Women in Cinema

Dirty Dingus McGee

In the last while there seems to be a constant discussion on women in cinema and there not being enough female focused films and roles and it being an example of the sexism that exists in the film industry.

Surely though the reason that cinema isn't as focused on women as it is on men is that women's lives just haven't been and aren't as interesting as men's lives and so there will never be anywhere near as many films involving women as there are men. Also men by and large tend to be more obsessed with cinema than women and films that target the male audience are going to make more money which is the bottom line and therefore issues that women directors and writers may want to deal with in film's are always a much more risky choice to make.

Is sexism that is claimed in cinema real or is it being over exaggerated by the media?

Ryaller

I can see this ending well.

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo have been asking this of many female actresses that appear on their show and the general consensus was that there is a huge difference that exists. Heck, many male actors agreed too.

johnny_ultimate

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Surely though the reason that cinema isn't as focused on women as it is on men is that women's lives just haven't been and aren't as interesting as men's lives and so there will never be anywhere near as many films involving women as there are men.

I sincerely hope you're not being sincere with this comment.

Also men by and large tend to be more obsessed with cinema than women and films that target the male audience are going to make more money which is the bottom line and therefore issues that women directors and writers may want to deal with in film's are always a much more risky choice to make.

Actually statistically speaking women are the dominant cinemagoing audience in Ireland - 53% vs 47% male, which is actually disproportionate given the general population is 51% vs 49% (source: http://www.iftn.ie/distribution/IrishCinemaStataistics/?act1=record&aid=17&rid=144&tpl=hbook_entry)

Then I would make the point that almost all great cinema is gender neutral. Films aimed explicitly at one gender or the other tend to be regressive rubbish, a rule I have found to be almost without exception. A great film, regardless of whether its lead performer is male or female, or indeed the gender of a director, should be accessible to everybody, even if it resonates stronger with one group or another. I'm sure women can relate to feminist-themed cinema on a different level than I can, but that doesn't mean I still can't be totally beguiled and moved by them.

There is a gender divide both on screen and behind the camera, there is no doubt about that, and in 2015 there's no good reason why that should be the case other than society's general sluggishness in achieving proper equality and challenging the old patriarchy. Not that there aren't counterexamples. The last two films I watched in the cinema have been Mad Max and Clouds of Sils Maria. The former puts women on an equal level with the men throughout, which is refreshing to see in a genre often drenched in testosterone. The latter meanwhile puts fantastic actresses front and centre, and even provocatively addresses the issue of women in cinema as part of its storytelling. So yes, there are great films about women, and many great female directors (from Kelly Reichardt to Agnes Varda). But there is no doubt the balance is off, and IMO there's no good reason for that other than society and by extent the filmmaking community taking its time to shake off old prejudices. And the audience too is not without blame: if there are men out there unwilling to watch films focused on female characters (especially ones who aren't attractive and lightly clothed), that's something the individual viewer should be questioning (and indeed the same rings true when the genders are reversed).

Dirty Dingus McGee

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I sincerely hope you're not being sincere with this comment.

I am actually and there isn't much arguing with the fact that men's lives have been more interesting throughout history than women's lives.Seeing as a large amount of films are war, crime,thrillers and in all those cases men will almost certainly dominate in the roles in those films.

e_e

I love when a film can put me in a different pair of shoes and/or make me empathize with a perspective different from my own so I'm all for better representation and viewpoints being expressed openly. Besides the lack of a status quo being challenged just leads to a stagnant, formulaic and lazy film culture. I'm not interested in films that just regurgitate things as they are and don't strive for more.

Also don't buy this rubbish that men are inherently more interesting at all either, so many of the greatest films are not about big, charismatic and important people but are about the issues that real people face from day to day. But even them if you want an escape I'd for instance throw in characters like Ripley, Sarah Connor, Furiosa and the many great heroines of Miyazaki's films, all for me rivaling any male figure you'd care to mention.

If things end up like the OP seems to wish then I'd stop watching new movies altogether. But thankfully I don't because there's so much exciting and rich stuff happening right now.

Dirty Dingus McGee

e_e wrote: »

I love when a film can put me in a different pair of shoes and/or make me empathize with a perspective different from my own so I'm all for better representation and viewpoints being expressed openly. Besides the lack of a status quo being challenged just leads to a stagnant, formulaic and lazy film culture. I'm not interested in films that just regurgitate things as they are and don't strive for more.

