Movies
Not Okay: An Unlikable Female Protagonist
Not Okay starts with the content warning “unlikable female character” at the beginning. These warnings are meant to help you not get triggered if you see anything extra but it did quite the opposite to me. I went on twitter and searched for “unlikable female character” to see if people were okay with this warning by hulu.
My thought process was like, “wait, we get movies about men who rape, torture, murder people, steal, and do horrible things but we never get such warnings”. I thought Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl, Sharp Objects, Dark Places) had already broke the narrative that women must only be portrayed as kind, caring, nurturing and likable in books and movies. What happened to that progress?
Aaaaaand then I read that this was a satire, so okay. It did its job of angering me.
Even though Not Okay is satire, and most people know this, I was amazed at how many people were appalled with the protagonist and had only bad things to say. I want to dig a bit deeper and by writing this try to understand my own view a bit…better.
If you want to know whether to watch it or not, hop on letterboxd for seemingly unbiased opinions. But I’d like to talk about the unlikable female part more and explore that trope further. But to get there, I have to lay out the plot to give context.
Danni is a bored, seemingly average white girl who has a FOMO of 9/11. She wishes she was present so she could be part of a community and share a survival story (horrible right?). Danny likes a guy and to impress him, under the influence of weed, comes up with the idea of faking a trip to Paris via Photoshop.
While “in Paris”, a terrorist attack happens. She is too far into the lie by that time and even though she contemplates coming clean, she decides to go for it and continue the narrative of her being a survivor of the attack. That makes her famous (her hashtag blows up, she becomes a trending writer with 34K followers, etc). She also makes a friend during this “adventure”: a real trauma survivor.
Some time later a colleague goes through her computer and finds the photoshopped photos, then confronts Danni and gives her an ultimatum to come clean, otherwise she’ll expose her. Danni does come clean and the world calls her “worse than Hitler”. No redemption arc. Nothing. She becomes lonely again, starts drinking, and loses friends and family. The bad bitch got what she deserved, right?
But is this all there is to it? I made some notes while watching this film and want to go through them one by one.
Affirmation and Love
Danni got affirmation and love from her parents only when they thought she went through a traumatic experience. Only then did she get a “I am so proud of you” from her mother and tears of support from her father. In contrast, when she was exposed as a liar the only thing her mother said was “and how are you ever going to find a husband now?”.
Courage
Danni writes an article exposing HERSELF as a liar and coming clean with the world after being confronted by her colleague. I know for a fact that if I was ever that deep in such a horrible lie I would have never found the courage to come clean. I’d let it flow. I’d let the colleague expose me and maybe paint them a liar. Or flee the country. Does this make me a coward? Yep, most probably.
Even though every single person reading this would like to think that they’d do otherwise and come clean, I doubt many would. That’s why what she did was insanely gutsy.
In one scene you can see a picture of Danni in kindergarten getting a “courageous kid” award.
Being Perfect
Danni was not perfect. She was fucked up, a drunk, not compassionate, white, and straight. But the real survivor, Rowan, was “a perfect victim”. And even though she was perfect she still got crucified on twitter for just one small weakness she showed during a protest. The world only accepts and cheers perfect victims.
You’re expected to be sad all the time if you’ve suffered smth traumatic recently. But you’re also expected to be strong. Meanwhile you must also have just the right opinions and the right attitude. And preferably write poetry (lol). Otherwise, you are fucked as a victim.
Wrongdoings
Danni did a horrible thing. However, were the other people all saints? Family not supporting her until they thought she was a trauma survivor. A colleague going through her stuff. Other colleagues rushing to witness and record a fight between her and Rowan. People posting her home address online and prompting terrorists to test their bombs on her home. A veteran kicking and screaming at her in public.
By no means am I trying to justify what she did by claiming “trauma”. I am trying to say that everyone is shit to some extent and everybody fucks up. In my very humble opinion, as long as you don’t break the law, not every fuckup should be so strictly classified as good or bad. Who would decide the benchmarks for such comparison?
Clickbait
In a particular scene, Rowan (the real survivor) blames Danni for stealing her #iamnotokay hashtag and making it famous, turning it into clickbait. This made me think. First of all, it’s horrible to steal and it is actually forbidden by law. But did Danni steal? I think she was inspired by those words, but also saw an opportunity and grabbed it. She was an opportunist, and as Leo Dicaprio once said “I really don’t like women who are opportunists”. That’s perceived as a male trait. We hate her even more for being a female opportunist.
However, that hashtag helped thousands of people to come forward with their trauma. And it’s not like Rowan wanted to initiate it and Danni stole it. Rowan JUST said those words. Danni took them. I wouldn’t be surprised if #metoo was first tweeted (and started) by a person who “stole” it from someone else. Or #blm. Those hashtags created movements that helped thousands of people share. Their virality did good rather than bad. So, does it really matter if they were “stolen”? Would I rather not have #metoo, or have a #metoo that was not initiated by its “real creator”? Definitely the latter.
Rowan also blames Danni for turning trauma into clickbait. That’s a valid blame. But I have a question to ask. In a world where opinions are made online, on twitter, instagram and tiktok, how else are you supposed to change smth? If a “fake” survivor went so viral to actually help codify Roe v Wade, or made congress pass laws that ban guns or help convict a rapist while the alternative was not having any of it, which would you choose? How important is authenticity in the face of real action? Why do you have to be a PERFECT VICTIM for your actions to matter? Lying is bad and there must be consequences but a liar’s good deeds shouldn’t magically disappear or become invalid.
I am a bad person, what now?
We are used to villains that have redemption arcs. Bad guys turning good in the end by some selfless sacrifice. The world forgiving them. But that’s not actually how it works in real life.
Danni goes to a support group in the end and a member asks “so what? are we supposed to feel bad for you now?” and Danni doesn’t attack back. She actually says smth spectacular: “I don’t know if I have learned anything”.
We love when villains learn smth in the end. Like Darth Vader saving Luke in the finale of ‘Jedi’. And we think it’s pointless and weird and horrible when the villain doesn’t learn anything. We EXPECT people to grow and have motivational talks after their wrongdoings like Jordan Belfort. But do we really learn? How is that measured or proven?
Danni is like “ok, I did bad, I’m horrible, I fucked up and what is worse, I don’t know if I have grown afterwards. So… what is next for me?” And what is next for her? Being called “worse than Hitler” because the world can’t stomach an unlikable female protagonist, being kicked by a veteran in a store, and being neglected by everyone. What is next? What should these bad people do? Kill themselves?
I think the world needs a little more compassion.
P.S. they should sell t-shirts that say “unlikable female protagonist”
P.S.S. i wonder if Amber Heard was called “worse than Hitler” on twitter at some point
