Anyway, I went into the room to talk to him about
it. He didn’t say much about the
quality, and I didn’t press him; he just wondered why Baymax was so fat. “More to love,” I said. And then, after a brief pause, I said with a
smile “I saw Frozen the other day.”
His reaction was three times faster than the speed
of light. He groaned loudly and asked,
“What are you, a six-year-old girl?” I
tried to make a case for the movie. His
response: “Fine, so it’s for six-to-ten-year-old
girls.” Needless to say, we didn’t
exactly have a gripping and in-depth discussion on the film’s merits. Granted I could have (and probably should
have) argued more, but obstinacy is a forte both of us share. Also, I didn’t want to clean up any dog pee.
So let’s unpack this for a minute -- by which I
mean “time to have another talk about
female characters and representation in fiction.” I’m as excited as you are.
Okay, for starters? Don’t go and burn effigies of my brother just
yet. Yes, he didn’t even try to give Frozen a chance (for those unaware, he
and a pal dragged me to see the abysmal 47
Ronin even though Frozen was,
like, right there, dudes). Yes, there
are a lot of things he isn’t receptive to.
Yes, he’s the older of the two of us, and by extension has every right
to assert HE IS A MAN. But (presumably)
it’s not as if he’s some growling, slobbering woman-hater. When it comes to video games, he’s got no
problem playing as the fairer sex; he mains C. Viper in SF4, and he’s no stranger to Zero Suit Samus and female Robin in SSB4.
On the other hand?
Viper’s the only female character I’ve seen him consistently use. And more
distressingly, there’s still the Fable 2 anecdote
I have: I chose to play as a female hero, and he gave me no shortage of trouble
for it. There wasn’t an onslaught of
heckling about dresses and kissing guys and playing dress-up and being “so
gay”…but there was enough of it to shame me into not playing it in his presence. As if I
did something wrong.
I’m almost certain I’ve brought up before -- if
not here, then elsewhere -- but it’s still an issue that sticks out in my
mind. Again, I don’t think my brother is
some raging woman-hater; I question his tastes on a regular basis, yes, but he
can be trusted to conduct himself appropriately. But I’m concerned about that small-minded way
of thinking, precisely because it’s
small-minded. And because it’s a way of
thought I’m afraid exists in the cultural zeitgeist. And because it flat-out sucks.
If you’ve seen my stuff before, then you probably
already know what the issue is. But for
argument’s sake, let’s frame this on Frozen. I won’t go into depth about how I feel about
it right now (because I suspect that’ll take a few thousand words), but at a
surface level there are some basic facts everyone has to agree with. It’s a Disney movie. It stars not one, but two princesses --
though one of them takes up the crown early on.
It’s an animated movie. It’s got singing, and colors, and even if the
technology’s evolved, the designs are still plenty recognizable: Elsa and Anna
are svelte, doe-eyed young women with nice hair and bright smiles.
What’s wrong with that? In my eyes, nothing much. In the eyes of others…
I get it, though.
Princesses get a bad rap, as does Disney -- so put the two together and
you’ve got a great big soup of hatred.
Princesses are all about looking pretty!
Princesses are damsels in distress that can’t do anything but wait for
men/good fortune to save them! They set
bad examples! They’re not
realistic! They’re boring! The list goes on.
There’s plenty for people to complain about, and
I’d be lying if I said there weren’t
legitimate complaints. Princesses,
Disney or otherwise, don’t always set the best examples. And while there are exceptions, the damage
has been done. Even if we’ve had Merida,
Tiana, Rapunzel, Mulan, Jasmine, and the Frozen
ladies, they were ALL preceded by princesses like Snow White, Aurora, and
Cinderella, just to name a few. They’ve
got the decades-long advantage. They’ve
set the tone and the expectations, and I’d bet that no amount of singing about
building snowmen is going to change that.
Not anytime soon, at least.
But does it really stop at princesses,
though? I mean, it’s not as if the mere
concept is awful. My go-to example is
Natalia from Tales of the Abyss; she
was a good fighter, yes (an archer who, through the game’s upgrade system, I turned
into a tank in thigh-high boots), but she was someone who used her authority
and status to do what needed to be done.
She played ambassador, she helped arrange political meetings, she
reached out to the people, and she more or less fought in a war. Being a princess put her in a unique position
for the plot; that is, being a princess gave the writers the tools they needed
to maximize her potential as a character.
Maybe that’s what people really want out of
princesses -- someone who maximizes their potential instead of adhering to
stereotypes. They want active members of
the plot, and (perceived or justified) it’s way too easy for them to slot into
sweet little girls who sit around and look pretty while cool stuff happens all
around them. Obviously, Disney is moving
away from that. Elsa and Anna aren’t
just characters; they’re the main characters. They start, progress, and resolve the plot,
even if they get the occasional push from other characters. That’s how it should be.
So my question is this: is that enough?
I don’t know.
I always figured that a good character is a good character, and a good
story is a good story -- no matter the source.
