It’s disappointing how difficult it is to pull a genuine “strong female lead” who defies the male gaze and does not execute masculine solutions to save the world, from the memory vault.
It is more common to share such heroines in serialized television over the confines of the stricter 2 hr narrative of film. I highly recommend Cynthia Erivo’s performance in The Outsider, which is still broadcasting weekly on HBO.
I liked this a lot. It reminded me of a thought I have been meaning to organize for a while now:
In college around 11 or so years ago a few girlfriends and I had a debate with a male teacher about Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character from the Alien series. That character has been referenced and centered in feminist theory but he made this exact argument that she was still sexualized for the male gaze (the underwear scene) and eventually took on masculine qualities to win the day. He asked us what a heroine would look like who exaggerated feminine qualities and didn’t cater to the male gaze would look like. I’ve thought about this a lot since and would like to suggest Sarah Connor from the Terminator franchise as a possible but not perfect example. She is completely motivated by motherhood. She is seen as hysterical and not believed by society, though she is eventually vindicated. And she doesn’t fall in love with the terminator but does consider he may be the best option as a father figure to her child:
Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The Terminator would never stop, it would never leave him. And it would never hurt him, never shout at him or get drunk and hit him or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would always be there and it would die to protect him. Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice.
She has become a sex symbol but not by using any conventional stereotypes. Her two main outfits in the film do not show much skin. She is in hospital pants and a tank, and then military cargo pants and a tank. The tops are not low cut and she doesn’t wear a bra, she has a muscular body and a ponytail. Plus this quote:
Yeah, right. How were you supposed to know? ****ing men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don’t know what it's like to really create something, to create a life. To feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction.
Excellent points about Sarah Connor! (I also love the idea of a queue of thoughts that need organizing). I watched Alien a few months back, possibly for the very first time since I didn't remember any of it. It felt like a classic that held up pretty well, except for that final scene in the escape vessel. Not only was the undressing ridiculous, but so was the alien hiding crouched in a corner. I was impressed with the special effects of the rest of the movie but it looked pretty silly there. That whole final scene felt like a bad alternate ending that should have been cut.
Horrible title. Amazing read. (I’m so frustrated with the NYTimes for allowing such a divisive headline!) The piece itself actually contains the headline, plus a very important clarification:
I don’t want to be the dead girl, or Dave’s wife. But I don’t want to be a strong female lead either, if my power is defined largely by violence and domination, conquest and colonization.
Reading this, I realized that the sci-fi novel I’m writing is way more queer than I realized. And not just because of the identity of the protagonist. The hero’s journey isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. But what if the hero doesn’t go places and conquer shit? What if the hero, instead, ends up exactly where they started, but as a different person? That’s evolution. That’s... feminist?
If you study the hero's journey that is exactly what is supposed to happen. The hero leaves home, gains knowledge, returns home but different -and is then able to help the community. The hero's journey isn't supposed to be linear, it is meant to be circular. This is why I get why people can say Star Wars A New Hope is based on the hero's journey but I don't understand how they can say it is the hero's journey as the hero never returns home.
This gets lost in American culture, I think because American history is uniquely linear -always up and better - or down and worse. Consider, the people who settled and stayed in America (from other continents) don't return in our narrative because they really didn't. This is more of a promised land narrative - think Moses and the children of Israel. Or slave narratives from the antebellum south, you escape - you don't go back. Think Rockefeller or Carnegie or the zero-to-hero rags-to-riches story, these guys don't go back home better - they escape to a promised land (more wealth, better housing, new city, etc).
A better example might be the film 'Where the Heart Is' where the hero heeds the call to more education/a career in beauty (photography) but stays grounded in home and makes her home better for it. Or the book Dragon Song where the hero leaves the society, gains new power knowledge, and returns to society blessing the whole for her efforts. The Hobbit is a hero's journey, The Road is not.
Please tell us when/where you publish! Can't wait to read it!
I love this comment. You’re exactly right. And your examples are all right on the money. The one I was thinking of was Odysseus in The Odyssey: After all the wild trials and tribulations at sea, he returns to Ithaca, precisely where he started.
The hero's journey isn't supposed to be linear, it is meant to be circular. ... This gets lost in American culture, I think because American history is uniquely linear -always up and better - or down and worse.
This is super interesting and something I've never even considered before!
Agreed , do you think it might have something to do with the age of our country. Maybe we haven’t gotten that far in our development. We have not truly grown that much in the heart and soul and maybe can’t return “different”.
To bring this back to Marling's chosen profession -- the best way to break out of this box is to have more female directors and writers. I just re-watched The Savages last night, starring Laura Linney, written and directed by Tamara Jenkins. Linney wasn't the strong female lead. She was the lead, period, and she was more than enough; in fact, she was perfect in all of her imperfections.
Excellent article. Marling does such a great job at describing the existing paradigm- and the difficulty of creating a new model from something close to scratch.
Although my job is approximately a gazillion miles away from Hollywood - the question of how to function and lead and succeed in an environment which only values male attributes and approval has recently moved from the background into sharp and daily focus.
While I am nowhere near figuring this stuff out, asking the right question - so well-framed by Marling - feels like fresh air.
I did try to get into The OA a few years ago - never quite could, which isn't a commentary on The OA, just proof that slow-boil stories tend to lose me.
With this context in mind, I'll revisit the show. I suspect I'll enjoy it. She has a great manifesto for why she's in film, and I love excellent manifestos for doing anything.
Loved this insight. I think the best way to go forward is in letting go of the alpha aggressive leadership paradigm. To sustain this planet we need compassion, empathy, unity and love.
It’s disappointing how difficult it is to pull a genuine “strong female lead” who defies the male gaze and does not execute masculine solutions to save the world, from the memory vault.
