|
I thought the part where Cherno forced Ukrainian serfs to work on the Vladivostok wall was a bit grim for the movie. Chaining the union leaders to the face of it was excessive. But seriously, the Jaegers are like super-feminist. Gipsy Danger has a near-death experience when Knifehead attempts to rape her with his big phallic thing, and uses her giant life-giving vagina to blast the bigotry out of Slattern while it attempts to impale her with three phalluses. Striker Eureka's ultimate move is to bare her chest at the enemy, revealing her warheads. Cherno is the ultimate big protective mother, protecting innocents without a break for years with nothing more than love. Crimson Typhoon's ballet-like movement and delicate frame are fine attributes, but leaves her vulnerable to the pseudo-female imposter Otachi that was sent to replace her. And think about it... The Throat is a giant phallus, spewing little swimming sperm creatures at the ovum-like Earth. The Jaegers are the antibodies that stop the aliens from colonising/fertilising it with a toxic seed. Is Pacific Rim a metaphor for women's reproductive rights? Actually, the misandry of this film is downright unsettling. Does GDT hate men?
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
SomeJazzyRat posted:Pretty much agree with you there. But it does make me now wish that the ending was about Mako rather than Protagonist McWhitebread. These were both glaring symptoms of the most obvious problematic assumption underneath the movie. The most interesting, most prominent character arc centered around a woman, but someone behind the film either lacked the confidence to allow her to act independently of the man who is (erroneously) presumed to be the more relatable figure, or that person who wrote it never had the thought cross his mind. Yes, this is a lot of words to say "writer, check your privilege," but there you go. Overuse of anthropological and sociological terms as social justice buzzwords has lent them an ironic edge these days. Shadeoses posted:Actually, the misandry of this film is downright unsettling. Does GDT hate men? No woman ever kidnapped his family and held them for ransom in Mexico. Now, extra-dimensional colonial invaders are another matter entirely. As an aside note: Zizek's quotes are a lot more accessible to the layperson than his long form texts. He nailed the problem with multiculturalism in one, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:It baffles me how people can look at a film where personifications (robotifications?) of Russia, America and China use stereotypical workers to build a giant wall in order to keep the undesirables out, and say "No, there is nothing political here. There is no meaning. Please stop talking about it." It was the insular, xenophobic (in multiple ways) self-serving bureaucrat assholes who called for the shoddy wall system. They did so at the expense of the multicultural system of unity that eventually saved the planet. If there are politics there, I think you might have them backwards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:I thought the part where Cherno forced Ukrainian serfs to work on the Vladivostok wall was a bit grim for the movie. Chaining the union leaders to the face of it was excessive. Welp I'm aroused. I fully expect the porn parody to have rocket hips. OldPueblo fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
Yeah ok, that's what I get for workposting quickly, I wrote a nonsense, I admit it! I mean I don't think that choice of nations and the alternative being a big wall are meaningless (outside of the narrative) parts of the film, and that they should be pretty obviously indicative of some kind of political undercurrent in the film to most viewers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
SomeJazzyRat posted:And on the point of her only becoming a 'strong' character when she joins the boy's club, I would be honestly interested in what you'd think would be valid alternatives to the usual Ripley archetype for strong female characters. Can you define(characterise) strength of(in) character(s) beyond the ability to throw a punch or lift things that are heavy? (This is why I think it's unfair to the characterisation of Ripley in trying to seatch for valid alternatives) With your Drive reference, keep in mind we have a scene in Pacific Rim that is thematically very similar it's just the presentation of physical violence against another is very different(that kid needed a loving smack). Of course Mako isn't a feminist character, doesn't need to be, but she is a 'Strong Female Character' and in a wider context(some subtext) regarding the Kaiju and Jaegers it makes Mako somewhat of a tragic figure. E:Should say that it's only a problem when(if) people think Mako's feminist, which can be problematic because often characters(Scarface/Gordon Geckko etc) are held up(interpreted) as heroic figures to aspire towards. brawleh fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 14:39
|
|
brawleh posted:Can you define(characterise) strength of(in) character(s) beyond the ability to throw a punch or lift things that are heavy? (This is why I think it's unfair to the characterisation of Ripley in trying to seatch for valid alternatives) With your Drive reference, keep in mind we have a scene in Pacific Rim that is thematically very similar it's just the presentation of physical violence against another is very different(that kid needed a loving smack). Sigh. Why am I doing this. As a big fan of Drive and Pacific Rim, it's not fair to compare the scene where Raleigh beats down Chuck in a fairly even brawl after Chuck openly provokes him with the scene where Driver brutally overpowers and kills someone who - as far as the sole observer knows - may or may not be there to kill him. They're not thematically similar. They're only similar in the broadest possible sense of 'two men fight while a woman watches' and, gently caress, you might as call everything thematically similar if that's your barometer. The thing is, it's not thematically similar (what themes come up in the scenes that make them similar?). The scene in Drive is less of a fight and more of a horror killing. Mako knows that Raleigh can fight, she knows that Chuck is a belligerent rear end in a top hat. Irene does not know that the Driver can fight, she has no idea who the man he kills is or why he does it. There is no hidden truth revealed in Raleigh's character during his fight with Chuck. It's not sudden and violent. It's a slow burning fuse that has come to a head, something that has been coming ever since the first time Chuck sees Raleigh in the Shatterdome. The reason no one wants to discuss this stuff anymore is because it's like half of the people in this thread think that comparing things at their most basic possible level is intelligent analysis. It's not. It's almost blatantly dishonest. If you're really going to compare those two scenes, then you better actually compare them instead of just saying that they're similar. That's why people are annoyed at the discourse going on in this thread. That, or they're annoyed at people twisting the film into something it's not, eg: quote:It baffles me how people can look at a film where personifications (robotifications?) of Russia, America and China use stereotypical workers to build a giant wall in order to keep the undesirables out, and say "No, there is nothing political here. There is no meaning. Please stop talking about it. While others sit on the sidelines and poo poo up the thread with posts like: quote:But here in Cinema Discusso, Discusso Annoys The Hell Out Of Me. The more substantive criticisms of film are box office grosses and the burger-brain ratio. And then there's General Battuta - who I normally agree with - doing the whole 'well, you see, there's smart intelligent people who understand that films are fake constructs (  ) and then there's the wookiepedians'.Just returning to brawleh's post. What the gently caress does it mean to say Mako 'isn't feminist' but that she is a 'Strong Female Character' (unless you're meaning, like, in the vein of Kate Beaton's satirical comics, I have no idea what you're saying) and how does it make her tragic? Everything is some search for the mythical perfect piece of media now. There's no middle ground. There's no 'this is a good step in the right direction, but...' You have to walk before you can run. I'm honestly goddamn surprised that the same people are willing to keep going on about this over and over again. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:
I imagine it's a similar criticism in the vein of Whedonesque feminism, where "strong female character" boils down to a woman displaying traits still clearly coded as masculine (the goal of feminism is to be one of the boys); or some such thing. And I don't believe that people are looking for perfect media (what would that even be?) by engaging in analysis and will be perfectly willing to consider both encouraging and troubling aspects of whatever work is being considered. It's just that the more troubling and divisive elements tend to require more unpacking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Out of curiosity what is considered success for a female character, having big boobs and making babies? The successful seduction of a male character? What is uniquely feminine? In creating separate goals for female and male characters isn't that where the sexism comes in? Wasn't it better having the two act as one and be equal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
On the contrary, I don't subscribe to the view that female characters (or, indeed, women) can really become 'too masculine' - I discussed this a bit in the women in film thread before, but to some extent I think Ripley was a successful feminist character because she 'acted like a strong man'. The part I resented in Pacific Rim as opposed to Alien was that 'acting like a strong man' - or being a 'strong female character' - was construed as giving Mako immense physical strength in her robot body and fighting skill in the matches, but with none of the corollaries of actually having a strong social position, like being able to speak up for yourself, defend yourself, command respect from your peers, and give orders when necessary. I would have loved a film where Mako and Blandy McWhiteman were genuine equals, even if it came with a "Mako starts off timid but gains confidence through association with white dude," story, but I never got the feeling that they did become equals. They were equals in fighting prowess. But in terms of all other social factors, I never got the impression that she was considered a true social equal to the male characters, especially when often she is being considered in light of her infantilising attachment to Stacker. That's why the scene where white dude fights to defend her honour after being insulted was so egregious; it highlights that, ok, everyone's seen that you're physically strong, but nevertheless your social position has not improved, that's not enough. Only one man challenging another can decide such factors, just like one man challenging another decided whether she even got to be in a jaeger. In short, 'strength' (or even 'masculinity') is defined not just by physical strength but also social strength, and Mako only had the first (and least important for a feminist character, in my opinion) trait. (also I loving hate Joss Whedon's idea of strong feminist characters, but not because they are 'one of the guys' or any such