Feminism in Movies: Why You Should Care
Feminism has gotten somewhat of a bad rap lately. Many people feel that it’s outlived its goals. Don’t women have equal rights now? What is there to complain about? The answer to this is that just giving people the legal possibility to do something doesn’t mean you are genuinely opening opportunities for them. Saying that giving people equal rights leads to them instantly being regarded as equals is like saying that giving African-Americans the right to vote ended racism in America. But what has all this to do with movies? Well, feminism isn’t just a political movement, but also an academic one. And yes, there is something like feminist film theory.
The reason that I write this article is that I think that every serious movie fan should give at least some thought to the insights of this discipline. I won’t bore you with the actual theoretical background, which is fairly technical. Let’s just start with some assumptions I think we can all agree on:
- Men and women have equally complex personalities.
Nothing out of the ordinary, right? Just because you have a wiener doesn’t mean you’re instantly interesting. Alright, so if this is true, can we then also agree that:
- Men and women have a different outlook on certain things.
Anyone who has ever been in a heterosexual relationship will know what I mean. Hell, just look at sex: as the age-old cliche goes, men just want to hump and fall asleep afterwards while women want to cuddle all night long. I know I’m making generalizations here, but I think we can agree that certain things in life are experienced differently by the different sexes.
Now, I think it won’t be a very radical notion to say that men and women both should have equal rights to tell their stories and have their stories told. Some of those might not even be about anything remotely related to love or sex (in both meanings of the word), but still have something uniquely masculine or feminine about them. Just look at the movies of Sofia Coppola: even though they aren’t predominantly about being a woman, we can still feel they’re a little different from movies made by male directors.
Everyone still on board? Alright. Awesome. Then let’s move on to the next fact:
- There is very little presence of women in movies, both in front of and behind the camera.
It doesn’t exactly take a genius to notice that the majority of directors in Hollywood are dudes. But guys are in the majority on screen as well. Some of the people over at the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media took a look at over 5.000 movie characters from films released between 2006 and 2009 and found out that 71% of them are male. And that’s even discounting whether these female characters actually created any real female perspective. Just watch this (very short) video and you’ll understand what I mean:
Yeah. I think I’m not the only one who had a major case of the I-never-noticed-that after watching this.
Coming back to my original two premises, I think it will be clear right now that the movies generally aren’t very welcoming from a female perspective. In fact, the majority of movies released every year (ESPECIALLY the Hollywood blockbusters) are told from the point of view of a young, Caucasian, heterosexual male.
I think that it’s important to stress at this point that there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling stories from that perspective. Many of the greatest movies of all time are told that way, and it doesn’t make a single difference to their quality. But consider this: in the big picture, young/white/straight guys are a minority. Let’s face it, this particular group simply isn’t the majority of the population in any country on Earth, even if they’re the most vocal.
This is the basic catch of feminist film theory: there are very little movies that are told from the perspective of women, or gay people, or black people. The good news is that there are exceptions to this rule, and many of them aren’t the weepy indie dramas you might expect them to be: Aliens, Kill Bill and The Silence of the Lambs, for example, are all brilliant movies that just so happen to be told through the perspective of a woman. The bad news is that these movies are in a minority, and that’s only when you talk about the female perspective.
Why is this a problem? Well, for one thing, people who don’t fall in the young/straight/white guy category are under-represented in movies, which isn’t really doing much for the diversity of our pop culture. But look at it from an artistic perspective: how many stories are left untold because of this?
As I said earlier, people with a different background have a different outlook on things. How many of these outlooks aren’t we exploring? There is absolutely no reason to assume that they are inferior storytellers than the people we have been listening to for all these years. And besides, wouldn’t it be fascinating to truly see the world from a different angle? Just think of the shockwave that Do the Right Thing sent through America when it was released. Many people had never seen the urban unrest of the time from an insider perspective, while many black viewers just saw their everyday life on the screen for the first time. There is an endless array of movies like that waiting to be made.
Now, I want to make something clear here: just because a movie tells its story from a different perspective then the one we’re used to doesn’t automatically makes it good, nor should these movies be judged by any different standards because of this. But right now, very few of these movies are even given a chance.
So, what can we do about all this? Practically, very little. Much of the decision-making about film is still done by the studio bigwigs, and right now they mostly cater movies to the exact demographic whose point of view these movies take. But if we, as lovers of cinema, want to be serious about our passion, we have to be aware of what this means. After all, movies aren’t just mindless entertainment: like anything in (pop) culture, they influence how we see the world.
Most people who make bikes don’t look like this. And don’t like being looked at like this.
What we need to do as cinephiles and film critics is to take a step back and genuinely reflect on what we are watching. If you are willing to really open yourself up for this line of thought, it will quickly become clear that this is big. If a movie is genuinely misogynist, us movie lovers should be able to detect this and decry the movies for it, just the same way we would decry a movie if it is racist. This really isn’t that radical a task, especially considering that the thinking film lovers are the avant-garde of this artistic medium.
Just ask yourself the next time you watch a movie: are the female characters (if there even are any) anywhere near as complex and interesting as the male ones? Are they presented as actual human beings, or are they mostly eye-candy? You’d be surprised how often it’s the second. As people who take this medium seriously, it’s good and even necessary to be aware of this. Even if you don’t do anything with the knowledge, you have to realize the difference between movies and real life is often in the very subtle details. After all, most women are nothing like the bimbo’s that inhabit so many of our movies. And thank God for that.
Max
EDIT: this hilarious video was released for International Womens Day on the 8th of March. Enjoy.
