Better roles for child actresses than adult actresses? Jennifer Lawrence graduates to 'adult' roles by playing the token girlfriend/manic pixie dream girl.

Yes, this started as deleted material from my Silver Linings Playbook essay from Saturday. I don't want to get into another 'roles for women' rant, but it's interesting that Jennifer Lawrence may win an Oscar for arguably the first role of her career where she exists purely to support the male lead's arc (even her token girlfriend role in The Beaver had a character arc for *her*). She has not a single scene in this film where she exists as a character outside of her role as Bradley Cooper's girlfriend/spiritual healer. She is basically a glorified manic pixie fuck toy who exists purely to support the male lead's emotional journey, not fit for even a single scene disconnected from Cooper's story. This parallels the career trajectory of the likes of Shailene Woodley and Blake Lively, solid actresses who did film and/or television work as leads who only earned real acclaim after they took supporting roles in more automatically prestigious 'manly dramas'. Blake Lively was a lead in films like Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the television show Gossip Girl.  But she was written off as a kid-friendly television star before she played a strung-out junkie with romantic feelings for Ben Affleck's oh-so-conflicted bank robber in The Town. Shailene Woodley was a lead actress in ABC Family's The Secret Life of the American Teenager, but critics only started taking her seriously once she played supporting fiddle to George Clooney in The Descendants. It's a great film and Woodley is terrific in it, but would critics have even noticed the picture had it been told from her point of view? I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of this as the newer crop of child actresses 'come of age'.

Guest Essay: Dana Shaffer on how Brave fails at feminism.

Friend and colleague Dana Shaffer wrote this terrific piece back when Brave first arrived in theaters.  Since I had already had my say on the film, I thought it best to wait until the film arrived on DVD/Blu Ray, which it does today.  Long-story short, this whole piece elaborates on ideas that I merely acknowledged in my review.  So do enjoy.

Does Brave give us the Disney princess we’ve all been waiting for? 

The film recycles a familiar tale, with a few misguided twists

By Dana Shaffer

Brave is the story of Merida, a bow-and-arrow wielding princess, with attitude, gobs of personality and more interest in pursuing her own ambitions than marriage. It sounds like a dream come true for many who have longed for a princess story with more of a plot arc than meeting a man and falling in love.

But let me give you a quick synopsis of the film (complete with spoilers, be warned):

It is the story of a vibrant and sassy redheaded teenage princess who doesn't quite fit in. She has an unusual hobby that her particularly strict parent does not approve of. During a nasty fight one day, the very strict parent destroys the daughter’s most beloved possession in a fit of rage. The parent instantly feels regret, but the damage is done. The rebellious redhead runs away. The girl seeks help from a witch, who gives her a spell that will change her destiny. But unless she fulfills a mission within a few days, the spell will turn very, very bad. After a series of inconsequential “fish out of water” scenes, the daughter must face the consequences of the spell, and her parent’s life is put in danger. The princess is rescued from peril, and in the end, the parent decides to let the daughter win the initial argument and have her way.

So that’s a bare bones plot synopsis of Brave. But perhaps it sounded familiar to you. Read it again, but this time think a little less moors of Scotland and a little more “Under the Sea.” Yep. Brave, whether it knows it or not, borrows heavily from the structure of The Little Mermaid. Of course there are some vast differences between the narratives. And perhaps in a world that recycles fairy tales and fables over and over, it’s not a big deal. But it lends some interesting ways to compare the two princesses.

Despite Skyfall's regressive sexual politics, Bond Girls have been "Bond Women" since, oh... 1987.

Spoiler warning for Skyfall (non-spoiler review HERE)...

As happens every time a new 007 film opens, pundits and critics are generally quick to point out how this new 007 picture has one of the very best 'Bond girls' ever.  Oh this time she's strong, independent, able and willing to hold her own with James Bond, and not merely there to be a sex object.  So if critics pretty much say that nearly every time, at what point do we have to acknowledge that the meme of the helpless and useless Bond Girl is mostly a myth.  To put it simply, many of the so-called Bond Girls were, if not champions of feminism, presented as mostly capable and independent characters who happened to be obscenely attractive and (often improbably) attracted to Mr. James Bond.  From Dr. No onward to Skyfall, the hapless sex object who exists purely to be ogled and bedded is more exception than rule.  And quite frankly, over the last 25 years (or after Roger Moore left), almost every major 'Bond Girl' was a relatively well-developed character or at least played an important role in the story.  Ironically, perhaps in a misguided attempt to appease the fans, the treatment of women in Skyfall is actually comparatively regressive.  In short, it takes the series back to a certain misogynistic mindset that hasn't been prevalent since the Connery years.

