?

Log in

racebending.com
we saw wut u did thar, paramount
Studio diversity of the past decade 
28th-Aug-2010 01:11 am
dead racists
About three months ago, the good folks at Racebending.com released a survey they'd done of the diversity in Paramount's films. It was a good idea, and a good survey, but Paramount is just one studio. It's understandable that we're mad at Paramount for The Last Airbender, but I don't think we ought to single them out, not when there are other big studios out there doing the same thing. So I took it upon myself to check out the other major studios.

Today the major US film studios--known as the Big Six--are Warner Bros. Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures/Touchstone Pictures, and Universal Studios. Together these six companies got about 80.6% of the market share in 2009. So these six are very big, and very influential. Let's see how they do.


Methodology


First, a boring discussion of how I went about this. I checked the IMDb page for each company, counting Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures as the same company, as well as Universal Studios and Universal Pictures. I didn't look at any of their subsidiaries or child companies specifically, but I think most of those films were included in the IMDb lists I perused. I examined films that these companies either distributed or produced between 2000 and 2009. I tried to limit it to US theatrical releases--I attempted to cull out direct-to-DVD releases, though I may have missed a few. I also more or less kept it to films created in the US--I didn't feel that studios should get credit for casting an Asian person because they brought over a Chinese film, for instance. However, I'll admit that what films I admitted and excluded were sometimes chosen at a whim, so I counted quite a few UK, Canadian, and Australian films too, I believe... as long as they got a theatrical release in the States. I also omitted documentaries and the like. Some films were counted more than once, because they showed up on the IMDb pages of multiple companies.

I tried to figure out who was the main character of the movie, which was not always the same person as who got first billing on IMDb (even setting aside the times when IMDb appears to list cast alphabetically or by order of appearance). For instance, Will Smith gets first billing in The Legend of Bagger Vance, but I took Matt Damon as the main character. And countering that, Robert De Niro gets first billing in Men of Honor, but I counted Cuba Gooding, Jr. as the main character. I mostly cross-referenced the films with Wikipedia to decide who was the main character (since I haven't seen most of these movies), and so may have made some mistakes. In movies where there's an ensemble cast and no clear main character, I think I mostly took whoever was listed first of the main characters on IMDb or Wikipedia.

Then I recorded their race and gender, which is another instance in this pursuit where I had to make personal choices about things. In most cases it was pretty clear what race the actor was, but some of them I had to make a decision. In a lot of cases where a star had mixed ancestry, but I felt they came across as white to the public, I counted them as such. So Cameron Diaz, though she could count as Latina, I counted as white. Johnny Depp apparently has some Cherokee in him, but I counted him as white, too. Keanu Reeves is part Hawaiian, but I counted him as white. And so on. In the interests of fairness, I also maintained a separate tally where those stars were counted as people of color--not that it changes the results a whole lot.

In the case of animated and CG movies, I followed the example of the parent study and looked at the race and gender of the voice actor--for the most part. In some cases, the animated character was a human with a clear race or gender that differed from that of the voice actor. In those cases I counted the race & gender of the character portrayed, instead of the voice actor. So Lilo of Lilo & Stitch was counted as Native Hawaiian, even though her voice actor Daveigh Chase is white. Kuzco of The Emperor's New Groove was counted as Native American even though David Spade is white. And, well, you get the picture. Of course, live-action films didn't get the same leniency. So while the main character of Hidalgo is supposed to be part Native American, because he's played by all-white Viggo Mortensen, I counted him as white.

Since, as I've said, I had to make (often arbitrary) decisions in the course of this, other people who did the same survey might get different results. (In fact, for a lark I surveyed Paramount's films, too, to see how my results differed from those of the Racebending.com staff.) So I maintained an Excel spreadsheet of the studios and films I examined, so anyone who's interested (read: no-one) could double-check my work and come to their own conclusions. You can find that here.

I think I've said more than enough--probably more than necessary--about all that. So, on to the results.

Warner Bros. Pictures



I found that Warner Bros. Pictures distributed or produced 241 films in the years 2000-2009. Of those, 172 had a white male as the lead; 44, a white female; 10 a black male; 3 a black female; 5 an East Asian male; 3 a Latino male; 1 a Latina female; 1 a Persian male; 1 an Indian male; and 1 a multiracial female.

So in total that's 89.6% white leads in their films--71.4% white males, 18.3% white females. Blacks were leads in 5.4% of the films. East Asians got to be the lead a scant 2.1% of the time, with no East Asian female leads. Latinos were the lead in 1.7% of the films. There were no Native American leads (unless you count Johnny Depp and Mandy Moore, both part-Cherokee).

Males were the lead in 192, or 80%, of these films. Women of course were only 20% of the leads, but women of color were a miniscule 2% of the leads, getting only 5 films.

20th Century Fox



20th Century Fox distributed or produced 209 films in the decade I looked at. The leads were: 133 white males; 45 white females; 16 black males; 4 black females; 1 East Asian male; 1 East Asian female; 2 Latino males; 3 Latina females; 2 Indian males; 1 Indian female; and 1 multiracial female.

So that's 85.2% white leads, with 63.6% going to white males and 21.5% to white females. Blacks got to lead in 9.6% of their films, while East Asians only 1%... and that after rounding up. Latinos fared scarcely better with 2.4% of the lead roles going to them. And Indians got 1.4% of the leads.

Men were the main characters in 154, or 73.7% of these films. Women of course therefore got 26.3%, with women of color only having 4.3% of the leads, due to 9 films.

Columbia Pictures



I counted 156 pictures distributed or produced by Columbia Pictures during the years in question. And I tallied their main characters at: 90 white males; 34 white females; 23 black males; 1 black female; 1 East Asian male; 2 East Asian females; 2 Latino males; and 3 Latina females.

Thus, in percentages, that's 79.5% white leads--57.7% white males, 21.8% white females. Blacks were the lead in 15.4% of the films, but East Asians only 1.9%. Latinos got to star in 3.2% of their movies.

Men lead in 116, or 74.4%, of the films. Women had 25.6% of the films, although women of color were the main characters in only 6 movies, a mere 3.8% of the total during this time.

Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures



Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures are different labels of the same motion picture company, so I counted them together. In total I counted 144 films produced or distributed by them from 2000-2009. The main characters were: 91 white males; 33 white females; 10 black males; 1 black female; 3 East Asian males; 1 Latino male; 3 Native American males (two of them animated and voiced by white actors); 1 Hawaiian female (also animated and voiced by a white actor); and 1 Indian male (again, animated and voiced by a white actor).

Let's divide and multiply by 100! We've got 86.1% white leads, 63.2% being white males and 22.9% white females. Black leads made up a small 7.6% of the films, East Asians an even smaller 2.1%, and Latinos less than one percent. We actually got some Native American leads from these companies, though: 2.1% of them.

Men were the main character in 109, or 75.7%, of the films for these companies. Women starred in the other 24.3% of them,and women of color in an embarrassingly small 1.4%--and half of that is Lilo. The other half is Tiana from Princess and the Frog, so there wasn't a single live-action woman of color as main character from these companies.

Universal Studios



I found a Universal Pictures and a Universal Studios on IMDb, and I couldn't tell you how they differ. But together I counted 179 films from them. I counted the stars as: 115 white males; 43 white females; 16 black males; 1 black female; 2 Latino males; 1 Latina female; and 1 Indian male. That's right--no East Asian stars.

In other terms, there were 88.3% white leads, with 64.2% of the total being white males, and 24% white females. Blacks starred in 9.5% of the films, and Latinos in 1.7%. East Asians, sadly enough, were entirely absent.

Men got the starring role 74.9% of the time, in 134 films. Women necessarily got the remaining 25.1% of the films. Women of color were the main character in only 1.1% of the films.

