![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[Ugh, haven't accomplished much outside of grocery shopping, comic shopping (Whedon's X-men and a Wizard mag with a disappointing Whedon article, Dark Knight Returns article and a confusing article on Richard Donner's Superman II. Plus a bit on Stephen King's two sons who have managed to become successful writers. Never heard of them. But they are apparently out there and published:Joe Hill and Owen King. Only thing I like that King writes is his column for Entertainment Weekly, which come to think of it is the only thing I really like in that mag anymore.) Am feeling unmotivated and kicking self for it per usual - see icon - that's me fighting my social malaise, except I'm not a blond and not short. ].
Watching Torchwood now. Starting with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang again, because it's fun and happens to be on and nothing else I'm remotely in the mood for is. Well except for maybe, Day After Tomorrow - a horrendous yet oddly entertaining disaster flick starring a bored Dennis Quaid, who has aged remarkably well. Hmmm - while watching the fight/kiss scene between Marsters and Borrowman, have come to the conclusion that Marsters is either really short or Borrowman (who plays Jack) is incredibly tall. Am thinking a little bit of both. Having seen Marsters on a stage about five feet away, definitely a little bit of both. The guy has got to be about 5'5-5'8 - around the same height as Paul Newman and Tom Cruise who are also pretty short. Borrowman on the other hand is a big guy - probably around 6'2. Which isn't really that big, from my pov. Another thing - long fight scenes are about as boring as long sex scenes. Unless of course you are doing them yourself or you get your rocks off on the watching, then not so much.
Also, amoral characters on most tv shows get all the best lines. Why is that? In real life, nice people are sarcastic and snarky too. Meanwhile nice hero characters get all the sappy smoochy lines. And they wonder why the majority of the audience falls for/adores/gets obsessed with the bad boy/bad girl characters? Hmmm, let me think.
Last night, while reading a really crappy article about Juno in EW, I got to thinking about how women have been presented on film and tv. The lead in Juno and the writers of the article argue that we haven't had rebel women in film or books. We don't have the female version of "Holden Caulfield" - instead women are shown as a support system for men. Note Sarah Connor who is all about John Connor in Terminator. Or in Breakfast Club - the rebel Ally Sheedy who changes her style to get Emilio Estevez. All the Molly Ringwald films are about the girl getting a guy. Even Heathers - the lead goes bad because of the guy, JD who motivates her. OR they are freaks like the girls in Ghost World. Juno - they state breaks the mold, because she is a 16 year old teen who is pregnant, keeps the kid, and is blase about her sexuality, allows herself to have pleasure with sex and is about the conquest and the consequences, that men don't have to deal with. Then they congratulate the script-writer, a tough woman, who was a former stripper and phone sex operative. What is amusing about the article and annoying is ironically the writer and the character in Juno are still all about the man. They are his sex toy or he is their's. They have his kid. While in Catcher in The Rye - Holden Caulfield wasn't worrying about any women, besides his kid sis. Rebel without a Cause? Natalie Wood's character was a side-issue, completely supporting. In the male rebel films - the women aren't the point, they aren't the main issue, they are not his purpose.
It's not about the guy getting the girl - it's about the guy's journey and she just happens to be on the path. Yet in chick lit and chick flicks - it's about getting married, finding the guy, getting the guy with just a few exceptions.
Working Girl - Harrison Ford plays the hunk, but he's not the point. Melanie Gritthif's character's story is about winning the job and getting that promotion, making her own way.
He's just one of the perks.
Little Black Book - The heroine gives up the guy and goes for the career.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Buffy was about the girl saving the world. She did it her way not the guy's way. She was a rebel. Faith - another character in the show - a rebel - same deal.
Neither ended up with men, neither had kids. They didn't become a support system. They were rebels. It's only in fanfic written mainly by "female" fans that they make a man, be it Spike, Xander, Riley or Angel the center of the heroine's world - her point of being. And goal. In fanfic - Buffy is the supportive one, the guys rule. If they don't - she spends all her time saving them, protecting them, healing them. Focused on having kids. If she's not, she's being blasted by the writer and the characters for daring to put her career of being the slayer before them. For going down a path most women never dare to venture down. A path in our culture that is usually reserved for men. Willow - a character often abused in fanfic and hated by many female fans - was not interested in men at all. And power was earthly and magical. Brainy. Not brawn.
Xenia - was about a female warrior with a cute female side-kick. Male fantasy? Maybe. But women flocked to it as well in it's later seasons.
