Feminism in movies: refreshing or overplayed and extreme?

Tools    





So school is back in full swing and my plate is very full. I'm going to respond to a few points here. But if you feel like I skipped over a point that you thought was really important, let me know and I can go back. One of my pet peeves in a discussion/debate is when someone responds but conveniently skips over a point I thought I'd made really well. I'm not trying to do that, so feel free to redirect if I didn't respond to a particular part you want discussed.
Cool, thank you. I'll also make an effort to condense things to save us both some time.

And I don't mind noting those disparities. My only objection is when something like empathy it's regarded as a static and not a fluid characteristic. Because if we talk about something like empathy as if it's an unchangeable metric, then it can become an excuse for not expecting more empathy from people. (ie "Men have a lower level of empathy, full stop, so we just can't ever expect them to like/want art centered on women.").
That's fine, but I haven't expressed the idea that empathy is static. Saying women are more empathetic than men does not imply that they must be, or that the degree to which they are is unchangeable.

Now, I do think aggregate differences are inevitable to some degree, but I don't think they're fixed at their current point (to say that would be saying culture plays no role, which is equally as absurd as saying culture is responsible for all differences).

That's why I specifically said that some films should be made this way. If a studio could only release one film a year, then you have to go with the one thing with broadest appeal. But these days theaters can show a lot of films at a time
This is true, but I was under the impression this discussion was about underrepresentation in blockbusters, specifically.

I hear what you're saying about gain/loss. If a male-centered narrative pulls in 100 male and 100 female audience members, and a female-centered narrative gains you 10 female viewers but loses you 30, you're at a net loss. I get it. But I would really like to see some actual studies about how the gender of leads impacts a willingness to see films.
Same. I agree with you that hard data is lacking on this point. I suspect it might not be entirely possible, either, which is why we're both viewing this through the lens of our priors about culture and sex.

I actually stand by my use of the word "dangerous" here. When a group is underrepresented (or in any other way under-served), I think that it's a problem to say/assume/assert, essentially, that they must not care enough to advocate for what they want and are not interested in equitable treatment.
"Must"? Maybe. But "this is my null hypothesis and requires evidence to be overturned" is not the same thing as saying it "must" be true. It's just a much simpler explanation, and one that puts a lot more stock in the significance of people's autonomy than the alternatives. More on this below.

It puts the onus of change on people who (despite being an economic force) might not actually have the power to force such change (I will again here reference diversity in literature and specifically in children's literature).
If they're an economic force, why would they "not actually have the power to force such change"?

I'm uncomfortable with using that uncertainty as an argument for maintaining the status quo.
I'm afraid we're probably at an impasse here, then. I disagree that something should be described as "dangerous" when it's multiple layers removed from direct offense. More importantly, I think it short-circuits discussion, because suddenly something is being objected to because it might indirectly support the thing whose existence and degree is what's being debated in the first place. By all means, object to something if you find it wrong or unreasonable, but to object to it because it might benefit the status quo, in a debate about the status quo itself, seems like affirming the consequent.

I think this at odds with the desire for data, too, since that data has the potential to show things that would also be "dangerous" by this standard.

But this isn't true. Look at the MPAA study again. White audiences make up 53% of frequent movie goers. Latino audiences make up 24%. Women make up 51% of the movie-going audience. I don't think that these demographics are reflected in most blockbusters.
I'll take responsibility for this one: the line you're responding to ("they will always reflect the demographic makeup of the market they're in") does not convey my meaning well at all. When I say "reflect," I mean in a very general sense. I don't mean that X% of people will lead to X% of representation, I mean that whatever the level of representation is, it will generally be a reflection of the aggregate desires/priorities of those people. But yeah, totally on me for that poor word choice. Sorry about that.

You wrote "I agree with films being aspirational, though that can be bad, too, when depictions are unrealistic in certain ways, or because the defense of art as "reflecting truth" is inevitably weakened when the truth its reflecting is a value judgment or desire about what things ought to look like "

In the context of this discussion we were specifically talking about women leads in action movies being aspirational. I was disagreeing the premise that it's problematic if depictions are "unrealistic" or "reflecting judgement or desire about what things ought to look like."
Wait, where did I advance that premise? The bit you're replying to literally starts with me saying "Agree on all counts" and then quoting Chesterton in support of the idea that unrealistic/aspirational figures are valuable. The only area with any hint the other way is where I say it could be done "badly or thoughtlessly."

