It’s been a continually uncomfortable decision for me to call this a “Girl DP’s blog”. Some days I want to keep it that way, other days I don’t. It’s an almost daily internal argument.
Reasons to nix the “girl” part:
My talent, style, creative choices and skills as a director of photography are not dictated by my gender. I pride myself on serving the story, not my gendered worldview. I can use my experience and unique perspective as a woman to create an approach, if needed. It sometimes lets me look through a different lens than a man might. But it doesn’t mean I am subject to (or victim to?) a specifically defined and solely “female aesthetic”. …Whatever “female” means here.
I don’t want to be judged more or less harshly because I am a girl. I want to work at a professional level, so I want to be critiqued fairly at that level. As my friend Elle says regarding her critiques of filmmakers, “I’m an equal opportunity hater.” Don’t judge my work through the “girl lens”.
I want to champion women working in Hollywood. But that needs to be separate from my work. When it comes to cinematography, I don’t want to be defined as a feminist cinematographer, a feminist filmmaker, a fem-anything. I just want to be a really damn good cinematographer. Adding a defining adjective like female or feminist just separates me and adds preconceptions and constrictions. I am a cinematographer, not a female cinematographer, because that implies that my scope is limited to whatever definition is given to “female”. (Then why all the fuss about being a girl DP? I’ll get to that in a second.)
And there is some sort of stereotype of femfilmakers going around (even perpetuated by femfilmmakers themselves) that women traditionally make arthouse or romance films, are subject to an apparently over-powering “female aesthetic” they have no control of (that makes it impossible for them to make films like Kill Bill… see previous stereotype link), and “aren’t interested” in making big budget films or films that are traditionally seen as “male”, because those aren’t the movies they want to see. (See Elle’s brilliant response to the article I am referring to here. Who gave these women permission to speak for the rest of us? Why do even women imply that one trait found true for them is indicative to the entire sex?)
It’s as if there is one narrow definition of what “feminine” is, and that defining point trumps all other aspects of a femfilmmaker’s talent, personality, and work. I DON’T CARE if Mandy Walker is feminine on set, and that she has a carrying case for her lipstick on her camera. I want to know why the hell she did or did not choose to go anamorphic, or what freaking stock she’s shooting on. That would be like interviewing Roger Deakins for ASC and asking him what kind of aftershave he uses before he goes to set, and if it makes him smell manlier, and does that help him preserve his masculine aesthetic? WTF.
Here I am dying to shoot Westerns or the next Banlieue 13. The first film I ever made was a James Bond short when I was 12, my favorite movie this year was Star Trek, and one of my goals in my career is to utilize that imax camera motorcycle mount from Ultimate Arm. Not every female filmmaker is the same. We are not a niche, or a genre, or a single demographic. While I think we need to support each other, I don’t want only one or two women speaking for femfilmmakers as one mind. I am sick of our oh-so-feminine physical appearances being described in interviews about our films. Actually, I am sick of vapid interviews that have nothing to do with filmmaking. I am sick of “femininity on set” being a huge fucking deal. We don’t homogenize, segregate or patronize male filmmakers this way.
What makes this worse is that women perpetuate this themselves. I don’t want to add to this.
However.
Reasons I continually decide to leave the “girl” part up:
The number one search term that leads people to my site is “female cinematographers”.
There is literally no place for people to go to when looking for resources and info on female cinematographers. They are told everywhere they turn, that camera department is still a boys club. It sure is. But that hasn’t stopped me and other women. And there are a lot of women out there still facing discrimination and the gender label who are looking for a voice out there that is saying “I feel this way too. You are not alone. This is what I am doing about it.”
I know this because I get emails.
I’ve gotten emails from Canada, Australia, Spain, across America… all saying the same thing. “Thank you for writing. I’ve experienced the same thing.”
A lot of interviews with female cinematographers read the same way: “I don’t think about gender. I just do my job well.” I believe this. It’s the only way to really get ahead… if you’re hung up on being the girl on set, you’re gonna separate yourself subconsciously whether you want to or not.
(Yeah, I am incredibly proud to be a woman. I am not going to apologize for it, ignore it, or forget it. But I am not going to use it as a banner that puts a wedge between myself and other filmmakers. This leads back to exclusivity.)
