Strong Independent Women

"Strong independent woman" seems to have become the latest US phrase when discussing any female character. It wrongly attempts to define a character by a catch-phrase. It comes from the 1970's, it is a pat on the back- "you might be female, but you can be strong and independent as well". The rest of the secular world views this over-compensation with embarrassment.

Daisy Ridley was inevitably asked (in the US of course) if her character was "a strong independent woman". The English actress responded: -

"She is brave and she is vulnerable, and she is so nuanced; that is what is so exciting about playing a role like this. She doesn't have to be one thing to embody a woman in a film, and for me she is not important because she is a woman, she is important and it just so happens she is a woman. She transcends gender."

BRAVO

Why would we take women out of one pigeon-hole, and immediately shoe-horn them into another (namely strong and independent)? Why can a female character not be weak and needy? Why can a male character not be weak and needy? Why can a female character not be strong, but fall apart without the support of her family? I am male and I hurt without mine.

The problem is that Hollywood is two decades behind most of Europe. This subject annoys me more than most. I have a sister and nieces and they are given equal opportunities in the UK. Yet I see this social colonialism from Hollywood that intends to create division and dissent, that would not otherwise exist.

I wrote a piece earlier about how the all female casting of Ghostbusters annoys me. Not because they are female, but because Hollywood, the most backward, misogynistic industry in the western world has the audacity to lecture me, a Brit!

So can we please have real female characters; as flawed as they might be. As submissive or dominant; or scared, vulnerable, or confident; or angry, or passive; or any other of the many attributes people have, without forcing them into a catch phrase?

u wot m8

But seriously, I don't know why you mentioned both in said Ghostbusters write-up and this thread that you interpret Hollywood's decision to cast all-female Ghostbusters as some sort of self-aggrandising opportunity to sermonise to the rest of the world (especially areas that are apparently more enlightened such as Europe and the UK). I'm not sure there's really meant to be some kind of Huge Political Statement to be made just by having the new Ghostbusters be women. Actresses like Wiig and McCarthy have already established themselves as fairly bankable big-screen talents, so is there really any reason why they shouldn't be given the chance to be in Ghostbusters over, say, Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill? Hollywood may show signs of being backward and misogynistic, but it doesn't always have to be, and at least this decision is a step in the right direction towards closing this so-called twenty-year gap between it and Europe. Don't know why you feel like this is supposed to be some sort of lecture.

Otherwise, yeah, the concept of the Strong Female Character can be just as limiting and limited as your more stereotypically weak/feminine characters.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I wonder if we got off beat a little here with your over emphasis on the Ghostbusters remake. But that aside, I do concur with several of your points.

When I saw the Ghostbusters trailer I thought, ugh, Pixels 2. My first thought was; 'this looks as **** as an Adam Sandler film'. In terms of the casting; I am doing a serious review here for a moment. I am not American, I do not know their names, so if I get them wrong, forgive me. McKinnen looks fantastic, interesting and quirky character. Wiig looks incredible as an "anal" scientist.

The other two look ****ing horrible.

If you were casting the best people for the role McCarthy and Jones would not be in this film. I do not care if their replacements are male or female.

Why are they here? Because Hollywood felt the need to make a female led film. Believe it or not you backward morons, we had a female Prime Minister in the 1970s. We know women are capable. Backwards Hollywood.

the question itself is sexist. people never ask that about male characters. they are automatically considered strong and independent because they are men. if I was Daisy I wouldn't even dignify that question with a response

Which is why she responded with such contempt.

Well, that's because it's the only part of this post that I feel is worth discussing because we seem to have a difference of opinion on it.

Comparing it to Pixels is a bit harsh - that first trailer actually seemed promising right up until the moment that they revealed Sandler. At least with the Ghostbusters trailer, there's been a bit of time to acclimatise to the idea that it'll have these women in it. I'm only really familiar with the work of Wiig and/or McCarthy - while I didn't think Bridesmaids was particularly good (though that's probably because I'm not especially fond of rom-coms), I actually liked Spy enough to be cautiously optimistic about this.There's only so much that you can judge about Ghostbusters based on two whole minutes of footage (footage that was specifically chosen to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, mind you) so, despite the initial trailer being underwhelming, I'm still going to reserve judgment until the full thing comes out.

You're acting like Hollywood never made a film that starred a woman before and is actively promoting the film as a ground-breaking piece of art. It seems like an over-reaction on your part to act like this is supposed to be some sort of cinematic display of self-righteous condescension. Also, assuming you're talking about Margaret Thatcher here, leaving aside whether or not her time as prime minister was politically agreeable or not, you do realise that Hollywood already made a female-led film based on Thatcher a few years back where the actress portraying her won her third competitive Oscar as a result, yes?

This is fun. And I do hope you escape from LA.

Ok each in turn: -

You kinda discuss most of it don't you? unless I said something I forgot? Quite possible. Or in French Possibly. Sprechen sie Englisch? ****, German.

I assume that you thought Pixels was a better trailer? I am biased, I do admit that. The sight of Sandler makes me want to kill. I hate him as much as I dislike McCarthy; and they are both ****s- that is allowed in the UK :/... is it in the US?

"Self righteous condescension" I really like that phrase, because it seems like some thought went into it; and it is always fun to evoke dislike; certainly better than boredom. So first of all I would like to say thank you for showing considerable interest. Yes, you can have that autograph. What was the question? Oh yes, I need to justify why i dislike a bad trailer; because it was bad.

So, on to the final question... She was PM for eleven years, that is three elections. Make your own mind up XX

Only as much as it is relevant. It does seem a little bit of a reach to write a screed complaining about the inherent flaws in creating "strong" female characters in fiction and then launching into a critique Ghostbusters, a film which none of us have had a chance to see yet and are judging on a couple of minutes of footage and a few still photos, for reasons that seem to have very little to do with your original point.

