honoring films released in the 1930s through the 2000s are very telling.

The number of women nominees for films released in the 1930s through the

1950s surged, with each decade roughly doubling the number of women nominees from the prior decade. The number of Academy Award categories (excluding categories that were not included for this study) did expand during these decades from 6 to 22. Women were still consistently nominated for various writing awards. Barbara McLean, “one of only eight female editors working in Hollywood in the 1930s” (The Internet Movie

Database), earned seven Academy Award nominations for her work during these decades.

Though at least one category honoring Art Direction had been around since the very first Academy Awards ceremony, women art directors began being recognized for their work for films released in the 1940s. There were eight nominations among four women (Julia Heron, Fay Babcock, Mildred Griffiths, and Carman Dillon) for Art

Direction in films released during the 1940s.

66

Academy Award recognition for Best Costume Design began during the ceremony’s 21st year at the ceremony honoring films released in 1948. This is the only category in which at least one woman was nominated every year. There have been multiple women nominees 74 of the 80 times this category has been included at the

Academy Awards through the 2011 ceremony honoring films released in 2010. Costume

Design categories appeared on Oscar ballots twice from the ceremonies honoring films from 1948 to 1956 and 1959 to 1966, as the Academy Award had separate categories for films shot in black and white and films shot in color. (Cinematography and Art Direction were split into similar double categories from 1940 to 1956 and from 1959 to 1966.) The doubling of categories, especially for Costume Design, directly resulted in an increase of women being nominated for Academy Awards.

In Table 1, one will notice that the Academy Awards ceremonies honoring films released from 1992 to 1994 featured a noticeable increase in female nominees and winners. Though this coincides with 1992 being declared “The Year of the Woman,” after a number of first-term women were elected into Congress and the female vote aided

Bill Clinton into the White House (International Museum of Women), the film industry was still being widely publicized for its lack of quality roles for women (James, 1993).

Ironically, the theme of the 65th Academy Awards, honoring films released in 1992, was

“Women and the Movies” (James, 1993). While women in the movies were stuck playing

“sex kittens, psychos or both,” women who worked on films seemed to benefit from the country’s newfound sense of female empowerment (Seigel, 1993).

Political and social themes are worked into films of the present time period

(Media Network Awareness). However, because a film takes time to produce and

67 distribute, it becomes a historical document instead of an exact “mirror of society”

(Haskell, 1973, p. 815). This might explain why there was a three-year increase of women nominees and winners from 1992 to 1994.

It is encouraging to see this trend of more women being nominated for and winning Academy Awards. But, it was not just the number of women being nominated and winners of Academy Awards during the past several decades that was impressive; it was the number of categories that included female nominees.

During the first seven Academy Award ceremonies, the only categories in which women were nominees were those that involved writing. This very much reflected how women working in the film industry in the late 1920s and early 1930s held mostly writing positions. However, at the 2011 Academy Awards ceremony, honoring films released in

2010, women were nominated in 13 of the 19 categories analyzed for this study, including Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound, Art Direction, and Documentary –

Feature.

Although men dominate Academy Award nominations and wins in every category except Costume Design, women have become better represented in many categories that are stereotypically considered to be more masculine film crew positions. For example, even though only four women have ever been nominated for Best Director, three of those women were nominated in the last 20 years. Women have been nominated for producing various Best Picture nominees at 26 of the last 30 Academy Awards ceremonies. And, following trends from the inceptions of their respective categories, women are still nominated (and winning) Oscars for their screenplays and costume designs.

68

Though women still have yet to be nominated for Best Cinematography, that trend is not likely to change until there are physically more high profile women cinematographers. Men have dominated that film crew position since the beginning of the film industry. Camera equipment has become more manageable with regard to weight and mobility (so there are no physical limitations, as there may have been toward the beginning of the film industry), and there are women working as cinematographers. But, for some reason, women cinematographers have not been hired to shoot the kinds of prestige pictures that have been nominated for Academy Awards.

Women are working in all facets of the film industry, and they have been since the beginning of the 20th Century. But their presence has not always been represented at the Academy Awards because of the kinds of pictures on which women work (Lauzen,

2007). And, though this has slowly changed over the past eight decades, more men than women still work in the film industry. This discrepancy, along with the continuing trend of men getting hired onto prestige pictures because of prior achievements and successes, will continue to keep the number of women Academy Award nominees and winners under that of their male counterparts.

But, despite the numbers, women have had successes in the film industry. Their work has earned them Academy Award nominations and wins, cementing them as among the “Best” in their respective fields. And, if current trends continue, more women will achieve these same honors in the future.

