Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts

Monday, 12 November 2012

The Spy Who Shagged Me?

Or using Queen and Country as a case study in how sexist portrayals can be bad storytelling.

So I think sexism is pretty crappy. The vast majority of my objections to it center on the fact that women are people and treating them as anything less than that is pretty fucking awful. That said, I think sexism and sexist portrayals of women suck for guys too for a whole variety of (less important) reasons.

Specifically, I want to highlight how sexist drawings in comics represents poor visual storytelling.

I'm going to use Queen an Country to illustrate my point since the series has a single writer and many vastly different artists. Each artist draws a discrete story arch and brings their own style, sensibilities, and take on the characters of Q&C from the muddled noir of Jason Shawn Alexander to the clean, cartooning of Chris Samnee. It's pretty much a perfect vehicle to analyze how different portrayals of characters affect storytelling.

I want to focus on the portrayal of Tara Chace, the female Minder (spy) who is the protagonist of the series. She is described as a fiercely intelligent and supremely talented spy. She is fluent in five languages (with a native accent in three) and is an expert in spycraft, hand-to-hand combat, and an accomplished marksman. Basically she is debatably the greatest living spy.

Coincidentally, Tara Chace is also described and portrayed as a conventionally attractive woman. In my favourite portrayals she is good looking, but in a toned down its-believable-she-is-a-spy kind of way. However, in virtually all portrayals of Tara Chace her sexiness is a lesser character point that takes a back seat to how much of a goddamn badass she is.

And when her sexiness is made her main characteristic, it's weird and distracting.

Oh yeah, there are going to be mild *SPOILERS* in this one.

Enter artist Leandro Fernandez who draws the Opertaion Crystal Ball story arch of Queen and Country. He has a cartoony style that borders on caricature. His characters, to be fair, all have their character traits emphasized to a silly amount: Crocker has a giant nose and is rail thin, Kittering is lantern jawed and broad, and the Islamic terrorists portrayedin the book are drawn in a way that is... borderline racist. Tara Chace, being an attractive woman is remodelled to have an impossibly thin waist and improbably large, and perky breasts. In Fernandez's story she is drawn as a caricature of a sexy woman.



Now this version of Chace, beyond being pretty sexist (she is the only sexually exaggerated character) is just weird. People don't look like that in real life. Tara Chace, based on all her other portrayals, doesn't look like that. Why has this badass, super-spy suddenly started looking a pornstar? It's a straight up bamboozling choice.

Bad taste aside, this kind of sexist caricature also leads to confusing visual storytelling.

Check out the image below. It's taken from a scene where Tara Chace is interviewing a man with information concerning a terrorist plot who wants to be paid for what he knows. It seems to me that it's meant to be a tense and business like scene meant to ratchet up the stakes and get the machinery of the plot set up in a logical/believable way for latter pay offs.



Doesn't it seem vaguely and inexplicably sexually charged though? Doesn't it just distract from the plot business that's going on?

That's the problem with these exaggerated sexual portrayals of women: when they are portrayed as sex objects part of our brains process the ridiculously sexualised nature of the character and consciously or subconciously decide whats going on is in some way sexual. Even if what's going on, like in this scene, isn't in any way sexual. And when things are sexy for no reason it distracts from the actual narrative goals of a given scene which makes these types of portrayals bad visual storytelling.


Now this isn't to say I'm catagorically against portraying characters in sexy ways or having sexualised characters. Some characters are meant to be sexy-sexy (Penny Century in Love and Rockets for instance, or Emma Frost of the X-Men), but Tara Chace is supposed to be a fucking stonecold badass spy. Her character design should never be sexy-sex as a priority.
Of course, there are certainly times when Tara Chace should be portrayed in a sexy way to further narrative goals, and there are a bunch of great examples throughout Queen and Country.



In this scene from the first Queen and Country story arch drawn by Steve Rolston, Chace uses a naked photo of herself to distract a guard at a checkpoint so he doesn't notice she is sitting in a car with a bleeding bullet wound in her leg. While maybe a bit heavy handed, this scene plays into the ongoing thematic discussion of Tara Chace as a female spy and the specific advantages and challenges her sex conveys on her job. It also shows that her attractiveness is another weapon in Chace's arsenal as an agent. It's also worth noting that this bit of sexy-sex comes after a whole story about Chace doing intelligent, skillful, and hardcore things, making this bit of T&A in addition to Chace's established credibility.



This bit from Operation Stormfront is by Carla Speed McNeil, who is probably my favourite Q&C artist. Again, it's a salatious scene done well and in service to the story. In the scene this these panels are taken from when Chace finds herself on a mission and sharing a hotel room with a brand new Minder 3  (for operational and budgetary reasons). The awkward sexual imagery of this scene emphasizes the weird forced intimacy between the two agents: being forced to live together, rely on each, and trust each other with their lives. And the sexual imagery tied to this just emphasizes this. It's also great because Chace had had a sexual affair with the previous Minder 3, whose death she is still dealing with. The weird intimacy of this scene, therefore, also serves to emphasize the difference between the new and old Minder 3 and the difference in how Chace relates to them. It's a really effective scene, and a really smart use of risque imagery to further narrative objectives.

(I also love how Chace's portrayal here is as a realistically attractive woman and not a charicature.)

This scene also ends with one of my favourite moments in all of Queen and Country and, conveniently, a perfect summation of how I feel about sexist portrayals of women in comics:


Friday, 7 September 2012

Green Lantern Barbie

Or how the sexist treatment of the character Carol Ferris was my least favourite part of the Green Lantern movie.




I don't think it's surprising that I didn't particularly enjoy the green lantern movie. I agree with most of the criticisms out there: the movie was quite silly, focused too much on Earth stuff and ignored all the great space adventures, and just didn't work well as a film.

I also find Ryan Reynolds about as charismatic as a block of wood and felt that the romantic subplot of the Green Lantern movie was, perhaps as a result of this, extremely wooden.

That said, there was one scene in Green Lantern that was particularly horrendous. Enough so that I still feel like writing about it all this time after. Specifically, I am still bothered by the scene where the movie threw Carol Ferris under the sexist bus.





When we first meet Carol Ferris she is introduced to us as this intelligent business woman who runs her fathers aviation company, who is also a super courageous fighter jet test pilot , and who just so happens to be a beautiful young woman. Which is fine. There is no reason why a woman can't be smart, brave, and pretty (which is obligated in both movie and comics lands). This was an interesting character.

We then get the opening fighter jet test piloting scene where Carol and Hal Jordon (Green Lantern) go head to head with a robotic fighter prototype. Hal does a dick move that gets Carol "killed" (electronically) but allows him to pull another dick move and defeat the robot planes at the expense of crashing his own plane. He barely bails out of his crashing aircraft (which as Top Gun has taught us is dangerous) and has to be rescued. All of this is okay too.

But this is where shit suddenly goes sideways for me.




The next scene, which has a freshly rescued Hal also has a primped and sexy business attired Carol WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. Her childhood friend/secret love crashes his plane and almost DIES while her company's new product has just failed an important test. Apparently in the face of these two pretty monumental catastrophes she decides to shower, do her makeup and hair, and put on the sexy skirt and blouse.


This is crazy-nuts! Think about it: the person Carol loves may be dead or at least seriously injured and her business may have just gone bankrupt but she takes the time to primp herself beautiful before she deals with either crisis. This is either unprofessional and a sign she can't prioritize things or it's a sign that she is a SOCIOPATH. Just for a second think about how insane it would be if a male character did that! This is as insane!!

It's also insanely sexist. The fact that the film makers decided to put Carol's appearance ahead of all her more interesting character traits really diminishes her as a person and objectifies the shit out of the chatacter. It's kind of disgusting.

It's also pretty unnescesary.

I get that thefilmmakers were trying to convey that she is a sexy lady and that she is vulnerable and what-not, but putting her in her best business-fancy isn't really needed to do this. (NOT that I feel making her sexy in this scene is at all nescesary or even appropriate, I'm just saying that IF you wanted to there are less sexist and easier ways). Now Blake Lively (the actor playing Carol), for all her acting faults is a pretty conventionally attractive woman. She remains attractive while wearing her flight suit. In fact, the film makers could have had her undo the top half of this thing, hang it off her waist, and be wearing an undershirt underneath. All the sex appeal they might want coupled with her taking charge of the situation in a manner that is consistent with her badass mogul-pilot character as well as basic human decency and common sense. Add some frazzled hair and you have vulnerability too: Carol is so worried about Hal that she doesn't worry about her appearance. So you could have easily emphasized how sexy and vulnerable Carol Ferris was  (had you wanted to) without character assassinating her.

So yeah, this is the scene where instead of having strong, smart and attractive Carol Ferris we got intorduced to green lantern Barbie instead.




Tuesday, 19 June 2012

Spatchcock Women


Or why sexist portrayals of women are a disservice to everyone, even heterosexual males

"Art" by Guillem March
What the hell is this about?

No seriously, who is this for?

Who thinks this is sexy?

For that matter, who finds the absurdly sexualized ladies (say, emotionally-dead Starfire, juggalette Harley Quinn, etc…) in comics so arousing? Why do creators insist on jamming as many tits and asses on panel as they can in superhero adventure comics? Do they presume that heterosexual males just aren’t interested in consuming media unless its chock full of the sexiest of ladies?

Well, I’m a heterosexual dude, and I gotta say, I’d like comics to portray women as people instead of sex objects.

Why after the cut: