Advertise here: Contact FM.

The Boys Club
June 14, 2009 10:50 PM Subscribe

Pixar has released ten feature films thus far, and none of them have had a female main character. This has not gone unnoticed. In fact, it has been the subject of commentary for years. But when Linda Holmes at NPR weighs in on the subject (with thoughtful comments), some of the counter-blogs get downright nasty.
posted by hippybear (647 comments total) 27 users marked this as a favorite

Seriously? What are the chances? Was this just on digg or something?
posted by rkent at 10:52 PM on June 14

Jeez. More links in this one. Maybe they should be migrated down the art's post.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:53 PM on June 14

Yeah, damn. I spent 30 minutes digging up links and got scooped by a one-link post. I don't read digg, so I have no idea why this happened. :(
posted by hippybear at 10:54 PM on June 14

I'm a lazy slob :-)

Mods, please feel free to keep this one and remove my one.

(though, and this is possibly just a personal style thing, I wouldn't have gone with the "versus" style)
posted by Artw at 10:56 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

So do you guys owe each other a Coke or something now?
posted by Senor Cardgage at 10:56 PM on June 14

I had the better title though. I spent fifteen minutes on that.
posted by Artw at 10:57 PM on June 14

Reposting from the other thread:

I agree. Pixar needs to make a movie in which the main character is female.

To their credit, the female character that have appeared in many of their films have been complex, independent characters whose personalities weren't primarily based in their gender, although a large part of their purpose in the film was defined by their relationships with the male characters, and that should also be addressed. But Elastigirl is as strong a female character as I have ever seen on film, and I sort of wish the movie had been about her. For about a third of Th Incredibles, it is, and I think that section of the film is superb.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:59 PM on June 14 [9 favorites has favorites]

Who cares about the characters, these are mega productions from major corporations which represent nothing else but the triumph of invested capital; this is the meaningful content of every film, whatever plot the production team may have selected.

Actually, Adorno would be even more upset if the other post stayed and this left, the domination of a mere four minutes of posting time over the accumulated labor of dignified research. That, yes that would represent the true triumph of invested capital. Also Jazz sucks or something, I'm not very good at this.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:00 PM on June 14 [5 favorites has favorites]

I only just found out that Violet was Sarah Vowell. That's pretty cool.
posted by Artw at 11:01 PM on June 14

ArtW: your post WAS first, and your title is better... I'm happy to migrate all this to your thread...
posted by hippybear at 11:02 PM on June 14

Keepin' this one. Thanks for being a sport, Artw.
posted by cortex at 11:02 PM on June 14

No.
posted by Artw at 11:02 PM on June 14

I wonder if they have a gender problem or a market problem.
posted by adipocere at 11:02 PM on June 14

Was just talking to someone yesterday about this exact thing. I hate to complain about Pixar, because the movies they make are phenomenal and groundbreaking, but it is really hard not to notice that their films are consistently male-centric. It is disappointing to identify most with the supporting characters, extras, or females that are dead before the opening credits roll.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:02 PM on June 14 [2 favorites has favorites]

No.

(that was to hippybears request, which I note was cruelly denied by mods, as it should be.)
posted by Artw at 11:03 PM on June 14

Has there been any main character in a feature animation film that was black? The closest opportunity Disney ever had was perhaps The Lion King, where the main characters are animals.

There certainly haven't been any gay or lesbian main characters. That just wouldn't fly as family fare.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:04 PM on June 14 [3 favorites has favorites]

I so do not get artw's post's title.
posted by lumensimus at 11:04 PM on June 14

Elastagirl doesn't count?

(Besides which, the real star of "The Incredibles" was Edna Mode.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:04 PM on June 14 [9 favorites has favorites]

I am usually pretty sensitive to this sort of thing (don't get me started on Disney Princesses) and just realized I'd never noticed the lack of female main characters in Pixar movies--probably because the female characters they had were so awfully strong and likeable it didn't immediately occur to me.

It would be great to see a Pixar movie with a female lead, but commentators in one of the links make a good point: most of the Pixar staff are male, and they're writing what they know. It's probably not even occurring to them to make a female-lead movie. Not out of some subconscious gendered belief that women characters should only act as foils for the male character's problems (seriously, they have some of the best female characters in any films today), but just because they're dudes and so when they come up with ideas it's about dudes.
posted by schroedinger at 11:05 PM on June 14 [17 favorites has favorites]

Can't say I'm in disagreement with the idea of Pixar making a movie with a girl in the lead - which would hopefully go on to replace that wretched CGI Tinkerbell movie in my daughters heart but here's a question: Which of Pixars other movies would you prefer they hadn't made?
posted by Artw at 11:06 PM on June 14 [5 favorites has favorites]

Repost from the other thread

Word.

Pixar does female characters well: Dory and Peach in Finding Nemo, Jessie in Toy Story 2, the Parr women in The Incredibles, the ant royalty in A Bug's Life...they're all great. But none of them have their name above the title, and I can't help but believe that when Pixar makes that leap, they're going to do it in a way that doesn't automatically turn their movie into a girl's movie, because they are already so good at making movies that knock everyone out equally.

And it's my hope that when they do it, everyone doesn't make a big freaking deal out of how it's a Pixar film about A Girl, because that will just be beside the point.
posted by padraigin at 11:08 PM on June 14 [7 favorites has favorites]

I'm curious if anyone knows box office statistics of films with men as the main character versus women..but honestly I can't see a Pixar movie done amazingly, the way they normally them not making money.
posted by mattsweaters at 11:08 PM on June 14

I so do not get artw's post's title.

Princesses letter, Princess of Mars (rumoured Pixar project), Cars 2 (now being made) - PRINCESS OF CARS 2!!!!
posted by Artw at 11:08 PM on June 14 [2 favorites has favorites]

Which of Pixars other movies would you prefer they hadn't made?

Cars is probably their least creative work. Given ant colonies are lead by a queen, the okay A Bug's Life was a golden opportunity to have a female lead, without risking the wrath of the anti-PC police.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:10 PM on June 14 [6 favorites has favorites]

There certainly haven't been any gay or lesbian main characters. That just wouldn't fly as family fare.

They could adapt And Tango Makes Three...
posted by Artw at 11:11 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

Which of Pixars other movies would you prefer they hadn't made?

Huh? First of all who's to say that the other movies couldn't be made? As someone mentioned above, the Incredible could have been more about Elastigirl and her dumb lug husband, rather then about Mr. Incredible and his nagging wife. Toy Story could have had a Barbe as the main character, Finding Nemo could have been about a mother looking for her son, etc.

Given this crazy interview with the director of Wall-E I'm not surprised.
posted by delmoi at 11:11 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

The comments section on the last link are amazing...granted, some of the comments are just downright awful, but many of the responses and rebuttals = awesome.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:12 PM on June 14

Cars is probably their least creative work.

Aaaaah! But Cars is the one that sells the toys. Has always sold the toys. Take Cars out and Disney would probably have put the thumbscrews on Pixar to just turn out Toy Story sequels earlier, and you don't get The Incredibles, Up or WALL*E.
posted by Artw at 11:13 PM on June 14

I am perplexed by Pixar's lack of female leads, now that I think about it. John Lasseter is one of the foremost proponents of Hayao Miyazaki films, many of which have non-princess-substantial female leads. I wonder how this hasn't translated to Pixar films very well.

I understand that the upcoming The Bear and the Bow features a female lead, but she's a princess (I'm hoping a princess more in the sense that Princess Mononoke is princess, and less like Ariel or Snow White).

Pixar has a way of surprising me with every film they make, so I'm hoping they'll pull through.

Did anybody notice the kid from Up was Asian - but Pixar has been silent about it? Did you notice that it features an elderly widower as its hero? Not the female lead some were looking for, but it's progress.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:15 PM on June 14 [5 favorites has favorites]

Well, you can't really argue that Pixar's movie's male-to-female-protagonist-ratio is skewed, that's obvious. One of those link theorizes that the reason most of those movies feature male protagonists is that the writers and directors are overwhelmingly male. I think that says more about the field of computer animation (or regular old animation) more than it says about Pixar.

I think the reason these bloggers are criticizing Pixar is because they feel there is a dearth of movies that appeal to young girls without resorting to the problematic princess formula (every disney princess movie ever). While this is true to a large degree, it seems myopic when there is also a dearth of movies that appeal to young boys without resorting to the problematic asskicking-dogooder formula (every superhero movie ever).

In the big view of things, I think Pixar does a pretty damn good job of appealing to both genders without pandering to either. Their movies tend to explore human-themes that apply to anyone, regardless of their gender: growing old without fulfilling one's dreams (Up), living in the face of isolation and unrequited love (Wall-E), being an outcast becuase of one's passion (Ratatouille).

While it would be nice for Pixar to mix it up a bit, there are worse offenders in the field of children's entertainment when it come to gender inequity.
posted by arcolz at 11:16 PM on June 14 [14 favorites has favorites]

What movies does Pixar have in the pipeline? I can find mention of Toy Story 3, Cars 2, Newt, The Bear and the Bow, and two live action movies, John Carter From Mars and 1906. I can't find a single site that lists all of these, surprisingly, so there might be more that have been announced but I haven't seen.

Of the above, only The Bear and the Bow appears to star a female.
posted by painquale at 11:16 PM on June 14

Finding Nemo could have been about a mother looking for her son

And it would have been a nice contrast to the classic "mom dies at the beginning of the movie" trope, which it chose to follow instead.

Of course, as a mom sensitive to the way these things are portrayed, I can't help but imagine the grief that would have arisen from a movie where Coral yelled at her fatherless son, causing him to rebel and get caught by a diver. BAD FISH MOTHER! You will be vilified by mommybloggers and right wing politicians!

Seriously, it would have taken a whole different weight for a lot of people with that seemingly small change in plot.
posted by padraigin at 11:17 PM on June 14 [15 favorites has favorites]

Aaaaah! But Cars is the one that sells the toys. Has always sold the toys. Take Cars out and Disney would probably have put the thumbscrews on Pixar to just turn out Toy Story sequels earlier, and you don't get The Incredibles, Up or WALL*E.

Good point. You drive a hard bargain, no pun intended. I'd probably scrap A Bug's Life.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:17 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

mattsweaters: Doing quick stuff with IMDB. Rapidly going from the IMDB top 50
2 have female leads, Aliens and Amelie.
posted by sien at 11:18 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

*male-to-female-protagonist-ratio isn't skewed

oi.
posted by arcolz at 11:19 PM on June 14

Did anybody notice the kid from Up was Asian - but Pixar has been silent about it? Did you notice that it features an elderly widower as its hero?

Yes, and yes. And neither of those facts prevented my blonde, blue-eyed six year old daughter from having her first truly emotional film experience. Empathy is pretty boundless, as I learned again as I held her while she sobbed during Up.

But I do feel that it would be nice for her to get a chance to sympathize with a true Pixar heroine, just the same.
posted by padraigin at 11:22 PM on June 14 [3 favorites has favorites]

Huh? First of all who's to say that the other movies couldn't be made? As someone mentioned above, the Incredible could have been more about Elastigirl and her dumb lug husband, rather then about Mr. Incredible and his nagging wife.

Brad Bird gets the memo from above, demanding the change. Sulks. Hacks up movie to make change. Resulting Frankensteins monster is critical and commercial faliure. WALL*E is never made. Enviromental message fails to get across. World destroyed.

That's what you get for cheating
posted by Artw at 11:26 PM on June 14 [2 favorites has favorites]

Do you know why the Pixar movies are so consistently good? Because they don't care for this sort of shit.

Whoever thinks of complaining about this should STFU and, as punishment, be forced to watch all Disney Princess movies. Twice.

Also, did Spielberg ever cast a female lead? Oh wait, "The Color Purple". I rest my case.
posted by Skeptic at 11:27 PM on June 14 [19 favorites has favorites]

Whoever thinks of complaining about this should STFU and, as punishment, be forced to watch all Disney Princess movies. Twice.

I think a lot of the people complaining about this are doing so because they've watched all the Disney Princess movies way more than twice, dude.
posted by padraigin at 11:29 PM on June 14 [10 favorites has favorites]

Fairies count as princesses, right? the horror, the horror...
posted by Artw at 11:30 PM on June 14

Like jabberjaw said, if they want to learn how to make a movie about a girl that isn't a movie about being a girl, they just have to look at Miyazaki. His leads are girls when they don't have to be girls and they do heroic stuff like saving people and visiting strange worlds. Even his movies about guys often feature strong females (Fio from Porco Rosso kicks ass) and he even gives us female baddies for the girls to spar with. Thanks, Miyazaki, for giving us a group of knee-skinning girls to cheer on.
posted by Foam Pants at 11:31 PM on June 14 [6 favorites has favorites]

WALL*E is never made.

And this is... a bad thing?

(I do not get why people love that movie so much. Everything before EVE shows up is awesome, I'll agree, but it goes off the rails after that.)
posted by asterix at 11:31 PM on June 14 [8 favorites has favorites]

Also, did Spielberg ever cast a female lead? Oh wait, "The Color Purple". I rest my case.

I'm afraid you're going to have to spell this one out for me.
posted by asterix at 11:32 PM on June 14 [4 favorites has favorites]

POSSIBLE UP SPOILER ALERT, although not much of a spoiler.

Okay, am I the only one who thought it was weird that the little boy in UP was upset that his dad wasn't going to be there to give him his badge... and that, as he stood on the stage all sad, his mom was just sitting blankly in the audience, not taking part in the ceremony? I mean, what, she's not good enough to stand on the stage and hand him his badge? Is the Wilderness stage like a Catholic altar, which no woman may sully with her presence? Because... I don't know... I thought that was weird. I get that they wanted to have the old guy come in there, but it seemed to imply that the mom was completely unimportant and clueless about what was important to her kid -- or, again, just not good enough to stand on a stage and hand him his badge.

Also, in RATATOUILLE, it did bother me that there was a potentially strong female character, but that after talking about how hard it was for her to try to make it in a man's world, and how she wants to be a leading chef, she winds up becoming no more than the love interest of the guy who's going to get to be the big success, and all her ambition seems to just vanish into the wind...because apparently being the girlfriend of the lead is better than having a career of your own. Or something. Anyway, it was not a positive message.

All that being said, I've loved a lot of Pixar movies, but yeah... does their first female lead REALLY have to be a princess??? Sigh.

Oh, and asterix, yeah. WALL-E. Whatever. The first part is brilliant, and then the part where it turns into a completely aimless other movie is... not.
posted by OolooKitty at 11:35 PM on June 14 [14 favorites has favorites]

Do you know why the Pixar movies are so consistently good? Because they don't care for this sort of shit.

Well, ignoring the STFU thing for a bit (which was a bit silly of you), I think you've pretty much got it there. Brad Bird kept The Incredibles alive as a projetc for years, across several companies, trying to get it made. It was an incredibly personal project for him, largely because he empathised with the Mr. Incredible character. Now, if hypothetical exec guy comes along ands says "actually we want this to be about Elastigirl, and can you make Mr. Incredible kind of a dumbass, you know, like the dad in every advertising family ever" what happens? You cut the soul out of the thing, kill it dead.

Which is to say, yeah, Disney/Pixar being overly concerned with some kind of quota would be a bad thing.
posted by Artw at 11:37 PM on June 14 [8 favorites has favorites]

Also The Color Purple is a rocking movie. I have to say that Oprah of all people was fucking awesome in it. Don't be dismissing The Color Purple.
posted by Artw at 11:38 PM on June 14 [11 favorites has favorites]

Blazecock Pileon has a point though, I'd be all for trashing A Bugs Life to make Girl X movie. That one just never really grabbed me.
posted by Artw at 11:44 PM on June 14

IMDB says that Brad Bird's next project is "1906", scheduled for three years from now. "A young man discovers a series of secrets and lies that left San Francisco highly vulnerable to the fires that engulfed it in the aftermath of the historical 1906 earthquake."

Though I wouldn't have phrased it quite the same way, I think I agree with Skeptic. Pixar is trying to make good movies, and they are making good movies. I don't think it matters whether they're satisfying quotas as long as the movies continue to be good.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:44 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

The problem is the Hollywood movie-making machine is not geared (literally!) towards making films with anything other than a white, male, straight lead. For example, I think Samuel Jackson said (about ten years ago) in an interview that at any one time there is one black male dramatic lead in Hollywood, and that he felt lucky that it was his turn. When was the last time there was ever a thoughtful role for a female character in Hollywood? Sigourney Weaver in Aliens doesn't count. The Hollywood system has a long way to go. It would be great, for example, if Asians actually showed up on the screen at all.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:44 PM on June 14 [1 favorite has favorites]

What OolooKitty said about Rataouille. I lost all my sympathy for Linguini when it turned out that he really was just a charmed nebbish and the woman who deserved the success had to ride on his coattails. What did she see in him?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:44 PM on June 14 [2 favorites has favorites]

Sure, Pixar's box office hits seem to be mostly male leads.
Ghibli's box office hits seem to be mostly female leads.

Seems to me that if you make a fantastic movie, the gender does not matter?
posted by lundman at 11:44 PM on June 14 [6 favorites has favorites]

As I understand it, the Pixar princess in this movie is not the typical Disney story about a poor/beautiful girl who is rescued by handsome prince and given the life of luxury. Instead it's a girl who already has the life of a princess and says, "Fuck that princess shit; I'd like to be an archer."

So yeah, technically, there are princesses in both, but they're not necessarily equivalent. I trust Pixar to make a princess of the kick-ass variety rather than the typical Cinderella bullshit.
posted by stefanie at 11:54 PM on June 14 [2 favorites has favorites]

The thing is that a bunch of the Pixar stuff is about a male lead, and his younger/dumber male sidekick, and his older male mentor, and five goofy interesting male supporting characters, and one female character. It's not just that they are male leads, but that they live in a social world populated mostly by male characters.

(Of course, Pixar is great, and their female characters are often good and balanced and funny etc. But why not slot in female voices for some of the incidental characters? Or have a female villain? Or a female older mentor? etc You could slot these in with hardly any change in the dialogue. That's what gets me about this. We say "they're writing what they know, they're ll guys". But come on, they're writing about robots, intergalactic space ships, life as a fish, or a nightmare monster, etc FFS. They have imaginations. They can write female main characters.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:57 PM on June 14 [16 favorites has favorites]

Okay, am I the only one who thought it was weird that the little boy in UP was upset that his dad wasn't going to be there to give him his badge... and that, as he stood on the stage all sad, his mom was just sitting blankly in the audience, not taking part in the ceremony? I mean, what, she's not good enough to stand on the stage and hand him his badge?

But then the movie doesn't make a lick of sense. There's a parallelism between Carl's loss of Ellie and Russell's loss of his father, and their equal desires to prove themselves to the lost person in their life. And thus there's an emotional connection between the two. If his mom were handing out the badge and Carl wasn't, then you lose the emotional connection there -- Carl becomes nothing more than a bystander when he should be integral, and the final parallelism where Carl gives Russell SOMETHING I WILL NOT DISCLOSE AS IT IS A BIT OF A SPOILER looks tacked on and stupid. And honestly, if you put her on stage, Mom would look tacked on, too.
posted by dw at 11:58 PM on June 14 [5 favorites has favorites]

Do you know why the Pixar movies are so consistently good? Because they don't care for this sort of shit.

I toss a coin ten times, and it comes up heads every time. Why? "Because the coin doesn't care" is not an acceptable explanation.

Half of humans are women, but 0% of Pixar's heroes are. Obviously they do care about the sex of their main characters, although they may not be fully aware of how or why they care.
posted by stammer at 11:58 PM on June 14 [55 favorites has favorites]

And for the record: people who are paying attention to this ARE NOT ADVOCATING QUOTAS and ARE NOT ADVOCATING MAKING BAD MOVIES. Pixar is a company we like, whose movies we like, etc. They are smart and good enough to make good movies about female characters.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:01 AM on June 15 [17 favorites has favorites]

Everything before EVE shows up is awesome, I'll agree, but it goes off the rails after that.

*Foreign contaminent*

/starts scrubbing furiously
posted by DreamerFi at 12:02 AM on June 15 [49 favorites has favorites]

Inspiration is not a coin toss.
posted by Artw at 12:04 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

Inspiration is not a coin toss.

I think stammer's point was that inspiration is not a fair coin toss.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:07 AM on June 15

dw: Of course, you're right about the necessity of Carl doing this, because of the parallel and the emotional drive of the plot. But it still bugged me that his mom was just sitting there waving. I would have rather had her not be there at all than to have her be there being completely useless and ineffective.
posted by OolooKitty at 12:08 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

or, stammer's point was that a tossed coin is not inspired.
posted by hippybear at 12:11 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Exactly. I love Pixar movies, which is why I'm *more* disappointed that they haven't had a decent female lead than when other kids' movies leave girls out of the picture. I don't expect anything but the same old "girls wear pink, boys wear anything, girls like to nurture, boys can do anything" attitude from the other animation houses. But I expect better from Pixar.

I'm convinced that given their successful track record at making endearing, adventurous characters I can identify with, they'd do a great job with a female lead.

I once had the opportunity to buttonhole a Pixar animator over drinks, and told him I'd love to see another Jessie, Elastigirl, Dory or Colette, only leading the show instead of providing backup to yet another boy.
posted by harriet vane at 12:13 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

OK, that "exactly!" was for stammer
posted by harriet vane at 12:14 AM on June 15

Has there been any main character in a feature animation film that was black?

Disney's upcoming The Princess and the Frog.

Also, check out Michel Ocelot's Kirikou and the Sorceress and Kirikou and the Wild Beast (trailer).
posted by Karlos the Jackal at 12:15 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

20 years ago, Disney was getting a lot of grief for the princess movies, culminating with Little Mermaid, where you had a flat and completely helpless Ariel who had to be saved by the human man she was in love with. When would Disney finally come out with a strong female lead who didn't need saving.

Two years later, they released Beauty and the Beast. And finally, the criticism waned.

Brenda Chapman wrote the screenplay for Bear and the Bow. Her first writing credit? Beauty and the Beast. Also, she's the first woman to direct an animated feature (Prince of Egypt).

Somehow, I don't think the "princess" in Bear and the Bow is going to need rescuing by some square-jawed guy.
posted by dw at 12:22 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

With films like these a lot of the decisions are based on calculated mass appeal, hence the similar plot structures etc.

Someone at the studio has probably discovered that while almost all girls will accept carefully-crafted male protagonists (largely due to having little choice and being brought up to tolerate this), many boys won't fully accept female protagonists, and so after crunching the numbers opting for a male lead is seen as the safer bet.

Pixar seems to push against some conventions in small ways in each of their films, but so far has played along with letting male characters dominate.
posted by malevolent at 12:24 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Has there been any main character in a feature animation film that was black?

Let's just say there wasn't.
posted by dw at 12:25 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

I can't find the full story, but Wikipedia has a brief mention of how Mae Jemison, the first African American woman in space, was inspired by Lt Uhura in Star Trek.

Fictional characters can broadens kids' minds - they see someone like them doing something cool, and assume that they can do it too. Why should little girls miss out, when they've got nothing but pretty princesses to look up to? Why should black kids miss out, when they've got nothing but sidekicks to look up to?
posted by harriet vane at 12:27 AM on June 15 [9 favorites has favorites]

Why isn't the movie called EVE then?
posted by harriet vane at 12:33 AM on June 15 [10 favorites has favorites]

I can see why people want films which have the kind of female protagonists we're talking about here.

I can't really see why Pixar needs to be the one to make them. It's enough that they make good movies, even if they tend to gender monotonicity in their films. Let somebody else who doesn't tend that way and who's also skilled make this other movie Linda Holmes and others are talking about. Nobody's stopping this from happening and it'll be much more likely to turn out better than lobbying artists for a particular social goal.
posted by namespan at 12:39 AM on June 15

I understand the argument that Pixar is out to make good movies, regardless of quotas. I agree, and I commend them for it!

But, if anybody can make a great movie with a female lead, it's Pixar. They can take crap ideas and make them golden; they can take random characters and make them work.

WALL-E was made because some Pixar guys were sitting in a room saying "Hey, let's make a movie about a robot. In a post-apocalyptic wasteland. That ... uh ... falls in love." If they can make a great, compelling story about a Johnny 5 rip-off (tongue in cheek), they can make a great, compelling story about a female lead.

You can't tell me that Pixar is unable to make a movie about a fish-mom whose song gets scooped up; or a movie about a girl monster and a little boy; or a movie about a superhero mother. I understand that these aren't the movies that were conceived and made into things that we love; but you have to agree that if Pixar put its mind to it, these movies would have rocked.
posted by jabberjaw at 12:43 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

What people forget about Finding Nemo is that Amphiprion ocellaris & A. percula - the two species Nemo could be - are both protandrous hermaphrodites.

Ever notice that bit at the beginning when Nemo's mother is lost? Notice how Marlin is bigger than, or at least much the same size as, Coral?

Yup, that's right - Pixar have already snuck at least one "non-traditional family" into their films.
posted by Pinback at 12:55 AM on June 15 [35 favorites has favorites]

I can't really see why Pixar needs to be the one to make them.

I'd love it if all the animation houses made them. But I think it's easier to ask a group known for producing quality entertainment to stretch themselves to be a little more inclusive than it is to convince the groups who make lowest-common-denominator, shovel-more-merchandise, stereotyped filler to learn first how to write good plots, then good characters, then finally to be more inclusive.

Plus, if Pixar starts doing it, then it's another benchmark that other producers will have to live up to, and (in theory) should help diversity across the board.
posted by harriet vane at 12:56 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I dunno. I agree with the basic point here -- that Pixar needs more female leads -- but I don't think the problem belongs so much to Pixar as it does the industry as a whole. In an industry where maybe less than 10 percent of movies follow the Bechdel Rule, and where most of the leads are youngish white men, I feel a little weird getting up Pixar's ass. We're talking about a company that, as someone mentioned upthread, just made an adventure movie whose leads were an elderly widower and a fat Asian kid, and which fairly consistently makes movies with multidimensional, compelling female characters,* so getting on their case for hitting a triple instead of a home run feels a little icky to me. Sure, we should expect more from a company that we know can make quality films, but, y'know, let's have a little faith that they're not planning Tinkerbell's Purity Ball.

*Though Oolookitty's comment re: Ratatouille is definitely true.
posted by hifiparasol at 1:06 AM on June 15 [8 favorites has favorites]

Posts like this serve to remind me what an ephemeral distraction, at best, MeFi is. Thanks for keeping it amusingly unreal, hippybear!
posted by paulsc at 1:08 AM on June 15

Am I the only person who is really, really bothered by the constant use of "gender" to refer to the sex of humans? I took Intro to Mandatory Wretched Pseudointellectual Therapeutic "Studies" so I know the idea behind it but that doesn't stop it from annoying my Latinist's sensibilities.

I'm not offended by the idea that sex is something you perform rather than something you're born into. Had I studied Latin's deep and manly throb rather than the effete mincing ways of the French this may have turned out differently.

Also, more Edna Mode, please.
posted by Wolof at 1:13 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

Each of Pixar's movies is a BIG, and very LONG process. They start with really good scripts, usually written by a man (probably strongly influenced by his own experiences) who also directs/produces/draws/etc. They just need more female writers/director/producers/artists... do they have any at the top level?
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:26 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Come to think of it, Eve is a main character. Wall-E would have been nothing as a story without her.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:28 AM on June 15

OK, I first posted without reading the linked-to article, which is more thoughtful than I expected. Nevertheless, my main point stands: let Pixar be Pixar! As others have pointed out, if you really need feisty female leads, go see some Miyazaki.

Why haven't Pixar cast female leads yet? I consider there are two reasons:

a) In case you haven't noticed, Pixar makes surprisingly old-fashioned movies. Nostalgia is a recurrent theme in Pixar films, and there are continuous references to adventure films from the 30s to the 60s. Guess what? Those classic films didn't have a great many female leads. Inserting a female lead would almost certainly feel contrived. Instead, Pixar makes the next best thing, which is to introduce female characters who, are unfailingly more intelligent, stronger-willed and more articulate than the male leads. Which leads us to the second point:

b) Bird and Lasseter may be somewhat intimidated by women. Those are two HUGE nerds we are talking about, after all...

This said, I must also admit in "Ratatouille" I was also disappointed with Colette's sudden crush for Linguini. Come on, girl, you surely can do better than a dweeb who's outwitted and outcharmed by his pet rat!
posted by Skeptic at 1:32 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

revmitcz-
yeah. Everyone here (mostly) seems to agree that pixar's problem is not that they can't make compelling, complex, and strong female characters, because they can, and have done so to great effect in the past. The problem is specifically that these very good female characters have never been given first billing in the plot. A protagonist really is very different from a supporting role, even if they have near the same amount of screen time, and the support ends up actually saving the day; the primary difference being that their character is still necessarily defined by their relationship (even if heroic) to the protagonist. It's not a huge gap, yeah, but it's one pixar hasn't crossed yet.
This is not to say i'm totally sure they should, either. Or at least, I wish they would, but not at the expense of quality - if they do, I would want it to happen because a girl is the right protagonist for the story that they are trying to tell, not because they feel like they need to make a movie about a girl.
posted by The Esteemed Doctor Bunsen Honeydew at 1:47 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Am I the only person who disliked Ratatouille?
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:50 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

A similar thing that annoys my friend to no end: practically every Pixar movie is a buddy comedy.

Also, Edna Mode was voiced by a man (who also happened to write and direct the movie).

I have trouble getting riled up by anything that Pixar does as their movies are good at worst. When they're good, they're absolutely fantastic. Much like studio Ghibli.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:01 AM on June 15

I feel a little weird getting up Pixar's ass.

The curse of high expectations. No-one expects Golan-Globus or Mel Gibson or whoever to be what you might call enlightened, but Pixar are percieved as clueful enough about all sorts of stuff that it's all the more dissapointing when they're bad about something you'd think it would be easier to be clueful about.

b) Bird and Lasseter may be somewhat intimidated by women. Those are two HUGE nerds we are talking about, after all...

Apart from being unfair stereotyping of male "nerds", even if it's true, so fucking what? I mean, I thought feminist thinking had effectively demolished the "Oh the boys can't cope with it so don't let the women near them" trope adequately that anyone with half a brain would understand it.
posted by rodgerd at 2:01 AM on June 15 [7 favorites has favorites]

Am I the only person who disliked Ratatouille?
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:50 AM on June 15 [+] [!]

Apparently not, judging by this thread. I'm completely fascinated by it myself, especially given it's troubled production (alluded to here). IIRC, the Pinkava version used Remy as a catalyst in a romance between Linguini and Collette, sort of like a little ratty (and bipedal, and clothed) Cupid. I would LOVE to see an original story reel or script, just for comparison's sake.
posted by maryh at 2:07 AM on June 15

You people and your gender stereotypes! You've all just assumed wall-e was male. It was actually the beautiful story of a pair of lesbian robots, it was incredibly progressive, pixar is way ahead of you.
posted by phyle at 2:12 AM on June 15 [24 favorites has favorites]

Okay, most Pixar leads are typical post-90s male leads -- they're slightly doltish. The main character is allowed to, and indeed ought to have, far more flaws. Frankly, the supporting females in Pixar films are too kick-ass to be leads. If you were to transplant them into the lead, it would be an awful awful story about this awesome kick-ass heroine who can do no wrong. So that's out. The other option is to introduce flaws. With males, the choices are pretty easy and well established. Female flaws? It's a really really tight line to walk. I don't think many people would have accepted WALL*E as a female lead -- silly infatuations and constantly being a damsel in distress probably would have been nixed early. I would love a film like that, but it definitely would have risked "Pixar's first movie with a female lead has her exemplify stereotypes!!" Miyazaki's Spirited Away I think was the one film mentioned that was able to have a full female lead, flaws and all.

I'm not sure this is the true reason. But I could totally understand if, instead of trying to carefully avoid landmines, instead of trying to delicately balance an interesting story with "acceptable" flaws, Pixar says screw it and just goes with their flawed and loveable male leads.
posted by FuManchu at 2:44 AM on June 15 [15 favorites has favorites]

rodgerd I consider myself a male nerd who's stereotypically intimidated by women. So, I was hardly unfair...
posted by Skeptic at 2:44 AM on June 15

getting on their case for hitting a triple instead of a home run feels a little icky to me.

