The Journal of Kitsch, Camp and Mas Culture

The Journal of Kitsch, Camp and Mass Culture

Volume 2 / 2019

TO ADDRESS FEMINITY VIASTUDYING BELOW-THE-LINE
FILM LABOUR PRACTICESDanai Anagnostou

Aalto University, danai.anagnostou@aalto.fiTo address femininity via studying Below-the-Line Film Labour Practices

TO ADDRESS FEMINITY VIASTUDYING BELOW-THE-LINE1
FILM LABOUR PRACTICESDanai Anagnostou

The ‘Me Too’ Movement spread virally as a hashtag in October 2017, followed by #timesup in
January 2018. Both movements were introduced by women who work in television, cinema, andtheatre confronting sexual harassment and assault at work. Feminist Film Theory influenced bysecond-wave feminism was introduced as an academic discipline already in the early 70s. Drawing from critical theory, gender studies, semiotics, Marxism and psychoanalysis, Feminist Film
Theory meticulously analyses depictions of women in moving images – by delving into theirinfluences and pointing at their socio-political references. The viral movements of 2017 and2018 have put forward experiences of established above the line practitioners, while Feminist
Film Theory has been mostly dealing with representation. Yet, a niche research field named Production Studies2 or Feminist Production Studies is currently developing, focusing on how female
professionals, other than directresses and actresses, articulate their working experiences within
media industries.
Production functions as a term for all the procedures often referred to as behind the scenes.
Production is mainly an ‘invisible territory’ where working codes and relations might be even more
perplexing or foggy. Unsurprisingly, the film industry has proven to function just like any othercorporate environment, obeying a very strict code of social conduct and a severely solid hierarchy.
Within this space, not only sexual misconduct, but also systemic violence, verbal derogation, andan expectancy for keeping up a constantly pleasant and nurturing presence are realities that female workers encounter on daily basis. Due to the frequency of low or no budget productions overthe last decade, the film industry is often euphemistically referred to as a family (or fraternity). An
extended, sometimes toxic family – that has adopted and maintains its use of military terminology3 – in which female workers’ bodies are strictly regulated and scrutinized continuously.
The film industry has historically been a boys’ club for almost a century; reaching its peakof machismo during the golden era of Hollywood mainly through the expansion of studio films,
led by alpha-male directors. Mid-20 century Hollywood classics are now held responsible for53Danai Anagnostou

creating the myth of the eccentric, domineering auteur4. However, we could pause for a momentand mention the avid female presence behind cameras, active in all facets of movie production,
just before the establishment of the numerous Directors’ Guilds, Actors’ Guilds and the strong
influence of several unions post-WWII5. Nevertheless, the departments which are inherently
considered to be female-dominated and statistically still employ a vast majority of women, arethe casting, make up and costume department. These sectors are also evidently less visible andsurely underrepresented in international film summits, talent campuses or seminars 6 . Their
contributions are highly likely to remain unmentioned in publications, press kits, or posters. In
addition, the workers in the aforementioned departments have to deal with or plainly accept animmense wage gap between their salaries and those of their colleagues. Furthermore, workers
in the they are broadly considered as available for multiple tasks of on-set nurturing, care-taking
and providing unpaid emotional labour7 – demands which are never disclosed in their contracts.
I could offer an illustration of what I consider gendered labour in such context, referring
back to my experience working in the costume department. To begin with, a popular assumption
shared between other colleagues, would be that a wardrobe worker’s labour cannot be considered by any means different than what everyone else might already had been doing at home.
Wistfully, working in the costume department is often rendered synonymous with shopping,washing, folding, scenting, ironing, pampering, holding, foreseeing, back-upping, nurturing,
providing, surprising and pleasing. Costume designers and assistants struggle to absolve the domesticity and the overall stereotypical femininity they are assigned with; regardless of their gender, their reasons to be in the industry, their education, political position or interests.
When a day on-set translates to 12 working hours on average, either the costume designeror their assistant is regularly expected to take laundry as additional work at home. Every costumeneeds to be clean, free of stains, exempted from the actor’s body odour and ironed for the nextday, which would frequently be less than 10 hours away after wrapping up. The responsibility forthese materials’ maintenance is rarely shared with another person hired in the costume department, but even when it is, the person is not regularly present on set. On fewer occasions each actor
is assigned with washing and bringing back their costume on every working day. Lastly and mostrarely, there would be a sufficient allocation of budget to cover dry cleaning expenses, yet it is amatter of fact that if there was a budget surplus it would most probably not be announced andcertainly would not be spent on dry cleaning. Anecdotally, a producer once called 45 minutes before show time to request that the costume assistant would rush to the theatre and iron the protagonist´s dress, even though there were 5 people – plus a flatiron – in the building already.
Bizarrely, the costume department is commonly assumed to be equipped with an endless
supply of hats, rubber boots, or windproof jackets; not for dressing the characters but to54

To address femininity via studying Below-the-Line Film Labour Practices

distribute between the members of the filming crew when necessary. These items usually belong
to the costume designers. While their work is being undermined as something that anyone could
do and even do better, confirming the myth of female incapacity within the capitalist mode of
production8, their colleagues with presumably superior, hard-earned skills cannot bear the responsibility of keeping a hat in their car. Concurrently, a costume designer would be seen as
frivolous, irresponsible and unprofessional, if only she refused to carry another 10 kilos of gearor if she called attention to the hat or jacket that she offered and got lost or returned to her dirty.
It is essential to understand social and professional caretaking as productivity contributing to
the creation of surplus value. Meanwhile, the costume designer is reduced to a provider of services filled with domestic qualities and attributed with several so-called feminine characteristics
compatible with the acceptable female image enforced by patriarchy.
A young professional is instructed early on to know her place – far behind the camera –and to stay there. Meanwhile, it is taken as a given that she will not only offer her time andexpertise but also her space, contacts, even personal clothes or jewellery for any no-budget shortfilm, as the costume department is always expected to supply unlimited items and options nomatter the resources available. When dressing the part all set boundaries tend to disappear. The
director might start suddenly inquiring for a stylistic surprise, after seeing several styled outfits
previously agreed upon. The director might as well invite everyone who happens to be present
in the building to attend the costume fitting and offer their opinion. In most cases when such
opinions are offered, they are done so in a completely inappropriate manner and at momentsthat could not be more unwelcome. Yet costumes are considered to be just clothes after all, andapparently everyone is entitled to an opinion on clothes and may share it at any time.
While several women who work as costume designers find challenges in owning the authorship of their creative labour, women who are production designers (art directors) find it
difficult to advance in that profession. Similar or worse are the obstacles for women in othermore masculine departments, such as camera, sound or animation. So, what happens when one
expresses rational demands? In 2016, I was accused of being rude for inquiring an estimation
regarding the payment day, irrational for requesting per diems, unprofessional for replying thefollowing morning to a text message that had been sent at post-midnight.
In addition, wardrobe workers are expected to maintain physical contact with actresses
and actors by actually dressing them. Most acting professionals can certainly tie their shoes, zip
their dresses, button up their shirts or hold their purses perfectly by themselves. Other practices
that include physical contact and moving beyond personal space are to cover actresses and actors with a blanket in between shots, put a hat on their head for the 30-second pause whenshooting outdoors, or brush them for lint when none of the aforementioned actions are
55Danai Anagnostou

