Reykjavík Grapevine - 19.06.2015, Síða 26

26 The Reykjavík GrapevineIssue 8— 2015FILM
After examining figures for gender partici-
pation within the arts, the world-famous
feminist art troupe Guerrilla Girls put up
this billboard as part of the 35th Reykja-
vík Arts Festival. When it came to the film
industry, what they concluded was that
87% of Icelandic Film Centre funding (i.e.
the “Film Fund”) has gone to men rather
than women—and that this was because
of discrimination.
The numbers
The figures used on the billboard were
based on a BA thesis by Ívar Björnsson,
entitled ‘Konur í íslenskum kvikmyndum’
(“Women in Icelandic Film”). Ívar looked
at every Icelandic film made from 1980,
the year the Film Centre was founded,
through 2012—134 films in total—and
found that 87% of funding had gone to
men over the last three decades. Further-
more, only twenty films (15%) featured
women in leading roles, including acting,
directing, production, or writing work.
At first, these numbers appear to sit
in stark contrast with the figures provided
by the Film Centre: women had a 68%
success rate applying for screenwriting
or production support grants in 2013 and
2014, while men had a success rate of
58%. On the surface, it would seem that
out of the very few women who apply, the
majority of them are successful—more so
than male applicants.
Looking more closely at the figures,
however, tells us another story. In 2013-14,
there were 352 applications for Film Cen-
tre funding, with 217 of those success-
fully receiving grants. Men accounted for
70% of applications, and received 67% of
the total grants awarded. In comparison,
women have accounted for 23% of ap-
plications, and received 25% of the total
grants. Meanwhile, mixed-gender “team”
applications made up the remaining 6% of
applications, taking the final 8% of award-
ed grants.
These numbers do not account for
how much funding was allocated to men
or women, but if the stats the Guerrilla
Girls cite are true (i.e. “women receive
13% of all Film Centre funding”), it is rea-
sonable to conclude that women not only
make up a much smaller number of grant
applicants than men, but also receive less
funding individually.
The reason given for this is simple, ac-
cording to Laufey Guðjónsdóttir, director
of the Film Centre, who is quoted in Ívar’s
thesis: women are often more realistic
and moderate in estimating their budgets.
If the work of women costs less than that
of men (thanks, gender pay gap!) then we
can grant more women less funding, or so
it goes. Sort of like Victorian orphans, or
worker bees.
Discrimination?

The way funding is allocated by the Film
Centre is similar to the way other Nordic
film institutes do it, according to Laufey.
“Film consultants evaluate the applica-
tions and make a suggestion accordingly
to the director of the Film Centre,” Laufey
explains. “The director is responsible for
all the funding.”
It might seem surprising that a woman
is in charge of allocating funding, given
that it is distributed unevenly. However,
this highlights the structural— rather than
individual—nature of the issue.
“There is a problem, as we get fewer
applications from women than men,”
Laufey says. “The discussion about a lim-
ited number of women in the creative key
roles in films is both very urgent and im-
portant—for us at the Film Centre and the
whole film community. [This] is not only a
women's issue—men have great responsi-
bilities in this matter too, of course.” If the
film industry itself is male-dominated, and
much of its success has thus far relied on
films that speak to that experience, then
the so-called “film consultants” tasked
with judging applications will act on that
basis.
Looking at the proportionally low
number of funding applications from
women, alongside the miniscule numbers
entering film school (eleven applicants,
or 28% of Icelandic film school graduates
between 2009-2011), the “problem” be-
comes more readily apparent. Although
women are more successful in applying
for grants than men, they are simply not
being encouraged to get into the industry
in the first place.
Not an option?
Laufey makes a good point when she
tells me that there is no simple explana-
tion for why there are so few women
involved—in both film and other areas.
There is “limited education at all stages”
for film, she says. This is compounded by
“very narrow infrastructures” within the
industry itself.
The director of the Reykjavík Arts
Festival, Hanna Styrmisdóttir, argues that
young women simply are not given the
opportunities to break into the industry.
