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

[BK007]

They need to get over the fact that many of the faults they find lie in action movies whose female characters are basically one dimensional "I'm a woman, give me the dick," variants.

 

It's for a different demographic. I don't know if men serve as anything in those trashy romantic comedies.

 

Both are a by-product of Hollywood/societal wants, but no one is pretending they are great movies.

 

When you get away from that, there is less of this, or more attempts at "being equal" or rather just making a good movie all around.

[The Panda]

I think to judge if a female character is a good female character is to judge if she is a good character, the same way you would judge if a male character is a good character.

 

All of those extra rules just add complications and buts and what ifs.

 

Just ask, is this character a developed and layered character?  Yes or no.  If it's a yes then you have a strong female character.

 

A character can be a strong character without kicking ass, without rescuing/not being rescued, etc.  A strong character means they are well-thought and created.  

 

For example, your typical 80s damsels in distress weren't good characters, therefore they weren't strong female characters.  People are looking into this to much, it's really simple to figure out if a female character is a strong character or not, and the key is to take the female/male part out and just look at the character as a character in general.

[Water Bottle]

 

 

 

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.

 

Well what, you think they should randomly cut to female characters doing yoga just to show that they do indeed have a life outside helping the male hero?

 

I mean if a problem is that the female character doesn't appear to have an outside life in the universe then...does that apply to every other male character who isn't the protagonist? If so, then I say the problem isn't female character writing but a character writing problem overall.

 

Seriously, if you flip the genders in Gravity I bet everybody would say the female character was weak simply because that character existed only to help the protagonist. And yet, I think George Clooney's character was just as compelling as Sandra Bullock's character even though he had no arc.

[Phil in the Blank]

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

 

In most cases, yes as well. Thats the purpose of supporting characters, to support the protagonist.

 

The real question is why are there so many male hero's in our films but very few female hero's? And I think the answer there is to do with the number of female script writers in Hollywood compared to men and a desire for male Hollywood heads to target the demographics that they know (males) then what they don't really know (females) because a few hundred million dollars is a big investment in something you don't really know. 

 

On a side note. EOT did a really good job at a female character IMO. One of the reasons the movie was so enjoyable to me.

[Phil in the Blank]

 

Seriously, if you flip the genders in Gravity I bet everybody would say the female character was weak simply because that character existed only to help the protagonist. And yet, I think George Clooney's character was just as compelling as Sandra Bullock's character even though he had no arc.

 

I've had Male Right Activists tell me that Gravity is sexist because it perpetuates the 'disposable male' stereotype. 

 

I swear to God if a film is anything more than a camera looking at a blank wall for 2 hours, someone, somewhere will cry sexism or racism.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Spottswoode

[rukaio101]

I've had Male Right Activists tell me that Gravity is sexist because it perpetuates the 'disposable male' stereotype. 

 

I swear to God if a film is anything more than a camera looking at a blank wall for 2 hours, someone, somewhere will cry sexism or racism.

Depends what colour the wall is.

[BK007]

I think to judge if a female character is a good female character is to judge if she is a good character, the same way you would judge if a male character is a good character.

 

All of those extra rules just add complications and buts and what ifs.

 

Just ask, is this character a developed and layered character?  Yes or no.  If it's a yes then you have a strong female character.

 

A character can be a strong character without kicking ass, without rescuing/not being rescued, etc.  A strong character means they are well-thought and created.  

 

For example, your typical 80s damsels in distress weren't good characters, therefore they weren't strong female characters.  People are looking into this to much, it's really simple to figure out if a female character is a strong character or not, and the key is to take the female/male part out and just look at the character as a character in general.

 

 

Have that problem with old Disney "classics".

 

Product of its time yadda yadda yadda, but something like Cinderella just has plain shallow and bad characters.

 

I haven't seen too many other old movies to compare, but evidently mindsets of society are influential and some fall into that trap of then being dated. Perhaps that's why forward thinking movies can get revised reviews at later dates.

 

And I should probably stop posting because I'm getting more incoherent with each post. lol

[Water Bottle]

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

 

In most cases, yes as well. Thats the purpose of supporting characters, to support the protagonist.

 

The real question is why are there so many male hero's in our films but very few female hero's? And I think the answer there is to do with the number of female script writers in Hollywood compared to men and a desire for male Hollywood heads to target the demographics that they know (males) then what they don't really know (females) because a few hundred million dollars is a big investment in something you don't really know. 

 

On a side note. EOT did a really good job at a female character IMO. One of the reasons the movie was so enjoyable to me.

