There are many deficiencies when it comes to the accurate depiction of women in film.
Under-representation
The domination of the film industry by men and the effects of the male gaze concept cause male characters to outnumber female characters greatly in important roles and in number in general. Martha Lauzen reports that only six percent of top 100 films in 2013 casted the sexes in equal numbers. (Moving Beyond the Bechdel Test) Of the women that were casted, an analysis by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film of San Diego State University found that "females accounted for 30 percent of all speaking characters (major and minor), 29 percent of major characters, and only 15 percent of protagonists." (Moving Beyond the Bechdel Test)
|
Second to Men
Though the deficiency of female characters in films is disturbing, it would be less disturbing if the existing female characters were always shown to be equals to the male characters. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Sharon Smith states, "Women provide trouble or sexual interludes for the male characters, or are not present at all.” (Thornham 14) This, of course, is a drastic claim to make, considering that not all films fall into this trap, but it is a common convention of both many recent and older films to contain female characters who have no defining characteristics but their sexuality and/or troublemaking tendencies. When women are not depicted this way, they are often depicted as having no sensual qualities at all: a message that women are either extremely sexual, or asexual, and nothing in between. If this does not seem odd to you, just think of some of your favorite male characters as having their only pursuits during the film be to please women sexually. Then imagine them to have no drive whatsoever to be with a woman. Seem odd now?
So Called "Strong" Female Characters
The Film Heroine
The film industry sometimes is so good at making gender discrimination invisible that it convinces many moviegoers that certain female characters are not only depicted as equals, but that they are an exception to the rule, that they are "strong" and "empowered" female characters when they really are simply furthering problematic notions about women. One common way that the media does this is through the depiction of film heroines, those females who are physically and emotionally strong, and who can out-fight and/or out-think their opponents.
Before I go any further, I would like to point out the problematic nature of the concept that in order to be strong characters, females need to be fighters, need to be physically strong. This, of course, is not always the case, but it is the most common type of "strong" female screen character. Why not an abundance of female scientists or political leaders instead? That being said, two cases against many examples of screen heroines being strong, equal female characters is that they are oversexualized and that they are not truly presented as women, but as unorthodox men.
Before I go any further, I would like to point out the problematic nature of the concept that in order to be strong characters, females need to be fighters, need to be physically strong. This, of course, is not always the case, but it is the most common type of "strong" female screen character. Why not an abundance of female scientists or political leaders instead? That being said, two cases against many examples of screen heroines being strong, equal female characters is that they are oversexualized and that they are not truly presented as women, but as unorthodox men.
In his book Dangerous Curves: Action Heroines, Gender, Fetishism, and Popular Culture, Jeffrey A. Brown argues that "The development of the hardbody, hardware, hard-as-nails heroine who can take it – and give it – with the biggest and the baddest men of the action cinema indicates a growing acceptance of non-traditional roles for women and an awareness of the arbitrariness of gender traits.” (Brown 21) While this may be true in the cases of some movies, it is overwhelmingly untrue much of the time, and this is because an incredibly large number of action heroines are oversexualized on-screen through the way they dress, the ways they move, and the way that they use these attributes as weapons. Such a use of such traits only adds to the furtherment of the idea that women are empowered through oversexualization rather than in despite of it.
Brown states, “Certainly the action heroine is often filmed to accentuate her body, but this new hardbody is not offered up as a mere sexual commodity. While the well-toned muscular female body is obviously an ideal in this age of physical fitness, it is presented in these films as first and foremost a functional body, a weapon.” (Brown 25) If the body of a heroine is first and foremost a functional body, then why is it that that body is sexualized in the film at all. While having a strong body as a woman is generally a desirable trait to suitors, extra-muscular female forms are not commonly viewed as sexually attractive in U.S. culture. Women's bodybuilding competitions are not normally viewed for visual gratification, but instead fashion shows and swimsuit models. The women in these types of shows do not sport ripped thighs and bulging biceps, but slim figures, and sometimes unhealthfully so. If the foremost point of showing off the body of a film heroine was to demonstrate its functionality, it would be more reminiscent of the body of a bodybuilder than of an average yet strong body, and it would be less necessary to dress it in midriff revealing shirts and bottoms that more resemble underwear than actual pants.
The second thing preventing many film heroines from being true strong female characters is that they may not be representatively women at all, but men in woman-suits. Brown mentions that “…the images of heroines wielding guns and muscles can be conflated within the binary gender codes of the action cinema to render these women as symbolically male.” (Brown 21) The reason for these women appearing as symbolic males is that many of them display the gender traits typical of Hollywood male characters. Janine Basinger, the chair of film studies at Weslyan University, has said, “Putting women in traditional male action roles, without changing their psychology, is just cinematic cross-dressing.” (Brown 21) If screen heroines are displayed as stronger but also as psychologically masculine, then they, as characters, are only helping to promote "masculine" characteristics over "feminine" ones. In this line of thinking, the fact that a heroine is female is actually being advertised as a disability.
