Girls on Film
I try to be a good movie audience member. For the most part, I think I am. The majority of times, I go into movies wanting them to succeed on their own terms. I rarely try to figure out twists before they happen-I think looking for clues takes you out of the movie-so I'm often surprised by obvious plot turns. I'm always telling people that there's value in seeing bad movies because even bad movies often have awesome parts. (The flip side to that is that few-to-no people have seen a lot of the bad movies I have, and so can't answer questions like "What was the movie where the kid was allergic to his own car?" I've been wrestling with that one a long time, and I'm pretty sure it's Storytelling. Anyone?)
But there are ways I am a bad movie watcher. I struggle with having my opinions about actors/directors in real life color my opinions of their movies. (I'm sure every actor/director is, on some level, an asshole, but it's harder to erase that from my mind for some people. I can't see a Roman Polanski movie and have the art just speak for itself.) There are certain people, like Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts, that I just don't like, so their movies have to work harder to get me to enjoy them. I fully admit it's not fair.
Another way I'm a bad movie patron is that I get annoyed easily by depictions of women in movies. I don't want to be the type of person who sits down at a film and says, "I won't like this unless all the women in it are strong, independent, positive role models for young women out there." But I can't help myself from thinking "uggghhghhggh!!!!!" every time Hollywood screws it up. I had a long, long conversation with Jesse and Nathaniel about how I could totally understand why women were annoyed by The Social Network-even though there was 1.5 cool, competent chicks in it and the fact that the rest were dim groupies said more about the characters in the film than the state of women in general. I get that the sexism has a purpose, and that it's not Hollywood's job to make sure that there are 2.2 cool women for every slutty stereotype in a movie, but I also understand the eye-rolling reaction.
But The Social Network issue has been talked about to death. I saw two movies this week with central female characters, and I thought it'd be interesting to look at them side-by-side.
The first was Morning Glory. The deal is that Becky, played by Rachel McAdams, is a determined female with big dreams of executive-producing a network morning show. She gets her shot, on an underdog network, and has to deal with difficult on-hair personalities, flagging ratings, and-oh yeah-her dating life, because what kind of chick movie would leave that out?
The other was Tiny Furniture, which Jesse got a screener to review. That one is about Aura, played by writer/director Lena Dunham (who graduated college in 2008-I am so old), and is, fittingly about a recent college graduate trying to figure out her life. She takes bad jobs, goes on bad dates, gets into fights with her mom and sister, and has a difficult time relating to her college friends in a post-college context.
When holding these two characters up to my ideal Female Movie Character-which yes, I admit that it's kind of wrong to have one of those to begin with-Aura just makes Becky seem so one-dimensional and movie-ish.
It's odd to say that, because, as far as Hollywood female characters go, she's actually one of the good ones. For starters, the focus of the movie is about her career, not her prospects for marriage. (That's also why I think that Sammy's Hill, Kristen Gore's chick-lit book, is one of the better ones.) Though yes, there's a lot about that in there. I have to give the film credit though, because-even though almost every other character tells Becky that she works too hard to have a functional relationship, putting her on track to die alone-Becky herself never considers cutting back on work to hang out with Patrick Wilson, and she even yells at him for making her feel guilty about the hours she puts into her job. Also, it's good to see that, on some level, she's good at what she does.
But-uggghhghhggh!!-they go about conveying all of this in the most chick flicky way possible. I think that, rather than the Madonna/Whore complex, we've not entered a Hollywood total slacker/total Type-A professional dichotomy. Female characters are either Anna Faris bimbo-slackers (which I love) or Katherine Heigl uptight professionals who can't relax a muscle in their bodies (which I don't-mainly because I don't like Katherine Heigl, and I'm a bad movie-watcher). Becky is on the Type-A end of the scale, with the twist that she's too busy to relax, not too uptight.
But Hollywood always feels the need to give these girls flaws to make them more relatable. Why? Nobody does that for male characters-even romantic leads. The longing is enough for them. Not only that, but Hollywood cycles through the same cutesy, relatable flaws. They're klutzy. They don't know how to banter or get jokes (as a function of them not being able to lighten up). Becky rambles when she's nervous, kind of a verbal klutziness. See? She's human-God knows we wouldn't want to watch a movie about a woman who is good at her job but has no cute flaws!
Even the way in which she turns her morning show around, I think, is a little bit gendered. Jesse mentioned this in his review, but she's not inspired or a natural genius at morning shows, she just works really, really hard at it. (It's like the difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.) Compare/contrast to something similar, but male-centric: Studio 60. The characters on that series had a show to turn around, too, but with them it was all confidence, all talent, all vision-no experimentation, no cutesiness, and no one telling them that they worked so hard they'd never get married. Even their flaws had more gravitas.
Compared to Becky, Tiny Furniture's Aura is pretty much all flaws. But real ones. She has no direction. (She definitely would fall more on the slacker end of the spectrum.) She does things she knows annoys her family and her friends. She's not Rachel McAdams beautiful or Hollywood skinny.
But, you know what? I was still rooting for her throughout the movie. She's intelligent and funny, and it's easy to be around her even though the movie doesn't really have a strong narrative plot. She goes through some weird, bad things in the movie and it's nobody's fault but her own, but I wanted her to come out on top anyway. There was no point in the movie where I thought, "She's too unpleasant and not motivated and not pretty enough for me to want to stick with this and hope that good things happen to her." Even her love interests are more interesting because they're entirely unattractive to me, but I can see why she would pursue them-as opposed to Patrick Wilson, who seems perfect for Becky in Morning Glory because, well, he's the attractive male lead.
