#11 - "Dismantling the Gods of Hollywood’’ with Naomi McDougall Jones
Updated: Jun 8, 2020
Transcript from interview #11 - "Dismantling the Gods of Hollywood’’ with Naomi McDougall Jones
Naomi McDougall-Jones :0:00
If a film has a female director, producer, screenwriter and / or lead character, that film actually make substantially more money dollar for dollar spent than films by and about men.
Welcome to the I ALSO Want Money podcast, where our mission is to democratize, demystify and demasculinize making money. I'm your host, Nicole Kyle, and I'm here with my co-host, Sophie Holm and ally, Harrison Comfort. So, Hollywood and the entertainment industry is big business. It's arguably the business, not only does it shape the way we see others and ourselves, but it makes some people a lot of money. And in particular, those people wield a pretty unmatched power when it comes to shaping society and culture. The problem is that money and that power is tied up in one profile, pretty much older white men. The parts of Hollywood we don't see so production companies, studio execs, investors, directors are largely still stale, pale, and male. We're unpacking this today with an actor screenwriter, award-winning independent filmmaker, Naomi McDougall-Jones. She's the author of the recently published book, The Wrong Kind of Women: Inside our Revolution to Dismantle the Gods of Hollywood. Welcome, Naomi.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :1:34
Thank you so much for having me.
We hear a lot about representation on camera. We're making some strides there with you know, certainly lots more progress to be made. We're starting to hear a bit more about representation behind camera. Particularly I'm thinking about the best director contests at the Oscars in the last two years. But I want to start the conversation with you Naomi. Today around, in your opinion and your observation, how does the lack of women pre-camera, thinking about their producers, the studio execs, etc. How does that impact, firstly, the downstream storytelling decisions about what these characters do and how they act and who is cast and the director and so on, but also how does it impact where the money goes in Hollywood?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :2:22
Yeah, so I think this is such a great question because people who don't make movies are often very confused about the authorship of movies. Because we tend to think of pieces of art or storytelling as having sort of a singular author, like if somebody writes a book, that is a reflection of their perspective and worldview. If someone paints a painting, there's one artist who is painting that painting, but a film is... the end product is really the net result of a collaboration of usually over 100 different people all doing their little pieces within this bigger machine, sort of so that at the end comes out this thing that feels like it has authorship from one person, but it really doesn't. But within that process, probably the most important people in terms of shaping the storytelling perspective, in terms of setting the tone for the millions of little decisions that will be made that will add up to the end perspective of the film are the producers, the director, the writer, the editor, and the cinematographer. So those are really the key people we're looking at when we think about what is the perspective of a movie. And so, I want you to think about the fact that if you've watched primarily US mainstream or Western mainstream movies in your lifetime, that 95% of all of the films that you've ever seen were directed by men and overwhelmingly white men, 97% of them that had cinematographers that were men and overwhelmingly white men. Only about 14% of editing are women, only about 15% of screenwriters are women. So what we're talking about is an art form that is so white and male in its perspective that most of us don't even notice that's true. Like it just feels like their perspective is what cinema is. It feels like a normal reflection of reality, when in fact, it's only the reflection of the perspective of a really small group of people.
I'm so glad you spelled out for us like that with the numbers and with the math because I think to your point, when you've grown up to seeing something as it is you kind of accept as normal and also what you kind of just talked us through there reminds me that seeing complex female characters on screen while awesome, it's not the complete victory. It's also what goes on behind the camera and before the camera.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :4:49
Well and exactly, and as you say, there has been more conversation recently about onscreen representation, the hashtag Oscar so white, drew a lot of attention. Certainly, the MeToo and Harvey Weinstein conversations over the last couple of years have drawn some attention to this. And as a result of that, and as a result of sort of the public collectively yelling really loudly at Hollywood, we are seeing slightly better on screen representation. It's nowhere near matching reality we're still in a situation where there are only a third as many women in the movies as there are men. So movies are literally this bizarre Twilight Zone version of reality in which women are a minority population. But we are seeing more, right people are saying well oh, I am seeing more lead characters that are of colour, but what is disturbing is that the numbers behind the camera have barely twitched in that same period of time. So what's actually happening is that we are now seeing slightly more inclusive stories except it's still through almost exclusively the white male perspective. Which to me is almost more dangerous because now we sort of feel like change has happened, but we're still completely locked in that white male gaze.
