Often in TV, we see female characters being portrayed as "strong" if they are irritable, contradictory, or just plain mean. Characters like Abby in Sleepy Hollow, Alicia in the Good Wife, and Amy from Superstore all seem like people I'd want to avoid. Their prickly personalities are supposed to signify that they are confident women who are trying to make it on their own in the world. But is that really what a strong woman is about? Having a personality that makes you unkind to others and very irritable does not seem to constitute the ideal woman in my book. It seems rare that we see a kind, agreeable woman being portrayed as someone who is also strong. What is the perfect combination of spunk and kindness that would make up the ideal "strong" female character?
This is an excellent topic! I find that I usually can't stand female characters in books, movies, and TV lately because they are so one-dimensional. It seems like authors and producers really want to push the "badass female" trope, which always makes her come across as rude, irritable, and like you said, just plain mean. I get that they're trying to make a woman seem tough and able to stand on her own two feet, but in reality, women are not that one-dimensional. A woman can be strong without being unlikable, obnoxious, or "tough." An example I would use is Yuna from Final Fantasy X. She is a very soft-spoken, gentle character, but she is out to save the world, and when she needs to stand up for herself or her friends, boy, does she do it! So I think the answer(s) to your question is/are complex. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Female characters are written by female screenwriters are often the best way to get good strong roles out for female actors. One example is Elaine Pope who wrote for Seinfeld. Elaine the character was one of the first really funny women on TV who did not portray the stereotypically straight "man" for the funny main character. Getting a multi-dimensional female character on TV would require a screenwriter who would have insight into women enough to make them entertaining. Usually conflict is what drives a character and plot. So the conflict would have to be something that would resonate with women. How the main character deals with the conflict with as you put it spunkiness and kindness would be nice to see. I think that Marg Helgenberger and Jorja Fox on CSI were a move in the right direction. Also Amy on Big Bang Theory is both very sweet, smart and strong and not your typical lead actress in Hollywood. – Munjeera9 years ago
This is a fascinating topic and one that I still find myself mulling over in my head. I think when we think of "strength" it's a word that is already so imbued with (sometimes narrow) masculine ideals. As Jack Graham wrote in "Stephen Moffat - A Case For The Prosecution," "Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings." Perhaps this would be a separate article, but aside from personality, appearance is also a big factor in what makes a female character "strong" (or "feminist"). For example, in video games, I often come across scantily clad women and then have to ask myself if I'm right to criticize the creators for their male gaze-based designs or if I'm accidentally slut-shaming. – txl9 years ago
I did my graduate thesis on this very topic. The trouble anyone who wants to write about this intelligently is going to run into is the answer to this simple question: what is femininity? Any answer that's remotely palatable is going to be complicated and nuanced. Ultimately, it is a social construct. And social constructs change--femininity in 1950 looked much different in 1970, and so on. Coming up with a streamlined definition is tricky, if not impossible in our very fragmented 21st century society. That said, I find the trope to be problematic because it perpetuates a false binary: traits coded as feminine (nurturing, empathy, crying) are weak, and traits coded as masculine (terse, detached, "tough") are strong. Basically, women are only strong if they "act like a man" (the quotes are to indicate skepticism--see above discussion of femininity versus masculinity). Some possible good examples in different genres of womanly women are: Snow on OUAT (I know, the show is terrible, I will not even argue that). Rizzoli and Isles are both great, and a great example of a healthy female friendship. Felicity Smoak on Arrow is another example of femininity to me. I don't really watch any sit-coms anymore because I haven't found one to rival How I Met Your Mother (the greatest sit-com ever), but Lily from HIMYM is a good example, I think. You may want to read Carina Chocano's NYT article entitled: "Tough, Cold, Terse, Taciturn and Prone to Not Saying Goodbye When They Hang Up the Phone"--it was the spark for my thesis.
– ladyabercrombie9 years ago
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the revival of TV shows or films from the 90's. The most recent addition to this lineup is Netflex's re-production of sequels to "Full House" and "Gilmore Girls". The remake of Ghostbusters, the Terminator, and Goosebumps are some of the other examples of this shift. What does the revival of such shows or films tell us about our cultural understanding of the 90s? Are we being nostalgic or does the industry tap into our love for such iconic shows, but why? Exploring this idea would require an examination of the cultural significance of such shows or films and to what extent their appeal has resulted in their revival decades later.