Exactly. Except the thing is, from an entertainment quality standpoint, they are hitting home runs. It's only from the standpoint of a broad enough social agenda that you can put them down at "only a triple." Meanwhile, they're playing a game most everybody admires and likes to watch, but we're complaining about the gender composition of the team.

And maybe this is the basic problem I have with this: it should be perfectly acceptable for a studio to remain focused on some subset of the available range of protagonists and stories. It's a practical point of view, given that even if everybody in the world happened to agree on what constituted the set of worthwhile social outcomes that can be served by film, no one studio would be able to encompass them all. But it's also an issue of personal and artistic freedom. If for some reason it fits the constitution or preferences of people at Pixar to predominately feature leads of one gender, this should be OK, particularly if they do such a great job at it.

It's not that I don't think the social agenda here is worthwhile. There is a problem if there are industry-wide barriers that prevent good stories with female leads from being made, but I think investing in studios that are interested in doing that kind of work well is less compulsory and artistically problematic than buttonholing a particular studio with an issue they haven't found compelling enough to take up on their own.

If they can make a great, compelling story about a Johnny 5 rip-off (tongue in cheek), they can make a great, compelling story about a female lead.

This doesn't necessarily follow.

You can't tell me that Pixar is unable to make a movie... about a superhero mother.

They arguably made this movie, as Elastigirl was hardly a prop rather than a full-fledged protagonist, but Artw artfully covered one potential problematic outcome of a decision where she was the protagonist. The artist needs to find the story compelling first or there are inevitable problems.
posted by namespan at 2:57 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

I think it's unfair that all the Pixar films have been made with males who have flaws which cause them to get into trouble. The image that this puts out to the girls that are watching is that men are weak and prone to failure. Shame on Pixar for perpetuating this myth about men.
posted by wayofthedodo at 3:06 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

While I agree that the potential for walking a tight line is there with regards to flawed heroines, I don't agree that Pixar should shy away from it for that reason.

Women and girls are flawed as much as men and boys, and they too deserve to see true-to-life role models as well as "kick-ass heroines." If anything, it can only be more valuable for the female half of our cultures to have role models that aren't Barbies or other perfect physical specimens (for some values of perfect) nor yet super-heroines who successfully solve all the problems while remaining unfortunately aloof from society.

It's really not that hard to create a character with flaws that don't trip up the sexism meter (and here's where female writers and animators come in handy, as they'll tend to notice problems like that). See Miyazaki for some wonderful examples of compelling female leads.

Running late at crucial moments (a la Finding Nemo)? Normal, pretty non-gendered parental behavior, easily adaptable to a female lead. Aging former star turned judge and mayor (that is, the tolerably bad Cars)? Does not have to be a male lead, no matter what historical purists tell you. The tail (hah!) of a little rat that dreams big and tries to escape the limitations society has placed on them (Ratatouille, of course)? That's starting to sound tailor made for a female lead.

I know I can't be the only one that admires Pixar films immensely and enjoys the viewing experience a great deal...but would love to see a female lead for our sisters, daughters, and students to envision themselves as.
posted by librarylis at 3:27 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

There is a problem if there are industry-wide barriers that prevent good stories with female leads from being made, but I think investing in studios that are interested in doing that kind of work well is less compulsory and artistically problematic than buttonholing a particular studio with an issue they haven't found compelling enough to take up on their own.

If? There are plenty of barriers: there's all the barriers to women that exist in the film industry, plus all the barriers to women that exist in technology industries.

And waiting patiently for a male-dominated industry to just wake up one day and realise that sexism is a compelling issue seems unlikely to work, given how that tactic hasn't worked anywhere else ever.

But there's a variety of ways to get more stories with female leads, without issuing quotas or just plonking supporting character traits onto your lead characters (remember that no-one here is asking Pixar to lessen the quality of their movies). What about checking that you're not mommy-tracking your female staff while promoting the guys? Or having the existing producers and directors and writers talk to their wives, mothers and daughters about what stories they loved when they were kids?

Andrew Stanton wrote Finding Nemo about how he felt when his son was born, wanting to protect him against the whole world. I'm fairly certain that someone in their leadership group there must have had a daughter too...
posted by harriet vane at 3:35 AM on June 15 [13 favorites has favorites]

am I the only one who thought it was weird that the little boy in UP was upset that his dad wasn't going to be there to give him his badge... and that, as he stood on the stage all sad, his mom was just sitting blankly in the audience, not taking part in the ceremony?

No, Russell was clearly looking for a father figure and it was obvious who it was going to be. It would have been nice if Mom was more than just sitting in the audience, yeah, but come on, you knew exactly who was going to be on that stage with him.

That said, I never really noticed the Pixar gender gap because their stories are so damn good and they don't have weak female characters. But yeah, female leads would be nice.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:42 AM on June 15

Are parents so stupid as to believe that the gender of a character should make a difference in the way that their child views that character? Instead of taking the easy way out and waiting for Pixar to create a film with a female lead, what's wrong with encouraging girls to be look up to Mr. Incredible or Nemo? Because they're male? (Conversely, what's wrong with having boys look up to the Little Mermaid or Snow White?) Then perhaps its not Pixar or the movie industry enforcing their gender stereotypes upon your children, but you.
posted by wayofthedodo at 3:54 AM on June 15

I have totally bald friend. Back in the 90s I had some computer-graphics colleagues who referred to him as "render-ready". There were a number of years in Pixar's history (up to about the time of Toy Story 2) when the prospect of a full movie featuring a character with flowing locks of hair would have made it a production no-go.
posted by rongorongo at 3:58 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

"There certainly haven't been any gay or lesbian main characters. That just wouldn't fly as family fare.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:04 AM on June 15"

I wanted to post something in that general direction. Not just no gay characters in animation, but there are usually rarely characters who aren't expilictly hetero-sexualised wit some sort of love interest. That's why I liked Ratatouille where Remy the rat had his passion, but at least no rat-girlfriend who he had to win over whith his cooking.

But where I think OolooKitty made a valid point about the female cooks vanishing ambition, but
"Come on, girl, you surely can do better than a dweeb who's outwitted and outcharmed by his pet rat!
posted by Skeptic"
is completely besides the point.
posted by kolophon at 4:10 AM on June 15

I don't generally go for Pixar's whole Ayn Rand fetish, but here I think the obvious response for any true Pixar fans is: if you want a well-written film with a female lead, why don't you write it yourself? Why do you expect Pixar to write it for you?

Clearly, you have some very definite ideas about how to construct an adequate female lead: she should be strong and not a princess. So write the story yourself.

Of course, you'll have to write a character with foibles and flaws, because perfect strong women don't generally have the kinds of pratfalls and adventures that interest an audience. She'll have to fit enough conventions that the audience will instantly recognize and sympathize with her. She'll probably need a love interest just like the male characters, but here again you must avoid having her swoon too hard and be weakened by her attraction for this love interest, whether it be male or female, mineral or vegetable.

(Actually, come to think of it: perhaps you should do a cartoon about Ayn Rand. She's perfect: strong enough, flawed enough, recognizably unconventional enough, and not too swoony. Also, she's dead, so you can also make a powerful statement about zombie rights in this live-ist world.)

I absolutely agree that our media lacks proper attention for female stories and leads. But I think complaining about it is exactly the wrong way to get what you want. Sorry for the cliché, but if you don't like the way the world looks, change it! Pixar did: why can't you? You are the plucky heroine you've been waiting for.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:16 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

(Conversely, what's wrong with having boys look up to the Little Mermaid or Snow White?)

The same thing that's wrong with having a girl look up to them-- they're passive observers of their own stories- in Snow White's case, practically a prop. Have you seen Snow White? You must be aware that she's one of the most acted-upon, cloying characters in all of animation.
posted by maryh at 4:26 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

*Foreign contaminant*

/starts scrubbing furiously

Not to derail, but that little robot had one of my favorite moments in the whole movie--the one where he's diligently scrubbing along his little designated lit path and then encounters dirt that deviates from it.

You can almost see his thought process:

"Dirt! But...but...I'd have to leave the path. But it's dirt! Uh...I...argh! Okay, here goes. Ohgodohgodohgodsteppingoffthepathohgodohgod....huh? I'm okay? I'm okay! BACK TO WORK! *scrubscrubscrub*"
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 4:35 AM on June 15 [13 favorites has favorites]

what's wrong with encouraging girls to be look up to Mr. Incredible or Nemo? Because they're male? (Conversely, what's wrong with having boys look up to the Little Mermaid or Snow White?) Then perhaps its not Pixar or the movie industry enforcing their gender stereotypes upon your children, but you.

While I might agree to a degree with your larger point, those are most assuredly not the best examples to use here. Come to think of it, Mulan's the only real animate female lead I've every (as a male) found to be particularly compelling.

Doing female leads is far more difficult, I'd say, than doing male leads precisely because of the fact that there is a wide variation in what people define as a "good" female character. "Kick-ass heroine" is itself a stereotype and I've even heard people claim that it's a negative stereotype because it suggests that giving a woman "male" characteristics (aggressiveness, combat prowess) is what makes her man's equal. Tomboyishness seems to be seen the same way in some circles. You can't just have a female lead defined by her emotional or social relationships to males (wife, mother, girlfriend, etc). We don't have a large supply of cultural stock characters outside of those two options, however.
Women in cinema are just inherently a more hotly debated issue than men are. I sometimes think that it's pretty much guaranteed that you're going to piss someone off with your portrayal. I don't think that would stop Pixar from trying a female lead, precisely because they don't seem to care all that much about anything beyond creating good cinema, but I fully expect their first female-led film to touch off angry denunciations here and elsewhere. And not because of any "PC police" action, but because we're still trying to figure out, as a society, what ideals properly are on offer for women beyond "appendage of men" or "trying to be male".
Monsters vs. Aliens did a fair job of characterizing their female lead, but did so with a mix of setting her off against her asshole fiancee and making her badass/male. Mulan I've already mentioned, in which the main character actually spends most of the film pretending to be male. Miyazaki does an amazing job of it - but only with very young girls (I haven't seen all of his work, though), thus avoiding the problem of sexuality and society...all right, time to stop.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:39 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

When I saw the title, "Dear Pixar, From All The Girls With Band-Aids On Their Knees", well, as this is a family-friendly Pixar discussion, let me just say that the images that title evoked in my mind were not exactly family-friendly. *snicker*
posted by jamstigator at 4:48 AM on June 15

Another movie with a strong and fun female lead was (the original) Pippi Longstocking. Even with the 1970's production flaws, the stilted translation, and the questionable dubbing, my kid LOVES this film. WAY better than Disney Princesses. I was always brought up on a steady diet of strong female leads, but they were all in books. Laura Ingalls Wilder, Secret Garden, Julie of the Wolves, Island of the Blue Dolphins, Dragonsinger books by Anne McCaffrey. (Why couldn't the kid in Up have been an Asian GIRL?)

For young girls, I think seeing strong and flawed female leads is critical. I was a tomboy booknerd growing up in exurbia. I wasn't a cheerleader or a prom court contender. It was bad enough that I was trapped between the Disney Princesses and the airhead female characters or traditional role girls in TV shows. If I hadn't had those strong female book characters, I would have thought that something was seriously wrong with me.
posted by jeanmari at 4:51 AM on June 15 [7 favorites has favorites]

'm fairly certain that someone in their leadership group there must have had a daughter too...

So, say Pixar made a movie about a female fish that needs saving. Do you think that's would have made you feel better about things? Or would it have hit your outrage button harder than "Tinkerbell's Purity Ball?"
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:55 AM on June 15

This is why the world sucks more and more. This to me is P.C. run amok.
posted by autodidact at 4:57 AM on June 15

Of course it's better than Disney Princesses!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:01 AM on June 15

Wait a minute... though WALL*E was ostensibly about a "male" robot lead character, ultimately his "female" counterpart does most of the saving, and the super-hero-ing. And, moreover, she's not blindly looking for love from a workaholic male. That's quite a bit of gender role reversal going on in that flick.

Does that not count?
posted by revmitcz at 12:31 AM on June 15 [+] [!]

Why isn't the movie called EVE then?
posted by harriet vane at 12:33 AM on June 15 [+] [!]

Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Rapunzel, etc. were all rescued, too. The stories aren't called "Prince Charming".

Just synthesizing some things upthread: we (big we, society, don't flip out please) are more forgiving of flaws in men. Just think of what would be made of Paula Bart, Mall Cop. For first, who'd play the ~~anorexic-looking~~ petite male love interest?
posted by lysdexic at 5:02 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

This is the heart of it:

The thing is that a bunch of the Pixar stuff is about a male lead, and his younger/dumber male sidekick, and his older male mentor, and five goofy interesting male supporting characters, and one female character. It's not just that they are male leads, but that they live in a social world populated mostly by male characters.

And this is dead on in response to the ridiculous "they don't care for this sort of shit" claim:

Half of humans are women, but 0% of Pixar's heroes are. Obviously they do care about the sex of their main characters, although they may not be fully aware of how or why they care.

It never fails to surprise me that some folks not only don't notice the casual, consistent sexism in the way Pixar handles gender in its characters but also then go on to get all righteously angry and "BUT WHAT MOVIE WOULD YOU LIKE THEM NOT TO HAVE DONE?? HUH??" when someone points out the obvious. You're left wondering where the fury comes from, especially since every critique of Pixar on this I've seen has been done gently and thoughtfully.

some of the counter-blogs get downright nasty.

Ugh. Those aren't "counter-blogs," those are comments at the CartoonBrew site. I like CartoonBrew, but the fact that its audience includes juvenile idiot sexists shouldn't be a surprise, and isn't really a fair way to frame that link.
posted by mediareport at 5:09 AM on June 15 [8 favorites has favorites]

This to me is P.C. run amok.

I love this reaction. To some, even pointing out blindingly obvious oddities in a thoughtful way is "P.C. run amok." What absurd bullshit.
posted by mediareport at 5:10 AM on June 15 [35 favorites has favorites]

Does no one ever think about the other rats in Ratatouille? Do you think they wanted to grow up to be waiters in Remy's restaurant?
posted by graventy at 5:14 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

The Incredibles was an ensemble piece. The viewer spends plenty of time with multiple characters' points of view, so I don't think the idea of a single main character really applies.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:20 AM on June 15 [7 favorites has favorites]

You're left wondering where the fury comes from, especially since every critique of Pixar on this I've seen has been done gently and thoughtfully.

I'm guessing part of it is that sexism has been painted as OMG BAD trait, so to call someone or something they love sexist is to call them bad. More nuance probably needs to be added to the term so that it's understood that it's possible to be sexist without being a wifebeating orge.

As to The Bear and The Bow, which will be Pixar's first female lead film, the premise (SPOILERS) sounds extremely interesting and hints at dealing with emotionally heavier themes. I was stunned with the way Pixar dealt with certain scenes of death at the beginning of UP, it was pretty moving.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:24 AM on June 15

Cars is my favorite Pixar film, because my son is passionate about it and we spend hours together playing with the toys (usually making up our own storylines and games). My daughter is into princesses and fairies (which doesn't bother me, btw), and we play with those as well, but she's not into it like he's into Cars. Something tells me if Pixar knocked one out of the park with a girl-focused movie, she's get to have the same experience as he has, and I'd like to share that with her.
posted by brandman at 5:26 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

In Up, are we sure that the woman at the ceremony is Russell's mother? Could be Phyllis, who he mentioned earlier in the film...
posted by vaghjar at 5:34 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

I don't like to make movies political, especially kids' movies, if I can help it.

I guess the girl can't help it.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:35 AM on June 15

I don't generally go for Pixar's whole Ayn Rand fetish,

Huh? Ayn Rand fetish? The main theme that comes out of all Pixar movies for me is "you can't do it all by yourself".

I agree this whole idea does feel a bit "PC" for me, although it would be great if Pixar did make some inroads in producing decent female leads. The whole thing is just a reflection of wider problems in film reflecting reality. I'm not saying proportions of characters in films should perfectly fix the proportions of sexes/races/religions/shoe sizes in society as a whole...but what percentage of the American population, for example, is overweight? When was the last time you saw an overweight character (young, female ones in particular) in a film portrayed as anything but a comical touch or a sad subject of derision? This isn't about some "fat acceptance" thing - "Bob" knows well how Metafilter deals with that issue - it's just more about the fact that the people see in films are so, so, so far removed from the people they see in their everyday lives, but no-one seems to ever notice.
posted by Jimbob at 5:35 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Disney films with strong females and/or leads I loved growing up:

Candleshoe

Bedknobs and Broomsticks
posted by lysdexic at 5:38 AM on June 15

I really don't see why people are complaining. Honestly who really cares. If you want a story with a strong female leading character read a book. Not only to girls get the role model they want but they become smarter due to reading in the first place. Just like if I want a story with a strong male lead, I'll read a book. Books are greater than movies.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:41 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think the idea that boys will not read books that feature female leads is utterly disproved by Ramona Quimby. And I can't be alone in having been a little boy who read the Madeline books.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:42 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

Am I the only who was pissed that when Violet learns self confidence, she just ends up being just as passive as before, only now she demonstrates what a girl is supposed to be, upbeat and pretty and receptive to the male advances that being upbeat and pretty now provokes? Yeah, fuck you, Sarah Vowell, you bastion of anti-feminism.

Anyways, I will respect the whining of women about men not making movies about women that aren't princesses when women stop making movies like Sex and the City successful, when they stop rejecting feminism, or stop redefining feminism to include every avenue of power that derives from granting or withholding sexual favors to men.

And I will be accused of painting women with the same brush, just as Pixar writers and directors are being accused of having some agenda, whether consciously or unconsciously realized, of keeping women protagonists out of the limelight.

First of all, realize that it doesn't fucking matter if the protagonist is a princess. The most powerful women in all of history save the last hundred years were once princesses, were only princesses. I want to see a fairy tail movie that portrays the destruction of a monarchy, but I'm not going to whine about the antidemocratic agenda of Pixar waiting for that to happen.

Second of all, start writing your own damn movies if what these sexists pigs are writing isn't to your liking. Oh, wait, someone did. And it's about a princess. Who doesn't want to be, who wants to be an archer, and who not only doesn't need a man to save her, doesn't have one save her anyway. But she's a princess! Oh, god, just shut up.

What more do you fucking want? We've internalized the male as buffoon who needs a woman to save him from himself (The Incredibles, Wall-E, hell, every one of them features a female sidekick who is wiser than the protagonist), so now you want the female to take the lead. Ok, are you going whine when the male sidekick now has the wisdom that leads her to resolve her internal conflict? Are you going to whine that the presumably male writer or director doesn't portray a realistic female anthropomorphic animal, robot, or toy?

If you want to stop seeing princesses, stop acting like them. Stop complaing about others not changing the world for you.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 5:47 AM on June 15 [12 favorites has favorites]

Books are greater than movies.

Agreed, but reading books and watching movies are not mutually exclusive entertainment options. The point being made here is that it would be great to have strong female leading characters in multiple mediums.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:48 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

I was going to quote a bunch of comments here and then reply to them, but after about three I became so enraged that I had to stop and walk away. I'll just say that most of the comments on this thread reinforce the title of the post.

And go ahead and mock me for suggesting, once again, that anyone who doesn't see the problem *is part of the problem*, and you should seriously consider taking a women's studies class. The last time I suggested this, the response was HURF DURF WOMEN'S STUDIES, and a nastily phrased question as to why I didn't just comment with an explanation, if it was so important to me, instead of suggesting a class.

If the problem could be explained in a comment on a blog, there wouldn't be CLASSES IN THE SUBJECT. Jesus fucking Christ.
posted by tzikeh at 5:48 AM on June 15 [10 favorites has favorites]

"97Are parents so stupid as to believe that the gender of a character should make a difference in the way that their child views that character?"

It's less about how the child views that character and more about how children develop and view themselves. When you're young and starting to become aware of your own reality and the world around you, you are consciously and unconsciously absorbing all of societies expectations and rules about behavior. You are becoming socialized, and that involves some very clear distinctions about gender roles and identity. You learn about what options boys have and what options girls have. Acting a particular way gets you praise or punishment. The cultural norms are reinforced by the movies, music, parents, teachers, peers, neighbors...just about everything in a child's range of perception.

Just thinking back to my own childhood, my favorite leads were always boys/men. Bastian, Westley, Michael Knight, the Monkees, Peter, Ray, Egon, Tuck Pendleton...even Johnny 5 and E.T. were obviously no princesses. So the problem was this...I was wearing my stupid dresses I hated, told not to get dirty, reminded to sit up straight, be dainty, all amounting to what it means to BE A LADY. Emulating my role models was not going to get me anywhere. I could look up to them, but I was not to be them. I was to be among them, dainty, polite, and princessy. Or a brainless bit part, if I so chose.

I turned out just fine, but I think that's partly because I figured out real early that something was severely imbalanced and limiting. I didn't have all the answers, but I figured I'd play along with the rules (it got me praise and advantage) until I'd have it all figured out.

Today things are much better for both boys and girls. But honestly, they're not that much different. The elephant is in the room, and we acknowledge that its pink. It'd be awesome if an industry leader like Pixar just took that and ran with it. They have the power, talent, and resources to really move things forward in a meaningful way. They're not obligated to do so of course, but it would be pretty damn cool if they did.

I don't know, I kind of also imagine this whole Pixar thing as if we were at a party and a really great impressionist/impersonator showed up. They could mime swimming thru water, talk your game, personify "you", whatever. So everybody's clammoring up to the guy going "Pick me!" "Do me next!" And he's just going through them all, everybody laughing. Except he's kind of just pandering to the women, or doing just enough to appease them so that he can focus on his preferred audience. At first its ok, but after a while its kind of like, ok, what is the friggin' deal with this guy?
posted by iamkimiam at 5:48 AM on June 15 [16 favorites has favorites]

lysdexic: Bedknobs and Broomsticks

One does not simply walk into murder, she wrote. One rides a bed.
posted by kid ichorous at 5:49 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Is this really dead on?

Half of humans are women, but 0% of Pixar's heroes are.

I mean take the case of WALL-E. As has been pointed out above, EVE does all the heroing. Oh, but EVE doesn't get the title role so ergo it's a boy film. WTF!?!? If Pixar did WALL-E as a blatant "I Love Lucy" rip-off where WALL-E was an semi-competent female robot named BET-E who was in need of rescue about every five minutes it would put checks in all the boxes where they don't have checks now. And they'd deserve a good beating in terms of gender role portrayal.

This is the problem with the framing of this discussion. It's like most corporate goals documents. There are a bunch of clear objectives, but do those particular objectives actually mean anything when all is said and done.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:50 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I was going to respond to the guy who said it's absurd to call this P.C. run amok, but instead I'll just point to what 0xdeadc0de said.

There are plenty of smart, strong, role-model-worthy female characters in Pixar movies already. If you can't see that, or think that there is some wrongness to the current "oddity" of the situation, and especially if you think Pixar must deliberately plan a movie around the concept of female empowerment in order to level some imaginary playing field in your mind, well then you are a victim of P.C. thinking run amok.
posted by autodidact at 5:53 AM on June 15

so ergo it's a boy film.

No. It's a film with a male lead.
posted by mediareport at 5:53 AM on June 15

As an aside before I begin, "P.C." is shorthand for "Political Correctness", which was an academic fad on some college campuses in the late '80s, early '90s. It went out of style with purple blazers, pleated dockers and the B-52's. Using it in any other fashion is indicative of someone demanding a free pass for their prejudices. Sorry, no free passes here.

Also, it is absolutely inexcusable that all of Pixar's leads have been identifiably white-male, even the robot, bug and car ones. Which movie would I give up to change this? The Incredibles.

As good as the Incredibles turned out, the concept, the idea itself, was hackneyed and done to death in comics, and Byrd pretty much ripped off the Fantastic 4 "super family" theme, only without the personality defects and feet of clay Stan Lee brought to the Super Hero Team. To be honest, the concept was terrible. The execution was sheer brilliance, the relentless focus on character development completely overshadowed the derivative and cliched plot and unimaginative hero concepts.

But this could have been another, better movie: one from Elastiwoman's perspective - a home-maker contending with her husband's mid-life crisis, who finds she has to leave her role of "Mom" and take up her professional life again to protect and re-connect with her family.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:55 AM on June 15 [8 favorites has favorites]

Anyone who flips out about this gentle and thoughtful request clearly hasn't read the NPR piece. Please go and do so before penning strident art-defense anti-PC rants.

Here's a sample of comments from that last link, try not be that guy mmkay?

Everybody has an agenda. I’m sorry if this delightful movie didn’t service yours.

Perhaps we should petition President Obama to oversee the animation industry, and appoint a Gender Equity Czar to implement “representational justice” on the silver screen. I nominate Barney Frank for the position.

...

Let them make the movies they want.

For crying out loud, its not good enough that they create incredible films with amazing stories and perfectly crafted characters of both genders…
We need a sanitized balance of the lead characters.

When that is done, these clueless people will find something else to cry about.

......
As is said above, you can’t pay most men and boys to go to movie about a girl. While I respect the drive for equality and am willing to stand up and be counted when it comes to supporters of both equal opportunity and equal wages, I am among those who could not be payed to go see a movie about a female unless it had an incredibly compelling story and was superbly done.

....
“A girl and the things that happen to her”

The lady in front of her in line got the pair of shoes SHE wanted at Payless.
The girl in the cubicle next to hers keeps laughing on the phone all day and getting on her nerves.
She starves herself all weekend and yet gains 2 pounds !

All exciting and true topics to be sure (courtesy of my wife) but I can’t say as I’d like to see them animated with 3-D characters.
....

I think most of you are missing the point of the Pixar/Disney movies anyway. They’re aimed at children, not you adults who need a politically correct world to live in. Little girls, for the most part it would seem, have princess-related desires. My niece is 5 right now and she goes gaga over everything princessy. She wants that kind of thing and Pixar and Disney know that, which is why the female lead usually ends up being a princess. As for boys who want to be everything under the sun at the same time (ask any boy and he’ll give you a range of firefighter to astronaut to race car driver), well, it would seem easier to cater to them since those are more adventurous (and consequently roomier for creative direction) tales to tell. Whereas the princess motif is, well, overdone and who knows where else we can take it. Sure, The Bear and The Bow sounds nice, but it’s not exactly something we haven’t seen before. The girl who rebels from society’s expectations to find the strength to defend herself rather than wait for a boy to save her. Been done, but I’m sure they’ll be able to squeeze some novelty out of it like they always do. Stories about boys are just easier to tell. That said, I do agree that there should be more female protagonists in Pixar-related movies.
...
I’m no feminazi, but I do admit it would be nice to see a girl as a main character. Just to spice things up...In my own personal opinion, I’d hate to see Pixar do a chick flick. But I wouldn’t mind seeing a female lead once in awhile. Who says all chick flicks have girls as main characters and all “boy flicks” have boys as main characters?
...
The don’t make movies about native americans or whales or handicapped people either.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:00 AM on June 15

And Miyazaki doesn't have enough male main characters.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:07 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

People seem to think that demanding things of the artists that we love is somehow cheating. But art doesn't get created in a vacuum, even Emily Dickinson was trying to please someone. When your fans talk, you listen. Certainly you don't have to respond or change if it's a stupid idea, but particularly when it's not a complaint at all (REPEAT THIS ARTICLE WAS NOT A COMPLAINT AT ALL READING COMPREHENSION FTW) but a detailed and plausible request based on your strengths--you (as a individual and Pixar as a company) would do well to consider giving it a shot.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:10 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

Boys are fancy on the outside
Girls are fancy on the inside.
-- Mr. Rogers

While the great sweatered one was talking about anatomy at the time, it's also a bang-up metaphor for what expect from the gender difference - men wear their thoughts and aspirations on their sleeves, women are much deeper and subtle. While Pixar does subtle very well, there's still only so much you can expect from character development that needs to appeal to the broad age, emotional, and intellectual range that Pixar consistently succeeds with.

You want strong female leads in entertainment, you need to change what the audience thinks of these roles already and how to interpret their motives in a purely visual medium.
posted by davelog at 6:13 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

This argument reminds me of one I've seen come up now and again with authors and their fans (most recently addressed here by Neil Gaiman).

His opinion on authors and entitlement issues of fans is the same as mine when it comes to Pixar's choice of stories, protagonists, and antagonists:

For me, I would rather read a good book, from a contented author. I don't really care what it takes to produce that.

[...]

You don't choose what will work. You simply do the best you can each time. And you try to do what you can to increase the likelihood that good art will be created.

While here Neil is addressing the idea of authors working on other projects whilst leaving a waiting series unfinished, I've seen similar comments from other writers when confronted by fans insisting that since they (the fans) love the writer's work and buy it faithfully, the author is then somehow required to write only what the fan(s) want them to write. Nonsense.

Arguing that Pixar should make films about girls simply because fans of their films want films about girls strikes me the same way. I want Pixar to make good films. If they only want to make films with male protagonists--if what it takes for them to make good films is to make films with male protagonists--so be it. There are other filmmakers that make animated movies with good female protagonists. Watch those.

If at some point Pixar does make a film with a female protagonist, I expect it to be fantastic. I will invariably love it, and will take my daughter to it a million times. But I'd rather have 10 fantastic male-lead Pixar films than 1 mediocre female-lead Pixar film made only to fulfill some imaginary (and pointless) protagonist gender equality requirement.

On preview: to address PA's comment--if an artist or studio or author isn't creating the art you want, tell them you want it. But be aware, they are not required do it. You are free to watch other movies, read other books, watch other TV shows, look at other art. Frankly, in my experience, it is the studios, publishing houses, artists that attempt to cater to the market and the public that produce the most banal, mediocre crap. It's the artists (of all stripes) that do what they do best, despite the fact that it may not be everything to everyone, that create the most amazing and wonderful things.
posted by elfgirl at 6:16 AM on June 15 [16 favorites has favorites]

I'm not sure how much credit I give to boys on this. I remember that there were some 'girls' shows that I watched as a kid a little like gem and the holograms and I probably liked the little mermaid just fine though I don't remember it. But mostly I think that boys might actually have an antipathy either through nature or nurture to female centric stories. Tomboy is not a positive but it doesn't have the same rancor as sissy. Now I am not assuming that this is the natural order of the universe and is right, but it might be the way people are. Girls might actually be better at empathizing with a character not of their gender. You know how in commercials for boardgames they always show a boy winning (unless it's a dreamphone game). Maybe the people making the ads do this for a reason like an actual reason other them being idiot puppets of the patriarchy. Or maybe not, I don't know, but things might be the way that they are because of how people are.
posted by I Foody at 6:18 AM on June 15

Huh? Ayn Rand fetish? The main theme that comes out of all Pixar movies for me is "you can't do it all by yourself".

That's funny. The main theme in all the Pixar movies I've ever seen has been: don't let the petty little people and their petty little jealousies (of your talent, ambition, or adventures) keep you down. They're about how the lazy majority oppress the hardworking minority. It's a thread running through The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E, and in a different and exciting way, Up.

I thought Up was wonderfully different and exciting precisely because, for the first time, they made a more complicated movie, about how we get in our own way, where the enemies are time and mortality: they internalized the whole ubermench/herd dynamic so that it's all playing out in Ellie's, and Carl's, and Russell's psyches, all of whom are holding themselves back. But did you notice the jab at "lawsuit culture" in the beginning, when Carl's self-defense gets him taken away and his home foreclosed to pay the damages? There's some clear analogies to the distaste for the bureaucratization of life you see in Mr. Incredible's job at the insurance company or the prejudices of the health inspector in Ratatouille.

Pixar really already addressed these concerns in Rataouille. To them, all this criticism is just the chattering of Anton Ego:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.

There's no doubt that Pixar were writing their own reviews. It's probably the only one they'll ever take seriously. I don't entirely endorse the view espoused there about the relationship between criticism and creation, but I think it's absurd to expect anything other than this attitude from the crew to whom Holmes supplicates. Cook or get out of the kitchen. Take what's offered or make your own.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:21 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

Isn't the woman at the end of Up *not* the kid's mother? In the middle of the movie:

"You call your mother by her first name?"
"X isn't my mother!" (I forget what he called her.)

It was still a weird moment when they cut to her briefly at the end. And Ratatouille didn't really do it for me. And I never saw Cars.

I love the Incredibles! I can't wait for The Bear and the Bow! I love Pixar! Wooooooooo!!!
posted by zeek321 at 6:26 AM on June 15

And for the record: people who are paying attention to this ARE NOT ADVOCATING QUOTAS and ARE NOT ADVOCATING MAKING BAD MOVIES. Pixar is a company we like, whose movies we like, etc. They are smart and good enough to make good movies about female characters.

