I read a few reviews of Fury Road, then, with my expectations set suitably high, I went to watch it. The main point that struck me as I sought to reconcile what I had read with what I was seeing, was how readily some seem to be to award the title ‘feminist’. Men’s rights activist Aaron Clarey called the film ‘Feminist Propaganda’ (I am not linking to his review because I don’t want to give him the hits, but go ahead and google him if you must). Kyle Pinion of The Beat described the film as a ‘feminist blockbuster’. His review went on:
[I]t’s one of the most feminist action films in recent memory. Fury Road centers on a group of women taking their own agency and pushing against patriarchal rule. While this franchise has always had an undercurrent of pacifist themes, Miller has laser-focused his message, to a point where one interaction at the midway point of the film ends up stating the obvious: this is what happens when old white men run the world unchecked. That may rankle some feathers in the audience, but this is an action movie that isn’t just empty spectacle or aiming for the lowest common denominator. This is a motion picture that’s actually about something with a strong point of view, and that’s worth standing up and applauding for. It’s basically the film equivalent of an album by The Clash dropping in the middle of a sea of bad arena rock.
Furiosa (Theron) is, indeed, a strong female character leading freed female slaves (who we see symbolically stepping out from the jagged chastity belt of male power) to what she heavily implies will be an Amazon-style eco-feminist utopia. She shoots better than Max, is as tough as he is, and makes many of the major decisions in the film. Even her apparent breakdown is brief and expressed not through uncontrollable sobbing but by falling to the knees Platoon-style. She does not become embroiled in a romance plot and, at the end of the film, appears set to lead a large group of people.
The film does, further, suggest that patriarchal dictatorships are a bad thing – Furiosa has liberated the harem of an altogether despicable warlord named Joe. The all-female group who the characters later encounter are Amazon warriors in the sense that they are competent, comparatively democratic, mutually-supportive, and (perhaps) ecologically-minded. So far, so laudable.
The feminist reading collapses there, however. The mcguffin of the film is a group of five women (what NY Daily News calls ‘the beauties’) who spend the majority of the story being beautiful, inept, and providing reaction shots for explosive spectacle. Rescuing the women (and the death of one of the women) serve as the primary motivation for the male characters and one female outlier. These women are not people in any meaningful sense – they are in equal parts prop and chorus for the main actors in the story. The first time we see them proper they are hosing one another with water. They are pictured in parts rather than as a whole, scantily-clad, nipples erect, and apparently unaware of the camera’s presence. The sequence is a depressingly textbook example of Mulvey’s male gaze theory. This is disappointing but hardly surprising. It is, if anything, par for the course for a blockbuster action film.
What concerns me is that one is presented as though it excuses the other – that once the film has established its feminist credentials it feels that it has a free pass to indulge the male gaze and present certain female characters as the prize in a wholly phallic contest between male agents.
The central slogan of the women’s escape is that women should not be kept as slaves. They make sure we get this point by painting it on the walls of their cell before they depart. Female slavery is, of course, a very real problem. Even if we set aside imprisonment through economic and social systems, there are women today who are literally kept as slaves. I am not sure that Fury Road is quite the venue to address this issue, though. The majority of the audience for this film, I would hope, are not in a position where they are undecided whether or not the trafficking of women is a bad thing. As a feminist assertion, therefore, the statement that women are people and that people are not property is something of a low bar, and an argument, one would hope, that only has relevance to human traffickers and wavering sociopaths.
An argument could be made, however, that raising awareness of these issues (albeit very indirectly) is important and if this were the central message of the film, even as a relatively uncontroversial assertion, I would still read it as largely positive. The presence of a group of women, however, who lack agency and, to all intents and purposes, are treated as objects in the context of the film, undermines the message. What we are left with is a movie which alternately gestures toward a feminist message while simultaneously offering the female body as erotic spectacle. It tells us that women are people while simultaneously treating the majority of the female cast as objects.
I find the argument for Fury Road‘s feminism overstated (as such arguments tend to be, since there are so few mainstream works that might reasonably be termed such that even the ones that only come close tend to be rapturously embraced). But I definitely disagree with several of the counterarguments raised in this post. There are problems with how the wives are depicted – the scene in which they are first seen is definitely one of them – but to call them inept or “not people in any meaningful sense” is surely stretching the point. The wives have distinct personalities and, even within the confines of a movie that doesn’t pay much attention to character arcs in general, some very obvious emotional beats. Angharad is the dreamer who came up with the idea of escape; Cheedo is frightened and willing to go back; Capable has the emotional capacity to reach out to Nux; Toast is just happy to shoot people. All five do a great deal to make the escape possible, even when they’re recaptured at the end of the film. Especially when you consider how underdeveloped the film’s title character is, it seems like a wilfull misreading to call the wives blank slates.
