The Problem with the Inclusion Conversation

Inclusion is a hot topic these days. We have a bold new vision for Hollywood. One with diverse stories in front of the camera and diverse storytellers behind it. The future is a magical land where there are no Weinsteins and the bids are free.

If you pick up a magazine or scroll through Twitter, the solution is clear. All we have to do is get more women in the director’s chair. Put more people of colour on screen. Then bada bing, bada boom, like Entertainment Reaganomics, those increased opportunities at the top will trickle down to those at the bottom.

There is one problem with that idea: it’s not enough. By just focusing on one position, we are ignoring 99.63% of the crew. Rigging grip might not be the sexiest title, but there are a lot more of them than directors. IRON MAN 3 lists 3,310 people in the credits. One was the director, Shane Black. Two were the writers, Shane Black and Drew Pearce. One was the DP, John Toll. Nine were the top-billed celebrity cast.

The typical inclusion conversation ends there, with the pool of 12. Our attention isn’t on the 3,298 crew members who are 'below the line'. To create real change we have to focus on representation across the board. It’s not enough to hope that it will trickle down.

The other issue is that the system itself is broken. The fact that there is a system is often hard to see. It is so ingrained, it has become invisible. We think our approach to production is the only way it can possibly be done. But it’s not. There are many types of organisational models. Take a look at companies in the tech industry; Uber or Airbnb. They don’t use a top-down industrial model, neither does Wall Street (not that we should be taking too much advice from them). 

The production model we use today is archaic. Filmmaking technology is a source of perpetual innovation, but the production model itself is frozen in time. We use it every day. But where did it come from? 

It began in 1915, at a very different time. World War I was raging. People rode in horse-drawn carriages. Women didn’t have the right to vote. African-Americans wouldn’t have that right for another 50 years. Less than 20% of Americans had a stove and almost nobody owned a refrigerator.

Nationwide, the working class masses were falling in love with moving pictures and wanted more. Initially the director wore all of the hats - writing, shooting and editing a single movie at a time. But that approach couldn’t keep up with the demand. 

Inspired by Henry Ford’s assembly line, and driven by an All-American desire for profit, the early studios created a model for film production in which they could churn out multiple movies at a time. Roles were divided. Writer. Editor. Cinematographer. Conception was separated from execution. Profits soared.

Early film tycoon Thomas Ince implemented this factory-like approach, and in less than five years, went from making films by himself in an abandoned grocery store to owning a studio lot with eight stages, 300 dressing rooms and 1,000 employees. He went on to make over 800 films throughout his career.

The system was effective. Replicable processes governed by a hierarchical structure allowed the film/TV industry to make billions over the course of a century. But because it was created in a different time, the system is saturated with the very things that we now find problematic: violence, prejudice, and misogyny.

If you’ve ever been on a set, the military influence is tough to ignore. It is called a film 'shoot' for god’s sake! Set jargon is rife with terms like: 'pull the trigger', 'deadline', 'kill it', 'shotgun', 'run-n-gun'. The aggressive approach leaks into the collective psyche, creating a feeling of being at war. 

It is also a system created entirely by men, which is a lopsided way to develop a system that is now being asked to include women. Characteristics considered traditionally  masculine are celebrated. Characteristics considered traditionally feminine are disgraced. In case women don’t feel excluded enough there are always the BEST ‘BOY’ ELECTRICS and the INTERNATIONAL ‘BROTHERHOOD’ OF THE TEAMSTERS to remind them where they belong. 

The fact is that no matter how hard we try, a vision for the future that looks like Shondaland and feels like Ocean’s Eight can’t be created using our current system. We need an upgrade. It’s time to create a model aligned with our values; that resonates with the stories those diverse voices will tell. It’s time to expand the inclusion conversation to address areas that are less star-studded, but equally important - the entire crew. It’s time to challenge the status quo and innovate production. We can’t just change the players, we have to change the game.