Microsoft Word - Inequality Report 9.2 Designed FINAL

Inequality in 800 Popular Films:

Examining Portrayals of Gender, Race/Ethnicity,

LGBT, and Disability

from 2007-2015

Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper

Media, Diversity, &

Social Change Initiative

Ariana Case & Justin Marsden

with assistance from

September 2016



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Inequalityin800 PopularFilms:

ExaminingP ortra yalsofGender,Race/Ethnicity,LGBT,andDisabilityfrom 2007‐2015 



Dr.StacyL.Smith,MarcChoueiti,&Dr.KatherinePieper

withassistancefrom

ArianaCase&JustinMarsden



Yearly,theMedia,Diversity,&SocialChange(MDSC)Initiativeexaminesinequalityonscreenand

behindthecameraacrossthe100top‐grossingdomesticfilms.Todate,wehaveevaluated35,205

charactersacross800ofthemostpopularmoviesfrom2007‐2015.Everyindependentspeakingor

namedcharacteronscreenwasassessed

forgender,race/ethnicity,andLGBTstatusaswellasa

varietyofdemographic,domesticity,andsexualizationmeasures.In2015,webeganassessingthe

portrayalofcharacterdisabilityaswell.Clearly,thisisthemostcomprehensiveandrigorous

intersectionalanalysisofindependentspeakingandnamedcharactersinpopularmotionpicture

contenttodate.



KeyFindings



Gender.Outof4,370speakingornamedcharactersevaluated,68.6%weremaleand31.4%werefemale

acrossthe100top‐grossingfilmsof2015.Thiscalculatesintoagenderratioof2.2malecharactersto

everyonefemalecharacter.Therehasbeennomeaningfulchangeinthepercentageofgirls

andwomen

onscreenbetween2007and2015.

Ofthe100topfilmsof2015,32%depictedafemaleastheleadorcoleadoftheunfoldingnarrative.This

isan11%increasefromlastyear.Fiveofthesefilmsportrayedfemaleleads/coleads45yearsofageor

older

atthetimeoftheatricalreleasein2015.Instarkcontrast,26moviesin2015featuredleadsorco

leadswithmales45yearsofageorolder.



Femaleswereoverthreetimesaslikelyastheirmalecounterpartstobeshowninsexuallyrevealing

clothing(30.2%vs.7.7%)and

withsomenudity(29%vs.9.5%).Girls/women(12%)werealsomorelikely

thanboys/men(3.6%)tobereferredtoasphysicallyattractive.



Femaleteens(42.9%)andyoungadults(38.7%)weremorelikelythanmiddle‐agedfemales(24.7%)tobe

showninsexualizedattire.Asimilarpatternemergedfornudity(41.2%,36.9%,

and24.4%,respectively).

Asageincreased,femaleswerelesslikelyto bereferencedasattractive.



Ofthe1,365directors,writers,andproducersofthe 100top‐grossingfilmsof2015,81%weremenand

19%werewomen.Of107directors,92.5%weremaleand7.5%werefemale.Thistranslatesinto

a

genderratioof12.4maledirectorstoeveryonefemaledirector.Womenfareslightly betteraswriters

(11.8%)andproducers(22%)butfarworseascomposers.Only1femalecomposerbut113male

composersworkedacrossthesampleof100moviesof2015!



Across800filmsand886directors,

only4.1%werewomen.Thistranslatesintoagenderratioof24males

toevery1female.Only3Blackand1Asianfemaledirectorsworkedonthe800filmsexamined.Even

moreproblematic,only1.4%ofallcomposerswerewomenfrom2007to2015(excluding2011).This

translatesintoa

genderratioof72malecomposerstoevery1femalecomposer.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Race/Ethnicity.In2015,73.7%ofcharacterswereWhite,12.2%Black,5.3%Latino,3.9%Asian,<1%

MiddleEastern,<1%AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative, <1%NativeHawaiian/PacificIslander,and3.6%

Otheror“mixedrace.”Together,atotalof26.3%ofallspeakingcharacterswerefroman

underrepresentedracial/ethnicgroup.Therewasnochangein

thepercentageofWhite,Black,

Hispanic/Latino,AsianorOtherraces/ethnicitiesfrom2007to2015.



Only14ofthemoviesdepictedanunderrepresentedleadorcolead.Nineoftheleads/coleadswere

Black,oneLatino,andfourweremixedrace.NotoneleadorcoleadwasplayedbyanAsian

actor.



Onlythreefemaleleads/coleadswereplayedbyfemaleactorsfromanunderrepresentedracial/ethnic

group,theexactsamenumberin2014.Justoneoftheseactorswasanunderrepresentedfemale45

yearsofageorolder.



Afull17%offilmsdidnotfeatureoneBlackorAfricanAmerican

speakingornamedcharacteronscreen.

Thisnumberisidenticaltowhatwefoundin2013and2014.Evenmoreproblematic,Asiancharacters

weremissingacross49films.



In2015,only4ofthe107directorswereBlackorAfricanAmerican(3.7%)and6wereAsianorAsian

American(5.6%).

Across886directorsfrom2007to2015(excluding2011),only5.5%wereBlackand

2.8%wereAsian.



LGBT.Only32speakingornamedcharacterswerelesbian,gay,bisexualortransgenderacrossthe

sampleof100topfilmsof2015.Thisisanincreaseof13portrayalsfromour2014report.Just

one

transgendercharacterappearedsample‐wide,aswellas19gaymen,7lesbians,and5bisexuals(3males,

2females).



NotoneleadorcoleadwasLGBTidentifiedacrosstheentiresampleof100topfilmsof2015.82ofthe

100topmoviesof2015didnot

depictoneLGBTspeakingornamedcharacter.



Moreracial/ethnicdiversitywasfoundacrossLGBTcharactersthansamplewide.Justover40%ofLGBT

characterswerefromanunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroup.Oneteenagedcharacterwasdepictedas

gayacrosstheentiresampleandonlytwolesbianpa rentswereportrayed.



CharacterswithDisabilities.Only2.4%

ofallspeakingornamedcharacterswereshownwithadisability.A

full45ofthemoviesfailedtodepictonespeakingcharacterwithadisability.Mostoftheportrayals

appearedinactionadventurefilms(33.3%).Only2%ofallcharacterswithdisabilitieswereshownin

animatedmovies.



61%ofthe

characterswerefeaturedwithaphysicaldisability,37.1%withamentalorcognitivedisability,

and18.1%withacommunicativedisability.ThesedesignationswerebasedonU.S.Censuslanguageand

domains.



Only19%ofcharacterswithadisabilitywerefemaleand81%weremale.Thisisanewlowforgender



inequalityinfilm.NotoneLGBTcharacterwithadisabilitywasportrayedacrossthe100topfilmsof

2015.



Thereportalsohighlightsmanyotherresultsongender,race/ethnicity,LGBT,anddisabilityinfilmaswell

assimpleandstraightforwardsolutionstoHollywood’sinclusioncrisis.

Prevalance of female speaking characters across 800 ﬁlms,

in percentages

Of the 100 top ﬁlms in 2015...

Ratio of males

to females

Total number of

speaking

characters

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, & SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

USC ANNENBERG

FEMALES ARE GROSSLY UNDERREPRESENTED IN FILM

FEMALES ARE SELDOM AT THE CENTER OF THE STORY IN FILM

nitiative

2.3 : 1

35,205

Percentage of

800 ﬁlms with

Balanced Casts

12%

DEPICTED A

FEMALE LEAD

OR CO LEAD

And of those Leads and Co Leads*...

FEMALE ACTORS WERE

FROM UNDERREPRESENTED

RACIAL

ETHNIC GROUPS

FEMALE ACTORS WERE

AT LEAST

AGE OR OLDER

29.9

30.3

28.1

31.4

29.2

28.4

32.8 32.8

FEMALES FACE ROADBLOCKS IN ACTION, ANIMATION, & COMEDY

ADVENTURE

ANIMATION COMEDY

20.9

30.7

36 36

36.5

26.8

23.3

25.5

*Excludes ﬁlms w/ensemble casts

% OF FEMALE SPEAKING

CHARACTERS

% OF FEMALE SPEAKING

CHARACTERS

% OF FEMALE SPEAKING

CHARACTERS

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, &

SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

SEXY CONTINUES TO BE THE STATUS QUO FOR FEMALES IN FILM

WHITE UNDERREPRESENTED

SEXY ATTIRE

SOME NUDITY ATTRACTIVE

7.7%

30.2%

9.5%

29%

3.6%

12%

of the 100 top ﬁlms of 2015...

Top Films of 2015

HAD NO LGBT

CHARACTERS

59.4

40.6%

LGBT CHARACTERS

13-20 yr old

females are just as

likely as 21-39 yr old

females to be shown

in sexy attire & with

some nudity.

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, &

SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

26.3

#OscarsSoWhite or #HollywoodSoWhite?

FILMS HAVE NO BLACK OR AFRICAN

AMERICAN SPEAKING CHARACTERS

FILMS HAVE NO ASIAN SPEAKING

CHARACTERS

FILMS HAVE NO LATINO SPEAKING

CHARACTERS

PERCENTAGE OF

REPRESENTED CHARACTERS:

*These percentages have not changed since 2007

THE LGBT COMMUNITY: MOBILIZED IN THE U.S. BUT MISSING IN FILM

speaking

characters only...

4,370

LESBIAN

BISEXUAL

GAY

TRANSGENDER

MALES

FEMALES

of the 32 LGBT characters...

220 female producers 1 female composer30 female writers8 female directors

THE DIRECTOR'S CHAIR IS WHITE AND MALE

BEHIND THE CAMERA IS BEHIND THE TIMES

DIRECTORS WRITERS PRODUCERS COMPOSERS

Across 1,365 content creators….

MALES FEMALES

7.5% 22% <1%11.8%

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Of the 49 Black or African

American directors...

Across 800 ﬁlms and

886 directors...

Of the 25 Asian or Asian

American directors...

5.5%

OR WERE BLACK OR

AFRICAN AMERICAN

WERE ASIAN OR

ASIAN AMERICAN

2.8%

PORTRAYALS OF DISABILITY ARE DISCONCERTING IN FILM

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, &

SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

of all speaking

characters were

depicted with a

disability

2.4%

37%

18%

MENTAL

COMMUNICATIVE

PHYSICAL

61%

MALES WITH

DISABILITY

FEMALES WITH

DISABILITY

81%

19%

Based on U.S. Census language & domains

DIRECTORS

OUT OF

COMPOSERS

FEMALE DIRECTORS AND COMPOSERS ARE CROPPED OUT OF FILM

A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO GENDER INEQUALITY IN FILM

TOTAL OVERALL

Angelina Jolie

Anne Fletcher

Ava DuVernay

Betty Thomas

Brenda Chapman

Catherine Hardwicke

Diane English

Elizabeth Allen Rosenbaum

Elizabeth Banks

Gina Prince-Bythewood

Jennifer Flackett

Jennifer Lee

Jessie Nelson

Julie Anne Robinson

Julie Taymor

Kathryn Bigelow

Kimberly Peirce

Kirsten Sheridan

Lana Wachowski

Lily Wachowski

THERE ARE

UNIQUE FEMALE

DIRECTORS BETWEEN

48.9%

31.4%

51.1%

68.6%

Add Five Females to Scripts Per Year to Achieve Gender Equality Quickly

Loveleen Tandan

Nancy Meyers

Niki Caro

Nora Ephron

Phyllida Lloyd

Sam Taylor-Johnson

Sanaa Hamri

Shari Springer Berman

Susanna White

FEMALES

MALES

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, &

SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

(Excluding 2011)

112 112 111 109 121 107 107 107

886

OUT OF

107 108 109 115 105 114 105 114

877

9 4 3 5 2 2 8

0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

OUT OF

4.1

1.4



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Inequalityin800 PopularFilms:

ExaminingP ortra yalsofGender,Race/Ethnicity,LGBT,andDisabilityfrom 2007‐2015 



Dr.StacyL.Smith,MarcChoueiti,&Dr.KatherinePieper

withassistancefrom

ArianaCase&JustinMarsden



Media,Diversity,&SocialChangeInitiative

USCAnnenberg



Yearly,theMedia,Diversity,&SocialChange(MDSC)Initiativeexaminesinequalityonscreenand

behindthecameraacrossthe100top‐grossingdomesticfilms.

Todate,wehaveevaluated800

ofthemostpopularmoviesfrom2007‐2015(excluding2011).

Everyindependentspeakingor

namedcharacter

onscreenisassessedforgenderandrace/ethnicityaswellasavarietyof

demographic,domesticity,andsexualizationmeasures.

Intotal,35,205charactershavebeen

analyzedacrosseightyearsofcinematiccontent.



Forthe2014sample,theanalysiswasextendedtoincludeaqualitativeassessmentofLesbian,

Gay,Bisexual,andTransgender(LGBT)characters.In2015,LGBTstatuswasmeasuredagainas

wellasportrayalsofcharacterswithdisabilities.Focusingongender,race/ethnicity,LGBTand

disability,thisisthemostcomprehensiveandrigorousintersectionalanalysisofindependent

speakingandnamedcharactersinpopularmotionpicturecontenttodate.



Behindthecamerainclusionisalsoassessed.Wehavedemarcatedthegenderofeverydirector,

writer,andproducer.Fordirectorsonly,thepercentageoffemale,Black,andAsianhelmersis

calculatedacrossthe800films.Wefocusonracetocomplementtheresearchbeingconducted

byotherinstitutionsonunderrepresentedandLatinocontentcreators.

Thisyear,wealso

includedthepercentageofmaleandfemalecomposersacrosstheeightyearsevaluated.



Themethodologyofthestudyisdetailedinthefootnotesectionofthereport.Theresultsofthe

researcharereviewedwithinfourareasofrepresentationalconcern:1)gender,2)

race/ethnicity,3)LGBT

status,and4)disability.Withineachsection,the2015findingsare

highlightedfirstfollowedbyadiscussionofsomeovertimetrends.Onlystatisticallysignificant

(p<.05)andmeaningfuldeviations(5%)arereportedbelow.Sometrendswerenotsubjectedto

statisticaltests.Intheseinstances,weappliedthe5%ruletodemarcate

notabledifferences.The

useoftheletter“n”indicatesthesamplesizeperanalysisorcellinquestion.Thelistof2015

filmscanbefoundinAppendixA.



GenderOnScreen&BehindtheCamerainFilm 



OnScreenPrevalence



Outof4,370speakingornamedcharactersevaluated,68.6%(n=3,000)weremaleand31.4%

(n=1,370)werefemaleacrossthe100top‐grossingfilmsof2015.Thiscalculatesintoagender



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



ratioof2.2malecharacterstoeveryonefemalecharacter.Theprevalenceoffemalecharacters

overtimeishighlightedinTable1.Asdemonstrated,thepercentageoffemalespeaking

charactersonscreenhasonlyincreased1.5%from2007to2015.



Table1

PrevalenceofFemaleCharactersOnScreenbyYear:2007 ‐2015



Year

%of

Female

Characters

%of

Balanced

Casts

Ratioof

Malesto 

Females

Total

#of

Characters

Total

#of

Films

2007 29.9% 12% 2.35to1 4,379 100

2008 32.8% 15% 2.05to1 4,370 100

2009 32.8% 17% 2.05to1 4,342 100

2010 30.3% 4% 2.30to1 4,153 100

2012 28.4% 6% 2.51to1 4,475 100

2013 29.2% 16% 2.43to1 4,506 100

2014 28.1% 9% 2.55to1 4,610 100

2015 31.4% 18% 2.19to1 4,370 100

Total 30.3% 12% 2.30to1 35,205 800



Note:BoxOfficeMojodeterminedU.S.financialperformanceoffictionalfilms.



Thepercentageoffemaleleadswasevaluated.Theleadingcharacteroftendrivestheplot

attemptingtoresolvethecentralconflictofthestory.Sometimes,movieshavecoleadsor

anothercharacterwhoalsotravelsonthesamejourney.Ofthe100topfilms,32%depicteda

femaleastheleadorcoleadoftheunfoldingnarrative.Thisisan11%increasefromlastyear,as

only21%ofthe2014moviesdepictedafemaleleadorcolead.



Fiveofthesefilmsportrayedfemaleleads/coleads45yearsofageorolderatthetimeof

theatricalreleasein2015.Thisisanincreasefrom2014,astherewerezerolastyear.Instark

contrast,26moviesin2015featuredleadsorcoleadswithmales45yearsofageorolder.It

shouldbenotedthatthegenderofcharactersinfilmswithensemblecastswasnotincludedin

thesecalculations.Elevenmovieswereensembles,with71.7%oftheleadingcharactersmale

and28.3%ofleadingcharactersfemale.



Wealsoexaminedthepercentageofthe100topfilmswithagender‐balancedcast.Agender

balancedcast

waspresentwhenthefilmhadgirls/womeninroughlyhalf(45.5‐54.9%)ofall

speakingparts.Only18%ofthemoviesevaluatedmetthiscriteria,whichis6%higherthan2007

and9%higherthan2014.Itmustbenotedthatallofthe2015filmsfeaturedatleastonefemale

characterthatspokeonscreenorwasnamed.However,onemovieportrayedonlytwofemale

charactersandbothwereinconsequentialtothestoryline.



CharactergendervariedbyMPAArating(G,PG,PG‐13,R).

Onlyonemovieinthe2015sample

wascategorizedas“generalaudience”andthusremovedpriortoanalysis.CharactersinPG‐13



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



ratedfilmsweremorelikelytobefemale(34%)thancharactersinR‐rated(28.4%)films.The

percentageofgirlsandwomeninPG‐ratedmovies(29.7%)didnotdifferfromthosefilms

receivingtheothertworatings.



Lookingatgenre,genderalsowasassessedwithinthreestorytellingplatforms.

Asshownin

Table2,roughlyone‐fourth(25.5%)ofallspeakingcharacterswerefemalein2015Actionand/or

Adventuremovies.Thisrepresentsa5.5%increasefrom2007.Girlsandwomenoccupied26.8%

ofallrolesinAnimatedfilms,whichishigher(+5.9%)than2007.Ofthegenresreported,

Comedyhasthehighestpercentageofspeakingroleswithfemales(36.5%)whichdoesnotdiffer

acrosstheyearsshowninTable2.



Table2

PrevalenceofFemaleCharactersOnScreenbyFil mGenre:2007,2010,2015



ActionorAdventu re  Animation Comedy

2007 2010 2015 2007 2010 2015 2007 2010 2015

%offemales

onscreen

20% 23.3% 25.5% 20.9% 30.7% 26.8% 36% 36% 36.5%



Note:Thepercentageofmalespeakingcharacterscanbecomputedbysubtractingeachcellfrom100%.



Insum,twotrendswereapparentacrossthegenderprevalencefindings.First,thepercentage

offemaleleads/coleadshasincreasedfromlastyear.Thisunderscoresthefactthatfemale‐

drivencontenthasdomesticboxofficeappeal.Yet,justoveraquarteroftheleadingrolesin

ensembleswerefilledwithfemales.Second,andmoreproblematic,thepercentageoffemale

speakingcharactersonscreenhasnotmeaningfullychanged.Despitealloftheactivismand

advocacytoincreasethenumberofgirls/womenonscreen,theneedlehasnotmovedineight

years.Clearly,amoretargetedandtheory‐driveneffortisneededto

reduceimplicitandexplicit

biasesinthescreenwritingandcastingprocesses.



OnScreenPortrayal



Threeattributesofgenderstereotypingwereevaluated:domesticity,age,andsexualization.In

termsofdomesticroles,parentalstatus(no,yes)didnotvarybygender.

Ofthosecharacters

withenoughinformationpresentedtoassessthismeasure,afull42%weredepictedasparents

orcaregivers(44.4%offemales,40.2%males).Relationalstandingwasassociatedwithgender,

however.

Females(54.8%)weremorelikelytobedepictedinromanticrelationshipsthanwere

males(46.5%).Thislattertrendistroublingasportrayingdomesticrolesalonggenderlinesmay

contributetoorreinforcestereotypicalattitudesandbeliefsaboutwhatitmeanstobemaleor

femaleinsociety.





Ageisanotherpoliticizedareaoffilm.Becauseofthis,eachcharacterwasassessedfortheir

apparentage.Tothisend,charactersweregroupedintooneoffourmutuallyexclusiveage



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



brackets(i.e.,0‐12yrs,13‐20yrs,21‐39yrs,40ormoreyrs).Then,thedistributionofgender

withineachagegroupingwasevaluated.

11

AshighlightedinTable3,theincreaseinagelevel

bringsasharpdecreaseinfemalecharactersonscreen.Thistrendhasconsequences,asolder

charactersaremorelikelythanyoungercharacterstobeshownwithpowerfulcareersandas

accomplishedrolemodels.Basedonsheerfrequency,viewershavefarfewerchancestosee

talentedwomenininfluentialoccupationsonscreen.



Table3

CharacterGenderbyAgeinTop‐GrossingFilms:2015 



 Children

0‐12yrs

Teens

13‐20yrs

YoungAdult

21‐39yrs

Adults40yrs

orOlder

Males 54.1% 59.7% 63.8% 75.4%

Females 45.9% 40.3% 36.2% 24.6%

GenderRatio 1.18to1 1.48to1 1.76to1 3.06to1





Note:Eachcolumntotalsto100%.Genderratioswerecomputedpercolumnbydividingthe

numberofmalecharacterswithinanagebracketbythenumberoffemalecharacters.



Hasthepercentageoffemalecharacters40yearsofageorolderchangedovertime?Table4

showsthatithasnot.Only22.8%ofall12,645characters40yearsofageorhigherwerefemale,

with2007differinglittle(2.5%)from2015.Itmustbenotedthatourapproachtocoding

characters40yearsofageorhigherchangedslightlyforthe2015sample(seeFootnote12for

explanation).Asaresult,anyovertimecomparisonsinvolvingthisyearshouldbeinterpreted

cautiously.



Table4

FemaleCh aracters 40Years ofAgeor Older:2007 ‐2015



 2007 2008 2009 2010

 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

%ofmales 77.9% 72.8% 75.6% 78.2% 79.2% 78.4% 79.3% 75.4% 77.2%

%offemales 22.1% 27.2% 24.4% 21.8% 20.8% 21.6% 20.7% 24.6% 22.8%



Note:Onlycharacters40yearsofageorolderwereincludedinTable4.



Anothercontestedareapertainstothesexualizationofgirls/womenonscreen.Asaresult,we

measuredthepercentageoffemalesdepictedinanobjectifyinglight.Figure1revealsthat

femaleswerefarmorelikelythantheirmalecounterpartstobeshowninsexuallyrevealing

clothing(e.g.,tight,alluringapparel)and

withsomenudity.

Girls/womenwerealsomorelikely

thanboys/mentobereferredtoasphysicallyattractive.

Thesetrendsaredisconcerting,as

theorysuggestsandstudiesshowthatexposuretoobjectifyingcontentcanhavenegative

effectssuchasbodyshame,appearanceanxiety,orselfobjectificationonsomefemale

consumers.





©Dr.StacyL.Smith

  September2016



Theovertimepatternsacrossthesethreesexualizationmeasures(i.e.,sexyattire,nudity,

attractiveness)wereexaminedforfemales(Table5)andmales(Table6)separately.Scrutinizing

thetwotables,itisclearthatthepercentageshavebeenfairlystablefromyeartoyear.Females

wereroutinelymorelikelytobedepictedinsexuallyrevealingattirethanmales,withno

meaningfulchangeovertime.Amongfemalesonly,thepercentageofgirls/womenportrayed

withsomenudityhasincreased7.2%between2007and2015.Thereversepatternwas

observedforattractivenessamongfemales,however.Formales,nodifferenceshavebeen

observedonnudityorattractiveness

overtime.



Figure1

CharacterGenderbySexualizationIn dicators :2015



Table5

SexualizationofFem aleCharactersOnScreen:2007‐2015



Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

%insexyattire 27% 25.7% 25.8% 33.8% 31.6% 30.2% 27.9% 30.2%

%w/somenudity 21.8% 23.7% 23.6% 30.8% 31% 29.5% 26.4% 29%

%referenced

attractive

18.5% 15.1% 10.9% 14.7%

Not

Measured



13.2% 12.6% 12%



Note:Eachcellrepresentsthepercentoffemalesshownacross100filmsforaspecificmeasure.Subtractingeach

cellfrom100%illuminatestheproportionoffemaleswithouttheattributeinquestion.Forexample,27%offemales

in2007wereshowninsexyattire.Assuch,73%offemaleswerenot

shownwearingthistypeofclothing.



3.6%

9.5%

7.7%

12%

29%

30.2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Attractiveness

SomeNudity

SexyAttire

Females Males



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Table6

SexualizationofMale Ch aractersOnScreen:2007‐2015



Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

%insexyattire 4.6% 5.1% 4.7% 7.2% 7% 9.7% 8% 7.7%

%w/somenudity 6.6% 8.2% 7.4% 9.4% 9.4% 11.7% 9.1% 9.5%

%referenced

attractive

5.4% 4.1% 2.5% 3.8%

Not

Measured



2.4% 3.1% 3.6%



Note:Eachcellrepresentsthepercentofmalesshownacross100filmsforaspecificmeasure.Subtractingeachcell

from100%illuminatestheproportionofmaleswithouttheattributeinquestion.



Movingbeyondtheseoveralltrends,wewantedtoevaluatehowagewasrelatedtothe

sexualizationmeasures.GiventhepronouncedgenderdifferencesfoundinTables5and6,we

onlyassessedfemalesexualizationforthisanalysis.Charactersweresortedintothreegroups:

teens(13‐to20‐yrolds),youngadults(21‐to39‐yrolds),andmiddleaged(40‐to64‐yrolds).

Then,thepercentageoffemalesshowninsexyattire,withsomenudity,andreferencedas

physicallyattractivewithineachagelevelwascomputed.Thissetofanalysesisimportant,as

publicconcernhasbeenmountingaboutthehypersexualizationofyoungerfemalesonscreen

inthemedia.





Table7

FemaleCh aracterSe xu ali za tion by Age:2015



Measures

13‐20

yearolds

21‐39

yearolds

40‐64

yearolds

%insexyattire 42.9% 38.7% 24.7%

%w/somenudity 41.2% 36.9% 24.4%

%referencedattractive 22.8% 13% 9%



Note:Eachcellrepresentsthepercentageoffemalesshownwithaparticularattribute.Subtracting

eachcellfrom100%showstheproportionoffemaleswithoutthecharacteristicinquestion.



AsshowninTable7,agewasrelatedtosexualization.

Femaleteensandyoungadultswere

morelikelythanmiddle‐agedfemalestobeshowninsexualizedattireandwithsomenudity.For

attractivenessadifferenttrendwasobserved.Asageincreased,femaleswerelesslikelytobe

referencedasattractive.Theovertimepercentagesonsexyattireandsomenudity

areplotted

inFigures2and3.Collectively,thegraphsrevealanotableuptickinfemalesexualizationamong

13‐to20‐yroldsand40‐to64‐yrolds.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Figure2

PercentagesofFemalesinSexyAttirebyAge:2007‐2015



Figure3

PercentagesofFemaleswithSomeNuditybyAge:2007‐2015



Takentogether,theresultsofthissectionrevealthatfemaleswerenotonlyunderrepresented

onscreenbuttheywereshowninastereotypicallight.Females

infilmwereyoung,in

relationships,andsexy,familiartropesthatdeviatelittlefromyeartoyear.Giventhesetrends,it

becomesimportanttolookatwhomightberesponsibleforpaintingapictureofgirlsand

34.6%

39.8%

33.8%

41.4%

56.6%

40.5%

35.3%

42.9%

37.7%

32.4%

33.5%

44.3%

39.9%

39.4%

37.4%

38.7%

12.5%

14.9%

14.4%

22.6%

16.4%

18.8%

14.8%

24.7%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

13‐20yrolds

21‐39yrolds

40‐64yrolds

23.3%

30.1%

28.2%

33%

55.8%

37.4%

33.6%

41.2%

31.2%

30.5%

41.5%

39.6%

34.9%

36.9%

10.6%

14.2%

14.1%

19.7%

15.7%

18.5%

14.8%

24.4%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

13‐20yrolds

21‐39yrolds

40‐64yrolds



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



womeninthislight.Inthenextsection,weexaminethisveryideabylookingatthegenderof

contentcreatorsworkingbehindthecameraintopHollywoodfilms.



BehindtheCamera



Atotalof1,365directors,writers,andproducersworkedbehindthescenesonthe100top‐

grossingfilmsof2015(seeTable8).

Afull81%weremen(n=1,107)and19%werewomen

(n=258).Turningtospecificpositions,107directorsandcodirectorswerecreditedacrossthe

2015samplewith92.5%ofhelmersmaleand7.5%ofhelmersfemale.Thistranslatesintoa

genderratioof12.4maledirectorstoeveryonefemaledirector.Womenfareslightlybetteras

writers(11.8%)andproducers(22%).WhilenotshownonTable8,only1femalecomposerbut

113malecomposersworkedacrossthesampleof100movies!



GiventheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission’s(EEOC)investigationintohiring

practicessurroundingHollywooddirectors,wethoughtitmightbeinformativetoilluminatethe

numberandpercentageofwomenhelmersattachedtothe100topfilmseachyear(seeTable

9).Across800filmsand886directors,only4.1%ofhelmerswerewomen.Whilethepercentage

ofwomendirectorshasincreasedin2015from2013and2014levels,itisnodifferentthan

2008.



Table8

ContentCreatorsbyGender:2015



Position Males Females Total

Directors 92.5%(n=99) 7.5%(n=8) 107

Writers 88.2%(n=225) 11.8%(n=30) 255

Producers 78%(n=783) 22%(n=220) 1,003

Total 81.1%(n=1,107) 18.9%(n=258) 1,365



Thesestatisticsarewellbelowwhatwemightexpecttoseeinthespace,basedonourother

MDSCInitiativeresearchreports.Perhapsthemostpotentbarometerofinterestindirecting

comesfromexaminingthegendercompositionofshortfilmdirectors.Afull28%ofshortfilm

helmers(n=3,933)

acrossthe10topfilmfestivalsworldwidewerewomen.

Lookingatthe

independentarena,18%ofallnarrativedirectorswerefemalesattheSundanceFilmFestival

from2002to2014.

And,womenfillasimilarpercentageofdirectingpositionsacrossscripted

broadcasttelevisionshows(17.1%),cableprograms(15.1%)anddigitalstories(11.8%).

So,why

aretheresofewfemaledirectorsinfeaturefilms?Ourqualitativeinterviewswith59buyersand

sellersinthefilmindustryrevealedthatexplicitandimplicitdecision‐makingbiasesprevent

womenfromsecuringemploymentbehindthecamera.

Theplayingfieldissimplynotlevelfor

femaledirectors,particularlyasthegenderratiois23.6malestoevery1femaleinTable9.





©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Table9

DirectorGender:2007‐2015



Measures 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

#offemaledirectors 3 9 4 3 5 2 2 8 36

%offemaledirectors 2.7% 8% 3.6% 2.75% 4.1% 1.9% 1.9% 7.5% 4.1%

Total 112 112 111 109 121 107 107 107 886



Thedirector’schairisnottheonlybehindthecamerapositionexclusionarytowomen.

Composingisalmostacompleteboy’sclub.

Forthefirsttime,wecompiledthegenderof

composersacrossthe800moviesinthesample.Outof877composers,only1.4%or12were

women.Afull865or98.6%weremen.Thistranslatesintoaratioof72malestoevery1female.

Thetwelvespaceswerefilledbyonly7women,astwoofthefemalecomposersworkedon

multiplemoviesacrossthesample(RachelPortman,DeborahLurie).



Everyyear,therelationshipbetweencontentcreator(directors,writers,producers)genderand

thegenderofspeakingcharactersonscreenisevaluated.Tothisend,the2015filmswere

categorizedintotwosilosonthebasisofdirectorgender:thosewithafemaledirectorattached

vs.thosewithoutafemaledirectorattached(maleonly).Then,thepercentageoffemale

charactersonscreenwascomparedacrossfemale‐helmedandmale‐helmedmovies.Thesame

processwasrepeatedforwritersandproducers.



Table10

ComposerGender:2007‐2015



Measures 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

#offemalecomposers 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 12

%offemalecomposers 0 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9% 1.8% <1% <1% 1.4%

Total 107 108 109 115 105 114 105 114 877



AsshowninFigure4,thegenderofthedirectorwasassociatedwithonscreengender

prevalence.Filmswithatleastonefemaleatthehelmportrayedahigherpercentageoffemale

charactersonscreen(41%)thanthosewithonlymalesatthehelm(30.5%).

Asimilarbutless

pronouncedincreasewasobservedbyscreenwritergender.Movieswithafemalescreenwriter

attachedfeaturedmoregirls/womenonscreen(36.9%)thandidthosemovieswithonlymale

screenwritersattached(29.2%).

Thegenderoftheproducerwasnotassociatedwiththe

portrayalofgenderonscreen,however.





©Dr.StacyL.Smith

  September2016



Figure4

PercentageofFemaleCharactersOn ScreenbyDirectorGender:2015



Thesefindingscanbeinterpretedinatleastafewways.Screenwritersanddirectorsmaytell

storiesthatreflecttheirownpersonalexperiences.Thisreflectstheadage,“writewhatyou

know.”Inthiscase,femalecontentcreatorsmaybeinterestedinandadvocateforstoriesby,

for,andaboutwomen.Anotherandmoreproblematicinterpretationoftheresultsalsoexists.

Itmaybethecasethatdecisionmakers(e.g.,agents,studioexecutives)aremorelikelytofeel

comfortablepitchingwomendirectorsfemale‐ratherthanmale‐centricstories.Thisexplanation

isoppressive,withwomen’semploymentopportunitiestodirectbeingdefinedbytheirgender

ratherthantheirstorytellingprowess.Aswewillseelater,thesamepatternemergeswithBlack

directorsandmovieswithBlackcasts.



Summingup,thissectionrevealedthatfewwomenworkbehindthecameraonfinancially

lucrativeHollywoodfilms.Onlyahandfuloffemaledirectors‐‐andevenfewerfemale

composers‐‐wereattachedtothe800mostpopularmoviesbetween2007and2015(excluding

2011).Womenarenottheonlyonesshutoutoftheupperechelonsofpowerinthefilm

industry,however.PeopleofcolorandtheLGBTcommunityalsofaceanepidemicofinvisibility

aswewillsee

inthenextsectionsofthereport.



Race/EthnicityOn Screen &BehindtheCamerainFilm

Eachspeakingornamedcharacterwascodedforrace/ethnicity.Ofthosecharacterswith

enoughcuestojudgethismeasure(n=3,975),73.7%wereWhite,12.2%Black,5.3%Latino,3.9%

Asian,<1%MiddleEastern,<1%

AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative,<1%NativeHawaiian/Pacific

Islander,and3.6%Otheror“mixedrace.”Together,atotalof26.3%ofallspeakingcharacters

werediverse.Giventhat45%ofmovieticketbuyersand38.4%oftheU.S.populationis

comprisedofindividualsfromunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroups,filmsdonotreflectthe

30.5%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

NoFemale

Director

Female

Director



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



demographyofthiscountryorthefilmaudience.

Inthissection,weexplorefourfactors

relatedtodiversity:leads/coleads,genre,distributionofspeakingroles,andgender.



Table11

PrevalenceofCharacterRace/EthnicityOnScreen byYear:2007‐2015 



Year White Black Latino Asian Other

2007 77.6% 13.0% 3.3% 3.4% 2.5%

2008 71.2% 13.2% 4.9% 7.1% 3.5%

2009 76.2% 14.7% 2.8% 4.7% 1.5%

2010 77.6% 10.3% 3.9% 5.0% 3.3%

2012 76.3% 10.8% 4.2% 5.0% 3.6%

2013 74.1% 14.1% 4.9% 4.4% 2.5%

2014 73.1% 12.5% 4.9% 5.3% 4.2%

2015 73.7% 12.2% 5.3% 3.9% 4.9%



Note:TheOthercolumnrepresentscharacterscodedMiddleEastern,AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative,Native

Hawaiian/PacificIslander,andmixedrace.Withineachyear,therowstotalto100%.



Intermsofleads/coleads,wewereinterestedinhowmanydiverseactorsappearedacrossthe

100topfilms.Here,themeasurefocusedontheactor'srace/ethnicityratherthanthecharacter.

Only14ofthemoviesdepictedanunderrepresentedleadorcolead.Nineoftheleads/coleads

wereBlack,oneLatino,andfourweremixedrace.Notoneleadorcoleadwasplayedbyan

Asianactor.



Theintersectionofgenderandrace/ethnicityamongleads/coleadswasalsoexplored.Only

threeoftheunderrepresentedleads/coleadswereplayedbyfemaleactors,theexactsame

numberin2014.Justoneoftheseactorswasanunderrepresentedfemale45yearsofageor

older.Focusingonthe11ensemblefilms,9ofthe46characters(19.6%)wereplayedbydiverse

actors.Clearly,thepercentageofmaincharactersdrivingthenarrativeinfilms‐‐whetherleads

orensembles‐‐issubstantiallylowerthanthe

U.S.populationstatistic(38.4%).



Turningtogenre,theprevalenceofunderrepresentedspeakingcharactersinthreedistinct

platformswasassessed.AsdepictedinTable12,only29.3%ofcharacterswerediversein

Action/Adventurefilms,27.3%inComedy,and13.2%inAnimation.BothAction/Adventureand

Animationhavedemonstrated5%orgreaterincreasessince2007.Nomeaningfulchangeshave

appearedinComedy.Itisimportanttonotethatin2014,afull33.5%ofspeakingcharactersin

animatedcontextswerefromunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroups.Thishighpercentagelast

yearwasduetoanoverallincreaseindiversity,particularlyinonefilm(TheBookofLife).Given

thatmanyanimatedmovies’targetaudienceischildrenandtheirfamilies,thesefilmsmaybe

subtlyteachingand/orreinforcingthatnarrativesaboutpeopleofcolorandfemalesarenot

valuedinthesamewaythatstoriesaboutwhitemalesare.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Table12

PrevalenceofUnderrepresentedCharactersOnScreenbyFilmGen re:2007,2010, 2015



ActionorAdventu re  Animation Comedy

2007 2010 2015 2007 2010 2015 2007 2010 2015

%ofunder‐

representedchars

21.5% 29.7% 29.3% 8.1% 1.5% 13.2% 23.1% 23.8% 27.3%



Note:ThepercentageofWhitespeakingcharacterscanbecomputedbysubtractingeachcellfrom100%.



Presentingoverallstatisticsmaymissimportantnuancespertainingtorace/ethnicityacrossthe

100topfilms.Asaresult,twoadditionalanalyseswereconductedtodigdeeperintothe

prevalenceofunderrepresentedcharactersonscreen.Thefirstisaninvisibilityanalysis.Here,

weassesshowmanyfilmsfailtoportrayatleastonecharacterfromeachofthefollowing

racial/ethnicgroups:Black,Latino,andAsian.Thesecondisadistributionanalysis.Thistest

showshowmanyfilmsportrayaparticularrace/ethnicityclose(+2%)totheU.S.Censuspoint

statistic.





Table13

FilmsFocusingon Black, Latino,&AsianCharacters:2015



Measure

Black

Characters

Latino

Characters

Asian

Characters

#offilmsmissingcharactersfromspecificrace/ethnicity

17 40 49

#offilmsw/proportionalrepresentation(+2%Census)

10 2 18

U.S.Census 13.3% 17.6% 5.6%

TotalFilmsE valuated 100 100 100



Note:Thecolumnsdonotaddto100%.



Focusingoninvisibility,afull17%offilmsdidnotfeatureoneBlackorAfricanAmericanspeaking

ornamedcharacteronscreen(seeTable13).Thisnumberisidenticaltowhatwefoundin2013

and2014.Evenmoreproblematic,Latinosweremissingacross40moviesandAsiansacross49

films.ThenorminHollywoodisclearlyexclusion,asstorytellingsimplyfailstoincludeavariety

ofracial/ethnicgroupsonscreen.



Now,weturnourattentiontofictionalauthenticityorthepercentageofmovies+2percentage

pointsoftheU.S.Censuspointstatistic.AsshowninTable13,fewfilmsdepictracial/ethnic

groupsatornearproportionalrepresentation.Only2moviesfeaturedLatinocharactersin

roughly17%ofspeakingrolesonscreenand10filmsdepictedBlackcharactersinroughly13%of

speakingroles.Asiansfaredslightlybetter,as18moviesapproximatedfictionalauthenticity.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Thelastmeasureassessedinthissectionisgender.Thedistributionofmalesandfemaleswithin

thefivemajorracial/ethnicgroupsisshowninTable14.

FemalesfromOtherraces/ethnicities

weremorelikelytobedepictedonscreenthanWhite,Black,Latino,orAsianfemales.Black

girls/women(27.8%)weretheleastlikelyofallgroupstobedepictedacrossthe100topfilms.



Table14

CharacterRace/EthnicitybyGender in Top ‐GrossingFilms :2015



Gender

White Black Latin o Asian Other

%ofmales 67.5% 72.2% 67.3% 70.7% 59.3%

%offemales 32.5% 27.8% 32.7% 29.3% 40.7%

Ratio 2.08to1 2.59to1 2.06to1 2.41to1 1.46to1



Intotal,thefindingsrevealthatHollywoodfilmscontinuetowhitewashstorytelling.Many

moviesstillfailtodepictBlack,Latino,orAsianspeakingcharactersonscreen.And,fewfilms

featuredthesethreegroupsatproportionalrepresentationwithU.S.Censusstatistics.Asian

leadsweremissinginactionin2015filmsaswellasunderrepresentedfemalesanddiverse

women45yearsofageorolder.Surely,Hollywoodistheculturalepicenterofexclusionaryhiring

practiceswhenitcomestopeopleofcolorandwomen.



OnScreenPortrayal



Domesticroles(parents,relationalpartners)aswellasthesexualizationmeasureswere

examinedacrossthefivemajorracial/ethnicgroups.Becauseofthepronounceddifferencesby

gendernotedearlier,allanalyseswereconductedonmalesandfemalesseparately.No

differencesonthedomesticitymeasuresemergedbyrace/ethnicitywithingender,saveone.



Blackfemales(71.9%)werefarmorelikelytobedepictedascaregiversorparentsthanfemales

fromallotherraces/ethnicities.WhencomparedtoWhitewomen(43.4%),Latinaswere(55%)

morelikelytobeportrayedasmothersthanwereAsianwomen(38.5%)orwomenfromOther

races/ethnicities(36.8%).



Table15

Sexualization

ofFemale CharactersbyRace/Ethnicity On Screen:2015 



Measures White Black Latina Asian Other

%insexyattire 30.9% 26.9% 31.9% 32.6% 35.4%

%w/somenudity 29.7% 25.2% 29% 34.8% 35.4%

%referencedattractive 13.7% 7.4% 10.1% 4.3% 17.7%



Note:TheOthercolumnrepresentscharacterscodedMiddleEastern,AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative,Native

Hawaiian/PacificIslander,andmixedrace.Foreachcell,thetotalsubtractedfrom100%revealstheproportion

withinarace/ethnicitywithouttheattributeinquestion.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Focusingonfemalesexualization,noneofthethreemeasuresvariedbyrace/ethnicity(seeTable

15).

31

Formalesexualization,race/ethnicitywasassociatedwithsexuallyrevealingattireand

nuditybutnotattractiveness.

LatinosandmalesfromOtherraces/ethnicitiesweremorelikely

tobedepictedinsexyattirethanWhiteorAsianmales.Asomewhatsimilarpatternwas

documentedfornudity.Latinosandboys/menfromOtherracial/ethnicgroupsweremorelikely

tobeshownwithsomenuditythanBlack,White,orAsianboys/men.Itshouldbenotedthatthe

leastlikelygrouptobesexualizedisAsianmales,whichisconsistentwithstereotypingliterature

andcommentaryabouthowthisparticulargrouphasbeenshowninmedia.



Table16

SexualizationofMale Ch aractersbyRace/EthnicityOnScreen:2015



Measures White Black Latino Asian Other



%insexyattire 6.6% 9.1% 12.7% 5.4% 13%

%w/somenudity 9.1% 8% 15.5% 5.4% 17.4%

%referencedattractive 3.8% 3.1% 4.2% 2.7% 6.1%



Note:TheOthercolumnrepresentscharacterscodedMiddleEastern,AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative,Native

Hawaiian/PacificIslander,andmixedrace.Foreachcell,thetotalsubtractedfrom100%revealstheproportion

withinarace/ethnicitywithouttheattributeinquestion.



Wrappinguponscreenportrayals,theresultsrevealthatpeopleofcolorarestereotypedalong

genderlines.Femalesexualizationwasprevalentacrossalldiversegroupsexamined.Similarto

earlierinthereport,wenowlookbehindthecameratoexaminewhogetsaccesstothe

director'schairacrosstwospecificraces.



BehindtheCamera



Everyyear,wehaveexaminedthenumberandpercentageofBlackdirectorsworkingacrossthe

100topfilms.Asindicatedabove,atotalof107directorswereattachedtothemostpopular

films.OnlyfourofthosedirectorswereBlack(F.GaryGray,RyanCoogler,AntoineFuqua,

GeorgeTillman,Jr.).NoneoftheseBlackdirectorswerewomen.Matteroffact,all8women

directingmotionpicturesinthe2015samplewereWhite.



Examiningovertimetrendsrevealstheseverityofexclusionaryhiringpractices.Across886

directors,only5.5%(n=49)wereBlack.Thevastmajorityweremale.Only3Blackwomen

have

directedoneofthe800topfilmsfrom2007to2015.Thoughnotcapturedinthisreport,

including2011doesnotchangethestatusquo.NoBlackwomendirectedacrossthe100top

filmsthatyeareither.





©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Table17

BlackDirectorsbyYear:2007‐2015



BlackDirectors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

%ofmaledirectors

7.1%

(n=8)

4.5%

(n=5)

6.3%

(n=7)

4.6%

(n=5)

4.9%

(n=6)

6.5%

(n=7)

3.7%

(n=4)

3.7%

(n=4)

5.2%

(n=46)

%offemaledirectors 0

1.8%

(n=2)

0 0 0 0

<1%

(n=1)

0

<1%

(n=3)

Total#ofdirectors 

112 112 111 109 121 107 107 107 886



Now,weexaminewhetherhavingaBlackdirectorassociatedwithafilm(no,yes)isrelatedto

theprevalenceofBlackcharactersonscreen.Tothisend,welookedatthepercentageof

speakingornamedcharactersthatwereBlackinfilmswithandwithoutaBlackdirector

attached.Theanalysiswassignificant.

FilmswithBlackdirectorsdepictedsubstantiallymore

Blackcharactersonscreen(39%)thandidthosefilmswithoutaBlackdirectorattached(10.4%).

Theseanalysesshouldbeinterpretedwithcaution,duetothesmallnumberofmovieswitha

Blackdirector(n=4).



Figure5

PercentageofBlackCharactersbyDirectorRace:2015



Thesefindings,aswellastheonesnotedaboveondirectorgender,canbeinterpretedinatleast

afewways.Individualsmaytellstoriesthatreflecttheirownexperiencesortheymaybegiven

opportunitiesbasedontheirsalientsocialidentities(e.g.,gender,race/ethnicity,LGBT).Or,it

10.4%

39%

10%

20%

30%

40%

NoBlackDirector BlackDirector

%ofBlackCharacters



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



maybeacombinationofbothofthesefactors.Despitethistheorizing,onethingisclear.

Hollywoodisreticenttohiredirectorsthatdeviatefromthestatusquoorwhitemaleprototype.

Toroundoutthediscussiononrace,weconductedoneadditionalanalysis.Thenumberand

percentageofAsiandirectorswasassessed.Only5.6%(n=6)directorswereAsianacrossthe100

topfilmsof2015(seeTable18).Whilethisrepresentsanincreasefrom2014,thenumberand

percentageisidenticalto2013.NofemaledirectorswereAsianacross800moviestheatrically

releasedfrom2007to2015,saveone.Ifthetopfilmsof2011wereincludedinoursampleof

films,thenumberwouldincreaseto2.



Table18

AsianDirectorsbyYear:2007‐2015



AsianDirectors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

%ofmaledirectors

2.7%

(n=3)

1.8%

(n=2)

<1%

(n=1)

3.7%

(n=4)

1.6%

(n=2)

5.6%

(n=6)

0

5.6%

(n=6)

2.7%

(n=24)

%offemaledirectors 0

<1%

(n=1)

0 0 0 0 0 0

<1%

(n=1)

Total#ofdirectors 

112 112 111 109 121 107 107 107 886



Thelackofinclusionbehindthecameraisalarming.Fewracial/ethnicminoritiesshoutaction

fromthedirector'schair.And,theoneshiredintheseprestigiouspostswerealmostalways

male.Toreiterate,only3Blackand1Asianfemaledirectorswereattachedtothe800most

popularfilmsfrom2007to2015.Aswemovefromrace/ethnicitytoLGBT,wewillcontinueto

seetheexclusionofdiversevoicesonscreen.



Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,&TransgenderCharactersinFilm



Only32characters(<1%)werecharacterizedaslesbian,gay,bisexualortransgenderacrossthe

sampleof100topfilmsof2015.

Thisisanincreaseof13portrayalsfromour2014report(see

Table19).Justonetransgendercharacter(3.1%)appearedsample‐wide,whichisaslight

increasefromlastyear.ThemajorityofLGBportrayalsfeaturedgaymen(59.4%,n=19),followed

bylesbians(21.9%,n=7),andbisexuals(15.6%,n=5,3males,2females).Giventhat3.5%ofthe

U.S.populationidentifiesasLGB,thefilmindustryisclearlyunderindexingoninclusionofthis

community.





Table19

LGBTPortrayals:2014‐2015



Year Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Total

2014 4 10 5 0 19

2015 7 19 5 1 32



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



TheroleofLGBTcharactersalsowasevaluated.MostoftheLGBTcharacterscodedwere

inconsequentialtotheplot(71.9%),withonly9or28.1%insupportingroles.Notoneleadorco

leadwasLGBTidentifiedacrosstheentiresampleof100topfilmsof2015.82%ofthemoviesin

thesampledidnotdepictoneLGBTspeakingornamedcharacter.



Turningtodemographics,thegender,race/ethnicityandageofeveryLGBTcharacterwas

assessed.Nearlythree‐quartersweremale(68.8%)and31.2%werefemale.Moreracial/ethnic

diversitywasfoundacrossLGBTcharactersthansamplewide.Justover40%

(40.6%)ofLGBT

characterswerefromanunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroup.Thismatchestheproportionof

underrepresentedindividualsintheU.S.population.



Intermsofage,thevastmajorityofLGBTcharacters(93.3%)wereshownintheiryoungadult

(21‐to39‐yrsofage)ormiddleageyears(40‐to

64‐yrsofage).Onlyoneteenagedcharacter

wasdepictedasgayacrosstheentiresampleandthisrolewascompletelyinconsequentialto

theplot.ShowingstoriesinvolvingLGBTadolescentsisimportantfortheyoungmenandwomen

comingofageinthiscountry.IntegratingLGBTyouthintoourculturalnarrativesmayprovide

importantmediatedpeersandrolemodelsforyoungerfilmconsumers.



ThedomesticandromanticlivesofLGBTcharactersalsorevealedaconflictedstory.Intermsof

theirromanticlives,justovertwo‐thirds(68.2%)ofthosecharactersthathadenough

informationtobeevaluatedweremarriedorshownincommittedrelationships.Thisisinline

withadvancesmadeonmarriageequalityintheU.S.Whenitcomestoparentalrelationships,

however,thepictureismoreproblematic.OnlytwoLGBTparentsweredepictedacrossthe100

topfilmsof2015.Bothcharacterswerelesbiansandappearinonemovie.Thisexclusivefocus

oncaregivingleavesthemanyLGBTfamiliesraisingchildrenincommunitiesacrosstheU.S.out

ofthescene.



Onceagain,thesefindingsrevealthatwhenitcomestothedemographicprofileoftheU.S.,

Hollywoodiscroppinggroupsoutofthepicture.Lessthan1%ofthe

characterslastyearwere

depictedasLGBT,andmostwerecompletelyinconsequentialtotheplot.Despitepoliticaland

legalgainsmadebytheLGBTcommunity,agapstillremainsbetweenthepresenceofLGBT

individualsinthepopulationandwhoisseenonscreen.



CharacterswithDis abilitiesin Film

Forthefirsttimethisyear,theMDSCInitiativehasincorporatedaqualitativeanalysisof

characterswithdisabilitiesintothereport.Themeasurewascraftedafterexistingdefinitionsof

disabilitywerescouredfromlegal,academic,andmedicalarenasaswellasreportsbyadvocacy

groups.

Ultimately,anadjustedandslightlymoreconservativeversionofthedefinition

providedbytheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)wasutilizedtoassesswhethercharacters

wereshownwithadisability.

ThisapproachisconsistentwithGLAAD’sreportaswellasthe

recentanalysisbyRudermanFamilyFoundation.





©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



OuradaptedADAdefinitionhadthreemajorcomponents.Thefirstwasthepresenceofa

conditionthataffectedtheform,function,orstructureofacharacter’sbody.Second,the

conditionledtoacurrentrestrictionofmajorlifeactivitiesormajorbodilyfunctions.

Thethird

wasthattheconditionand/orrestrictionfacedbythecharacterwaspermanentorexpectedto

endureforatleastsixmonths.

Additionally,addictionwasexcludedfromthepresentanalysis

giventhedifficultyinmeasurement.



Bystipulation,celestialbeings,theundead,androbotswere

notallowedtopossessadisability.



Withthisdefinition,howmanycharacterswithdisabilitywereshownacrossthe100topfilms?

Afterremovingsupernaturaldisabilities(n=11),only2.4%ofallspeakingornamedcharacters

(n=105)wereshownwithadisability.Thispointstatisticissurprising,giventhat18.7%ofthe

U.S.populationreportshavingadisability.





Tenofthefilmsfeaturedaleading/coleadingcharacterwithadisabilityacrossthe100topfilms.

FourofthesecharactershadPTSD,withthefocusvaryingfromoneminorscenetoan

interwovenstorylineacrosstheentirenarrative.Onlythreeoftheleads/coleadsfeatured

womenandnotonewas45yearsofageorolder,underrepresented,orpartoftheLGBT

community.Only2ofthe11ensemblefilmsdepictedaprimarycharacterwithadisability.Both

ofthesecharactersweremaleandonewasunderrepresented.Overall,thevastmajorityof

characterswithdisabilitywerefeaturedinsupporting(54.3%)orinconsequentialroles(32.4%).



Intermsofvisibility,afull45ofthemoviesfailedtodepictonecharacterwithadisabilityand

onlytwowereatproportionalrepresentation(seeTable20).Mostoftheportrayalsappearedin

Action/Adventurefilms(33.3%)followedbyComedies(24.8%),andDramas(19%).Only2%ofall

characterswithdisabilitiesappearedinAnimatedmovies.Thelatterfindingisproblematic,

suggestingthatcontenttargetingtheyoungestviewersallbuterasesthiscommunity.



Table20

FilmsFocusingon Characterswith Disabilities 



Measure

Characters

w/Disabilities

#offilmsmissingcharactersw/disabilities

45

#offilmsw/proportionalrepresentation(+2%Census)

2

U.S.Census 18.7%

TotalFilmsE valuated 100



EachcharacterwithadisabilitywascategorizedintotheU.S.Censusdomains.

Themost

commonportrayalofcharacterdisabilityfellintothephysicaldomainorconditions/restrictions

relatedtomovementorfunctionsofthebodyanditsorgans.Afull61%ofthecharacterswere

featuredwithaphysicaldisability.Examplesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,mobility

impairments,severefacialdisfigurement,nonHodgkin'slymphoma,andChronicTraumatic

Encephalopathy.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Thenextmostfrequentportrayalincludedamentalorcognitivedisability,accountingfor37.1%

ofportrayals.Instancesofthesedisabilitiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,PostTraumaticStress

Disorder(PTSD),AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder(ADHD),cognitiveimpairment,and

dyslexia.Communicativedisabilitiesaccountedfor18.1%ofcharacterportrayals(i.e.,blind,deaf,

speechimpediment).Itmustbenotedthatthepercentagesacrossdomainsdonotaddto100%

assomecharactershaddisabilitiesthatspanneddifferentcategories.



Turningtothedemographicsofcharacterswithdisability,thepictureisquiteskewed.Interms

ofgender,only19%ofcharacterswithadisabilitywerefemaleand81%weremale.Thisisanew

lowforgenderinequalityinfilm.Afull71.7%ofcharacterswithdisabilitywereWhiteand28.3%

werefromunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroups.Onlytwocharacterswithadisabilitywere

children(0‐to12‐yrsofage)andalmosthalf(49%)ofall

portrayalsdepictedcharacters40years

ofageorolder.NotoneLGBTcharacterwithadisabilitywasportrayedacrossthe100topfilms

of2015.



Summingup,theportrayalofcharacterswithdisabilityisoutoflinewithpopulationnormsin

theU.S.Basedonthedefinition,only2.4%of

charactersweredepictedwithoneormorenon

supernaturaldisabilities.



Conclusion



Examiningthe100top‐grossingmoviesfrom2015revealsthatinequalityisanindustrynormin

film.Acrossgender,race/ethnicity,LGBTstatus,andcharacterswithdisabilities,itisclearthat

despiteadvocacyandgoodintentions,changeremainsdifficulttoachieve.Theresultsofthis

annualinvestigationarebothstartlingandconsistentwithpreviousyears.Below,majorfindings,

solutions,andlimitationsarepresented.



#1ProportionalRepresentationisFarFromaRealityinFilm



ThefirstmajorfindingisthatHollywood’sdepictionsoffemales,peopleofcolor,theLGBT

community,andcharacterswithdisabilitiesremainoutofstepwithpopulation

norms(seeTable

21).Femaleswerestilllessthanone‐thirdofallspeakingcharactersinfilm,despitebeingroughly

halfthepopulationandhalfofmovieticketbuyers.

Charactersfromunderrepresented

racial/ethniccommunitieswerealsomarginalized.Just26.3%ofallcharacterswerefroman

underrepresentedracialand/orethnicgroup,whichis12.1%lessthanintheU.S.population.

Withhalfofchildrenunderage5intheU.S.fromanunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroup,



Hollywoodmustrecognizeandaddressthegapbetweenwhoappearsonscreenandthe

populationofcurrentandfuturemoviegoersinthiscountry.



ForindividualswhoareLGBTand/orlivingwithadisability,filmisalsoarepresentational

wilderness.TheuptickobservedinthenumberofLGBTportrayalsin2015

isasmallpositivestep

intherightdirection.But,italsoilluminatesthatthefictionalLGBTcommunityisnowherenear

proportionaltotheU.S.population.Thepercentageoffilmcharacterswithadisabilityalsofalls



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



wellbelowthepointstatisticofAmericanslivingwithadisabilityintheU.S.

Bothofthese

vibrantandvariedcommunitiesfindthemselveserasedwhenitcomestofilmportrayals.



#2AnEpidemicofInvisibilityisAliveandWellinFilm



Whileexaminingcharactersacrossfilmsallowsforpopulationcomparisons,understandinghow

oftendifferentgroupsareabsentaltogetherfromthescreeniscrucial.Forty‐ninefilmsdidnot

featureevenoneAsianorAsian

‐Americanspeakingornamedcharacter.Similarly,40castno

speakingornamedHispanic/Latinocharacters,and17depictednotoneBlackorAfrican

Americanspeakingornamedcharacter.IntermsofLGBT,82filmsdidnothaveonecharacter

fromthiscommunity.Characterswithadisabilitywereabsentfrom45of

thetopmoviesin

2015.ThesefiguresrevealthatHollywoodstillisolatesportrayalsofdifferentgroupsintocertain

moviesratherthanintegratingarangeofportrayalsandexperiencesacrossslatesofcontent.



Table21providesanoverviewofthedisparitybetweenonscreenandproportional

representation.Thechartrevealsthedepthandbreadthofexclusionfacedbydifferentgroups

whenitcomestofilm.Whileitmaybetemptingtofocusonasinglecategory,itisclearthat

anyonewhoisnotastraight,white,able‐bodiedmaleismarginalizedincinema.



Table21

TheEpidemicofInvisibilityAcross6Groups



UnderservedGroups

Films

w/OutAny

Characters

%ofSpeaking

Characters

U.S.

Population

Difference

(Population‐

Characters)



Females 0 31.4% 50.8%‐19.4%

Peoplew/Disabilities 45 2.4% 18.7%‐16.3%

Hispanic/Latinos 40 5.3% 17.6%‐12.3%

LGBs 82 <1% 3.5%‐3.49%

Asians 49 3.9% 5.6%‐1.7%

Black/AfricanAmericans 17 12.2% 13.3%‐1.1%



Note:U.S.CensuswasusedforallgroupsexceptLGB.ThelatterpointstatisticwasfromWilliamsInstitute(2011).



#3LeadsandLessProminentCharactersMustBothbeTackled



In2015,therewasanincreaseinthenumberoffilmswithafemaleleadorcoleadcharacter,

bothoverallandforwomenage45andolder.However,thispositivetrendisnotapanacea.

Thoughtherearemorefemalesatthecenteroftheaction,therearestill

fewwomenfrom

underrepresentedracial/ethnicgroups,andjustoneunderrepresentedfemalelead45yearsof

ageorolder.TherewerealsonoleadorcoleadcharactersidentifiedasLGBT.Decidingwho

shouldanchorastoryisimbuedwithfinancialconsiderations.Advocacyonthecastingof

womeninleadingrolesmustaskforamoreinclusiveapproach.



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Additionally,theshiftinfemaleleadsandcoleadsdoesnotreflectalargertrendinoverall

speakingcharacters.Castingmalesinleadrolesmayrestonexplicitbiases,

whilethepersistent

inequalitythatexcludeswomenfromsmallrolesislikelygovernedbyimplicitbiases.These

preferencesmayoriginatewhencharactersareconceivedandlinkedtodifferentoccupationsin

scriptdevelopment.Castingdirectorsinthehiringprocessmayperpetuatethem.Forinstance,

whenwritersthinkofaparticularcareer(e.g.,policeofficer,physicist)thismaybringtomindthe

imageofamalemorequicklythanthatofafemale.Castingdirectorsmaybereluctantorunable

toauditionorhirefemalesfortheserolesoncetheyarewrittenformen.Onewaytoaddressthe

representationalgapsacrossgroupsistoequipindustrymemberswiththeknowledgeofand

specificandempiricallyverifiedtoolstocombatimplicitbiases.



#4BehindtheCameraisBehindtheTimes



Thelackoffemaledirectorshasbeenasourceofmuchreporting,advocacy,andactivismover

thelastfewyears.Thishasyettoresultinmeaningfulchange.Femalesfilledjustunderone‐fifth

ofabove‐the‐linerolesasdirectors,writers,andproducersin2015.Although7.5%ofdirectors

werefemale,thishasnoteclipsedthehighreachedin2008.BlackandAsiandirectorsalsomade

littleprogressin2015.Moreover,femalesfromthesegroupswerescarceamongtheranksof

top100filmdirectors.OnlythreeBlackwomenandoneAsianwomandirectedfilmsacrossthe

800moviesincludedinthisstudy—anumberthatremainsunchangedfromlastyear.Itis

imperativethateffortstoimprovethenumberoffemaledirectorsareinclusiveofallfemales,

includingwomenofcolor.



Forthefirsttime,thisreportincludesanexaminationoffemalefilmcomposers.Thesefindings

revealthatwomenarevastlyunderrepresentedinthisrole.Justahandfulofwomenhave

workedascomposersacrossthe800topfilmsexamined.Whiledirectorshavedrawnthe

majorityofattentionfromadvocates,itisclearfilmcomposingisanevenmoreproblematic

spaceforwomeninthisindustry.



#5PortrayalsofDisabilityareDisconcerting



Theadditionofdisabilitymeasurestothereportthisyearallowsforanimportantintersectional

analysis.Althoughnearly20%oftheU.S.populationreportslivingwithadisability,film

portrayalsfellfarbelowthatatjust2.4%.However,thisisjustpartofthestory.Whileasmall

fractionofcharactersappearwithdisabilitiesinfilm,theseindividualswereoverwhelmingly

whitemales,andnotonewasLGBT.Forfemales,itisclearthatHollywood’spreferenceskews

towardyouth,beauty,andability.Giventhanjust19%of

thecharacterswithadisabilitywere

femaleandfilm’srelianceonstereotypingandsexualization,themessagedeliveredtoyoung

femaleviewersisdisconcerting.Depictionsofdisabilityarenotonlymarginalized,theyalso

obscurethetruediversityofthiscommunity.



Characterswithdisabilitieswerealsoprimarilydepictedinsupportingorinconsequentialroles.

Inlinewiththefindingsonleadingcharactersfromunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroupsand

thoseidentifiedasLGBT,characterswithdisabilitiesarenotatthecenteroftheaction.This



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



exclusionofdifferentgroupshomogenizesthestoriesthataretoldandwhocanparticipate.It

alsodiscountstheexperiencesandperspectivesofindividualslivingwithdisabilitywhoidentify

withotherunderrepresentedgroups.Ultimately,filmensuresthataverynarrowsliceofthe

communityisallthatviewerssee.



#6SolutionsforChangeareSimplebutScarce



The

intensescrutinyonHollywoodoverthepastseveralyearshasplacedtheAcademyAwardsin

thecrosshairsofadvocates,mostnotablythroughthe#OscarsSoWhitecampaign.However,the

datainthisreportrevealthatproblemsbeginmuchearlierandaffecttheentireentertainment

ecosystem.Toaddresstheongoinginequalityfacedonscreen

andbehindthecamera,simple

andstrategicsolutionsarerequired.Thesesolutionsmustconquertwoofthemajorbarriersto

amoreinclusivefilmenvironment:alackofimaginationandawillingnesstochange.



Toaddressthelackoffemalecharactersoverall,onesimplesolutionistojustaddfivefemale

speakingcharacterstoeveryfilminthetop100.Theaveragefeaturefilmhasapproximately40 

characters.Ofthose,onlyahandfularecentraltothemainstory(i.e.,leadorsupporting).

Addingsmallpartsforfemalestofilmsinproductionwillraisetheoverallpercentageoffemale

characters,settinganewoverallnorm.Byadoptingthistactic,thefilmindustrycanreachoverall

genderparityinjustthreeyears(seeFigure6).Additionally,thisstrategybolstersthepipelinefor

femaletalentandensuresthatfilmsetsaremoreinclusivewhenitcomestogender.

Importantly,thisstrategyneednotonlyincreasethepercentageofWhitefemalecharacters,but

femalesfromunderrepresentedracial/ethnicgroups,lesbiancharacters,orfemalecharacters

withdisabilities.Finally,thestrategydoesnottakeemploymentopportunitiesawayfrommales,

itsimplycreatesadditionalprospectsforfemales.



Figure6

PercentageofSpeakingRolesbyGender:Just AddFive



68.6%

61.6%

55.9%

51.1%

31.4%

38.4%

44.1%

48.9%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2015 2016 2017 2018

Males

Females



©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Asecondsolutiondesignedtoimproverepresentationamongallspeakingcharactersisfortop

talenttoaddanequityridertotheircontracts.Thisclausewouldstipulatethatfictional

authenticityshouldbeachievedinthecastingprocesswhenitissensibleforthestory.

Addressinginequalityfromalegalperspectivesetsanexpectationforaccountabilityandoffers

anobjectivestandardtobemet.PaulFeigisoneindividualtohavepubliclyexpressedsupport

fortheideaofalteringcontractswithanequityrider.

Byensuringthatinclusivecastingisa

recognizedgoal,progresscanbetrackedandchangecanbemade.



Bothinfrontofandbehindthecamera,entertainmentcompaniesmustmakespecificandpublic

goalsforchange.Whilerecognitionoftheproblemandtheneedtodobetterareimportant,

goal‐settingdemonstratesacommitmenttoprogress.Forinstance,FXCEOJohnLandgraf

recentlystatedhisnetworks’desiretoenact“quantum”changeinbehindthecamerahiring

practices.

Announcinginclusiongoalsalsoallowsthepublic,advocates,andevenindustry

memberstoholdorganizationsaccountableforthepledgestheymake.



Itisimportanttonoteafewlimitationspertainingtothecurrentinvestigation.Themeasureof

disabilityinthisstudywasqualitativeinnatureandwasdefinedbroadly.Whilefutureresearch

mayrelyuponaquantitativemethod,thechallengesofassessingfictionalcontentforcues

relatedtodisabilityrequiredamorenuancedapproach.Adifferentdefinitionofdisabilitywould

likelyalterthefindings.Itisalsoimportanttoconsiderwhetherportrayalsofdisabilityincrease

ordecreaseovertime.Thefilmsassessedin2015maybeuniqueasaresultofchoicesby

creativetalent(i.e.,MadMax:FuryRoad),orduetoafocusontopics(i.e.,Concussion)relatedto

disability.



Informationrelatedtoactorswasnotassessedforthedisabilityanalysis.Ensuringthatactors

withdisabilitieshaveaccesstorolesthatrepresenttheircommunityisacrucialsteptoward

entertainmentequality.Futurestudiesshouldconsiderwhetheractorswithdisabilitiesarehired

toportraycharacterswithdisabilitiesonscreen.Finally,onlythe100topfilmsfrom2015were

examined.Giventhatthetop100filmsmayinvolvesignificantallocationoffinancialresources

andarepopularamongstaudiences,thesefilmsareimportanttoassess.However,filmsoutside

thetop100mightdepictamorediverserangeofcharactersorbemoreinclusivebehindthe

camera.



Thesuccessofparticularmoviesin2015initiallyleftsomeindividualshopefulaboutthe

potentialforimprovedrepresentationinfilm.Theresultsofthisinvestigationpointtoa

misplacedoptimismregardingHollywood’sachievements.Despitethelackofprogressobserved,

itiscrucialtocontinuetoadvocateforchange.Byadoptingpracticalsolutionsthateliminate

biasandrewardinclusion,Hollywoodcanbecomeanindustrythatreflectsitsconsumers.







©Dr.StacyL.Smith  September2016



Footnotes

Forlastyear’sreport,see:Smith,S.L.,Choueiti,M.,Pieper,K.,Gillig,T.,Lee,C.,&DeLuca,D.(2015).

Inequalityin700PopularFilms:ExaminingPortrayalsofGender,Race,&LGBTStatusfrom2007‐2014.

Media,Diversity,&SocialChangeInitiative,USCAnnenberg.See:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/Inequality%20in%20700%20Popular%20Films%208215

%20Final%20for%20Posting.ashx



Thesampleof100top‐grossingfilmsof2015wasbasedondomesticboxofficeperformanceas

reportedbyBoxOfficeMojo(http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htm).



Ourmajorunitofanalysisistheindependentspeakingcharacter.Characterswhoutteroneormore

wordsdiscerniblyonscreen,orarereferredtobyname,constitutetheprimaryunitofanalysis.In

additiontospeakingornamedcharacters,thefilmisalsoaunitofanalysis.



Therearetimes

infeaturefilmswhencharactersingroupsspeaksimultaneously(e.g.,ashoutingcrowd

atasportingevent)orsequentially(e.g.,apolicesquad,firefighters)thataffecthowtheyareunitized.

Simultaneousspeechdoesnotmeetthe definitionofindependenceandthusisnotcoded.Characters

thatwereidentical(makingtheirindependent

identityimpossibletoascertain)butspokeseparatelywere

“grouped”intooneunitorlineforcodingpurposes.Only16groupswerefoundacrossthesample,which

fallswithintherangeofgroupsfrompreviousyearsexamined(low=3,high=30 ).Groupswerenot

includedinanyoftheanalyses,however.



Interms

ofunitizing,eachspeakingornamedcharacterrepresentedonelineofdata.Aswithallour

reports,anewlineofdatawasenteredwhencharacterschangedtype,agegrouping,sex,or

race/ethnicity(e.g.,GenieinAladdin,BruceBannerinTheHulk)acrosstheplot.Only197demographic

changeswere

observedsamplewide.39.6%ofalldemographicchangeswerefemalesand60.4%were

males.Removingdemographicchangesfromthetotalnumberofcharacterlineshaslittleimpactonthe

distributionofgenderinthesample(69%male,31%female).Assuch,alldemographicchangeswereleft

intheanalysesunless

reportedotherwisebelow.



Everyspeakingcharacterwasevaluatedacrossaseriesofcharacteristics.Wewillonlybrieflysummarize

themeasureswehaveusedinpreviousyearlyreports.Formoreinformation,pleasevisitourresearch

briefingshousedonourMDSCInitiativewebsite:http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/DrStacyLSmithMDSCI



Intermsofdemographicsanddomesticity,weassessedacharacter’srole(i.e.,primary,secondary,

tertiary)type(i.e.,human,animal,supernaturalcreature,anthropomorphizedsupernatur alcreature,

anthropomorphizedanimal),age(i.e.,0‐5,6‐12,13‐20,21‐39,40‐64,65orolder),sex(i.e.,male,female),

race/ethnicity(i.e.,White,Black,Hispanic/Latino,

AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative,Native

Hawaiian/PacificIslander,Asian,MiddleEastern,Other/Mixedrace),parentalstatus(i.e.,notaparent,

singleparent,coparent,parentrelationalstatusunknown),andrelationalstanding(i.e.,single,married,

committedrelationship/unmarried,committed,maritalstatusunknown,divorced,widowed).



Charactersexualizationwascapturedwiththreemeasures.First,sexuallyrevealingattirewasassessed.

Using

Downs&Smith's(2010,p.725)definition,sexyattire(no,yes)referredtotightand/oralluring

apparelthathighlightstheshapeofthetorso.Next,thedegreeofnuditywasmeasured.Nudityreferred

totheamountofskinshowingonacharacter’sbodyfromthemidchestregiontothehigh

upperthigh

region.Thecodeswerenone(i.e.,noexposedskinfrommidchesttoupperthigh),some(i.e.,skin



exposedincleavage,stomach/midriff,and/orupperthigharea),orfull(i.e.,completeexposureofthe

skin‐‐includingwithtransparentclothing‐‐fromthemiddleofthechesttothehighregionofthethighsas

wellasthedepictionofbreastsforfemalecharacters).Screenshotsofsexuallyrevealingclothingand

nudity

weretakentolegitimateandvalidatecodingdecisionsonthesemeasures.

Attractivenesswasmeasuredbycapturingcharacters ’ physicaldesirousness,whichwasdemarcatedby

othercharacters’verbal(e.g.,heisababe)andnonverbal(e.g.,staringatanothercharacter,lickinglips)

referencesinthestory.Attractivenesshadthreelevels:none,one

reference,ortwoormorereferences.

Itmustbenotedthatwhileeverycharacterwasassessedforattractiveness,onlythosewithahumanor

humanlikebodywereevaluatedforsexuallyrevealingattireandnudity.



Mostmeasurescontainedtwoadditionalcodes:“can’ttell”and“notapplicable.”“Can’ttell”referredto

thosecharacteristicswherenotenoughinformationwasgiventomakeajudgment.Forexample,a

charactermayonlysayonewordinacoffeeshopmakingparentalstatusand/orrelationalstanding

impossibletoascertain.“Notapplicable,”ontheotherhand,wasusedwhentheattributeevaluateddid

notapplytothe

characterbeingcoded.Forinstance,animalsthatonlyhavefurandexistincommunities

withoutclothingnormsforcoveringtheirbodieswouldbecodedas“notapplicable”onsexuallyrevealing

attireandnudity.



Sexualityandgenderidentitywereevaluatedaswell.Apparentsexualitywasdefinedastheenduring

romanticand

sexualproclivitytowardmen,women,orbothsexes.Tobeincluded,theseattractions

neededtobevoluntary,persistent,andauthenticforeachcharact er.Intheabsenceofdirectinformation

intheplot,atleasttwoindirectcueswereneededtoincludeaportrayal.Characterswerecodedas

lesbian,gay,bisexual,or

not.Stateddifferently,wedidnotmeasureheterosexuality.

Characterswerecodedastransgenderiftheyidentifyasthegenderoppositetheirbiologicalsex.This

excludedanyinstancesofcross‐dressing,performanceindrag,andcharactersthatidentifyas“gender

nonconforming.”Anyknowntransgenderindividuals(e.g.,CatelynJenner)whoappearas

themselves

werecodedastransgender.



Eachmoviewasalsoevaluatedforattributesofstorytelling.Attheendofeachfilm,thecoderassessed

ratingaswellasthenatureofthestorytold(i.e.,lead,colead,ensemblecast).Becauseofthedifficulty

codershaveindeterminingstorystructure,the

leadershipteamoftheMDSCInitiativewereinvolvedin

renderingjudgmentsaboutstoryleads/coleadsorwhetherthenarrativewascarriedbyanensemble

cast.GenreandratingjudgmentswerederivedfromonlinesourcessuchasIMDbPro,BoxOfficeMojo,

andVarietyInsight.



Priortocoding,allofourresearchassistants

(RAs)weretrainedforroughly6weeksinaclassroomtype

settingbyoneofthestudyauthors(Choueiti).Twodifferentgroups,oneintheFallof2015andtheother

intheSpringof2016,participatedincodingthemajorityofthemeasures.Datacollectionandreliability

measures

arereporteduniformlyacrossthetwogroups.TheRAswerealsogiventrainingdiagnosticsto

testtheirunderstandingandapplicationofunitizingandvariablecoding.Aftermorethan6diagnostics,

theentiregroupbegancodingthesampleof100films.Filmswereassignedtothreeevaluatorsthat

assessedthecontentindependently.

Reliabilitywasrunperfilmanddisagreementswereres olvedvia

discussionwithoneoftheMDSCInitiativeleadershipteam.Afterthedisagreementswerefinalized,the

filmwaswatchedatleastoneadditionaltimeandunitizingandvariablecodingwas“qualitychecked”

acrossthestory.Atthispoint,thequalitychecker

couldoverturnpreviousdecisions.Also,membersof

theMDSCInitiativeleadershipteamcouldupendanyinvalidcodingjudgmentsbythestudentresearch



assistants.Thisprocessreferstothequantitativeassessmentofgender,race/ethnicity,andLGBTonly.

Disabilitywillbediscussedbelow.



Foreachfilm,twotypesofreliabilitywereassessed:unitizingandvariablecoding.Unitizingagreement

capturedthenumberoflinesperfilmthatwereagreeduponby2ofthe3

coders(or,inthecaseofone

film,3ofthe4coders).Thehigherpercentagesindicategreateragreementinidentifyingspeaking

characters.Agreementisreportedatthefilmlevelinquartiles:Q1100%‐90%(films1‐25);Q289.2%‐

85.7%(films26‐50);Q385.7%‐80.6%(films51‐75);Q4

80.4%‐60%(films76‐100).Onlythreefilmshad

unitizingagreementbelow70%(69.2%,65.4%,60%).



VariablecodingwasassessedusingthePotter&Levine‐Donnerstein(1999)formula.Foreachmeasure,

thesamplewidemedianisreportedfirstfollowedbythesamplewidemeanandrangeinparentheses.

Role1.0

(M=.99,range=.63‐1.0),type1.0(M=.99,range=.64‐1.0),age1.0(M=.94,range=.65‐1.0),sex1.0

(M=1.0,range=1.0),race/ethnicity1.0(M=.99,range=.66‐1.0),parentalstatus1.0(M=.99,range=.64‐

1.0),relationalstanding1.0(M=.99,range=.65‐1.0),sexuallyrevealingclothing1.0(M=99,range=.61‐

1.0),nudity1.0(M=.99,

range=.63‐1.0),attractiveness1.0(M=1.0,range=1.0),apparentsexuality1.0

(M=1.0,range=1.0),andtransgender1.0(M=1.0,range=.61‐1.0).



