On that one Dragon thing
Apr. 12th, 2010 09:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
soc_puppetHello all! It's Monday now, and once again I haven't posted for over a week, s-sigh =_=
Today I mostly wanted to post about How to Train Your Dragon, which I saw last Wednesday with the family ♥
The short version: It was amazing and you should all go see it.
The Humorless Feminist version:
Did this movie pass the Bechdel Test? Well, quite frankly/IIRC, no. I give it points for effort, however, since two of Hiccup's six person class are girls, so it's inherently possible they could have spoken to one another about, say, the best way to take out Dragon Type K off-camera. And one of the main background vikings was a seriously strong-looking lady - not that we ever got to hear her speak, but one thing at a time, I suppose.
So yeah, speaking roles in general had more men than women. The number of speaking roles for girls and women is one of the ways I test the sexism level of a movie, or of a TV show. (See my complaints about A:TLA's lack of female incidentals; the show is pretty amazingly feminist and positive in so many other ways, but the number of male background characters, particularly with speaking parts, far outnumber the female background characters.) It also played the Dead Mother trope like a violin, which bugged me, but for Astrid and the one twin (I can't remember whether she was Ruffnut or Tuffnut, argh), I'm willing to overlook that a little more.
In summation, the women and girls who were featured were more than kickass enough for me (not that girls and women have to kick ass to be cool; it was just nice to see the story where it was the boy who lost his nerve and couldn't kill an animal for once, not the girl), but more of them (more girls/women, more screentime for those who were there, interpret how you like) would've been nice.
Did this movie have any Characters of Color? No. Given that all the characters were Vikings, however, I felt it was perfectly reasonable. Since the Vikings also define themselves as different from non-Vikings, it also leaves me free to imagine that, yes, there are people of color in that fantasy setting; they're just in a vastly different area. The dragons themselves were inherently Western, and Vikings are inherently Western (for a certain value of "western"), so it's not something that I felt horribly bothered by.
Not that I would mind an equivalent of this with an all character-of-color cast, of course; in fact, the metaphorical sounds of my rejoicing would likely echo from one end to end of the internet if one were made. I'm just saying that, IN THIS INSTANCE, I felt the all-white cast was reasonable and believable, and fit with the world that was built.
Now, the big one: Did this movie have any characters with disabilities? Fuck yes! Specifically, this movie had a number of characters, main characters even, with amputated and partially amputated limbs. In no way were they ever made to seem less than their able-bodied counterparts; they did have to have accommodations made - false limbs and such - but they were still able to fully participate in society once those accommodations were made, and they did so, in some cases, better than those around them.
Were there any neuroatpyical characters, or PWD that had gotten them a different way, that I could see? No. But the fact that limbs didn't magically heal themselves, or regrow, and the fact that these were main characters - and, if there's a sequel (which, Hollywood willing, there will be) - these disabilities will carry through to it, counts as an amazing step forward in my mind.
It's not perfect. For example, I'd've loved to see Astrid be more active in the final battle stuff, or similar. Hell, more Astrid development in general wouldn't be amiss. But considering some of the crap that the entertainment industry has given us to work against, I'd definitely call it a disability-positive (or at least amputee-positive) movie. And it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Comments are open for more general fanning of the movie (and has anyone read the book(s) who would be willing to compare and contrast for me? ♥?), because I am so up for it. Or, you know, less general fanning of the movie work, too.
On an unrelated note! Does anyone else think that the people who made Furry Vengeance should have done their homework? Because for me, the title is invoking images entirely unlike what the premise of the film seems to be.
Today I mostly wanted to post about How to Train Your Dragon, which I saw last Wednesday with the family ♥
The short version: It was amazing and you should all go see it.
The Humorless Feminist version:
Did this movie pass the Bechdel Test? Well, quite frankly/IIRC, no. I give it points for effort, however, since two of Hiccup's six person class are girls, so it's inherently possible they could have spoken to one another about, say, the best way to take out Dragon Type K off-camera. And one of the main background vikings was a seriously strong-looking lady - not that we ever got to hear her speak, but one thing at a time, I suppose.
So yeah, speaking roles in general had more men than women. The number of speaking roles for girls and women is one of the ways I test the sexism level of a movie, or of a TV show. (See my complaints about A:TLA's lack of female incidentals; the show is pretty amazingly feminist and positive in so many other ways, but the number of male background characters, particularly with speaking parts, far outnumber the female background characters.) It also played the Dead Mother trope like a violin, which bugged me, but for Astrid and the one twin (I can't remember whether she was Ruffnut or Tuffnut, argh), I'm willing to overlook that a little more.
In summation, the women and girls who were featured were more than kickass enough for me (not that girls and women have to kick ass to be cool; it was just nice to see the story where it was the boy who lost his nerve and couldn't kill an animal for once, not the girl), but more of them (more girls/women, more screentime for those who were there, interpret how you like) would've been nice.
Did this movie have any Characters of Color? No. Given that all the characters were Vikings, however, I felt it was perfectly reasonable. Since the Vikings also define themselves as different from non-Vikings, it also leaves me free to imagine that, yes, there are people of color in that fantasy setting; they're just in a vastly different area. The dragons themselves were inherently Western, and Vikings are inherently Western (for a certain value of "western"), so it's not something that I felt horribly bothered by.
Not that I would mind an equivalent of this with an all character-of-color cast, of course; in fact, the metaphorical sounds of my rejoicing would likely echo from one end to end of the internet if one were made. I'm just saying that, IN THIS INSTANCE, I felt the all-white cast was reasonable and believable, and fit with the world that was built.
Now, the big one: Did this movie have any characters with disabilities? Fuck yes! Specifically, this movie had a number of characters, main characters even, with amputated and partially amputated limbs. In no way were they ever made to seem less than their able-bodied counterparts; they did have to have accommodations made - false limbs and such - but they were still able to fully participate in society once those accommodations were made, and they did so, in some cases, better than those around them.
Were there any neuroatpyical characters, or PWD that had gotten them a different way, that I could see? No. But the fact that limbs didn't magically heal themselves, or regrow, and the fact that these were main characters - and, if there's a sequel (which, Hollywood willing, there will be) - these disabilities will carry through to it, counts as an amazing step forward in my mind.
It's not perfect. For example, I'd've loved to see Astrid be more active in the final battle stuff, or similar. Hell, more Astrid development in general wouldn't be amiss. But considering some of the crap that the entertainment industry has given us to work against, I'd definitely call it a disability-positive (or at least amputee-positive) movie. And it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Comments are open for more general fanning of the movie (and has anyone read the book(s) who would be willing to compare and contrast for me? ♥?), because I am so up for it. Or, you know, less general fanning of the movie work, too.
On an unrelated note! Does anyone else think that the people who made Furry Vengeance should have done their homework? Because for me, the title is invoking images entirely unlike what the premise of the film seems to be.
