Isn’t it sexist to say “strong female character?” What makes any character compelling are flaws. To add the word “female” infers a distinction between strong female and male characters. A strong female character entails curiosity, goals, intention, and strength in vulnerability and flaws. Angelina Jolie frequently appears so tough and sure of herself that it becomes banal.
The strong character attempts to take an active role and control her life. The female isn’t a victim of circumstance but the story’s driving force, and doesn’t sit back while another takes charge. The strong character possesses something intangible, making her strong.
Annoying writers try to develop strong female characters by masculinism: putting the woman in a male stereotypical position, combined with a bad ass attitude (for example, Megan Fox’s character is a sexy mechanic specialist; or, the woman outdrinks the male).
Love interest and damsel in distress characters regularly remain solely to motivate the primary male characters, possibly to propel the plot. There’s nothing wrong with a strong female character caring about her hair or being a girlfriend if she retains a strong inner characteristic. Making a female character strong just so that she’s a greater prize in the end for the story’s male hero is never appropriate.
Sometimes men in movies fear their power can be diminished by women who are independent, successful, and ambitious; and will avoid their type to not appear weaker or less significant. Manufactured strong female characters tend to settle because of an inability to find an equal male desiring their company. Supposedly strong female character Megan Fox in “Transformers” with hot model looks and wonderful in every way ends-up with unemployed loser Shia La Beouf. Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment