It’s a bit early to begin making lists of the year’s best. Regarding two major films yet to be seen — American Hustle and Wolf of Wall Street — I’m going to bet that the most interesting characters in those films are the male characters. I could be wrong. Jennifer Lawrence appears to be the best reason to see American Hustle based on the released clips. But it’s too soon to know. Still, the year has offered up some wonderful characters that I’ve seen. In all likelihood, there are films with great female characters I haven’t yet seen. This is by no means a definitive list, just a compilation of the characters I believe worthy of attention for reasons other than their sexuality — something we already know women offer the world in abundance. If there is one thing I wish mainstream Hollywood could abide, it’s the notion that women are people too.
It’s treacherous waters out there for actresses. Every time you turn around there is another young pretty woman joining the ranks, displacing the ones who came before. They seem so disposable. Out with the old, in with the new. Every year this repeats. It was not always so. Women used to control the box office because they were icons who’d spent many hard years honing their craft. In the days of Jane Fonda and Sally Field and Faye Dunaway, films were built around them. Things started to shift when Julia Roberts dominated the box office, and became one of the only females in recent years to do so. What Roberts had was fuckability, likability and talent all rolled into one. Finding the next Julia Roberts was difficult. There was Sandra Bullock, who followed quickly in her footsteps and is still making loads of money. But for the most part, it seemed to ignite the trend of trying to find and package the new burst of light. Hollywood has found that girl once again in Jennifer Lawrence, who remains one of the few females in Hollywood for whom whole films will be built around. Here’s to hoping she lasts many years to come. But for every Jennifer Lawrence there are dozens of those promising young actresses who must dwell in the wasteland of the romantic comedy. There is no point in naming them because there is always the chance they can come back from that. This is where young actresses gain box office clout because this is the only genre right now that is guaranteed to make bank among the predominantly female ticket-buyers.
The romantic comedy — the grown-up version of the Disney fairy tale where women find men who love them as much as they need to be loved. What else do women have to cling to as they come of age, when they’ve been brought up to believe that life is about finding “the one and only”? Mainstream entertainment doesn’t offer them many alternatives. We obsess on Kim Kardashian who is a cypher – a whirlwind of boobs, high heels, ass and lips. We have The Bachelorette (don’t get me started). We have youth being valued over everything else as we watch our beloved aging stars self-consciously stitching and botoxing themselves into faux-youthful oblivion. Weight, diet, aging, who wore it best, who is now pregnant, who is being cheated on, who gained and lost 50 pounds during pregnancy — WHO GIVES FUCK? Women.
Adults have mostly retired to their living rooms to watch Netflix, HBO or network television. There is no shortage of great female characters out there. Sure, the reality shows are nonsense — ruining all that is holy. But there is Game of Thrones! Thank the lord for Game of Thrones and George RR Martin. But Masters of Sex, Scandal, Homeland — all feature extraordinary female leads. If only the young girls coming up in the world had an interest. They don’t. They are buying tickets to movies (yay Hunger Games and Catching Fire) which are mostly aimed at the target demographic, boys. When Hollywood aims a film at boys what they mean is — put a guy in the lead. This is why Gravity was exceptional. By all rights the Sandra Bullock character should have been cast with a man. It wasn’t. It’s on its way to making $300.
And into this atmosphere comes 50 Shades of Grey, fan fiction based on Twilight characters that intro’d the female demographic to BDSM in the mainstream. There is Blue is the Warmest Color, one of the most lovely and sumptuous films about sexuality to come along in a while but the main character, Adele, is simply a teenager who is figuring out what she wants sexually. Okay, fine, but really? How is that fascinating in any way other than to men who are likewise obsessed and perplexed by what they hope is the inner volcano of the average beautiful young woman? In real life, most girls — especially American girls — are worrying about who they want to be, what they want to accomplish in the world to have their whole identity consumed by what kind of lover they wish to have. More fascinating than her sexuality is Adele’s desire to teach, which is not explored nearly as much as her desire to eat and have sex. Okay, fine, I’m not criticizing the film — I love the movie. I’m just pointing out that, to me, that’s not that interesting for a female character. Feel free to disagree.
While many of the best performances are characters who are singularly defined by their need for and their relationship to a stronger male character, I feel grateful when there is any complexity at all. Great female characters this year? Greta Gerwig as Frances Ha, Sarah Polley as herself in Stories We Tell, Julia Louie Dreyfuss in Enough Said, Emma Thompson in Saving Mr. Banks, Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine, Brie Larson in Short Term 12, Sandra Bullock in Gravity, Meryl Streep and almost the whole cast of August: Osage County, Lupita Nyong’o in 12 Years a Slave, June Squibb in Nebraska, Kate Winslet in Labor Day, Cameron Diaz [the best thing] in The Counselor, Jennifer Lawrence in Catching Fire, to name a few.
There is a dangerous storm brewing in Hollywood. Since the majority of ticket-buyers are young (straight) males, the focus of most family entertainment is on the one little man who saves the day. While he’ll often have a tough and smart female enter the scene, he is the one doing the saving. Animated films tend to feature mostly white, mostly male characters in heroic positions. Animated films make Hollywood shitpiles of cash every year. Children are growing up learning what and who they are supposed to be. You do the math.
Fans of Pixar were ready to storm the gates with pitchforks when they released Brave last year. That the film was a story about, gasp, the insignificant female characters nearly shattered the Pixar legacy. It wasn’t up to Pixar’s standard of greatness, the fans bellowed. The movie made a couple hundred million and won the Animated Feature Oscar. Brave wasn’t all that interesting ultimately because none of the characters really got to do much. We were all hoping that the curly redhead would go on a real adventure, put her archery to good use. But she never did.
Such is not the case with Frozen. Frozen is about two sisters — their relationship, their roles in the kingdom. They aren’t rescued. They aren’t supporting characters of the more important male figures. Elsa doesn’t even have a love interest. What does she have? Power. Enormous untapped uncontrollable power. Because she can’t control that power, she fears she might do harm so she escapes her kingdom (queendom) and heads to the mountaintops where, in the privacy of her own ice castle that she built, she lets it all go. The song “Let it Go” is such an anomaly in the world of animation where usually women sing songs about love or the men they can’t have. But here, she’s singing about unleashing her own magical power of freezing things.
The film never feels pressured to make Elsa appealing to a more powerful male character to validate her. Just think about that simple shift in storytelling. Moreover, her sister Anna is usually the one who gets herself out of scrapes, often rescuing the man she’s attached to rather than the reverse. This film makes a deliberate and conscious effort to show women as being just as capable, if not more so, than men. It was enough to bring tears to my eyes, especially sitting next to my 15 year-old daughter who loves the movie. And for all of the young girls sitting in the theater to now see a clean slate, a non-conditioning movie that gives women the chance to be the heroes.
Wow. Wow. Wow.
I worry about the future. But at the Frozen premiere I saw EW editor and journalist Anthony Breznican with his very young daughter wearing her princess dress sitting a few rows in front of my daughter and me. She was engaged in the film throughout — sometimes burying her head in her daddy’s arms when she was scared. To her, she will never grow up thinking women don’t matter. It isn’t just to do with the characters depicted in Frozen. It helps to have a great mom and dad to help her realize that she is more worthwhile to the world as a human being. She’ll grow up remembering she saw an animated film that was about a woman learning to harness her power, not waiting for her prince to come. I don’t know what that will mean ultimately — and I don’t know how you solve the problem of Pixar and Disney being focused almost entirely on white characters. But I do know that there is another kind of storm brewing in our culture, one that joins voices from all over the world and unites them on various social media platforms like Tumblr.
Of course, the film isn’t going to be what it is without its detractors. Those social justice feminist bloggers have complained that the characters are one kind of pretty and that it’s a standard we can all do without. But. Bill Desowitz wrote a wonderful response to this:
However, now we can focus on what really matters: “Frozen” offers Disney’s most progressive feminist approach to the princess fairy tale to date. How else would you characterize the post-modern refashioning of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Snow Queen” as a conflict between two sisters based on love vs. fear? The result is a lot bolder than perpetuating traditional romantic love, bolstered by the presence of Disney Animation’s first female director — Jennifer Lee (the co-screenwriter of “Wreck-It Ralph”) — who helmed with animation vet Chris Buck (“Surf’s Up,” “Tarzan”). But then it was Buck’s idea to end with a radical departure that they worked very hard to earn.
My daughter is swept up in that storm where social justice is a big concern. Those voices are also going to change the future for women. It will then be Hollywood’s job to pay attention. And catch up. But it’s important to note when there is a major shift. Brave hinted at it. Frozen has realized it.
can’t even watch a good movie without people trying to latch their agenda onto it. its about white european culture deal with.
I just saw Frozen last night and this is a FANTASTIC article. I love that you brought up the fact that the majority of “strong” female characters, or at least distinct and real female characters, are more available to adults rather than they are to kids growing up.
Lots of times we think that healthy female characters can’t be pretty or fall in love which is stupid because that’s just using a false platform of feminism to create a new standard of limiting the complexity of what would otherwise be a developed, interesting character. Frozen was beautiful and I’m glad that this film is making history in so many ways.
Spoiler alert!!!
Empowering? One princess falls in love with TWO men in about a 48 hour period and the other is frigid and confused. But I guess that’s the least of this film’s problems whose ending was beyond convenient and inane.
…and because I can’t find the edit button for my comment, I’ll have to post another one: I just realized that, FWIW, The Lords of Salem does actually pass the Bechdel Test. Make of that what you will…
Dean: So I’m not the only person who saw The Lords of Salem? I saw it because my friend Izzy Lee’s short horror film Legitimate played before it; personally, I think Izzy’s movie was much better, and that’s not just because she’s a friend of mine. (Sorry, Sasha and Ryan, but I have to give her a plug here…) I did think that Shari’s performance was the best thing in the movie, which I personally found extremely frustrating; I kept feeling as if there was a much more interesting, and much better, film lurking in there that could have been made, one where the element of suspense was greater and there was more of a question as to whether the character was actually going crazy, or if there really was something spooky going on, as opposed to the drumbeat of “eeevil, eeevil, fucking EEEVIL” that we’ve come to expect from anything with Rob Zombie’s name attached. As for the rest of the cast: on one hand, it’s good to see older actresses getting work, but on the other hand, the idea that the best they can do is to be one of Satan’s handmaidens in a Rob Zombie movie in which they may have to get naked to boot is unfortunate, IMNSHO.
A couple more things that may seem like quibbles, but really bugged the hell out of me: (1) why does Satan’s spawn look like a cross between a jumbo shrimp and a cockroach? (2) No one was ever burned in Salem, much less in the manner depicted in the film–19 people were hung and one pressed to death to try to force him to confess–and seeing as Rob’s a local boy from Haverhill, MA, there’s no good excuse for him not knowing that (and never mind “creative license”; real life events surrounding the witch trials and what happened subsequently are far spookier than anything he could come up with; sorry, I’m a history buff, and that just really worked my nerves); and (3) damn, I hope Lou Reed got his royalties for “All Tomorrow’s Parties” before he passed away. (Also, apparently Satan’s minions are also really crappy musicians, if that one piece of music is any indication.)
My apologies for derailing the thread–although perhaps the bit on older actresses is at least somewhat on-topic–but when I saw the reference to the movie here, it took me back to my “WTF?!?” feelings right after seeing it, and I had to say something. Again, it’s frustrating as hell when you can almost see the pretty good movie struggling to peep through the chinks in what actually ended up onscreen, IMNSHO.
Paddy – GREAT NEWS. I was afraid that Pixar was running from what built their brand – original, compelling stories.
To give Sasha some credit, I wasn’t thrilled that Pixar’s follow-up to Brave – Monsters University – basically re-hashed gender roles that looked antiquated when Animal House came out (and thus, was set in the early 60s). Okay, I get that our six leads in MU are all in a fraternity together, but you know there ARE gender-integrated fraternities in the real world, never mind the made-up monster world. You know you’ve got a problem when you make The Avengers look integrated. It was almost like Pixar, after being, uh, brave, decided to retreat into boys world. Not a positive.
But this news is positive; good to hear!
Movies like Frozen make me more hopeful for the future. I want to see more films like this that focus on female relationships and controlling powers they do not fully understand.
Coincidently, another animated film opens in limited release a week after Frozen that touches on many of the same ideas. Only it is a little more mature and adult.
Madoka Magica: Rebellion follows a twelve episode TV series of the same name though my understanding is that the movie can stand on its own without prior knowledge of the show. I would definitely recommend it to anyone especially as a worthy companion to Frozen.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnGESq_CiQY
The short series is also worth checking out. It is available for free on Hulu.
Also promising for the future of women in animation is Pixar’s upcoming Inside Out, a film entirely set within one girl’s mind. A woman’s mind! A Hollywood blockbuster!
Oh my, here she goes again!
No worries, I saw that she mentioned her daughter being 15. What I said about the 7-year old was only something that fit my example. Same horse, different color. She can’t be expected to be able to look at the world the same way Sasha does. But oh well… that’s no issue of mine.
I don’t quite see what’s supposed to be creepy with suggesting that the target audience of a Disney animated movie is children. I’m perfectly aware that people of all ages love and watch Disney movies. I’ve loved them ever since my own childhood and I go see each new one pretty much religiously still, but it’s clear I’m not of priority to the producers of the most recent piece just as much as Justin Bieber doesn’t exactly have my demographic in mind when he writes a song.
I couldn’t put my sign more under what you said about America needing impressionable adults, but that’s just my point really. Do we really think a Disney movie of all things is going to do that job for us? To play a part in “changing the future for women”? Isn’t that a topic a tad too hefty when talking about a harmless animated feature? I just think there’s other movies that lend themselves more to getting your take on feminism out there.
What I’d have liked to see is a take on how “Frozen” succeeds as a Disney movie as such (considering their less than stellar track record in the past ten years or so), not how it succeeds as comment on gender, because: What I’m not a big fan of is that there’s likely going to be a whole variety of people that read a blog such as this and eventually end up “liking” and recommending the movie only because of “it’s oh-so feminist” (not because they loved the movie as a piece of art) — just as much as certain other people are criticizing Ender’s Game because of an idea that the author purports, but which doesn’t find it’s way into the actual work (not because they didn’t like / actually saw it).
I didn’t say I’m a better judge of what Sasha’s daughter cares about. She herself didn’t say specifically that her daughter cares – only that she’s “swept up in that storm where social justice is a big concern”. It’s not about her, mine or anyone’s kids really, but the fact that – by nature – children aren’t going to appreciate a movie on the level that a far more experienced adult will. As a 7-year old, I’m not going to read “The Little Prince” and conclude that it’s a wonderful comment on human nature. That comes with age. So does the idea of a movie having feminist undertones or being somehow less common in the portrayal of its characters.
My point was that Sasha (and you and me), as a person who has lived for an amount of time far longer than her daughter, is inevitably going to be more aware of the changes in society and gender perception etc. over the past decades, and it’s that accumulated awareness that enables her to see the movie in a specific light and discern its (possible) undertones. To her daughter though, it ultimately is bound to look like something way less “bold” than what Sasha herself sees in it. The target audience of “Frozen”, which is impressible children, will see it as norm.
RX-78-2, You’re mixed up. Sasha’s daughter is not a child. She’s a teenager. She’s on the cusp of becoming a young woman.
The target audience for Frozen is anyone old enough to understand and appreciate it (roughly a range of ages from 6 to 96). Come back to this site in a couple of weeks and see how many grownups of all ages have seen Frozen, and read our various reactions.
Pixar makes movies that have lessons for anyone of any age who wants to experience new ways of looking at the world. Same as about 20% of movies for real grownups strive to do.
The other 80% of movies for “grownups” often seem intended to reinforce the ignorant ruts of adults who suckle up to that crap with greedy needy mentality of babies. Don’t look for posts on this site about Grown Ups 2 because it’s movies like Grown Ups 2 that studios make for stagnant immature minds.
Anyway, your phrasing that suggests Pixar and Frozen are targeting “impressionable children” sounds more than a little creepy.
You know what the world needs? More “impressionable adults.”
That would have been fine. The part that made me wince a little was the term “impressionable children” — a phrase that’s often used to describe targets of predators or, at the very least, implies a vulnerability that is targeted so it can be exploited.
As if “impressionable” is a bad thing. But the word does have pejorative overtones. So I tried to turn it around and say I’m proud of the fact that I’m still impressionable.
Stay tuned. This won’t be the thing we write about Frozen, I promise you.
just as much as certain other people are criticizing Ender’s Game of an idea that the author purports
The “idea the author purports’ is that Orson Scott Card has written extensive blatterings about his anti-gay-marriage stance. If I don’t want to put money and success in the hands of somebody who openly hates me, that’s my right. Why should that bother you? Go see the movie if you don’t care about any that. Go see it 5 times. Likewise, what’s wrong with people wanting to support a studio and a film that appears to be trying to support fair and equitable representation of females after 80 years of nobody bothering to do that. If this bothers you, don’t buy a ticket.
Do what you want for whatever reasons you care about or don’t care about. And please don’t carp about it when the rest of us indulge the same freedom.
I’ve been following this site for years; probably even a decade by now, from way way back when it was still Oscarwatch. I honestly haven’t read many of your articles in the past months since I don’t really check the site as much outside awards season, but I have to say I’m a little surprised at (?) / disapointed by this one. You touch upon subjects that aren’t real issues and seem to be looking at things from a viewpoint that is far too biased. No one all-that-much gasped at “Brave”, and there’s no “dangerous storm” brewing either. I’m not sure where you are taking those things from, but it seems you are ascribing too much importance to small events or personal remarks made by single individuals and small but vocal minorities on social networks. A few ranty comments by people on Twitter or Tumblr don’t constitute a “storm”.
Young girls aren’t going to watch “Frozen” (which is a fabulous film) and feel that it’s empowering women or that its portrayal of the female character is progressive because she doesn’t stand in this-and-that relation to a male protagonist. Young children are by nature not going to be aware of any of this. They see a movie and if it’s entertaining, they’ll like it. Whatever they take away from it eventually is another thing.
You make it sound as if women will only be able to (or actually: that it’s their duty as women to only) truly enjoy a movie if they themselves feel properly portrayed – whatever that means. Obviously that idea couldn’t be more problematic. What you’re ascribing to the film (its message and characterization) is what you’re projecting on it as a woman. It’s your own agenda, not something inherent to the picture.
Your article then goes on to receive a reply mentioning “incredibly sexist comments made by the animators”. Now wait a moment there. Are we really still talking Disney family entertainment here or what did this suddenly turn into?
I seriously believe that not just as a blog, but as a major source of information, this site should be above those things. They’re personal agendas and as a critic, one should leave this kind of baggage at the door. You honestly do not want to use the term “social justice” in an article (in a serious fashion) unless you want it rendered impossible to use in any respectable environment that isn’t Tumblr. Believe me. Our kids could care less about “social justice”. These are ideas instilled by parents. They just want to live their lives and enjoy a movie. And, should it prove necessary, be rescued by Prince Charming. Whether that’s in line with what’s expected of their gender and how it relates to social norms is a whole nother story altogether.
RX-78-2, just so I can get a clear sense of where you’re coming from, may I ask one question?
Since you seem to see yourself as an authority on what young girls and women should think, care about, and desire — I’m curious to know, are you male or female?
wait, one more thing.
For the time being I’ll try not wonder how you came to be a better judge of what Sasha’s daughter cares about than Sasha herself.
I appreciate that you, as a parent (?), are unashamed and perfectly frank about the fact that your own kids “could care less about social justice.” This, I have no trouble believing. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing. Explains a lot.
Some of my favorite female performances of 2013 are getting absolutely no press on the Oscar blogs, which is a shame because these blogs–especially AWARDS DAILY–continually harp on the lack of great female roles/performances, and yet–this year, as in most–end up focusing in on only the ones they think will get nominations automatically (Bullock, Blanchett, Streep, Dench, Thompson, with some press thrown out to Bejo, Mara, Louis-Dreyfus, Larson and Exarchopolous). I understand you have to cover the race, and that you‘re doing your best to foment some discussion of other, outside the box possibilities. But I‘ve rarely, if ever, seen any discussion of any of these 2013 (theatrically released) films:
Paulina Garcia as a middle-aged woman running the minefields of the dating world in Sebastian Lelio’s Gloria
Neslihan Atagul as a truck stop worker who falls for a standoffish driver while brushing away the advances of a longtime friend in Yasim Ustaoglu’s Araf/Somewhere In Between
Lindsay Burge as a Texas high school instructor conducting an affair with a student in Hannah Fidell’s A Teacher
Shari Moon Zombie as a heavy metal DJ who discovers a recorded link to Salem’s witchy past in Rob Zombie’s The Lords of Salem (yes, I stand by this performance, and the movie, as being something special).
Shailene Woodley as the intelligent, truthful girlfriend in James Pondsoldt’s The Spectacular Now
Sophie Desmarais as an emotionally distant track enthusiast gently discovering her sexuality in Chloe Robichaud’s Sarah Prefers to Run
Onata Aprile as the young daughter caught between bickering, inattentive parents in Scott McGehee and David Siegel’s What Maisie Knew
Saoirse Ronan and Alexis Bledel as sharp, girly, but brutal assassins who warm up to their latest target in Geoffrey Fletcher’s Violet and Daisy
Rosemary Dewitt as a massage therapist who suddenly finds herself repelled by human skin in Lynn Shelton’s Touchy Feely
Genevieve Bujold as a elderly housebound wife dealing with a deteriorating mind in Micahel McGowan’s Still Mine
Julianne Moore as a lonely schoolmarm who takes on the staging of a former student’s failed play in Craig Zisk’s The English Teacher
Clemence Poesy as a Parisian woman who strikes up a friendship with a retired philosophy professor in Sandra Nettelbeck’s Last Love
Aubrey Plaza as a wallflowery, intellectual high school student who’s determined to become more sexually aware in Maggie Carey’s The To Do List
The fact the six of these performances come from films directed by women adds extra salt in the wound, since I know this site is always talking about female directors being ignored. This is a campaign I’m totally with you guys on–I want to see MORE great roles for women, and MORE movies directed by women. But if they aren’t covered here on AD (or are rarely covered, or talked about), then what hope do we have, really?
“It’s treacherous waters out there for actresses. Every time you turn around there is another young pretty woman joining the ranks, displacing the ones who came before. They seem disposable. Out with the old, in with the new. Every year this repeats. It was not always so. Women used to control the box office because they were icons who’d spent hard years honing their craft. In the days of Jane Fonda and Sally Field and Faye Dunaway films were built around them. Things started to shift when Julia Roberts controlled the box office, and became one of the only females to do so. What Roberts had was fuckability, likability and talent all rolled into one. Finding the next Julia Roberts was difficult. There was Sandra Bullock, who followed quickly in her footsteps and is still making loads of money. But for the most part, it seemed to ignite the trend of finding the new burst of light. Hollywood has found that girl in Jennifer Lawrence, who remains one of the few females in Hollywood for whom whole films will be built around. Here’s to hoping she lasts many years to come. But for every Jennifer Lawrence there are dozens of those promising young actresses who must dwell in the wasteland of the romantic comedy. There is no point in naming them because there is always the chance they can come back from that. This is where young actresses gain box office clout because this is the only genre right now that is guaranteed to make bank among the predominantly female ticket-buyers.
“The romantic comedy – the grown-up version of the Disney fairy tale where women find men who love them as much as they need to be loved. What else do women have to cling to as they come of age, when they’ve been brought up to believe that life is about finding “the one and only”? Mainstream entertainment doesn’t offer them many alternatives. We obsess on Kim Kardashian who is a cypher – a whirlwind of boobs, high heels, ass and lips. We have The Bachelorette (don’t get me started). We have youth being valued over everything else as we watch our beloved aging stars self-consciously stitching and botoxing themselves into faux-youthful oblivion. Weight, diet, aging, who wore it best, who is now pregnant, who is being cheated on, who gained and lost 50 pounds during pregnancy — WHO GIVES FUCK? Women.”
How strange not to acknowledge that this year may well have the oldest Best Actress slate ever, both by average and by oldest-youngest (likely Blanchett at 44).
Rom-coms aren’t as prevalent as this post makes it sound. Rachel McAdams and Katherine Heigl pretty much have the Meg Ryan roles to themselves – they wouldn’t, if Hollywood was making as many as this post suggests. I see just as many actresses above the title of NON-romantic comedies: Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Tina Fey, Jennifer Aniston, Anna Faris, more. And there’s just as many, if not more, lead actresses in horror, including your new BFF Jessica Chastain.
*Action* (and franchise-ability) is still Hollywood’s #1 imperative/genre, and on that score, you have a lot more women headlining now than you did in, say, the 1980s – not just J-Law, but Jessica Biel, Kate Beckinsale, Kristen Stewart, Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez, Zoe Saldana, Scarlett Johanssen, and more…I realize they have to be “fuckable” but that’s just a side aspect of being in shape enough to take out a roomful of goons. Having a lot of kick-ass women isn’t exactly feminism, but it’s not nothing either. I think many of these can be good role models for girls.
Animation is almost (not quite) a sub-set of action, and yes, if Frozen is as gyno-centric as you say, I say Awesome. Celebrate. Great.
But this princess-osity – which didn’t exist when you and I grew up, pre-Little Mermaid – is still a “frozen” problem. One film isn’t going to derail Disney’s princess machine, any more than Passion of the Christ led to every other new Hollywood film set before 1500 to actually use the non-English language of the time.
“However, now we can focus on what really matters: “Frozen” offers Disney’s most progressive feminist approach to the princess fairy tale to date. How else would you characterize the post-modern refashioning of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Snow Queen” as a conflict between two sisters based on love vs. fear?”
I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t comment on its quality, but even if the end product and the female characters are well-done, the fact is that Disney took a story that consisted of a majority female cast and replaced all but two of the women with men or inanimate objects that are clearly marked as male. Also, as superficial as it may be, I can’t ignore the incredibly sexist comments made by the animators. While I’m glad that it sounded like your daughter enjoyed it, I’m not quite ready to believe that Disney has any progressive intentions.