Bones Fails

You know what character doesn't help in our search? Temperance Brennan, of the show Bones.

There are lots of things not to love about the show, not the least of which is that the characters are all written as if they are in middle school. Bu it was another mystery-procedural centered around a cute sparky central couple, and she was a female lead, cut from a milder version of the same high-functioning sociopath mold as House.

But as I sink into the season in which her character is pregnant and has a baby, I can't help noticing that the general show tension between down-to-earth manly-man Catholic David Boreanz and her character is always resolved in his favor. And that while we're trying not to be too obvious or heavy-handed about it, the moral of this season is that what this woman-- successful author, world-reknowned leader in her field, incredibly intelligent-- what she needs is a big strong man and a baby to help her become the person she's supposed to be. Sp phooey on them.

Brave vs. Tangled

We recently watched Brave again, and I have to agree that I didn't find it fully satisfying, though it clearly touches something in my wife that is directly linked to her tear ducts.

The writing of the film seems unfinished to me. Like the script has areas of "In this scene daughter and mother somehow share a kind of epiphany over some kind of bondy thing or other" and nobody ever finished working out exactly what was happening. They just hoped that by nodding at it we'd get somewhere.

And we get symbols without connection to anything. Twice we see a physical object that is broken/torn between characters to represent the destruction of some kind of bond by some unspecified bad thing. The prospect of the queen's humanity being lost to the savage nature of the bear is kind of scary, but it doesn't really have any kind of link to anything else going on, no chance of thinking "Hey, her loss of her human nature is kind of just like _______ "

And the enchantment itself is undercut by the transformation of the boys. For her it is supposed to be terrifying, but they're just hilarious.

The lead is wrestling with responsibility, but that doesn't really have anything to do with anything else. And her sorrow over having potentially destroyed her mother is late, shallow, and not really earned. Plus I can't shake the unpleasant f\notion that part of what she learns is that proper women should know their place. Like Dorothy and Jasmine, she has to learn that these kind of adventures are to be avoided-- the only positive outcome is that they return the young woman to her proper place.

Not that manly lit doesn't have the quest archetype. But men go on quests, achieve things, and return home better men. Women go on quests and return home having learned that the only true destination for their quest is right where they started.

Tangled gets shunted aside as lesser Disney, but I agree it makes a better case for its lead.

First, as a middle-aged man, I find the central threat really resonates on a feminine level without being less of a real threat. It's a dramatization of the very Good Girl cage that many women learn by quest to lock themselves in willingly. You're not strong enough. You're not good enough. You can't handle the world. Stay in your tower.

She does display the classic woman-heroine power-- the power to enlist the willing aid of others by making friends (same as Dorothy). And if I ignore the wacky hoodlums, I'm left with the lovable-ish rogue, who is perfectly competent and capable to handle certain situations-- just not THIS one.

Why the film couldn't give her a female sidekick or friend I do not know. For that matter, why some of the mangy hoodlums couldn't be women escapes me. But the more I consider this movie, the better I like it.

Which for no particular reason reminds me-- do we have to consider Xena, Warrior Princess at some point?

More Mangy Thoughts

Okay, that makes some sense out of what was rattling around in my head-- the notion that men have to be less so that the woman (the only woman) can be more.

There is some parallel in that often a heroic man is surrounded by lesser men-- the action hero can have a comedic sidekick and even some bumbling competitors, but no real threats to his supremacy.

At the same time, we have buddy films with matched pairs of equally-competent men, and we have ensemble-type groups with men of equal degrees of competence. So now I'm trying to think of any film or tv examples of womanly ensembles with equally competent female leads. I'm going to put my thinking cap on there.

What does Mangy Rabble Mean?

So, I hear you, and the feminist in me wonders if this isn't reverse sexism but the same old sexism working. You don't have to justify a woman not being the center of attention, right? I mean, in most movies they are around, but they don't do anything. In fact, I just did three movies in a row- 12 Angry Men, Reservoir Dogs, and Glen Garry Glenross- that had no women and never even had to mention it.

On the other hand, if it is a girl's story, and especially if we are framing her as heroic, it seems like they have to justify why none of the guys could do it. I'm glad you came around on Mulan, and I genuinely liked Tangled, but I doubt Brave will be one I am in a rush to put in my kids film library. Because not only is everyone around her kind of dumb, but she isn't anything. It's really the Mom's movie.

So, in a weird way, the Disney movies about boys (Aladdin and Hercules come to mind) can afford to have one strong woman, because she is the ONLY woman and she never encroaches too far on the hero's role as hero. Whereas these girl movies are still about a few females in a world of men. She is supposed to be extraordinary in her ability to DO something, in a world where mostly only men are even visible. So I don't know that these movies are solely doing men wrong, but instead bring men down in the way that all sexism is really bad for everybody involved. It shows that they just haven't actually solved the problem yet. I don't think anyone needs another Brave. And I was surprised how much the set up for Brave was like Tangled, with less joy, even though the stories end in different directions. I think Mulan works because she is in a space that was historically appropriate for men, but its otherwise hard to justify why these lady heroes don't have any lady friends.

Ok, so I have re-engaged in the blog. My next assignment for you is to go watch some Katherine Hepburn- I suggest Philidelphia Story, Bringing Up Baby, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, because she is the best find I've really gotten into since our last round of blogging. She is a powerhouse, and can take seemingly sexist material and just own every man in the room. She is very literally transcendent, and how often can you say that about anybody?

Mangy Rabble

I have withdrawn my complaint that Mulan only succeeds in elevating its female lead by surrounding her with male characters who are all idiots. It is better and more balanced than my memory gave it credit for.

But I do declare a trend. From the gruff army boobs of Mulan to the mangy rabbly outlaws in Tangled to the hilariously uncouth clansmen in Brave, we seem to have a formula. If the lead is a female, the comic relief must be men who are unkempt, uncouth, un-smart, and uncivilized (except, of course, that they all reveal a more cultured, civilized, sensitive side under prompting by that female lead).

Is this a thing? Does it mean something? Is there a counter-gender equivalent? Or have I got blinders on that are causing me to miss something?