The best new Strong Female Characters are the weak ones
December 8, 2014 5:20 AM Subscribe
The freedom to let characters expose themselves without judgment, in ways that feed a story’s drama. It’s important to remember that “Strong Female Character” doesn’t necessarily refer to someone with an impressive bench-press stat—the “strong” refers to the quality of character development and plot importance, whether a given character has an inner life of her own, and a story worth telling. By Tasha Robinson (previously).
I am wary of making a thread about Robinson's interesting essay an argument about Terry Pratchett, but: the first of the Witches books were written before the Guards and Moist books. The idea that he realized his women characters were weak and then decided to write some strong ones to "correct" this doesn't make sense, since the "strong women" books you point to were written before the "weak women" books you point to.
Rounding back onto the essay, I wonder how much of this phenomenon is due to the difference between the protagonist and the second banana. Pretty much all the movies Robinson points to as examples of "weak/complicated/compelling" are ones where the woman is the lead, while in the "strong/shallow/flawed" action movies they're the second banana, the love interest for a male main, or part of a large ensemble. (This is also the case in the Pratchett books SlapHappy points to, mostly).
How complicated do second bananas get to be, generally? How much time do we spend exploring Robin's tortured psyche, vs. Batman's? I'm not raising this to argue that sexism doesn't exist or affect how movies get casted and written. But it is interesting to me to wonder --- is it the case that Hollywood tends to only dole out a portion of depth to the main, therefore female characters only get some when they're the main (which is much less often than men)?
Hmmmm....I feel like I can think of a number of movies that would fit this frame, but I dunno, still feels wobbly. Of course, a really well-written movie should be doling out little spoonfuls of depth all round --- and a really good actor can sometimes take shallow material and give it more than what's on the page (Philip Seymore Hoffman was great at this). But it does make me wonder --- maybe the fix to the paper tiger strong woman problem is simply to have more movies where the woman is the lead? After all, the Hunger Games is a big action blockbuster --- but Robinson puts Katniss is the good column. But she's also the lead --- aren't Gale and Peta written a little more shallowly, with a little less inner life, and a lot more staring-into-her-eyes-in-the-rain-glowing-dewily? (Haven't seen the most recent film, I confess.) how much depth ought the second banana to have?
posted by Diablevert at 7:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Rounding back onto the essay, I wonder how much of this phenomenon is due to the difference between the protagonist and the second banana. Pretty much all the movies Robinson points to as examples of "weak/complicated/compelling" are ones where the woman is the lead, while in the "strong/shallow/flawed" action movies they're the second banana, the love interest for a male main, or part of a large ensemble. (This is also the case in the Pratchett books SlapHappy points to, mostly).
How complicated do second bananas get to be, generally? How much time do we spend exploring Robin's tortured psyche, vs. Batman's? I'm not raising this to argue that sexism doesn't exist or affect how movies get casted and written. But it is interesting to me to wonder --- is it the case that Hollywood tends to only dole out a portion of depth to the main, therefore female characters only get some when they're the main (which is much less often than men)?
Hmmmm....I feel like I can think of a number of movies that would fit this frame, but I dunno, still feels wobbly. Of course, a really well-written movie should be doling out little spoonfuls of depth all round --- and a really good actor can sometimes take shallow material and give it more than what's on the page (Philip Seymore Hoffman was great at this). But it does make me wonder --- maybe the fix to the paper tiger strong woman problem is simply to have more movies where the woman is the lead? After all, the Hunger Games is a big action blockbuster --- but Robinson puts Katniss is the good column. But she's also the lead --- aren't Gale and Peta written a little more shallowly, with a little less inner life, and a lot more staring-into-her-eyes-in-the-rain-glowing-dewily? (Haven't seen the most recent film, I confess.) how much depth ought the second banana to have?
posted by Diablevert at 7:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Diablevert -- I definitely think looking at female characters in big tentpole action movies with large ensemble casts is a big part of the Problem Of Strong Female Characters. These are movies with no strong characters, so no wonder the women in them are barely characterized at all.
However, I definitely think there's still a problem where Strong Female Character is assumed to mean someone who can never do wrong, or fail, or be weak in personality. I've had a problem with it in my own writing, actually in the opposite way from what you describe. It's a lot easier to write a character that reads as a Strong Female Character if she is the sidekick, or the antagonist, or a character we don't spend a ton of time with. Because she can just be a general badass who kicks ass and takes names and that's who they just are as their whole identity. (See for instance Agent May on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., who is one of the most interesting characters on the show, but so far has not gotten much actual character development.) Meanwhile, a protagonist who is always right and always wins and has no sense of internal struggle comes off like a cardboard cutout.
Another problem I've seen -- and this is more with the Tumblr set and less with people creating female characters -- is that a lot of people watching out for this stuff want "strong character" to mean "nothing bad ever happens to them". Which tends to equal "nothing much ever happens to them at all", because the nature of storytelling is conflict, which means bad things happen. If we're in a situation where we get angry because violence happens to women onscreen, or a female character is shown to be vulnerable, or we get pissed off when literally anything non-awesome happens to any character who isn't white/hetero/cis/male, we're actively making it harder to get the nuanced characters we want. Because in storytelling, we kill our darlings. If the woman or the black guy or the gay person can't hurt without it being "problematic", we are only ever going to get the stories of white straight men.
posted by Sara C. at 7:31 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
However, I definitely think there's still a problem where Strong Female Character is assumed to mean someone who can never do wrong, or fail, or be weak in personality. I've had a problem with it in my own writing, actually in the opposite way from what you describe. It's a lot easier to write a character that reads as a Strong Female Character if she is the sidekick, or the antagonist, or a character we don't spend a ton of time with. Because she can just be a general badass who kicks ass and takes names and that's who they just are as their whole identity. (See for instance Agent May on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., who is one of the most interesting characters on the show, but so far has not gotten much actual character development.) Meanwhile, a protagonist who is always right and always wins and has no sense of internal struggle comes off like a cardboard cutout.
Another problem I've seen -- and this is more with the Tumblr set and less with people creating female characters -- is that a lot of people watching out for this stuff want "strong character" to mean "nothing bad ever happens to them". Which tends to equal "nothing much ever happens to them at all", because the nature of storytelling is conflict, which means bad things happen. If we're in a situation where we get angry because violence happens to women onscreen, or a female character is shown to be vulnerable, or we get pissed off when literally anything non-awesome happens to any character who isn't white/hetero/cis/male, we're actively making it harder to get the nuanced characters we want. Because in storytelling, we kill our darlings. If the woman or the black guy or the gay person can't hurt without it being "problematic", we are only ever going to get the stories of white straight men.
posted by Sara C. at 7:31 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
Be interesting to see her take on Skyler White.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:38 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 8:38 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sara C.
While I'm generally a big fan of the Bujold stye of storytelling, there are compelling low conflict and no conflict storytelling styles. For example, you might be interested in kishōtenketsu (See also:Wikipedia)
posted by yeolcoatl at 8:39 AM on December 8, 2014
While I'm generally a big fan of the Bujold stye of storytelling, there are compelling low conflict and no conflict storytelling styles. For example, you might be interested in kishōtenketsu (See also:Wikipedia)
posted by yeolcoatl at 8:39 AM on December 8, 2014
But it does make me wonder --- maybe the fix to the paper tiger strong woman problem is simply to have more movies where the woman is the lead?
Or to have More Women, period. Studies have shown that women & girls make up only about 30% of speaking characters in television & movies, and an even smaller percentage of extras. If fully half of the characters in a show or movie are female, it's a lot easier to make some strong, some vulnerable, some intelligent, some brainless, and not have any of them be a simple token.
Stargate SG-1 had this problem with Sam Carter, because each of the other characters got a specific characteristic (idealistic archaeologist, laconic warrior, sarcastic leader), but Sam was The Girl, and the writers have admitted they didn't know what to do with her beyond making her The Scientist. The brief attempts to examine her femininity always felt forced, awkward, and badly-written.
If there had been another woman on the team, or even more women in general in positions of leadership and agency, Amanda Tapping wouldn't have had to carry the weight of all the viewers' expectations with regard to what a female character is.
It's one of the reasons why Fringe works better: Olivia isn't the only woman in the show. Or Buffy, with at least 3 female characters on the cast most of the time. With Buffy, Willow, and Cordelia (or Anya or Tara) in the mix, having any single one of them be weak or stupid doesn't imply that all women are weak or stupid.
posted by suelac at 8:48 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
Or to have More Women, period. Studies have shown that women & girls make up only about 30% of speaking characters in television & movies, and an even smaller percentage of extras. If fully half of the characters in a show or movie are female, it's a lot easier to make some strong, some vulnerable, some intelligent, some brainless, and not have any of them be a simple token.
Stargate SG-1 had this problem with Sam Carter, because each of the other characters got a specific characteristic (idealistic archaeologist, laconic warrior, sarcastic leader), but Sam was The Girl, and the writers have admitted they didn't know what to do with her beyond making her The Scientist. The brief attempts to examine her femininity always felt forced, awkward, and badly-written.
If there had been another woman on the team, or even more women in general in positions of leadership and agency, Amanda Tapping wouldn't have had to carry the weight of all the viewers' expectations with regard to what a female character is.
It's one of the reasons why Fringe works better: Olivia isn't the only woman in the show. Or Buffy, with at least 3 female characters on the cast most of the time. With Buffy, Willow, and Cordelia (or Anya or Tara) in the mix, having any single one of them be weak or stupid doesn't imply that all women are weak or stupid.
posted by suelac at 8:48 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
there are compelling low conflict and no conflict storytelling styles
If we're talking about mainstream big-budget cinema (and yes, things like Wild count), this is just never ever going to happen and is not worth talking about at all.
I suppose we could have a different thread about women's roles in art films and the avant-garde (ACTUALLY YEAH SOMEONE MAKE THIS), but this FPP doesn't really support that level of derail. If we're talking about movies that a lot of people see, that make money, that get nominated for awards, which are made by Hollywood studios, in America, we're talking about movies where stuff happens to people.
posted by Sara C. at 9:05 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
If we're talking about mainstream big-budget cinema (and yes, things like Wild count), this is just never ever going to happen and is not worth talking about at all.
I suppose we could have a different thread about women's roles in art films and the avant-garde (ACTUALLY YEAH SOMEONE MAKE THIS), but this FPP doesn't really support that level of derail. If we're talking about movies that a lot of people see, that make money, that get nominated for awards, which are made by Hollywood studios, in America, we're talking about movies where stuff happens to people.
posted by Sara C. at 9:05 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
If the woman or the black guy or the gay person can't hurt without it being "problematic", we are only ever going to get the stories of white straight men.
Strong Women (like Manly Men) who are never wrong are wish-fulfillment caricatures, as dismissible as genre fluff, just like Rambo or John McLean. Fairy stories make a ton a money whether starring action heroes or steel magnolias. Closure is a cancer in film.
Films about women who make bad choices or are fallible, like Million Dollar Baby or even Sophie's Choice, are the markers for success, in my view.
posted by bonehead at 9:57 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Strong Women (like Manly Men) who are never wrong are wish-fulfillment caricatures, as dismissible as genre fluff, just like Rambo or John McLean. Fairy stories make a ton a money whether starring action heroes or steel magnolias. Closure is a cancer in film.
Films about women who make bad choices or are fallible, like Million Dollar Baby or even Sophie's Choice, are the markers for success, in my view.
posted by bonehead at 9:57 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Hey, maybe before we dump on Tumblr, let's take a look at this post that made the rounds over the last year, year-and-a-half. (Quite often redone with animated GIFs of characters from various places who meet the criteria in the fifth paragraph, often all in the same character.) Seems to be getting at much the same idea.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:31 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:31 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Stargate SG-1 had this problem with Sam Carter, because each of the other characters got a specific characteristic (idealistic archaeologist, laconic warrior, sarcastic leader), but Sam was The Girl, and the writers have admitted they didn't know what to do with her beyond making her The Scientist.
One of the interesting things about this is that all of the three "specific characteristics" could also be a girl.
One of the issues with the Smurfette Principle is that the assumption is women have gender as a set characteristic and need nothing else - making a series of set characteristics then assigning half of them to women would make the whole thing a lot more interesting. Imagine if, in the Smurfs, half of the Smurfs were women. Lazy Smurf, Brainy Smurf, Jokey Smurf - all women. It makes the world a very different place, and a lot more accurate, but we're inculcated to resist this because "girl" is considered a characteristic.
Racial designations are similar - they are considered a characteristic, so having only one makes sense. I was struck by how all of the woman leads were white - where are the black, Asian, Native, and Latina women?
posted by Deoridhe at 12:44 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
One of the interesting things about this is that all of the three "specific characteristics" could also be a girl.
One of the issues with the Smurfette Principle is that the assumption is women have gender as a set characteristic and need nothing else - making a series of set characteristics then assigning half of them to women would make the whole thing a lot more interesting. Imagine if, in the Smurfs, half of the Smurfs were women. Lazy Smurf, Brainy Smurf, Jokey Smurf - all women. It makes the world a very different place, and a lot more accurate, but we're inculcated to resist this because "girl" is considered a characteristic.