Now, just coming back to the idea that, you know, we are a money podcast, we are a wealth podcast. Could you talk us through a little bit about how Hollywood makes money off of film?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :6:23
This is, this is a very complex answer. And the best answer I can give is that you want to think about films as having multiple revenue streams. So the most obvious and visible one is of course box office, people go to the box office, they buy a movie ticket, and a percentage of that goes back to the studios, the filmmakers or the investors, however that is set up. Certainly there's some small market left for DVDs and physical copies of films, although that has shrunk considerably in the last 10 to 15 years. And then there are all sorts of licencing deals. So Netflix might licence a film. And that tends actually not to be very good money. And this is a misconception among viewers. People constantly ask me like, oh, it's your film on Netflix as though that sort of like, the l've won if my film is on Netflix. But realistically, Netflix only pays to licence movies for a period of time. So they might come to me and they say, I want to licence your film for $10,000 for two years. And because they're Netflix, I can basically say yes or no to that offer. And if I say yes, I get my $10,000, which maybe I turn around and pay back to my investors. But then it doesn't matter how many people watch the film, I still only get $10,000 so my film might become the biggest sensation that Netflix has ever had. And I still only got $10,000 and worse because they don't reveal their data, I would never know as a filmmaker if that was true. I don't know how many films, how many people have watched my movie inside of Netflix that says black box. And so two years later, Netflix might come back to me and say, Well, we'd like to licence your film for another two years for $10,000. And I can just say yes or no. So these streaming platforms, although great and helpful, in some ways, actually have been very financially bad for films, because it removes the democracy of box office or even transactional VOD, which is things like iTunes where you buy or you pay 2.99 to rent a movie or 9.99 to buy a movie. And with both box office and transactional VOD, there's a direct correlation between how much money I make as the studio or filmmaker and how many people have watched the movie right? The more people buy tickets, the more people rent it on iTunes, the more money I make, but with Netflix or some of these other streaming platforms, I just make one amount, no matter how many people watch the movie.
That's super interesting, structural situations that limit your ability to grow your wealth situation or your audience as a producer of a movie. Going back to like the root of where the money comes in, who are typical investors in Hollywood?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :9:23
So in terms of the studios themselves, they're playing with very, very big money, right? Like hundreds of millions of dollars of budgets. They're working from funds and from slates that are in the billions of dollars. I don't think there's a whole lot of transparency around where that money comes from. At this point, a lot of them are now owned by corporations. So a lot of the money is flowing through there. I think a lot of them do deals with large foreign corporations or individuals. I think there's probably a lot of Saudi oil money flowing through this. But that's sort of on the studio scale. With Netflix, often they're borrowing against future growth. So their whole model over time has, to my understanding, they've never actually turned a profit on their model. They just, in terms of making enough money from the subscription base to actually be able to pay for the content they're making, they're just continually borrowing against future growth to make that content, which is not really a sustainable model long term for obvious reasons. And because we're quickly approaching the point where every human being who will ever have a Netflix subscription on the planet already does. And so that growth, that growth has a real plateau. And in terms of independent filmmakers, generally speaking, the investment money comes from private individuals who believe in the filmmaker who want to get involved in the film industry who want their picture on the red carpet, [or] whatever set of reasons [they] want to become involved in film.
