Gender Representation in Disney's 'Frozen' and Hollywood's "girl" problem.

         Last week I saw Disney's Frozen.  My initial reaction: it could have been worse.  As a Sociologist that studies gender, particularly gender representation in media ( even more specifically in film and TV).  I have had a problem with Disney's "girl" problem.  Consistently, Disney's representation of women (especially during their "Renaissance" in the late 1980's early 1990's) and the gendered messages they present to little girls have reinforced gender stereotypes and promoted dangerous relationship behavior; whether that be the promotion of body modification (i.e. plastic surgery), encouraging girls to stay with emotionally abusive kidnappers (because they'll be able to change them), being sexually passive, having no sexual agency, elitism,  sexualization (the exotic stereotype), Masculinization (reinforcement of the binary) and superficiality. Disney has been the source of gender stereotypes and maintenance of polarizing gendered expectations for over half a century. Every so often, they (Disney) would subtly and artfully repackaging these messages to fit the current target of potential consumers.  Recently however, with films like Brave, Wreck-It-Ralph, and Frozen it seems Disney is attempting to present girls ( and girl's stories) with the depth and complexity that they deserve.  While this is a step in the right direction (Brave and  Frozen being the most divergent from the "classic" Disney model), Frozen still falls into a few of the old traps and also creates new ones that set a dangerous precedent moving forward.  

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

Trying to Right the Ship.

       The central relationship in Frozen is between two sisters.  As with the mother/daughter relationship in Brave, this film eliminates the necessity to have a love interest (that is always male) which usually culminates into the tired princess trope of "damsel in distress". While there is a potential romantic partner for one of the sisters in Frozen, that is not the main focus of the film.  In fact,throughout the film, Disney seems to be poking fun at itself as it challenges the" love at first sight" trope meanwhile, cashing in on the audiences expectation that "true love" comes only in the form of romantic heterosexual monogamy.The "true love" in Frozen is platonic sisterly love; a welcomed change of pace for Disney. 

       With Frozen, Brave (and to a lesser extent Wreck-it Ralph) we are finally getting a handful of Disney female protagonists that do not have to be in a relationship or be married in order to be considered complete or live "happily ever after". These changes are necessary in order to display the female characters (in Disney films) as far more three dimensional than its predecessors as well as represent the cultural shift that gives and maintains female social agency.  While it is important to encourage Disney to maintain this current trajectory, it is important to understand context.  Female autonomy and agency in Disney animated films is in its infancy (beginning only in 2012) while award-winning animation directors like Hayao Miyazaki have pioneered and championed such ideals since 1974. I don't think Disney should be praised for being late to the party (nearly 40 years late).  Quite the contrary, their prolonged reluctance to embrace egalitarian ideals should change the outlook on the aforementioned films as outliers, exceptions, rather than the new rule.  

New (old) Traps 

     As structurally progressive as Frozen's story might seem, it still falls into a few old gender traps. The main gender trap that Frozen  falls into is female representation; both in the way that female character's are drawn and how they are portrayed.  Firstly, the women in Frozen are drawn out of proportion.  The eyes of the characters are bigger than their wrist. Drawing female characters with big eyes has been used in other types of animation (typically anime) to represent youth and innocence that borders on child-like ignorance.  In fact, if you look at the newer films like Brave, Frozen and Wreck-It Ralph the majority of female characters have larger eyes than their male counterparts, repackaging the idea that women are more innocent and childlike.  

      Secondly,  the character of the Ice Queen and her powers is an allegory to how women are treated and controlled in our culture.  As a child, she is portrayed as being out of control (with her powers) a label that is often applied to women in our culture who are different or speak out or speak up.  She is then locked away from the outside world, seen as a danger to herself and to others.  Women constantly get this message that the world outside is a scary place and they need to be protected from it (usually by men) or protect themselves through isolation (not going to bars and club, changing their behaviors) because, if not, they are often blamed for their own victimization. 

   Finally, once the Ice Queen in Frozen  is starting to control her powers and gain confidence in her self and her abilities she is almost immediately given a new (more sexy) dress and is drawn moving in a more sensual manner with long strides and swaying hips.  While this could be an analogy to the direct and positive correlation between sexual agency and confidence, it comes off as an unnecessary sexualization, that now a woman has power, she must be objectified. This is a common tactic by the media, controlling women's bodies and controlling women through their bodies.

    About half way though my viewing of the film I tested the films "progressiveness" by gender swapping the roles.  I asked myself, if the sisters were two brothers, would they be treated the same?  The answer...NO. If the Ice Queen was a boy, he would  have been trained to hone is powers and his skills (most likely through the typical "hero's journey) and in the end he would have redeemed himself in the eyes of his people by defeating a snow wizard or beast etc).  However, not only does this film fall into some old gender traps, it also adds to a growing problem in  gender representation that can have disastrous consequences.

A Dangerous Precedent

  Frozen, along with Brave are a part of a growing subtle form of sexism that is going undetected by both the casual observer and the scholar. 

   "Have it all" Sexism is a term that refers to a new type of sexist female representation in the media that requires female characters that are shown to have careers (with varying degrees of power), agency and  autonomy or who are being portrayed as physically strong, and strong willed, must also identify (or in some cases learn to identify) with traditional female gender norms and scripts.  The message is that it is OK for girls to have agency and social power in our society as long as they don't forget that they also have to be wives and mothers (i.e. sex objects and reproductive vessels.) This maintains the value of women to be in their body, and their representation as full and complete human beings is a distant second. One of the best examples of this is in Brave where Marida is allowed to be a warrior as long as she is also a lady. This "noble lady" motif is also used in Frozen.  Being a lady, is usually translated in these films as maintaining cis (traditional, binary specific) gender norms. Therefore, you see Marida in Brave and the sisters in Frozen doing a lot of action and adventuring while still wearing a dress, heels and make-up...emphasizing that even though they may be engaging in typically masculine activities, they haven't lost their femininity.  We see this with Superheros all of the time: from Catwoman's heels in The Dark Knight Rises to Katniss Everdeen's Wedding dress in Catching Fire.  "Have it all" sexism makes sure that we don't forget that "strong women" are also "ladies". This creates a frustrating double bind for women that is paralleled in what Arline Hochschild calls "the second shift": the idea that while women can have careers, they are still primarily responsible for all child care and domestic work...Thus women can be complex and diverse as long as they maintain societal cultural stereotypes.

    We are starting to see more and more evidence of "have it all" sexism and its effects. From a manufactured crisis of women losing domestic skills, to more professional women feeling the desire to maintain domestic activities (cooking baking and sewing) to cope with the stress of their careers; the validation of women is still only through one particular lens...their value to others rather than the value to themselves.

   A much more scary outcome of this "have it all" Sexism is how it relates to sexual violence. Because women are gaining more power and agency it is being framed in our culture as taking that power away from boys and men.  The most mild response to this ( female agency) is a manufactured boy crisis where boys and men become the only demographic that matters.  This is perfectly illustrated by the titles of films like Tangled (the story of Rapunzel) and Frozen ( the story of the Ice Queen).  The titles of the films were changed from the source material because Disney didn't want to alienate their "boy market" with a story that was so blatantly about girls.  The most extreme response to this (female agency) is the use of sexual violence and humiliation (revenge porn, street harassment, rape etc.) as a way for boys to "take back the power" from these women who have emasculated them.  Thus, in this context, rape and sexual violence is rationalized and justified as a pathway to regaining masculinity.

   More needs to be written about "have-it all" sexism and we need to be more vigilant in identifying the examples and the sources of this growing problem. 

The Films of Christopher Nolan: Memento

        The second film in my in-depth analysis of the the films of Christopher Nolan.  Is the engrossing twisting thriller Memento.  With such a riveting and complex story as Following ( Nolan's first film) one might think that Christopher Nolan would fall into a sophomore slump, relying on some of the same plot devices and story telling gimmicks that were in his first film.  However, with Memento, Nolan proves that he can consistently create an engaging film experience, one that changes with each additional viewing. 
       The plot of the film is deceptively simple.  A man, Leonard (Guy Pierce) is trying to track down the men responsible for the rape and murder of his wife. He is aided in this quest by Teddy ( Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie ( Carrie- Anne Moss). However there are a few plot devices that make this simple story into a serpentine labyrinth of  manipulation, double-crosses, and a questioning of reality.