Conclusions



There's a lot of work left to be done. Actors of color are sadly underrepresented as main characters in cinema--Asians make up ~4.4% of the population of the US, but struggle to get half that representation in films. As a matter of fact, in total Asians were the stars in only 1.4% of the films I looked at. And perhaps an unfortunately high percentage of those films were action/martial arts ones: I count 3 films as martial arts ones, and another 2 or 3 as action films. That's close to half of the 13 films with Asian leads.

As far as I could tell, there was only one Native American actor cast as a lead in all 929 films I looked at, and that was as the lead in Apocalypto, which was hardly a shining example of how to represent Native Americans. As well, all three films that had a Native American lead (including the two animated ones, The Emperor's New Groove and Brother Bear) all took place in the past. Native Americans are treated as relics of the past, as though they were all extinct now.

Compared to their portion of the US population, Latinos may fare the worst. They make up 15% of the US population (more like 10% if we only count white Latinos), but get only around 2% of the leads in films.

And even blacks don't fare too well, despite their highly visible place in American society and decades of trying to improve matters. African-Americans are around 12% of the US population, but the only company that actually reached (actually, exceeded) that level representation in their films was Columbia, though Paramount and 20th Century Fox come close.

Women, of course, get far less than their fair share of leads, and women of color are barely present as main characters.

And as I'm sure we're all aware, white males land leads at rates vastly at odds with their portion of the population. Non-Latino white males would make up roughly 32% of the population, but regularly get twice that in starring roles.

Not to preach to the choir or anything, but this is what makes the mission of Racebending.com and other advocacy groups an important one. When we already have so few roles going to people of color, to take a role that was meant for someone of color and give it to a white actor is incredibly insulting.
Comments 
28th-Aug-2010 07:06 am (UTC)
wow, thanks for all the effort you poured into this.
28th-Aug-2010 07:28 am (UTC)
Wow, that's...appalling, but sadly unsurprising. Although now I'm wondering if there'd be a way to do this with television advertising, although that would probably be a thesis-level project.

There were no Native American leads (unless you count Johnny Depp and Mandy Moore, both part-Cherokee).

I hate to ask, but...is that actually documented for either of them, or just something they've said in interviews or biographies? The reason I ask is that I've noticed a fair amount of Americans (famous or otherwise) seem to claim Native American heritage, which is almost always either Cherokee or it's never specified, which reminds me of the Cherokee princess myth). (If this is way out of line or anything, I apologize ahead of time, sorry)
28th-Aug-2010 07:51 am (UTC)
I hate to ask, but...is that actually documented for either of them, or just something they've said in interviews or biographies?

Honestly, I didn't do that much research. I just checked Wikipedia for most of the actors, and the wiki pages for those two mentioned Cherokee ancestry. I suspect it was self-reported, but I have no real reason to doubt them.

If anyone has done digging into their background to verify the claim, I'm unaware of it, but I don't think it matters much, either.
28th-Aug-2010 08:52 am (UTC)
Oh, yeah, they're pretty much considered white and I doubt it's a huge part of either of their identities - like I said, it's just something I've noticed and it often strikes me as a way of saying, "oh, yeah, totally got some Native American in me, isn't that exotic?"
28th-Aug-2010 09:04 am (UTC)
That could be part of it. But there was also a lot of white-Native American intermingling, so there honestly are a lot of people with some traces of Native American ancestry. And a lot of people are proud of that ancestry. And it's also possible--even probable--that some of them are making it up because they think having Native American heritage is fashionable.

Honestly, I can't judge them too harshly because I'm among their numbers. I've got some Native American ancestry too, apparently--so my mother keeps saying. But I couldn't prove it to you, all I have is her word that her grandmother (I think it was her grandmother, at least) was Native American. So I can't really be one to cast stones here.