That’s why I don’t have any problems buying into Kamen Rider/Super Sentai as legit entertainment; sure, there are
flamboyant suits, OTT shenanigans, merchandise shills, and a LOT of goofiness (you
are NOT ready for ToQger), but
there’s thought, quality, and fun behind each big whompin’ explosion. Target audiences are going to factor in on
multiple levels, but that doesn’t stop stuff like Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls and others from
entertaining more than kids plopped in front of a TV. Really, that’s the optimal scenario: have a
story that can appeal to everyone. The
Pixar movies have proven that time and time again, and Disney and Frozen have done the same thing.
At least, I think they have. Haven’t they?
I have to ask, because not too long ago I stumbled
upon a
series of essays by Metaleater’s Liana Kerzner. The subject: she took umbrage with the
infamous Anita Sarkeesian’s Feminist
Frequency -- which you’d think would make her an enemy of justice,
right? Well, no. Her argument across five (!) posts was that
even if Sarkeesian is fighting and arguing for something right -- and she is,
no question -- she’s using the wrong approach and mindset. Put simply, her “idea of justice” does more
harm than good.
There’s a lot
that Kerzner goes over, but one of the major points -- and
one that gets personal, with good reason -- is that FemFreq would have anyone who doesn’t conform to its standards removed
from gaming. What are those
standards? Supposedly, that means anyone
of a certain body type/dress is automatically bad -- that they’re only there to
please male gamers at the expense of an objectified lady, or some such claim.
And yes, objectified women are a problem, but the
saving grace is CONTEXT, which
Kerzner argues Sarkeesian is either blind to or willfully ignores. And it seems like Bayonetta was one of the
prime targets for removal…which strikes me as more than a little odd. I’ve
sung praises about Bayo before, but even if I didn’t find any depth to her,
there’s still an argument to be made that gaming needs someone as stylish as her in the canon. Given what the climate is like now, can we
really afford to have style taken behind the shed?
Okay, so what does this have to do with Frozen and princesses? Well, one of the main ideas behind Kerzner’s
posts is the fear that FemFreq and
Sarkeesian are trying to dictate what is and isn’t allowed. To be more precise: instead of giving games
the diversity they need (which would help a LOT of problems), they would be
better off by excluding anyone that meets the proper parameters. It all feeds into a level of scrutiny that
female characters tend to get. “They
should be this!” “They should NOT be
this!” “That is a good quality, and
everyone should have it!” “That is a BAD
quality, and anyone with it must DIE!”
I’m exaggerating, but you get the idea.
The thought police are rolling out with the sirens on full blast.
Kerzner’s argument/concern is that games that take
Sarkeesian’s strides to heart are more likely to remove female characters rather than fix them, and used Dragon Age: Inquisition as an
example. Desire demons in the franchise
use to be distinctly female -- and when complaints arose, they were axed
instead of reworked. Likewise, the
number of female characters dropped, and those that remained had their pizazz
sanded off. I mean, I can’t blame AAA
devs for doing it; why put in effort making a character when you can just drop
them and make things even safer? It’s a
misguided approach, but it’s got the chance to be a popular one. If it isn’t already, that is.
I think I’ve made my stance clear at this point,
but I’ll go ahead and make it obvious now.
Yes, female characters in fiction deserve better, and they should have
had it better for a long time now. But
removing anything that seems wrong isn’t the go-to answer, because it means
reducing the amount of diversity we can have in our stories. The problem with improbably buxom women in
fiction isn’t that they’re improbably buxom; it’s that when they’re done poorly
(which can happen and has happened), they’re nothing but improbably buxom. It’s
about the context, it’s about the creativity, and it’s about the quality.
“Don’t judge a book by its cover” is in full play
here. Yes, there are cringe-tastic
elements of characters -- and they can be the result of broad design
strokes. A princess can be a terrible
character…but a princess can also be a good character, precisely because she’s a princess. Or, alternatively, that one design stroke
could be simply an aspect of the character, and the real draw is everything around her.
Personality, role in the plot, actions, development, relationships, all
of those things and more -- that’s one hell of a deciding factor, and not even
the prettiest dress (or something like the mightiest bosom) can take that away.
I guess I don’t really understand why there has to
be so much scrutiny and assumptions that this
lady or that lady is a bad
character. I mean, it can’t say good
things about us -- or the haters, more specifically -- when characters are
judged and hated before they even get a chance, right? Speaking personally, I think Geralt from The Witcher 3 looks like a mess; still,
that doesn’t matter in the end because A) you can put him in different
clothing/armor throughout the game, and B) his personality makes him a pretty
good character, no matter how he looks.
Imagine what it would be like if I said “Geralt is
a terrible character because he looks like he stepped out of a bargain bin
JRPG!” and then never played the game, and spent days screaming to others about
how The Witcher 3 is awful. Doesn’t
make sense, does it? So why is it
okay to do that to other characters, females especially? Why do people keep going on and on about what
a female character should be, and especially
what they shouldn’t be? Are people that hung up on breasts?