I follow this mantra on set. But here, on this blog, this is where I can think aloud about it. Because it’s there. The gender thing is there, whether we like it or not. Women in film experience it everyday. And I think a lot of them stay silent about it, because they don’t want to draw attention to it. I don’t know about them, but I get a lot of conflicting feelings, anger and confusion over the gender crap, and sometimes I find liberation, humor and strength. I think it’s worth talking about, and would love something like my blog be a sounding board, a place people can talk about it and figure it out, without having it define us.
That’s the big thing. I don’t want to be defined by it. I want to question it.
So I put the “Girl DP” label on this blog for 3 reasons:
1) Community- I want other cinematographers who are girls to know they are not alone.
2) Dialogue – I want to question what “female cinematographer” really means.
3) Audience – I am basically catering to a specific readership/googlesearch.
This blog is my learning process as a cinematographer. And I happen to be a girl, so my experience might be relatable to other girls. But it’s not limited to that. Any new cinematographer runs into the same problems I do.
I don’t write this blog to make a BIG DEAL out of being a GIRL (and I am not saying we should all “become men” and forget our female identity entirely either). But we still live in a world where “female” precedes “filmmaker”. So I am writing about that too. I do want to make a big deal about the fact that there aren’t many female cinematographers at all. I do want to draw attention to the fact that my insignificant little blog is one of the top results on Google search for “female cinematographers”. That the definition of “feminine” in Hollywood still has a lot of problems. That the current Hollywood system is a no-win situation for women both on set and in the audience. That no woman has ever been nominated for a cinematography Oscar. That it’s still incredibly hard and almost IMPOSSIBLE for some women to move up in this field. Take one of my readers, who was told women were too unstable and emotional to work on film sets because of their periods.
So yeah, I’m sticking with GIRL CINEMATOGRAPHER on the blog for now. Not as a definition or identity… but for the seekers on Google Search who are wondering if what Hollywood is telling them is, in fact, complete bull.
Lore Haroutunian is a cinematographer based in both Denver and Los Angeles. Alongside shooting short films and features, she currently works with an educational non-profit foundation teaching video production to alternative-learning youth, as well as an after-school film school program for teens. She is a graduate from USC’s School of Cinematic Arts production program.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I feel her pain. On a similar note, I am subscribed to this cool blog written by a female soldier who is currently serving in the U.S Marines. She blogs a lot about the Marines and touches down on issues affecting female Marines and soldiers. Her blog provides great support for other female soldiers and Marines, so that they don’t feel alone.
So yeah, I can understand the Google part for calling herself a female DP. When people seek out someone similar to them, it’s helpful to distinguish yourself from the rest (white, male, heterosexual, etc…) in a particular field.
people have found me through google searches via “Muslim punk”, “punk playwright,” or “Indian punk” and shit like that. a lot of my readers come from similar backgrounds and can relate to my writings.
Does the word “girl” fit for people who want to be given a good budget and have lots of authority? How many guys write coltishly that they want to be a “real boy?” Or that they have not lost their girlishness or “love being a boy!” Yet women professionals winsomely throw around the “girl” word for themselves. And wonder about the lack of respect.
As the author wrote: ” I don’t write this blog to make a BIG DEAL out of being a GIRL (and I am not saying we should all “become men” …”
Or…you could “become women.” That is another choice — “girl” or “man” is not the only choice when you are leading something with a budget and you’re not in high school.
Sally,
Your lovely comment on the difficult professional climate Ms. Haroutunian described provides the readers of this blog an invaluable service: the chance to see a real live example of a professional (okay, maybe not so professional!) woman cutting down another professional woman for no purpose whatsoever, which is, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle for women to overcome in Hollywood.
To address your smarmy albeit lame dis directly: in some circles, “woman” is a dirtier, more entrenched word than “girl,” and if you really think Ms. Haroutunian changing her blog’s keywords from “girl” to “woman” will suddenly command any more respect from her Hollywood peers, you are greatly mistaken.
Sally,
Interesting point. Any writer could tell you the importance of word choice. However, I agree with Elle. And I personally have no problem with the word girl, and I never treated it as anything other than another descriptive noun in this piece.
