Girls on Film: A Desire for Varied Female Protagonists is Not a Political Agenda
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Columns, Girls on Film
Credit: brunkfordbraun
By now you've probably caught fellow Cinematical writer Dawn Taylor's posts about desiring female Pixar leads and wanting some Bechdel rule-abiding women in Star Trek. Both posts got their share of positive comments, but they also got a slew of knee-jerk reactions and vitriol. I don't want to rehash what Dawn already expressed well, nor get into another argument about specific female characterizations. Instead, I want to look into this neverending trend where any desire for a strong female character leads to complaints and accusations of a political agenda.
Ask for a certain type of female protagonist, discuss inequalities, gripe about the proliferation of poorly developed female characters, and in a flash, comments will pour in with a myriad of political catchwords like: feminist agenda, feminist rants, equality of the sexes, affirmative action, sexist conspiracy, and political correctness. These will be joined by painfully inaccurate sentiments that equate a desire for female success with wanting "every unfulfilled desire," Hollywood bending to charity and catering to specific audiences, wanting to exclude men from film, a lack of acceptance at the equality already reached, and of course, that including strong female protagonists is somehow sacrificing or tainting good work. (All of the reactions mentioned in this paragraph can be found in the comments on Dawn's two posts.)
The fact of the matter is: Wanting interesting and diverse female protagonists is not a political agenda. It's a widespread human trait found in both sexes: the desire to find camaraderie and others who are relatable and recognizable.
When Dawn wishes for a less relationship-focused Uhura, or I want some physically strong female butt-kickers, it's a desire to see something different; a desire to see something that feels more real, and often, a desire to feel something a bit more relatable. It shouldn't be reduced to a feminist chant. It's a human desire.
It's no different than minorities wanting to see positive representations of themselves in the media that surrounds them, but this isn't about simply about equality -- it's also about preferences and desires for originality. Why is an inclination for great female protagonists any different than a desire for Hollywood to stop the neverending remakes, musical adaptations, or re-imaginings? How is hoping for Pixar to create a spunky girl lead any different than a fan wanting sequels of their favorite franchises, or a certain director to tackle a certain topic, or a specific actor to be cast in a specific role? Why is griping about the upteenth stripper movie any different than a rant about another tired cliche?
Everyone wants to see themselves and their preferences represented. Put a SciFi geek into a world of romcoms and sports genres and they'll ask for more science fiction on the big screen. Smother a romantic drama fiend in cinematic world rife with action and horror, and they'll whimper for love and heartstring-tugging. Take a Bruce Campbell fan and put them in a world where Keanu Reeves gets every role, and they'll beg for more Bruce roles and more dynamic and comedic leads. It's all relative.
At this point in a conversation about the nature of women in film, we'll often hear something like: "well then, go out and do something about it!" or "If women want more movies about them, they should go make them!" ... so on, and so forth, as if the women of the world are just sitting on their tuckuses, being sarcastic and lazy. Well, a lot of women in Hollywood are trying to do something.
Take someone like Nia Vardalos. She penned an indie sensation, but has to work like mad to get interest in her work, even after the success of a certain female-led film that hit last year. As she wrote for The Huffington Post: "Lately, I've been in meetings regarding a new script idea I have. A studio executive asked me to change the female lead to a male, because... 'women don't go to movies.'" So she points out the success of films like Sex and the City, and the executive calls them "flukes."
Love or loathe Nia, she hits the nail on the head. Women (and men) in Hollywood fight to get better femme-centric films out there, and must contend with any success being a "fluke."
Look, women aren't flukes. We love, we hate, we learn, we fight. We go to movies. We want diversity in our interests just like everyone else. We want to see films with females in the lead roles where the characterization isn't seeped in cliche. We want female protagonists without the movie getting pre-emptively labeled "chick flick," because well-written girls and women are just as relatable to the opposite sex as the great boys and men are to us.
And we'd like to express our desires without having it fall into a political discussion, without our reasonable desire thrown off as a feminist rant or bit of political correctness.
_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
6-15-2009 @ 9:42PM
Stan Winsome said...
Conjuring up Nia Vardalos is a poor choice as she is not all that talented and really has only a single sleeper hit to her credit. Everything else she's done since has been either derivative or just plain awful. Gimme Tina Fey any day of the week for being a star with talent to burn- if we're going to talk female protagonists I can buy into.
Reply
6-15-2009 @ 10:13PM
Avon said...
I think Monika used Vardalos because a movie of hers was recently released.
Anyway, there are other women directors who've contributed to film, like Jane Campion, Mary Harron, Kathryn Bigelow, Kimberly Pierce, Diablo Cody, and many others. Women's voiced tend to go unheard because execs think they are profitable, which is bullshit. If studios would quit shilling out bubble gum pink shit about how women are just waiting around for a man to come along and carry them off into wedded bliss, then maybe more women would go to the movies. While rom coms are enjoyable and liked by many women (and men!), it's not the only facet to our lives.
As a woman, I want good story lines, good production, good acting, good direction, everything any film goer would want, but I also want to see work that reflects what it's like for my sex, not what Hollywood thinks it should look like. Give us some credit! We're not 2-D breathing machines. who only think about shopping, how to attract a guy, and dieting.
Although I am a feminist, you don't have to be to see through the bullshit and demand more accurate and broad representation.
Thanks for writing this, Monika!
6-15-2009 @ 10:34PM
Monika said...
My reference to Nia wasn't to give an example of acceptable female protagonists, but to relay the crap that's been fed to her behind the scenes about women in film.
Tina Fey is more engaging in my book as well. Have you ever come across her writing about similar experiences?
6-15-2009 @ 10:00PM
benn_loere said...
I completely agree with you. I'm a 21 year old male and I'd love to have more female protagonists, both for myself and for any daughters I might have in the future. Younger girls can't watch flicks like Resident Evil, Alien or Kill Bill to find stronger women than Disney Princesses.
Those characters that do exist, like Ripley, The Bride and Margie from Fargo are in my opinion some of the most interesting ever put to film.
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 8:52AM
Kevin said...
27 year old male here, and I also completely agree with Monika (and Dawns) sentiment. Women should be more represented in the film industry, and in lead roles specifically. However, what I disagree with is Monika and Dawns "knee-jerk" reaction to comments that seem to disagree with them. I haven't gone back and looked at the comments from earlier posts, but many of what I saw wasn't men spewing vitriol or women bashing, but men and women who disagreed with many of the examples used. Uhura in Star Trek DID wear a short skirt, and DID have a relationship, but neither of these things made her a bimbo walking around repeating captains orders. To ignore her stronger points in the film in order to highlight the modest sexist attitudes that were expressed on the surface is to do a disservice to the character, and doesn't promote the agenda Monika and Dawn are talking about. These sorts of disagreements aren't the sort of male chauvanism then they are being touted as, but merely a difference of what defines the inequality. Its upsetting that it seems like Dawn and Monika can't see the difference between disagreements about content and personal attacks due to sexism.
6-16-2009 @ 12:50PM
Monika said...
Kevin -
As I stated in my intro, I didn't want to discuss specific characterizations because these discussions are where the opinion and content bickering come in. You're right in that. In fact, when it comes to Trek, I'm more middle-road. I didn't mind the romance but was irked with that changing scene and need to show skin. I'm waiting to see how she develops.
This post is about the reactions I pulled out of the comments because I have had all of those thrown at me, or seen them used on others. Agree or disagree with the spin a writer takes, but the specifics I pulled out show the knee-jerk reaction of some to ascribe a personality to one opinion and make it some feminist political statement.
6-15-2009 @ 11:02PM
Karin said...
People make a lot of generalizations, including the movie exec that you spoke of and you too. I am a 51 year old woman and I often go to the movies; with my husband, or my children, as well as by myself. My favorite movies are action flicks. Love James Bond, Star Trek (all of them), Angie Jolie action flicks, an occasional Rom Com (but I hate the whole Sex/City thing), love mysteries. Basically, make a good movie and I will come. I also do a lot of surveys. The only movie surveys that come to my family are for my 14 year old daughter. I think Hollywood is looking for the next High School Musical. They are only interested in the teen girls/boys. Women are supposedly not going to the movies. Bull Hockey!
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 8:59AM
Kevin said...
Agreed, but do you think that it would also be fair to say that this is true of both genders (not patronizing here, just kinda want to see peoples honest opinions)? I think its clearly true that more movies aimed specifically at adult audiences are aimed at men, but the vast majority of movies are aimed at either young boys (14-35) or girls (maybe more along the lines of 16-35). Furthermore, the majority of adult themed stories are more "gender-equal", in that they come closer to appealing to both sexes. Tentpole movies are more obviously aimed at a young boy audience (I know Elisabeth Rappe will probably flame me for that, SORRY :)), with little thought to female audiences, but more thoughtful films will usually attract a broader range of people. Just a thought, and something I wanted to throw out there because people frequently say that there are no movies being made for adult women, and while thats true, I don't see much evidence of male only adult movies being made either.
6-15-2009 @ 10:42PM
Bondo said...
While it is perfectly legitimate to critique Uhura's character as being too limited or even Pixar as a studio for its choices, the problem I so often have with this sort of broader diversity in film critiques is that they seem content to ignore the contrary evidence, those films/roles that fit their criteria.
It is easy to make the argument "except for all the films that have varied female protagonists, there are not a lot of films with varied female protagonists." I don't doubt that they are underrepresented to some degree (it will always be hard to measure because one person might dismiss an entry that another would count), but there are so many movies being made that there are usually a fair number of examples to satisfy any complaint.
Reply
6-15-2009 @ 11:32PM
Jen said...
I really hate that the majority of mainstream films are now made and marketed for the 18-35 male demographic to the point where it colors all the terminology, all the default assumptions, everything. How did romantic comedies go from "The Goodbye Girl" and "Annie Hall" in the 70s to the utterly male-centric "Knocked Up" and "40 Year Old Virgin," with anything vaguely female friendly branded a verboten "chick flick"?
You know, I strongly suspect that one of the major reasons "Twilight" has been such a success is because there is literally nothing else aimed square at that audience of teenage girls. And despite all the money it's made, you still have these film executives who won't hesitate to bitch about the male audience that didn't show up instead of taking notice of the female audience that did.
Reply
6-15-2009 @ 11:49PM
Kate said...
If they really believe women don't go to the movies, I'd be happy to deprive them of the couple hundred I spend on movie tickets every year, if I didn't have so much fun at the theater.
Thank you for writing this.
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 12:54AM
MIND DANCER said...
I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting more female protagonists. It is a want you and others aren't seeing fulfilled. However, you give a pretty broad description of what you want and that weakens the impact of your statement. I think the more specific question needs to be, what types of films do you want to see women leading? ((A PIXAR release is a nice satisfying example))
I want more Westerns. 2007 was a great year for those wanting more Western offerings. We saw the release of 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford. Unfortunately or fortunately, the powers behind the money aren't seeing a massive demand for Westerns. Furthermore, they aren't seeing sales drop for the product they are offering now. If sales were weak for the current product, the powers behind the money would scramble to change what they are currently producing.
So, I have to eagerly wait for an artist to aggressively push a Western through the established system. But, typically, because they happen so rarely, when they get through the system, they are unique gems. For the most part though, I have to explore the archives and be patient for new releases. There are great Westerns out there hiding in the backdrop, like The Proposition... hiding amongst us in the world of independent films.
As box office tickets continue record sales, this, I believe, is the same game you must play if you are looking for major films with major female protagonists. You must wait for the rare gems, but at least they will be gems. Typically.
Again, I don't know what you are specifically looking for in your female protagonists, but artists like Miranda July are out there pushing films through the system... her and others are persistently cooking up great narratives with intriguing and challenging female protagonists. Just got to wait for them.
((Also, lately, women are dominating television. Seriously. A few current examples: True Blood. Weeds. Nurse Jackie. Dollhouse. The Closer. Medium. Fringe. Damages... and this list goes on and on ...))
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 1:04AM
Monika said...
http://www.cinematical.com/tag/GirlsOnFilm/
If you need examples to back up that part of my statement, you can find some in the link above (this column's previous posts). I've covered a few like female action stars with bodies suitable for the action, or engaging female heroes (that I, personally, didn't find in Drag Me to Hell), etc. But I didn't want to bog down a post about how these desires get politicized with my own preferences. It would've made the post 10 x longer. :) Luckily, I've got a column to spread those opinions out in!
Just wanted to say: Right there with you on Proposition. I was disappointed that it didn't get more love. As someone who isn't a huge fan of that genre, I was quite impressed with how much that movie changed my tune.
6-16-2009 @ 12:57AM
Batzarro said...
This should be fairly obvious at this point, and if somebody doesn't get it, they might as well never get it. More, better, more varied female characters probably hurt no one, and it'd more than likely be a good thing.
Although in some eyes it feels like a female lead is never good enough. In the letter that lead to Dawn's article, there was a feeling having the lead be a princess took away from the character, despite the character reportedly be an independent spirit who shuns girly-girl activities for a skill(archery).
Sometimes, courageous, independent character are flat out demonized, because they are "bimbos" or "pretty" or some other periphery.Hell, Dawn herself says that Mulan doesn't really count for Jaquelin Squat since she was later co-opted into Disney's Princess marketing foil. What in the hell does have to do with the original movie? Does it destroy anything of value the character in the original movie had? Ripley doesn't count because she was on her panties. Anything else the character did is immediately thrashable if she might have at one point be desirable by men, or if the character was helped by men, or if her goal was to help men.
I guess my point is, there SHOULD be more variety in female roles. But when that variety comes around, it should be celebrated and recognized: not nitpicked and denied. If a character only have half of the idealized traits, is it not half good? Is it not half of a victory? Or should a way be found to drown out that half of a victory by focusing on what is lacking?
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 1:19AM
Monika said...
I hear ya.
I imagine nitpicking has a lot to do with sore spots. Everyone has those things that particularly irk them, and try as we might, the irked feelings often trump the rational ones.
I still can't bring myself to enjoy Mean Girls, because I'm so irked that it was continually compared to Heathers, which I think is far superior. It's not a valid reason to discount it, but eh, it happens.
On top of that, while advancements are good, everyone's got their tipping point when half-advancements are not enough.
When it comes to that original Pixar letter, I really identified with it. To me, it sounded like she was doing anything but blowing off princess films. This writer saw a character she adored, and could identify with, and wanted badly for that character, or one just like it, to be a girl, without the cliches thrown in. Not one geared at "girls" or thrown into the oft-used princess world.
6-16-2009 @ 1:15AM
James said...
It's in some ways a self fulfilling problem. I run a movie theatre at a University and we actually do really well with anything aimed at women but pretty much all we see are rom-coms. Although two of the biggest movies we have had the last couple years were Twilight and Devil Wears Prada.
My sister once compIained about the lack of movies with female leads, I named off a few and asked her if she had seen any of them. She hadn't. If people don't see the ones that do get made (remember The Brave One) then they aren't going to make more.
I remember reading a survey that said older females are the most selective or 'picky' group of movie-goers. That means making a film aimed at them is inherently more risky.
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 1:23AM
Monika said...
Perhaps the problem is the aim itself.
Thinking about it, a lot of the characterizations of women that I particularly like come from movies not aimed at women (and often not aimed at men either). And frankly, I'm not big on many of the films that are, because their spin on what women want is most certainly what I don't want.
6-16-2009 @ 2:18AM
Lucy Kelvin said...
Re Pixar, shame on you all for forgetting about Princess Fiona - the greatest mould-breaking, stereotype-busting character in the history of film if there ever was one!
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 7:04AM
WillTheSecond said...
Except that's not Pixar, it's Dreamworks. Their films ain't as good but they do have more (and more progressive) female characters. (Monster Versus Aliens, too.)
6-16-2009 @ 9:06AM
Kevin said...
Also, her name was PRINCESS Fiona. I agree with your idea, she was a strong, stereotype thumbing character, but when the complaint is that disney/pixar doesn't make movies about strong females who aren't princesses you can't cite a dreamworks made princess as evidence that they do.