My Thoughts on Ant-Man

All right. So I am a nerdy lady. I pretty much always enjoy a good superhero flick. Despite the fact that Marvel continually puts out movies headed by straight, white dudes, I continue to give them my money and I generally enjoy myself. Of course, I always hold out hope that they will step up their game and give us more character variety and better representation in terms of both gender and race. But at this point, I know what I’m getting into when I go to see a Marvel Movie.

Ant Man was no exception. I knew going in that I was going to see a movie about Scott Lang (played by Paul Rudd), AKA another straight white dude, becoming a superhero. And it did just fine in that department.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

BUT here’s the thing. At this point, I know that the producers at Marvel have heard some of the demands for better female representation. So why they decided to introduce the character of Hope (played by Evangaline Lily), and make her fully capable of being The Wasp from the beginning of the movie, yet still sideline her in favor of Ant-Man is beyond me. They have every character, including her, repeatedly express that she just as qualified as Scott (no, make that WAY MORE qualified) to don the suit and be the hero. So why didn’t Marvel write a story where she could be the hero? Or at least put her on equal narrative footing with Ant-Man?

 
Within the first half hour of the movie it becomes clear that Dr. Pym’s reasons for bringing in Scott Lang, rather than permitting his already ass-kicking daughter to go ahead and kick some ass, are flimsy, sexist and just plain tired. I spent more of the movie fuming in my head, “If they end this movie without Hope becoming The Wasp, I will be so pissed,” than actually enjoying the rest of the movie.

And, in the end, we do see Dr. Pym showing Hope an updated Wasp suit and her apt response of, “About damn time.” It was a pretty awesome moment. But perhaps it felt so awesome because I’d been waiting for it and waiting for it and the credits had startws rolling and I thought perhaps they weren’t going to oblige. But after a moment’s reflection, I realized that this wasn’t quite enough for me. There was so much time in the film spent on this narrative: Hope was incredibly capable but not allowed to be the hero. She had superior fighting skills, she had the brain power and the know-how to control the ants with her mind and she was ready and willing to take the risk for herself. But she defers to her father over and over again, based on his belief that she must be protected. I’m not saying it doesn’t make good character sense the character of Hank Pym to want to prevent his daughter from undertaking a dangerous mission. I’m saying this isn’t a good enough reason why we, at this point in Marvel’s Cinematic Universe, couldn’t have a female driven superhero movie.

You know what I would have loved? If, at some point during the climax of the film, Hope had showed up in the Wasp suit and said, “Sorry Dad, I got tired of waiting for you to get over yourself. And guess what? I am bad ass enough to have looked over your plans and made an awesome suit all for myself because it turns out in addition to being a great fighter, I’ve also worked at an amazing science lab my whole friggin life.” I mean, she probably would have said it a little nicer than that, because I actually did like a lot of the father/daughter dynamics while they struggled to repair their relationship, but you get my point!

For a long time, we’ve deserved a female superhero movie. A little teaser during the end credits that Hope will eventually put on the suit is not good enough anymore. When a character is repeatedly acknowledged as stronger, smarter and better prepared than the hero of the film, yet is still not allowed to share the spotlight, it almost seems that the Powers That Be at Marvel are actively TRYING to piss us off.

#YesAllWomen Feelings

Hello! I know it's been a while. I've been working on more posts and there will be more to follow. I just wrote a Tumblr post that I feel compelled to boost on this blog as well. It regards my own experience with the #YesAllWomen movement. If you are unfamiliar with this hashtag it started after the shootings in Isla Vista in May, when a young man recorded a video blaming women for rejecting him and forcing him to violence. It struck a cord with man women, because the words this murderer was saying were words we'd heard in our daily lives during discussions of sexism, and these feelings were largely dismissed by men who claimed that "Not all men" were killers, rapists, misogynists, and sexists. It sparked a movement online, wherein women shared their experiences with harassment and misogyny and used the hashtag #YesAllWomen. Here is my contribution:

Over the past few months I have had several amazing friends share their experiences with sexual assault and harassment on facebook. Putting intimate details of their lives out there for all to see. Although on places like twitter and tumblr I saw these stories met with further harassment and dismissals, I had some optimism because the friends that chose to share on facebook were largely met with support and love from both male and females. I was glad that my friends had men in their lives that were listening and supporting them. Unfortunately, today I saw that trend disrupted. A friend shared her story on her facebook page and her boyfriend chimed in with a comment, stating that the media encourages both men and women to act inappropriately. He finished with, “End of story.”

