Behind the Cover Story: A. O. Scott on Women, "Girls" and the Standout Female Performances of the Year A.O. Scott, a chief film critic for The Times, wrote this week's cover article about the state of women in movies and exceptional female performances in 2012. His essay accompanies a photo portfolio by Tierney Gearon. How did this essay come about? Actually, the idea for the essay came before the images. The magazine editors and I started talking about the issue during the summer. At the time a bunch of movies had come out - including "Brave," "Beasts of the Southern Wild" and "The Hunger Games" - that suggested to me that it might be a good year to do something a little different and focus on women in movies. We explored different ways we might convey the range of women's roles now and in the past and thought about which actresses to shoot and the best photographer to shoot them. The images and the essay kind of emerged alongside each other, which is usually how it happens. As you see movies during the year, do you keep an ongoing list of standout performances for later reference? When I'm reviewing movies, I'm mostly thinking about the movie as the sum of its parts, but I'm always keeping an eye out for arresting performances. What actors do is often very mysterious, and it's by no means unusual to see performances that are better - richer, bolder, funnier, more nuanced - than the movies that surround them. Our portfolio is full of examples. I don't think any of the movies Rebel Wilson was in this year are great works of cinematic art (though I did love "Pitch Perfect"), but there's no question that she's a comic performer of considerable genius. And whatever you think of "The Master" or "Trouble With the Curve," it's hard to ignore the range that Amy Adams shows in those two movies. How did you first hear of the Michael Calleri scandal, in which a small newspaper publisher criticized his film critic for focusing on movies with women in "alpha" roles? I spend a fair amount of time - too much, for sure - reading media and film blogs, and this story popped out when it showed up on The Chicago Sun-Times's Web site. It was kind of irresistible, partly because the idea that Hollywood is pushing a radical feminist, anti-male agenda would strike most observers as bizarre, and the publisher's over-the-top misogyny was the kind of thing we heard with weird frequency in 2012. Your essay made me nostalgic for "women's pictures." Can you pinpoint when and why they went out of vogue? When did the switch flip to "chick flicks"? In the '40s and '50s, women were a large and powerful force in the marketplace, so the "women's picture" was in part a reflection of economic reality, much as the popularity of action and fantasy movies reflects the ticket-buying prowess of teenage boys. One of the things that happened to those movies was the cultural changes of the '60s and '70s - feminism, the sexual revolution, the end of the Production Code. Stories of female suffering and resilience of the kind that made Bette Davis and Joan Crawford into stars didn't quite fit with the times. The more recent "chick flicks" - mostly PG-13 romantic comedies that are pale imitations of Doris Day career-girl movies from the early '60s - pander to a presumed female audience without engaging the realities of women's lives. They have mostly been terrible, because they can't quite figure out the sexual mores and gender expectations of the times. It was easier when the Code gave you a set of rules to follow and slyly subvert. In the past few years, movies have gotten more daring and more honest. The "Sex and the City" movies are kind of awful, but they were groundbreaking in that respect, and they made a ton of money. You said that Quvenzhané Wallis as Hushpuppy in "Beasts of the Southern Wild" was perhaps the standout female performance of the year. Does it point a way forward for a new kind of heroine? I don't know if "Beasts" will spawn imitations, since it is such an original and unusual movie, but it does seem to me that Hushpuppy is a great, archetypal character, a new variation on the child hero that has been a staple of the American imagination at least since Huck Finn. In your essay, you mention the television show "Girls," by Lena Dunham. It passes the Bechdel test, but not as easily some viewers might like. Do you think that as a show about women, "Girls" has to answer to too much cultural baggage? The "Girls" phenomenon was fascinating. It was impossible, in certain circles, not to have an opinion about that show and impossible for anyone with a blog or a print outlet to refrain from commenting. All of a sudden Lena Dunham was the spokeswoman and scapegoat for her sex and generation, to an extent that would astonish Hannah Horvath, who wanted to be only "a voice" of "a generation." The idea that Dunham had somehow benefited from nepotism was pure sexism. Hollywood is the land of nephews and entitled sons, and nobody tends to complain about that. The fact that the show was about young women, friendship and sex struck a lot of nerves, and I think Dunham's looks and her willingness to risk embarrassment, take off her clothes and show her character's less-likable side made her susceptible to bullying from various quarters. The grace and good humor with which she handled it all may be the most influential and inspiring thing about "Girls." A lot of kids out there - including not a few boys - are dreaming of being the next Lena Dunham.