thing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Chuck lacks the ability to tell someone he loves them directly, it's no surprise he puts on a front in all his interactions with others in a world where you expect physical violence against another to be normalised and what he interprets acting like a Man means. The point I was making is that maybe in relation to that reference is you can view the presentation of the scene in Pacific Rim(considering how this connects them thematically) like the scene in Drive as a third person, like the woman in the scene. This ties into the point about Mako, she is passive in the scene and even thanks Raleigh for beating up chuck to defend her, now consider in a more straight forward train of thought(you as the woman/third person) how reckless that action(starting the fight) is if Raleigh in some way seriously injures or kills Chuck, you're down a Jaeger pilot and that would be bad in the larger context of character motivations within movie, no? Raleigh is the selfish reckless rear end in a top hat, sorry no, he's just a nice guy. With regards to Mako as Strong Female Character but not feminist, the line of critique I'm sort of referring to ties to the Bechdel test point as well. Ripley is oft maligned in this sense as a character, archetype if you want, the simple idea that a Strong Female Character is one who must embody the qualities we associate with being a man(or what is intended by saying this is insofar as what men should think of as a strong woman) in a broader cultural context(western culture anyway). Why that means some might think a valid portrayal of a strong woman on screen needs to embody these qualities, but that it's a very narrow(arguably misguided) definition of strength. This is apart from what a character's intentions might be, they can embody great ideals we strive for in reality but become horribly misguided in their journey to the point of becoming a villain. It's like the paradox of good intentions that can lead to, or justify, horrific outcomes. Also this isn't a search for perfection, quite the opposite, it's trying to love something(faults included) and attempting to gain better awareness through that love and how all these strands(ideas) tie together to create better understanding of a much bigger picture. The fact this movie can inspire interesting discussion and ideas isn't a bad thing and the fact people want to continue on that discussion in different ways makes the movie a lot better in my opinion, or would you rather build a wall to try and keep certain aspects of that discussion out? OldPueblo posted:Out of curiosity what is considered success for a female character, having big boobs and making babies? The successful seduction of a male character? What is uniquely feminine? In creating separate goals for female and male characters isn't that where the sexism comes in? Wasn't it better having the two act as one and be equal? Really? Ripley is a strong feminist character and portrayal of a woman on screen to me, it is however only one particular way to demonstrate that. The character has been watered down so much in various incarnations(simple definitions) that the ideal at the characters very core is now often portrayed as a caricature in genre movies, like a very superficial reference to borrow credibility. As Danger said about the Whedonesque idea of feminism, it has good intentions but the end result is pretty toxic and seems to, in an abstract sense, both embrace the ideal behind LGBT politics while still being deeply homophobic/bigoted, for me it's a darkly humorous absurd idea of feminism that is actually so scary I have to laugh at the notion as a release. :efb brawleh fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Whedon's Black Widow is the quintessential example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Everything is some search for the mythical perfect piece of media now. There's no middle ground. There's no 'this is a good step in the right direction, but...' You have to walk before you can run. I'm honestly goddamn surprised that the same people are willing to keep going on about this over and over again. I regret not adding the phrase, "albeit, it's far from perfect, Pacific Rim is a good step in the right direction for Hollywood movies to go in portraying a good female character." This is honestly how I feel. Despite the fact that I am genuinely embarrassed that since the movie does only a few minor concessions towards gender equality it is honestly more progressive than most blockbusters. But it is also wasteful to dismiss the efforts in a movie like Pacific Rim just because it doesn't have 90% of it's cast female, and the men barely being visible on the sidelines. You gotta take your victories where you can get them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Welp I'm aroused. I fully expect the porn parody to have rocket hips. Nympho Typhoon and Oralchi star in Pacific Rimjob.