It’s not the first time I’ve seen a comment of this nature in response to a woman sharing her experience of feeling constantly unsafe because of her gender, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it come from someone I know and (before today) liked. This was not a conversation about how the media negatively influences people, this was a conversation about someone we care about feeling unsafe and undervalued because of her gender. The proper response when a woman you care about shares her experiences of misogyny is not to dismiss it by saying, “Well, all people suck.” And MOST IMPORTANTLY, no man gets to say “END OF STORY” during a conversation about sexism. As long as all women continue to have these experiences, we retain the right to continue this discussion and feel the hell out of our feelings.

I have refrained from sharing my own #YesAllWomen story because, like many others, I don’t like talking about these experiences in a public medium. But I now feel I must follow the lead of my friends who I again thank and express my admiration for their bravery.

The first time I was sexually harassed was when I was 11-years-old. A man grabbed my ass in a bookstore. Before I entered high school I already had two friends who were victims of rape, I have since lost count of the number of friends I have that have been raped. I have been physically harassed in public places several times. I get shouted at, honked at, and verbally harassed nearly every time I leave my home. If I had a nickel for every time a man has called me a “cunt” or a “bitch” for not responding positively to their advances I would be a millionaire. I volunteered for a rape crisis center for women who had been sexually assaulted. I have held many women’s hands while they have been examined in the ER and interrogated by the police, and listened as they cry or yell about what has happened to them.

Misogyny and sexism are real and if you deny this reality you are absolutely part of the problem.

Where The Ladies At? - The Lack of Women in Geek Media

"Being a geek is all about being honest about what you enjoy and not being afraid to demonstrate that affection. It means never having to play it cool about how much you like something. It's basically a license to proudly emote on a somewhat childish level rather than behave like a supposed adult. Being a geek is extremely liberating." - Simon Pegg

I am a geek. There is very little that makes me light up more than discussing The Hobbit, the latest episode of Doctor Who or Marvel's plans for any of the upcoming superhero movies with a fellow fan. Joining the geek community felt completely natural, I have met so many friends and have had so much fun at geek events. I truly can't overstate the importance of being a geek in my life, it has provided joy and comfort by helping me find a social network and by giving me stories to explore on my own.

But right now I'm going to do something that is extremely difficult for me: I am going to criticize the franchises I love. Because, as Anita Sarkeesian puts it so well in her video series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (which everyone should watch), "It is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it's more problematic or pernicious aspects." The pictures at the beginning of this post are promotions for some of the most popular franchises in current geekdom: The Avengers, The Hobbit, Sherlock, Doctor Who and Star Trek: Into Darkness. What I find problematic about these movies and TV Shows is the lack of women in leading roles. According to the NPR Blog: Monkey See, last month 90% of the leading characters in movie theaters were men, and a fair chunk of that came from what are, unquestionably, geek movies (Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, etc.)

This is not to say that these franchises are devoid of strong women. In fact, I think one of the many things that draws me to Sci-Fi and Fantasy stories is that I find more strong female characters there than in other genres. Some folks might be upset at my mention of Doctor Who considering that the Doctor almost always travels with a woman, who is usually a strong and well written character. It's true that the Doctor's female companions are some of my favorite characters, they participate in the action, often committing heroic acts that are all their own, and occasionally they even get to save the Doctor. But it must be acknowledged that the Doctor is consistently the one running the show, and his companions are along for the ride. Readers may also take issue with the inclusion of The Avengers, which was written and directed by Joss Whedon, who is often praised (often by me) as the forerunner in feminist television and film. There was a lot to love about Black Widow in The Avengers (I actually wrote about it in some detail), she was a great improvement to Iron Man 2 and to past attempts at female superheroes (I'm looking at you Elektra). However the obvious must be stated, that she was the only female on the team and unlike her friends -- Thor, Captain America, the Hulk and Iron Man, she has yet to be given her own movie.

