Like Snowmobile Parts: on the replaceability of women

[butterfly]

One of my favorite television quotes is from "Burning Down the House", the first episode of the third season of due South.

"People are not interchangeable like snow mobile parts," says our hero, when his father tells him that one 'Yank' is as good as another.

But, so often in television and movies, women have been interchangeable -- the Bond movies providing a prime example of such a thing. In each movie, there's a 'Bond girl' and Bond's affection for her lasts only through that particular movie, to be switched out for the new girl at the start of the next movie. The Austin Powers movies parody this concept (while, of course, using it themselves).

Many 'action' television series take this same stance -- women flit in and out of the lead (male) characters' lives, only important for as long as they're onscreen, soon to be forgotten (unless the actress returns for a one-shot 'reunion'). Girl of the day, woman of the week, maybe even important enough to make the lead shed a manly tear or two, but rarely important enough to ever be mentioned again.

Action movies (and action/'buddy' shows) tend to assume that their audience is young men, the assumption, perhaps, being that men would prefer to see the hero with a succession of (beautiful, of course) women, as opposed to struggling through a more complex and permanent relationship.

Now, this isn't a problem that's confined to the action genre (nor do all action films contain such issues) -- it's a problem perpetuated by our society, with some people buying into the belief much more strongly than others, people who carry that belief through their work (an example of this would be Kevin Sorbo, who played Hercules in the eponymous television show and, when given more power in the series Andromeda, turned it into a much more action/'hot chick of the week' type of show).

[Side note] That said, it's a prime example of one of the major issues of the writing of movies and television shows -- the writing of female characters as 'women' and not as people (as was said by, I believe, Rebecca West -- "feminism is the radical notion that women are people"). Heroes has several female characters, but nearly all of them are characters that could only be played by women (as opposed to many of the male characters, who could have been cast female without changing much more than pronouns) -- Niki the stripper mom being the most egregious example. [/end note]

Many of the shows that I've watched have had issues of this sort -- many shows that feature a pair of male leads will have a new female love interest every other week or so, to serve the dual interests of propping up male viewership while defusing the homoerotic tension that frequently crops up in buddy shows (of course, the very transitory nature of the love interests tends only to highlight the more lasting bond between the male characters, thus making the show even gayer).

Luckily, I've also watched many shows where the female characters were as essential and as human as the male ones.

And, recently, there have been two places where not only were the women strong and real, the notion of female interchangeability was directly refuted.

The Bourne series not only doesn't feature a series of love interests, it goes to pains to set up a sequence similar to the one that had Bourne kissing Marie in the first movie and then have him not do the same in the third. Marie is not replaceable, even if Nikki kicks complete ass. And that's a good thing (and not a reflection on Nikki's status as a person -- her identity does not (and should not) need to be validated by having Bourne desire her).

On the television side, the show Doctor Who spent a year building up a romance between the Doctor and Rose, a year exploring it, and, just recently, a season where one of the undertones was her irreplaceableness. Martha Jones, the companion after Rose, kicks a lot of ass over the course of series 3. She's also thrown into situations that are very similar to the ones shared between the Doctor and Rose. However, like in the Bourne movies, Martha cannot replace Rose, because women are not interchangeable. The Doctor didn't fall in love with Rose because she was Generic Kick-Ass Female Companion -- he fell in love with her because she was Rose, with all her virtues and foibles.

And so, Jason Bourne and the Doctor become characters that I can respect more deeply, because they respect and are aware that women are people, not living dolls that can be exchanged if they get damaged or lost.

Comments

[dettiot.livejournal.com]

A great post! I'd never really thought about it, but you're right in pointing out that a movie or TV show feels so much richer when a woman is a person, not a woman. It's something that New Who has done so well so far, and I'm eager to see what happens in s4!

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I'm very eager for S4. I have high hopes for what they'll do with the S4 companion.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

I think this ties in to the other irritating thing that pops up in television shows: a man can take random-female-of-the-week to bed, and he's a cool macho stud. But if a woman does that, she's a slut.

