This won’t be a review of the movie itself. Suffice to say I enjoyed myself immensely when I watched it, even though, from an objective viewpoint, it is a weak movie. Two characters were needlessly thrown away (at least, as of this movie; maybe they’ll be brought back in some way in later ones) and there were a few scenes where Whedon’s penchant for “witty” dialogue harmed the mood of the scene, but overall, it’s like a Snickers bar – not a proper meal by any stretch of the imagination, but it does satisfy your hunger somewhat, and damned if it doesn’t taste delicious!
I’d like to talk about a specific WTH moment in the film. It is entirely possible I’m being too uncharitable with it; I’ll leave it for you guys to judge. Oh, and there will be spoilers regarding an unexpected romantic relationship between two important characters, by the way, so don’t read this if you’d prefer to see the movie first.
So, Natasha Romanoff (probably better-known as Black Widow) is interested in Bruce Banner (otherwise known as the Incredible Hulk – yes, “Incredible” has to be capitalized, why do you ask?) and has been openly flirting with him throughout the movie. Finally, when the team is hiding in Hawkeye’s farmhouse, there’s a moment where they’re both alone with each other in a bedroom and Natasha tries to take the flirting to the next level by kissing him, and then they talk about how their relationship would work.
In short: it wouldn’t, at least on Bruce’s part. He says he’s a monster hated by everyone (earlier, he had been affected by the Scarlet Witch’s mind whammy and turned into a rampaging Hulk in the middle of a city, causing untold destruction and logically more than a few deaths, although the movie doesn’t show those so probably no one died in the movie’s reality), he can’t be physically intimate with anyone (a call back to his solo movie, The Incredible Hulk), can’t have kids… And Natasha has a counter-argument: she was (and is) an assassin who has been trained and conditioned to kill since she was young and was sterilized by the same group, so it’s not like she can have children anyway… …which makes her as much of a monster as the Hulk, or even worse.
I’m completely serious. She’s been talking about her experiences with the Red Room (the Soviet training programme for superspies) and having flashbacks to what they did to her and forced her to do throughout the scene, but the moment when she specifically says “So which one of us is the monster?” (slightly paraphrased) in a humorous-but-not-really, self-deprecating manner is when she talks about how she was forcibly sterilized.
So, let me see if I get it straight: the thing that makes the Black Widow as much of a monster as the Hulk (who can cause levels of destruction comparable to an Act of God), or an even worse one… …is that she can’t have children? Is that it? Am I reading too much into this scene, am I being too harsh on this movie? Or was that really as incredibly insensitive (sorry, if you’re a woman who can’t have kids, you’re a freak) and gender-prejudiced (because really, what else is a woman’s role?) as I think it was?
What the Hell, Whedon.
Yeah, no, I also watched it and I agree with you. One could take the charitable interpretation and say that it’s just cumulative with the rest of the brainwashing/conditioning she was put through, but the problem is that the revelation is being made in the context of a romance, so there is that added level of ‘we’re both monsters in part because we can’t procreate’.
God, that romance was horrible. I loved Ultron, though. He was hilarious.
I’m not so sure anymore we could be that charitable. When she’s talking about her training as a killer, she’s mostly composed, even if it’s obvious it’s painful for her; she only becomes overtly emotional (her voice even starts breaking!) when she starts talking about the sterilization.
Yeah. It also kind of paints her previous words/actions in an ugly light. Like, fine, sure, a romantic plot where the woman is confidently pursuing the mild-mannered dude, classic, as expected from
harem mangaWhedon. What happens to that plot once you add this super serious element of oh crap, the woman believes she’s a monster and is probably only after the guy because he’s also a monster and they’re all the other deserves? Horror, that’s what. edit: actually, I don’t really know where I was going with that.I believe you are going towards penisworms.
That is to say, it’s an element that didn’t need to be included, the story would have worked without it and would have most likely been better for it.
I wouldn’t go that far. The romance between them does flesh them out more, which is something they both need – as far as I’m aware, there are no plans for a solo Black Widow movie or a Hulk sequel. The main issue, aside from the “I’m a monster because I can’t have children” debacle, is that Black Widow’s sole characterization in the movie revolves around the relationship; meanwhile, everyone else – even Banner – has more going on for them.
No, no, I mean that scene specifically and how it’s handled. Like with penisworms. Flesh-eating creepyworms are cool, rapist penisworms – not so much. Same principle applies here: the bad is mixed with the good and poisons it since now you can’t easily separate the two.
Oh, I see. Yeah, that scene would have been so much better without the “forced sterilization / I’m a monster” bit.
Well, it could go somewhere interesting in a different movie – there could be dramatic value in an unhealthy relationship, especially among heroes.
Would probably be a good idea to add more female heroes first, so not all of them are unhealthy.
Well, Wanda’s established now, at least, and presumably Sharon Carter is appearing in Cap 3 (AKA, Avengers 2.5), though she’ll probably be little more than a glorified cameo again.
Beyond that… we have how many years until the Captain Marvel movie?
Only in 2018. And yeah, I doubt Sharon will have any relevant role in the next “Captain America”, considering it will be centered on the Civil War.
Indeed. As it stands as of Age of Ultron, the only woman in a healthy relationship is Hawkeye’s farmwife, whose name I can’t even recall. Unless I’m missing someone. Does Pepper count?
Probably not, she’s not a super-hero – in which case neither should Laura (Hawkeye’s wife) count.
