We're Losing Our Strong Female Characters to Trinity Syndrome...

[Dementeleus]

... so argues Tasha Robinson at The Dissolve.

 

Could your Strong Female Character be seamlessly replaced with a floor lamp with some useful information written on it to help a male hero?

 

http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/618-were-losing-all-our-strong-female-characters-to-tr/?src=longreads

Edited July 2, 2014 by Telemachos

[Ezen Baklattan]

Pretty interesting article. I think that she argues that the only way a lot of movies can truly have a female character with personal and narrative merit (the latter of which she sees as lacking) is when a woman is actually the main character. I do agree with the impressment of Emily Blunt in EoT, though.

[BK007]

Do males pass this test when the movie is about a female?

 

Does Frozen pass it, if it's opposite? It might simply be how telling a story works conventionally, which still can be changed, but there's much less of an agenda.

 

Besides, faulting HTTYD2 is lame when it actually tries to create a character. I don't see them mentioning any of the superhero flicks? I think even the Nolan Batflicks fail the Bechal test.

 

Lego Movie on the other hand, did bother me, for all its "super creative! so original!" because Wyldstyle really becomes a parody of herself. Unless it was meant as satire, as most of the movie was in the first place, the filmmakers deferred to the worst possible stereotype of women. It didn't bother me to such a massive extent, but when the woman or female character basically becomes subservient to or inferior to the obviously inept/arrogant/lucky male protagonist, it's bullshit.

 

Like I've said many times, if you cannot do romance, don't fucking add a romantic subplot. Romance is infinitely harder to pull off than one thinks, especially if they've actually been in love. Maybe Hollywood is full of writers who are sad bastards with no love life. If you can't convince me, don't put it in. It's difficult to convey and shouldn't be trivialized into the bullshit "true love" seen in Disney flicks, "love at first sight" seen in possibly every other flick ranging from action movie to actually romantic comedies. The girl in Riddick is a joke simply because she is exactly opposite of who she was whilst Riddick acts like a complete and utter toolbag, it's because I assume he saved her life that she suddenly needs the dick. Yeah, fuck right off with that.

[Water Bottle]

To be fair

 

Could your Strong Female Character be seamlessly replaced with a floor lamp with some useful information written on it to help a male hero?

 

Couldn't you make the same argument about any character that isn't the protagonist and/or antagonist?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Water Bottle

[Dementeleus]

Doesn't that speak to the generally crappy writing for blockbusters these days?

[rukaio101]

I'll admit, I disagree with quite a few parts of this article. It seems to be arguing that, in order for a female character to be considered strong, she must never be shown to be weak/vulnerable/not massively relevant to the plot. Which is just completely wrong. Not having much to do plotwise in the second half doesn't suddenly turn Valka into a 'Superfluous, Flimsy Character' because plot and character are two very different things. She has already been shown in the first half to be and interesting layered character who even has a character arc of her own when it comes to trusting Stoick. And just because she has little to do in the second half doesn't suddenly contradicts that. Being saved by Stoick and Hiccup is not part of a degeneration into a damsel, it's the logical conclusion of her character arc where she learns to trust in and work with her family once more. Yes, I would've liked to have seen her do more in the second half, but her arc was completed and the story instead shifted its emotional focus to Hiccup and Toothless, which is where it needed to be.

 

As for the Lego Movie...

Her only post-introduction story purpose is to be rescued, repeatedly, and to eventually confer the cool-girl approval that seals Emmet’s transformation from loser to winner. After a terrific story and a powerful ending, the movie undermines its triumph with a tag where WyldStyle actually turns to her current boyfriend for permission to dump him so she can give herself to Emmet as a reward for his success. 