It is more common to share such heroines in serialized television over the confines of the stricter 2 hr narrative of film. I highly recommend Cynthia Erivo’s performance in The Outsider, which is still broadcasting weekly on HBO.
This show looks great, def gonna check it out!
I liked this a lot. It reminded me of a thought I have been meaning to organize for a while now:
In college around 11 or so years ago a few girlfriends and I had a debate with a male teacher about Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character from the Alien series. That character has been referenced and centered in feminist theory but he made this exact argument that she was still sexualized for the male gaze (the underwear scene) and eventually took on masculine qualities to win the day. He asked us what a heroine would look like who exaggerated feminine qualities and didn’t cater to the male gaze would look like. I’ve thought about this a lot since and would like to suggest Sarah Connor from the Terminator franchise as a possible but not perfect example. She is completely motivated by motherhood. She is seen as hysterical and not believed by society, though she is eventually vindicated. And she doesn’t fall in love with the terminator but does consider he may be the best option as a father figure to her child:
She has become a sex symbol but not by using any conventional stereotypes. Her two main outfits in the film do not show much skin. She is in hospital pants and a tank, and then military cargo pants and a tank. The tops are not low cut and she doesn’t wear a bra, she has a muscular body and a ponytail. Plus this quote:
Upvote. Sarah Connor legend-status cemented.
Excellent points about Sarah Connor! (I also love the idea of a queue of thoughts that need organizing). I watched Alien a few months back, possibly for the very first time since I didn't remember any of it. It felt like a classic that held up pretty well, except for that final scene in the escape vessel. Not only was the undressing ridiculous, but so was the alien hiding crouched in a corner. I was impressed with the special effects of the rest of the movie but it looked pretty silly there. That whole final scene felt like a bad alternate ending that should have been cut.
I’m SO impressed that your teacher had that insight back then. His question was excellent and I like your choice!
Horrible title. Amazing read. (I’m so frustrated with the NYTimes for allowing such a divisive headline!) The piece itself actually contains the headline, plus a very important clarification:
Reading this, I realized that the sci-fi novel I’m writing is way more queer than I realized. And not just because of the identity of the protagonist. The hero’s journey isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. But what if the hero doesn’t go places and conquer shit? What if the hero, instead, ends up exactly where they started, but as a different person? That’s evolution. That’s... feminist?
Total agreement on the title, but great article.
If you study the hero's journey that is exactly what is supposed to happen. The hero leaves home, gains knowledge, returns home but different -and is then able to help the community. The hero's journey isn't supposed to be linear, it is meant to be circular. This is why I get why people can say Star Wars A New Hope is based on the hero's journey but I don't understand how they can say it is the hero's journey as the hero never returns home.
This gets lost in American culture, I think because American history is uniquely linear -always up and better - or down and worse. Consider, the people who settled and stayed in America (from other continents) don't return in our narrative because they really didn't. This is more of a promised land narrative - think Moses and the children of Israel. Or slave narratives from the antebellum south, you escape - you don't go back. Think Rockefeller or Carnegie or the zero-to-hero rags-to-riches story, these guys don't go back home better - they escape to a promised land (more wealth, better housing, new city, etc).
A better example might be the film 'Where the Heart Is' where the hero heeds the call to more education/a career in beauty (photography) but stays grounded in home and makes her home better for it. Or the book Dragon Song where the hero leaves the society, gains new power knowledge, and returns to society blessing the whole for her efforts. The Hobbit is a hero's journey, The Road is not.
Please tell us when/where you publish! Can't wait to read it!
I love this comment. You’re exactly right. And your examples are all right on the money. The one I was thinking of was Odysseus in The Odyssey: After all the wild trials and tribulations at sea, he returns to Ithaca, precisely where he started.
Of course you’ll be the first to hear!!
This is super interesting and something I've never even considered before!
Agreed , do you think it might have something to do with the age of our country. Maybe we haven’t gotten that far in our development. We have not truly grown that much in the heart and soul and maybe can’t return “different”.
To bring this back to Marling's chosen profession -- the best way to break out of this box is to have more female directors and writers. I just re-watched The Savages last night, starring Laura Linney, written and directed by Tamara Jenkins. Linney wasn't the strong female lead. She was the lead, period, and she was more than enough; in fact, she was perfect in all of her imperfections.
I love your comment. And I love Laura Linney, so I’m going to look into The Savages.
I hope we can get to where she is pointing!
Me too.
Excellent article. Marling does such a great job at describing the existing paradigm- and the difficulty of creating a new model from something close to scratch.
Although my job is approximately a gazillion miles away from Hollywood - the question of how to function and lead and succeed in an environment which only values male attributes and approval has recently moved from the background into sharp and daily focus. While I am nowhere near figuring this stuff out, asking the right question - so well-framed by Marling - feels like fresh air.
I did try to get into The OA a few years ago - never quite could, which isn't a commentary on The OA, just proof that slow-boil stories tend to lose me.
With this context in mind, I'll revisit the show. I suspect I'll enjoy it. She has a great manifesto for why she's in film, and I love excellent manifestos for doing anything.
Loved this insight. I think the best way to go forward is in letting go of the alpha aggressive leadership paradigm. To sustain this planet we need compassion, empathy, unity and love.
A must read in my opinion - excellent! SO many important insights in this piece.
“Because what we really mean when we say we want strong female leads is:”Give me a man but in the body of a woman I still want to see naked.”
“It’s difficult for us to imagine femininity itself - empathy, vulnerability, listening - as strong.”
The question is an important one. “How do we evolve beyond the limitations that binaries like feminine/masculine present in the first place?
I want to know more about Brit Marling, she sounds compelling.