applicable. Genuinely, it is unlikely that the actresses and actors enjoy this procedure either,which is indeed a form of violation of personal space and an interruption in their concentration.
Yet, it is something both sides still perform plainly for the gaze of their colleagues whom theyneed to reassure how present and caring they are.
Simultaneously, women who work behind the scenes are judged harshly for either not
looking overtly polished and well-taken care of themselves. A male colleague once approached
me and casually made a derogatory comment about a person who was working with me on thatday as a wardrobe assistant. What he commented on was the length of her trousers, that barely
touched the floor but looked filthy according to him. Another female colleague took pride inbeing preferred over her co-wardrobe assistant who was dismissed and mocked as fat.
Coming back to public discussions on sexual harassment and other sexist behaviours atwork that are currently taking place globally, Flix.gr9 recently produced and published video interview under the fairly pompous title “Women of Greek Cinema”. Flix invited 36 female practitioners currently active in the field who were offered a set of particular questions 10 . The
platform set a frame for a discussion without first acknowledging the apparent ascendancy ofsexist behaviours on-set. This decision of course triggers concerns from the very beginning. The
publication was formatted in a manner in which the interview questions were listed as text via asmall introduction to the video interview, yet they never appeared in any format throughout thevideo. The lack of context specificity here is crucial; as it always remains unclear what are theinterviewees responding to each time.
Furthermore, the video was edited (either deliberately or not) in a manner which constantly interrupts the interviewees sentences. Presumably, each participant must have been interviewed separately, yet in its final cut the interview presents working women interrupting or
talking over other working women. Although some responses appear to be fairly problematic,
they cannot be commented on since it is apparent that they are cut and pasted in a sequence that
doesn’t make clear sense. For instance, when an interviewee says that “sexism goes both ways,”
it is utterly unclear whether she is referring to internalized misogyny or the so-called reverse
sexism that men claim to experience. Female practitioners were again denied the space for articulating their own views and experiences.
The first part of the video interview is comprised from a mixture of catch-words conventionally connected to femininity, presumably meant to describe the contribution of women in
Greek cinema. To cite a few: persistence, patience, creation, struggle, ecstasy, frustration, love,
passion, power, tenacity, inspiration, contribution, sexy, emotion, talent, beauty, selective oblivion or even mother goose. Several interviewees did acknowledge and address sexism in their passages, yet the majority refers to facing challenges beyond gender, the presence of stupid people56

To address femininity via studying Below-the-Line Film Labour Practices

regardless of gender or equated sexism with the idealization and pursuit of power, which again
according to the video has nothing to do with masculinity or gender. Several statements evenwent as far as to imply that to acknowledge or address sexism is a luxury, while key terms such as
feminism, or gender equality, are avoided (or possibly edited out) altogether.
The aforementioned video publication fails completely to establish any ground for a solidarity network among practitioners within the field. Even worse it proposes that exposure tosexist behaviour or willingness to discuss such misconducts publicly shows weak character. Consequently, those who share such opinions, consider themselves to be higher in any professionalor moral scale, since in their understanding encountering sexism is something that can only
happen to people who have no concerns about the real problems of the film industry (sic) andnever occur to passionate, dedicated women of career who refuse to be like all the other girls.
Overall the film industry might indeed be open for women – “Women of career” who seek tojoin the boys’ club; cis-gender, white, upper-middle class women, who can afford to be mostly(un)paid as “trainees” for the first five years of their working life; women who are later expected tojoin and unconditionally cater for a no-budget, no-payment, time-consuming, high-demanding project only to pay their dues to the industry; women who are recruited to help an emerging, ambitious
young director – most times male and almost all times upper-middle class – who refuse to undergo
the formal procedures and logistics of film making, as they consider their work superior to that; orwomen who will accept being infantilized for the rest of their working lives; women who are so passionate about their career that they can overcome any obstacle like being constantly subjected tosexism, underpaid and expected to nurture the whole set, always smiling and prepared for countless
backup solutions; women who cannot see that their “only makes me stronger” attitude contributes
to the exclusion of less or differently privileged females from entering the space.
The film industry is deeply sexist, racist and classist worldwide and has overly failed tosecure acceptable working conditions for below the line practitioners11. Concurrently, there is astrong, strange omertà on referring to the class or gender disparity of the industry. During thelast decade in Athens, such discussions with colleagues were bluntly dismissed at their very beginning as referring to individual incidents, being irrelevant or as being small talk. Workers in
the film industry – in front or behind the camera, critics, those in funding committees, festival
curators, distributors, and viewers – are all responsible in deciding whose stories are told andpromoted. This is a fact to be acknowledged and a certain ‘fiction calling’ to be exercised during
all the stages of production and mediation.
Resolving a condition so deeply embedded within the culture of the field will be slow, yet not
impossible. Firstly, mutually acknowledge and address all the forms discrimination might take.
57

Danai Anagnostou

Secondly, instead of speaking “from a personal perspective” and stating “our own opinions”,
understand that the very fact that we keep debating whether discrimination and inequality actually exist is not only being oblivious to the issue, but outrageous. Thirdly, make a collective
strong statement asserting that such behaviours are simply unacceptable, and ensure that allcolleagues are safe, heard and properly compensated.