Yeah no. That's just downright wrong. To the best of my memories, Wyldstyle only needs rescuing twice. First is when she, Emmet and Vetruvius (notice she's not the only one in distress there) are all falling to their deaths and need to be rescued by Batman and second when she's captured along with every other heroic character in the film! Including people like Superman and Gandalf! But no, obviously that just makes her 'weak'. In addition, she has multiple character arcs, including learning to respect and fall in love with Emmet and, on the non romantic side, her dealing with her longing to be the chosen one and her constant need to change her name to sound cooler. Also, for the 'turning to Batman to ask for permission', come on! Did anybody here seriously interpret that as what was happening?! She was turning to him to try and break up with him since she was in love with Emmett. Batman just beat her to the punch.

 

I'll admit, I do agree with Tauriel, Carol Marcus and Dahl though. They weren't very good characters period, let along female ones. Mako Mori on the other hand, no. Just no. Firstly, yes she starts off weaker at the beginning of the film only becoming stronger at the end. It's called a character arc. I notice you didn't complain Emmett doing the same thing in the LEGO movie as being sexist against men. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Raleigh didn't knock her unconscious. Thirdly, Raleigh's not leaving her behind because 'she's a woman who needs to be protected'. He's doing it because he can handle the rest alone and if she stays she'll almost certainly die along with him. If she was a man it would be equally true. It's the Sacrifice play and has been done in plenty of movies with both men and women.

 

I'll admit though, thinking about it, it's less what this article is arguing that annoys me and more its use of examples. It keeps trying to pick out what others call strong female characters and go 'Hey! No! They're not strong female characters because I said so! Look at this! There are moments where that character isn't constantly plot active or is in trouble and needs help! That instantly makes her weak, right?!" But it doesn't work like that. The strong female characters mentioned are strong female characters, not because they're constantly plot relevant/kicking ass, but because they have defined personalities and actual character arcs and growth not dependant on their male costars. And most annoyingly, there are very good examples of what is being argued in the article out there. Take Lucy from Despicable Me 2. Introduced as a capable, kung-fu secret agent, she is turned into nothing more than a love interest for Gru and kidnapped at the end in the most pathetic way so Gru can rescue her. Those are the sorts of movies it should be targeting! Not actually strong female characters!

 

I remember seeing a video (I think it was by Moviebob) which argued that the Bechdel Test is, while a good way of measuring female representation in the film industry as a whole, is not good at judging individual films (hence why films like T2 and Pacific Rim fail the test, while films like Debbie Does Dallas and the Bikini Carwash Company do) He instead suggested an alternative test, one that judges films by whether they have

[*]at least one major female character, [*]who has a fully-developed story arc, [*]that doesn't revolve around a male character.

I think this is a much better way of measuring strong female characters in movies than the test suggested in the article.

[Lordmandeep]

Issue is films show females as being far more emotional therefore they never seem as powerful as the hero. 

[Spidey Freak]

Issue is films show females as being far more emotional therefore they never seem as powerful as the hero. 

 

Lol no. That's not the issue. The issue is barring a few exceptions like Hunger Games and Frozen, women, no matter how strong, are just used one way or another to support or provide progress to a male character's journey and story arc.

[Spidey Freak]

To be fair

 

 

Couldn't you make the same argument about any character that isn't the protagonist and/or antagonist?

 

To be fair, there are FAR, FAR fewer female characters who are lead protagonists or antagonists than there are men in those roles. Also, even in an ensemble piece like The Avengers or Inglorious Basterds with different character narratives and no one clear protagonist, the number of lead female characters are always far lesser than the number of lead male characters. 

[Lordmandeep]

Well as bad things are, Bollywood movies are a whole new level lol.

[BK007]

I'll admit, I disagree with quite a few parts of this article. It seems to be arguing that, in order for a female character to be considered strong, she must never be shown to be weak/vulnerable/not massively relevant to the plot. Which is just completely wrong. Not having much to do plotwise in the second half doesn't suddenly turn Valka into a 'Superfluous, Flimsy Character' because plot and character are two very different things. She has already been shown in the first half to be and interesting layered character who even has a character arc of her own when it comes to trusting Stoick. And just because she has little to do in the second half doesn't suddenly contradicts that. Being saved by Stoick and Hiccup is not part of a degeneration into a damsel, it's the logical conclusion of her character arc where she learns to trust in and work with her family once more. Yes, I would've liked to have seen her do more in the second half, but her arc was completed and the story instead shifted its emotional focus to Hiccup and Toothless, which is where it needed to be.

 

As for the Lego Movie...

 

 

Yeah no. That's just downright wrong. To the best of my memories, Wyldstyle only needs rescuing twice. First is when she, Emmet and Vetruvius (notice she's not the only one in distress there) are all falling to their deaths and need to be rescued by Batman and second when she's captured along with every other heroic character in the film! Including people like Superman and Gandalf! But no, obviously that just makes her 'weak'. In addition, she has multiple character arcs, including learning to respect and fall in love with Emmet and, on the non romantic side, her dealing with her longing to be the chosen one and her constant need to change her name to sound cooler. Also, for the 'turning to Batman to ask for permission', come on! Did anybody here seriously interpret that as what was happening?! She was turning to him to try and break up with him since she was in love with Emmett. Batman just beat her to the punch.

 

I'll admit, I do agree with Tauriel, Carol Marcus and Dahl though. They weren't very good characters period, let along female ones. Mako Mori on the other hand, no. Just no. Firstly, yes she starts off weaker at the beginning of the film only becoming stronger at the end. It's called a character arc. I notice you didn't complain Emmett doing the same thing in the LEGO movie as being sexist against men. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Raleigh didn't knock her unconscious. Thirdly, Raleigh's not leaving her behind because 'she's a woman who needs to be protected'. He's doing it because he can handle the rest alone and if she stays she'll almost certainly die along with him. If she was a man it would be equally true. It's the Sacrifice play and has been done in plenty of movies with both men and women.

 

I'll admit though, thinking about it, it's less what this article is arguing that annoys me and more its use of examples. It keeps trying to pick out what others call strong female characters and go 'Hey! No! They're not strong female characters because I said so! Look at this! There are moments where that character isn't constantly plot active or is in trouble and needs help! That instantly makes her weak, right?!" But it doesn't work like that. The strong female characters mentioned are strong female characters, not because they're constantly plot relevant/kicking ass, but because they have defined personalities and actual character arcs and growth not dependant on their male costars. And most annoyingly, there are very good examples of what is being argued in the article out there. Take Lucy from Despicable Me 2. Introduced as a capable, kung-fu secret agent, she is turned into nothing more than a love interest for Gru and kidnapped at the end in the most pathetic way so Gru can rescue her. Those are the sorts of movies it should be targeting! Not actually strong female characters!

 

I remember seeing a video (I think it was by Moviebob) which argued that the Bechdel Test is, while a good way of measuring female representation in the film industry as a whole, is not good at judging individual films (hence why films like T2 and Pacific Rim fail the test, while films like Debbie Does Dallas and the Bikini Carwash Company do) He instead suggested an alternative test, one that judges films by whether they have

[*]at least one major female character,

[*]who has a fully-developed story arc,

[*]that doesn't revolve around a male character.

I think this is a much better way of measuring strong female characters in movies than the test suggested in the article.

 

You could also refine your refined test, into whether more than one male character that is not the protagonist, passes that test.

 

After all, the movie is normally about one person, otherwise mostly two people. Not to say you shouldn't develop secondary and supporting characters but normally that's how the narrative works.

[Spidey Freak]

Well as bad things are, Bollywood movies are a whole new level lol.

 

I LOVED Queen and Highway though. I know they are the exceptions and not the norm, but still. 

[Lordmandeep]

I LOVED Queen and Highway though. I know they are the exceptions and not the norm, but still. 

 

 

Its the Item numbers that really make me laugh.

 

Imagine an action movie and some big actress comes in the middle of the film and looks sexy and dances. 

 

I remember watching one film and it was a couple on the run from the law. Somehow the police and the hero end up in a bar and there was an 8 min long item song with Aishwaryia rai. 

 

However oddly enough the item song was the high-lite of the film. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by Lordmandeep

[Water Bottle]

Lol no. That's not the issue. The issue is barring a few exceptions like Hunger Games and Frozen, women, no matter how strong, are just used one way or another to support or provide progress to a male character's journey and story arc.

 

I think people miss the point entirely here. A woman always acts as a way to support or provide progress to a male protagonist's story because EVERY character in a story should be supporting, providing progress, or being an obstacle to the main character. Any side character who fails to do this has no place in the story. Yes you can talk about individual arcs all you want but even those arcs should be in service of the themes and the main plot. If a strong female character didn't support a main male character's plot then she would be even more useless to the story. I slightly disagree with Rukaio's third point in the test simply because if it's completely independent, then it drives focus away from the main story and can therefore (like most completely independent arcs) drag a story down if given too much time.

 

To be fair, there are FAR, FAR fewer female characters who are lead protagonists or antagonists than there are men in those roles. Also, even in an ensemble piece like The Avengers or Inglorious Basterds with different character narratives and no one clear protagonist, the number of lead female characters are always far lesser than the number of lead male characters. 

 

Okay, you can make that point. Should there be more female protagonists? Sure. That doesn't mean that films that don't are somehow downplaying women.

 

Doesn't that speak to the generally crappy writing for blockbusters these days?

 

No. It speaks to the ways a tight story should be written. A strong story should be good enough make those characters strong despite the fact that they exist to benefit or antagonize the protagonist. In fact, a major problem can be when the side characters are more interesting than the protagonist despite the fact that they only exist to serve him.

[tommycruise]

I will give credit to Pacific Rim for at least not having the romance though

Edited July 2, 2014 by BOOYAH SUCKAS

[Ezen Baklattan]

Romance is not a bad thing as long as it's presented in a believable manner that fits in well with the story and the personalities of the characters involved. The problem is not so much that there is too much romance, but it's not romance done right.For really strong romantic relationships in non genre movies, I recommend Upstream Color.

[Alpha]

I think this is another example of women journalists complain about how they aren't always front and center in a movie's story. Filmmakers aren't denying women from getting a right in the industry. It's just that women don't always have to be the main focal point of the story, otherwise someone's human rights are being fringed upon.

[Dementeleus]

I think people miss the point entirely here. A woman always acts as a way to support or provide progress to a male protagonist's story because EVERY character in a story should be supporting, providing progress, or being an obstacle to the main character. Any side character who fails to do this has no place in the story. Yes you can talk about individual arcs all you want but even those arcs should be in service of the themes and the main plot. If a strong female character didn't support a main male character's plot then she would be even more useless to the story. I slightly disagree with Rukaio's third point in the test simply because if it's completely independent, then it drives focus away from the main story and can therefore (like most completely independent arcs) drag a story down if given too much time.

 

 

Okay, you can make that point. Should there be more female protagonists? Sure. That doesn't mean that films that don't are somehow downplaying women.

 

 

No. It speaks to the ways a tight story should be written. A strong story should be good enough make those characters strong despite the fact that they exist to benefit or antagonize the protagonist. In fact, a major problem can be when the side characters are more interesting than the protagonist despite the fact that they only exist to serve him.

 

 

[Murgatroyd]

I think people miss the point entirely here. A woman always acts as a way to support or provide progress to a male protagonist's story because EVERY character in a story should be supporting, providing progress, or being an obstacle to the main character. Any side character who fails to do this has no place in the story.

 

This is true from a storytelling perspective. However, when it appears that in-universe, she only exists in relation to him, then we have a problem.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I've only seen two films from her examples, The Lego Movie and Pacific Rim. In both cases, I think she's reaching.With that being said, I do tend to agree with her. Female characters are written weakly in blockbusters these days. Yes, we've moved on from the damsel in distress characters, but we've replaced them with just another stereotype. The best female characters are ones who can be complex and layered. They can embody all different types of emotions, perspectives, and viewpoints. At times, they can be vulnerable. At other times, strong. At other times, morally wrong. At other times, morally good.Of course, you might not have enough time to actually have such a complex character; especially, if that character is a supporting one. In that case, I think her answer at the end is a really good metric to deciding if the character is actually a good female character.