In addition, I agree that as messages go, “sex slavery is bad” is a facile one, but I don’t agree that this is the message of the film. Sex slavery – like pumping the older wives for mother’s milk – strikes me as an exaggerated expression of the true evil that drives Immortan Joe, which is toxic masculinity. Fury Road isn’t saying that locking women up in a harem is wrong. It’s criticizing the cult of violence and death that, taken to extremes in a world like this movie’s, leads to locking women up in a harem. But that cult exists in our world and is used to justify acts of violence that are less blatant but no less harmful, and any statement against it – particularly in action films, a genre that usually glorifies male violence – is a worthwhile endeavor.
@Abigail I’d say it can’t really be a critique the cult of violence, when the pleasures of staged violence are the only reason why anybody is watching the movie in the first place.
Relatively speaking, Fury Road is one of the most feminist action movies ever made. I’m trying to think of another action movie that features as many active female characters. Furiosa. The Brides. The Vuvalini. Most action movies gives us a love interest and (maybe) some women as decoration. Fury Road also passes the Bechdel Test multiple times.
Also, if enjoying the pleasures of watching staged violence are the only reason to watch Fury Road, then apparently I’m bring something else to the film than you are Graham. I enjoyed the character interplay, the set and costume design, the way the film was put together. I enjoyed the hell out of the staged violence but mostly because it existed in a context that made the violence meaningful to me. Without that context I wouldn’t have been interested in the film.
Not having seen the picture, I have a question about Charlize Theron’s character? Is there a monomaniacal element to her? It’s something I’ve noticed in action movies with female protagonists. The examples that immediately come to mind are Zero Dark Thirty and Terminator 2. I’m not sure how feminist it is to portray a woman as strong and decisive if it’s also clear that comes from a personality disorder or other mental-health problems.
Furiosa is damaged. Max is damaged. The Brides are damaged. The world is damaged and civilization is gone. Fury Road is a big loud apocalyptic fairy tale. Furiosa fits right in.
Sarah Connor is wrongly sent to a mental health institution…but it’s pretty clear that she isn’t mentally ill, and that the doctors are wrong to imprison her. If anything, it seems like it’s a statement about how women aren’t believed, and should be.
Haven’t seen Zero Dark Thirty, so can’t comment on that.
“mostly because it existed in a context that made the violence meaningful to me. Without that context I wouldn’t have been interested in the film.”
The fact that it effectively justified violence and made the violence fun isn’t exactly a contradiction of Graham’s point….
Let’s just abolish action films and all that barbaric violence and film a bunch of characters sitting around and discussing The Bell Jar and eating crumpets. That would be riveting.
@ David Sure, your like you action to come with a mild seasoning of characterization, but anybody who thinks he watches an action movie because he’s interested in character interplay is lying to himself.
Graham says, “the only reason why anybody is watching the movie in the first place”. I’m saying that the violence wasn’t the only reason I watched the movie. Graham’s comment is reductive and says that there’s no other reason to watch the movie than to enjoy the violence displayed.
@ Craig Nobody said it’s wrong to celebrate violence. Homer celebrates violence. But let’s not kid ourselves that that’s what these movies do. Also, characters sitting around, eating sweets, and discussing bad books can be riveting too. You just described Madame Bovary.
@Graham: yes, that’s a critique that I’ve seen several people make, in particular as part of an argument that the film isn’t feminist. I can see where it’s coming from, but I think that in the context of modern action films, there’s more value in making a movie that deconstructs the cult of violence than in not making a movie at all. I don’t think you can avoid the fact that Fury Road is inherently self-contradictory (see also the triumphalism of its ending even though the film’s world surely doesn’t allow for any real triumph), but if you’re willing to accept that, I think it makes some valuable statements.
Noah–
On the subject of T2, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Sarah Connor wasn’t delusional, but she otherwise struck me as deeply unstable. Her anger and obsession over Skynet seemed to be the only things that were keeping her functional.
“there’s more value in making a movie that deconstructs the cult of violence than in not making a movie at all.”
Surely those aren’t the only options? There are good movies that aren’t particularly invested in violence.
I like action movies myself, but I don’t know that the best way to deconstruct them is with somewhat contradictory action movies…. I don’t know. Twilight is interesting in this regard, in that it refuses to stage its climactic battle; instead the heroine wins by creating a stalemate in which the main combatants all agree not to fight each other.
It’s not an accident how much people hate Twilight. It really refuses to follow through on genre conventions. Maybe Mad Max does that too…it doesn’t really sound like it though.
@”Abigail “there’s more value in making a movie that deconstructs the cult of violence than in not making a movie at all.” Okay, but this presupposes that the movie actually does deconstruct the cult of violence. I’d say that when a movie does that it’s not an action movie any more, but necessarily becomes something else – e.g. a much more essentially gentle kind of action story than the Mad Max films (as in this blog’s reference text, Marston and Peter’s Wonder Woman), or an outright satire, or an art film – i.e. things Craig would probably hate, either for not taking the action seriously enough or for being too artsy.
In other words, you can’t make violence enjoyable and also critique violence; that’s not nuance, that’s just trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Respectfully, I disagree with the idea that the brides make this film less feminist. (Spoilers ahead)
Having a diverse-looking cast of characters is pointless unless those characters also have diverse personalities. Furiosa is a perfect example of what Hollywood likes to call a ‘strong female character’ but overlooking the strength (and the feminism) of the brides is a perfect example of why Hollywood believes that all ‘strong female characters’ have to be tough and have guns and often basically be male stand-ins. In real life, not all strong women are physically tough; their strength can be in their humility, their drive or their compassion, just like any other person.
