Is Avatar a Feminist Movie?
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 5
On Vanity Fair's Web site Rebecca Keegan makes the case that James Cameron is Hollywood’s closet feminist, pointing out that he loves his strong, female characters (as well as his wife and his mother, if that counts for anything):
The women of Avatar are just the latest in a long line of this director’s alpha females. Ever since he left the fate of the world in the hands of diner waitress Sarah Connor in The Terminator in 1984, Cameron has given women more power, authority, and strength than any other mainstream director has been able to get away with. In Terminator 2: Judgment Day, which made $520 million worldwide in 1991, a sinewy Linda Hamilton broke out of a mental hospital with a paper clip to save not only her kid but humanity as well, perhaps the best cinematic metaphor for the ingenuity of single moms. Cameron’s heroines aren’t just Rambos in drag, either—in movies like The Abyss and True Lies, his female characters are given emotional journeys of their own to travel.
It’s true that Sigourney Weaver as an ultra-sharp scientist and Zoe Saldana as the gorgeous Na’vi princess Naytiri are both strong characters in Avatar. But ultimately, the success of their struggles is entirely dependent on a male—Jake Sully, the paraplegic jarhead who comes into their land, learns their ways (better than the Na’vi even—he becomes the first Na’vi warrior in generations to tame the dragon bird), ends up leading their war, and mating with their princess. The male is still the chosen one in Avatar, just as John Connor is the chosen one in Terminator. And Sarah Connor’s strength—and Naytiri’s strength in Avatar, for that matter—lies in doing what mothers are supposed to do best—protect their children (Naytiri’s loyalty to her land is positioned as a relationship—the defining feature of their world is its Mother Earth vibe, or, I suppose, in this case it should be dubbed Mother Pandora.) Meaning: They're not exactly rocking the gender stereotype boat, they’re just good, developed characters.
I guess it comes down to this question: What exactly makes a movie feminist? Should featuring developed female characters in one’s movies be a feminist boon, or should it simply be status quo—and should a movie with one-dimensional female characters be considered just a bad film?
Comments
There are more than 85 coach
By: Sanish Joseph | Thu, 08/19/2010 - 21:31
There are more than 85 coach purses outlets in USA, regularly located within a hour's force from the 200-advantage retail stores. These products also reduces because the factory pipe stores have located nationwide.This will make cheap juicy tracksuit at much more affordable price. But be strongly noticed that: there are really cheap coach purses on Internet, but there are also some so called juicy watches online. Their numbers are millions.
I find it a difficult thing
By: Manostorgo | Tue, 12/22/2009 - 16:10
I find it a difficult thing to try to place such labels on movies. There are indeed many "positive" female characters, in fact I would say slightly moreso than the "positive" male characters. All of the "negative" decisions in the movie are made by male characters. While the 2 smartest characters who display wisdom and knowledge are female characters. So one could easily argue that Avatar is indeed female friendly.
But James Cameron isn't really much of a complicated guy and neither are his stories. Just as he is accused of using the "noble savage" theme so too do I tend to find his portrayal of women veers to putting them on a pedastal. Which to me is not any better than "negative" portrayals of women. It still shows a separateness between men and women and in the case of "pedastal-ing" it smacks of patronizing tones similar to the idea of the noble savage. Granted movies typically need archtypes in order to work anyway, so even if Cameron took a risk with a female villian, that character would still be one dimensional as his male villians.
Cameron is and always will be a 12 year old boy, he likes simple stories with grand visuals but without complex characters.
It's a joke interview, people
By: SullyBarnes | Tue, 12/22/2009 - 15:51
I cannot believe ANYONE would think that the "interview" at MovieLine is a real interview -- let alone quote it here as "proof" that James Cameron is anti-feminist. Seriously!!?? I don't know if it's proof of how gullible humanity has become, or how far the readership quality of DoubleX has slipped as of late.
Complicated, but still, NO.
By: lorikay4 | Tue, 12/22/2009 - 14:39
Ok, I'm a bit conflicted about this -- I love Aliens, because an angry Sigourney Weaver, toting a flame thrower and asking questions like "Has there been a sudden drop in IQs while I was away?" is hard to beat.
But..
But..
Has anyone read Cameron's interview in Playboy, excerpted on the MovieLine site here:
http://www.movieline.com/2009/11/movieline-explores-james-camerons-exhau...
I don't think I can go see this movie, and I feel like I need to give my brain a bath after reading that. Jesus. H. Christ.
I don't know if I can define a feminist movie in some pithy and perfect way. But I do agree with this: movies should at the very very least contain more than one woman, and those two women should at some point converse with each other about something other than the attention / needs of one or more men. That is to say, there should be women (plural) in movies, and they at a bare minimum have to have something else to do in the movie beyond being a mother / wife / girlfriend.
I would be willing to bet that neither Avatar nor most other movies in the theater right now meet this incredibly low standard for the inclusion of female people in them.
Trudy
By: Flaneuse | Tue, 12/22/2009 - 13:34
Although her character is a minor one - leaving out Michelle Rodriguez's Trudy Chacon seems short sighted. She's tough in her own right, good at flying, and takes action of her own accord more than once. Her decisions seemed motivated by a desire to do the right thing and not out of a hope that somehow her actions will attract a man.
Maybe Avatar isn't a feminist movie*, but the strong female characters is at least a step in the right direction.
*There was the argument in the 1970s that feminist film should be neither narrative nor pleasurable, as linear storytelling and voyeurism were supposed to be masculine activities, and I sure hope that we can get beyond that.