Also don't buy this rubbish that men are inherently more interesting at all either, so many of the greatest films are not about big, charismatic and important people but are about the issues that real people face from day to day. But even them if you want an escape I'd for instance throw in characters like Ripley, Sarah Connor, Furiosa and the many great heroines of Miyazaki's films, all for me rivaling any male figure you'd care to mention.

If things end up like the OP seems to wish then I'd stop watching new movies altogether. But thankfully I don't because there's so much exciting and rich stuff happening right now.

Where have i wished for films to become formulaic.All I've said is that perhaps there aren't as much films involving women in major roles is because they probably haven't lived lives throughout history as interesting as men's lives and I think that is true.

I gave a fairly valid reason why women aren't as well represented in cinema and simply started that perhaps this is the reason rather than there being a large degree of sexism behind it.

MagicMarker

For the most part women are only used as decoration, in Hollywood anyway.

e_e

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Where have i wished for films to become formulaic.

That is the result of Hollywood adopting the same views constantly. The brilliant Mad Max Fury Road for instance wouldn't exist in its current form if we stuck to this "Well women aren't interesting, let's just put them to the side!" logic. The film if anything is more thrilling by not just being another empty "strong silent hero saves defenseless women." movie.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

All I've said is that perhaps there aren't as much films involving women in major roles is because they probably haven't lived lives throughout history as interesting as men's lives and I think that is true.

That is a purely subjective thing to say and is a curiously limiting and narrow minded view to have given the endless imagination and creativity that movies can allow. Even if it were true what's to stop people from simply creating stronger female characters with more depth?

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I gave a fairly valid reason why women aren't as well represented in cinema

It's not valid at all, it's just reinforcing some pretty lazy and regressive beliefs. The very simple answer to that claim is that it's just not good enough and we could honestly be doing better.

Dirty Dingus McGee

e_e wrote: »

That is the result of Hollywood adopting the same views constantly. The brilliant Mad Max Fury Road for instance wouldn't exist in its current form if we stuck to this "Well women aren't interesting, let's just put them to the side!" logic. The film if anything is more thrilling by not just being another empty "strong silent hero saves defenseless women." movie.


That is a purely subjective thing to say and is a curiously limiting and narrow minded view to have given the endless imagination and creativity that movies can allow. Even if it were true what's to stop people from simply creating stronger female characters with more depth?


It's not valid at all, it's just reinforcing some pretty lazy and regressive beliefs. The very simple answer to that claim is that it's just not good enough and we could honestly be doing better.

It's not lazy to say women haven't lived lives as interesting as men throughout history it's just happens to be true.

Up until 40 years ago most women didn't really work and spent their lives in the home looking after the family. That doesn't really provide much material for films to be made focusing on women.I didn't say women don't have the capability of being interesting characters I said due to circumstances beyond their control they haven't lived lives as interesting as men in general. I love the fact that Gillian Flynn's books (and the film Gone Girl) portrayed women as being just as capable of evil as men as it was an interesting change from the stereotypical female character.

Considering that the vast majority of characters in War films,westerns action films, thrillers are going to be men as the vast majority of people involved in those aspects of life have been men and those types of films make up a decent amount of successful film's produced every year.

e_e

Also just throwing it in there that what is often cited as not only the greatest silent film but also historical drama ever made is about Joan of Arc.

e_e

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not lazy to say women haven't lived lives as interesting as men throughout history it's just happens to be true.

To make myself completely clear, I'm specifically saying it's lazy to use that as an excuse to not have interesting female characters in movies nowadays.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Up until 40 years ago most women didn't really work and spent their lives in the home looking after the family. That doesn't really provide much material for films to be made focusing on women.I didn't say women don't have the capability of being interesting characters I said due to circumstances beyond their control they haven't lived lives as interesting as men in general.

I don't see why you're using big important moments and people of history as some basis for everything going on in cinema. The inner and outer lives of ordinary people are every bit as ripe for interesting storytelling as world altering wars are. Besides do you really think stuff like this should have any bearing on films set in a modern setting or even fantasy and sci-fi worlds?

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Considering that the vast majority of characters in War films,westerns action films, thrillers are going to be men as the vast majority of people involved in those aspects of life have been men and those types of films make up a decent amount of successful film's produced every year.

...and we've had this for well over a Century now. Why should we so rigidly stick to reality when we can move beyond that, creating characters and worlds that truly stand out from the current status quo.

e_e

Also no from my own perspective I don't think it's as interesting to just cover what we know in movies (I.E famous figures of history). I'm much more interested in stuff I haven't seen before.