No. It may have started off well, but the gag where they bring out Pac-Man's creator to try to reason with a giant evil Pac-Man is worse than anything in the Ghostbusters trailer. Ghostbusters was just a case of "ehhh, this isn't a good trailer", but trailers are like that. That's why I posted a link to a fan-made trailer that re-cut the original trailer into a shorter and more enticing piece of work (most notably by cutting the Exorcist-style slapping joke out entirely, which I imagine is a source of much disdain). It's not a good trailer, but that doesn't automatically translate into a bad film. Hell, the trailers for Spy made it look horrible by emphasising a scene where McCarthy falls over while riding a scooter, but there was other stuff in the film to make up for it. Hell, Black Mass had awesome trailers but the resulting film was still a major disappointment.

Also, did you seriously try to type the c-word? You can't even write a-hole on here.

Disliking a trailer because it is of bad quality is acceptable, but there's only so much that you can extrapolate about a feature film from a single bad trailer that was made by a marketing department instead of the people who actually created the film.

That's not even a question.

I think I have made a friend.

It is funny that you would obsess on the Ghostbusters trailer and then turn the subject; some might argue that you are a contrarian... some might. Not me of course. I know that you have valid points that I will respond to in turn...

I espouse equality while disliking a trailer. Grow up. I can dislike a trailer regardless of the actors.

Second question... yes I did typ the C-word to describe both Adam Sandler and McCarthy because they are both c*nts... please tell me that one shows up.

Your final point. Yes I could not agree more. There is only so much you can extrapolate from a trailer.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. The whole reason my side of the discussion has focused on the Ghostbusters trailer is because it's the only thing we originally had any disagreement over, hence why I considered it worth discussing instead of the preaching-to-the-converted vibe I got from the rest of the OP.

Of course you can, but seeing as your complaints regarding the trailers mentioned tend to revolve around the actors involved, you can see how people might come to that conclusion. Also, it's poor form to tell people who disagree with you to "grow up" regardless of whether or not they're genuinely wrong.

Oh, it does, but I'm sure a mod is likely to come through and edit it anyway.

True. Keep that in mind the next time you want to use an unreleased film with one trailer as an example in any argument that you're trying to make.

You are reaching now...

As you can see in an earlier post I think two of the characters are fantastic and two are miscast. Why are you trying to misrepresent my opinion? What ulterior motive do you have? Please stop polluting us with it.

Now here the fun starts. I do not have access to the original questions you responded to... so I am going to guess that "oh, it does, but I'm sure a mod is likely to come through anyway" refers to your inflatable girlfriend.

"True. Keep that in mind the next time you want to use an unreleased film with one trailer as an example in any argument that you're trying to make." I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an uncontrolled release of gas. A little IBS? Oops.

I know it's been touched upon already but Margaret Thatcher being Prime Minister is one of the worst examples I can think of when it comes to thinking of a "capable woman". I don't think being re-elected twice can automatically be used as an argument that she was, either.

uh... interesting thread.

i'm just going to post this quote i like. i saved it because i liked it, though i don't remember who originally said it.

"Screw writing “strong” women. Write interesting women. Write well-rounded women. Write complicated women. Write a woman who kicks ass, write a woman who cowers in a corner. Write a woman who’s desperate for a husband. Write a woman who doesn’t need a man. Write women who cry, women who rant, women who are shy, women who don’t take no ****, women who need validation and women who don’t care what anybody thinks. THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN. Women shouldn’t be valued because we are strong, or kick-ass, but because we are people. So don’t focus on writing characters who are strong. Write characters who are people."

i agree that it seems like lately that people only associate good female characters with strong, independent characters. "she's good because she's strong" is a poor argument. movie and tv characters are not good based solely on the number of admirable attributes they have. i mean, yeah, me and many other feminists are happy that there are more female characters than ever before that are more than just a "damsel in distress" but it does kind of seem to take it to the other extreme if it's just a generated strong badass female character.

__________________
letterboxd

Sure it can. She was undeniably capable at achieving her own goals, if not yours. Disagreeing with her politically has nothing to do with whether or not she's an example of a successful or capable woman.

As for the actual topic: I more or less agree with what ash said. When people talked about writing "stronger" female characters, that didn't/shouldn't mean physical strength. It's hilariously sillysad that people's idea of improvement on weakly-written female characters was just to write them more masculine.

That said, I think the majority of lead characters in the majority of movies have always been facile and simplistic, regardless of sex.

Doesn't matter, you're still taking it to task over the actors involved, even if it's not necessarily all of them.

So much for your credibility.

I agree with the whole pigeon-holing angle. We just need a better balance across the board.

And to that end, I would like to see more badass female characters. They're still in a gross minority and I shouldn't have to go all the way back to Aliens to dig up a good example.

As ambivalent as I am towards the new Ghostbusters, I don't think it will be making any forward steps.

We need something collosal. Like a Lord of the Rings or a Harry Potter with a female lead to shake the foundation. NOT Twilight.

Time will tell if Rey will explode out of Star Wars. She's fit the strong and independent bill, but she's pretty flat as a character compared to Finn.

Death Proof?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

so it sounds like you're looking for a strong, independent character apart of a huge franchise? i agree that it would be nice to see something like The Hobbit, which is very much about a fantasy adventure about kinship/fellowship between men - something like that for women, on the same scale, i would be all over.

many people think Katniss from The Hunger Games is a good example, though she has received a certain amount of flack for not being a good feminist role model. i've even had those discussions on this forum with a few people.

i disagree. i think these people do, too.

They said a good example.