I went to the film with a lot of reservations about how feminist or empowering it’d be as a woman watching it, but I was absolutely blown away and not just by Theron. The brides had great story arcs as far as they could have in a movie with such a huge cast of core characters, and they were all varied and nuanced.
Splendid, who had always been the favourite of the brides, sacrificed herself to save the rest of her friends. Toast, who initially can’t count bullets properly (and in spite of being captured back in a classic damsel in distress moment), ends up attacking Joe who has left her in the front seat of the car in the final chase (as he obviously thought she would just sit there meekly and watch). Capable learns to show compassion and forgiveness towards one of the agents of her oppression. The Dag starts off feeling superior to everyone around her, like a real queen, but learns to appreciate the simplest things and people. Fragile’s story arc is my favourite, as she starts out as the classic Stockholm Syndrome bride, wanting to go back to her captor, but in the end uses this perceived weakness to exploit her oppressors and help Furiosa save them all.
All of these characters and their personalities are feminist. They show that women are nuanced and have different weaknesses and strengths. They can be strong by being butch, or they can be strong in their femininity, their compassion, or their exploitation of stereotypes. I find that a much more positive feminist message than just seeing a (physically) powerful woman, as amazing as Furiosa was, kicking ass on screen as a male character usually would. This film shows the strong and capable characters, such as Furiosa, that we’ve all been clamoring for for ages, but it also embraces femininity and its strengths. It shows how many shades feminism and ‘strong female characters’ can come in.
Pingback: Mad Max and the importance of character diversity - Comics Explorer
“anybody who thinks he watches an action movie because he’s interested in character interplay is lying to himself.” I didn’t say that I watched this movie because I was interested in character interplay. You’re being reductive. Again. I said, “violence wasn’t the only reason I watched the movie.”
“What concerns me is that one is presented as though it excuses the other – that once the film has established its feminist credentials it feels that it has a free pass to indulge the male gaze”
I totally agree – but this goes both ways: Just because you found a scene with boobies doesn’t mean you can dismiss the feminism.
Feminist ideals and misogyny often exist in the same narrative. None of them cancel the other out.
For instance:
The softcore scifi movie RANDY THE ELECTRIC LADY has an awesome toe-curling scene where the sensitive male doctor explains that objectification is bad. The message being that the silly excuse of a story makes this softcore film very much NOT objectification. (Yeah, in 1980, porn could preach feminism … things have gone downhill since)
The silent protagonist in FEMALE PRISONER #701 SCORPION is the only female avenger who can stand up to the male ones, and the movie is basically an attack against a misogynic society. But, it is still a WIP exploitation movie with obligatory shower scenes, torture and lesbian rape … but the fresh director and the female lead (who had just left her previous studio because they had turned to erotic comedies) both had their artistic integrity, and it shows.
ZERO DARK THIRTY tl;dr: Torturing people for the government makes our beautiful heroine suffer ever so much, because she is ever so humane. Indeed, the tortures are the true victims here.
With Zero Dark Thirty, I recall one scene very early on where the Jessica Chastain character flinches from the sight of a prisoner being tortured. She’s in the background of the shot–it’s not a close-up–and it’s implicit that this is the first time she’s ever watched this being done. She is never shown flinching again. In fact, she’s perfectly happy ordering it done.
As far as her “beautiful heroine” status goes, she was an abrasive, overbearing monomaniac who would stab people in the back if they weren’t on board with her agenda in every last little detail. She’s an absolutely repellent personality is perhaps best described as the co-worker from hell. Having her played by a pretty, physically unintimidating actress is about the only Hollywood-style sop to the audience in that picture. A more physically imposing actress would have seemed absolutely monstrous. It would have completely alienated many audience members from the film altogether.
Finally, I’m sorry the picture wasn’t Manichean enough on the point for your liking, but it’s not a pro-torture film.
I reviewed Zero Dark Thirty here.
Graham Clark said: “anybody who thinks he watches an action movie because he’s interested in character interplay is lying to himself.”
Single most specious comment in this thread. Even without listing the volumes of action movies which are precisely remembered for “character interplay” (i.e. Die Hard, when Bruce Willis responds to Alan Rickman mocking him as “another cowboy” with “Yippee ki yay, motherfucker”), there’s the fact the above statement presupposes characterization and an action movie’s action are mutually exclusive is so far off the mark as to be comically asinine. Action informs character, especially in a visual medium like film, and the best action films understand this implicitly. Your snobbery does you a disservice.
