Portrayal of women scientists in film

The study of female characters in film began with movements from the 1960s and 1970s in the form of second-wave feminism, the rise of independent films, and the beginning of academic film studies.[2] Some films promote certain socially defined female stereotypical archetypes that often combine job stereotypes[3] with gender stereotypes.[3] The use of these stereotypes in film has been suggested to contribute to a questionable portrayal of women,[4] especially revolving around themes of violence, sexuality, objectification, and subordination.[5]

Eva Flicker, writing in 2002, noted that in science fiction films, men are overwhelmingly portrayed as scientists, making up 82% of all film scientists.[15] The majority of films that include female scientists and engineers as primary characters are placed into the action, adventure and comedy genre.[16]

Women in majority of films including the science fiction genre, often fall into six categories:

The Lonely Heroine

This type of woman scientist is intelligent, attractive, and somewhat independent. Flicker says that she "has appropriated some male traits," such as losing herself in her work. She is both sexual and smart, and she manages to exhibit both qualities in the film. Despite this, she is still subordinate to the men on her team, and depends on them and their work in order to gain respect.[21] She is the most progressive of the woman scientist types, but she lacks her own form of independence and still must rely on a sexual relationship with a man in order to be seen as someone.[15] The "lonely heroine" type is best seen in Jodie Foster's portrayal of Elleonore Arroway in the film Contact.

Alison Doody, who played Indiana Jones's attractive female counterpart Dr. Elsa Schneider in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Sandra Bullock (center), with director Alfonso Cuarón (right), and producer David Heyman

Flicker argues that women are often pigeonholed into these six limiting roles when written in films. Each of these roles places the female scientist character on the sidelines, and does not allow her to be on the same level as her male counterpart(s). Although the women in these roles are educated, and often just as educated as the men on their team, they are used primarily as assistants and sexual characters. Producers strategically write women's roles for the male gaze, often making the female characters use their "weapons of a woman," such as sex appeal, to be attractive to male characters and viewers alike.[3]

Prominent feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey

Feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey writes that in film, women are passive objects of the male gaze.[22] Mulvey writes that movies fulfill "a primordial wish for pleasurable looking," and that male audiences are largely catered to in the film industry.[22] In her analysis of film, she states that the lead woman in a film often falls in love with her male counterpart, and when she does, she only exists as a character to please him. Through the male character's ownership of the woman, the men in the audience find themselves owning her as well.[22]

The male gaze is a significant aspect of traditional feminist film analysis[23] and thus is an important factor to consider in relation to female scientists and how they are portrayed in films. Typically women are viewed as sexual objects for the pleasure of males who view these films. This has a direct effect on how people interpret women scientists and their role in movies. Instead of being portrayed as superheroes, they begin to obtain a reputation based on sexual appeal.

Considering superhero films, Amy Shackelford mentions how the male gaze is applied to sexualize the female character, further misinterpreting women in the media through visual depiction. Looking at these particular films, screenwriters have a difficult time accomplishing the task of writing female characters. Shackelford also states that it seems like the only way these screenwriters know how to portray female characters in superhero films power is to sexualize them.[24]

Judith Mayne supports Laura Mulvey's view. She writes that "most feminist film theory and criticism of the last decade" has been in written in response to Mulvey's 1975 assessment, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema."[2] She argues that understanding the often sexist portrayal of women in film requires "an understanding of patriarchy as oppressive and as vulnerable."[2] Mayne goes deeper in her argument claiming that feminist film theory inspired feminist documentaries that are "aimed at rejecting stereotyped images of women."[2] This criticism also opens the question about "the notion of woman as 'image.'".[2]

Law professor Sarah Eschholz and her colleagues Jana Bufkin and Jenny Long write that in film, women are often young, and female characters are rarely played by middle aged or older women.[25] Often the only role available to these women is that of the mother, who is not meant to be a leading character. They write that "females' primary societal value is based on physical appearance and youthful beauty."[25] According to their assessment, men are valued at all ages, and arguably more so as they age and become wiser. Most women in film are 35 years old or younger, while their male costars are often older.[25] Despite women in film having impressive credentials and extensive educations, they are often reduced to objects for looking, due to a reluctance to hire an older, less attractive woman for a major role.[15][25]

In the traditional husband and wife family, women are often portrayed as the second in command. Their husbands take on the role of family head and get to maintain a bachelor level of freedom, which allows them to work and spend time out with the guys. Eschholz, Bufkin, and Long report on studies that show female characters are more likely to be married and have a family than male characters.[25] Men have the freedom to work and be protagonists through their actions, while their wives or girlfriends are forced to take a back seat in the story in order to care for the family.[25][15]