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Out of curiosity what is considered success for a female character, having big boobs and making babies? The successful seduction of a male character? What is uniquely feminine? In creating separate goals for female and male characters isn't that where the sexism comes in? Wasn't it better having the two act as one and be equal? So it is not entirely about being "feminine", and of course your examples are ridiculous, it is more about using methods outside of (or in addition to) the typical patriarchal system, which is usually (especially in film) about using violence as a tool to accomplish your goals. "Strong Female Characters" usually only strive to prove they are "just as good as men!" by trying to emulate (usually by using violence) the strong males around them (bonus points if they do so while still looking hot in skin tight latex and pumps). So in Aliens, Ripley was a good feminist character because she didn't only rely on going in and murdering aliens, and she was contrasted by Vasquez who - while a solid female character herself - was not a feminist character because she only acted "like a man" (and was subsequently killed along with nearly all of the other soldiers). In Pacific Rim, Mako strives to be "one of the guys" and then after getting over her weaknesses (I am not going to comment on whether this aspect was insulting or not), eventually does. She does not contribute anything "unique" to the partnership at all, much less anything "uniquely feminine". Also, Milky Moor posted:Everything is some search for the mythical perfect piece of media now. There's no middle ground. There's no 'this is a good step in the right direction, but...' You have to walk before you can run. I'm honestly goddamn surprised that the same people are willing to keep going on about this over and over again. Of course there is a middle ground, but we are (or at least well should be) way past the point where "a female character who has a speaking role and fights alongside the men" is still considered "middle ground". At this point that should be the bare minimum. We already have examples like Ripley who is great but is also over 30 years past at this point. To use your analogy, we have been walking for a goddamn long time and it would be nice if we could at least break into a brisk jog rather than all of these stops and starts. I am not even specifically talking about PR here, but it is not out of line to demand more from our media.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Welp I'm aroused. I fully expect the porn parody to have rocket hips. American or Japanese porn parody?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
SomeJazzyRat posted:I regret not adding the phrase, "albeit, it's far from perfect, Pacific Rim is a good step in the right direction for Hollywood movies to go in portraying a good female character." Why do you think of Pacific Rim, specifically, as one of the more progressive blockbusters in it's portrayal of women in light of movies like Salt, Avengers, Star Trek, Resident Evil franchise and so on. For me this caricature of a Strong Female Character is present, to varying degrees with varying degrees of subversion(or not) within most big blockbuster genre movies these days. This isn't to be combative, I'm genuinely curious why you think Pacific Rim stands apart or should be given concession in that light as a step in the right direction. E:Just want to throw in a great quote from Layer Cake in regards to the Whedonesque idea of feminism and how I view that with inherent homophobia within a broader cultural context. Layer Cake posted:XXXX:Crazy Larry was gay. vvv:Interesting idea in a subversive way, a character generally relegated to the background within the movie, has few speaking lines and discarded very quickly when actually coming to the fore. Still doesn't make Pacific Rim stand apart for me though. If you believe the ideal is equality through drifting, that you view a pilot as the main one creates something of a paradox within that ideal as it implies an unequal relationship(passing thought in relation to gender politics). Just to clarify, I don't believe the drifting relationships are equal within the movie, after all there are masters and slave relationships. brawleh fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
brawleh posted:Why do you think of Pacific Rim, specifically, as one of the more progressive blockbusters in it's portrayal of women in light of movies like Salt, Avengers, Star Trek, Resident Evil franchise and so on. For me this caricature of a Strong Female Character is present, to varying degrees with varying degrees of subversion(or not) within most big blockbuster genre movies these days. This isn't to be combative, I'm genuinely curious why you think Pacific Rim stands apart or should be given concession in that light as a step in the right direction. Everyone is focusing on the wrong female character, is the problem. Forget Mako, look at the main pilot for Cherno Alpha (looks like that page may have the first name wrong, though). Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Wait a minute, the actress who played the female Cherno Alpha pilot...is actually Canadian? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Pacific Rim is about fighting stuff, so there's nothing wrong with Mako being a fighter, excelling at violence and bravery, etc. It's not that any of the things she DOES are insufficiently feminist or whatever, it's that she's relegated to the status of largely silent supporting character when she's so perfectly positioned to be the center of the story. Mako should have been the audience identification character - our experience of the world of the movie should have been mediated by her shounen zeal for getting into a jaeger rather than he male lead's bland, weary competence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:And then there's General Battuta - who I normally agree with - doing the whole 'well, you see, there's smart intelligent people who understand that films are fake constructs ( I think I did a pretty fair job of explaining how both sides think in an even-handed way  At least, that was my intent.But, look, if you feel that people are too fast to criticize...I think the problem is that the mistakes we often see again and again are both obvious and so easy to avoid. As Ferrinus said, the reason it's easy to criticize Pacific Rim's handling of gender is because it's so obviously Mako's story, but she's still not allowed to be the protagonist. We're shown her fighting skills as if that makes everything okay, but she doesn't get the agency and subjectivity Raleigh does. It's still a movie written from his point of view. (Raleigh was the male lead, right?  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Wait a minute, the actress who played the female Cherno Alpha pilot...is actually Canadian? Yup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBrywh4q5jo
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Pacific Rim is about fighting stuff, so there's nothing wrong with Mako being a fighter, excelling at violence and bravery, etc. This still wouldn't make her a feminist character even if she was the main character and all over the spotlight, because her arc is still "I wish I could be accepted as 'one of the guys'". That's fine and everything, and people would be complaining less if she was in the spotlight more and if there were more female roles in general (like, maybe not SomeJazzyRat's hypothetical 90% female cast but at least more than a single speaking role), it would just be neutral. And neutral is acceptable, not every film needs to be actively feminist, but most could do better in their treatment of women in general. That's what is frustrating about the whole "step in the right direction" idea. If you are wandering around in loving circles you are bound to have a few "steps in the right direction", they just don't mean anything. It is like we are supposed to reward any film that doesn't relegate all women to romantic interests/props/plot-devices. That should be the bare minimum for not being actively misogynistic, not a break-through for feminist ideals. PR gets it better than most blockbusters but that is not saying much at all, and it is practically insulting to have the attitude of "hey there is a woman in a co-starring role, what more do you loving want!?".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Almost all of the paradoxes and challenges of writing a good female character are solved when your cast has more than a couple women. You don't have to write your women characters as ambassadors for half of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:This still wouldn't make her a feminist character even if she was the main character and all over the spotlight, because her arc is still "I wish I could be accepted as 'one of the guys'". That's fine and everything, and people would be complaining less if she was in the spotlight more and if there were more female roles in general (like, maybe not SomeJazzyRat's hypothetical 90% female cast but at least more than a single speaking role), it would just be neutral. And neutral is acceptable, not every film needs to be actively feminist, but most could do better in their treatment of women in general. I definitely agree that the Shatterdome crew needed to have way more women in general, such that being a Jaeger pilot wasn't implicitly a guy thing. If, I don't know, Hansen's dad were a woman and Newt were a woman and Sasha actually said or did a single loving thing, then Mako's fervent desire to join the ranks of the Jaeger pilots and to mercilessly crush the loathsome Kaiju under the iron heels of her warmech would be totally cool. It's a problem that Kaiju fighting's coded as a male activity, but it's not a problem that Mako really wants to do it. Really, that's what makes Mako such a perfect audience identification character. Surely most of the people who went to see Pacific Rim fit into the "gosh, I wish I had a giant robot to fight monsters and be the hero with" demographic. It'd have been friggin' perfect! quote:That's what is frustrating about the whole "step in the right direction" idea. If you are wandering around in loving circles you are bound to have a few "steps in the right direction", they just don't mean anything. It is like we are supposed to reward any film that doesn't relegate all women to romantic interests/props/plot-devices. That should be the bare minimum for not being actively misogynistic, not a break-through for feminist ideals. PR gets it better than most blockbusters but that is not saying much at all, and it is practically insulting to have the attitude of "hey there is a woman in a co-starring role, what more do you loving want!?". Yeah, I don't think PR is a "step in the right direction" in any meaningful sense. Maybe it would've been several decades ago, but right now it's at best par for the course and arguably actively bad because of how it managed to not merely forget to include women but to actively squander a perfect chance to make a movie about a woman without simultaneously making the movie about the fact that the main character's a woman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Almost all of the paradoxes and challenges of writing a good female character are solved when your cast has more than a couple women. You don't have to write your women characters as ambassadors for half of humanity. As a side point and to echo/expand on this, the paradoxes presented within the movie shouldn't necessarily strictly be viewed as a problem that needs solving by the movie, in my opinion that's why the archetype born of Ripley(there are also good historical and other cultural examples) is so badly handled. It's more important in a wider cultural context we have these discussions about it however and what it means. The characters failings(both text and subtext) and so on as the problem is, putting it very simply, adding more agency. This doesn't mean violence(this can take on many forms) shouldn't be in movies or direct action through force shouldn't be taken if the character can see no other way to resolve the situation from their position(whether these things are failings of the character(s) is subjective but it helps to give that some context). The most violent action I can think of for many