 

It is undeniable that despite the presence of strong females in some popular franchises, the vast majority of leading roles are filled by men. Some might wonder, "What's so wrong with that? So long as there are strong female characters somewhere? Does it really matter?" My simple answer is- yes. Yes, it is a problem. This year I attended my first Sci-Fi convention and I loved it, but it forced me to examine that lack of females represented in geek media and the sometimes hostile attitude toward females in the community. If you are a cosplayer, the options for female superheroes are startlingly low, even lower if you are uncomfortable in revealing or heavily sexualized clothing, and lower yet if you are a woman of color. I have found several blog posts highlighting the instances of harassment and body shaming that occurs at conventions and I don't think it's a stretch to think the lack of female driven narratives has something to do with this. Having so few females in film and television creates an illusion that geek culture is male space, and often makes women feel unwelcome. Yet there are still plenty of women and girls who identify as geeks, and I believe this is because the stories I've mentioned are good stories. You don't have to be a man to relate to the struggles and triumphs of The Doctor or Bilbo. I see reflections of myself and people I love in many of the male characters I've mentioned. But it begs the question: Shouldn't men be expected to do the same for women?

So what can be done to change this? I believe there is some progress being made, however slowly. There are steps being taken already, but I'm not sure how successful they have been...

It is becoming less common for a television show or movie to be released without at least one female character; but what we end up getting is a lot of franchises with exactly one woman meant to balance out several men. Soon, we will have the second installment of The Hobbit joining these ranks. Peter Jackson has inserted a female elf, Tauriel, into an all male story. Since I'm a huge fan of the books, I'm not sure how I will feel about Tauriel. On the one hand, I appreciate that there was some awareness that there were NO women in the original story and they felt at least one strong woman was necessary. They succeeded in inserting some girl power into The Fellowship of the Ring by expanding Arwen's role, and I enjoyed that change from the books. However, I had mixed feeling about the deviations from the book in An Unexpected Journey, I thought some slowed down the plot and weren't very well written. I fear that Tauriel is merely a bone being thrown at feminists; she'll fire a couple arrows and won't contribute to the story in an interesting or meaningful way. A major problem with there being so little female representation, is it puts a great deal of weight on the women we do see. If the lone woman is poorly written, it hits female viewers hard and often makes it more difficult to convince Hollywood to invest in strong female characters in the future. Clearly, we need more than one woman inserted into the stories dominated by men. 

There are also the attempts to gender-swap characters that are already beloved by fans. For example, there was Elementary, America's answer to BBC's Sherlock. But CBS decided to do something a little different - they turned John Watson into Joan Watson and cast Lucy Lui in the role. It was a courageous move to give such an iconic role to a woman (and a woman of color) but, if my anecdotal evidence has any truth, fans of the BBC's series and fans of original books had a hard time adjusting to the change. Although, I sorely desire more successful female characters, I don't think a smart solution is replacing the male characters who are already popular. I have similar concerns with the growing demands for a woman to play the Doctor on Doctor Who. For those of you who don't watch the show, The Doctor is an alien who doesn't die but regenerates, thus allowing for eleven (soon to be twelve) different actors to play the same character over the past fifty years. Peter Capaldi was just announced as the 12th Doctor and some have expressed anger that yet another white male was chosen. I certainly understand the disappointment and feel some of it myself. However, I don't think the show is ready for a female Doctor, because I don't trust the all male writing staff to be able to do it right. Since the show got its reboot in 2005 there have only been two serials written by a woman, none since Steven Moffat took charge. I believe part of why franchises with female leads are unsuccessful is that most are written by men, and most men aren't that great at writing women. If they were to cast a female as The Doctor, the unfortunate reality is that she would have to be better than the past Doctors (again, the lack of female characters puts them under a higher degree of scrutiny, by both feminists and misogynists.) And until we have more women behind the scenes, I think it will be hard to have exceptional characters on-screen.

I propose that changing popular male characters into women sets those female characters up for failure and when the people behind the scenes are not excited about a female lead it ends up showing in the final product. Including a woman or two in compelling supporting roles is a good start, but falls short of what we want and need. Often the female characters feel pandering, a small gesture to placate the people who desire more diversity. We need NEW STORIES, new characters, written by women and about women. There are stories out there, there are female superheroes that haven't had a movie made about them, there are new books and comics being written everyday and it's about damn time we start seeing them on the screen.