If we’re talking about the MCU as a whole without considering only heroines, we have (as far as I recall) Tony and Pepper, Thor and Jane and Hawkeye and Laura as established couples in healthy relationships, with the possibility of Captain America and Agent 13 and Scarlet Witch and Vision in the future.
Right. So as it stands, superheroines are sacrificing their ability, voluntarily or not, to be ‘normal’ women in the process. So that has its own set of Unfortunate Implications right there, I guess, and it’s one Whedon can’t recognize well enough to fix.
edit: which wouldn’t even be an issue if they didn’t plainly show that Hawkeye can still enjoy a ‘normal’ family life.
Gamora and Star Lord?
Yeah, I don’t think that would work with the Avengers’ current line-up and the MCU’s overall themes and tone.
I always find Whedon to be a huge hypocrite. He loves to pat himself on the back about how ~witty and progressive~ he is, but his stuff is trite, falls back on old damsel tropes, and is so hammy that it’s impossible to take seriously. Every time I try to watch something it’s either a cringe-fest (Buffy) or a lolfest (Firefly).
He’s kind of like John Green Lite, in that he doesn’t seem like a terrible person, but he seems awfully self-satisfied.
Then again, he just ragequit Twitter because female fans were annoyed that Natasha got a sideliney damsel plotline and HOW DARE ANYONE CRITICIZE HIS GENIUS, so maybe he is just Green 2.0.
I think he stated that deleting his Twitter had nothing to do with criticism of his movie. It was in this article.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-leaving-twitter#.etgvnKrx9
And unsurprisingly, that article has a pro-GGer in the comments calling BS. And KYM has updated its Avengers image gallery solely to add tumblr posts that make feminists look like irrational harpies who chased Fandom God away.
Facts? What’s that? We’ve always been at war with Eurasia!
I doubt Whedon would ever actually admit he transgressed in any way. Just because he says he wasn’t driven off doesn’t make it true especially with a huge coincidence. Hell, he even talked about liberal attacking each other while denying it being a factor.
“Why are those meanies attacking me? I’m on their side, and that completely excuses me from actually making an effort!”
Oh, I hate how self-congratulatory he is. I mean, if it were just him doing that on a personal level, no big deal, it’s not like I actually know him; but that stuff always seeps into everything he does, almost as if he’s turning to the camera and saying “See how clever that was, huh, huh?”!
My favourite example of sexist lolwhut in Firefly is when Kaylee says she has no training and just does mechanics by intuition. She has feelings about engines that show her how to fix them!
And yeah, Whedon’s so puffed up it’s ridiculous. That super famous “Why do you write these strong female characters?” thing never even happened, but I’ve never seen him try to correct the misconception. I will say, though, that he has a teensy smudge more of a claim to being progressive than John “I have written many books about about white heterosexual teenagers” Green. Willow and Tara were a huge milestone and are now part of lesbian history, regardless of all the incompetence and failure surrounding them.
He always was incapable of admitting mistakes, though. No one seems to remember him whining that nothing about how much the fourth Alien movie sucked was his fault even though he wrote it. His actual defense was “Everyone else did everything wrong.” Plus he never admitted that the way he ended Willow and Tara’s relationship was fucking appalling and people had every right to be angry.
About Kaylee, doesn’t that imply that she’s simply gifted when it comes to mechanics and engineering? That always seemed to be the implication versus “men-use-logic-women-use-intuition”.
And, as for Willow and Tara, does it help or hinder that that end would’ve happened if Oz had never left the show? Mind, this is based on what Whedon and a few other Buffy writers have claimed, so take that as you will.
I’m not here to defend Whedon; he’s become way too smug for his own good. I just wanted to throw in my own two cents for Firefly and Buffy, the only creations of his that I was ever gaga over.
Alao, Dollhouse was trash. That is all.
But that’s exactly the point RE: Kaylee. He could easily have said she excelled in school, graduated early, was a prodigy, etc. But he doesn’t actually let her be smart. She’s “intuitive” like all women who are allowed to do things. It’s my exact issue with him; he uses damaging tropes over and over and over and then pats himself on the back for them.
I mean, the pilot of Firefly had two not!fridgings (in that the women weren’t killed, merely harmed/incapacitated to motivate local men). Dude’s doing the same bad shit as everyone else and wants praise for it.
I think the key issue here is that he’s very feminist, but he’s an older model of feminism, back when WOMYN POWER was the thing. So what he means is almost certainly “Kaylee is so smart she doesn’t even need an education and worked this all out on her own, and being in touch with her emotions lets her supercharge her 1337 engineering skills!!!” which was super progressive several decades ago.
A lot of his stuff makes sense from the second-wave ideas that we should find things stereotypically ascribed to women (emotions, babies) and fight prejudice by saying that makes them better than men. To take away a woman’s ability to get pregnant is evil patriarchy, and she is now monstrous in that she’s marginally more like a man and men are terrible.
“I think the key issue here is that he’s very feminist, but he’s an older model of feminism, back when WOMYN POWER was the thing.”
I think you’re right. I think Joss Whedon’s sort of a self-hating man. He places women on a pedestal instead of seeing them as fellow human beings, which is accidental sexism (as opposed to deliberate, hostile sexism). It’s an outdated idea that a lot of women don’t buy into anymore (thankfully).
There are many tropes that started out as feminist but are increasingly seen as old-fashioned and accidentally sexist. Such as:
– Women are inherently purer, more peaceful, and more nurturing than men (“if women ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any wars!”)
– Men are rational, women are emotional (“men are from Mars, women are from Venus”). Women can be intelligent, but their intelligence is somehow more emotional than men’s intelligence.
– Menstruation and pregnancy are mystical (but male reproductive functions are not).
I do personally fit a lot of the stereotypes about women, but I don’t buy into gender essentialism – to me, individual identity is far more meaningful than stereotypical little boxes.
No, the fact that he would have used the same plot for Oz doesn’t excuse it, although I do believe that he intended to use that plot for Oz, and also see why he thinks that excuses it.
It just doesn’t, though. Destroying one of many heterosexual couples on television is extremely different to destroying the only lesbian couple on television through a plot line that plays into negative cliches about lesbians. The two situations were not the same at all, and Whedon should’ve realised that. At the very least, he shouldn’t have insisted that people had no right to be fucked off and the actually offensive thing was finding it offensive.
And the Kaylee thing is just ridiculous. You can’t intuit your way through engineering no matter how gifted you are, and Kaylee had already demonstrated actual knowledge of actual brand names that you absolutely could not just lady power into your brain. Then one episode she suddenly declares it’s all instinct and feelings and she just knows what engines want through sheer empathry.
Yeah, I see how the whole Willow-Tara thing would be offensive. Sort of wish that I had seen it earlier. As for Kaylee . . . I want to say that Whedon probably didn’t intend to go with the intuitive women cliche, but hell, I don’t know.
It’s probably what Farla said, about him being and old model feminist. Fair for its day . . . Whenever that was.
Still love Buffy and like Firefly, but geez! Are there any legit feminist shows any more? Discounting cartoons like Kim Possible or Puella Magi?
And it’s really sad to think of Whedon as John Green 2.0. Is there any chance of either of them pulling their heads from their asses and shaping up?
Kaylee has always been obviously a wrong character. Even if we looked at her as a gender neutral entity, she’s a mechanic who uses emotions. Star Trek Enterprise had a warp drive mechanic who hates high school level math though.
Womanly intuition is actually seen as a positive and measurable thing by mystical subsets of liberalism, which is influential in Sci Fi series. I don’t think that’s going away soon. Kaylee is more of a mechanical Diana Troy than a female Scotty and would anyone who finds there way to this blog defend Troy as a character?
I like Buffy but hated Firefly. Buffy had many seasons so of course it’s going to make people unhappy at points.
[Are there any legit feminist shows any more? Discounting cartoons like Kim Possible or Puella Magi?]
Stargate?
Probably Scifi is were you’ll want to look. Star Trek Voyager did have problems with the writers giving Janeway different personalities, but one of is pretty good.
Orange is the New Black? I haven’t actually seen any of the episodes, so I’m making some assumptions based upon whom among my friends likes it.
I like a lot of Joss Whedon’s work, but I’ve always noticed the amount of sexist tropes he uses. The villains are almost always huge misogynists. Buffy had a lot of violence against women, particularly
The only two women in the main cast of Angel (Cordelia and Fred) both had evil entities take over their bodies, which seems like an obvious rape and forced impregnation metaphor (particularly for Cordelia – the entity “Jasmine” uses Cordelia’s body to have sex and get pregnant so it can physically manifest itself in the world). You could say that pretty much all the characters in Buffy and Angel suffer, but there’s a difference between how the male characters suffer vs. the female characters.
I don’t remember a lot of Firefly, but I’m pretty sure there was a lot of sexist content there too. I agree that Whedon can be pretty smug, even when he screws up.
* There’s also a lot of cultural insensitivity and subtle racism in Buffy, but that’s a subject for another day.
Disqus doesn’t seem to allow spoiler tags, so click on “see more” if you want to read my comment with spoilers for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel.
I like a lot of Joss Whedon’s work, but I’ve always noticed the amount of sexist tropes he uses. He ham-handedly makes the villains misogynist to make them look worse – Loki from The Avengers, Caleb and Warren from Buffy (especially obnoxious examples), many many of the “villains of the week” on Buffy and Angel.
Here come the spoilers:
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Buffy had a lot of violence against women, particularly Tara’s murder and Willow’s subsequent spiral down into dark magic and destruction (cause lesbians be crazy or something). Then there’s the Slayer origin story – African shamans* chained up a woman and gave her to a demon, which filled her with its essence (a scene that looks pretty damn rapey – the demon smoke forces itself down the woman’s throat). Later in the episode, Buffy goes through the portal and meets the shamans, who try to do the demon-rape to her as well. She calls it violation, which drives home the rape metaphor.
Xander too, God. See Jenny Trout’s commentary here: http://jennytrout.com/?page_id=5723. She does a great job of pointing out all the moments where Xander is a sexist jackass to the women in his life but gets away with it because he’s a “Nice Guy” (not a violent misogynist like many of the villains of the show).
I’m not going to touch on the Buffy/Spike relationship here. :
As for Angel, the only two women in the main cast (Cordelia and Fred) both had evil entities take over their bodies, which seems like an obvious rape and forced impregnation metaphor, particularly for Cordelia – the entity “Jasmine” uses Cordelia’s body to have sex and get pregnant so it can physically manifest itself in the world.
You could say that pretty much all the characters in Buffy and Angel suffer, but there’s a difference between how the male characters suffer vs. the female characters. It’s hard for me to define in words, but to me, the violence against women is sexualized and the violence against men is not. Women are victims of sexual violence, and men are perpetrators. See when Buffy kicks Angelus in the balls after he sexually taunts her, and when she cuts Caleb in half from his crotch to his neck.
It’s not that showing women fighting misogyny is a totally bad thing; it’s the frequency of it and the other sexist tropes that are so tiring.
I don’t remember a lot of Firefly, but I’m pretty sure there was a lot of sexist content there too. I agree that Whedon can be pretty smug, even when he screws up.
* There’s also a lot of cultural insensitivity and subtle racism in Buffy, but that’s a subject for another day.
One of the worst parts of “Firefly” in that regard, at least for me, was in the episode where Mal is roped into a fencing duel with a smug nobleman who wanted to marry Inara. Inara is teaching the captain some fencing, since he barely knows how to even hold a sword, and he insults her profession (as he’s often done in the past and will do again in the future) and she says (somewhat paraphrased) “You’re going to duel Atherton because he implied I’m a whore while you call me one to my face”, and Mal’s reply ends with “I may have no respect for your profession, but he has no respect for you”.
How does that work?! I mean, the very existence of Venetian courtesans in “Firefly”‘s future is problematic (there are reasons why being a courtesan in 16th-century Venice would be a good career; such reasons, as far as we can see, don’t exist in “Firefly”), but from everything we’ve seen in the show, not only are companions very respected, but most importantly, becoming one was Inara’s choice; how is “direspecting her choice in career” not the same as “disrespecting her”? How is it anything other than Malcolm trying to “stake a claim” on Inara’s sex life (“How dare you have sex with someone other than me? I’m the one with feelings for you!”)? Why do people think that pairing is so romantic?!
I remember that. Whedon created a world where being a high-class courtesan is supposed to be a respected profession, but it’s not treated as such within the show. It’s lazy writing (not thinking through all the implications of the worldbuilding) as well as sexist.
Not to mention all the problems that come with writing Hooker with a Heart of Gold Who Needs No Man in the IRL context of a society where prostitution is a really hard, dangerous job that is often home to trafficking/assault victims. I always felt like that plot thread was him trying to be all progressive about ~woman can have sex~ without bothering to think through any of it. Like, yes, we should respect prostitutes and treat them like people, but no, not because it’s actually a high-class party. That he could only have a “respectable” prostitute after making it all glitz and glam is really icky.
Also, in case anyone hasn’t seen it yet:
Hilariously, a few days ago there was a trailer for the upcoming Supergirl show for CBS that played just like this… right up until she saved an airplane.
Oh, I’ve got a post already lined up about that, don’t you worry. :-)
Awesome! =)
“Red Room”
I know I should be saying something about gender roles and how the issues of procreation are treated by media, but all I can think right now is Redrum.
Though I would direct you to the spork of Speaker for the Dead over at Something Short and Snappy – http://somethingshortandsnappy.blogspot.ru/search/label/Speaker%20for%20the%20Dead
Among other issues, the book contains a scene where the protagonists essentially kill hundreds of alien girls because they can’t bear children.
Actually, the protagonists could save the alien mothers (who get pregnant as newborns) from dying horribly, but they decide not to because the alien mothers can only have offspring once, and obviously, having so many WIMMIN past their childbearing years will fuck up society. Better to have them be eaten alive by their offspring (literally).
Yeah, I just didn’t want to retell the whole scene because it’s really something that needs to be experienced.
What’s funny is that it’s impossible to object it’s not sexism and the protagonists were just concerned about upsetting the natural balance or whatever because their previous actions have already resulted in hundreds of new alien boys being born to conquer other tribes. So it’s specifically the idea of more women they don’t like. Or specifically infertile women, I guess.
Oops. I thought you maybe hadn’t read the book, but I ended up spoiling it.
Orson Scott Card is a fanatical Mormon (and that’s a religion that already has a lot of sexist views). I guess it’s part of the reason why he’s a homophobe too. He actually thinks that any adults who aren’t married to and having children with the opposite sex are broken in some way, and contributing to the downfall of society.
Still, I didn’t see any of his personal views when I first read his books. I knew nothing about him as a person, and I always assumed that his characters spoke for their own views rather than acting as authorial mouthpieces.
“Oops. I thought you maybe hadn’t read the book, but I ended up spoiling it.”
Eh, no real harm done. There is a lot that can be said about that book besides that scene. Like the big speech about how she asked for it.
“Orson Scott Card is a fanatical Mormon (and that’s a religion that
already has a lot of sexist views). I guess it’s part of the reason why
he’s a homophobe too. He actually thinks that any adults who aren’t
married to and having children with the opposite sex are broken in some
way, and contributing to the downfall of society.”
Yep. There is a famous quote by him going around about how he vows to dedicate himself to destroying any government that allows gay marriages.
And, as I recall, he loves writing about gay people lamenting their homosexuality and either becoming celibate or finding a “cure.”
And while I am not entirely sure that everything wrong with him can be traced to religion, it does seem to play a major role. In particular, the procreation fetish seems to be popular among Mormon writers.
“Still, I didn’t see any of his personal views when I first read his
books. I knew nothing about him as a person, and I always assumed that
his characters spoke for their own views rather than acting as authorial
mouthpieces.”
For all of his batshit beliefs, he is a reasonably capable writer, so it’s not surprising. He does usually manage to create characters that feel alive, so it’s easy to assume they speak for themselves and OSC merely presents their viewpoints for the sake of the story.
It’s only when you examine which viewpoints are not challenged by the narrative and which are thoughtfully debunked or otherwise discredited that the pattern starts to emerge.
He is a decent writer, but I can’t even read his books anymore. Like you said, I started to see patterns, and now I don’t even want to read his books for free. It’s not often that a writer’s views are so repulsive to me that it poisons my view of their fiction.