For More:
If you’re interested in this subject, here are some very accessible videos that elaborate on the subject:
Joss Whedons hilarious speech on his “strong female characters”:
Here is an analysis of some commercials that becomes quite disturbing when you look at it from a certain perspective:
(I don’t always agree with the somewhat radical standpoint Anita Sarkeesian takes in her Feminist Frequency videos, but they always provide some food for thought).
![Watch: Creepy Trailer for Slasher Pic ‘Maniac’ [NSFW]](http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/themes/yamidoo_pro/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elijah-wood-maniac-tb.jpg&w=50&h=50&zc=1)
105 Comments
The way we treat feminism is not different than a highly praised film or song. There’s an invisible line in society. That line is the indeterminable peak to which we allow large groups of people to champion any ONE cause before we turn on it. Why we do it? I have no idea. Unfortunately, Feminism has become situated just above that line. It’s an important cause, but it’s a hard sell to people who have grown weary of hearing about it – even if it’s only because it conflicts with their own personal interests.
Great post, Max.
The reason why would seem fairly obvious. We are afraid to give up control, and we are afraid to give up out position at the top of the world. And part of this is, I think, due to the fact that we don’t like adjusting our perspective as dominant. That is why I love movies so much: because they allow me (and everyone who watches them) to truly look at the world through the eyes of someone else.
A very interesting post, and food for thought. I watched The Snake Pit last night, a film definitely told from a woman’s perspective, and one in which female characters talk about something other than men. Admittedly, this was filmed in 1948, so it’s still paternalistic, but it does pass the test in the first video above.
The danger, of course, is going too far the other way. Fight Club is a great film despite it not passing the (person’s name I can’t spell) test outlined above. Additionally, while a male film and told from a male perspective, on a second viewing, the Marla character becomes the most sympathetic character in the film. She’s a crazy bitch on a first viewing, and an abused sufferer on the second.
I’d love to see more realistic depictions of women in film. I’ve gotten past the point where I need to see electric neon sex on screen. But…and this may be the reason things will never change…the movie industry targets very specific audiences, and those of us who care enough about film to blog about it and post on it are not the target audience.
Sadly, the fembot video is dead-on, even if she can’t correctly pronounce “draught.” However, people who fall victim to the fantasy will always outnumber those who attempt to rise above it–and the masses have more money collectively than the rest of us, and both advertising and movies will always follow the money.
Good stuff.
There may not be a number of complex female characters in movies, but I have two arguments against that notion.
1. How many truly complex male characters do you see in movies today? Everything has been made so dull for the general public that I would argue it’s the roles, not the genders that are being underwritten.
2. Ask most of our community what the #1 problem with modern day romantic comedies are, and I bet a good chunk of them will say boring, generalized, and underwritten lead female characters. And yet, crowds (mostly females) still rush to the theaters to see these films. To me, that is saying that the very people who might be offended by the possible growth of sexism in movies are doing nothing but fueling the fire.
Just playing devil’s advocate here. I would love as much as the next person to see an expanded role for women in film, but I could say the same for the male roles that lead the blockbusters of today as well. Explosions, chase scenes, and cruel jokes have taken over the modern movie, so for me that is the reasoning why males receive most of the screen time. Sure, films like Salt come around every now and then, but when movies do rarely plug females into these roles like people request, people then bash the movie for portraying women wrongly, saying that they are too masculine or different. Again, I think this is mostly because of under-developed roles, no matter the gender.
There’s also films out there that receive the title unfairly. Lars von Trier was absolutely ripped by several people because of Antichrist, believing that von Trier MUST hate women because of the way they are portrayed in this movie. And yet, here was one of the most complex, interesting female roles in quite sometime. I for one thought it worked very well, and ended up loving the movie.
Well Red, we may not see nearly as many truly complex male characters but they still easily outnumbers the number of well-fleshed out female characters. I don’t remember who was saying it at the last THR Actress Roundtable (Amy Adams or Hillary Swank) but that actress was saying that you could count on the fingers on one hand the number of good female roles every year.
Also, you may be onto something that female audience rush to those shitty rom-coms but I would argue that that’s because they have no other alternative and maybe more perniciously, many of them don’t actually notice how sexist those movies are. It’s definitely very perplexing when you see movies with stronger, more independent female characters under-perform at the box office.
I don’t know if I would go as far as to say “fingers on one hand”. Hell, just look at the female roles nominated this year. There was absolutely no weakness this year in the nominees, and then you consider the number of other actresses that received attention as well. Hell, when making my 2012 Oscar list, I had to limit myself to how many supporting actresses I put on the list, because after about 10 films it was obvious that particular list would be longer than others.
I’m not disagreeing with you per say, but I look at the overall scope of female roles over the past two years, and I see a good amount of depth and an improvement over what it used to be 5 or 10 years ago. If there’s progress, you have to lower the pitchforks at least a little.
Is it right for people to claim certain films sexist, while at the same time not noticing the films they champion in fact are?
And if there are indeed other stronger, more independent female characters that under-perform at the box office, then there is indeed an alternative.
Proclaiming a movie as sexist is always a delicate matter. You have to really take context in consideration. A movie like Antichrist is of course an easy target.
And the female roles really aren’t improving that much. If you look at the big picture, the 1970′s were a lot more advanced in that respect. Just look at the stuff Russ Meyer made back then, which was really all about female liberation. All his movies show women having sex, sure, but they had the figures of actual women (if, perhaps, a tad exaggerated) and they clearly enjoyed what they were doing. Just compare that to the erotica we have nowadays: either it’s the chaste sex scenes from rom-coms, where they manage to be prude enough to cover their breasts even after a night of vicious humping, or the almost rape-like perspective porn often takes these days.
I’m sorry if I’m a little dirty here, but this is perhaps the most blatant example of what I’m talking about. They call it the “Madonna or the whore”- duality: either a woman is an almost god-like figure, who is emotional but doesn’t display any sexual longing, or she is ONLY sexual desire and wants to get humped as soon as possible. This is a very strange (and very worrying) position girls often find themselves in these days: they have to make sure they’re sexual as not to be prude or “tight”, but if they’re overtly sexual they’re suddenly sluts. Doing what you damn well please in the bedroom seems to be still somewhat of a male privilege.
Easy A touched on that, the fact that guys are seen as studs if they sleep with lots of girls while girls are seen as disgusting sluts if they (pretend) to sleep with lots of guys.
I think its also worth noting that in movies/tv usually if a woman is highly sexual she has daddy issues, or in some way a sign of having a damaged personality. Its rare to find high sexuality in females portrayed as a personality trait and not as a problem.
I would like to add again that I don’t disagree with the article, but simply just adding food for thought.
No, no you have finally revealed your true nature!!! ;D
Oh no! You caught me!
I’m gonna be the troll here, and say what my mother keeps telling me. “There are a lot of dumb women (and men) in the world” LOL
I think the main problem is studios execs are still straight white males. As long as studios are ran by the same people, there won’t be any change. Big studios need diversity, independent films won’t be enough because of lack of promotion. The average joe doesn’t hunt websites for what to watch… they go to the cinema and see what’s available.
It takes a lot of work and $$$ to be able to watch good films… especially internationally.
I read that Hollywood execs weren’t worried about releasing garbage, because they knew they could make their money back internationally. As if we’d like to watch crap, but if we don’t get any other good indie films, people won’t have the chance to watch those instead of their trash.
I can see what you mean, but this problem is just as prevalent the other way around. After all, there is a sort of movie that people where the audience just likes to project themselves upon the main character. He or she is kept as blank as possible in these kinds of movies. Most male leads in action films have this as well. But if you go a little deeper (BRAAAAW), to the kind of movies where the characters are actually get fleshed out, things get problematic.
Besides, just because someone enjoys a movie about a woman who is basically a sex object doesn’t make it any less misogynist. Maybe the audience likes to think of herself as a sex object as well. This isn’t just a problem with movies: this is societal problem, which manifests itself in our culture. And that’s where it should tip us off.
Example in point: Bella Swan in Twilight
Oh hush
I think part of the reason feminism has gotten a bad rep is because people perceive it as about hating men rather than about equality.
Being someone who is trying to write screenplays. Most of the protagonists I’m interested are women. Notably in trying to give them fully-realized characters that take charge, not take any kind of shit, or just be someone that is flawed but endearing.
I’m having a difficult time trying to get things started and move forward when it comes to screenwriting. It’s been a few years since I’ve actually completed something. I’m more interested in just writing great female characters so I can work with actresses and have them own the characters.
I cite Pedro Almodovar as someone who writes great women characters. I don’t think he’s a male-feminist but he’s not the kind of person that will knock guys around.
I don’t think Lars von Trier hates women either. The characters he created, despite the awful situations he puts them through, are very interesting to look at.
Feminism does get a bad rap though it seems we kind of need it now.
Some of the problems with feminist film theory is that the theorists themselves comes across as man-haters. They can pick apart anything to suit their argument.
Alien is an interesting one and has been written about to death. Does Ripley actually adopt a wholly male persona in everything but her breasts or just she retain her female attributes from beginning to end.
The reason for that is most likely because film is subjective. What one see’s as empowering to women in a movie or show may come across completely differently to someone else.
I am following a course in gender theory now, and I understand your impression. But you have to keep in mind that feminism is also a political movement, and how hard they have fought for women’s right in the past 50 years. In the large scale of things, a timeframe like that is peanuts. So yes, there’s definitely a little anger there. But when you really delve into the matter, you’ll find that it’s often quite reasonable. If you don’t actively hate women, it’s very possible that you just never really noticed much of what they describe. It might be a bit of a stretch to call it eye-opening, but you’ll definitely take a different view on things. Check out the Feminist Frequency on youtube for some good material.
If you’re looking for not only female, but even male characters that are drawn out and actually have some significance .. you have to stop looking at the big, hollywood blockbusters, and look for some smaller, independent movies. Of course there is going to be feminism in “Transformers”, how else is Michael Bay going to produce his next shitty movie (though I actually enjoyed “I am Number Four”)? It’ not like anyone is actually seeing his pictures for the story, it’s about seeing Megan Fox fixing bikes and wearing short skirts, sadly.
We’ve come to a place where studios believe it’s better to produce quantity over quality, money over sincere filmmaking, and mindless entertainment over substance value. It’s a sad realization.
I agree with you Sam. the characters that are interesting to watch, be it male or female, often come from independent film…they also have better story than the blockbuster ones
I can see your frustration. After all, blockbusters have to aim for the biggest common denominator in order to attract a large audience. But make no mistake: there are definitely great male AND female characters in blockbuster. Ellen Ripley from Aliens. Eowyn from LotR. Mary Fucking Poppins, to quote snatch. And the guys aren’t too shabby off either: The Joker! Han Solo! Chaplins Tramp!
Just piling all blockbusters under the blanket of commercial crap might be attractive, but you dismiss a lot of great movies with that. Which is nothing but a shame.
I didn’t say the blockbuster DON’T have great characters. The ones you mentioned are appealing (As for Eowyn, no doubt she is great, almost all characters from books are great)….but the non-blockbusters ones have more great chracters than the blockbuster ones.
This a great post Max. trully a food for thought.