1 In film production terminology the “line” functions as a separative for production costs and budget allocations. The pro-

ducers, directors, actors and scriptwriters are classified as being “above the line” while the rest of the production team isgrouped under the term “below the line”. Most salaries, production expenses, publicity, insurance, and travelling coasts
fall “below the line”. Essentially any cost that is not linked with the main actors, directors, producers or screenwriters will
be categorized as a below-the- line expense.
2 Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks and John T. Cadwell was

published by Tailor & Francis in 2009 and Vicki Mayer’s Below the Line: Producers and Production Studies by Duke University Press followed in 2011. The aforementioned work shifts the discussion about entertainment and media production
targeting the professionals within the industry whose work is mostly uncredited or invisible and does not focus on the elite“above the line”, whose influence and power over the production as well as their visibility is already immense.
3 The filming process is called shooting, the production’s groupings are named units, while the Director or Director of

Photography are semi-jokingly introduced as the chiefs or the generals among the film crew. To add on the paramilitaryclichés many productions still use walkie talkies to communicate on set. It is still taken for granted that the job would often
require a certain ferocity and that men would be better at acting that part. Borrowing a passage from an interview of film
director Karyn Kusama: assumption is that a man is a much better monster.
4 Auteur theory, theory of filmmaking in which the director is viewed as the major creative force in a motion picture. Arising

in France in the late 1940s, the auteur theory—as it was dubbed by the American film critic Andrew Sarris — was an outgrowth of the cinematic theories of André Bazin and Alexadre Astruc.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Auteur Theory.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., December 27, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/art/auteur-theory.
5 Dorothy Arzner (1897–1979) was pioneering in fiction films in the US, while Ruby Grierson (1904–1940), MargaretThomson (1910–2005), Jill Craigie (1911–1999), Budge Cooper (1913-1983), Kay Mander (1915–2013) were mainly activein documentary filmmaking.
6 For instance, Berlinale is a reputable annual film summit, with “franchise” localised festivals in Beirut, Buenos Aires,

Burdan, Guadalajara, Sarajevo, Tokyo and Rio, which also hosts a talent campus for young professionals. In their application section they explicitly disclose their policy on gender parity and proudly state that 50% of their attendees identify as
female. Yet Berlinale Talents still does not host summits for the predominantly female departments’ representatives.
7 In a professional context, emotional labour refers to the expectation that a worker should either contain her feelings ormanipulate their expression in order to satisfy both her colleagues, customers as well as the perceived requirements of herjob, while avidly responding to other’s emotional needs. Emotional labour can also include being constantly quietly present
and availably for any conversational inquiries or menial tasks, charmingly resolving any conflict that might occur in her
working environment etc.
8 Dalla Costa, Mariarosa, and Selma James. The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community. Bristol: Falling

Wall Press, 1975.
9 Flix.gr is an online publication posting news related to the Film Industry.

58

To address femininity via studying Below-the-Line Film Labour Practices

10 As listed in the website: Being a woman professional in Greek cinema. What does it mean nowadays? Does sexism exist?

Is the field, also in Greece, male dominated? What kinds of problems are women faced with? Are female characters realenough, complicated enough, smart enough? What kind of stories do women want to share with the world? How do they
hope to see heroines on the big screen? 36 women answer these questions. The video is available with English subtitles.
Flix. “Menu.” Flix, March 9, 2018. http://flix.gr/en/women-of-greek-cinema.html.
11 Shooting days regularly extend their agreed duration. With production companies having normalised that it is not un-common to schedule even a 30-hour working day or group numerous all-nighters back to back. The minimum compensation is constantly under negotiation especially for workers employed in certain departments and the payment day is mosttimes unspecified, with the salaries being finally deposited even a year later. Social security or health insurance are rarely
included. Even if these working conditions apparently deprive the employees the ability to plan their lives, surprisingly
many still do take pride in coping under these conditions.

59