I’ll be fair, though. I understand the complaints, and I know that
the discussions (sure, let’s call them that) happening now are ones that need
to happen so we can get some consistently-good characters -- so everyone,
regardless of age, gender, race, orientation, or any other classification
wins. What we want and need,
universally, are strong characters.
That’s a given. But the
definition of that is muddled beyond belief, and I’m concerned that people
assume there’s only one right answer when any number of paths could lead to the
pot of gold at the end.
I’ve ranted about this before, but it bears
repeating: “strength” is not what decides the quality of a character. Good characters are allowed to be weak, just
as they’re allowed to be strong. They
can show different sides of themselves -- be
different in general, and go against the grain. They can have all sorts of unique traits, be
they physical, mental, or emotional.
They can have all the bitchin’ damn superpowers in the world, or they
can lose out to a bantamweight with a bad cold.
There is no single, surefire formula.
There is no one right answer.
There is no need to
reduce everything to one right answer.
And yet, here we are. Or rather, here I am -- and worried as all
get out.
Ninja Theory’s been talking about its new game, Hellblade, and I’d be lying if I said I
didn’t have high hopes -- even after the disaster that was DmC. If they succeed, then
it means showing the AAA-dominated games industry that you can do plenty with
smart development and smarter ideas. But
they made sure to explain in one of their development diaries that leading lady
Senua isn’t going to be a “typical sexy heroine”. That’s good in the sense that they’re
committed to developing this character into something great (and I hope the
execution stays on-point, especially since they’re tackling something as
serious as mental illness). But I have
to cringe at the idea that Senua being a sexy heroine -- or to generalize,
anything but the mythical “strong female character” -- is an automatic
fail-state, even though Bayonetta showed the world how well it can be done.
I’m concerned about how
there are already examples of good female characters out there right now,
at this very moment, and people are all too eager to A) not know them, B)
ignore them, or C) scream at the top of their lungs “THAT DOESN’T COUNT!” Oh, Tsubaki Yayoi from BlazBlue shows a by-the-book soldier’s fall from grace as she gives
in to both her negative emotions and jealousy as spurred on by the
meta-narrative of being overshadowed by a purposeful self-insert
character? “Who’s Tsubaki?” Cortana’s stuck in what threatens to be an
emotionally-abusive relationship as an AI whose surpassed parameters could make
for a story in itself? “She’s Chief’s naked
blue girl.” Cia’s corruption by love and
destructive impulses, which may or may not be the once-forbidden emotions born
from the insanity-breeding conditions of her role as an isolated sorceress? “BOOBS!
LOOK AT HER BOOBS! ALL WE CAN
TALK ABOUT ARE HER BOOBS! LA, LA, LA, WHAT A BAD CHARACTER!”
It seems like there are plenty of female
characters -- and characters, period -- out there that offer up something
substantial. But I guess none of those people
count. I guess we need characters that
adhere to certain standards and sensibilities, and anyone that doesn’t is
either awful, or only appeals to a lesser breed of an audience. It’s total bullshit, but it happens. And despite doing nothing wrong -- despite
merely being characters that are part of an archetype that’s trying to evolve
-- princesses are just one of those undesirables.
I know that that doesn’t apply to everyone, of
course. There are those out there who
look at stuff like Frozen and
appreciate it for what it is, and find some sense of meaning behind the CG and
songs. That’s awesome. I appreciate that. I wish we lived in a world where people could
digest and discuss fiction more readily, instead of slamming it just because “I
never asked for this.” Granted, I can be
guilty of that, too -- how many times have I slammed Call of Duty? -- but I at least do that after there’s substantial
proof that something or someone has gone wrong.
I don’t hate generic soldier-men because they’re generic
soldier-men. I hate them because they’re
generic soldier-men who do nothing besides prove that they’re generic
soldier-men.
The princess archetype may have some
titanium-strong footing, but it’s not as if every last one of them is the
same. Ariel is not the same as
Belle. Belle is not the same as Jasmine. Jasmine is not the same as Kida. Kida is not the same as Peach, who is not the
same as Zelda, who is not the same as Natalia, who is not the same as Elsa, who
is not the same as Anna. All of them
look different. All of them act
different. All of them are different -- and at least try to
bring something unique to the table.
What we need out of characters is diversity -- by
design, by type, and by action. We’ll
get there someday (if we haven’t already -- seriously, just look around a
little), but for now, I think it’s worth remembering that mindless scorn will
do us no favors. We need to push for
more characters with good execution, because if they’re made well, then their unique parameters will only make
them stronger. More memorable. An easier sell for ideas and beliefs.
Fiction has the power to teach us more than all
the parents and teachers in the world.
So how are we supposed to learn if we automatically reject anything
that’s out of our comfort zones?
There's a good answer to that one: DON'T blindly reject. Give it a chance. You just might walk away with something to show for it.
And that’ll do it for now. See you guys…eventually. Whenever I do a full post on Frozen.
It’ll probably be sooner rather than later, but who knows? There was
a certain magical game I had lined up for discussion, but whatever. Ice queens beckon.
In the meantime?
I don’t know. Sell me on your
favorite Disney princess. You’re not
spoiled for choice, I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment