Mad Max: Fury Road

The entire film can be summed up in one sentence (for both the Wives, the War Boys, and the wretched populace):

WE ARE NOT YOUR THINGS!

If she wants to criticize an action movie for being violent (What? Did you want a peaceful action movie???), it is akin to critisizing a musical for having singing, dancing, and music.

Point being, if that's your beef with it, you're in the wrong fucking genre.

I tend to agree. Whilst perhaps in an ideal world women would not need to be violent and 'macho'(for lack of a better term) to survive... this is quite clearly NOT that world. It's pretty crapsack for everyone, the violence is NOT glorified in a moral sense, it's portrayed as society's total collapse. That violence IS the answer is inherently bad - but the nature of the setting. And that applies regardless of gender.

I don't see how the film being set in a post apocalyptic world were violence is necessary for survival and an everyday part of life validates Sarkeesians criticism.

As another poster just pointed out capable is able to reach out to nux with her kindness. And in the end the small group who look out for one another, respect one another and value life are the ones who triumph over the army of guys who, thanks to brainwashing, only really care about dying as epically as possible. Furiosa is able to arrange safe passage in exchange for fuel with a rival faction so communication and barter is still possible without resorting to violence even if the deal does go awry. Communication, caring and compassion for others is still used in a positive way within this violent post apocalyptic world.

Just because the setting is inherently violent does not mean violence is the only way and by overlooking or failing to acknowledge the ways that compassion and understanding for others plays an important role in the film Sarkeesians perspective is flawed IMHO.

Also this is not a stand alone movie but part of a franchise in which all the preceding films were also pre/post apocalyptic violent worlds. The setting is a major part of the film that influences everything that happens from action to plot to character motivation/development so it's not like they could have filmed mad max fury road in any location or time period and got the same movie. At any rate I feel that the films creators 'choosing' to set the film in this setting therefore it's not feminist is a rather iffy criticism to throw at this movie IMO.

edited 26th May '15 6:40:34 AM by Erlani

I have a feeling you guys are criticizing someone's retelling of what Anita Sarkeesian's criticism is, without ever actually reading what it is. I mean, I took a look at her Twitter right now and I can't find the tweet (well, I can't find most tweets, because it's private, I think).

That's a good point.

I suggest we shelve the Anita Sarkeesian discussion unless we can find a clear quote or opinion piece and link to it.

Also, I don't think that we should focus on invalidating her opinion above all the other detractors of this movie. Certain groups have already done a good job of demonizing her for past events, let's not perpetuate it.

edited 26th May '15 7:11:28 AM by GutstheBerserker

It is a fair point re: Sarkeesian and if I have played a part in demonising her in particular I apologise for it. But my point regarding violence was originally intended more generally: this is a violent world setting. EVERYONE has to resort to violence at one point or another to survive, male and female alike. That's not a gender-politics decision, that's a post-apocalyptic setting decision, the characters have to be judged in context...

Apart from which I reiterate that one Wife did manage to achieve something good by NOT being violent and treating Nux with basic human decency. Presumably whether this is more or less feminist than Furiosa beating the crap out of Max is probably down to the particular line of thought you follow, but it does show that even in this world of chaos and death and flamethrower guitars, treating people kindly is actually a really good thing to do.

https://mobile.twitter.com/femfreq

This is a link to Sarkeesians twitter where there are several posts about fury road though you may have to scroll down to find them.

My previous post does mention sarkeesian, that I don't agree with her and believe she has a flawed perspective, but the post itself was intended as a reply to Gowan's earlier post (it directly addresses the opinions expressed by Gowan)and not a response to sarkeesian, something which I may have failed to make clear when writing it.

It was also a long and possibly rambling post because I enjoy analysing and debating things sorry about that

edited 26th May '15 4:57:04 PM by Erlani

So basically, it seems Sarkeesian's point is that Fury Road portrays a cartoonish version of misogyny and therefore, doesn't present a realistic feminist work.

I'd agree with her that it isn't realistic, but I'd disagree that it isn't feminist. Something can be outrageously cartoonishly violent and still feminist.

Powerpuff Girls, anyone ?

Pretty Cure, too.

I think she is also arguing that "post-apocalyptic wasteland" is inherently a masculine fantasy. Which, you know, I can't argue against, because it is.

I would argue, however, that the movie manages to make the characters overcome the settings so that it becomes more feminist (introducing the Vulvalini helps).

Related to the above, but I liked the scene where the one women tried to run back to Joe and all the other girls chase after her. Instead of dragging her back or anything, they convince her 'You're better than that' and more words of encouragement rather than out right 'You are wrong and we know better than you'. It was a nice moment where it would have been so easy to have Max or someone knock her over the head and drag her back.

I can't find a link to the actual tweets (because I always have issues with using twitter and can't find them again), but I have a copy of the tweets on my computer. The whole thing is spread across... 8-10 tweets I think?

"I'm not one to shy away from expressing unpopular opinions, So here goes, I saw Fury Road. I get why people like it. But it isn't feminist.

On the surface, Mad Max is about resisting a cartoonish version of Misogyny. But that resistance takes the form of more glorified violent. Fury Road is different from many action films in that it lets some women participate as equal partners in a cinematic orgy of male violence.

Feminism doesn't simply mean women getting to partake in typical badass "guys stuff". Feminism is about redefining our social value system. Sometimes violence may be necessary for liberation from oppression, but its always tragic. Fury Road frames it as totally fun and awesome.