A number of shows have fought that trend in recent years, but not with enough success to keep actresses from complaining that their characters will no longer be taken seriously if they actually have a romantic relationship of any kind. *eyeroll*

I don't think it's strictly a feminist issue. I think it's also an issue of good writing versus idiot suggestions from studio executives, or versus just plain bad writing. I want my characters -- be they male, female, gay, straight, whatever -- to be real, with good qualities and bad, not just cardboard cutouts to act out viewer fantasies. Which could be what's wrong with Bond, to use your example. James Bond isn't real -- he's the embodiment of a male fantasy. The Doctor is tremendously real.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I think this ties in to the other irritating thing that pops up in television shows: a man can take random-female-of-the-week to bed, and he's a cool macho stud. But if a woman does that, she's a slut.

*nods* The sexual double standard is horribly frustrating to watch. And so many women participate in it -- the sheer numbers of women I see calling female characters 'sluts' and 'whores' for kissing or sleeping with a character is downright scary.

A number of shows have fought that trend in recent years, but not with enough success to keep actresses from complaining that their characters will no longer be taken seriously if they actually have a romantic relationship of any kind. *eyeroll*

Which, sadly, is a thing that was very present in SG-1 fandom -- people who disliked the Sam/Jack hinting tended to focus their displeasure on Sam and saying how much it discredited her as a character, while letting Jack almost completely off the hook (and I include myself in this -- during my initial watch of S7, my annoyance was pretty much limited only to Sam).

I don't think it's strictly a feminist issue. I think it's also an issue of good writing versus idiot suggestions from studio executives, or versus just plain bad writing.

*nods*

The writers that I consider the very best always write everyone as people. People who are... not as good are more likely to use stereotypes and clichés.

I want my characters -- be they male, female, gay, straight, whatever -- to be real, with good qualities and bad, not just cardboard cutouts to act out viewer fantasies.

A hundred times yes. I want the characters to feel like people.

Which could be what's wrong with Bond, to use your example. James Bond isn't real -- he's the embodiment of a male fantasy.

He really is -- I watched those movies with my dad as a little girl and had a lot of fun with them. I mean, things explode! He's a secret agent, which was just so cool. It's only with the clearness of adult perspective that I see all the icky things that make up Bond's character.

And, as you say, Bond is a very male fantasy (which reminds me of the show Red Dwarf, where one of the lead characters had a heroic alternate universe double named Ace who was very Bond-like, and I found the original character Rimmer, with all his numerous flaws, to be more likable in the end because he felt much more real).

The Doctor is tremendously real.

*nods* I really adore what Russell's done with him. He's such a full and complete person.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

The whole Ace vs Rimmer thing is the perfect example of a real character versus a male fantasy, with an interesting twist. Ace is Rimmer's fantasy version of himself, and yet Rimmer doesn't like him. Granted, that's mostly out of jealousy, but despite the fact that the nature of the show doesn't lend itself to lingering on the introspection, it's there. I do love the final Ace episode, particularly the interaction between Lister and Rimmer. That Naylor and Grant are strong enough writers to pull off actual character development in a show that's basically a cracky space adventure does underline the fact that good television always has room for well-rounded characters.

[jic]

Excellent analysis. *applauds*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

*bows*

*grins*

[shaela]

‘People are not interchangeable like snow mobile parts.’

Oh, wow. I really like that quote. And it sums up so much of what I hate about the Doctor Who fandom—and so much of what I love about the story.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

In a show of great quotes, it's one of the best (the show is full of fantastic dialogue, if you ever want to give it a go -- the fandom is primarily slash, but there are het pairings, too. And the show has a quirkiness that is similar to DW).

[honorh.livejournal.com]

Nikki was one of the reasons I liked the third Bourne movie so much. Contrast the women of Bourne to the women of, say, Michael Bay's latest opus, Transformers. In Bourne, we have Pamela Landy and Nikki; in Transformers, we have some female expert and Megan Fox's character, whose name I can't remember. This in itself is telling. One set had names and personalities and purpose; the other didn't.

The women in Transformers were both young and gorgeous and dressed provocatively, especially the younger one. Loads of makeup, high heels, the lot. Pamela Landy, on the other hand, was the middle-aged (though still very attractive) Joan Allen. Nikki was played by the young and lovely Julia Stiles, but there the similarities to the Transformers women ended. Megan Fox's character kicked some ass, but she had to do it in tight, low-cut clothes and she ended the movie in a clinch with Shia Leboeuf. While what she did was brave, whether it was the fault of the script, the director or the actress, I never got the sense that she was really frightened. The female expert never had much of a personality.