She has a name. Her name is Sharon Carter! On the way we discuss actresses and female characters in genre fare.

One of the big would-be stories yesterday was the announcement of five actresses apparently on the 'short list' to play Sharon Carter in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  Such stories are always big news in the blogsphere, mainly because it allows bloggers to write a handful of sentences and then decorate their site with various pictures of attractive women.  What's amusing/disconcerting about these stories is how pretty much every single website describes this role as 'the love interest' or 'the romantic interest'.  Most of the sites can't even muster a token 'female lead', opting to describe the role as Steve Roger's "arm candy".  Look, barring some inexplicable surprise, we all know that one of the five actresses in the running (Emilia Clarke, Jessica Brown-Findlay Teresa Palmer, Imogen Poots, and Alison Brie) is likely playing Shield agent Sharon Carter, distant relative (grand-daughter/great-niece, etc.) of Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter in the last Captain America film.  She has a name, she has a character and a history that can be referred to when discussing this casting news.  How about we use some of that information instead of just referring to her as Steve Roger's newest sexy time partner?  

No girls allowed? On the value of *not* arbitrarily inserting token love interests into male-centric genre films.

Let us for a moment highlight two of the many would-be Oscar bait pictures rolling out in the next couple months. Ben Affleck's Argo, which opens today, has instantly shot up to the upper-levels of many filmgoers' 'must see' list for the Fall.  Also pretty high on the list for film buffs is Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly.  Aside from the strong reviews that both films have already racked up prior to even being screened for most critics (ah, the festival circuit!), the one thing that sticks out about both films is the near absence of females in major roles.  The trailer for Killing Them Softly was notable for its complete absence of females.  Argo has few women in its trailer and seemingly only has female characters where they would make sense, be they among the Americans caught in Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis or people in the government who just happen to be female (the most notable seems to be Adrienne Barbeau).  Point being, having now seen both films, both are very very good and neither of these films felt the need to shoe-horn in female characters in otherwise all-male stories, and both films are better for it.  

Not just the crime, but the cover-up. How the Tomb Raider game producers did more damage by 'explaining' Lara Croft's attempted rape and why it's all a big mess.

I really didn't want to comment on this, both because I'm no longer what you'd call 'a gamer' and because there's only so many ways I can point out that mainstream culture, especially geek culture, is sexist as all hell. But if you've been following video game news of late, you probably heard about and/or watched the extended trailer for Tomb Raider reboot.  Long-story short, it's an origin story of sorts and the new narrative turns her into a scared young woman who spends pretty much the entire trailer being menaced and assaulted by big scary men who want to do her harm, both physically and sexually.  The latter part is what has people in an uproar, although I'd argue the whole thing is pretty offensive in principle.  Since she's a female hero, of course her origin story must involve non-stop assaults, female friends being murdered, and an attempted rape, because that's how you concoct character development for female characters, right?

Unequal equivalency: Why 'girls can do anything boys can do' sends a harmful, not positive, message to girls and women.

"Why is this okay?"  It was a random thought that I had while watching the final twenty minutes of Snow White and the Huntsman.  I suppose I should put a spoiler warning, but if you've seen even a single commercial or trailer you know that during the third act Snow White dons a suit of armor and rides into battle on horseback.  It's not that I took any offense at the notion, but I sat in the theater last night wondering why this kind of revisionism was completely acceptable for Snow White but not for James Bond.  Simply put, if someone tried to make an 'Elseworlds' version of James Bond where he was a British (or American?) spy during the 1880s and engaged in action-fueled espionage in a wild-west setting, I'd imagine the film punditry world would be in a tizzy.  And let's not even try to imagine what would happen if someone tried to make a Superman movie where Krypton didn't explode, Lex Luthor was a CIA agent who was actually an alien, and Superman wore a spacesuit from which he received most of his powers, because J.J. Abrams wrote wrote just such a script that sent the Internet into pandemonium back in 2003.  The geek community (and arguably the mainstream media outlets in a desperate attempt to be 'down' with the geeks) explodes with outrage at any alleged deviation from their beloved source material.  Spider-Man has organic web shooters... horror!  The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles might actually be from outer-space in their next movie... shock!  James Bond drinks a beer Skyfall... gasp!  But Alice (in Wonderland) dons armor and kills a dragon and no one cares.  Snow White dons armor and rides on horseback into a medieval battle scenario and no one cares.

