Unnoticed sexism: Movie Trailer Narrators
Every once in a while (actually, more often than that but I try to stay positive and all) someone brings up an aspect of sexism or a kind of discrimination I hadn't thought about before. This is one of these cases.
I've never really thought about it before, but I don't believe I've ever seen a movie trailer narrated by a woman. Variety has an article which cites a quote from Don LaFontaine, known as "The Voice of the Movie Trailer", who as you might recall, recently passed away:"I think women are vastly underrepresented in this area," LaFontaine said in 2006. "You'd think that for films directly aimed at women, chick flicks, the logical choice would be for a woman to narrate the trailer. But studios hold focus groups and the people in them, women included, seem to prefer the male voice."[Reporter Caroline] Ryder also notes that William Morris represents only three female trailer voices, all of whom work primarily in television or scratch (aka temp tracks), compared with 33 male trailer voices.
Is it because male voices are considered more authoritative? What gives?
Thanks to Brad for the link!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Unnoticed sexism: Movie Trailer Narrators.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10414
I remember a long time ago reading about a study that found that people are calmer and less anxious listening to deeper voices. That's why older women are more represented in voice-overs than younger women, and men more than either. Dunno why, but it's the sound itself, not the gender of the person.
This makes me think of an article in a recent issue of Bitch that tackled the "women aren't funny" idea - it also talked about claims that people just dislike listening to women's voices because they "shrill" and "whiny" and just unpleasant to hear.
Sexual selection does support the idea that women would choose deeper voiced men. I mean, I definitely see why women would biologically prefer men's voices to those of other women, we were the ones who caused them to evolve so we must have some reason to like them. Why men prefer them is less obvious, though men tend to prefer women with deeper, "husky" voices (but still feminine ones).
I mean, it's not about being "shrill" or "whiny," though some interpret it that way. Humans just prefer deeper noises to higher pitched ones. We prefer it in every kind of noise, not just voices. And the gender of the speaker is less relevant than the depth of the voice; a man with a high voice is less appealing to a listener than a woman with a low voice. Similarly, musical tones that are low-pitched are preferred to high-pitched ones. Maybe it has to do with our hearing range? I know I had a very high-pitched voice as a kid and people listening would get headaches, and my grandfather who had hearing issues couldn't hear me at all even when I was yelling.
Brianna G:
You are excusing this with "sexual selection?" Really? We have no real way of testing that theory. Maybe men developed deep voices because women preferred it or for another reason – or – women could have been the ones to evolve, maybe our voices were deeper at one point and we developed higher pitched voices; there isn’t any real way to know (plus, humans rely on more than just biological drive when choosing a mate).
What we do know is that we live in a male-dominated, patriarchal society; we do know that has real impact and influence on people’s choices and preferences. Couple that with the knowledge that, in general, women's voices are easier to hear and understand than men's voices (that's biological and it is testable and has been proven), isn't it more logical that inherent sexism is the culprit here, not evolution?
I have grown wary of sexism being chalked up to biology or evolution or “that’s just the way we are.” That is in no way true, nor is it helpful in achieving equality for women.
Except that every study says that adults prefer SOUNDS, period, that are closer to the middle of their hearing range. All animals do, it's easier on the ears. And while a very, very deep noise is not pleasant either because it is too close to the lower end, the average high-pitched voice is closer to the upper end of our hearing than the average low-pitched one is to the lower end. Of course we are going to prefer noises that strain our ears the least! It just happens that women have higher voices because we sexually selected for larger men with deeper voices, while not wasting the energy ourselves because we needed to devote it to greater involvement in child-rearing (in our early evolution, obviously now women do not need to do that).
If this was only true for voices, if we otherwise had no preference on pitch, then yeah, it would most likely be societal. But humans find ALL mid-range noises more pleasant. This isn't a question of evolution determining behavior, it's evolution determining the sounds that are gentler on the ears.
Also, another important factor to remember-- on top of all this, the higher pitched a voice sounds the more it sounds like a CHILD's. This isn't some vast conspiracy or societal discrimination, this is basic biology. Women have shorter voiceboxes than men. Our voices are closer to the upper range of human hearing. Humans raise the pitch of our voices to "scare" people, ie, communicate more effectively in times of danger, as mahjani said. So yeah, we have an evolutionary reason to understand higher-pitched noises, but that doesn't mean we like them or don't associate them with danger, since everyone raises their pitch when they are scared. And yes, higher pitches sound less authoritative because they sound more like children, because children who have not yet gained testosterone have higher voices-- that doesn't mean they can't get attention, though, since we are actually probably more likely to pay attention to a child's voice than an adult's, and it would be harder to tune out.
Does this mean women's voices are inferior? Of course not. I actually think it would be highly effective to have women and high-pitched men do danger announcements, because it's more likely to induce anxiety; not in subways, though, because you need people to stay calm then. But it does mean that this isn't SOCIETAL and you can't CHANGE it until we have genetic engineering. Just because our brains are perfectly equal and evolutionary psychology can't be used to justify sexism doesn't mean that our bodies are identical, unless you want to argue that it's sexist that women have to bear and nurse the children, too. Most sexism issues are not related to biology since they have to do with things we can't prove one way or another. We simply don't know much about how genetics or nurture impact the brain, so we shouldn't use biology as an excuse except in a few specific proven cases. But we KNOW that the range of hearing we can tolerate, the range we enjoy best, and the size of our voiceboxes is all genetic and that the voicebox size is related to biological sex. Seriously, there is tons of real discrimination out there that shouldn't be. Why the hell are we blaming "patriarchal society" for our bodies being different than men's?
I don't know for sure on this one, but I always wondered if the apparent preference may be explained in part because our 'emergency' tones tend to be high pitched. A scream of fear or pain is usually higher and would immediately alert us that something was wrong where a lower pitch might be interpreted as an 'all-safe' kind of signal.
On the movie previews - I think it has more to do with the long term familiarity. I think a very few men have been doing them for years and it hasn't really occurred to the industry to change them.
Oh, and the same study said something about higher male voices being less relaxing, too.
I believe it's because trailers began as men only, so that is what is familiar to us. If we start to hear women's voices narrating movie trailers, it shortly won't seem like a big deal.
To me, this is more about the stereotypical movie trailer voice. You don't hear women doing it, but you also don't hear men with any voice other than the COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU voice. I wouldn't say this is sexism so much as a very narrow definition of the job requirements: must have deep, booming, world-is-coming-to-an-end voice.
I agree with you. I mean, can we imagine someone like David Beckham doing the voice-over? I know for sure I'd laugh rather than pay attention to the trailer.
You're welcome. Up until I read that article I can't say I've thought anything about movie narrators, let alone sexism in them.
About the only thing I've thought about narrators is if it was someone I personally love, Morgan Freeman comes to mind.
I remember when I first moved to DC being pleasantly surprised to hear a woman as the voice of Metro. And when they replaced her a few years ago, I really wanted another woman to take her place.
A woman (with a low voice) did win the contest, but there was some discussion on local blogs about the fact that all the finalists were white. http://dcist.com/2006/02/03/the_racial_dyna.php
Yeah, which is actually a real sign of racism, since all the studies show that African-American female voices are more appealing than Caucasian ones, because they are lower pitched.
Interesting. I never thought about it before, but the voice of the El in Philly is female. It's easy to mock, but I think that's just a factor of it being the voice of a train...
Holy crap, I thought I was the only one that EVER noticed that there has NEVER, to my knowledge, been a woman doing film trailer voiceovers in the U.S. film releases. NEVER.
It's crucial that we notice the little "men as default" stuff, too.
There was a great female narrator for the opening sequence of Quantum Leap.
Do you know which season? My partner has some "Quantum Leap" DVDs that might (now) be worth a look through. (I'd never hear of the series before we unpacked and re-organized our movies when we moved in together).
It's every season. Every episode opens with female narration explaining the series so anyone can watch any episode. Most are quite self-contained, but cool enough that week-to-week fans in it for he long haul had story arcs here and there as well.
The opening narration for "Lord of the Rings" also featured a woman, Cate Blanchett. Ian McKellen (traditional authoritative older man's voice) wanted the part, but the producers decided that her voice carried more gravity and depth.
Ever notice on the MTA announcements are in a woman's voice announces the stops but the "please watch the closing doors" and "this is the end of the line, everybody must exit" is a man? All the Call to Actions come from the dude. It used to annoy me every single time.
Wow I need coffee and a proofreader. I meant to say Ever notice that the MTA announcements are in a woman's voice to announce stops but...
sorry so grammatically nonsensical.