Sure, but so what. Why should they just because they can? They have no responsibility and no obligation to do so.
posted by juiceCake at 6:36 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

zeek321, the X was Gloria, and I assumed she was Absent Dad's girlfriend.
posted by Sweetie Darling at 6:44 AM on June 15

If you don't teach your daughter that Hollywood movies are unrealistic fantasies chiefly designed to make them buy things, Pixar's lack of female characters are going to be the least of their problems.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:46 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

The don’t make movies about native americans or whales or handicapped people either.

Heh, not only is that blog commenter's argument beside the point, it's demonstrably false, as well. Pocahontas and Up take care of the first and last, and Fantasia 2000 even had a piece about a pod of whales.
posted by jedicus at 6:49 AM on June 15

If you don't teach your sons that Hollywood movies are unrealistic fantasies chiefly designed to make them buy things, Pixar's overabundance of male characters are going to be the least of their problems.
posted by Sailormom at 6:50 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

To play devil's advocate, I think Pixar is just giving their core audience what it wants. Pixar acquired its fan base with Toy Story, a movie that is obviously geared toward adolescent boys with characters like a cowBOY and a spaceMAN. Following that hit, they continued to make movies with characters congruous to boys' interests: cars, bugs, monsters, super heroes, robots, flying. Of course, these movies are enjoyed by adults, too, but that's a factor of good writing, not demographic targeting. I don't think Pixar is guilty of sexism, I just think they've amassed this large, dedicated, profitable target demographic of adolescent boys, and they continue to produce for that base. The female characters in their movies do tend to me strong, dynamic characters, however, so I'm not buying to sexism bend. I think Pixar is just financially motivated instead of socially. I guess the fact that their movies continue to be so lucrative is more of an indictment of the consumers.
posted by aftermarketradio at 6:55 AM on June 15

If the apoplectic rage expressed by the loony-bin-fringe right over WALL*E is any indication, I heartily look forward to watching clips of batshit-insanity from "Fox and Friends" when Pixar releases a film with a strong female lead in the title role.

The young version of Carl's wife Ellie in "Up" is one of the best female characters I've seen in a long while - they could make an entire film based upon her backyard adventures. You can totally see why Carl loved her and was so broken by his loss. Clearly they have the capability to write a good female lead.

Stop complaing about others not changing the world for you.

Yes. Let me just step over here into my multi-million dollar animation studio, rendering farm, and production facility and get to work. Steve Jobs on the phone? Sorry. I have to take this.

The NPR piece is a good example of a person trying to change the world using the means they have at their disposal - publishing a piece which creates buzz which creates market demand which may lead to a good flick and setting a new standard.
posted by device55 at 6:55 AM on June 15 [11 favorites has favorites]

Are parents so stupid as to believe that the gender of a character should make a difference in the way that their child views that character?

There's a fair amount of research that indicates that gender in this sort of situation really does affect a child's [or adult's] ability to identify with the character. It's sort of a big deal.

While on the one hand, I think thanking my lucky stars for the rat not having to be beholden to a rat girlfriend in Ratatouille is sort of daming with very faint parise, I'm going to have to toss my lot in with Joe Beese here, in a mixed way

If you don't teach your daughter that Hollywood movies are unrealistic fantasies chiefly designed to make them buy things, Pixar's lack of female characters are going to be the least of their problems.

It's really awkward because on the one hand, getting more women in movies generally is something I'd like just because, you know, there are more women in the world and it would be nice to see them in all other aspects of my life too. On the other other hand, you wind up with what we saw a lot after the GLBT protests around advertisers and this sort of thing where now gay people (well esp around Pride time, like lately) can be pandered to by corporate brands the same way straight people always have been. It's a victory, certainly, but definitely a weird one.
posted by jessamyn at 7:00 AM on June 15

I've avoided Pixar, but if they have a Rand fetish, it would be no surprise that they lacked central female characters.

And, while we're busy hating on Pixar, is it possible that they've done some market research and found that alternative ideas won't fly? Remember, Pixar does not make artistic expressions or social statements. They make movies as an investment. If you want people who make movies because they want to express themselves, the Lars von Trier post is a few doors down.

At this point, most Hollywood films are calculated to an inch. It's all about what stars will bring in box office and how well it "tests." And you'd better believe it's all measured in megabucks.
posted by adipocere at 7:10 AM on June 15

Just thinking out loud...it suddenly seems funny to me, that in these sorts of conversations, people (like myself) use the term "strong female lead".

I assume that in this case "strong" means "strongly written and developed" and not physically, psychologically, and emotionally strong - but maybe not.

This phrase now seems to imply tom-boy characters who aren't afraid of bugs and wear blue jeans - and I don't know if that is any sort of improvement.
posted by device55 at 7:11 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

And go ahead and mock me for suggesting, once again, that anyone who doesn't see the problem *is part of the problem*, and you should seriously consider taking a women's studies class.

At the risk of sounding a bit hurf durf, as you put it, some of us having encountered women's studies have come away distinctly unimpressed. Not mocking. Just saying.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:16 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

I agree. Pixar needs to make a movie in which the main character is female.

I disagree. Disney exists to make money for its shareholders, it does not exist to engage in social experiments.

The entire premise of this thread and the linked articles is flawed. It seems to be: Pixar makes great movies. I want a great movie with a female lead. Therefore, Pixar should make a great movie with a female lead.

That's nice to wish for. I still wish George Lucas could make a Star Wars movie as good as Empire Strikes Back.

In fact, Pixar's existence was to push the boundaries of film-making, not the boundaries of storytelling. remember that when it started, Pixar's costs for making a film were considerably higher than Disney's for conventional animation. Pixar was undertaking a massive risk to demonstrate that computer animated films could capture a huge audience. Given this risk, they are going to minimize risk everywhere else. The evidence for this is that most of Pixar's early films are simple re-hashes of well-worn Hollywood action movie plotlines.

That said, Walt Disney Movie Studios makes a lot of films with female leads. Pixar doesn't, because Pixar, like Walt Disney Animation before it, served a very specific purpose in the company - to underwrite and make up for all the art-house, R-rated, and Oscar caliber films that the studio releases but which would otherwise bankrupt the studio.

Secondly, the movie business is global. The themes, tropes, or conceits in a film have to be recognizable to almost every culture in the world, because that is the target market.

Let's pretend it's 2000. Are you going to argue that Disney animated films never had female leads? That's absurd. They had female leads more than they had male leads:

In worldwide total gross:

f - Little Mermaid (1989) - $211 million
f - Beauty and the Beast (1991) - $337 million
m - Aladdin (1992) -$504 million
m - Lion King (1994) - $783 million
f - Pocahontas (1995) - $346 million
f - Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) - $325 million
m - Hercules (1997) - $252 million
f - Mulan (1998) - $304 million
m - Tarzan (1999) - $448 million
f - Lilo and Stitch (2002) - $273 million

It's obvious that having a male lead does not guarantee success over $350 million. A lousy story is a lousy story (See Hercules). But even with a good story, films with female leads rarely broke $300 million, and never over $350 million. Here's is the chart for Pixar's films, which we have all concluded have a male character in the lead role.

Now, even $200 million is a lot of money, but consider that in this same period (the 1990's) Disney's Miramax was producing or distributing extremely risky, edgy, or controversial films like Kids, Pulp Fiction, Clerks, The Piano, The English Patient, Trainspotting, and many more. Some had female leads. Most of Miramax's films were barely a blip on box office radar. For example, Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown starring Judi Dench was considered a great success. It grossed $9 million.

What we have is an industry with a history of trying to make films for general audiences, and children in particular with female leads, and having those films not achieve the success of similar films with male leads. If you are going to spend a given amount of money to make a movie, you must spend it where you have the greatest likelihood of success.

None of this is to say that a CG or animated film can't have a female lead and be as successful as the most successful animated film with a male lead. It simply means that no one has figured out how to do it yet, and any attempt to try to make one is going to be a gamble on top of the already massive gamble that movie-making is generally. Moms took their daughters to see Lion King and Toy Story. Did Moms take their sons to see the Little Mermaid or Lilo and Stitch? You can be frustrated and angry with the market, but your blame should fall on the audience, because they generated the numbers in the chart you see above. Don't blame Disney or Pixar, whose only goal is to make those numbers as large as possible.

Pixar should do what it exists to do, which is to make movies for little kids that generate obscene amounts of money which go to produce and distribute interesting films for adults.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:16 AM on June 15 [15 favorites has favorites]

Should have preiviewed: And go ahead and mock me for suggesting, once again, that anyone who doesn't see the problem *is part of the problem*, and you should seriously consider taking a women's studies class.

What is the problem, that Pixar is not making films with female leads? That isn't the problem. The real problem is why don't movies with female leads make as much money? The answer is simple. Because mothers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, and the United States, are unanimous in their purchasing decisions not to have their sons watch cartoons with female leads.

In other words, why do mothers believe it is okay for daughters to watch, and potentially imitate female and male lead characters, but do not think it is okay for their sons to imitate female lead characters?
posted by Pastabagel at 7:23 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

A lot of these comments presuppose that Pixar's movies are art made by artists—which they totally are, don't get me wrong—and that art-made-by-artists is for some reason exempt from social responsibility. E.g.; "Why should they just because they can? They have no responsibility and no obligation to do so." Or Neil Gaiman's quoted sentiment, "For me, I would rather read a good book, from a contented author. I don't really care what it takes to produce that." Or, like Pastabagel's post, which takes an opposing premise, that because they are a beholden to stockholders this somehow absolves them of social responsibility, and reaches the same conclusion. Why are either of these things true? I think neither being an auteur nor being a corporation absolves social responsibility. Why should it? We all live here together.

That said, Pixar's movies are already chock-full of social commentary, and often take an explicit advisory position (like re: talent and family The Incredibles or art and criticism in Ratatouille or taking responsibility for the consequences of ones actions in Cars). There are explicit social agendas in all of these. It's clear that they have other goals besides self-expression or maximizing profit.

They make movies for children and they're aware that kids often use movies (especially depictions of interpersonal relationships in movies) as models of how the world does or ought to work. Why shouldn't they extend their sense of responsibility just a little bit in this direction? I can't see how it would necessarily compromise their vision or whatever, which doesn't seem to be explicitly about gender, by being a little more equitable. And if they take a hit in the market, chances are it will be temporary. Somebody needs to break the status quo first, or somebody needs to figure out how to do it profitably, and what better time try than when you're incredibly popular, rich and at the top of your game?
posted by avianism at 7:27 AM on June 15 [7 favorites has favorites]

Disclosure: I work for Disney and I am a man. I am speaking for myself and not my company.

You've stumbled onto our secret plans to prevent girls from having good role models! Egads, what will we do? I'll put together a checklist of what *must* be in the next Pixar movie and get it to Emeryville ASAP.

Let's see:

Lead character a female - supporting or title characters not enough, must be dominant protagonist
Non-royal - female cannot be a Princess or royalty of any sort
No rescues - female cannot be rescued by a male
No toy tie-ins - cannot be seen as a vehicle to sell toys to children

OK, simple then... Just create a new and inventive story that appeals to children and adults, with multiple storylines of varied complexity within those simple guidelines without making the creative team feel that they are working within a formula. Our creatives just love the suits telling them what to do, it always ends up with good stuff.

Seriously though. I understand the concern over female protagonists. Believe it or not, things like this are discussed internally. On the television side, I think we have made great strides in programming for children in general and girls in particular. Like it or not, High School Musical, is all about traditional role reversal.

I have two tween daughters and I have the same concerns about role models and what they see in media today. But to pick one of the creative groups that is doing a great job portraying women rather than a perfect job, while ignoring the tons of anti-woman stuff out there, is mind-boggling.

[rant]
I do take offense to suggestion that because Disney folks are 'nerds', they don't can't understand or write about women and girls. What an effing sexist statement! Disney is focused on providing quality entertainment to children and their families, sticking to 'safe' topics and situations to provide a haven of G-rated programming in an R-rated system. Disney Channel is a lone hold out as a channel for children that does not air commercials.
[/rant]

I will now suit up in my Nomex outfit.
posted by Argyle at 7:31 AM on June 15 [15 favorites has favorites]

I'll say only that I think it's a very, very good thing that this conversation has been taken up so vocally. I do hope Hollywood will take notice.

Also, the development of movies is a creative activity, but a fundamentally different one from writing a book or making a record. It's a corporately funded creative activity, designed to maximize profit, and it's a creative activity subject to demands from marketing, audience research, and the input of hundreds of professionals - not writers alone, but executives as well. In such a scenario I do think the creative process is different - we aren't necessarily witnessing the pure artistic vision of an individual creator as much as we're seeing a corporate product shaped by market forces. It's reasonable for fans of a product to give corporations feedback about what sort of product they'd like.

The problem of representation is huge for women across media, and I'm surprised that there's so much shock and outrage at the suggestion that the audience would find it desirable for the representation of female characters to be as frequent, unremarkable, prominent, and varied as the representation of male characters is. It's quite easy to say "STFU" when you've spent your life witnessing your own gender performing time after time as the most interesting actor in every drama. The question for me isn't about Pixar specifically - movies and media for children in general are extremely gendered in a gross way, and it's true that the rest of the world's diverse reality is rarely reflected in our idealized and narrowly envisioned movie characters - but because Pixar seems to be able to reject many other of the traditional children's-movie tropes, and wins praise from those who see themselves as hip because of that unconventionality, the gender imbalance in the stories they tell is more screamingly obvious - they've rejected many standard rules of the animated genre, but kept the central element required of storytelling in a patriarchal system front and center: men are the heroes. The resistance among some here to the very idea that female leads would be a great development for many reasons seems to suggest some resentment at letting girls into the clubhouse.
posted by Miko at 7:36 AM on June 15 [26 favorites has favorites]

"No More Princesses." That's a great story idea... what happens next?

we're still trying to figure out, as a society, what ideals properly are on offer for women beyond "appendage of men" or "trying to be male".

Repeated for emphasis. Cartoons traffic in caricatures of stereotypes. Until we figure out what stereotypes we actually want to advance, it will be difficult to draw cartoons of women that don't perpetuate misogyny.

A few suggestions: young girls who engage in athletics are more likely to do well in school and less likely to be pressured into adolescent sex, so let's have fewer Hermiones and more Jessminders. Also, women who pursue professions dissociated from 'caregiving' tend to have higher lifetime incomes and to put off childbirth longer, so let's have fewer Meredith Greys and more Ellen Parsons. Finally, women in single-sex educational contexts are more likely to excel in math and science, so let's have fewer comedic gender integration movies and more films that emphasize the value of lifelong same-sex friendships and downplay intrasex competition for mates or jobs.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:38 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

Because mothers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, and the United States, are unanimous in their purchasing decisions not to have their sons watch cartoons with female leads.

Why is the assumption that mothers are making these decisions? Where are the fathers? Are they adamantly in there insisting on varied representation, only to be overridden by the mother, whose gendered agenda is presumably so much more rigid?

Or is the entire family/pee/media interaction dynamic, perhaps, a bit more complicated?
posted by Miko at 7:39 AM on June 15

Ahem. That "pee?" Make that "peer."
posted by Miko at 7:40 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

World's Largest Media Congolmerate Reinforces Societal Biases. Film at 11.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:40 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

The NPR piece is a good example of a person trying to change the world using the means they have at their disposal - publishing a piece which creates buzz which creates market demand which may lead to a good flick and setting a new standard.

I realized that, and if Linda Holmes ever reads this, I apologize. I'm angry at the people who have recontextualized it from "princesses are poor role models" to "Pixar is biased against women".

I once believed that Steve sold Pixar's soul to Disney, but it is almost subversive how they co-opted the Disney formula in The Bear and the Bow. I have high hopes that it will slyly change what people expect from heroines in animation. Merida being a princess is only sugar for the medicine.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 7:42 AM on June 15

Dear Miyazaki-san: I loved Kiki's Delivery Service and Spirited Away, but why are the boys in them in only supporting roles? Prince Mononoke would have been a much funner movie.

Dear Joss Whedon: I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but why couldn't it have been more about Giles, the heroic paternal librarian? Giles the Watcher would have been a more mature, nuanced television programme.

Dear DreamWorks: You know how Pixar's Monsters, Inc. had only a little girl in it? I bet if you made a movie about monsters with a grownup lady as the heroine, people would finally stop saying you keep ripping them off. Throw in some aliens, and I bet you some critics won't be able to resist overhyping it.

On a less sarcastic note, the only Pixar’s movie I passed on was Cars, which, coincidentally, had some of their weakest female roles in an uncharacteristically perfunctory plot. It was also their most "boyzone" movie.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:43 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Didn't JK Rowling say somewhere that Harry Potter was a boy because girls would read a story about a boy whereas boys wouldn't read a story about a girl? I think that's a terrible attitude and I hope it's not the view they take at Pixar.

And I think the His Dark Materials books (which were enjoyed my several male adults of my acquaintance) were proof that Rowling was really, really off about this. Pullman--a man! gasp!--created a really strong, relatable, flawed, interesting, great female protagonist. In fact, the second book, focusing on a bland-but-nice-enough boy failed entirely to catch Mr. WanKenobi's interest; he gave up about halfway through.

I know it's not Pixar, but did anyone see Monsters vs. Aliens? I was surprised by the feminist themes there--Susan initially thinks that due to her unusual size, she's a monster. But she eventually comes to see this difference as a strength--enough of a strength that, when her douche of an ex tells her that they can't get back together because she could eclipse his career, she's able to see that she needs to ditch him completely. Of course, she's ditching him in favor of an all-male group of friends (couldn't there have been two female monsters?) so it doesn't pass the Bechdel test or anything, but it felt like a step in the right direction. Sure, Susan struggles with her strength and size, which she initially perceives as contrary to her femininity, but eventually resolves it in a way that celebrates it, rather than diminishes it (like Violet in The Incredibles). I think that this struggle was actually pretty important, because I know few strong, feminist women who haven't at one time or another struggled with that--I think it's a good thing for girls to see that, though they might someday wonder about how they fit within society's definition of femaleness, they can actually choose to be strong, ass-kicking, single (!), even non-conformist in a physical sense, and that this is a victory, something to be celebrated.

So, though I never thought I'd say this, I do think it' time that Pixar takes a cue from Dreamworks. Hopefully The Bear and the Bow will be a step in the right direction
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:44 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Throw in some aliens, and I bet you some critics won't be able to resist overhyping it.

Ha! Should have previews. :)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:45 AM on June 15

For all the "what does it matter if there's no female leads/not princesses" crowd, I can only say, Harriet the Spy and The Blue Sword, two books with female leads, changed my life as a kid. I reread them both so much I almost still have them memorized.

Because I was hungry for someone who was like me and was the hero. Why is this so hard to understand? I could not identify in the same way with a boy hero, as much as I might like him, because I could never think of myself as being him in a daydream or when I grew up.

Little girls dream, too, you know. They want to be strong and powerful and heroic every bit as much as little boys do. It's not about being perfect, either. Just about being told that you matter.

And Pixar is a good studio, but this:

most of the Pixar staff are male, and they're writing what they know.

is just dumb. They could hire anyone they liked, including female writers. If they can stretch their minds into being fish or robots, being a girl should not be beyond possibility.
posted by emjaybee at 7:47 AM on June 15 [25 favorites has favorites]

Hate to break it to you all but Pixar has released ten feature films ... and none of them have had a human lead character.

All apologies if some other deep wit has already dropped this Maserati. I just woke up. And furthermore, I don't like Pixar. The only Pixar film I've ever seen in its entirety was that short with the table lamp ... way back when. It creeped me out. For some people, it's clowns. For me, it's digital technology pretending it can emulate human reality and emotions.

It can't.
posted by philip-random at 7:50 AM on June 15

the only Pixar’s movie I passed on was Cars, which, coincidentally, had some of their weakest female roles

I hope by "passed on" you mean "didn't actually watch" because the female Porsche Carrera was the best character in the film, and had a major part in getting the main character to come to his senses about how to relate to other, er, people.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:52 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

For all the "what does it matter if there's no female leads/not princesses" crowd, I can only say, Harriet the Spy and The Blue Sword, two books with female leads, changed my life as a kid. I reread them both so much I almost still have them memorized.

Oh god, I loved Harriet the Spy. And Ramona. Girls who seemed like me (not super girly girls, but not boys or even marked tomboys either--just real girls), but had great adventures. I would love, love, love to see more girls like them in books, movies, tv, whatever.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:52 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Nobody is demanding that Pixar do anything. But what we are asking is, if Pixar is creating brilliant movies about the human condition, why aren't any of the movies about human women? They're not bad people because they're buying into the neutral = male default; we'd simply like people who can imagine a rat as a chef, and a robot as romantic to try imagining a girl as a hero.
posted by headspace at 7:54 AM on June 15 [8 favorites has favorites]

Hate to break it to you all but Pixar has released ten feature films ... and none of them have had a human lead character.

Uh . . . The Incredibles?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:54 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

At the risk of sounding a bit hurf durf, as you put it, some of us having encountered women's studies have come away distinctly unimpressed. Not mocking. Just saying.

This comment only makes sense to me if all women's studies classes share the same curriculum everywhere they are taught, which has not been my experience. I'm not sure that dismissiveness made by being marginally ignorant is superior to dismissiveness made by being completely ignorant.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:56 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Hate to break it to you all but Pixar has released ten feature films ... and none of them have had a human lead character.

Safe to assume you haven't seen The Incredibles or Up, then?
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:00 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Somehow, I don't think the "princess" in Bear and the Bow is going to need rescuing by some square-jawed guy.

I noticed Brenda Chapman's work in Beauty and the Beast, too, mainly because of the layers of irony in Gaston, because the character was pretty much a parody of the Disney paragon. And the song lays it on pretty thick.

(As you see, he's got biceps to spare.)
posted by rokusan at 8:01 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

Do people still say "feminazi"? Seriously?

Jeez.
posted by grubi at 8:01 AM on June 15

Disney Channel is a lone hold out as a channel for children that does not air commercials.

Except for, y'know, every minute of everything they ever air. The whole damn point of Disney films and TV shows is to be able to sell merchandise. This is not to say that they're evil, just... capitalist. Somehow, along the line, somebody has to get paid for having written, directed, drawn, and voiced the show. Sometimes that money comes from ticket sales (Up), sometimes it comes from advertising (most TV), sometimes it comes from toy sales (Disney channel stuff.) But for the love of Mr. Rogers, let's not pretend the Disney Channel is some kind of principled stalwart.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:02 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

Rokusan, don't forget that he's especially good at expectorating.

Seriously, that song is fifteen kinds of awesome for how it skewers the traditional brawny hero archetype.
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:03 AM on June 15

Harriet the Spy was a defining book for the boy I was as well. [Which isn't to say that girls don't need female heroes. Only that gender differences need not be a dealbreaker in all cases.]

The movie - which you couldn't have paid me to defile my memories with - apparently sucked.

So, careful what you wish for and all that.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:06 AM on June 15

Pixar movies are cartoons made for children. Everyone, please grow up and stop trying to relive your childhood by obsessing about them.
posted by gagglezoomer at 8:07 AM on June 15

Or, like Pastabagel's post, which takes an opposing premise, that because they are a beholden to stockholders this somehow absolves them of social responsibility, and reaches the same conclusion.

The social responsibility extends to Disney as a whole, not to Pixar, which is a division. Disney isn't absolved of any social responsibility, nor do they think they are. Why do you think Disney greenlighted all those Miramax art films?

And I think the His Dark Materials books (which were enjoyed my several male adults of my acquaintance) were proof that Rowling was really, really off about this.

While His Dark Materials was a great series, and much more socially important than Harry Potter, Rowling was absolutely correct that boys by and large won't read a fantasy or adventure series with a female lead. The sales figures bear that out.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:07 AM on June 15

Safe to assume you haven't seen The Incredibles or Up, then?

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) the point phillip-random is trying to make is that they're cartoons drawn on a computer, not human actors. I'll leave it up to yinz to discuss this point, because I won't bother.
posted by inigo2 at 8:08 AM on June 15

I thought Wall-E was a girl.
posted by birdwatcher at 8:08 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Pixar movies are cartoons made for children. Everyone, please grow up and stop trying to relive your childhood by obsessing about them.

*throws cartoon pie at gagglezoomer*
posted by device55 at 8:10 AM on June 15

I hope by "passed on" you mean "didn't actually watch" because the female Porsche Carrera was the best character in the film, and had a major part in getting the main character to come to his senses about how to relate to other, er, people.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:52 AM on June 15

Which is precisely the role of moral compass criticized as being stereotypically female in one of the linked articles .
posted by Pastabagel at 8:10 AM on June 15

Safe to assume you haven't seen The Incredibles or Up, then?

Watched half of the Incredibles, I've seen the Up trailers. Those aren't humans. They're cartoons.
posted by philip-random at 8:10 AM on June 15

Ahem. That "pee?" Make that "peer."

Too late.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:12 AM on June 15

Watched half of the Incredibles, I've seen the Up trailers. Those aren't humans. They're cartoons.

Ok, so we've established that you are indeed Master of the Obvious. Why the need to point this out in an otherwise fascinating thread about the dearth of admirable female leads in children's films, a large number of which are (brace yourself) animated?
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:16 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

Watched half of the Incredibles, I've seen the Up trailers. Those aren't humans. They're cartoons.

Touche. Although Ed Asner, who voiced the main character in Up, reportedly still has part of a human liver and one of his actual fingers attached to his cyborg frame.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:17 AM on June 15

I think that argument smells a little like the ridiculous anti-animation bias that seems to permeate "serious" film buffs. Hence Wall-E somehow not being nominated for Best Picture last year WHEN CLEARLY IT WAS.
posted by grubi at 8:17 AM on June 15

Artw: Which is to say, yeah, Disney/Pixar being overly concerned with some kind of quota would be a bad thing.

Well, I don't know who is looking for quotas. But there certainly is a strong argument to be made that films that treat half of the population as secondary are not as great as they pretend to be.

Artw: Inspiration is not a coin toss.

Which is pretty much just repeating something that's little more than self-aggrandizing bullshit. Inspiration is pretty much less than 5% of what goes into a final creative product. And the fact that inspiration is often, extremely, badly, and horribly wrong in ugly ways is the reason why most artists spend a lot of time planing and ripping through multiple drafts before showing anything to anybody.

juiceCake: Sure, but so what. Why should they just because they can? They have no responsibility and no obligation to do so.

Sure, Pixar and Disney can make the movies they want to sell, (personally, I have no illusions regarding their artistic integrity,) and viewers can point out the multiple flaws in the movies they sell. The mandate that I turn off my brain at the movie theater only applies when I'm at the concession counter.

adipocere: And, while we're busy hating on Pixar, is it possible that they've done some market research and found that alternative ideas won't fly? Remember, Pixar does not make artistic expressions or social statements. They make movies as an investment. If you want people who make movies because they want to express themselves, the Lars von Trier post is a few doors down.

Sure. However, Pixar doesn't deserve a cookie, or a free pass from criticism because they choose to do so. But perhaps most importantly, Pixar's problem reflects a problem in the industry in general. In spite of the fact that women as producers, writers and directors have a fairly strong track-record of making surprisingly profitable films on considerably less budget than male counterparts, those projects face an uphill struggle to make it into production.

Pastabagel: That's nice to wish for. I still wish George Lucas could make a Star Wars movie as good as Empire Strikes Back.

It's also significant that Empire was the only one of the six he didn't write or act as lead director on.

But, I find the making of Star Wars to be really interesting. Throughout the making of Star Wars there were crisis where people started asking, "Who is this Lucas guy, and why are we letting him continue to work on a film that's both over-budget and over-schedule?" The making of Star Wars is a case example of the Hollywood good ol' boy network at work. Lucas was able to complete Star Wars largely because he was chummy with people who were willing to vouch for him, in spite of an incomprehensible vision and disastrous early edits.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:17 AM on June 15

Katha Pollitt wrote an essay called the Smurfette Principle in 1991, which criticized Sesame Street for lacking female muppets. Since then, Sesame Street has added several female muppets, including Zoe and Rosita, who are some of their more popular new characters. Yet as far as I can remember, the new female muppets were added without controversy. I certainly don't remember any fanboys shouting "Feminazi!" when they added Zoe to Sesame Street. If anything, people were grateful to have a counterbalance to all-Elmo-all-the-time. Why does it have to be so hard for Pixar to make some female lead characters when Sesame Street didn't seem to have much trouble with it?
posted by jonp72 at 8:18 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

While His Dark Materials was a great series, and much more socially important than Harry Potter, Rowling was absolutely correct that boys by and large won't read a fantasy or adventure series with a female lead. The sales figures bear that out.

Do we know that the sales were really skewed towards girls for The Golden Compass? There are several factors--the fact that it's a more challenging book on a prose level than the first Harry Potter novel, for example--that could contribute to it not having the incredibly stellar and highly unusual sales figures of the HP series. By all measures, though, the HDM (book) series was financially successful--it made all the best sellers lists, for example.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:19 AM on June 15

Safe to assume you haven't seen The Incredibles or Up, then?

On review, oops. inigo2 just said it better ... my deeper point being that I would question the humanity of Pixar (and digital animation in general) before I'd question its sexual politics. I realize this is a contentious point with some. But I stand by it. I've truly never made it through an entire digitally animated feature film. They just don't engage me. I'd say, I guess I'm just old except I really liked THE IRON GIANT. Unfortunately, it died a death at the box office and now Brad Bird seems forever in Pixar land.

Humanity's loss.
posted by philip-random at 8:20 AM on June 15

I think some of you aren't giving Cars a fair shake. It's not only a tribute to the classic American love affair with the automobile/Route 66, but also a story about the value of friends and realizing what's important, which was John Lasseter's impetus for writing the story.

Cars is also loaded with automobile references of all kinds, which was a lot of fun for me, being a "car guy".

Yes, as a Disney vehicle, it's got loads of marketable cars to make toys out of, but it still has the Pixar soul.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:21 AM on June 15

Metafilter: what I said about “Malcolm X”.
posted by ericbop at 8:22 AM on June 15

Also: While we're on the subject of sexism, labeling Cars as a "boyzone" movie implies that women can't be interested in cars.

That's not an implication that comes from Pixar or the movie.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:25 AM on June 15

Watched half of the Incredibles, I've seen the Up trailers. Those aren't humans. They're cartoons.

Watched half of The Godfather. I've seen the Gran Turino trailers. Those aren't humans. They're shapes on 35mm film.

Read half of The Amazing Aventures of Kavalier and Clay. Read the back of Lolita. Those aren't humans. They're a bunch of words imperfectly describing fictions.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:27 AM on June 15 [20 favorites has favorites]

I'd love to see a kids movie in which the male lead isn't either a) obsessed with winning the heart of a beautiful girl, or; b) a complete dolt.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:32 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

Why does it have to be so hard for Pixar to make some female lead characters when Sesame Street didn't seem to have much trouble with it?

One major distinction between the two is that Sesame Street is a non-profit public television show dedicated to being a source of education first and entertainment second. Well, okay, that's more than one distinction, but you get the point. Sesame Street isn't driven by profit motive, Pixar is. What's sauce for the goose isn't necessarily sauce for the beefalo, or at least that's likely the way Pixar views it.

Sesame Street has made tons of choices for its show that no Hollywood studio ever would. Like, for instance, extremely restricting the use of some very popular characters (e.g., Oscar the Grouch) and even directly violating one of the core identifying characteristics of another (i.e., Cookie Monster singing "Cookies Are a Sometimes Food"). Those choices are horrible ones from a storytelling perspective, and totally indefensible from a profit perspective, but when education is your first priority and you realize that your characters are modeling behavior for children (childhood obesity is becoming an epidemic in the US, and one of our most beloved characters is a glutton), you've pretty much got an ethical gun to your head there. Sesame Street has also in some countries created HIV-infected Muppets. Guess how long it'll be before Pixar tackles HIV/AIDS.

That gun's easier to disarm when you're concerned about making 300 mil. It's also easier to shamelessly market your products to children the way that Disney does when you're worrying about the bottom line.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:32 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

It's interesting to me that saying "gee, as a girl, I'd love to see a great Pixar movie that has a girl as the lead", is the same to some people as saying "I HATE PIXAR AND I HOPE THEY DIE." And yes, Miyazaki's movies mostly have female leads. Do they have the pop culture impact on our society that Pixar films do? Frankly, no.

BTW, in response to some confusion, the woman at the ceremony was his mom; Phyllis is the kid's stepmom, who is discouraging the father from having a relationship with his kid. No reason Phyllis would be there, but his single mom did show up. And let me clarify I'm not saying that it would have made sense story-wise for the mom to give the badge; it wouldn't. But her passivity and cluelessness, again, were just oddly off-putting.
posted by OolooKitty at 8:34 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

Why do you think Disney greenlighted all those Miramax art films?

Good point. I think I misread you as defending some kind of corporate profit-maximizing motive as sensible, and I see you're not and I'm sorry I read you wrong.

The idea that Pixar just exists to fund these adult products seems misplaced though. I get the impression they don't think of themselves like that. And even if they did just exist to make money to fund other work, why not inject some social responsibility there, too? Why not try to push the envelope on this gender stuff? Why not try to find a way to make a profitable kids movie with a female lead?

It's not just a brute fact of the market that boys don't like watching movies with female leads. It's part of a big feedback loop. I'm sure, for example, that one of the reasons boys don't like watching movies with female leads is because there aren't many that have seemed good to them; e.g. The Little Mermaid is boring and possibly even icky, in large part because of its reliance on these hackneyed, cheesy, lame gender roles. Maybe breaking away from stereotyping will increase the cross-gender appeal of these movies. Nobody's really trying this seriously (although The Incredibles seems like a step in the right direction, and a successful one) that I know of, probably because they think it's just a brute fact of the market that it won't work.

But the market isn't just a thing. It changes as people put different stuff into it. Pixar's in a position to try to make this kind of change. They should step up.
posted by avianism at 8:34 AM on June 15 [7 favorites has favorites]

Wow another story that promotes the idea that social and cultural imperialism is perfectly acceptable as long as its privileged, white, American women.
posted by Redgrendel2001 at 8:35 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Remember, Pixar does not make artistic expressions or social statements. They make movies as an investment. If you want people who make movies because they want to express themselves, the Lars von Trier post is a few doors down.

What an incredibly arrogant and boneheaded thing to write. Just because their movies aren't aimed at you, or don't interest you, and make a lot of money doesn't mean that the people involved in creating them aren't making art.
posted by papercake at 8:37 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

Pastabagel: While His Dark Materials was a great series, and much more socially important than Harry Potter, Rowling was absolutely correct that boys by and large won't read a fantasy or adventure series with a female lead. The sales figures bear that out.

Well, by and large, Potter is an extreme outlier as a publishing franchise. I will argue that in regards to gender, Potter is more progressive than many Pixar feature films.

phillip-random: I think any concerns that animation could represent human drama was pretty firmly put to rest in the Chuck Jones era. Now whether Pixar successfully does it is another question.

Does anyone else cringe whenever Ratzenberger mugs for the microphone? At least one if the things I did like about UP! was that Asner's performance never let Asner come to the foreground.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:40 AM on June 15

A: Perhaps your daughters (and sons, while we're at it) should watch fewer movies? My daughter enjoys playing astronaut and Megashark Vs. Giant Octopus, and doesn't seem to get why her friends want to play Princesses all the time. And coincidentally, she doesn't watch a lot of Disney movies. Or a lot of movies in general. Hmm.

B: WALL*E was AW*FUL. Stopped watching around halfway through because I didn't care what happened to the robots, and it didn't seem likely that humanity was going to be destroyed in the end, and that was clearly what needed to happen to make the movie even almost worth having suffered through. Also, yes, Disney, please lecture me about the evils of waste and brainless consumerism, you hypocritical fucks. Hey, why not have a blurb on the side of the WALL*E Happy Meal box about it?
posted by rusty at 8:42 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

OolooKitty: "It's interesting to me that saying "gee, as a girl, I'd love to see a great Pixar movie that has a girl as the lead", is the same to some people as saying "I HATE PIXAR AND I HOPE THEY DIE.""

A misreading, to be sure. One I suspect is fueled by the fear, reasonable or not, that if Pixar starts second guessing what they've been doing - which, for the sake of argument, let's define as "make terrific animated films about male characters" - in response to even a legitimate feminist grievance, they will in fact die.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:43 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

J. K. Rowling never said she had a male protagonist so the books would appeal to boys. She has said she used J. K. Rowling as her pen name instead of Joanne Rowling because her publisher suggested that boys won't read books written by a woman. I think she's expressed regret for this and by the third or fourth book she was famous enough that nearly all her readers knew she's a woman, anyway.
posted by zixyer at 8:44 AM on June 15

rusty,

Your points are valid, except that it should be noted that Pixar (and Disney) made the deliberate choice not to have Wall-E related happy meal toys. They recognized the levels of hypocrisy this would have achieved, and avoided that particular controversy.
posted by nushustu at 8:49 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

> I'd love to see a kids movie in which the male lead isn't either a) obsessed with winning the heart of a beautiful girl, or; b) a complete dolt.

How about Up? Roger Ebert rightly pointed out in his review that this was a children's film where the child refreshingly didn't know more than the adult, a male lead whose flaws are very much human and sad and transgresses (b).

As for (a)—tangentially—, I'd like to know how many children asked their parents about what happened with Carl and Ellie in that beginning sequence and why everybody in the theater was trying so hard not to cry ten minutes into the film. Lots of the same fun, awkward conversation taking place across the country.

But maybe you were talking about a young male leads, so sorry if that's the case. I just liked Ebert's one-off digression. And Up. I like Up a lot.
posted by shadytrees at 8:50 AM on June 15

Why is the assumption that mothers are making these decisions? Where are the fathers? Are they adamantly in there insisting on varied representation, only to be overridden by the mother, whose gendered agenda is presumably so much more rigid?

At the risk of sounding like an ass, Miko, you don't have a kid. If you did, you'd know that kids make up their own minds about what they want, and the best parents can do is try to steer them.

My daughter hates clothes with flowers, has no dolls (only stuffed animals), and for the most part avoids dresses. She's made those decisions on her own. I've offered dolls and princess outfits, but she refuses them. She's made her choice, and I'm fine with it because it's her choice. Oh, and she's 5.

I don't think it really matters what the mother or the father thinks. If they're forcing a gendered agenda on their children, they're bad parents, of course, but in the end the kids will figure it out on their own when they hit rebellion stage.
posted by dw at 8:52 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

The idea that Pixar just exists to fund these adult products seems misplaced though. I get the impression they don't think of themselves like that. And even if they did just exist to make money to fund other work, why not inject some social responsibility there, too? Why not try to push the envelope on this gender stuff? Why not try to find a way to make a profitable kids movie with a female lead?

I think you're right that they don't think of themselves like that. They clearly do try to inject some social or moral message into their films, but the messages are always so broadly applicable that they are inherently gender neutral.

But think how difficult it is to find a mainstream live-action film with a female lead that doesn't involve a wedding or a job promotion. The story archetype you are describing is exceedingly rare. The funny/weird thing is that the genre with the longest track record of strong, heroic female leads is horror.

Look, Wall-E's budget was $180 million. Are they really going to try to push the envelop on "gender stuff" with $180 million of someone else's money, when films with a budget a tenth of that don't even try it?
posted by Pastabagel at 8:54 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Rowling was absolutely correct that boys by and large won't read a fantasy or adventure series with a female lead. The sales figures bear that out.

Cite, please. Plus, folks above are claiming Rowling said nothing of the sort, so if someone could provide a cite for that it'd be great, too.
posted by mediareport at 8:55 AM on June 15

WALL*E was AW*FUL

I can only assume this is like that cilantro thing.
posted by device55 at 8:56 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

ne I suspect is fueled by the fear, reasonable or not, that if Pixar starts second guessing what they've been doing - which, for the sake of argument, let's define as "make terrific animated films about male characters" - in response to even a legitimate feminist grievance, they will in fact die.

I think that people who have such creative talent and spot-on instincts for popular entertainment could certainly find a smart way to bring in the talent and ideas into the development pool for these films. If they sloughed off some half-thought-out movie that they weren't truly excited about simply in order to appease critics clamoring for female leads, that would indeed be a shame. But why would we assume they'd do that? Why would anyone want them to drop their standards? if they assembled a creative team that met all their usual standards for unconventionality, humor, surprise, universality, and so on, there's no reason to think they couldn't do it well. They know a lot about making great movies. To say they couldn't make a great movie about a female lead when, in fact, they have all the abilities necessary to do so sort of proves the argument that it's not just an accident, but some prejudice, whether unintentional and unthinking or not, going on with their inability to present a female lead. Either they can make great movies with female leads, so eventually they will, or something about the idea of a female lead is convincing them (and some here) that a movie with a female lead can simply not be great - and in that mindset lies the problem.
posted by Miko at 8:57 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

nushustu: it should be noted that Pixar (and Disney) made the deliberate choice not to have Wall-E related happy meal toys.

Oh yeah, well that excuses the foregoing 80+ years of it. :-)
posted by rusty at 8:58 AM on June 15

Rowling was absolutely correct that boys by and large won't read a fantasy or adventure series with a female lead.

Really?
posted by Miko at 8:59 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Does anyone else cringe whenever Ratzenberger mugs for the microphone?

If it weren't for Ratzenberger, the Disney-Pixar merger would never have happened. Disney wanted to go ahead with Toy Story 3 when it looked like they were about to lose Pixar, but Ratzenberger, considered the "good luck charm" by the Pixar folks, refused to cross over to do the Disney version. That doomed Toy Story 3 and eventually led Disney to make the deal with Pixar in 2006.

As part of the deal, Toy Story 3 was put next in line for Pixar after the movie they'd just started working on -- Up.
posted by dw at 8:59 AM on June 15

/slight derail, Yes I knew the Harriet the Spy movie would suck when they cast a cute blonde girly girl as the lead instead of someone who basically looked like Velma*--which is how the book described her. She hated bathing, for crying out loud.

*just like me at that age!

And also slight derail, the pushy and bookish Belle in Disney's Beauty and the Beast is a direct ripoff of the pushy and bookish Beauty in Robin McKinley's Beauty. McKinley also wrote the book I already mentioned, The Blue Sword, which would make an utterly awesome film and if Pixar picked it up I would die from hyperventilating joy.

/end derail
posted by emjaybee at 9:00 AM on June 15

dw, I think Miko was responding to Pastabagel's comment here, wherein PB placed the onus of educating children about the weird pervasive gender stereotypes squarely on mom's shoulders. I think we could all agree that, to the degree that parents can influence their kids' tastes and cultural perceptions, that should be something that (ideally) would be taken on by both the mom and the dad.
posted by shiu mai baby at 9:01 AM on June 15

Either they can make great movies with female leads, so eventually they will, or something about the idea of a female lead is convincing them (and some here) that a movie with a female lead can simply not be great - and in that mindset lies the problem.

Again, Bear and the Bow. Brenda Chapman. Christmas 2011.

Can we all just calm down and wait through the Toy Story onslaught over the next year? It sounds like Pixar decided that it's time for a woman-centered role, and they handed it to the one person they think can do it right.
posted by dw at 9:05 AM on June 15

Triplets of Belleville. Strong female lead. Great female secondary characters. All the males, pretty much, are deeplky flawed in one way or another.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 9:05 AM on June 15

Rowling was absolutely correct that boys by and large won't read a fantasy or adventure series with a female lead.

In addition to Miko's "Really?", I'm assuming that a large majority of Honor Harrington readers are boys.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:06 AM on June 15

Isn't this just a marketing problem? The male leads must be testing better with the focus groups.
posted by tehloki at 9:10 AM on June 15

device55: I can only assume this is like that cilantro thing.

Not really -- I could write a fairly long critical (in the sense of "interpretive" rather than "negative," although in this case it would mostly be negative as well) essay about why WALL*E was bad, starting at the level of characterization (one-word summary: childish), running through plot and story (one word summary: thin), and then looking at thematic elements and the context within which the film is embedded that severely undercuts and problematizes those very themes (one word summary: [unprintable]). Others would surely disagree, but it would be expected that they could support their disagreement by drawing examples from the film, from other works, and/or from the larger body of critical and film theory. It would be a process of building intelligent discourse around an artistic work.

Liking cilantro, on the other hand, appears to have more to do with genetic taste receptors, and noting to do with interpretation or criticism.

I guess my key point is that I'm not saying "I didn't like it," but that "It is bad."

(I didn't like it, of course, but that doesn't really matter to anyone, nor would I expect it to.)
posted by rusty at 9:10 AM on June 15

Triplets of Belleville. Strong female lead. Great female secondary characters. All the males, pretty much, are deeplky flawed in one way or another.

Not Pixar, or mainstream. And also, in my opinion, intensely annoying. By the end I hated all the characters equally, regardless of gender. Except maybe the dog.
posted by emjaybee at 9:14 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

"No More Princess" pitch.

SETTING: A magical forest which exists somewhere in Central Europe for the purposes of design, art influence, and novel exotica.

The Kingdom of Presteria is ruled by seven sisters. Known as The Princesses, they exert ruthless control over the kingdom and populace, being seen as arrogant, vain, dictatorial, and spoiled. They all believe they are the absolute best in something, Music, Art, Law, Swordsmanship, etc, and because of that, only they may participate in them,.

The only non-royal any of them know is Elizabeta, a carpenter's daughter who is friends with Princess Erika. Or rather, they used to be friends and allowed to play another as children, but that Erika is old enough to rule, she must be distanced from her former friend and treat her as other commoner. A populist revolt is forming over the excess of power held by the Princesses, a revolt that Elizabeth reluctantly agrees with, but still fears for her old friend. Through some subterfuge, Princess Erika is kidnapped to be held for ransom. The other Princesses, not wanting to look weak, kidnap Elizabeta and dress her up as Erika. Both girls experience the other's world, Erika seeing the poor state of the "real world" and that she's not the best at everything and Elizabeta witnesses first hand the extreme rigidity and absurdity of Princess life. They both resolve to fix the problems and yadda yadda work this out later, maybe an outside threat like an invading army of magical beings. It ends with the Monarchy being dissolved, the Arts and Sciences opened up for everyone (cause maybe everyone is needed to fight, not just the royals), the idea that everyone needs to band together and share their skills and a newer, more democratic Presteria emerges.

I'm thinking Art-Nouveu/Secessionist inspired design, myself.
posted by The Whelk at 9:16 AM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

Pixar's been a bit of a boy's club from the start, cf. Knick Knack.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:17 AM on June 15

I just watched Persepolis on Friday night.
posted by autodidact at 9:18 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think we could all agree that, to the degree that parents can influence their kids' tastes and cultural perceptions, that should be something that (ideally) would be taken on by both the mom and the dad.

Not only ideally - it already is. If males in the family are signing off on decisions about what media the kids take in, or are brought into the home, or celebrated, or which franchises the toys in the house are purchased from, that absence of interest and decision making is every bit as loud a gender cue to the children as is any female family member's choices. Blaming the choices on mothers alone neglects the messages sent by any lack of interest, discussion, critique, authorization, or collaboration on the part of a father. It's nuts to say that fathers, when they're present, or other male relatives have no impact on the gender education of children. Even by signalling their own non-interest in princess films, or by indulging in a daughter's interest in those films without discussion, or by separating the experiences of film by gender, or by simply leaving all such choices to the mother or female relatives, males are demonstrating what kids will see as appropriate gender activity. There's no way to place blame for gender stereotyping on a single member of the family, when establishing and reinforcing gender norms is actually a collaborative project of all family members, peers, school, and society at large. To undermine the norms one must engage them directly.
posted by Miko at 9:19 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

Disney is focused on providing quality entertainment to children and their families, sticking to 'safe' topics and situations to provide a haven of G-rated programming in an R-rated system. Disney Channel is a lone hold out as a channel for children that does not air commercials.

Hey, I really enjoy Disney's programming, especially the live-action shows that my older "pre-tween" daughter is getting into. We watch them together. I'm generally Disney friendly, princess-fairy industrial complex, stupid Purity Ring teenagers, and all.

However, your assertion that Disney Channel is the only network that does not air commercials is false. They limit commercials during the early-morning preschool programming, but after about 10 AM anything goes. This is also Nickelodeon's modus operandi. Nick's Noggin channel, on the other hand, is almost completely commercial-free 24 hours a day (though not advertising-free anymore, as short ad bumpers have been appearing amidst the interstitial programming for some time). If Disney has a channel that compares to Noggin in this way, it is not amongst the dozen or so children's programming channels available with my Direct TV package.

Not that this is really an important point to make or relevant to the discussion, but since you brought it up, it seemed worth mentioning.
posted by padraigin at 9:21 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Or as an example where Pixar's bias just doesn't make sense, in Up! a large pack of domesticated dogs is voiced by three men, somewhat in contrary to what we know of the ways in which dog packs are socially organized around breeding pairs. Of course the whole thing about talking dogs is based on an invention as plot device, and one could explain it away as Muntz gendered all his devices as masculine. But then, we loose the idea that those voices are expressive of individual personality. It's one of those little details that don't quite add up.

Joe Beese: A misreading, to be sure. One I suspect is fueled by the fear, reasonable or not, that if Pixar starts second guessing what they've been doing - which, for the sake of argument, let's define as "make terrific animated films about male characters" - in response to even a legitimate feminist grievance, they will in fact die.

Oh please, Pixar didn't get to where it is without second guessing what it does in relationship to the market. And at least one of the points being made is that while Pixar generally is a step above the rather dismal state of animation in the United States, it's products are unworthy of the excessive praise heaped upon them.

Pastabagel: Look, Wall-E's budget was $180 million. Are they really going to try to push the envelop on "gender stuff" with $180 million of someone else's money, when films with a budget a tenth of that don't even try it?

Of course, some people argue that they did by gendering EVE as feminine. Furthermore, prior success with Incredibles, a film with female co-leads, should leave little doubt that the inclusion of female characters isn't the box office kiss of death.

dw: If it weren't for Ratzenberger, the Disney-Pixar merger would never have happened.

Sure, but his short performance in Up! still sucked. Or rather, to my ears it was inappropriate for the tone of the movie.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:22 AM on June 15

fwiw, Miko, I included the ideally parenthetical in my last comment only to acknowledge in passing that not every family with children has a typical male-dad + female-mom parenting structure. Addressing societal expectations of gender roles in fiction is a thousand times more complicated in a non-stereotypical family, but I figured that was a kettle of fish I didn't want to crack open here.
posted by shiu mai baby at 9:28 AM on June 15

Or to put it another way, it may have been a good idea to treat Pixar as a sacred cow 10 years ago, when it was a newcomer to the blockbuster movie stage bringing new talent and storytelling to a stagnant animation industry. But now that they are the establishment just as much as the Disney princess franchise, it's time to blow the dust off the DVDs and engage in some critical reassessment.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:31 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

fwiw, Miko, I included the ideally parenthetical in my last comment

Sorry, I thought the "ideally" referred to the idea that in a two-parent home, ideally, both parents would be involved. So I was trying to show that sending gender messages wasn't a matter of choosing to be ideal, it happens as default. Sorry I read the comment wrong - but it led me to a point I wanted to make anyhow!
posted by Miko at 9:35 AM on June 15

Not Pixar, or mainstream. And also, in my opinion, intensely annoying. By the end I hated all the characters equally, regardless of gender. Except maybe the dog.

Mainstream enough to be nominated for two Academy Awards -- Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song. It lost the Beat Feature award to Finding Nemo.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 9:35 AM on June 15

Best Feature, dammit. Not Beat.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 9:39 AM on June 15

Personally, I don't consider the Academy Awards to be a good barometer of quality. The Best Animated Feature in particular is rigged in a way that Pixar and Disney blockbusters have a significant edge over foreign films that get buried in the arthouse circuit. Persepolis for example received rave critical reviews but was dribbled out to theaters by Sony. So when you get to something that's basically a popularity contest, of course academy members are going to vote for something they might have actually seen over something that they likely only saw in the form of a DVD mailing.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:44 AM on June 15

Wouldn't be complete without:

The difference between Pixar and Dreamworks.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:47 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

Pixar is now at the point where it can release a film with a female lead that can succeed (as bean-counters measure these things) despite some of the misgivings mentionned in this thread. This is because Pixar is now a Name and draw in and of itself--people go to see a movie because it has "Pixar" on the poster, just like people buy paperbacks because "KING" takes up 2/3rds of the cover. Any parent gender biases ("Oh, my son won't like this because it's about a girl") are over-ridden by Pixar's track record of doing cool, excellent, entertaining stuff.
posted by Decimask at 9:52 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I know it's not Pixar, but did anyone see Monsters vs. Aliens?
Like most of DreamWorks movies, Monsters vs. Aliens is more of a Netflix choice than something to see in theaters for me. Slate's review of it - which was less a critique of the movie itself than the complaint about Pixar going on here - was among the most positive notices it received. Others called it "a gag-delivery system wrapped in special effects" (AV Club), "about things, not characters" (Washington Post), and "something that's just rolled off a conveyor belt, made according to an exacting but dull set of specifications" (Salon). It did boffo BO, of course, and I bet its "message" tested well with preview audiences. I expect it will entertain me without moving me in the slightest.

While we're on the subject of sexism, labeling Cars as a "boyzone" movie implies that women can't be interested in cars.
Cars seems to be the one Pixar movie where they might be vulnerable to this kind of criticism. They were able to cast Mario Andretti and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. for voice cameos but couldn't get Danica Patrick? And having a down-to-earth female character, Sally Carrera, driven (so to speak) to persuade the swell-headed male lead to relate to other people is a cliche that ought to be beneath them.

And, while we're busy hating on Pixar, is it possible that they've done some market research and found that alternative ideas won't fly?
Up to this point, Pixar hasn't really cared about market research when coming up with their stories. "We make these films for ourselves. We're kind of selfish that way," Up's director has explained. They seem more in touch with the spirit of that old bastard Walt, who once said "We don't make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies." At any rate, I'd rather see an uncategorizable, idiosyncratic Pixar movie than a conventional DreamWorks or Disney one that rated positively with focus groups.

Let me just step over here into my multi-million dollar animation studio, rendering farm, and production facility and get to work.
Or you can make your own award-winning feature animated film with Flash entirely by yourself. (previously)
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:54 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

> What I was trying to do with that cilantro comment was to point out how (anecdotally) every single negative response to WALL*E seems to include some statement to the effect of "I don't need to be beaten over the head with an environmental message" - I find this to be strange and knee-jerkish.

I suspect that those people who have that strong reaction against a perceived environmental message - their reaction is so strong it prevents them from enjoying a fun story about a robot falling in love and humans regaining their humanity.

Clearly I dropped the boat on that metaphor.

While there are definitely environmental themes in WALL*E - I think there's more to it than that. The concept of humanity expanding and progressing so far as to overwhelm the earth's resources is a common theme in science fiction - shows up in the credits to Firefly, 2001, Contact, etc.

Also at the end of WALL*E it's heavily implied that humans basically terraform the earth(!) to make it suitable for human life, creating an idealized fishing village - that to me seems quite un-environmentalist.
posted by device55 at 9:54 AM on June 15

How are folks deciding that The Incredibles not have a female lead? Elastigirl is right there with Mr. Incredible, and Violet is clearly a bigger character than than Dash (in an ensemble piece.) And as mentioned, Edna is the strongest character in the film.
posted by msalt at 9:59 AM on June 15

I like the moving pictures.
posted by mazola at 9:59 AM on June 15

lazaruslong: "Wouldn't be complete without:

The difference between Pixar and Dreamworks."

Sure, Dreamworks animation is generally lesser babka. But I preferred Antz to A Bug's Life. And there was nothing wrong with Kung Fu Panda or the first Shrek.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:01 AM on June 15

^ "This" being people's need to tell Pixar how to make their movies, which is just a small example of people's need to ruin everything in order to make a world where "everybody gets equal treatment."

It just makes me hate people. Vote me off this fucking planet.

This is absurd. You are frothing at the mouth, and over what? The article was not a plea to pass a law requiring Pixar to make more movies with female protagonists. It was just an open letter noting the gender discrepancy in Pixar protagonists. Look, it's not the case that Pixar is making high art that bows only to the demands of the form. They're making children's movies that get shaped by focus groups and market demands, although the movies are well-crafted and charming to a number of demographics. Basically all that is being suggested is that they broaden their marketing focus to, you know, the other half of the population. If you want to suggest that they already have, read iamkimaim's comment, which shows how girls are socialized to see men as the agents for action in society. While you're doing that, keep in mind that these are children's movies; they're not for you, they're for kids, and so they have as a company a certain responsibility to make sure that issues like these are handled well.

Beyond that, your melodramatic martyrdom is ridiculous. Is throwing a tantrum your usual response to things you disagree with?
posted by invitapriore at 10:05 AM on June 15 [11 favorites has favorites]

The article was not a plea to pass a law requiring Pixar to make more movies with female protagonists.

No, the article is pretty reasonable.

The OMG SEXISM stuff calling Pixar a bunch of evil sexists and calling for quotas and stuff is all in the comments here. I consider it less reasonable.

Some of the responses to that are unreasonable as well.

And now we have a loop.
posted by Artw at 10:24 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think I posted that before fully waking up as Metafilter as I went for the hyperbole without really thinking through the impression it would give off. To boil it down as simply as I can, however you want to frame this as a feminist issue, or the totally benign floating of a suggestion, what it represents to me at the core is the subversion of creativity to political or marketing ends. From what I can see Pixar is clearly driven by marketing concerns, but I'm okay with that so long as they keep making pretty cool 3D movies every now and then. If they add another category of agenda to the yoke on the creatives, it will only hurt the end result.
posted by autodidact at 10:25 AM on June 15

...or the first Shrek.

Ah, the Shrek Trilogy, originality and quality-wise the Matrix Trilogy of animation.
posted by Artw at 10:26 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

From what I can see Pixar is clearly driven by marketing concerns

Hmm. No. That's what makes Pixar special.

...and if you deny Pixar being special that then why do we care what they make, as opposed to Dreamworks or any other generic move maker?
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

This sentiment may already have been expressed in the above slog, but...

I suspect that Pixar is worried that, the first time they make an animated film with a strong female lead who's a regular person, it will be perceived as such a big leap that it will have to be perfect. Every single second of time that character is on-screen will be picked apart by people with one axe to grind or another.

It's quite a dilemma. But they've had plenty of time by now -- just take the plunge, already.

Then do it again, and make the second film completely different and piss off a different set of people.

And then it's mainstream.
posted by gurple at 10:30 AM on June 15

Pixar can make the movies they want to make.

Lars von Tier can make the movies he wants to make.

J. J. Abrams can make the movies he wants to make.

Uwe Boll can make the movies he wants to make.

Michael Bay can make the movies he wants to make.

And as the audience, we can engage in critical discussion of those movies.

And personally, I find it exactly ass-backwards that we tolerate criticism works by directors we respect the least, and not of directors and studios we respect the most.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:31 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

And personally, I find it exactly ass-backwards that we tolerate criticism works by directors we respect the least, and not of directors and studios we respect the most.

Dividing the world into "sexist" and "non-sexist" and assigning works into those buckets via quotas and counts is not criticism I respect.
posted by Artw at 10:37 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

250 comments and not a single mention of Coraline, an American-made animated feature with a strong female lead and a surpringly strong showing at the box office (76m domestic / just passed 100m worldwide)?

I expect to see more than a few Coralines on Halloween this year.
posted by dersins at 10:38 AM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

Wait a minute... though WALL*E was ostensibly about a "male" robot lead character, ultimately his "female" counterpart does most of the saving, and the super-hero-ing. And, moreover, she's not blindly looking for love from a workaholic male. That's quite a bit of gender role reversal going on in that flick.

Does that not count?
posted by revmitcz at 12:31 AM on June 15 [4 favorites +] [!]

Why isn't the movie called EVE then?
posted by harriet vane at 12:33 AM on June 15 [3 favorites +] [!]

It was named after the WALL-E character because the movie was trying to instill in viewers a sense of reverie and nostalgia for the current times as they could look in the future if we don't start recycling and planting trees for Gaia Earth (or whatever). Robot WALL-E has to deal with the garbage wasteland we left behind so we sympathize with him and want to go clean the highway to make his future brighrter while we still can. The title WALL-E reminds us of this.

True, EVE saves the day in WALL-E, but what if the genders of WALL-E and EVE were reversed? Would this just be another boy rescues girl story? Maybe Pixar consciously avoided that angle by having gendering the leading robots the way they did.
posted by WeekendJen at 10:41 AM on June 15

Pixar is driven by marketing concerns, to a degree. To say they're not is naive. Everyone loves Toy Story but I'll bet there's some other movie outside of Toy Story 3 that would be made next if they were to poll their writers and animators on their preference for material. I could be making false assumptions, but I certainly didn't mean to say that they're purely driven by marketing concers, as Dreamworks appears to be. Dreamworks appears to fashion every frame with marketability and exploitation in mind. It has ruined every DW movie so far outside of Kung-Fu-Panda.
posted by autodidact at 10:41 AM on June 15

I would have never thought it would be so controversial for someone to say "Pixar, I love what you do. You're the absolute best. I just have one request: After ten movies in a row with male leads, do you think you could do something with a female protagonist? It would sure mean a lot to our daughters."

You guys seriously want to go ballistic over that? And you think that the letter writer has control issues?

There's more projection happening in this thread than in all the theaters showing Up today.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:42 AM on June 15 [26 favorites has favorites]

*having gendered
posted by WeekendJen at 10:42 AM on June 15

250 comments and not a single mention of Coraline

Hey, good point. I'd forgotten Coraline. Her character was weakened substantially for the movie, vs. the book ("Wybie"? What the hell?), but you're right, they pretty much did it.
posted by gurple at 10:46 AM on June 15

The world is not deivided into sexist and not sexist. It is sexist.

The question then becomes: Do artists we respect support or reject that inherent system of sexism. If they support it, are they doing it knowingly? If they are doing it knowingly, do we continue to support them? If they are doing it unknowingly, can raising the issue influence them to address it.

Pixar is complicated, because it both supports and rejects sexism. It rejects sexism by insisting that its female character be complex, complete characters, and not be primarily identified by their gender. It supports it by making the lead characters of all of its films male, and therefore having the female's role by supportive, generally functioning to encourage the development and character arc of the male lead.

It is to the company's credit that it is so complex. It means they have undoubtedly made active decisions regarding the representation of its female characters, and actively decided to show them in surprising and non-cliched ways. I fully believe the the company, made aware that it is also (probably accidentally) supporting sexism by creating a world in which women are never the principal players in a story, they are capable of addressing that. They have handled the issue of showing non-white characters in their movies with great care and subtlety, and I have no doubt they are capable of doing the same with female characters.

And, as much as I liked Up, the best animated film I saw this year was Coraline, which featured a female lead and and African-American secondary character. It's made $75 million so far, which may not be a blockbuster, but if it didn't do gangbuster business, it's arguably because it was as dark and as squirrely a film as anything Henry Selnick has done, and not because little boys don't want to see movies starring little girls.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:48 AM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

Wow. On lack of preview: There you go.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:49 AM on June 15

Up to this point, Pixar hasn't really cared about market research when coming up with their stories. "We make these films for ourselves. We're kind of selfish that way," Up's director has explained. They seem more in touch with the spirit of that old bastard Walt, who once said "We don't make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies."

And you bought that bull? Suspension of disbelief is only supposed to last for the duration of the movie.
posted by rocket88 at 10:49 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

I think, at some point, the whole "a film with a female protagonist won't be successful" thing sort of comes down to, well, marketing. So many have accused GM of countermarketing the EV-1 and have wondered how it could be different. Ditto, in the opposite way, the entire Hummer / SUV market, which was clearly a consumer demand created by advertising for the benefit of car companies who like the lower CAFE standards and such.

I think it also has to do with how our mass media experiences help mold our culture, not always vice-versa. If the powers that be at Pixar were to decide it was important to make a film with a female protagonist, I have no doubt they would find it an uphill battle, but if it were successful, it could be the first pebble of the landslide that opens the pass to a more realistic portrayal of gender roles in children's movies.

Seriously, the ONLY thing I like about the new Battlestar Galactica is the creation of Starbuck. She kicks ass in so many ways, and yet never descends into parody or genderfuck. If we could have the Pixar female lead equivalent of HER in a film, I think everyone would be pleased. Men included.
posted by hippybear at 10:49 AM on June 15

Artw: The OMG SEXISM stuff calling Pixar a bunch of evil sexists and calling for quotas and stuff is all in the comments here.