The not-so subtle negative messaging in Jessica Chastain's Iron Man 3 character description.

The big casting news from yesterday was the announcement that Jessica Chastain is being sought for a major role in Iron Man 3, joining Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, and (allegedly) Andy Lau alongside the various returning cast members (basically every surviving character from the first two films save for Sam Rockwell).  The cast listing for the other *male* actors primarily described their occupations and/or role in the story (Kingsley is the villain, Pearce is a 'sinister scientist', Lau is 'a scientist').   But the actress is being touted not just as a scientist but as "a sexy scientist every bit as smart as Tony Stark".  Because despite winning raves in seven films last year, with countless award nominations to go along with it, Ms. Chastain can't just be described as a scientist.  Oh no, she has to be a hot piece of ass who despite being (gasp!) a girl is as intelligent as Mr. Stark.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Universal sells Snow White and the Huntsman as female-empowerment while plotting sequel, sans Snow White.

Despite my misgivings about the current trend of tossing young actresses into the fairy-tale princess box, I must concede that the second trailer to Universal's Snow White and the Huntsman looks like a pretty solid action-adventure (Charlize Theron looks to be having a blast).  While I would be shocked if the film did well enough to justify its $175 million budget, there is little reason to presume that it won't be a solid hit in terms of reasonable expectations.  In fact, among women, the film tops a recent Fandango poll regarding which would-be summer blockbuster they are more anticipating most with 22% of the vote.  So the good news is that if the film is a hit, it will further establish a viable marketplace for female-centric action pictures, which will surely spawn a franchise featuring Kristen Stewart's Snow White doing battle with other various fantastical threats, right?  According to Universal COO Ron Meyer, speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, the studio is indeed interested in doing a sequel if the film is a big enough hit.  But said sequel would not focus on Snow White, but rather Chris Hemsworth's Huntsman. So the answer to the prior question is... Nope.

Question of the day: Why *isn't* Twilight's Bella Swan a feminist creation?

In a classical sense, FEMINISM is defined as believing that women should have the same rights, freedoms, choices, privileges, and benefits as men in a civilized society.  Under that relatively general definition, I would argue most rational people, men and women, would classify themselves as 'feminist'.  In my eye, the feminist ideal is not one where women constantly make the 'correct' moral and/or professional decisions or choices that further their own independence, but merely that they have the freedom to do so if they so desire.  So I ask the question, why exactly is the Twilight Saga inherently anti-feminist?  I'm speaking merely to the movies and not the books, but as the series has unfolded, it's primarily been about one thing: Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) relentlessly pursuing a singular goal, to be in a long-term relationship with Edward Cullen, no matter what obstacle or constructive criticism is hurled her way.  We may not agree with Bella's choice in men, but as I've written before (HERE), I'm not entirely sure the films agree with her either.  Moreover, if feminism is about having the choice to, as a woman, live your life as you see fit, isn't her dogged pursuit of Mr. Cullen inherently feminist by virtue of it being absolutely Bella's choice?

Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton aren't to blame for a culture that promotes and idealizes female stupidity. YOU are.

I'm as big of a Jon Hamm fan as the next film critic.  But he's wrong when he posits or even implies that Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton are to blame for a cultural that promotes stupidity.  Even if we agree that the careers of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are a sign of a nationwide dumbing-down of our culture at large, they are merely the symptom.  They are only guilty of taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to them.  If we were offered television shows, fashion lines, the chance to write memoirs, the opportunity to record music, and millions of dollars thrown at our feet merely for being ourselves, would any of us turn it down?  The phrase 'stupid like a fox' comes to mind, as they have created brands worth tens-of-millions of dollars despite seemingly possessing no extraordinary talents or abilities.  But they are not to blame for a culture that has allowed them to become rich and famous (or more rich and exceedingly famous).  In short, YOU are to blame.

Rush Limbaugh's advertiser desertion feels good, but why doesn't it feel right?

About a week after Rush Limbaugh's (insert negative adjective HERE) comments about Sandra Fluke, a law student who testified before Congress regarding the ongoing 'debate' about contraception, the longtime right-wing talk-radio host has lost 30 sponsors from his show as a result of public outcry and calls for advertiser boycott.  As someone who has followed politics for the last twenty years, a practice that inevitably involves hearing or reading about any number of god-awful things Limbaugh has uttered over the decades, I suppose I have to wonder what took so many of his sponsors so long?  As a political liberal who has witnessed not only the sheer absurdity of many of Limbaugh's often fact-less rants, as well as the incredible power he holds over Republican office holders, it fills me with no little good cheer to see him getting his ass kicked over his misogynistic tirade against a private citizen who exercised her right to testify before Congress over a matter of personal concern to her (and her friend, who needed contraception for the treatment of ovarian cysts).  But I have to admit that it's a little disarming, scary even, to see the blinding speed and brutal effectiveness with which this activism took place.  It feels good because I happen to be on the same side of the political (and moral) fence as the activists.  But what happens next time when we get targeted... again?

The newly announced Before Watchmen is a prime example of what's killing DC Comics - Chasing the converted at the expense of new readers.

The big news this morning (really early this morning, like around 3:04am) is DC Comic's announcement of a seven-book prequel to Alan Moore's groundbreaking Watchmen series.  Titled Before Watchmen (covers) the mini-series will involve the likes of Brian Azzarello, Darwyn Cooke, and  J. Michael Straczynski with each of the seven chapters concerning a specific major character.  I have no idea whether this project will be any good or not.  But it sits as a shining example of the fundamental flaw that exists in the comic industry, especially within DC Comics.  They spend most of their time chasing the readers that grew up with their iconic characters rather than attempting to attract new readers who are growing up right now.

Blaming the victim: The problem with Beauty & the Beast isn't Belle but the Beast.

Note -For what it's worth, the 3D conversion left me unimpressed.  If you want to see it, do it because you want to see the picture on the big screen again, not because the 3D conversion adds any real value.  If you want to read a similar retrospective discussion of The Lion King, go HERE.  

I've long joked that I was able to ruin Disney's Beauty and the Beast merely by uttering two words: "Stockholm Syndrome".  Having sampled the film in 3D over the weekend, it remains one of the just-plain weirder Disney cartoons in recent times. It is still a highly entertaining and visually impressive bit of entertainment.  It's easy to see and remember (I was eleven when I saw it the weekend after Thanksgiving in 1991 as part of a double-sneak preview following Father of the Bride) how those who thought of Disney animated films as relative trifles like Robin Hood or Oliver and Company were knocked back by the sheer seriousness and scale on display.  Even more than The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast was arguably the first Disney cartoon since the initial batch (think Pinocchio and Bambi) that felt like a grand-scale MOVIE.  But watching it again, for the second time in two years (I bought the 2D Blu Ray over Hanukkah 2010), there are a few things that bear mentioning, both about the movie itself and the nature of how its critiqued.

When it comes to girls' toys, it's not 'pink vs blue'. It's 'pink vs normal'.

The problem isn't just that 'boys stuff is always blue and girls' stuff is always pink'.  Because, as anyone who has walked through a toy store knows, that's not actually the case.  When you go to buy Legos or board games or the like, you generally have two choices.  You have the regular version of a given toy with whatever colors the creators decided to use and then you have the 'pink version' of that same toy.  This is actually far more troubling than merely offering a 'boy-friendly' version and a 'girl-friendly' version of these otherwise mainstream toys.  And, slight digression, this only happens with stereotypically 'boy friendly' products.  You don't see blue-tinted variations on make-up kits or doll sets, which in turn hurts younger boys who might want to play with dolls (that's a whole different essay).  You have the 'normal' version vs. the 'girl version'.  What this obviously tells girls (and parents, natch) is that it is 'not normal' for them to want to play with Legos, doctor kits, tool-sets, or seemingly mainstream board games.  No, that's not how 'it's always been' done.  And while that may currently be 'normal', it sure as hell isn't right.

Scott Mendelson     

He's complex. She's a bitch. The implicit double-standard of 'unsympathetic' female characters.

I've long discussed, usually in the context of another topic, about how female film characters are judged on a far harsher sliding morality scale than their male counterparts.  The upcoming release of Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody's Young Adult, which basically plays like a classic anti-hero Oscar-bait dramedy except for the fact that the anti-hero is female, will be an interesting test case.  Had the film starred a popular male star, its quality would likely place it among the current Oscar front-runners.  But two days before release, it has been more-or-less absent from the Oscar talk. Male characters get to be selfish oafs, immature man-children, and all manner of criminals, but as long as they learn a lesson in the end and/or are doing their misdeeds for a noble cause (usually a pretty girl, a kid, or an animal), they are let off the moral hook.  But female characters are rarely allowed to be villains, and almost never allowed to be complex antagonists.  Moreover, in mainstream films, all a female character has to do to earn the wrath of critics (and audiences?) and/or be declared a villain is basically have a three-dimensional personality. And more often than not, the actresses themselves are often judged not entirely on the quality of their performance, but also on the relative morality of the character they are portraying.   

