Say it isn't so!
I'm joking, of course. The fact that films for children feature predominantly male characters is something you definitely notice when watching movies for kids over the years. And, apparently, (the) Geena Davis has the numbers to back this up. Davis "unveiled details yesterday of a survey of 101 films, entitled Where the Girls Aren't." And the details show three of four characters in children's movies are male, as are four of five narrators. (Davis is the founder of See Jane, a foundation "which campaigns for better balance in how girls are represented in the media.")
Tim Cornwell covers the study for The Scotsman.
It isn't just the numbers, however, that tick me off. Even the best movies for kids reinforce the worst stereotypes and offer their female heroes so very little. Why, for example, must Violet's growth as a character in The Incredibles be represented by a makeover and a date? Why must Jesse in Toy Story 2 be rescued by Woody in the end? It is so irritating.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
When I was (a lowly grunt) on staff at a major publishing house, I often heard people in acquisition meetings say matter-of-factly: "Girls will read books about boys, but boys won't read books about girls." This assumption had great weight at acquisition meetings, cover meetings, and such. It was funny, though, because almost all of the books that were huge hits during the time I was there were "girl" books.
Why does your story not surprise me, Melissa? Keep on writing! It's the only way...
In the realm of the female heroes not being allowed much, let's look at film-Hermione shall we ? I feel really sorry for Emma Watson, being saddled with such a lame-ass character in the films, compared to the Hermione of the books ! In the books, it's become increasingly clear over the course of the series, that Harry simply can't manage without Hermione (as I keep arguing and Rowling keeps proving), and yet in the films Hermione's story is increasingly cut back (if not deleted altogether) so we can see more of "Heroic Harry" ! No wonder I usually leave the cinema spitting feathers (if not curses !). Grr !
Oh, how I agree with you re: Hermoine, Michele.
I recently reread the HBP and it is clear to me that Harry will never succeed without Hermoine. You are right in saying that Rowling does this intentionally. Harry is not so quick on his feet usually--he needs Hermoine to figure things out for him. In fact, I think the whole "rely on/confide in your friends" bit in the 6th book is actually because Dumbledore has bound Ron and Hermoine to stick with Harry to the end (Why Harry needs Ron so much, though, I am less sure.)
Very good point re: the movies and one I had completely overlooked.
you can find the study referred to at seejane.org
While I can't recall Toy Story 2 with any certainty I find the accusation against Violet's character in The Incredibles without merit. Anyone who has seen the films would know that she came into her own on the island during the rescue, found her footing and self-esteem and gained a stronger sense of self because she wasn't stifling or hiding who she was.
*Her "makeover" amounted to her using a hair band to keep her hair out of her face (wow-amazing) and regarding the date she certainly came out as the more forthright person in the encounter.
While it seems as if parents prefer these sort of fare to be one long PSA as a teeny bopper a part of one's middle/high school triumphs were measured in one's general deportment and interactions with boys. Certainly after the string of subtle and not so subtle good, PC messages in The Incredibles an acknowledgment of that wouldn't hurt.
*Also this followed a strong visual theme going through the film where you could discern character's circumstances and personality from their physical built, clothes, body in proportion to surroundings eg. the father in the cramped insurance office his car, each of the main character's abilities, Violet's hair-in-the-eye etc. I really hate when films are taken out of context.
Arethusa--
I'm glad you feel so strongly about "The Incredibles" and I have to admit that it is, probably, my favorite animated film of all time.
Yes, Violet gains a ton of confidence on the island, as does Dash, and, indeed, their parents. But how do we as an audience finally see that new confidence manifest itself in the real world after the battle? She pushes her hair out of her eyes and asks a guy out on a date.
I write this not as a parent, but rather from the perspective of how I would have felt seeing the movie at age 13 (which I am guessing is Violet's age, though I don't know for sure). Dash gets to run, Violet gets to go out with some guy.
Sorry if my perspective smacks of PC police to you. It is, simply, my opinion.
Though I'm joining late (from the Carnival link!), I'd like to add a few cents
While there is a propensity towards male characters in that list of films, there's something of a chicken and the egg issue here that was hinted at in a quote in the Scotsman article. Movies are made to make money. Some movie "formulas" consistently make more money, so it's easier for the studios to greenlight them. Attempts to break the formula don't often meet with success, as audiences are NOT easy to retrain, so it becomes harder and harder to try to break the broader mold. The producers are certainly at fault, but the consumers bear some blame here, too.
The wonderful movie The Little Princess is an interesting example here: it bombed the first go round. It got re-released because reviews were so strong... but it still never found an audience. Since around that same time, it's been far harder to get "family" films like that made (and yes, I believe it was PG, but the point remains the same). Was it just the female lead? Doubtful, but in the absense of anything provable about why a movie wasn't a success, you do have to look at things like gender, topic, theme, etc. But it's true that it becomes harder to try to do the same thing when it appears to have a track record of failure.
This does lead to a bigger issue: the demands for "family entertainment!!!" were never backed by the pocketbooks of people who claimed more family friendly films were needed. That's a bigger discussion, but not so totally unrelated.
Oh, and claiming gender bias in Pooh might be true, though that proves that it's an old problem. And a new Pooh is coming featuring a female in the woods... a concept that draw howls of complaints as well. Ahhh, irony.
Very thoughtful post, Gregory K.
I understand the forumula argument quite well, but don't you think it hints at some laziness on the part of producers? Someone always breaks the forumula, is succesful, and a new formula is born!
Re: "Little Princess." I think the initial commercial failure of "Little Princess" comes down to the fact it was a live-action film, and a historical one at that. I'm almost positive it would have had the same problems with marketing if it were about a boy.
I agree with you re: irony of Pooh :)
So, Kelly -- you say producers should break the rules, but then say that Little Princess failed because it was live-action and historical. That's ironic, don't you think? This also ignores the fact that live-action kids movies had been the big genre (Home Alone anyone?) and... well, it's never simple, as we'd both agree.
We ALWAYS hear lots about the successful rule-breakers, forgetting that most attempts to break the rules fail. Doesn't mean attempts shouldn't be made, but it's critical to remember that Hollywood, like anything else, is a business. Or put another way... did you get everyone you know to see Little Princess to support the filmmakers?
As I said, it's a bit of the chicken and the egg. Can the audience be re-trained? Mebbe. I'd note that feature films also aren't the only entertainment option out there anymore: Disney Channel movies have lots of female leads, and the Amanda Show ran on Nick for quite some time as two examples. Can Hollywood do better? Yup. Can consumers? Yup. Will either? Dunno.
Post a Comment