The idea of a Western Canon is usually spoken of with regards to literature; the literary canon is a list of books most worthy of recognition and commemoration...(in someone's opinion). However, while the canon is most frequently used in a literary context, the term can also be applied to all spheres of creation, such as art, cinema, and music. The problem with all types of canon is not what is included in the list (because, of course, the majority of the works which are celebrated are indeed masterpieces); the problem is what it leaves out. What (and who) decides that certain films are worthy of high status while others are not? Unfortunately the most celebrated works (in art, literature, and film alike) are usually created by men with status, voice, and social power, and similarly are revered by men with similar status. And this means that many creations are overlooked.
The majority of culturally commemorated books have all been written by dead white men...and in reality it isn't much different when it comes to cinema; most films in the canon come from the mid-twentieth century, have been created by men (who are now old or dead), and tell the stories of men's lives. On IMBD's list of the 100 Best Films, there was not a single one which had been produced any a woman or person of colour, and very few even featured a female protagonist (let alone anyone who wasn't white). Of course this is reflective of the prejudice and sexism in the twentieth century, during which time women were not given the opportunity to produce or direct a film (and even less so people of colour). However, even nowadays the films that we celebrate are mostly created by men, and also tell only men's stories.
Although, of course, times are changing, and we can see more and more films which focus on the stories of women, we still have a long way to go before the underlying sexist culture changes. It has only been in very recent years that we have seen a steady stream of films such as 'Wonder Woman', 'Captain Marvel', and 'Ocean's 8', which feature strong female protagonists who are not only included as a love interest for the moping, troubled male lead.
Is diversity the same as acceptance?
However, despite these advances for the diversity in the actual content of our cinema, the most culturally celebrated and canonical films are still, in the main, made by and about men. Films about women are generally labelled as being just "women's films". They are thought of as inferior, or simply dismissed as being "chick-flicks", because it seems that stories about women's lives apparently don't have the same value as those about men. It is taken for granted that absolutely everyone can and should enjoy films such as 'Shawshank Redemption', 'Rocky', 'Forrest Gump', or 'The Godfather', all of which tell tales of men and the struggles they face in their lives. Contrastingly, when it comes to films about women, such as 'Bridget Jones' Diary', 'Clueless', or 'Little Women', they are brushed to the side and allocated to the designated female corner of the cinematic world, as if only a woman could appreciate and relate to a story which doesn't focus on men.
And this is because there remains a massive problem in the way in which we think about and categorise films: even now, in the Twenty-First Century, we are splitting films into a bizarre binary, declaring films as either "manly", or "girly". This isn't only a problem because of how ridiculous the notion is to give an inanimate object a gender; the typically "masculine" films, such as ones of action or war, are mostly labelled as exciting cinematic masterpieces, while the traditionally labelled "feminine" films, such as rom-coms, are treated as trashy or inferior. This ultimately is reflective of our patriarchal culture as a whole, which reveres masculinity, while treating femininity (in all forms) as secondary. In reality, changing the canon is a case of not only changing the content of our cinema, but also the way in which we think about films, and value gender as a whole.