Going broke chasing boys: Why Disney ditched princesses and spent $300 million on John Carter, and what it means for the Mouse House's core demo.

If you've seen the trailer for the upcoming John Carter, you know that not only does it not look like it cost $300 million, but it so painfully feels like a Mad Libs male-driven fantasy blockbuster that it borders on parody.  It's no secret that Disney thinks it has a boy problem. One of the reasons it bought Marvel two years ago was to build up a slate of boy-friendly franchises.  And the last two years have seen an almost embarrassing attempt to fashion boy-friendly franchises (Prince of Persia, Tron: Legacy, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, I Am Number Four, Fright Night,  and Real Steel), only half of which were even as successful as their alleged flop The Princess and the Frog (which obviously grossed 'just' $267 million on a $105 million budget because it starred a character with a vagina).  We can only ponder the reasons why Disney decided to outright state that they were never going to make another fairy-tale princess cartoon again, even after Tangled became their most successful non-Pixar toon since The Lion King, but I'm pretty sure Disney won't be making such statements about boy-centric fantasy franchises anytime soon.

Painfully obvious sexism watch: One of these JOURNEY 2 posters is not like the other. Hint, it's the one with giant boobs are more important than giant bees.

 

Here are four character posters for Warner Bros' upcoming Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.  Each poster highlights a lead character and a respective giant animal menace.  As you can clearly see, the focus point of three of the posters is the actual special effects creation that is chasing our heroes.  In three of the posters, the human character is smaller than the monsters, thus making the giant animals themselves the center of our attention.  Of course, the second poster on the left, the one highlighting Vanessa Hudgens is a bit different.  In her poster, the flying bee creature is smaller than Hudgens's profile.  So if the giant bee is not the center of attention isn't the fx monster in this poster, than what is?  Why, Hudgens's boobs of course.  As you can see, the largest thing on the poster, the thing that is clearly intended to be the focus point for Hudgens's poster is the young actress's rack.  The marketing team at Warner Bros. didn't see fit to fetishize Dwayne Johnson's massive muscles or any manly attributes that Josh Hutcherson may possess.  But in her character poster (and the main poster on the left), the young actress's breasts are apparently the main attraction. Because of course when you're a girl in a generic or male-driven mainstream genre film, even when it's a PG-rated adventure aimed at younger kids, the only marketable attributes you have is your 'fuck-ability'.  Stay classy, Warner.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Sleeping Beauty (2011) has strong ideas in service of a lifeless film.

Sleeping Beauty
2011
105 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

It is not fair to writer/director Julia Leigh that I have such strong feelings about Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch.  (here, here, and here). It is not fair that I was so utterly annoyed by the critical community's absolute refusal to even acknowledge the rather unsubtle subtext and ideas that justified the fantastical elements.  It is perhaps ironic that within the same year we get two Emily Browning pictures that are sexually-charged and are knee deep in some rather pointed social commentary about how women are viewed in the culture.  Broadly speaking, Sleeping Beauty and Sucker Punch have many of the same ideas and opinions about the wholesale objectification of women.  Unfortunately, while Sucker Punch has fantastical environments and jaw-dropping action sequences to justify its existence as pop entertainment, Sleeping Beauty frankly has little to offer but its ideas.

Review: Lucky McGee and Jack Ketchum's The Woman (2011) is thoughtful and insightful, but more entertaining to talk about than to watch.

The Woman
2011
101 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Lucky McGee's The Woman, based on a novel written by McGee and novelist Jack Ketchum, is at once a probing bit of social commentary and a relatively dry horror picture.  It is easy to respect and admire due to its thesis, while it must be acknowledged that it gets where it wants to go pretty quickly and spends much of the rest of the film biding time.  The picture does build tension through silence, and its performances are spot-on throughout.  But its intentions are not subtle and McGee and company plays their hand by the end of the first act.  As a thoughtful and pointed examination of how the patriarchy operates as a tool for gender domination, as well as a look at how society plays 'Pygmalion' to women as a whole, it is worth a look and worthy of merit.  But it works better as a thesis statement than as a piece of genre entertainment.