Noël Carroll references Mulvey's pivotal paper on psychoanalysis and visual pleasure in his writing, and plays devil's advocate to her claim that women are the only subjects of gaze. Carroll acknowledges and agrees with Mulvey's assessment that women in film are strategically placed for the male gaze despite the role of their actual character. Carroll states, "Women in Hollywood film are staged and blocked for male erotic contemplation and pleasure."[26] However, Carroll adds that men in films are also strategically placed for the purpose of pleasure. He cites such examples as Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, big bodybuilding actors "whose scenes are blocked and staged precisely to afford spectacles of bulging pectorals and other parts."[26] Similarly to actresses, male actors are also heralded for their facial attractiveness and are sometimes lauded exclusively for being attractive. As an example, Carroll offers Leslie Howard, a male actor who appeared in Of Human Bondage and Gone With the Wind, who was highly successful in the industry despite being "staggeringly ineffectual."[26] According to Carroll, being subject to the erotic gaze of the audience is not an exclusively female burden; rather, both sexes fall prey to Hollywood camera angles that best show off their bodies.

Kristin Thompson, an American film theorist, analyzes the film Laura. In her analysis, she claims that the main character, Laura, was written to embody the role of "passive visual object," which Mulvey and Flicker claim is an extremely prevalent role of women in film. In the film, the main protagonist spends much of the film admiring an idealised painting of Laura, rather than communicating with an independent human being.[15][22][27] However, Thompson, like Carroll, does not believe that this passive role is limited to women in the industry. Thompson claims that Mulvey's assessment stating that women are used as objects and men cannot handle being the subject of gaze is "common but not universal" in the film industry.[27] She claims that men are also presented in flashy ways in film, and gives the example of Howard Keel in the film Show Boat.[27] Her analysis aligns with Carroll's conclusion that both sexes must be the subject of the audience's gaze, and that objectification is all-encompassing.

Studies have shown that female scientists are either underrepresented or misrepresented as film characters.[3] As Eva Flicker writes, film has a way of taking social realities and expressing certain images of women through media formats.[15] Such media is then able to influence the audience by creating a mirror of metaphors, myths, opinions, and a social memory contributing to stereotypes.[15]

The existence of gender-STEM stereotyping is not a new phenomenon. Such stereotyping has been shown to be prevalent amongst people in a broad range of ages and life stages, from early childhood to college.[28] However, it has been demonstrated that increasing exposure to representations that break the stereotypes of men as the default in STEM can successfully begin to undermine these mental correlations and help to prevent perpetuation of these narratives.[28] This is an example that can be explained by the social role theory of social psychology[29] and the distinct role of culture.[28]

While most films are a one-off presentation of a story, TV shows which lead to a film can portray characters and ideas in a more long-term and rounded manner.

One example of this can be seen in the X-Files's Dana Scully. The Scully Effect is widely documented as having encouraged a large number of women to go into science.[30][31][32] Running from 1993 - 2002, the weekly portrayal of a medical doctor carrying out investigations with the FBI, followed by her story on the big screen (The X-Files (film) and The X-Files: I Want to Believe) has had a huge impact on science.

A much earlier example is that of Communications Officer Lt Nyota Uhura on Star Trek. As a women of colour portraying a military linguist, cryptographer and mathematician, Uhura has had an unprecedented influence on women, and men, around the world.[33][34]

A 2007 meta-analysis by Jocelyn Steinke of Western Michigan University and colleagues looked at gender stereotyping by children who have been exposed to images of scientists through films, television shows, and books.[35] One study examined elementary school students taking the Draw-a-Scientist-Test, or DAST. The results showed that out of more than 4,000 children who participated in the DAST, only 28 girls drew female scientists.[35] Another study of 1,137 Korean students between the ages of eleven and fifteen found that 74% of them drew male scientists, while only 16% had depicted female scientists.[35] Through the influence of mass media outlets, statistics from the National Science Foundation 2000 indicate that women make up only 19.4% of the STEM industry including science and mathematics.[36] As a result, most children in the major developmental years are subjected to accepting traditional stereotypes of women being passive, emotional, physically weak and dependent, as depicted in films.[36] The study posits that gender stereotypes can be the product of an individual's surrounding environment, which can influence how they view themselves and others around them.[35]

As an increasing number of adolescents use social media platforms, the reinforcement of traditional cultural norms is at an all-time high.[16] Even before young women reach adolescence, they may be exposed to social media perpetuating the stereotype of women as dependent, emotional and less capable beings.[16]

An increasing interest in science in real-life and on-screen is linked.[37][38] As Mae Jemison (a life-long Star Trek fan) became the first black woman to travel in space and the first real-life astronaut to appear on Star Trek,[39][40] this link can be celebrated for changes it brings across society.