Women in film // Research: Overthinkingit.com

Female character flowchart

I came across a really interesting female character flowchart, which is to help determine whether a character is well developed, rather than a stereotype or typical trope. I have taken screenshots of certain parts of it.

The idea is that if a woman a prominent part of the film and has traits that make her three dimensional, she is likely to be a strong female character.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Overthinking-It-Female-Character-Flowchart.png

This flowchart is very informative, although a lot of this is up in the air and depends on individual opinions. Maybe some of these female character tropes are realistic in that there are people out there like them. But the point being made is that their key characteristics are not enough to make them fully developed people. Basically, women deserve more than this.

I have to say, I don't agree with the 'fickle woman' being Kate from LOST. Although she was the typical attractive and physically strong young woman, she had a past of her own that is deeply delved into, such as her criminal past. But maybe this feeds into the idea of her having a 'masculine trait' to make her watchable? And her place in the show does become more and more defined by her relationships with the two main male characters.

To sum up, female character development is complex and tricky.

'Strong female characters'

I found an interesting article on "strong" female characters on the same website.

It took a while, but some writers in Hollywood got the idea. No more would female characters be Damsels in Distress. No, there should be Strong Female Characters in cinema– emphasis on “Strong.” While these women would still be young and hot, they’d also have one characteristic that made them more masculine. It could be physical strength or a superpower (see Liz Sherman in the first Hellboy movie), or the ability to shoot a gun properly (Princess Leia).

Yeah, trouble is, while these characters were marginally better than the original Damsels in Distress, they still ended up having to be saved in the final act by the male hero. And even when she was being strong, she was always doing it in the sexiest way possible. She’d never, say, get a black eye or a broken nose in a fight. Her ability to fix cars (a powerful, masculine trait) would allow her to get sexy grease all over her slippery body. Her ability to shoot a gun was so the film’s advertisers could put her on a poster wearing a skimpy outfit with a big gun between her legs. In short, the “strength” of her character was to make her a better prize for the hero at the end – and for the horny male audience throughout.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/?utm_source=oti&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=related_posts

This viewpoint is saying that just because a woman is physically strong or powerful, or even a little masculine in a skill, does not mean it isn't sexist. They used the example of Megan Fox in Transformers, who is very obviously a sexualised character, but they try to trick the audience into thinking she is a developed character by making her fix a car... nope, she is still glorified as something to keep the male audience entertained. She is there to look attractive, and not much else.