ASC and Diversity

[Julio Quintana]

Pretty much, but i'd say it differently. Current systems are optimized for what men are good at, while often ignoring or having very little design input from women. systems like the Raven, basically smaller systems with better color science, allow cinematography that can be more immersive within a conversational story.

This is an interesting perspective that I'm having trouble grasping.

Why do you believe that women are better at listening to conversations?

How do you "get emotions off of skin color changes" and why do you believe that women are good at that?

 

[Rachel Han Xu]

Wow, what a discussion. Thanks for all the perspectives!

Christoffer, I've always heard great equality/freedom stories in Northern Europe, thanks for sharing. Hell. I'd be happier in Sweden! But growing up in Asia and living in America, it's kind of a different world and I wish the reality is as simple as "As long as you're not blind there's no real limitation."

To the gentlemen who wanted to let me know "There are lighter cameras", "Fisher dollies take 100% of the weight off", "Hire a stronger AC/operator" etc., thank you for being encouraging. I'm actually aware of those. But I think we are kind of missing the point talking about those. Though I do agree with and embrace the fact that the technology has made many things possible and given job opportunities to people who wouldn't be a fit traditionally. A child can make a 4K film on their iPhone 6s now. What can't you do?! But I was just discussing the conventional path (particularly in America) of one working their way up to be a DP where they first have to AC, grip, gaff, DIT, etc for years before they get hired just for a good eye.

Also to the gentlemen who "don't think period is a problem", "don't get the physical limitation thing", "worked with plenty of female camera assistants and operators over the years, they haven't had any problems carrying camera gear", I hear you, and I feel that's what brought the discussion in the first place. First off let me replace the phrase "physical limitation" with "biological difference" which I think is the real underlying issue here. It's not about if period is a "problem", or if I have "problems" carrying camera gears. It's about finding a sustainable career path that suits us most as who we are, men or women.

I agree with C. Miersch that the "girl power" "women rights" thing seems so trendy now especially with a lot of ad campaigns on this issue going viral. Some went so extreme that it was just ridiculous to me (e.g. Women going on parades exposing their breasts because they think men can do it why can't we?). I'd like to be skeptical, take a step back and wonder what it is that we really want. To me gender equality never means women and men can do the same thing, work the same job, etc. It means to really understand and respect the fact that we (men and women) are fundamentally different at least on the biological level, and from there we can explore and talk more. It's okay if certain job area is a mancave, or woman-cave, as long as we understand the reason, and can be comfortable and respectful of it. Thanks for the eye-opening documentary, Julio! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70)

Thank y'all for the input again!

-Rachel

 

[Julio Quintana]

Thanks Rachel for weighing in on this conversation! Your practical POV is a nice balance to our circumstantial gender theories. Although you did just prove that Patrick is right. You are a very good listener! Now why are you better at judging skin tones?

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I feel a strong wave of disbelief that a woman would cite menstruation as a stopper. Of all the things which could be construed as stoppers, this is the most byzantine thing I've ever heard!

However, I've weighed in on more than my fair share of these discussions and can't bring myself to participate in another. So I'll just leave this here. It has little to do with the discussion but does present some interesting films and interesting bits of history. Cool stuff to watch.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/...rectors?hash=1841be01c429cafa0c48417ae8204b43


I think the next generation of filmmakers will be the ones to turn the tide towards greater gender parity in the positions of creative power (director, DP). Access to the technology is greater than it is ever been, and that alone will move cinematography along.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Any grade schooler knows there are biological differences between men and women, the issue here is whether any of that is an impediment to doing the job of cinematographer, and I think the women in the ASC who are doing such work would disagree that their own bodies are some sort of problem in doing the job well. If the biological differences really mattered in terms of being a cinematographer, then the women who have succeeded in the industry would be the most "masculine" physically compared to other women -- taller, stronger, etc. -- and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, I didn't start out as an electrician, grip, or camera assistant -- I shot my own stuff as a beginner and then I shot for other people as a film student, and then I was a director of photography when I left film school.

The professional working environment has been more favorable for women in the still photography world, and no doubt part of that has been the fact there have been famous women photographers almost from Victorian age, so there have been role models to point the way.

 

[Rachel Han Xu]

Thanks, David. Film school is definitely a great place for aspiring DPs to build reel more quickly than others, and what you said about still photography world is true too.

The biological difference, based on what I've learned, does play a HUGE part in every aspect of our life (interest, talking manner, jobs, etc). And women who show stronger interest in traditionally "manly" activities/jobs do produce more testosterone than average, in other words, more "masculine". But that doesn't necessarily associate with a taller, stronger body as you mentioned. There are many other physiological characteristics of women with higher testosterone such as high blood pressure, overweight, irregular periods, more body hair, etc.

Any grade schooler knows there are biological differences between men and women, the issue here is whether any of that is an impediment to doing the job of cinematographer, and I think the women in the ASC who are doing such work would disagree that their own bodies are some sort of problem in doing the job well. If the biological differences really mattered in terms of being a cinematographer, then the women who have succeeded in the industry would be the most "masculine" physically compared to other women -- taller, stronger, etc. -- and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, I didn't start out as an electrician, grip, or camera assistant -- I shot my own stuff as a beginner and then I shot for other people as a film student, and then I was a director of photography when I left film school.

The professional working environment has been more favorable for women in the still photography world, and no doubt part of that has been the fact there have been famous women photographers almost from Victorian age, so there have been role models to point the way.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are many other physiological characteristics of women with higher testosterone such as high blood pressure, overweight, irregular periods, more body hair, etc.

If you met some of the female cinematographers in the ASC, I don't think you'd find that to be the case...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think this conversation has drifted into some inappropriate areas, literally, if it starts describing female sexual anatomy and suggests that it is somehow relevant to the job of cinematography.