Gender reverse?

[koganbot]

Finally saw The Hunger Games.* Had the thought that it would not work to gender reverse the two main roles. By "not work" I mean "not work for me as a viewer of a current American or Western European movie or TV show, as opposed to in life where it may well come reversed and 'work' as such." And "not work for me" doesn't mean I wouldn't accept it

Comments

[koganbot]

Rue would be the girl in the fridge, though I don't know if that's a good way to look at it. That is, I don't know if "woman in the refrigerator" is, in general, the right concept. I think that, at least potentially (depending on what you mean by it), it conflates two different roles: the Damsel In Distress, on the one hand, and Someone Dies Helping The Hero, on the other. Except I don't think the term "Damsel In Distress" is all that accurate, either. For there to be a plot, something has to be imperiled, preferably a number of things, from the hero's psyche and strength of character and moral sense on the one hand to womenfolk and community and civilization on the other. And while the latter tend to vaguely code "feminine" in the American mind, the specific characters (not to mention actors) who embody it don't have to all be female. But a crucial plot feature (I'm thinking of westerns and action/adventure in general) will often be that, early on in the story, good people are threatened or killed owing to the hero's misjudgment or inaction or lack of commitment (all of which might be owing to his reluctance to kill). And then, later in the story, Someone Dies Helping The Hero, which has a dual role: to make the bad guys credible and the risk feel real, on the one hand, and, as you say, to provide further impetus and emotional turmoil to the main character.

So good people do have to die to make the hero more interesting - that's built into the western and into action/adventure - but I don't think this imperative is as inherently sexist as your way of stating it seems to imply (or as I infer from it, anyway). Or, more accurately, the sexism (and racism) are that in the twentieth century the lead role in an action/adventure was almost always given to a white male, whereas the endangered citizenry and the retinue of hero's helpers could include women, Mexicans, Indians, eccentrics, and, as the century went on, blacks. And the citizenry and retinue provide the pool from which the screenwriters select their victims. But it isn't that the screenwriters are going, "Hey, let's find a likable black woman," say, "and kill her to make the white male protagonist more interesting," but rather: "Here's the main character. Here's whom we surround him with. And we need to kill some of them." It's not that your point is wrong (wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers do get killed and imperiled), it's that it's part of something broader: for the sake of emotional and aesthetic richness, a lot of guys get popped too.

[I've only addressed the first part of your sentence, and I'm not even done with that. I haven't yet brought in social class, for instance - well, I did, but that was via the weird, cryptic word "eccentrics."]