of the characters in Pacific Rim is to express love(compassion, empathy) with reference to Mako's dream sequence and Newts encounter informing this. Moving forward, maybe someone reading these kinds of discussions might actually strive to write, create or critique where they wouldn't have before the importance of agency within characters(saying they're good or bad isn't as important as identifying the why) and bring the idea with them when consuming other forms of media. It's important to note Ripley was created from a gender neutral position(sort of), as I recall they initially considered it as a male lead? A role written as man, but through casting or later drafts they choose a woman to portray the role and it becomes rendered gender neutral(in a sense, we are one and the same etc) this is a significantly powerful and meaningful gesture(within a broader social and cultural context) than if they were to have written Ripley, initially, as a woman(this would likely result in a very different character). Rather than simply addressing a symptom we should be striving to find the cause and identify our relationship with it(This ties into how we construct the image of an Other, in terms of the Real and Simulacra, also without straying too far off point, this has relevance with how society constructs gender roles).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I definitely agree that the Shatterdome crew needed to have way more women in general, such that being a Jaeger pilot wasn't implicitly a guy thing. If, I don't know, Hansen's dad were a woman and Newt were a woman and Sasha actually said or did a single loving thing, then Mako's fervent desire to join the ranks of the Jaeger pilots and to mercilessly crush the loathsome Kaiju under the iron heels of her warmech would be totally cool. It's a problem that Kaiju fighting's coded as a male activity, but it's not a problem that Mako really wants to do it. Yeah, after watching this movie it struck me how easy it would have been to make a few more characters women. There are a total of two females with lines (with the Russian pilot actually dying in the same scene where she first speaks), compared to 8+ notable male characters. Tendo, at the very least, could have been swapped out with a women with no difficulty and no effect on the story. (Sadly, I think making Herc female would have had people interpreting the strained relationship between Herc and Chuck as Herc's failure as a woman and not his failure as a parent.) This movie is a good example of how most media isn't "feminist" unless it deliberately and actively tries to be. The default is male, and so many writers and directors and whatever don't even think to make more characters women. It just never crosses their mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Mako should have been the audience identification character - our experience of the world of the movie should have been mediated by her shounen zeal for getting into a jaeger rather than he male lead's bland, weary competence. Ferrinus posted:Really, that's what makes Mako such a perfect audience identification character. Surely most of the people who went to see Pacific Rim fit into the "gosh, I wish I had a giant robot to fight monsters and be the hero with" demographic. It'd have been friggin' perfect! I think I have to disagree. I think that if the hero was a novice with the "gosh, I wish I had a giant robot to fight monsters and be the hero with" mentality, the film would have been insufferable to me. This was the mentality of the first years of war (the first ten minutes of the movie) - "the Jaeger pilots are so cool, so special... I want in". I prefer the mentality presented in the film, where the pilots are just every-people who just won the genetic lottery and only need to do the job. And they need all the support of the Shatterdome crew (witness that Pentecost is not making his grand speech just to the pilots, but to the entirety of the Shatterdome). Also, I think of Raleigh as less the hero of the film and more as of the camera character, the bland JRPG protagonist. If Mako were to be the camera character, and if none of the other aspects of her character changed - especially her backstory, attachment to Pentecost, drive to avenge her family - we would get that angst full in the face. That would be insufferable. Guy A. Person posted:So it is not entirely about being "feminine", and of course your examples are ridiculous, it is more about using methods outside of (or in addition to) the typical patriarchal system, which is usually (especially in film) about using violence as a tool to accomplish your goals. "Strong Female Characters" usually only strive to prove they are "just as good as men!" by trying to emulate (usually by using violence) the strong males around them (bonus points if they do so while still looking hot in skin tight latex and pumps). So in Aliens, Ripley was a good feminist character because she didn't only rely on going in and murdering aliens, and she was contrasted by Vasquez who - while a solid female character herself - was not a feminist character because she only acted "like a man" (and was subsequently killed along with nearly all of the other soldiers). Again, I don't think that Mako strives to be "one of the guys" - again, mostly because I don't believe there's any 'guys' to start with. Typically male groups, such as the military or the police, put a lot of stress on uniformity and group identity - these are the elements that shape this identity. Also, they glorify the group as a whole. In PR, the pilots are not a uniform group, and they are not especially glorified, either - again, this is what happened at the beginning of the war, which the film ridicules. The way I see it, Mako's quest is not to be "one of the guys". She is not trying to prove herself as 'just as good as a man!' Her quest is to prove herself to her teacher and to overcome his influence (which is a standard coming-of-age story) and to avenge her family (ditto, for heroes and heroines in fiction). She does not care, for example, what Chuck Hansen thinks about her, because, as far as she's concerned, he's irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