Hunt,D.,Ramόn,A.C.,&Tran,M.(2016).2016HollywoodDiversityReport:Busine$$asUsual?RalphJ.

BuncheCenterforAfricanAmericanStudies.UCLA,California.Negrόn‐Muntaner,F.&Abbas,C.(2016).

TheLatinoDisconnect:LatinosintheAgeofMediaMergers.CenterfortheStudyofEthnicityandRace.

ColumbiaUniversity,NY.



Thechi‐squareanalysisforgender(male,female)byMPAArating(PG,PG‐13,R)wassignificant,X

(2,

4,347)=13.70,p<.05,V*=.06.Atotalof10characters'biologicalsexcouldnotbeascertained(i.e.,

supernaturalcreaturesoranimals)andonewasnotapplicable(i.e.,blob).Thesecharacterswere

excludedfromallgenderanalyses.



GenredistinctionsweremadeusinginformationfromBoxOfficeMojoinlinewithourpreviousreports.

Incaseswhereageneralaudienceorvaguelabel(i.e.,family,western)wasprovided,thefilmwasre‐

categorizedusinginformationfromIMDbPro.com.Nostatisticaltestswereexecutedforgenre.



Priortorunningtheanalysisonparentalstatus,thevariablewascollapsedintotwolevels:notaparent

vs.parent(single,coparent,parent,relationalstatusunknown).Theanalysisrevealedanonsignificant

association(p>.05)betweengender(male,female)andparentalstatus(no,yes).



Forrelationalstatus,thevariablewasalsodichotomized:romanticrelationshippresent(married,

committedrelationship,committedrelationshipunmarried,committedmaritalstatusunknown)vs.

absent(single,divorced,widowed).Theanalysisyieldedasignificantassociationwithgender(male,

female),X

(1,1,082)=7.33,p<.05,phi=.08.



10.

Herrett‐Skjellum,J.,&Allen,M.(1996).Televisionprogrammingandsexstereotyping:Ameta‐analysis.

CommunicationYearbook,19,p.157‐185.Davies,P.G.,Spencer,S.J.,Quinn,D.M.,&Gerhardstein,R.

(2002).Consumingimages:Howtelevisioncommercialsthatelicitstereotypethreatcanrestrainwomen

academicallyandprofessionally.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,28(12),1615‐1628.



11.

Thoughnotreported,theanalysisforage(child,teen,youngadult,middleage/elderly)bygender

(male,female)wassignificant,X

(3,4,066)=89.46,p<.05,V*=.15.



12.

In2015,theprocessforagecodingwasslightlyaltered.Aftercodingfinished,allresearchassistants’

judgmentsonageforth osecodedmiddleage(40‐to64‐yearsold)andelderly(65‐yearsandolder)were

checkedbyusingactors’birthdaysfoundacrossmultipleonlinesourcesincludingbutnotlimited

to

IMDbPro.com,VarietyInsight,andStudioSystem.Thiswasdoneforasecondaryanalysistobereleased

separately.Thisprocessrevealedthatcodersunderestimatedtheageofoldercharactersregardlessof

gender.Despitethischangeinprotocol,theproportionsofmalesandfemaleswithintheseagebrackets

werenotdifferentfrom

previousyearsasdepictedinTable4.



13.

Thechi‐squareanalysisforsexyattire(no,yes)bygender(male,female)wassignificant,X

(1,

4,137)=358.30,p<.05,phi=.29.Fornudity,theoriginalvariableinvolvedthreelevels.Priortoanalysis,

someandfullnuditywerecollapsed.Itmustbenotedthattherewere39instancesoffullnudityacross

theentiresample.Ofthose39instances,51.3%involvedmalesand48.7%involvedfemales.The

relationship

betweennudity(none,some)andgender(male,female)wassignificant,X

(1,

4,139)=258.84,p<.05,phi=.25.



14.

Physicalattractivenesswascollapsedintotwolevels:nonevs.some(oneormorereferences).The

analysisforgender(male,females)byphysicalattractiveness(none,some)wassignificant,X

(1,

4,370)=112.91,p<.05,phi=.16.



15.

Fredrickson,B.L.,&Roberts,T.A.(1997).Objectificationtheory:Towardunderstandingwomen’slived

experiencesandmentalhealthrisks.PsychologyofWomenQuarterly,21,p.173‐206.Roberts,T.A.,&

Gettman,J.Y.(2004).Mereexposure:Genderdifferen cesinthenegativeeffectsofprimingastateofself‐

objectification.SexRoles,51(1/2),p.17‐27.Aubrey,J.S.(2006).

Effectsofsexuallyobjectifyingmediaon

self‐objectificationandbodysurveillanceinundergraduates:Resultsofa2‐yearpanelstudy.

JournalofCommunication,56,p.366‐386.



16.

AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,TaskForceontheSexualizationofGirls(2007).ReportoftheAPA

TaskForceontheSexualizationofGirls.Retrievedfrom

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report‐full.pdf



17.

Theanalysisforage(teens,youngadults,middleaged)bysexyattire(no,yes)forfemaleswas

significant,X

(2,1,078)=22.30,p<.05,V*=.14.Nudity(none,some)andattractiveness(none,some)also

variedbyage,respectively:X

(2,1,079)=18.57,p<.05,V*=.13;X

(2,1,104)=15.18,p<.05,V*=.12.No

statisticaltestswereutilizedforovertimepatternsbutratherthe5%rule.



Whilenotpresentedabove,webreakdownthesameanalysesformalesbyagehereforinterested

readers.Thechi‐square forsexyattire(no,yes),nudity(none,some),andattractiveness(none,

some)

wereallsignificant:sexyattireX

(2,2,331)=34.13,p<.05,V*=.12;nudityX

(2,2,332)=49.52,p<.05,

V*=.15;attractivenessX

(2,2,408)=22.77,p<.05,V*=.10.



MaleCharacterSexualizationbyAge:2015



Measures

13‐20

yearolds

21‐39

yearolds

40‐64

yearolds

%insexyattire 14.8% 10.4% 4.7%

%w/somenudity 21% 13% 6.1%

%referencedattractive 8.2% 5% 2%



Note:Thecolumnsdonotaddupto100%.Rather,eachcellrepresentsthepercentageofmales

shownwithaparticularattribute.Subtractingeachcellfrom100%illuminatesthepercentageofmales 

withoutthecharacteristicinquestion.



18.

Informationondirectors,writers,andproducerswasgleanedfromIMDbPro.com.Tworesearch

assistantsindependentlycollectedthenamesofindividualslistedinthedirector,writer,andproducer

categories.Eachindividualwasonlycountedoncewithincategory(director,writer,producer)acrossa

film,thoughindividualscouldbecreditedacrossthesedistinctions.Certain

titleswereexcludedfromthe

producingcategory(e.g.,ProductionExecutive,DevelopmentExecutive,ProductionSuperviser).Then,

eachresearchassistantutilizedindustrydatabasesorotheronlinesourcestoconfirmthegenderofeach

individual.Thiswasdoneusingphotos,pronouns(he/she),orgenderlistings(male/female).Thesewere

combinedtoformasinglegender

judgmentforeachperson,withdifferencesresolvedbydetermining

thecorrectdecision.Onlyoneindividual’sgendercouldnotbeidentified.



Fordirectors,informationonrace/ethnicitywasobtainedfromindustrydatabases(i.e.,StudioSystem/

InBaseline,VarietyInsight).Wheninformationcouldnotbefound,attemptsweremadetoconfirm

race/ethnicityjudgmentswithdirectors

and/ortheirrepresentatives.TheDirectorsGuildofAmerica

databasewasalsoutilized.Finally,anonlinesearchwasconductedforinformationaboutdirectors’

race/ethnicity.Whenadditionalinformationwasnotavailable,arace/ethnicityjudgmentwasmadeby

researchersusingaphoto.Thiswasdoneforoneindividualin2015.Informationonprioryears

canbe

foundinourpreviousreports.



19.

Smith,S.L.,Pieper,K.,Choueiti,M.,&Case,A.(2015a).Gender&ShortFilms:EmergingFemale

FilmmakersandtheBarriersSurroundingtheirCareers.ReportpreparedforClifFamilyFoundation.

Media,Diversity,&SocialChangeInitiative.LosAngeles,CA.USCAnnenberg.



20.

Smith,S.L.,Pieper,K.,&Choueiti,M.(2015b).ExploringtheCareersofFemaleDirectors:PhaseIII.

ReportpreparedforWomeninFilmLosAngelesandSundanceInstitute.Media,Diversity,&Social

ChangeInitiative.LosAngeles,CA.



21.

Smith,S.L.,Choueiti,M.,&Pieper,K.(2016).InclusionorInvisibility?ComprehensiveAnnenbergReport

onDiversityinEntertainment.Media,Diversity,&SocialChangeInitiative.LosAngeles,CA.USC

Annenberg.



22.

Smith,S.L.,Pieper,K.,&Choueiti,M.(2015b).



23.

AlistofcomposerswasgeneratedbyexaminingtheIMDbProlistingsforeachfilmanalyzedacross

2007‐2015(excluding2011).Onlyindividualscreditedas“composer”or“scorecomposer”wereincluded

intheanalysis.WhenIMDbProdidnotlistacomposer,VarietyInsightandStudioSystem/InBaselinewere



consulted.Whentherewasnoinformationavailab leinthesesourc es,thefilm’screditswerewatchedto

determineifacomposerwascredited.Whenagroupwasidentifiedasthecomposerofafilm’sscore,the

membersofthegrouportheindividualsresponsibleforthecompositionwereascertainedandeach

entered

asauniquelineofdata.Thegenderofeachindividualcomposerwasassessedusingonline

sources(i.e.,VarietyInsight,StudioSystem/InBaseline)orviawebsearch.



24.

Asignificantchi‐squarewasobservedfordirectorgender(atleastonefemaleattached,nofemale

attached)andcharactergender(male,female),X

(1,4,370)=16.81,p<.05,phi=.06.



25.

Therelationshipforwritergender(atleastonefemalescreenwriterattached,nofemalescreenwriter

attached)andcharactergender(male,female)wassignificant,X

(1,4,370)=23.82,p<.05,phi=.07.



26.

Nostatisticalrelationshipbetweenproducergender(femaleproducerattached,nofemaleproducer

attached)andcharactergender(male,female)wasobserved(p>.05).



27.

MotionPictureAssociationofAmerica(2016).TheatricalMarketStatistics:2015.Retrievedonline:

http://www.mpaa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2016/04/MPAA‐Theatrical‐Market‐Statistics‐2015_Final.pdf

U.S.CensusBureau(n.d.).QuickFactsfromtheU.S.CensusBureau.Retrievedfrom:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00



28.

U.S.CensusBureau(n.d.).



29.

Theanalysisexaminingtherelationshipbetweengender(male,female)andrace/ethnicity(White,

Black,Latino,Asian,Other)wassignificant,X

(4,3,975)=11.42,p<.05,V*=.05.



30.

Onlyoneofthedomesticanalysesbygenderwassignificant,race/ethnicity(White,Black,Latino,Asian,

Other)byparentalstatus(no,yes)forfemalecharacters:X

(4,411)=11.09,p<.05,V*=.16.



31.

Forfemalesexualization,onlyattractiveness(no,yes)wasmarginallyrelatedtorace/ethnicity(White,

Black,Latino,Asian,Other):X

(4,1,280)=9.29,p=.054,V*=.08.



32.

Formalesexualization,sexyattire(no,yes)andnudity(none,some)variedbyrace/ethnicity(White,

Black,Latino,Asian,Other),respectivelyX

(4,2,693)=15.10,p<.05,V*=.08;X

(4,2,693)=17.67,p<.05,

V*=.08.



33.

Asignificantrelationshipwasobservedfordirectorrace(Black,notBlack)andcharacterrace(Black,

notBlack),X

(1,3,975)=180.20,p<.05,phi=.21.



34.

Gates,G.J.(2011).HowmanypeopleareLesbian,Gay,Bisexual,andTransgender?ReportbyThe

WilliamsInstitute.Retrievedonline:



http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census‐lgbt‐

demographics‐studies/h ow‐many‐people‐are‐lesbian‐gay‐bisexual‐and‐transgender/



35.

Brault,M.W.(2012).AmericanswithDisabilities:2010.U.S.DepartmentofCommerceEconomicsand

StatisticsAdministration.Available:http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70‐131.pdf.He,W.&

Larsen,L.J.(2014).OlderAmericansWithaDisability:2008‐2012.AmericanCommunitySurveyReports.

U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesNationalInstitutesofHealthNationalInstituteonAging

andU.S.DepartmentofCommerceEconomicsandStatisticsAdministrationU.S.CensusBureau.

Available:http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs‐29.pdf.



CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(2015,July22)DisabilityOverview.Available:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/disability.html.CentersforDiseaseControland

Prevention(2015,July9)DisabilityOverview.Available:http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd

/developmentaldisabilities/facts.html.U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission.(n.d.)Disability

Discrimination.Available:https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm.WorldHealthOrganization

(2015,December).Disabilityandhealth.FactsheetNo.352.Available:http://www.who.int/

mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/.InternationalClassificationofFunctioning,DisabilityandHealth.

(2002).TowardsaCommonLanguageforFunctioning,DisabilityandHealth.Geneva,WorldHealth

Organization.Available:http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf.NationalCenteron

BirthDefectsandDevelopmentalDisabilitiesDivisionofBirthDefectsandDevelopmentalDisabilities.

