The Legitimacy of "Love Interests" In Plot

[saeva]

Over here ataniell93 talks about love interests, canon, and female characters. The post has spoilers for potential plot developments in Supernatural, to warn anyone who might want to click, but you really don't need to read the post to understand what I'm objecting to. About one third in ataniell93 says this and this about says it all: "New female character? Awesome.

Comments

[kattahj]

I used Batman Begins because it's brilliant, and because the film itself is new. That the concept is old I don't see as that important, since the same is true of a lot of stories turned into film, and adaptations do bring in their own storylines. Rachel is, as far as I can tell, not in the comics in the first place, so there's no particular reason to make her a damsel-in-distress. Nor is there any particular reason to include only male characters from the ones who were in the comics, or to pretend that the death of a mother is completely insignificant compared to the death of a father. For that matter, one could ask why "male" stories are repeatedly turned into high-concept films in a way "female" stories are not.

As for Sin City, I found it repulsive on so many levels (while still good on others) that the fact that all women run around naked in it seems like a very minor thing in comparison. A History of Violence, perhaps? It's more down-to-earth and realistic, while still having men doing all the important bits.

I'm not sure what qualifications are needed for a film to be a "good" example, truth be told. Are historical stories (say, Pirates of the Carbbean), excempt, the same as adaptations?

[saeva]

With Batman, it isn't just that the concept is old but that the entire mythology, down to who dies and who's a mentor and who's an ally, was established a long time ago. Bruce Wayne traditionally focused more on his father's death than his mother's. You see the same thing popping up in Smallville, which at least attempts to address it the longer the show goes on (though not always terribly well).

In terms of examples: A good example would be one produced in modern times (within the last five to ten years given how much different the world is from 1997 where the internet was still up and coming), not based on a mythology that was established before modern times (so, yes, period pieces and comic books adaptions based on comics from 40s are bad examples), that show the same sort of disregard and/or blatant sexism towards women without addressing it as a problem within the contextual source.

An example of this would be Doctor Who. Life On Mars gets a pass because it's intentionally portraying racism and sexism within the time period the story is set and making a point of it. Doctor Who is not but still portrays many of the same attitudes. However, Doctor Who has problems across the board in terms of plot, production, etc, and thus isn't truly a good example. It's just an example of where blatant sexism goes virtually unaddressed by the writers and fans alike. (Though given that DW's emphasis is on time travel even it's an iffy choice.)

What made me originally start on this subject was that, oh, about six years ago now I used a book by Otto Rank as a source for a paper. The book was Modern Education, the subject of developmental psychology, and one of the first sentences in the book was that women, of course, being of weaker mind and moral standing are not to be held to the same standards as men in education. This essay was considered a brilliant work during it's time and that was on the first page. The rest of the essay was very little different.

You wouldn't see something like that published now without controversy, let alone be considered brilliant by the mainstream. Oh, there'd still be people who'd agree but they'd been seen as extremists or fundamentalists. They'd be seen as a vocal, somewhat unbalanced minority the way the Duggar family (http://www.duggarfamily.com/) are seen as a joke.

And that's the difference in media too. You can't judge things created sixty years ago, or thirty years ago, or even fifteen years ago (Cosby's, anyone?) by the same standards without accounting for when they were developed and what was mainstream then. Well, you can, but I don't think it qualifies as a good example to talk about what's being created now.

- Andrea.

[kattahj]

With Batman, it isn't just that the concept is old but that the entire mythology, down to who dies and who's a mentor and who's an ally, was established a long time ago.

That's not quite true, though - there's more than one Batman canon even in comics, and the previous Batman films have made several changes. As has this one; like I said, Rachel wasn't even in the comics. The origin story, the ally of villains, etc. is not 60 years old, but specifically chosen for this adaptation.

It's far too easy, IMO, to make exceptions for adaptations, historical fiction, etc. without taking into account the reasons why those stories make it big and others don't. Male characters consistently get more things to do than female characters, even in modern stories, even in stories written by women (JKR, much?) and the more top-grossing the film, the more acclaimed the TV series, the truer this is. Especially in genre stories. And yeah, when the problems become so large that they're immediately noticeable, that's usually indicative of other problems as well, but I still think there's something wrong with a world where a story starring 50% women or more needs to be much better than a story starring mostly men to achieve as large an audience.

[raincitygirl]

I just want to say that this thread has been absolutely fascinating to read.