Pick me girl: a friend’s plea concerning woman’s roles in cinema as girl boss or love interest. Where are the meaningful conversations of woman and woman.
My friend El-ly, explained the idea of a pick me girl the other day. Such a girl is one who acts differently than the pack for attention. A girl who acts out for male approval. She explained that the girl boss and love interest types are classified into a traditional metric for cinematic film. Concluding that there is rarely dialogue between two female side characters beyond the protagonist’s goal.
The theory is quite interesting. I have not watched sufficient cinema to conclude whether this is a genuine claim. Yet in all the movies that come to mind with male leads, the love interest tends to be just that. Her role is recognised by her affiliation to the main character. The women in any of the James Bond films are under-appreciated because their existence is contingent on Bond’s role. They are the women that need to be saved. They are princesses that Bond falls for and are his ticket to stardom. They rarely have their own being. Their being is linked to Bond’s. Independence is brutally deficient. The female is forced into a box. An existence by the patriarchal element. A life only worth living if Bond accepts her. At the onset, her role is non-being. It is only her attachment to Bond that her being has significance. She is brought to life and becomes significant. She may have a few choice words for Bond. They may play a game of cat and mouse but it solely inside his matrix. She can only act this way with him. She can only act this way while his being is connected to hers.
One of the obvious problems is the love interest’s sole purpose as the protagonists fiddle. Their purpose hinges on the protagonist’s movement. Indiana Jones has a number of love interests. Their purpose is magnified in the context of their appearances. Yet they do not live outside his orbit. If he ceases breathing, their purpose does as well. They may have many lines but they are in his frame. Their role is simple. Bring some spice and romance to the movie. This prostitution model takes the love interest’s personality away from the character. The character is straight to the point. Their role is helping the character. They are his ammunition but can be voided. They are not the purpose nor do they receive recognition. Their ladylikeness is dispelled in the ignorance of womanly duties. They are a side arc for the protagonist’s complexity. A woman with no voice other than to the protagonist. She can speak to one person. A medieval purified doctrine. The female character is what she is aware with. She is a supporting actress. A support to the protagonist’s whims. Her role depends on his decisions. She is caged to a monistic role that fails to capture her complexity. Such variance is ignored. It does not exist nor is it relevant.
Love interests have it rough but even those who are not such as Princess Leia are still brutally demoted. The issue is that although Leia has more colour to her character, such colour diminishes progressively. The trajectory dies down throughout the movies. She begins so strong and then is feminised into a love interest by the end of the sixth movie. She begins as a feminist icon. Leading the rebels, standing against Vader and then slowly loses her standing. In time, her role is decreased to Han’s love interest. To a point of a sex symbol in Jabba’s Hutt. Was this degrading process intentional or a consequence of consecutive writing? Padme has a similar but worse arc. Her independence is shaken by her affiliation with Anakin. A queen to a scarred wife. Her ferociousness filters into a love interest. A smaller power to her powerful role as the queen. Her place muddled by an emotional overhaul. Both female character’s lose themselves for love. A conservative pundit of women giving up work for family. Yet their feministic roles lose clarity and sensibility in their eloquence to their male counterparts. They lose their significance as the movies move on. The male protagonists take on the main roles while they remain in the background. They do plays roles. Padme is Anakin’s conscious. Her existence causes Anakin’s fall to the dark side and her death the end of him. Yet it is contingent on his role. Leia falls prey to Han’s outlaw tendencies. While Luke is the main character, her role revolves around saving him and aiding him throughout. A housewife on the battlefield. A strong and inspirational character who is better at providing soothing advice than fighting enemies.
Yet, the main issue is the lack of female representation. Among the main characters, only one is female. Thus even her centricity is overshadowed by the boys club. A recent movie Jumunji, begins with two of each gender and then moves to three boys and one girl. Even the girl is a tom boy and is described as a pick me girl which will be reiterated. The lacking equality or even ratio equivalence marks the boys club. Pulp Fiction and Fight Club have strong female leads but they pale in comparison to the male strengths. The men overshadow and take centre stage. Who are the females supposed to talk to except the men. Action flicks target men and thus have such a ratio. Male leads are prominent with other men fighting alongside in the war. Strong characters are forced to be more masculine to fit in or feminise into a love interest. Leia begins as an empowered female. Standing up against the empire. Though simultaneously sending R2D2 to get Obi Wan to save here. The first movie spends much of the action saving her. While she demonstrates some independence and fierce character, she is still a damsel in distress. The interactions are serious but the plot portrays her failed independence. Her masculinity shows and then is feminised to Han as her role amongst the men became entangled for romance purposes. Her independence ceased.
Cases with multiple female characters may not stand on the same side. Guardians of the Galaxy begins with the classically imbalanced six to one ratio. The misfits work together to save the world. There is female chemistry between Gamora and her sister Nebula. On opposite sides of the war, they fight. A major component through the MCU is their relationship developing with the baggage of resentment and jealousy. Fighting with their father Thanos or against him. They do not really ever make up and the story fades into Nebula avenging Gemora. They do not stand on the same side. Their conversations are intertwined in the masculine energised conflict. There is no sister talk of beauty or gossip. Solely a tumultuous daddy’s problem scenario. Despising one another for the choices made. Ripley’s staunch victory in Alien has interactions with a young girl she saves. There is a female on female discussion. Yet Ridley’s actions are masculine in nature. Her place in the plot is a James Bond substitute. She is saving another damsel in distress. The mythos simply continues. While the movie is glorifying in the feministic enterprise, the goal masculinised Ripley fails to be achieved in her womanhood. She is a fighter. She can fight amongst the boys. She is placed in their camp. Seen alongside the men. Alien busting and outlaw character is a pandering to lustful men who crave the sexy activity of a strong-willed woman.
Uma Thurman’s character is a masculine version of a female lead. Whether in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. Thurman in the former is a strong woman amongst the men. Her role is minor compared to the other characters. She is a prized possession of the boss but that does not provide the adequate independence necessary for the character. Her role though strong willed is tied to Travolta’s interests. Winston’s submission to Marcellus leads to his affiliation with the Thurman’s character. Her character is hinged on Winston’s movements. Yet the more influential flick finds Thurman as the main character. In two movies where woman reign supreme in the martial arts, Thurman takes the classic male myth to the feminine side. Husband murdered and looking for revenge. An old classic with a female lead. The gore and thrill is high masculine energy. The same role could’ve been played by a man. The script fit Thurman. Tailored to the storyline. A samurai’s journey with a gender twist. Such character development is indicative of fearsome masculine pull. Captain Marvel plays with the same fire though Kill Bill is a tremendously greater movie. A recent twist on the girl boss motif furthers women to act like men. Men can fight so can women. These solo outings follow historically male plots with female divergence.
Vampire Diaries nor the other female leading magic shows dispel the myth. Female leads are masculinised to be aggressive and save the world. They are chosen to be the hero. A timeless myth commonly found for men but the same facilitation is articulated for women. Though at the same time there is classic female behaviour. While they attempt to change the world they need male assistance at times. They cry and sulk for male advice. Romantic quarrels become heated. These female leads add some variables to Campbell’s explanation. Female leads still have their primitive cinematic insecurities. Their male counterparts are stoic and strong while these female saviours find comfort in their help. The same diagonal relation is articulated but in a smoother relation, the men live independently. Though this may simply be a Vampire Diaries thing where other characters gain more screen time. So much screen time that a couple spin offs were created. This may be a sole example or it may represent the feminist lead. There is a clear difference between Vampire Diaries and Captain Marvel. The collectivist versus individualist model stands more congruent with feminised elements. Even as a lead there is more to explore in the universe. The world is not solely the main character. Other characters may spawn from the lead but their stories are credible to research.
Differences may dwindle down to type of movie. Dramas may be open to expansive iteration while action funnels into a single character’s experience. It depends how the story is written. Given there are female leads who are intensely focused and other characters matter little without their insistence. There is rarely a screen without them speaking or acting. While dramas probably provide the most extensive network for non-protagonists to discuss, the extent of such conversations is not always so great. In long-standing dramas it can be unclear who is the main and who is the side characters. There may be a few. So even in the Vampire Dairies, there is no scene where side character’s speak amongst themselves. There are multiple characters and their stories explored. Still an achievement. Those side characters evolve to main character status. Though their independence is derived from the main story branching out. Vikings begins with Ragnar’s stay and when it branches to his children’s stories the frame swaps between Bjorn, Ubbe, Ivar, and Lagartha. A story must evolve for those side characters to become main elements. Then again this is not always consistent. Lagartha was dependent on Ragnar. As his wife she was the link but once their marriage falls apart and her wisdom increases she attains her independence away from marriage in her own monumental story. Still her warrior skill and attitude reflects the classic masculine image.
At the crux there is certain female behaviour to be the lead. Take the case of Mean Girls. Katy is trying to fit in despite her tom-boyish attitude. She fits in with the outcasts. Regina brings her in to the exclusive popular bitchy club. The feminine side dawns on Katy to act more girly. She decides to alter her looks and act dumb for a boy to like her. She wishes to be wanted. She turns herself into a desired girl. The boy she wishes to impress is utterly confused. He liked her for her uniqueness. She realises in the end it is better to be her true self than be a more feminine girl. Moral of the story be your tom-boyish self. Femininity is ridiculed in the absolute bitchiness of living. A more balanced individual is one who stays true to who they are. This is best articulated by Katy’s friends: one goth the other gay. She is from Africa, a third outsider to the mainstream. The irony finds her flirtation with the boy. She believes femininity is the way to his heart while to him it is her boyish attitude. He likes her for who she is. He likes her because she is content with who she is. She is irregular and that raises eyebrows and mystery., She is pretty and smart. A combination furthering her appeal. The movie DUFF (from the trailers) also conveys to be who you are and not fall into the feminine need to look good aspect. The redefinition need not be spending hours on makeup to look good and dress as such. Yet, is this really the case?
Pushing such agendas as dressing autonomously and degrading the classical feminine muses places a stronger masculine spin on it. It is only wrong if it seeks to degrade the feminine of old. This applies across the board to all parts of classic femininity. To looking good and to housewife duties. Trying to blend a lead female who is overpowered but also deeply emotional symbiotically upends the genuine masculine energy. Female heroines are more complex. Not the Ripleys or Danvers. Stoic identity is not as addressed in male leads. Personally less acquaintance with chick-flicks. Not aware of the extent of Pretty Little Liars or even Grey’s Anatomy. They may possess a bit of each but there is a consistent theme of love interest trying to gain more attention. The best way to do this is by reversing the roles. The female takes lead and then hovers over potential bachelors. Wondering will they or won’t they. It is also possible there are certain ingredients for female viewers than male viewers. Many male shows narrate a single character’s growth. Centred on an individual’s aspects from The Mentalist to Longmire. Side characters are indelible to the experience but are solely extensions with little testimony to main individual. The case of House revolves around the protagonist. Each character’s development is in response to House from Chase to Cuddy. There is no side quest for the individual to assert their moment. When House goes to psychiatric care and then to prison the storyline shifts to his new habitat.
While female targeted series may expand the character centre to multiple perspectives, there will not be a scene that escapes one of them. Three or four characters may find their moments throughout the series yet there is a focal link between the characters. In a way these shows compensate for the pick me alternative by presenting an overload of female leads to congregate with one another. Even to mix with male leads but spend time developing the female protagonists. The male lead focused on his lonely hero’s journey interacts with others out of necessity to his path not as a kind act. The drama filled exploration denote artificial extras to spice up the plot line. Back to House, each character plays a part in House’s development. Wilson plays the most pivotal role, his role is central in its relation to House. Much of Cuddy and Wilson’s conversations concern House. Though the irony of a self-obsessed protagonist and the show discussing his self-interest is humorous. Cameron plays her role as the beauty that House calls out for hiring her. Her development is rejecting him and becoming her own person. Yet in the long run, there is a fractured element to her building. To some degree she rejects Chase because of his House-like mannerisms but there is also a seemingly underwhelming mechanism only seen through House’s eyes.
A recent series, The Rookie stars various characters. A few males and a few females. Nolan, Chen and Angela receive the most screen time. Their lives intertwined gaining multiple perspectives. Conversations beyond the semantic are posed between Nyla, Angela and Chen. The relationship between Chen and Tamara provides a deeper consult to the non-masculine identity. A feminine powerhouse in a regularly male-dominated department. There are obvious cultural references that may rub conservatives the wrong way but the show definitely portrays a female correlation beyond the masculine priority. The show clearly prioritises Nolan. The show revolves around his rookie campaign in his mid-forties but does not undermine other entrances and their stories. Shows like Married with Children and Full House may have positioned male characters with more lines but the female leads did have girl on girl interactions. While the male leads were more central to the show the females played their roles to perfection and received internal development. It may not have been symmetrical to the men but it was significant. Golden Girls was more female centred given the main leads were women. Nevertheless even forty years ago, women did play independent pieces of a holistic series.
Television series provide more time to develop characters. Movies are quick straight to the point. The big screen is a statement while a series is an elongated routine. The ability to get to know a character and their inner workings is possible when there is more screen time to meddle. Movies tend to to jump into the storyline. Despite the differences, the question remains if on both ends, the female lead is stereotypical. The pick me girl model runs against the stereotypical layout. The character is a stand-alone independent woman who tries to escape the matrix of the screen. Wonder Woman is an excellent example. An amazonian warrior hellbent on defeating evil. She not only diverts from her mother’s instructions but differentiates from the rest of the women. Her entire portfolio screams difference. It does not suggest that the character degrades other women but that her existence inherently does. Yet the grand irony still follows her “feminine instincts”. While she stands isolated from the womanly pack, she still possesses womanly characteristics. She will never be a man and disgraces womanhood with her embrace of manly endeavours. The modern twist on females excelling in masculine professions such as a cop in the The Rookie displays a range of uncanny feminine behaviour. In the female leads, they are still hunkered away from femininity.
Sitcoms have largely compensated for this disaster. Both Married with Children and Full House recognise the roles of the female leads and align them in the story. The larger synopsis generates a humble attitude to female integration. The men have more lines but the women play their share as honesty reflections. Kelly acts very feminine and is beloved. She acts true to her female self at times using her beauty to her advantage. A stereotype but one that plays into her success and applauded by the audience. The same goes for Stephanie and Michelle whose sister relationship is on display. Acting true to sisterhood. It is an imperfect demonstration but one that does attempt to grasp female adolescence. Though Friends may take the cake. Unlike other series, The three girls are symmetrically popular to the boys. Joey and Chandler may receive more screen time but their humour was the crust of the audience’s enthusiasm. Monica and Rachel’s relationship ought not to be derided though. There is much backstory given to the girls and their relationship. The show capitalises on the female bond between the two. The pick me energy may be present in Monica and Rachel’s attempts to independently grow on their own. Monica a chef and Rachel a designer. Rachel even leaves her fiancé to be her own woman and start fresh.
For Friends, the desire to be an independent woman in a man’s professional world is offset by the feminine charm. They do present lady-like character. Yet it is also at the expense of the traditional housewife model. Monica wishes for her own legacy away from her parent’s expectations and Rachel to start anew from a failed engagement. Rachel’s independence berates her dependent girly sisters who have yet to mature. Female job security good but marrying rich unemployed bad. Under the lens, even the female leads are venturing out into masculine trends. Then again, this is a feministic tenant. The movement itself calls for women to be independent. The portrayal of female characters may discreetly shun femininity but it isn’t as if the movement isn’t aiding in this push. While male directors may be at fault for poorly writing female characters, it is also possible that the Hollywood feminism is triumphant in its influence. The score of female protagonists such as Captain Marvel and She-Hulk seek to effeminate the character by exposing her masculinity. It is not even hiding in a hybrid feminine naturalisation. It is full-blown girl-boss stoic loner hero. It is an eye for an eye identical to most male lead storylines. It baffles and even undermines the femininity of woman. The latter is a cultural problem sought to overcome the problem with pandering opportunities.
Top ten most famous female characters include Laura Croft, Katniss Everdeen, Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner. Each of these characters while beloved possess masculine ideals. The aggressive stoic competitive nature is deeply reflective of many male led action flicks. Mulan ironically tries to bridge the gap. A woman struggling to endure the male dominated army. Her struggle is apparent in her physical immaturity and inferior skill. The pick me energy may result in her prowess in the long run but such action was executed out of respect for her father not some social reasoning. Mulan is untalented and imperfect but it is her perseverance that is rewarded. Other female icons reverse this trend. Scarlett O’Hara, Belle, Alice and Dorothy. Each of these characters even with their own amount of first wave feminism do demonstrate a strong femininity throughout the films. It is their womanhood that places them in their social nature and yet prevail in the long run. The latter group do not try to be men but live through their womanhood. There are imperfections in their character development. There may even be an archaic vibe to the stories but nonetheless possess incredible will power and dedication.
Dorothy is seemingly a feminist icon who refuses the title. Either Oz is a dream undoing the entire fantasy or Oz is real and her desire to return home undermines the fantasy. Similarly, Alice is the heroine who saves Wonderland. Her curiosity and independence propel her feminist’s grind. Yet like Dorothy, she leaves Wonderland. An area where she is regarded as the saviour. She is unable and unwilling to accept the ways of Wonderland. Caught up in her Victorian identity, Wonderland is a foreign world, one that is feminist acquainted but abhorrent to the character. While Dorothy and Alice have separate ideologies, the common theme is the progressive doom. Belle is a bookworm and while wise and beautiful, she is a weak woman. A woman who courageously seeks to save her father but is powerless against the beast. She must kill him with kindness. She must sway his ways. Thwarting his aggressiveness for stoic humility. The sheer feminine touch defeats the loud mouth arrogance of Gaston. Yet between the two it is still a battle of fists. She is a female hero but not a feminist hero. Scarlett mimics the same case in her search for love and dignity. Winning is not a gladiator battle as with Ripley and Conner but with emotion and wits.
Fans adore Ripley and Conner. Iconic female characters with a bone to pick. It is hot! They demonstrate a keen ability to capture the viewer into their crusade. Their aggressive stoic characterisation fits with masculine energy. Alice and Belle are feminine character for girls to amuse and follow. Belle is a Disney princess. Alice a cute bedtime story. Yet these characters pale in comparison to the normative. Especially in male targeted audiences. The female sidekick rarely has a second persona other than her relation to the main character. While this happens with most sidekicks, this does not need to be. Cinema may have a problem but there is an ability to explore an independence that does not hinge on narcissistic pandering.
No comments:
Post a Comment