As we head into Oscar weekend, we talk with Katie Couric, Catherine Hardwicke and more about the underrepresentation of women in film and how we might improve things moving forward...

Broadcast worldwide to millions of viewers, the Oscars are meant to be a celebration of the greatest cinema of the past year. Unfortunately, the glitzy event has also become an annual reminder of the serious lack of female representation in Hollywood.

None of the 9 Best Picture nominees this year were helmed by a women and in the 84 years since the category has existed, including this one, only 4 women have ever been nominated for Best Director. And only 1 has won.

It's not for lack of talent though. Melissa Silverstein of Women in Hollywood has a list of women who made excellent films in 2011 but were inexplicably left out of the Academy Award conversation (watch her video here). It's no wonder though when you consider, as the Los Angeles Times reported last week, that 77% of the Academy voters are male.

Yet recognition at the Oscars is just one of many problems talented women in Hollywood face. We recently asked some very successful women, inside and outside of Hollywood, their thoughts on the current status of women and film.

Catherine Hardwicke, director of Twilight and Thirteen, believes "trying to get different stories told-- movies that break out of the box and speak from a different perspective" is the biggest obstacle women facing female filmmakers and female actors today.

"Almost every actress I know would benefit from more complex characters where they could really shine," added Hardwicke. She mentions Charlize Theron's performance in Monster and Hilary Swank in Girls Don't Cryas examples of what women are capable of when given ambitious roles.

Twilight, directed by Catherine Hardwicke and starring Kristen Stewart in the lead role, made over $392 million at the box office

Katie Couric, who has worked in front of and behind the camera for decades, believes ageism is another factor maintaining Tinseltown's glass ceiling.

"Stephen Sondheim wrote the great lyric, "First you're another slow-eyed vamp. Then someone's mother. Then, you're camp," and I think despite that line being 40 years old, many actresses in Hollywood still find it true today. There may be ageism at play, a sense that once you're taking Centrum Silver you may not be right for most leading roles on the silver screen," she said.

Yet the former Host of CBS Evening News attributes even more of the problem to the lack of women behind-the-scenes.

"I think too often in answering this question we focus on leading ladies rather than the lack of ladies who lead. In 2011, women directed just 5% of the top grossing films, were just 18% of all executive producers and just 4% of all cinematographers," said Couric. "Yes, Hollywood needs to put aside the notion that a gal of a certain age can't be sexy, but the problem is much more than skin deep."

In this extra clip from Miss Representation, Jennifer Todd, a producer on Memento and Alice and Wonderland, asks "did women start going to the movies less, or did we stop making programming for them more?."

Martha Lauzen, citing her own research at San Diego State University, found that in comparing the box office returns of films featuring female protagonists with those with male protagonists "there was no statistically significant difference." What did matter though was the budget and support these films received from the studios.

Yet as part of a media industry where only 3% of the top clout positions are held by women, it would seem that female-led films, and the women who want to make them, are simply being ignored. "We need to foster the next generation of women leaders behind the camera, women like the late Laura Ziskin who scaled the studio walls like Spiderman (her film, by the way) and came in with guns blazing, action-film style," said Couric. "If more women ran the show, the show would most likely feature more women, and in roles that authentically depict all the stages of life."

What's your take? How do we change the numbers in Hollywood? Leave your ideas below and join us Sunday night during the Oscars as we live-tweet the media's portrayal of women on the Red Carpet using #femTV. 

by @imransiddiquee

The Women's Media Center will be live-tweeting during the 84th Academy Awards this Sunday, February 26th. 

How are women being spoken to on the red carpet? How are they being represented by the media? Is the attention they are receiving based on their achievements and talent?

These are some of the questions we will consider while live-tweeting. Join the conversation by using hashtag #FemTV. 

Women's absence from Best Director nominees only reflects the industry's dismal hiring statistics, as demonstrated in the author's annual Celluloid Ceiling study.