Firelfy - the hero in Firefly is ironically a girl, not the male gunfighter. She's smarter, brighter, and stronger than he - and it is a man who supports her. It's an odd twist. Firefly is an odd show because it shows many female stereotypes, yet also twists them, and there are a few rebels.
Veronica Mars - a snarky female detective who does not rely on anyone and puts her wits, career, and own ambitions before relationships. Who is not interested in getting married or having kids. And at the same time is fairly open about her sexuality and comfortable in it.
The guys support her not the other way around. All the while she snarks about phonies. If we need a female Holden Caulfield? This is our lady. Far more so than the others. Unlike Summer Glau's character in Firefly or SMG's Buffy or even Xenia and Willow - Veronica has no brawn, no superpowers - just her wits, her snark, and her own sense of self to keep her going.
BattleStar Galatica - Here we have the wonderful Starbuck. She smokes cigars. She is a fighter pilot. She gambles. She snarks. She's got the best lines. And she has sex with whomever she wants. Traditionally a male role played by sexy hunks such as Dirk Benedict and Harrison Ford, Katee Sackoff's take is as Holden as you get. Far more so than Juno. She's not clever just to be clever, she's tough, she has steel inside and she goes her own way. You don't see Starbuck supporting anyone. She's her own woman. Same with Roslyn - the prez - tough as nails.
Then there's Farscape - Aeryn Sun - who gives John Crichton a run for his money. She becomes wife and mother, but at the same time can clearly clean John's clock and fly a ship and if anything he supports her, or they support each other as equals.
These shows escape some of the patronistic tendencies we see in so many tv shows and films.
Doctor Who - sure has the female sidekick - but she's still little more than a sidekick, playing the Doctor's conscience. Often seen as a romantic interest for *him*. And often played as a sexy one. Same deal with Torchwood - although Gwen is not played as a sex symbol nor is Tosh - if anything Jack himself is the sex symbol in that show. In some respects, Torchwood is far less patronistic than Doctor Who, allowing a woman at times to run the show.
Gwen ran things when Jack was gone and did not do a bad job of it.
In books? Do we have female Holden's who not into just being the support for the guy or having kids or mothers? Sure we do. You just have to look for them. Kim Harrison's novels aren't bad. Unfortunately the historical ones, the classics, oddly written by women who spent their lives fighting for women's rights and unmarried/childless - are about finding the guy, getting married and having kids. Jane Austen & Louisa May Alcott both come to mind.
I don't know. Going to watch Sleeper now on Torchwood. It's taping too. But I'm in the mood to watch it now. May come back to edit this later. Then again, may not.
Watching Torchwood now. Starting with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang again, because it's fun and happens to be on and nothing else I'm remotely in the mood for is. Well except for maybe, Day After Tomorrow - a horrendous yet oddly entertaining disaster flick starring a bored Dennis Quaid, who has aged remarkably well. Hmmm - while watching the fight/kiss scene between Marsters and Borrowman, have come to the conclusion that Marsters is either really short or Borrowman (who plays Jack) is incredibly tall. Am thinking a little bit of both. Having seen Marsters on a stage about five feet away, definitely a little bit of both. The guy has got to be about 5'5-5'8 - around the same height as Paul Newman and Tom Cruise who are also pretty short. Borrowman on the other hand is a big guy - probably around 6'2. Which isn't really that big, from my pov. Another thing - long fight scenes are about as boring as long sex scenes. Unless of course you are doing them yourself or you get your rocks off on the watching, then not so much.
Also, amoral characters on most tv shows get all the best lines. Why is that? In real life, nice people are sarcastic and snarky too. Meanwhile nice hero characters get all the sappy smoochy lines. And they wonder why the majority of the audience falls for/adores/gets obsessed with the bad boy/bad girl characters? Hmmm, let me think.
Last night, while reading a really crappy article about Juno in EW, I got to thinking about how women have been presented on film and tv. The lead in Juno and the writers of the article argue that we haven't had rebel women in film or books. We don't have the female version of "Holden Caulfield" - instead women are shown as a support system for men. Note Sarah Connor who is all about John Connor in Terminator. Or in Breakfast Club - the rebel Ally Sheedy who changes her style to get Emilio Estevez. All the Molly Ringwald films are about the girl getting a guy. Even Heathers - the lead goes bad because of the guy, JD who motivates her. OR they are freaks like the girls in Ghost World. Juno - they state breaks the mold, because she is a 16 year old teen who is pregnant, keeps the kid, and is blase about her sexuality, allows herself to have pleasure with sex and is about the conquest and the consequences, that men don't have to deal with. Then they congratulate the script-writer, a tough woman, who was a former stripper and phone sex operative. What is amusing about the article and annoying is ironically the writer and the character in Juno are still all about the man. They are his sex toy or he is their's. They have his kid. While in Catcher in The Rye - Holden Caulfield wasn't worrying about any women, besides his kid sis. Rebel without a Cause? Natalie Wood's character was a side-issue, completely supporting. In the male rebel films - the women aren't the point, they aren't the main issue, they are not his purpose.