To end on a somewhat positive note, here are a couple geek projects on the horizon that I am looking forward to: 

Joss Whedon is producing a television show spinoff of The Avengers, called Agents of Shield. From the promotions, it appears that half of the main characters are women. Whedon is one of those rare men that can write women well, and there is at least one woman on the writing team, Maurissa Tancharoen, who has worked with Whedon in the past. It has also been confirmed that Maria Hill (a character who we met in Avengers, but didn't have nearly enough screen time) will appear in the pilot. If the popularity of the Avengers can introduce the geek world to some new and exciting female characters, I will be very pleased.

Not long ago, Rob Thomas and crew made Kickstarter history by asking fans of the TV Show Veronica Mars to fund a movie. This is one of several examples of a female centric show that was ended before it's time. For those of you who haven't watched the show, the title character is a PI who also happens to be a teenage girl struggling through high school. Veronica used her brains and determination to outsmart others, the show dealt with many important issues (most notably, she solves the mystery of her own sexual assault). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much of a female presence in terms of writing and directing, but it's incredibly exciting that the character of Veronica Mars is returning. For years the cast, crew and fans have been trying to find a studio to produce this movie, but no studio was willing to bet on a female hero from a cancelled TV Show. I hope the success of the Kickstarter Project (raising over $5 million with over 90,000 backers), will demonstrate to Hollywood that these types of projects have an audience and will make money.

There is a market for female heroines. If a TV Show or movie is well-made and the character is compelling, the geeks will show their support. It is important that females are represented not just so girls and women have someone to look up to, but so that men and boys are taught the strength and humanity of women. We geeks need to be more vocal about what we want in future franchises, as Hollywood starts to plan more superhero movies and tries to start new geek fandoms. There is nothing new about female geeks, we've been around since the beginning of geek culture. It is only the misogyny of some within the community and misrepresentations in the media that have given rise to the myth that all geeks are men. We must continue to be involved and vocal about what we want and support projects that provide it for us. I have no doubt that the culture will continue to change and improve because geek women are creative, articulate and vigilant. Basically, we're awesome.

Witches Be Crazy: "Oz: The Great and Powerful"

Hey guys, it's been a while! I'm starting to get back in the habit of blogging, so there will be more soon. I'm going to get this party re-started by letting you know how disgusting Oz: The Great and Powerful is. I had heard rumblings in the feminist circle that this movie was problematic... Boy, was that an understatement. Watching this movie felt like falling into Director Sam Raimi's misogynist fantasy world. 

A prequel to the beloved Wizard of Oz (a favorite of mine from infancy), this movie follows Oscar (played by James Franco): a lying con man, who makes a living as a magician and gets his kicks by duping impossibly gullible women into worshiping him. While fleeing in his hot air balloon from the outraged boyfriend of a woman he'd philandered, he gets sucked into a tornado and winds up in Oz. As soon as he arrives he meets a gorgeous witch named Theodora (played by Mila Kunis), who informs him that he is the Wizard from their prophecies and he gets to rule the kingdom. Score! Everything seems to be going great for him until Theodora falls in love. Oscar iss totally on board with moonlight make-out sessions and her unconditional adoration, but when she starts talking about marriage... clearly, the witch be crazy.

Theodora takes Oscar to the Emerald city to meet her sister, Evanora (played by Rachel Weiz). She immediately flatters Oscar and gives him a glimpse of all the power and riches that will soon be his... as soon he defeats the Wicked Witch, that is. Although he is somewhat uncomfortable killing a woman he's never met, he decides the power and fame is worth it. So off he goes to find and destroy the Wicked Witch. But once he meets her he discovers she is actually Glinda the Good (played by Michelle Williams) and he'd been tricked by Evanora (the actual Wicked Witch). Glinda leads Oscar to Munchkinland where he meets the people of Oz, all of whom are convinced he is the Wizard that will save them. But Glinda puts two and two together and realizes that Oscar has no powers and is actually kind of an asshole. However, being the wonderful woman she is, she falls for him anyway and puts the fate of her kingdom in his hands.

Meanwhile, Evanora reveals her evil side by showing Theodora that Oscar doesn't really give a flying monkey about her and is way more interested Glinda. Well, Theodora basically goes bananas and takes a potion from her sister to freeze her heart and take away her pain. The potion does a little more than that, it literally turns her green with envy and thus she becomes the Wicked Witch of the West we all remember from the original Wizard of Oz.

