Musings on gender roles and "strong" female characters
So I saw Jason Segel interviewed the other day about The 5 Year Engagement and I found it very interesting when the idea was brought up that he was essentially playing the “girls role” in the film. They were talking about a scene with him and Emily Blunt in bed together, and that his character wanted hers to stay, or something - and that this, normally, is the woman’s role; wanting to cuddle while the man is usually not keen on the cuddling, or whatever. I haven’t seen the film.
But Jason defended this by saying, essentially that he doesn’t see anything wrong with this and that while gender roles were not reversing, they were becoming more equalised. I actually also heard them interviewed on radio where a similar point was brought up (what is it with us Australians?) He said that people seemed to have an issue about his character having to give up a job or move or something for Emily’s character’s job, but pointed out that if it was the woman moving for the man’s job it would be a non-issue. Emily also indicted that she’d had several people complain to her that her character was “selfish” and “career-driven” and she said something along the lines that it was essentially because she “was the girl.”
Anyways, so I have sort of fallen in love with Jason Segel for this (to be fair, this started with The Muppets, and his loud enthusiastic clapping when Jim Henson was mentioned at the Oscars, but anyway) but it got me thinking about whether he was right. Whether gender roles are becoming more fluid (as I think they should be). I think this is tied in with the “strong female character” concept as allowing women to be the heroes of their own story.
Just to be safe: spoilers for The Hunger Games, The Lady and Avengers.
Project interview here: Relevant quote at 2:54 , also an funny moment regarding the word “rooting” (and the different Australian meaning thereof) at around 1:45.
Click to viewIt’s often been repeated that JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter as a male character because she wanted both boys and girls to read her books, and boys wouldn’t read about “Harriet Potter.” Girls are brought up to identify with stories about boys and girls, but boys are brought up that they need only be interested in stories about boys. A male character is the base - both girls and boys are encouraged to identify with male characters, but generally boys are not encouraged to identify with female characters. And yes, I am massively generalising here. I know that.
This carries over into adulthood - it’s generally accepted these days that a lot of women like action films or comic book movies or movies almost exclusively about men. But a man who genuinely wants to see a “chick flick” (which, really is derogatory term which is used to identify any film with primarily female characters) must be gay, or a wimp. He must be “dragged” to see it by his girlfriend/wife. Even a film like The Help, for example, which not a romcom but I think would still not be considered worthwhile for men to see, because it’s a “girl’s movie” I stress that I’m not saying men don’t enjoy these films - I know many do. What I’m saying is that they’re not encouraged to identify with female protagonists like women are encouraged to identify with male protagonists.
I feel like I should mention Bridesmaids, but I haven’t seen it, so I can’t comment. But I’ve heard that it was fairly successful even with men, so that’s encouraging.
Which is why I was pleasantly surprised with the success of The Hunger Games - the theatre was probably about a half and half split - the guys I know all wanted to see it. I don’t know if it disproves the Harriet Potter theory, as I don’t know if a lot of boys have read the books, but they certainly didn’t seem concerned about seeing a film with a female main character. And Katniss wasn’t even wearing leather! Yay, sensible clothing!
I had an interesting conversation with my sister the other day about The Hunger Games. She said that she preferred Gale over Peeta and that’s fine, because mileage varies. But when we were discussing it, she mentioned that she didn’t like Peeta because she thought he was a wimp who didn’t actually do anything and had to be “saved by a girl.” Whereas Gale was more “manly” and that he “grabbed [Katniss] and kissed her” rather than just “sooking that she didn’t love him” (like Peeta did, apparently.)
Now, I wouldn’t say that my sister is a person who subscribes to traditional gender roles and she likes a good kick-ass female character as much as the rest of us but I found her reaction interesting. One of the guys I saw the HG movie with essentially complained that Peeta was a wuss that hadn’t done anything the whole film, but I suppose hearing the same reaction from a girl surprised me. I guess I would expect that sort of reaction from the guy in question (self-conscious about masculinity) but never expected it from my sister.
David Stratton (from At the Movies) made a comment about how “teenage girls” would flock to see the HG movie and only gave it 1 ½ stars while giving Mirror, Mirror 3 ½. I agree wholeheartedly with David regarding handheld cameras but was pissed at him for this - only teenage girls? Because it has a female lead? He didn’t state this but the inference was there. And I was waiting for Margaret, who usually bemoans poorly-written, simpering and unrealistic female characters, to at least applaud the film for such an interesting central, female character, but nothing.
It made me wonder about the absolute conditioning regarding gender roles that we’re essentially brought up with in entertainment.