meristem posted:Again, I don't think that Mako strives to be "one of the guys" - again, mostly because I don't believe there's any 'guys' to start with. Typically male groups, such as the military or the police, put a lot of stress on uniformity and group identity - these are the elements that shape this identity. Also, they glorify the group as a whole. In PR, the pilots are not a uniform group, and they are not especially glorified, either - again, this is what happened at the beginning of the war, which the film ridicules. I think this is still ignoring a lot of context and looking at it from an idealized point of view. I would totally buy this if the organization was shown to be more diversified with more women scientists, engineers, pilots, etc (or if Mako was a man). The lack of women within the agency is important, it says something about Mako's role within the group. The only other woman is the Cherno Alpha pilot, and she takes on the Vasquez role, being there to establish the baseline for women within the group (although she is nowhere near as strong a character as Vasquez, she just fills a similar role). That is, she is a silent badass who is barely distinguishable from the other men and doesn't have much of a personality on her own. The scene where they are testing out potential partners for Raleigh is also important because IIRC there are no women there besides Mako either. Even if your reading is correct (which it is not incorrect, it is solid in a vacuum but it just ignores real world gender politics), it still wouldn't make Mako a feminist character because she doesn't do anything to break away from the patriarchal organization or change it from within. If you remove feminism from the equation, she is - like you said - just a pilot who was trying to surpass her teacher and avenge her family. Her quest is to be "good enough to be a pilot" and that is fine, she does complete her character arc, but you can't really read it in any pro-feminist way (at least in our modern era; I guess it would be a pretty solid Second Wave film 30-50 years ago).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Annan posted:Yeah, after watching this movie it struck me how easy it would have been to make a few more characters women. There are a total of two females with lines (with the Russian pilot actually dying in the same scene where she first speaks), compared to 8+ notable male characters. Tendo, at the very least, could have been swapped out with a women with no difficulty and no effect on the story. (Sadly, I think making Herc female would have had people interpreting the strained relationship between Herc and Chuck as Herc's failure as a woman and not his failure as a parent.) You identify the problem with simply swapping a gender role around in a movie, but then advocate changing a role around. Like you're alluding to, we need to be careful(nuanced) about criticism of media(art) in this way, because it isn't just about a character within a world in an abstract sense our(cultural collective I guess, not you specifically) perception changes when the same actions/lines are spoken by a woman than by a man(lots of baggage relating to harmful stereotypes being re-enforced etc). When SMG talked about respecting the opinion of Jefferoo for posting in the manner he did, it's good that any form of art should evoke a strong emotional reaction and it was present(in spirit anyway) when arguing whether or not a synthetic or created life form is any less alive(for reference sake from my childhood, ST:TNG The Measure of a Man, which colours my perception of the Kaiju as a Race). Why talking about how well the movie is doing financially isn't that good(I know you want it to be successful, so GDT can make more of them and so on) but you are, in a sense, engaging in a line of argument or reasoning that means any art only has value if you see some form of direct financial returns on an investment(another example about how we engage or define value in art and the importance of how we define value, in this case meta critic scores, Obsidian Entertainment and the New Vegas Royalties fiasco due to those meta critic scores). When you talk about any art with emphasis on value being how much money it makes as a metric, it's something of a losing argument, a complete gamble. What you should do is take a stand and say gently caress that noise this movie was great and here is why "I loved watching robot fists punching inhuman monsters". This is why I respect Jefferoo's opinion on the movie, why the movie is fascist to me but I don't think he is for expressing his opinion(not to say we shouldn't disagree or argue). In a way this ties to the psychoanalysis chat from much earlier and why it's easier to talk about these subjects/ideas/concepts through vehicles of fiction, because in reality the stakes are astronomically high(real effects on peoples lives) and so much more important, we can use the unpacked ideas and discussion surrounding fiction to get a better read on things. vvv:Think of the comic in this way, it is the pilot of Cherno Alpha in the movie, off to the side and not really the protagonist so doesn't carry the same weight/strength. The movie is Mako, center stage and the largest unifying point of identification for the audience. Also be careful, you seem to be veering close to  if not already there.