"Do I lie to myself to be happy?" Leonard  

         

         The first plot device that Nolan uses that elevates the film to something extraordinary is Leonard's state of mind.  Ever since the attack on his wife, Leonard has been diagnosed with anterograde amnesia . Simply put,  Leonard has short term memory loss; he can't make new memories.  Throughout the film he has to rely on pictures ( and other "mementos") and his own hand written notes to fit the pieces of the puzzle (that is his life) together.  As the film progresses, Nolan illustrates just how fragile our memory can be by showing how these things can be manipulated to alter Leonard's behavior and his understanding of the world around him.   Leonard's story then becomes Nolan's allegory to how dependent memory is on interpretation and context.  This idea is rooted in Sociology, specifically in the theoretical framework of Social Constructionism.

" What is real, is real in its consequences."



           Introduced in the United States by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in the book entitled The Social Construction of Reality, Social constructionism understands that our knowledge (and by extension our very reality) is based upon a set of social conditions that are interpreted by individuals.  If those interpretations are collectively understood by a group of people they become "real" to that group.  Everyday behavior, as well as complex moral and philosophical ideas of good and evil, right and wrong, are all socially constructed and context dependent.  What is good and moral in one part of the world at one particular point in history, may be immoral and wrong in another part at another time.  The only reason anything has meaning is because it is given meaning by individuals. Once that is established, that meaning needs to be agreed upon and passed down to the next generation through the process of social learning known as socialization. At that point, reality is constructed.  Nolan shows the audience how easy this constructed knowledge can be altered and thereby change our perceptions of the world and our actions within it.  With that, Nolan forces the audience to take on the Sociological perspective in examining their own life in how dependent we are on our own perceptions.  This plays on a common question: "Would I have made the same decision ( or acted differently) if I would have more (or less) information?" While in our world hindsight is 20/20; in Nolan's story there is no hindsight, there is only the present, only the reality that Leonard is actively creating.  At the film's climax the audience realizes the dangers of this unchecked social construction due to a lack of self reflection (or in Leonard's case, an inability to be self reflexive).

            The second plot device that makes Memento an extraordinary film is Nolan's used of a reverse chronology storytelling.  With a few rewound shots in the beginning of the film, Nolan cements in the audiences mind that the events of the film are happening in reverse order.  Helped by overlapping the end and beginning of a particular scene the audience is not only trying to understand the story, but they are piecing the plot and character's together along with Leonard as if they were in Leonard's mind.  This device allows for thrilling character reveals and plot twist that would be seen as boring and predicable if told in a linear fashion.  I would go so far as to say the film only works because of this device.  It takes a clear picture and turns it into a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.  In fact, the only reason the audience can be "self reflexive" as previously mentioned, is because they have gone on this journey with Leonard and unlike him, they carry the weight and consequences of his actions...something that he can never do.
             Memento is the film that brought Christopher Nolan to the attention of the mainstream.  It was a huge critical success and opened a lot of doors for him to make a lot of his subsequent work. This film was so lauded by critics that there are many who believe that this is where he peaked, and all of his other films are pale imitations of this success.  I disagree.
           While I believe this film to be brilliant and sociologically relevant, it only serves as a taste of Nolan's capabilities as a writer and a director.  While there are similarities between Memento and the rest of Nolan's work in  tone, and theme they are not the same film because he asks different questions about the human condition and our capacity to understand both ourselves and the social world around us.  That, in part, is what makes him great.

Gal Gadot and The Wonder Woman Conundrum

              
                     Gal Gadot has just been cast in the increasingly bloated Man of Steel sequel now (not so) affectionately referred to as "Batman vs. Superman".  I had mentioned in a previous post  that I thought Warner Bros (WB) was doing Superman (and Batman) a disservice by putting them in the same film for (what appears to be) purely financial reasons. The addition of Wonder Woman (and Rumors of Barry Allen aka The Flash) in this film is proof that the WB is slowly transforming the Man of Steel sequel into a Justice League film without build up through solo film franchises (AKA the Marvel method) to develop the character(s).  This method may have worked if there was some semblance of a plan in its inception. Yet, the more information that is released about the film's development, the more fans get the sense that they (the studio, Snyder and Goyer) are cobbling ideas together with dangerously weak plot threads (e.g. Wonder Woman is going to be a love interest for Bruce Wayne and her origins may be tied to ancient Kryptonians). Wonder Woman, Amazonian Princess (and now the God of War) deserves better than that.
               Psychologist William Moulton Marston is credited as Wonder Woman's creator (even though it was Marston's wife and assistant that were the more than instrumental in the process) in 1941.  The third Superhero in history, behind Superman (1938) and Batman (1939), Wonder Woman rounds out DC comics Holy Trinity. She is that important to our modern mythology.

           While Superman and Batman have had 12 live action films, three live action TV shows, 5 animated TV shows and 5 animated movies combined, the question then remains: Why hasn't Wonder Woman received the same treatment? While in recent years there have been several attempts to get live action Wonder Woman projects off the ground (including a treatment written by Joss Whedon years before Avengers); she has shown up in several ensemble (Justice League) animated films and one solo animated film (that I have problems with). However, we are still clinging to a beloved (but short lived) TV show from the 1970's; even though Wonder Woman's defining moment came years before, when she graced the cover of MS. Magazine in 1963. At that moment, Wonder Woman became known more so as a cultural icon than a superhero. No matter how nostalgic, the public perception of Wonder Woman does not embody the brilliant battle hardened but compassionate warrior I've come to know and love from the comics (no offense to Linda Carter).
           Any attempt to do something different with the character, to bring her public image more in line with her comic counterpart is routinely met with opposition.  The recurring excuses that are often invoked is that "Wonder Woman is difficult." [Yeah, because a story about the bravest and most courageous person coming from a warrior culture whom is the child of a GOD is so difficult that it hasn't been done a thousand times over with a male lead. Hell, her original origin story parallels Adam's birth from the Bible.] Whenever, another attempt fails the response is always the same "We want to make sure we get her right."  These "storylines are all subtle deflections from the simple reality of a clear gender bias in Superhero Cinema.
          Like Pornography, most superhero films are created by, marketed to, and star boys and men.  Therefore, these films seem to only have one narrowed world view ( a point of view that isn't shared by even a majority of men, but that is a separate post in and of itself).  This vision is one that sees women as objects or eye candy who become interesting only when they are in an ensemble and usually tasked with "helping men",(Black Widow in The Avengers) or they fall victim to the "Women in Refrigerators" trope ( Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight ).  The reason why Wonder Woman is "difficult" is because she does not fit into this narrow point of view; she obliterates it.
         Wonder Woman embodies all of the wonderfully complex positive traits of humanity in the same way as Superman.  She is both physically strong, and strong in character. She is the warrior, and the compassionate social crusader.  She protects innocence, and deals swift justice to her enemies.  She is not afraid to kill, but she does not do it haphazardly or without remorse. Also, regardless of how she is usually depicted, she is a person of color (her heritage is from a fabled Greek island known as Themyscira). This is an empowering image beyond the patriarchal bombardment women usually get that places value strictly in their bodies (both as a sex object and a vessel for the next generation). An image that is unfortunately tempered and controlled in the comics by sexualizing her and placing her in compromising positions (the comic book industry is also driven by men and therefore all female characters get the male gaze treatment).
         One of the biggest examples of the male gaze is Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch.  Now he has control of Wonder Woman, and I am afraid.  I have not heard of Gal Gadot before this announcement.  Yet, her credentials and filmography suggest that she was chosen because she fits the aforementioned patriarchal criteria. I do not have a problem with her, I have a problem with the hurried and seemingly superficial process that cast her.  Also, while I do not promote body shame, Gal Gadot seems to be predisposed to be a thinner and smaller woman and Wonder Woman is neither. It will be interesting to see if she is going to be required to "bulk" up in same way Henry Cavil did for Superman or as Ben Affleck is doing for Batman.  I am skeptical that she will be asked to put on too much muscle out of fear of losing sex appeal.
             My personal choice for Wonder Woman is Gina Carano.  I believe she has the screen gravitas and presence that Wonder Woman needs to have and while she is still green as far as acting I think she has potential.  She is certainly as warrior, proven in this clip from the film Haywire.

          In the end, The lack of Wonder Woman content, is not because producers and other executives don't see it as lucrative, its because the character of Wonder Woman doesn't fit their fabricated facsimile of a female that is often trotted out as if they were fulfilling a quota.  Wonder Woman is empowerment, regardless of how she is continually silenced through comics and other media.

If You are interested in great Wonder Woman Content read:
 Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia by Greg Rucka
Wonder Woman: The Circle and Ends of the Earth by Gail Simone
 Wonder Woman Monthly title by Brian Azzarello

I will end this post with a great Wonder Woman clip from the animated film Superman/Batman Apocalypse