by Daniel Foss
Think about the last series you streamed or the latest film you watched in the cinema. You probably remember the lead actor, perhaps the director. But do you know who was behind the camera? And more specifically: have you ever noticed how rarely that person is a woman?
This contribution examines gender inequality in cinematography within the context of European media and cultural governance. It argues that persistent disparities in behind-the-camera roles reflect structural inequalities embedded in institutional frameworks and industry norms that continue to marginalise women in technical positions. While dominant policy narratives emphasise overall progress in gender equality, it primarily focuses on directors and screenwriters, leaving cinematography as a persistent blind spot where underrepresentation remains insufficiently addressed by current governance instruments. This raises broader questions about how cultural production is governed, particularly in relation to whose work becomes visible and accountable within film industries, and how public funding frameworks may reproduce rather than dismantle entrenched gendered norms.
Cinematography – the art and craft of shaping the moving image – is central to how stories are told on screen. It determines how we see, feel and interpret what unfolds before us. At the same time, film and television are not just entertainment. As the European Commission has argued, the cultural and creative sectors play a crucial role in shaping identities and social meanings (European Commission 2013, p. 1). Research equally shows that screen media reproduce social norms (Omidi et al., 2022, p. 159). If film mirrors society, then the composition of its workforce matters deeply. Yet when we look at cinematography, a striking gender imbalance persists.
While progress has been observed in some above-the-line roles such as directing, cinematography continues to be one of the most male-dominated professional fields in filmmaking. To assess the scale of gender inequality, my research group and I analysed all 4,324 films funded through the Creative Europe Programme between 2015 and 2025. Among directors, women accounted for only about one quarter of funded films, though their share increased from 17.9 % in 2015 to 31.7 % in 2025. For national Austrian insights on female disparity in direction, we recommend Louisa Zehndner’s blogpost.
The gender imbalance is far more pronounced in cinematography: of all cinematographers working on EU-funded films, only 11.96 % were women. In total, female cinematographers received funding on 446 occasions, compared to 3,587 instances for men. Professional opportunities are also highly concentrated, with the five most active women accounting for 16.37% of all films involving female cinematographers. Between 2015 and 2021, their share rose only slightly, from 8.2 % to 9.2 %. Growth accelerated after 2022, reaching 19.6% in 2025. Thus, cinematography remains one of the most male-dominated professions in European film production.
However, numbers alone do not explain inequality. Drawing on theoretical frameworks such as social role theory, feminist institutionalism and patriarchy as a system helps exploring why cinematography remains so resistant to change. Cinematography is often culturally coded as technical, authoritative, and physically demanding. These traits have historically been associated with masculine stereotypes (Eagly et al., 2000, p. 141). As a result, gendered expectations continue to frame cinematography as a “male” occupation. Such assumptions shape recruitment practices, informal networks, and perceptions of competence on set.
Qualitative accounts from female cinematographers reveal everyday practices of exclusion: being second-guessed on set, having technical knowledge ‘mansplained,’ or being presumed less capable of handling complex equipment (Martin., 2024, p. 76). “[It] becomes like a whole draining process, because it’s like you leave these [interactions] exposed feeling so exhausted because you’re putting so much effort into putting yourself out there to be respected in a professional way.” (Martin., 2024, p. 78).
Such experiences are not isolated incidents. To explain the persistence of gender inequality in cinematography, individual-level accounts are insufficient. Sylvia Walby conceptualises patriarchy as a system of interconnected social structures that collectively reproduce male dominance across domains such as paid work and the state (Walby, 1990, p. 20; 177). From this perspective, the underrepresentation of women reflects broader societal hierarchies rather than isolated industry dynamics. Additionally, according to feminist institutionalism institutions are not gender neutral. They are shaped by male-dominated norms (Mackay et al., 2010, p. 574; Mackay, 2014, p. 549). Sustainable change therefore requires structural and institutional intervention, not only individual progress.
Given these disparities, policy intervention is essential. Public funding plays a decisive role in European audiovisual production, providing policymakers with significant leverage to promote equality through funding criteria, diversity requirements, and targeted support schemes. At EU level, the primary funding instrument is the Creative Europe Programme. While gender equality features prominently in the broader agenda of the European Commission, notably in its Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, our analysis reveals a clear pattern: EU frameworks primarily focus on directors, producers, and screenwriters, while cinematographers are rarely addressed explicitly. Gender equality is largely framed in terms of leadership, authorship, and competitiveness. Technical head-of-department roles remain comparatively invisible, and there are no systematic EU-wide incentives specifically targeting the gender imbalance in cinematography.
In contrast, Eurimages (Council of Europe) has adopted a more granular approach. As early as 2016–2017, Eurimages introduced role-specific gender data collection and identified that men approximately occupied 90% of ‘Cameraman/Image’ roles. Subsequent strategies explicitly incorporated cinematography into their equality objectives and introduced targeted incentives.
In conclusion, while general gender equality discourses have intensified, cinematography remains a structural blind spot at EU level, as also reflected in the data presented earlier. Improvements in representation appear only loosely connected to policy interventions and may instead reflect broader societal shifts or national-level initiatives.
Yet cinematography is not a marginal craft. It is a position of narrative and aesthetic power, shaping audience perspective. If film contributes to constructing social reality, then the diversity of those crafting these images has democratic significance. Increasing the representation of women in cinematography is not about symbolic inclusion. It is about challenging gendered norms and ensuring that publicly funded cultural production reflects the diversity of European societies. Addressing gender disparities in cinematography requires far greater attention than it currently receives. It calls for policies targeting cinematography explicitly and binding equality criteria in public support schemes.
The question, then, is not whether women can frame the image. They already do. The question is whether our policies and institutions are willing to dismantle the barriers that still keep too many of them out of the frame. This blog post was written as part of the Horizon Europe project Reviving, Boosting, Optimising and Transforming European Film Competitiveness (REBOOT), coordinated by Univ.-Prof. Dr. Katharine Sarikakis at the University of Vienna. For more information, please visit the REBOOT project website.
References
Cottonbro Studio. https://www.pexels.com/de-de/foto/kamera-displaybildschirm-neon-4123583/
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender(pp. 123–174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
European Commission. (2013, November 15). Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works. Official Journal of the European Union, C 332, 1–11.
European Commission. (2026). Creative Europe Programme. Retrieved January 20, 2026, from https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe
Mackay, F. (2014). Nested newness, institutional innovation, and the gendered limits of change. Politics & Gender, 10(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X14000415
Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2010). New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism? International Political Science Review, 31(5), 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110388788
Martin, K. N. B. (2024). I’de the (camera)man: How women cinematographers counteract role expectations through axis social traits (expansion of social role theory) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama).
Omidi, A., Dal Zotto, C., & Picard, R. G. (2022). The nature of work in the media industries: A literature review and future directions. Journalism and Media, 3(1), 157– 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia3010013
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. John Wiley & Sons.
Zehnder, L. (2024, August 30). Das „Celluloid Ceiling“ der Österreichischen Filmbranche: Der Weg von Regisseurinnen an die Spitze der österreichischen Filmbranche. https://univiennamedialab.wordpress.com/2024/08/30/das-celluloidceiling-der-osterreichischen-filmbranche-der-weg-von-regisseurinnen-andie-spitze-der-osterreichischen-filmbranche/
Leave a Reply