Faraj 1 Treh Faraj Collins English 12 6 December 2013 The Feminist Response to Hollywoods Form of Women Empowerment Many

would think that as people go through years of change and evolution, the opinions of mankind would change towards one another. Sadly, that is another tragedy that Shakespeare wasnt present to record. Feminism is a fairly large movement that is still being fought today. For the past few decades, women have been trying to establish, not earn, their place in the world. The trend of strong female character in cinema does not exactly mean that Hollywood has embraced feminism, but simply defined it in its own way. Their definition of strong is pointing a gun and shooting without looking. Or at best, a strong female character with no development wearing leather and kicking the life out a villain without adding to the plot or her character whatsoever without looking at anything. What is being shown on screen can seriously damage the identity and psychology of the new and emerging generations to come. It has been the duty of feminists of the world to create a world of acceptance where the young can live freely. It has been the commitment of feminists to give the world something to strive for: Hope. A hope that they too will accomplish wonders, just as their leaders have done. Hollywood champions strong female characters as the new face of feminism, but these characters are merely flat, static, and superficial, who unlike most dynamic male characters are neither authentic nor relatable. Screenwriters need to create female characters that exhibit great resilience and courage.

Faraj 2 With Hollywood embracing the growing feminist power, they created their form of feminist representation compressed into a phrase they now call the strong female character. In Sarah Dunns article, Enough with the strong female characters Already, she talked about how much cinema has degraded the role of women. The fallacy in Hollywood is that if youre making a feminist...movie about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows a real person we can empathize with (Dunn). The media has morphed the strong female character right into a flat emotionless person and expect the audience to actually understand. Hollywood is trending to a flat and passive female character to solve all their plot complications. Its bad enough that they make movies that objectify women, but then to call those women strong female characters? (Mlawski). In Michel Bays blockbuster hit, Transformers, Megan Fox plays the sexy female lead, Mikaela Bane, comments on one of her co-stars roles in the franchise, both the female characters in the movie were very strong characters. Rachels character is very intelligent. I thought they were representing women very well. If by representing she meant that every woman is a natural born mechanic who can fix a broken down car in a three inch skirt and a crop top while looking sexy and staying unharmed, then obviously she knows women more then they know themselves. Its important to note that its not just the characters physicality that angers so many, but the lack of character development she has. This is why her character appears static. Throughout the film, Mikaela as a character never actually contributes to the plot other than looking pretty and requiring rescue countless of times from the male lead. If she only had just some of the character depth that was required of her, perhaps the audience would actually empathize with her. According to Shana Mlawski from the online

Faraj 3 magazine, Overthinking It, wrote young white nerdy men who wish they could bone models after watching them sexily fight robots as sweat cascades down their luscious tanned bodies(Mlawski). It seems that these flat female characters are placed in films for a specific audience: Their strength lets them, briefly dominate bystanders but never dominate the plot. Its anodyne, a sop, a Trojan Horse-its there to distract and confuse you, so you forget to ask for more.(McDougall, All Princesses Know Kung Fu) It appears that what these characters look like or do has nothing to do with the females in the audience whatsoever. For the greatest part, these films are insinuating that men are looking for these traits in women and therefore women need to look up to these glorified conceptions of the female embodiment. Static female characters are so very common in modern film, they can be spotted in most films produced within a year. Only handfuls have depth and substance, and these leading ladies are nominated for best female lead at the Academy Awards. While these women would still be young and hot, of course, theyd have one characteristic that made them more masculine. That could be a physical strength or a superpower (Mlawski). The qualities these women have are almost out of the feminist category and transitioning to the masculine category. Characters such as these can almost not be called feminist or even female simply because any feminine aspect has been stripped from the character, leaving only a sex idol in tight fitting clothes for men to ogle over. Contrary to popular belief, real women have weaknesses and display pure bravery. They show anger and frustration and most of all, they acquire flaws that anyone can connect with.

Faraj 4 What happens when one tries to fit another iconic male hero into an imaginary Strong Male Character box? A few fit reasonably well, but many look cramped and bewildered (Rich, Why This Writer Hates Female Characters). What about men? It is unheard of to call a male character strong simply because strength is already implied if the character is a man. Men have too many ways to be defined and their character development can be described in countless ways. Other than that, male characters in Hollywood are almost never static. They are much too developed to ever even be considered static. So the question is, if a man cant be labeled, then how is it possible a woman can be? The most bewildering answer to the question is, yes, women can be labeled and left at that. In the eyes of men in the world of cinema, women are placed however they want for their pleasure and to be portrayed how they want women to look, giving them physical qualities that justifies the reason for given the female characters the label strong female character. They pile up one awesome trait after another on top of this sexy female character, thinking that will make them stronger (Mlawaski). And these awesome traits given eventually create a superficial character. A character with no depth at all. They are instead giving actresses the chance to do the action instead of the acting. It is perfectly alright for the female to cry once in a while. It is okay if the character asks for help. Its not a crime if the character is weak.It is hard to actually recall if any male character in cinema history was ever superficial. There is a reason why male characters have the tendency to have a goal in a story. Whether its to save the world or damsel, they have something set to do. And the complications along the way, changes the characters motives, emotions, morals, or even personality. No one ever asks if a male

Faraj 5 character is strong (Mcdougall, I Hate Strong Female Characters), says Sophia Mcdougall from the online magazine, Newstateman . This is because it is automatically assumed he is strong by default, not by definition. Women are not strong by definition, but weak, and Hollywood has taken that away from them. The perks of being a male character is that they come with a package of adjectives that adequately describes them. And adding anything on top of that is what creates the dynamic characters almost everyone has come to know .So can superficial characters affect audiences? The existence of the strong female character archetype in film and television is dangerous because it perpetrates the myth that sexism is dead and feminism is no longer necessary. It portrays women who made it to the top and do not struggle (Dunn). In the history of storytelling, it is always told how one character goes from where they are in the start of the narrative until they achieve their goal of reaching where they need or want to be. As explained in Joseph Campbells The Hero with a Thousand Faces, It is nearly impossible to create any story without the Heros Journey. A hero, a mere character, cannot go about in a story and not struggle to get to the top. If that were the case, then right there, is pointless drama. There needs to be a final understanding of what these female characters are lacking. Depth, substance, and soul. But instead what is given is no dynamic characters at all. In trying to represent women everywhere, these characters have become one dimensional, unable to demonstrate her uniqueness as a flawed and human character (Dunn). There is nothing wrong with a woman using her sexuality to her advantage, but what is wrong, is showing that a woman can only use her sexuality to her advantage. The problem caused here is a lack of dynamics that is needed in character development.

Faraj 6 There are many motives a female can use to fight off evil or solving a complication. Writers have decided to lessen the load on their shoulders by combining every representation, in hopes they have the ideal specimen. What they have instead is a soulless human who has no sympathy for anyone, sheds no tears, and obeys its own commands, and goes by its own rules. We universally know this as a robot, a thing. Not a human being. From the New York Times, Carina Chocano speaks up about the ongoing trend in Hollywood she is starting to see. .Strong female character are female characters who are tough, cold, terse, taciturn and prone to scowling and not saying goodbye when hanging up the phone (Chocano). The simple descriptions of these women are least representational for the representation of women. It is to be wondered, do these writers live their lives like this? Do they live in such a compact world where they view women for little or nothing of what they are? Or are they just delusional when they are in preproduction with the script and just hope the audience will just understand. That can be the only explanation. The other problem with these descriptions is that these do not define a dynamic woman. Dynamic women feel and live and there is a sense of livelihood about them that the audience can breathe in and know these women can exist beyond the screen. These women can be real. But what does it mean to be dynamic? It means there is a great chance that a character can undergo an important inner change. Shes not nearly the simple tough female character character that (Rooney) Mara admits can be too limiting (Rich, Rooney Mara on Strong Female Characters), says Katey Rich from the online magazine, CinemaBlend ,in an interview with actress, Rooney Mara. In Maras new film, Aint Them Bodies Saints, she plays a wife whose husband gets taken to prison

Faraj 7 while struggles to raise their only child. She explains how frustrating it is that womens roles in film have to be boxed in a label, either weak or strong. She states how real women are more interesting and complicated with flaws that improve character depth. Meaning that there are actresses out there that see a dilemma with who women are represented in the film industry. Brent Lang, from the online magazine, TheWrap articulates what Hollywood has gotten wrong. Strong doesnt equal saintly (Lang). Lang perfectly puts together what is being misinterpreted in the movie world. Women dont have to harm others to get a simple point across. Words can be used in the same situation and solve the problem much faster in a more interesting way. An approach that gives the character room for dynamics. According to Lang, We need to be messy and sloppy and three-dimensional and complicated (Lang). Film and television have been presenting audiences with women who are strong as opposed to women who are morally right. If its not strength that is sought after then what is? The answer is very much straight forward. The dynamic female character is what everyone is looking for. The dynamic character is what helps audiences connect with the characters on screen. It also helps to relate, compared to the strong female character no one found relatable in any way. Alison Natasi from the online entertainment magazine, Flavorwire , talks about Hollywood actresses are striving to bring dynamic characters to the big screen. The East, Ellen Page noted her feelings about the lack of roles for women in Hollywood and the importance of finding complex parts that dont feed stereotypes (Natasi). Its very depressing to find that actors have such a hard time acquiring roles that dont go against what they believe is right. Finding a role complex means that the character has depth

Faraj 8 and an intensity that cant be mistaken for strong, but dynamic. I think the major problem here is that women were clamoring for strong female characters and male writers misunderstoodnot weak meaning damsel in distress,Weak meaning flawed(Malwksi). There seems to be a fine line between the words and their two definitions. In the 2007 film, nominated for an Oscar for best lead in female role, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, directed by Shehkar Kapur, Cate Blanchett plays the role of Englands most iconic monarch, Queen Elizabeth I. Through the film, Elizabeth is shown as a tranquil and striking monarch with a deep love for her country in the publics eye. But beneath all that glamour and power is an aged women with a spirited soul who has a single weakness. Love. Her greatest power? Her sharp tongue, hot temper, and fiery sarcasm. What makes this character flawed, is the fact that she at some point in the film breaks down in front of those who see her as a magnificent and powerful vessel, and all her subordinates who once looked up and thought her the invincible see that she too, is a human being. I have given England my life. Must she also have my soul? (Kupar). Beneath every character is a person, a soul that reaches out to the viewers heart, trying to have them understand in any possible way that they too live lives of happiness, torment, and frustration. these are qualities that everyone possesses whether male or female. A character thats not flat, static, superficial is one that no one will ever understand but observe. They cant be sympathized with, nor connected. People are gifted with the ability to love. A powerful driving force in every aspect of a persons life, especially a females, is taken away in cinema with a reason that it will weaken the females role in the plot. These emotionless females are to just stand on the sidelines and be accepted that they do not relate with any viewer due to the lack of dynamics they have.

Faraj 9 Hollywood needs to refrain from creating more of the strong female characters and take into account of what they are presenting to the world and the message they try to send. If no one can connect, it probably means one doesnt see the other as a person, but as a lingering fragment of could have been understood, forgotten.

Word count : 2,528

Faraj 10

Works Cited Chocano, Carina. "A Plague of Strong Female Characters." Nytimes.com. New York Times, 3 July 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. Dunn, Sara. "Enough With the 'Strong Female Characters', Already." PolicyMic. N.p., 9 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013. Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Dir. Shekhar Kapur. Perf. Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen Universal Pictures, 2007. Lang, Brent. "Rebecca Hall: Strong Female Characters Aint Saints We Need to Be Villains, Too." TheWrap. TheWrap, 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. McDougall, Sophia. "All Princesses Know kung Fu." New Statesman. 23 Aug. 2013: 14. eLibrary. Web. 25 Oct. 2013. McDougall, Sophia. "Cultural Capital." I Hate Strong Female Characters. NewStatesman, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. Mlawski, Shana. "Why Strong Female Characters Are Bad For Women." Overthinking It. N.p., 8 Aug. 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2013. Nastasi, Alison. "Flavorwire." Flavorwire. N.p., 5 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013. Rich, Katey. "Rooney Mara On 'Strong Female Characters' And The Embarrassing Movies She Hasn't Seen." CinemaBlend. CinemaBlend, 23 Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. Rich, Katey. "Why This Writer Hates Strong Female Characters, And You Should Too."CinemaBlend. CinemaBlend, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.