It is true that we rarely seen great female characters in a movie but I think it is getting better now than say 10 years ago. Tho it is still a bitch to see women potrayed as nothing but being bitchy as if their only existence is to look sexy and attract men.
It’s actually not getting that much better. The depression has brought America (where, let’s face it, the movies that the world sees come from) a really strong wave of neoconservatism. Whether that’s a good thing or not is something upon which you’re entitled your own opinion, but (as you might guess) it isn’t exactly great for feminism. Just compare Sarah Palins and Hillary Clintons appearance.
Some of the movies that were made in the 1970s were actually a lot more feminist then now. Women were allowed to be naked and have actual curves, which is something you’d be hard-pressed to see nowadays. We’ll see what happens.
I wasn’t saying that ALL Hollywood movies contain no real, genuine characters, but most do not. If you’re truly trying to pick out certain characters from “big movies”, why go with “Alien” out of all movies?
For the record I was mainly talking about what is coming out now, and honestly besides a few movies, not much is balanced or sacred and that’s going for males & females. Then again, I didn’t get a chance to see “Drive Angry”, though I’m sure the film treated women very well … oh wait.
Very good article by the way. Proof of that is this conversation, good job.
I don’t know much of US politics, I don’t even pay attention to my own country’s politic
So…what’s with Palin and Clinton’s appearance?
If being allowed to be naked and curvy is a feminist goal in film-making, Porky’s and Bachelor Party would be gold standards.
Sucker Punch will come out and disprove this entire article.
Let’s see how many guys talk to each other in that movie, AND have a conversation about something other than women. Eh? EHHHH?
(I reply here because I couldn’t reply to the other one)
No, children technically don’t count until they’ve hit puberty. I think. It’s not really a golden rule. As soon as someone starts behaving feminine or masculine I think they generally count, but it can be a long shot. A talk between a daughter and mother (i.e. Freaky Friday) does count, because they adress mother-daughter relationships.
To be fair, Red, I don’t think the girls in Sucker Punch will be doing much talking.
I’m a super minority LOL Where is my movie? xD
I’m watching a lot of Asian films because I feel more connected to them… even if there are a lot of crappy Asian films too.
I still think what films need is promotion… promotion outside of festivals, and events… average joe needs to have it there. Sees the poster at the theater, sees there is a show in 10min, buys a ticket.
I really enjoyed that first video in this article. Thanks for sharing Max! Very revealing.
It starts behind the camera and that means women writing for women and being directed by women. Joss Whedon, Quentin Tarantino and other mainstream male writers/directors that love to create primary roles for women may employ kick ass chicks, but they’re not entirely complex or even real.
Let women do women. Not that men can’t do women. Men can certainly do women, but I’d like to see more women doing women. No pun intended. Hehehe.
(Insert obscene joke here)
I think most of Joss’s female characters are more than just “Kick ass chicks.” I will say that hollywood imo has difficulty creating female characters who aren’t whimpering damsels in distress or kick ass chicks. But Joss i feel gives most of his female characters a good mix of strength and vulnerability.
Tarantino i agree with you to a extent. However, i don’t believe his male characters are much more complex/real than his female ones. He just doesn’t do complex/realistic characters a lot, and that applies to both his male and female characters
*or kick ass chicks
Point taken.
I should mention that I meant no slam against Whedon or Tarantino. I enjoy both of their work and it is refreshing that they make a concerted effort to create female characters in the first place.
Whedon is one of my heroes when it comes to female characters. Just look at Firefly: Inara, Kaylee and Zoe are a magnificent ensemble, who all present us with a femininity of their own. What I like best about them is that they stay female, even in action. Which doesn’t mean they stay soft, but which means that they don’t become men all of a sudden (which action chicks in movies tend to do). Y’know, like Lara Croft: she’s basically Indiana Jones with tits.
Yes, that. Whedon’s female characters (and I’m coming at this from strictly a Firefly/Serenity perspective) are often complex and three-dimensional, and have a great deal going on other than wanting a man.
I blame blockbusters for the most part. Most films have developed female characters look at the Best Picture list this year: Winter’s Bone, Kids Are All Right, Inception, Black Swan, King’s Speech, True Grit, and The Fighter. All of those films have well-written women.
It’s the popcorn, stupid movies (read Michael Bay/Sommers/etc.) that don’t bother.
But the popcorn stupid movies make up the majority of Hollywood movies
It’s largely true what you say, but a little more complicated then you might think. I absolutely loved Inception, but like many of Nolan’s films it’s about a clear-thinking, logical man whose plans gets muddled up by an emotional woman.
It’s a subtle thing, but one that manifests itself in a lot of movies, even the “better” ones.
Exactly Max, while Marion Cotillard or Ellen Page’s characters are definitely a step up from many other blockbusters’ eye candy, they aren’t really “complex characters” by any means.
Ellen Page is used for exposition and really could have been played by a male or female actor without significant change. Cotillard’s character is a plot device (aka the source of the conflict), still seen from the male main character’s point of view.
This is a perfect example of what is known as “gendering”. Some concepts and personality traits are always attributed to men or women, who basically get to play them in the movie.
Men are usually logical, thinking, active (as in: they decide what to do) and strong. Women are usually emotional, feeling, passive and weak. This goes very deep, but Nolans movies have this very strongly. Think about Batman (and Harvey Dent) vs. Rachel Dawes, or the two warring magicians vs. the dead wife and Scarlett Johansson.
Not that this means I don’t still love the man’s work. Damn, is he ever good.
A man who dresses up as a bat at night and chases the mentally insane around is a clear-thinking, logical man??
I know it might sound strange, but think about it: Batman is very calculating, and doesn’t let his emotions cary him away. It’s only when Rachel manages to push Harvey over the edge (see: the scene on the bridge where Harvey tortures the insane prisoner) that his plans go awry.
This is a very common motif in all of fiction, so it’s hardly Nolans fault that he uses it. Although it IS his fault that he KEEPS using it, but that’s another discussion.
What continues to interest me is the test in the first video–at least two female characters with names, that speak to each other, and do so about something other than men.
There are a number of films with strong female characters that don’t pass that test–Silence of the Lambs springs to mind. Clarice is a very complex, deep character and a strong character regardless of gender…but does she ever talk to another woman?
The test is an interesting one, but hardly foolproof.
Perhaps some context would help here: ms. Bechdel is a lesbian woman who wrote the comic “Dykes to watch out for” as an antidote to all the comics which basically ignored lesbian women (i.e. all of them). One of the characters in the comic (who was a lesbian woman) stated that she only watched movies that followed that rule. After all, what was there to interest here if it didn’t? It’s like being a straight man and ONLY watching women talking about sexy men. It’s a little tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it’s an interesting way to show how deep this whole problem really goes.
Point taken.
What’s interesting here, of course, is the vast number of films directed specifically toward women that fail in this regard.
Maybe we should start making a list of films that do pass this test.
Way ahead of you.
http://bechdeltest.com/
Do children count when considering this rule? No matter how small the role? If so, The The Towers passes the test, as the characters of Freda and Eowyn exchange words about where Freda’s mother is.
A little technicality, but gotta keep the system honest.
I’ve read that comic. It’s kind of bad, aside from the Rule.
Thought I’d share. I know you’re all dying to hear each and every one of my opinions.
This has been a great and lively discussion. It’s been fun reading everyone’s comments.
It got me to thinking of some of my personal favorite female characters and whether or not they passed the Bechdel Test for women in movies.
Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs. Hmmm, can’t think of another named female character in the film ,so NO GO.
Kathy Bates in Misery. No other females. NO GO.
Keira Knightley in Pride and Prejudice. Not sure if they talk about anything other than men. NO GO.
Frances McDormand in Fargo. No other named female characters. NO GO.
Sigourney Weaver in Aliens. No other named female charcters. NO GO.
Anne Bancroft in The Graduate. NO GO.
Kim Basinger in L.A. Confidential. NO GO.
Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas. NO GO.
Hmmmm, Max may be on to something here.
It was Rick’s ghost posting a comment, that’s why it’s all in italic ahah
That was definitely my ghost. Anne Bancroft in The Graduate? Other than the italics, that was the dead giveaway.
Hmmm. Still in italics. I must still be dead.
You broke the thread!
Newt is a named female character in Aliens and Ripley talks with her frequently, and never about men in the way intended here. Aliens is a go.
Evidently, the italics are my fault–I never closed them in a post above. So… let’s see if that corrects things.
Fixed
Darn. Can’t blame my ghost anymore. Well, Newt was a child, not a full grown woman, so there.
Thanks for the correction Steve! Of course I blame the oversight on my ghost.
I once mentioned on here Natalie Portman’s coming year as a great case study for this. Here we have a well-respected, now Oscar-decorated, actress with her most prolific year in awhile and she plays:
Damsel in distress: Thor
Kickass Chick (and most likely damsel in distress by the third act): Your Highness
Ashton Kutcher’s f***buddy: I forgot the title and prefer to leave it that way.
Simply put, there is a shortage of good roles for good actresses in Hollywood.
Also, not to dogpile the Bechdel test because I think it’s a great starting point in weighing this issue, but “Hall Pass” I think technically passes it.
Charlize Theron wins an Oscar for ‘Monster,’ gets another nomination for ‘North Country,’ then is reduced to playing second fiddle to Will Smith in ‘Hancock.’
Great thought-provoking article, Max, well-done! As a woman of course I care about how women are portrayed in movies. I agree that it should go beyond not portraying the fairer sex as eye candy but actually make the female characters complex and multi-dimensional. Lot of rom-coms are also to blame in that even though they’re largely about women, the protagonists are not portrayed in the best of light. That’s why the best rom-coms I like have strong female characters who are worth rooting for even for the female audience, so they’re far more than a pretty face who long to have a man to complete her life! Thanks for recognizing this and for us viewers to pay attention to and demand more from Hollywood.
Oh, you beautiful Max you. I love feminist articles.
What sucks about actually complaining of this gender inequality is that you have to tiptoe about, apoligizing, so as not to come off as a raging psycho feminazi. It’s all very annoying.
I agree, that women go to see these romcoms because there’s nothing else out. It’s depressingly true.
Screw that, honestly. If you can’t distinguish between feminism (which has it’s roots in marxism of all things) and nazism you don’t deserve to be listened to.
Right? People at my school are fucking liberal with the word. But then, they’re liberal with just ‘nazi’ too.
“Women go to see these romcoms because there’s nothing else out. It’s depressingly true.”
Ok let me first start of by saying, perhaps that’s why you see rom-com’s …. but most women go because they want to see Ashton Kutcher (insert any other leading man) and for the fact they want a date movie and a or girls night out.
Secondly, if you think women are the only people being treated unfairly than I suspect you have taken a blind eye to the entertainment business. Tell me something, what’s the allure of Justin Bieber? Please tell me … I know it’s not is musical ability (which is ok), it’s his atmosphere, his looks, and the high-life that surrounds him. Same goes for Taylor Lautner, Edward Cullen, Zac Efron … they all, though they’re awful actors, get looked at by women as objects. The posters hanging on the teenage girls walls are not out of admiration for their acting, but their looks.
This is again why this article is so great, it divides people and stirs conversation. But perhaps you could tone down the animosity and have a civil conversation. No need for “fuck” and “nazi” around this site.