So just touching on kind of investments and ROI and all that. You mentioned in a lot of your material that woman lead and woman produced movies actually have a higher return on investment than male-led. Could you just talk a little bit about that? And touching on the title
of your book as well, how does that correlate to the title that you have chosen for your book?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :11:24
Sure. So this is pretty stunning. Because I sort of fell backwards into this whole subject area. I didn't come to Hollywood with a chip on my shoulder about women's issues. I just came into it as a woman and started experiencing these sort of astonishing levels of sexism and began researching. So when I first started researching, and as a filmmaker, I kept getting told, oh, well, nobody wants to see stories about women. You need to make something else. This is a thing that gets said constantly. There's sort of this idea in Hollywood, that women stories don't sell. And what I would say to people always is, well, that doesn't make any sense. Women are 51% of the population. Like, it seems logical to me that at least some of us would like to see stories about ourselves. And maybe even there are some men who might like to see stories about us. It seems nonsensical on its face. But the response I'd often get is, well, young lady, if that were true, and if there really was an audience for these movies, Hollywood is a business, we have to make business decisions. And if this was true, we would be making these movies. And so then I went and actually researched this and with the 51 Fund, which is a private equity fund to invest in female directed films that I'm a co founder of, we actually commissioned a study to look at this very question. Because we're an investment firm, and we needed to know this. And what we found was staggering, which is that if a film has a female director, producer, screenwriter, and / or lead character, that film actually makes substantially more money dollar for dollar spent than films by and about men. And I just couldn't believe that was true. And so then then I began researching well, is that newly true? And the studios just haven't caught up with this information yet. Because this idea of the teenage boy as the key, gold standard audience member has been so pervasive in the studios that every conventional wisdom is if the teenage boys won't come out to see this movie, we can't make it. And so I started looking into the history of this and actually a studio executive told me in the course of researching my book, that in the 1980s there was a BOC, a data scientist who was sort of like the guy he was the numbers guy for most of Hollywood and most of the studios and they would pay him on a monthly and weekly basis to come in. Tell them sort of like make predictive projections about what would sell well, and what was selling well and sort of do the analysis on all of the box office. And so he decided to figure out for himself, okay, well, what is the best audience member to target? And at that time in the 1980s, he did this analysis and discovered that the best audience member, the most lucrative audience member to target was a teenage girl, I think, a 13 year old girl. And he went to the studios in the telling of the studio executive and laid out his analysis, and the studio executives went, well, that doesn't sound right, that can't be true. And just went on pursuing the teenage boys.
So flawed and just so critical that we change that narrative. Naomi just how critical is it for a 13 year old girl, what she sees on screen?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :14:54
I think it's impossible to overstate how important it is. There's a raft of scientific studies. suggesting that the films and television shows that we watch shape everything from our hobbies to our career choices to our views of ourselves to our views of other people, literally to our relationship with money, to our relationship with other people to even literally our neural pathways. And we're consuming more content than ever before, we were before COVID-19. And now we're certainly consuming more content than ever before. And so, as I said before, this content is shaping our brains to consider the white male perspective to be normal. And to really be like the perspective through which to consider the world which is then shaping our actual behaviours in our actual lives, when we stop watching that content. So if you sit down and actually try to imagine what the world would be like, what each of our brains would be like if the full diversity of the human perspective and experience work was actually part of what was shaping our brains. It's impossible to overstate that.
Yeah, Naomi there's so many layers to this, but two in particular that emerge. The first layer is, as you say, if we're not seeing stories told on screen from diverse perspectives, inevitably our worldview becomes heavily skewed toward that of the white male. And the second layer that emerges to me is that even if studios begin targeting a 13 year old girl, as their demographic, if it's male run studios, greenlighting and profiting from this, is it authentic?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :16:37
Well, who's greenlighting them? Who's writing them? Who's giving notes on those scripts? Any studio film... it's almost always the studio executives who have the final say on what makes it into the script and doesn't make it into the script, what makes it into the final film and what doesn't, who gets cast in the film. All of those decisions are ultimately made by the studio executives.
Yeah, and I think a lot of us have been encouraged by the rise in female led production studios. In preparation for this podcast, I came across an article... 17 actresses who have started their own production companies. And it's great, right you have Kerry Washington with Simpson Street, Reese Witherspoon with Hello Sunshine. Eva Longoria with Unbelievable Entertainment. I was listening to Jameela Jamil's podcast I Weigh. And in one of her recent episodes, she actually had Reese Witherspoon on and Reese was talking about, with her studio, it is smaller than a lot of the studios that are in power in Hollywood. But Reese was talking about how when she goes into meetings, and she's a woman with 30 years experience and [an] Oscar, she goes into some of these media meetings to get funding help with distribution partnerships. And she was talking about how she gets belittled, her production company gets dismissed. And it's like, that's Reese Witherspoon. They're just missing.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :17:56
I mean, that is not remotely shocking to me that scans with me everything I know about how our industry thinks and on the studio executive front. As of 2018, 77.2[%] of all C-Suite board of directors and executive film teams at all major media organisations in existence in the US were men, and fewer than 6% of the roles were held by people of colour.
But if there are so good returns on women-made and women-led films, why isn't Hollywood waking up to that? If Hollywood is a business you should think that like return is what drives decision making?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :18:38
Yes, well, isn't that an interesting question?
