DRESS me up in gingham and give me Shirley Temple ringlets. The battle to right the gender politics wrongs of the world has gone a little too far.
Hollywood is now in on the act, or is rather the focus of a new study which argues women in films aren’t getting enough of the best lines.
The University of Southern California (USC) analysed almost 1,000 scripts produced over several decades and reports films are seriously letting down the sisterhood. How so? Female characters, it’s pointed out, tended to be younger than their male partners and spoke less. And female conversation all too often focused on family values, while men used language linked to “achievement, sex and death”.
Now, this USC study is funnier that John Wayne’s 1956 film appearance as Genghis Khan. When it points out female characters tend to be five years younger it ignores the fact this reflects societal trends; Hollywood isn’t being misrepresentational.
And the “achievement, sex and death” complaint is entirely spurious because the majority of Hollywood films are made for teen male audiences. As such, content will all too often feature men murdering men, apes murdering men, or men dealing with murdering hangovers. If we accept the argument the entire point of being of a teenage boy is to have as much sex as possible before death, the females in these films clearly won’t have the opportunity to reveal a Proustian cleverness.
The USC study cites the Bechdel Test as an indicator of women being contained; films can pass the test “only if two named female characters have a conversation with each other about something other than a man”.
Jason Bourne, it’s noted, failed to pass the Bechdel Test, but what does this matter? It’s a nonsensical story about an amnesiac assassin who keeps forgetting he’s forgotten the plot.
This year’s cult film Baby Driver also failed. But why would it not? The film’s protagonist is a young getaway driver car for a gang of villains. His girlfriend is a diner waitress. Generally speaking, women don’t systematically rob post offices. They’re not that stupid and have far better things to do with their time.
The study argues that female-led films such as The Hunger Games or Kickass consistently make more money than those led by men. If that’s the case why doesn’t Hollywood (not an industry ravaged by philanthropy) green light more of these movies? Perhaps it’s to do with the countless lady vehicles which flunked, such as Elektra or Tank Girl.
Feminists will perhaps pick up on the USC line that while females in movies tend to be more positive (less death talk) they tend to talk more of family or about relationships. But is it wrong for women in films to speak of or champion family values? And what the study tends to sidestep is that female-oriented movies such as Cinderella and Fifty Shades Darker spanked the box office this year, yet feature lots of boy talk. And is that a bad thing? Bridesmaids, for example, is a far more entertaining film that Baby Driver in terms of emotional resonance and entertainment value.
According to the study, Wonder Woman passed the Bechdel Test but was it a feminist success story? When the amazing Amazonian in the metal bodice wasn’t battling Nazis, she was battling for the heart of hunky Steve the spy. And while Fifty Shades also picked up pass marks for dialogue content, did that movie really take us out of the dungeons in terms of gender politics advancement?
The USC study, which counts words spoken in these 1,000 films, points out men had substantially more lines – 37,000 dialogues – whereas women had just over 15,000. But the numbers argument carries less weight than Sandra Bullocks’s g-string in Gravity because it doesn’t cater for context. The Great Escape and Lawrence of Arabia didn’t feature a single female voice but does this mean they were less of a classic? Were Casablanca and The Graduate any less powerful because the most powerful female voices spoke mostly of relationship perils?
Women in modern movies can be astronauts, corporate leaders, doctors, astrophysicists and that’s exactly right. And in an ideal world, word content will be fairly balanced; for every Butch and Sundance there will be a Heat.
But simply having a female lead with lots of words to say is not enough. Consider Hollywood’s recent insight film into the world of a Washington lobbyists, Miss Sloane, which featured a dull world with a dull, dark central character who couldn’t connect with an audience, perhaps because she didn’t even like herself. Consider Ghostbusters, which was re-written for women but the concept must have emerged from a head full of pop corn because it was never going to imbue its characters with the oafish (male) stupidity which came with the original.
Films work because they are either good or bad. They entertain because the script has a strong narrative, the characters well-rounded and their world presented to us the audience with a semblance of sense. Those who fund such projects as the USC study should use the cash to encourage more women into the industry, as writers, producers, directors, to increase the number of Kristen Wiigs or Kathryn Bigelows.
Don’t bother counting lines. Don’t waste months stripping scripts down to bare identity politics. Don’t prism everything through the lens of gender equality. Just come up with good movies.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here