![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakWhile waiting for my betas and other replies, I tend to have pretentious meta thoughts.
So, the girl. Which one? That one. Also referred to as "the love interest" in various fandoms. "Every story is about the girl," says Peter Parker wistfully in Spiderman I, and you can hear quite a lot of girls between teenagerdom and old age crying out: Noooooo, it's not.
There are fandoms in which the girl is hated with a passion. Lana Lang in Smallville comes to mind. MJ in the Spiderman movieverse people seem to be divided about; I've seen quite a lot of Lana comparisons, but also posts in which she's talked about in a positive way (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
buffyannotator comes to mind). I'm not firm on my comic book history, but I think Lois Lane used to be fairly unpopular until Lois & Clark, a show where, of course, she's not The Girl but one of the two leads. (I hear Lois is going to show up in Smallville next season. Bet you anything she'll be hated, no matter how she's written or played.)
Moving over to LotR, The Girls are Arwen and Rosie. (Not Eowyn or Galadriel; they both serve other functions in the story, and while you could say Eowyn eventually becomes Faramir's love interest, you could say just as well that Faramir becomes Eowyn's.) They are very peripheral in the novel (not that this stopped poor Rosie from getting bashed even when it was a bookfandom only), and when Peter Jackson gave Arwen more presence in the films, there was much growling to be heard.
The only Girl I can think of who was genuinenly loved as well as hated in equal measure in recent block busters and TV shows is Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Carribean. For every story in which Elizabeth is conveniently disposed off post-movie, you have one which pairs her up with Jack or Norrington or both, or simply acknowledges the fact of her existence without hostility or a death sentence.
The concept of The Girl as the hero's inspiration, to be adored and rescued and seen as the embodiment of female perfection, is old, of course. It hails back to medieval poetry. Just why it grates so many people today has to do not just with different times and attitudes towards women. After all, the objecting viewers in question don't wish Lana or MJ would take out the villains by themselves, thus being more than villain bait and love interest; they wish them gone from the story entirely. (Now you might blame Kristin Kreuk's limited acting ability, but I won't hear a word about Kirsten Dunst, whom I shall forever be impressed by thanks to having played a fabulous Claudia in Interview with the Vampire.) Ditto for Arwen in the film version of LotR. (In a way, that part of fandom got their wish - after all, in a cinematic irony, she literally was erased from Helm's Deep after a lot of footage was already shot.)
What saves Elizabeth, or rather, doesn't save but balance things for her, comes down to the factor which might explain why the other Girls are at the receiving end of so much wrath. Elizabeth fulfills the traditional functions - she inspires Will to heroic action, she's adored, she's rescued - but not only does she get to do some rescuing in return, but the narrative voice of the movie does not necessarily assume the audience has to share Will's view of her. Will might see her as perfect, but the movie does not, which helps Elizabeth's character to no end. She's got a ruthless streak which is rather helpful when dealing with pirates, and the deleted scenes on the DVD, with the "two peas in a pod" scene with Jack and the conversation with Norrington, emphasize this side of her even more.
Smallville and Spiderman, otoh, expect the audience to share the hero's view of The Girl. And that's where The Girl runs into trouble with the viewers. Medieval poetry does not have that problem, because the female ideals they are adressed to are not visible to look at and compare. You can't hear them talk or watch them act, either. Now I only watched a few Smallville episodes each season, so most of my Lana knowledge hails from the endless complaints about her in various ljs and blogs, but even with what I did watch, I can see the problem. As written and acted, she's not a very interesting character, and that makes it impossible to share Clark's (and the producers') devotion.
MJ in the Spiderman movies isn't exactly dull, and her frustration with Peter's mixed signals in II is absolutely understandable, but aside from her position as villain bait which suffers from Aunt May doing a stint as same in a much more interesting way, she's mostly used by the writers to torment Peter by being paired off with other guys. (Harry in I, JJJ's son in II.) Methinks that if she were single for any amount of time in either movie, some of the MJ-directed wratch would not have occured. Moreover , I have to agree with those reviewers who pointed out that dumping your fiance at the altar - and then not even having the guts of telling him yourself - is just thoughtless and cruel. I laughed at JJJ's comment together with everyone else in the audience, but I also had Xander and Anya flashbacks. And Xander did tell Anya in person, plus as opposed to MJ could please severe emotional damage as an excuse. So if you see MJ doing something like this, while the film insists on treating it as a great romantic gesture because she's running away to Peter in her wedding dress, it creates a cognitive dichotomy and some irritation.
On a sidenote, I wonder whether there is something like The Boy, and whether we can trace a similar backlash. Recently I rewatched Wilde, starring Stephen Fry as Oscar W. and Jude Law as Bosie Douglas. Bosie certainly is The Boy, but perhaps due to aiming at historical accuracy, Wilde presents him as anything but perfect. He's more the male version of the traditional femme fatale. Death in Venice, both book and film, have the Boy as a fatal (and untouchable) obsession, but for some reason, I can't imagine Aschenbach saying "every story is about the boy" by way of introduction.
Moving over to movies with women at the center: hm. Out of Africa, the film, makes the love affair between Karen Blixen and Dennys Finch-Hatton, which barely rates a mention in her book, front and center, and Dennys certainly rates as The Boy. Like another Redford role, the character in The Way We Were, he gives the impression of being more loved than he loves, and being slightly idealized by the woman who loves him. (Though you just want to smack Redford in The Way We Were and don't in Out of Africa.) Still, I can't recall any backlash there. Which tempts me to conclude that the idealisation of male love objects is easier for an audience to stomach than the reversal. Hm...
***
A couple of Harry Potter links: an excellent take on why Hermione doesn't need to be 'shipped at all, with either Harry or Ron. (No, she's not The Girl.)
A fascinating analysis of the Marauders (aka Remus, Sirius, Peter and James) extremely troubled friends, instead of the happy band of brothers fanfic usually positions.
And last but not least, a wonderful new story bypenknife about that generation, and the one before, via a glimpse of goodbyes and encounters.
So, the girl. Which one? That one. Also referred to as "the love interest" in various fandoms. "Every story is about the girl," says Peter Parker wistfully in Spiderman I, and you can hear quite a lot of girls between teenagerdom and old age crying out: Noooooo, it's not.
There are fandoms in which the girl is hated with a passion. Lana Lang in Smallville comes to mind. MJ in the Spiderman movieverse people seem to be divided about; I've seen quite a lot of Lana comparisons, but also posts in which she's talked about in a positive way (
buffyannotator comes to mind). I'm not firm on my comic book history, but I think Lois Lane used to be fairly unpopular until Lois & Clark, a show where, of course, she's not The Girl but one of the two leads. (I hear Lois is going to show up in Smallville next season. Bet you anything she'll be hated, no matter how she's written or played.) Moving over to LotR, The Girls are Arwen and Rosie. (Not Eowyn or Galadriel; they both serve other functions in the story, and while you could say Eowyn eventually becomes Faramir's love interest, you could say just as well that Faramir becomes Eowyn's.) They are very peripheral in the novel (not that this stopped poor Rosie from getting bashed even when it was a bookfandom only), and when Peter Jackson gave Arwen more presence in the films, there was much growling to be heard.
The only Girl I can think of who was genuinenly loved as well as hated in equal measure in recent block busters and TV shows is Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Carribean. For every story in which Elizabeth is conveniently disposed off post-movie, you have one which pairs her up with Jack or Norrington or both, or simply acknowledges the fact of her existence without hostility or a death sentence.
The concept of The Girl as the hero's inspiration, to be adored and rescued and seen as the embodiment of female perfection, is old, of course. It hails back to medieval poetry. Just why it grates so many people today has to do not just with different times and attitudes towards women. After all, the objecting viewers in question don't wish Lana or MJ would take out the villains by themselves, thus being more than villain bait and love interest; they wish them gone from the story entirely. (Now you might blame Kristin Kreuk's limited acting ability, but I won't hear a word about Kirsten Dunst, whom I shall forever be impressed by thanks to having played a fabulous Claudia in Interview with the Vampire.) Ditto for Arwen in the film version of LotR. (In a way, that part of fandom got their wish - after all, in a cinematic irony, she literally was erased from Helm's Deep after a lot of footage was already shot.)
What saves Elizabeth, or rather, doesn't save but balance things for her, comes down to the factor which might explain why the other Girls are at the receiving end of so much wrath. Elizabeth fulfills the traditional functions - she inspires Will to heroic action, she's adored, she's rescued - but not only does she get to do some rescuing in return, but the narrative voice of the movie does not necessarily assume the audience has to share Will's view of her. Will might see her as perfect, but the movie does not, which helps Elizabeth's character to no end. She's got a ruthless streak which is rather helpful when dealing with pirates, and the deleted scenes on the DVD, with the "two peas in a pod" scene with Jack and the conversation with Norrington, emphasize this side of her even more.
Smallville and Spiderman, otoh, expect the audience to share the hero's view of The Girl. And that's where The Girl runs into trouble with the viewers. Medieval poetry does not have that problem, because the female ideals they are adressed to are not visible to look at and compare. You can't hear them talk or watch them act, either. Now I only watched a few Smallville episodes each season, so most of my Lana knowledge hails from the endless complaints about her in various ljs and blogs, but even with what I did watch, I can see the problem. As written and acted, she's not a very interesting character, and that makes it impossible to share Clark's (and the producers') devotion.
MJ in the Spiderman movies isn't exactly dull, and her frustration with Peter's mixed signals in II is absolutely understandable, but aside from her position as villain bait which suffers from Aunt May doing a stint as same in a much more interesting way, she's mostly used by the writers to torment Peter by being paired off with other guys. (Harry in I, JJJ's son in II.) Methinks that if she were single for any amount of time in either movie, some of the MJ-directed wratch would not have occured. Moreover , I have to agree with those reviewers who pointed out that dumping your fiance at the altar - and then not even having the guts of telling him yourself - is just thoughtless and cruel. I laughed at JJJ's comment together with everyone else in the audience, but I also had Xander and Anya flashbacks. And Xander did tell Anya in person, plus as opposed to MJ could please severe emotional damage as an excuse. So if you see MJ doing something like this, while the film insists on treating it as a great romantic gesture because she's running away to Peter in her wedding dress, it creates a cognitive dichotomy and some irritation.
On a sidenote, I wonder whether there is something like The Boy, and whether we can trace a similar backlash. Recently I rewatched Wilde, starring Stephen Fry as Oscar W. and Jude Law as Bosie Douglas. Bosie certainly is The Boy, but perhaps due to aiming at historical accuracy, Wilde presents him as anything but perfect. He's more the male version of the traditional femme fatale. Death in Venice, both book and film, have the Boy as a fatal (and untouchable) obsession, but for some reason, I can't imagine Aschenbach saying "every story is about the boy" by way of introduction.
Moving over to movies with women at the center: hm. Out of Africa, the film, makes the love affair between Karen Blixen and Dennys Finch-Hatton, which barely rates a mention in her book, front and center, and Dennys certainly rates as The Boy. Like another Redford role, the character in The Way We Were, he gives the impression of being more loved than he loves, and being slightly idealized by the woman who loves him. (Though you just want to smack Redford in The Way We Were and don't in Out of Africa.) Still, I can't recall any backlash there. Which tempts me to conclude that the idealisation of male love objects is easier for an audience to stomach than the reversal. Hm...
***
A couple of Harry Potter links: an excellent take on why Hermione doesn't need to be 'shipped at all, with either Harry or Ron. (No, she's not The Girl.)
A fascinating analysis of the Marauders (aka Remus, Sirius, Peter and James) extremely troubled friends, instead of the happy band of brothers fanfic usually positions.
And last but not least, a wonderful new story by
penknife about that generation, and the one before, via a glimpse of goodbyes and encounters.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 09:22 am (UTC)Dunst's MJ gave me a hint how a strong actress could force a Girl role into more depth. Mack as Chloe over in SV seems to twist her role as Sidekick/Pal as much as she can, but Kreuk's Lana role is so inconsistently written I do pity that ingenue actress.
In PotC my eyes couldn't budge from Depp, so I didn't dwell upon Elizabeth. She seemed to fit into the scenery-chewing atmosphere of the whole movie.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 10:38 am (UTC)Agreed, but that's what I meant when differentiating between Elizabeth and the other Girls - when the narrative does not share the hero(ine)'s pov, the audience/reader doesn't feel forced to follow the judgement, too. Plus, Scarlett is a central character who is from the outset presented as not insightful either about herself or the people in her life. I think that helps. Now if we were meant to see Ashley as Mr. Wonderful...
Still, you're right, he is The Boy to some degree - certainly desire for Ashley provides and inspires much of Scarlett's actions throughout the novel. And even the "impossible to touch" factor ist true, because the two occasions during which they kissed aside, you never get the sense it occurs to Scarlett to have an affair with him. Or get him to divorce Melanie, which legally would have been possible (though of course not in terms of society).
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 09:39 am (UTC)It seems to me that the problem with The Girl is that the audience is supposed to like her, and to understand why the hero is in love with her, but we're never shown enough of her personality and motivations to like and admire her as a person. Often she has no visible motivations other than romance. Arwen in the movies fights to save Frodo's life, but we really have no idea why, so despite her heroics she comes off as two-dimensional compared to Eowyn, whose goals and desires and internal struggle we see spelled out for us.
I'd contrast movie!Arwen (or M.J., who I agree isn't entirely boring but who has no motivations that are relevant to the plot other than her desire for a romance with Peter) with Leia in the Star Wars original trilogy. Leia's not The Girl because she has a strong motivation of her own--her desire to fight the Empire--which is portrayed in some detail, and which remains important to the plot throughout the trilogy. She actually has a plot arc of her own which isn't centered on romance. (Is Amidala The Girl in the prequels? Or not?)
I think moviemakers/TV producers have realized that modern audiences want The Girl to be something more than a frail damsel in distress, but they often attempt to handle it by piling them up with inexplicable combat skills or magical abilities, rather than giving them actual goals and letting them achieve them in ways that would prove that they're competent human beings. Too often, it seems like the message is that the hero has to work like hell to prove he's worthy of The Girl, but all she has to do to be worthy of him is exist.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 10:58 am (UTC)Yes. And there are only very few actors and actresses who can overwhelm through sheer charisma and can make up for lack of written characterisation. Indeed, in a sense you can call it lazy writing - the assumption that because The Girl is the love interest, they don't have to provide her with her own agenda, or introduction time so the audience can form their own opinion about her.
(An example of how to avoid this mistake in the set-up would be the way Farscape went about it. They intended from the get-go to make Aeryn Sun John Crichton's love interest, but not only does the actual romance take its time to develop but Aeryn is a character with her own issues and agenda, and her own set of relationships outside of the one with the show's hero. Hence no Aeryn resentment and much Aeryn love - until season 4, but that's another issue.)
Leia's not The Girl because she has a strong motivation of her own--her desire to fight the Empire--which is portrayed in some detail, and which remains important to the plot throughout the trilogy. She actually has a plot arc of her own which isn't centered on romance.
I entirely agree. (Though I must say, I always resented that they made Han the leader of the ground team in RotK instead of Leia, who was the experienced rebel and should have been.) In fact, the way Leia gets rescued is an obvious and refreshing twist on the usual cliché as she takes over the rescue entirely.*g*
Is Amidala The Girl in the prequels? Or not?
In my opinion, she's not, because again, her function in the plot is more than being Anakin's love interest. As opposed to Leia, however, she's a tragic character. The real climax of TPM, the point of no return, isn't the duel, exciting as that is staged, it's when Amidala calls for the vote of no confidence against Valorum and thus enables Palpatine to become chancellor. She's Palpatine's reverse image, the responsible democratic ruler as opposed to his future dictator, the one who really goes when her term is finished (as opposed to his finding excuses to remain), but her idealism continues to play into his hands.
(Incidentally, this is why I was pretty sure from the beginning that there wouldn't be some Othello plot - that she and Anakin would fall out over politics in Episode III. Another un-Girl-lish thing.)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 10:14 am (UTC)I think part of the problem with Lana is that we already know that she's not Clark's ultimate love interest, so however much he thinks he's in love with her now we know he's not. I think the producers see Lana as a tragic figure but there seems to be a very unfortunate disconnect with the way the audience sees her which is, in my case, as totally self-involved. Whatever they do with her just seems to make it worse now, particularly when the audience knows that waiting in the wings is the much more interesting and far less girly Lois Lane.
I think Highlander is a good example of how to get The Girl both right and wrong. As the hero's girlfriend Tessa ought to be The Girl but she's not because we can see why Duncan loves her, she's intelligent and talented in her own right and we're shown that. Then we have the problem of Dr Ann who many of the fans hate, partly because through no fault of her own she replaced Tessa, and partly because though she had flaws Duncan never seemed to see them. She ended up coming across, as Lana does, as self-involved. And I'm sure you'll disagree with me on that one *g*.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 01:42 pm (UTC)I think that the argument toward lazy writing is absolutely correct - we are told The Girl is the great love and motivator and that should be enough dammit. They shouldn't have to figure out how to make her a real person. They are spending that time developing the lead's best male buddy's character after all - and then they wonder why no one gives a shit about The Girl. We have no reason to care, she is no more real to us than any other minor character.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 09:15 pm (UTC)she's got a theory. . .
Date: 2004-07-13 04:59 pm (UTC)And maybe Fred annoyed me on "Angel" because she was fundamentally "The Girl"? Just as Cordy started to lose her personality once she became "The Girl"? It's a provocative theory, anyway. thanks for sharing!
Re: she's got a theory. . .
Date: 2004-07-13 09:34 pm (UTC)(Unless Xander were the main character of said movie, in which case he'd have ended up with Willow, because that's the same principle - the main character first has a crush on the beautiful girl/hunk, and then realises the true love is the faithful friend.)
As it turned out, the chemistry between SMG and DB (despite the later's early inexperience in acting showing at that point), plus the fascination the fans developed for the Angel character, changed things. I'd say Prophecy Girl was the last episode in which Joss was still toying with the Xander and Buffy idea. But for season 2, Angel and Buffy as star-crossed lovers was crucial.
Still, what saved Angel from Boy-ness was that in season 1, he was never Buffy's main motivation for anything, and in season 2, his going evil was an inspired plot twist which made him the Big Bad of the season.
(This being said, I agree about Spike/Buffy being the subversive relationship. Mind you, Buffy is The Girl for Spike in as much as she inspires and motivates him, but he does not idealize her - he sees all her flaws. And of course he's not The Boy for her; she never idealizes him, on the contrary, she has to learn to see him in his entirety. What's most unusual, imho, is that eventually you have here a relationship of two people who have hurt each other very much but manage to heal each other afterwards.)
Cordy, poor Cordy. Yes, that was a sad case of personality loss as she went from being her own character to becoming Angel's love interest, and The Girl everyone adored.
Fred: amazingly enough, did not annoy me in season 3,4 and 5 though she did in the Pylea episodes she was originally introduced with. (But then, everything about Pylea annoyed me. Well, nearly everything.) She's The Girl for Wesley, but then that fits with Wesley's obsessive personality and view of women, and Fred being The Girl for Wesley did not mean she was his solve motivation - his relationship with Angel was more crucial at many points. Gunn and Fred have a mutual falling-of-the-pedestals in Supersymmetry, which in effect ended their romance, which doesn't fit with the cliché.
Re: she's got a theory. . .
Date: 2004-07-14 07:31 am (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/users/sisabet/160182.html
Re: she's got a theory. . .
Date: 2004-07-14 06:07 pm (UTC)Angel never overcame the Boy thing for me, because I think in the first 2 seasons, at least, his character is considered almost entirely from Buffy's POV. His independent actions and existence, including when he goes evil, don't have to make any sense from Angel's perspective -- he's just the dream guy and then the nightmare guy. it's all Buffy's story. in very late S2, and in S3 he starts to get some independent characterization (particularly in "Amends" and "Enemies," which lay a lot of the groundwork for AtS).
Re: she's got a theory. . .
Date: 2004-07-16 09:51 am (UTC)Cordy was an interesting case in that we got to see her transform from the sidekick to The Girl. But rather than have the interest develop out of her established personality, the show seemed to require her to go up in status - her journey got lost in a desire to show her as someone worthy of Angel. So we get the visions, the suffering, the fight training, the powers, the talk of Champions and kyrumption. All to prove that Cordy was worthy of Angel's attention, of being The Girl. It felt very artificial and very unlike the character we'd all gotten to know, who IMO could have been an interesting love interest if not a Grand Passion.
In contrast I think that Riley on BtVS s4 was set up as The Boy and early s5 was spent tearing that concept down. All of the Boy-ish attributes - the strength, the unfailing support, the hint of mystery, the central role in the heroine's motivation - turned out out to be false. Of course whether that was due to an awareness of the cliche or just lack of B/R chemistry is up for debate!
Re: she's got a theory. . .
Date: 2004-07-16 10:38 am (UTC)Yes, and it's so frustrating, because Cordy as she was pre-season 3 didn't need any "enhancements" to be lovable. And if they absolutely had to do C/A, as opposed to keeping the relationship between Cordy and Angel that rare thing, a m/f buddy relationship (which I loved!), it could have been two people realising that they could include physical attraction in their lives as well, not suddenly coming to the conclusion they were fellow champions DESTINED for each other.
In contrast I think that Riley on BtVS s4 was set up as The Boy and early s5 was spent tearing that concept down. All of the Boy-ish attributes - the strength, the unfailing support, the hint of mystery, the central role in the heroine's motivation - turned out out to be false.
Excellent observation, and yes, that's what essentially happens in the first half of season 5 with Riley. (Though I'd argue the hint of mystery was gone as early as "Goodbye Iowa" in season 4.) On a less meta level, Riley taking Dawn's observation that he doesn't make Buffy cry the way Angel did as an insult instead of a compliment shows he, too, buys into the Boy and Girl concept at that point. Buffy is "the one" for him, and he isn't The Boy for her, he's nothing.
Meanwhile, interestingly, Xander's relationships with Cordelia and Anya never have the "Girl" implication (though arguably he's the Boy for Anya), and though Willow is the person most important in the world to him, she's not his motivation or raison d'etre.
Willow, otoh, appears to have the need to be her respective others' one and only - she's certainly The Girl for both Oz and Tara, who idealize her to no end, and she knows it. (And needs it - see her keeping Tara for herself and not introducing her to the Scoobies for a long time because she wanted to "have something that's just, you know, mine".) That's one of the reasons why I'm of the heretical opinion that the Kennedy relationship is actually a progress and healthy for Willow, because neither party is proclaiming this the Grand Passion That Will Last A Lifetime, or idealizing the other.