On the other hand, Pamela and Nikki wore fashionable, yet practical clothing that kept them covered up instead of flashing cleavage and ass every time they bent over. This makes them more believable, as Pamela is a government worker and Nikki's a professional operative. The one time we see Nikki partially unclothed, it's actually the antithesis of an erotic scene, as it's a deliberate contrast with the scene in which Bourne first kissed Marie. Nikki was palpably frightened during her long chase scene, but she was also dead practical and didn't lose her head for a minute--she remembered her training and put it to good use. Likewise, Landy got some good scares but kept her head and did the necessary. It's helpful that both of these women were played by very good actresses, but the script and director gave them something to work with. And they kicked ass.

I love that Rose wasn't just forgotten, and that what she and the Doctor had carried over even when she was absent. It makes him more believable in addition to treating both Rose and Martha with respect--the Doctor has another layer of emotional realism, Rose and what she brought to the show and to the Doctor is honored, and Martha isn't just an interchangeable piece coming in to fill a gap. For all the complaints about the Rose mentions in S3, to just leave her behind and have the Doctor all peachy keen with his new companion would ultimately devalue all companions.

[parhelion-spark.livejournal.com]

I noticed that too with Bourne- one of the reasons it's among a very, very short list of action-type films I can completely enjoy. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the Bourne trilogy is fucking flawless. They are brilliant. YES. And I'm still so happy Marie (because she was amzing and I loved her like oof) was given proper ..erm..props.

Not commenting on the Rose thing, except to say it almost sounds as if you're selling him a bit short- it's not just Rose.. it's EVERY companion. Throughout the Classic series, they were merely friendly, yes, but they were all treated uniquely. From Jamie, to Romana, to Adric, to Ace, never once were they portrayed as, nor treated by the Doctor as, the latest in a long line of fillers.
I have many issues with Rose, but I don't hate her, however I don't like that so much of Marthas character was written as a sort of 'HEY, I EXIST TO SHOWCASE HOW IMPORTANT ROSE WAS'.. rather than much of a character herself. In Who this seems a criminal offense regarding the Doctors character, much in the way GITF did- he loved all his companions, and whether Rose was romantic or not, the favoritism in the new series gets to me. Martha should've been a truly awesome character, but so much of her potential was wasted on her Doctor-fancying and non-Rose-status. I handwave it and give it the benefit of the doubt (that Rusty was TRYING to show how she'd gained confidence, how she'd gone into this adventure with the Doctor as a sort of very capable woman, but one that valued herself more by the opinings of others, particularly those she esteemed, than having any real sense of her own worth, and she got through that in TLotL, AND IM RAMBLING)..er..

I suppose I just feel a need to point out the Doc valued ALL his companions, male and female alike, and not just because he was in love with them. And that makes him a much more admirable character than he would be, to me, had he simply played favourites with his girlfriend.
(not that anything you said actually claimed such. I'm er.. JUST RAMBLY TODAY I SUPPOSE and months of undebated wank has finally caught up to me and I'm seeing things where there probably are none and it asploded all over your journal XD. sorries?)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Regarding the Who-stuff, while I'm not sure where you got all that out of my paragraph, I understand the urge to vent about things that bother you. I certainly don't disagree with... well, any of it. Thinking that Rose is irreplaceable doesn't mean that I think Jamie (who the Doctor is still mentioning eight regenerations later) is chopped liver.

*shrugs*

I noticed that too with Bourne- one of the reasons it's among a very, very short list of action-type films I can completely enjoy. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the Bourne trilogy is fucking flawless. They are brilliant. YES. And I'm still so happy Marie (because she was amzing and I loved her like oof) was given proper ..erm..props.

The Bourne movies are fantastic. I adore them.

[parhelion-spark.livejournal.com]

lols. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY all that much, which is why I tried to disclaimerize it. I suspect I was just feeling wordy and ranty and your unfortunate journal somehow caught it. I get irked at the 382973 times I've seen people go on about how Rose is THE ONLY COMPANION DOCTAR EVER LURVED OH THE SADESS XD
Speaking of Jamie, ICONYAY.

[6beforelunch.livejournal.com]

Nice analysis, thank you for posting it.

I remember when I saw my first Bond movie (Goldeneye) and I fell in love with Natalya and I thought Natalya/Bond was the most romantic thing ever. I was all excited to see Tomorrow Never Dies and incredibly disappointed that they didn't even mention Natalya. (I was 13, what did I know?)

I still like the Bond movies to a point, but, I also remember being 13 and sitting in the theater thinking "But...but...but...Natalya was awesome. He loved her! Where is she?"

So I guess sometimes the even the characters that were designed to be replaceable aren't always.

I really need to see the third Bourne movie one of these days.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Great points! I only know Doctor Who through posts about mostly this issue, but I agree so much about Bourne, especially the way the movie makes it explicit with that scene. You think he's going to do something, and so does he for a moment, but only because we're all thinking of Marie. Her presence is there--also earlier where he says "Marie used to try to help me remember..."

It makes his line to her in the first movie all the more meaningful: "Why would I forget you? You're the only person I know." They could have thrown in a love interest, but they realized an actual relationship was more interesting.

[nic]

Very interesting... it put into words what bugs me about so many tv shows, and why I have such a hatred for "bimbo of the week" characters. (I shouldn't hate the characters, I should hate the culture that feels her inclusion - and the stereotype - is necessary.)

With Doctor Who you could argue that the entire show has an interchangeable cast and that it's not so much about the characters as it is an adventure intended for light entertainment. With the new series I'm becoming a lot more emotionally invested with the characters, which is a risk because we know none of them will last.

Finally, there's nothing that frustrates me more than a show that spends a year building up a relationship between two characters, only to have one quit and a NEW character move into that same space. The fans of the first character feel so betrayed. (Then again, I guess life itself is a lot like that. You have a best friend/partner for a while, and if they move on, you generally find someone to replace them.)

[jaydk.livejournal.com]

Great point. I really love the fact that we're seeing a leading male character on a TV show such as the Doctor truly affected by the loss someone he loves. And moreover, he seems changed by this loss -- it's continuing to affect him going forward, as loss does in real life. It makes the Doctor so much more real and sympathetic to me, and it's why I'm emotionally invested in his story. I really appreciate that the writers are allowing the character this level of emotional truth.

I can't understand why anyone would want the Doctor to be a character who acts as if one companion is the same as another -- to not be an individual who relates to different people in different ways, based on their individual characters and his own. Seems only to make sense to me, and to be a much appreciated step forward in storytelling.

[nostariel]

OMG YES. (And you brought me yummy dS goodness, to boot!)

Bourne wins at life, that's all I'm saying about that.

One of the things that's always disturbed me most about Doctor Who is the interchangeable companion thing. Let's face it, the vast majority of companions have been female, specifically young and female (and I include Romana here, even discounting that she was played by pretty young actresses, the character herself was several centuries younger than the Doctor). He goes through companions pretty fast, and as soon as one's gone they're replaced with another - and then rarely, if ever, spoken of or seen again. Taken altogether (esp. including the end of LaM), that pushes my squick button pretty damn hard, you know?

I wish Martha had been treated a lot better than she was, and I thought season three as a whole was less than great, but I have hope that things will get better in the future. I have to, or I'll wind up one of those bitter fangirls who define being a Doctor Who fan as "hating Doctor Who".

:/

[katesutton.livejournal.com]

many shows that feature a pair of male leads will have a new female love interest every other week or so,

Oh, man. One of my least favorite plot points ever. Especially in sci-fi, where the guy meets the love of his life/someone special and loses her in one episode and it is never mentioned again(tGitF, anyone?). No. Please to be writing your female characters as people, as you said, not as love interests or mere roadblocks to a more important relationship.

Which, yes, was the great thing about Doctor Who this last season, although it was painful for the Doctor, for Martha and for a lot of viewers. They had problems connecting, not because Martha was Not As Good as Rose, but because she just wasn't her. And she shouldn't have to be and the Doctor wasn't asking her to be; it's just that when you lose someone like that, it can take a while before the past relationship stops haunting the present. Especially when the person in question is as poor at dealing with his emotions as the Doctor is.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Oh, man. One of my least favorite plot points ever. Especially in sci-fi, where the guy meets the love of his life/someone special and loses her in one episode and it is never mentioned again(tGitF, anyone?). No. Please to be writing your female characters as people, as you said, not as love interests or mere roadblocks to a more important relationship.

This is why tGitF is such an annoyance -- it's the only episode of New Who that feels so depressingly as though the female character, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter at all. He falls for her, grieves a bit after she's dead, and then is cheery and bright in the next episode and we never hear of her again.

