Miss Representation and Princess Leia
In Miss Representation, I learned that almost all women portrayed in movies are sexualized or objectified in a manner that makes them seem inferior to men. Of course, I was not surprised to hear this, but I only thought about love stories and romantic comedies. Then, one woman in the video made the remark that even women in films that are made to seem independent and powerful are ultimately objectified but in a more hidden manner. The interviewee in Miss Representation affectionately referred to this archetypal female character as the "fighting f--toy."
I have always been a huge fan of Princess Leia from Star Wars, and throughout our learning about film portrayals of women, I tried to believe that, as the heroine, Leia was exempt from the sexualization and objectification of Hollywood. But when this was mentioned in Miss Representation, I recognized that she absolutely is not.
Leia was shown as a sex slave for Jabba the Hut in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Though this was portrayed (and rightfully so) as a negative plot development, it made me wonder, "What was the meaning behind her being a sex slave? Was this of any importance besides having her in a bikini on screen?" In reality, this plot line was only necessary to show that Leia was suffering and had to "overcome" her circumstances in order to save her rebellion and (her lover) Han Solo... so why a sex slave?
Additionally, she her romantic interest in Han Solo throughout the series reminded me of what the woman in Miss Representation had to say. Hollywood simply could not show Leia as a strong woman in power without a man to chase. Her love interest does not improve her character whatsoever, and in fact, demotes her traits of strength and bravery, all the more supporting the interviewee in Miss Representation. Also, we notice that Luke, just as powerful of a character, never has a romantic relationship throughout the entire series. In my opinion, this blatantly tells us that a man can be independent, powerful, and thriving without a woman, but even the bravest and most strong-willed women need a man to be complete.
I have always been a huge fan of Princess Leia from Star Wars, and throughout our learning about film portrayals of women, I tried to believe that, as the heroine, Leia was exempt from the sexualization and objectification of Hollywood. But when this was mentioned in Miss Representation, I recognized that she absolutely is not.
Leia was shown as a sex slave for Jabba the Hut in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Though this was portrayed (and rightfully so) as a negative plot development, it made me wonder, "What was the meaning behind her being a sex slave? Was this of any importance besides having her in a bikini on screen?" In reality, this plot line was only necessary to show that Leia was suffering and had to "overcome" her circumstances in order to save her rebellion and (her lover) Han Solo... so why a sex slave?
Additionally, she her romantic interest in Han Solo throughout the series reminded me of what the woman in Miss Representation had to say. Hollywood simply could not show Leia as a strong woman in power without a man to chase. Her love interest does not improve her character whatsoever, and in fact, demotes her traits of strength and bravery, all the more supporting the interviewee in Miss Representation. Also, we notice that Luke, just as powerful of a character, never has a romantic relationship throughout the entire series. In my opinion, this blatantly tells us that a man can be independent, powerful, and thriving without a woman, but even the bravest and most strong-willed women need a man to be complete.
Yeah I think Hollywood’s implications about women are abysmal and inaccurate. Very few movies have a truly independent female star in them. But in reality, not all men are independent. In my experience, I've seen just the opposite; men can depend as much on women half the time as women are seen to depend on men, whether it be emotionally, intellectually, or even financially.
ReplyDeleteI agree!!! I think one of the reasons this scene was portrayed in the movie was because of the male dominated editor, director, and producer positions. Richard Marquand assigned a greater number of male employees over women which can be linked to Fisher's role in "Return of the Jedi."
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not educated enough on Star Wars to comment on that scene specifically, I do think that the archetype of the 'fighting f-toy' is one that needs to be recognized because it is so sneaky in what it is portraying. Many people see a female heroine in entertainment and automatically assume that she is empowering and take it as a win for the feminist movement. "Finally we have strong female characters!" But in reality these characters are just a cleverly disguised sex objects to please male audiences while tricking women into thinking that they are characters to look up to and aspire to be because of their strength. While it is obviously important to have female characters, and I am in no way trying to say that it isn't, it is important to have complex female characters who aren't objectified at all. Female characters should be able to be strong without doing it for their families or lovers, be able to be intimate and sexual without being sexualized for male pleasure, and be able to be smart without being made to look threatening to males because of it.
ReplyDeleteThe title of this post immediately sent a shock through my system. Not Star Wars! It can't be! However, you're absolutely right. As I think about this, I'm remembering the times when I would watch the movies as a little kid, and I realize that even then, I thought to myself, "Why doesn't she have any clothes on?" It distrubed me as a kid more than interested me. Yes, Star Wars appeals to many ages, but think about all the kids that have seen it and grown up watching it over and over. How many children have been taught that sexualized women is a norm in our generation? Even now, the female lead of "The Last Jedi" is implied to be feeling a romantic connection. I hope that the popularity of movements such as "Me Too," especially in Hollywood, will protray more strong, independent women for future generations to look up to, instead of making them out to be glorified objects.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree. The idea of women being independent without men seems to be incredibly underrepresented in media. I liked the comparison you made between Luke and Leia and while being presented as similarly driven and strong, one had to be aided by a man. Society seems to quickly disregard this in films and media all around since it is often so sneakily hidden and also an idea engrained in our brains. It's quite unfortunate that this is an ideal placed on women. Without accurate representation of what they truly could be, how will they know their potential without having to stereotypically chase a man first?
ReplyDeleteWhen a woman is pictured beside a man, there is always the implication that she exists to be his lover. Her role as a character can be pushed as whatever it is in the story, be it villain, sidekick, scapegoat, but there still has to be a part of her character that is in love with the male protagonist. Women can never exist apart from men. A woman must always have a man, but a man can go without a woman.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I've noticed that platonic male and female relationships don't exist in TV series and movies, which I think is ridiculous. A female character and a male character can't just be friends, they always have to end up together. The implication of this is similar and ridiculous; that all male and female relationships need to end up together and that all male and female relationships need to be romantic. Just like the idea that women always need a man, this idea doesn't reflect reality at all, and we need to start normalizing platonic male and female relationships in media.