Here’s a definition we came up with. What do you think?
In order to be considered a women centric film, this film would have to focus on one or more female characters – one protagonist and/or other female characters – at the center of the narrative. A female protagonist or female lead constitutes therefore the main characteristic of women centric. It is her story, told from her perspective.
Women centric film differs from definitions such as woman’s film or chick flick in that it does not refer to a specific genre of films. In other words, it includes animated films, horror films, (romantic) comedies, fantasy and action films. What matters is that the story is told from her perspective – be it an animated female character or girl in the horror film.
Furthermore, women centric does not necessarily imply a feminist protagonist neither does it guarantee that a feminist ‘message’ is contained (although it might).
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
We’ve been thinking a lot lately about the difference between movies and “women’s movies.”
We recently sent a screenplay to an anonymous reader who, in his notes, identified himself as a man and expressed surprise at being hooked at the end of 10 pages even though “clearly” our intended audience was women. Why did he assume this? “Because,” he wrote, “your main character is a woman.” He expressed delight at being hooked at page 10 because we threw in something he considered un-female and, subsequently, universal: a murder.
Amazing. Somehow this guy, who otherwise gave us some great feedback, threw himself (and all of the rest of us) into the dark ages.
Is our script “woman centric?” Yes, I guess so…the main character is a woman. Is this a movie only for women? No – it’s for anyone interested in smart, funny, quirky comedy. The exception: cavemen interested in smart, funny, quirky comedy might want to look elsewhere…
I think it’s not enough for the main character to be a woman; the film must pass the Bechdel (or Liz Wallace) Test: 1) there are at least 2 women, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something besides a man. And yes, movies that pass the Test are not necessarily good or feminist, and vice versa.
Without passing the test, the female main character–no matter how strong + independent, is there only in the context of the same ol’ structures (a heterosexual relationship or nuclear family) as opposed to being an individual.
“Whip It” is a great example of a women centric film: lovely depictions of Bliss’ relationship with her mother, best friend Pash, and Maggie Mayhem.
I like the Bechdel test, but I think if you have two women or girls as the main characters, a film would still be female-centric even if all they talk about is men, since sometimes that’s what women find most important. It just wouldn’t pass the test. (And a male-centric film might.)
Anemone, sorry but I don’t agree. I think it’s important the the female-centric description encompasses the concept of women as individuals, i.e, outside the context of heterosexual romantic relationships. Such films can still include romantic relationships in their storylines, these relationships just can’t be the be-all and end-all of the films.
I like the definition. The only thing I would change is that it should be about more than 1 woman if it is women centric. If it is just one, then it would be woman centric. Regardless of the story, the person occupying the center POV of the narrative has to be a female.
And I like that you separated it from other things that may make it more equal/representative/etc. The more stuff we put on the shoulders of what a woman centric film is, the harder it is to get those films on the screen. And going by King’s anecdote, if there is still the conception that just because the main protagonist is a female it’s a woman centric film, we still have a ways to go.
What I’d love to know is if it’s really that hard for guys to relate to a female main character, or is that mostly the assumption on execs et al.
Good question Melissa, thanks.
I will always support films centred on women. But any movie that involves a woman finding self-value through marriage is offensive in my book.
Subject to debate: Knocked Up is not a Women Centric movie. I think it is not. However, with all the signs and signals, the “baby makes everything better” theme, people think it is. But the movie doesn’t really get into the female characters and they are not allowed the range of men. The real transformation is the dude, who comes to term with responsibility and the movie is over when he gets the girl, the house, and the kid way out of his league.
I’d love to get more expanded roles for women that drive plots. The plots where the only interesting reason for women to live is for the wedding or the baby – although I think there are stories to tell, is limiting. With that sort of thinking, it is “all over” when they marry or have a baby. Then you can look forward to being a grandmother and pretty much, that is the only story is deemed interesting enough for you to be a character in the movie. Ya got four parts for women: “unhappily single-career woman,” “bride,” “mommy,” and “grandmother.”
There is “no story” to tell if the woman remains single happily, gets an abortion, or something of the like. See the comments about “Knocked Up” – so many argued in comments that there would have been “no story” for the comedy if Heigl got an abortion or was not so uptight. No possible story? Really? What a lack of imagination.
Hollywood is less scared of the lesbian kiss and it is less obscene than a woman in charge of a narrative. Imagination ends there. While in real life, there is a rich internal life of all women that is not dumbed down to a vaseline glaced lens the end of the only allowed plot line on big funded productions – woman neatly married and babied so she is not scary.
Here’s another: Aliens – a woman centric film (not counting the mother alien)? What about one of the sequels?
Easy: Waiting to Exhale – actually directed by a man based on a woman’s novel. Who can forget the sex scenes and the internal monologues of the women? Although we need more women directors, if Bigelow can do Hurt Locker, there are good women centric movies with men working on them.
I’m going to go outside the period (no pun intended pieces) and the wedding/baby themes. The Contender. Would Damages be a woman-centric piece? Silence of the Lambs?
Oh yeah, and the top ticket seller that Melissa mentioned before: Gone with the Wind – where a girl has to grow up and learn that life is more complicated than getting your Ashley. And the War and the Land. And survival. And ultimately peacetime can be more complicated than wartime.
d,
This is just my casual observation. Although men may prefer a type of movie (like action), many seem to enjoy watching women in lead roles, just like we enjoy watching a handsome leading man.
From what I remember, and please correct me if I’m wrong, films had strong female leads up until the 60′s, because Hollywood assumed that men would want to see women on the big screen. I think the Adman David Ogilvy did some research proving that men really preferred to see other men, thus the strategy was changed. The research was probably flawed, but the strategy stuck.
It might have Ogilvy’s work with Gallop polling in the 40′s when this happened.
The definition is good, but I almost wish there could be an additional, more subjective element — which there probably can’t — like, “…and told from a female sensibility” or maybe “…respectful of female sensibility” — and, yes, I’m someone who believes that is something real — it may exist in different forms, but, yeah, means something like “generally respectful of the state of being female.”
Like Sally, Knocked Up also sprang to mind, thinking about films with women at the center that don’t seem female-centric. I think there are actually probably a lot of films that present — or use, is a better word — women and women’s stories, but that are very “unfemale” at heart. A really good example for me are a lot of Woody Allen’s films — it’s unpopular to say or think that, but (I loathe Woody Allen)… when a guy USES a female character to essentially talk about himself, his ego, his desires, when his maleness behind the camera or in the narrative trumps the life of the female character…? Is that still “female-centric”? It gets complicated, is so subjective.
The Bechdel test is important to me, as is evidence of some kind of female control behind-the-scenes. I can still enjoy a movie without knowing all the names behind the camera, but I am going to be much more interested in a film that is both 1) women-centric and 2) has a female director, or writer, or producer — just something to show that it is not just a team of men directing a female actress like a puppet. I know that this shouldn’t matter, because men can make good films about women and vice versa. However, like Stephanie, I’m looking for respect for women, not just lip service to gender equality, and for me having some women on the creative team is a good indicator that the film overall will be respectful to women.
works for me
King is a Fink’s comment illustrates why I’m uncomfortable with the very notion of a “woman-centric” film. Why is a film with a female protagonist “woman-centric” and a film with a male protagonist is just a film? It’s troubling that in 2010, a female protagonist signals to a reader (and maybe execs and producers as well) that a film should be seen as a niche film rather than a film that might, by dent of its STORY, appeal to people across demographics.
That said, if we’re going to use the term “woman-centric” to describe a movie, then we should be talking about a film that comes from a feminist perspective, and we should call it “feminist” rather than “woman-centric,” for as soon as you use the word “woman-centric” to describe any film with a woman in the lead, you perpetuate the idea that men are people and women are, well, just women.
Some examples of films with female leads that should be seen as just films:
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
A Mighty Heart
Elizabeth
An Education
The Blind Side
These films are about women who are people. The women lead characters in these films don’t represent women. They represent themselves as unique individuals. Yes these characters have specificity and some of that specificity is gendered. This is as it should be. Their gender is part of the tapestry of their lives and it impacted their lives in specific ways. For example, Elizabeth’s fertility would not have been an issue had she been a male noble, and Sandra Bullock’s actions in The Blind Side were likely shaped by the fact that the character she played is a mother (which is a different experience than being a father). And yet what shines through, most of all, is not their female-ness, but their human-ness.
I’ll know we’ve reached a post-feminist moment when we stop seeing women primarily as women and start seeing them as people. The very act of putting everyone but white men in a niche (it’s a “woman’s film” or a “black film”, etc) reinforces the notion that white men are normative and the rest of us are just niche.
Re the last post: white men have been in niche films and women are frequently in mainstream movies, some of them even star in them. What’s interesting is that the largest percentage of cinema goers are women over 30 yet the producers constantly make movies that are targeted at 15 year old boys, what’s with that?
“These films are about women who are people. The women lead characters in these films don’t represent women.”
I agree with that. In a funny sort of way people who demand that women or minority groups should only be shown in a positive light are perpetuating discrimination because they’re saying that every woman or member of a minority group in a film is representing their gender or race, whereas the same people think that white men can play anyone because they’re only representing the character. This type of political correctness actually oppressors the very people it seeks to liberate. TV commercials give constant examples of this with husbands constantly portrayed as buffoons while the long suffering wives stand by rolling their eyes from their positions of superiority. Why can’t a woman play the dummy in the relationship? Answer: because there’s an underlying belief, among a critical mass, that she’s representing all woman, whilst men are “free” to represent the character they’re playing not their entire gender.
*oppresses
*women
{ 2 trackbacks }