I'm honestly at a loss to explain how, multiple times, I've explicitly agreed with you and somehow received a contradiction in response anyway.

I'm pushing back to say that this is true of pretty much ALL action, not just action with female leads.
You'e been saying this for awhile, and I'm pretty sure I've agreed with it every time. We're past this point. Please, take "yes" for an answer!

I mean, I'd like some examples. How might a female lead doing unrealistic things be harmful? (Any more so than a male action lead doing unrealistic things.)
The parenthetical is the issue. I'm not saying it's inherently more harmful than that, I'm saying unrealistic depictions can be harmful regardless of sex.

You wrote: "I believe, pretty confidently, that more equal societies will still see huge disparities in choice of profession, entertainment, and other things like that."

I reacted with surprise to this because it seems to me that as societies get more equal there are fewer gender disparities in profession and entertainment.
The data on this is pretty interesting, but gender equality appears to correlate with gender differences. There are examples of strong gender differences in some European countries, for example, that rank very highly on gender equality in many commonly-used metrics for same. The logic is that people really do want different things, and when they feel no pressure to defy stereotypes because they feel genuinely equal, they're willing to simply do what they want without fear of how it looks (or with whether some stereotypical expression will be "dangerous" for some ideological dispute).

YI'm not disputing that there would be some gender disparities in a perfectly equal society (say, more men in the military), it was the word "huge" that surprised me. How big of s disparity is huge in your mind? Is 55-45 a huge disparity? 60-40?
I don't have any notion of what percentage of women "should" desire to be social workers instead of soldiers. How would I even measure that? How would you? All we really have is what people choose to do in free societies, and that seems like it should clearly be the most important data point, since all other theorycrafting ends up trying to thread the needle between people having economic power but somehow being powerless to use it, or else making people out to be effectively brainwashed into wanting things other than what they should (however we would determine "should").

I know that's where some people are terrified film is headed, but I just don't think it's true.
Neither do I. What I'm noting is the logical implication: if the depiction of some stereotype or tendency can be said to be dangerous or harmful, then the only safe thing to depict is something anti-stereotypical, something that happens less often than the inverse.



This is true, but I was under the impression this discussion was about underrepresentation in blockbusters, specifically.
It is, and I'm referring to blockbusters when I say that studios can release multiple films at the same time.

If they're an economic force, why would they "not actually have the power to force such change"?
Because a lot of industries have built-in assumptions about what the consumer wants or what will be marketable, and sometimes they are wrong. There are plenty of stories out there about writers or filmmakers being told that their ideas wouldn't sell. There's a lot of "conventional wisdom" out there that is either outdated or just wrong. And for some groups who are dealing with more serious oppression, spending emotional energy on trying to change movie demographics might not be high on their priority list.

I'm afraid we're probably at an impasse here, then. I disagree that something should be described as "dangerous" when it's multiple layers removed from direct offense.
The part I'm saying is dangerous is defaulting to assuming that inequality must be the fault of the people who are unequal and not on the system that perpetuates the inequality. In this case the equality is the direct offense. I'm not closed to the possibility that there's a lack of interest/investment from certain groups in seeing themselves represented in film--maybe most women genuinely don't care about the gender of the lead. It's certainly the case that people who are gay or transgender are very vocal about enjoying films in which they are represented--and will support such art--yet it has taken a long time for positive or nuanced depictions of gay people to be something you see in mainstream media.

It's just something I personally feel pretty strongly about.

Wait, where did I advance that premise? The bit you're replying to literally starts with me saying "Agree on all counts" and then quoting Chesterton in support of the idea that unrealistic/aspirational figures are valuable. The only area with any hint the other way is where I say it could be done "badly or thoughtlessly."
.
.
.
The parenthetical is the issue. I'm not saying it's inherently more harmful than that, I'm saying unrealistic depictions can be harmful regardless of sex.
Because we're switching back and forth between talking about movies as a whole group and movies with leading women, it's hard to keep track. I thought that you were speaking specifically about female-led films. But if you're speaking generically about movies then we are in agreement. If you look back at what I originally wrote, I was saying it would be silly to decry a woman punching a man as "unrealistic" and then turn around and be cool with some guy out-swimming an explosion or something. I often hear this angry critique that "girls can't really do that", but it comes from the same people who have no problem with incredibly unrealistic feats from male leads. As long as you take the same attitude toward unrealism in both, we're on the same page.