The rest of the story plays out as you would expect: Oscar uses his magician tricks and cons to develop a plan (that a two-year-old could have come up with). He leads Glinda and the people of Oz against the Wicked Witches and after twenty minutes of tri-witch cat fighting, the crazy ladies flee. The movie ends with Oscar taking up his title as the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz and making out with Glinda behind the famed curtain.

The problems with this movie are endless, especially with regards to gender dynamics. The women embody nearly every horrible stereotype thrown at women in present day America. 

First we have Theodora, who cannot move without the guidance of a man; soon after she meets Oscar they are pursued by one of the Wicked Witch's flying monkeys. While hiding from it, she can't even be trusted not to scream and reveal their location without Oscar's hand covering her mouth. Oscar encourages her affection in the beginning, he lies to her in order to seduce her, and when she mentions becoming his queen he affirms her hopes. Yet after all this she is still portrayed as the villain and he, the hero. Her character becomes the overused story of the woman who falls for a man way too fast (often due to manipulation on his part) and once rejected stops at nothing to ruin his life. This trope is seen far too much in popular culture, usually in romantic comedies and sitcoms. It paints an unfair depiction of women as emotional wrecks and relieves the men of any responsibility for their manipulation and cruelty.

While watching the film, I could not see past the glaring plot hole that a man was needed to fill the seat of power in Oz, despite there being three very powerful women just hanging around. Before Oscar shows up, the thrown has been empty since the death of Glinda's father. Evanora is the only woman who decides to take advantage of this power vacuum. Unlike every other female character in the film, she has ambition, and is therefore evil. Her character is nothing new to film and television, often women in power are portrayed as cold, manipulative and utterly selfish. To add insult to injury, Evanora's loathing for Glinda seems to stem from Glinda's being prettier than her. After all, that is all women really care about, right?

Lastly, we have Glinda, the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, pure-as-snow woman who loves Oscar despite all his flaws. She's the shining light in a sea of crazy, idiotic women. Her character seems to exist solely to stroke Oscar's ego. No matter how badly he behaves, or how many mistakes he makes, she continues to stare at him with those doe eyes and tell him that he is capable of wonderful things. Her character also appears in Kansas before he makes his way to Oz. She is an old love who shows up at Oscar's door to break the news that another man has asked her to marry him. However, she makes it quite clear that one word from Oscar will put a stop to this engagement. Oscar refuses her advances, in what is supposed to be a noble gesture. He tells her she should marry a good man and he ain't one of those. She insists that he could be, to which he responds, "I don't want to be a good man, I want to be a great one." 

That quote sums up the core problem with the protagonist. He's not a good man. Throughout the film he lies, cheats and just generally treats everyone poorly. His motivation is entirely selfish and he does not seem to care whom he hurts, so long as it leads to notoriety. I suppose his choice to stay and use his skills as a trickster is meant as character development, but he never shows any remorse for the damage he'd caused prior. Yet the audience is meant to cheer for him, be glad when he succeeds and rejoice that he gets the glory and the girl. In the end, that is all Glinda was: a prize for Oscar.

Sometimes I think this movie could be harmless, one of those films that is just so awful no one should take anything about it seriously. In the past, that's often been the charm of Sam Raimi's work (The Evil Dead, Drag Me To Hell). But what makes this film more problematic than his past work is that it is marketed to children. It is distressing when adult films have unfair portrayals of women, but when a movie intended for kids is so lacking in morals it is all the more upsetting.

I'll end by simply saying there is nothing redeeming about this movie. In addition to the sexism that oozes from every scene, the characters are two dimensional, the story makes little sense, the acting is poor and any aesthetic enjoyment you might gather from the special effects you've seen in the previews. So if you're having a movie night and think Oz will be a good fantastical adventure, choose something else, you will be spared two hours of James Franco's shit-eating grin.  You're welcome.

"The Last Airbender": A Sad Example of Racist Casting

 
To kick off the new year I am going to write out a rant that's been in my head for a few years. Taking a brief break from discussing sexism, I'm going to talk about racism; specifically, the racist casting decisions of the live action adaptation of my favorite TV Show, Avatar: The Last Airbender. It's been two years since the film was released (and, unfortunately, there are more recent examples of racist casting) but I still hold a lot of anger that a show that was such a wonderful source of diversity became such a blatant example of Hollywood Whitewashing. 

