(no subject)

[meganbmoore]

Someone please rescue me from exploring The Hathor Legacy's archives.  I am currently trapped in this post (regarding whether or not female audiences are "listened to") and the links in it to other articles.

A couple quotes:

When women dropped over half a billion to see Titanic, frequently citing Kate Winslet and/or her character as their reason (and the special effects in more than a few cases), it was dismissed as a fluke. The biggest gross-earner of all time, and we’re not allowed to learn anything from its success because it was just a fluke. And why was it a fluke? Uh, something about when it was released, and what else was out, and er, stuff. Conventional wisdom. Don’t question it.

On the DVD extras for Firefly, a Fox sci-fi series that was troubled from the get-go and cancelled after 15 episodes, Chris Buchanan (president of Mutant Enemy, creator Joss Whedon’s production company) said:

“The initial results - they made the network nervous. The men didn’t respond as strongly as they thought they would, and the women responded more strongly.”
 

But you know, back to Titanic for a moment.  Err...when it came out I was one of the masses of teenaged girls who were "ZOMG! Best romance ever!"  (leave me alone!)  And then I got over it and went into the seemingly-required "that movie and Leonardo DiCaprio suck and are overrated!" phase...and then I got over those.  Now I like it for Rose.  And the special effects.

BUT!  a spoilery question!

Was Jack fridged for Rose?  Ultimately, his main purpose is to show her that she can do what she wants: break out of her sheltered little world and live her own life by her own merits.  That accomplished, he dies, and Rose moves on to a more fulfilling life, and other men.



ETA:  This and a comment remind me of a thought I've had a few times but never put enormous thought into.  Does it seem to anyone else that attention to women and movies comes in waves?  Like, you have the 30s-50s, where parts of various movies-if not entire movies-seem to be specifically geared towards women, not just in terms of romance.  And then it's like studios went "Hey!  All women need is to have a woman there.  We'll just tuck her into the background and focus on the guys.  Who are more interesting anyway.  All women want is a romance anyway."  And then you get to Sci Fi and fantasy getting popular, and somebody notices "Hey!  I think some women like this stuff!"  and we get Heroines.  And then studios got deja vu and went "Hey!  All women need is to have a woman there.  We'll just tuck her into the background and focus on the guys.  Who are more interesting anyway.  All women want is a romance anyway." again.

Leia:  Politician, rebel, soldier, leader.  Dictates her own life and fate.  Says "stuff you" when men object.
Padme:  Politician, leader, sometime-fighter.  Starts awesome, ultimately reduced to a source of Anakin's angst.

Both spawned from the same brain, just a couple decades apart.

Comments

[madame-manga.livejournal.com]

Hollywood used to rely heavily on "women's pictures", way back when cheap afternoon matinees were the order of the day. Movies filled the same niche as daytime TV does now, and the biggest female stars were the ones who appealed to women.

But now that the ticket prices have gone through the roof and people attend only once in a while instead of every week, the whole slant is towards the damn blockbusters, and I suppose the studios' thinking is, "She'll go with him to see the little-boy power fantasy, but he sure won't go see the chick flick with her. Do the math." :P

The first time I tried to watch Titanic on TV, I couldn't even stick it through to the special effects because I thought the writing was so bad! I have no opinion on DiCaprio, though I like Kate Winslet in general. Then years later my kid got interested in the disaster, I rented the DVD for him, and we just SKIPPED the boring parts and watched that puppy go down! :D

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Despite the various Issues with them in terms of gender and race (though they have the benefit of coming out early in people's awareness of such issues, as opposed to when equality has supposedly been achieved) older movies do seem to do much better in such things.

This has reminded me of a Theory of mine, which I shall now edit into the main post.

[kirarakim.livejournal.com]

I admit I went through the teenage girl phase when it came to Titantic and absolutely loved the movie (hey I was 15). While I am definitely well over that stage now I still think it is a good movie. Maybe not one of the greatest movies ever but enjoyable enough. I think the movie still gets more backlash now then it deserves.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I was...17 or 18. I think it's that it gets passed off as DiCaprio fangirls being the only thing that made it sell. Which...was part of it. But that's not what got it nominated for awards, and there weren't enough DiCaprio fangirls in the world to get it close to the highest grossing movie ever.

[paperclipchains.livejournal.com]

Was Jack fridged for Rose? Ultimately, his main purpose is to show her that she can do what she wants: break out of her sheltered little world and live her own life by her own merits. That accomplished, he dies, and Rose moves on to a more fulfilling life, and other men.


How horrible is it that I laughed at this?

I guess he was! But I'd like to add the caveat that I don't think it should be referred to as a "Fridging" unless it's done in poor taste.

It also pisses me off that they're writing off women like that. What, like women wouldn't KNOW what they liked about the fucking movie?!

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

*waves in general direction of just-added ETA*

I've had that thought (Jack being fridged) for a while now, but I agree that it wasn't done in poor taste, and "fridging" should be saved for when it's done in poor taste.

[paperclipchains.livejournal.com]

I actually don't think Leia is all that great. I know, boo, hiss me. I still like her and stuff. I just think it's foolish to say that she was on par with the boys in terms of the focus and dignity with which she was treated. I always liked her as a kid and everything, but I don't think it's enough that she was "better than the competition."

So, to be honest, I didn't really feel that Padme and Leia were so different after all. He tried to make them both awesome but ~feminine~ and undercut them both. It's just that you noticed more with Padme because he just stopped being good at having ideas and writing them down (that's the nicest way I can say that).

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

i'm not as in love with Leia as others, but when you look at when she was created (at a time when you almost never got to have heroines without the "a strong woman has to be raped" trope and if you did, they were probably men with breasts) and when Padme was created (when sff heroines are relatively common, though admittedly less so in movies, but also more likely to be allowed to have power and influence) it really stands out. Especially since Anakin killing her-then, at least-is a retcon.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

How do you think Leia was undermined?

[mycenae.livejournal.com]

[pikabot]

I wouldn't say that that was undermining her character at all. She spent that whole sequence being creeped out and defiant and telling him to go get his cheap titillation somewhere else. And then by the end she's strangled him with her own chain in a classic display of badassery.

And really, put it in context: no character was doing awesome at that point in the movie. The droids were basically abused slaves. Han is stuck in a watery cell, blind, and feeble from hibernation sickness. Chewie and Luke are only slightly better off: they're in the same cell but with no hibernation sickness. The only character in any sort of advantageous position was Lando, who was undercover.

Was Leia's slave outfit a bit of obvious fanservice? Yes, clearly. But did it undermine her character? No, I don't think so.

[paperclipchains.livejournal.com]

So you don't think turning her into fanservice undermines her at all.

[pikabot]

In and of itself? No. Fanservice very often is accompanied by undermining of the character, but it really depends on the context and content of the fanservice. And in this case I wouldn't say it does. it clearly exposes that Lucas was thinking with his hindbrain at this point, but...

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Even I have never more than rolled my eyes at that part.

The thing is that, even though Leia wasn't done perfectly, there was obviously a conscious effort to have her be independent and her own character. About half as much effort was put into Padme in the first movie, then virtually none once Anakin was grown up. They tried with one, and barely bothered with the other, to the point where they literally made her nothing more than a point for angst. They even removed a chunk of her role, because she originally lived long enough to make at least a little impact on Leia's life. (Which is a pity, as Padme started with such potential.)

ETA for important typo.

[paperclipchains.livejournal.com]

Oh sure. I'll give credit where credit is due, I just think people often give too much credit.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that she's damned tiny. You've got to watch out for the tiny ones.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

I see your point, althought it never played that way to me. Especially because she ended up choking the life out of him with her chains.

[swanjun.livejournal.com]

A true story about me coming home after seeing Titanic:

Mom: How was it?
Me: Sad.
Mom: Really? I didn't think it'd be sad.
Me: ...

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

The question is...sad how?

And thinking about it, I have to wonder...I remember it being billed a s OMG ROMANCE!!!, with the focus on Jack. But...what if it had been billed as Rose's story instead?

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

I don't remember how it was billed, but it was Rose's story, start to finish.

I think Jack wasn't fridged. His death was tragic, but it was his life that inspired/moved Rose-- had he lived or died, she would've never gone back to her old life. The fridge is, IMO, a death that exists merely to change the lead's life/perspective/what have you.

Oh, and I'll add-- like Hokuto, Jack chose his death to save Rose's, which is a level of agency the fridged aren't allowed.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I remember the previews focusing on the romance. But...err...High School senior. We can't really say those are 100% reliable memories.

And that's very true about Jack.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

I was in college! But I didn't have much TV then so don't remember the trailers...er. At all. But yes, there were definitely romance-y ones.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I was already 31 when "Titanic" happened so my reaction was "Pretty average film with good special effects". But when I realised that this film won the Oscar I knew I would never trust Oscars again. :D

The film isn't bad but it was probably the most overhyped film of all times.

And yep, Leonardo's role was to die. It is not as if this film creators really wanted to give us a rich girl/poor boy romance, they just wanted to pretend they did.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

There are better* movies to lose faith in Oscars over. The thing is that I have to wonder if it was originally meant to be a poor boy/rich girl romance, or if that became the focus because "it's what people want." It's talked about as a romance, but in the movie itself, the romance is secondary to Rose's character growth.


*substituting the word for "movies I will never in a million years watch and that exist purely to be "quality."

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Your point about there being few Hollywood movies with interesting women is spot-on (I want to use that particular phrasing because unfortunately Hollywood does produce a number of 'women-oriented' movies, but most of those are incipid romcoms where women are neurotic, useless basketcases only needing to marry and of no intrinsic interest whatsoever).

It also made me realize why I think I ended up going off the deep end so for dramas. While I wouldn't call a vast majority of them feminist (most of them have fairly traditional 'love conquers all' message, not that there is anything wrong with that), they are woman-oriented and their heroines are as present and as interesting as the men, whether it's a historical epic (the current Kingdom of the Winds has a plethora of strong and interesting women characters) or even a fluffy romcom (I wouldn't consider the heroine of ISWAK a feminist model or even particularly bright, but there is no doubt ISWAK is her story, told through 'her' lens, unlike a lot of American movies which purport to be telling a woman's story but in reality barely bother creating a character at all).

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Caveat to first paragraph: And the men in them aren't much better. Why are so many of us comparatively crazy for 27 Dresses when those movies normally give us hives? Because both leads are likable, perfectly competent, and have actual personalities.

I give dramas a lot of slack for THINGS THAT ENRAGE ME because they do tend to focus on the female. And with period dramas (and movies and books) you usually have a conscious effort to give the female characters things to do. (In Emperor of the Sea, the heroine has her own rivalry and plotline going on the whole time. And Damo and Hwang Jin Yi are all about the heroine.) Granted, part of this is because I think the creators tend to be more aware of the need to pay attention to the female, due to the societies of the time.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

Could it be pushback? Women gain the vote in 1922, the following decades marginalize women; women work in factories in WWII, the following decades marginalize women; women's lib happens in the 1970s, the following decades marginalize women; and now we are finally getting out of post-feminism and into post-post-feminism?

I admit the dates don't line up.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

No, it makes sense. Things happen to make people more aware and try harder, and then its decided that it isn't needed anymore.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's a backlash effect. Female characters have been back-sliding in waves. It's annoying. And sad.

[mycenae.livejournal.com]

The thing I always found weird about Titanic was the end sequence where Rose is reunited with Jack (in heaven??). What about her husband? Her children? She knew Jack for what, two days? Man, that end sequence still bugs me. It's like, yeah, he encouraged her to go out and live this great life, but ultimately nothing she did after he died mattered as much as him, so clearly she would want to spend eternity with him on the phantom Titanic. (On the other hand it is a movie, and the scene works as far as giving emotional closure, since we never meet her husband or family other than the granddaughter, and thus the audience has no attachment to them.)

I agree that the majority of women's roles in TV and movies are sadly underwritten. Most romcoms are very annoying because the main aspect of the woman's identity is that she needs a man in some way. There are a couple 80s romcoms that I really like, Working Girl and Moonstruck, where the movies are really the woman's story and the romance plot is just a part of that. I can't think of any really recent movies that fit that mold, though.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

27 Dresses and Enchanted and Stardust( the last 2 aren't romsnces, but they have very strong romantic elements) are good about having the romance there to support the character and character growth, as opposed to saying the romance is the character growth.

My thing isn't "Why should I care about a female character who's just a love interest?" but "Why should I care about your property at all if the girl is just the love interest? Next!"

I've always looked at it as the 2 days with Jack are when her life changed, and she never could have had those things without him.

[kakkobean.livejournal.com]

I hated Titanic before I even watched it--I went to an elementary school with preteen girls with all the charm and personality of pit-bulls. My older sister eventually forced me to watch the movie, and just as she started tearing up over Jack dying, I laughed with horrific malicious glee-and then proceeded to rewind and play his death over and over again. In retrospect, Rose as a character is fascinating to me and I like her growth in the film--but I won't ever be able to watch that movie again due to old scars =_=

Gah. Padme. Classic "female character redux" syndrome. Your theory holds water--watching the Avengers (a British television series that aired between the 40's and 60's, which was later adapted into a movie in the 21st century) also kind of shows this. In the original episodes, Emma Peel's character starts out as an awesome dame who can work well enough on her own, but as the series progressed into the colored television era, she pretty much suffered from "I am a woman that needs to be saved despite being kickass" syndrome. Then, in the 2000-something movie adaptation, Emma Peel was once again awesome--and despite the explicit romantic relationship that developed between her and John Steed, she maintained her independent character instead of becoming "attached to the action" (in my opinion).

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I think Rose is like Sarah in Labyrinth or Danielle in Ever After: The whole thing is an excuse for her growth and coming into her own, but we have to be in the right position to notice, and we have to look past the romance covering it up.

[kakkobean.livejournal.com]

*thinks about it* sounds about right

[re-weird.livejournal.com]

Thanks for linking me to that blog! I went over, intending only to scan the front page, but got thoroughly distracted by all the cool articles.

I do see some of those cycles in female characters too. Take Vicki Vale. Bakc in the original Batman series, she was an independent reporter more interested in getting scoops than a date with Bruce Wayne. In Frank Miller's hands, she became a vacuous gossip columnist who strolls around her glass-walled apartment in the middle of the city in lacy pink lingerie and high heels. *facepalms*

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Addicting, isn't it?

Th Vicky Vale thing, unfortunately, seems fairly common. A lot of these charactes started out with ambitions and caeers and goals, and get thined down to almost nothing over the years.

[madame-parker.livejournal.com]

I was 15 when Titanic came out and I remember that it wasn't Jack dying that had me crying buckets, it was all that senseless death, so many people died and it just broke my heart. It was a huge plus that Rose as a character was someone I really clicked with. Yes, Jack died and it didn't break her, it made her bloody strong, she ended up doing everything she'd dreamed of doing and I loved her for it.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the movie does a really good job of showing how senseless all the death is.

I think what Jack did for her is why she saw him at the end. It wasn't that the 2 days meant more than years with her family, it was that the 2 days made it possible for her to have those years.