Buffy Summers vs Lisa Fremont: Why study gender in media texts?

Lisa Buffy




For me, gender representation in film has always been of interest and concern, both as a teacher and a viewer.

The way media texts represent gender is worth analysing and challenging. Arguments exist (yes, I see the ‘straw man’ there – I hope to find a link soon) that challenging such depictions is pointless. That only the removal of gender as a concept will make any difference to society. I’m not on board with that, simply because gender difference has a role in diversity for me.

Further, I don’t enjoy representations that are one dimensional and those representations are here now. And so refusing to challenge damaging representations due to a potential future genderless society seems like rolling over. Future equality is just that – the future. We’ve got disparity right now.

Alfred Hitchcock caricature_01

I’m also writing this because it bugs me that portions of society (will always?) unthinkingly consume static representations, which is what most gender representations in film amount to. I want to repeat that obvious point – such stereotypes or tropes are static. They can’t be dialogues. They’re images or products and function as shorthand for attitudes. Dialogue, of course, doesn’t happen until someone engages with a text, rather than simply consuming it. So even a representation of gender that might be considered ‘positive’ is not much by itself. We have to talk about it.


So, onto the film texts at last – Rear Window and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

My concern, as teacher and a writer I guess, is the way gender representations are static in media texts, a point I’ve rambled on about above. Now, this point feels more salient to me, especially when we look at film from different decades. It’s easy to point to Rear Window, for instance, and say – that’s how (western) women were in the 1950s. Look, it’s right there on the screen, see how Lisa is constantly cooking and dressing up for LB! Something which concerns me there, is that this allows a one-dimensional representation to achieve dominance through precedence. That’s ‘just how it was back then’ ‘that’s how it’s always been.’ (Hidden within that statement is also the notion that it was ‘like that’ everywhere for everyone. Every country, every race, etc).

Representations are static in newer and current texts too. Buffy, who it might be argued was only even possible as a character representation/a television show, after the second wave of feminism hit, is a classic representation of a 1990s woman. Look, she’s independent, see how she kicks the crap out of those guys and looks after herself, it’s right there on the screen!

It is on the screen.

But so are other behaviours. Both women are represented through the full range of their behaviours – but how often do we talk about that full range? To demonstrate this, both to myself and to my classes, I ask a simple question.

Who is more conservative, Lisa or Buffy?

Sometimes I add a qualifier – who is more conservative for her time?

‘Lisa’ is often the first response.


And she seems a fine candidate. She’s driven in her efforts to show Jeff how she’d make a fantastic wife – a classic 1950s goal for a woman. She always looks immaculate, she cooks and entertains, she tends to him, she tries to find him work, she even calls the kitchen ‘something more comfortable.’ She’s working hard to represent herself as the perfect wife and even to put herself into a position where she will no longer work, no longer have financial independence.* She seems an utterly conventional 1950s woman.

However, how else is Lisa represented in the film? Consider a few other points:

•Lisa has financial independence
•Lisa has a career
•Lisa freely gives her opinions in public settings (ie: with Tom Doyle)
•Lisa does all the dangerous ‘leg work’ for Jeff
•When Lisa does these things, it endears her to Jeff – he sees another dimension to her character
•Most tellingly perhaps, the film ultimately validates her ‘unconventional’ behaviour by making her the hero



Now, what about Buffy Summers (especially in the opening episodes of the show)? Even if she wasn’t the Slayer, it’s clear she’d be upfront with her opinions, strong, confident and principled. In the opening episodes of the series, you see her walking alone in dark streets, kicking butt, saving her friends and basically doing anything a typical male hero would do – and anything a typical female character wouldn’t have done on film in decades past.

However, how else is Buffy represented in the text? Consider a few mostly related points:

•Buffy is caring (ie: Willow)
•Buffy is concerned with fitting in
•Buffy is undergoing an identity crisis
•Buffy is concerned about her appearance (ie: choosing a costume in the opening episode)
•Giles is represented as a mentor and Buffy comes to realise she needs him


So what does all of that mean and why’d I want to know who’s more conventional? No prizes for the correct answer – I ask so that we can see beyond the first impressions the screen creates.

Perhaps Lisa is still less of a rebel than a young woman searching for a husband, and maybe Buffy’s more of a hero than a teenager trying to find her path, but the reason Lisa and Buffy are both successful characters and valuable representations, is because they’re multifaceted. They aren’t typical. They have their conventional and unconventional traits. But up there, alone on the screen – they’re still static representations. We have to question and talk about them, as writers, teachers, students, viewers, to really see what’s going on.


And perhaps all of this is only a concern if you accept that the media is influential. I admit that I don’t always see this as true. No amount of media advertising is going to convince me to take a political promise at face value. Forget the Hypodermic Needle model. The media isn’t influential all of the time, and not for all people. But sometimes it is. Sometimes it changes behaviour, sometimes it changes opinions. Sometimes neither. Other times it’s more insidious, saturating public consciousness with simplistic, one-dimensional representations that the uncritical mind may take on board.

And film is just one medium in our constantly connected society.

Would love to hear your thoughts!

*Two gender stereotypes seem to be at work there 1) a woman wants to wait on her husband hand and foot and 2) a man wants his wife to wait on hand and foot. Obviously Jeff doesn’t want that at all in Rear Window.

Now, is there problem with looking after your loved ones? No – if a woman or a man wants to look after their partner, no-one should stop them. And there’s no problem with such a representation appearing on the screen either – but only so long as it’s not the only way men and women are represented in a given media text. An unchallenged, singular representation closes off other possibilities of being a ‘man’ or a ‘woman,’ and if (or when) that singular representation normalises itself, people in the real world can have a hard time if they act outside dominant expectations. Which sucks.

Anyway – hope you all have a great Christmas break, see you in 2014!

Tales from Earthsea

As much as I enjoyed many things about Tales From Earthsea when I first saw it, it’s taken about six years for me to watch it again. I put it off a few times. Even though I remember enjoying the beautiful Ghibli colours, especially in Hort Town, which is wonderful, I didn’t rush back.

tales-from-earthsea1I also loved Cob, both the way he was animated (in each stage of his character development) and the fantastic performance by Willem Dafoe. Almost as much as this, I enjoyed Sparrowhawk’s calm manner and the scenes at the farm, but in the end, this was a film that never quite came together for me.

cobAnd that reason was one of the protagonists, Arren.

Unfortunately, the film introduces him in a manner which ensures he is a completely unsympathetic character. From that point on (and this is very early in the film) I didn’t care about him as I should have – mostly because any motivation for his actions were not addressed until late in the film, and by then it was almost a moot point. I’d already made up my mind about him.

Which is a shame, because I understand that the direction of the film was fraught with tension, which doubtless contributed in some way to the issues as I see them. And it’s heartbreaking that Goro’s first film directing for Ghibli, wasn’t as strong as his follow up From Up on Poppy Hill (which I loved), and because it was sad to see a son strive and perhaps fail to meet his father’s expectations.

And for those curious about how the author of the Earthsea books, Ursula K. Le Guin, felt upon seeing the film – here is an interesting read. I feel like an author responding to criticism/adaptation of their own work is often risky, but she is both eloquent and respectful.

So, to sum up – an almost tragically flawed film with some wonderful elements.

Midnight in Paris – Cleared

Pleased to see that a film I really enjoyed, Midnight in Paris, is ‘off the hook’:


The Faulkner Estate recently brought a claim against Sony for violating IP rights, but lost due to a ruling which sites the film’s use of his words as being ‘transformative’. Here’s some background on issue.

Personally I thought the way Faulkner’s line is actually used in the film, within dialogue from Owen Wilson’s character, and with an attribution as part of that dialogue, is more of a homage rather than a violation, and would fall within fair use. I do wonder, if the estate had been successful, would it lead to the idea that quotes or lines from books should be licensed to film studios? Murky.

True violation of IP is awful, no doubt, but Midnight in Paris doesn’t feel like it to me.

What do you think?

Studio Ghibli: Five Favourites – Post Five


Grave of the Fireflies (Hotaru no haka)

Another of Ghibli’s fine adaptations, Grave of the Fireflies jostled for position at number five with the films now at six and seven, which I’m planning to add to this list later. Based on Akiyuki Nosakai’s novel, the film is the darkest of Ghibli films produced to date and is, in a word or two, heart-wrenching. I’ve actually only been able to watch it three times so far – it really puts me through the wringer.

grave-of-the-fireflies-post-2Isao Takahata’s best known film, it shows the struggle of siblings Seita and Setsuko during and after the bombing of Kobe in 1945. I won’t go into the plot here, but instead mention that the charactarisation is powerful and their reactions to war and injustice is moving.fireflies

grave_firefliesThe animation is harrowing too, a very red, orange and brown palette is used to great effect, and even with the moments of lightness, I think of the film as one long night in their lives. Even with their little triumphs and joys, such as their time at the beach or the all-important tin of sweets, the film is ominous.GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES 5And well it should be, perhaps, considering the subject. Often described as an anti-war film, something the director does not necessarily agree with, I think I remember reading Takahata describe the film as a warning against pride. I hope that’s as I remember it, I wish I could find the quote but instead, here’s a great discussion at the Cinema Sanctum blog.

Whatever your view on Grave of the Fireflies’ main theme, this is a film you should one day see, a true classic of the animation genre.



Stay tuned for the two extra posts in the list!

Post One
Post Two
Post Three
Post Four

The 2011 QPF Filmmakers Challenge Winner

This is well worth the click! Filmmaker Alex Scott has animated a poem, I Statements by Randall $tephens in an impressive collaboration. Medium and subject really mesh here, and it’s easy to see why Alex won the 2011 QPF Filmmakers Challenge. I saw this at the Festival on the big screen and it was mighty good.