|
|
Post by DocD83 on Feb 10, 2007 17:20:18 GMT -5
Huh? It's been a while but I do recall her holding her own with Barbarosa. If nothing else, she tried to negotiate for cessation of hostilities, called Barbarosa's bluff about the amulet, and stood up to Jack in signalling for help. A wuss would have simply cowered. And don't forget the other women, especially the one whose boat Jack stole and signed on to his crew. You want a whus in Pirates of the Carribean? Look at Elizabeth's father. What a dandy. I think Susan does shoot something. Lucy is 8. You want her to be in a battle? The UN has called that a war crime. (That's probably true for all of them, but Lucy is the youngest.) In any event they're both armed and get in some training, and Susan gets a serious weapon to use. What do you want, Lucy in plate armor swinging a mace? She probably couldn't lift one--it's almost a joke that Peter and Edmund can meaningfully defend themselves with swords against adults. Both would have been better off with a good, sturdy compound bow. What about her? You're not still on about any evil woman in movies being inherently sexist caricatures, are you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Feb 10, 2007 17:32:56 GMT -5
I think Susan only shoots her bow in the movie. I'm pretty sure she and Lucy don't return to camp in the book until well after the battle is over. It doesn't negate your point or anything, just saying.
Al
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Feb 10, 2007 17:38:26 GMT -5
Just to make sure we're clear: a bow is a serious weapon.
They don't, but they arrive at the battle while it's still going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarthShady on Feb 10, 2007 18:18:40 GMT -5
Looking at some live action Dsiney films, here's what I come up with:
Sky High - this is the one about a high school for superheroes, and in my opinion, the best power goes to a girl (technopath-controls technology.) Also you have the girl who has another cool power (controls plants) but only uses it for peace or when she absolutely needs it. She's also the one who fights for equality, is pretty much the smartest besides the nerdy kid, and keeps her integrity throughout the movie. And she's the only one of the "hero" characters that takes on more than one villain. Well, she fights the one girl who can multiply so really she fights like 5 people at once and everyone else fights one person at a time.
Pirates of the Caribbean - While I'll agree that Elizabeth was worth little more than your average love-interest typ in Black Pearl, I think she kicks absolute butt in Dead Man's Chest! How many creepy, half-sea creature, CGIed pirates did she take on AT ONCE while Jack, Will, and Norrington were spinning around on the giant wheel and those other two guys whose names no one knows ran away like sissies? In addition, she outsmarted an entire ship of sailors, stood up for herself in a variety of scenarios, and spent a good portion of the film dressed as a dude. She went from my least favorite character to my second favorite. (Jack the Undead Monkey's a hard one to beat.)
Narnia - I'd forgive this for anything simply because in a completely un-Disney fashion it stayed almost exactly true to its source material. Plus, the reason why Lucy and Susan didn't fight was because they didn't actually get to the battle scene until it was just about over. And I always thought Susan was a bit of a useless git, but Lucy is by far the best character in the movie. As for the White Witch, it's not as if she's evil for being a woman, she just is evil and happens to be a woman. And though she does seduce Edmund, she does so with power, not her womanhood.
High School Musical - As far as I'm concerned, the only thing wrong with the lead girl's character is she is a totally annoying Mary Sue who had a slight case of stage fright. The guy was equally annoying, a liar, and your stereotypical boneheaded jock. He may have helped her come out of her shell, but she helped him fall out of the whole "can't talk to unpopular kids" thing. He's only good at basketball and singing; she's smart, pretty, friendly, a good singer, humble, and a fairly good basketball player. The way she bothers me is that she is TOO perfect and was willing to compromise her brains in order to have a new identity at her new school, which is pretty lame, guy or girl.
The Princess Diaries - This is going to be a bad example. Girl gets pretty and wins popularity and the guy. And I also hated this because it totally butchered one of my favorite books. But she also learns to be a good leader, and she chooses the guy who liked her even before her makeover. Although I would have liked a version at least a little closer to the book, where Princess Mia has her hair cut so short she's almost bald. And where her friend Lily isactually quite the little trollop for a dorky-feminist-type.
Invincible - As an Iggles fan, this one is near and dear to my heart. So there's really only one big female character, but she's tough and holds her own against the guys who criticize her for being a Giants fan.
Mary Poppins - You've got the suffragate maother fighting for votes for women. Does it get much more feminist-for-equality-not-domination than that? Poppins herself is a great character who indulges the children in magic and a healthy dose of frivolity and holds her own against Mr. Banks, eventually teaching him how to enjoy life and be a better father.
That's all I got for now. I can't think of any other live action Disney films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Feb 10, 2007 20:40:10 GMT -5
Narnia - I'd forgive this for anything simply because in a completely un-Disney fashion it stayed almost exactly true to its source material. Plus, the reason why Lucy and Susan didn't fight was because they didn't actually get to the battle scene until it was just about over. And I always thought Susan was a bit of a useless git, but Lucy is by far the best character in the movie. As for the White Witch, it's not as if she's evil for being a woman, she just is evil and happens to be a woman. And though she does seduce Edmund, she does so with power, not her womanhood. Your explanation is so much better than mine. Kudos to you. I like.  |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Feb 13, 2007 10:32:26 GMT -5
And just because someone is not permitted or expected to fight in a battle does not make them any less noble. Susan and Lucy (Lucy in particular) are incredibly strong characters who have crucial roles in the book and movie. They provide comfort for Aslan when he walks that final mile, Lucy heals the injured and provides compassion, and they are given places of glory and honor on the thrones. Not to mention that it's a boy who betrays them all.
The role of a warrior is not automatically greater than a role of a mother or a healer or any type of support. I actually dislike Mulan because the underlying message is that she, a girl, has to coopt a male persona to become important -- and that supposes that she could not do anything worthwhile or be anyone important if she stayed a female.
Lewis came from a biblical perspective that males and females are given specific roles and responsibilities in their lives. Different, but no less honorable. We call such things "sexist" these days because society has changed to expect all people to be able to do all things without bias, and because of that some roles are now seen as less desirable, particularly if they conform to the older gender-role format.
Nonetheless, all of his Narnia books, save for The Horse and His Boy, feature strong and smart females as leads alongside of the males (and THaHB has a strong female show up toward the latter part of the book). The women are not belittled or seen as mere romantic interests or Star Trekish politically correct variety.
And casting a woman as a villain is no more sexist than casting a male as one. Are only males capable of evil? Or are we trying to be sexist in a new way by trying to slant it toward an all-male villain ensemble?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Feb 13, 2007 13:48:12 GMT -5
Lewis came from a biblical perspective that males and females are given specific roles and responsibilities in their lives. Different, but no less honorable. We call such things "sexist" these days because society has changed to expect all people to be able to do all things without bias, and because of that some roles are now seen as less desirable, particularly if they conform to the older gender-role format. Very true. But, speaking as a Christian who comes from a slightly different perspective than about 90% of the pastors I've heard speak on this topic: It's not always a matter of desirability. Some of us are good at some things and some of us are good at other things. Lots of women aren't warrior personalities. Lots of men aren't, either. That has nothing at all to do with Biblical role assignment. It seems that I never hear people say things like, "Mulan is an unrealistic warrior because she can lift four times her weight." Why are we more willing to suspend disbelief regarding women's bodies and what they can do than women's personalities and what they are willing or able or ought to do? |
|
|
|
Post by aargmematey on Feb 14, 2007 22:53:18 GMT -5
I actually dislike Mulan because the underlying message is that she, a girl, has to coopt a male persona to become important -- and that supposes that she could not do anything worthwhile or be anyone important if she stayed a female. Mulan doesn't save China while she is Ping though. She saves China as herself and as a female, and she gets her friends to help her even though she is a woman and they know it. Sure she's not in a constricting dress, wearing lots of make-up while she's storming the palace but I would hardly say that defines femininity. In fact, if you want to get technical, she ends up saving China and the Emperor due to the fact that she is still a female (even though she acted as Ping, and learned how to fight). She conquers Shan-Yu by getting his sword (a symbol of...masculinity *cough*) away from him through the use of her fan (and obvious symbol of femininity). I don't see how her, as a girl, learning to fight means in any way that she is suddenly less of a female than the mother or grandmother who fit into more traditionally feminine roles. Even the grandmother and mother are seen in a good light, they just represent a different kind of woman than Mulan, the women who are satisfied with their lives. The only people who are ever seen in a bad light (outside of the villains of course) are the people who stringently hold onto the traditions (ie, the matchmaker and that one guy who was keeping tabs on Shang's troop) to a ridiculous extent. |
|
|
|
Post by Ellielator on Feb 15, 2007 7:59:05 GMT -5
I was actually about to come to Disney's defense... when I read something you wrote. It's how I've always personally felt: Belle - Is supposedly smart and independent because she can read. But when does this take place? Sometime in the 18th century, when reading books was what was accepted for women to do. Men were busy working, so the women did housework and read all day. Also, it's not like she's reading anything of true substance. From what we can tell, she's reading fluffy fairy tales (wonder if she read Beauty and the Beast?) Then she gets kidnapped and abused....And falls in love with her abuser! What does this tell young girls? "If a man's abusing you, just be nice to him and give him time. Don't leave him!" That is so spot-on! And thank God you said the thing about the reading because I have no sense of history and I wouldn't have been able to have pointed that out myself. That movie always made me ill for some reason. I always used to say it's because the songs were weak and the villagers had no brains yet were able to take part in a revolt. I'm surprised they didn't show Beast slapping her when she "fell out of line." Gaston sure would have. I always fantasized, as a young girl myself, about being a Princess and a Witch at the same time. Everyone would love me. But when they all go to bed at night... I swoop into the village and eat their children. Who's eating the children? It surely couldn't be the sweet-as-pie Princess in the Castle on Top of The Hill. But then, I think children must taste really disgusting... So I'd use my Witch powers to transform them into lollipops. Actually, all of that is made up. Except for the being a Princess and a Witch at the same time. Like Sabrina tTW, only with a tiara, a magic wand, and Underlings. But I feel I have grown up to be quite the model feminist. Actually... my genuine feminist theory is that if men know what it's like to be sex objects than women won't have them going out to Hooters every night. So women should assault / sexually harass every attractive man they meet on the streets. I call it: The New Feminism. |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Feb 15, 2007 20:22:13 GMT -5
...so you're assuming they wouldn't like it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ellielator on Feb 16, 2007 10:04:45 GMT -5
Oh, they might actually like it. They'll just pretend they don't. I've even had female friends of mine say that their guy likes to smack their butt but doesn't like her to smack his. Crazy whirled we live in.
In fact, I don't get men now and I don't think I ever will.
|
|
|
|
Post by merboy88 on Aug 30, 2010 14:12:23 GMT -5
Hooray for procrastination! Oh yeah, and this is a completely random of aside, but it's always bugged me...what the heck did Belle call Beast after he turned back into a prince? Why did they decide to call him Beast?guys./endrant His name is Prince Adam. At the time the movie came out as was culturally relevant so was a line of Mattel toys/comic strips for He-Man. He-Man's original name is Prince Adam. Disney decided against it and just left him as the Beast in the movie. I saw this in one of the documentaries on the Beauty and the Beast DVD released in 2002 |
|
|
|
Post by dblade on Feb 7, 2011 19:44:32 GMT -5
Meh, it may be sexist, but it also made the male characters show chivalry and become transformed by women. That's the other theme he misses in Disney movies, how the love of a good woman civilizes and inspires men. Lady and the Tramp and the Aristocats comes directly to mind, but the whole "empowered woman thing" tends to miss that aspect of male-female dynamics.
That dynamic simply doesn't work in reverse. The problem is that there is no reciprocal tie: if a woman is helpless and needs to be rescued, a man has a duty and an honor to rescue her. An empowered woman really needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle as the saying goes, and people have internalized it. Usually what happens then is the male characters act as comic relief, or are irrelevant except for the villain.
Men look at that, see the villain is the only one that has the real power, and internalize that. And now, they relate to women very much like a hollywood villain. Men gravitate towards power, and the disney sexism channeled that power into constructive ways. It's ironic.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Smoking on Jun 15, 2011 7:11:52 GMT -5
If not sexist, Disney are definitely living in the past. Still are, in my opinion. I haven't seen Tangled yet, but I did catch Princess and the Frog last week and was actually shocked by how generic and predictable it was. And this goes triple for the film's princess, Tiana. Point being: they waited that long for a black heroine and still are afraid to even say the word "gay" in any of their own films in reference to a person rather than a very merry day or three happy chappies.
That's why I usually try and watch Disney films in a blanket of ignorance. I think Pocahontas is a wonderful film. Why? Because she tried to stop a war with her spirit and teach people to love instead of hate. Or something like that. The pretty colors help a lot. Maybe they ate a piece of my brain. But I think the corner their films paint women in is only a small part of the overall issue. How simple everything is in their world.
|
|