It doesn’t do me too much good to condemn the word and give it more negative power, when so many others already condemn ‘girl’, ‘female’ and ‘woman’ equally in this field and turn them into words that have more degrading power than they should. By condemning one word and praising another, we’re still telling people that something associated with females is bad. I’m simply not buying into it.
Also, I am not quite sure if you are referring to the idea of the age difference (being grown up verses a child), or referring to the idea that “girl” seems to be the same insult that we learned in grade school for yucky things and cooties and somehow has survived. But when I look at the word, I don’t see anything degrading, because I don’t have to. Personal choice.
So I interchange the words pretty freely depending on the context of what I am saying. I believe you may have missed the context of this piece entirely and instead referred back to your own imagined stereotype of an ignorant woman complaining about lack of respect, instead of a woman outwardly contemplating her choice for identifying or not identifying with her gender in the work place or on her blog. Who happens to treat her vocabulary differently than you might. From your response, I am not really sure you read the article.
If you’re blogging-inclined, however, it might be interesting to explore your thoughts on how you see the usage of the word ‘woman’ affecting the mainstream perception of female-ness when it comes “to budgets and authority”. I haven’t experienced a difference myself.
Next time maybe I’ll interchange “chick” and “dame”. :) Or if I had the mentality of a highschooler, as I believe you so sweetly implied, maybe i’ll use “ho” and “gurrl”.
Of course…here is an example of two women putting down another woman (me) for having an opinion….Having an opinion that being a woman instead of a girl is a great thing to be and call yourself. Especially beyond, say, 14 years old.
I suggest you flip it. Imagine if a collection of serious male filmmakers were interviewed and the comment was “I LIKE being a boy! nothing against being a woman.” I imagine the other men on the panel would give him the side-eye. I mean, what serious man refers to himself as a boy as something to aim for? Not when being a grown up is really the respected thing and being known for being a man. Likewise, wouldn’t it be great if women weren’t ambivalent about calling themselves….women.
At the least, the author here is not sure whether to use the word “girl” or “woman” when referring to herself. The men who make a mark in film and who get investment rarely refer to themselves as a “boy.” It might be interesting to explore the resistance women have to calling themselves….women instead of “girls” Adult women. Wow. What a concept. Particularly for those who want to get funding and be taken seriously.
I have to say, I almost agree with Sally. Almost. Not so much with the “who is degrading who more” scenario, that all comes down to which side you’re standing on. More specifically I agree with the concept of referring to yourself as a woman, and letting that be a term of empowerment. There is nothing wrong with calling yourself a girl, and Lore I have no issue with you using the word girl in your inner debate as to whether or not to include gender in your personal description. I completely understand the debate and find myself, unfortunately, asking “am I a good designer, ‘for a girl’, or good compared to anyone?” I think all women struggle with the alleged boundaries of their gender.
I suppose all I am saying is there is a certain power to be attributed to the word “woman”. It implies wisdom and dignity a shade more than the coquettish term of “girl”. And I don’t think a discussion of terminology is off base from your blog. Your question is essentially, “how do I describe myself in a way that embraces my gender, but doesn’t submit to it”. Perhaps calling yourself a woman is a small step? And if not then perhaps you have your answer- you don’t want to include your gender.
As a still photographer, I am of course in a different atmosphere than this blog is referring to, so my opinion may be invalid, but from an atmosphere of journalism (also technically an “old boys club”) I have found myself working beneath or alongside more women than men, or perhaps I should call them girls.
My point is, even in an atmosphere practically special made for sexism such as the Denver Press Club (which didn’t allow female members when first founded) I have found if anything more respect for women, regardless of what you call them, and I would hope to see the same trend among my peers in the film industry. Though I have of course heard horror stories, in general the issue of sex is a complete non-issue in my experience.
As for the “girl” “woman” debate. Perhaps I come from a different generation, or a different atmosphere, but I have found the meaning behind both terms entirely contextual and only age related when the context suits it. I have never found a negative connotation behind the term girl or boy. In fact, unless it’s said with malice, I quite like being a boy.
Terms only have the power we attribute to them.
To clarify, I had no intention to “cut anyone down”. While Sally has every right to her opinion, I have a right to define my own when I feel misheard. In my response, I was trying to explain that my blog post had nothing to do with the semantics between “girl” and “woman”, and Sally’s comment was made on her own assumptions about my word choices. I myself happen to use them interchangeably in a casual way, and this upset Sally. Understood, I get why. However, Sally implied that I was complaining about lack of respect (I don’t see that in my post) and that I am furthering my own lack of respect by using the wrong word, and has consistently insulted my intelligence level because I see the girl word as a non-issue. (Note: I am not championing the word girl over woman, it was just a non-issue at the time while writing.) Sally brought a different perspective and her own definition to the word girl, and I responded that I define ‘girl’ the same way I define “woman”, and told her why. So she would know what I meant, that I am not an impertinent child crying about “girl power”, but that it really didn’t have the meaning for me the way it did for her, and my post should be read as such. Yet Sally, you missed my point and continued to insult my intelligence. I get your point about the word woman. I do. But did you get mine? (and no, my point has nothing to do with the word girl.)
I have heard men referred to as boys plenty of times, (i.e. boys club, the good ol boys) and yet I would also point out that women HAVE to constantly defend their gender, whereas men do not. Of course we don’t hear them talking about it, using the word boy or man.
So is it that hard to read through the post and not get swept up in the semantics, but in what I was trying to say? Is it really that distracting? Must we resort to name calling? My response was more of a plea for you to look at what I meant by choosing the word girl so my post would be free of the stigma you implied that it had, not telling you that you were “wrong”.
I do see your and Gemma’s point about stepping up the word “woman” as a term of empowerment. However, that is not what my post was about. I felt very misheard.
I’d love to see the day where girls would say, “I’d love to be a woman!” And Women are unambivalently calling themselves “women.” And not kinda sorta agreeing that is a good idea. It’s like how some women can’t bring themselves to calling themselves feminists. I mean, they equate the decision to be proud to be a “woman” with losing something. Just like some think to call themselves “feminist” means they become…”one of those kinds.”
What do you lose over the age of 14? What is the resistance? Why isn’t “woman” an unambivalent, great, desirable term for yourself?
Women believe they don’t lose their playfulness, their sexyness, their juice by using the word “Woman” for themselves. On the contrary, if you’re asking for money, having authority, wanting to be a leader creatively or otherwise, you should work on your ambivalence about being a “woman.” Men with the power have no ambivalence – being known as a man or “the man” is far more desirable and they aim for it over being known as “the boy.” They look forward to gaining authority and power and look at their aging peers with power with admiration. While we still have this thing where some women claim they want to growup and have authority, yet still, they want to be known as a “girl.” They will opine about “liking being a girl.”
What is it? Is it that “woman” is equal to that older scheming woman in the soap operas – you know, the one who can’t get a man? “Woman” is someone who has lost their sexiness? “Woman” is more…shrewish, while “girl” is fresh, fun, kicky, coltish…. nonthreatening.
I know it can be that way in the fairy tales and daytime soap operas…but hey…
There’s life beyond 14, and it’s a feminist issue to be proud and unambivalent to grow up and proud to be a woman and use the word.
Much like men want to grow older to be like their older peer players in the film industry. Imagine a panel of the most highly compensated men in the film industry. Some are grey haired, a bit chubby, etc…. But I doubt they would present their key choice as “being a BOY (which they have to underscore that they enjoy being)” or “becoming a WOMAN” Yet still, like this author, they will perhaps unaware draw their only choice as “being a girl” or “being a man” in the professional world.
You know, lots of men, and even women, can still have a man crush over Roman P., but you never hear them referring to him as a boy or a cougar. And as gross as he is, you never hear Roman opining that he “likes being a boy” or any of the most highly funded directors wringing their hands about their choice of “being a boy” against the opposition – “being a woman.”
Nope. Be a woman. Unambivalently. Get power, get authority, get funding. Run a company. Run your production. Get capital.
Like a woman.
Lore, I completely agree that we as filmmakers should not be judged by our gender. Personally, I just do my work as everyone else does on set and don’t give much thought to the fact that I’m a woman. And I have never had the feeling that others on set look at me as a female producer. They just look at me as a producer.
I think anyone who uses the female aspect is using it as a marketing/branding tool. It makes you stand out, i.e. the Google search bringing you to the top. But then it sounds like you resent the implication of that branding when it comes to your work as a DP — and rightly so. I’d like to believe that in spite of marketing/branding yourself as a girl DP that once you do the work, the fact that you are a girl doesn’t matter because you’re great at what you do. So why not use the branding/marketing tool of being a woman (seeing that you are a girl DP) and get those gigs and then prove to everyone that gender doesn’t even matter.
Basically, Sally, I was trying to tell you, everytime you see the word “girl” in this article, replace it with “woman”. Because I meant the same thing.
Every great attribute that you attribute to woman, I attributed to girl as well. NOT because I think girl is better, or more playful/sexy or whatever other stereotypical words you were putting into my mouth. I am NOT championing girl over woman, as you have implied. I have never once said that. I just never considered a difference when I was writing the article, and I think it’s great that you pointed out, yeah, maybe there is a difference (even if that point was made while implying I am a whining idiot… worst way to start discussion, no?). However, as I have said several times, no difference was INTENDED. Therefore I was trying to get you to maybe see the article through a different lens. You are putting a lot of words into my mouth, saying that I believe woman is a dried shriveled up, shrewish version of a girl? I never said that. Ever. I am sorry you have been surrounded by a society that thinks this way and has convinced you everyone carries this mentality.
You were the one who brought those comparisons up.
There is a time and place for me to discuss the power, leadership, and brilliantness of being a woman. I wrote before on how being true to my feminine identity makes me a better filmmaker. But it wasn’t for this post. This post was about the labels we put on filmmakers who are women. Because we call them female filmmakers, not filmmakers. This implies that male is neutral/good/the norm, and female is different/other/not normal, and somehow it needs to be differentiated. What’s so wrong about making female, and everything that’s wonderful about it, the norm? We can do this by doing simple things, like calling Lone Scherfig a great filmmaker (who might have a powerful womanly vision or approach, the way Spielberg is a director with an often boyhood-adventurist approach) instead of a “female filmmaker”… as if that is all she is, as if she is separate from the rest of the filmmakers. Why must we be seen as “other”? Why must I consciously label myself as “other”? It would be nice to say “I’m a woman filmmaker” and mean all the awesome things you said, instead of it meaning all the things society has told us it means… but we’re not there yet. And maybe getting rid of the gender line might be a start to getting to a place where we can exalt differences instead of fear them. That is what my post is about. It’s not condemning the word “woman.”
Let me just say that I find it incredibly insulting that you can declare I am ambivalent about my womanhood when I have tried to tell you repeatedly exactly what I meant with my word choices. Even in the original post, I stated I am incredibly proud to be a woman. I also find it incredibly remarkable that you have yet to figure out that the author and I are the same person, which just proves you are not reading anything I write to you.
I would have loved to discuss the issue of womanhood and power and ownership, as I wanted this post to open discussion about that, but you started your discourse off by telling me I meant something completely different than I wrote, assumed I had a stereotypical complaining-woman attitude that was not present in my writing, then insulted me, then insulted me again when I tried to explain the difference between what I meant and what you interpreted. It’s hard for anyone to read your opinions and really hear what you are trying to say when you aren’t a courteous debater. Why should I listen to you, I’m a dumb 14 year old girl who hates womanhood, right?
I am glad you are so passionate about defending womanhood in all its glory. I agree with you… and this could have been a great discussion.
But it’s impossible to dialogue with you.
Thanks for reading/writing anyway!
Jane, agreed. And Sally, I may have reacted more strongly than I wanted to your replies. I do think you have valid points, and I see a lot of my own anger reflected in your own, about the word “woman” (and girl) being seen as something to be condemned, when it should be celebrated. My post was about something else entirely, so I felt attacked. My apologies on this end, as I have not listened much to you either when I accused you of not listening to me.
It’s all semantics untl you show up and do the work. Representing on set as a female in a dept that is dominated by males, I command respect & do a kick ass job, regardless of what I am called, woman, girl, lady ~female
doesn’t make a diff. when I am working.
As for getting the work, no, I doubt any woman would call herself “girl” on the resume, but a blog is a creative piece and if a woman who has a body of work she is proud of wants to call herself “girl”, it doesn’t hurt me.
oops on all the grammatical errors.
{ 1 trackback }