CALL FOR PAPERS

International Conference 

Women Filmmakers and New Feminist Cinemas in France, Great Britain, and the USA in the 21st Century 

21-22-23 October 2026, Université Toulouse 2 Jean-Jaurès, France 

This conference proposes to examine how women filmmakers have engaged with feminism within the evolving cultural landscape of the early 21st century—a period marked by shifting feminist discourses culminating in the #MeToo movement, and by the increasing visibility and multiplicity of a variety of feminist discourses operating within what Sarah Banet-Weiser terms an “economy of visibility” (2018, 2). The Weinstein scandal and the revelations that followed drew global attention to the persistence of systemic inequalities and institutionalized violence within the film, television, and entertainment industry, exposing not only pervasive abuse but also the longstanding marginalization of women on screen and, perhaps, even more so, behind the camera. While this heightened awareness has led to growing participation by women and some high-profile successes, it has not dismantled the structural barriers that continue to limit equitable access and representation.

While focusing on transnational and comparative perspectives within British, French and US cinema, the conference aims to examine how women filmmakers are reshaping cinematic forms and audiovisual languages, and contributing to the evolution of feminist filmmaking practices across both mainstream and independent spheres, encompassing narrative, documentary, and experimental approaches.

The question “What qualifies as a “feminist” film or series today?” raises a whole series of problems related to the criteria used to define the word “feminism” in the mid-2020s: Can a film or television series be deemed feminist solely on the basis of its most obvious features: the representation and characterization of women? In other words, is the Bechdel test enough? Does it necessarily imply the presence of women in key positions with an explicitly militant stance? Or might its feminism also be embedded in its narrative structure, aesthetic choices, cinematography, appropriation of genres through a strategy of “gender bending/genre blending” (Badley 2016, 127)? Must feminist cinema necessarily revise the canons (Rich 1971, Johnston 1973, Mulvey 1975, Doane, Mellencamp and Williams 1984, de Lauretis 1987, hooks 1992) and subvert “the hegemony of visuality” (Mirzoeff, 2001)? Or can it offer alternatives to Hollywood representations without resorting to subversion, operating instead “within a potentially positive appropriative and generative framework of interpretation”, rather than falling into “the widespread fallacy of subversion” (Harrod and Paszkiewicz, 2018, 26)? Do feminist discourses shift across different audiovisual forms and sectors—television, streaming, the major studios, big budget productions, the independent, experimental, documentary, or animation sectors? For example, how does the episodic structure of TV series (Lotz, 73) influence feminist content differently than feature films? What is the situation in experimental cinema which has historically marginalized women (Blaetz, 2007, 3)? Conversely, what about the documentary sector which has offered more space for female innovation and presence (French, 2021, 10)? 

Another important question concerns the relationship between these productions and feminist film theories. Pursuing the lines of inquiry developed by Radner and Stringer (2011), Maury and Roche (2020), as well as Charlery and Maury (forthcoming), to what extent does feminist film scholarship influence the practices of women filmmakers? In the US context, many filmmakers (Kathryn Bigelow, Julie Dash, Debra Granik, Patty Jenkins, Karyn Kusama, Jennifer Lee, Kasi Lemmons Dee Rees, Kelly Reichardt, Chloe Zhao…) have engaged with feminist film theories during their academic training, and their films often embody a form of “theory in practice.” Is this equally the case in British and especially French academia which has long shown resistance to feminist, gender, and queer studies? Is that to say that women filmmakers try to assert their authorial voice? If so, do they adopt or subvert formal and thematic tropes from male-dominated traditions like the French New Wave—such as reflexivity, autobiography, or portrayals of artistic creation—to express feminist authorship?

Beyond tracing the feminist content of women-helmed works, production, promotion and distribution play key roles in the identification of “feminist” works, as Patricia White has demonstrated (2015). Equally important is the role of reception (film criticism but also fan and general audience responses), as the ways films are viewed, analyzed, theorized, discussed, and taught depend on the socio-political context; as Janet Staiger (forthcoming) has argued, films and filmmakers cannot be labeled as “feminist” once and for all because the term “feminism” itself is dynamic—shaped by shifting agendas, evolving social contexts, and changing audience perceptions. Thus, it is necessary to consider how feminist filmmaking might be understood in a constantly evolving cultural landscape. 

Answering these questions requires considering the changing priorities of feminist movements, which raises a second key question: What’s “new” in feminist cinemas? We wish to reflect on whether the past two decades have brought a clear evolution in the ways women make films. This includes examining whether activist movements of the 21st century—especially those that have recentered debates around the politics of intimacy (Froidevaux-Metterie, 2020)—signal a break from previous decades and generations, or to what extent they revive essentialist forms of feminism in popular culture (Banet-Weiser, 2018). This revival reignites debates around identity, solidarity, and sisterhood, which Florynce Kennedy once critiqued as the “sisterhood mystique,” fostering new feminist alliances, and further complicating what is understood as postfeminism. What is the place of constructivism, intersectional feminism, and black feminism in this cultural landscape? And what is the role of #MeToo in this shifting epistemology? Has it created a meaningful before-and-after moment in film culture? Is it a relevant landmark or should we heed Karen Boyle’s (2023) caution against allowing #MeToo to become “an origin story for contemporary activism against sexual harassment and assault”? Are women filmmakers reviving old forms of feminisms, or are they cultivating new forms of hybrid audiovisual feminism that seek, successfully or not, to “include everyone” (Charlery and Maury)? 

Additionally, contemporary modes of distribution and broadcasting—such as social media, streaming platforms, intermedial forms, fandoms, and promotional content—have increased opportunities and visibility for women filmmakers in the last two decades. At the same time, the number of festivals dedicated to women filmmakers has flourished, and general film festivals such as Cannes have made some efforts to grant women more visibility. Nevertheless, one can wonder if the existing plethora of film festivals is enough to offer real opportunities to women or if self-production and distribution remain the standard, especially for minority women. Thus, the role of film festivals in creating new forms of feminist cinema across Britain, France, and the US needs to be interrogated.

Is there such a thing as “New Feminist Cinemas”? There are many limits to the success of women filmmakers that may call into question the existence of new feminist cinemas. First, in spite of the individual achievements of some women filmmakers and their newly gained visibility, they remain a minority in the cinema and television industries. As Katarzyna Paszkiewicz among others argues (2018), celebrating the individual achievements of female filmmakers reinforces the narratives of female progress, symptomatic of a neoliberal and postfeminist climate, and hides the fact that the glass ceiling remains firmly in place for most female directors. In particular, the concept of the film auteur, rooted in the patriarchal context of 1950s France, has been critiqued for its sexist (Sellier 2024, 9-10), essentialist (Mayne 1990, 90) foundations, and for obscuring the collective nature of filmmaking (Paszkiewicz, 261; Sellier, 11-12; White, 32–33). Given these critiques, can it still serve feminist film analysis today? Or, is it necessary, as Sue Thornham (2012) suggests, to reclaim authorship when a woman’s cinematic “signature” challenges male-defined norms of universality? Authorship also varies across national contexts. How do differing understandings in France, the UK, and the US shape the ways women make, produce, distribute, and receive films?

In the end, does “new” feminist cinema even mean anything? Should it be limited to women-helmed productions that explicitly represent feminism? Indeed, we may wonder if such films and series adopt an actual militant stance or if feminism has just become a trend, a fashion, a glamourized phenomenon in the neo-liberal postfeminist context. Conversely, what can we make of the ambivalence, or even rejection, that some women filmmakers express toward the label “feminist”?

Proposals (including a 300-word abstract, a short bibliography and a biographical blurb) that endeavor to tackle these questions are to be sent to the conference website by 1 March 2026.

url: https://femme2.sciencesconf.org

You will need to create an account before submitting your proposal. 

Contact: cristelle.maury@univ-tlse2.fr.