Really? Because I've read every single comment in this thread, and I've not seen any of it beyond some preciously constructed, well, let's call them misunderstandings by you and autodidact.

autodidact: I think I posted that before fully waking up as Metafilter as I went for the hyperbole without really thinking through the impression it would give off. To boil it down as simply as I can, however you want to frame this as a feminist issue, or the totally benign floating of a suggestion, what it represents to me at the core is the subversion of creativity to political or marketing ends. From what I can see Pixar is clearly driven by marketing concerns, but I'm okay with that so long as they keep making pretty cool 3D movies every now and then. If they add another category of agenda to the yoke on the creatives, it will only hurt the end result.

On the contrary, I'll argue that films are generally better when they reflect the social realities of the characters that inhabit them, and the social realities of the audience that also lives in those settings. Up!, I argue is a stronger movie because it included ethnic minorities and strong character writing for Ellie, even if she was only tacitly present for most of the film. Invisibles didn't suffer at all from having two female co-leads.

Artw: Dividing the world into "sexist" and "non-sexist" and assigning works into those buckets via quotas and counts is not criticism I respect.

Certainly, it's not criticism I respect either. But I've not seen a lick of evidence that anyone is actually advocating that. Because quotas and counts really don't fix the problem that people are trying to address.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:50 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think there's a fine distinction between being driven purely by marketing concerns, which I don't think Pixar is, and acknowledging the marketing forces that drive success in a movie, which I think every movie studio pretty much has to, Pixar included. The thing about Pixar is that they manage to produce films that don't feel like an excuse for an action figure, at least not to me. There's an integrity and an unwavering commitment to telling a really, really good story with relatable, multidimensional characters that you just don't see in most other animated films. Hell, they have scores of live-action films beat on that count, if you want to get right down to it.

And as for the snarking about Toy Story 3: sure, there will be the requisite tie-ins and another round of posable Woody and Buzz figures, but there's no denying that movie franchise in particular touches something in a lot of people that goes way beyond plastic figurines and happy meals. When we saw the TS 3 trailer before Up, there was a palpable sense of sheer delight from the audience. I'm serious. There were people in the audience who clearly hadn't heard the news about the sequel who actually gasped with joy when they saw Woody up on screen. There aren't many films that can inspire that reaction in a jaded movie-going audience.
posted by shiu mai baby at 10:51 AM on June 15

And not many franchises whose 3rd film is very likely to be at least as good as the first, if not better.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 10:56 AM on June 15

I thought Ratatouille looked beautiful, but otherwise thought it was so-so for some of the same reasons others have mentioned, and it paled in comparison to Flushed Away.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:59 AM on June 15

Great Moments In Disney Marketing Research #413: V.I.N.CENT from The Black Hole
posted by Joe Beese at 10:59 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I just watched Persepolis on Friday night.

Great film, but that's based on an autobiographical graphic novel, which goes back to the notion of people writing what they know.

I was hoping that, on review of all major titles, there would be a better show of some female characters. This is not the case:

Toy Story (1995) - Woody and Buzz, etc (male)

A Bug's Life (1998) - Flik, Francis, Heimlich, Slim, Manny, Dim, Tuck and Roll (male); Princess Atta, Dot, The Queen, Gypsy, Rosie (female)

Toy Story 2 (1999) - Woody, Buzz, Mr. Potato Head, Rex, Slinky Dog and Hamm ... (male); Jessie (female)

Monsters, Inc (2001) - Sulley, Mike Wazowski, Randall ... (male); Boo, Roz, Celia Mae (female)

Finding Nemo (2003) - Marlin, Nemo, .... (male); Dory, ... (female)

The Incredibles (2004) - Mr. Incredible, Dash, Jack-Jack, Frozone, Syndrome (male); Elastigirl, Violet, Edna Mode, Mirage (female)

Cars (2006) - Lightning McQueen, Chick Hicks, Strip Weathers, Mater, Doc, Ramone, Luigi ... (male); Sally carrera, Flo, Lizzie (female)

Ratatouille (2007) - Remy, Linguini, Skinner, Ego, Django, Emile (male); Tatou (female)

WALL•E (2008) - WALL•E, M-O, Capt. B. McCrea, Shelby Forthright, John (male); EVE, Axiom's computer (voice), Mary (female)

Up (2009) - Carl, Russell, Dug, Alpha, Kevin Charls F. Muntz (male); Young Ellie (female)
posted by filthy light thief at 11:00 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Astro Zombie: The world is not deivided into sexist and not sexist. It is sexist.

Yes. Because you know what? Even if Pixar gave us a Starbuck or Coraline, feminists would still engage in critical analysis of it. Because that's what feminist literary criticism is about, not quotas and counts but about interrogating works to examine what they about us as human beings in a culture. Because being a passive sponge for media is generally considered to be a bad thing.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:04 AM on June 15 [7 favorites has favorites]

Kevin in Up is female. Pretty ass-kicking, too.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:04 AM on June 15

With that, I'd be interested to see a comparison of other animated features, or even features by genre. In my mental tally, it seems there are generally more male actors with significant/memorable roles, but that could be a hasty and flawed assessment.

As for great female leads, I rather like Mary Poppins. Sure, she's a nanny, but she's "mysterious, vain and acerbic," according to Wikipedia. Perhaps the Disney portrayal sweetened her up a bit, but I found her off-beat and charming, in a forceful sort of way.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:06 AM on June 15

Matilda is another great children's film that features a female lead.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:07 AM on June 15

Kevin in Up is female. Pretty ass-kicking, too.

Sorry, that was a hastily made list. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I was trying to avoid the spoilers while skimming the list of characters (note to self: use IMDB instead of Wikipedia next time).
posted by filthy light thief at 11:07 AM on June 15

I just tweeted DisneyPixar to ask them to please make a film out of The Witch of Blackbird Pond. Good, strong female lead, with foibles, and the theme is the rejection of Puritanical hatred for tolerance, which feels timely.
posted by misha at 11:07 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

So Pixar's next movie should be female-centric above all else? They've made wonderful films, all successful, so now Pixar must better represent all genders equally?

I dunno, I think this sort of "outrage" is, well, outrageous. I go to movies to forget about the economy and the environment and so forth, and if I wanted to get upset about a movie, I'd watch something with Dane Cook.
posted by newfers at 11:24 AM on June 15

newfers, I think you might've been reading the wrong thread. I don't see anything even close to the "outrage" you're calling out here -- definitely not outrage by Metafilter standards, anyway.

Again, why is it such a travesty to ask Pixar to create a character that little girls can relate to?
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:26 AM on June 15

So Pixar's next movie should be female-centric above all else?

I missed the person in this thread who said this. Could you link to the quote?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:26 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

device55: I see what you were getting at. I don't object to the environmental message itself -- my objection is to the lame and sort of un-overlookably self-excusing way it's made. Basically, to the extent that I agree with Wall-E's critique of waste and consumerism, that critique was already made in a much sharper and more conscious way by Idiocracy. And that's not to say that Idiocracy is a terrific movie -- just that it contains precisely Wall-E's message, but done a lot better. I also would argue that it's not actually an environmental message as such, but one much more about critical engagement with the social world (or a striking lack thereof), social class, and the logical endpoint of endemic anti-intellectualism. A critique which Idiocracy explicitly recognizes that its making (it's right there in the title!) and which Wall-E doesn't seem to.

So the environmental / social message in Wall-E galls me not because it's there but because it's so muddled and half-assed. It's possible to see that confusion as simply storytelling incompetence, but I find it very hard to ascribe to incompetence what winds up being an awfully convenient muddling of what would, if done thoughtfully, be a message that would have to have good old Uncle Walt dead in its crosshairs as a canonical purveyor of the kind of blank-eyed unquestioning media-acceptance that is exactly the message's target. (I apologize to anyone who felt compelled to parse that last sentence fully. I can't seem to say this in anything like the smooth flowing way I'd like to.)

The overall point being, I guess, that if Pixar wanted to make a movie about the terible results of humanity giving up its hard-won intelligence in favor of cheap convenience, they should have had the sack to do it better than Idiocracy already did. If they wanted to make a love story, they should have tried to do it at something above a third-grade level (Interpolated anticipated critique: "It's for kids!" Nonsense. Plenty of kids movies have love stories worlds more nuanced than this. The Brothers Grimm alone could be mined for subtle grownup love stories cast for children until the end of time.) In the end, the movie they made does both things very badly and nothing well.
posted by rusty at 11:35 AM on June 15

Rusty, I get what you're saying there, and I can see where you're coming from, but the stuff you're pointing to as evidence is still completely subjective. In other words, when you said this:

I guess my key point is that I'm not saying "I didn't like it," but that "It is bad."

... you still haven't definitively proven that WALL*E is a "bad" film. You've definitely nailed why you didn't like it, though.

You're citing Idiocracy as having a keener message? Really?
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:45 AM on June 15

shiu mai baby: "why is it such a travesty to ask Pixar to create a character that little girls can relate to?"

Because that's not the way art is supposed to work. [Yes, Pixar is a commercial enterprise - as has been extensively discussed here already. But they are also producing art. And it is that part of it that bears on the question you asked.]

As a Jew, I imagine if one of Shakespeare's contemporaries, after being dismayed by the portrayal of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, asked him to write a nice Jewish character next time to balance it out.

1. Shakespeare knows better than that guy whether a character should be Jewish or not.

2. To whatever extent Shakespeare's imagination does not naturally encompass sympathetic Jewish characters, I don't want him forcing him it to please anyone. Shakespeare's plays, antisemitism and all, are more important that that guy's pleasure - or even social equality for my people. [Which isn't coming about as a result of anything Shakespeare does or doesn't write anyway.]
posted by Joe Beese at 11:51 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

If anybody is questioning what fuels Pixar's choice in storytelling, please watch The Pixar Story. I caught it on Netflix when it was a watch-it-now, but it might be available online elsewhere, and is available on DVD.

There are so many things that are more important to the films that Pixar has made so far than gender-assignment. I think the current conversation is great, and necessary, as I believe that the issue of having female leads is only recently ripe for Pixar's consideration (if they haven't already discussed it).
posted by jabberjaw at 11:52 AM on June 15

Peter Aletheias: I would have never thought it would be so controversial for someone to say "Pixar, I love what you do. You're the absolute best. I just have one request: After ten movies in a row with male leads, do you think you could do something with a female protagonist? It would sure mean a lot to our daughters."

It happens all the time here and IRL, people reacting violently to the idea that the status quo could be improved, interpreting such suggestions and criticisms as authoritarian demands like "Quotas are imperative!" in the face of explicit pre-emptive declarations to the contrary.

Inertia's the strongest force in the universe, after all. More so, when combined with the fact that many people perceive the status quo as validating-for-everybody (white males have been considered "universal" heroes until very recently, but some people who grew up with it don't notice this until somebody points it out and explains why it's suboptimal, and even after that it takes practice to keep that kind of awareness self-starting). Even more so, when the status quo has genuinely admirable and inspiring features that have deservedly earned people's emotional investment.

The Pixar team earned respect because they don't rest on their laurels. Now that this issue has been getting more airtime, and given their track record of striving for the best, the logical next step would be for them to take these kinds of critiques into consideration and use them to keep making their products better and better.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 11:55 AM on June 15 [8 favorites has favorites]

Because that's not the way art is supposed to work.

I'm a playwright, and a frequently produced one. I can tell you from experience: Art works just fine that way. Artists repond quite frequenly and well to suggestions about what they might do differently or better. And I'm not sure Shylock, one of the classic antisemitic characters of theater, is an example of a playwright knowing better than anybody else whether a character should be Jewish or not.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:58 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

I think the reaction to this call for female leads in future Pixar films has a lot to do with the hundreds of bad films and shows Hollywoood has made with the best intentions, from afterschool specials to very special episodes to self-congratulatory do-goodism like "Victor Victoria".

No one objects to these goals, but any time you start a script with social justice rather than entertainment as your pole star, you risk joining that legion. For the same reason, Seinfeld succeeded with the directive "no hugs, no lessons".
posted by msalt at 11:58 AM on June 15

The OMG SEXISM stuff calling Pixar a bunch of evil sexists and calling for quotas and stuff is all in the comments here. I consider it less reasonable.

Who is calling for quotas? To me, it seems someone brought up the quota strawman and everyone who is making the more-female-leads-please argument spoke out against it. I've just read this whole thread and I can't see anyone calling for quotas or calling Pixar "evil sexists." In fact, I just searched for "sexist":

The first use is by mediareport, not about Pixar but about some of the people in the "get downright nasty" link. The second is by Brandon Blatcher, pointing out specifically that doing something sexist DOES NOT make one evil. The third by ocdeadc0de, making the same claim you just did ("stop calling pixar evil sexists!") The fourth is by argyle, taking offense to the idea that nerdy males are afraid of women. And the last is by you, just above.

So please cite where you see people in this thread calling Pixar a bunch of evil sexists. Or saying OMG Sexism. Or for calling for quotas. Because otherwise I can't see this as anything but you being disingenuous and mischaracterizing other peoples' arguments.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:00 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I disagree.
posted by philip-random at 12:00 PM on June 15

No one objects to these goals, but any time you start a script with social justice rather than entertainment as your pole star, you risk joining that legion.

You also risk being Tony Kushner. Hacks will always fuck things up. That doesn't mean the goal itself is worthless.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:00 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

Yes, but... I don't think anyone is arguing for Pixar to make a script starting with social justice. It's just appearing, after all this time, as though the men who make these films aren't thinking beyond their own body parts when it comes to characters a lot of the time. In this supposedly enlightened 21st Century, some are suggesting that perhaps they should.
posted by hippybear at 12:01 PM on June 15

shiu mai baby: Perhaps. On the other hand, I'm writing a Metafilter comment, not a New Yorker article here. But yes, it's all thesis and no textual evidence, because the thesis is the fun part and ain't no one paying me for this. :-)

I hope I've suggested the direction of my thoughts, at least, and possibly demonstrated why I don't think I'm making a personal preference argument. I will not, I can confidently predict, prove to anyone that Wall-E is a bad film, because that would require a lot more work than I'm about to devote to this.

(Also, yes, really, I'm saying Idiocracy had a keener message. Please note: not an all-time great film, by any stretch of the imagination. Just notable here in that it has the same message, but it is deployed there with a lot more teeth.)
posted by rusty at 12:02 PM on June 15

Right, but no one's asking for Pixar to create the next great work of Social Justice. I'm just hoping that, someday soon, they'll find the inspiration to create a female character that my daughter can look up to. I've yet to be convinced that this hope is an intrinsically bad thing, all the protestations about the sanctity of art or whatever notwithstanding.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:04 PM on June 15

Sorry, that comment was aimed at msalt. Rusty: noted, and I would actually be interested in seeing such a thesis, if you were ever so inspired. I'd still think you were completely and totally wrong and have a heart of cold, cold stone, of course, but I'd love to read it all the same. :)
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:07 PM on June 15

So Pixar's next movie should be female-centric above all else? They've made wonderful films, all successful, so now Pixar must better represent all genders equally?

There's only two genders, unless you're really getting into some trans-theory, which not even the most liberal of us expect Pixar to do at this time. Though it delights me no end to imagine the reaction of most of the media to a cross-dressing genderqueer Pixar character. But I digress.

Your statement is a classic case of (intentionally?) misunderstanding the argument being made. In what way does "more equitable representation of 51% of the human race in Pixar's films" equal "female-centric"? It doesn't, no one said it did, no one demanded that boy characters be banned, but your overreaction to what is, in essence, a fairly mild and qualified critique, says a great deal about your assumptions.

Equality is not a zero-sum game; allowing women onto the playing field or the silver screen does not "ruin" things for men, unless you think men are so boring/fragile that merely allowing women to be represented in equal numbers with them somehow ensures that they'll be obsolete and pushed off the stage entirely.

I personally think strong male characters will continue to thrive and be compelling even if strong female characters exist in equal numbers. You don't seem to, which makes you look sexist towards men.
posted by emjaybee at 12:09 PM on June 15 [10 favorites has favorites]

Astro Zombie: "Artists repond quite frequenly and well to suggestions about what they might do differently or better. And I'm not sure Shylock, one of the classic antisemitic characters of theater, is an example of a playwright knowing better than anybody else whether a character should be Jewish or not."

I picture a manager of the Globe Theater taking the writer aside. "Billy, love the new play. But the producers have some notes. The focus groups aren't loving this Shylock character. And I don't need to tell you that a lot of our season ticket holders go to Ye Stage Delicatessen after the curtain, you know what I'm saying? So how about making him an Iranian instead?"
posted by Joe Beese at 12:10 PM on June 15

if one of Shakespeare's contemporaries, after being dismayed by the portrayal of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, asked him to write a nice Jewish character next time to balance it out.

Although, oddly, Dickens did precisely that - after writing the loathsome but entertaining Fagin in Oliver Twist, he responded to reprimands from the Jewish community by putting the saintly, but frankly rather dull Mr Riah in Our Mutual Friend.
posted by Grangousier at 12:12 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Asking politely for decent (not equal, not mandatory) representation for both genders from a company you otherwise admire is not demanding "social justice" actually.
posted by jessamyn at 12:14 PM on June 15 [9 favorites has favorites]

On one hand, I'm pleased that so many of you are keyed up to examine gender representation in film. I know for many of you in this case it's because of the extraordinary appeal of Pixar's films to your inner selves, and I love Pixar for bringing that sense of wonder and lore back to the big screen, creating such a smart, worthy fan culture which can be critical and push for something EVEN BETTER.

On the other hand, this gender binarism in light of all the incredibly easy progress Pixar has made by now (the characters of Up being Asian and oooooold and infiiiirm respectively, yet well-rounded and relatable as only one example [but an aside: where my bitches? no girl dogs??? wha-wha-HOW?]) seems downright facile. Ellie was all through thte film, she was a major part of it, was its backbone, its spiritual core. That's pretty fucking good, yo. THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of other films and programs that are much much worse. We are wasting time here. Up: OK!!! NOT BAD! Please go watch some broadcast television and worry over that - it's bad there, and its reach is broad.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:15 PM on June 15

Who is calling for quotas? To me, it seems someone brought up the quota strawman and everyone who is making the more-female-leads-please argument spoke out against it. I've just read this whole thread and I can't see anyone calling for quotas or calling Pixar "evil sexists." In fact, I just searched for "sexist":

It's pretty much implied by the title - Pixar is a "boys club", the count of films vs num,ber of female protagonists. links to "Pixars gender problem". And after that there's comments pushing the idea that Pixars back catalogue is broken and wrong and they should be pilloried for it.

And the reason it's broken and wrong is that there are not enough female leads, so yes, that's applying a quota.

As the the thread takes a slant downhill, somewhat predictably afeter Skeptics STFU. Which is odd because he also comes out with "Bird and Lasseter may be somewhat intimidated by women. Those are two HUGE nerds we are talking about, after all".

And then we get bits and peices like:

It never fails to surprise me that some folks not only don't notice the casual, consistent sexism in the way Pixar handles gender in its characters

As well as a bunch of stuff about how Pixar movies aren't any good anyway and thwey are just cynical exploiters of particular market demographics. And the suggestion that they could just swap out characters if they cared to, because, you know, that's how hacks work and they're just a bunch of hacks.

And then we're all the way down to the end of the thread we get accusations that Pixar are just thinking with their body parts.

I'd agree with you that there are some pretty dumb statements by people leaping to the defence of Pixar here, and a fair element of getting the defence in first, but there's no lack of people wanting to take a swing the other way.
posted by Artw at 12:18 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Pixar is awesome.

Pixar could do a better job of diversifying their leads between genders and races.

I have no idea why that line of thought causes such a fight.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:20 PM on June 15 [13 favorites has favorites]

some trans-theory, which not even the most liberal of us expect Pixar to do at this time

I dunno... Consider Kevin! "Kevin's a GIRL?" was not really a big laugh line among the kids at the two screenings of Up I've been to, which interested me. Also, what with all the local Bay Area easter eggs and references, this woman can't escape being thought of. If Kevin's and homage to her, I imagine she'd be WAY honored. SQUAAAAwk!

Also, where was Kevin's daddybird counterpart? I daresay Kevin might have been one of those "nature finds a way" type trannybirds on that isolated plateau...
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:20 PM on June 15

Although, oddly, Dickens did precisely that - after writing the loathsome but entertaining Fagin in Oliver Twist, he responded to reprimands from the Jewish community by putting the saintly, but frankly rather dull Mr Riah in Our Mutual Friend.

And D.W. Griffith responded to criticisms of Birth of a Nation by making Intolerence, which expanded the language of film editing, was vastly influential when Russian filmmakers began codifying the techniques of narrative filmmaking, and employed a huge array of crew members who would later go on to be some of the defining voices in Hollywood. It's also a pretty damn astounding film in its own right.

We could tit for tat all day about whether artsist should take notes or not. It's up to the artist. But sometimes it produces dreck and sometimes it produces greatness, just as with everything in the muddy and uncertain process of creating art.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:21 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

It's pretty much implied by the title - Pixar is a "boys club", the count of films vs num,ber of female protagonists. links to "Pixars gender problem". And after that there's comments pushing the idea that Pixars back catalogue is broken and wrong and they should be pilloried for it.

I think the point of the "count of films" is to show that there are ZERO Pixar films with female leads. That's not the same as saying, "Only four of ten movies have female leads! that is not 51% - we demand exactly half, that is the quota to fill!"

Same with gender problem. Zero female leads. Same with boy's club - because there are no female leads! None. We're just arguing for at least one movie with a female lead. If you want to consider that a quota, fine, but "more than zero" is a pretty tame quota.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:21 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

Artw, great job of combining about two dozen different opinions -- many of which directly disagree with each other -- into the Grand Unificiation Theorem of The Sexism Inherent in Pixar, OMG.

Good lord.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:21 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't understand the third act of Idiocracy. It felt like the studio forced changes or something, because what started off as an interesting critique of a willingly lazy society, turned into a really stupid uninteresting action film. As I watched it, I kept thinking that at some point they were going to pull a fast one and rib the audience for enjoying an action sequence that was the very kind of thing they had been deriding the entire film, but they never did. It was literally just a stupid climax just which kind of sort of wrapped up the plot, but without any sort of cap to the commentary being pushed via the contextual subplot.

Granted, it's hard to do that well. Network, for instance, is a smart, witty film that has an incredibly annoying punchline of an ending that would have been better suited to one of the lesser episodes of MASH. Dr. Strangelove, OTOH, had a deliciously ironic ending.
posted by nushustu at 12:23 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Joe Beese: Because that's not the way art is supposed to work. [Yes, Pixar is a commercial enterprise - as has been extensively discussed here already. But they are also producing art. And it is that part of it that bears on the question you asked.]

But that's the way that art actually does work. I just read how audiences would shout out "C-sharp" at Rachmaninoff's performances. Now certainly the artist can chose to answer or decline those requests, but the audience is under no obligation to withhold it's critical evaluation either.

2. To whatever extent Shakespeare's imagination does not naturally encompass sympathetic Jewish characters, I don't want him forcing him it to please anyone. Shakespeare's plays, antisemitism and all, are more important that that guy's pleasure - or even social equality for my people. [Which isn't coming about as a result of anything Shakespeare does or doesn't write anyway.]

Except in this case, we are asking nothing of Pixar that it has not proven it is both willing and interested in doing in previous films. A studio that has already pushed the envelope forward (and yes, I'll argue that Jesse, Young Elle, EVE, & Helen are more progressive than many Disney princesses, and much of what we see from Dreamworks.)

I mean, really, who has less respect for the creative staff at Pixar in this discussion, the side who is arguing that they, due to some quirky, and poorly expressed quirk of the artistic temperament, are unable to create stories with female characters, or the side that argues that they can and they already have?

(And this is aside from the whole fucking fetish that people have regarding Shakespeare as Orpheus reborn touched by Apollo himself. Nope, it's entirely reasonable to call Shakespeare out on his antisemitism, racism and sexism. He's dead after all.)

msalt: I think the reaction to this call for female leads in future Pixar films has a lot to do with the hundreds of bad films and shows Hollywoood has made with the best intentions, from afterschool specials to very special episodes to self-congratulatory do-goodism like "Victor Victoria".

Really, because, I'd much rather watch Blake Edwards's treatment of the subject than Robin Williams's approach to The Bridcage in which the protagonists let their son walk all over them, or Ang Lee's Brokeback which sentences the protagonists to a life of murder and lonely despair. But then again, I've always had a bit of lust for Robert Preston. The relative lack of political polemic makes it rather refreshing. Edwards certainly could have used it to grind a political axe. Instead, he settles for making Toddy and Squash human.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:25 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Artw, great job of combining about two dozen different opinions -- many of which directly disagree with each other -- into the Grand Unificiation Theorem of The Sexism Inherent in Pixar, OMG.

Hey, Solon and Thanks asked, thank them.
posted by Artw at 12:34 PM on June 15

For the record, I said "not looking beyond their own body parts".. not "thinking with their body parts." The difference between the two is huge and should not be mistaken one for the other.
posted by hippybear at 12:39 PM on June 15

I know my body parts are huge.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:41 PM on June 15

Flagged.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:42 PM on June 15

ack, I said not "thinking beyond their own body parts"... still the sentiment above remains.
posted by hippybear at 12:42 PM on June 15

Hey, Solon and Thanks asked, thank them.

Actually, I asked you to "please cite where you see people in this thread calling Pixar a bunch of evil sexists. Or saying OMG Sexism. Or for calling for quotas."

You did cite one call of sexism (not the EVIL or OMG sort) and explained where you saw a call for quotas, but don't blame me for the rest of your post where you lumped several other arguments together (like the people who don't like Pixar movies because they're trite, or whatever the various reasons are) as if there were one grand unifying argument against Pixar.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:44 PM on June 15

Because that's not the way art is supposed to work. [Yes, Pixar is a commercial enterprise - as has been extensively discussed here already. But they are also producing art. And it is that part of it that bears on the question you asked.]

So, you've never heard of the Sistine Chapel, then?
posted by nooneyouknow at 12:47 PM on June 15

They could hire anyone they liked, including female writers. If they can stretch their minds into being fish or robots, being a girl should not be beyond possibility.

This, however, gets to the root of the issue, I think. Think about the amount of time and energy it takes to make one of these movies. Then think about how WALL*E, released just last year, was the final of the ridiculous list of hits that were discussed over the famous lunch in 1994. So, there's fourteen years of essentially only making those movies discussed back in '94, and the ones forced upon them by Disney. Sure, The Incredibles and Ratatouille and Cars got into that mix, but the culture being built up there - and working phenomenally well - was one of a small group of guys (Catmull, Stanton, Lasseter, eventually Brad Bird) who were working like crazy off of these initial bursts of inspiration, and to have been a part of this means you basically need to have come out of Cal Arts or something similar during a period of time (let's say '77 to '85) when there were still almost no women in Animation, and come up through a much more overtly sexist Hollywood than even what we've got today.

So there was bound ot be a lot of luck involved, but what I'm getting at is that working for Pixar is about the highest possible standard in the industry, and it's not until now that there's likely to be a significant pool of women who meet the criteria.

Which isn't to say that they couldn't have written female lead characters themselves. I'm a man and prefer to write female leads. I'm also in the camp that Helen Paar/Elastigirl is absolutely a lead - and a fabulously drawn one. Still, the movie is named after Bob/Mr. Incredible, so I'll concede the point.

The important thing, to me, is that Pixar seems to believe they've finally found a woman who ranks up there with Bird, Lasseter and Stanton in Brenda Chapman, who will be making our female-protagonist Pixar film. Personally, as excited as I am for the film itself, I might be even more psyched to see the vision of who - by her resume anyway - looks to be the female superstar that animation needs.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:48 PM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

nushustu: (Responding because it's gotta be my fault you're even asking about Idiocracy in a Pixar thread...) That's the biggest of a flawed film's flaws, I have to agree. I think Mike Judge either just didn't know how to wrap up this story, which is, let's face it, set up as a really downer-type "Way too late, no way out" situation, or perhaps there were changes forced to try to salvage some sort of commercial film out of what's, up to the third act, more or less a direct personal savaging of the movie's intended audience and social milieu. But yeah, it falls apart at the end.
posted by rusty at 12:54 PM on June 15

Another post that drives me to the response - So what? I am soooooooo tired of people pointing out perceived gender/race/sexual preference imbalances in pop culture. Want a nice animated film with a female in the lead role? GO FUCKING MAKE ONE. Shazbot.
posted by PuppyCat at 12:57 PM on June 15

PuppyCat - Nothing wrong with saying you want something different in a reasonable and well thought out way. You read the Linda Holmes link, right?
posted by Artw at 12:59 PM on June 15

Navelgazer: Which isn't to say that they couldn't have written female lead characters themselves. I'm a man and prefer to write female leads. I'm also in the camp that Helen Paar/Elastigirl is absolutely a lead - and a fabulously drawn one. Still, the movie is named after Bob/Mr. Incredible, so I'll concede the point.

Sure. No one seems to have objected there. And I'll gladly make the argument that given how much love is showered on people like Joss Whedon, Ronald Moore and David Eick who get the gender thing partly right, that Pixar has nothing to fear by moving forward. The lament that writers are better off doing nothing than risk criticism for doing something that's imperfect was a big feature of Race Wank among the science fiction community, and it really doesn't match the reality that creators get perhaps too much credit for their progressive baby steps.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:00 PM on June 15

Glad to know that, out of 10 otherwise excellent movies, having exactly zero female leads is only a "perception" of imbalance. Whew! Problem solved!
posted by shiu mai baby at 1:01 PM on June 15

Brandon Blatcher: "Pixar is awesome.

Pixar could do a better job of diversifying their leads between genders and races.

I have no idea why that line of thought causes such a fight."

Because I for one don't see having gender- and race-diverse leads as their "job".

Their job, as I see it, is to make excellent animated films. A job they're doing quite well.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:01 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Their job, as I see it, is to make excellent animated films. A job they're doing quite well.

And yet they can't seem to imagine a world in which women exist as the primary characters in their own stories. I'd say that's a huge artistic failing. So you and I are going to have to disagree on whether they're doing a great job. I'd say they're doing half of a great job, and neglected the other half.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:04 PM on June 15 [9 favorites has favorites]

Joe Beese, please don't twist the words around like that. "A better job" is an expression that means a company could improve at a certain area, not an implication that it is their JOB to do so.

You know that.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:04 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Actually, maybe I'm being belligerent. Sorry, Joe Beese. This thread just seems bizarre and fighty in general.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:10 PM on June 15

Am I the only one that remembers Bebe's Kids?
posted by box at 1:11 PM on June 15

I am soooooooo tired of people pointing out perceived gender/race/sexual preference imbalances in pop culture.

....because there are none? Or if there are, it's our problem because we noticed?
posted by Miko at 1:15 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

[Knick Knack] was completely rebuilt and re-rendered for release in theatres preceding Finding Nemo. In this version the girl on the "Miami" knick knack and the mermaid in the fish bowl have undergone a breast reduction, and the mermaid is now wearing a bra rather than just starfish pasties, presumably to make the short more family friendly.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:24 PM on June 15

Joe Beese: Because I for one don't see having gender- and race-diverse leads as their "job".

Their job, as I see it, is to make excellent animated films. A job they're doing quite well.

On the contrary, I think even fantastic fiction is more believable when it minimizes the need for suspension of disbelief to the things that are important. A multi-ethnic Firefly or Galactica is more believable than a work that forces us to ask, "what happened to all the people of color?" The fact that the urban population of Up looks a lot like the urban population of many other American cities makes it easier for us to give the writers credit when the house lifts into the air. (A contract that's violated when the entire wolf pack is male.) The addition of Jesse and other characters to the Woody character line is entirely believable and consistent with the fictional universe created. The family dynamics of The Incredibles are entirely believable, allowing us to suspend disbelief in regards to their super powers.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:37 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

I wonder if maybe - because civilization has provided thousands of years of stories starring men - it's just harder for society to accept breaking stereotypes where women are concerned. It's not too much to ask to make the main male character the physically weaker one, people are willing to accept that without any commentary. Wall-E is a good example. If you switched the names of the two main characters, you would have a classic Disney princess formula movie: loney, little character wants nothing more than a companion. Strong kick-ass co-star shows up. The two have adventures on the spaceship and the little robot makes sacrifices, but at the end of the day, the tough robot has to kick a lot of ass and save the little robot.

They switched the genders on these two characters, so the princess is Wall-E, and the hero is Eve, but other than that, the very basic plot is the same. But since they made the main character the male character (really in name only), nobody batted an eye. But if they had done the same story from Eve's POV, I dunno. I kind of get the feeling that people wouldn't have liked it. It would have been about a tough, career-minded (female) robot who has to fight against a conspiracy of male robots to save the human race. And also, she has to be taught how to love by a "weak" (but again, male) robot. Somehow I get the feeling that it would have come off as pretty bad.

I'm entirely sure I could be wrong, but sometimes I just wonder if the reason that Pixar hasn't focused on females as main characters is because they know that it would be considerably more difficult. Maybe it wouldn't be that hard for them to build a story around a female that wasn't a helpless princess story, but maybe it would. Even if they could do it, it might be just as difficult for the audience to swallow such a story. Of course there are examples of great stories with female leads, but these are rare. Of course this is in part due to sexism since the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean that at least part of the problem could be a general unwillingness on the part the audience to accept the strong female as the lead.

I give Pixar the benefit of the doubt, because I think people forget how very difficult it is to tell a good story. The reason Pixar is sort of the holiest of holies in Hollywood these days is because they consistently tell good stories.
posted by nushustu at 1:39 PM on June 15

So, let me see if I got this right:

1. Pixar is bad because they never make movies with female leads.

2. Pixar is currently developing a movie with a female lead.

3. People are still angry because Pixar never makes movies with female leads.

I pity Pixar for the backlash they're going to get about their first female-led movie from the very people who are howling at their sexism. No matter how good it is, or how nuanced the main character is, they're going to get raked over the coals.
posted by papercake at 1:40 PM on June 15

papercake: if points 1 and 3 of your post are what you gleaned from the OP and the subsequent comment thread, then you've not been paying attention.
posted by hippybear at 1:45 PM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

papercake, as has been noted, that movie with a female lead is being made by a woman (and who must, by nature of directing for Pixar, have proven herself to be an absolute badass by this point). That should hopefully help them ward off some coal-raking.

Also, from the wiki-synopsis, the Merida character is apparently quite flawed, which leads to devastating consequences that she then has to fix. In other words - a real, rounded chartacter, with an arc that matters.

I have a feeling that it's gonna be good.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:47 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Am I the only one that remembers Bebe's Kids?

Sadly, no.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:52 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

This thread is already 300+ comments long, and so please forgive me if this point has been made above -

This isn't about PIXAR. This about humanity, and the construction of male as normal, and female as derivative. Look across all mediums and most genres which are intended to appeal equally to men and women, and there are far more male characters than female. Think of how the classic five-man-band has a character known as the girl/chick - you have the leader/hero, the lancer, the smart guy, the big guy, and the girl. Yes, having ovaries (like being black) is a character trait.

I could forgive Star Trek for having 7 main characters and only one woman, because it was from the 60s. But ST:TNG, 30 years and one major feminist movement later, still had of 9 main characters, 3 women (to start) and two of them in "caring" professions and basically acting as if "female" were a character trait, while the other one's major conflict is between her gender and her job. Does Geordi ever sit around and wonder if his manhood is threatened by being an engineer?

Basically, when people - male or female - think up characters, it seems like the basic is male, unless there is a reason to make the character female. Why was Data male? He has no sex. Now Brent Spiner was awesome - if they made the character male to cast him, power to them. But did they even audition women? I don't know, but I doubt it.

As for the fact that the PIXAR writers are male - well, I'm female, and I've written male and female characters just as easily. I'm currently reading a book by a woman who so far has done 9 novels in a male first person voice. And great female characters have been created and written by men. Writing someone of a different age or culture is far more difficult than writing someone of a different sex.
posted by jb at 1:53 PM on June 15 [12 favorites has favorites]

KirkJobSluder: "I think even fantastic fiction is more believable when it minimizes the need for suspension of disbelief to the things that are important. A multi-ethnic Firefly or Galactica is more believable than a work that forces us to ask, "what happened to all the people of color?""

Very interesting comment - with repercussions for the lily-white Star Wars that I'll need to mull over for a while. I would only note that, in the case of Pixar, the required suspension of disbelief is almost total to begin with - i.e. talking cars. Even when the characters are human, their appearance is stylized to the point of reading as cartoons. So you don't ask, say, why the dentist in Finding Nemo keeps giving the girl fishes as presents when they always end up dead. You just accept it as a plot mechanism.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:54 PM on June 15

Cars 2?
posted by mazola at 1:56 PM on June 15

papercake: if points 1 and 3 of your post are what you gleaned from the OP and the subsequent comment thread, then you've not been paying attention.

Quite possibly. I've read pretty much every post in this thread, but I'm running on fumes right now.

Still, what I keep thinking every time someone goes on about how Pixar is incapable of getting out of their boyzone heads to create a female-lead movie with the random explanation of why this is so (it's too hard, or they're too big of geeks to understand women, or the market won't bare it) is "THEY ARE CURRENTLY MAKING A FEMALE-LEAD MOVIE."

Which, to me, kind of destroys their argument. Pixar, obviously, is now interested in making a movie with a female lead character.

I, personally, can't wait to see what they do with the female lead. Just as I couldn't wait to see what they'd do with a robot. And an elderly man...
posted by papercake at 1:58 PM on June 15

Why was Data male? He has no sex.

ORLY?
posted by hippybear at 2:05 PM on June 15

jb: "This about... the construction of male as normal, and female as derivative."

Quite ironic, given our biology.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:05 PM on June 15

From "Sociological Images: GENDER IN PIXAR FILMS - I have read, in discussions of gender in children’s films, that there is a general belief in the industry that everyone will watch a movie with a male lead character, but boys will be turned off by movies with a female lead. So we see the pattern Caitlin points out: males are the neutral category that are used when the movie is meant to appeal to a broad audience, while females get the lead mostly when the movie is specifically geared toward girls. The assumption here is that girls learn to look at the world through the male gaze (identifying with and liking the male lead, even though he’s male), while boys aren’t socialized to identify with female characters (or actual girls/women) in a similar manner.

Well, having experienced children's films in the presence of children, I would say that this is absolutely true. Though I do know that the opposite also exists; some girls will not watch movies with male leads and insist on only watching films with "Princess" leads.

I don't know how much Disney or Pixar could really do about this. The problem is one that's re-inforced, not caused by children's movies. The gender binary in the u-SOFA is one that's strictly policed, and no one is more of an identity police than a child. They're only starting to see themselves as autonomous, and part of that identify formation has to do with gender: "*I* am a boy, *YOU* are a girl." For boundaries to really be crossed, our society first has to define boundary crossing as acceptable.

Which, y'know, isn't something a movie studio that wants to make any money is apt to do. Not to say that they shouldn't, just... they probably won't.

Or, as iamkimiam said:
It's less about how the child views that character and more about how children develop and view themselves. When you're young and starting to become aware of your own reality and the world around you, you are consciously and unconsciously absorbing all of societies expectations and rules about behavior. You are becoming socialized, and that involves some very clear distinctions about gender roles and identity. You learn about what options boys have and what options girls have. Acting a particular way gets you praise or punishment. The cultural norms are reinforced by the movies, music, parents, teachers, peers, neighbors...just about everything in a child's range of perception.

Oh, and, It's nuts to say that fathers, when they're present, or other male relatives have no impact on the gender education of children.

Anecdotal: When I've brought things up whilst nannying such as "Why can't Prince Philip wear a dress?" or "What if a boy wants a Princess valentine?" it's been the child's FATHER who has politely shot me down with a "Oh, don't start confusing her just yet!" Her mother, on the other hand, just laughs.

Fathers provide gender policing every bit as much as mothers do.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:08 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

“Still, the movie is named after Bob/Mr. Incredible, so I'll concede the point.”
Oh, c’mon. It’s called “The Terminator” but it’s most certainly Sarah Connor’s story. (Sequels aside – but that’s addressed below on the Hollywood system)

“That's funny. The main theme in all the Pixar movies I've ever seen has been: don't let the petty little people and their petty little jealousies (of your talent, ambition, or adventures) keep you down. They're about how the lazy majority oppress the hardworking minority. It's a thread running through The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E, and in a different and exciting way, Up.”

Ironic given the criticism. Completely divorced from content – take the gender issue away from the conflict – and that’s pretty much exactly what’s occurring. An extremely talented, successful, hardworking group of people in a different sort of company are getting criticism for not doing something other people, who apparently aren’t successful, alternative filmmakers, want them to do.

Y’know tho, I think the criticism is valid, but, gentle as it many be – it’s still an accusation of misogyny and misplaced. So we’re saying Georgia O’Keefe should have painted more phalluses for equality’s sake? Well of course not Smed, women are oppressed therefore that’d be ridiculous for *her * as an artist to change. And yet, that’s what’s being chewed over. Artists changing what they do.

So ok, we’ll start from the basic premise that, sure, most of western culture’s art (although I’d argue that what we think of as ‘eastern’ is far too limited and that western culture has been far more tolerant of female expression…which is a shame as well really) is dominated by males, for male audiences and sometimes there’s transgression against females and so forth.
Some people argue that the latter is what Pixar is engaging in. That’s been well argued as pretty much B.S. but I think the broader point stands – it’s mostly male dominated art generally.

So what’s being questioned here, however gently, is an artists duty to address this and change in response.
I’d be with the crowd that says Pixar has not made women, for the most part, unequal in their roles. So ok, should there be more female leads?

That’s a social problem. And again – what is an artist’s duty to address that?
I’d argue then: should O’Keefe have changed her art in some way? I mean, it’s merely expressive in one way. She didn’t contrive to make some sort of social statement, she just followed her inspiration. Which, while I know that’s not what’s being asserted, is the practical upshot of what’s being asked, and it’s a conflict.

You don’t want a contrived statement with art, because then it’s not really art, it’s propaganda. It’s mere agenda with storytelling or image or whatnot tacked on.
One can act naturally from a position and still have a statement that is not contrived. But what’s being asked is to have a “female lead.”
Well, you can’t just do that. You need a story, some sort of structure that requires a leading female because that must come first, otherwise you’re definitely just preaching, not making art.
And that’s not a male-centric perspective, that’s a unified perspective of art as, ideally, purely human – certainly there shouldn’t be inequity in art generally, that is, women should have an equal role and equal attention, and should be treated like any other character – as opposed to being a separate sort of thing, a thing unto itself - like a female story as opposed to a story that happens to have a female lead.

That’s not just me, Andrea Dworkin has the same perspective:

"Feminist art is not some tiny creek running off the great river of real art. It is not some crack in an otherwise flawless stone. It is, quite spectacularly I think, art which is not based on the subjugation of one half of the species. It is art which will take the great human themes — love, death, heroism, suffering, history itself — and render them fully human.”

Now, the argument in reverse – that the art being produced because of the system – and that the system that demands money be made and that the art that gets attention and backing tends to have male-centric characters and so male writers and etc. etc. – that this is misogynist - yeah, sure. I’d have to fully agree it is. And I think that’s been asserted in a number of comments tacitly or otherwise. I’m not with the folks who use it as an excuse to perpetuate the state of affairs, but I am with the folks who don’t lay it off on Pixar for making what they make.

So this criticism, however gentle, is misplaced. I’d be much more open to criticism of the system in Hollywood that demands work with male leads get produced because the assumption is that only that makes money. In fact, I think it deserves harsh acrimonious criticism, and for precisely the same art-stifling effects that an arbitrary female lead (divorced of a story necessitating one) would create. Only real difference is, on the one hand we have here gentle criticism asking for this arbitrary b.s., and on the other an actual system in place forcibly placing the focus on it and, not to mention, pure profits. Seems to be the bigger, more responsible, creator of these kinds of problems I’d think, and so, more the reason why we're not seeing more female leads.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:12 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

grapefruitmoon: and that's why it sucks so much to grow up gay in the US.
posted by hippybear at 2:13 PM on June 15

Smedleyman: if O'Keefe's paintings EVER begin to have the same influence over perception of gender roles within young people as Pixar films, I'll give you money. Lots of it.

Misogyny doesn't have to be intentional to be present. And it doesn't have to contain malice to be present. It is present, in most of our culture, so much so that we look askance on instances where it isn't so.

I'll say it again -- I want to see a Pixar hero who is basically a young Starbuck from the new BSG. Female, brave, competent, not in need of rescue, and fully rounded.
posted by hippybear at 2:17 PM on June 15

hippybear: Tell me about it.

(Full disclosure: Totally queer. Totally grew up in the u-SOFA.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:18 PM on June 15

But did you notice the jab at "lawsuit culture" in the beginning, when Carl's self-defense gets him taken away and his home foreclosed to pay the damages?

You are so wrong about one of the best moments in the whole movie. It has nothing to do with "lawsuit culture". Carl was arrested for assault! Hitting someone on the head with a metal cane because he broke your mailbox is not self-defense.

What would have been, in almost every movie ever made, a throwaway slapstick moment (old geezer smacks bad-guy construction worker with his cane, HAW HAW!), was used masterfully to create a dramatic shock of realism -- he drew blood and was held legally responsible for his actions. Not to mention being an awesome rebuke of the slapstick violence that so predominates cartoon comedies. No kids, it's really not okay to just hit someone like that.

The gender thing has bugged me off and on about Pixar's movies. My reaction to Wall-E was that it was like every other Hollywood comedy - scruffy, goofy guy gets paired up with sleek beautiful woman. After UP I found myself wondering how and if the story would work if it were the story of a widow - instead of "Carla" being a substitute father-figure for Russell, they would both be dealing with the loss of the man in their lives. But I couldn't get around the undeniable fact that tying a bunch of balloons to your house to make it fly away is definitely a guy thing to do.

On the other hand, with Helen Paar, Pixar is already head and shoulders above every other Hollywood studio in creating a fantastic female action hero. And I have very high hopes for Bear and Bow.
posted by straight at 2:20 PM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

jb, I'm sure this is obvious as well, but the grand majority of the male-equals-normal story problem (and it is a problem) comes simply from thousands of years of story tradition, wherein the heroes were always men and women were consigned to the roles of mother, daughter, mistress and wife, because those were the roles they were restricted to in society as well.

Society (eventually, a little bit) evolves, but the story tropes remain largely the same. More importantly, the big archetypical plot that all stories sort of strive to fit into was designed around the male-centric story. So yeah, if the grand majority of your stories are "go fight the dragon," and if you accept that going off on a quest to kill a dragon is more reflective of a stereotypical male mentality than female, then in crafting more of those stories we are either going to (a) keep the men and women in the places that we're used to seeing them in, or (b) switch them around a bit. But option (b) isn't going to tell a woman's story as much as it will use a female protagonist to tell a story built for men.

Which is an issue. But if we have talented women working in the medium (there are a few, but there's still a paucity directing films in general right now) then we'll see more honest stories, and ways to tell them which arise out of the characters instead of a need to shoehorn them into old models.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:20 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I often enjoy reading MeFi threads about issues of race, gender, religion and sexuality, partly because of the defensive paroxysms of those who are essentially against such threads.

One comment I do want to make: many of the posters who aren't responding generously to the linked article argue that any gender equality problems are moot because one can offer an alternate explanation for the lack of representation that suggests the absence of malicious intent. For example, many people in this thread argue that Pixar's films are not sexist, they simply feature almost an entirely male cast because--among other reasons mentioned--every animator at Pixar is male and John Lasseter, as a nerdy male, may be uncomfortable around females. But, the point of pointing out these power imbalances isn't to impugn someone's (i.e. Pixar's) virtue--that is, the point isn't to adjudicate a specifically misogynistic intent--but to illustrate a problem with the system, whether conscious or not. Viewed this way, these counter explanations don't make the problem moot--they further *prove* the institutional inequality.
posted by johnasdf at 2:21 PM on June 15 [9 favorites has favorites]

Metafilter: I am programmed in a number of ... techniques.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 2:23 PM on June 15

So I guess we can throw "no one is calling Pixar sexist or misogynist" right out of the window.
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on June 15

grapefruitmoon: you and me both. (queer, USites)
posted by hippybear at 2:32 PM on June 15

Folks, Lasseter is married with five kids. I'm thinking the "nerdy and therefore not comfortable around women" thing that keeps surfacing in this conversation is probably as inaccurate as it is offensive. Which is to say: very.
posted by shiu mai baby at 2:33 PM on June 15

Misogyny doesn't have to be intentional to be present. And it doesn't have to contain malice to be present.

Misogyny, by definition, contains malice. I think sexism is the more appropriate term for what most people are talking about here. Unless I am mistaken and people do believe that Pixar's films advocate a hatred, dislike or mistrust of women rather than conforming to stereotypes or are discriminatory towards women.

Maybe it's just me, but I see misogyny as requiring a more active agent. Do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not exactly a native-speaker of English nor am I read up on feminist theory.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:36 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

So I guess we can throw "no one is calling Pixar sexist or misogynist" right out of the window.

Maybe we could agree that almost no one is, directly, but that people are interested in talking about the gender imbalances in their films and in Hollywood and storytelling traditions generally and would like to talk about that general topic without people showing up and acting like every discussion of gender imbalance is a fight brewing or turning a non-fight into fightyland.
posted by jessamyn at 2:36 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

slimepuppy: I believe you are correct, and I apologize for misusing vocabulary. That was uncalled for, and was an echo of a comment I had just read, rather than being a fully-formed thought.

Yes, sexism is the better word for it. It doesn't have to be intentional, it doesn't have to contain malace, but it is pervasive.
posted by hippybear at 2:39 PM on June 15

This about humanity, and the construction of male as normal, and female as derivative.

Then gimme our goddamn rib back!

Mmmm, ribs....

Anyway, the problem here is a failure of language. Calling the lack of female leads in Pixar films sexist may be right, but the word "sexist" comes with so much baggage. There's no word for saying "hey, what you're doing is sexist, but it's probably not intentional or malicious but it is a problem." Until there is such a word, these epic fights over reasonable requests will continue.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:41 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Maybe it's the same problem as using the word "racist". I cannot remember the context or even who said it, but I recently heard someone on the radio say that accusing someone of racism because of a stray comment is fallacious. It assumes that the person is above the predominant culture within which they were raised and live, and demands a level of awareness and dissection of everyday thought which most have not learned. It is better to look at the overall pattern of a person (or companies) behavior and thus determine whether there is real hate or feelings of superiority over the "other" within their psyche, or perhaps they are good hearted and love people of all colors and genders and simply have never disentangled their learned modes of expression from the thoughts those expressions might contain to a more educated ear.

I should try to find that. It might have been on NPR.
posted by hippybear at 2:46 PM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

"Racist" is pretty much the most damning epithet you can throw at someone in modern society, except maybe "pedophile". "Sexist" and "homophobe" falling a little behind it. It's a damning judgement of profound moral failing, despite all arguments to the contrary. So when a a particular artist is singled out for some failing on one of those front you're going to get a very strong reaction, especially if their crime is the failure to meet some requirement of the accusers that seems fairy arbitrary, or attempt to pillory an indivual work or artist (or company) for some broad societal failing.
posted by Artw at 2:59 PM on June 15

Artw: So I guess we can throw "no one is calling Pixar sexist or misogynist" right out of the window.

With the caveat that "misogyny" has been substantially watered down by quite a bit to the point where it doesn't imply evil motives by anyone involved. But that wouldn't be convenient to the particular strawfeminist you wish to rail against.

Smed: Y’know tho, I think the criticism is valid, but, gentle as it many be – it’s still an accusation of misogyny and misplaced. So we’re saying Georgia O’Keefe should have painted more phalluses for equality’s sake? Well of course not Smed, women are oppressed therefore that’d be ridiculous for *her * as an artist to change. And yet, that’s what’s being chewed over. Artists changing what they do.

Certainly. You know, I was just involved in a big kerfuffle in which someone kept arguing that I shouldn't criticize Rowling's half-assed after-the-fact reframing of Dumbledore as gay all along. And what it came down to was, "well she's the artist." Well, so fucking what? More and more I'm coming to agree with the more radical advocates of "The Death of the Author" that the most morally thing to do rhetorically to the author is shove them in a shallow grave and piss on it. And I say that as a person who makes a living on my writing skills and the knowledge that I'm responsible to the audience for how they perceive the work.

Damn right the process of criticism is partly about changing what artists do. It's also about changing what readers and viewers do. So fucking what? What is the resistance to having conversations about how to take the next steps forward?

Which is what, in spite of Artw's openly blatant and dishonest attempt to poison the well by manufacturing strawmen from words like "misogynist" pulled out of context, is really what is suggested there. A step forward.

Steps that Pixar appears to be quite willing to take. Steps that Seleck, McKean, Whedon, and the producers of multiple other worlds just as fantastic as Pixar have already taken. Steps that Disney have taken.

And yeah, we can also look at the studio system as a whole, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't lay off criticism of actual works. Because at the end of the day, it's going to the the movies themselves that will be preserved for posterity and not interviews or articles about the state of sexism in the movie industry circa 2008.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:59 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

With the caveat that "misogyny" has been substantially watered down by quite a bit to the point where it doesn't imply evil motives by anyone involved.

In the mind of some academic or livejournaler that may be the case, but no, not in general conversation.

TBH I always suspect people that take this particularly argument of wanting to have their cake and eat it.
posted by Artw at 3:03 PM on June 15

“Misogyny doesn't have to be intentional to be present. And it doesn't have to contain malice to be present. It is present, in most of our culture, so much so that we look askance on instances where it isn't so.”
Yes, of course. But it’s this attitude that is corrosive. E.g. ‘You don’t get it so you’re part of the problem – asshole’
Indeed, I’d argue that you’re attitude favors dichotomizing art while ignoring the cultural underpinnings. You’ve got it all bassackwards son, you’re built too low, I keep pitchin’ ‘em and you keep missin’ ‘em, putcher hands up they’re goin’ over, I say, they’re goin’ over your head
.
“I'll say it again -- I want to see a Pixar hero who is basically a young Starbuck from the new BSG. Female, brave, competent, not in need of rescue, and fully rounded.”

Plenty of those. From Eve to Elastigirl. But that’s a different argument and it’s been addressed.
Again - you’ve got Pixar on the one hand who is just a group of artists following their muse as O’Keefe was and on the other an entire smorgasboard of blatant real and overt misogyny, and greed, and profiteering in favor of stifling creativity – but instead of laying heavy criticisms at the feet of Hollywood and the system that perpetuates this … y’all go after Pixar. Oh, but, gently so it's ok.
If going after the artists EVER begins to create better art with greater perception of gender roles within young people, I'll give you money. Lots of it.

Seems to me there’s plenty of well balanced female led roles to be put on film, doesn’t look to me like it’s Pixar that’s stopping those from being created or financially backed by virtue of them doing their own thing.
I don't buy that simply because an artist is more popular, suddenly they have to change what they're doing. I wouldn't buy it with O'Keefe either. If there were a large system that forced only O'Keefe's work to be shown, that promoted her work over all other work and marginalized other artists, I wouldn't be bitching that it was O'Keefe had to change.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:09 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

juiceCake: Sure, but so what. Why should they just because they can? They have no responsibility and no obligation to do so.

Sure, Pixar and Disney can make the movies they want to sell, (personally, I have no illusions regarding their artistic integrity,) and viewers can point out the multiple flaws in the movies they sell. The mandate that I turn off my brain at the movie theater only applies when I'm at the concession counter.

Except that's not what's being said at all. It's a piece of art. Art has it's own universe, first, and references, social, political, or otherwise, second, though you and many others may disagree. I find most art transcends the current social/political arena to be universal. You may not, so go ahead and turn off your brain and miss everything. I've got no problem with that.

Take 1984 for example. No denying it has buckets of political commentary, but it is often praised for that, whereas it's literary merits, it's use of metaphors from the Bible onward are usually place in a lower spot. That's fine. We all come to such things with different expectations. I don't give a fuck if a character is male or female or if it has social commentary or is socially responsible (people are too me, not films) in it and thus feel that the artist(s) don't have any obligation either. This does not mean it's not appreciated and admired when it is there. Indeed, like propaganda or cheap corporate interests, I find making art for Marxist, Feminists, Fascist, Social Union reasons usually makes it absolute crap.
posted by juiceCake at 3:10 PM on June 15

Brandon Blatcher: Anyway, the problem here is a failure of language. Calling the lack of female leads in Pixar films sexist may be right, but the word "sexist" comes with so much baggage. There's no word for saying "hey, what you're doing is sexist, but it's probably not intentional or malicious but it is a problem." Until there is such a word, these epic fights over reasonable requests will continue.

Oh, come on here. It was pretty clear from the way that Smedleyman introduced the m-bomb that he was talking about misogyny in the pervasive social bias sense of the word and not in the j'accuse sense. To take a few words that were plainly, clearly, and explicitly framed as to be not about intent or malice and then say that it's all about accusing the artists of Pixar of malice is dishonest wankery with intent to derail the discussion.

Artw: In the mind of some academic or livejournaler that may be the case, but no, not in general conversation.

Or, here on Metafilter where we come to expect a generally more literate and honest discussion than you are apparently willing to offer.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:15 PM on June 15

I want to see a Pixar hero who is basically a young Starbuck from the new BSG

BSG SPOILER

You want a Pixar heroine who is drunk, temperamental, slutty and self absorbed to the point of leaving a trail of destruction and finally winds up committing suicide only to be resurrected and turned a little crazy as one God's personal tools. Ooooookay....

END SPOILER.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:18 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

You're quite the little stirer aren't you, KirkJobSluder.
posted by Artw at 3:19 PM on June 15

Oh, come on here.

Do you have ribs? I'm come over for ribs.

It was pretty clear from the way that Smedleyman introduced the m-bomb that he was talking about misogyny in the pervasive social bias sense of the word and not in the j'accuse sense.

I wasn't speaking specifically to that comment, just the general idea.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:21 PM on June 15

Smedleyman: Again - you’ve got Pixar on the one hand who is just a group of artists following their muse as O’Keefe was and on the other an entire smorgasboard of blatant real and overt misogyny, and greed, and profiteering in favor of stifling creativity – but instead of laying heavy criticisms at the feet of Hollywood and the system that perpetuates this … y’all go after Pixar. Oh, but, gently so it's ok.

Oh, the whole "following their muse" is, in essence pure bullshit. I'd much rather see Neil Gaiman's model in which he volunteered his work to Nalo Hopkinson for hints on how to authentically portray the Caribbean dialog of Anansi Boys than some romantic bullshit about the arts as the breath of the muse which renders the original artist and artwork immune from criticism.

And no, criticism of larger economic systems does not replace or preemptively nullify criticism of the works themselves. The works themselves stand on their own and together as a body of work, and it's just as valid to criticize their flaws as that of the system that created them.

Smedleyman: I don't buy that simply because an artist is more popular, suddenly they have to change what they're doing.

Of course, that's not the argument here. Whether they actually change what they are doing (and did you miss the fact that they are?) is up to them. They can produce the works they want to produce, and we can make our criticisms (not at all arbitrary, but grounded in some fairly solid theories) of what they produce.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:25 PM on June 15

It assumes that the person is above the predominant culture within which they were raised and live, and demands a level of awareness and dissection of everyday thought which most have not learned.

Yay unexamined privilege! Let the disadvantaged be aware and dissect that shit because they're the ones affected and excuse those with the actual power. Of course if the less privileged say anything about the injustice they're being all mean to those with the power. And demanding special treatment. And hurting the feelings of the privilege by pointing this shit out. It's an excellent way of maintaining the "proper" order of things, don't you think?
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:26 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

“Because at the end of the day, it's going to the the movies themselves that will be preserved for posterity”

So why not change the movies from an earlier era? Think Casablanca should be led by Ilsa? Why not go back and recut it?
That’s not what’s being argued, so do me the same courtesy of assuming I’m reasonable as well. I’m not talking about a conversation. There’s certainly a conversation to be had.
(But where *is * the criticism of the actual works? Far as I can tell the argument is there are no female lead characters and that it is this that is a problem, not that Pixar’s work marginalizes females. In fact I think most people agree it’s the opposite.)

But where then does the flaw lie? Is it a creative problem or one of emphasis by the studios on male–centered media?
One can argue Pixar can do more, and I’ve allowed for that. But I don't think the majority of the problem lay in the creative process especially when it would be far better to have more female artists in the business writing/creating more female centered stories, etc. and having that be more widely distributed, fostered, etc. by movie companies?
Essentially the same thing johnasdf sed.

MGM, et.al. have made thousands of films. Pixar is still relatively new. So their first films have been fairly pedestrian. I suspect were there less institutional inequality in Hollywood, in the money end and decision making, there would have been even more innovation in Pixar's work and that would include gender.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:28 PM on June 15

But mostly I think that boys might actually have an antipathy either through nature or nurture to female centric stories. Tomboy is not a positive but it doesn't have the same rancor as sissy.

I think this point has been addressed to some extent, but just to spell it out in layman's terms, maybe the reason many boys don't like many of the movies out there featuring female protagonists is because they are "girl" movies. The traditional Princess movies, for example, feature girls in the traditional gender stereotype of girls as damsels in distress, which boys, and I would think at least some girls, don't relate to. So maybe the reason female-centric movies have so far failed to capture boy audiences isn't because they're female-centric but because not enough of them feature female characters who are doing the kinds of things little boys would want to do. Which is where Pixar could come in.

Also, on the artist note, I don't really see how suggesting that Pixar produce more female-centric movies is synonymous with telling an individual author how to write her next story. As a studio, don't they receive ideas/screenplays/(whatever animation studios start with) from different sources? Correct me if I'm wrong (having no actual knowledge of the animated film production process), but if they're choosing between source material, couldn't they just as easily choose a story with a female protagonist as one with a male protagonist without somehow selling out as artists?
posted by inara at 3:28 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: I wasn't speaking specifically to that comment, just the general idea.

Really? Because quite honestly almost all of the comments that agree that we are overdue for a big-budget animated Pixar feature with a female lead have been generally quite respectful of the art they produce, and where we've talked about "sexism" it's been the the context of broader social attitudes and bias rather than deliberate malice.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:30 PM on June 15

...except for where it isn't, and that doesn't count.
posted by Artw at 3:32 PM on June 15

Love this: This about humanity, and the construction of male as normal, and female as derivative.

Not at all surprised that some find a simple request that 50% of the population be more represented by central characters to be ludicrous.
posted by agregoli at 3:34 PM on June 15

Watched half of the Incredibles, I've seen the Up trailers. Those aren't humans. They're cartoons.

Watched half of The Godfather. I've seen the Gran Turino trailers. Those aren't humans. They're shapes on 35mm film.

Read half of The Amazing Aventures of Kavalier and Clay. Read the back of Lolita. Those aren't humans. They're a bunch of words imperfectly describing fictions.

So true. It's unfortunate that a character in a novel, poem, film, a work of art, is equated to a real person. They are characters, not people, and drama has it's own universe that is quite remarkably rather different than atoms and astronauts.
posted by juiceCake at 3:36 PM on June 15

inara, actually, animation studios pretty-much develop entirely from within, but your point still stands. During brainstorming sessions (like that famous lunch) and everything else, there's no reason that stories built around leading women wouldn't be coming up at least once in a while.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:37 PM on June 15

So let's actually look at those women's roles in Pixar movies:

Toy Story (1995) - Woody and Buzz, etc (male)

Bo Peep is missing here, but this is an unmatched pair buddy movie, so she's extraneous.

A Bug's Life (1998) - Flik, Francis, Heimlich, Slim, Manny, Dim, Tuck and Roll (male); Princess Atta, Dot, The Queen, Gypsy, Rosie (female)

Lots of women, but on the whole it's down to Flik.

Toy Story 2 (1999) - Woody, Buzz, Mr. Potato Head, Rex, Slinky Dog and Hamm ... (male); Jessie (female)

Jessie's the first strong female character Pixar has. Low on the damsel-in-distress meter.

Monsters, Inc (2001) - Sulley, Mike Wazowski, Randall ... (male); Boo, Roz, Celia Mae (female)

Male buddy movie, though having Roz be the "deep cover" was a nice touch.