A man is only worthy of a woman’s love if he’s a traditional hero swooping in to save the day. A male character who is essentially a negotiator, a calming influence and who enjoys artistic pursuits such as painting (what could be considered feminine attributes) could never be credible as the romantic lead because he is somehow less of a man. Sidekick, yes, hero, no. Because it’s far more heroic and manly to hunt and be angry and be a physical force. And this is not about Peeta v Gale, and I am certainly not suggesting that preferring Gale to Peeta is wrong or negative or anything like that. I just find the lack of worth ascribed to certain characters with what may be considered feminine attributes interesting to think about.
I actually quite enjoyed the gender reverse (if you want to look at it that way) in Hunger Games. While I didn’t love Katniss all of the time (and this was perhaps the result of the first-person narrative, which I dislike, rather than her actual characterisation) I love that she was given such a strength of character and that the love-triangle, such that it was, was often on the backburner. Her attitude of “I’ve got more important things to think about than boyfriends” was rather refreshing - I love that the books have been so popular and that young girls reading the series have got such a complex female lead character to explore. I also liked that Peeta was essentially given the “female” role - I wouldn’t say he was damsel in distress, but he was allowed to be the person who got saved and (in the narrative) not looked down upon because of it. So many other times the strong female character, even if she is the lead, must be either put back in her place by virtue of a rescue from the love interest male character, or else the love interest make character must save her to prove that he “deserves her.”
It would have been easy for Peeta to pull off some kind of great heroic rescue at the end of Mockingjay, but he didn’t, and I like that Collins had that restraint. Katniss was able to realise her love for him because he complements her, not because he proved himself some dashing knight in shining armour.
Speaking of love, I saw the film The Lady the other day - it was only just released in cinemas here. If you haven’t heard of it, it tells the story of Aung San Suu Kai and the struggle for democracy in Burma (a woefully inadequate description - I really do recommend the film, though, trailer below.)
It also portrays an incredible love story between Suu (the wonderful Michelle Yeoh) and her husband Michael Aris (an Englishman played by my absolute favourite David Thewlis.) I know they were somewhat limited in terms of characterisation, considering it’s based on actual people and events, but Suu is just such a beautiful and strong female character. She doesn’t wear leather, she doesn’t know kung fu, she doesn’t make clever quips or beat guys up to show how capable she is - but she is an incredible force of quiet strength and courage.
Meanwhile, the husband, Michael, essentially plays the traditional “wife” role of supportive spouse, helping behind the scenes and this is never once questioned or judged by the film. We’re not encouraged to think of Suu as selfish or blame her for putting a cause above her family, and if this were another movie, or a fictional story, I’m sure we would be.
There is one scene in the film where soldiers surround her house in Burma with what looks like to intention to arrest or kill her. She very calmly wakes up her sleeping teenage sons, sits on the bed and tells them, without fuss or panic, the situation and how to act. Imo, that’s strength. And then, many years later, she’s still in Burma under house arrest and her husband and sons are in England. They’ve been refused visas to visit Burma, and haven’t seen her for three years. Michael by this time is dying of cancer, but while she is free to leave Burma and return to England to be with him, they know she would never be allowed back in, essentially making the entire struggle for nothing. While she is devastated (there’s a beautifully heartbreaking scene where she reads a letter from him) she remains strong and defiant and does not leave. I think it’s rare to see this (and of course again, real events!) - usually the female role is to “follow her heart” and choose love/family over everything else. The courage of actually staying true to your convictions because some things are more important is nice to see in a female character.
I can’t say enough how much I loved this film, and how moving I found it. Heroics isn’t all about action.
And I don’t want to discount butt-kicking heroines - I like female action heroes, for sure. But they don’t have the monopoly on “strong female character.”
I would also bring up Isabelle in Hugo, who I thought was a wonderful female character. She’s a book-lover, a would-be adventurer and actually, much more interesting than main character Hugo. Such a positive character for young girls to see in movies.
I also have to mention Avengers, because, well, it was awesome and I actually didn’t mind the female representation. I don’t like Scarlett Johansson and actually think she’s a horrible actress but I didn’t mind Black Widow as a character. In the scene with Loki, I thought, okay, here we go, typical closed-off female action hero lets her emotions get in the way and compromises everything, but then the reveal that she was playing him the whole time? Loved it. Great scene, great validation for the character. I also rather enjoyed Robin Cobie Smulders as Agent Hill - she wasn’t given a great depth of character (in this film anyway) but I liked her no-nonsense attitude.
Of course, Black Widow was in a catsuit the whole time and I don’t know why Pepper Potts was wearing those teeny tiny denim shorts (wasn’t she cold up on that roof?) But you can’t have everything.
TL;DR - I think it’s been a pretty good year for female characters and things are looking up for male and female characters to just be written as characters, rather than limited by the “role” of their gender. I’m looking forward to Brave, and hoping Pixar can rise above the rebellious princess trope, although the vitriol directed at the film from certain quarters is somewhat troubling.