meganbmoore (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
meganbmoore) wrote2008-11-04 12:44 pm
meganbmoore) wrote2008-11-04 12:44 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
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:
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.“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! 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.
no subject
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).
no subject
no subject