FactsAboutIntellectualDisability.CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.Available:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/parents_pdfs/IntellectualDisability.pdf.AmericanAssociation

onIntellectualandDevelopmentalDisabilities.(n.d.)FrequentlyAskedQuestionsonIntellectualDisability.

Available:http://aaidd.org/intellectual‐disability/definition/faqs‐on‐intellectual‐disability#.VtiL6_krKUl.

SocialSecurityAdministration.(2016).2016RedBook.Available:

https://www.ssa.gov/redbook/eng/definedisability.htm#&a0=0.NationalInstituteofChildHealthand

HumanDevelopment.(n.d.).IntellectualandDevelopmentalDisabilities(IDDs):ConditionInformation.

Available:https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/idds/conditioninfo/Pages/default.aspx.Courtney‐

Long,E.A.,Carroll,D.D.,Zhang,Q.C.,Stevens,A.C.,Griffin‐Blake,S.,Armour,B.S.,&Campbell,V.A. (2015,

July31).Prevalenceofdisabilityanddisabilitytypeamongadults—UnitedStates,2013.Morbidityand

MortalityWeeklyReport,64(29).CentersforDiseaseControl andPrevention.Available:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6429.pdf.Forman‐Hoffman,V.L.,Ault,K.L.,Anderson,W.L.,

Weiner,J.M.,Stevens,A.,Campbell,V.A.,&Armour,B.S.(2015).Disabilitystatus,mortality,andleading

causesofdeathintheUnitedStatescommunitypop ulation.MedicalCare,53(4).p.346‐354.Stein,

R.E.K.,Bauman,L.J.,Westbrook,L.E.,Coupey,S.M.,&Ireys,H.T.(1 993).Frameworkforidentifying

childrenwhohavechronicconditions:Thecase

foranewdefinition.TheJournalofPediatrics,122(3),p.

342‐347.



36.

TheADAdefinitionisstatedverbatim:“Disabilitymeans,withrespecttoanindividual,(i)Aphysicalor

mentalimpairmentthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormoreofthemajorlifeactivitiesofsuchindividual;(ii)A

recordofsuchanimpairment;or(iii)beingregardedashavingsuchanimpairment.”

https://www.ada.gov/regs2016/final_rule_adaaa.html

Seethislinkforthedefinitionofphysicaland

mentalimpairments,majorlifeactivities,andmajorbodilyfunctions.Ourdefinition,asnotedbelow,

focusedprimarilyonsection(i)and(iii)oftheADA'sconceptualization.



37.

Woodburn,D.,&Kopić,K.(2016).OnEmploymentofActorswithDisabilitiesinTelevision.The

RudermanWhitePaper.Retrievedonlinefrom:http://www.rudermanfoundation.org/wp‐

content/uploads/2016/07/TV‐White‐Paper_final.final_.pdfGLAAD(n.d.)WhereWeAreonTV2015‐2016.

ReportproducedbyGLAAD.Available:http://www.g laad.org/files/GLAAD‐2015‐WWAT.pdf



38.

Someadvocatesmaybereluctanttoutilizea“medicalmodel”ofdisabilityratherthanadefinitionthat

takesintoaccounttheidentityofthecharacter.However,giventhefictionalcontextoffilmandthe

limitationsofstorytelling,richinformationonidentitymaynotbedisclosed.Thisisespeciallytruefor

inconsequentialcharacterswhoappearonlybrieflyorspeakjustonewordonscreen.Relyingonportions

oftheADAdefinitionlistedabove,threeindependentevaluatorsassessedeveryspeakingornamed 

charactersforcuespertainingtoacondition,restriction,andduration.Then,thethree investigators

reviewedeachfilm(Smith,Choueiti,Pieper)and

madenotesandrenderedajudgment.Onlycharacters

withaconditionandcurrentenduringrestrictionwerecodedqualitativelyasdisabled.



39.

Inadditiontothedefinitionalcomponents,allscarsonacharacter’sface,hands,orfeetwereassessed

forwhethertheywereadisability.Here,severityofthescarhadtobetakenintoconsideration.We

operationalizedadisfiguringscarusingguidelinessurroundingU.S. militaryandveterancompensation.

Eachscarwasexamined

usingaphotoofthecharacterfromthefilmandmeasuredagainstastandard

sizeandwidth.Disfiguringscarsormissingdigitswereautomaticallycodedasadisabilityiftheywere

characterizedbysocialcensure(i.e.,intheformofajoke,directstatement,nonverbalutterance).



40.

Therewereseveraladditionalstipulationssurroundingcoding.Celestialbeings(i.e.,entitiesthatlivein

spiritualcontextssuchasdemons,ghosts,spirits),theundead(i.e.,partorwholecorpsesand/or

skeletonssuchasvampires,zombies),androbots(i.e.,machinesortechnology)werenotallowedtohave

adisability.Thiswasdue

tothefactthatthesetypesofentitiesarenotaffectedbyrestrictionsofbodily

functionsorlifeactivities.Forexample,arobotthathashis/herarmdismemberedcansimplyhaveit

replaced.Or,skeletonslackinternalorgansandthereforehavenorestrictionsofthemindorbody.



Second,thespeciesofeachcharacterhadtobedetectabletorenderdisabilityjudgmentsrelatedto

disfigurement.Somecharactersarealiens,livingonorfromotherplanetsordimensionsotherthan

earth.Thesecharactersmayexistinthefutureorthepast.Wescrutinizedthephysicaldomainorformof

thesecharactersintwo ways.Facially,anothercharacterhadtobepresentedtoassesswhatistypicalfor

thespecies.Withoutanothercharactertojudgetypicality,facialfeaturescouldnotbeassessedforthe

definitionofdisability.Thecharacterwasstillassessedforwhetheranymajorbodilyfunctionsorlife

activitieswereaffected(i.e.,missinglimb,slowgait,organfailure)aswellasdisabilitiesfromthe 

communicativeormentaldomains.

SimilartotheADA,alistofconditionswerenotincludedinourdefinitionofdisability.BasedontheADA

thoseinclude“(1)Transvestism,transsexualism,pedophilia,exhibitionism,voyeurism,genderidentity

disordersnotresultingfromphysicalimpairment,orsexualbehaviordisorders;(2)Compulsivegambling,

kleptomania,orpyromania;or

(3)Psychoactivesubstanceusedisordersresultingfromcurrentillegaluse

ofdrugs.”See:https://www.ada.gov/regs2016/final_rule_adaaa.html

41.

Brault,M.W.(2012).

42.

Brault,M.W.(2012).

43.

MotionPictureAssociationofAmerica.(2015).TheatricalMarketStatistics.Available:

http://www.mpaa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2016/04/MPAA‐Theatrical‐Market‐Statistics‐2015_Final.pdf



44.

UnitedStatesCensusBureau.(2015,June25).MillennialsOutnumberBabyBoomersandAreFarMore

Diverse,CensusBureauReports.http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press‐releases/2015/cb15‐113.html



45.

Brault,M.W.(2012).



46.

Smith,S.L.,Granados,A.,Choueiti,M.,Erickson,S.,& Noyes,A.(2011).ChangingtheStatusQuo:

IndustryLeaders’PerceptionsofGenderinFamilyFilms.Executivesummaryandreportpreparedforthe

GeenaDavisInstituteonGenderinMedia.



47,

Cohen,S.(2016).Filmdirectorsayshesupportsmovestowardgenderparity.Retrievedfrom,

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3dd3ac72903a4ec9aeb1d235cc5ccd08/film‐director‐says‐he‐supports‐

moves‐toward‐gender‐parity



48.

Ryan,M.(2016,August9).FXCEOJohnLandgrafonthe‘RaciallyBiased’SystemandTakingMajor

StepstoChangeHisNetwork’sDirectorRosters.Variety.Available:http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/fx‐

diversity‐directors‐hiring‐ceo‐john‐landgraf‐interview‐1201831409/







Acknowledgements

Wearegratefulforanumberofindividualswhocontributedtothisreport.TheAnnenbergFoundation

generouslysupportedworkonthisproject,especiallyWallisAnnenbergandCinnyKennard,Executive

Director.Wewouldalsoliketothank Dr.SarahBanet‐WeiserforhergeneroussupportoftheMDSC

Initiative.Ourother

AnnenbergandUSC colleagueshavealsocontributedsubstantially,particularly

GretchenParkerMcCartney,PatriciaLapadula,andtheentireASCTechteam.Theinitiativerunsonthe

financialsupportofanamazinggroup ofdonorsandadvocates:RuthAnnHarnisch,Jacquelynand

GregoryZehner,BarbaraBridges,AnnLovell,SuzanneLerner,Mariand

ManuelAlba,KaletaDoolin,Julie

ParkerBenello,andAnnErickson.ThisyearweareespeciallygratefulforLoreenArbus,whoprovided

supportforaportionofthedisabilityinvestigation.WearealsoappreciativeoftheinsightgivenbyTari

HartmanSquire,DannyWoodburn,KristinaKopićattheRudermanFamilyFoundation,Dr.

Christine

MoutierattheAmericanFoundationforSuicidePrevention,Dr.KennethFeiner,andRayBradford.The

MDSCInitiativeisby,for,andaboutstudents.Everysingleoneofourteam membersthatworkedonthis

investigationislistedbelow.Youfolksarethebestandwecan’tdothiswork

withoutyou.FightOn!



Media,Diversity,&SocialChangeInitiativeResearchTeam



ChristopherAllison

AlessandraAnderson

KaylaArdebilchi

KeanaAsgari

SharonBako

ChristineBancroft

CarsonBeck

SaraBinder

TaraBitran

MichelleBlessinger*

XiangyiCai

GabriellaCaliendo

ChristinaCanady

CelineCarrasco

KellyChing*

SoYoonCho

AngelChoi*

IsabelleChua

SamanthaCioppa

HaleyColeman

BrianaCooper

Anne‐MarieDePauw*

JessieDiRuggiero

EmeraldDouglas

MahimaDutt

JaimeEdge

MichaelEdge

SofiaElias

MeganEme

BreanneFlores

TuckerGibson

AlaynaGlasthal

BrianaGrubb

HowardGuy

AlysiaHendry

PeytonHerzog

KamaliHouston

EdwardLau

MelodyLee

KailinLuo

AustiMarinkovich

OrianaMejia

Kate

Menne

AnnabellaMineghino

DaniellaMohazabab

JuliaNeisloss

KatherineNeff

SarahNeff

JoyOfodu

OzodiOnyeabor

AlexaPatterson

LauraPhillips*

MariafePonce

LilyPuglisi

SophiaRendon

GabrielRocha

AlekxaRollins

LeahRubin

TerynSampaga

AlexandraSchwartz

YujinSeo

LeahShamouni

JuliaShapiro

ArielSmotrich

MichelleSpera

SophiaStallone

JaideStepter

Claire

Summers

EllaTabares

KeemiaTabrizi

KaylaTakemoto

DanielleToda

ArturTofan*

KarinaTsang

GinaWang

ChasenWashington*

ElizabethWeir

DennisWoo

JennicaWragg

ZhihengXu

KevinYao*

ZacharieZee

ZhilingLeoZhao

MadisonZlotolow



*OurSummer2016teamthatwentaboveandbeyondthecallforresearch.Youarethebest!



AppendixA

ListofFilmsinthe2015Sample



StarWars:TheForce

Awakens

JurassicWorld

Avengers:AgeofUltron

InsideOut

Furious7

Minions

TheHungerGames:

Mockingjay‐Part2

TheMartian

Cinderella

Spectre

Mission:Impossible–

RogueNation

PitchPerfect2

TheRevenant

Ant‐Man

Home

HotelTransylvania2

FiftyShadesofGrey

TheSpongeBobMovie:

SpongeOutofWater

StraightOuttaCompton

SanAndreas

MadMax:FuryRoad

Daddy'sHome

TheDivergentSeries:

Insurgent

ThePeanutsMovie

Kingsman:TheSecret

Service

TheGoodDinosaur

Spy

Trainwreck

Creed

Tomorrowland

GetHard



Terminator:Genisys

Taken3

Sisters

AlvinandtheChipmunks:

TheRoadChip

MazeRunner:TheScorch

Trials

Ted2

Goosebumps

Pixels

Paddington

TheIntern

BridgeofSpies

PaulBlart:MallCop2

TheBigShort

WarRoom

MagicMikeXXL

TheVisit

TheWeddingRinger

BlackMass

Vacation

ThePerfectGuy

Joy

FantasticFour

TheHatefulEight

Focus

Southpaw

InsidiousChapter3

Poltergeist

JupiterAscending

Sicario

TheManFromU.N.C.L.E.

Spotlight

McFarland,USA

TheGift

Everest

TheNightBefore

Krampus

Max

TheAgeofAdaline

Brooklyn

TheLongestRide

TheBoyNextDoor

Pan

HotPursuit

Concussion

TheDUFF

WomaninGold

TheSecondBestExotic

MarigoldHotel

Unfriended

Entourage

PaperTowns

Chappie

CrimsonPeak

AWalkintheWoods

PointBreak

Sinister2

TheLastWitchHunter

NoEscape

RickiandtheFlash

TheWomaninBlack2:

AngelofDeath

RunAllNight

LovetheCoopers

TheLazarusEffect

ExMachina

IntheHeartoftheSea

TheGallows

Hitman:Agent

47

ProjectAlmanac

BlackorWhite

Aloha