With this year’s Academy Awards ceremony just around the corner, Oscar has rounded up the usual suspects for filmmaking’s most prestigious honor.  Not surprisingly, the demographic profile of the nominees for the coveted Best Director award closely resembles that of the academy’s governors.  As Michael Cieply states in a New York Times’ Carpetbagger blog, “All are male, all are white, and most have been a presence at the Oscars before.”  He also notes that the average age of the nominees mirrors that of the academy’s governing board.

Read the full article here.

Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency has released her newest video critique of popular culture, this time on the Bechdel Test and the 2012 Academy Awards.

The Bechdel Test was popularized by Alison Bechdel in her 1985 comic, “Dykes to Watch Out for.” It is a device used to gauge women’s relevance to a movie plot and the general presence of women in Hollywood movies. To pass the test, a movie must satisfy three rules. The movie must (1) have at least two named female characters (2) who talk to each to each other (3) about something other than a man.

In her newest video, Sarkeesian applies this test to the nine movies nominated for the upcoming Academy Awards. Here is what she finds:

The Academy of Motion Picture Sciences released their nominations this morning for the 84th Annual Oscars, to be held February 24th in Hollywood, CA. This year they voted 9 films into the Best Picture category, ranging from the popular (The Help) to the lesser seen (like The Artist). None of the nominees were written or directed by a woman and only one, the aforementioned The Help, features a woman in the starring role and only one, War Horse, has a female producer. (Kristin Wiig and Annie Mumolo were nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Bridesmaids).

Best Picture Nominess:

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

The Tree of Life

War Horse

The full list of nominations is available here.

So the question becomes, of the 9 anointed films, which do you think displays the best portrayal of gender? Which of them, if any, passes the Bechdel Test? Are any of them particularly offensive or positive? Let us know in the comments below!

We'll be tracking the Academy Awards over the next few weeks, so stay tuned for more in-depth analysis and reporting.

Intern Angela Sells tracks the missteps of ABC's Work It, episode by episode. 

Work It: Episode 2 and Even Worse

The second episode centers around Lee and Angel attempting to sell their pharmaceuticals to doctors. As women, Lee and Angel attempt to seduce the doctors rather than sell their product in a professional manner. Lee, quite knowledgeable of the medications, does not fare as well as Angel, who endears the doctor with "her" ignorance of the drugs and their possible side effects. In attempt to sell as much as Angel, Lee "becomes more womanly" by acting ditzy and stripping in front of the doctor to reveal a red bra and red thong, implying that the only real thing a woman can sell is herself. Most offensively, the advice to wear red lingerie comes from Lee's wife, who admits to wearing a red bra at her job (as a nurse) to get promotions. Not only does this cheapen the view of a woman's career life by underscoring her body parts and dismissing her mental acuity. 

Also, by attempting to get ahead at the job through use of one's body, the very real and harrowing problem of the ever-booming sex-industry is ignored.  For example, the consequences of prostitution, sex slavery, pornography and Playboy are that women are made to feel that their value lies in their (arbitrarily defined) aesthetic quality and are encouraged to reinforce very specific male-oriented power dynamics.  Speaking of power dynamics, the most infuriating segment of this episode occurs when Lee, out of his female clothing, and Lee (still in his "work attire") pretend to be a couple to ward off one of the doctor's advances on Angel. Lee plays the abusive, angry and violent boyfriend to Angel's passive helplessness. When asked why Angel stays with Lee, Angel answers "I can't help it. I'm addicted to the drama." By reducing domestic violence to the butt of a joke, Work It not only encourages the notion that dysfunctional and traumatic relationships are an acceptable source of "fun," but Angel iterates a very damaging and disempowered model to young girls who may be watching the show. 

Having said all of this, Work It does in fact speak to a larger societal crisis in the attempt to re-define masculinity and femininity in a culture where biological gender need not dictate one's career and lifestyle choices.  With so many shows this past fall centered on the "decline of the man," a deeply insecure truth is revealed: the need to retrograde into past traditional gender roles so as to avoid, deny and suppress the rise of female equality. Woman is so feared because her freedom marks an end to an oppressive patriarchy and Work It expresses the great discomfort and resistance to the change occurring.  Work It's stereotypically harmful image of an insipid, inferior and incapable woman is the equivalent to the chrysalis that is supposed to support the butterfly's beautiful transformation but instead chooses to prevent its growth and let it die a stifled caterpillar. 

“The battle of the sexes is over on television. Now viewers get to pick between his or her sexism.”

In a January 10^th article for the New York Times Arts section, Alessandra Stanley tackles the ubiquitous trend of sexist television sitcoms. Stanley’s article differs from conventional attacks on the sexist treatment of women, however. She looks, instead, at a new kind of comedy that has been making great strides in the entertainment and Hollywood sphere: women making crude, offensive jokes about men and sex.

Looking particularly at the new comedies “Are You There, Chelsea?” and “Whitney,” both of which star female comedians known for their raunchy humor, Stanley wonders whether their material is enough to distinguish them “from the pack.” Explains Stanley:

"Encouraged by the success of “Bridesmaids,” television executives have welcomed comedies that showcase boozy single women who talk roguishly about masturbation, venereal disease and menstruation.

With the influx of female-driven raunch comedy, Chelsea Handler and Whitney Cummings may not be bringing much of anything new (or feminist) to the table.  Their material, rather than pushing back against sexism on TV, seems merely to be offering it in a different form. Stanley also discusses another part of the equation—the new sitcom “Work It,” which centers around two men who dress in drag in order to snag jobs during a “mancession.” This show has been lampooned by the media and attacked by The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) for its blatant mockery of the transgender community.

The most interesting point Stanley raises in her article, if indirectly, is that TV comedy still relies on stereotyping gender for laughs. Sure, now we have a new gender trope of the crude single gal who drinks tons of alcohol and sleeps around. The problem is, it’s still a stereotype steeped in gender bias and it still portrays women as creatures whose lives revolve around finding a man.  

Intern Angela Sells tracks the successes and failings of ABC's new drama Pan Am, episode by episode. Check back weekly for updates...

The Best of Fall’s Mediocre Lineup? (Episodes 1-3)

Pan Am is pretty good. For a show based on a privileged and select group of the 1960's elite (an approach that reinforces Hollywood's systematic exclusion of minorities and the LGBTQ society), Pan Am is palatable. The stewardesses are a multi-lingual group, some involved in the CIA and others interested in politics or bucking the traditional wedding institution. However, stereotypical gender stereotypes are still imposed and the women are often made to grin and bear overt sexism displayed by passengers as well as the captains. The choice to focus on the upper white class without juxtaposing at least a bit of the racial and civil stirrings is predictable, but disappointing. While not nearly as gruesomely offensive as fellow 60s-centered The Playboy Club; Pan Am is at least notable for a largely female cast and seasoned leads like Christina Ricci.

Three weeks in, Pan Am's trips around the world appear as exciting distracters from the fact that the show is still a glamorized idealization of a very segregated, conflict-ridden and gender-role confining time.  It pains to say that even The Playboy Club enlisted more minority actors and was at least attempting to incorporate the gay community with a lesbian bunny. It is becoming all too exhausting to have shows flaunt their racial and gender hierarchies, only to be excused and justified by attributing everything "to the times". Television is indeed a mode of escapist relaxation and should sometimes simply serve to be a source of pleasure, but too much is beginning to feel like filler and superficial fluff.  One must ask the question: How will the media's denial to confront uncomfortable issues and its refusal to reflect today's society affect (and determine) a culture so influenced and inundated by the images and behaviors depicted on the screen? 

This comedy is in no danger of being sexy. The main character, Jess, despite being played by the talented and gorgeous Zooey Deschanel, is completely desexualized through a series of awkward and “quirky” behaviors meant to render her relatable. She is portrayed as clueless, graceless, and pathetic to prove that this beautiful woman is “flawed” just like you. Jess tucks her skirt into her larger-than-life underwear. She sings to herself in public. She cries and watches Dirty Dancing “six or seven times a day.” She is just a regular girl! This leads me away from the absence of “sexy” and the prevalence of sexism in New Girl.