tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post722233923620549255..comments2023-12-24T19:38:00.242-08:00Comments on Mendelson's Memos: No girls allowed? On the value of *not* arbitrarily inserting token love interests into male-centric genre films.Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-90087058441712876262012-09-05T09:20:57.280-07:002012-09-05T09:20:57.280-07:00Oh, the issue isn't that I think Rachel is wro...Oh, the issue isn't that I think Rachel is wrong in what's she's saying. I happen to agree with almost everything she says. The problem is that while other positive characters in Bruce's life mix the medicine with humor, Rachel doesn't. She just lectures...and lectures... and lectures. She also exists in the first film to scold, and in the second film to scold and be friged. She doesn't have a characterization because she's the voice of integrity, and not a person (Nolan did the same thing with Ariadne in Inception: she's Cobb's babysitter).<br /><br />RE: Black Widow. No character in the Avengers said: "Look! It's a woman!" But the way she was framed in each of her shots accentuated her womanly bits. The dress she was wearing when introduced didn't help, nor did the fact she was bound. When she was with Loki, she used her gender ("girls cry!") to get information out of him. You can level these accusations against Nolan's Selina, but perhaps Hathaway's talent elevated that character by giving her layers of fear and rage I didn't get from ScarJo. Agent Hill, on the other hand, suffered from none of these problems. She came in, she shot up whom she needed to shoot, she followed orders and carried on the mission. She didn't bat her eyes or pout. Nor was she framed in the way that BW was framed.Diana B.http://twitter.com/LadyD224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-55511495914150413252012-09-05T08:49:53.059-07:002012-09-05T08:49:53.059-07:00I strongly disagree with you about Rachel Dawes in...I strongly disagree with you about Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins. She may have been harsh on Bruce, but (as the film points out) she said exactly what he needed to hear when he needed to hear it. She didn't treat him with kid-gloves, and her speeches about compassion and justice form the moral cornerstone of the whole Nolan Bat-verse. Again, I tend to think of her as a younger Leslie Thompkins, so her lectures feel completely appropriate. As for Black Widow, I liked her 'no big deal' appeal in The Avengers as opposed to her 'look at that ass!' characterization in Iron Man 2. I wrote about this back in May - <br />http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2012/05/without-comment-or-emphasis-why.html, so feel free to tell me how I'm wrong. :-) I will read your Pepper Potts piece later today, but I'm guessing I'll agree with you, as I like that they make her a true supporting character in the Iron Man/Marvel universe rather than just 'the girl'.Scott Mendelsonhttp://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-13198015955327659742012-09-05T07:49:55.023-07:002012-09-05T07:49:55.023-07:00I felt the same way about this, and wrote a post a...I felt the same way about this, and wrote a post about why I thought Pepper Potts was the exception to that rule. http://myvanishedmuse.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/spotlight-gwyneth-paltrow-as-pepper-pott/<br /><br />This was written before TDKR. I would argue that Nolan can't write women (with the exception of Carrie Anne Moss in Memento). Rachel Dawes is a shrew, who exists solely to scold Bruce. You can imagine my surprise when I ended up LOVING Selina Kyle in TDKR. She has own thing going on, her own agenda, opinions,and her own inner world. Her rage at the unfairness of Gotham's power structure is palpable, and she is content to leave Batman to Bane if it means saving her own neck. Then she undergoes her own arc and transformation. I think Pfeiffer's Catwoman also had that (an arc and inner world) in BR. <br /><br />Anyhoo, as a woman, I agree. I'd rather NOT see women onscreen than see badly written women onscreen. I also know I'm about to say something very unpopular, but here it goes: I hated Black Widow in the Avengers (how she was framed, how she was written, how she was portrayed by SJ).Diana B.http://twitter.com/LadyD224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-14685181268873365192012-09-03T20:58:57.474-07:002012-09-03T20:58:57.474-07:00I was 100% on board with your argument until you s...I was 100% on board with your argument until you started mentioning comic book films. At least with your assessment of The Dark Knight and the Amazing Spider-Man, I could not disagree more. Yes, it's true that Rachael Dawes and Gwen Stacy are not exactly "leads" in those stories, but they are both pretty well fleshed out, particularly with Gwen Stacy. I thought the romance in the Amazing Spider-Man was the best romance in a comic book movie that I had ever seen and I think there is more to it than just Emma Stone being charming. I thought she was very well written. <br /><br />Do these movies pass the Bechdel test? No, not really. You're right, they are not female-centric and certainly the romance angle is being played to some degree to appeal to the female audience. But there have to be scores of better examples of shoehorned-in love interests.Seannoreply@blogger.com