I’m in sort of the same boat. I want to read at least Ender’s Game, but after getting to know more about his beliefs and how apparently they do show up in his writing…
Sporks are made for this kind of dilemmas. Go to Something Short and Snappy and read someone else reading the book (Ender’s Game was done as well there).
Nah, it feels too much like just adopting someone else’s opinion instead of forming my own. I’ll try and get a .pdf or something, then I’ll decide whether it’s worth my money to get an actual physical copy.
Ah, the first step to the dark side. Alas, you are late for cookies.
Damn. I do so love cookies!
So Orson doesn’t believe the world has a carrying capacity for humans? Damn. That… actually kind of doesn’t make sense in the context of Ender being so special for being a third child, with such strict population protocols in place.
Hm? I am not sure about his views on the world’s carrying capacity, but, judging by his books, he appears to have a procreation fetish and wants as many people as possible to go and multiply (but only after marriage, you understand).
Ender being a third child is probably just to make him special, but in a larger context it can be read as an objection to population control since following it would have deprived humanity of
Littlest Hitlersome kind of tactical genius.The situation discussed here, about alien women, actually ties to the procreation issues as well. In theory, it was about upsetting the balance of alien culture since saving the women would have resulted in an influx in the population by people without defined roles, which could lead to social unrest and changes.
Except it doesn’t work because, again, the protagonists’ actions have already resulted in hundreds of new men being born.
So the issue does appear to be about women or specifically infertile women.
I heard about this scene before I went in, so I was ready to try to be objective about it, but you really do have to be charitable to extract [what I hope is] the intended meaning of Nat’s speech (i.e. that her training, conditioning, and body count make her monstrous).
The line about being a monster is just too close to the line about being sterilized, so if you come away going “what the fuck, having your tubes tied does NOT make you a monster”, as many people have, you’re by no means incorrect.
It’s down to shitty writing (and possibly the *hour* of cut footage from the movie); giving Nat a couple more lines and maybe a callback to the “red in my ledger” metaphor from Avengers 1 would have fixed the thing.
I enjoyed it although I’m starting to tire of the Whedon(TM) dialog, I think it’s great for Tony definitely, Hawkeye, Nat, Rhodey, Sam, etc. but it needs to be a lot more restrained for the other characters. I’ve also been watching a ton of Brooklyn Nine-Nine and I sort of wish that that style of humor had found its way into AoU, like, I wish everyone had gone “ew, no” at the “hide the zucchini” joke. Arguably Hawkeye’s self-deprecating lines about being on a flying city with a bow and arrow were the best of the film; more humor like that instead of the endless smirking Whedon zingers, I beg.
I was ambivalent about the Nat/Bruce stuff because the only reason it was happening was because they needed to (spoilers) scare off the Hulk at the end of the movie and Nat is the only girl. I’m not a Hawkeye/BW shipper by any means and I liked seeing Bruce cutely befuddled by the attention, but it was just so inappropriate and shoehorned-in.
Overall it was fun and I really enjoyed the continuity and minor characters reappearing, but I think it suffered a lot giving up so much time to setting up Infinity War (it’s going to be two friggin movies, I think it can stand on its own) and it needed way more “my robot son is acting up” jokes, I have seen a ton of stuff to that effect on tumblr and it is screamingly funny. Maybe the HOUR OF CUT FOOTAGE will make it better, IDK.
Based on her emotional reactions during that scene, I think that was intended, actually – she’s a monster because she was forcibly sterilized by her handlers -, especially since the line about her being a monster is right after her saying she was sterilized.
That’s disappointing. I really liked Black Widow in Avengers 1. Seems like a case of someone writing a scene without thinking about the implications and no one brought it up in the editing process. I’ll have to see it for myself to so I can get my own opinion on it.
This problem would be instantly fixed if instead of having sterility as a reason why they’re monsters, it should be a blessing. Because if they really are monsters, they’d be terrible parents and just bring a worse monster into the world
The best way to fix it would be to just not bring it up at all. She’s already saying she was trained to kill from childhood, and we know from the “red in her ledger” scene from the first movie that she has killed innocents as well, so there’s no need for her to even mention children in that scene.
You forgot to mention that she also said that being unable to have children also made it easier to kill, which I thought was a really weird correlation.
Plus she also mentions how they sterilize the assassins so that there’s never anything or anyone more important to them than the mission. Because I guess only your biological children can be something more important? Like what about adopting children, or having a lover? I get what they’re going for, and yeah being pregnant would be a huge hindrance in their eyes, but it came off like there’s no greater love than the love you have for your biological children, and only biological children.
“You forgot to mention that she also said that being unable to have
children also made it easier to kill, which I thought was a really weird
correlation.”
That’s such a bullshit. Anyone who spends time around small children is far more likely to kill people.
[That’s such a bullshit. Anyone who spends time around small children is far more likely to kill people.]
Was there a study on that?
Children are the flowers of life – they should be put into either ground or water.
You’re too unimaginative. We can do things like hang them from framework now.
Alas, the quote comes from Kharms, who lived who lived during a difficult time. Frameworks were expensive. Ground and water weren’t.
Mm, the struggle. *nods sagely*
I think the Red Room would rather all their graduates’ killings be done strictly for when it furthers the glory of Mother Russia. Having a kid around to make them more likely to kill would not be agreeable.
That would be a valid point for a professional assassin organization, but come on, they are called Red Room. I expect them to go full Twin Peaks mindfuck at any moment.