This brings me to an issue I had with the essay at large, which attempts to paint ‘the brides’ as docile eye candy. Reading them as “beautiful, inept, and providing reaction shots for explosive spectacle” only holds up if you ignore every instance of each character proving otherwise in the film. During their introduction, when Max attempts to jack the War Rig from them, a struggle breaks out between him and Furiosa. Rather than watch idly, the brides provide aid (using Max’s chain against him, for example). The rest of the film shows each with distinctive personalities and strengths, willing and able to contribute to the group’s survival. This becomes most evident right around when the War Rig gets stuck in mud, and the group has to winch it out: the entire group, brides included, throw themselves into the endeavor, gathering their own tools and reacting to each other’s needs as they arise (often with little to no dialogue). This is hardly what anyone should consider “inept.”
@ Andrew On the contrary, the snob, in the strictest sense of the word, is the action movie fan who isn’t really interested in characterization but thinks he should be, and resolves this by pretending the action movies he likes are character pieces.
I’m not even saying characterization is necessarily better than action. That’s your bad conscience.
Oh, swing and a miss! I didn’t say one was better than the other, either. I said they are the same. On top of that, you keep using that word “pretend,” as if you have some superior insight into another person’s thoughts and motivations.
@ Kasper “Torturing people for the government makes our beautiful heroine suffer ever so much, because she is ever so humane. Indeed, the tortures are the true victims here.” Ha! Yup. (Alternate précis: Zero Dark Thirty, a wrenching drama about the challenge of being a professional woman in a man’s world. Oh, and some Muslims get tortured.”)
@ Andrew “I didn’t say one was better than the other, either.” No, you assumed I did.
Having now seen the movie, I have to say I don’t know that I quite buy this post. It’s true that the brides don’t get much characterization—but then, nobody in the film gets much characterization. It’s a two hour car chase. It makes the characterization in the Avengers look deep (though it’s better overall than the Avengers.)
Same is true for the claims of awesome feminist content, though; I mean, yes, women get to shoot things, which is cool, but the super Bechdel scene with 12 women talking to each other last like 30 seconds and characterization is so superfluous you don’t even really get to see who’s saying what.
It’s a stylishly visualized goofy action film with a somewhat better than average action movie default take on gender. Again I say: people’s standards for movies are shockingly low.
I do appreciate Biz’s argument though. It’s certainly the case that the movie has many more women characters than you generally get in an action film, and that itself creates a kind of feminist message, inasmuch as it allows women to be more than one thing, or allows each individual woman not to stand for all women, which is depressingly uncommon.
This is a little unfortunate, though:
“It shows how many shades feminism and ‘strong female characters’ can come in.”
Of course, there aren’t many different shades in the film. All the women are white. Which I think is a real limit on its feminism, in various ways.
“All the women are white. Which I think is a real limit on its feminism, in various ways.”
Not all but most.
And surely it was more exciting than Arnie’s Sabotage which you raved about?
I guess there are a couple of women in the film with Maori heritage; this post talks about that and the film’s general whiteness.
No; I liked Sabotage quite a bit more. I thought it was audacious and surprising. You hardly ever see action films where the cops are presented as straightforward thuggish brutes and the marquee hero is a manipulative lying murderer—in an, oh, he’s a total scumbag, not in a cool anti-hero kind of way. Fury Road is a good deal less adventurous (though it certainly looks great visually.)
I thought we had a whole 7 seasons of that on The Shield but I guess that’s TV. And it was done way better than in Sabotage (which was about average) especially in the instance of Michael Chiklis’ character. But what I’m saying is that evil, murderous cops are not that uncommon in mainstream media.
Yeah…but they’re usually clearly marked as villains. Sabotage is an action movie with Arnold in the lead. He’s supposed to be the hero, but wasn’t. Which I think asks you to consider whether the righteous do gooders are ever the heroes, or whether they’re just murderous jerks.
I haven’t seen the Shield; maybe I’d think it was better too!
I’m a bit surprised how everybody takes the bride scene as pure male gaze eye candy, when I in fact thought it was one of the cleverer moments in the movie.
The brides are effectively the war lord’s highly tuned crown jewels, status symbols like a yacht or a polished sports car, but on the other hand they look exactly like contemporary supermodels. What that means for today’s standards of beauty and how women are portrayed in the media should be fairly obvious.
Also, the “male gaze” in this instance is the point of view of a battle crazed, almost feral Max, which likewise doesn’t reflect back very positively on the male gaze itself.
The brides washing off the desert sand are not filmed like they’re in a wet T-shirt contest meant for male entertainment, but instead it’s shown as a moment of liberation, as if the were rinsing off the torment they had to endure in the past along with the dust.
In the immediately following struggle with Max and that other dude, another equally insane male, they all become active within the realistic capabilities of barbie doll slaves.
Not that different from Aaron Clarey (Men’s rights activist…) pointing with his penis on what’s what when it comes to women.
It’s probably all about THIS: “I don’t understand what those men Men’s Rights Activists are saying about Mad Max; that’s ridiculous. They should be proud at the way men were portrayed in this film. Max acted like a true man, he showed courage and strength. He held men’s standards very well, came in there like a true man and helped those in need. And they’re angry about the theme of men destroying the world and starting wars compared to women nurturing and rebuilding it, but that’s just a reality.”