Racial designations are similar - they are considered a characteristic, so having only one makes sense. I was struck by how all of the woman leads were white - where are the black, Asian, Native, and Latina women?
posted by Deoridhe at 12:44 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
Are you talking about the films in Robinson's essay? The lead of Beyond the Lights is mixed-race; her love interest is black. The Tale of Princess Kaguya is an animated film about a Japanese princess. Only lovers left alive, which is mentioned in passing, is set in Iran, with an Iranian (female, vampire) lead.
posted by Diablevert at 1:21 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Diablevert at 1:21 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sorry, got my vampires mixed up --- the Iranian film Robinson discusses is called A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night. (Only lovers is the other indie vampire movie that came out recently.) mea culpa
posted by Diablevert at 1:31 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Diablevert at 1:31 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
The films and the images. Four of the five images at the top of the essay are White women, one a case of replacing someone olive-skinned with someone peaches & cream (Katniss), and the only Asian woman is drawn in standard Anime style, which is based on European animation styles (beginning in the 1910s).
Race is entirely left out of the discussion, as well, even in the case of Katniss where there was a lot of issues around race and the adaptation from book to movie. Noni, in Beyond the Lights, isn't included in the header despite being mentioned in the same breath as Katniss, who is.
The larger point that women are rarely leads, and that people who are compelling have flaws remain, but I think the point is weakened by not acknowledging that racism as well as sexism contributes to women being marginalized in film.
I also think that the dearth of Female Wish Fulfillment Leads is a problem, though I'll admit a chunk of this is because I really want a well done franchise based around Storm, who is awesome and flawless.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:36 PM on December 8, 2014
Race is entirely left out of the discussion, as well, even in the case of Katniss where there was a lot of issues around race and the adaptation from book to movie. Noni, in Beyond the Lights, isn't included in the header despite being mentioned in the same breath as Katniss, who is.
The larger point that women are rarely leads, and that people who are compelling have flaws remain, but I think the point is weakened by not acknowledging that racism as well as sexism contributes to women being marginalized in film.
I also think that the dearth of Female Wish Fulfillment Leads is a problem, though I'll admit a chunk of this is because I really want a well done franchise based around Storm, who is awesome and flawless.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:36 PM on December 8, 2014
I could go the entire rest of my life without ever hearing about Whitewashed Katniss ever again.
posted by Sara C. at 2:05 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 2:05 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
"...the only Asian woman is drawn in standard Anime style, which is based on European animation styles (beginning in the 1910s)."
Are you suggesting that Anime is not to be considered a uniquely Japanese form of art because westerners were making cartoons first?
posted by buriednexttoyou at 6:23 PM on December 8, 2014
Are you suggesting that Anime is not to be considered a uniquely Japanese form of art because westerners were making cartoons first?
posted by buriednexttoyou at 6:23 PM on December 8, 2014
Are you suggesting that Anime is not to be considered a uniquely Japanese form of art because westerners were making cartoons first?
No, I'm saying the early makers of Japanese animation were explicitly influence by Western animation, then took it from there to make something that is explicitly different from Western Animation, but which still has some of the conceits - like exaggerated eyes (which Western animation moved away from, ironically rendering it unpopular in Japan). The characters are also unmarked, which to the Japanese means they are Japanese but which most white people interpret as white because that's how unmarked categories work (marked white characters in Anime are a whole topic of their own!).
The point remains, though, that racism as well as sexism contributes to the marginalization of women in film.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:04 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, I'm saying the early makers of Japanese animation were explicitly influence by Western animation, then took it from there to make something that is explicitly different from Western Animation, but which still has some of the conceits - like exaggerated eyes (which Western animation moved away from, ironically rendering it unpopular in Japan). The characters are also unmarked, which to the Japanese means they are Japanese but which most white people interpret as white because that's how unmarked categories work (marked white characters in Anime are a whole topic of their own!).
The point remains, though, that racism as well as sexism contributes to the marginalization of women in film.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:04 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Smokescreen | What are you doing here? ... Physician, heal... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
He's also aware of this shortcoming in himself, and wrote a dozen or so books about women who are sexual, but not sexualized, strong without being cliche - and the first thing he did was remove them as objects of romantic fantasy. Amazing character-driven stories, some of the best in all of SF/F/H fiction, resulted - his Witches novels are examples of how male authors should approach women characters who require strength. There are flaws and weaknesses in these women irreconcilable with objectified strong-women tropes, and they are explored relentlessly, baked into the characters without judgement, yet not without consequences.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:38 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]