It is important to note that because this study was only analyzing Academy Award nominations and wins in categories excluding those regarding acting and foreign film, several women were left out of the multiple nominee and win tallies. For example, actress

69

Emma Thompson is a five-time Academy Award nominee (three times for Best Actress, once for Best Supporting Actress, and once for Best Writing – Screenplay Based on

Material for Another Medium) and two-time winner (once for Best Actress and once for

Best Writing – Screenplay Based on Material for Another Medium) (The Internet Movie

Database). But, for this study, she was only considered a one-time nominee and one-time winner because only her nomination and win for Best Writing – Screenplay Based on

Material for Another Medium was included in the analyzed categories. Barbra Streisand is also a five-time nominee and two-time winner, but her two nominations and one win for Best Actress make her a three-time nominee and one-time winner for purposes of this study. Actress Shirley MacLaine appears to be a one-time Academy Award nominee for

Best Documentary Feature. In reality, she had five additional Academy Award nominations and one win for Best Actress (The Internet Movie Database). But, because acting categories were omitted from this study, these acclaimed women unfortunately have been underrepresented in the results of this study.

70

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION

Women’s involvement in the film industry has fluctuated over time. Before the film industry became a huge moneymaking entity (Adams, 1953), women were busy at work behind and in front of the camera (Acker, 1991; Cherneff, 1991; Mahar, 2001;

Mahar 2006). Despite numerous studies about various aspects of the filmmaking industry, scholars have conceded that studies have not fully addressed women’s representation and recognition, or lack thereof, in film production (Sobchack, 1980;

Mayne, 1985; Hallett, 2007; Hankin, 2007; McLean, 2009). Though this study chose only to focus on gender and direct competition between men, women, and other contenders

(i.e. film studios and other organizations) at the Academy Awards, others argue that hegemonic studies should address sex roles in addition to gender roles, and include homosexuals and transsexuals (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Besides examining gender, other attributes such as race, class and ethnicity are also important variables to include in this type of study (Hawkesworth, 1997; Acker, 2006). The cinematic arts, though considered a topic less academic than the sciences (Bottomore, 1994), are an important part of American history and culture, and deserve the examination of scholarly and critical eyes. Film studies are relevant (Sobchack, 1980; Hallett, 2007), regardless if some historians or scholars think otherwise. Film production has played a major part in

American and film history for more than a century. However, there is a lack of scholarly research examining recognition women have received for their work in film production.

This study analyzed if there is was gender discrepancy when it comes to the number of women, men and others who have been nominees for and winners of Academy

Awards in all competitive categories, excluding those regarding acting and foreign films.

71

Every category from the entire history of the Academy Awards ceremonies honoring films released from 1927 to 2010 was coded by year, gender of nominees and winners, and names of women nominees and winners.

This content analysis showed a large discrepancy between the number of women and men nominated for and receiving Academy Awards, as women were only represented as 10% of the overall nominees and winners. Though one reason for this discrepancy is because there are physically more men than women working in the film industry during the past century, another reason could be that the kinds of movies for which women are hired are not those sufficiently prestigious for Academy Award nomination. Women have been pigeonholed into mostly working on documentaries or romantic comedies (Lauzen, 2007); and, while documentaries made by women are represented at the Academy Awards, romantic comedies are frequently not among films generating nominees or winners of Academy Awards.

Even though there have been fewer women Academy Award nominees and winners than men, women have been represented at least once in most Academy Award categories over the course of the ceremony’s history. But, there are categories in which women have never been recognized. Several of these categories are now nonexistent so, unless they reappear in future Academy Award ceremonies, women have no chance to ever receive recognition for Title Writing, Original Dramatic Score, Scoring, Score of a

Musical Picture – Original or Adaptation, Short Subjects - Color, Short Subjects - One-

Reel, Short Subjects - Two-Reel, Short Subjects - Novelty, Special Visual Effects, Sound

Effects, Assistant Director, Dance Direction, Engineering Effects, Unique and Artistic

Picture, and Special Effects in the future. However, the one other category in which

72 women have never received Academy Award nominations – Cinematography – is still featured at the yearly ceremony. There are women cinematographers working in the film industry, but that field’s numbers are still dominated by men (Lauzen, 2003; Lauzen

2007) leaving little reason to predict that women cinematographers will be nominated for or win an Academy Award. Still, women being nominated for this award cannot be ruled out completely, either. Best Director used to be an entirely male-dominated category, but

Lina Wertmuller’s nomination for Best Director in 1977 for the ceremony honoring films released in 1976 was only the first of several more women nominations to come in that category. Kathryn Bigelow’s win for Best Director during the 2010 ceremony may not have completely shattered the glass ceiling in that category, but it certainly made a noticeable crack.

This study found that there has been an overall increase of women Academy

Award nominees and winners throughout the course of the Academy’s 83-year history, even though the actual number of women nominees and winners per year has not always remained consistent or increased. Reasons for the overall increase were related to an increase in categories, the variety of film crew positions that are recognized by the

Academy, and an increase of women working in the film industry.

