Clearly I just need to watch Mulan again. I'll get on that.

In defense of Mulan

I just want to point out, and maybe this isn't true for you, but on my version of our blog, all my writing is pink and all your writing is blue. Damn you blogger-gods!

Ok, so I have to admit, the fact that Mulan bugs you so much kind of bugs me. Like you pointed out, every movie can only have one main character, so each story can only be really a boy's story or a girl's. As you also point out, the inverse Mulan story- where men are heroes and all the women are incompitant idiots is probably one of the most repeated tropes in film (including most of the other "girl's stories" Disney has put out... I mean none of the other Disney princesses really fight their own battles). SOOO what the hell is wrong with the woman needing to be the hero (and I want to say you should watch the movie again... the men really aren't all that incompetent and both her leader and her all of her various animal friends are male)?

It kind of brings us to what the hell we really want from our films. Like you said, very few films can fulfill all of the criteria we could throw out there, be both empowered and flawed in ways that aren't in some way kind of annoying. I feel like the best we can hope for, in some way, is to achieve some sort of balance in the whole of our viewership. I think about this a lot for what I would show the kids I don't actually have even as a sparkle in my eye. I am not willing to cut off my kids from Pixar movies (excpet cars) because they are generally really good, BUT I also don't want to send the message that heroes only come with penises. So, so what if Mulan shortchanges the characterization of the men for her story? It's her story!

At the same time, I think I am trying to figure out how to have a better balance in my own viewership- not just watching crap (and giving it my money) when it treats women as captive audiences for the power of oridnary man to blow shit up. I just don't care.

I think it's worth the caveat too, jumping off from your point about generational differences, that we are mostly dealing all with one period's worth of film makers lately. One that I perceive as being highly heteronormative ( I mean, our conversation has become totally relational- its always women in respect to men). I don't know how far we can get from this (Juno comes to mind as something that is less concerned with this sort of politic, where the men are really really supporting characters), especially because then we land on what is essentially feminine and what is essentially woman. How trans could we get here? Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan? Hillary Swank as Brandon? Can we think of any men who play compelling female characters? I don't know how far we can go down that rabbit hole, but it is worth noting that it exists.

I have no argument with you about Pixar -- I noted long ago that they are a bunch of men making movies about how to become a man. What redeems them, at least a little bit for our purposes is that

A) they generally define How To Become A Man in ways beyond the usual stupid movie way but instead focus on things like becoming a nurturing father and pursuing excellence in achievement and

B) you have to learn to become a man in ways that don't involve diminishing the women around you. The solution to the Incredibles' marriage problems does not turn out to be having the Mrs. stay home more and give up her power.

No, you can't switch genders in a Pixar film, but then, you can't switch genders in a Cameron film, either. I think both are trying to work with what is different about men and women without diminishing either.

I'll suggest that being able to switch the genders isn't a metric. The metric that I'm more likely to use is, if the genders were switched, would it be insulting. For instance, if Mulan were gender-switched and we made a movie in which the hero was always right and all the women in the world were stupid, ill-spirited, ridiculous or ugly, would you be insulted. Oh, no, wait-- that movie has been made a zillion times and yes, you were.

I don't think it's coincidental that Cameron and many Pixar guys are from my generation. When we grew up, the conventional progressive wisdom was that men and women were exactly the same and just raised to be different-- nurture accounted for all gender differences. Then we got old enough to see children and almost immediately the PCW said, "Um, no, that can't be right." And my generation has been working on the mystery of what the "real" gender differences are ever since.

Charlie's Angels is not a movie I want to fight for, other than I think it makes an interesting test case because it's a pair of cheesy crappy films. Yes, the women are not real characters except for quirks, but that's standard for action stars-- can you name a single action hero character who is a well-developed character? I don't think I can. It's taken us decades of movie-making to figure out that if we at least cast an actor with chops like Edward Norton or Robert Downey Jr in an action role, they may create at least the appearance of characterization where the writers have failed to do so, but still.

I've lost the thread of where I was going, but I remember thinking that there are two narrative issues here.

One is that a movie can only really have one main character, so until someone makes a movie out of Middlesex, the movie will be either a man or a woman's story.

Second is that movie characterization so often depends on barely-there characterization, removing much of what is authentic about a character, including the parts that make them authentically male or female.

I'm not sure where I was going with either of those thoughts, but I had them, and now I've written them down.

I suppose I will have no choice but to watch Avatar eventually, but I find that basic story arc unappealing, and have done so the six gazzillion other times I've viewed or read it. But yes-- Cameron's interest in telling women's stories is oft-noted. That would be why I told you to watch Aliens.

More Movies

Ok, so I think you have redeemed Charlie's Angels in some ways, but in other ways, not so much. I am kind of convinced that the typical action film may just not have room for truly empowered or interesting female characters (I don't really think one key quirk gives a character a lot of depth).

The past week I have seen a few things, Bride and Prejudice, Avatar, and Toy Story 3. I think the only things that really struck me about Toy Story 3 (for our purposes) was how awesome Barbie and Jessie were, and that Andy's toys could so seemlessly and unquestionably be passed down to Bonnie. I mean, I thought it was the perfect Pixar. To them (and certainly other studios) content for boys (because EVERY SINGLE pixar movie is about becoming a man) should somehow perfectly graft on to girls. I wonder if it would have worked if the roles were reversed. I know you hate Mulan, but this is why I feel like if I had kids I would be sure to have that in our library. I don't want to raise girls thinking they are periphery boys. I love Pixar, but it is a real problem (and I know you are going to take exception to it, but come on! they have enough movies out now that we can't pretend it isn't a real trend).

On the other hand, I think James Cameron actually really likes telling stories about women. I think it's notable that the biggest star in Avatar is Sigourney Weaver. On the other hand, it is a story about a man becoming a man with the help of two women- one on both ends. But, I think I would add Dr. Augustine to the list of strong women. Neytiri, maybe? Have you actually seen this movie yet?

Ok, and on a side note, I love a good Jane Austen remake, and Bride and Prejudice is a good time, because it deals with East/West politics. It, of course, doesn't graft on perfectly, but it is super fun, offers a really cool take on the Elizabeth character, and has Sayid as one of the romantic leads. You can't go wrong, really. Pixar should do a Jane Austen redo!

Charlie's Angels

Okay, I finally watched this again last night. Here's some random observations.

I had forgotten Tom Green was in it. I still don't quite get how anyone ever thought he was funny.

The film does in fact present the main characters as women who are tough, smart, kick-ass and capable. It gives each one a little something to, I guess, round out the character-- Liu can't cook, Barrymore makes bad man choices, Diaz is a ditz-- but those seem offered as leavening and not undercutting for the characters.

It totally passes that test for women characters. Interestingly, it does NOT pass that test for the male characters. There are more than two male characters with names, but they mostly do not talk to each other at all.

That said, the movie is fascinated with the women's asses, which fill the screen as often as their faces. And boobs.

It has what I call the Mulan problem-- these women can be so powerful because the men are morons. There are at least two scenes in which the character takes control of the situation by flaunting her sexuality and thereby reduces the male characters (all nameless in these scenes) to drooling, stammering idiots. I am at a loss to decide who's being insulted more there.

Barrymore is the producer and is subtly first among equals in the trio. She has no father, and the script makes the point of paralleling her absent father and her absent boss. FWIW.

There is a scene in which Diaz fights off bad guys while keeping up a cell phone conversation with Luke Wilson, her new crush. My female co-viewer found that insulting/ridiculous.

Bill Murray's character has to be rescued by the women. Charlie has to be protected by the women.

The scene in which Diaz appears on stage at Soul Train dancing to "I like big butts" in front of an all-black, initially rejecting crowd probably puts racism on the table, too,

Tom Green sucks and I hope that someone has really truly driven a stake through the heart pf his career at this point. I'm just sayin'...

