Female character flowchart

[Admiral Buzzkill]

http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-co...verthinking-It-Female-Character-Flowchart.png

The truth is that popular movies run in such narrow narrative channels that you might have trouble finding this much variation in the personalities and fates of male lead characters. Still, well-observed and funny.

 

[Mistral]

Hilarious.

 

[Geck]

I love the Michelle Rodriguez box

 

[Neroon]

Oh that is excellent!!

 

[Trekker4747]

I love the Michelle Rodriguez box

Who doesn't?



That's the hardest to follow most convoluted "flow chart" I've ever seen.

 

[DevilEyes]

Oh, this is brilliant - but also a bit unjust to a few of the female characters featured, such as Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley, who, according to this, do not qualify as strong female characters.

It would be interesting to use this to make a list of female characters who do meet the requirements...

edit: I just read an earlier article from the same website - "Why Strong female characters are bad for women" http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/ An excellent article with a misleading title.

I think the major problem here is that women were clamoring for “strong female characters,” and male writers misunderstood. They thought the feminists meant [Strong Female] Characters. The feminists meant [Strong Characters], Female.

So the feminists shouldn’t have said “we want more strong female characters.” They should have said “we want more WEAK female characters.” Not “weak” meaning “Damsel in Distress.” “Weak” meaning “flawed.”
Good characters, male or female, have goals, and they have flaws. Any character without flaws will be a cardboard cutout. Perhaps a sexy cardboard cutout, but two-dimensional nonetheless. And no, “Always goes for douchebags instead of the Nice Guy” (the flaw of Megan Fox’s character in Transformers) is not a real flaw. Men think women have that flaw, but most women avoid “Nice Guys” because they just aren’t that nice. So that doesn’t count.
So what flaws can female characters have? Uh, I don’t know. How about the same flaws a male character would have? This is especially important in comedies, because, nowadays, male writers are so clueless about writing funny women that female characters in sitcoms, sitcomish-movies, and comics tend to be the Smart, Gorgeous Snarky Voice of Reason in an unreasonable world. In other words, Not Flawed and Not Funny.

Totally agree, but when I say "Strong female characters", I always mean [Strong characters], Female: flawed, complex, interesting in their own right, and not written as a Mary Sue or an embodiment of a male fantasy.

 

[Thestral]

Very cute and funny, but I don't think even many male characters could measure up to those strict requirements for being "strong," so it seems a bit harsh.

 

[T'Girl]

such as Sarah Connor ... according to this, do not qualify as strong female characters.

But according to this flow chart Sarah is a mama grizzly.

 

[DevilEyes]

such as Sarah Connor ... according to this, do not qualify as strong female characters.

But according to this flow chart Sarah is a mama grizzly.

Well yeah, they put her in the lower part of the chart, with those who allegedly do not qualify as Strong female characters (see the upper part of the chart)! But when you look at that upper part of the chart, she actually fulfills every requirement for a Strong female character.

Can she carry her own story?
- Yes, and she does.

Is she three-dimensional?
- Yes.

Does she represent an idea?
- I don't think so. In any case, not more than any other character out there.

Does she have any flaws?
- Oh, yes.

Is she killed before the third act?
- What do you mean by...? Ah, before the end of the movie? No.

>> Strong female character

 

[Thestral]

Is she killed before the third act?
- What do you mean by...? Ah, before the end of the movie? No.

According to this flowchart then, does a female character qualify as "strong" if she meets all the other criteria and dies at the end of the movie? Maybe... Emma Thompson's character from Wit?

I don't like the implication that female characters who are part of a "team" can't be strong characters, whether they die or not; wouldn't that mean only one (femlae) character in a story can be a strong one?

Is it impossible to have a background character who's also a "strong" character or is this flowchart only interested in protagonists/primary characters?

 

[DevilEyes]

Is she killed before the third act?
- What do you mean by...? Ah, before the end of the movie? No.

According to this flowchart then, does a female character qualify as "strong" if she meets all the other criteria and dies at the end of the movie? Maybe... Emma Thompson's character from Wit?

By "before the third act" I take it that they mean that she dies much before the end of the movie, maybe before the climax and certainly before the resolution (and her death most likely serves as a catalyst for the actions of other characters). Like Rachel Dawes. A hero(ine)/protagonist of the movie can always die a tragic death at the end, it doesn't make them less of a protagonist/hero (maybe more so....).

"Is she a part of the team" is only for those characters that, in the chart, have already been relegated to the "cannot carry their own story/is not three-dimensional/represents an idea/has no flaws" group, which, according to the chart, does not belong to the Strong female character group. But, as I said, some of the women featured in that group actually do not belong there, like Sarah Connor.

 

[T'Girl]

But according to this flow chart Sarah is a mama grizzly.

Strong female character

In the first movie Sarah wasn't really a "strong" character, but in the second move she definaely was. In the first movie she was very reactive, letting events and the actions of others (Reese and the Terminator) select her actions. Only in the fourth act where she leads the Terminator into the hydraulic press machine was she deciding her own (and her baby's) fate.

No fate but what you make.

In the second movie Sarah was in full "strong female" character mode. Dialog by her son John indicated that she became increasing proactive during the interval between movies, which resulted in her incarceration.

Once she escaped (largely by herself) she was a prime mover of events through the remained of the movie.

(Incidently the alternate ending was much better for her.)

 

[Rett Mikhal]

Flow charts don't work in a gradient. What is at the top isn't disconnected from the bottom simply by distance.

Why is Mom listed as not having a family? Does she not have those three dimwit sons?

 

[Reverend]

In the first movie Sarah wasn't really a "strong" character, but in the second move she definaely was. In the first movie she was very reactive, letting events and the actions of others (Reese and the Terminator) select her actions. Only in the fourth act where she leads the Terminator into the hydraulic press machine was she deciding her own (and her baby's) fate.

I rather think that was partly the point of the film. You see her character develop over the course of the film from an ordinary waitress trying to land a well-off man who treats her with little regard to a strong, independent and very capable woman.
If she started out as a arse kicker (like say Vasquez from Aliens) then there wouldn't be much in the way of character development at all. In the second film she's more of a Cassandra type and her arc becomes how her son redeems her before she can become a Terminator herself (psychologically speaking.)

I do agree that some of those "not a strong female" examples are unjust. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say Harley Quinn meets their criteria. Mind you, not all female characters have to be strong, nor should they anymore than the male ones. It'd just be better if gender wasn't a consideration when writing strong protagonists, which is what they're really on about.

 

[DevilEyes]

But according to this flow chart Sarah is a mama grizzly.

Strong female character

In the first movie Sarah wasn't really a "strong" character, but in the second move she definaely was. In the first movie she was very reactive, letting events and the actions of others (Reese and the Terminator) select her actions. Only in the fourth act where she leads the Terminator into the hydraulic press machine was she deciding her own (and her baby's) fate.

No fate but what you make.

In the second movie Sarah was in full "strong female" character mode. Dialog by her son John indicated that she became increasing proactive during the interval between movies, which resulted in her incarceration.

Once she escaped (largely by herself) she was a prime mover of events through the remained of the movie.

(Incidently the alternate ending was much better for her.)

I think you missed the point made in this flowchart, and more explicitly in the article from the same website that the post with this flowchart links to.

To borrow a phrase from the article, Strong female character doesn't mean [Strong Female] Character, but [Strong Character], Female. In other words, not a character who is incredibly physically strong, intellectually superior, perfect and brilliant in every way, who kicks ass all over the place... but a three-dimensional, fully developed character with flaws, who isn't a Mary Sue or a male fantasy, who can carry her own story, who doesn't function primarily as an appendage to another (usually male) character, and who is interesting in her own right, not just because of the way her fate affects other characters.

And Sarah obviously is that kind of character. As Reverend noted above, the focus of Terminator 1 is Sarah's development from an ordinary waitress with no grand goals in life or an awful lot of self-esteem to this strong, capable, heroic woman we see at the end.

 

[Teelie]

The flow chart is funny but misleading and it does make strong characters who are female look weak. It could easily be done to male characters as well. Or given the standard cardboard cutout treatment where they lack any personality or interesting traits or likability to be "perfect."