More Three-Dimensional Female Characters

Last week, I looked at the lack of three-dimensional female characters in books and movies. This week, I’ll look at what happens when overcompensation happens.

Can There Ever Be Too Many

Strong Female Characters?

Recently, there has been a push to add strong female characters to new works of literature and films, or to retcon them into remakes of older films and television series.

But what happens when they get very little to do? Consider Valka of How to Train Your Dragon 2. Smart and capable, she ends up deferring the really good parts of the film to her son.

Or they get something to do for a while, but then they stop, as happens with Riddick‘s Dahl, who is a tough mercenary but, eventually, gives into the title character’s dubious charms.

Or they show the promise of being independent and interesting, but it’s never fulfilled, as in the case of Trinity in the Matrix films.

Or they are tough and smart, but their deepest and most convincing character development occurs when they’re fretting over a man, like Tauriel does in The Hobbit films.

But even if they are intelligently written and portrayed, and without having to be an adjunct to a man, and with something to do that carries through the entire book or film, what happens when all they do is kick ass? I enjoy a hell bent for leather character as well as anyone does, but not all strong female characters are physically strong. At Hark! a Vagrant this trope has been lampooned.

Strong But Not a Weightlifter

It seems as if a lot of strong female characters are supposed to be mixed martial arts champions. Yet Dorothy Gale of The Wizard of Oz (despite her slapping the Cowardly Lion) is not meant to be a physical threat. She refers to herself as ‘small and meek’, and she’s not off the mark in her self-assessment. The same is true of Jo March in Little Women. While she is more physically active than her sisters (Jo climbs trees in her dresses), and she sometimes wistfully envies the men in her life who can go to war, Jo isn’t meant to be a hard case. Hester Prynne is another female character with multiple dimensions but isn’t intended to be physically imposing.

Compromise and Redefining The Bechdel Test

The Bechdel Test for female characters in film looks for films that conform to a rather minimal set of standards:

1. A film must have at least two named female characters.
2. They have to speak to each other at least once.
3. And the conversation has to be about something other than a man.

I say the test doesn’t go far enough. In films and books where two of the named female characters are in a relationship with each other, or are striving for that, then a conversation about beginning a relationship isn’t about a man but it really isn’t much of a departure from talks about getting a man to notice a woman. In books and films where the female characters in question are young girls, they might not be having a conversation about a man because they aren’t ready for relationships yet. A work of art with two or more female characters in school together might give rise to non-male-centric discussions, but the presence of a classroom and its attendant materials seems to be too much of a crutch for writers. Hence I propose the following changes.

1. A film must have at least two named female characters over the age of 18.
2. They have to speak to each other at least once in a non-scholastic environment.
3. And the conversation has to be about something other than a man a relationship or a hoped-for relationship.

Gone With The Wind still passes the modified test, in both book and film formats, as Scarlet and Prissy argue about delivering Melanie’s baby. The Wizard of Oz passes because Auntie Em and Miss Gulch talk about Toto (who is male but not a human man). Oz passes in both book and film formats. Little Women passes in both book and film formats when Amy March and Aunt March talk about Amy being sent to Europe to study art.

Romantic women, and women in educational environments can, of course, be strong and three-dimensional. But when my additional restrictions are placed on the Bechdel Test, it becomes tougher to find a film or book that passes muster. Consider the exceptionally low bar that the Bechdel Test currently sets. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug passes because, very briefly, Bard’s daughters Tilda and Sigrid ask why there are dwarves coming out of their toilet and whether that’s good luck. And that’s it for the entire film (and for all of the Peter Jackson LOTR-Hobbit franchise films).But that five minute (if that) exchange doesn’t make the film female-friendly or feminist. It just shows that is has jumped through a few not-so challenging hoops.

No one cheers when Austin Powers and Basil Exposition have a conversation about Doctor Evil. It’s expected that it will happen. Same when Frodo and Samwise argue about the ring of power, or a grown John Connor tells Kyle Reese he needs to go to the past to protect Sarah.  These are the norm.

Why is it so hard to find books and films which allow for a matter of fact conversation between, say, Juanita and Doris, about horseshoe crabs or hammers or even hand grenades?