FINALLY! Female lead action heroes with very little down side!

If there's one thing I've learned from watching Charlie's Angels and reading critiques on it, it's that you don't have to be the opposite of the average woman to be a feminist. In fact, men can be feminists too! Who knew? If you are for equal rights for both men and women, you are a feminist. That doesn't mean that women should have MORE rights then men, just EQUAL rights. We've seen so much media that tries to reach out to both male and female audiences. A lot of the media we've analyzed at are action movies. When they try to market action movies to women, all they do is either stick some ass-kicking Kung Fu- doing anti-female as the lead or supporting role. But to keep the male viewers interested, they make her sexy. Which is fine, because guess what: they do the same thing with male leads. Ever see an unattractive male action hero? Imagine if in Die Hard, John Mclane was played by Danny Devito instead of Bruce Willis. Or if Thor was played by Seth Rogen. It just wouldn't work.


Unfourtanetly, most of the films and television series we've looked at (ex. Die Hard 4, Charlie's Angels) we've analyzed negatively. They don't seem to send the message that people think they are supposed to. At first glance, sure, they change things up a bit and question masculinity and femininity, but if you analyze closely enough, they just revert back to old school thinking in the end. They aren't as progressive as they're supposed to be and Hollywood is very clever at keeping you entertained while encouraging you not to think.

So what are some films that can be analyzed positively? I've chosen to talk about two: THE HUNGER GAMES and THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.  Both of which are adaptations of best selling books.

The Hunger games has sold over 25 million copies of the book and grossed 150 million in it's opening weekend. Third only to Harry Potter and The Dart Knight. I read the book before I saw the movie and found Katniss Everdeen to be phenomenal character, one who's voice I didn't mind staying in the entire read. She does everything by herself including taking care of her mother and sister, hunting with her bow and arrow, which is considered to be a man activity and winning the actual hunger games. There is one point in the book which is definitely worth looking at and is only briefly touched on in the movie where Katniss nurses her teammate/love interest Peeta back to health inside a cave.  Peeta is practically the damsel in distress majority of the time and comes from a family of bakers. Talk about role reversal. Played remarkable strength and confidence by Jennifer Lawrence, Katniss is certainly pretty. But she doesn't use her sexuality to her advantage, in fact, sexuality isn't much of a them in the story at all. There is a slight love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale, but it's not the main basis of the story.

The second film, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, is on a more adult heavily R-rated side of the spectrum, but still offers a unique and refreshing heroine. Lisbeth Salander is her name and though she shares the lead with Mikeal Blomkvist (played by Daniel Craig in the American version) she's pretty much the star of the show. The books were written by Stieg Larson, who got his inspiration for the character after witnessing his friend of the same name get raped. Larson was an advocate for women's rights and originally titled the book "men who hate women." While Dragon Tattoo isn't necessarilly an action movie, it is a thriller which is a genre that is always popular in the movie business. It's certainly worth taking a look at.
It would take pages to go on about Lisbeth's back story, which would be rife with spoilers. Instead of doing so, I'll just point out a few parts about the character I find most interesting. First off, her sexuality is never quite distinct. Sometimes she has sex with girls, sometimes with men. She always seems to treat the women better then the men and "has sex like a man," in Carrie Bradshaw's terms. This isn't necassarily a good thing, but the shoe can be on the other foot, guys.
Lisbeth is independent for the most part, steadfast and at times blunt. She dresses in a way that certainly draws attention to herself, but also tells people to F*** off. She is extremely intelligent and capable of hacking into just about any computer. So she draws on her intellectual powers to get things done, not her physical prowess, though she is capable of defending herself. She uses her sexuality as a weapon only once and it is in an act of revenge, but there's nothing sexy about it. Trust me. Lastly, the fact the Mikeal needs her to solve the case he is working on, but Lisbeth doesn't necassarilly need him says something.
Lets hope there's more Lisbeth Salanders and Katniss Everdeens in store for our future. Otherwise, how is anything going to change?

Hey! I grew up on that!

There is no more sensitive topic then children's cartoons. We can talk intelligently about race, class and gender but don't insult the animated films that were so near and dear to our childhood. Men will defend the coolness of their GI JOE'S, their TRANSFORMERS and their superheros. Women will defend their love of princesses, almost all of which come from Disney adaptations of various literature and fairy tales. In fact, do you know anyone who hasn't seen a Disney film? I mean, come on, every one has at least one if not more, favorite Disney movies. What's the big deal though? They're just cartoons after all, right? Surely, there can't be more to their simple success other then the fact that they bring joy to children.

WRONG!  Whether you like it or not Disney is a HUGE corporation that dominates children's entertainment and owns many broadcasting companies and entertainment industries. I don't really have a problem with the animated films that Disney makes. In fact, they've made some pretty brilliant films. But there are common characteristics that Disney films share with flaws that few people are willing to admit.  These flaws are essentially subliminal messages for young kids that (no research done here) effect their behavior and way of thinking as adults.

I have chosen to point out three. The first, is that women can't do anything without a man's help. There are plenty of Disney movies that have fantastic leading ladies and if you read my blog on Beauty and the Beast, you know that I think there are positive sides to them as well. But Sleeping Beauty has to wait for a handsome prince to wake her up, Snow White needs the help of yes, another prince to kiss her and bring her back from an almost-death and Pocahantas can't solve the violence ensuing between the Indians and the Colonists without the help of pretty-blonde-white man: John Smith. Things are getting better. Not all Disney films send this message. In fact Pixar's new movie BRAVE stars a female character. It is the first of the Pixar films with a leading female role and looks pretty good. So go ahead, love those Disney princesses, but don't BECOME one.

The next is the racism that some of these films seem to promote. Most of the main characters are idealized, aryan and in power already. In the article Monarchs, Monsters and Multiculturalism, the author gives the example of The Lion King. I hate to harp on The Lion King because it's on of my favorite Disney movies, but after I read the article I realized some flaws. The Lions are at the top and represent those in power. In America, that means mostly white people. The hyenas are given Latino accents and are represented as insane followers of Scar. Scar himself, is drawn with a black mane versus the blondish-brown of Simba and Mustafa. The Lions want to keep everyone else in their place. Those of us who live in a democratic society should ask ourselves: is this what we want democracy to be? Shouldn't the Zebras and Giraffes have an equal say?
Things are getting better as far as diversity. Mulan was female and Asian, Jasmine was Persian (or middle eastern of some form) and more recently The Princess and the Frog starred a black princess instead of white. The more minorities rise to power, the more diverse animated films will become.

The third and final is the problem of the Good vs. Evil dichotomy. When it comes to children's media, its much easier to make good one side and bad the other. You are either good or evil, with us or against us. Makes sense, right? The problem is, kids are never made to question what it actually means to be good or evil. Certain things we know to be bad: stealing, killing, lying, that sort of thing. But don't the good guys do all those things in order to get rid of evil? What kids learn about good and evil nowadays is that they attack you, so it's okay for you to attack them. They wronged you, so you must get rid of them. But does that mean that they are evil? Isn't it all perspective? Oh, and not to mention those who are in power are the ones we root for, those who defy them are considered wrong and immoral.
Take Alladin for instance. Alladin stole because he had to. Alladin did not have money. He was referred to as "street rat." But that doesn't mean Alladin was bad. He was just poor!  If Disney would make its characters more complex and set the good/evil line a little bit closer, then perhaps we could actually make kids think about the movies they watch instead of just watching them.

The Positive Side of Child Marketing

This past class we began our transition into learning about media for kids. In the first article we read From Tony the Tiger to Slime Time Live discussed how the 1980's lead to a new era of marketing towards kids. In 1980 the deregulation bill was passed and the market became free to try and profit off of whoever it pleased. One of the biggest changes was the fact that now, advertisers were allowed to target kids of any age. While the article focuses mainly on the negative aspects of this, I've chosen to focus on some of the positive. Surely, not all media being thrown at kids can be crap.

During the 1980's a whole slew of children's TV shows were sold as multimedia products, meaning they were not just a television show, but a series of toys, video games, comic books and often times made into food. Some of the most memorable ones to me are G.I. JOE, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers and The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

The fact that all of these series could be experienced both by watching television, playing with action figures, playing video games and by reading is pretty cool. If you're a kid, imagination is the best part of your life. In fact, lets face it, most of what you think about when your a kid is make believe. While the real world is pretty exciting and filled with fun new facts every day, kids spend more time focusing on make believe media then they do on being concerned about what real life is like, or what they're going to do when they grow up. And how much does a career matter at that age? Zilch. People argue that kids can't just play in their backyard with a stick anymore. Sure, kids aren't as easily entertained, but they're simply experiencing imagination in a different, more interactive way. And aren't the filmmakers, writers and artists who help create these TV shows just kids who never grew up? 



A craze more recent and more popular with my generation is the Harry Potter series. Harry Potter books have sold over 400 million copies, made over 900 million in ticket sales for movies and has made even more money off of merchandising. There's even a theme park. 400 million copies is a lot of kids reading. Yes, Harry Potter is aimed more towards a teenage audience but the first book has been read by kids as young as nine, maybe even younger. Why is this such a good thing? Because the books have received a number of literary awards and for kid's books, include a pretty heavy vocabulary. With all the complaining about how often kids spend on media no one ever thinks about how much more kids are reading because of the number of ways they can experience media. Read the book? I can't wait to see the movie! Seen the movie? I can't wait to read the book! Also, Harry Potter tackles much more complex themes and issues then the before mentioned TV series. Stephen King, an extremely acclaimed writer quotes, "Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity." Can you think of a theme that's not in Harry Potter? I can't.

Having a multimedia children's market offers kids the chances to play by themselves on a console or computer, play with their friends with action figures, watch TV and THINK about being the characters, read, or if they feel like it, simply pretend to be a TV show character, with no form of media in front of them. Kids still have strong imaginations, they're just a bit more spoiled then the last generation.