brawleh fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
That's because could you imagine putting a typical woman with PMS in the cockpit of a Jeager? Yoweeeee! Kidding aside, the truth is the graphic novel actually showcased several important women, maybe they just felt putting them in the movie would have been like having those extra scenes that get cut later since they don't deal with the main plot. Also piloting a Jaeger did seem to be taxing on the body, maybe that's just naturally better suited for the stronger sex (Men) and Russian lady was badass enough to make the minimum grade. Mako was a necessity based on emergency factors. It could be as easy as most women didn't WANT to do those jobs, how many female car/plane mechanics (shatterdome mechanic) are there compared to men in real life for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
meristem posted:I think I have to disagree. I think that if the hero was a novice with the "gosh, I wish I had a giant robot to fight monsters and be the hero with" mentality, the film would have been insufferable to me. This was the mentality of the first years of war (the first ten minutes of the movie) - "the Jaeger pilots are so cool, so special... I want in". I prefer the mentality presented in the film, where the pilots are just every-people who just won the genetic lottery and only need to do the job. And they need all the support of the Shatterdome crew (witness that Pentecost is not making his grand speech just to the pilots, but to the entirety of the Shatterdome). What? The hero having a tragic backstory and a thirst to prove themselves would be insufferable, as opposed to the hero being a block of granite? I mean, look. Mako isn't excited about fighting giant monsters and being a hero. She wants to avenge her destroyed family/city and protect the world because it's the right thing to do. She cares deeply about excelling, in contrast to the older pilots who are all some combination of washed-up, cynical, narcissistic, or phoning it in. Either way, Mako's zeal for the Jaeger program would match that of the audience, because in both cases we've shown up because we really want to see giant monsters fight each other. This is vastly superior to the protagonist we got, who already knew everything, was already good at everything, and appeared to be dumbly going through the motions whenever he actually did anything. In a way, Raleigh as the protagonist is almost an on-the-nose criticism of the movie, a tacit acknowledgment that while people pretend Pacific Rim is a fun, cool, light-hearted movie about brave heroes fighting bad guys that for once isn't bogged down by all that dreary cynicism, it's actually a totally proscribed and perfunctory exercise, a cargo cult recreation of something everyone knows is supposed to be fun and cool despite the fact that we just ain't feelin' it anymore. That's why the audience identification character is a weary grown up, has seen all this poo poo before and is stuck explaining it boredly to us, knows exactly what to expect, and has to be cajoled into buying back into the absurd subculture he thought he'd burned out on in his youth. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
I think it's almost a historical pattern that extreme existential crises (like the end of the Kaiju war, the Soviets during World War II, the British during the same Vietnam, so on) end up with a lot more women in combat and engineering positions, not less. The usual bullshit that keeps them out is washed away by sheer necessity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Well, it turns out my local Drive-In is showing Pacific Rim this weekend.... finally. (What took so long? Wow.) I figure it will be a nice treat for my kids to see it under the stars on the huge screen before they go back to school next week. I mean, we've already seen it in 2D and 3D Imax, but Drive-Ins are just cool, and this movie was pretty much made to be shown at one. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I think it's almost a historical pattern that extreme existential crises (like the end of the Kaiju war, the Soviets during World War II, the British during the same Vietnam, so on) end up with a lot more women in combat and engineering positions, not less. The usual bullshit that keeps them out is washed away by sheer necessity. That is usually after a large portion of men is already dead, why would this be the case here? There aren't that many pilots or engineers in jaeger program so their losses won't have a significant effect, and if cities get trashed by kaiju losses would be even between men and women. And at regular state of engineering and military there will probably be 1 woman to 8-10 men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
I don't think it is usually after a large portion of men are already dead. Women don't end up contributing in these positions because there aren't any men left to do the job - at least not historically. They end up in these roles because there's a desperate need for capable, motivated people regardless of sex. Particularly when your survival depends on very few people piloting very few machines, it's absolutely essential to get only the best engineers and support staff. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 19:28
|
|
Ferrinus posted:In a way, Raleigh as the protagonist is almost an on-the-nose criticism of the movie, a tacit acknowledgment that while people pretend Pacific Rim is a fun, cool, light-hearted movie about brave heroes fighting bad guys that for once isn't bogged down by all that dreary cynicism, it's actually a totally proscribed and perfunctory exercise, a cargo cult recreation of something everyone knows is supposed to be fun and cool despite the fact that we just ain't feelin' it anymore. Yeah, you got us. We're all just pretending we enjoyed the movie, but deep in our hearts we know that you are Right and we are Wrong. Idiot. Ramen Pride! posted:Well, it turns out my local Drive-In is showing Pacific Rim this weekend.... finally. (What took so long? Wow.) I figure it will be a nice treat for my kids to see it under the stars on the huge screen before they go back to school next week. Goddamn I would have loved to see Pacific Rim at the drive-in. Clipperton fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Has anyone stopped to consider the Jaeger's feelings on this? I mean the two pilots are drifting directly with the machine right? They might have some input. Someone with better art skills please take this and run with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Well, there is this comic: http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/you-win-another-pacific-rim-comic
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 20:25
|
|