SPOILERS AHEAD.
I loved the movie
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I thought it was unique, creative, and engaging. While it lagged briefly at points, it maintained a mostly well paced rhythm. The characters were fun, the action was among the better produced by American cinema, and the humor was simply superb.
Of course, this movie failed at the box office. I blame the fact that
no one seems to have heard of it. The reviews have come back mostly positive. One of the negative reviews frequently given, however, is that this movie is
misogynistic.
Interesting. I want to take a look at that, as well as another movie which I thought was quite good and which received criticisms for being
racist. Of course, that movie is
Avatar. As a storyteller, let me explain my perspective on how these movies use certain plot mechanics, and to what degree the movies themselves should be considered prejudiced.
So, let's talk about Avatar. "We've heard this story before." I agree. Not particularly unique; simply filled with more spectacle. "Why is it that people keep making movies where white people become the leader of non-white tribes? Why is it that we feel white people are needed to save them?" Ah. Now, there's a question.
Yes, Jake Sully is white. For sure. Kinda pale, actually. See that picture to the right? He's
pasty. It's interesting, though, that people zoom in on the fact that he's white. What they seem to be implying is that the fact that he is white is symbolic of our own need to dominate, or in a more liberal mentally,
redeem and save. He's not actually
just white, however. He's in a wheelchair. He's got tattoos. He's from the military. He's a twin. Yet all of these things are overlooked, and I didn't hear anyone saying that the movie represented how handicapped people are required to save foreign tribes.
Sully, an outsider, comes to win the trust of the natives. He's a twin—not the originally designated scientists; it's why he's military, and reckless. Thus, his being a
twin is a plot mechanic used to push the story forward.
The group Sully comes with is primarily American, at least by appearance. It's safe to say that this is more commentary on the way America treats natural resources, how businesses exploit others, and how we use military force. Thus, Sully being white is a part of this mechanic to comment on our current lifestyle.
Sully is from the military. This allows us to see the military and the scientific aspects of the situation on Pandora. It gives some dramatic interplay, including internal conflict, for Sully himself. This makes the movie more interesting.
Sully is handicapped. This makes his exploration of a new body more interesting, makes his desire to have his legs fixed an incentive that can be used to manipulate him (and which ultimately becomes a symbolic part of what he gives up in order to do what he feels is right).
And finally,
Sully is the white guy who saves the Pandoran tribes. True? Yep. But is it racist? Here's what I propose. To provide the sort of plot that this movie was aiming for, the main character has to have involvement in both factions. For the climax to be engaging, he has to be the hero. To be the hero, he has to stop the "white people" from being total douche bags (by killing them—with arrows, and birds). Sully's whiteness is simply a natural result of the other aims of the plot. It is not intentional. But, is it still
there?
Well, people can still claim that, intentional or not, it's symbolic. Certainly, symbols don't rely on being placed by the authors; some things shine through anyway. Still, the primary purpose of this film's details is to drive its own plot forward. If we're going to say that Sully's whiteness is symbolic of our prejudices due to his role in the film, we may also say that it's symbolic that Hispanic people are more nobly rebellious against authority (as with the pilot), smokers are going to make the best top-level scientists, and so forth. These are character details used to move the plot. They are
not intentionally, or very solidly, symbolic.
Now, let's move on to Scott Pilgrim. The love interest is Ramona. Much of the criticism for the movie being misogynistic is that Romona's character is . . . well . . . lacking. She rollerblades, she's sexually aggressive, a bit moody, and has seven evil exes. Oh, and she's pretty. This is
enough to make Scott Pilgrim want to date her, facing life-threatening situations for what the movie terms "love."
Well, obviously, she's not a particularly well developed character. Also, this view on love isn't precisely the best to idealize. Two notes thus far. 1) In the comic books, it explains that Scott gets obsessed with Romona because she is using the subspace highway in his brain. It "rewires his circuitry," or some such. I think this can also be seen as a statement of "we can't always choose who we fall for." 2) This isn't exactly designed to be a realistic romance movie. There are video game bars scattered through the film, random doors leading to other locations, bizarre fight sequences; you get the idea. Ramona is more of an excuse for these strange things to be happening—once more, a plot mechanic more than a fully rounded character.
People may take that as an indicator that the movie degrades the role of female characters, but it's really
all characters (even, to a lesser degree, Scott himself). People have also pointed out that Ramona's character isn't really "self-sufficient." She just stands on the sidelines as Scott battles all of her exes for her.
Okay, two additional things. First, the movie already got a bit lost in sluggish pacing. In-depth, dramatic discussions about love and purpose aren't what the film's about. As a parallel to video games, it's a simplified version of life: you have a goal, you know what you have to do to get there, it's hard, and you do it. I think that works for this movie.
Second, I feel that if Ramona's standing on the sidelines plays a symbolic role, it's in the commentary on the internal struggles of relationships. This movie is really an externalization of those internal problems, and in this case, the feeling of "having to defeat your partner's exes" makes sense. People struggle with their own insecurities, feeling that they're not as good as the last romantic partner, or that they are being compared to
whatever. So, in this way, I feel it has very little to do with Ramona. Again—a plot mechanic used to say something about an internal struggle, not a universal or idealized truth about the behavior of women.
Now, let's get on to Roxy. This is Ramona's evil ex-girlfriend, and the one person that Ramona faces. She has to control Scott's hands in order to have him do any of the fighting, and Roxy is defeated by touching the back of her knee. After this point, she bursts into sexual noises before
dying.
This is probably the most misogynistic thing about the movie, but let me provide an explanation. I think this choice was made very consciously. We can have Scott beating the hell out of a girl, or we can avoid it. We can have Scott pummel her to death, or we can find something else. I think that the movie creators likely predicted a poor audience reaction should there be a violent depiction of a fist fight wherein the male character beat the female character to death.
While some action movies do tread this ground comfortably, you can also see a strong trend of "When a girl dies, it's usually because another girl kills her." Perhaps this is some strange attempt at continuing the nobility of "you don't hit a girl." At the very least, this may be an attempt to say that Scott doesn't feel he should he a girl.
As for Roxy making sex noises until she explodes—well, I take some issue with that. There are implications of how "women are defeated" here that I dislike. While the men go out in a blaze of glory, the female ex essentially orgasms to death.
Then, we have the fact that Scott is kind of a douche. He is dating a young girl at the beginning of the film, but almost immediately abandons her for the punked out Ramona. He kisses Ramona before breaking up with Knives. There is an implication that he has dropped other women in similarly crappy ways. If the movie had him as the hero and left it at that, this might be a tad problematic, but it really doesn't. In the end, it's Scott's dumb and douchey decisions that lead to him getting killed.
How Scott eventually wins is by being responsible for his bad decisions and gaining self-respect. It was not
love that pulled him through this (he gets defeated when he uses the "power of love").
My conclusion is that, while there may be some misogynistic moments, the film itself isn't about any sort of chauvinist message. Rather, most of the things taken as "symbolic" (and subsequently blown out of proportion) are plot mechanics used to make way for an interesting, action-based film. The message of the film is not, "If a girl is pretty enough, even if she's kind of a bitch, you should fight for her." Rather, it states that a person must fight through life battles for themselves, learn to be responsible, gain self-respect, and figure out how to like themselves if they are to "win."
Like the messages or not, Scott Pilgrim is an excellent movie. While its action sequences aren't perfect, they are well constructed, and the general energy in this balanced action-comedy is a rare find indeed.