Women have never represented more than 24% of any given year’s total

Academy Award nominations, nor have they ever won more than 29% of any year’s awards. And, with the exception of Costume Design, men still dominate the number of nominations and wins for every Academy Award category. However, these numbers should not discourage women in the film industry who seek Academy Award recognition. Women represent 10% of all nominees and 10% of all winners, which means

73 that even though women are not being nominated for a majority of Academy Awards, they are still earning a proportionate amount of Oscars. Though men have been nominated for and won far more Academy Awards than have women, these numbers do not predict future Academy Award results.

However, in order for women in the film industry to get recognized by the

Academy, they need to get hired to work on the kinds of films that earn nominations, do the kind of work that would earn them a personal nomination, and then be considered the best in that category of that year. If women are not given the opportunity to work on

Academy Award-caliber films to begin with, they will never have the chance to earn nominations or win the Oscar. This situation is a classic Catch-22: women are not being hired because they lack the experience, yet in order to gain experience within the film industry, they need to be hired on projects (Skilton, 2008). It is this kind of cycle that will continue to exclude women from getting the opportunity to be hired on Academy Award- worthy film productions.

In addition to getting hired for projects that have the potential to earn Academy

Award recognition, one also needs to be chosen by members of the Academy as a worthy nominee. The current Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is comprised of more than 6,000 members representing 15 different artistic areas; “actors, animators and short film makers, art directors and costume designers, cinematographers, composers and songwriters, documentary filmmakers, directors, executives, film editors, makeup artists and hairstylists, producers, public relations specialists, sound artists and engineers, visual effects experts and writers” (The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences).

Nominees are selected by members representing each specific categories (i.e. directors

74 nominate other directors, writers nominate other writers, and so on) except for Best

Picture; every Academy member has the opportunity to participate in Best Picture selection (Media Awareness Network).

Admission into the Academy varies by branch, “but they generally include solo credits in at least two critically acclaimed or commercial hit movies and sponsorship by two members” (Media Awareness Network). Oftentimes, if one is nominated for an

Academy Award, he or she is invited to become a member (Media Awareness Network).

Membership in the Academy is not gender-neutral. “Except for the Acting Branch, which has equal numbers of men and women, the AMPAS branches have been male-dominated.

There are only a handful of women in the Directors Branch and some of the technical branches have no female members” (Media Awareness Network). This gender discrepancy of Academy members could be a factor in the overall gender discrepancy of

Academy Award nominees and winners.

However, even though this study ultimately showed there is definite gender discrepancy when it comes to Academy Award nominees and winners, it also presented data illustrating the growing number of females being recognized for their work in cinema through 2010. This increase is impressive if one considers the overall fairly low numbers of women working in the film industry.

In the past decade, Lauzen, from the School of Communications at San Diego

State University, wrote a series of reports called “The Celluloid Ceiling” that gives yearly summaries about women’s roles on and off screen in the film industry. Lauzen’s 2003 report looked at the crews of 211 of the top 250 grossing films of 2002. She found that of these films, women made up 15% of all executive producers, 7% of directors, 20% of

75 editors, 11% of writers, and only 1% of cinematographers. Her 2006 Report of the Top

250 films of 2005 sported similar numbers, with 16% women executive producers, 7% women directors, 21% editors, 10% writers, and 2% cinematographers.

Despite these numbers of women working in the film industry, women have had an increasing presence in film schools over the past few decades (Lauzen & Dozier,

1999). However, even though women film school student numbers are on the rise, exact statistics are not available for the number of women currently enrolled in or graduated from film schools. Though this increasing presence in film school does not guarantee more women will work on feature films that earn nominations for Academy Awards, it at least indicates that more women have an educational background and (likely) practical experience working on the kinds of film crew positions that the Academy recognizes.

An increase in female film school graduates could lead to more women working in the film industry, and potentially more women earning Academy Award nominations and wins for their contributions to prestigious film productions. To continue tracking female Academy Award recognition, this study can be updated after every future

Academy Awards ceremony in order to establish the most up-to-date numbers of women and men nominees and winners. However, since the number and names of categories have changed so much over the Academy Awards’ 83-year history, the possibility exists of new categories being added and established categories disappearing.

Also, this study could be expanded to include information about the genre of films female Academy Award nominees and winners have worked on, in addition to the leading crew members on those films. Perhaps there is a trend of certain nominated and winning women working in specific genres of film (be it period pieces, romantic

76 comedies, etc…) or with the same directors or producers on their Academy recognized films. Patterns of women being nominated for or receiving awards for certain genres of film could indicate if there is a gender discrepancy of the types of films for which women earn recognition. Trends in nominated and winning women’s film crew colleagues could expose specific groups of people who are continually being recognized for their work. It was mentioned earlier that 5 of 6 of Thelma Schoonmaker’s Academy Award nominations and three wins for Best Film Editing were for films on which she worked with director Martin Scorsese (The Internet Movie Database; The Academy of Motion

Pictures Arts and Sciences). There could be other Academy Award nominated and winning women who have similar working relationships with other filmmakers.

In addition to looking at the gender of nominees and winners, one could also code for race or age. With these two variables, the acting categories could be included in the tallies for each year of the awards ceremony. As mentioned in the first chapter, Levy

(2003) called the Academy Awards “the White Man’s Award” (p. 136). By coding for race, one would obtain the numbers to support (or, though highly unlikely, quash) this statement. Lincoln and Allen (2004) studied the age of Academy Award nominated and winning actors and actresses, but it would also be informative to see trends in the ages of the nominees and winners in other categories. This data would be used to see if there are film crew positions where the nominees and winners come from a distinct age-range of people.

Similar studies could examine nominees and winners of other noted and respected film awards ceremonies, such as the Golden Globe Awards, the British Academy of Film and Television Awards, the American Film Institute Awards, the National Society of

77

Film Critics, or the National Board of Review, among others. Though the Academy

Awards are widely regarded as one of the most prestigious film awards (Osborne, 2008;

Nelson & Waldman, 2001; Simonton, 2004; Gledhill, 1940; Levy, 2003; Allen &

Lincoln, 2004), it would be telling to see if the gender of its nominees and winners compare to those of other film awards. Awareness of trends in gender of nominees and winners of various film awards when compared to the Academy Awards would highlight if there is an over-arching gender discrepancy when it comes to who is nominated for and winner of certain categories, or if the Academy Awards are an exception to gender equality in the film industry.

To conclude, this research determined that gender discrepancies exist among those nominated for and receiving of Academy Awards in categories in which women competed directly with men. However, even though there are gender discrepancies when it comes to Academy Award nominees and winners in past ceremonies, there is no definite way to determine whether this discrepancy will continue for future ceremonies.

One could predict that the trend of male dominance in number of nominees and wins will continue, so long as there are more men working in the film industry than women. But, since Academy Award recognition is supposed to be determined by the quality of work done by an individual, or by a team’s collaborative effort, for a motion picture, one could infer that in the future there is a possibility that more women will be working in the film industry; and, therefore, there is the possibility that more women will be nominated for, and potentially become winners of, Academy Awards.

78

WORKS CITED

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.oscars.org/

Acker, A. (1991). Reel Women: Pioneers of the Cinema 1896 to the Present. New York, New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.

Acker, J. (2006, August). Inequality Regimes Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4), 441-464.

Adams, W. B. (1953) A Definition of Motion Picture Research. The Quarterly of Film Radio and Television, 7(4), 408-421.

Allen, M. P. & Lincoln, A. E. (2004, March). Critical Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of American Films. Social Forces, 82(3), 871-893.

AllWords.com. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.allwords.com/

Almo, L. (2006, July-August). Action’s Angels: The Superheroines of the Cutting Room. Editors Guild Magazine, 27(4). Retrieved on August 8, 2010. https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=427

American Society of Cinematographers. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.ascmag.com/index.php

Baker, W. E. & Faulkner, R. R. (1991, September). Role as Resource in the Hollywood Film Industry. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 279-309.

Bergman, B. & Hallberg, L. R.-M. (2002, May). Women in a Male-Dominated Industry: Factor Analysis of a Women Workplace Culture Questionnaire Based on a Grounded Theory Model. Sex Roles, 46(9-10), 311-322.

Bileby, D. D. & Bielby, W. T. (1996, June). Women and Men in Film: Gender Inequality Among Writers in a Culture Industry. Gender & Society, 10(3), 248- 270.

Bottomore, S. (1994, Spring). Out of This World: Theory, Fact and Film History. Film History, 6(1), 7-25.

Burman, J. & Kunkes, M. (2007, May-June). The Great Society: Highlights from the Early Years of the Editors Guild. Editors Guild Magazine, 28(3). Retrieved on August 8, 2010. https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=325

79

Calla, D. (2009, October 7). The Truth About Diversity in Entertainment. Producers Guild of America Diversity. Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.pgadiversity.org/index.php/blog/63-the-truth-about-diversity-in- entertainment

Carroll, N. (1990, Autumn). The Image of Women in Film: A Defense of a Paradigm. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48(4), 349-360.

Cattani, G. & Ferriani, S. (2008, November-December). A Core/Periphery Perspective on Individual Creative Performance: Social Networks and Cinematic Achievements in the Hollywood Film Industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824- 844.