As a film, Mad Max absolutely adores its gritty future. The camera caresses acts of violence in the same way it caresses the brides' bodies. 'We are not things' is a great line, but doesn't work when the plot and ESPECIALLY the camera treats them like things from start to finish.

Mad Max's villains are caricatures of misogyny which makes overt misogynists angry, but does not challenge more prevalent forms of sexism. Viewers get to feel good about hating cartoon misogyny without questioning themselves or examining how sexism actually works in our society.

It makes me profoundly sad that mainstream pop culture now interprets feminism to mean 'Women can drive fast and stoically kill people too!' We're starved for representations of powerful women, but we need to re-imagine concepts of power and move beyond the glorification of violence."

4:48 PM - 19 May 2015

Let's start off...

• "But that resistance takes the form of more glorified violence" The Violence isn't glorified. Entertaining? Yes, since 80% of the movie is a big action car chase. Glorified? Not really...
• "...Violence may be necessary for liberation from opression, but its always tragic" Yes, but no. In the real world? Yes. In an action film? Not really. Violence and action and fighting is expected in an action film. Its the genre. Action Films are meant to be light and keep moving with fast pace. If they took the weight of REAL WORLD violence, we'd be here for hours and it'd be god awful depressing. There's a reason Action Films have an 'Ideal'/Fiction based perception on events.
• "As a film, Mad Max adores its gritty future." Well, yes. It would be bad if a film didn't like its own setting. If you're going to have a setting, plot, and characters, you will run into issues if you DON'T like them to some extent. As established before, the 'caresses the brides' bodies' comment seems inaccurate.
• Also, can I say I HATE when she calls them 'the brides'? They are not things and I feel like its almost comically (tragically???) missing the point to call them brides.
• "...without questioning themselves or examining how sexism actually works in our world". Well, while I don't think its wrong to have a movie that puts a lot of weight on the audience and their perceptions (probably my favorite part of Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch), not every movie needs to do that. Not every movie needs to ask existential questions of the audience. Additionally, the 'how sexism actually works in our society' is completely irrelevant on the simple fact that Mad Max's society is NOT our society and, thus, having the film teach about 'real world sexism' wouldn't make much sense. You're not going to be able to bring us sexism issues like 'less pay for women' or 'planned parenthood' or 'sexual harassment in the work place' in a society where all civilization has collapsed and those issues aren't things anymore...
• "...pop culture interprets feminism to mean 'women can drive fast and stoically kill people too!'. Well, that's a generalization a bit, but that is a part of what it means in regards to action movies, of course depending on your tone and characters and etc. There are a bunch more feminism issues when it comes to representations in action films (for one, sexualizaion, 'The Chick', 'The Love Interest', etc), but saying that undermines other things that the characters do. The characters also look out for each other, support each other, take care of each other, and defend each other. Even when they're horribly under-trained for something (the women crawling across the rig to fix things, defending Furiosa from Max, etc), they still try to help to the best they can instead of standing to the side because the script writer forgot they existed. It isn't 'feminism means women drive cars and kill people' its 'Women SURVIVE in this world without sacrificing who they are and what they stand for'.

I just... argh... This makes me so mad.

Also, can I say I HATE when she calls them 'the brides'? They are not things and I feel like its almost comically (tragically???) missing the point to call them brides.

The actual movie trailers refer to them as "the Wives," so, uh, that's not really a big issue.

I, too, disagree with a lot of her reasons, but I get why she thinks that. She's entitled to her opinion.

How does the plot treat them like things? How does the camera do so? Anybody who speaks the critic's language care to elaborate? And even if the film did objectify those five women, there would still be a sizable female cast it does not do that to.

Though I'm not sure why we're still going over what Sarkeesian said. Aren't there other people who's critiques we could be taking apart?

edited 26th May '15 7:51:31 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

How does the camera do so?

The camera does do a lot of Male Gaze in the beginning when they are revealed. It's hard to say if it's justified or not, but it's there.

It might be be a case of having your cake and eating it too. The camera is literally representing Max's Male Gaze while at the same time providing fanservice for the men actually watching the film.

I also believe this is literally the only case case this happened in the movie. They kept their skimpy clothes for the whole thing, but the camera stop doing the Male Gaze thing afterwards.

Maybe it was just me, but that scene somehow seemed like, yes, we're seeing Max's POV, but he's not distracted by the pretty ladies, he's gobsmacked that they have so much water they're using it for bathing (and that Splendid is clearly pregnant). I've noticed a few reviewers getting similar impressions.

That's also the feeling I got.

It never really seemed like we were getting gratuitous fanservice shots of anyone at all actually.

Yeah, I'm with the "it was sexualizing the water" camp, especially with the way he just revels in it once he gets the hose.

It still sexualizes the women because they are all in skimpy outfits and washing. It doesn't sexualize them for long, because then in goes into a fight scene, but I can definitely see the Male Gaze beforehand.

edited 26th May '15 8:59:19 PM by alliterator

I felt like they were more of establishing shots of...

• The Contents of the Rig are the Women
• They have a lot of water and are almost needlessly wasting it
• They are removing chastity belts from their bodies
• One of them is pregnant

This is the point in the film that it becomes very clear as to EXACTLY what Joe wants back.

Yes, but the way their bodies (and the pregnancy) is shown is in a Male Gaze way. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's there.

Yeah, its in a Male Gaze way, but I feel like its kind of a twist on that kind of shot? Like, instead of establishing 'This woman is sexy and desirable and etc', it was establishing that she was pregnant through stereo typically 'sexy' ways.