I was going to comment on Shelby's post, but then I realized that I could and would write for several paragraphs, so it seemed better to make a new post.
In answer to Ms. Deak's question, I think there are several factors at work here. For one thing, we feel more limited with what we can do with female characters than with male characters. (By "we" I mean male entertainers. Maybe females feel differently.) For example, violence against females has traditionally been seen as tragic in ALL context. Violence on men gets played for laughs all the time. Sometimes you think the character deserves it. It's harder to treat a woman the same way without offending the audience.
So what do you do if you ever want to put a woman in a violent situation? You can do anything you want as long as she doesn't get hurt. Unless you're going for drama and sympathy, then she can get hurt. But otherwise she needs to walk away unharmed. So if she's in a fight, and the other character is male, she has to win. Always. If the guy harms a single hair on her head, he will look like a monster, and you may not want that. But if the girl beats up the guy, it's funny, partly because it's ironic. That is why fictional females who find themselves in fights seem to be disproportionately skilled at fighting.
There is also the reaction to the stereotypes of old. There was once a time when men where seriously considered more intelligent than women, and the media would seem to portray them as more competent. Look at the portrayals of parents over the years. The average television father used to be the wise, all-knowing patriarch who always has good advice for his kids. At some point this was reversed and the TV dad became a bumbling idiot whose own children can effortlessly outsmart him. The TV mom sort of took the TV dad's former role as the wise leader of the household, but now she had to keep both her kids and her husband in line. I'm not sure if this switch came about because people started complaining about the portrayal of women as unable to take care of themselves, or if entertainers just thought it would be funny to reverse the old stereotypes. As usual, I will assume it was some of both. And it's not just married couples. Fictional women in general are now expected to be more competent than the men. Whenever and male and female character are working together, the former will be the fool and the latter will be the brains. If there is a group of characters that has only one lady, she will be smarter and more talented than the rest of the group combined. And she'll probably be either arrogant or impatient with all the men around her.
Now put these trends together, the uber-competent girl and she-who-must-not-be-injured, and you get what we call the "action girl." And she's a great resource because she fulfills so many purposes at the same time. She's smart, she's awesome, she's pretty, and she diversifies what might otherwise be an all-male team. She can simultaneously fill the role of the love interest, the one girls can relate to, and the fan-service!
But wait a minute. She's strong, smart, good at fighting, more than capable, aloof, unemotional . . . Hey! They just took all the traits we once associated with men and assigned them to female a character. And then took off half her clothes because of that one specific female attribute that they will NEVER stop emphasizing. (Stepping off the soapbox now.)
So now we have this archetype who's come to be used so often that people would almost be surprised if she didn't show up. I think balanced female characters do exist in increasing number. We'll see even more of them when filmmakers focus less on being inclusive and focus more on just making interesting characters, half of whom happen to be female.
No comments:
Post a Comment