The Road to 'LOGAN'

INTRODUCTION

Soon will be experiencing an important Pop Cultural moment. The end of Hugh Jackman’s iconic portrayal of James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine, in the soon to be released Logan, which is already garnering rave reviews.  

To commemorate this seminal event, I will be recapping and analyzing the three films that I believe are essential primers for Logan, as well as provide a retrospective (both personally and socially) on Hugh Jackman’s time in the role. Then, in a separate post, I will write a review of Logan after I have seen it enough times to develop a coherent and cogent analysis of the film.

‘LOGAN’ ESSENTIAL VIEWING

Hugh Jackman has been playing the Character of James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine on screen for 17 years (more than that if you count the production of the original X-Men) through 7 films (as lead and star[1]) and two additional cameos. Aside from Logan which is shaping up to be the ultimate and most moving performance Jackman has given as the character, there are three other films in Jackman’s history as Wolverine that, if revisited before the initial screening of Logan, will make the emotional gut punch of seeing Jackman as Wolverine for the last time resonate to the very emotional core of the audience and fans. Those three films are, for better or for worse, X-men Origins: Wolverine (2009), The Wolverine (2013) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). Each of these films have their problems. In some cases, a lot of problems. Yet, since these specific films are adaptations of seminal works in Logan’s character history, they are important. This creates a strong foundation for the final chapter in the Jackman/Wolverine Saga.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine  

   Like Wolverine himself, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (the first in the solo Wolverine Trilogy) was a failed experiment.  Planned as the first in a series of Origin films (hence the title) that would feature various X-men characters (at the time of development there were similar films planned involving Xavier and Magneto), the film was never crafted with serious care[2] Jam packed with too many characters that devolve into shades of their comic counterparts[3]. This film had a bloated budget that was trying to tell too much story (we go from 1845-1979 for christ's sake). Part of the reason for this is that they were trying to thread a very fine needle. They were trying to create a suitable story to explain how James Howlett became Logan: The Wolverine from the first trilogy, setting up a film franchise (with the Origins line) and adapt two seminal comic books while providing some amount of fan service.  The result is that the film falls into plot holes and tired clichés ending with the film collapsing under its own immense weight. [4]Regardless of the many flaws of this film, there are a few saving graces that make the film have enjoyable moments.  It is these silver linings that are also the lynch pin for enjoying Logan

The two best things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine are the characters of Logan and Creed played by Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber.  It is their character’s relationship onscreen and the actor’s friendship offscreen, that contributes to the chemistry between the two of them which anchors the film. Their relationship outlined in the opening sequence (which is the best part of the film) creates the strong parallel between the two characters that exists in the comics. The slow drift apart over the years as Logan[5] becomes disturbed and weary of war and killing, while Victor revels in it.

 One of the major changes that they made for this film that I actually agree with is making Logan and Creed half brothers. This adds to the dramatic tension and character development for both of them. It see this as even an improvement on Wolverine’s Origin in the Comics. Throughout that entire graphic novel, once the character of James Howlett was revealed to be the man we would call Logan, the other character named Dog (who was a red herring for Logan through the first part of the book) I assumed would turn out to be Creed by the end of the story. I was sadly disappointed.

It is my hope that this antagonistic brotherly relationship, left open ended at the conclusion of Origins, resurfaces and is resolved in Logan. My hope clings to a Cinemablend article in which Liev Schreiber expressed interest in reprising his role as Creed after hearing they were going to loosely adapt the Old Man Logan  storyline from the comics, and internet rumblings of a secret villain fight at the end of the new film.  Add to this the reality that both the star and director of Logan have worked with Schreiber multiple times and both have strong friendships with him. Plus, wouldn’t it just be an amazing emotional conclusion if Old Man Logan and X-23 take on Sabertooth to cap off this version of the characters? It seems too poetic to pass up[6]

The Wolverine

 Modeled after the famed and much beloved Wolverine title by Frank Miller and Chris Claremont. 2013’s The Wolverine makes good on Jackman and 20^th century Fox’s promise to tell “the Japan story”. Like all of the other films in the X-men Universe established and (mostly) built by Brian Singer, they both too a lot of liberties with the story, as well as make some odd choices on what to include and what to omit.  Some of the changes work (like making Yukio a sidekick and Logan’s Bodyguard) other changes did not (the entire climax with the Silver Samurai).

            Mangold’s first foray into the superhero genre is met with welcome acclaim, breathing new life into a character’s solo career that was nearly snuffed out in the previous installment. Positioning Logan in the film as a Ronin (masterless Samurai), Mangold and Jackman reveal layers of the character that had only been hinted at up until this point and something that fans truly wanted to see. The trick that Mangold pulls to make Logan a deeper character is to hinder his healing factor for most of the film.  This coupled with a world weary performance by Jackman whom turns hopeful and ready to fight by the end. It is the shot in the arm that both the character and the Franchise needed going into their big cross over event Days of Future Past

            I have talked about The Wolverine previously on this blog. The film is utterly fantastic even with the telegraphed reveal at the end and its flawed climax.  What makes this film essential viewing for Logan is the creative team behind it, particularly James Mangold.  Given what he accomplished with his freshman outing, in a film franchise that has become as increasingly complicated and convoluted as its comic book counterpart, is a miracle.  Listening to interviews Mangold has given about the learning curve he had on The Wolverine inspires me to believe that his sophomore outing is going to be something special. 

Additionally, the two films seem to be a Gemini. The Wolverine is a film about James gaining the will to fight again, to become the weapon and the force for good that we see in Days of Future Past. Logan feels world weary in a way that inherently different way, beaten down, not by over guilt of the death of the woman he loved, but the toll life takes baring the hard decisions and their consequences on broad but tired shoulders. This parallel of storytelling is most visible in the two films companionate theme(s). The Wolverine is very much a Samurai (Jedigeki) picture, whereas Logan is a western; two genres that were built on and influenced each other. The best example of this is the work of Akira Kurosawa. He was influenced by the work of John Ford (particularly The Searchers) that inspired him to create Samurai classics like Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and Seven Samurai. In the years since, Yojimbo and Seven Samurai have been remade as westerns; most Famously is the Seven Samurai remake The Magnificent Seven, and its remake of the same name. Let us hope these two films go down in history with similar acclaim.

X-Men: Days of Future Past             

X-Men: Days of Future Past (DOFP) is the best X-Men film to date. Not only did it successfully adapt a short, but impactful storyline from the comics that fans have been clamouring for ever sense they got a taste of it back in the 1990’s, but it also acted as its own continuity machine. This film connected the previous X-men Trilogy featuring  Patrick Stewart and Ian MacKellan with the “First Class” Trilogy featuring James Mcavoy and Michael Fassbender essentially making this film a world building crossover in the vein of an Avengers film[7] Any negativity I can hurl at this film is just a simple nitpick about under used or undervalued characters.

Even though DOFP is the first X-men film in the franchise that actually feels like its comic book counterpart, it is essential viewing for Logan in the way that it furthers the character development of James Howlett and Charles Xavier.  This film allows for an interesting reversal of roles. A despondent and broken Xavier has to be motivated to hope by his most difficult student.  It is this relationship, particularly by the end of the film, that is stronger and given more weight.  It is Wolverine that pays back his mentor in a very specific way thus forging their relationship as father and Son. A relationship that is the bedrock foundation for Logan as a film, positioning the two as an ailing father being taken care of by his dutiful, albeit grumpy and acerbic son.  It is this connection that looks to be the emotional core of Logan  and one that I am sure will bring me to tears.

THE LEGANCY OF HUGH JACKMAN’S WOLVERINE

    

Personal

 I first learned rumors of an X-Men film in the Spring issue of Cinemascape Magazine in 1997. The magazine had a film development section titled “Development Hell” and the proposed X-men film was often among its ranks. Being weaned on the excellent X-Men cartoon show in the early 90’s, my friend and I fan casted the film going off of the X-Men cartoon roster. We unfortunately selected a lot of “known”, B list or action star actors in many of the roles.  I am sorry to report that we chose Michael Ironside for Wolverine. However, we correctly selected Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X. In all fairness I think it was because of our exposure to Star Trek and that he was the only prominent bald actor that our young minds could think of. We had also fan casted him for Mr. Freeze in Joel Schumacher’s Batman and Robin based on Batman: The Animated Series episode “Heart of Ice.” Thankfully we were wrong.