I hadn't been paying attention to Killers because it looked so stupid, which is part of my problem with that particular sort of analysis, because I'm not certain that ripping up this sort of film with feminist critique doesn't somehow minimize the fact that it is mostly hampered by its serious crappitude. Put another way, I think this type of critique might subtly indicate that if the movie just got its handling of its female lead in order, it would be okay.

My problem with an awful lot of hollywood crap is that it handles all of its humans-- male, female, gay, straight, inhuman-- so very badly, and I'm not sure bad handling of women isn't simply a single symptom of larger problems, and a feminist critique may miss the point. IOW, saying that Transformers II handles gender roles badly is like saying that massive kidney failure is bad for your complexion. It's true, but perhaps a bit incomplete.

Funny I should mention Transformers, because Shia LeBoeuf is the acting version of the writing problem that I suspect plagues Killers (and a few zillion other movies). I hate Shia's performances because they are never a whole performance. In this scene he's brave, but in the next scene he's scared; in this scene he's determined, but in the next scene he's tentative-- all based on what somebody thinks would play best in that scene, regardless of how it fits into the whole character. It's the "what would play best" part where the writers let their heteronormative flag fly-- but they aren't writing a character, their writing a scene, and so the characters become a pastiche of writers' assorted prejudices and notions instead of whole and coherent characters.

So maybe I'm trying to say, apropos of I know not what, that bad writing is the disease that allows the heteronormative issues to bloom (along with many others).

Sometimes it's lazy writing that is trying to solve narrative problems-- I need someone to go outside so the killer can chop a character, but I can't really think of a reason that a real human would do that, so I'll just make up something stupid.

Sometimes I'm trying to sculpt a character beyond all sense. At some point we can address the train wreck that is Barbra Streisand, who once she won control of her own films made certain that she would be the funniest, deepest, smartest, wackiest, most dependable, sweetest, toughest and all around bestest character in every movie she made. Watch "Prince of Tides" for one of the more egregious examples.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with your point-- just extending it.

Heigl is a great example of...something. I thought "Knocked Up" was despicable on pretty much every level, a fine example of the Apatow we-love-and-resent-mommy-for-making-us-grow-up-so-we-can-get-laid school of relationship stories. But it, like most of her films (probably this one, too) makes me ask the question, "Why does ANY woman read this script and think, oh yeah, I want to make this movie"?

Killers Review

Alright, this is the review by Liza Schwarzbaum from EW for Killers. I thought in some ways it speaks to the ladies in action movies. It also made me want to give Charlie's Angels a little slack, and to decompress the whole totally feminist anti-feminist, which I feel like has been a trend lately (I could rant about that... maybe later... it's a lot of rant, but it includes feeling angry about girls who are angry about how pretty they are)

Ok, quote:
I could explore any one of those components further. But I prefer to go with a dissection of the wreck that is Heigl's character, Jen. In the course of 100 minutes, Jen is presented as 1) a lonely, uptight loser (disguised by the flawless body and blonde prettiness of the star who plays her) who has been recently dumped by a man; 2) an infantilized adult woman whose parents micromanage her life; 3) a ditzy girl-woman who knows how to wear sexy lingerie but not how to own her sexuality; 4) a competent working woman (she does something corporate that requires her to wear sleek, feminine office-wear) who gets flustered when asked to make an important presentation; 5) a stereotypical girly-girl who unhelpfully screams EEEEEEEEEEE!!! when she and her husband face danger and who demands answers to her questions at really inopportune times like when the couple are being shot at; 6) a woman who's too gullible; 7) a woman who's impractical; 8) a female character who chews noisily on junk food in the movie world's universal lazy symbol for unladylike behavior; 8) a woman who handles a firearm as if it were a snake; 9) a wife who requires ''managing'' by her husband; and 10) a female character stapled together with every dispiriting, routinely accepted trait so popular and so soul-killing in the female characters we find in CARCs like Killers.

This could probably also be another one of those tests we did. A strong/nuanced/ interesting female character can show NONE of these qualities. Long live heteronormative cliches.