On the other hand, casting Depp to play Tonto because of that trace amount of Cherokee ancestry? I can totally throw stones at that... assuming it ever gets made.
28th-Aug-2010 09:19 am (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely true - my family also claims to be Native American (Lakota, to be a little more specific). I'm definitely not trying to say that everyone claiming to be part Cherokee or Native American is a lying liar liebag of lies - it's just always suspicious when they go "oh and I'm part EURO EURO EURO and Cherokee! Yeah!" Although most of the time I don't get why so many celebrities talk about their backgrounds in interviews or anything if it's never been a big part of their life. If, say, being part Welsh was a huge part of your childhood, I'd get that, but I just always wonder how that even comes up in these things. "So, what's your ethnic background?" Is that a standard question or something? I think I'm blithering on...

...tell me that last one was just an example and not something that's being discussed in Hollywood. There are so many reasons why that should not happen ever.
28th-Aug-2010 09:30 am (UTC)
...tell me that last one was just an example and not something that's being discussed in Hollywood. There are so many reasons why that should not happen ever.

No, it's quite real. But at this point, I think "Depp as Tonto" is all they've got for the project.
28th-Aug-2010 09:35 am (UTC)
...there are honestly no words for how much that is fail. SEE ICON KEYWORDS.
28th-Aug-2010 09:47 am (UTC)
No, it's quite real.
D:
29th-Aug-2010 11:38 pm (UTC)
I like your icon. :D

*lacks any KHR ones with which to respond*
28th-Aug-2010 02:23 pm (UTC)
Depp said in an interview that his grandmother was Cherokee. Which would make him one quarter.

I'm sure he identifies with that part of his heritage as much as he does the other three quarters, but there is no question that he is perceived as white by Hollywood studios and in the media. Once in awhile when they're backing him up on a role like Tonto or the Pancho Villa movie the media will suddenly pull the part-Cherokee card for him.
29th-Aug-2010 03:44 am (UTC)
Bill of Rights for People of Mixed Heritage

I HAVE THE RIGHT...
Not to justify my existence in this world.
Not to keep the races separate within me.
Not to justify my ethnic legitimacy.
Not to be responsible for people’s discomfort with my physical or ethnic ambiguity.

I HAVE THE RIGHT...
To identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify.
To identify myself differently than how my parents identify me.
To identify myself differently than my brothers and sisters.
To identify myself differently in different situations.

I HAVE THE RIGHT...
To create a vocabulary to communicate about being multiracial or multiethnic.
To change my identity over my lifetime--and more than once.
To have loyalties and identification with more than one group of people.
To freely choose whom I befriend and love.

http://www.drmariaroot.com/doc/BillOfRights.pdf
9th-Sep-2010 05:54 am (UTC)
That's lovely, but I don't think that's quite what any posters aren't saying.
An excellent time for that poem would have been when people were asking if the girl playing the lead Kyoshi Warrior was Asian enough, because she's half-Asian and half-White. We don't just get to decide that she's not Asian.

However, it is a relevant question to ask, at what point can't an actor claim a teeny bit of their ethnic makeup in the interest of getting a job?

Also, couldn't that be applied to everyone? Especially in the US, plenty of people have a mishmash of ethnicities in their backgrounds.
9th-Sep-2010 02:03 pm (UTC)
How can this community claim to be against racism, and then let racist comments go completely unchallenged? The purpose of posting this was to get the poster who I responded to thinking about what they said.

The comment I responded to had nothing to do with claiming ethnic makeup in order to get a job, so that's irrelevant to my post.
9th-Sep-2010 02:51 pm (UTC)
I'm genuinely confused. Are you saying my comment was racist or someone elses? Because I don't see what comment you might have been responding to. I thought that you were making a general posts in regards to the entire conversation.

In regards to you post, I was saying that it would appear that people are talking, pretty civily about how much of ones ancestry is relevant when it comes to movie casting. Your post was a lovely statement, but I really don't understand it's relevance in regards to that thread. It might have been easier for me had you written in your own words what you found troubling or offensive, that's still unclear to me. Was the post you intially responded to deleted? Or, quite possibly, I'm overlooking it. I just woke up.


9th-Sep-2010 03:08 pm (UTC)
I was responding to a specific comment, which should be clear from the LJ formatting. I'm going to restate the comment I was responding to:

"Mixed race people who pass for white don't care about their ethnicity, they only mention it to seem exotic".

I think the comment was off the cuff and not meant to be insensitive, but it was insensitive. Maybe some people don't care about their backgrounds. I'd say many people are unaware of their mixed backgrounds. But to say "everyone" doesn't care as a blanket statement is the kind of thinking this community is supposed to be fighting against.
10th-Sep-2010 02:29 am (UTC)
Oh, okay. I still don't see that comment, but now I totally get your response.
I agree.
9th-Sep-2010 05:44 am (UTC)
Many Americans claim Native American ancestry for a variety of reasons. According to Professor Henry Louis Gates hardly anyone who claims to be part Native American actually is.

It's not out of line. It seems like almost everyone in this country will say that.
28th-Aug-2010 08:06 am (UTC)
Wow. Thank you for your thoroughness. I'm not surprised by the conclusions, but it's great to see that there's data that backs up what we're trying to advocate for.

I may not be the best person to help you with this, but I think infographics would be great to help people visualize.
28th-Aug-2010 08:32 am (UTC)
I may not be the best person to help you with this, but I think infographics would be great to help people visualize.

Agreed, and I thought about it, but I don't really have any software to do so. I did a brief look into some on-line graph generators, but the results weren't pleasing.
28th-Aug-2010 08:45 am (UTC)
Yikes, while this isn't all that surprising, the numbers definitely pack a punch. Thank you for doing this!
28th-Aug-2010 08:54 am (UTC)
Yikes

Dang! You broke the streak of the first word from each comment being "wow".

And you're welcome. Glad to be of service.
28th-Aug-2010 09:04 am (UTC)
My bad, if it helps, I originally typed the comment starting with 'wow' then changed my wording.
28th-Aug-2010 12:55 pm (UTC)
This is really, really awful... it really hits home with what still needs to be done. Thanks for doing all this - it looks like it took forever!
28th-Aug-2010 01:51 pm (UTC)
I think it's awesome that you invested so much time & effort to compile these statistics! Thank you!
I can hardly say that I'm surprised at the absolutely inadequate numerical representation of ethnic minorities and women.
28th-Aug-2010 01:57 pm (UTC)
Kudos for your research! Well done! :3

This certainly deserves to be incorporated into some official racebending.com info material. This needs to get more attention.
28th-Aug-2010 02:59 pm (UTC)
Ugh. While these results are unsurprising, they're still depressing as hell. >:

Thank you for your research!
28th-Aug-2010 03:27 pm (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to write all this!

I was wondering about how the other major studios faired in comparison to Paramount Studios, since we seem to focus mainly on them... Seeing the results in comparison, it is pretty unsurprising and how they have a long way in terms of claiming to be 'diverse' despite what they are saying.

Will there be a visual graph to represent this by chance? I mean, for the more 'visual' people (and for some that are dyslexic) since I would like to see an image just to round it out...
28th-Aug-2010 06:01 pm (UTC)
This was a wonderful review of how much work needs to be done- thank you for compiling all of this information! I'm saving this so that I can refer to it in the future if I need to.
28th-Aug-2010 06:35 pm (UTC)
Thank you for making this. One thought - isn't Sony a pretty big motion picture studio also?
28th-Aug-2010 06:38 pm (UTC)
Looks like Columbia is the major studio that Sony owns.
28th-Aug-2010 07:40 pm (UTC)
Correct. Most films that Sony releases are done either under the Columbia Pictures name or Sony Pictures Animation (their feature animation division).
9th-Sep-2010 05:55 am (UTC)
Whoa! That's a lot of work! Thanks!
This page was loaded Apr 30th 2017, 3:08 am GMT.