The data on this is pretty interesting, but gender equality appears to correlate with gender differences. There are examples of strong gender differences in some European countries, for example, that rank very highly on gender equality in many commonly-used metrics for same. The logic is that people really do want different things, and when they feel no pressure to defy stereotypes because they feel genuinely equal, they're willing to simply do what they want without fear of how it looks (or with whether some stereotypical expression will be "dangerous" for some ideological dispute).
I find the reporting a little odd in that article, and especially the way that the researchers themselves qualify their own findings: "While these findings were statistically significant, Hermle cautions that the size of the effect is not that large" and "For each of these preferences, “there is a huge variation within genders,” he said. “If you randomly take a woman or man from the U.S. or some other country, knowing this person’s gender would tell you very little about their preferences.”"

I completely agree that in an equal society you will still see gender variation (at a statistically significant rate) in certain traits or behaviors. But even the authors of the study say that the effect size is not that big and that there is so much variation that it's not strong enough to make decent predictions.

I don't have any notion of what percentage of women "should" desire to be social workers instead of soldiers. How would I even measure that? How would you? All we really have is what people choose to do in free societies, and that seems like it should clearly be the most important data point, since all other theorycrafting ends up trying to thread the needle between people having economic power but somehow being powerless to use it, or else making people out to be effectively brainwashed into wanting things other than what they should (however we would determine "should").
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I was merely asking how one might quantify a disparity as being "huge." I agree that you'll probably never see a career that is exactly 50-50, and my question was just what you think of as a "huge" disparity. Even the research article you cite notes that there is a lot of variation with each gender.

Neither do I. What I'm noting is the logical implication: if the depiction of some stereotype or tendency can be said to be dangerous or harmful, then the only safe thing to depict is something anti-stereotypical, something that happens less often than the inverse.
I think that stereotypical depictions are only harmful if they are the only (or virtually) the only ones. The irony is that when you have more varied representation of any group, a single representation becomes less loaded because it's not part of a large generalization of a group. Depictions of chipper, stay-at-home moms lose their sting if they are just part of a spectrum of women being presented.



Some films shout as "I'm a feminist film" and some like absorb feminism every inch of square. i like both of but i prefer second, like
Raw
Girl who walks home alone at night
Victoria (2015)
Ema
Swimming pool
Elle (2016)
Mother!
Portrait of a Lady
The Shape of Water
Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
Still the Water (Naomi Kawase 2014)
Summer with Monika
Tank girl
Wetlands (2013)
Fish Tank
Frances Ha

...this all come to my mind for now. and i want to say, i can't stand male's gaze that has patriarchy anymore, (I don't mean (cis) male or female) even if it has good scenario or cinematography or acting...
__________________
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Heinlein



The thing that's overplayed and contrived is the corporatization and its (almost inherently) relentless perversion of ideologies, stripping them of everything except the most superficial traits so they're easy to commercialize repeatedly.

And since our methods of communication have emphasized the notion of ideologies and hot trends being interlocked, it's easier than ever to capitlize on something as dynamic and diverse as feminist theory. (And virtually all other equality-based movements that stand against capital.)

Corporatization of these ideas has also increased the amount of time and angles that can be mined from a single commercial product that employs such stripped-down, pandering ideologies. If we were able to pick out a moment with some kind of accuracy, I'd say nearly every Hollywood product with halfway decent marketing with an all female cast (especially those in films that recycle old IPs) since the Ghostbusters remake has resulted in corporate industry and press entities benefitting from them in multiple different ways at once. Both of these groups can market/promote/publish narratives that exploit extreme opposing reactions, often simultaneously.

All female/minority cast in a major past IP or basic genre film = months of pre-release articles/junket material about how progressive it is and how supposed 'non-progressives' hate it/will sabotage it. Then post-release, if it performs well commercially, then articles that act as "we told you so" parades will be followed by articles highlighting fringe Internet discourse as an example for why such movie products are necessary. Then several months later (usually 8-12), further articles will make the rounds, talking about how the "progressive" movies the press spent most of previous years championing are actually less than a baby step forward by invoking the infamous and ancient non-statement: "We shouldn't be satisfied when we still have so much further to go." (Some will instead opt for the condescendingly brief Twitter variation: "Do better.")