I guess I can say that I enjoyed both movies. But Becky is going to fade and be confused with all the other Type-A female characters out there, and Aura is going to stick with me longer. I hope that Hollywood eventually catches on and makes their female characters less stock, because, no matter how much of it is done right, all you need is one festival favorite to come along and show everyone how hollow your character really is.
Also, for real, Hollywood: Make a She-Ra movie already. And don't make Megan Fox She-Ra.
But there are ways I am a bad movie watcher. I struggle with having my opinions about actors/directors in real life color my opinions of their movies. (I'm sure every actor/director is, on some level, an asshole, but it's harder to erase that from my mind for some people. I can't see a Roman Polanski movie and have the art just speak for itself.) There are certain people, like Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts, that I just don't like, so their movies have to work harder to get me to enjoy them. I fully admit it's not fair.
Another way I'm a bad movie patron is that I get annoyed easily by depictions of women in movies. I don't want to be the type of person who sits down at a film and says, "I won't like this unless all the women in it are strong, independent, positive role models for young women out there." But I can't help myself from thinking "uggghhghhggh!!!!!" every time Hollywood screws it up. I had a long, long conversation with Jesse and Nathaniel about how I could totally understand why women were annoyed by The Social Network-even though there was 1.5 cool, competent chicks in it and the fact that the rest were dim groupies said more about the characters in the film than the state of women in general. I get that the sexism has a purpose, and that it's not Hollywood's job to make sure that there are 2.2 cool women for every slutty stereotype in a movie, but I also understand the eye-rolling reaction.
But The Social Network issue has been talked about to death. I saw two movies this week with central female characters, and I thought it'd be interesting to look at them side-by-side.
The first was Morning Glory. The deal is that Becky, played by Rachel McAdams, is a determined female with big dreams of executive-producing a network morning show. She gets her shot, on an underdog network, and has to deal with difficult on-hair personalities, flagging ratings, and-oh yeah-her dating life, because what kind of chick movie would leave that out?
The other was Tiny Furniture, which Jesse got a screener to review. That one is about Aura, played by writer/director Lena Dunham (who graduated college in 2008-I am so old), and is, fittingly about a recent college graduate trying to figure out her life. She takes bad jobs, goes on bad dates, gets into fights with her mom and sister, and has a difficult time relating to her college friends in a post-college context.
When holding these two characters up to my ideal Female Movie Character-which yes, I admit that it's kind of wrong to have one of those to begin with-Aura just makes Becky seem so one-dimensional and movie-ish.
It's odd to say that, because, as far as Hollywood female characters go, she's actually one of the good ones. For starters, the focus of the movie is about her career, not her prospects for marriage. (That's also why I think that Sammy's Hill, Kristen Gore's chick-lit book, is one of the better ones.) Though yes, there's a lot about that in there. I have to give the film credit though, because-even though almost every other character tells Becky that she works too hard to have a functional relationship, putting her on track to die alone-Becky herself never considers cutting back on work to hang out with Patrick Wilson, and she even yells at him for making her feel guilty about the hours she puts into her job. Also, it's good to see that, on some level, she's good at what she does.
But-uggghhghhggh!!-they go about conveying all of this in the most chick flicky way possible. I think that, rather than the Madonna/Whore complex, we've not entered a Hollywood total slacker/total Type-A professional dichotomy. Female characters are either Anna Faris bimbo-slackers (which I love) or Katherine Heigl uptight professionals who can't relax a muscle in their bodies (which I don't-mainly because I don't like Katherine Heigl, and I'm a bad movie-watcher). Becky is on the Type-A end of the scale, with the twist that she's too busy to relax, not too uptight.
But Hollywood always feels the need to give these girls flaws to make them more relatable. Why? Nobody does that for male characters-even romantic leads. The longing is enough for them. Not only that, but Hollywood cycles through the same cutesy, relatable flaws. They're klutzy. They don't know how to banter or get jokes (as a function of them not being able to lighten up). Becky rambles when she's nervous, kind of a verbal klutziness. See? She's human-God knows we wouldn't want to watch a movie about a woman who is good at her job but has no cute flaws!
Even the way in which she turns her morning show around, I think, is a little bit gendered. Jesse mentioned this in his review, but she's not inspired or a natural genius at morning shows, she just works really, really hard at it. (It's like the difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.) Compare/contrast to something similar, but male-centric: Studio 60. The characters on that series had a show to turn around, too, but with them it was all confidence, all talent, all vision-no experimentation, no cutesiness, and no one telling them that they worked so hard they'd never get married. Even their flaws had more gravitas.
Compared to Becky, Tiny Furniture's Aura is pretty much all flaws. But real ones. She has no direction. (She definitely would fall more on the slacker end of the spectrum.) She does things she knows annoys her family and her friends. She's not Rachel McAdams beautiful or Hollywood skinny.
But, you know what? I was still rooting for her throughout the movie. She's intelligent and funny, and it's easy to be around her even though the movie doesn't really have a strong narrative plot. She goes through some weird, bad things in the movie and it's nobody's fault but her own, but I wanted her to come out on top anyway. There was no point in the movie where I thought, "She's too unpleasant and not motivated and not pretty enough for me to want to stick with this and hope that good things happen to her." Even her love interests are more interesting because they're entirely unattractive to me, but I can see why she would pursue them-as opposed to Patrick Wilson, who seems perfect for Becky in Morning Glory because, well, he's the attractive male lead.
I guess I can say that I enjoyed both movies. But Becky is going to fade and be confused with all the other Type-A female characters out there, and Aura is going to stick with me longer. I hope that Hollywood eventually catches on and makes their female characters less stock, because, no matter how much of it is done right, all you need is one festival favorite to come along and show everyone how hollow your character really is.
Also, for real, Hollywood: Make a She-Ra movie already. And don't make Megan Fox She-Ra.