Because I guess only your biological children can be something more important? Like what about adopting children, or having a lover?
In fairness there, they weren’t going to let her adopt children and given she defects like five seconds after making a friend, we can assume they did everything they could to prevent that too. It’s not like she was living a regular life but without the ability to get pregnant.
Having watched the movie (and planning on watching it again this weekend), I had heard of the scene beforehand and sure enough it’s too framed around the issue of having children for the charitable interpretation to hold unless you’re willing to turn a blind eye to it.
Presumably, the execs wanted to cut out both the farm scenes and Thor’s vision quest (and Whedon had to fight to keep the farm scenes and excised the vision quest to its bare minimum to justify Thor leaving for a while – yes, the stuff that looks like it’s setting up Thor’s movie was all Whedon’s idea), so I could understand everyone not wanting to retake stuff that would probably get cut.
The part during the first fight against Ultron, where Bruce falls face-first into Nat’s cleavage as though he were the lead in a harem anime, has no excuse, though.
So if Bruce’s argument is “I’m too much of a huge monster to be in a relationship” how is “I am also a huge monster” supposed to argue against it? Like I know that’s a trope and everything, but seriously he didn’t say “I could only date someone as fucked up as me.” If someone says they can’t date, you shouldn’t argue.
All the angry reaction stuff I’ve seen is people blowing up over Natasha being damselified, but this gross reproductive thing seems a more concrete objection I’d have thought more people would bring up.
The “being” damselified thing confuses me. It’s true that Natasha didn’t have anything to do this time around, but that’s not really any different from the first movie, where the only noteworthy thing she did was beating up and freeing a brainwashed Hawkeye.
I think being captured and caged by Ultron is the plot thread in question. It kind of screams damsel, especially since it’s Banner, her romantic interest, that breaks her out.
No, no, I get that. I’m just saying it’s not as if she was ever more than a non-entity in terms of plot; possibly in Iron Man 2, I can’t recall much of it.
Didn’t she play a bit of a part in Winter Soldier? She seems to be a deuteragonist pretty often.
Either way, I don’t think their concern is really about her overall importance to the plot, like you’re suggesting. It’s how she’s treated as a character. She could have been a non-entity who didn’t get caged for her love interest to rescue, and I bet people wouldn’t have had this problem.
Drat, I completely forgot about Winter Soldier! She was actually relevant in that one AND had good characterization. But I see what you meant.
Winter Soldier was amazing, imo.
Fully agreed!
Haven’t seen Iron Man 2, but from what I’ve heard she had even less to do there. It seems she’s had gradually more to do in each movie she’s been in (IM2, Avengers, Cap2), which was part of why it feels odd to many that her thing this time around was “get in a relationship”.
Alright, a bit late to the party as I first saw the film yesterday.
But, here we go, I admit to being a bit nervous about speaking up here, ’cause I don’t agree.
So, while I can agree that using motherhood is a bit of a cheap tactic, I think that the theme of their conversation is not about children, but emotional investment.
The last thing Nat says before calling herself a monster, is that Red Room did everything to insure that there would be no distractions to the mission.
This is where I look at where the scene is taking place. This is Clint’s home. He is married and a father, with a home he keeps redecorating, and it is something he apparently often discusses with Nat. He is very disciplined, but obviously quite invested in his life outside his work as an Avenger.
And this is what both Bruce and Nat believes they cannot have.
Bruce thinks that the Hulk will always destroy everything, that he is too emotionally unstable to be able to keep a home. That is his exact words in the scene. “I can’t have all this.”
Nat is his opposite. We see in the backflash/brainwammy that her training involved shooting at targets that was both dummies and real people, implying that Red Room has done everything to make their assassins emotionally stunted, to the point that they literally cut away chances of these women developing emotional connections.
Nat more or less says that she will not be able to settle down and have a family because she will not be able to fully emotionally invest in it.
But she wants to, and I think this is the core of their relationship. She is clearly attracted to Bruce, and keeps hinting it throughout the movie, but she is also very hesitant, as she is unsure if she can fully give herself in a relationship on an emotionally level.
During the climax Bruce come to save her, and asks her to run away with him, and Nat have clearly shown interest in this idea, but in the end she still puts the mission first, and pretty much betrays Bruce by forcing him to become the Hulk.
So, while I can agree that the movie using Nat’s forced sterilization as the focal point of her emotionally distress is a tad tasteless, I do not see it as true reason for her monstrosity, as much as an allegory for emotional coldness and the terror of what Red Room did to her. (One could also see it as a commentary on outside forces taking away women’s choices in regards to motherhood.) Personally I would have liked more focus on the whole “killing people as easily as sandbags” but as an opening for the conversation I did not find it that bad when thinking about the contrast to Clint’s life. Though I think the scene could have been a tad longer with a bit more insight into Nat’s feelings.
But I do like the idea of Nat getting more character development and the movies going more into the emotional damage left from her Red Room conditioning, and hope that this will finally make room for a Black Widow movie.
To simplify;
Bruce thinks he is a monster because he is too emotionally unstable.
Nat thinks she is a monster because she is without emotion.
We the viewers can disagree with this, but human brains are messy things.
Don’t be afraid to comment, I don’t bite. :-)
I could see the scene in that light, but I’d have to be feeling charitable because there was really no excuse to bring up the issue of her being forcibly sterilized, especially in the context of discussing whether she and Banner could have a relationship and whether she or the Hulk are more monstrous.
(One could also see it as a commentary on outside forces taking away women’s choices in regards to motherhood.)
If that was intended, I’d say it’s problematic on its own, considering the only representative of the Red Room shown onscreen – the one directly responsible for Natasha’s “monstrous” training, as well – was another woman.
So, I watched the movie again, paying more attention to stuff I had missed the first time around, and….
Natasha’s Wanda-induced mind-whammy pretty much builds to the sterilization. There’s even a part where her mentor scolds her for trying to fail her final test on purpose to get out of it.
And like you stated, her voice starts breaking when she talks about the sterilization. It would have been… not better, but maybe less problematic… if she had been okay at the time with getting sterilized, but spending time with Clint’s kids (who so adore their Aunt Nat) made her regret it, especially post-Winter Soldier, when she’s trying to reinvent herself?
It’s really too bad, because the rest of the movie definitely benefits from a second viewing. Wanda herself got good treatment here: Whedon could have made her his typical powerful-but-vulnerable waif cared for by a man, a la Drusilla with Spike or River Tam with Simon (and the comics often treat her like that whenever she and Pietro are on the same team), but I got the feeling that the movie Maximoffs depended on each other in equal amounts.
I had this discussion with a friend after seeing the film, too! I think what we concluded that the real issue isn’t actually Black Widow’s plot–taken in context, the story of a super-badass assassin trying to deal with the pain of being unable to become a mother could make for a very compelling story. The more pressing issue is that this is the *only* story (Hawkeye’s wife, Scarlet Witch, and Maria hardly get enough screen time or character development to justify, although Scarlet Witch was aaaalmost kind of there). The main issue is that there are six Avengers and only one of them is a woman: had any of the other Avengers been the only girl on the team, I posit that we’d still be having issues with her plot. Female-Hulk would be the timid, nerdy faux-geek girl (but not as good as Tony Stark) who can’t control her emotions. Female-Iron Man would be the arrogant, lazy playboy (although playboy has positive connotations; given some of the comments the cast made in calling Natasha a “slut,” I’d hardly say that this would be portrayed nearly as positively) who can’t listen to reason and causes the whole disaster through her headstrong stubbornness. Female-Hawkeye would be the useless one who wants only really to go home to her kids. Female-Thor would be mostly obsessing over her brother and not really do much except for random battle scenes, and she would be out-of-touch and distant otherwise (and brag/mope about her boyfriend a lot). Taken individually, *any* of the Avengers’ character arcs could be construed as negative for any character, regardless of gender. It’s only when this becomes the only narrative for women that it really starts to suck.
Also, the complete lack of Black Widow official merchandising *sucks*.
It’s only when this becomes the only narrative for women that it really starts to suck.
I don’t know, I think there are narratives that can be damaging just by themselves. For instance, “the story of a super-badass assassin trying to deal with the pain of being unable to become a mother” can work if being a mother is something that THAT specific super-badass assassin wanted to be, not if it’s presented as something all women want (or if being unable to become a mother is presented as making her less of a woman – or, even more odiously, making her less human).
given some of the comments the cast made in calling Natasha a “slut,”
Wait, what? That seriously happened?
“For instance, “the story of a super-badass assassin trying to deal with
the pain of being unable to become a mother” can work if being a mother
is something that THAT specific super-badass assassin wanted to be, not
if it’s presented as something all women want (or if being unable to
become a mother is presented as making her less of a woman – or, even
more odiously, making her less human).”
That’s more easily accomplished if there are other women who don’t want or can be mothers and it’s treated as just a matter of fact.
The lack of contrast and variety creates, like, half sexist problems in media. It’s the tokenism effect: when you have very few members of Group X in your story, they end up representing your opinions on Group X as a whole even if it wasn’t your intention.
If the cast is balanced, however, it becomes less of an issue, though, of course, there is also a larger media context which skews things.
Your point is not entirely wrong, there are narratives that are inherently sexist, but I am not sure if this one is, or if it would look better with more women around.
Counterpoint: Twilight. Five “important” female characters (Bella, Esme, Rosalie, Alice and Leah), and not one of their narratives isn’t somehow problematic. :-)
Not that tokenism isn’t bad by itself, but I don’t agree that it’s the worst issue.
I haven’t had the joy of experiencing the Twilight series, largely because I haven’t met a single person above the age of fifteen who thinks it’s good writing, so I don’t feel qualified to discuss this directly in full. Two things, though. One, from what I’ve heard, there are many aspects of the Twilight books that are awful, and I doubt problematic narratives are the only flaw. In contrast, Avengers AoU is generally recognized as at least acceptable writing (and you agree, so I feel safe using opinion as a point), except that its treatment of Natasha is pretty sub-par. Bringing what is largely acknowledged as the literary equivalent of steaming shit seems like it would be irrelevant in discussing quality storytelling. Two, I never claimed not do I believe that having multiple story lines is the cure-all solution–I just believe it’s definitely the easiest. Also, it’s also a necessary but not sufficient condition. For instance, I advocate that all movies should aim for having multiple female leads/balanced casts, and on principle of legitimately representing the human race (and also the movie-watching audience). Like Farla mentioned before, Rita in Edge of Tomorrow was fantastic, but she was the only female character of note, which I think was wasted opportunity. I reiterate what I said before: in addition to generally being a good thing, having equally-represented female leads is a great way to cut down on the issue of only giving one perspective of how women “should behave.” Two birds with one stone, if you will.
largely because I haven’t met a single person above the age of fifteen who thinks it’s good writing
I have. Mind, they weren’t rabid fans, so the discussion was actually pleasant. :-)
Anyway, I don’t think it’s unfair to bring up Twilight just because it’s so bad since the issue isn’t quality, but if you’d prefer, I could also point out something else by Whedon himself: the aforementioned Firefly. Four female main characters (Zoe, Inara, Kaylee and River), and two of those (Inara and Kaylee) are problematic, while one (River) is at least bothersome.