Brown states, “Certainly the action heroine is often filmed to accentuate her body, but this new hardbody is not offered up as a mere sexual commodity. While the well-toned muscular female body is obviously an ideal in this age of physical fitness, it is presented in these films as first and foremost a functional body, a weapon.” (Brown 25) If the body of a heroine is first and foremost a functional body, then why is it that that body is sexualized in the film at all. While having a strong body as a woman is generally a desirable trait to suitors, extra-muscular female forms are not commonly viewed as sexually attractive in U.S. culture. Women's bodybuilding competitions are not normally viewed for visual gratification, but instead fashion shows and swimsuit models. The women in these types of shows do not sport ripped thighs and bulging biceps, but slim figures, and sometimes unhealthfully so. If the foremost point of showing off the body of a film heroine was to demonstrate its functionality, it would be more reminiscent of the body of a bodybuilder than of an average yet strong body, and it would be less necessary to dress it in midriff revealing shirts and bottoms that more resemble underwear than actual pants.
The second thing preventing many film heroines from being true strong female characters is that they may not be representatively women at all, but men in woman-suits. Brown mentions that “…the images of heroines wielding guns and muscles can be conflated within the binary gender codes of the action cinema to render these women as symbolically male.” (Brown 21) The reason for these women appearing as symbolic males is that many of them display the gender traits typical of Hollywood male characters. Janine Basinger, the chair of film studies at Weslyan University, has said, “Putting women in traditional male action roles, without changing their psychology, is just cinematic cross-dressing.” (Brown 21) If screen heroines are displayed as stronger but also as psychologically masculine, then they, as characters, are only helping to promote "masculine" characteristics over "feminine" ones. In this line of thinking, the fact that a heroine is female is actually being advertised as a disability.
Heteronormativity
This concept of gender-swapping is present in other genres as well, and serves to further the idea of heteronormativity, the idea that there are only two genders, and that there are specific traits that are inherently masculine or feminine. Many times, films will allow a woman to display strong characteristics, ones that are typically viewed as "masculine," as long as the corresponding male character displays weaker characteristics (ones that are typically viewed as "feminine"). This swap does not create strong female characters because its action of removing the "feminine" (weak) traits from the female requires them to be placed onto the male, maintaining a dichotomy in which the weaker traits rightfully belong to the woman.
A Few Other Misrepresentations
While film heroines are not generally shown to be inferior to male characters by means of their abilities, agency, or independence, many female characters are, especially those who serve only as springboards for the male main characters. Even in cases where the main characters include a male and a female, the females are shown as inferior by means of being weak, unintelligent, and/or requiring a man to take care of them, or as being negative by means of being materialistic or conniving. These problematic characteristics tend to be the more easily noticed ones, since they are naturally more overt, but they are definitely worth mentioning, considering how common they are. That is what many filmgoers tend to notice: that these traits are not exceptions specific to individual characters, but that they constitute a trend.
Some Effects of Misrepresentation
The media, including film, is traditionally thought of as something that mirrors the ideas and values of society, but as the media becomes more easily available and almost invasive, it also becomes more and more apparent that it not only reflects us, but shapes our worldviews and opinions. Stone states, “…there exists a very large possibility that media now shape cultural attitudes as well as reflect them. The attitudes of the (traditionally male) filmmakers towards women, and the roles they typically give them in films must be evaluated in this light,” (Thornham 14) and she's right: the fact that inaccurate and negative depictions of women in film can have real-life consequences surely makes the need to change those depictions more eminent.
Domestic Violence
The negative effects of these depictions on women are many, but there are three that I want to specifically address. First, of course, they cause negative stereotypes to be adopted as truth, leading to discrimination and violence against women. This is especially evident in the occurrence of domestic abuse. Tula Batanchiev, in his scholarly article, Entertainment or Oppression: Female and Male Representation in Films about Domestic Abuse, states that "21 percent to 34 percent of women will be abused by a partner at some point in their lives." (Batanchiev 3) This is a terrifyingly large percentage, and Batanchiev attributes it partially to the concept that films about domestic abuse situations often tend to focus more on the question of "Why doesn't she leave him" than "Why does he abuse her?" or "Why isn't anyone doing anything about it?" This focus on the faults of the abused instead of the abuser is called "victim blaming," and is just one example of how film can encourage violence against women.
|
Negative Influence on Young Girls
Another effect is that negative depictions of women can change the way women see themselves, and can cause them to shape themselves to match. Generation M, a documentary by Thomas Keith about misogyny in America, states "the media portrays only a single image of what female sexuality should be, and at a time where young girls should be figuring out what it means to them." (Generation M) One very common depiction of women in film is as hypersexual beings, and this can be damaging to women, but even moreso to young girls, future women. One of the main points of the documentary is that "women are told that their empowerment comes through their appearance and their use of sex." (Generation M) This message is abundant in film, and seems to be effectively conveyed to young girls, evident in the appearance of many newer children's toys such as Bratz dolls and childhood beauty pageants. These things train girls that to be a woman is to be sexual, in a way training girls to please men and make them happy.
Alienating Women & Perpetuating Stereotypes
One last effect is that inaccurate depictions of women may actually perpetuate the stereotype that women are passive and emotionally unstable. My reasoning for that is this: if women cannot identify with the depictions of them in film, they may begin to believe that the depictions in film are reality, and they they are the unusual, that they do not fit in. This may cause women to begin to feel insecure about their own thoughts and feelings, believing them to be unconventional and strange. Having an image of oneself as negatively different can cause feelings of alienation and inferiority, leading to unstable emotionality and to passivity, since they may be unsure they are "correct" in the way they are.