Print

xxii Introduction of female content creators represented ­ behind the camera on Black Panther, but the film also happens to pass the Bechdel test with flying colors. It is impor­ tant to note that the classification of ­ women as a group can itself be problematic. First, not all ­women have the same life experiences they have faced dif­fer­ent triumphs and challenges based on their identity and position in the world. The challenges facing ­women of color are dif­fer­ent from ­those of white ­women the experience of the poor does not encompass the experiences of the rich and the experiences of heterosexuals are dif­fer­ent from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans- gender, and queer (LGBTQ) experience. Second, the dialogue about “­ women” in this book immediately sets up a binary categorization, meaning the use of the category itself presupposes the existence of two possibilities (­ women and men) when, in real­ ity, gender and identity exist on a broad continuum. At the same time, the use of “­women” as a category is impera- tive to advancing the discussion on the subject of ­ women in film. So, the two must co-­ exist in a constant negotiation with one another for the sake of conversation and the purposes of this book. A similar tension can be pres­ ent when it comes to rep- resenting identity. In the description of the ­ women involved with making Black Panther, for example, it’s impor­tant to note that Victoria Alonso is Latina Ruth E. Car­ter, Hannah Beachler, and Camille Friend are all African American and Rachel Morrison’s sexuality also means she is the first lesbian to be nominated for Best Cinematography (Zonkel 2018). ­ These identities should be represented, and their inclusion ­ ought to enrich the conversation about ­ these talented filmmakers and not limit discussion by focusing solely on the fact that they are ­ women of color or that one belongs to the LGBTQ community. Third, the perils of essentialism are also pres­ent when we discuss ­women’s sto- ries as a general category. The concept of essentialism, for our purposes, refers to the belief that certain characteristics are part of the foundational identity or essence of a person. A common ­ mistake is to attribute qualities to a group of ­ people that are ­ either socially constructed or vary significantly among the individuals within the category. That is not to say biological differences do not exist, but biology does not inevitably lead to a predictable set of gendered characteristics and be­hav­iors. For example, the Victorian belief that the “delicate nature” of ­ women made them unsuitable for public life was used as a rationalization against them to prevent ­ women from exercising their right to vote up ­ until 1920, which, shockingly, was still less than 100 years ago at the time of this writing. Essentialization is danger- ous, and even ­today ­women still ­battle the ste­reo­types that surround them and encourage them to believe they are incapable, passive, emotional—­which is often weaponized code for being unreasonable and unintellectual—­ and weak. The best way to challenge the harmful cycles of gender in­equality is to increase the visibility of ­ women as well as the quality of their repre­sen­ta­tion, and that is exactly what Hollywood Heroines aims to do. This proj­ect has been a joy to cre- ate, and it is exciting to share the scholarship of each of the writers who contrib- uted to making this book pos­ si ­ ble. Hollywood Heroines is also extremely fortunate to pres­ ent interviews with 16 of the ­ women featured in this book, including actress and director Jodie Foster, casting director Avy Kaufman, cinematographer Nancy Schreiber, costume designer Ruth E. Car­ter, editor Lynzee Klingman, feature