Female Representation in Films - Another View

Ensign Lestat's Personal Log, 28/12/2013

Last night I had a rather heated discussion with my sister regarding the film 'Zodiac'. At the outset, let me say that we are twins and rarely disagree on anything regarding our interests and opinions (though some of her taste in music is somewhat questionable). However, when it came to this film we did disagree, and our debate got me thinking.

Let me backtrack a bit. 'Zodiac' is based on the book of the same name by Robert Graysmith, who also plays as our protagonist in the film. His book was based on actual case files on the Zodiac murders of the '60s and '70s. These murders remain unsolved, though there were a couple of strong suspects on whom the police were unable to pin the murders on.

I was hesitant about watching the film, based on the director - David Fincher. I have my reservations about him because of 'The Social Network' which just came across as a misogynistic piece of crap, that ran on its own hype and awards campaign. I'm thankful it didn't win Best Picture, and that he didn't get Best Director, because that film is terrible.

'Zodiac', made in 2007, is a startling piece of cinema. While not very original, or very stylish, it is a fabulous mystery, drama and suspense thriller. There is no overt violence, despite the story being about a serial killer. It's been a while since I really enjoyed a film. It gripped me at every turn, and despite the plethora of characters, never confused or baffled me. It felt real, with the dynamics of the many PDs and the journalists translating well on the screen. There were a number of scenes that were intensely suspenseful. The actors were all on top form. And at two and a half hours, it's well longer than the average Hollywood film, but it never lags. The pace and intertwining stories keep you interested all throughout. It's a pity I didn't get around to watching the film at the time of its release.

My sister watched this film a while ago, but only after she'd seen 'The Social Network'. She hadn't told me much about the film. But last night, after watching it myself, I was happy to discuss how much I loved it, and about my surprise at Fincher not ruining it.

At this point she stated that it was great, except for the complete lack of female characters. That began our brief, heated discussion. I agree with her, and many other writers as well, that there are just not enough women on screen. This is true. The ratio is frighteningly poor. 'Zodiac' is no different. The protagonists are all white males, and there are only two female characters - both are wives. Inspector David Toschi's wife is only on-screen when Dave is at home and getting a call about the Zodiac murders. Robert's girlfriend/ wife, Melanie, is also only on-screen when she's at home and Robert's researching the murders. But then again, so are all the other characters. Robert, our protagonist, is a cartoonist, so he's not always allowed to listen in on the murder conversations. Same with Captain Marty Lee - he only appears in relation to the case. Same with Paul Avery, the chief journo in the film. Which was my argument with my sister. But, as she rightfully pointed out, films and literature will have you believe that women had absolutely no role in society in the past, whereas we know that they were making inroads in their own ways, otherwise we would not be where we are today, and we still have so far to go.
Just two of the many men who make up the main cast of 'Zodiac'.
I agree. But, in this film we only have a secretary for The Chronicle as a working woman, and she's barely on screen. I didn't feel that the film was missing women characters, perhaps in this regard, Graysmith did not come across many women during his research. My point is, I actually hate it when a female character is put in a film, just for the sake of her gender, and then there is nothing of worth added to her character. They always feel tacked on.

If you think that's a lot of people,
add 12 more dwarves,
3 kids, 1 king, his minion and 3 orcs.
I believe this is particularly apparent in 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug'. Much was made of the addition of the female elf, Tauriel. Granted, she's infinitely handy with the bow and arrow and the blade. But... Her central role appears to be the cause for a love triangle. It made me want to roll my eyes and shoot myself in the head. Why can't Tauriel just be a defiant elf captain, and take on the cudgels on behalf of the dwarves? Why is it that 'love' is the reason she enters the war effort? And let's not get started on the cringe-worthy dialogues/ monologues that are thinly disguised flirtation attempts. I wanted to strangle Tauriel for the majority of her screen-time.

It also gave the writers and director a great reason to make Legolas a complete pain - he's bossy, whiny, jealous and suspicious. Basically, take a character we all love and put him through the trash compactor. He's an utter jerk in the new film, despite remaining the main source of eye candy. Why?

Herein lies my complaint. Many complained that there were no female characters in the film 'The Eagle'. Yeah, I know, not many people remember that one, but I do, because it undoubtedly has one of the most memorable entrances by a character. However, the lack of women didn't bother me. In fact, thinking back to it, I think I may have been disturbed by the inclusion of women in that film because the plight of women in ancient times was seriously bad. And, to be honest, I really don't think we need to hark back to those times - the world is better than then, but by only so much. Why do we have so many TV shows that are set during periods of time where women held no power, despite their best efforts to wrest it from the men?
The Eagle - Esca arrives on screen. Memorable!
Tauriel's ineffectual addition comes to light near the climax of the film when Legolas, who has joined the fight simply because of her, is left to fend off a bunch of Orcs on his own, 'cause she's healing the other third part of the triangle - Kili the dwarf. Seeing that the other dwarves were already set to heal him, why she decides that only her elven powers can save him is beyond me. Poor Legolas is left to fight and gets beat up in the process (but is still standing).

I broached this argument to my sister. More women doesn't necessarily mean better representation. Sometimes it just makes matters worse. See the inclusion of the Black Widow in 'Iron Man 2'? She goes undercover as Tony Stark's former PA's secretary - 'cause female master assassins can't hold a day job that isn't about making your coffee? This trend continues for Black Widow - she's basically the secretary in 'The Avengers' as well, but gets to participate in the big fight. Oh, why, thank you so much, people! Never woulda guessed the lady could take down a whole armada!
Black Widow in Iron Man 2.
Alternatively you've got Hawkeye who's on level playing field with her in that film, but he's a supervisor at least, keeping an eye on the Tesseract project. I'd like to know who Widow p***ed off to get stuck with the secretarial gig.

Having said all that, the issue remains that the moment we go back in time to tell a story, we are missing main female characters - unless the story is about housekeeping. To which I say, this is not the fault of the story. The fault lies in the fact that the right stories are not being told.

We see war movies and they're all about men losing their lives and the women pining for them. Truckloads of women have been a part of war efforts, and not only as nurses - they were pilots, code-breakers, undercover agents, smugglers, rebels, etc. Why don't we take a moment to champion their causes? Let's tell a story about a sorority of pilots - their lives, their losses, their triumphs.

We have a show like 'The Tudors' which is all about sleaze and the whims of one man. The women are powerless against Henry VIII - each one killed because he got bored. The show ended with his death. How many people know that two of his daughters and one great-niece became queens of England? At a 'Mary, Queen of Scots' exhibition this year, I learnt about a total of eight or nine powerful women ruling the major countries of Europe after Henry's death. Why not tell their stories?

The entertainment industry is convinced a leading lady can't carry a film on her own - they believe this because that is convenient for them. It means they don't have to work hard to find those brilliant stories that champion women, create role models and actually attract the majority of their audience members. Women don't go to the movies to see rom-coms alone, they want evocative stories, battles, action, sci-fi and fantasy. If studios could wake up to this truth, they'd be surprised at their increased profit margins, and the increase in goodwill.

Comments