And for the record I am completely aware of feminism, and it is a vey serious topic … just not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. I mean c’mon, lets calm down, comparing Marxism to Feminism is more than a bit insane.
The thought and conviction towards the two stereotypes go both ways, and for that not to be truly recognized, is a shame.
… Feminism and marxism are actually related. Seriously, that’s not an accusation, it’s just where their roots lie. You have to make the distinction here between the academic practice of Marxism (which assumes that much of the sciences and the humanities are being told through the eyes of the upper classes instead of the working classes, and that this ought to be fixed to give it a little more perspective) and the political side of Marxism (which posits that the power should also be given to the suppressed people). Marxism as an academic school of thought has been enormously influential in academia for the past 50-odd years. That’s not some crazy conspiracy talk, look up the Frankfurter School if you don’t believe me.
I never said it was conspiracy talk … I’m just saying there is not good reason to bring “Marxism” or “Nazism” on a film site. I do believe you, mainly because I’m aware of the connections.
What I don’t understand is how out of everything I wrote you pick out one line, other statements in my comments contained more gravitas and significance, for that matter.
Alright, to address your points one by one:
First off, I only brought up Marxism to point out the ridiculousness of the term “feminazi”, which I didn’t coin and have endless contempt for. When you responded that you felt no need to bring up Marxism, I assumed that you thought I used Marxism as a negative shorthand. I see that I was wrong on that point and I apologize.
Secondly, I only addressed that because I was A. in somewhat of a hurry and B. more or less agreed with the rest of your post. I shall respond to that in the following:
something rom-coms are traditionally very good at is comforting people into the awesomeness of the status quo. Many action movies which feature Americans in foreign countries do this as well: the Americans are there to teach the natives how things are done, a lesson they gladly learn (or stay savage and try to kill them all). Rom-coms are the female equivalent of this. There are some exceptions, but this is a fairly general rule.
And in a way, this is perhaps where the allure lies. After all, teenagers are constantly and desperately searching for what is normal and acceptable (even the “alternative” ones, who just try to fit into another mould). Movies and other cultural products help a lot with this. Justin Bieber is cool, mainly because he just IS. We can hate him all we want, but it hardly changes anything. Dissent is lot easier when you don’t risk social exclusion.
You have to remember that very many people don’t particularly like thinking about movies too much. This is not something that should be held against them: they work very hard to keep everything running smoothly, and they just want to unwind instead of thinking about the symbolism in A Bout de Souffle.
This is a complicated situation without a real start or end. Why people like movies we brand as terrible and misogynist is not just due to poor taste on the side of the general public (geez, that sounds elitist), but also to the fact that people watching movies are more then just faceless puppets of audience. They have lives, in which movies play a role which is probably significantly smaller then in ours.
Great post. I heard about the Bechdel test a while back, and it’s a created an interesting new view on how I look at films (in part, it really doesn’t contribute much into my opinion).
The thing is where I think this all boils down to is money. White, heterosexual males watch the most films. Most of the want to watch films with guys like themselves hooking up with vapid shells of women (haha did that sound sexist? it’s true though). The movie’s that sell are the movies that get made by big companies due to their money-making process. The movies are made less complex so more people can understand them and the characters are made to correspond to the people that are most likely to go and see that film.
I bet independent film wouldn’t have that same ratio of 71-29 when it comes to characters and big budget films would have even less females. It’s usually a cast of guys with one hot chick. That one hot chick represents all the women in the film, even though occasionally you see the secretary or waitress that’s a woman.
Film is in general a male dominated area; women aren’t even usually encouraged to watch that many films. Whenever I show my filmcollection to people they always say that I have such a ‘guy-taste’ in film because I like sci-fi, thriller, drama, documentary, comedy, action, psychological thriller, crime film adventure, war, western, horror and not the only genre that’s the “female genre” romantic comedy (romance) (I watch these too! Sometimes…) and even musical is borderline (nowadays usually associated as the “gay genre” take that to whatever you wish).
I don’t know what the statistics is for people attending filmschools, acting schools and such but I would speculate that the technical side of things is more maledominated and acting is pretty equal.
I’m not afraid to admit that as a woman I’m often speculative as to seeing a female-directed film, especially if it is a drama, since I often feel that if it has been made by a bigger company it has an agenda to please female viewers, therefore compromising quality of the film (as it would do if it was ment only for men). That’s why I like directors like Kathryn Bigelow that define gender stereotypes, and Sofia Coppola who does films from a female perspective without pushing a feminist agenda.
It’s a complicated matter, but I believe more than gender it’s driven by money.
It’s actually a misconception that guys watch more movies than gals. Last year, 55% of all ticket sales went to women.
Also, the big blockbuster movies go down to the most common denominator for one reason: Foreign box office. Not saying people abroad are stupid-er, but for a movie to be successful on foreign soil, compromises have to be made so the experience stays relatively even for all. (One of the reason comedies have such a hard time being successful on the foreign box office)
I’d still say that even though guys and girls might go to the movies the same amount (and where I’m from it is definitely the case that men go to movies more, and initiate going to the movies more), the amount of films they watch at home must be and is a lot more. People that tend to collect (buy) dvd’s are more often than not guys. In America going to the cinema is very much a date-scenario, and this affects the gender distribution as well.
I don’t really believe in your foreign box office theory; it’s not like complicated tv-dramas are less popular “abroad” (I’m assuming this equals mostly Europe) then they would be in the States, it’s usually the other way around. Everyone I know has watched Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos etc. but nobody watches shows like Two And A Half Men (which I would put down in the dumbed-down to reach a wider audience category as it is apparently the most watched comedy in American television).
Money is one thing, of course. But something that’s often overlooked is that filmmakers don’t just appear out of thin air. They have heroes of their own. Just look at how many directors working now are inspired by Hitchcock, Hawks, Curtis and the likes. Their particular brand of stories, which these new souls take over, perhaps just isn’t a perfect fit for interesting female characters. Chris Nolan is a good example of this. So just making a commerce-indie divide as far as women in movies go might be cutting corners a little too much.
Filmmakers that are supported by big studios don’t appear out of thin air of course not, but they are supported due to the fact that they represent a model that has already been known to be succesful i.e. Hitchcock – Nolan scenario.
There must be other types of filmmakers out there (at least I hope so) and a lot of directors working today have started out working in indpendent cinema. But to continue to make those types of films with big budgets is going to be a challenge if not an impossibility.
I’m not saying that there isn’t traditional gender divides in independent movies and that blockbusters can’t have female characters, I’m just saying money is a big part of why certain types of films are distributed and picked up by movie studies more often. And that is usually always about money. No-one in their right mind is going to invest 200 million in some exploration of the female condition in 1930′s South America (I know this is crude but it’s true).
That said, I am usually a big fan of the films that have next to none female presence for some reason, and I usually do skip the DRASTIC DRAMADRAMAS that go deep into human emotion and complicated feeling and ISSUES (Why I’m associating this with women beats me hahaha).
I’m often just looking to be entertained, which is something most people are trying to get out of the experience of ‘going to the movies’, hence big productions are usually ment to cater to that audience.
Emotions and stuff are generally associated with women. It’s called gendering, and it’s part of the problem.
This is really getting too intellectual for the scope of this website ahah
But in all seriousness, love the great discussion going on here! Keep it coming folks.
If I may add my 2¢ and plug Molly Haskell’s “From Reverence to Rape:The Treatment of Women in the Movies.” I first read this book in high school and it is almost a “bible” for me when it comes to referring to women in cinema. Granted it is a little dated (I believe additional editions have been published).
But it is very interesting to note that during the days of the “women’s films” of the 30′s and 40′s the paternalism definitely is there but the representation of women as professionals and 3-dimensional characters was there – you would think that we would have been able to keep that going.
It is almost as if the sexual revolution of the 1960′s has been turned on its head and given way to exploitation and marginalization of the portrayal of women in film.
In any regard, take a look at that book I mentioned.
BTW someone mentioned “The Snake Pit” – that is one of my absolute all time favorites!
Actually, I dislike the use of Whedon here. Whedon’s female characters, for the most part, act like men, and that seems to be the defining factor that leads to their “strong” identification. They quip, they crack wise, and when the going gets tough they kick everybody’s asses. I’m not even kidding when I say that you could probably pretty seamlessly gender-swap River and Zoe both without altering the rest of the story (assuming that Wash also gets gender-swapped); while I admire Whedon’s proclivity for creating female characters that can defeat entire legions of male characters with cool looking kung fu (though frankly think it borders on “creepy obsession” at times), outside of Buffy he doesn’t concern himself or his art with examining gender roles in any substantive, non-superficial sense, and even Buffy falls to the “girls acting like guys” trap at times.
This is not at all to say that women can’t kick ass, but let them be women. Look at Helen Parr in The Incredibles– her gender actually matters in context with plot and narrative, but she’s just as capable of battling evil-doers as her husband, who exists as the pinnacle of the male physical ideal. So while it’s wonderful that artists want to take the role of action hero and fashion it into that of an action heroine, considerations have to be taken so that these roles don’t become gender-blind. Whatever you might believe, erasing the details that make men and women different is kind of a bad thing.
I wrote an essay on Pixar and gender a long, long time ago that was mostly well-received but caught some flack on a poetry blog because, according to the author, “if you want to champion female characters in art, make your own instead of telling other people to do it for you.” Suffice to say I don’t think much of that person or their logic, but this is a topic that’s near and dear to me as well. Great to see it being explored in broader terms on other blogs!
Whedon is hardly perfect of course, but I think it would be fair to say that the female characters in Firefly are at least as well-rounded as the male ones (which, sadly, is quite an accomplishment). But I agree: just making women physically fit isn’t the solution at all. However, I do think that Zoe is really a female character, not just a guy with tits. I can’t really describe why, it’s just a feeling I have.
The Incredibles is interesting on that level. After all, the family is very traditional: the man is the centre, and the woman sort of obeys him. Pixar generally has good characters all-around, but I wouldn’t exactly call them champions for great woman characters. Y’know, Helen is introduced as a liberated woman, and then gets married within like five minutes.
I disagree with the Incredibles analysis; Helen doesn’t simply obey what Bob tells her, and most of their marital and familial conflicts are centered around an established need for both husband and wife to be a team. (Which is maybe why Bob has such a hard time with married life at first– after all, he’s always worked alone.) In fact their relationship dynamic is actually reverse to the traditional male-dominated one, with Helen being the more authoritative figure while Bob is the more mellow of the two. Helen dictates the rules and tries to keep the household together; Bob sort of works opposite to how she’s trying to parent in between his nostalgia sessions with Sam Jackson.
I’m somewhat baffled that Helen’s decision to marry Bob could be seen as undermining her status as a “liberated woman”. I think that actually encourages that draconian concept of marriage in which woman must be subservient to man by acknowledging its dominance, when the modern interpretation of marriage should be one in which marriage just signifies a bond and commit between two people to one another, a two-way street of dedication and respect rather than a one-way street. As far as Pixar’s track record is concerned, many of their female characters, minor and otherwise, are pretty positive ones– Colette, Ellie, Jessie, and of course Helen and even Violet, as a few examples. Not that the company hasn’t had a few more stereotypical females (Celia in Monster’s Inc), but generally I think they do well.
I actually agree that for the most part Firefly‘s women are well-rounded, but River and Zoe don’t strike me as being especially feminine and their roles could have been played by men without messing around with the overall story too much. Inara might be the best-realized woman on the show; I like Zoe a lot (I have Gina Torres’ autograph in my home somewhere), but the most noticeable moment in the show where her femininity is highlighted (for me anyways) is in “War Stories”, which in context with the episode isn’t especially flattering.
Analyzing whether movies are misogynist or not is always tricky business, and I mostly went at it on a hunch. I’d have to closely re-examine all those movies to find out, which I’m not really in the mood for. Suffice to say that both Pixar and Whedon at least have interesting female characters, which is a lot more then most filmmakers can claim.
I’m wondering, what does acting like a “guy” actually mean?
When i see a female character wise crack or defeat somebody, i don’t think they’re acting like “men.”
I think when a female character watches football, or eats steak, or anything that is not traditionally ‘feminine’ (according to Da Movies), it’s meant to be shorthand for ‘just one of the guys’. But there’s a difference between making a strong female character and writing a male character and casting it as female. Or did someone else already say that?
That’s more or less what I’m getting at, Ripley. “Strong female character” and “male character cast with a female performer” are two different things.
It’s a little complicated, and the dividing line is sometimes really thin. But Lara Croft is a good example: she really doesn’t do anything feminine. She’s basically just a macho guy, but with tits. Zoe from Firefly also is a good fighter, but she has some personality traits which are much more correspondent to actual human females.
Whedon, I think, was at his most fetishizing (not saying he’s a fetishist, but it sometimes borders) in the beginning of Dollhouse. It started as a mission-of-the-week show that was literally about taking the empty husks of attractive people and implanting them with whatever personality you wanted. Then, of course, it got crazy badass and created some pretty damn good female characters, like DeWitt (Olivia Williams has the whole vaguely-boozy, shit-are-you-still-talking? thing down beautifully by the end) and Sierra (who was tragic without being two-dimensional misery generator, and got her revenge at the end, and was maybe the best character). Eliza Dushku was terribly annoying, but I could ignore it when they had such a great cast. God, I miss that show.
An interesting comparison here (I think) is Whedon versus Tarantino, since both often create that female asskicker archetype. I often get the impression from Tarantino’s female characters–especially The Bride from the Kill Bill movies–that he’s essentially creating his own masturbation fantasy.
I don’t get that from Whedon. I think his goal is to make his female characters actual women–to give them actual personality beyond their “womaniness.” Each one of them is a truly realized character with hopes, goals, fears, dreams, etc.
And also in Whedon’s defense, several of his characters aren’t particularly male. Simon and Book, for instance, don’t scream “male” to me the way Mal or Jayne do. They are characters that simply happen to be male, much like Zoe happens to be female. Perhaps the best compliment here is that Zoe could be just as easily seen as male in many ways–she doesn’t have to be female because she doesn’t fit neatly into a female stereotype.
The Bride is actually an interesting specimen. After all, her entire quest for revenge is fueled mostly because she has been robbed of her child. Remember how Bill also killed her fiancee, who we hear nothing about ever again? The entire movie is driven by frustated motherhood, which is quite unique in it’s own right. The ass-kicker characters tend to be much more one-dimensional, like Angelina Jolie in Wanted or Trinity in The Matrix.
Much as I dislike Kill Bill and generally think Uma Thurman is one of the worst things about both films, I respect the hell out of Tarantino for making an action film that’s propelled forward by vengeful motherhood. If the movies don’t tickle me, they at least contain fully represented female characters in action-oriented roles.
This discussion is still going strong! I’ve been enjoying it.
I wonder who people out there think are the very best autuers/directors/writers who create fully dimensional/interesting/compelling female characters? It’s probably not Whedon or Tarantino although they do have their strengths.
What about Darren Aronofsky? Pedro Almodovar? Ang Lee? Jane Campion? I don’t know. Just throwing some names out there.
I like to think Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon-ho make decent female characters. Not all of them are strong, and a lot of them are batshit insane, but not more so than many of their male characters. Thirst is debateable, though.
I’d have to go with Sofia Coppola and Miranda July. Nothing quite beats a woman’s touch, I guess.
Who’s Miranda July?
Miranda July is the beautiful lady who made this:
http://vimeo.com/1976212
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-5PLQgcSA
And this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415978/
She’s absolutely awesome, and probably the only artist working in what they call “multimedia” I can stand.
HOLY SHIT I watched that Wolphin DVD months ago, she made that movie? It made me cry so very hard.
Danny Boyle–He has very strong and fully developed women characters in both 28 Days Later and Sunshine.
I’ll defer to others on some of his other films.
Almodavar would top my list, although it would be nice to see a little more variety other than just Cruz.
Claire Denis is another one.
Amy Heckerling, Penny Marshall, Nicole Holofcener, Mira Nair, Debra Granik, Sofia Coppolla, Julie Dash…
I’ll have to look up some of these names and check them out.
How’s about Mike Leigh? Happy-Go-Lucky, Secrets and Lies, Vera Drake, Another Year, Career Girls, etc., etc. Tons of great, quirky, nuanced and memorable female characters in his movies. It could be in the way he works, where he allows the actress to evolve and create the character themselves through a very intense rehearsal process.
I also like Sarah Polley. Loved Away From Her. Hope she comes out with another film soon.
Yeah, good one. And let’s not forget Hayao Miyazaki: although his characters are most often young girls, he really hits the mark with them.
Trackbacks