Women who work in radio are constantly being told to drop their voices in order to sound authoritative. Even in public radio. It's super annoying because if NPR's not busting up the paradigm, who will?
I remember a few years ago hearing that women are used for voice overs in negative political ads because it makes them more effective, so I googled (god bless ya, google!) and here is an interesting article I found with a few tidbits on it from 2006: http://www.renodiscontent.com/2006/06/26/gibson-titus-and-gender-roles-in-political-ads/
Here is a relevant quote:
"Here we go down the familiar road again. The female voice-over actor is everyone’s warm and loving mother, while the male voice over actor is everyone’s stern, cerebral father. See how far we’ve come!
But there is a special role women voice-over actors play in political advertising. According to veteran Democratic media strategist Ray Strother of Strother-Duffy-Shelton, women voice-over actors are used in attack ads because they have a “velvet sledgehammer” effect. "
Since I heard that story, I have noticed it is true that when you hear a woman's voice in political ads, it is almost always attacking.
Great link, plus I adore the phrase "velvet sledgehammer."
Since movie trailers aren't the most original things, you know, tending to be horrifically formulaic, you'd think film editors would get a clue and would prefer a female voice to stand out or be "edgy" or whatever buzzword Hollywood is floating around these days.
I gotta say, on this one I don't think it's at all sexist. Women or men 9 times out of 10 will choose a deeper more soothing voice, over the higher pitched alternative. High pitched sounds are just not easy on the ears (well, human ears anyway). In the same way that there are scientifically proven colors that that the majority of people find more appealing than others, there are certain frequencies that are easier to listen to.
Yes, chefmatt, this is all biology. It's not possible that because we live in a male-dominated society it has colored people's opinions on this. I note to you, as I did to Brianna G., actual studies in hearing show that, in general, women's voices are easier for most people to hear and understand (hence, most announcements/pre-recorded messages are women's voices - not deep men's voices) - kind of blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?
We live in a male-dominated society that is very good as silencing women - many times by saying their voice is hard to listen to (ie. "shrill" or "whiney"). Don't you think this message gets absorbed and people then say they prefer a deep, male (ie: typical authoritarian) voice over a higher, biologically easier to hear and understand voice?
They are easier to understand because we have an evolutionary need to respond to high-pitch, because people are higher-pitched when they are emoting fear, and we need to be able to respond to children. That doesn't make them more soothing to the adult ear, that makes them more startling and more likely to elicit a response. So yeah, for announcements where you want to get the person's attention, high pitched is good, but you have to take it with the understanding that it will also induce a reaction and is not soothing or comforting to the adult ear. So for movie voiceovers, where they don't want to startle people into action, they use deeper voices. Same for orders in tight enclosed spaces where you don't want people to startle and panic, like a subway.
brianna, seriously your logic is ridiculous. no one is going to hire a female voice over actor and have her shriek out a movie trailer, or an announcement that the train is arriving in the station, or whatever. to posit that a woman's normally modulated speaking voice will throw listeners into a fit of anxiety or induce panic is beyond absurd. do you find yourself cowering in fear when your mother speaks to you? do you tremble during conversations with women, because their high pitched voice biologically compels you to do so? please.
The first voice every person hears is his/her mother's--and that's the one they're most drawn to for protection and comfort. So "deeper" voices are not more soothing, or fathers would be perceived as more soothing to infants than mothers.
Besides, movie announcers are not meant to be soothing--they're supposed to psych you up to go see the movie.
Well I'll be damned. I've literally NEVER thought about that before. Which terrifies me, because I've even noted how there are essentially only 3 trailer voices: action, comedy & horror. And usually the same guy can do all three.
But I'm stunned to realize this. Surely, as someone said, movies geared towards women can be VO by women. Or what about kid's movies? I understand that a high voice could be grating, but plenty of women have deep, calming or even sultry voices, that can be useful for many genres.
When I was little I know I had a lot easier time hearing adult voices, and men's voices in particular, because I was HoH and lower frequencies are somehow easy to hear (I don't quite get the physics). Certainly not an excuse, nor really an explanation, just an idea.
To add to my last comment: It's also worth noting that for the past....I don't know how long...decades I think, three guys have done almost all of the VOs for the movie business. So, I think that it's more a matter of these guys (namely LaFontaine) having a corner on the market. I know I've heard women do VOs for TV shows and made for TV movies. Maybe now that LaFontaine has passed away (is this a terrible thing to say?), more people (men or women) will have the chance to break into this business.
True. Percy Rodrigues died recently, too, didn't he?
Six guys, actually. But yeah, LaFontaine was the big one, at least in America. He's the one who really started the voiceover trailer trend, and once he started it, he remained the go-to guy until his recent death. I think you definitely may have a good point with this one.
It doesn't totally make sense to argue that women's voices are too high-pitched to be soothing or comforting. After all, the archetype of soothing and comforting is Mom rocking/humming/singing to a baby. But women--and men--do lower their voices when soothing a child.
It isn't an argument. It's typical sexist crap that has been used for centuries to silence women. Society-at-large has absorbed that message loud and clear and, instead of calling it what it is, people would rather excuse it with BS about biological preferences.
Children are proven to have a very different range of sounds they can hear than adults. They have trouble hearing very low noises and can easily hear high-pitched ones. So for a child, a female voice is closer to the middle of their hearing range and more soothing. It still makes sense. I remember in elementary school we learned about sounds by listening to our teacher play a little instrument that produces differently pitched noises. The teacher and the classroom aide stopped being able to hear high pitches significantly sooner than any of the children.
I think people lower their voices because they don't want to be too loud and scare the baby. But if you ever see people interacting with a baby they actually go higher-pitched, and the baby responds to it more because the baby can't actually make out lower sounds.
You're right that adults--male or female--automatically raise their pitch when talking to children and babies. They also adopt a sing-songy rhythm to their speech.
Your info on children's hearing range reminds me of an article I read a while back about how even teenagers can still hear high-pitch noises that adults no longer can. The piece noted how high schoolers would communicate during class-time by setting the ring on their beepers so high that they could hear it but teachers couldn't.
I've often struggled with this myself. I personally find a male voice more authoritative than a female, and a deeper woman's voice more authoritative and intellegent than a higher one. I've had to actively shake myself to not fall into that habit.
I think it's tied to the notion of childishness. Children have higher voices, and are in weaker positions in life, and are generally seen as less competent. As a person grows, their voice lowers. So, the lower the voice, the more "adult" they are with all that entails. Anyway, I like that theory better than believing that I have an ingrained response that a person with a penis is more authoritative.
It's probably closer to accurate. I mean, I know I personally find the deep voice of a female gospel singer far more soothing than, say, the high-pitched falsetto of modern male pop singers. You're probably the same way. It's not the gender of the speaker, it's the depth of the voice, but men happen to on average have lower voices.
The trailer voice-over person for the foreign film Caramel was a woman. Granted, it's a romantic comedy, but still.
Just tossing that in there since no one else can think of one:)
Absolutely, because Hollywood has either no interest or no competence in marketing. Of course they pick their voice actors for patriarchal reasons, not because of what customers respond to. Likewise the Republican party used women's voices for most of those robo-calls because they're just such gosh darn feminists, not because research has shown that an attack delivered in a female voice is more likely to persuade the subject.
Yes, this whole "male voices are authoritative (or soothing) because they are deeper" is a load of crap--or to put it more nicely--illogical. First of all, for most infants, the mothers' voice is what they hear when in utero and then in the first years of life. And even though we have a stereotype of fathers as the disciplinarians in the family, for most of us, mothers were the authorities in the home simply because they were the ones who did most of the hands-on child care. Also, if all that's needed is a low voice, most women over 40 have "low" voices. I'm a second alto so I speak from experience. I mean, hey, if all that's needed is a low voice then Bea Arthur (y'know Maude in the 70s and Dorothy of Golden Girls in the 80s) should have had multiple offers for voice-overs. My contention is that it's more about a resistance to women with authoritative voices rather than a lack of women with the right voice. Oh, and BTW, Desperate Housewives is narrated by a woman. Also, Criminal Minds alternate voice-overs (usually a famous quotation) between characters (male and female, black and white).
Regardless of what studies find, and reasons people come up for them, it is extremely odd that this disparity exist.
Female voices have been successful in television and radio broadcast, and certainly in the case of news and those shows that are hosted by women, e.g. talk shows, women have done their own "voice overs" in "coming up" sequences. People haven't seemed to be put off watching. I also seem to recall movie trailers with no narration or voiceover at all, just clips of actors speaking in their own voices, if at all. Then are trailers with characters, male or female, young or old, as narrators in their own stories.