“They do not direct films because they
do not get the chance to—because they
don’t hear from us that they can do it, that
we will support them in doing it, that we
will fund their work equally—as we do the
work of men.” She views this as pervasive
throughout the arts in Iceland: “Young
women simply do not know that filmmak-
ing is an option for them.” With only 20-
odd films produced by women in the last
three decades, it’s no wonder why.
One of the most well-known Icelan-
dic filmmakers and certainly one of the
most prominent women in the domestic
industry, Guðný Halldórsdóttir (‘The Quiet
Storm’ [2007], ‘The Honour of the House’
[1999]), says that when she started out,
Icelandic cinema was
entirely male-dominat-
ed. It was three women
in the theatre who in-
spired her to go to film
school. “I knew that
I would have to work
twice as hard as my
male colleagues,” she
says. “That was thirty years ago, [and]
there has actually been little progress.”
Guðný argues that, while there are
now more women in the industry than
before, many do not last—and those who
do end up working in an administrative
capacity or as actors, always “something
less than features.”
Add a lack of opportunities to the
funding issues that we see further down
the line, and it would appear that things
are structurally weighted against people
who aren’t men at nearly every single
level within the industry. Whether this
is the result of deliberate discrimination
is unclear. Regardless, it is obvious that
filmmaking seems out of reach for many
women—something that extends far, far
beyond any individual prejudices those at
the Film Centre might hold.
Telling tales
Even if the industry wasn’t backwards in
terms of its structure and how it allocates
funding, what still remains is a problem of
visibility for anyone who isn’t a cisgender
man.
“It is wonderful to see an Icelandic
film (‘Rams’) receive that honour and the
stories of men are not less important than
the stories of women, but we have to have
both,” Hanna argues. “There is something
wrong if almost all the films made in Ice-
land tell narratives of men, because that
doesn’t really give a good idea of the so-
ciety and the things [it] stands for. If you
don’t see yourself mirrored in a way and
your experiences mir-
rored in what’s happen-
ing in the arts, it’s harder
to become interested in
it.”
Furthermore, de-
spite the international
success of a film like
‘Rams’, Guðný points out
that there is little domestic appetite for
Icelandic cinema. “The audience does not
trust Icelandic films, which is a shame,”
she says. This in part down to many of
these films only representing the experi-
ence of a narrow section of a society—
what Guðný refers to as the “so-called
‘underground’ in Reykjavík.” She argues
“there is a gap in the history of culture
in Iceland—this medium is one-sided,
whereas our society is not.”
This is simultaneously a cause and
effect of the lack of opportunities in the
industry for people who aren’t men.
When asked about the impact of an un-
equal film industry on young filmmakers,
Guðný says, “Concerning young women
who want to make films, please do. There
is a small war going on in the Icelandic
film business, and I’ll be damned if we
lose it.” The absence of representation
and opportunities in the arts, but also the
public sphere, is not just a major issue for
women who want to break into filmmak-
ing—it is a major global issue for people of
all identities.
As billboards go, it was pretty good. It used an excellent
shade of pink. It didn’t peel. It was big enough to see
from Bæjarins Beztu. Most importantly, though, this bill-
board had a message for the hot dog eaters of Reykjavík:
the Icelandic film industry is sexist.
Photo
Reykjavík Arts Festival
Words
Ciarán Daly
raudahusid.is
Búðarstígur 4, 820 Eyrarbakki • tel. 483-3330
open 7 days a week year-round
1
1
Selfoss
Hveragerði
Eyrarbakki
to Blue Lagoon
ca. 50 min.
to Reykjavík
ca. 45 min.
to Þingvellir,
Gullfoss, Geysir
ca. 45-60 min.
39
rauða húsið
r e s t a u r a n tEyrarbakka
Take a step back in time
and enjoy modern Icelandic & international
cuisine in a setting rich with history...
“There is a small war
going on in the Ice-
landic film business,
and I’ll be damned if
we lose it.”
The Boys’ Club
Men are strong and
carry around big cameras?