It is no secret that the majority of the faces in Hollywood are white. Sure, there are a couple faces of color that have made it to the top, but they are few and far between. Some act as though this is coincidence, that everyone is given their fair chance but all the best actors just happen to be white. It disturbs me that so many believe this lie when, not only are the majority of films being produced the stories of white people, but the roles that are intended for people of color are going to white actors. Sadly, M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender proved a disgusting example of the latter. The show takes place in a fantasy world that is modeled after various parts of Asia and Inuit tribes in the Artic, animated in a style that was created in Japan and, I'm just going to say it, all the characters in the show are clearly not white; yet when the film was cast the three main characters ended up being white. Shortly after this information came to light controversy began brewing, Shyamalan defended the choices in an interview that only increased my anger. Since I will probably never get a chance to sit down with him and argue about his casting choices I'm going to do the next best thing... pick his statements apart on my blog. 

The story of The Last Airbender involves a war started by the Fire Nation against the three other nations in this world. Particularly in the first season of the show (which is the only season the film covers) the people of the Fire Nation are painted as the bad guys, which became a problem when M. Night Shyamalan decided to cast actors with darker skin as characters from the Fire Nation. Now, to be fair, the "good guys vs. bad guys" dynamic does get muddied throughout the series, some characters from the Fire Nation develop and join the heroes, specifically the characters Iroh and Prince Zuko. That was the first point that Shyamalan brought up in his defense: "The whole point of the movie is that there isn't any bad or good. The irony is that I'm playing on the exact prejudices that the people who are claiming I'm racist are doing. They immediately assume that everyone with dark skin is a villain. That was an incredibly racist assumption which as it turns out is completely incorrect." However, even if I pretended not to know that the original casting of Prince Zuko was the blond haired/pale skinned Jesse McCartney, who stepped down to be replaced by the Indian Dev Patel, the casting still played into the expectations of a racist society by casting people of color as the villains. Having a couple characters of color that eventually turn against their people and join the "right" side is just a slightly sneakier way of reinforcing our societies prejudices.

After claiming that he intentionally cast non-white actors as the Fire Nation to undermine our racist assumptions, he says that he cast the primary actors in a "color-blind" way. (Note: the casting call was released and it asked for Caucasian actors to fill the roles of the main characters.) He made each nation have a different ethnic background and he justified casting white actors as the originally Inuit Sokka and Katara by saying, "If you don't have an edict of 'don't put white people in the movie' then the Water tribe can be European/Caucasian. So that's how it ended up." It is true that over the course of the film you do see several faces that are not white, however every heroic character that is given more than two seconds of screen time is white. He's claiming that it is merely coincidence that all three of our leads ended up being Caucasian?! I call bullshit. Don't believe me? Watch the first few minutes of the film, every person in the Southern Water Tribe is Inuit except the three characters that speak. I also question the decision of dyeing  the hair and tanning the skin of Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone to make them look more Inuit, if they were intended to appear European/Caucasian. Putting people of color in the background and putting white people in the leads is a failed attempt to placate the people like me, while keeping the unbalanced and unfair status quo.

Finally, he claims that the animation style is at fault because,"The Anime artists intentionally put ambiguous features on the characters so that you see who you want to see in it." So, despite the fact that the animation style was created in Japan and the entire world created in Avatar was based on Asian or Inuit cultures, Shyamalan still says that the characters are not necessarily non-white?! This is the statement that makes me the most angry. He is right that there is ambiguity in the Anime style that allows for universal relate-ability; I feel that this was all the more reason for him to cast people of color in the lead roles. That ambiguity is something that racists cling to while watching animated television shows or reading books; it is an attempt at keeping white the norm. Casting Asian and Inuit actors would have been a way to get rid of that ambiguity and definitively show people of color as heroic lead characters. When 82% of leading roles go to white actors, this was a missed opportunity to give young children of color some characters to look up to and to counter racist assumptions. 

Stars aren't born, they are created by film makers who continue to choose white faces and steal opportunities that belong to actors of color. There are countless epic fantasy series out there for Caucasian actors and I have no doubt that there will be plenty more in the future. When a franchise that is designed for Asian actors, like Avatar: The Last Airbender, comes along it's time we demand that those roles be filled by Asian people, rather than continue to makeup white actors who have significantly more opportunities. (Seriously, it's the least we can do.) I don't know if M. Night Shyamalan was lying to us or to himself in this interview, but at the very least he's displaying horrible ignorance to the racism in the film industry and society at large.

