i can't think of any within the last 50 years. Even in the 1990's and 1980's female characters in Western media were pretty much all girl bosses.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (106)
sorted by:
That's true, but she's still an object of his affection (and is an intentional critique against modern materialism among the elites versus traditional femininity)
That is true, but we also see the opposite of this with a character like the bloody mute in The Apostle, who was a male, and submissive to the will of the patriarchs to protect and guard the [spoiler]. He was shown no affection, had no affection, but was an interesting character because of his willingness to submit to carrying out his role at all costs.
But that also leads to an interesting juxtaposition in storytelling related to this...
Right, but you can still tell very interesting stories around these characters whether trust is involved or not.
A few good examples of this is Sarah-Sofie Boussnina's character in The Absent One, she was submissive to someone she loved, willing to do heinous and depraved acts on his behalf, because she trusted him, even though he did not actually care about her. Her character was quite fascinating for two-thirds of the film up until the final act, which became ridiculous as they wanted to turn her into a girlboss out for revenge. But before then, there are definitely women like that in real life.
Patricia Arquette's character in The Indian Runner perfectly encapsulates a realistic portrayal of someone willing to be submissive for what she thought was love, even though it was to a completely unhinged character played by Viggo Mortensen. And in many ways, the logical conclusion of that relationship, had he stuck around, would have been similar to what happened in the film Kalifornia, where Juliette Lewis' character was completely submissive to Brad Pitt's character up to a point where, yes, she became prey (which ironically, was when she stopped being submissive to him).
But how the story resolves or how it unfolds involving these submissive characters is completely dependent on the intentionality of the writers.
Most writers these days do not have the intention to display these characters as having good traits while being submissive, even though ironically Sevigny's character in American Pyscho was the only character who was not reprehensibly amoral/immoral, and could be considered the only "good" person in the film.
It's entirely possible to write good, submissive characters with strong traits and qualities, without them being prey (like Boussnina's character in The Absent One), but that's not really something they are interested in. And sadly, most Westerners have become accustomed to thinking that submissiveness, femininity, and being docile are negative traits due to cultural programming.
I don't think The Bloody Mute character (from how you describe it) is a character in a normal story. Hell, that might not even be a submissive, but a martyr, like Christ. I think that's a whole different concept than submission.
As you describe Boussnina's character, well, I think you disproved your own point. It didn't actually try to espouse the concept of submission, but destroy it with a girl boss ending.
that we agree on, but it's why I'd prefer a focus on femininity rather than "submission" because of it's intense negative connotation. it also really doesn't fit because submission is what would happen at the end of the story. It's what happens when the woman can finally, safely, trust her man. It's post conflict.
Nah, definitely not a martyr. He kills to protect, and does the beck and call of the patriarchs for protection purposes. A total submissive. I was interested in his backstory, but sadly the movie never explored that aspect of the character.
Yes, and no... her being a submissive is showcased in flashbacks to her past, and a tragic event that eventually led to her not being submissive anymore, which is what then led to the ridiculous girlboss ending. However, the broader point was that the character was completely interesting before she became the girlboss; so the movie had a good hook with the audience trying to figure out what happened -- and in that regard, the writing was well done because it showed how a submissive person could do heinous things for what they believed to be love.
The girlboss revenge nonsense was just tacked on to be progressive, and while I haven't looked, I'm pretty sure most people who would be critical of the film probably also found the third act to be overdone and ridiculous.
That actually reminds me of the ending of the film Martyrs, which does hook into that point... but not in a copacetic way. And yes, Zardoz also follows a similar concept, of the woman becoming submissive post-conflict.
But, it can also work very well for maintaining interest and being a positive character trait in dire circumstances during the conflict it self. A good example is Lane Carroll in The Crazies (the original from George Romero), who basically left all the decision making up to Will MacMillan's character, and essentially submitted to every decision he made. In this way, her character made sense and became endearing because she was doing what was required to survive, trusting her life in the hands of someone else. But it made sense, because without him, she was not going to make it (spoiler: she still didn't make it, but she wouldn't have come as far as she did without being as submissive as she was to MacMillan's character).
I can't go into it any further because I didn't see any of these movies. I can't counter, nor add to, your points.