Jaicee said:
Well as the self-respecting feminist woman on this message board (just to reassert my distinctive credentials there ;) ), for me a feminist movie isn't simply one that stars a female character in the kind of role we more often see male characters in, like an action-hero role, for instance. That's not really enough to makes something a feminist movie for me. When I think of the term "feminist movie", I think of a movie that thematically revolves around, or at least substantially includes, advocacy for the advancement of women. Is it an advocacy movie to one or another degree, in other words? Let me clarify with some (relatively) big-name examples from recent years:
Mad Max: Fury Road = Feminist movie
The Hunger Games = Female-led normal movie
Wonder Woman = Feminist movie
Star Wars: The Force Awakens = Female-led normal movie
Ghostbusters = Feminist movie
Lucy = Female-led normal movie
Beauty and the Beast = Disputed territory
Starting to see the difference? The feminist movies are the ones that narratively either revolve around or include gender commentary favoring the advancement of women. They often furthermore include elements like women-only spaces (e.g. exclusive communities or organizations) and, contrary to our "PC culture-obsessed" stereotyping, generally are more fun-loving, less politically correct, and less reserved in general than other films that use female leads. Not that ALL feminist films are Girls Trip type of movies; there is the occasional Hidden Figures type of feminist film as well for more family-friendly fare and more serious-natured ones like Carol (my favorite movie) as well. But you get my point: the women's liberation movement is not nearly as uptight as our critics often portray us and feminist movies tend to reflect the aura of the movement to some degree or other.
I categorize Beauty and the Beast as "disputed territory" because clearly it WANTS to be an advocacy movie, what with Belle's "assertive" personality, that scene where she gets rebuked for teaching young girls to read, and the villain Gaston being a cartoonishly misogynistic pick-up artist (which is more amusing today than it was in the cartoon version back in 1991 now that there is an organized social movement of pick-up artists in existence that is every bit as woman-hating as Gaston), but many if not most feminists nonetheless find the film's overarching storyline to be a romantization of Stockholm Syndrome wherein the exploiting party genuinely loves his victim. Not an empowering message!
Not all feminist movies have female leads either. The summer's biggest-hit cartoon, Cars 3, for example, I would characterize as a feminist movie because of a key subplot that winds up being crucial to the outcome.
Anyway, as to the matter of idealization, I firmly believe that movies starring Gal Gadot and ones starring Melissa McCarthy can coexist in the same world without terribly diminishing each other. And as to the quality of Patty Jenkins' movie versus James Cameron's pictures...well I would just point out that the latter are not exactly all masterpieces, frankly, and that Wonder Woman, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as an above-average picture artistically, especially for its genre. And I don't mind Wonder Woman having some minor flaws. It's still too fun for me not to really, really enjoy! :)
|