For more information on The Last Airbender casting and racism in other Hollywood films please visit and show your support for Racebending.com.

Black Widow: "Iron Man 2" vs "The Avengers"

Black Widow (aka Natasha Romanoff), played by Scarlett Johansson, made her first live action appearance in Iron Man 2, and returned this year in The Avengers. Black Widow is a stealthy spy who works for a government espionage team called SHIELD, and exhibits a fair amount of butt-kicking ability. Despite the fact that she is part of the same franchise and played by the same actress, the character changes profoundly between films (namely because in The Avengers she has one). In The Avengers she was a compelling character who plays an integral role in a team of superheros, in Iron Man 2 she may as well be a fembot.

I think most everyone can agree that Scarlett Johansson is nice to look at, I don't necessarily think there is anything offensive about accentuating this, but a problem occurs when more time is spent doing slow pans of her body and closeups on her ass than giving her a story or a personality. The protagonist, Tony Stark, is shown constantly leering at her (giving all the viewers ample time to do the same) and any contribution her character could make to the story is completely dismissed. She appears undercover as a notary taking care of some business for Tony; as soon as she leaves the room Tony turns to Pepper Pots (his secretary/love interest) and says, "I want one." And that exchange is all the explanation we are given as to how she became Tony's new secretary. Not only is the protagonist shown talking about her as if she's a toy, but what could be an interesting exchange where she is convinced to come and work for Tony is never shown. Presumably, she's there trying to get information on Tony and reporting back to SHIELD but we never see her getting this information (unless you count the pointless scene where she coyly asks Tony if his martini is "dirty enough"...which I don't).

Some people would argue, "But Black Widow is a super strong female character. She knocks out a dozen guys by herself at the end of the movie!" While I agree that it's awesome when women kick butt, it's become a common trait in today's action films to try to cover up the objectification of women by having them exhibit physical strength. When she snaps into action at the climax of the film it is cool, but it doesn't make up for her lack of humanity throughout the film; it turns her into a sexualized weapon. 

So, needless to say, before The Avengers was released I was worried about whether the Black Widow could become a compelling member of the team. Then I heard that Joss Whedon was going to write and direct the film, and was immediately hopeful. Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with Joss Whedon he is the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Doctor Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog (watch them all) and he's widely hailed as the man to beat in terms of creating feminist film and television. However, I remained skeptical, what with there being five other Avengers (all of them male) and this being his first big budget picture where he would be getting pressure from Hollywood.

Luckily, Whedon delivered. He turned Black Widow into a character who is strong, intelligent and complex. Black Widow has a cold and calculating persona that would be expected from a government spy but she also has a past and motivations that extend beyond her orders from SHIELD (such as her affection for Hawkeye). As Iron Man 2 attempted, she is shown manipulating the men around her with "feminine wiles" but we see her using her brains rather than her sexuality to achieve her ends. Her first scene in The Avengers she is interrogated by a group of men, while tied to a chair in a sexy black dress. I distinctly remember feeling disappointed, assuming we were about to see her flirt her way out of this fix.Then Joss Whedon did something awesome; he overturned my expectations, revealing that while the mob of men thought they were interrogating her, she had actually been interrogating them. Basically, it's awesome. 

In addition to Black Widow's character improving, the male characters treated her better, which I feel is just as important. In Iron Man 2 Tony Stark stares at her, objectifies her and just generally does not treat her well. In The Avengers none of the five males batted an eye at the idea of an attractive woman fighting alongside them.

Some folks are calling The Avengers a feminist movie, but as much as I love this movie and Black Widow in it, it does still suffer from The Smurfette Principle and does not pass the Bechdel Test. So although I wouldn't call it a feminist movie I give it full credit for having a well-developed and super-cool female character, and generally being a great movie.

The differences between Black Widow's character in Iron Man 2 and The Avengers are not huge, proving that feminist's are not asking for the impossible. All I want are depictions of women who are more than just a pretty face, a slammin' body or a weapon. Whedon has shown that a movie can be a huge blockbuster without reducing the female characters to sex objects, something I hope future film makers notice. 

