Over the past million years (this may be an exaggeration), the “leading male” has been dominating both silver and small dramatic screens. Just take a look at the most popular and well-respected television shows in the past 10 years: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, House of Cards, to name a few. While all of these shows include female characters, in the case of Mad Men and House of Cards, I would argue incredibly complex and motivated female characters, the primary focus of these shows is around the brooding and complicated patriarchal male. Those are the stories that they are choosing to tell the audience upfront. It does not make them any less interesting, but it can make the whole process of television viewing frustrating when we are constantly being subjected to a sad, middle-aged man going through an existential crisis. Watching Don Draper make bad decisions is all well and good, but the idea that a female character can anchor a show in the same way is often not explored.
In a recent study helmed by sociologist Stacy L. Smith, she analyzed 11,927 speaking roles on prime-time television programs that studied female characters’ careers, clothing, body types, and whether they spoke or not. The data showed that 44.3 percent of females were employed, compared to 54.5 percent of males. Further, “women across the board were more likely to be shown wearing sexy attire or exposing some skin, and body size trends were apparent” (Huffington Post).
However, slowly but surely, it can be seen that things are changing. (I am talking getting out of bed on a Monday morning slow, people.) Changes in primetime television can be seen from the tallest roller coaster in Hollywood known as Shondaland. By creating shows with not only female leading roles, but also minority female leading roles, Shonda Rhimes has set a standard for integrating diversity into primetime television (It was about time). While I will agree that both Kerry Washington and Viola Davis portray strong and powerful women, I would also argue that the conflicts on Scandal (ABC) constantly revolve around which man Olivia Pope is sleeping with at the given moment. I will not take away the excellent work that Ms. Rhimes has done for creating a fairly fascinating character for a woman of color to play, but she rarely chooses to make Olivia Pope’s decisions involve something that is not Fitz or Jake. For a character who is developed to be so amazing at her job, independent and incredible, it is continuingly disheartening that she is written to be flighty and confused when it comes to matters of her heart.
Most of the true developments made in females in television happen off the primetimes circuit: think cable and streaming providers. Coming herself from Breaking Bad-fame, Moira Walley-Beckett created the gritty ballet limited-run drama, Flesh and Bone (Starz). A scarred, complicated ballerina, Claire Robbins, pirouettes into Walter White’s shoes by taking on the anti-hero role. While the show has many failings (she says so humbly as if she has the authority to provide commentary on such things), what it did represent was a provocative, and an unusual female protagonist.
Netflix’s new Marvel series, Jessica Jones (played flawlessly by Krysten Ritter) shows a female protagonist who has her own intentions, pulling herself up from a seriously dark turn in her life. Another great example would be the bipolar CIA agent Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes) on Homeland. She is a complex character, a quality that is integral in creating a female character that is actually fun to watch.
A huge problem writers make when approaching “strong, female characters” on television is the idea that she needs to be a Superwoman (This is not a reference to the CW’s new Supergirl show.) A truly captivating character, male or female, is flawed. It is the flaws that make them realistic and engrossing to watch. Female characters that are dealing with the nonsense life throws at them less than ideally are compelling. There is no need to create women who are independent to faults, a woman without failings. That woman is not real, and thus, only as interesting as the token “hot girl” without a personality that is often written for the male audience.
What can be genuinely appreciated further about Flesh and Bone from a female standpoint is that while it depicts strip clubs and tons of nudity, it never feels pandering to a male gaze, which is crazy refreshing. A show such as Game of Thrones possesses great female characters, but more often than not, they are portrayed through the male gaze. In contrast to GoT, a show like Outlander, which finds a riveting female lead in the time-travelling World War II nurse, Claire Randall (the ‘Claire’ thing is completely coincidental), has all of that fun nudity, but it never feels as though it is pandering to a heterosexual male audience. Along with the more thought-provoking actions of the female leads, understanding when nudity is for the purpose of storytelling and not just for titilation is an amazing thing these shows are accomplishing.
The lack of intellectually enthralling female leads in television is seeing a slight shift. With more female writers and producers behind the scenes, the female protagonist has more opportunity to flourish. As seen in the examples above, female leads can anchor a show, and can be just as, if not more, intriguing than their male counterparts.There are a gazillion more examples I could name, and I watch a grotesque amount of television, but I don’t watch everything! There are some amazing shows out there for absorbing female characters, and it is fantastic. Embrace it, folks. If I am subjected to one more 50-year-old white guy drinking himself to death… It is just the same thing over and over again. That is not to say that there is not a place to tell those stories, but women can create fascinating and relatable centerpieces to dramas as well.
Sources/Images obtained from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/women-in-the-media-female_n_212…