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/19/mad-max-fury-road-as-reviewed-by-my-70-year-old-mother-in-law
Also read Noah’s opinion on the film. Least it didn’t top his “Orange Is the New Black’s Irresponsible Portrayal of Men”, but he did incredible enough try to put everyone in the shadow of Nux. Effectively undermining every sacrifice by a woman in the film, something -I was glad to see- alot of commenters on the article reacted to and calling him out on.
Oh well. Glad to see alot of people (both women and men) taking liking to it, and the stuff that makes it tick. Without whining about “not all barbarians are white” or whatever could be used as click bait.
Dylan reminds us to beware of genre fans bearing feminism.
Vulvalini lady: “I’ve killed everyone I’ve ever met. Shot them in the medula.”
Bride: “I tough you were above all that”
I don’t care for feminism and I’m aware the director had a feminist consultant on set, but for what’s worth, that’s good writing, as in having individual characters with different motivations and points of view. And the whole montage of action serves to explore them, instead of the characters being plot fodder to spectacle.
I dig Fury Road because is a well written, greatly executed film.
I didn’t try to put everyone in the shadow of Nux.
He’s the one character who sacrifices himself knowing he’s going to die. Women get killed in brave ways too, but never in the same eyes open, I am not going to sacrifice myself…and now I’m dead way.
He’s a guy, so he gets to be gallant in death, rather than just brave. That’s not my fault; it’s the film that does that. Just like it’s the film that has Max make the final plan, and the film that puts Max’s name on the marquee.
Now you’ll tell me that by pointing out that Max’s name is on the marquee, I’ve put everyone in the shadow of Max, I guess…
Also, I liked Fury Road well enough. It was fine, just not great. And it’s not clear to me why praising the film for its feminism is awesome, but questioning its racial politics is somehow click baity. It’s like calling something click bait just means, “I disagreed with this.”
I mean, my feeling about Mad Max is that it’s remarkable for a big budget action movie in that it has so many women characters, and remarkable that it pretty explicitly sees patriarchy as a problem and calls for its overthrow.
In the context of a slightly broader range of culture than big-budget action films, though, it doesn’t necessarily look especially daring or thoughtful. Character development is mostly notional; the posited political change (good leader for bad leader) is about as simplistic as it could be, the women fall in a narrow range of relatively stereotypical gender tropes; there’s little focus on or acknowledgement of experiences of marginalized women, etc. Again, lots of exploitation cinema is much better, to say nothing of all the actual feminist sci fi novels out there. Honestly, I think Twilight is smarter about gender in a lot of ways. It certainly has a more radical vision of feminist utopia if pacifism counts as radical, which I’d argue that it does.
I get why people reacted so strongly to Mad Max; there’s limited other options available as far as massive multiplex product goes, and it presents oppression and empowerment in ways that aren’t completely insulting to the intelligence. I just find the universal acclaim a little wearing given what seem to me to be fairly glaring limitations.
@ Noah “Honestly, I think Twilight is smarter about gender in a lot of ways. It certainly has a more radical vision of feminist utopia if pacifism counts as radical, which I’d argue that it does.” See, this is why you’re going to be remembered as a prophet.
Here’s a theory, perhaps stupid: MRAs inadvertently pulled off a double troll.
Fury Road PR pushed the Eve Ensler connection with mentions in Time and Esquire, but the narrative didn’t take off until until Return of Kings freaked out. I was planning to see the movie, but the idea doing so would annoy MRAs contributed to my decision to go opening weekend.
I knew backlash and conflict over Mad Max would follow as objections by rabid sexists is no proof of feminist substance. It would be impossible to match the imagined levels of empowerment in angry dude hyperbole “if they sheepishly attend and Fury Road is a blockbuster, then you, me, and all the other men (and real women) in the world will never be able to see a real action movie ever again“. That is so on the nose I wonder if Kings got paid for a native self-parody ad.
In a ass-backwards way, they got closer to steering the discourse than any planned intentional shit stirring.
“Not that different from Aaron Clarey (Men’s rights activist…) pointing with his penis on what’s what when it comes to women.”
I take it this refers to what I said? Well, I oviously didn’t make myself clear then. I merely felt that the scene was more subtle than the above post makes it sound. Sure, on the surface it is a textbook example of MG theory, but within the context of the story and it’s general framing I think it inverts the male gaze and reflects it back on the viewer, or at least puts the gazing male in an uncomfortable position.
I only saw the film once and my (over-?)interpretation of the scene may well be off, but I fail to see how that makes me on par with an MRA, and how I was “pointing with my penis”.
Also, it’s not like I’m a total MM:FR fan (or a fan of the genre for that matter). I thought it was surprisingly interesting for an action flick, but there was a lot in there that I didn’t like, for example the tired trope of the secondary characters who have to die because they’ve either run their course (the Vuvalini) or because they’re reformed bad guys who have to redeem themselves(Nux). The whole ending seemed rushed and unconvincing (while I liked the idea of going back, as opposed to the usual promised land plot).
Finally, while it is refreshingly un-macho for a film of its kind, I agree that it’s feminism is overstated.
Phillip Smith: [i]”Female slavery is, of course, a very real problem. Even if we set aside imprisonment through economic and social systems, there are women today who are literally kept as slaves.”[/i]
Slavery does happen – but I think ‘trafficking’ has ended up being a bullshit term, mostly used to brand non-forced sex workers as the monsterous barbarism of some foreign other.
Danish anthropologist Trine Mygind Korsby has spent 10 months with pimps and traffickers in Romania. She says that many of the men considered to be devious traffickers are in fact boys living with their parents who can’t afford gas for the car. And their relationship with the women is complex and lovingly.
Ramona and Negip has been a couple for 11 years, but the Copenhagen City Court sentenced Negip for trafficking her. They are a typical example of a trafficking-relationsship, says Ioana Sandescu, project manager at the Romanian NGO eLiberare working to combat human trafficking.
Social anthropologist Sine Plambech: “The stereotype is the woman who unaware traded and abducted from his home country to an imprisoned life in a brothel, that is, unambiguous trafficking stories, which in practice are infinite hard to come by.” (crappy translation from Danish, I know)
When nine Romanians were sentenced for trafficking, Center Against Human Trade (‘Center Mod Menneskehandel’), said that “Some [of the women] would not talk to us and in conversation with the women who would, there were no indicators of human trafficking”
And, a bit like how the US has two radically different definitions of WMD, the law itself has some creative definition on what constitutes ‘trafficking’:
WIKIPEDIA: in the United Kingdom, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 incorporated trafficking for sexual exploitation but did not require those committing the offence to use coercion, deception or force, so that it also includes any person who enters the UK to carry out sex work with consent as having been “trafficked.”
Fufu, I think Dylan was actually criticizing the original post for prurience…though it’s hard to tell.
There’s definitely a lot of mystification and confusion around trafficking. Numbers are often vastly overstated, in part because some organizations essentially conflate all prostitution with trafficking. In addition, forced labor that does not involve sex work is generally ignored.
Sex slavery as a trope is used constantly to generate narratives around the salvation of innocents, with often ugly effects in the real world, as Tara Burns discusses.
FuFu, no I never called you out on anything. No worries. Thanks btw for keeping it civil.
I actually view the brides in a similar -positive- light as you. For me they’re princesses breaking free with the help of Furiosa, and then Max and Nux joins in (also trying to break free from what’s haunting them).
The duality in the film really stood out for me. The things Biz Stringer-Horne pointed out in his/hers comments, for example Splendid’s using her fragility to shield the others, Cheedo “wanting to be taken back” in order to help Furiosa. Essentially weakness becoming strength (Similarly how the film portrays alot of “strength” as weakness). IMO, there’s far more to them -the wives- than Smith’s opinion on their tits.
For the big F word on the film, I think it handled it quite well. Smart. Miller says he’s a feminist, let his wife cut the film, Eve Ensler being onboard and so on. But Miller left it as pieces in there, instead of keys. The film enables discussion, and doesn’t try to be the means by itself. While some comments sections aren’t evident of this, I’ve met a fair bunch of movie goers that were.
Btw. Knowing how much superheroes can mean to kids, Lisbeth Salander to some women, Scarface to gangsters (influence isn’t always good) and so on… The staying power of stories: I’m thinking Mad Max: Fury Road perhaps could be quite a wholesome film in -now- war torn countries, especially where women are on the rise.
The “toys for boys” (cars, explosions, death) gains it an audience, only to show the tragedy of it (the sad warboys duped by their Darth clown macho papa) and then ending it with a bunch of women on the rise to perhaps make things a bit better. Things that are -To quote Wonder Woman.- “more than necessary… They’re morally necessary.”
I really hope both the planned Furiosa film and Wasteland comes to fruition.
Oh well. I’m rather tired. Enough of this. Bye.
“The “toys for boys” (cars, explosions, death) gains it an audience, only to show the tragedy of it”
See, I don’t think that’s true. There is a critique of the way the war boys are duped into war, but the heroes (mad max, furiosa) are heroes because they are super violent, while the empowerment of the brides mostly comes through their increasingly effective use of violence. There’s never a question in the film of the awesomeness of the violence used by the women and heroes, I don’t think—even though the one warboy is redeemed, killing other war boys is presented as a moral good, as is the killing of Joe. There’s little nuance in terms of good/evil; the bad guys are bad, the good guys are good, in typical HOllywood fashion. As a result, social transformation is entirely in terms of the good guys taking over; it’s a matter of who’s in charge, not a matter of institutional change, really.
I think Anita Sarkeesian criticized it for seeing empowerment and feminism in terms of women rather than men getting to shoot people. I don’t see that as being as worthless as Sarkeesian does; representation is a good thing, especially given the paucity of it available. But if Hillary Clinton becoming President is not going to transform our society, it’s hard to see why Furiosa taking Joe’s place is going to change theirs.
Regarding Anita Sarkeesians critisism – Anna Biller, responsible for the amazing softcore VIVA in 2007, has earlier critizised the Girls with Guns genre for having nothing to do with feminist whatsoever – quite long read, though:
http://annabillersblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-misogyny-of-modern-slasher-film.html
Looks like it’s about slashers, not action films…?
I think slashers are better on gender than action films, for the most part. Carol Clover has me convinced (though it looks like Biller doesn’t like her.)
I apologise for not joining this conversation sooner. Preparing a book manuscript and marking student work has left me with little time for anything else this week. I am likely to be similarly distracted for some time to come, but I felt I should drop into the conversation.
I am delighted to have brought a subject which is of interest to so many readers of this blog and am pleased to see that the conversation has, for the most part, remained civil. It is nice to see that we all recognise we are fighting the same fight.
I was intrigued by FuFu’s comment that the male gaze is deployed in the film in order to comment upon it. If that is what is going on I am not sure if it is entirely effective. When when one practices something in order to parody it, one trusts the audience to realise what is happening. Otherwise you just perpetuate the thing you oppose. From a lot of the reactions to the film which I have read, if this is parody then it missed its mark for a lot of audience members.
I was also interested to see that a lot of people feel that these characters are more three dimensional than I found them to be. I am happy to concede that maybe others saw things I missed, and maybe on a second viewing I will be more convinced.
I am not sure what to make about Dylan’s which equates reading the male gaze to practising objectification (or, as he elegantly described it ‘pointing with the penis’). I believe that Mulvey’s theory has provided a useful vocabulary for feminist critics to discuss non-verbal aspects of film and the world is better for it, but I am interested by the idea that male gaze theory may make objectification so central a theme as to drown out more nuanced feminist readings.
Anyway, back to marking…
Anita Sarkeesian isn’t a fan of violence at all. Comes with the territory that she’s not fond of Mad Max. Quite certain she’s not the biggest fan of women in prison films either. There’s also a bunch of lasses are politely disagreeing with her in the comments. Saying that the film spoke to them.
Btw. What effective use of violence did the wives inflict? Them pushing Nux (who Splendid handed it to, asking him: “Who killed the world?!”) of the truck and Toast hitting Joe in the face.
Regarding women in prison-films. I quite like them. Especially Scorpion: Grudge song. I also like other japanese fem. rev. flicks (pinky violence?). Sex & fury with Reiko Ike particularly. But just as with Max, doesn’t bother me much that Sarkeesian -probably- doesn’t like them.
“But if Hillary Clinton becoming President is not going to transform our society, it’s hard to see why Furiosa taking Joe’s place is going to change theirs.”
Haha, eh what!?
I’m quite sure Furiosa & c/o will do fine. It’s a mountain fortress with a water pump in radioactive wasteland Australia, in a action movie. They defeated Joe and the war boys (who could fight) died or got stranded in the desert.
Hillary reforming the US or not, that’s another story: history.
I thought the analogy was clear enough; but sure if you’re confused I can explain.
Clinton is a woman. There is some feminist argument that says that replacing men with women is the goal of feminism. To that extent, Clinton being elected would be a major feminist win.
However, there’s also a more radical feminist tradition that sees patriarchy as a problem as a system because it is unjust, not just because men are the ones in charge. For instance, it sees war and violence as wrong or corrupt. From that perspective, Clinton isn’t going to change much, since her positions are centrist mainstream democratic ones. She’s not going to use less military intervention than her predecessors (for example.)
Mad Max presents Furiosa overthrowing patriarchy. Okay, but what does that mean? She’s essentially a warlord like Joe; she gets her authority in the film from being a superviolent badass. When she takes over, she does so personally; the difference is that she’s a good guy,not that she offers any actual changes in government. If she’s unjust, how will she be replaced?
The policy change we see is that she is willing to let people have more water. Okay. We’re told sort of that Joe imposed unnecessary scarcity. But if you’re a little skeptical, you have to wonder if profligate use of resources is really the ideal policy. How can anyone question her about that? Is there a way to make consensus decisions? It doesn’t look like it; it just seems like you’ve exchanged one strong war leader for another. The first was male, the second is a woman. Does that constitute a real change to patriarchy? Or is it just a new boss much like the old boss?
Of course in the logic of the film Furiosa will do “just fine.” She’s the hero! I’m asking you to think a little bit about what it means that she’s the hero, and what sort of ideology is suggested by a revolution which replaces nothing of substance except the person of the dictator.
Again, that’s not to say the movie is bad. Action movies hardly ever have any sort of political vision. This one does, and people are psyched about that, which is reasonable. It’s worth noting that the political vision on offer is pretty stupid, though.
More amused than confused.
The idea what Sarkeesian would think about women in prison films got me more curious. Also, wives= violence?
As for Furiosa and the other women, the ending left me thinking they’ll all play some part in trying to fix things. Dag having a bag of seeds, Furiosa and the remaining Vulvani having a vision of a green place and so on.
Not necessarily Furiosa becoming a sole leader. Even if defeating Joe perhaps will require her to become such.
Whatever comes of it, I have no idea. But least there’ll be some hope of things getting better: Such thing can mean alot in such place as theirs’.
But yeah, that’s my view of the ending. You certainly having your own.
And no worries. I’m no big believer in heroes. Pat Mill’s Marshal Law (which sadly -imo- became self p. a couple stories in) taught me so.
@Noah Berlatsky “Looks like it’s about slashers, not action films…?”
Yes, Anna Billers blog post was about slashers. But as a part of its overall message it also said that the Girls with Guns genre had zero to do with feminism: “It’s a male fantasy to see a woman with a weapon. It calms and soothes men to see a woman behaving “rationally” (that is, like a man), solving problems the way a man would, with violence.”
I agree somewhat. I’m a guy, and a film doing ‘feminism’ is supposed to challenge my world view. Why does those supposedly feminist movies feels like something that would mostly appeal to my inner redneck? They feels safe and cozy, (‘hyggeligt’ in Danish) kinda like a Happy Meal with feminist toys in it. Not much swallow the blue pill here. We are still in the boys club – only, we let the girls in, provided that they play by our rules.
On the other hand, these movies are about beating the crap out of patriarchy. Having a female doing the beating makes that message stronger. The feminism lies in said beating, even if the action hero framework confirms status quo.
Kasper Hviid: I live north up from you. While quite a lot of men love the film, it has also gotten rave reviews from women who call themselves feminists. No matter political affiliation, skin complexion, backgrounds or whatever: They’v been lauding everything from the film’s political core, to the way women are portrayed (all sorts of women, as humans: Not things.) to how much thrillpower it packed.
Btw. What’s your world view? In what way would you like it to be challenged?
I know women who’s world view is that they’re lesser because they happen to be physically weaker and/or not respected because of the shape of their bodies. And some of these said women felt their world view challenged -in a great way- by films like DREDD (Urban/Thirbly-one) and Mad Max: Fury road.
Pacific Standard had an interesting piece on how violent heroines do or don’t challenge gender roles.
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/can-an-action-heroine-be-too-masculine
Noah, you wrote: “the empowerment of the brides mostly comes through their increasingly effective use of violence.”
Do you have any examples of this? Besides the ones I mentioned: throwing Nux off the truck and Toast punching Joe in the face.
They help Furiosa fight Max when he first appears in chains is another one. I’d have to see it again for more specifics, I guess.
Here’s the scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAroW6AsyKU
Violence: They’re pulling a chain so that an unknown- to them- man (who btw. introduces himself by pointing a shotgun on a pregnant woman) perhaps won’t kill Furiosa (who isn’t sporting her protese)
Is that problematic?
??? It’s not that individual acts of violence are or are not a problem. It’s that the narrative is constructed around violence, and that empowerment is seen in terms of violent victory.
Nothing in the film actually happens. It’s not an on the scene report. Its a ficitional narrative. So the question isn’t, “are the wives acting reasonable given the circumstances?” Because, you know,the circumstances are constructed, just as the wives are. The question is, what sort of scenarios are seen as important? What actions are seen as empowering?
I worded it “problematic”, I should’v written “violent”.
As for the empowering bits. Regarding the wives. IMO there are much bigger moments for them than pulling a chain or pushing someone of a truck.
Especially Splendid shielding the others with her vurnability. I thought that was very awesome.
Every bit as awesome as in DREDD, when rookie Anderson tells (the) Dredd off.
Judge Dredd: Mind explaining yourself, rookie? Abetting a felon is not just a fail offense. It’s a crime.
Anderson: I already picked up the fail when I lost my primary weapon. I’m not gonna be a Judge and I don’t need to be a mind reader to know it. He’s a victim, not a perp and until my assessment is formally over, I’m still entitled to dispense justice. And that’s what I just did by letting him go. Maybe that will be the one difference I do make.
Another epic scene not defined by violence.
There’s also other ones in Fury road. But I’ll give it a rest. Tired. Going to bed. There’ll hopefully be dreams about Anita Sarkeesian’s opinions on women in prison films ha, ha.
Btw. Thank you for letting me in on that: “Its a ficitional narrative.”.
Good bye/night.
I thought the wife shielding the vehicle with her body was a nice moment. I don’t think Fury Road is bad or anything. Just somewhat overhyped.
Fury Road is pretty thoroughly defined by violence. Violence is presented as justified, cathartic, and effective. It’s only the bad guys who use violence in a way that results in evil or bad things; whenever the good guys use violence, it’s presented as necessary and ultimately leading to good.
That’s pretty standard for action movies; you could say it defines the genre. Fury Road isn’t especially bad in this regard; it just isn’t paradigm shifting.
There are some action narratives that question the default. Blade Runner for example ends with an act of mercy rather than one of violence; Twilight refuses to allow its final big battle to take place; Tarantino, in various ways, frequently presents violence as diminishing rather than validating his characters. Mad Max isn’t that thoughtful, imo.
Hey again, sorry for not coming back after Dylan’s and Philip’s responses. Got sidetracked with work and stuff and then the time for it seemed to have passed.
Anyway, just came across this storyboard image for the scene we discussed, and thought it might be of interest in the context of what we discussed.
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ed9c97e4b097fb5ad76c9e/556fc42fe4b029bc850d9f53/556fc453e4b072434a9c16f1/1433388115412/Fury-Road-pics20052015_00005.jpg?format=1500w