I can recall when the Harry Potter books became popular that there was some disgruntlement among those in favour of equal rights because the series' protagonist was not a girl. I don't know Rowling personally, but I'm guessing when she devised her juvenile wizard, she felt the character was male. She's the artist, and this was her vision. I don't care if Harry is male, female, non-binary gender, or a gibbon prancing around with a strap-on dildo and brandishing a syringe of testosterone; he's a character created by another writer, and I am not concerned at the gender presented to the reader.
My protagonists have been equally spread across the board. My first novel has a strong twenty-something, my second novel's protagonist is a shy fourteen-year-old boy, my third novel tells the story of an unfortunate forty-year-old man, and my upcoming novel is from the point of view of a seventeen-year-old girl. This is not a deliberate attempt by me to dole out the parts equally; it's just how I view my characters. My supporting characters are given as much space as I see fit to the story.
Unfortunately, we live in times when everybody gets offended about the smallest thing. The headlines I see are peppered with phrases and words like 'outrage'. Hey, everyone? Here's a tip: STOP BEING SO FUCKING OFFENDED BY EVERY FUCKING THING YOU SEE, AND MAYBE YOU'LL BE A LOT HAPPIER!
Okay?
What's got me arcing up is the stupid story I saw that indicates Quentin Tarantino 'snapped' at a female reporter who asked him why Margot Robbie had not been granted more lines in his new movie Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood. From what I can tell, this movie is about an actor and his body double (played by Leonardo Di Caprio and Brad Pitt respectively) during the late Sixties, and part of the film deals with the Manson family murders. Those in the know will be aware some monstrous cretins slaughtered several people in Hollywood, one such victim being a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate, wife of Roman Polanski. It's an utterly foul, horrifying tragedy. Anyway, Tate is played by Margot Robbie.
The question put to Tarantino was loaded like a Glock pistol pointing at a would-be victim's face. The subtext, as heavy and saturated as a soaking sponge, screamed: YOU PATRIARCHAL ARSEHOLE! WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE MARGOT ROBBIE AT LEAST FIFTY PER CENT OF ALL THE LINES IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE SHE IS A FEMALE AND THEREFORE MUST HAVE EQUAL SCREEN AND DIALOGUE TIME AS HER MALE CO-STARS? YOU SEXIST SHIT-GIBBON THAT IS DRIPPING WITH INTERNALISED MISOGYNY!!! Tarantino picked up on this, and said - yes, 'said'; not 'snapped' - 'Well, I just reject your hypothesis.' And good for him!
The question was a completely asinine load of twaddle. If the film is about the actor and his body double, then the Sharon Tate character is not the film's main focus, and if she is not the film's main focus, she is not going to be given the lion's share of the lines in the script, okay? Faaaaaaaarking Hell, it's hard to put up with people at times. When the artist has a vision, then it's the artist's vision. Art doesn't have to read the room, nor does it have to conform to societal trends. If you have a problem with this, don't watch the movie. And don't forget, Tarantino has brought strong female characters to the screen: Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction and The Bride in Kill Bill, for starters.
So, did anybody happen to catch Mastermind Australia last night (22 May 2019)? I was on it. You'd have picked me - I was the only female, and wowing with my knowledge of the books of Harper Lee. Copped some hard ones in my general knowledge round, but overall, I was happy with how it all went!
No comments:
Post a Comment