Female Leads in Hollywood Films.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I read this article on thejournal.ie and while not necessarily the most in depth or best written article I've read on the matter I thought it was interesting.

Can Hollywood Produce A Female Lead Who Is Interesting In Her Own Right?

He seems to dwell on the Twilight films a lot, but then I suppose that is the biggest female character in recent Hollywood films. And by "Hollywood" films I assume he means multi million dollar blockbusters that are seen by millions. We all know there are strong female characters in lots of films, they're just not the ones that are on 3 screens, 10 times a day for months in every cinema across the globe.

Does the issue lie with Hollywood? Are they to blame for thinking that young girls don't want to see proper female characters in their films? Or does the problem lie with the current generation of tweens/teens that seem incapable of seeing these characters for what they are and deciding that they could do better?

syklops

This is one of the times where I am not convinced by equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same. They are definitely not equal in what they spend on films/movies. Men have been shown to pay much more than women when it comes to going to cinemas and buying DVDs. So if the main consumer is male, then Hollywood will be more male oriented in what it produces.

Liam O

Hitchcock used a fair few female leads and was then criticised for being critical of women because they relied on men a lot. But when men need a female influence there is not much said and in Lady Macbeth fashion a lot of the blame can be transferred. A white man is the easiest character to explore in film without being seen as racist or misogynistic and as much as the world has moved forward is still the safe choice for a lead and will remain so in the majority of films imo.

JohnFalstaff

He only mentions The Hunger Games in his final paragraph as if he had forgotten about it up until that point. The success of that film sort of blows his argument out of the water - Katniss Everdeen is a strong female character at the heart of a blockbuster that has won fans all over the globe.

krudler

James Cameron is good for putting strong women in his movies, Ripley (not his creation but still, he refined her into the unwitting action hero) Sarah Connor, Rose in Titanic (she rescues him for once) even Neytiri in Avatar is an ass kicking warrior queen type. oh and Mary Whatserface from The Abyss, cold hearted ice queen for most of it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

syklops wrote: »

This is one of the times where I am not convinced by equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same. They are definitely not equal in what they spend on films/movies. Men have been shown to pay much more than women when it comes to going to cinemas and buying DVDs. So if the main consumer is male, then Hollywood will be more male oriented in what it produces.

Although I agree with what you're saying I think you're off the point a little bit. Nobody would argue that films like Transformers, Fast & Furious, Die Hard etc. are aimed primarily at a male audience. That's fine. The point is that the few that are aimed at a female audience, Twilight being the prime example, are not killing themselves to make the female lead a half decent character.
Obviously the amount of money it takes in proves they have it right.

delbertgrady

I agree with John that the writer seems to have forgotten The Hunger Games, and throws it in as an afterthought.

"Scarlett Johansson might not have been able to leverage her own movie out of The Avengers, but she was the only one of the title group to face away from the audience in her character poster".

This pose was presumably a deliberate decision in order to - let's not be coy - accentuate La Johansson's figure in the catsuit, and not any attempt to "hide" the fact that - shock! horror! - there was (whisper it) a female in the movie.

"Joss Whedon ... spent several years in the middle part of the last decade trying to get a Wonder Woman film made at Warner Brothers. If Whedon – the writer responsible for Buffy: The Vampire Slayer – can’t produce a movie about one of the most recognisable female icons on the planet, perhaps things are very wrong".

The ongoing saga of Wonder Woman is certainly an intersting one. It's been going on so long, at one point Catherine Zeta-Jones was a "favourite" for the part, something which would now be dismissed outright. I think the Whedon film ultimately collapsed because Warners effectively felt that their movie featuring another iconic character - Superman Returns - didn't do exactly what they expected it to, despite solid box office and reasonable audience response. The Whedon Wonder Woman project fell apart in the immediate aftermath of that film's release. It's a Catch-22 situation: it is the crucial casting of Wonder Woman that poses the main problem, not the undisputed box office draw of the character herself.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Although Whedon could probably write a decent female lead in Wonder Woman, the fact that he casts everything from the same group of about 10 actors is probably the issue with this one
The recent attempt at adapting WW for TV was a disaster. I thought Adrianne Palicki was a decent choice as lead, but everything else about it was terrible and I don't think it even got picked up past pilot?

Someone in the comments on that article mentions the new Tomb Raider film rumoured to be in the works off the back of the new game. I was watching some behind the scenes stuff on the new game and they had a female writer to write it as they thought getting a male to write a female character wouldn't work. They also said they got rid of the hot pants and all that to make her less of a sex symbol and more of a real person.
So, there's real potential there for a strong female lead in a mainstream blockbuster that would/should appeal to both male and females, but it'll be interesting to see if whoever makes the film can stick to what the makers of the new game tried to achieve, or revert to the old Angelina Jolie vision of Lara Croft.

Mickeroo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Although I agree with what you're saying I think you're off the point a little bit. Nobody would argue that films like Transformers, Fast & Furious, Die Hard etc. are aimed primarily at a male audience. That's fine. The point is that the few that are aimed at a female audience, Twilight being the prime example, are not killing themselves to make the female lead a half decent character.
Obviously the amount of money it takes in proves they have it right.

Even the ones that are aimed at women, namely generic rom coms or notebook-esque romances mostly revolve around a male character swooping in and looking after the female lead.

syklops

"Scarlett Johansson might not have been able to leverage her own movie out of The Avengers, but she was the only one of the title group to face away from the audience in her character poster".

The main reason she wasn't able to leverage her own movie out of the Avengers is because the black widow is a thoroughly boring character, and doesn't have enough of a back story to warrant a full movie. Its not as if she was the only one either, Nick Fury and Hawkeye didn't get their own movies either. A Norse God, a guy who turns big and green when he gets annoyed and, well, Iron Man, don't really compare too well to a human female with no super powers aside from having an epic behind.

The article mentions Transformers 3, but ignores Megan Foxes character in the previous two movies, where she played a sassy grease monkey, who had much more gumption than Shia La Boef's character.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mickeroo wrote: »

Even the ones that are aimed at women, namely generic rom coms or notebook-esque romances mostly revolve around a male character swooping in and looking after the female lead.

True, but the female character is primarily the lead. Albeit a pretty limp and feeble one. Which is the point.

Mickeroo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

True, but the female character is primarily the lead. Albeit a pretty limp and feeble one. Which is the point.

Yep, or if they're strong and independent at the start of the film they'll learn "the error of their ways" before the 90 minutes is up.

AnonoBoy

Try the Bechdel Test on films and see how male-orientated most films are. It's surprising how many films fail it.

http://bechdeltest.com/

krudler

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Try the Bechdel Test on films and see how male-orientated most films are. It's surprising how many films fail it.

http://bechdeltest.com/

Sucker Punch passes it, which I find hilarious :pac:

johnny_ultimate

It's a badly written article, end of. It uses one film to form a thesis, and then discredits itself by mentioning exceptions to the 'rule' as a lazy afterthought. No-one's denying Hollywood has equality issues, but using the deplorable Twilight as the proof is as useful a guage as an IQ test based on one question. It's in everyone's interest to question the way cinema portrays its characters (and gender isn't the only area of questionable discrimination in mainstream American film) but any worthy discourse provoked by this shoddily composed blog post is purely independent of the author's unconvincing argument.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Well, I did say the article wasn't the best, but the issues behind it are interesting, I think anyway.

johnny_ultimate

Oh yeah, sorry if that came across as overly hostile, but I was quite annoyed by the post when I read it this morning. Opinion pieces that ill-informed and generalist should be unfit for publication on anything other than personal blogs - not that I expect too much journalistic integrity from the Journal

There's certainly a discussion to be had, although on the back of films like Zero Dark Thirty, Hunger Games, Alice in Wonderland or Silver Linings Playbook I think hedging all bets on a ranty deconstruction of silly old Twilight isn't the conversation opener the writer thinks it is.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^True.

I think as well he seems to be mixing up the idea of an "interesting" character with a character who is a "positive role model".

Jennifer Lawrence will be playing the lead role in an upcoming adaptation of Ron Rash's book "Serena". Having read the book I can tell you she is a VERY interesting character. She is not however a good role model or someone you'd want anyone aspiring to be. Another example is Jackie Weaver's character in Animal Kingdom. Such a good character, but by no means someone you'd aspire to be.

I'd be happy with more characters like this, strong and memorable women characters, but I think "Hollywood" tries to polish their characters to make them the stereotypical "strong female character" which usually results in them stripping them of any real identity or character.

The fact that young people do flock to see these kinds of things doesn't help matters. Twilight is a prime example of this. They're pure garbage, the books were, the films are too. Leaving aside the gender role issues they're just terrible stories. And yet hugely successful. Which makes me ask is the problem more with the general public than with the movie studios? They're going to keep selling it as long as people keep buying it.

Of course you can't say that everyone who watches these things come out thinking that's what they should be like. Maybe we don't give the younger people enough credit. Maybe most of them know it's rubbish, like people know The Expendables was rubbish, but still enjoyed it.

I don't remember looking up to anyone fictional as a role model when I was a kid. I was aware that none of it was real, and while you might have played pretend for a while as a certain character it never went beyond that. So maybe the fact that young people today are looking to fictional characters as actual role models says more about the lack of any in their real lives. Which is an entirely bigger issue.

Sad Professor

I would definitely like to see more Hollywood films with strong female leads. I consistently find that women make more interesting protagonists than men. The Hollywood male lead and his "hero's journey" gets very boring after a while. There's rumours that the new Star Wars film will feature a female lead which would be pretty awesome if true.

Sleepy

I've not looked up the figures on it but looking at more adult fare than Twilight, it's hard to conceive of anything being as financially lucrative in TV and Film as Sex and The City has been. Most women love the show and went to see the awful movies in the cinema. Is Carrie Bradshaw a strong female lead? No. She's a simpering, narcissistic, moron who can seemingly justify anything with a "pithy" article no matter how awfully she's behaved.

When that's the central character in the most successful TV show among women in a decade, I'd have to question whether they deserve any better.

And so what if they featured Johansen's arse in the catsuit on the poster for The Avengers? Chris Hemsworth's abs were far from kept under wraps for the publicity building up to Thor's release. It could also be argued that the Black Widow holds her own a lot better than most of the non-superhero men in the Avengers movie

Hawkeye getting turned by Loki, Agent Coulson being killed

.

stevenmu

It's a pity that there aren't more interesting protagonists of any gender in hollywood films.

Since Transformers was mentioned in the article, Shia LaBeouf's character is a selfish, spoiled, whingy little brat who should have been squashed underfoot in the opening scene of the first film. He definitely isn't someone that men could relate to, or that boys should look up to as a role model.

If the biggest blockbuster of it's time can get away with such poor male characters, why would people expect them to do any better with female characters?



(Though I would argue that they actually did. While Rosie Huntington-Whitely may have a wooden acting style, and may have mostly been there for her looks, her character at least had some likeable traits. She was ambitious, hard working, not totally superficial, and was dedicated to encouraging and supporting her partner.)

AnonoBoy

krudler wrote: »

Sucker Punch passes it, which I find hilarious :pac:

Some of the films that pass it are ridiculous alright.

Showgirls does I think.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sleepy wrote: »

I've not looked up the figures on it but looking at more adult fare than Twilight, it's hard to conceive of anything being as financially lucrative in TV and Film as Sex and The City has been. Most women love the show and went to see the awful movies in the cinema. Is Carrie Bradshaw a strong female lead? No. She's a simpering, narcissistic, moron who can seemingly justify anything with a "pithy" article no matter how awfully she's behaved.

Just for the record I'd like to state that I was never a fan of Sex and the City, and I have not seen either film, nor will I. But I do agree with what you say.

I'd almost go so far as to say that women were better portrayed on TV and in films back in the 90's. Which is funny because we're all supposed to be so liberated and what not in this new century and yet all I see is regression.

I haven't watched Girls and probably won't but it seems to get rave reviews about it's portrayal of women. I don't know. I almost hate these preachy shows telling me I should be this kind of woman not a Carrie Bradshaw type of woman as much as I hate Sex and the City type shows. Surely we're smart enough to be presented with characters and stories and be able to make up our own minds on things rather than be shown a type of woman and be told this is the wrong type of woman, you need to be this type of woman.

Sleepy

I'd agree. Why does so much female focused fare tend to preach what kind of woman one should be instead of just telling a story that has a female protagonist? Look at The Wire for example: I can't think of a man or woman in that show that one should aspire to be like but it's still an exceptionally good show.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd agree. Why does so much female focused fare tend to preach what kind of woman one should be instead of just telling a story that has a female protagonist? Look at The Wire for example: I can't think of a man or woman in that show that one should aspire to be like but it's still an exceptionally good show.

Probably because women in general seem to lap it up. The sales figures for 50 Shades of Grey just proves it.
Nicholas Sparks is another great (and by great I mean terrible) example. He's had about 10 books made into films at this point, and they're all the same story! Almost identical, the posters for them are actually identical http://www.cracked.com/funny-4725-nicholas-sparks/
and yet women flock to see them every time they're released. How so many people list The Notebook as their favourite film is beyond me!

Sad Professor

Has there been any good female leads in horror films recently? In terms of modern mainstream American cinema, it's probably the only genre that has regularly produced strong female characters.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Has there been any good female leads in horror films recently? In terms of modern mainstream American cinema, it's probably the only genre that has regularly produced strong female characters.

The one that springs to mind is Alison Lohman in Drag me to Hell.

Technocentral

Hollywood is by and large creatively bankrupt, the best and most challenging roles for woman and men are on TV, the "films" mentioned on here are by and large muck aimed at brain dead teenagers.

pixelburp

I don't think the divide is as large as people might like to think it is; whilst yes, the existence of the Nicholas Sparks adaptations & the Twilight franchise might suggest Hollywood are still shovelling an apparently sexist agenda, they don't represent the norm by any stretch, and seem to be based on the idea that women can only enjoy one genre at a time! It's as valid as suggesting Transformers is representative of blockbuster cinema, which it isn't really, not when you think about it.

In any case, we can become a bit too obsessed about some perceived divide or a gender quota, but as mentioned above the really big problem is the absence of good characters full stop, regardless of gender.

And jumping medium for a second, if my If my night-class teacher is to believed, one of the bigger demographic who buy crime/thriller novels are older women; so clearly our assumptions about what women are willing to consume as part of their entertainment are misplaced.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Has there been any good female leads in horror films recently? In terms of modern mainstream American cinema, it's probably the only genre that has regularly produced strong female characters.

The recent prequel to The Thing had Mary Elizabeth Winstead playing a competent, pro-active fighter against the threat (in fact she was far more effective than Kurt Russell hehe) 30 Days of Night also had a strong enough female role iirc. Dredd, though not horror, had two competent female characters - one the audience surrogate, the other a psychopathic gangster; both kicked arse and took names with equal measure

I suspect the reason why (strong) women tend to appear in American horror is a knock-on from the inherent sadism that comes with the territory; horror cinema demands that characters are made to suffer and to be given emotional torment, so casting women is an easy way of writing a vulnerable character, who has to then fight & rise about the big-bad in the film. Sure, it's playing on prejudices, but that's cinema

Bullseye1

The movie character or the comicbook character as anyone who has read comics with her character will disagree.

syklops wrote: »

The main reason she wasn't able to leverage her own movie out of the Avengers is because the black widow is a thoroughly boring character, and doesn't have enough of a back story to warrant a full movie. Its not as if she was the only one either, Nick Fury and Hawkeye didn't get their own movies either. A Norse God, a guy who turns big and green when he gets annoyed and, well, Iron Man, don't really compare too well to a human female with no super powers aside from having an epic behind.

The article mentions Transformers 3, but ignores Megan Foxes character in the previous two movies, where she played a sassy grease monkey, who had much more gumption than Shia La Boef's character.

johnny_ultimate

To be honest, as much as I'd love to see better defined characters in blockbuster cinema, just having a look at the current Cineworld listings I certainly don't fill with doom and gloom. Of course there's junk there (Ms. Stephanie Meyer reappears), but there's also Stoker, Compliance, Side Effects, Good Vibrations - small enough films, but relatively wide releases that offer strong characterisation both male and female. Blockbusters undoubtedly suffer from a strong sense of homogeneity these days, but you barely have to look one screen over to find something a little more interesting.

On the subject of TV shows discussed above, I've just finished watching the first season of Homeland and that has the kind of female protagonist all should aim for - a character who is not defined by her gender, but merely as a strong, well-developed individual. We can see the same in the likes of Parks & Recreations, Enlightened (so I hear, really must get around to that!), The Killing etc... There's great female protagonists out there that do not rely on explicit gender coding or commentary (although from what I've seen of Lena Dunham's work she is a deft hand at writing believable, honestly developed characters).

Bullseye1

I'm no fan of Twlight but if has obviously struck a chord with the younger generation. Just as our parents called Led Zeppelin rubbish while listening to their Nat King Cole records. It seems each generation becomes a cliché.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On the subject of TV shows discussed above, I've just finished watching the first season of Homeland and that has the kind of female protagonist all should aim for - a character who is not defined by her gender, but merely as a strong, well-developed individual.

Funny you mention Homeland because I had a whole thing written out earlier about Carrie and then I realised I couldn't figure out if she was a strong female character or not.
The conclusion I came to is that she is a strong character, although personally not one I find likable. But that's something I enjoy in TV shows, not being told here's the good guy character, we like him/her. Or this is the bad guy, don't care about him.
I find everyone on Homeland questionable as people, I wouldn't want to be any of them, but they're developed so well that you can understand what they're doing, and even if you don't like it, you can still accept it.

Of course it's easier to develop characters on TV over the course of 10-22 episodes, depending on your network.
I quite like Fiona on the US version of Shameless. She's less than perfect, she makes tonnes of mistakes, she can be selfish at times, but ultimately you see it all comes from a good place and she's a good person.

I think the original article I linked was a mix of points, or he didn't know what point he was trying to make.

I see a few different conversations in there.
1 - Lack of strong female characters in film in general.
2 - Lack of strong female characters specifically in big budget blockbusters.
3 - Lack of good female characters as role models for younger girls in films aimed specifically at girls.
4 - Lack of string characters of any gender in Hollywood.

Technocentral

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm no fan of Twlight but if has obviously struck a chord with the younger generation. Just as our parents called Led Zeppelin rubbish while listening to their Nat King Cole records. It seems each generation becomes a cliché.

I disagree though, Zeppelin and Nat are both different but excellent in retrospect, Twilight will be remembered by anyone with half a brain as cack.

Bullseye1

Technocentral wrote: »

I disagree though, Zeppelin and Nat are both different but excellent in retrospect, Twilight will be remembered by anyone with half a brain as cack.

So people who love the series as much as we loved Zeppelin won't love this series in the future. I find that difficult to believe. It it is the case there is a serious shift in how people have an emotional connection to movies/music/art.

Galvasean

I'd say Twilight will be about as popular as Premier League stickers are today 20 years from now.
A lot of people, particularly youngsters, tend to fall in love hard with certain things but grow out of them in time. Steps used to be huge. Now nobody gives a damn. Not everything that has its moment in the sun of popularity is guaranteed to be remembered fondly decades later.

Queen-Mise

syklops wrote: »

This is one of the times where I am not convinced by equality of the sexes.

I think equality is a load of cack anyway especially between the sexes. They are different, two things that are different can't be equal (but that is an argument for another day:o).

Men and women want different things in the cinema. Cinema is fantasy & the fantasies of both are VERY, VERY, different.
(Note: Fast & Furious was cars & 50 Shades was funky sex, or in Twilight was a person adoring the ground you walked on. That is probably a tripe explanation, sorry.)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Twilight being the prime example, are not killing themselves to make the female lead a half decent character.

Bella Swan in the book wasn't a half decent character either. Kristen Stewart played the part as it was in the book.
Her character is tripe and that is what comes across in the movie.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Nicholas Sparks is another great (and by great I mean terrible) example. The Notebook as their favourite film is beyond me!

I have no idea who Nicholas Sparks is & have not seen any of those movies.

Yay for me:D

Technocentral wrote: »

I disagree though, Zeppelin and Nat are both different but excellent in retrospect, Twilight will be remembered by anyone with half a brain as cack.

Twilight was written for teenage girls, the movies were for teenage girls. These girls will look back at them with fond remembrance as a part of their rose tinted childhood/ or young adulthood.
They are melodramatic - but it is not possible for a teenage movie to be overly melodramatic, it is an oxymoron.

I have to wonder what is says about men who give out about movies aimed at teenage girls.


On female leads in Hollywood - it is an odd situation. I am on the fence on this. I like the classic stories, like any Austen book on film & they are essential a female character marrying a strong man.
But I also like some of the men's movies.

Having a strong female character and a strong male character are very different things. Especially one that connects to the two different audiences, or different types of movies.
I think to look at it - is to look at the Best Female Supporting Role, they have always been incredible performances there over the years. And that is probably the Oscar I would be most interested in.

JP Liz V1

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Just for the record I'd like to state that I was never a fan of Sex and the City, and I have not seen either film, nor will I. But I do agree with what you say.

I'd almost go so far as to say that women were better portrayed on TV and in films back in the 90's. Which is funny because we're all supposed to be so liberated and what not in this new century and yet all I see is regression.

I haven't watched Girls and probably won't but it seems to get rave reviews about it's portrayal of women. I don't know. I almost hate these preachy shows telling me I should be this kind of woman not a Carrie Bradshaw type of woman as much as I hate Sex and the City type shows. Surely we're smart enough to be presented with characters and stories and be able to make up our own minds on things rather than be shown a type of woman and be told this is the wrong type of woman, you need to be this type of woman.

First off the lead characters in both SATC and Girls are god damn annoying

The one tv show I cant think now that has a good range of strong female characters would be The Good Wife, they outshine and dominate their male counterparts

Sad Professor wrote: »

Has there been any good female leads in horror films recently? In terms of modern mainstream American cinema, it's probably the only genre that has regularly produced strong female characters.

Would Jessica Chastin in Mama count?

One movie I saw recently was Young Adult and the lead character Mavis played by Charlize Theron is a self centred mean girl with no moral compass who is unlikeable but you still root for her, Theron pays the character brillantly

Mickeroo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So people who love the series as much as we loved Zeppelin won't love this series in the future. I find that difficult to believe. It it is the case there is a serious shift in how people have an emotional connection to movies/music/art.

It's more like people who listened to boyzone or spice girls than led zeppelin imo. The kind if thing they'll be embarrassed to say they liked back in the day.

Da Shins Kelly

Sad Professor wrote: »

Has there been any good female leads in horror films recently? In terms of modern mainstream American cinema, it's probably the only genre that has regularly produced strong female characters.

The girl in Cabin in the Woods?

One of the best female characters I've seen on film is Ree Dolly in Winter's Bone. She's a great character - strong, single-minded, resolute - and Jennifer Lawrence did an amazing job with it. She's one of my all-time favourite protagonists, male or female, and she is also an example of just how brilliant and interesting a heroine can be.

Sleepy

Queen-Mise wrote: »

I have to wonder what is says about men who give out about movies aimed at teenage girls.

That our non-teenaged wives and girlfriends have made us sit through such turgid, ranting crap?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Queen-Mise wrote: »

Bella Swan in the book wasn't a half decent character either. Kristen Stewart played the part as it was in the book.
Her character is tripe and that is what comes across in the movie.

Nobody is really questioning Kirsten Stewart's abilities here, it's the character that's the problem. I doubt even Meryl Streep could have made her tolerable.

I have to wonder what is says about men who give out about movies aimed at teenage girls.

I would think men would have more issue with this than girls. They're the ones that are going to have to live up to this ridiculous idea of what a boyfriend should be like. Imagine having to see the disappointment on your ladies face when you don't want to control her every move or knock her out during sexy times.

On female leads in Hollywood - it is an odd situation. I am on the fence on this. I like the classic stories, like any Austen book on film & they are essential a female character marrying a strong man.

Books like that are from a completely different time. Women weren't equal then and all that was expected from them was to marry as well as they could. But even in most of Austen's books the main female character strives for a little bit more than what's expected of them. You can't really translate that to modern day stories as the social circumstances and expectations are completely different.

Although you could argue that Austen's Emma character works well in the book and in the modern reworking in Clueless. While not necessarily the most likable of Austen's characters Emma is probably my favourite. She's memorable, carries the whole story and comes out of it a better person. Cher in Clueless is the same. A female character that carries the whole story, starts off quite shallow and superficial but essentially a good person and grows throughout the story to end up as a better version of her original self. And it's not entirely motivated by a man.