Cerridwen, A. & Simonton, D. K. (2009, November). Sex Doesn’t Sell—Nor Impress! Content, Box Office, Critics, and Awards in Mainstream Cinema. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(4), 200-210.

Chapman University (2010, April 24) Chapman University Presents Women in Focus Conference. Producers Guild of America Diversity. Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.pgadiversity.org/index.php/in-the-news/15-on-the-set/132-chapman- university-presents-women-in-focus-conference

Cherneff, J. B. R. (1991, Winter). Dreams Are Made like This: Hortense Powdermaker and the Hollywood Film Industry. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(4), 429-440.

Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005, December). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859.

Costume Designers Guild. (2010). Retrieved on August 8, 2010. http://www.costumedesignersguild.com/

Dargis, M. (2010, March 14). How Oscar Found Ms. Right. The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/movies/14dargis.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ho w%20Oscar%2 0Found%20Ms.%20Right&st=cse

Dawes, A. (2006, Fall). DGA Roundtables: Female Directors. DGA Quarterly, 2(3). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Fall2006/DGARoundtableFemaleDir ectors.aspx

Directors Guild of America. (2010). Retrieved on August 8, 2010. http://www.dga.org/index2.php3

80

English, J. F. (2002, Winter). Winning the Culture Game: Prizes, Awards, and the Rules of Art. New Literary History, 33(1), 109-135.

Fisk, D. M. (2003, January 30). American Labor in the 20th Century. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar02p1.htm

Gaines, J. M. (2004, Autumn). Film History and the Two Presents of Feminist Film Theory. Cinema Journal, 44(1), 113-119.

Gledhill, D. (1940, January). The Motion Picture Academy, A Coöperative in Hollywood. Journal of Educational Sociology, 13(5), 268-273.

Hallett, H. (2007, December 17) Getting the Picture Right: Women in Early Hollywood. Reviews in American History, 35(4), 622-629.

Hankin, K. (2007, April 6). And Introducing. . . The Female Director: Documentaries about Women Filmmakers as Feminist Activism. NWSA Journal, 19(1), 59-88.

Haskell, M. (1973). Movies 1973. The Massachusetts Review, 14(4), 815-833.

Hastie, A. (2006, April 26). The Miscellany of Film History. Film History: An International Journal, 18(2), 222-230.

Hawkesworth, M. (1997, Spring). Confounding Gender. Signs, 22(3), 649-685.

Hearn, J. (2004, April). From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men. Feminist Theory, 5(1), 49-72.

Herman, J. (1995). A Talent For Trouble: The Life Of Hollywood's Most Acclaimed Director, William Wyler. New York, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Holbrook, M. B. & Addis, M. (2008, June). Art versus commerce in the movie industry: a Two-Path Model of Motion-Picture Success. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32(2), 87 – 107.

Holmlund, C. (2005, March 2). Postfeminism from A to G. Cinema Journal, 44(2),116- 121.

Huffman, M. L. & Cohen, P. N. (2004, March). Occupational Segregation and the Gender Gap in Workplace Authority: National versus Local Labor Markets. Sociological Forum, 19(1), 121-147.

81

Hunt, D. M. (2009, May). The 2009 Hollywood Writers Report. Writers Guild of America, West. Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/who_we_are/hwr09execsum.pdf

Hurd, M. G. (2007). Women Directors and their Films. West Port, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

International Museum of Women. (2011). The Year of the Woman – Then and Now: Women in U.S. Politics in 1992 and 2008. International Museum of Women. Retrieved May 25, 2011. http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyId=1684

The Internet Movie Database. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.imdb.com/

James, C. (1993, January 10). FILM VIEW; The Year of the Woman? Not in the Movies. The New York Times. Retrieved on May 25, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/10/movies/film-view-the-year-of-the-woman- not-in-movies.html?src=pm

Lauzen, M. M. (2003). The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women in the Top 250 Films of 2002. Movies By Women. Retrieved on April 2, 2011 from http://www.moviesbywomen.com/stats_celluloid_ceiling_2003.php

Lauzen, M. M. (2007). The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2006. Movies By Women. Retrieved on April 2, 2011 from http://www.moviesbywomen.com/stats_celluloid_ceiling_2006.php

Lauzen, M. M. & Dozier, D. M. (1999, October). The Role of Women on Screen and behind the Scenes in the Television and Film Industries: Review of a Program of Research. Journal Of Communication Inquiry, 23(4), 355-373.

Lavee, Y. & Katz, R. (2002, February) Divison of Labor, Perceived Fairness, and Marital Quality: The Effect of Gender Ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 27-39.

Levy, E. (2003). All About Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards. New York, New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Lin, F. (1997, September/October). DGA Summit on Diversity. DGA Quarterly, 22(4). Retrieved on August 8, 2010. http://www.dga.org/news/mag_archives/v22- 4/diversity.htm

Lincoln, A. E. & Allen, M. P. (2004, December). Double Jeopardy in Hollywood: Age and Gender in the Careers of Film Actors, 1926-1999. Sociological Forum, 19(4), 611-631.

82

Mahar, K. W. (2001, March). True womanhood in Hollywood: gendered business strategies and the rise and fall of the woman filmmaker, 1896-1928. Enterprise & Society: The International Journal of Business History, 2(1), 72-110.

Mahar, K. W. (2006). Women Filmmakers in Early Hollywood. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Maume, D. J. (2004, May). Is the Glass Ceiling a Unique Form of Inequality? Evidence from a Random-Effects Model of Managerial Attainment. Work and Occupations, 31(2), 250-274.

Mayne, J. (1985, Autumn). Feminist Film Theory and Criticism. Signs, 11(1) pp. 81-100.

McLean, A. L. (2009, September 27). Paying Attention: Feminist Film Studies in the Twenty-First Century. Cinema Journal, 48(4), 144-151.

Media Awareness Network. (2010). Analyzing Oscar: Deconstructing the Academy Awards. Retrieved May 25, 2011. http://www.media- awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teachable_moments/analyzing_oscar. cfm

Merriam-Webster.com (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.merriam- webster.com/

Milkman, R. (1982, Summer). Redefining "Women's Work": The Sexual Division of Labor in the Auto Industry during World War II. Feminist Studies, 8(2), 336-372

Motion Picture Editors Guild. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. https://www.editorsguild.com/index.cfm?

Nelson, R. A., Donihue, M. R., Waldman, D. M., & Wheaton, C. (2001, January). What’s an Oscar Worth? Economic Inquiry, 39(1), 1-6.

Osborne, R. (2008). 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards. New York, New York: Abbeville Press Publishers.

Parchesky, J. (2006). Women in the Driver's Seat: The Auto-Erotics of Early Women's Films. Film History, 18(2), 174-184.

Piazza, J. & Kinn, G. (2008). The Academy Awards: The Complete Unofficial History. New York, New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers.

Producers Guild of America. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.producersguild.org/

83

Producers Guild of American Diversity. (2010) Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.pgadiversity.org/

Risman, B. J. (2004, August). Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender and Society, 18(4), 429-450.

Seigel, J. (1993, January 10). And The Winner Is…: Year Of The Woman? It's Still Named Oscar, Isn't It? Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 25, 2011. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-01- 10/entertainment/9303161162_1_howards-end-awards-ceremony-nominations

Simonton, D. K. (2004, June). “Best Actress” Paradox: Outstanding Feature Films Versus Exceptional Women’s Performances. Sex Roles, 50(11-12), 781-794.

Skilton, P. F. (2008, December). Similarity, familiarity and access to elite work in Hollywood: Employer and employee characteristics in breakthrough employment. Human Relations, 61(12), 1743-1773.

Smith, S. (2010, January 8). Goddess of War. Entertainment Weekly, (1084), 46-48.

Sobchack, V. C. (1980). Beyond Visual Aids: American Film as American Culture. American Quarterly, 32(3), 280-300.

Solis, H. L., & Hall, K. (2009, September). Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Report 1018, 1-98. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2009.pdf

Thomas, R. J. (1982). Citizenship and Gender in Work Organization: Some Considerations for Theories of the Labor Process. The American Journal of Sociology, 88, S86-S112.

Thynne, L. (2000, Spring). Women in Television in the Multi-Channel Age. Feminist Review, (64), pp. 65-82.

Traube, E. G. (1996). "The Popular" in American Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 127-151.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

Wickwire, K. S. & Kruper, J. C. (1996). The Glass Ceiling Effect An Approach to Assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(1), 32- 39.

84

"Women in the Labor Force." (2008). Women in American Society. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2- 3078300009.html

Writer’s Guild of America, West. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010. http://www.wga.org/

85

APPENDIX A: CODING INSTRUMENT

1. Case Number ______

2. Year ______

3. Category ______

01 – Picture MUSIC (con’t) SHORT FILMS (con’t) 02 – Director 17 – Music – Adaptation Scoring 31 – Short Subjects – Two-Reel 18 – Original Musical or Comedy 32 – Short Subjects – Comedy Score 33 – Short Subjects – Novelty WRITING (03-09) 19 – Original Dramatic Score 03 – Writing – Adaptation 20 – Scoring 04 – Writing - Original 21 – Original Score for a Motion DOCUMENTARY (34-35) 05 – Screenplay Picture – Not a Musical 34 – Documentary – Feature 06 – Story and Screenplay 22 – Scoring: Original Song 35 – Documentary - Short 07 – Motion Picture Story Score and/or Adaptation 08 – Writing 23 – Score of a Musical Picture – 09 – Title Writing Original or Adaptation 36 – Animated Feature Film

10 – Art Direction 24 – Sound Editing OTHER 11 – Cinematography 25 – Sound 37 – Special Visual Effects 12 – Costume Design 26 – Visual Effects 38 – Sound Effects 13 – Film Editing 39 – Assistant Director 14 – Make Up SHORT FILMS (27-33) 40 – Dance Direction 27 – Short Films – Animated 41 – Engineering Effects MUSIC (15-23) 28 – Short Films – Live Action 42 – Unique and Artistic Picture 15 – Music - Song 29 – Short Subjects - Color 43 – Special Effects 16 – Music - Score 30 – Short Subjects – One-Reel 44 – Other ______

4. Women Nominated ______

5. Men Nominated ______

6. Other Nominated ______

7. Women Winner/s ______

8. Men Winner/s ______

9. Other Winner/s ______

10. Names of Women Nominees ______; ______

______; ______; ______; ______

11. Names of Women Winner/s ______; ______

______; ______; ______; ______

86

APPENDIX B: CODING KEY

Content Analysis of Gender of Nominees and Winners of Academy Awards in All Categories For Films Released Between1927-2010

1. Case Number – Case numbers will start at 0001 and go in sequential order (0002, 0003, etc…) until the entire sample has been analyzed.

2. Year – From 1927-1933, there are two dates listed (1927-1928, 1928-1929, etc…). For this study, we will be using the second year in the pair (i.e. for 1927-1928, we will use “1928” for the year) so that there will be no two years/ceremonies that overlap. For the ceremonies where only one year is listed, Robert Osborne has listed the year as the year in which the nominated films were released and not the year in which the awards were handed out. As Oscars.org will be used to code for the ceremonies that are not in Osborne’s book (his book goes through the 80th Academy Awards ceremony, whereas in reality there has been an additional two ceremonies), we will continue Osborne’s trend and use “2008” for the 2009 ceremony, “2009” for the ceremony held in 2010, and “2010” for the ceremony held in 2011.

3. Nominating Category – Over the entire span of the Academy Awards, the number of awards as well as the title of established and continuing awards have changed. Categories that have had title changes but have remained largely the same in criteria over the years have been collapsed down at the researcher’s discretion. The following category- breakdown lists all of the subcategories that will be coded under one, broader category. During the coding process, if a coder comes across a category that s/he cannot find in the following category list, then s/he should code “44” for “Other” and then use the provided blank space next to “Other” to write in the correct category name that is listed in Osborne’s book or on Oscars.org.

Please note that for this study, one will only be coding categories where women, men and other (studios, etc…) are in direct competition with each other. This means that one will not code the nominees or winners in any of the acting categories or Foreign Language Film. Also, one will not code the recipients of Special Awards, Honorary Oscars, Special Achievement Awards, the Irving G. Thalbert Award, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, the Gordon E. Sawyer Award, and Scientific or Technical Awards.

01 – Picture Best Picture Best Motion Picture Outstanding Motion Picture Outstanding Production Outstanding Picture

87

02 – Directing Directing Directing – Comedy Picture Directing – Dramatic Picture

WRITING (03-09) 03 – Writing - Adaptation Adapted Screenplay Based on Material Previously Producer or Published Based on Material from Another Medium Adapted from Other Material Screenplay Based on Materials from Another Medium Adaptation 04 – Writing - Original Original Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen Based on Fictional Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced Story and Screenplay – Written Directly for the Screen 05 - Screenplay 06 - Story and Screenplay (*note* this is different than “Story and Screenplay – Written Directly for the Screen) 07 - Motion Picture Story Motion Picture Story Original Motion Picture Story Original Story 08 - Writing 09 - Title Writing

10 – Art Direction Art Direction Art Direction – Set Decoration Art Direction – Set Decoration - Black and White or Color Art Direction – Set Decoration - Black and White Art Direction – Set Decoration – Color Art Direction – Interior Decoration – Black and White Art Direction – Interior Decoration – Color

88

11 – Cinematography Cinematography Cinematography – Black and White or Color Cinematography – Black and White Cinematography – Color

12 – Costume Design Costume Design Costume Design – Black and White or Color Costume Design – Black and White Costume Design – Color

