THE SANDRA BULLOCK SYNDROME
Film and TV portrayals of women professionals are steeped in
stereotypes. Leading the parade of clichés is one of Hollywood’s most
successful heroines of all time
By Anna MM Vetticad
She is not the
leading lady of the film. In a small role in Baby though, it is a joy to watch a counter-terrorism operative,
played by Taapsee Pannu, single-handedly wallop an enemy agent, while her male colleague
(Akshay Kumar) is away.
Pannu’s
character in Baby is unusual in
Bollywood for more reasons than her flying fists: (a) her profession is clearly
specified in the story (b) she is shown operating efficiently within her
professional space (c) her job is not conventionally considered
acceptable/suitable/desirable for girls (read: she’s not a student, teacher,
nurse, homemaker, writer, designer, beauty expert) and (d) her job is not a
ploy to put her in sexy clothing (read: she’s not a model, actor, singer, dancer).
These thoughts
rang particularly loud as I watched the film, since I was just back in India
after addressing a conference on Women In STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics) organised by the Meera Kaul Foundation in Dubai. What was a film journalist doing in
the midst of female STEM entrepreneurs? I was reminding them that they barely
get representation in films made by the world’s biggest industries, from
Hollywood to India’s Bollywood, Kollywood and Tollywood; and that when they
are represented, too often they’re steeped in gender stereotypes.
While Hollywood
is more liberal than India’s entertainment industries in this respect, it is
still a male-dominated, woman-unfriendly world. For proof, look no further than
Sandra Bullock, one of the industry’s highest-paid heroines today. Over the
years, Bullock has repeatedly played professionally successful women on screen.
Sadly, those women have invariably been lonely, socially awkward or downright
dysfunctional. In Miss Congeniality
(2000), she was a grumpy, frumpy, brilliant FBI agent. In Two Weeks Notice (2002), she was an environmental lawyer, ordering
takeout at home for one. In The Proposal
(2009), she was a nasty publisher without a sex life. In Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (2013), she was a surprisingly
inept engineer-astronaut with a sad past, who is unlikely to have survived her
maiden space mission but for a gentleman colleague (George Clooney). There’s
more.
Let’s call this
The Sandra Bullock Syndrome: the hesitation to show regular, happy, credible
working women helming storylines; the tendency of filmmakers
who present leading women in unconventional professions to compensate for their
professional success by tailoring them to fit assumptions made about such women
in society. C’mon, how could she be good at her job and not be a cliché?
Even TV — which
delivers more central female characters than films — is not guiltless. Carrie
Mathison in the hit American series Homeland,
for instance, is a genius CIA officer who suffers from bipolar disorder, which
is perhaps the writers’ excuse for her emotionally overwrought nature. But she
is consequently
so erratic at work that it is hard to believe the
agency would risk retaining such an employee.
To be fair,
American TV features many non-Carrie-like women too, but the
“lonely/high-strung in success” label is often floating around for the ones in
less traditional professions, and too many are glamourised to the point of
being unreal. In the long-running show Castle,
for example, it’s hard not to wonder how the gorgeous homicide detective Kate
Beckett’s knees survive running around New York chasing murderers in those
impossible heels.
Here in India,
it is not uncommon for a film’s heroine to be of indeterminate profession,
hanging around waiting for the hero to find her. If she is visibly working
outside the house, she is most likely to belong to a profession that is deemed
socially acceptable for women or ups the film’s glamour quotient.
Women like Rani
Mukerji’s tough police officer in Mardaani
or Priyanka Chopra’s boxing champion in MaryKom last year are rare. Producers may argue that their limited portrayals
of women professionals are a reflection of reality. Why be selective with
reality then? How come top women bankers such as Chanda Kochhar and Naina Lal
Kidwai, industrialist Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw and others like them from
real India are almost never reflected in films and soaps?
The situation is
not without hope, of course. Television journalism has become a popular
profession for women characters in Indian films ever since the electronic media
explosion at the turn of the century. Perhaps because filmmakers’ exposure to
women mediapersons is so inescapable now, portrayals are getting more authentic
with time. We’ve come a long way from the days when Raveena Tandon as a print
journalist in the Bollywood film Mohra
(1994) wore a tiny skirt to interview a
policeman, or Tamil actress Karthika Nair’s painted, distractingly long claws
and over-made-up face overshadowed her actions in the newsroom in Ko (2011). Today belongs to Anushka
Sharma’s more believable TV reporter in PK
(2014).
Let me be clear:
I am not dissing homemakers, nurses, teachers or models. I’m merely demanding
more onscreen female leads in other fields, whose work is significant in the
story (as it is with male characters), who are emotionally stable and at peace
with their family/personal choices. Film and TV have great power to influence
minds. The struggles and fulfillment of Arati from Satyajit Ray’s Mahanagar (Bengali, 1963) and Nirupama
Rajeev from Rosshan Andrrews’ How Old Are You (Malayalam, 2014) are more inspiring than their creators could imagine.
If even one little girl or grown woman out there sees a character on screen and
thinks, “if she can do it, I can too”, that is a huge achievement.
(Anna M.M. Vetticad
is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)
(This column by Anna
MM Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on January
31, 2015.)
Note: This photograph was not published in The Hindu Businessline
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete