'Yes, representation in film is important, it's good to be able to recognise yourself. But when was the last time you saw a film that chafed, or that irritated you, because it didn't fit your line of thought?' In light of the International Film Festival Rotterdam (IFFR), taking place from 30 January - 9 February 2025, we interviewed Sanne Koevoets, senior lecturer in Intersectional Studies of Media and Culture at Erasmus University College and researcher Transformative Repair at EUR's DIT Platform.
We interview Sanne about the male gaze and representation in films. She also interprets the important role film festivals have in our current world, where algorithms have a major influence on what we watch.
Who influence representation in films most?
Sanne Koevoets: 'That seems a simple question to answer: film makers, production houses and broadcasting bosses. They determine what we get to see, don't they? But it is more complicated nowadays. What we now call "television" is not at all the same medium it used to be. Once it was a mass medium: there were just a few TV channels, and you watched what was presented to you. But now most people mainly watch films and series via streaming services. That suggests more free choice. It is no longer just broadcasting bosses who decide what you can watch at what time.
Depending on your budget, a plethora of media products is available via streaming services. But: to what extent do you really choose what you watch there? What role do algorithms that recommend films and series play? That is a question on many viewers' minds.
My students, for example, are all very aware of the power of algorithms. But knowing better does not always lead to acting differently. It is very tempting and easy to just go along with what is suggested to you. Especially since those recommendations are based on a lot of data and ever-improving models, which tie in with what is known about you. In other words: chances are that the first page of recommendations will already contain something that broadly matches your interests or your world view. This is called the filter bubble, and it carries the risk that you will mainly consume information (and media and art) that is already in line with what you have previously viewed (and thought). And that is risky, because you lose sight of other worldviews and realities.
So, on the one hand, the power of film makers, production houses and broadcasting bosses has partly shifted to algorithms who pretend to put "you" first. On the other hand, I want to stress that viewers have always had the power and opportunity to resist media messages by watching "contrarian". I would like people to be aware that representation in films is something that is not only shaped by creators, but that viewers also play an active role in the way social roles and meanings are interpreted and normalised. Popular culture is full of stereotypical images and stories, but that does not mean you have to resign yourself to them, let alone simply adopt them. By developing a contrarian view, you can actively resist stigmatising or stereotyping media images even as a viewer.'
The male gaze
'An often-discussed concept from the early years of feminist art and media studies is the male gaze. This concept makes it possible to analyse how the conventions of classic Hollywood cinema encourage and normalise a patriarchal gaze. Alfred Hitchcock's blonde ice queens invite the viewer to see women as beautiful, tragic, inscrutable beings who either destroy themselves or their admirers. The beautiful film images are a devious temptation to identify with a specific, limited perspective.
'That perspective is also still mostly white and heteronormative within the western film tradition. When you become aware of how that normalising view works, you see how the male gaze fixes a white, (heterosexual) patriarchal view of the world, using fixed conventions. It's about developing media literacy, where you are at least aware of the possibility of not blindly adopting the perspective of the camera or the film maker, but to look in a critical way. You can take in media without accepting or adopting the perspective of the creators or ideological subtext.'
In your view, what is the state of representation of diverse people in film?
'I think we live in a very interesting time. Fortunately, nowadays you do not only see white people in the role of experts, queer characters are not just seen as funny sidekicks in sitcoms, and women over 50 fortunately turn out to exist on the big screen, TV, or on whatever device you watch your video content these days.
Diversity in media productions has increased in recent years, which I very much welcome. But with the increasing danger of algorithmic tunnel vision, critical media literacy remains an indispensable skill that we need to keep practising. Staying in your own filter bubble and only taking in what algorithms determine is dangerous.
We all need to be media-savvy and give children tools for this from an early age. Let's keep developing ourselves and keep a critical and contrarian attitude towards the images we are presented with. Make sure you remain open to different perspectives.
You can also apply critical viewing practices perfectly well when watching - as I call it - "diversity pulp" on Netflix, for instance. From what sociologist Stuart Hall called a "negotiated position", I can both revel in the increased representation of queer relationships like mine and watch with a critical eye how "pink" Christmas movies now cram all kinds of relationships within the straitjacket of (a slightly more inclusive version of) the ‘traditional’ family.'
What specifically can film viewers do to influence representation in films?
'I have to be very honest: it's harder than it looks. It is very difficult to get out of your filter bubble. Even when you scroll longer through, for example, Netflix, to avoid the options presented first, you still only see media products selected or made because they meet Netflix's basic commercial goals; they will do everything they can to keep you hooked. But luckily, there are film festivals like IFFR! Festivals are, in my view, a beautiful and important counterforce in our algorithmic world. They are special and valuable places.
Film festivals used to be places where under-represented groups could finally recognise themselves in a movie. But since we can decide for ourselves what we watch, any group can find films or series in which they recognise themselves. And there, then, lies the danger. Of course, it's nice to watch a film and think, "Wow, this is nice, people like me who think like me and say what I think too. This was a good movie." But when was the last time you saw a film that chafed, because it didn't fit your line of thinking? A film you found irritating, that offended you even? Because therein lies the critical potential of art, and thus of film: to challenge, to enable confrontations with other perspectives and experiences.
Well, this is where film festivals come in. Let those film experts and film nerds - with their passion, enthusiasm and their view of lesser-known works - seduce you and surprise you with new perspectives. They put together programmes that pull you out of your filter bubble with force. I think this should be one of the most important goals for media literacy in 2025.
Seize the opportunity to tilt your perspective or see a completely new perspective, even if it is an abrasive or irritating or annoying one. Go see a movie whose description you don’t even understand, and, in doing so, keep your gaze open to other perspectives. I wish that to happen for everyone.'
- More information
More science stories? Have a look at our online magazine Erasmus Extra.
For journalists
Questions? Mail to press@eur.nl.- Related content