It's not about the guy getting the girl - it's about the guy's journey and she just happens to be on the path. Yet in chick lit and chick flicks - it's about getting married, finding the guy, getting the guy with just a few exceptions.
Working Girl - Harrison Ford plays the hunk, but he's not the point. Melanie Gritthif's character's story is about winning the job and getting that promotion, making her own way.
He's just one of the perks.
Little Black Book - The heroine gives up the guy and goes for the career.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Buffy was about the girl saving the world. She did it her way not the guy's way. She was a rebel. Faith - another character in the show - a rebel - same deal.
Neither ended up with men, neither had kids. They didn't become a support system. They were rebels. It's only in fanfic written mainly by "female" fans that they make a man, be it Spike, Xander, Riley or Angel the center of the heroine's world - her point of being. And goal. In fanfic - Buffy is the supportive one, the guys rule. If they don't - she spends all her time saving them, protecting them, healing them. Focused on having kids. If she's not, she's being blasted by the writer and the characters for daring to put her career of being the slayer before them. For going down a path most women never dare to venture down. A path in our culture that is usually reserved for men. Willow - a character often abused in fanfic and hated by many female fans - was not interested in men at all. And power was earthly and magical. Brainy. Not brawn.
Xenia - was about a female warrior with a cute female side-kick. Male fantasy? Maybe. But women flocked to it as well in it's later seasons.
Firelfy - the hero in Firefly is ironically a girl, not the male gunfighter. She's smarter, brighter, and stronger than he - and it is a man who supports her. It's an odd twist. Firefly is an odd show because it shows many female stereotypes, yet also twists them, and there are a few rebels.
Veronica Mars - a snarky female detective who does not rely on anyone and puts her wits, career, and own ambitions before relationships. Who is not interested in getting married or having kids. And at the same time is fairly open about her sexuality and comfortable in it.
The guys support her not the other way around. All the while she snarks about phonies. If we need a female Holden Caulfield? This is our lady. Far more so than the others. Unlike Summer Glau's character in Firefly or SMG's Buffy or even Xenia and Willow - Veronica has no brawn, no superpowers - just her wits, her snark, and her own sense of self to keep her going.
BattleStar Galatica - Here we have the wonderful Starbuck. She smokes cigars. She is a fighter pilot. She gambles. She snarks. She's got the best lines. And she has sex with whomever she wants. Traditionally a male role played by sexy hunks such as Dirk Benedict and Harrison Ford, Katee Sackoff's take is as Holden as you get. Far more so than Juno. She's not clever just to be clever, she's tough, she has steel inside and she goes her own way. You don't see Starbuck supporting anyone. She's her own woman. Same with Roslyn - the prez - tough as nails.
Then there's Farscape - Aeryn Sun - who gives John Crichton a run for his money. She becomes wife and mother, but at the same time can clearly clean John's clock and fly a ship and if anything he supports her, or they support each other as equals.
These shows escape some of the patronistic tendencies we see in so many tv shows and films.
Doctor Who - sure has the female sidekick - but she's still little more than a sidekick, playing the Doctor's conscience. Often seen as a romantic interest for *him*. And often played as a sexy one. Same deal with Torchwood - although Gwen is not played as a sex symbol nor is Tosh - if anything Jack himself is the sex symbol in that show. In some respects, Torchwood is far less patronistic than Doctor Who, allowing a woman at times to run the show.
Gwen ran things when Jack was gone and did not do a bad job of it.
In books? Do we have female Holden's who not into just being the support for the guy or having kids or mothers? Sure we do. You just have to look for them. Kim Harrison's novels aren't bad. Unfortunately the historical ones, the classics, oddly written by women who spent their lives fighting for women's rights and unmarried/childless - are about finding the guy, getting married and having kids. Jane Austen & Louisa May Alcott both come to mind.
I don't know. Going to watch Sleeper now on Torchwood. It's taping too. But I'm in the mood to watch it now. May come back to edit this later. Then again, may not.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-03 01:05 pm (UTC)It's been interesting the reactions to Buffy robbing a bank in the S8 comics, a lot of people seem quite outraged at the very idea of it as if with one act she's sunk in their eyes from hero to ultimate villain. Much quoting of 'because it's wrong' even through that was a Faith line on the show, parodying what she thought was Buffy's stance.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-03 05:30 pm (UTC)Well, clearly Sarah wants to save the world, but from what I've seen of the movies - her *main* focus is on John, because if she saves John she saves the world. Apparently they are tied together. She does attempt to save the world so he doesn't have to. In the last of the three films - there's a nice twist, Kate Brewster - becomes the focal point, the boss.
That said, I sometimes wish Sarah didn't have the son or rather she'd had a daughter in the Terminator films. I think about the Mad Max films - where he's solo, having lost his entire family. Don't see that much from the woman's perspective - it's the lone guy.
In Catcher in the Rye - it's different. His sister is *clearly* not his main focus. She's not his child. He cares about her. If he'd been a woman - it wouldn't have been all about the sister. We do have an example by the way - Member of the Wedding by Carson McCuller's - in which the lead character (whose name I forget) is struggling with her own tomboyishness, her own rebel yell. And it isn't all about her sister. But it is all about what is expected.
So, no, I think it makes sense that when people see the later Terminator films (not the first one) Sarah is all about her son. Almost as if - she saves John she saves the world. If she saves the world - she saves it for John. At one point in the series - in a dream sequence, she tells the machine - you've killed him, kill me too, all of it, it doesn't matter anymore. How can you possibly interpret Sarah's purpose as being anything but all about John after that?
no subject
Date: 2008-02-04 09:30 am (UTC)It’s been a long time since I saw Terminator II but I’ve always thought of it as a film about Sarah Connor, oddly enough just came across someone on LJ describing John Connor as the lead. Which does at least support the point about perception being nine tenths of the law. My take on it was that she was saving the world through saving/training John, he was essentially a McGuffin and could as well have been a bicycle pump as her son. That dream sequence read to me more as an expression of guilt for not feeling more maternal, caring for John as a son not the saviour of prophecy. In a sense the movie endorses that viewpoint, it humanises Sarah as much as it does Arnie but whereas he learns ‘humanity' from John she learns it herself, by realising just what she’s become when she finds herself going after the Skynet inventor.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 02:16 am (UTC)I'm referring to both the TV series The Sarah Conner Chronicles and the films. Not sure if you can see the tv series or not. Some people can apparently download it from the net?
At any rate - the dream sequence is from the tv series not the films. Which may be why you don't remember it.
In the series - the focus is on Sarah as a mother, trying to save the world for her son, and save her son, and to some extent have a life.
The second film - I saw some time ago and remember vaguely, but from what I do remember - Linda Hamilton's role was supporting. Brad Renfro (I think it was Brad Renfro) who played John Connor as a teen, was more or less the lead - we don't see Sarah until about 20-30 minutes in. She's tough and a big presence and sees John as a tool and her son, she's more like a father figure in some respects, while The Terminator played by Arnold S. is more motherly. The relationship that is emphasized in that film is between the Arnold Terminator and Connor. They bond.
So much so, that the boy is devastated when he is killed, almost more so than when Sarah is in trouble. It jars Sarah, and she softens towards her son, realizing maybe the "tough love" approach may not be working. Sarah in that film has just gotten out of the mental hospital (escaped) and taken off to find her son and save the world so he won't have to.
Her focus is the designer of Skynet.
In the third film, Sarah disappears completely.
While she may care about more than John Connor, he appears to be the point of her existence in the films. When he no longer needs her - the filmmaker kills her off - off-screen.
In the TV series - her role is much bigger, but she is still a mother first, woman second.
You're right though - it is a matter of perception I think.
Catcher in the Rye - I read about four or five years back, so also remember vaguely.
Didn't like the book. I think it's overrated ;-) But, from what I do remember, Holden is anti-social much in the same way as James Dean's character in Rebel Without A Cause. For Holden - his sister is the only thing in life worthwhile, the only person who is not a phony. He hates everyone else. And imagines a place they can escape to, together.
Most of the novel is about his misanthropy and dislike of society. The sister stands out, because she's like a flower on a drab landscape, which he must protect. Disturbing novel. I wonder sometimes if the people who hold Holden Caulfield up as such a cool character, have actually read the novel?