Showing Some Love For "Sleepwalk With Me"

This past weekend I went to see Sleepwalk With Me in theaters, it's the film debut of comedian Mike Birbiglia who wrote, starred in and directed the movie. It's an adaptation of Birbiglia's one man show of the same name. The basic plot is a struggling comedian, Matt Pandamiglio, is in a long term relationship with a woman named Abby; they have been together for a long time and pressure begins to build for them to get married. Abby is ready and willing to go there, Matt is not. As his career in stand-up comedy begins to take off, the stress he feels from his relationship causes him to start walking in his sleep. The movie follows Matt as he tries to ignore both the problem of his sleep disorder and his disordered relationship.

Let me begin by saying that I loved this movie. I've been a fan of Mike Birbiglia for as long as I can remember; I couldn't wait to see his first adventure in film-making and Sleepwalk did not disappoint. The first time I heard a recording of the show Sleepwalk With Me, I was expecting just more of the jokes I loved, instead it was a collection of true (and sometimes painful) stories from his life but it still had me laughing the whole way through. The movie definitely achieved the same effect, it told the same true story with a few necessary tweaks. It was funny, relatable and moving.

But a few people did not agree with me. I found two articles from women who felt that the movie was offensive to women. Wendy Widom posted "Why Sleepwalk With Me is a Woman's Worst Nightmare" through the Huffington Post and Jenna Sauers posted an article on Jezebel, "Sleepwalk With Me's Marriage Problem". Now, I have a very sensitive feminist alarm, so when someone finds sexism where I don't, I am always fascinated. I don't want to dismiss the concerns brought up by these articles (especially because I love both of these sites) but after spending a lot of time thinking about why I wasn't offended I decided to share my opposing viewpoint and tell you a little more about why I think this movie is worth seeing.

Both Widom and Sauers take issue with the fact that the movie features stereotypical gender roles. Sauers claims that "In Sleepwalk With Me, the notion that women are all the same under the skin - that all women, deep down, see actualization in marriage and babies... is never so clearly expressed." Because this movie was based on Birbiglia's experiences I don't want to fault him for telling his own story. But, more importantly, I think that Abby's character was a believable and fair portrayal of a woman who happens to want to get married and start a family. I would have been upset if the film implied that women were supposed to get married or that they were evil for trying to get an innocent guy to commit, but it just seemed to be what she wanted. SPOILER ALERT: It would have been horrible if the movie had followed traditional romantic comedies and Matt had continued to stifle his reluctance, married her and they'd tried to pass that off as a happy ending. But instead, Matt broke off the wedding and Abby's reaction wasn't to fall apart and cry, "Oh god, my life is over." or yell, "You bastard! How could you do this to me?!" Her reaction was, "You're right. We shouldn't be getting married." Then she goes off and finds someone who could give her what she wanted. I think that's a pretty awesome way for Abby's story to end. END OF SPOILER

In Widom's post she conflates Sleepwalk With Me with the films of Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen. She describes it as "another Awesome Girl Is Desperate To Get Married and Her Pathetic and Unworthy Boyfriend Is On The Proverbial Fence story". Now, I am also deeply bothered by the "slacker-striver" comedies that Widom compares to Sleepwalk, but I think Birbiglia sets himself apart by turning a critical eye on himself. The film is narrated by Matt looking back on his own past. When Past-Matt is messing up, Future-Matt let's us know (in small and funny ways) that he knows he messed up, (usually by looking directly at the audience and saying,"I know!"). In the films that Widom mentions male protagonists are rewarded for making dumb decisions, whereas Matt gets into more trouble. I don't care if a protagonist in a movie makes mistakes (it would be hard to create a believable character without them), so long as they are portrayed as mistakes. And in my opinion Mike Birbiglia tows the line perfectly. 

I don't think that Sleepwalk With Me is a feminist movie by a long shot, but I don't think every movie needs to be. What I do firmly believe that every movie has to be fair women. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a lack of stories about women, made by women and that have messages that empower women (that's why I started this blog). But just because this movie isn't about a woman doesn't mean that it isn't a powerful story that is worth telling. The message I took away from the film, that I think everyone can relate to, was all about denial. Matt is constantly trying to ignore his problems rather than face a conflict, which leads to some catastrophic events in his life. This movie was a charming and original way to show people's tendency to avoid the hard issues in life. I found it touching and thoroughly enjoyable. So go see it and tell me if you think I'm wrong!

And if I can't convince you...