Current mood:

blah

So this is my 4am random rant on women in movies and comics...I'm not responsible for spelling after 4am....

Long post! Contains vague spoilers for various movies, books, and comics. X-men? Harry Potter? Batman? Maybe more. Nothing too recent though....Spoilers if you've been under a rock....



I actually found out about this a while ago, and never actually posted it. But, to sum it up, due to a couple of flops of movies that had female leads, someone at WB said they will not be making movies with female leads anymore. Despite the fact that they don't bother marketing the movies with female leads as much as they do those with male leads, or that they have plenty of bad movies with females leads, they have decided that this is due to the female leads.

Now, let's get this straight, this statement disgusts me.

But...I'm beginning to realize, they're not making a bad decision when they do this, they're just making a bad decision to state it.

The realization came to me this weekend, when I was watching "Moonlight", and someone was complaining about how horrible the villain was. Like, "what a bitch!" complaining. The villain was, of course, a female. And as this person was bad-mouthing the villain, the only thought running through my head was, "would this person feel the same way if the villain was a guy? Or would she think it was a pretty cool villain?" Now, whether they would or not, I don't know, I'm not them. Perhaps it was my own bias that I thought the villain was pretty cool, and it's just a minor disagreement in our minds as to what constitutes "cool". But it reminded me of another time when a friend said to me, "So I was watching 'Survivor, and I realized that I really didn't like this woman, that she's too sneaky. But then I thought that if she was a guy, I would really like the tactics he was using. Does that make me sexist?" When I answered, as delicately as I could to someone who is a declared feminist, "well, yes. It does." He got upset, and stopped speaking to me for months.

This also brings to mind a story different friend told me, of her discussion of "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" with one of her male friends. He said that he didn't like Elizabeth in this movie, as she was too sneaky, underhanded, and backstabbing. However, he didn't have a problem with Will's sneakiness (which was ten times worse than Elizabeth's, what with him needlessly killing people to leave a trail), or Jack Sparrow's (Captain!).

So WB's decision to not make movies with female leads will likely cause some outrage initially, what with their open sexism, however, it will soon fade as we are not trained to like female leads, anyway!

Despite many people's willingness to give lip service to the idea that women and men should be held to the same standards for most things (physical differences such as ability to give birth, or pee standing up the major exceptions...though...we do have the P-mate now....), there is still an unconscious training that women are to be docile, and sneakiness is underhanded, wrong, and bitchy, while in a male, the same qualities frowned upon in female characters are the ones that the males are most prized for. Men are the ones to be calling the shots and pulling the strings, either by brute force, or by clever backstage maneuverings. Women are the ones who are supposed to be pulled. When a women takes on a "male's" role, she's immediately cast into an unfavorable light, and the power is either taken from her (possibly in death), or she willingly gives it up, usually with tearful apologies. I watched X-Men 3 this week, looking forward to finally seeing the Phoenix, in all her glory. Destroying planets and reveling in it, being assertive and a force to be reckoned with. ...What I got instead was Jean Grey as a mentally unstable woman, whining when people wanted to control her, yet never raising a hand against the controlling powers, except in a psychotic fit which she tearfully regretted each time. Had it truly been the phoenix, the ending would have been with her in Magneto's place, leading the charge. But that was not the case. She stood passively by his side, waiting for orders, and then going insane. Because that is the only way film writers and viewers can handle a woman - she needs to be controlled, she needs to have a conscience, she needs to be sexy, she needs to be in love - such as Mystique's obvious dedication to Magneto - again, her betrayal of him is seen as the actions of a woman scorned, not for one second do they consider that she knows she is now at risk from his actions as well.

However, let's not think that this role for females is different in the comics. If a strong female character appears, she needs to be brought down, as quickly as possible. The Phoenix in the comics is a much more powerful character than in the movie, but just like in the movie needs to be destroyed and depowered. Her ending is the same - death, but through suicide, as she knows what she's done is wrong, and knows it can't happen again, as opposed to the movie, where she needs to beg Wolverine to kill her (being too weak to do the job herself? How like a woman!). Mystique and Storm's squabbles over Forge (who, let's face is, is no Gambit) were tiresome and demeaning to both characters.

And let's not forget all the "Mary-Sue" characters out there (I doubt anyone is unclear what this means, but just in case, a Mary-Sue is when a girl writes a story, and inserts a character that is obviously supposed to be her). If ever a strong female character shows up, or one who is not just a wilting flower there to be kidnapped, she is immediately labeled as a "Mary-Sue", regardless of whether her creator was a woman or not. Hell, even Starfire was labeled a Mary-Sue, and she's basically just an alien Playboy bunny! But she had a lot of power, and thus, is not a "real" character, she is simply there to appease female fans - a Mary-Sue. Stephanie Brown (aka Spoiler, Robin IV) is also labeled as a "Mary-Sue." And for what reason? Because she dates Tim? That can't be it, as Ariana, Tim's former girlfriend, wasn't labeled a Mary-Sue. Ah, we can clearly see it's because she considers herself on equal footing with the Boy-Wonder, and maybe even his boss, Batman. A woman couldn't really be that uppity, and therefore, she is a Mary-Sue. And, as stated above, a woman who gets like this must be stopped. Stephanie Brown was tortured and killed. However, unlike Jason Todd, Stephanie does not get a memorial in the Batcave, because, according to Batman, her death was her own fault. Nevermind that she never handled anything as brashly as Jason Todd, who was allowed a memorial. Indeed, Batman's hiring of Stephanie as Robin was obviously a ploy to get his boy back. She is rarely mentioned again, even by her boyfriend, Tim, who repeatedly mourns the death of his father, and best friend, however neglects to mention his girlfriend. After all, it's not like it was a real character who died.