Finding Nemo (2003) - Marlin, Nemo, .... (male); Dory, ... (female)

Dory is pretty ditzy, but compared to Sleeping Beauty she's a freakin' Nobel winner.

The Incredibles (2004) - Mr. Incredible, Dash, Jack-Jack, Frozone, Syndrome (male); Elastigirl, Violet, Edna Mode, Mirage (female)

By 2001 Pixar was coming under criticism for not having women in major roles in their movies. The Incredibles was their first response. And it was picked apart mercilessly on all sides for perceived Objectivist views and for the nuclear family bias.

Cars (2006) - Lightning McQueen, Chick Hicks, Strip Weathers, Mater, Doc, Ramone, Luigi ... (male); Sally carrera, Flo, Lizzie (female)

Sally may be the classic city-girl-goes-country cliche, but she's crucial to the plot, and at no point does she ever get her butt bailed out by any man. I think Cars is underrated, personally. It's definitely Pixar's most realistic story.

Ratatouille (2007) - Remy, Linguini, Skinner, Ego, Django, Emile (male); Tatou (female)

Very disappointing in terms of women's roles. I've thought it might be a comment on the chauvinism of the French culinary scene, but that doesn't make sense.

WALL•E (2008) - WALL•E, M-O, Capt. B. McCrea, Shelby Forthright, John (male); EVE, Axiom's computer (voice), Mary (female)

I'm still not sure what's so wrong with EVE. In so many ways this movie is an inversion of the classic Disney princess movie.

Up (2009) - Carl, Russell, Dug, Alpha, Kevin Charls F. Muntz (male); Young Ellie (female)

Young Ellie might be the single greatest female character Pixar has ever created. That Ellie is gone by minute 15 sucks, yes, but this movie is so much about loss that something precious MUST be lost in the opening moments.

From here on we know there will be a couple more female characters introduced into Toy Story 3, and then Bear and the Bow will bring us Pixar's first movie headlined by a woman. But if you look at the list you can see that Pixar actually has been progressively adding and expanding on women's roles in their movies (with the unfortunate exception of Ratatouille). In fact, I'd say they've been far more responsive to criticism about female roles than they have been about minority roles.
posted by dw at 3:40 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Or as an example where Pixar's bias just doesn't make sense, in Up! a large pack of domesticated dogs is voiced by three men, somewhat in contrary to what we know of the ways in which dog packs are socially organized around breeding pairs. Of course the whole thing about talking dogs is based on an invention as plot device, and one could explain it away as Muntz gendered all his devices as masculine. But then, we loose the idea that those voices are expressive of individual personality. It's one of those little details that don't quite add up.

What bias? Why is the way in which dog packs are socially organized in the real world relevant to a work of art? Why does this need to be "explained away"?
posted by juiceCake at 3:42 PM on June 15

“I'll say it again -- I want to see a Pixar hero who is basically a young Starbuck from the new BSG. Female, brave, competent, not in need of rescue, and fully rounded.”

Plenty of those. From Eve to Elastigirl. But that’s a different argument and it’s been addressed.

And by "plenty of those," I presume you mean "secondary characters," which, you know, is awesome, but still not a protagonist. Which is kind of the core of this entire argument.

Also, Brandon: A woman who is sexually aggressive and goes after what she wants, as is the case with Starbuck, is not slutty. I'll totally agree that she has issues galore with regards to massive self-absorption and serious alcohol problems, but being "slutty" isn't one of them.
posted by shiu mai baby at 3:43 PM on June 15

To be fair to Satrbuck, she's only slightly more bonkers and inconsistent than half the other characters - which is to say very bonkers and inconsistent.
posted by Artw at 3:48 PM on June 15

I've been lurking on this place forever and i sign up to mention two movies that no one had mentioned (coraline and monsters vs. aliens) because at the time no one had mentioned them, only to be brutality beatin to the punch. anyway.

My girflfriend and i have this discussion often though (last night on the way home from dinner, totally unprompted by this post as a matter of fact) "gender nuetral" means male. You can over sex something you can make it as manly as possible and it's geared as nuetral. You can drag your girlfriend to any action film and she leaves there no less a woman. If your girlfriend drags you to any chick flick though, you had better check your pants to make sure you still have your manhood on the way out.

Wasn't J.K. Rowling shortened to J.K Rowling so that people didn't know a woman wrote it?
posted by djduckie at 3:51 PM on June 15

*munches popcorn*
and might go put on TOY STORY II so that everyone else could, too. Pixar makes good movies!
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 3:51 PM on June 15

Smedleyman: So why not change the movies from an earlier era? Think Casablanca should be led by Ilsa? Why not go back and recut it?
That’s not what’s being argued, so do me the same courtesy of assuming I’m reasonable as well. I’m not talking about a conversation. There’s certainly a conversation to be had.

I am assuming you, rare in this discussion, are reasonable. My understanding of your argument is that we should ignore the body of work, and just focus our criticism on the institutions that make that body of work. While I'm arguing that criticism of the body of work is valuable and critical.

So certainly approaching Casablanca it is certainly valid to criticize the sexism (in the broad bias sense of the word) of that film. And I certainly wouldn't object to someone filming their own version focused on Ilsa, or remixing the original. Such revisions, remixes and parodies are valid works of their own right. Criticism of the Hollywood studio system and criticism of Casablanca can exist quite well side by side.

But where then does the flaw lie? Is it a creative problem or one of emphasis by the studios on male–centered media?
One can argue Pixar can do more, and I’ve allowed for that. But I don't think the majority of the problem lay in the creative process especially when it would be far better to have more female artists in the business writing/creating more female centered stories, etc. and having that be more widely distributed, fostered, etc. by movie companies?

Certainly. But none of that preemptively nullifies criticism that women in Pixar films have been underrepresented so far, and could be represented better. And it seems that Pixar is responding to that criticism, either because it was raised in-house or from outside.

Sure, we need more women in the arts and entertainment industry. But opening the door to these kinds of criticisms is also part of the change process.

And you know, we don't hold creative staff on a pedestal when it comes to whoppers like restarting the sun with a nuclear device or red matter. I don't see why we can't talk about how one of the best female characters in Pixar's history is fridged in the prologue.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:53 PM on June 15

inara: "couldn't they just as easily choose a story with a female protagonist as one with a male protagonist without somehow selling out as artists?"

Just as easily? I don't think so.

delmoi: Finding Nemo could have been about a mother looking for her son

padraigin: as a mom sensitive to the way these things are portrayed, I can't help but imagine the grief that would have arisen from a movie where Coral yelled at her fatherless son, causing him to rebel and get caught by a diver. BAD FISH MOTHER! You will be vilified by mommybloggers and right wing politicians! Seriously, it would have taken a whole different weight for a lot of people with that seemingly small change in plot.

Indeed, "A father overprotects his son" and "A mother overprotects her son" are two entirely different movies.

Even Kung Fu Panda - a well-made film with a no-apologies female martial arts exemplar - becomes a completely different story if you make the central character a female glutton who lacks self confidence.

Which isn't to say that there aren't compelling movies to be made with leading female characters. But it's a different storyspace and needs to be conceived that way from the ground up.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:56 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

“I'd much rather see Neil Gaiman's model in which he volunteered his work to Nalo Hopkinson for hints on how to authentically portray the Caribbean dialog of Anansi Boys than some romantic bullshit about the arts as the breath of the muse which renders the original artist and artwork immune from criticism.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m only aware of some of Gaiman’s work. I don’t know Nalo Hopkinson. If you’re trying to prove you know more about art than I do – you win. Maybe I’m misstating my point so I’ll go over it again.

“The works themselves stand on their own and together as a body of work, and it's just as valid to criticize their flaws as that of the system that created them.”

Of course, that's not the argument here. Again, I’m arguing that it’s a systemic, not a creative problem, not that people can’t criticize, but that the criticism is misplaced.
You yourself argued that that Jesse, Young Elle, EVE, & Helen are more progressive than many Disney princesses, and much of what we see from Dreamworks - so what is *your * resistance to having conversations about how to take the next steps forward?
We agree Pixar can, and has, produced stories with solid female characters. So what’s the hold up? Why aren’t they making more stories with female leads?
I think it’s more – key word there: MORE – the system and so forth than the creative nature of the folks at Pixar. So I think it’s logical to weight the criticism accordingly.
Want more female lead characters? Change the environment so more people with stories that have female leads are involved and so that those stories get produced.
I’m not arguing “muse” - I think it’s less productive to say that someone with no interest in creating a given story should create a story. Why not get someone who wants to make and see that kind of story to do it? Why not plug them in at Pixar? It’s a company.
And just because they are changing, doesn’t mean that they agree creatively with the move. Pay me enough money and I’ll write something about lizard cowboys in space. Doesn’t mean the story will be worth a damn. So why not get someone who is all about lizard cowboys and really would love a story set in space and gear them to be supported?

I’d really rather have someone who’s heart is in the subject than someone who’s just working for a paycheck. So treating Pixar like Santa Claus rather than demanding more female writers, artists, etc. and/or people who want to produce those kinds of stories, seems counterproductive. At least to producing good work. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they can hammer it out. So then, what, you've got more stories with female leads, maybe even good stories, still being written by an almost exclusively all male crew. That's ideal?

Obviously it's better than the status quo, but c'mon. I just think, creatively, someone with the kind of story they want to tell, it's going to tend to be about people like themselves. I don't really fault Pixar for doing a lot of male centric stories because they're mostly male, sure - but on the other hand, I do think that's a bad state of affairs and there should be a far more diverse range. To me, that's a problem with the system. Not so much the artists.

“And by "plenty of those," I presume you mean "secondary characters," which, you know, is awesome, but still not a protagonist. Which is kind of the core of this entire argument.”

And ceded by me from the beginning. My beef is with how is it so. And it’s so,I think, because that’s the environment Pixar is in and that’s what the system is geared to focus on.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:01 PM on June 15

"I am assuming you, rare in this discussion, are reasonable."
KirkJobSluder I'm not really clear why I should have to take that kind of shit.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:03 PM on June 15

*sigh*

The basic question is this (though it can be used with a variety of names in a variety of Pixar films):

Did the child in Up have to be male in order for the film to work? If not, then the writers simply fell back on their default, knee-jerk instinct, which is "character's gender not intrinsic to storyline. Therefore character is male."

Choose next character, choose next film, lather, rinse, repeat.

In other words, the majority of characters in Pixar films (and Pixar is the focus because we are talking about the #1 movie studio that influences small children's understanding of the world) are male for no other reason than that's how the writers write. Any character that doesn't have to be specifically gendered for the plot is, by default, written as male--over and over and over and over and over.

You want to complain about how that criticism is somehow whiny P.C. feminism? Fuck you.
posted by tzikeh at 4:09 PM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

Weighing in late in the discussion...might the apocryphal story about J.K. Rowling instead be about S. E. Hinton of The Outsiders and Rumble Fish renown?

Hinton's publisher suggested she use her initials instead of her first name so that male reviewers would not ignore the novel for having been written by a female.

posted by pxe2000 at 4:10 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

inara: "couldn't they just as easily choose a story with a female protagonist as one with a male protagonist without somehow selling out as artists?"

Just as easily? I don't think so.

Why not? I want a world where it's as natural as breathing.
posted by agregoli at 4:12 PM on June 15 [6 favorites has favorites]

And yet they can't seem to imagine a world in which women exist as the primary characters in their own stories. I'd say that's a huge artistic failing.

This seems like a confusion of depth/merit and scope to me, not to mention the confusion between political and critical perspectives discussed earlier. Lots of fantastic art is limited in scope of consideration and some of it's even limited in appeal. Broader appeal and variety is an achievement, but sticking with something you like and are doing well is never a failing.

If for whatever reason, you primarily like writing bluegrass fiddle tunes, and you write good ones, you haven't failed if you don't write roccocco violin concertos.

If for whatever reason, male characters are primarily what you're driven to tell stories about, and you tell good ones, not focusing on more female characters isn't an artistic failing.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pixar decides to venture into new territory on their own sometime. Or, maybe they won't (the range of good male-focused stories probably isn't anywhere near exhausted). In the meanwhile, certainly it's anyone's privilege to express their opinions and even hopes to them regarding their work... and perhaps someone at Pixar will listen and find the principle behind the feedback connecting with a story they feel motivated to tell. If they don't, though, there's really nothing wrong with them continuing to make whichever stories they choose, especially as long as other people are free to tell different stories. And there do seem to be an increasing number people in film and television that seem compelled to tell stories with capable female protagonists. They're the people who should be doing it.
posted by weston at 4:12 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

So then, what, you've got more stories with female leads, maybe even good stories, still being written by an almost exclusively all male crew. That's ideal?

I don't understand why it isn't. Being able to write a good female character is indicative of being a good writer, nothing more, nothing less. While there is a certain amount of truth to the "write what you know" adage, writing a male or female character is not the sole domain of the matching of one gender or the other. There have been plenty of male writers who have created multidimensional female character, just as there are plenty of female writers who can create interesting and believable male characters.

As has been pointed out upthread: the writers and animators at Pixar have done a terrific job creating fish, robots, cars, toys, monsters, and bugs, and imbuing them with life and characteristics that are relatable to we humans, even though neither we nor they are fish, robots, cars, toys, monsters, or bugs. Why is it such an unthinkable thing to presume those same writers can create a worthy female protagonist?
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:13 PM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

If for whatever reason, you primarily like writing bluegrass fiddle tunes, and you write good ones, you haven't failed if you don't write roccocco violin concertos.

I think it would be far closer to the argument at hand if you said, "If, for whatever reason, you primarily like playing in major keys, and you write music major keys, you haven't failed if you don't write songs in any minor keys." In other words, you're completely ignoring the other elements that are intrinsic to the concept of music, just because doing so is familiar to you.

Asking Pixar to write an actual female protagonist isn't like asking them to write a movie about "lizard cowboys in space," to borrow Smed's weird example. It's just asking them to consider the other 50% of the people on this earth. Not exactly some specialty subset, you know?
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:20 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

You are so wrong about one of the best moments in the whole movie. It has nothing to do with "lawsuit culture". Carl was arrested for assault! Hitting someone on the head with a metal cane because he broke your mailbox is not self-defense.

It may well be readable in multiple ways, but certainly there's a large portion of the audience that is bound to read his actions as justified or at least read the punishment as over-reaching. Carl is besieged at that point by developers, so we're led to side with him against the developer's lackey. Taking an old man from his house and his memories because he was protecting his land stinks of injustice, and struck me as a reference to Castle doctrine. More than one grandfather was thinking, "I'da shot that guy!"

This isn't to say that I agree with the view advanced by the movie: my whole point is that there's a strong and troublesome anti-statist radical individualism element in Pixar's films. But the scene does evoke tort-reform and pro-property sentiments, and those elements are present in many of their other films so it's more than a one-off.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:29 PM on June 15

His opinion on authors and entitlement issues of fans is the same as mine when it comes to Pixar's choice of stories, protagonists, and antagonists:

Pixar is not an author - Pixar is a film studio. An individual director may be unable to to work with female leads, but a studio can have more that one director on its books.

(I also find it ludicrous that you're citing a guy who can write leads which include Norse Gods, supernatural ur-entities greater than gods, and superheroes, in defense of the idea that it's a stretch to ask a guy to produce something with a female lead.

And kind of sad that Dirty Harry can direct women in Oscar winning lead performances, but apparently asking the guys at Pixar to might make their creative juices shrivel up and drop off.)

Dear Joss Whedon: I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but why couldn't it have been more about Giles, the heroic paternal librarian? Giles the Watcher would have been a more mature, nuanced television programme.

Terrible example. There's a lot I dislike about the Cult of Whedon, but you can hardly argue that he's incapable of writing shows with male leads.

Inspiration is not a coin toss.

No, it isn't. That's why artists like Oscar Wilde and Wilfred Owen (to grab two examples I'm familiar with) would set themselves, or be set by peers (and, in Wilde's case Oxford tutors) exercises in writing in particular styles and on particular topics, in order to help them develop as artists.

I will argue that in regards to gender, Potter is more progressive than many Pixar feature films.

The Harry Potter series is a rehash of 1930s - 1950s Boys' Own school stories with. Jimmy, the New Boy, School in the Skies, I got a bunch of them. Potter's characters are pretty much drawn from the archetypes of those school stories.

"why is it such a travesty to ask Pixar to create a character that little girls can relate to?"

Because that's not the way art is supposed to work.

No great art has ever been created to commission or formula. Or it has, but it shouldn't? That's quite an assertion and one that, on the face of it, ignores much, maybe most, of the history of art.

I picture a manager of the Globe Theater taking the writer aside. "Billy, love the new play. But the producers have some notes. The focus groups aren't loving this Shylock character. And I don't need to tell you that a lot of our season ticket holders go to Ye Stage Delicatessen after the curtain, you know what I'm saying? So how about making him an Iranian instead?"

You know, perhaps the people using hypothetics re: "Billy" might want to establish adequate literacy in the English canon that they are familiar with how many nods to patrons and conformity to political winds of the time drove not merely minor in-jokes but the thrust of whole plays. Because otherwise you end up looking like an illiterate grabbing at random cultural figures you don't know much about to bolster a flawed argument.
posted by rodgerd at 4:29 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

So, Joss, I, a reporter, would like to know, why do you always write these strong women characters?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:31 PM on June 15 [8 favorites has favorites]

"I don't understand why it isn't."

Well, The Bear and the Bow is being directed by a woman. She's only the 3rd woman to ever direct an animated film. The other two, one was a 1926 German film, and the other was the freakin’ care bears movie (according to wikipedia). So, maybe the princess schtick is no good, but Brenda Chapman is something going very right I think. And in the real world.

"Why is it such an unthinkable thing to presume those same writers can create a worthy female protagonist?"

Because it's contrived. Or at least seems so. I could be wrong. But why go to any given writer, make them write 'x' when they want to write 'y'? Sure, they can write whatever they wish. Most people tend to write about folks like themselves. So it can become an echo chamber where making the default character male is just fine.
So ok - taking your point - it's not a problem if those male writers write great stories with female leads. And it isn't. I see that. And I've argued that art should be human. So I'm actually with you really.
So then why is it ok that the industry is saturated with males?
It's worse that - of 10 movies, or, ok a dozen or so, only one has a female protagonist (counting The Bear and The Bow - unless you don't want to be charitable) - than it is out of the thousands of animated films made there's only been one (modern) female director?
(Or two if we count *cough* care bears).
I think if Pixar were all female writers producing exclusively male leads, that would be pretty indicative of something as well.
As it is the complete lack of female representation on screen I think has something to do with the dearth of female artist representation. And maybe female executive representation. Etc. Etc.
And again, I'm not arguing mutual exclusivity here.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:33 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Thanks for that, anotherpanacea. From the Whedon speech:

So, why do you write these strong women characters?

Because equality is not a concept. It’s not something we should be striving for. It’s a necessity. Equality is like gravity, we need it to stand on this earth as men and women, and the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and women who’s confronted with it. We need equality, kinda now.

Preach it, Brother Whedon.
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:34 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

inara: "couldn't they just as easily choose a story with a female protagonist as one with a male protagonist without somehow selling out as artists?"

Just as easily? I don't think so.

Why not? I want a world where it's as natural as breathing

I can't favorite this a million more times, but I *CAN* repeat it.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:36 PM on June 15

rodgerd: "You know, perhaps the people using hypothetics re: "Billy" might want to establish adequate literacy in the English canon that they are familiar with how many nods to patrons and conformity to political winds of the time drove not merely minor in-jokes but the thrust of whole plays. Because otherwise you end up looking like an illiterate grabbing at random cultural figures you don't know much about to bolster a flawed argument."

If you tell me that Hamlet went to Wittenberg because of product placement, I'll be very unhappy.

sheesh... piss splattering everywhere in this thread...
posted by Joe Beese at 4:36 PM on June 15

juiceCake: What bias? Why is the way in which dog packs are socially organized in the real world relevant to a work of art? Why does this need to be "explained away"?

TOTAL SPOILER: Because one of the whole plot twists is that Carl and Ellie's childhood hero has become the canine equivalent of a crazy cat lady. As he's been in isolation for most of Carl's life, the obvious conclusion is that his canine civilization must have grown from the relatively small population he brought with him. So there must be female dogs in the pack. And the real-world hierarchy of dog packs is referenced in the way the dogs are presented as characters. But Muntz anthropomorphizes his dogs to a high degree, and pet owners gender their pets, so why no female-voiced dogs?

Since characters in the film are male by default, all of the dogs (and about a half-dozen other miscellaneous characters) are also male. But if they actually thought through Muntz's story in the jungle, the insight that some of the dogs must be female would have popped instantly to mind. It's a lapse of detail compared to the logic by which Carl moves the house.

And yes, it's art, but art should not arbitrarily violate the viewer's logic and common sense. If it does so too often, it violates the viewer's willingness to buy the fiction.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:38 PM on June 15

Really?

Really.

Also, Brandon: A woman who is sexually aggressive and goes after what she wants, as is the case with Starbuck, is not slutty.

Starbuck was sexually aggressive and slutty, that was pretty much the character's reputation, doing whatever she wanted, never mind anyone else. I liked the character, but she had flaws.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:38 PM on June 15

Also: this attitude of "Pixar's writers are men! They're writing about what they know!" smacks of bullshit to me beyond the mere fact that yes, they wrote about fish. Why ARE Pixar's writers all men? Why aren't there more women on their staff? Why don't we have successful animation studios run by women?

Where is my rainbow-pooping unicorn ridden by an astronaut princess ballerina veterinarian?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:39 PM on June 15

tangential, but since this is a thread about equity/equality in movies and people brought up Russell from Up...thank you, Joss Whedon
posted by inara at 4:43 PM on June 15

And I'm just saying that I think it's bullshit to equate sexual aggression in a woman with sluttiness, but that's a topic for a completely different thread.
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:43 PM on June 15

Smedleyman: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m only aware of some of Gaiman’s work. I don’t know Nalo Hopkinson. If you’re trying to prove you know more about art than I do – you win. Maybe I’m misstating my point so I’ll go over it again.

Well, you could have just googled it. But Anansi Boys is a fictional work written by Gaiman, a white Englishman living in America, about persons of Afro-Caribbean heritage and culture. He credited Nalo Hopkinson, a Canadian writer of Afro-Caribbean heritage, as a reviewer of his dialog.

Of course, that's not the argument here. Again, I’m arguing that it’s a systemic, not a creative problem, not that people can’t criticize, but that the criticism is misplaced.

And I'm arguing that you are conflating two separate things. We criticize bodies of work, because the bodies of work themselves have something to say to their audience. We can also criticize systems of production. One does not replace the other.

I’d really rather have someone who’s heart is in the subject than someone who’s just working for a paycheck. So treating Pixar like Santa Claus rather than demanding more female writers, artists, etc. and/or people who want to produce those kinds of stories, seems counterproductive. At least to producing good work. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they can hammer it out. So then, what, you've got more stories with female leads, maybe even good stories, still being written by an almost exclusively all male crew. That's ideal?

Well, you are drawing from a false premise that hearts can't be changed, or that only female writers can write or produce good stories about women. But certainly, yes, I'd love to see Sally Potter and Mira Nair get more filmmaking dollars. I'd like to see more women in Pixar. On the other hand, the people who are already at Pixar have demonstrated skill in creating female characters, and their heart certainly seems to be in it.

And of course, those groundbreaking female characters are going to come out of a critical tradition that looks at Disney, Pixar, classic Hollywood, and Bollywood with an eye for how issues of gender and sex are portrayed in film. And whether critical discussion changes the climate within Pixar is rather aside from the point. As I said above, the development of audiences willing to be more than cognitive sponges, audiences willing ask questions of films like "what the fuck is up with red matter?" or "where are the female characters?" is an end to its self.

KirkJobSluder I'm not really clear why I should have to take that kind of shit.

I complemented you in contrast to certain others who are engaged in a fairly obvious and dishonest derail any time they see words like misogyny and sexism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:57 PM on June 15

Heh. You repeatedly accusing someone else of intellectual dishonesty or trolling is really quite something.
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on June 15

Young Ellie might be the single greatest female character Pixar has ever created.

And that is really sad. Young Ellie is present in, what? - 1/8th of the movie? 1/9th? I'm sorry, using her lingering memory as a point in this argument is ridiculous. She's gone as an active character. Period.

Also, people are forgetting that it's not just about the lead characters here. Pixar's regular default for secondary characters always seems to be male. Why is there no female dog at all in the pack of villainous dogs in Up?

Seriously: Why? If the answer doesn't include sexism, I'd love to hear what you think it is.
posted by mediareport at 5:09 PM on June 15

Smedleyman: Because it's contrived. Or at least seems so. I could be wrong. But why go to any given writer, make them write 'x' when they want to write 'y'? Sure, they can write whatever they wish. Most people tend to write about folks like themselves. So it can become an echo chamber where making the default character male is just fine.And kind of sad that Dirty Harry can direct women in Oscar winning lead performances, but apparently asking the guys at Pixar to might make their creative juices shrivel up and drop off.

LOL. Men have written and directed strong performances centered on female characters: Billy Wilder, Neil Gaiman, Henson & Froud, Miyazaki, Blake Edwards (he was married to her, that helped).
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:10 PM on June 15

No one sat over their shoulders and told them they had to though.
posted by Artw at 5:11 PM on June 15

I think it would be far closer to the argument at hand if you said, "If, for whatever reason, you primarily like playing in major keys, and you write music major keys, you haven't failed if you don't write songs in any minor keys."

I'd actually say that's true (if you're writing great music in a major key, you're successful as an artist), even though I don't think it's more apt, given that the range available to male-focused stories is broader than the range available to modally limited music. And I'd go farther. It may nor may not surprise you that there are artists who intentionally limit themselves to smaller musical realms than a given mode. It certainly surprised me when I was given an exercise in writing using four pitch classes or even one pitch class, but the experience was certainly educational and showed me that it's possible to create some worthwhile and impressive art under those constraints.

Some artists thrive in a niche. Some artists prefer wider latitude and they should explore it. Some people prefer isolated monastic contemplation, some want to wander the world seeking, some want to settle down in a community but travel sometimes. I think it's worth respecting those choices, even when some of them seem limiting, as long as the opportunities for different ones are available.
posted by weston at 5:14 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Artw: No one sat over their shoulders and told them they had to though.

Sure, and no one is doing it now. At the end of the day, while we can certainly bring up the flaws in a body of work, media producers have no obligation to listen.

That doesn't make discussion of those flaws illegitimate.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:14 PM on June 15

I'm sorry, using her lingering memory as a point in this argument is ridiculous. She's gone as an active character. Period.

It would help if you didn't cherry-pick one sentence while leaving out the sentence that followed. Period.
posted by dw at 5:14 PM on June 15

Sure, and no one is doing it now. At the end of the day, while we can certainly bring up the flaws in a body of work, media producers have no obligation to listen.

That doesn't make discussion of those flaws illegitimate.

You do however seem to have defined faliure to pick up your prescriptivist take on what makes art good as a "flaw" though.
posted by Artw at 5:18 PM on June 15

And kind of sad that Dirty Harry can direct women in Oscar winning lead performances, but apparently asking the guys at Pixar to might make their creative juices shrivel up and drop off.)

I should probably point out that Eastwood did Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, Bronco Billy, Firefox, Honkytonk Man, Sudden Impact, Pale Rider, Heartbreak Ridge, Bird, The Rookie, Unforgiven, and A Perfect World before he got to The Bridges of Madison County, let alone Million Dollar Baby. So a little over thirty years; I don't see people in this thread giving Pixar that kind of latitude.
posted by Amanojaku at 5:20 PM on June 15

Come on, Artw - no one is telling anyone they "have to add a female lead." What's tiring is the defensiveness at the very suggestion, as if women are some foreign "other" that will ruin the art of the perfect movie that happened to have a male lead. WHAT about a movie changes with a female lead instead of a male lead? What is lost?
posted by agregoli at 5:21 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Also, people are forgetting that it's not just about the lead characters here. Pixar's regular default for secondary characters always seems to be male. Why is there no female dog at all in the pack of villainous dogs in Up?

Why do people keep forgetting about Kevin?
posted by Amanojaku at 5:25 PM on June 15

Think Casablanca should be led by Ilsa?

Belatedly, you just described Barb Wire.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:26 PM on June 15

I should probably point out that Eastwood did Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, Bronco Billy, Firefox, Honkytonk Man, Sudden Impact, Pale Rider, Heartbreak Ridge, Bird, The Rookie, Unforgiven, and A Perfect World before he got to The Bridges of Madison County, let alone Million Dollar Baby. So a little over thirty years; I don't see people in this thread giving Pixar that kind of latitude.

Clint Eastwood is a director; Pixar is a Studio. Eastwood made Million Dollar Baby for Lakeshore Entertainment. Their first 10 films included Runaway Bride, Underworld, Million Dollar Baby, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, and Æon Flux. In other words, half of their first 10 movies featured female leads.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:32 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

It certainly surprised me when I was given an exercise in writing using four pitch classes or even one pitch class, but the experience was certainly educational and showed me that it's possible to create some worthwhile and impressive art under those constraints.

Which is exactly why I find the argument that Pixar creates only male protagonist because they are male and that's all they know and OMG what about their aaaarrrrrrttt just plain silly.
posted by shiu mai baby at 5:32 PM on June 15

Artw: You do however seem to have defined faliure to pick up your prescriptivist take on what makes art good as a "flaw" though.

So? I think it's a flaw when shows that arguably are based on contemporary culture have demographics that are inexplicably skewed. And I think it's a flaw when narratives have gaping plot holes. It's interesting to me that we can rip into Star Trek as an example for infidelity to canon, bad physics, and obvious plot devices (like a two-meter blob of star-destroying red matter waiting to explode). But we can't rather mildly say, that the representation of women by a studio could be better, while also saying that studio has produced some of the best characters in animation, without accusations of wanting to direct their creative output.

Amanojaku: So a little over thirty years; I don't see people in this thread giving Pixar that kind of latitude.

A key difference here is that, of course, times have changed over the last 30 years. So its reasonable to expect that Pixar should start from the 1990s, rather than the 1970s. And of course, that we are talking about a studio rather than an individual artist. And it's been noted a couple of times already, that studio has greenlighted a feature film with a female protagonist and by a female director. So really I'm not clear as to what the objection here is.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:37 PM on June 15

If having a female director, writer or protagonist is such a high risk, then Pixar can do what the rest of the industry does with female directors, writers, and protagonists. They can commit a smaller budget.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:40 PM on June 15

no one is telling anyone they "have to add a female lead."

It's being described as a flaw, so the implication is there.

What's tiring is the defensiveness at the very suggestion, as if women are some foreign "other" that will ruin the art of the perfect movie that happened to have a male lead. WHAT about a movie changes with a female lead instead of a male lead? What is lost?

Believe it or not artists actually make these decisions for a reason. Interfere with the decision and you're interfering with the artistic process. If you change the gender of someone in a story, or shift the focus to a different character it has many implications, examples of which you'll see in the discussion above. They may be positive, they maybe negative, they make a nonsense out of the entire thing. You know what? I'd probably considering the posibilities as recommend it as an exercise for any author. But at the end of the day it is the authors decision.

You know what? Having made those decisions I think Pixar has made pretty fine movies. Had they made different decisions then they would have been different movies, which may have been worse or hugely better, who knows? The point is they made the movies they made, and those movies are pretty damn good, and neither the movies nor the creators deserve some of the attacks they've sustained here.

KirkJobSlubber may disagree on that point regarding the quality of Pixars movies, but hey, he's a pretentious snob who hates absolutely anything for the shear sake of it, and is in love with his own sense of smug superiority, so who cares what he thinks?
posted by Artw at 5:40 PM on June 15

Why do people keep forgetting about Kevin?

Ha, ok, but I think the general point stands. Seriously, the ratio of male to female in secondary characters is way out of whack - from where I sit, for no good reason.
posted by mediareport at 5:42 PM on June 15

Clint Eastwood is a director; Pixar is a Studio. Eastwood made Million Dollar Baby for Lakeshore Entertainment. Their first 10 films included Runaway Bride, Underworld, Million Dollar Baby, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, and Æon Flux. In other words, half of their first 10 movies featured female leads.

Ok. Except the quote was "Dirty Harry," not "the studio Dirty Harry made that movie for."
posted by Amanojaku at 5:43 PM on June 15

Believe it or not artists actually make these decisions for a reason.

Okay, I'd love to know - what's the big, important reason?
posted by agregoli at 5:44 PM on June 15

Okay, I'd love to know - what's the big, important reason?

Well, that would entirely depend on the story, wouldn't it?
posted by Artw at 5:46 PM on June 15

No? Why would a female lead be a huge difference from a male lead in, for example, the stories Pixar has put out so far?
posted by agregoli at 5:47 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

And, more importantly, I am not the person to ask.
posted by Artw at 5:47 PM on June 15

[comment removed - this sort of needs to not be a "one person fights with everyone" thread - please quit with the name calling and commence with the decent discussion, thanks]
posted by jessamyn at 5:48 PM on June 15

Believe it or not artists actually make these decisions for a reason. Interfere with the decision and you're interfering with the artistic process.

Are you at all familiar with the artistic process at Pixar? They're not hermits, living in some cave, at the mercy of supernatural muses, disturbed by the slightest provocation which then destroys what otherwise would have been a perfect creation.

I am curious about your experiences with the creative process, art. It's something I am quite familiar with, and your description of it sounds like a youthful fantasia to me, and not the words of someone who has worked in any field that requires collaborative storytelling. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but even if I am mistaken, the process you are describing is so passingly rare that I have never actually seen it done. Most creative storytelling is the product of intense collaborations, with the story shifting and molding constantly, and usually involves the input of hundreds of people. I have been to the Pixar studio and seen the development process, but even if I hadn't, they put out books that describe the development of all of their projects, and it's not as you describe.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:49 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

No? Why would a female lead be a huge difference from a male lead in, for example, the stories Pixar has put out so far?

Well, lucky you, all the movies come with a ton of DVD extras explaining the creative process in detail - why don't you start your hunt for clues there?
posted by Artw at 5:49 PM on June 15

Artw, you aren't interested in defending your position. So...I don't really think you have much of an argument.
posted by agregoli at 5:51 PM on June 15

Artw: It's being described as a flaw, so the implication is there.

Bwah? Pure nonsense. Star Wars is a very flawed work. I don't think Lucas should have changed a thing because the flaws are part of the general charm.

But at the end of the day it is the authors decision.

Certainly. And it's the decision of the audience to respond to the work of the artist. Which we have no problem in doing if the artist were Uwe Boll, but for some reason, rather respectful criticism that takes into account both the strengths and weaknesses of a work seems to get under your skin when it's Pixar.

You know what? Having made those decisions I think Pixar has made pretty fine movies. Had they made different decisions then they would have been different movies, which may have been worse or hugely better, who knows? The point is they made the movies they made, and those movies are pretty damn good, and neither the movies nor the creators deserve some of the attacks they've sustained here.

And you know what, I agree that they've made some pretty fine movies. But those movies are not perfect or above criticism by any sense of the word. I talk about Up much more than I talk about Star Trek because Up is a better movie. It's one I might take my parents to see next week.

KirkJobSlubber may disagree on that point regarding the quality of Pixars movies, but hey, he's a pretentious snob who hates absolutely anything for the shear sake of it, and is in love with his own sense of smug superiority, so who cares what he thinks?

I'm in love with pie. Cherry is best, but apple can be good as well.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:54 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

“LOL. Men have written and directed strong performances centered on female characters:”
Because clearly I was unaware of such a thing ever occurring. Obviously my point was more broad. Perhaps not obviously….. No, no, I must be an idiot because there’s no way that was a segue into the culture (which has been the core of my argument) where I say ‘echo chamber.’ Gimme a break.

“And I'm arguing that you are conflating two separate things. We criticize bodies of work, because the bodies of work themselves have something to say to their audience. We can also criticize systems of production. One does not replace the other.”

If I am it’s not intentional. I happen to agree with the Whedon speech – especially the part about equality not being a concept we should be striving for but a reality we need to realize, like gravity. Again, not mutual exclusivity, but emphasis on my part. They can, certainly, write solid female leads. Your emphasis seems to be on ‘can’ mine seems to be on ‘they.’ I don’t think we’re in disagreement per se.

I think the environment has a great deal to do with this, not that this replaces criticisms of the work itself, rather that it underscores it.
To my mind – what’s the alternative? I mean, either the guys at Pixar are doing it knowingly or unintentionally. Folks seem to be leaning towards unintentionally.
I’d agree. So – why?
I’d think the root cause is the social blindness folks are complaining about rather than a statement within the art itself. Certainly it can be criticized – but where does it come from? I think it comes from the system of production.
So it’s that system that’s tainting the art. One can argue criticism can, and perhaps has, changed that. But I still think that’s where it’s rooted. And sure, it’s a reciprocal dynamic, but I think women are going to be more aware of it, or at least more naturally aware of it and less susceptible to overlooking a given nuance than the guys. As with any other kind of human experience. And sure, the men there are capable of it – but that begs the question why haven’t they had a female lead until now? Which brings us back to ‘do.’

So ok, they’re producing something with a female lead now (lamentably, from some quarters, with a princess). And that appears to dovetail with hiring a female director.

The art is important yes. Criticism, yes. But I bring up the latter point primarily because it hasn’t been much addressed. And to augment the point that diversity is a reality. Not to counterpoint whatever criticism, whether I agree, disagree, or I’m indifferent. Just a sort of sporting tangent to that central issue. (I do digress).
Certainly you could have all males doing all the art everywhere for all time, and they’re certainly capable of producing great pieces with excellent female protagonists – but why should you?

I’d like to see it not matter one way or the other. As it is, I think that component has to be addressed as a reality of the creative process. And, to my mind, a stifling one. I think the people at Pixar would like more female leads. What their work says, then, is not necessarily wholly or solely the result of their creative vision. To say otherwise doesn’t recognize that facet of the industry and is to lay it all on Pixar. Which I think it unfair.

“I complemented you in contrast to certain others who are engaged in a fairly obvious and dishonest derail any time they see words like misogyny and sexism.”
Ah, so, rare for the discussion, not rare for me. Got it. Just not used to compliments perhaps.

“Belatedly, you just described Barb Wire.”
Truly, a classic film.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:59 PM on June 15

And it's been noted a couple of times already, that studio has greenlighted a feature film with a female protagonist and by a female director. So really I'm not clear as to what the objection here is.

I agree, although maybe not in exactly the same way. As you point out: Pixar is working on a film with a female protagonist and by a female director, so I'm not really sure what the objection here is, either.
posted by Amanojaku at 6:00 PM on June 15

Artw, you aren't interested in defending your position. So...I don't really think you have much of an argument.

I don't think you even understood the argument to begin with, TBH.

Are you at all familiar with the artistic process at Pixar? They're not hermits, living in some cave, at the mercy of supernatural muses, disturbed by the slightest provocation which then destroys what otherwise would have been a perfect creation.

Hey, I'm just naive enough to believe that artists make decisions for reasons, possibly more so at Pixar than at other places. You're right to point out the flaws in auteur theory though, and that the decisions and input of other artists working with them will have some impact on the work. So rather than an artist I should in this case be talking about several artists. Also pretending that they exist in some kind of vacuum and entirely without constraintswould be absurd. Neither of those undermine the fact that a work of art is the result of a decision making process unique to that work of art.

(I'll ignore your demand for papers of identification, as it's a blatant set-up.)
posted by Artw at 6:01 PM on June 15

Smedleyman: Because clearly I was unaware of such a thing ever occurring. Obviously my point was more broad. Perhaps not obviously….. No, no, I must be an idiot because there’s no way that was a segue into the culture (which has been the core of my argument) where I say ‘echo chamber.’ Gimme a break.

I apologize. That post got mangled by an html error, and that line was a response to another post.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:03 PM on June 15

Truly, a classic film.

The question wasn't "Is it good" but "can it be done?" Casablanca was also remade as a television movie starring David Soul, which was likewise bad. Neither had anything to do with the gender of the lead performer.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:03 PM on June 15

And, more importantly, I am not the person to ask.

Well, that's pretty obvious. Artw, the belief that they'll make more money by featuring male leads and mostly male secondary characters is the only reason that's been given here for why Pixar does what it does with gender. Your vague hints that there are mystical compelling reasons beyond the Pixar stories we see on the screen - few of which require gendered male protagonists, and that's something anyone with eyes and a brain can see - are unconvincing at best, and hilarious dodges at worst.
posted by mediareport at 6:08 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Amanojaku: I agree, although maybe not in exactly the same way. As you point out: Pixar is working on a film with a female protagonist and by a female director, so I'm not really sure what the objection here is, either.

The way I see it, here is where the debate pretty much stands:

1) Women are underrepresented in Pixar's prior work. The production of a new feature film with a female protagonist and creative director is a positive step forward that builds on previous steps. Pixar staff are very well capable of handling female characters well, and have previously done so.

2) Criticism of Pixar's prior work is mean-spirited and unjustified. It puts constraints on them that would undermine the quality of work, and they can't be asked to do something that runs against their creative instincts.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:11 PM on June 15

Hey, I'm just naive enough to believe that artists make decisions for reasons, possibly more so at Pixar than at other places.

And those reasons can be ill-informed, or wrong, or bad for the story, or just uninteresting, and they are worth discussing. Pixar is better than most, but they produce terrific but sometimes flawed work, and I think one of those flaws is that they can't seem to manage to make a female lead. There is a trend in theater toward genderblind casting -- and it is not a new trend. I have seen quite a few plays that featured characters that were written to be men but were instead played by women -- in fact, I just saw a staged reading of Mac Wellman's Bellagio, in which he demands that several prominent fascists and futurists, predominantly male, be instead played by women. You'd be astounded at how rare it is that characters actually have to be male, and how much more interesting it is when you simply cast the best actor for the role, or cast against the stated gender of the character. I don't think Pixar has made absolute and necessary decisions here. I think they have not checked their assumptions, and they are less interesting artists because of this. And I say this thinking they are consistently one of the best studios working.

The reason I asked for your credentials was because you seem to be operating in a juvenile fantasy of the creative process, and I wanted to see if you had actually experienced what you described.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:17 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Which is exactly why I find the argument that Pixar creates only male protagonist because they are male and that's all they know and OMG what about their aaaarrrrrrttt just plain silly.

I'm not sure it's silly, particularly if you look at the wave of criticism unleashed here. Some MeFites surely seem to believe Stanton is handicapped not only in his understanding of women but in his personal development. This might indicate that there can be some difficulties and potentially even hazards present in writing about females which may not apply to bugs, fish, cars, and other things that won't engage in social analysis about their portrayals on film.

However... I am more or less of the belief that Pixar could probably pull it off if they wanted to, and I won't be surprised if they do. Mostly, I have a problem with the idea that it constitutes an artistic failing if they're not driven by that goal.
posted by weston at 6:19 PM on June 15

It seems to me that if the argument made here (and I could be wrong on this, there is a ton of bullshit to sift through) is that Pixar can't or shouldn't make woman-centered films because it would be a box office bomb (possible), or because their internal corporate culture just can't deal with female characters (doubtful), that a new film with a female protagonist and director would be undesired.

I disagree that their corporate culture is unable to rise to the challenge, because, as I've said before, in some other respects their female roles have been more progressive than the rest of the industry.

weston: However... I am more or less of the belief that Pixar could probably pull it off if they wanted to, and I won't be surprised if they do. Mostly, I have a problem with the idea that it constitutes an artistic failing if they're not driven by that goal.

Certainly. But the audience is not obliged to withhold their criticism either.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:25 PM on June 15

And those reasons can be ill-informed, or wrong, or bad for the story, or just uninteresting, and they are worth discussing.

Right with you there on that.

Pixar is better than most, but they produce terrific but sometimes flawed work, and I think one of those flaws is that they can't seem to manage to make a female lead. I don't think Pixar has made absolute and necessary decisions here. I think they have not checked their assumptions, and they are less interesting artists because of this. And I say this thinking they are consistently one of the best studios working.

That's absolutely a valid discussion to have about the decisions leading to the making of a particular movie. Sweeping dismissals based solely on statistics without individual consideration, less so.

The reason I asked for your credentials was because you seem to be operating in a juvenile fantasy of the creative process, and I wanted to see if you had actually experienced what you described.

Comics, FWIW. Which does tend to be less of a parralel collaboration and more of a linear one But you already knew that, fire away with whatever attack you had lined up. I;m not really expecting a sensible follow up on that.
posted by Artw at 6:35 PM on June 15

I don't have attack, and I didn't know your experiences. My experiences are in theater, short fiction writing, and journalism, most of which require an awful lot of external input and collaborative work to create, and all of which I have found to be enormously malleable and open to radical revisions. Of course there are decisions that, once locked in, can't be changed without transforming the story so radically that you might as well just write another story. But why were those decisions locked in in the first place? Why the decision to make the rat a boy? Why the decision to make the fish a father instead of a mother? Was it because those decisions were artistically necessary, or because that's what the artists were comfortable with, or didn't consider another option? A few films without a female lead is fine, but when they haven't, so far, managed to produce a single one with a female lead, I suspect there is more to it than that these movies required a male lead. And that's really the question that puzzles me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:43 PM on June 15

“That post got mangled by an html error, and that line was a response to another post.”
Ok. No sweat. Consider the entire response retracted then.
“The question wasn't "Is it good" but "can it be done?" “
Relax babe, just a tongue in cheek comment. Of course it can be done. Look, I hate puppies and children and I’m a Nazi who likes to stomp homosexuals, but I don’t feel like doing battle over every single offhand comment I make. And I’m a bit tired of chasing every tangent whether intentional or not.
I don’t know that anyone’s being willfully obtuse such that they don’t want to take a point as elementary as historically revising an established film and destroying the original to serve a purpose such that it’s suddenly about a remake or being recut or a parody or a remix, but there’s such a vast gulf between what I’m saying and what’s being addressed that it’s very quickly approaching pointlessness.
But to straighten this shit out so I stop being the fucking puppy kicking Nazi here:
KirkJobSluder made the point that looking at the studio system as a whole doesn’t mean we should lay off criticism of the actual works. To support this he said the movies themselves will be preserved for posterity, not the state of society or state of the industry they were generated in.
I responded that I wasn’t arguing that we should lay off the criticism of the actual works and tacitly further deflected that by saying it was akin to my arguing that if he’s serious about a film’s message for posterity why then not destroy the original by recutting it in such a way that it eliminates all sexism and makes Ilsa the lead.
I believe I pretty much emphasized that this was not what was being proposed but that there were valid points of criticism otherwise to be leveled at Pixar.
The response was this dross on remix and so forth which I ignored because it was, as far anything I was addressing was concerned, noise. Right, wrong, or whatever.
So, no, the question wasn’t “is it good” or “can it be done” or anything to do at all with whatever you’re talking about. There was, in fact, no real question at all .
That said, I think destroying the original Casablanca and recutting it would be appalling. Hell, people complain about Lucas changing his own films. And there was a massive hue and cry over colorization a bit back.
Remaking it? Sure. There’s tons of remakes. “Barb Wire” does suck though.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:46 PM on June 15

Relax babe, just a tongue in cheek comment. Of course it can be done. Look, I hate puppies and children and I’m a Nazi who likes to stomp homosexuals, but I don’t feel like doing battle over every single offhand comment I make. And I’m a bit tired of chasing every tangent whether intentional or not.

That seemed like a battle to you? I was just trying to clarify my point.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:48 PM on June 15

Questions that are possibly worth asking for each and every one of those films, for which, as you noted, a wealth of material is available. Though, TBH, I think it's far more interesting asking those kinds of questions in a spirit of what types of story can be told in the future than in an axe-grindey hunt for What Went Wrong.
posted by Artw at 6:48 PM on June 15

Note to casual readers: Barb Wire is fucking awful, don't be fooled into watching it, even ironically.
posted by Artw at 6:49 PM on June 15

So, I've got a lot more to say on this than I wrote while I was at work, and let me just say that this is one of the best threads I've read on MeFi in ages, or would be if it weren't for the needless pissing contests.

Anyway...

I feel like there needs to be a siren at the top of this thread that tells everyone, "Hey! Pixar currently has a female-protagonist-project in development which will debut in December of 2011! It is directed by a woman named Brenda Chapman in a move which - sad as this may be - is a huge breakthrough for women in the field of animation! Know these things before diving into the debate, please!"

Pixar is not being consciously sexist, but is rather creating great work in a mindset which is absent-mindedly sexist, and as has been said above, views "male" to be equal to "gender-nuetral." Pixar, however, because they rock despite this flaw, seems to be noting it and working to correct it. But first of all, they will always tell the best stories they can, and those stories will be very personal to them, and that means that they'll probably throw politics like this to the wayside if they feel like it's messing with their stories. That is a good thing for art, and is why (in the general sense) Pixar is head and shoulders above every other studio in Hollywood. (seriously, their commercial and critical track record is such an outlier that they might as well be considered god's among mortals in the industry.) Dreamworks could see this problem with themselves and solve it within a year or two, because they grind out factory work, and you'd end up with forgettable tripoe but, hey! a woman is the central character. Pixar will want to make sure they fix themselves artfully and correctly.

So how do they solve this problem - by hiring a very talented and experienced woman who will naturally - and honestly - direct from that perspective. Again, I need to repeat this point, but the reasons there are no (or very few) women on staff at Pixar are:

1. There are very few successful women (yet) directing or screenwriting at all.
2. This is exponentially truer for animation, a notorious boy's club where you need to go through the system for probably fifteen years or more before you have a shot at the position now available to Chapman.

It's not a good thing, and needs it's own correction, but it is how it is, and that's why Artw is correct at least in part at pointing to the systemic aspect as being to blame.

That said...

tzikeh and mediareport are getting closer to the real issue here, which is that men are almost invariably chosen for the "gender-neutral" characters, which is true. There's a somewhat sensible reason for why this continues to happen, but it still needs to stop. (The "somewhat sensible reason" being that character design inspiration is the lifeblood of animation, and if someone pictures a male in the role - which the men at Pixar seem to do far more often than not - then that character will be designed, with a certain degree of brilliance, as a man. Forcing the change to women later in the game will mean a probably less-inspired design - though not necessarily - and loss of a LOT of investment of time and capital from bringing the original design to life. In other words, it's a problem that needs to be solved in the very beginning stages of development for any project.)

For an example of Pixar choosing a woman for a "gender-neutral" character with spectacular results, however, look to Dory from Finding Nemo. There's no reason that the forgetful buddy-character needs to be female in the context of the film - she doesn't serve as a romantic interest or anything like that, and we've already seen that Pixar usually does that sort of thing male-male. She's female because, well, because she is. And she's a very deep character, actually, with flaws and humanity that are neither specifically feminine nor woman-in-"man's"-role. One of the sub-themes which makes Nemo so effective (of the ones I've seen, it's second only to The Incredibles) is that everyone involved has a flaw (except for maybe Peach and the Sea Turtles); everyone is broken. Dory is no exception, but her arc of dealing with it is both uplifting and heartbreaking, and thanks in no small part to the absolute genius which is everything about Ellen Degeneres, she's the most loved and memorable person in the film.

In more female-specific roles, though, Pixar has indeed done a yeoman's job in making them real. Tatou in Ratatouille is the worst example, of course, most likely because of script and story problems and release deadlines and just the general way that animation works. It's clear that they had the love story, which was important to the story as a whole, and also that they had set up Tatou specifically as an ardant iconoclastic feminist in the kitchen, but then those two didn't mesh properly, which is sad.

Helen Paar (or is it Parr? I never know for sure) is a complete character who also makes defiantly feminist points while remaining very rounded and true to life. Hell, the final line of the intro is her statement, "Leave saving the world to the men? I don't think so..." While the first half of the movie is built around Bob Paar and his mid-life crisis, the more dramatic second half is all about Helen, and is absolutely equal to and probably superior to the first half. Fanboy note: my favorite moment in the film might be when Bob is leaving for Syndrome's island the second time, and Helen is almost certain that he's having an affair, and still wants to save their marriage if she can. Bob gets in the car, Helen composes herself for a half-second before saying, "I love you." Bob, not getting it, remains distracted and backs out the driveway. And then you see the crushing moment of Helen, in her robe, having just sold the last little bit of her dignity and gotten nothing in return - the last straw that puts the second half in motion. It's an astounding piece of animated "acting," equal to anything Gollum does in LotR.

I could go on and on about EVE and Violet Paar (funny how everybody remembers her "transformation" as asking out Tony at the end and not about her bravery and assertiveness in leading the charge from defensive to offensive against Syndrome's henchmen in the climax) but this comment is long enough. The point is that the sexism at work in Pixar studios is real, but not malicious nor, I think, intentional at all. They are better at it than most, and are working towards being better about it, but it is indeed a systemic problem first and foremost, which doesn't mean that works of art shouldn't be analyzed singularly. And also, Brandon Blatcher, the phrase you're looking for is "Male Gaze."

Finally, just because Joss Whedon is being brought up here so often as proof that men can write strong women (and he is) let's not forget that he wrote Toy Story as well Nothing is as black and white here as we might make it seem.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:58 PM on June 15 [12 favorites has favorites]

Btw, no one's pointed out in this thread how yukky the pre-Up short Partly Cloudy is. (I'll leave aside the fact that the only non-animal baby we see is almost certainly a human boy - Pixar girls are clearly girls, so don't try arguing we can't tell the sex of the baby - who gets a football and helmet before getting his ride on the stork. Really, Pixar? Football as shorthand for boy? How very clever of you.) The real problem with the short is the awful mean feeling it leaves hanging in the air. Here, have a brief unpleasant experience before the main feature.

Yuck.
posted by mediareport at 7:02 PM on June 15

“That seemed like a battle to you? I was just trying to clarify my point.”

… again, offhand comment, of which that would be another….gets tedious, etc.

“1. There are very few successful women (yet) directing or screenwriting at all.”
Big Magilla right there.

“They are better at it than most, and are working towards being better about it, but it is indeed a systemic problem first and foremost, which doesn't mean that works of art shouldn't be analyzed singularly.”

…I’ve really got to work at being concise.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:09 PM on June 15

I feel like there needs to be a siren at the top of this thread that tells everyone, "Hey! Pixar currently has a female-protagonist-project in development which will debut in December of 2011! It is directed by a woman named Brenda Chapman in a move which - sad as this may be - is a huge breakthrough for women in the field of animation! Know these things before diving into the debate, please!"

There is one. It's called "Read the OP before posting."
posted by hippybear at 7:24 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

If you don't really care to address me or my responses, smedleyman, could I respectfully ask that you stop responding to me, even to complain about how tedious they are? Come to think of it, if you don't care to have your points addressed, and find the whole experience unwelcome, then perhaps a Web forum might not be the best place to bring them up.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:26 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Uwe Boll can make the movies he wants to make.
Michael Bay can make the movies he wants to make.

And as the audience, we can engage in critical discussion of those movies.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:31 AM on June 15 [+] [!]

Can I just say that Michael Bay and Uwe Boll should not make the movies they want to make? Just sayin'.
posted by ooga_booga at 7:29 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Just wondering: How many future uncriticizable male-centered movies has Pixar earned by greenlighting its first movie with a female lead?
posted by mediareport at 7:32 PM on June 15

The real problem with the short is the awful mean feeling it leaves hanging in the air.

Really? Me and the wife thought it was great, especially with the demented cloud making such interesting things.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:48 PM on June 15

mediareport, that's a damn good question. As a whole, I have trust in the boys (and girl) at Pixar, and hope that they aren't looking at the issue in this way, though it's certainly possible.

I might be too optimistic, but experience shows that "the boys" (Lasseter, Stanton, Bird) can write well for women, but haven't put them in the forefront. Hopefully "the girl" (Chapman) will push the issue, and keep them conscious about it. By my understanding of how animation development works, and Pixar in particular, this doesn't seem to be out of the range of possibility.

I'm not going to dig through the 400+ comments in this thread to pull it out, but somebody way upthread mentioned the possibly apocryphal quote by Walt Disney about making money to make more movies, and another person quickly shot that idea down. I feel like that person (the cynic) has clearly never worked in entertainment.

If you're in it to make money, entertainment is the last industry you want to go into. It's a fool's gamble at best. The ONLY reason you go into it is because your interest in being a part of telling stories trumps all reason and sensibility on your part. Some people in the business are much better at making money than others. Some people are craven about it, to be sure. But all of them are making money to tell more stories. I forget who said it first, but the classic advice to people who want to write for a living has always been, "first, try something, anything else."

Pixar wants to tell great stories, and they're great at doing so. Having a woman at the Big table - one who probably had to claw tooth-and-nail to get to that position - should should help adjust the perspectives of the stories told from the studio.

One hopes, at least.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:54 PM on June 15

Just wondering: How many future uncriticizable male-centered movies has Pixar earned by greenlighting its first movie with a female lead?

None, really, but if she's a white female lead, the privilege shifts a bit. When's Pixar gonna get to that black Muslim protagonist, hrm?
posted by Amanojaku at 7:59 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'd settle for one of the three main dog villains being a girl.
posted by mediareport at 8:01 PM on June 15

I'd settle for one of the three main dog villains being a girl.

I still say the velociraptor/peacock counts. Now that I think about it, one of the dogs was DelRoy Lindo, so maybe I'm covered after all.
posted by Amanojaku at 8:04 PM on June 15

I still say the velociraptor/peacock counts.

It's a cute character and I liked brief flash of gender-bending, yay. But the point remains loud and clear: Pixar routinely misses easy opportunities to include women as half of its character world. Routinely enough that it's obviously either a conscious choice or lazy sexism.

There are no other options.
posted by mediareport at 8:11 PM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

It's a cute character and I liked brief flash of gender-bending, yay. But the point remains loud and clear: Pixar routinely misses easy opportunities to include women as half of its character world. Routinely enough that it's obviously either a conscious choice or lazy sexism.

There are no other options.

Didn't we just do 458 comments on this? I disagree, but I don't particularly feel compelled to head back into that breach. I will just say that with this forthcoming female lead, I hope people's feelings on representation move to include groups that have yet to see themselves represented as a lead at all. I wasn't kidding about the privilege shifting if that princess is white. Either conscious choice or lazy racism, etc.

Physician, unpack thy knapsack.
posted by Amanojaku at 8:45 PM on June 15

You could try offering an explanation for why so many of the supporting characters in Pixar films are male, Amanojaku. You haven't done that yet. I've offered the dogs multiple times as an example, if you're needing one.
posted by mediareport at 8:49 PM on June 15

I've offered the dogs multiple times as an example, if you're needing one.

Remind me how many times we saw the genitalia of the dogs in the movie.
posted by dw at 9:32 PM on June 15

The Pixar stuff also surprises me because on the contrast, Disney has probably been a better advocate of children's programming with leads that are not white males than any other network. (Hannah Montana, Kim Possible, Proud Family, Fillmore, Brandy & Mr. Whiskers, Lilo & Stitch, Cory in the House, and so on)

Apparently Disney-proper welcomes diversity with open arms because it's profitable, whereas the studio that is known for their "art" finds a lack of interest in 90% of the world's cultural demographic.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:32 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Remind me how many times we saw the genitalia of the dogs in the movie.

All the dogs that were voiced were voiced by male actors. If your contention is that some of the unvoiced dogs may have been female, or maybe not, because we can't know because we never saw their genitalia ... well, I've already lost you. How is having ungendered dogs that might be female, if they spoke, which they don't, better than, or even different than, having no female dogs at all?
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:45 PM on June 15

I heard Pixar tried having one of the canine militia be a female. Unfortunately, test audiences thought she was a real bitch.
posted by ooga_booga at 9:54 PM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'll say it again -- I want to see a Pixar hero who is basically a young Starbuck from the new BSG. Female, brave, competent, not in need of rescue, and fully rounded.

And also outrageously violent (random fights, torture, murder, bullying), dishonest, stupid, and alcoholic and with out a shred of personal integrity - she fucks her fiance's brother (Lee Adama) while he's passed out in the next room. Then she fucks Lee Adama even though they are both married and she knows full well human morale and unit cohesion is crucial given they are in a war of extermination on the losing end - she lets her emotions so distort her mission to the point she fights Lee in an idiotic dysfunctional boxing match. And I'd disagree that BSG's Kara Thrace was remotely competent at anything other than killing Cylons. At literally everything else she was a complete fuck-up.

So. No. OMFG NO! They made Starbuck a girl because nobody would ever except a male lead doing those idiotic things repeatedly without having him killed off or made a bad guy and because of Katee Sackoff's fan boy sex appeal .

If Pixar made a film with a female character of with the traits of Kara Thrace Metafilter would flame them to death.

While I think it would be awesome to drop the wimpy Princess shit and get kids a decent female lead character after reading this thread I honestly think most of you guys have no idea what your really asking for and you'd scream blue murder once you got it. Pixar simply can not win.
posted by tkchrist at 10:02 PM on June 15

Yes, but since they are apparently an evil spreadsheet of genderhate devoid of creativity, staffed by robots lacking compassion or any other discernible human characteristic they probably won't notice.
posted by Artw at 10:08 PM on June 15

I think the explanation for the dogs' voices might be that the bad guy provided the starter voices himself. So, all male voices.

But of course, we see that the collars can change the pitch of voices, so he could have just pitched up the female dogs' voices starting with his own voice as a sample. Which brings us back to - they're all male, for no reason.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:12 PM on June 15

Well, you can’t just do that. You need a story, some sort of structure that requires a leading female because that must come first, otherwise you’re definitely just preaching, not making art.

Now, when that sentence is rewritten so that it states "you need a story, some sort of structure that requires a leading male because that must come first, otherwise you're definitely just preaching, not making art." -- well, that reads as ludicrous, because no one thinks that way when creating a male character.

Male characters are the automatic default that need no justification -- but, somehow, female characters need some kind of justification because we're assuming that a story about a girl somehow has to revolve around her girlness -- is that the point here? And the story has to justify using a girl instead of a guy, because, for instance, a baby girl fish can't get lost and wind up in trouble? A girl rat can't help a guy run a restaurant? A girl car can't want to win a race? I'm not sure why any of that would be true.

And for all the people going "OMG, you idiots, Pixar is making a movie with a female lead so SHUT UP!" -- well, if you'd read the article we're talking about, the writer is wistfully asking for a female lead who is not a princess. The Pixar movie is about a princess, which apparently is the default role for a girl in the lead of an animated film.

Also, yeah, Kevin is a girl, but her defining characteristic is the fact that she's a mother worried about protecting her babies, so she's definitely a traditional female character with a traditionally female agenda. She happens to be a delightful character, but she's not exactly ground-breaking.
posted by OolooKitty at 10:25 PM on June 15 [4 favorites has favorites]

I just have to add that it really disheartens me that a simple plea to have a female lead in an animated film, from a studio that's done 10 films with male leads, can engender the kind of hostility and furious hyperbole about angry feminists and compromised artists that it has here. It really does.
posted by OolooKitty at 10:29 PM on June 15 [11 favorites has favorites]

The female characters they've done have been really good. But Dory is the only one coming to mind where it's just a female as a random normal person in the world, rather than a mother/wife/daughter/girlfriend of the protagonist. (No, Edna too!) I'm serious that it would be a majorly pleasing step to have some of the background goofball characters be female.

Also, as I said way above:
I think pretty much everyone here (maybe with a couple of exceptions) thinks the Pixar movies are really good, and approves in general of the people making them. So, the overblown "oh you guys hate Pixar and think they're evil" is way off the mark.

And nobody wants Pixar to go into the production process thinking "first and foremost, it has to be about a female character!" It's just that you can pick good story, and have it be about a female character. Spin the wheel! Any of these could be about a girl!

-Overconfident youngster gets in trouble and learns humility and the value of friendship/loyalty
-After a terrible loss, scared parent is forced to leave safe place and have scary adventure to save child, learns the value of taking risks and letting child take risks
-Naive lonely person falls for indifferent person, takes huge risks to pursue indifferent person, inadvertently helps indifferent person achieve their life goal, finds love
-Most beloved person is displaced in lover's affections by rival, then must rescue rival to preserve the happiness of the lover
etc

Spin the wheel and combine with fun settings:

Gods and Goddesses!
Tropical birds and monkeys in a rainforest!
Strange creatures inside the earth!
Wild west from the horses' point of view!
Carnivorous plants in a prehistoric forest!
Pirates!

on and on.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:34 PM on June 15 [5 favorites has favorites]

The Boys Club June 14, 2009 10:50 PM Subscribe

The Boys Club
June 14, 2009 10:50 PM Subscribe