Dirty Dingus McGee

e_e wrote: »

Also no from my own perspective I don't think it's as interesting to just cover what we know in movies (I.E famous figures of history). I'm much more interested in stuff I haven't seen before.

You may be but I would suggest that based on what type of films are made and that the same formulas keep on being rehashed over and over again in Hollywood films, the general public have a different taste and they are really the ones who decide what films get made.

Fysh

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not lazy to say women haven't lived lives as interesting as men throughout history it's just happens to be true.

Up until 40 years ago most women didn't really work and spent their lives in the home looking after the family. That doesn't really provide much material for films to be made focusing on women.I didn't say women don't have the capability of being interesting characters I said due to circumstances beyond their control they haven't lived lives as interesting as men in general. I love the fact that Gillian Flynn's books (and the film Gone Girl) portrayed women as being just as capable of evil as men as it was an interesting change from the stereotypical female character.

Considering that the vast majority of characters in War films,westerns action films, thrillers are going to be men as the vast majority of people involved in those aspects of life have been men and those types of films make up a decent amount of successful film's produced every year.

The above perspective makes sense only with two things:
1) An ignorance of the many women throughout history who have led fascinating lives, and
2) An ignorance of the limited opportunities historically offered/available to women due to inequality of gender treatment.

There's nothing about women that makes them inherently less interesting than men, only specific limited ideas about what women's lives are or should be that are uninteresting.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Fysh wrote: »

The above perspective makes sense only with two things:
1) An ignorance of the many women throughout history who have led fascinating lives, and
2) An ignorance of the limited opportunities historically offered/available to women due to inequality of gender treatment.

There's nothing about women that makes them inherently less interesting than men, only specific limited ideas about what women's lives are or should be that are uninteresting.

Lots of women have lived interesting lives but compared to men in general their lives have been less interesting over the course of history due to circumstances beyond their control but it is completely true to say that by an large women's lives have been less interesting than men's lives.

Did I say there was anything that made them less interesting than men.What is said was that women have lived less interesting lives throughout the course of history and as a result a large amount of films made are not going to have a much a need for female characters.

e_e

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You may be but I would suggest that based on what type of films are made and that the same formulas keep on being rehashed over and over again in Hollywood films, the general public have a different taste and they are really the ones who decide what films get made.

How does this account for films like The Hunger Games, Bridesmaids, Pitch Perfect, Twilight, Hunger Games, Lucy, Divergent and Fault in Our Stars making hundreds of millions worldwide?

I don't think audiences have any problem with women being in more prominent and diverse roles. I might add too that both Lucy and Hercules opened on the same weekend last year and guess which went straight to number one at the box office? I think you're doing the film going audience a disservice here.

tunguska

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Lots of women have lived interesting lives but compared to men in general their lives have been less interesting over the course of history due to circumstances beyond their control but it is completely true to say that by an large women's lives have been less interesting than men's lives.

Did I say there was anything that made them less interesting than men.What is said was that women have lived less interesting lives throughout the course of history and as a result a large amount of films made are not going to have a much a need for female characters.

People won't like it being said but I think you make a fair point.

e_e

Looking at the 5 highest grossing films of the year to date and 3 out of 5 (Cinderella, Home, Fifty Shades) of them have female protagonists with the other 2 (Furious 7, Avengers) also featuring prominent roles for women. If that's not a sign that the audience hasn't much of a problem I don't know what is. The historical argument just doesn't hold much weight tbh.

Dirty Dingus McGee

e_e wrote: »

Looking at the 5 highest grossing films of the year to date and 3 out of 5 (Cinderella, Home, Fifty Shades) of them have female protagonists with the other 2 (Furious 7, Avengers) also featuring prominent roles for women. If that's not a sign that the audience hasn't much of a problem I don't know what is. The historical argument just doesn't hold much weight tbh.

But the genre's I mentioned earlier are rarely going to have a large amount of female characters as it isn't quite as realistic and these types of films invariably are very popular.Just looking at last years biggest box office hits a large amount of them are action/adventure films which are almost always going to be dominated by male actors.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Considering that the vast majority of characters in War films,westerns action films, thrillers are going to be men as the vast majority of people involved in those aspects of life have been men and those types of films make up a decent amount of successful film's produced every year.

You realise those films are made up, right? So justifying casting Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis over Gina Carano for the sake of realism because historically not many women have jumped out of burning buildings and crawled through AC shafts to foil a plot to assassinate the president of Argentina (or whatever the fúck) is a bit of a cop out?

The films you're talking about are called genre films. Some genre films mindlessly conform to the existing genre template, people (and studios) like them because they're familiar and dependable. Seeing as genres like the thriller and the Western got pretty well established some decades ago, part of their template is a regressive attitude to gender representation. Other genre films test the limits of their genre, "communicate" as it were with other genres and with changing social realities of their audience.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You may be but I would suggest that based on what type of films are made and that the same formulas keep on being rehashed over and over again in Hollywood films, the general public have a different taste and they are really the ones who decide what films get made.

When people are given the opportunity, they go and see films with female leads no bother. As has been pointed out above, even in mainstream cinema, things are (in fits and starts and oh so slowly) changing.

e_e

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But the genre's I mentioned earlier are rarely going to have a large amount of female characters as it isn't quite as realistic and these types of films invariably are very popular.Just looking at last years biggest box office hits a large amount of them are action/adventure films which are almost always going to be dominated by male actors.

Why are you appealing to realism in what are essentially works of imagination? Is a woman fighting aliens in space inherently less realistic than a man doing so? ...and even then why does that even matter in terms of something that takes place in a fantasy world? Was Edge of Tomorrow for instance negatively effected by having Emily Blunt play a character that happened to be even stronger than Tom Cruise? We're talking mostly about works of pure fiction here anyway and going "oh no that's not realistic!" to something that is outlandish to begin with sounds like another weak cop out.

Hell even in a historical drama there can be revisionism taking place or a view that was not prominent at the time being adopted. The "what about action/adventure?" argument is kind of verging on "but but but women aren't capable!" but let's not go down that path. I'm just gonna assume you didn't mean it to come across that way.

Dirty Dingus McGee

e_e wrote: »

Why are you appealing to realism in what are essentially works of imagination? Is a woman fighting aliens in space inherently less realistic than a man doing so? ...and even then why does that even matter in terms of something that takes place in a fantasy world? Was Edge of Tomorrow for instance negatively effected by having Emily Blunt play a character that happened to be even stronger than Tom Cruise? We're talking mostly about works of pure fiction here anyway and going "oh no that's not realistic!" to something that is outlandish to begin with sounds like another weak cop out.

Hell even in a historical drama there can be revisionism taking place or a view that was not prominent at the time being adopted. The "what about action/adventure?" argument is kind of verging on "but but but women aren't capable!" but let's not go down that path. I'm just gonna assume you didn't mean it to come across that way.

For some reason I can't see films like Die Hard etc being as successful with the likes of Meryl Streep in the main role.Although I may be wrong.

I love the first 2 Alien Films,Prometheus,Salt,Hanna etc but by an large action/adventure films are going to star men as it is slightly more plausible in an implausible film to have a male actor in the main role.

It's not a cop out on my behalf as I am not a film maker and if females are given a more prominent role in these types of films I'm all for it. But I suspect that what I said above is probably what goes through the producers and directors when the are making film's.The heroic man is an image embedded in peoples minds(whether rightly or wrongly) from all types of storytelling.

Genre's like War,Western's and any crime films are going to consist of an almost exclusively male cast as these types of films are fairly grounded in reality and women don't play as big a part in War,Crime,Law Enforcement.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

For some reason I can't see films like Die Hard etc being as successful with the likes of Meryl Streep in the main role.Although I may be wrong.

I love the first 2 Alien Films,Prometheus,Salt,Hanna etc but by an large action/adventure films are going to star men as it is slightly more plausible in an implausible film to have a male actor in the main role.

How is it more plausible to have aging actors like Schwarznegger and Stallone in action films than it is to have someone like Charlize Theron or Jennifer Lawrence?

It's not a cop out on my behalf as I am not a film maker and if females are given a more prominent role in these types of films I'm all for it. But I suspect that what I said above is probably what goes through the producers and directors when the are making film's.The heroic man is an image embedded in peoples minds(whether rightly or wrongly) from all types of storytelling.

I suspect what's going through people's heads when they're getting big budget films made is "what is a proven formula to recoup costs and make a profit on this? What have people liked before?". Mainstream cinema consistently underestimates its audience, and fears the risk that comes with change. People's careers and fortunes are on the line, they play it safe.

Outside of mainstream cinema representation tends to be better, though behind the camera seems to be pretty unbalanced there too really.

Genre's like War,Western's and any crime films are going to consist of an almost exclusively male cast as these types of films are fairly grounded in reality and women don't play as big a part in War,Crime,Law Enforcement.

Within certain very restrictive terms you're right, an all female Saving Private Ryan would be pretty bizarre for example. I would hope that those kinds of films will evolve to include women as something more than emotional foils or sexual objects for men. Women being in those types of roles is not a result of cinema faithfully and neutrally reproducing reality, I'm a woman, and that's not my life. It's a result of ideology and of cowardice in the face of commercial risk.

Genres like the Western and crime drama are not grounded in reality, they are grounded in cinematic convention. And women make up more than half the world's population, there is always a woman's story to tell.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Santana Cuddly Nosebleed wrote: »

How is it more plausible to have aging actors like Schwarznegger and Stallone in action films than it is to have someone like Charlize Theron or Jennifer Lawrence?




I suspect what's going through people's heads when they're getting big budget films made is "what is a proven formula to recoup costs and make a profit on this? What have people liked before?". Mainstream cinema consistently underestimates its audience, and fears the risk that comes with change. People's careers and fortunes are on the line, they play it safe.

Outside of mainstream cinema representation tends to be better, though behind the camera seems to be pretty unbalanced there too really.



Within certain very restrictive terms you're right, an all female Saving Private Ryan would be pretty bizarre for example. I would hope that those kinds of films will evolve to include women as something more than emotional foils or sexual objects for men. Women being in those types of roles is not a result of cinema faithfully and neutrally reproducing reality, I'm a woman, and that's not my life. It's a result of ideology and of cowardice in the face of commercial risk.

Genres like the Western and crime drama are not grounded in reality, they are grounded in cinematic convention. And women make up more than half the world's population, there is always a woman's story to tell.

Why should a studio take a commercial risk. I said it one of my earlier post that they constantly rehash the same formulas as it works.If Stallone and Arnie bring in the money then they are going to use them.It's the same reason the likes of Jennifer Aniston,Cameron Diaz get brought out for every second romantic comedy.

Crime Drama's are fairly grounded in reality in the gender balance in the casting (and in the story telling a lot of time they try to reflect reality) as most criminals and law enforcement are men, the same applies for Westerns and War films.

the_syco

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A great film, regardless of whether its lead performer is male or female, or indeed the gender of a director, should be accessible to everybody, even if it resonates stronger with one group or another. I'm sure women can relate to feminist-themed cinema on a different level than I can, but that doesn't mean I still can't be totally beguiled and moved by them.

Some film leads need to be a man, to be believable - woman without muscle (unless hot futuristic robot) beating the crap out of other muscular women ain't believable. Is this changing? Yes. But IMO because the general public doesn't mind a (physically) strong female lead.

In saying that, having a female lead for a remake of a male lead movie is lazy way to say "oh look, we have a woman in the lead cast".

I do want to see how they'd remake Jay and Silent Bob with two lead females, as you'd need a heavyset woman and a stoner woman as the lead roles... since they're remaking everything else with female characters. Neither of the cast could be good looking, and neither can wear anything tight fitting, or show much of anything unless they wanted to input that scene from Clerks 2.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Why should a studio take a commercial risk. I said it one of my earlier post that they constantly rehash the same formulas as it works.If Stallone and Arnie bring in the money then they are going to use them.It's the same reason the likes of Jennifer Aniston,Cameron Diaz get brought out for every second romantic comedy.

I understand why they don't want to take commercial risks, what I'm saying is that that is more the explanation for the issue at hand than "women's lives are boring". Arnie getting cast because he brings in the bucks is one thing, arguing that Arnie is cast because he is more believable than a woman in her 20s as an action figure is ludicrous.

Crime Drama's are fairly grounded in reality in the gender balance in the casting (and in the story telling a lot of time they try to reflect reality) as most criminals and law enforcement are men, the same applies for Westerns and War films.

THE CHARACTERS IN THOSE FILMS ARE MOSTLY MEN. Different types of characters and stories relating to the same subject could easily be chosen, and could easily incorporate women. Look at a film like Meek's Cutoff, Bridesmaids, Thelma and Louise: they took a format, looked at it from a female perspective, the world continued to spin.

e_e

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

For some reason I can't see films like Die Hard etc being as successful with the likes of Meryl Streep in the main role.Although I may be wrong.

Just gonna address this as electrobitch did well with the rest. Die Hard is a pretty interesting point of reference because I believe that part of the reason why it's gone on to be such a timeless classic was how it responded to the macho action hero of the time by having a more vulnerable, empathetic and less self-serious lead in the role. That's a classic case of a director and star bucking the trend of the time in fresh and thrilling ways which I'm all for. Whether a woman in the role would be inferior or not well it's kind of hard to even envision because that film is so much a part of the culture at this point. Nobody is saying that it shouldn't have been a man in that role anyway.

As for a film like that with Meryl Streep (who isn't really a great reference point because she's more known for drama), well your point is kind of moot when this thread references popular films like Salt, Alien, Hanna, Lucy, Terminator 1/2, Fury Road, Hunger Games etc etc. They go to show how exactly it can be done and a female action star really isn't as out of the question as you'd think. If you're talking solely in the realm of 80s action (which even Die Hard is kind of a departure from) of the Commando variety well that's not to be conflated with everything else and the point is that there should be room for different kinds. Why should a bygone subset of the action genre dictate everything else?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

the_syco wrote: »

I do want to see how they'd remake Jay and Silent Bob with two lead females, as you'd need a heavyset woman and a stoner woman as the lead roles... since they're remaking everything else with female characters. Neither of the cast could be good looking, and neither can wear anything tight fitting, or show much of anything unless they wanted to input that scene from Clerks 2.

Oh my god is that happening?!?! All jokes aside I watch the shít out of any female stoner movies (all both of them!), wish more would get made. Broad City: The Film, that better happen.

OP, here's a thread from the Ladies Lounge about female characters in film and TV if you'd like to see some

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057372237

Chain Smoker

Seeing as the biggest draw in the ufc right now is a woman, I dont see why anyone could think women cant be accepted in more prominent block buster roles.


Arnie and Stallone have been absolutely ****ting the bed box office wise the last bit too, btw

johnny_ultimate

War films? Yes, historically men have always been on the frontlines (although there have been more and more women soldiers in recent times - just to counter the suggestion in the OP that women's life still aren't as interesting as men's). But I cannot possibly see how a female perspective on war is not interesting, even historically speaking. They are victims, or they are bereaved. They are nurses and workers, vital cogs in the war machine. They see their countries destroyed or radically changed in front of their eyes. They find and lose love, family, children, homes.

And let's extend that too, beyond women alone. There are the children of war, the natives who find their lands invaded. There are the prisoners of war, and the victims of the violence. There are the rebels - both those who hide in the bushes with makeshift weaponry and others who engage in less violent but equally important acts of rebellion. There are the losers - a group often ignored at best or dehumanised at worst in cinematic portrayals of war. There are those working behind the scenes, developing the resources, supplies and intelligence for the foot soldiers. War effects so many more people than the frontline troops, and their perspectives are not uninteresting - they are the stuff of great drama. Their stories are exciting, surprising and illuminating. Just because commercial cinema has been fairly reluctant to explore them does not mean they lack value - indeed, many of the more memorable war films have been those that have looked at the subject from a different angle (Come and See, Grave of the Fireflies, Le Grand Illusion, Rome Open City etc...)

Nobody's calling for some sort of artificial equality when it comes to gender representations in cinema. Some stories will always need to be told from a male perspective, some from a female - not even the most militant of feminist critics could reasonably deny that. But if anything cinema to date has had a sort of manufactured inequality, due to the methods of production and social norms that have been prevalent since its inception. It's not just women, either, as other cultures, races, sexualities, nationalities, ages etc... have been largely neglected and under-represented by mainstream film-making. But things are in constant flux, generally for the better (although just look at the superhero movie craze to see how slow some areas have been to adapt). Audiences are showing themselves to be willing to engage with films with protagonists that break the moulds. And above all there's no use restricting oneself to just to commercialised cinema either - the medium is deeper and richer than that, and it's no surprise it's in independent and world cinema where you find a giddy range of different perspectives, and with it films that are more insightful, challenging and important than just another risk-averse genre movie.

demfad

e_e wrote: »

Also just throwing it in there that what is often cited as not only the greatest silent film but also historical drama ever made is about Joan of Arc.

That actually illustrates another issue. Due to the fact that men held the pen that writes the history books, women and their achievements have more or less been written out of history. So 'history' as we know it is more or less men's history. Only individuals of the sort of Joan of Arc or a Florence Nightinggale were deemed to be worthy of any record.
Imagine the thousands and thousands of truly outstanding women been and gone that we will never know of.

Remember Cinema has therefore largely been airbrushing onto airbrushing, imposing rigid gender roles onto this already skewed landscape.

On one positive note, although one of the the characters in the big hit 'Frozen' has the blond hair and bluse eyes etc. The biggest relationship is the sisterly one and the main act of love is one between the sisters. I'm relatively delighted for my kids to watch something like that.