13 – Film Editing 14 – Make Up

MUSIC (15-23) 15 – Music – Song Original Song Song – Original for the Picture 16 – Music - Score Original Score Original Song Score Musical Score – Substantially Original 17 – Music – Adaptation Scoring Original Song Score or Adaptation Score Original Song Score and its Adaptation or Adaptation Score Adaptation Score Scoring of Music Adaptation or Treatment 18 - Original Musical or Comedy Score 19 - Original Dramatic Score Original Dramatic Score Music Score of a Dramatic Picture 20 - Scoring 21 - Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture Original Score for a Motion Picture – Not a Musical 22 - Scoring: Original Song Score and/or Adaptation Original Song Score and/or Adaptation Original Song Score Scoring: Adaptation and Original Score 23 - Score of a Musical Picture – Original or Adaptation Score of a Musical Picture – Original or Adaptation Scoring of a Musical Picture

89

24 – Sound Editing Sound Editing Sound Effects Editing

25 – Sound Sound Sound Mixing Sound Recording

26 – Visual Effects (*note* “Special Visual Effects” is a different category)

SHORT FILMS (27-33) 27 – Short Films - Animated Short Films – Animated Short Subjects - Animated Short Subjects – Cartoon 28 – Short Films – Live Action Short Films – Live Action Short Films – Dramatic Live Action Short Subjects – Live Action 29 - Short Subjects – Color 30 - Short Subjects – One-Reel 31 - Short Subjects – Two-Reel 32 - Short Subjects – Comedy 33 - Short Subjects – Novelty

DOCUMENTARY (34-35) 34 – Documentary – Feature Documentary Feature Documentary 35 – Documentary Short Documentary Short Subject

36 – Animated Feature Film

OTHER (37-43) 37 – Special Visual Effects 38 – Sound Effects 39 – Assistant Director 40 – Dance Direction 41 – Engineering Effects 42 – Unique and Artistic Picture 43 – Special Effects 44 – Other ______

90

Nominations and Winners Tally-Overview – Both Osborne’s book and Oscar.org list all of the nominees for each category. Winners are indicated with an asterisk (Osborne) or are in bold and are starred (Oscar.org).

For picture and documentary nominees, Osborne’s book and Oscar.org differ in the number of studios and people involved. To maintain continuity between sources, for the Best Picture category, if there are multiple studios listed next to the nominee, only the first studio should be coded. Likewise, for the documentary categories during the early decades of the awards, there are some nominees that list a studio head/producer’s last name, along with a studio name. For these nominees, code only the person and not the studio.

Please note that that when movie studios or other organizations are listed before names of people or more organizations, only tally the names and organizations after the period separating the two sets of information (Osborne). These people and organizations are the actual nominees/winners, whereas the organizations and people listed before the periods are producers and/or those responsible for funding of the nominated films.

For some awards, multiple people are listed under one nominated film. Include each individual person (regardless how many total nominees there are) in the tally. If the same person or other entity was nominated multiple times per one award category, he/she/it is to be tallied each time his/her/its name is listed, per year, per case number.

Also, if a name is gender-ambiguous or foreign, please do a Google Search or use the Internet Movie Database’s website (imdb.com) to determine whether the nominee/winner is a woman or a man.

4. Women Nominated – Tally the total number of women nominated.

5. Men Nominated - Tally the total number of men nominated.

6. Other Nominated - For some categories, one or more film studios or organizations are listed as nominees instead of or alongside individuals/groups of people. If there are multiple studios or organizations per category, per year, per case number, tally the total number of “other” nominees. Remember the exceptions from above regarding the number of “other” nominees for Best Picture and the various Documentary categories.

7. Women Winner/s – Tally the number of women winners. Please note that in some categories, multiple people win awards.

8. Men Winner/s – For each case number, tally the number of men winners. Please note that in some categories, multiple people win awards.

91

9. Other Winner/s - For each case number, tally the number of other winners. Please note that in some categories, multiple “others” win awards.

10. Names of Women Nominees – Use the provided blank spaces to keep track of the names of women nominees per each case. If there are additional names than spaces provided, please continue your list on the back of the coding sheet for that case number.

11. Names of Women Winner/s – Use the provided blank spaces to keep track of the names of women winners per each case. If there are additional names than spaces provided, please continue your list on the back of the coding sheet for that case number.

Special Notes:

Throughout Osborne’s book, there are notes that will affect coding categories or amounts of people tallied for certain variables. (Notes that made no difference in coding tallies have not been listed.) p. 39 – “From 1934-1937, Best Score was considered a music department achievement and award was presented to department head instead of to the composer.” Ergo, for 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937, one will only tally the music department (“other”) and the studio head when coding for Scoring. The composers listed were not considered nominees, and therefore do not count toward the total tally of nominees for that category those years (The Internet Movie Database). p. 43 – “A Midsummer Night’s Dream was not a nominee but won the award as a write- in choice. Written in votes were allowed in 1934 and 1935 but since then have not been counted in Academy tallies.” Because A Midsummer Night’s Dream was not an official nominee for Cinematography, it should not be counted in the tallies for variables 4, 5, or 6.

92