Maybe those critical studies classes finally got to me. Or maybe, now that I’ve been writing more consistently, I’ve become a little more sensitive to the messages a film projects, something I keep an overprotective eye on while sorting out my own characters and their worlds. While everyone—well, mostly everyone—wants to avoid ugly stereotypes, there are those other, subtler stereotypes and easy generalizations that work their way into many films and TV shows. While I’d hardly call most of them destructive, it does bring up the argument of how art and society’s relationship should function. Should film show us who we are or who we should strive to be? Well, the answer, of course, is “Yes.”
Two sophomore series on NBC were actually the first examples to come to mind in terms of successfully tackling that relationship. Friday Night Lights’ consistent realism in its characters[1], social relationships (between genders, races, and classes), and its authentic visual style (except for the twentysomethings playing teens) bring a gritty, reflective weight to the way it tackles its real-world themes, even when they have to exhibit the ugly side of our American culture. Heroes, meanwhile, imbues its fantasy-laden 
storylines with a bit of progressivism; the cast is incredibly diverse in every sense of the word and while the quality of the show fell off quite a bit, at least it kept trying to undermine stereotypes (even when it accidentally did the opposite.)
But what does any of this have to do with the title of this article? Well, now I’m going to get to that. I really liked Iron Man; as far as the acting and direction go, it’s all A-class and the story is fun, perfectly-paced escapism. But here’s my bone to pick and I’m being really nitpicky about this bone: wasn’t Iron Man a little bit sexist?
I’m not saying that because (at least not only because) the hero and the villain are male while the sidekick—who’s a really awesome personal assistant!—is female. I recognize that that’s a pretty integral part of the source material and the movie plays this off so charmingly that it’s hard to cry foul. However, based solely on memory, there are three other female speaking roles in the film.
- the female soldier (who blows up)
- the Vanity Fair reporter (who sleeps with Tony after he makes a pretty chauvinistic come-on; later Pepper—and the movie—calls her “trash” )
- a TV reporter (who works for E!...and is playing herself)
Even in a scene near the climax, in which Jeff Bridges’ character talks to the scientists about the mini-heart-generator-thing, not a single one of the scientists is female. Even the Spider-Man movies, which all feature damsel-in-distress climaxes, portray a number of female scientists. (Remember those Maxim models in lab coats who were zapping sand with gamma rays for some reason in Spider-Man 3?)
And here’s where you could argue, “But Aaron, isn’t Iron Man just trying to reflect the real world? The main fields that Iron Man explores—science, military warfare, and terrorism—are all dominated by males.”
And here’s where I reply, “What kind of awesome crack have you been smoking?” Nothing about Iron Man screams “real world” except for maybe the fact that Stark makes good money selling bombs to use on the Middle East. (I’m just sayin’, there's good money there.) A film that features obvious artificial intelligence (JARVIS was clearly A.I.
[2]) and never even acknowledges it clearly takes place in either a really sweet-looking future or an alternate universe. Either way, Iron Man isn’t operating in any kind of reality, gritty or sleek.
But here’s where I would be willing to concede my point: if Iron Man was purposefully “going retro.” Pepper and Tony's relationship certainly has a Mad Men-ish quality to it. But was its portrayal of gender roles a knowing wink to the comics? Was Pepper Potts’ unrelenting loyalty[3] operating on a level of irony? Was the male-dominated science world a throwback to the comic’s world, which took place during Vietnam (though, decidedly post-women’s lib)? There are not enough clues around the film to suggest, besides maybe Pepper’s name and Tony’s house, which may have had the same interior decorator as The Jetsons, that the movie’s picking up a retro-kitsch vibe, and that the lack of strong females is the result of it. No, I think the oversight is all too modern.
In case my tone hasn’t made it clear, I’m simply using Iron Man as an example. I think its sin is completely forgivable; I just wish someone had told Central Casting to get a female in the mix when they were casting bio-robotics technicians. It’s less a quibble, in fact, than an observation that led to deeper consideration. When a movie that's so huge and is clearly asking questions in the vein of "Wouldn't it be cool if...", it would simply be nice for it to take the opportunity to use its power of suggestion and subconscious programming[4] on its mass audience and, without altering the plot, maybe debunk a stereotype or two.
But I’m anxious to hear your guys’ thoughts. Do you notice this stuff? Am I crazy for even bringing it up? And am I completely in the wrong/overreacting by pushing for some stronger female roles in tentpole films[5]? Have I gotten--holding back the vomit--ACLU-ish over here? Let me know.
[1] I love the way that, in season 2, a woman as seemingly progressive as Tami Taylor felt that “The World According to Garp” was too mature for her daughter to be reading, even though her newspaper advisor had recommended it. A nice little way of saying, “We’re still in Dillon, Texas, people.”
[2] And also male.
[3] She reaches into the guy’s chest even though it’s “Eww! So gooey and gross!”
[4] That reminds me. I have to go buy an Audi now.
[5] Like Cate Blanchett as a Nazi! No, seriously, that’s gonna rock.
(Haven't you ever watched Saving Private Ryan and thought, "I wish this was more allegorical"? No?) We lose James McAvoy's Mr. Tumnus this time around, but we do get Trumpkin, a DLF (dear little friend) who plays like Tumnus' grouchy next-door neighbor. Dinklage's dignified gravitas brings an emotional heft that's lacking elsewhere in the film. He ponders each moral dilemma with a quiet humility, but he's also a stubborn bastard. Dinklage's eyes alone--under the layers of make-up--cut through the special effects to portray the real problems, problems of leadership and faith and fear, that plague our four Pevensie children and the prince that inexplicably does a Mandy Patinkin-in-Princess Bride impression for two hours.
STATE OF PLAY ON DVD
