I'll get back to you on Captain America, I'm seeing it on Monday.
Thor is a bad example, even though it does actually pass the test near the beginning. I thought these two women held a lot of promise, they start out well, but by halfway through the movie they have transformed into women who just hang around waiting for Thor to do things. And the love story just didn't seem to be earned, didn't seem they had the right opportunities to fall in love.
Harry Potter does seem like a good case. I have read accusations that it doesn't do enough, coming from a female writer - the title character is male, and apart from Hermione, the female students see pretty vapid,(Luna, the Patil twins) which makes Hermione look even better in comparison. I think it may be an overly unfair to complain about the things those books get wrong, when the books get so much that is right.
Pirates - not sure I'm ever going want to see that movie. I really didn't like 2 or 3. I have read complains that the female women develop sudden fighting skills from nowhere... between movies 3 and this one, which is kind of unrealistic.
Another great female character from movies this year is the one from 'Source Code'. She was intelligent, resourceful, and showed initiative.
In terms of the test, I thought of that too, that there might just not be time in a 2 hour movie to have that kind of dialogue between two women. But then I asked, well, how many scenes do we get where two men talk about something not related to the female love interest. And the answer is lots. So I think the question does show up a major discrepancy.
I do think that the representation of women is much better than it used to be, that we do get some interesting female characters coming through. I also think it could be taken further than it is at the moment.
>But then I asked, well, how many scenes do we get where two men talk about something not related to the female love interest.
Depends on who the main character is. If the main character is the girl, then the guy's dialogue will be limited. If it is the guy, then the girl's more likely to be limited.
There are quite a few very clever women in Harry Potter, and Luna is A) a really appealing character and B) no more loony that her dad, who is not a girl.
Also (and especially in the book continuity) Luna is right surprisingly often about the things she seems loony about. I find that makes it a lot harder to criticise the character based on vapidity.
One of my favourite moments during a Harry Potter RPG session: "Accio Luna Lovegood!" See, I needed to rescue Luna, and I had this special wand that powered up my spells to do more than they normally could, and I thought, "Why not try it?"
My Hogwarts RPG character is a student when Luna is grown up. She is teaching me to protect my mind...like Harry learned from Snape. My character is entirely pathetic at this. Luna is such a great teacher. So patience, so loony, and so good at finding the most embarrassing thought...and yet she doesn't care about it. My character adores her.
The other thing that bugs me about women who complain about women in stories is: all those girls who only talk about boys? I know those girls....I know real people, sweet ones who I like a lot, who act just like that. I used to be one. Why shouldn't women in movies be like real women? Why do they all have to be "role models"?
Some movies call for rolemodel characters, and I love those characters. But others call for more realistic characters and, frankly, as a young woman ALL I thought about was boys. I was smart. I was clever. I was top of my class when I wanted to be, and all I cared about was boys. And I don't think that is bad. It's why romance outsells every other kind of literature there is.
It bugs me that the modern idea about women seems to be that we can't be women...can't be feminine, can't care about the kind of things we care about...which, basically, for the most part is...boys and children. Sure there are lots of women--tons of them--who care about other things, but for the majority, love and family is still what we care about--it is what we talk about in real life when we get together, it is what is important in life...so, why can't we be portrayed talking about the things that are really importan to us?
That doesn't mean that female characters can't also be clever, smart, quick as a whip and save the day. Some of the most intelligent and resourceful and brave people I know are moms. I know quite a few moms of special needs kids. There's a reason their organization is called "Mom's From Hell." They have it really rough, and they are as courageous as they come. But, when they go to the movies, they want to see romance. They want to see two girls talking about why the hero is a hunk...for exactly the same reason that guys want to see something blow up.
The other side of it is that men are portrayed just as goofily as women, just as unrealistically in their own way...because stories require that things be simplified. But people don't complain about that, because they don't have an agenda about it.
That is a good point. I can think of some female leads, but none of them are recent. I wonder if it has anything to do with stuff like girls go to cartoons with boys, but boys don't like to watch cartoons with girls. (A problem Disney struggles with, since it is working its princess franchise.)
It is a shame that the Wonder Woman movie fell through. A good Wonder Woman movie would be really nice. The cartoons did the character very well.
I think TV has some good female roles. I haven't seen very much of Fringe, but Olivia seemed really smart, and I liked the women in Firefly.
This is only slightly related, but John and I were just talking about the difference between Keira Knightly playing the pirate girl in the pirate movies...the girl that the Ninja review called "A manly version of Orlando Bloom." and the same actress playing Liz Bennett in the Joe Wright verion of Pride and Prejudice, which is my favorite version of the story.
In the first role, the actress showed almost no range of character and expression. But as Liz-whether not you agree with her intepretation of the performance (some like it, others I know did not.)--she showed tremendous skill and range of character. I could hardly believe it was the same character.
Not sure what that says about movies and female roles, but I found it interesting.
I thought Keira Knightley is a great actress, and she's one of the best things about the first Pirates movie (though perhaps not a good role model). She was also the best thing about that Pride and Prejudice movie... but I really disliked the script. Much prefer the 1995 BBC version.
Oh, I liked her! I just thought she wasn't a very three dimensional character. Characters can be quite two dimensional and still be charming. She was brash and fun. I just thought her range of acting was much more impressive as Liz Bennett.
I also think she might have been given a slightly larger range of things to do in the first pirate movie than in the later ones.
Thor is a bad example, even though it does actually pass the test near the beginning. I thought these two women held a lot of promise, they start out well, but by halfway through the movie they have transformed into women who just hang around waiting for Thor to do things. And the love story just didn't seem to be earned, didn't seem they had the right opportunities to fall in love.
Harry Potter does seem like a good case. I have read accusations that it doesn't do enough, coming from a female writer - the title character is male, and apart from Hermione, the female students see pretty vapid,(Luna, the Patil twins) which makes Hermione look even better in comparison. I think it may be an overly unfair to complain about the things those books get wrong, when the books get so much that is right.
Pirates - not sure I'm ever going want to see that movie. I really didn't like 2 or 3. I have read complains that the female women develop sudden fighting skills from nowhere... between movies 3 and this one, which is kind of unrealistic.
Another great female character from movies this year is the one from 'Source Code'. She was intelligent, resourceful, and showed initiative.
In terms of the test, I thought of that too, that there might just not be time in a 2 hour movie to have that kind of dialogue between two women. But then I asked, well, how many scenes do we get where two men talk about something not related to the female love interest. And the answer is lots. So I think the question does show up a major discrepancy.
I do think that the representation of women is much better than it used to be, that we do get some interesting female characters coming through. I also think it could be taken further than it is at the moment.
Reply
Depends on who the main character is. If the main character is the girl, then the guy's dialogue will be limited. If it is the guy, then the girl's more likely to be limited.
There are quite a few very clever women in Harry Potter, and Luna is A) a really appealing character and B) no more loony that her dad, who is not a girl.
Reply
Also (and especially in the book continuity) Luna is right surprisingly often about the things she seems loony about. I find that makes it a lot harder to criticise the character based on vapidity.
Reply
Reply
One of my favourite moments during a Harry Potter RPG session: "Accio Luna Lovegood!" See, I needed to rescue Luna, and I had this special wand that powered up my spells to do more than they normally could, and I thought, "Why not try it?"
Reply
My Hogwarts RPG character is a student when Luna is grown up. She is teaching me to protect my mind...like Harry learned from Snape. My character is entirely pathetic at this. Luna is such a great teacher. So patience, so loony, and so good at finding the most embarrassing thought...and yet she doesn't care about it. My character adores her.
Reply
Reply
Some movies call for rolemodel characters, and I love those characters. But others call for more realistic characters and, frankly, as a young woman ALL I thought about was boys. I was smart. I was clever. I was top of my class when I wanted to be, and all I cared about was boys. And I don't think that is bad. It's why romance outsells every other kind of literature there is.
It bugs me that the modern idea about women seems to be that we can't be women...can't be feminine, can't care about the kind of things we care about...which, basically, for the most part is...boys and children. Sure there are lots of women--tons of them--who care about other things, but for the majority, love and family is still what we care about--it is what we talk about in real life when we get together, it is what is important in life...so, why can't we be portrayed talking about the things that are really importan to us?
That doesn't mean that female characters can't also be clever, smart, quick as a whip and save the day. Some of the most intelligent and resourceful and brave people I know are moms. I know quite a few moms of special needs kids. There's a reason their organization is called "Mom's From Hell." They have it really rough, and they are as courageous as they come. But, when they go to the movies, they want to see romance. They want to see two girls talking about why the hero is a hunk...for exactly the same reason that guys want to see something blow up.
The other side of it is that men are portrayed just as goofily as women, just as unrealistically in their own way...because stories require that things be simplified. But people don't complain about that, because they don't have an agenda about it.
Reply
When was the last time we saw a female lead in one of these flicks though? A female lead would make it very easy for a movie to pass the test.
Reply
Reply
Reply
It is a shame that the Wonder Woman movie fell through. A good Wonder Woman movie would be really nice. The cartoons did the character very well.
I think TV has some good female roles. I haven't seen very much of Fringe, but Olivia seemed really smart, and I liked the women in Firefly.
Reply
In the first role, the actress showed almost no range of character and expression. But as Liz-whether not you agree with her intepretation of the performance (some like it, others I know did not.)--she showed tremendous skill and range of character. I could hardly believe it was the same character.
Not sure what that says about movies and female roles, but I found it interesting.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I also think she might have been given a slightly larger range of things to do in the first pirate movie than in the later ones.
Reply
Leave a comment