And with Nickelodeon rerunning Rugrats, it seems it's the makers that are being nostalgic. Perhaps one of the reasons is that a lot of new comers to the Nickelodeon production team were 90s kids? Maybe. I personally don't know who's I charge and how new they are so I could be wrong but it's worth looking into. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Nick has it's own nostalgia channel now and that is something too, it's like we are keen on being nostalgic 2015 /2016 are all about reviving dead shows, twin peaks is coming back from the 90's and x-files came back from the 90's. it is like the 90's shows are making a comback and they are even talking about having a hey arnold! movie and then a movie with all the old cartoons like rugrats, hey arnold! etc., it's a good way to start to get us to buy series' dvd's haha because that is def what it makes me want to do right now. But, what does it do to us as a generation to see these shows and see the people in these shows grown up and what does it do for the kids who did not know these shows existed and how this is the first show they are going to see and have as full house grown up, instead of as little kids, it is so weird to think about! – scole9 years ago
It's also worth noting that in the 2000s, Rugrats already sort of came back when All Grown Up aired. And as a spin-off/sequel of some sorts, it was actually not that bad at all. I'd say, as a generation, shows like this would rekindle anybody's old love, and make newcomers curious to what the original was all about. Only makes things better. It's a smart move by Nick. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
With Nickelodeon running it's 90s channel, The Splat, I suppose you could say that it's a way of keeping the 90s kids' youthful spirit alive in a way, similar to how Boomerang was aimed towards the Baby Boomers as a nostalgia television block. It seems too soon to be presenting a 90s nostalgia block, but with the fast culture and growing technology, the industry will always rise to this occasion of feeding these audiences what they crave. – Sean Navat Balanon9 years ago
Going on the Arrow sub-reddit there seems to be several "who's in the grave?" everyday. I suggest having a definitive roundup of who could be the person theorised about so much. Whose death would have the biggest impact on the show? Are Felicity and Thea in the clear now that they've survived near death experiences? The writers/show-runners say Felicity is not in the grave, but could her body be elsewhere and the Felicity in the car with Oliver be a hallucination much like Shado was in the flashbacks. What about Oliver's son? He seems like the next character the show is teasing to die after Malcom told Darkh about him. Would a character the audience has seen maybe just two times leave a big enough impact on the viewers? Would they even go so far as killing off a child? Even with its somewhat darker tone, Arrow still doesn't seem like the sort of show that would do this.
This should aim to be the definitive piece for the "who's in the grave?" theories. Which characters make sense? Which characters don't?
Prime candidates: Diggle, Laurel, Felicity, Thea, William Hawke and possibly Quentin Lance. Finally, is this who grave talk taking away from the rest of the show? This seems like a tunt to get the fandom in on speculating who is going to be killed off when this could have been handled as a surprise death.
I think it would be interesting to look at how TV influences how a nation presents itself. Quantico for instance presents the FBI as an industry that only accepts the best of the best of the best of the best. Continually culling from their supposedly elite recruits. Shows like CSI and other procedurals and police dramas like Castle and even Brooklyn-Nine Nine irrespective of genre portray the police as singlemindedly determined to find the truth. As a force that refuse to accept confessions if there isn't evidence to back them up. Who will search for the truth inspite of all the evidence to the contrary if they find someone pleading their innocence. They will only accept a righteous confession as the final closing of the case.
They also rarely show people using lawyers. Laywers are seen as evil. Even seasoned spies when caught (Castle) confess to the police without a lawyer because the cops simply yell lies at them. Seating in interrogations is always across tables never invading someone's personal space until "Bad Cop" shows up to get physical.
Shows like The Whisperers are strangely patriotic and frame every decision as if based on the principles of the founding fathers. The decision to intern children without telling anyone is based on how they will be perceived in history.
There are many other examples and types but I believe these create a sense of righteousness in how America perceives itself. Quantico tries to humanize their character by giving them all secret flaws and having them share them with other characters at seemingly random times while at the same time having the most complex exams on a nearly daily basis that sound like a logistical nightmare. And while it makes sense in Sleepy Hollow for the founding fathers to come up constantly. It's odd that a show about aliens invading is so focused on the political theory rather than threat assessment. I think it does the accused a disservice in real life to never show people talking with their lawyers unless they're rich and (likely) guilty. It creates a general perception that the police can question you and you are obligated to answer them without representation.
Good topic! I see this in Law & Order all.the.time, too. There is some analysis that could be done with Althusser and the ideological state apparatus. Although, if someone selects this topic, I would stick to one genre of shows to analyze simply because examining several different genres might make the parts of article disjointed from one another. – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
I think it's important to look at multiple genres but I might stick to one facet of ideal perception and then look at it across the genres. For instance. You could look at legal representation and you can see it in dramas, mysteries, and comedies and see how they each do it similarly and how they do it differently. In TV defense attorneys are the devil to cops and attorneys are (usually) their buddies. I think it'd be important to highlight the importance of how defense attorney's work and are perceived in real life in comparison to how they are in TV. Or you could do a similar thing with interrogation, or evidence. – wolfkin9 years ago
Ah yes, I agree with this-legal representation across genres would probably work as an analysis because it has a common thread of "legal representation." The author would still need to tread carefully to not take up too much material. I agree that defense attorneys are often considered the cops (and therefore "the truth's" enemy). However, "The people" or the state attorney, are often on the same side as the cops and seem to also be the mouthpiece for "truth." – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
Netflix's Jessica Jones was released in November 2015 and has had a great response over the past few months. Mental illness is something the protagonist struggles with in the form of PTSD. The villain, Kilgrave, has the power to control the minds of others. He is also the cause of Jessica's PTSD and haunts her through just the knowledge of his existence. To what degree is Kilgrave representative of various forms of mental illness? Can the metaphor of Kilgrave=mental illness be extended to depression, anxiety, attachment issues, schizophrenia, etc.? Are certain aspects of mental illness shown in the show through him? (I.e. No one believes in his existence=mental health stigma, people who have been "kilgraved" constantly fear his return, etc.)
I'm very interested in your point about how people don't believe his effects are possible/exist, and it's true he can damage people's minds. However, I think that even an extreme extension of mental illness would not have the word-for-word control that Kilgrave has, or be quite so exterior to the victim/survivor. However I think that the therapy group touched on how it unsettled them that he sometimes made them indulge in their unacceptable desires. – IndiLeigh9 years ago
Perhaps not. However, I actually have severe depression, and I found that the show spoke to me on a very personal level, which is what prompted this topic. I feel like I lose control when I'm depressed, and it's a bit frightening, because I don't know what I'll do. I can try to stop the downswing, but sometimes it's impossible, and suicidal thoughts are hard to ignore. It's a bit like having a little Kilgrave in your head. – Laura Jones9 years ago
In an article by Into The Gloss, Lucy Hale, who plays Aria Montgomery on Pretty Little Liars said, "It’s important for young girls to realize things like we have fake eyelashes on, some of us have extensions, we have good lighting. It’s the same thing as Photoshop!" People who enjoy watching shows like Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girl, Once Upon A Time, The Vampire Diaries, etc. can't help but think about the fact that the actors' makeup, hair, and clothes all look great. But where is the line drawn between what is natural and what isn't? Is there a way to teach people about behind-the-scenes tricks? Is there a message that can be sent out to the public that says a lot has to be done so that the camera catches it? (Even in a film like The Hobbit, Martin Freeman's robe was extremely bright and colorful because they needed to make sure the camera and filters could "pick it up.") Should audiences be made aware about the tricks to the trade via a disclaimer? On the flip side, is the emulation of their favorite actors/characters a positive thing? Isn't wearing makeup and getting "fixed up" fun? I'd love for someone to explore the pros and cons and what should or shouldn't be done about television's impact on body image.