I mean, I feel like with capitalism and everything else we're talking about, it's all around that return on the green bottom line.
What's worth more money or power?
I guess power.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :18:51
Exactly. And I think this is really important to understand because there is such a pervasive feeling in my industry and I think across industries, where these inequities exist, there's a feeling like, well, they must just not know. Or like, they just don't get it yet. But like, if we explain it to them in the right way, if we write enough articles, if we give enough speeches, if we get enough of the right kind of data, then surely, they'll get it. And if they can make money on it, surely they'll do it. And I think Hollywood is such a perfect example of why that's not true, because here's a situation in which they're literally leaving money on the table by not making these films. But what we're talking about actually is a small group of people who are controlling enormous amounts of money and power and wealth and fame. And they actually don't want to share it. But I think the bottom line is that even money isn't enough for them to be willing to loosen that stranglehold and share those resources.
Is that the gods from your title?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :20:05
Yes, they are.
There you go. We've got to dismantle them
Naomi McDougall-Jones :20:09
Those are the Gods of Hollywood. I know we need to dismantle them.
How do we do that?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :20:13
Well, I don't think there's one answer. And in fact, chapter 10 in my book is sort of a bullet by bullet list of everything that could be done by every different type of person, no matter who you are to help change this. And I tend to be of the opinion that we want to pursue all fronts at the same time. But the bottom line is that there's in any government or institution throughout history where this kind of power structure has been in place, right, like a small group of people have all of the resources and it's benefiting them and not this massive pool of the rest of us. There are basically two ways that [it] changes. But what doesn't generally happen is that it doesn't happen that that small power group grows a conscience and gives away those resources. There's not a huge number of historical examples of that happening. What happens are two other things. One is that the mass of people who the system is not benefiting, get angry enough. And they rise up and take those resources, usually through violence or some other other means of force or the large mass of people who the current system isn't currently benefiting, build something else that makes the first system irrelevant over time. And because I'm not actually advocating for some kind of French Revolution style coup of Hollywood, I don't even know what that would look like really, where I put my energy and attention into, is building some kind of other system. And I think what's great about this moment we're in in time, is that there's a possibility there that's available to me and my fellow filmmakers who have been excluded from the system that has never been available to any previous generation. And, it's sort of a confluence of factors. The cost of making movies has come down so exponentially as a result of improved technology as a result of cheaper data storage, all of these things so we can now make content, great content that really can compete with the studios for much less money than ever before. And then because of the internet, we have the ability to distribute that content globally to a global audience, for a very low upfront cost and because of social media and all these other things, we can build our own audiences and market those films ourselves to a global audience in a way that has never before been possible. So there now arises the possibility of a full soup to nuts ecosystem of financing, making, producing, and distributing films to an audience fully outside of the system without ever needing a gatekeeper to say yes. And COVID-19 has accelerated that possibility because it has melted the structures underneath the monoliths of power in the system that has existed.
Yeah, it's really interesting how COVID is really forcing this change. And it's inspiring and encouraging for those young talents out there that there is a way for them to be part of the industry and break in with some of these new structures and changes happening.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :23:39
So yes, and I think the thing I would say to young women or women of all ages and people of colour and everybody whom the current system isn't serving, is to say that you have to understand that the system is not set up to recognise your value as an artist or the value in your stories because this is the trap we keep falling into. And I see this over and over again, with my colleagues. There's still a belief that like, yes, maybe only 5% of the jobs are available to us. But if I just keep my head down and work hard, and I'm 10 times better and, work 10 times harder than maybe I can be in that 5%. And what I see over and over again, is that even those of us who do make it into that 5% still don't have the careers that we would have had if we were white men. If you engage with the system, if you play by their rules, you will always lose because their game is rigged. And at a cellular level, it is built to identify white male talent and value above everybody else. So there are two things that are important to understand from that. One is that it is 100% in our own interest to build a new game, right because you can try to fix that system but you're fighting the DNA of it. Whereas if we build our own thing at a cellular level, we can build it to be inclusive. And secondly, that just because the system doesn't recognise your value does not mean that you do not have it. I see so many women and other folks get discouraged over time because they're never being chosen. And they're waiting and waiting and waiting for somebody in the system to look at them and validate them and say, yes, you're worthy and your stories are worthy. And what I need them to understand is, they probably won't recognise your value simply because of your gender or your skin colour or, it's not set up to recognise your value. And so you have to claim that value for yourself, you have to understand that you do have that value, your stories do matter, and audiences desperately need to see them. So if the system doesn't recognise it, you have to find a way around.
I think a real call to action is, let's all try and be a part of building that new system. Whether that's through investing and independent films, I'd love to invite you back for an episode on how to do that. That sounds pretty cool.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :26:10
And also, reminding folks like the barriers to entry have never been lower. I think that's a great point.
But we're seeing some progress in other aspects, not Hollywood related, right, in terms of women in power, and slowly, more wealth going into the hands of women. How does that Naomi correlate to potentially changing the system of Hollywood?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :26:34
Well, I think where the real opportunity is for those women to team up with us in building the new thing.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :26:43
You know, certainly with the 51 fund, our goal has been to harness the wealth and power of women outside, and men, who want to see the change outside of Hollywood to sort of force Hollywood's hand by actually financing films ourselves. But ultimately, as long as you're dealing with the Hollywood system, you're running into hurdles at every single point. You know, films with female directors are released on a third as many screens. If they get released theatrically as male directors, film budgets shrink by 20% if they have a female lead character. At every single point you run into hurdles as long as you're dealing with their system. But again, there's such an opportunity and such a monetary opportunity to capitalise on this vacuum that Hollywood's left for content that does service these audiences. And so I think, if these women outside of Hollywood will team up with us, because we don't know how to build tech platforms. We're filmmakers and actors and writers, but we could partner with those women and again, men who want to be part of the change. There is such huge potential for real industry, but also social shift by delivering these stories to broader audiences.
Yeah. And Naomi, it has to be intersectional, right? And you talk a lot about this in your book. In prep for this podcast, you know, we were having conversations about the commercial success that accompanied the release of Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians. Around that time, there were so many thought pieces out there that said, you know, look, Hollywood's finally going to wake up, this is the moment where they will realise there's money to be made through films with casts that are led by people of colour. And I think that when we take a step back and, ask, has there been a shift toward that meaningful change? The answer is, it largely hasn't happened yet.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :28:47
No, no, it hasn't. And another intersection that often gets left out of this conversation is the disability one. In 2015, there was a study of on screen representation and about 2.4% of characters had disabilities in studio films versus roughly 25% of the US population in real life that has those characters. And of those 2.4%, 95% of those characters were played by able bodied actors playing characters with disabilities. So that's another perspective that's almost completely absent from film.
Yeah, and I'm just sitting here thinking, what if I'm a big Hollywood executive listening to this podcast, and as a co-host, I would want to say to them, remember, we're not advocating a monoculture. We're really just advocating for equality, equal representation of people with disabilities, people of colour, women, both on screen and behind screen.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :29:53
And this is such an important point you're making. There's like a numbers thing I just like to point to here, which is that in the US, white men are about 30% of the population. If you look at what straight, cis, able bodied men, it's less than that. But let's say 30% of the population. So that means that there's 70% of us whose stories are being shoved into about 5% of the media content. That is just unreasonable. It's not a little bit unreasonable, it is massively, massively unreasonable. All we're saying is to your point, the world that media represents and the perspective that media represents should at least roughly reflect the actual world.
Naomi, I have a bit of a random question for you. But it's been a burning question I've had for a long time and you seem like the person to pose it to. So I'm a bit of a film buff, and I'm always on IMDB. And one of the things I've noticed is that casting agents tend to be women. So why is it that casting agents are pretty much always women, but we don't hear about About them more because casting is such an important part of a film. Why is there a gender stratification of women's on screen roles when largely the casting is done by women?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :31:12
Isn't that such an interesting point? So there are sort of sanctified roles that women are allowed to have in film. They're allowed to work in the hair and makeup department, they're allowed to work in wardrobe, and they're allowed to be casting directors, those are sort of like the three big ones. And those fields are dominated by women. And hair and makeup and wardrobe are a little more obvious, right? Like, that's women's work. But the casting one is super interesting. And there's actually a documentary about this very question called Casting By. I believe you can see it on HBO, but it sort of investigates the history of the casting director profession and how it [became] a woman's job. And the basic answer is that it's kind of a thankless job. Like you don't get a lot of credit publicly, like the director usually gets the credit for a lot of your work. And so therefore they let women do it is sort of the easy answer. But it's a fabulous documentary.
Yeah, I'm definitely gonna watch that because I kind of feel like casting agents should get a lot of credit and certainly more money from the sounds of it and more recognition, because that's kind of why people go see movies, a lot of the time.
It kind of touches on some of the commercial constructs and compensation structures that compose the industry. And I think it was you, Nicole, who was saying when we were prepping that for Friends, the actors went together and did a group negotiation to kind of level the playing field between the male and the female characters. And I feel like men in that industry probably need to step up to right in terms of doing more of that type of initiative to level the playing field?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :33:01
Absolutely. Yeah, I mean, pay the pay gap, which is certainly there in Hollywood as it is, in most places. In my work and conversations, it always ends up being about the 15th thing on the list because we're fighting so hard to just get the jobs in the first place. We can't even get to the pay gap conversation because we're just fighting to get the jobs to begin with. But it is certainly true that those pay gaps exist and there was a really wonderful story about Jessica Chastain doing this sort of weaponizing her privilege as a white woman on behalf of Octavia Spencer, when they were doing a film together. I think it was maybe The Help although it might have been another one they did. And Jessica Chastain found out that she was being paid way more than Octavia was and she stuck her neck out and she said to the producers, this is completely unacceptable. You have to pay Octavia as much as I'm getting paid. And so they did because they needed Jessica Chastain and I think there are way more opportunities for men to take that kind of risk in being allies and being real allies like actually weaponizing their privilege on behalf of those of us who don't have it.
Yeah, exactly. And kind of being okay with taking that risk in the spirit of moving the entire industry forward.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :34:24
When I speak to men about these issues, which I do routinely, because I try to. I try not to just preach to the choir. And I find that what it falls, those conversations fall into a couple of buckets, one of which is that they just absolutely refuse to accept that there is sexism, they say that I'm complaining, just sort of like completely closed to the conversation. But I would say that's a minority of men. And I would say also in that bucket are men who say they're with me, but exhibit sexist behaviours during the conversation that we're having, like interrupting me or explaining to me why I'm thinking about this wrong even though I've been studying it for a decade longer than them, sort of like all those things. But there are a lot of men who genuinely want this to be different, either for ethical reasons or because they want to see more diverse content or, but a lot of them either don't know, or have the tools to know how to help or are afraid of sticking their neck out. And I think that's the group of men to really appeal to and this is to say, yeah, being an ally does mean speaking up even when it's uncomfortable? It means, showing your salary numbers to help lower the pay gap. It means being a sponsor of a woman, not just a mentor and the distinction there is not not just giving a woman advice or sort of speaking to her but also turning around and helping her get actual jobs, like speaking to the industry on her behalf and sticking your neck out and saying, maybe this woman doesn't have the experience that you think she needs, but I see the potential in her is the same thing that men routinely do for each other all the time. So I would appeal to the quote unquote good men out there, that this will go faster if you help us. And helping doesn't just mean that you don't actively perpetrate sexism, it means actively helping us to dismantle the system that is benefiting you and not us.
It's a great call to action, Naomi, for the men who listen to this podcast, to our allies. Just in the interest of starting to wrap up, I think there are two big themes that jumped out to me from our conversation that really support the mission of this podcast and the first theme is there is money to be made in film, entertainment and media. It's just the reality is that right now, that money is tied up in places and it's largely inaccessible to women, people of colour, people with disabilities and others. The second theme, though, really reinforces that in order to make that money more accessible the key is building our own system, and by building our own system getting more diverse roles not only on screen but getting women, people of colour, and so on behind the screen... directors, producers, studio execs, that's going to be the real way we affect change. Now, Naomi, what is your I also statement?
Naomi McDougall-Jones :37:30
Yeah, so let me just take a beat and think about a good one. I also have a right for my voice to be heard.
Amazing. Nomi thank you so much for being here with us today. Really appreciate your time and your excellent insights.
Naomi McDougall-Jones :37:43
Thank you so much for having me. This was a really wonderful discussion.
Thank you for listening. If you like what you're hearing, join us in the I ALSO movement. This means take to your social platforms and post a hashtag I ALSO statement, follow us on Instagram at IALSOpodcast and of course, subscribe. This podcast is co-produced by Harrison Comfort and the theme tune is by Malin Linnea.