            I kept up with the production of the film. I remember the casting of Dougray Scott in the role and then he had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts. However, I remember the day I heard about Hugh Jackman’s casting. I walked into my Senior-level high school science class in 1999 and my friend told me “They cast Wolverine in the X-men film.” “Who is it?” I replied anxiously. Just then he seemed a little crestfallen “An unknown actor from Australia.” He showed me the picture in a magazine that outlined the characters and the respective actors playing them. I just shrugged my shoulders. “ He better do a good job.” I was always a little bit hesitant given what the X-men meant to me as an adolescent with a disability. Little did I know that almost 18 years later that Hugh Jackman would make his Legacy through the character, and that character become richer for it.

            Social

            Though some people might disagree[8], but the current superhero genre owes its existence to X-Men (2000). The immense positive reaction to the film and the box office (making a near 300 mil off of a 75mil budget) is what set the tone for the Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise, the X-Men Universe, Hellboy, Spawn, the resurgence of Batman with The Dark Knight Trilogy and the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Hugh Jackman’s popularity as Wolverine started it all. And in a world/genre where people get recast or replaced, Hugh Jackman has  remained a constant. He has been the eye of the Superhero maelstrom over the better part of two decades. Very soon it will be time to say goodbye, to Hugh Jackman’s “O’l Knucklehead”…but not just yet. There is one last ride for Jackman’s James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine in Logan and I can’t wait. I can’t wait to see it, I can’t wait to own it. I. Just. Can’t. Wait.

CONCLUSION  

 Hugh Jackman is Wolverine. He will always be Wolverine…because he has earned it. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an actor with so much devotion to a character. 17 years, 9 films. You can keep your RDJ’s or your revolving door of Batman none of them hold a single adamantium claw to Hugh Jackman. In fact, Jackman’s Wolverine has been such a mainstay that anytime a comic book character is played by the same actor more than once, the number of their performances should be measured in “Jackmans” ( RDJ for instance, would have 6 “Jackmans”) Since his portrayal has spanned the character’s entire lifespan and major life events, Hugh Jackman has played the character to completion. I have always believed that something becomes special because it has an ending, because there is an end. The more something continues the more invaluable, less precious it becomes. So, if Logan truly the end, no one has earned his rest more than Hugh Jackman. He has paid his dues, and increased the principle. Now it is time to just live off the dividends.       

---

[1] I am including his portrayal in Logan in this number

[2] If you listen to the special features of X-men: Origins Wolverine: Jackman really wanted to do the “japan story” by Frank Millar. The studio told him that before he would be able to do that, he would have to make this film. So, it is unclear whether or not he had the creative control he seems to have with Logan. Given the quality of the film, I think not.

[3][3] Gambit and Everyone else in the Weapon X program not named Logan or Creed.

[4] Painting themselves into a corner, they had wolverine get shot with adamantium bullets exclusively to wipe his memory. COME’ON!

[5] Or as Creed calls him “Jimmy”

[6] And too good to be true…I guess time will tell…soon enough

[7] A concept that we will see obliterated with the ambitious Infinity War  which will combine the Avengers franchise characters and the Guardians of the Galaxy the result being the apex of the Marvel Cinematic Universe dubbed “MCU”

[8] I am looking at you, Blade (1998) fans

The Furious Age of Feminism: The Mad Max and Avengers' Gender Controversy

INTRODUCTION

              The 2015 summer movie season has started off with a bang, just not in the way that many people expected.  The two biggest (and certainly the loudest) films so far have been Avengers: Age of Ultron and Mad Max: Fury Road. While the former's success may be as unsurprising as water being wet, it is the latter, often thought of a niche sci-fi franchise, that has been  garnering a lot of the buzz. Therefore, after seeing both films, and witnessing the gender fueled outrage and discourse surrounding them; rather than just write a sociological review for each film (some great ones you can find here and here) I thought I would couple my reviews with an analysis of social uproar and "civic unrest" that these films have caused... from a socially conscious, disabled straight white (usually) cis gendered feminist (allied) male perspective.

"Spoilers." 


"BLOWING UP" 'THE AVENGERS'


            On May 1st (in the States) Avengers: Age of Ultron was released to huge box office numbers. Though not outperforming its predecessor both critically, or commercially; it is still a world wide hit. Yet, the film seems to lack the overall joy, and mass societal embrace that the first film received.  Part of this due to the the nature of sequel [hulk]buster filmmaking.
            In an early interview, after the first Avengers film was released, Director Joss Whedon was asked How he would  "top" Marvel's The Avengers. he simply said "I can't".  He went on to say that the only way that you move forward with such an immense franchise, is to make a smaller, more intimate film, that focuses on character and the relationships within the team.  When I heard that, I got really excited.  Being a Joss Whedon fan since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I was confident that he could make a meaningful, emotionally resonant film while still having thrilling moments of action and spectacle.  Unfortunately, due to producer meddling, what we got was anything but perfect. Age of Ultron is a bloated, often incoherent mess, that cripples under its own weight of advertisements for future films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).
             Avengers: Age of Ultron has a multiple viewing requirement; not for the sheer pleasure of the experience, but just to understand all of the plot threads, character motivations and (at times) dialogue that is packed into it. Upon my first viewing of the film, I became nauseous just trying to follow the initial action sequence that begins at the height of the Crescendo of the last film (tracking shot of all the Avengers fighting together). At that moment, and confirmed by the rest of the film, the dream of a "smaller" film that Whedon had envisioned (and I had hoped for) was murdered in front of me with every action set piece that was constantly "turned up to 11". I left the film not questioning whether or not it was a superior film to the original, but on whether or not I even enjoyed it.

This is basically how I felt throughout the film:

            I liked the film better on viewing it a second time.  During the repeat viewing, I latched on to the quieter moments in the film; the party scene was wonderful, as was everything at Hawkeye's Farmhouse.  These are the sequences that give the bare bones of the smaller film I was looking for and what (I believe) Whedon wanted to initially create.    

 THE BLACK WIDOW PROBLEM?

            One of the major issues with The Avengers franchise, and superhero teams in general, is the overall lack of representation, visibility and agency for its female characters.  Overall, there are less female characters than male characters in an ensemble cast, which often requires all female viewers to (impossibly) identify with that (usually) one character. Conversely, again that (usually) one character is (impossibly) tasked to be everything for all women. In addition, female characters usually have less screen time, secondary plot lines (That is if they have a character arc at all, and are more than a walking trope.) and are often "shipped" or "fridged" (more on that later).       Black Widow seems to be the epitome of a lot of these tropes for the MCU.  Although she has fared better in the hands of more competent and less sexist director (i.e. Joss Whedon), the lack of Black Widow merchandise (comparative to her male counterparts) and a lack of a Black Widow feature film maintains her irrelevance to shareholders and the "Powers that Be" at Disney/Marvel.

 Fandom has become so impatient for a Black Widow Solo film that one fan produce this small piece of Awesomeness:

             These problems get exacerbated when during the marketing of Avengers: Age of Ultron, cast members Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans slut shame the character of Black Widow in a recent interview  

Then, almost immediately,they recanted their statements.  It is this behavior that illustrates the normalization of the devaluing of women in our society and, to put a finer point on it, a perfect example of The Rape Culture. 

            The reaction of Renner and Evans is a common one in our culture when Patriarchal norms are being challenged. Often, the women who challenge the sexist status quo are often vilified and humiliated because (some) men are socialized to believe that female agency, autonomy, and civil liberties come at the cost of masculinity.  In short, they believe that female agency emasculates men. Because of this notion, the vilification of women is done through sexualization (as the above comments demonstrate) and the humiliation is done though rape.  Rape is then used as a way to both discipline women, and to regain any perceived "lost" masculinity.  This is ever more heightened when the (aforementioned) total lack of diversity of female characters ( as it is in Marvel films) results in the same character (Black Widow) being a champion of a certain brand of feminism, as well as a firebrand and a scapegoat. Therefore, regardless of being labeled a "feminist icon", Black Widow is also the victim of harassment and a target of hatred not only by the patriarchal rape culture, but by any social justice group who believes that her portrayal betrays the their ideology in which she has been lauded as a paragon.  

THE CONTROVERSY 

          In addition to the general problem of too few female characters, and the distastefulness of slut shaming, the current embroiled controversy that the character of Black Widow is in the middle of stems from a "key" scene in Avengers: Age of Ultron.  In that scene, Bruce (Hulk) and Natasha (Black Widow) discuss their mutual attraction and their future together. Bruce chides himself and Natasha for their feelings and "sees no future" for them because he can't have children. In response, Natasha tells Bruce about her "graduation ceremony" from The Black Widow Program, in which successful graduates are sterilized.  It is at that moment that Natasha labels herself a monster. To many, this labeling was interpreted to mean that Natasha felt that she was a monster because she could not conceive.  Therefore, by extension, the message is that ANY woman who can not biologically conceive should consider themselves a monster. This message, if true, is horrific and it needs to be outed as ludicrous and disgusting. While much of the internet has done that (see some of the links above) there was also the collateral damage of kicking Joss Whedon off twitter  (regardless of the PR). From my Sociological perspective, I can see both sides and believe there is a double standard at play here.
             First, I completely understand why some people (especially women who can't biologically conceive) could interpret the scene in the manner stated above. This would be especially hurtful if any of those people (who could conceive or not) had held up Joss as a feminist icon, or at the very least, a strong allied advocate.  To that point, there has been some chatter around the internet chastising these individuals by making the point that they (the now Whedon disillusioned) did not attack well known, and openly sexist directors, like Michael Bay; getting him to quit social media like they did Whedon.  The answer is simple: We expect more from our heroes than we do our villains. We expect Michael Bay to produce an incomprehensible, overblown, and bloated piece of sexist  racist homophobic garbage; because that is the personality that his films have shown us.  With Buffy, Angel, Firefly and to some extent Marvel's The Avengers, Joss Whedon has proven to be a great feminist ally in the past. He has this great quote a few years ago (paraphrasing):

" Everyone asks me: 'Why do you always write strong female characters.' and I say 'Because you keep asking me that question'."

Therefore, it is understandable for those who have placed Joss Whedon in their Reference Group/role model for strong male ally, that the realization of his human fallibility, that he is not the "perfect" ally, may lead to some cognitive dissonance that results in Joss being rejected by fans. This is a valid interpretation and Joss Whedon should apologize if ever met with such criticism.
           Secondly, as a point of contention, and (again) as a straight white cis gendered man. I interpreted the scene differently.  Given the context surrounding it. I thought the monster line did not expressively say (nor imply) that Natasha was a monster because she couldn't biologically have kids, but because that choice was taken from her in a monstrous act, in order to make her a less compassionate assassin. ( Illogical I know). In other words, Natasha's monstrosity lies not in her ability or inability to have children, but in being an Assassin and murderer.  A past that was alluded to in the first Avengers film ("red in my ledger").

Skaar: Son of Hulk

            Finally, it is a bit of a hypocritical gendered double standard that many have called out Joss Whedon for vaguely implying that Black Widow's "Monster" line has anything to do with sterilization, when he has Bruce Banner plainly say "There is no future with me because I can't [biologically] have children". ( Fans of the comics know that that's not true). Bruce's clear statement of infertility (something that was again implied in the first Avengers film) implies that it results in him being a monster, or it's a product of him being a monster. NO ONE IS UP IN ARMS ABOUT THAT!  Because, everyone assumes that he is a monster BECAUSE of the Hulk NOT BECAUSE HE CAN'T HAVE KIDS! Why? Because men aren't socialized to want to have children, the way women are expected to. We see men's identity existing outside of being a husband and a father while we struggle with that separation for women; even in 2015.  If we are going to blame Joss Whedon for the portrayal of Natasha Romanov, we also need to blame him for the portrayal of Bruce Banner.  They are both monsters, not because they can, or can not have children, but because of the lives they've ruined, and the people they've hurt (and killed). 

Side Note: Was Quicksilver fridged (much in the same way many female characters are in comics) just to advance the plot and development of Scarlet Witch? If this was intentional, Bravo Whedon for playing against Tropes. If not, it is just a happy accident!

A 'MAD' 'FURY' FOR THE SENSES 

       Mad Max: Fury Road can only be described as beautiful insanity.  George Miller returns to his seminal Dystopian epic series (that took over 15 years to produce)as he also returns to form with this adrenaline fueled chase film that is short on dialogue, but big on spectacle.  Here, Miller schools everyone (even Christopher Nolan) in his ability to not only weave in CGI amidst a majority of practical effects but also by giving us a story that, while seemingly simple, is rich with character development and  progressive attitudes.      
        In this go round, Max is played by Tom Hardy. Hardy is not a stranger to terse characters, but as Max, he is laconic. Yet, even then, his Max emotes more with a simple (half) thumbs up than Mel Gibson did in any of the previous films (which are not required viewing).  The real star however is Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa who is attempting to escape a tyrannical warlord with his "wives" hoping to find safe passage to "the greenplace". Max is the drifter that falls in the middle of the situation and decides to help. What follows, is an orgiastic feast of colors and sounds that are so visceral; the smell of grease, exhaust and sand seemed to hang in air that you would swear they brought back smell-o-vision.  .  Hell, there is a guitarist who plays a guitar that doubles as a flamethrower while riding on a monster truck! No one expected Miller's vision, but we are all grateful.   I am impressed with the technical brilliance of the film. However, it was not what got me excited about the film to begin with. That, I attribute to the the overall positive feminist response.

MY TYPE OF INTERSECTION 

       Mad Max: Fury Road first came on my Sociological radar when I saw in the promotional material that the character of Furiosa was using a piece of assisted technology (a prosthetic/robotic arm) I was really excited to see how that was going to be portrayed in the film. In short,  I wasn't disappointed. Not only did I get a scene where Furiosa adeptly fights Max without the use of her prosthesis

 but I also became obsessed with the modified grip she uses to be able to shoot her rifle with her robotic arm.

While not expressly stated in the film, I like to think that this modification allowed her to be the only one who could use that rifle with any kind of accuracy. Please look to this great article for a more nuanced and in-depth discussion of disability in the Mad Max series.

      My Sociological interest deepened when I heard that Men's rights activists had called for a boycott of  the film, calling it Feminist Propaganda.

Before I move on, we must remember:

   These morons were worried that boys were being duped; that they paid for an action film (which in their minds was code for a masculine testosterone driven hyper reality that regulate women to eye candy and subjugation) where Max is the hero. Some have jeered " It's called Mad MAX for a reason!" Bare in mind that this the same non-logic that justifies homophobia with the mantra: "It's Adam and EVE  not Adam and STEVE!" They believe, as I mention in my discussion of The Rape Culture above, that boys will be emasculated if they watch one film where women are the focus.   What I would also like to point out to these idiots is that Max, as a character, hasn't been the star of the story since the original film. He, like a lot of main characters in Westerns, drifts in and out of towns and peoples lives, helping when and where he can. He is not the hero, he helps the hero. And in this film the hero is Furiosa. Plain and simple.
         Yet, in a way, we must thank these misguided and infuriating dirt bags. Because without their misplaced outrage, the film it would not have received its feminist support allowing more women to embrace the film (as all people should).  Due to this outpouring of support, (Hysterically the opposite of what was intended) Mad Max: Fury Road  is both a critical and commercial success.

THE DEBATE 

   Many prominent feminist and scholars have come out in support of Fury Road. Citing the female character development and overall lack of misogyny in the way women are being portrayed in the film. Each character is given a job to do and no one is damsel-ed or fridged, They also cite the way in which female strength is not only shown through typically masculine violent behavior, as with Furiosa and the Elderly bikers (characters that could be described as male characters in a female body), but also through sacrifice (Splendid using her pregnant body as a shield) and manipulation (Using the sexualization of women to bait a trap). A key scene that defines Mad Max :Fury Road as a feminist film for its supporters is when Max, recognizing Furiosa's skills with a rifle, hands the gun over to her at a crucial moment.

There is a gif for that:

This has even lead to a wonderful tumbler called Feminist Mad Max

   While this support is resounding and loud.  There are some in the feminist community that still see problems with the film. Instead of escaping patriarchy, they see its promotion.  They believe that regardless of the intention, the film reproduces patriarchy (through the way Imorten Joe treats women) and maintains the male gaze.

An Example:

      My interpretation is a bit of both. I do believe that Mad Max Fury Road is an amazing progressive film. The character of Furiosa stands on the shoulders of other great Sci-Fi characters like Elen Ripley and Sarah Connor but is even better because her motivation is not maternal. The film is also progressive because George Miller gives us more than one depiction of femininity that is valid and a atypical form of Masculinity that respects women.

This is a key Scene that shows Max as a Feminist ally. He says to Furiosa "Here is my idea, but it's your choice, You are the Leader."

               However,  I am also inclined to heavily criticize our culture that interprets any depiction of women outside of the usual sexist tropes as so novel, that it is chide as feminist. Feminism is not a dirty word, it is just trying to get our culture to see women as the complex humans they are, and push for diverse representation that has been monopolized by men in popular culture. It is depressing that we are still living in a society that views the notion that women are people as something radical.     

I leave you with this bit of Awesomeness: