There has been a spate of Hollywood reboots which replace the previous film's male-dominated cast with female leads. Are such films a legitimate and powerful way to further the feminist cause? Or are such films mere lip service and an attempt to profiteer from the movement? Purva Gadage gives her two cents on the issue.
On September 2017, Paramount pictures announced a reboot for the vintage Terminator series, but with an all-female cast. Following with the intention of woman empowerment, classics and vintage films are being revived with all-female casts replacing men in pivotal roles. This decision is neither revolutionary nor unsurprising as many studios have been following this particular trend, given the rise of the new social justice wave in recent times. This tide can be accredited as a byproduct of the Fourth Wave Feminist movement, which has kept all industries including Hollywood, on their toes. By replacing the typical male hero with a woman, there is a goal of subverting conventional male audience spaces by encouraging women to become fans and to endorse the narrative that “women can do anything that men can do”. Additionally, there is an intention to force male audiences to accept women in different roles than the typical “sidekick” and “love interest”. By providing representation to women in conventional male spaces, these reboots can be validly interpreted as historical revisionism, or in this case, pop-cultural revisionism, for female audiences.
Although these reboots are being made with highly noble and egalitarian agendas, they have been very problematic and have not helped the feminist movement at all. The criterion for a feminist film isn’t and cannot simply be a female lead or an all-female cast. Many of these films are masquerading as feminist films due to the current market value of feminism and represent the film industry’s cynical profiteering of contemporary feminist ideals. The main reason these reboots fail to be feminist is the manner in which they are made. While studios invest in these so-called inclusive films, they don’t actually entrust a female staff, that is, female directors and writers to tell these stories. By retaining men in key powerful positions, the film just serves as lip service to the feminist cause. Breaking this paradigm is what made the 2017 film Wonder Woman so revolutionary. It had a female lead and a female director retelling the classic from a fresh perspective, with well-written characters, and a cohesive storyline. It wasn’t made with a man’s perceived idea of what a feminist film should be like. Although the film was not perfect, it was still a good move in the right direction and was well vindicated in the Box Office. It, therefore, helped pave the way for increased women’s participation in powerful behind the scenes positions.
A second argument on why these reboots are not feminist is the baggage in their storyline - there is usually, a subtle responsibility on these films to fix and neutralize the sexism of the previous films. There is an expectation to repeat everything that the men did, but backward, with integrity. Since the motive of the film is to look “progressive” and “feminist”, storylines are modified for the same, which often leads to a compromise on the logic and the action of the plot. This more often than not leads to bad movies, bad earnings, and contributes to a bad narrative surrounding women-led film projects. A recent example could be taken from the popular Ocean series which was revived in 2018 with an all-female cast. But in comparison to its predecessor Ocean’s Eleven, Ocean’s 8 has a weaker plot with poorly written characters. While Ocean’s Eleven attempts to bamboozle Terry Benedict, a casino magnate, Ocean’s 8 sets its plot around Claude Becker, a hubristic art dealer who duped Debbie out of an art fraud scheme and a relationship. The underlying difference between the two, however, is that while Benedict served as a formidable rival, Becker was simply a pantomime villain. Although Becker’s downfall served the essence of female empowerment, it in no way served the plot.
But it would be unfair to hold Hollywood to a higher standard and assume it isn’t a capitalist industry. Historically, Hollywood has always stuck to reboots and doesn’t have a reason to divert from this practice. Most Hollywood films usually have a basis (successful novels, comics, video games, etc.) Reboots are just another source to develop a new film. Since the audience is familiar with the base material, they’re likely to be paying more attention, making any subsequent remake a much safer gamble over a new script. It also makes fiscal sense for studios to invest in female reboots. In a study conducted by CAA (Creative Artists Agency) it was found that on average, female-led films make more money than male-led films on every budget level. But with logic and facts on their side, female reboots still somehow fail to procure their expected momentum. Designating the audience sexist and that they will never accept female-led films is a weak argument. This is evident with box office hits such as Bridesmaids, Pitch Perfect, and even cult classics such as Legally Blonde and Miss Congeniality. All of these films have strong female leads in original scripts. Reboots are made with the expectation of bettering the previous version of the film. But by replacing the cast with a female cast and a forced compromise on the story’s integrity, it becomes a dictation of what you want the audience to like, not what the audience actually wants.
Since very few female-led films are made, these films are subject to more scrutiny than male - led films with greater pressure to somehow be a feel-good film with the right politics. But a feminist film need not compromise on good storytelling to capture the essence of the feminist struggle. Alternatively, these films also do not have to serve as a symbolic corrective to Hollywood’s mistreatment of women and should be allowed to fashion their own journey independent of “woke politics” and undoing a historical wrong. Reviving old films and rebranding them with an all-female cast is just a patronizing offering towards the feminist movement. Removing men from films contributes nothing towards achieving a sincere representation of women. This is especially the case when all strings are pulled by male executives in male-dominated studios. All of which tells us that if we want to further advance the cause of equality, we need good art representative of women. We need new scripts with bold female characters, and we need more women influencing film behind the camera.
Comments