 

And yet in Edge of Tomorrow, the female character could have still easily been replaced with a floor lamp with some useful information for the hero.

[Webslinger]

The article has valid points to make. While the Trinity archetype is definitely progress from the damsel in distress, it's still somewhat problematic that many big action films cannot find anything more interesting for the female characters to do than essentially tell the male protagonist that he's the chosen one. However, at least Edge of Tomorrow and The Lego Movie point out the fact that the female lead should, for all intents and purposes, be this chosen one, and their annoyance at the male lead for having assumed that mantle over them is clear to varying degrees (moreso in The Lego Movie than in Edge, but there's still some bitterness apparent in the attitude of Emily Blunt's character).

 

All of these points being made, though, we need to find and accept a more comprehensive definition of what constitutes a strong female character. Is it a female character who thrives in her own domain, even if it's a more traditionally female domain, or is it a female character who thrives in a traditional male domain (e.g. Jennifer Lawrence in the action hero role in the Hunger Games films, or to go back even further and even more pertinently, Sigourney Weaver in Alien/Aliens)? One need not necessarily be traditionally masculine in order to qualify as strong.

[lilmac]

It's called pandering to demographics.  Because you have a strong female character, the studios think they've done that demographic justice.  

 

I see it happen increasingly often among black characters.  You'll have black actors/actresses who play the FBI agent in charge, or district supervisor of some precinct (Fringe, CSI, Hannibal, to name a few).  Sounds great right?  Well, in the vast majority of cases he/she never does the actual detective work.  Nope, the white characters are the ones solving the crime or moving the plot along in a meaningful way.  The black boss is a well dressed figurehead.  The one exception is probably President Palmer in 24.

 

A digression but this has always bothered me:

 

A screamingly obvious example was in the last episodes of Walking Dead.  One of the groups was composed of Maggie (white), Bob (black), and Sasha (black).  Sasha was introduced earlier as a very strong character who would be ideally suited in a military command setting.  In this Maggie/Bob/Sasha dynamic, it was actually Maggie leading the decision making (either overtly or by simply walking off to find Glenn, for Bob and Sasha to then 'reluctantly' follow).  But wait!  In one scene it was Sasha who took charge and made a decision for the 3 of them.  "Alright!"  I thought. However, as the group walked off into the distance, Maggie actually started off walking behind the other two, seconds later though she runs up to be the lead.  

[TServo2049]

What gets me is that there don't seem to be enough clear SOLUTIONS for these problems. What would the perfect hypothetical of a cast with a full range of strong, well-rounded, non-stereotypical, non-token female/minority/etc. characters look like? I'm seriously curious - it's clear what critics DON'T want, less so what they DO want.I'd love to see someone write a hypothetical movie script, or find an unproduced real script or existing non-mainstream-Hollywood film, which would illustrate what those people who criticize actually WANT. What would be their endgame?

Edited July 6, 2014 by TServo2049

[Webslinger]

Thelma and Louise would be a good place to start. It's commonly recognized as one of the essential mainstream feminist films for a reason.

[4815162342]

You'll have black actors/actresses who play the FBI agent in charge, or district supervisor of some precinct (Fringe, CSI, Hannibal, to name a few).  Sounds great right?  Well, in the vast majority of cases he/she never does the actual detective work.  Nope, the white characters are the ones solving the crime or moving the plot along in a meaningful way.  The black boss is a well dressed figurehead.  The one exception is probably President Palmer in 24.

 

Because in real life the person who runs a precinct or a federal investigative division has little time to get involved with the general detective work because the majority of their work-day is filled with administrative details and bureaucracy.

 

And 2 of the specific examples you gave are wrong and misplaced. Hannibal the show is substantially more racially diverse than the book series it is based on, such as changing Jack Crawford from white to black. And in Fringe not only is one of the detectives who does actually detecting and evidence work black, the boss is black as well and he on multiple occasions gets his hands dirty assisting the team.

 

As for The Walking Dead. Maggie didn't move the plot because she was white. She moved the plot because she was a major character taken from the graphic novel while Sasha and Bob are minor characters invented by the show. And using that ignores the times that Michonne, or Tyreese, etc made affirmative decisions that moved the story forward.

 

Do you watch these shows for more than 10 minutes? Because you're just throwing facts with no context out there at all.

[lilmac]

Because in real life the person who runs a precinct or a federal investigative division has little time to get involved with the general detective work because the majority of their work-day is filled with administrative details and bureaucracy.

 

And 2 of the specific examples you gave are wrong and misplaced. Hannibal the show is substantially more racially diverse than the book series it is based on, such as changing Jack Crawford from white to black. And in Fringe not only is one of the detectives who does actually detecting and evidence work black, the boss is black as well and he on multiple occasions gets his hands dirty assisting the team.

 

Yes but I argue that these characters were made black in a deliberate way to be diverse.  I am black  and while I love seeing similar looking actors/actresses on screen, don't do it just to be PC.  It's one thing for every character to be a separate race/gender but qualitatively it's still homogenous.  For example, Lance Reddick (Fringe) and Laurence Fishburne (Hannibal) absolutely do not participate in the substantive work of problem solving, discovery, and other ways of moving the plot along.  The other characters come to them asking for resources and they give the go-ahead or ask questions for the Anna Torv's and Joshua Jackson's to answer.  There are very few roles like these where they are doing the reasoning and problem solving.  Like I said, empty suits.  

 

As for The Walking Dead. Maggie didn't move the plot because she was white. She moved the plot because she was a major character taken from the graphic novel while Sasha and Bob are minor characters invented by the show. And using that ignores the times that Michonne, or Tyreese, etc made affirmative decisions that moved the story forward.

 

Yes Maggie is a major character, one of the core.  However, Sasha is also established (not as major as Maggie) and her character exhibited leadership qualities moreso than Maggie.  Also, Bob was in the Army.  Its just that in those scenes they spent most of the time either following or looking for Maggie.    

 

I could go on and on and on with examples because I see it so much.  I will say that President Palmer and Chalky are worthy exceptions.  At the end of the day it's just my humble opinion or perspective on these shows. 

 

Do you watch these shows for more than 10 minutes? Because you're just throwing facts with no context out there at all.

[rukaio101]

Yes but I argue that these characters were made black in a deliberate way to be diverse.  I am black  and while I love seeing similar looking actors/actresses on screen, don't do it just to be PC.  It's one thing for every character to be a separate race/gender but qualitatively it's still homogenous.  For example, Lance Reddick (Fringe) and Laurence Fishburne (Hannibal) absolutely do not participate in the substantive work of problem solving, discovery, and other ways of moving the plot along.  The other characters come to them asking for resources and they give the go-ahead or ask questions for the Anna Torv's and Joshua Jackson's to answer.  There are very few roles like these where they are doing the reasoning and problem solving.  Like I said, empty suits.  

Okay, there is absolutely no way in hell you've actually watched Hannibal if you think that's the case.

[lilmac]

Hannibal especially.  Fishburne is used as a vehicle (through questions that he poses, etc) for Hugh to actually solve the mystery or for Madds to drive the plot forward in some other manner.  

[rukaio101]

Hannibal especially.  Fishburne is used as a vehicle (through questions that he poses, etc) for Hugh to actually solve the mystery or for Madds to drive the plot forward in some other manner.  

I'm sorry, but last I checked, being on the crime scene and asking questions completely counts as 'participating in the substantive work of problem solving, discovery, and other ways of moving the plot along.' And let's not forget the rather numerous times through the series he's solved the mystery or worked things out on his own with, at best, a very minor pointing in the right direction by Will/Hannibal.

 

Like I said, if you seriously believe that applies to Jack Crawford in Hannibal then you've obviously not watched the show.

[lilmac]

I'm sorry, but last I checked, being on the crime scene and asking questions completely counts as 'participating in the substantive work of problem solving, discovery, and other ways of moving the plot along.' And let's not forget the rather numerous times through the series he's solved the mystery or worked things out on his own with, at best, a very minor pointing in the right direction by Will/Hannibal.

 

Like I said, if you seriously believe that applies to Jack Crawford in Hannibal then you've obviously not watched the show.

 

Then I suppose I have not watched the show. 

[Ruthie]

A good juxtaposition of traditional vs strong female characters is Black Widow.  In IM2 she was little more than a blow up doll who could fight; really only there for male titilation.  In CATWS, she was a full fledged person with talents, likes, fears and choices.  The fact that she was female and "hot" is not at all brought up as a point, let alone exploited. 

[Plain Old Tele]

I've had Male Right Activists tell me that Gravity is sexist because it perpetuates the 'disposable male' stereotype. I swear to God if a film is anything more than a camera looking at a blank wall for 2 hours, someone, somewhere will cry sexism or racism.

MRAs basically deserve a giant LOL and nothing else.