Granted, if the other three were all good, maybe noone would bat an eye at River (or maybe they would; she’s a common character type in Whedon’s works), but my point is that adding more female characters won’t help that much until writers learn to stop relying on the same damaging narratives for women. Because I seriously doubt Twilight is the only example of a work of fiction with multiple female characters with problematic narratives.
You know what really fucking creeps me out about Twilight even after all this time, is that fucking Jacob was in love with Bella because her daughter was the woman he was going to imprint on, but like, there is so much wrong with that that I can’t begin to wrap my head around it. Like, what happens if Edward didn’t/couldn’t get her pregnant when she was ovulating that specific egg. Does Jacob just suddenly lose all interest? The sex of the child comes from the father. If Edward knocked her up with a mini brooding Cullen boy, would Jacob have been even slightly attached? What’s the fucking condition for this love I can’t even.
What’s more interesting to wonder is what would have happened if Jacob was the father.
Humbert Humbert.
The whole imprinting thing is disturbing, but it could work as an horror element; what disturbs me even more is that the books treat it as if it were a good thing. I mean, holy fuck, there’s “destined True Love”, and then there’s “becoming a slave”.
Further, you become a slave to someone who did literally nothing for you but be born. Like, you love them equally from the day they’re born, as Jacob did, to the day they die, which is presumably never since they’re immortal and Meyer wouldn’t ever break up twoo wub.
I guess the assumption is that they will eventually do a lot for you: be your waifu, carry your child, etc. and the reason you’re a slave until then is that you have to earn it by being a faithful companion until she’s of reproductive age.
So imprinting basically turns you into a Nice Guy, where the end result of “have my babies” is the underlying impetus for slavelike devotion.
When you imprint on a child, sure; but what happens when you imprint on an adult? Oh, we know what happens, domestic abuse! Which, again, could work in a proper horror story (imagine being trapped in an unwanted relationship with someone who can literally turn into a monster and slaughter you if you try to leave!), but because Twilight apparently runs entirely on wtfery, Emily is actually happy with things! See, Sam loves her so much, he only hit her because she made him!
No, no, you don’t get it. Sam loves her so much, he doesn’t even mind the scars that make her totally ugly and unattractive for everyone else (because beauty is the most important quality in a woman, of course, and without it she’s worth less than other women, let alone a real person). Which he made.
Argh, I had forgotten about that aspect. Good Lord.
A reasonably common theory I’ve seen is that Jacob would have imprinted on Bella’s menstrual blood. Which is totally hilargross.
As I said, there are narratives that are inherently sexist. Twilight has all of them.
Variety doesn’t help if the writer isn’t trying, but it does help if the issue is a specific character ending up representing all women rather than being treated as an individual.
the issue is a specific character ending up representing all women rather than being treated as an individual
But is that character representing all women (or black people, or gays, or any other minority) because of the writing or because the audience is reading too much into things?
Well, it definitely would be easier to tell if there were more such characters.
If they all fall into certain stereotypes (like in Fate/Zero), then it’s writing, If they are, in fact, different and face different conflicts and are not universally demonized for certain traits, then it’s probably audience.
“Wait, what? That seriously happened?”
During one of the interviews taking place around when the movie got its overseas release (the show’s name escapes me, but they were interviewing Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner) the interviewer commented on how Natasha seemed to be paired with their characters in previous movies, then with Bruce on this one…
Renner: She’s a slut.
Evans: I was just about to say. She’s totally a whore.
After this took its rounds on the social media, both actors apologized, but while Evans’ apology seemed sincere, Renner’s sounded like an “I’m sorry if I offended you” non-apology.
The next week (which was the weekend of the US release), Renner was on Conan O’Brien’s show, and doubled down on the slut-shaming.
What the actual fuck.
(I was so worried it was RDJ and am now relieved.)
(laughs) Big Downey Jr. fan, are you? :-)
I’ve read some more about this.
Fuck, Renner, Hawkeye is one of my favourite Avengers, don’t be such a douchebag!
“For instance, “the story of a super-badass assassin trying to deal with the pain of being unable to become a mother” can work if being a mother is something that THAT specific super-badass assassin wanted to be, not if it’s presented as something all women want”
I agree completely with everything you said here, and that was what I was trying to get across. The easiest solution to not presenting motherhood as “something that all women want” is having more than one of your six main characters being a woman. You can write a story about how one woman is struggling with motherhood if that really floats your boat, but that can’t be the only story you tell, or else it becomes completely one-sided and awful.
Bring back Wasp!
Oh, oops, the person below me summed this up far more eloquently. What they said!
Hopefully, the “Avengers” movies will get better now that they have both the Widow and the Scarlet Witch. Hopefully.
Yeah, I was so hyped to watch this movie, but it felt weak and bloted out with too much unecessary padding and talk. I avoided trailers and spoilers liek hell, so Wanda entering the team was a nice surprise, she has a better arc than Black Widow, but she lacked presence, it was hard to take her seriously when she is just this little girl wearing normal clothes.
Are you going to make a review on the new Mad Max movie?
Yes, but it will be a part of a review of the series as a whole, highlighting a few specific things.