I highly approve of this topic, because it comes at female body image and the perception of feminine beauty from the angle where it is causing the most confusion and lasting impression: make-up and costuming in film and television. There are some television shows and ongoing projects which explore makeup and costuming from a creative angle, but don't quite explore how it is used to fully transform a typical actress into what we see in the final product, and how huge the difference can often be. I also think that doing a one-time expose' on this sort of thing wouldn't really do the trick, because it would be here and gone within a few months. So there ought to be some sort of continuous thing, like maybe a type of promotional featurette that different TV shows can produce, which show how make-up, hair, costumes, and lighting are done, and show how "the magic" happens: maybe like a PSA series. And the message would always be to explain to those younger audience members watching, that what they see the characters wearing and looking like isn't something truly attainable in every day life, nor should it be everyone's goal. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also, from the perspective of a filmmaker, knowing how the magic is done never ruins a film experience for me, or a television experience either. Seeing how every last detail was conceived and executed never breaks the veil because when it's done right, it still suspends my disbelief. I think it has to do with the editing and the sound design. If neither of those two things were effective, then I probably would notice all of the gears and wires and the illusion would die instantly. But otherwise, there's no harm in letting everyone in on the make-up techniques or the cinematography. It's deeply fascinating. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Agreed to the above - if filmmakers guarded their "tricks" of the trade as jealously as professional illusionists, there would be no behind-the-scenes special features or director's commentary added to DVDs (which I love). Another interesting take on this would be film vs. television and their differing attitude between revealing their magic; I wonder if there is data anywhere that gives an idea whether young girls' body image is affected more negatively by TV than by film. I'd venture a guess and say that it is. (As an aside, I've been thinking for a while that it's very interesting fake lashes have made a serious comeback from the '60s. They've been used in TV and film since then, but not since the '60s has the general public worn them regularly.) – Katheryn9 years ago
Angel, a spin off of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was for a time on par with its sister property. But it did not last as long as Buffy or get as much attention from fans (as far as I can guess). What are the differences between the shows that has caused this division?
I wonder if one of the reasons Angel didn't last as long was because we already knew his character. We got to know him in the first 3 seasons of Buffy, so there was no need to spend time going over his history when Angel got his own show. – rachelyzara10 years ago
One was about high school and the other was about the work world. Buffy was about standing up for oneself and one's principles, while Angel was about learning how to selectively use and abandon one's principles, for better or for worse. – joubert10 years ago
I think it would be helpful to write about how interesting it is that a show with a female protagonist lasted longer and was more successful than one with a male protagonist. There's this statistic that states that female-lead shows/movies make less profit than male-lead shows. I would definitely have a gander at gender! – itschlofosho9 years ago
Feminism has been a huge topic of conversation through 2014/2015. It's become a point of view in which to critically analyze our media, and led to new multifaceted stories. The Bechdel test is often used as the bare minimum; but what exactly constitutes a feminist story?
Great question! Although, I imagine it will be incredibly difficult to navigate given the varieties and history of feminism. For example, what is feminism? – Mitch10 years ago
14/15? what is this a school year? – wolfkin9 years ago
Because feminism is such a complex topic, I don't think there is any way to say a story is feminist or not while having everyone agree. Some stories break feminist code while still depicting feminist characters, and vice versa. – morleycigs9 years ago
I agree with the comments above in that this topic/ subject matter is very broad and complex. I would suggest narrowing it down to one specific facet of feminism in stories and/or writing. – Morgan R. Muller9 years ago
One in which egalitarianism, if not present in the setting, is the one goal for the protagonist. – ChrisKeene9 years ago
I don't want it to sound too simple, but if we narrow it to ''equal treatment'' i guess it has more to do with the most inherent characteristics of your characters than with your story. People are now talking about the role of female characters of Game of Thrones, who are, most of the time, the ones in control. Maybe GoT is not the best example, but my point is that, if you want to make a feminist story, perhaps the best thing to do is not to include dialogues or pivotal situations in the form of statements, but to make your characters be statements themselves.
However, as it have been said before, it is much more complex than that. – Ga5ton9 years ago
I would define a feminist movie as one which is female-centric, that is has a prominent female lead(s) and voice(s). I don't think feminist means that one woman has to speak for all women, but that her voice is heard to create, instead of "history", a "herstory" on any subject. – Munjeera9 years ago
