BASIC REPRESENTATION SCORE: -10
FEMALE AGENCY/POWER/AUTHORITY SCORE: 0
[no significant representation of women in authority]
THE MALE GAZE SCORE: -5
GENDER/SEXUALITY SCORE: -20
WILDCARD SCORE: -5
Is there anything either positive or negative in the film’s representation of women not already accounted for here? (points will vary)
The female characters here are all drawn with gendered signifiers — long eyelashes, hair bows, splashes of pink — in ways that the male characters are not, the most ridiculous being the pair of mammalian breasts on a female chicken.
TOTAL SCORE: -40
IS THE FILM’S DIRECTOR FEMALE? No (does not impact scoring)
IS THE FILM’S SCREENWRITER FEMALE? Yes (two of the five writers credited for the English version: Melanie Simka and Jocelyn Wright) (does not impact scoring)
BOTTOM LINE: In this male-dominated movie — that is, insidiously, aimed at children and therefore aims to reinforce the misogynist status quo in the minds of impressionable younglings — features a lovestruck female sidekick/love interest for the male protagonist whose name is almost never uttered. His name is mentioned constantly, as other characters talk to him or about him. For the longest time while watching this film, I didn’t even know what her name was, because no one talks to her or about her. Which is an unfortunately perfect metaphor for how most movies treat their female characters.
NOTE: This is not a “review” of Huevos: Little Rooster’s Egg-Cellent Adventure (Un Gallo con Muchos Huevos)! It is simply an examination of how well or how poorly it represents women. (A movie that represents women well can still be a terrible film; a movie that represents women poorly can still be a great film.) Read my review of Huevos: Little Rooster’s Egg-Cellent Adventure (Un Gallo con Muchos Huevos).
See the full rating criteria. (Criteria that do not apply to this film have been deleted in this rating for maximum readability.)
This project was launched by my generous Kickstarter supporters. You can support this work now by: