It was somewhere between saying, “if a female author isn’t good enough to be included in a curriculum then there shouldn’t be a special class for them,” and, “women’s brains are smaller than men’s–it’s science,” that she got mad.
After seeing my girlfriend’s reaction to my serious thought (although I don’t believe it’s cut and dry like that), and my playful quotation of Anchor Man, I realized that I would most likely piss off a lot of women who don’t know me when posting on such topics.
While I contemplated this, I realized that I didn’t really know too much about issues facing women in the media. My girlfriend enlightened me to some bad characterizations of women in film and tv. This made me wonder what makes a good character, and how many female characters fit into that category.
I did a search for “what makes a good character.” The first result of substance was What Makes a Good Female Character. I thought this was interesting because I assumed that it would be the same requirements for male and female. I get confused when I see things like this. It’s incredibly counter-intuitive to be fighting for equality, not just with pay but with attitudes towards, for anything, and then have different criteria for both. How can a good male character be bad just by changing the sex to female? Perhaps it’s because I’m a man and just can’t understand the issues women are faced with. It could also be because there’s a double standard.
My next search was for “what makes a good female character.” You will see a plethora of hits on what makes a good female character in literature and film. A couple common criteria in the lists and suggestions is that the character has to be multidimensional, and the action affects the female character. One says that the issues the character deals with have to reflect women’s issues that are current and common in our society now. It continues on to say that the character has to “overcome victimizing circumstances.” Furthermore, the character has to “demonstrate that sexuality and loving include intimacy, warmth, caring and understanding and are enjoyed by women of all ages,” while also being a new role model for women.
Next, I did a search for “what makes a good male character.” Again, a plethora of hits were returned. The subject matter is a little different, however. The results are more about what kind of character makes a good real man, not a fictional character. The results for “good character” in general returns more hits that are on point, but the majority draw a distinction between female characters and other characters.
I like a good female character just as much as a good male character. It doesn’t make sense, though, that there’s different criteria for a good male character and a good female character. Shouldn’t a character be good or bad based solely on the character and not based on the sex?
With such restrictive requirements, I became curious about the 100 Best Female Characters. I quickly discovered that many of the females listed do not fall into the category of “good female character” when matched with the strict criteria. Characters like Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), from Sunset Blvd., and Judy Barton/ Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak), from Vertigo, are two examples of women who, in my opinion, are phenomenal characters. However, they fall short. Norma Desmond is a former silent film star who fell off the map when film transitioned to “talkies.” She forces a writer to stay at her home while he writes her a script that will make her a star again. Hardly a good role model for women. She is not victimized, in fact, she victimized a man. Judy/Madeleine helps a man cover up his murdering his wife. While the main character does fall in love with her, she always seems to be in control of the situation. Both women are integral to the plot. Neither movie would be remembered if not for these great female characters. Have these characters contributed to betterment of women in our society? No. But they are good characters none-the-less.
"I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. De Mille."
I once watched a film critic interview Quentin Tarantino about Kill Bill (Watch it here). During the interview, Tarantino says that the movie is empowering to women because “Uma Thurman is a female warrior.” He likes to “have girls not just be the girlfriends in movies” with “shirts that end before their belly button.” That’s what he made. A group of women who “don’t ask permission to kick ass. They just kick ass. They live by a code of honor, and die by that code.” The interviewer disagrees because the women “use violence like boys.” It’s her belief that because the women use the same tactics as men that they are not strong women. This is asinine. Distinctions like this perpetuate the problems by making something right for men but not women. It’s a double standard, which hurts women, and female characters.
It’s my understanding that part of the women’s rights movement is fighting for women to have the ability to use men’s tactics, and not just be relegated to the prim and proper ways of a woman. Therefore, characters like the women in Kill Bill, Sunset Blvd., and Vertigo are good characters because they are in situations, and acting in ways, that we typically only see men in.
Men and women should have one criteria for what makes a good character. With such restrictive criteria for women it’s very difficult to make a good character who does not seem preachy, or unbelievable. A male character doesn’t have to say anything about issues facing men and can still be a good character. A female character has to fit into a little box in order to be good. These ridiculous stipulations are putting a box around female characters saying they must fit this standard, or they just aren’t good for the movement. Sounds just as restrictive as the kitchen.