Which, yes, was the great thing about Doctor Who this last season, although it was painful for the Doctor, for Martha and for a lot of viewers. They had problems connecting, not because Martha was Not As Good as Rose, but because she just wasn't her. And she shouldn't have to be and the Doctor wasn't asking her to be; it's just that when you lose someone like that, it can take a while before the past relationship stops haunting the present. Especially when the person in question is as poor at dealing with his emotions as the Doctor is.

Indeed, as I was saying about Bourne's Nikki, the fact that the Doctor doesn't fall in love with Martha and relate to her as he did to Rose is not a reflection on Martha's status as a worthwhile person.

[orange-crushed.livejournal.com]

I'm here through who_daily, hope you don't mind. I just wanted to say: a world of WORD.

Star Trek's a classic example of one-shot female characters who will never be seen again. And I think a lot of sci-fi and action TV shows have simply borrowed from that "one babe per planet" setup. (To Star Trek's credit, they did have Uhura, who rocked so hard.)

There's also TV series and movie franchises where the first actress is literally replaced with another actress, and we're essentially not supposed to notice. That happens less often, but it's still characteristic of an attitude that 'women are props.' UGH.

I love DW for many things, but not the least of which is exactly what you're saying: that female characters are real characters, real people with many facets; and that they're at the heart of the show.

:) All nicely said, on your part.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I'm here through who_daily, hope you don't mind. I just wanted to say: a world of WORD.

Thanks! And I never mind visitors -- feel free to stop by anytime that you like.

Star Trek's a classic example of one-shot female characters who will never be seen again. And I think a lot of sci-fi and action TV shows have simply borrowed from that "one babe per planet" setup. (To Star Trek's credit, they did have Uhura, who rocked so hard.)

*nods* And the myth of Original Trek is a lot more sexist than the series itself was, which is quite the relief when one watches the show, but not so much fun when interacting with fanboys.

There's also TV series and movie franchises where the first actress is literally replaced with another actress, and we're essentially not supposed to notice. That happens less often, but it's still characteristic of an attitude that 'women are props.' UGH.

Yeah, it really is.

I love DW for many things, but not the least of which is exactly what you're saying: that female characters are real characters, real people with many facets; and that they're at the heart of the show.

They really, really are. It's so refreshing and wonderful to watch.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

But isn't it the point of feminism that a female character's awesomeness shouldn't be determined by what the male lead thinks of her? I'm just sayin'.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

... yes?

I mean, I agree that that's part of why feminism exists, but I also said much the same above (Marie is not replaceable, even if Nikki kicks complete ass. And that's a good thing (and not a reflection on Nikki's status as a person -- her identity does not (and should not) need to be validated by having Bourne desire her).), so I'm not certain why your comment comes in the form of a question. I'm a bit confused.

[theamyrlin.livejournal.com]

You are so smart and awesome! I really love your posts about feminism. I think about making them, but then I always find a reason not to. You rock! (I really want to do a post on pop music and feminism featuring "Girlfriend" by Avril and the other similarly themed Pussycat Dolls song.)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

And I hope you get around to making those posts -- in respects to feminism, some pop music makes me shudder and some makes me cheer.

[theamyrlin.livejournal.com]

some pop music makes me shudder and some makes me cheer

Do you remember any of these examples off of the top of your head? I would love to have some other songs to include.

[kitkatbyte.livejournal.com]

Yes! I think that is part of why I wasn't very pro-Doctor/Martha, even though I like Martha fine as a character. If The Doctor started falling for every companion, it would make Rose seem unimportant. (And for the record, though I like Doctor/Rose, Doctor/TARDIS is my OTP.)

[stargazercmc.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't mind me crashing your LJ - spiletta42 pointed me in this direction after a recent discussion about feminism in fandom.

I agree with you completely about female actresses playing The Token Female Character. It does bother me incredibly, though, if the characters aren't allowed to explore their emotional side. But I can see from your discussion about Sam Carter that we're on the same page with that one as well - there's nothing more disheartening than watching people bash a strong female character because she isn't afraid to (OMG gasp!) have a relationship or wear a girly dress or revel in her femininity in some way.

Gah. I'm not wording this well. Just know that I agree with your assessment. (I should have just stuck with lurking.)