Even if there were some reason to be drawn toward deep male (as opposed to higher pitched male or female) voices, the way there used to be reasons for people to be drawn to men who were successful hunters or warriors as mates or followers, exposure to diversity or a rethinking of what is attractive will result in greater acceptance for others.
This is actually due to the deeper voice, but not b/c of authority.
Typically, voice overs are over other noises. The deeper voices are in an octave that doesn't get muddled and lost in the noises, and cuts through. That's why the voice overs are also deeper than most men.
A side note on voices--- men's and women's voices overlap a decent amount in pitch, on average. The difference is men are taught to change volume for emphasis, and women are taught to be more sing song. Often, folks who are trying to pass have to relearn this, rather than try and talk higher or lower to pass.
Personally I'm used to hearing the males voice during movie trailers but this is a valid point, i never thought of before. Technically, this is sexist and not right. This is a small but perfect example of how sexism still exists in subtle but real ways. Enough little examples add up.
As a die hard Lord of the Rings fan (books AND movies) I would like to point out that Galadriel narrates the movies! She's the elf queen of Lothlorien... and she is considered one of the wisest (if not THE wisest) beings in Middle Earth. I am a huge dork... I even have her ring (nenya). :D
Hey, Leslie, I'm also a huge LOTR fan too! I thought I was the only geek who would recall Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) narrating the movies. While watching the director interviews, Ian McKellen said he had wanted to narrate the opening scene--and he sounded a little grumpy that he didn't get the job. But the directors went Blanchett because Galadriel was the wisest being on Middle-Earth. Also, Blanchett's voice is incredibly rich and moving. I'm glad they didn't fall back with the traditional "older authoritative male" narrator.
There's also the fact that Cate Blanchett may have the most awesome voice, ever. I'd hate to be in the position of going up against her for a voice over job, gender regardless.
Are you seeing anyone? Just askin . . .
I think the pitch that one uses--whether male or female--really conveys authority or deference. Men are taught to use a deep voice, have a firm handshake, etc. Women, on the other hand, are conditioned to speak in a sing-songy voice, smile at lot, and often, end declarative sentences as though they were questions with a higher tonation at the end.
Using a higher pitch of your own voice connotes a certain deference to the person you're addressing. I've noticed that male telemarketers or men in the service industry often use a higher-pitched voice, "Hi, may I take some of your time this evening ...?"
Women in very patriarchal societies are often taught to speak in an almost unnaturally high pitch (traditional Chinese or Japanese). Interestingly, when taking positions of authority, they work to lower their voices. Margaret Thatcher was coached to use a lower voice--which registers calmness, control, and confidence.
So the same individual can sound either deferential or confident depending on his or her pitch. When I was younger, I often used a higher-pitched voice at my job because I was more nervous. I now remind myself to scale down to my "comfortable" voice. I find it comfortable--has anyone noticed that when you talk for long in a higher pitch, there's a lot more throat strain?
I think its laziness on part of the industry more than anything.
If you've noticed, the same voices have been doing every trailer for decades. And I mean the same 2-3, maybe 4-5 guys. It's not like there have been 400 different male trailer voices.
At least in my neck of woods - northern Europe - public announcements are usually spoken by a woman. I mean things like subway station announcements: "This is the end of the line." The speaker's voice is civilized, pleasant and wise. When she speaks, things are normal, stable and official.
It's like listening to a doomsday device: "You will be terminated in - 7 - seconds. Have a nice day!" :)
Here in the Netherlands the recorded messages for trains and subways tend to have a female speaker, the live messages depend on the conductor.
There is actually a good reason for that. The sound equipments in trains and on platforms are subject to an enormous amount of wear and tear. As a result higher voices come through a lot more intelligible than lower voices (with more bas-tones).
I don't really pay much attention to the train announcements, but yeah, I do believe that the voice-overs (station stops, end-of-the-line, and please-get-in-the-door-is-closing) are all female. Possibly because of the horrendous noise at peak hour, so the female voice can get through... It's rather high-pitched, though.
I believe it's because trailers began as men only, so that is what is familiar to us. If we start to hear women's voices narrating movie trailers, it shortly won't seem like a big deal.games