The outcrying of "Mary-Sue!" whenever a strong female arrives is, unfortunately, made by females as well. Never, "here's a strong female character who keeps her clothes on! Hooray!" No, it's a Mary-Sue, simply inserted because the girls should want to be like her.

And what's wrong with that? Why does no one ever raise their voice in outcry over the "Gary-Stues" out there (the largest Gary-Stu being Batman, of course), who are solely put there to be a boy's fantasy self? Because that's what comics are all about! It's about making fantastic characters that you wish you were! But we need to make sure that it's only boys who have these characters, and we keep girls in the girls' roles. Otherwise, they're something to be looked down on. They're simply Mary-Sues.

If they choose to not make anymore movies with female leads, WB won't suffer. And the reason is that the majority of the public doesn't actually want to see strong female characters, and people don't actually want to write them. What people don't realize is that women don't just want to watch women - they want to watch strong women doing heroic things. Catwoman failed at the box office? You mean more people didn't go to see a movie with Halle Berry in tight black leather fighting against a make-up company (I'm serious, ya'll. I saw it, that's what it was about)? Women don't want to see that, because it's just about a leather fetish and a plot which degrades women through the use of stereotypes. Men aren't going to want to see it, because it's about a female lead, with the usual boring plot. Who wants to see that? A slim number of women who want to support female films, no matter the crap value, a slim number of men who want to see Halle Berry in tight leather, no matter the crap value, and a slim number of people who have free passes, and want to measure the crap value.

Filmmakers seem to throw crap at women and expect them to gobble it up. The same is true in comics - there's something about "Fathom" that makes me think it's supposed to be aimed at women. Creators think, "we'll throw a girl in here, to make it appealing to women," failing to realize that girl has to be a realistic character to actually appeal to women. If the girl is anatomically disfigured (how do they survive with no internal organs? Or are the organs all shove up in their bosom region? That would make a lot of sense!), surprise! Most women will not relate, and won't be able to (or want to) look past the T&A to discover the plot there (aw, who am I kidding, the plot will probably still involve her being subservient to men). Boys, however, won't relate to a female lead because....well....no offense, but they aren't female. And sure, the T&A is nice, but they can get that in any other book. This leads to low sales, which leads to people not believing that anyone wants to see women as the lead.

They fail to see that if this truly was the case, Terry Moore's "Strangers in Paradise" wouldn't be as popular as it was. Same with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". But that's okay if they fail to see it, because people will keep seeing movies and reading comics with male leads, and bringing in sales. Because people who want female leads don't want them exclusively. However, the converse is not true (as made obvious by the WB's statement).

I crave Stephanie Browns, and Katchoos, and Hermione Grangers. I want these girls to step into the spotlight next to their male peers, without reprimand, instead of playing second fiddle. Come on. Does anyone doubt Hermione could have taken out Voldemort on her own? Does anyone think Harry could have done it without her? However, it was very smart of JKR to market it with a boy lead, as, with a female lead, she wouldn't have gotten nearly the number of sales she did. Think about it. Almost no young boy would be encouraged to read about a female Wizard, and few females would want to pick up a story about a girl who's "obviously a Mary-Sue". JKR did the right thing, financially. Because as much as we can see her worth now, people probably wouldn't have picked it up if the heroine had been a girl. Hell, forget about female heroes, I even want female villains. But I want them to be fierce and cold, and calculating, and not try to trip the male hero (or the female lead's boyfriend) into bed, or be doing it as part of some way to retain their youth and beauty.

But I want something I'm not going to get. I want something with a lady taking charge and kicking ass, and not being sorry about it or reprimanded. I want her to rescue her kidnapped boyfriend, and not be making him breakfast in the morning. I want a female lead that's as strong, capable, and hell, let's face it, selfish, as a male lead, without her being criticized for it. I don't want her referred to as a "Mary-Sue" if she's in a comic. But I want something that's currently not being provided, because it seems almost no one else wants it. Not creators, not men, not even most women. And since there is an apparent lack of demand for it, why should WB make any movies with female leads?

So I'll end with a Joss Whedon quote, after he was asked why he writes all these strong female characters.

"Why aren’t you asking a hundred other guys why they don’t write strong women characters?"