And we can see the fruits of these non-labors every year during Hollywood awards season, when we get to experience a (multi-)millionaire female celebrity/industry executive stand at the podium on one of several extravagant daises and yell at the crowd (and every home viewer) about "gender wage equality in Hollywood" — with almost no change in delivery compared to the countless other times such speeches were given over the last century. Nevermind that the people responsible for negotiating a movie actor's salary (agents) with those in charge of production, are literally hired/paid by the stars themselves. Nevermind how the solution to their "Hollywood gender wage disparity" follows a nearly identical process to those exclusively based on individual market status and profit, such as the billing order of actor names in advertisements/home video covers.

The above scenario and those similar, that seemingly follow a step-by-step formula for every overplayed, heavy-handed "ideology project" in Hollywood, will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Just as the dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of films that engage with ideologies and politics in truly meaningful ways made around world every year will continue to be shunned by corporate interests (and thus largely unknown to the larger market of moviegoers).



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
When it comes to a lot of these newer feminism in movies, one thing I don't like is how the female characters are not allowed to have a lot interest, unless it's a female love interest. But no male love interests seem to be allowed. But I find this to be kind of hypocritical in a sense, because a signficant part of feminism is a woman being able to choose a man she wants and enjoying herself with him, without any consequence. So I find that a woman cannot have a male love interest in the name of feminism to be kind of contradictory.



When it comes to a lot of these newer feminism in movies, one thing I don't like is how the female characters are not allowed to have a lot interest, unless it's a female love interest.
Specifically?

I mean Haywire, Red Sparrow, Wonder Woman . . . most of the films that I can think of that are female led action have a love/lust interest. And as a counterpoint I can think of plenty of male-led action movies that either have no love interest OR the love interest is basically a one-dimensional trophy or only exists so that she can be kidnapped and rescued.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh but I thought we were talking about more recent ones since the OP sighted examples such as Charlie's Angels and Birds of Prey.



The trick is not minding
Oh but I thought we were talking about more recent ones since the OP sighted examples such as Charlie's Angels and Birds of Prey.
Sure, but that’s a small sample size.
Two movies doesn’t make a trend



The trick is not minding
When it comes to a lot of these newer feminism in movies, one thing I don't like is how the female characters are not allowed to have a lot interest, unless it's a female love interest. But no male love interests seem to be allowed. But I find this to be kind of hypocritical in a sense, because a signficant part of feminism is a woman being able to choose a man she wants and enjoying herself with him, without any consequence. So I find that a woman cannot have a male love interest in the name of feminism to be kind of contradictory.
This isn’t feminism but rather representing, And embracing, LGBTQ relationships.
After all, who says a woman has to have a relationship with a man?



Oh but I thought we were talking about more recent ones since the OP sighted examples such as Charlie's Angels and Birds of Prey.
Wonder Woman is a 2017 release, and Red Sparrow is from 2018. I would consider those to be pretty recent.

I'm not sure how much we're separating action films from just "blockbusters", but skimming the list of 2019 releases that are female led and also major releases:

Frozen 2: Anna has a romance with Kristoff
Alita: Battle Angel: Alita + Hugo
Captain Marvel: She doesn't have a love interest. She's John Wick'ing it.
Dark Phoenix: I haven't seen this one--but traditionally she's partnered with Cyclops
Ready or Not: The main character has a husband AND some sexy-vibes with her brother in law.
Hustlers: Considering the film is about women scamming men, a love interest wouldn't really make sense, would it?
Charlie's Angels: Haven't seen it, but I'll take your word that there's no male love interest
Knives Out: Again, not really a context for a love interest, but the two strongest relationships in the film are between the lead female character and the two main male characters (Chris Evans and Daniel Craig)
Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker: I mean, I'm a few films behind, but don't Rey and Kylo have sort of a hate/lust thing going?
Little Women: Romantic relationships are a big part of the plot

I don't really see a trend of no love interest. In fact, I feel like a lot of the action/thrillers that center on women use a male love interest as a "complication" for the main female character, like in Red Sparrow. Plus, sometimes romance just isn't a part of a story--there was no love interest in John Wick (unless you count the dreamy flashbacks of John's wife).



John Wick was really a love affair with his dog and his car.😜
Exactly! They kill off or kidnap the love interest--so typical!!!

And if you think feminists are bad, just wait until the automotive rights movement gets here. All the leads in action movies will be cars, and they won't have any character flaws.



I only wish those who film those movies understood what feminism is all about...



Exactly! They kill off or kidnap the love interest--so typical!!!

And if you think feminists are bad, just wait until the automotive rights movement gets here. All the leads in action movies will be cars, and they won't have any character flaws.
That’s a pretty epic prediction out there. I don’t know about cars, but iPhones and Siri - for sure!



I watched Silence of the Lambs a few months back. In my opinion it's the perfect feminist film which is odd because it's from the 90's.



I only wish those who film those movies understood what feminism is all about...
Well feminism hasn't had a singular meaning since...ever, really. (At least as far as Western feminism goes.) It's always encompassed multiple theories that are either similar to each other or conflicting — from feminist writers in the Victorian-Romantic periods, to Modernist free-thought feminists, to wartime propaganda (which transitioned into corporate marketing in post-war America), to various images of feminism in to popular culture. All these periods/generations of feminist theory and organized movements consisted of seperate arguments as to what feminism is, what feminists' ambitions should be, and even whether or not feminism is practiced as a partisan effort.*

Probably the closest "blood relative" to the peak feminist dissonance we see today can be found back in the 80s, particularly well-described in the work of bell hooks. It was around the time when the cancer of intersectional theory was crossing-over, with hooks' writing in the early 80s being one of the last critically valuable takes on said cancer from a icon of feminist thought.

It's not that the people who makes those movies "don't know what feminism is all about" — it's that academic and corporate control over the American zeitgeist has been so strong over the previous 30 years that extremely baseline ideas of feminism are willfukky adopted in commerce because its generates publicity. Companies do it knowingly, while otherwise well-meaning artists and producers from each younger generation adopt it because it's what they've learned to be "truth" from observing popular media.

But does that also mean independent, more serious filmmakers like Duras, Breillat, Deren, Varda, et. al "know what feminism is all about?" Of course not — none of them even agree with each other when it comes to feminist ambition; because there's no such thing as "what feminism is all about". And there likely never will be. There isn't one generic social theory from academia (whether its crossed over into mainstream discourse or not) that has a singular, simplified meaning, so would feminism?



I watched Silence of the Lambs a few months back. In my opinion it's the perfect feminist film which is odd because it's from the 90's.
Feminism in movies has been around for decades.
Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley are prime examples. Jordan O'Neil in G.I Jane... Maggie Fitzgerald...
A bad example is Rey Palpatine, Alice from Resident Evil... and sadly, Sarah Connor and all the other female characters by Connor's side in Terminator Dark Fate.

It's just recently, as in, the last 5 years, it's become an agenda and a selling point... to the detriment of storytelling.
Writing in movies today is that a strong female, means invincible.
Checklist for today's writers:
  1. No weaknesses.
  2. Great at everything.
  3. Invincible.
  4. Fantastic at everything.
  5. Everyone is lost without them.
  6. No weaknesses.
  7. Great at everything.
  8. Everyone is lost without them.
  9. Great at everything.
  10. Invincible.
  11. Fantastic at everything.
  12. No weaknesses
  13. No weaknesses
  14. No weaknesses
  15. Fantastic at everything.
  16. Great at everything
  17. No weaknesses.

I think it's today's writers who are fault.
Not the feminism itself.

Mary Sue's are bad.
Strong female characters are great.



It might be a trend or maybe I am over thinking this... But the Scandinavians do churn out quite strong female characters in their movies. But then again, I only watch what is popular rather than digging through what comes out in theaters weekly in the north of Europe.
__________________
My Favorite Films



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Sure, but that’s a small sample size.
Two movies doesn’t make a trend
That's true, just because I saw it in two movies recently, doesn't mean there are a lot like that.

Two movies I like with strong female characters are Set It Off and Thelma and Louise, but perhaps modern audiences may not think they are as feminist of movies, because of the tragic endings for the female characters?