Jurassic World
Three weeks after its release, I finally got to see Jurassic World today. I've only ever seen the first Jurassic Park film, and, really, that's all you need to watch in preparation for this film (as there are many *direct* references to the original film, and even a returning character (looking at you, Henry Wu)). And, you know what? This film totally lived up to the original. Of course, it'll never be as good as it, but it certainly didn't put it to shame.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. I actually wanted to talk about my MAIN PROBLEM with the film, and that's the character arc of Bryce Dallas Howard's character, Claire Dearing.
Her character is introduced as the career-focused aunt of the two children protagonists. She's the "park operations manager" (according to the wiki) of Jurassic World and, when we meet her, it's obvious that her job and the park are the most important things in her life. This is where things start becoming a little problematic for me, because the film starts to tell you that her personality and her priorities in life are incorrect with all the subtlety of a T-Rex.
So, the park's success is important to her, but it's success isn't measured by the emotional well-being of the inhabitants (both human and dinosaur) but rather by the numerical proof of sales and satisfaction ratings, basically telling us she's detached and uncaring, or at best naive and unqualified to have a job at a dinosaur park. Meanwhile, the men in her life (her boss, Simon Masrani, and her love interest, Owen Grady) tell her she needs to see the dinosaurs as living beings, not "assets."
Speaking of her love interest, she and Owen, Chris Pratt's character, went on a single date once, but it didn't work out because she had planned out their entire first date, complete with a schedule. She likes to be organized and prepared, but Owen implies quite bluntly that it's abnormal to plan out a first date. Then he goes on to attack her need to be in control.
Finally, there was a point where Claire's sister, Karen, (the mother of the children protagonists) calls Claire to ask why Claire isn't spending time with her nephews, and Claire explains that that day hadn't been a particularly good one to be showing her nephews around the park (she'd been busy with important sponsor meetings and taking care of an upcoming attraction a.k.a. the Indominous Rex). Somehow, the conversation turns to how Claire "will understand she has kids," to which Claire responds "if" she has kids, and her sister just reiterates (and emphasizes), "no, when."
Then, finally, at the end of the movie, we have Claire looking at children consideringly and giving up control, which is great and fine, except I didn't notice ANY OTHER CHARACTERS HAVE ARCS IN THE FILM. Not even Alpha Badass Chris Pratt. And that's my problem. Claire was the only character to have an arc, and it was just to say that being a young woman focused on her job and not wanting kids is WRONG. That a woman who prefers to be in control is WRONG. And I'm just sitting there in the theater sneering because THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T WANT KIDS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A WOMAN WHO PRIORITIZES HER JOB. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A WOMAN WHO PREFERS TO BE IN CONTROL.
Instead, the movie tells us the opposite. The movie tells us she needs to change, and she's the ONLY CHARACTER THAT CHANGES. And the fact that she gets with Chris Pratt at the end of the film just tells us that SHE was the one that needed to change, NOT HIM, because he was already fucking perfect, right???? With his velociraptor pack bond and his seeing the dinosaurs as animals thing. He didn't need to change, but SHE did, as if there was anything wrong with her.
Then you look at the rest of the movie, and not including the dinosaurs, we have four major female characters: Claire, Karen, Zara (Claire's assistant), and Vivian (the woman who works in the control room with Lowery, the Jurassic Park/dinosaur nerd guy). Claire is a workaholic, Karen is a mother, Zara is cold (or impassive, or also a workaholic, I don't know, we didn't get to see her a lot, but we know she's not good at watching a couple teenagers), and Vivian sends messages across the park and also has a boyfriend. Besides Claire, none of these women really have personalities, and Claire's personality is almost entirely portrayed as negative. Meanwhile, the male characters have humanity (particularly Simon Masrani and Owen) and senses of humor (Lowery) and PERSONALITIES. Sure, they're the villains, too, but that's because they have enough representation in the film and the writers gave them the emotional range to be able to be villainous.
So, yeah, fun movie, but somehow Pacific Rim with its two characters (one of which only has dialogue during combat and said dialogue is mostly in RUSSIAN) is more feminist.
Sorry this is a total mess, I'm still organizing my thoughts, I just wanted to get this out there. I might come back later, or at least post a follow-up (especially after I've seen the film again), but, knowing me, probably not.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. I actually wanted to talk about my MAIN PROBLEM with the film, and that's the character arc of Bryce Dallas Howard's character, Claire Dearing.
Her character is introduced as the career-focused aunt of the two children protagonists. She's the "park operations manager" (according to the wiki) of Jurassic World and, when we meet her, it's obvious that her job and the park are the most important things in her life. This is where things start becoming a little problematic for me, because the film starts to tell you that her personality and her priorities in life are incorrect with all the subtlety of a T-Rex.
So, the park's success is important to her, but it's success isn't measured by the emotional well-being of the inhabitants (both human and dinosaur) but rather by the numerical proof of sales and satisfaction ratings, basically telling us she's detached and uncaring, or at best naive and unqualified to have a job at a dinosaur park. Meanwhile, the men in her life (her boss, Simon Masrani, and her love interest, Owen Grady) tell her she needs to see the dinosaurs as living beings, not "assets."
Speaking of her love interest, she and Owen, Chris Pratt's character, went on a single date once, but it didn't work out because she had planned out their entire first date, complete with a schedule. She likes to be organized and prepared, but Owen implies quite bluntly that it's abnormal to plan out a first date. Then he goes on to attack her need to be in control.
Finally, there was a point where Claire's sister, Karen, (the mother of the children protagonists) calls Claire to ask why Claire isn't spending time with her nephews, and Claire explains that that day hadn't been a particularly good one to be showing her nephews around the park (she'd been busy with important sponsor meetings and taking care of an upcoming attraction a.k.a. the Indominous Rex). Somehow, the conversation turns to how Claire "will understand she has kids," to which Claire responds "if" she has kids, and her sister just reiterates (and emphasizes), "no, when."
Then, finally, at the end of the movie, we have Claire looking at children consideringly and giving up control, which is great and fine, except I didn't notice ANY OTHER CHARACTERS HAVE ARCS IN THE FILM. Not even Alpha Badass Chris Pratt. And that's my problem. Claire was the only character to have an arc, and it was just to say that being a young woman focused on her job and not wanting kids is WRONG. That a woman who prefers to be in control is WRONG. And I'm just sitting there in the theater sneering because THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T WANT KIDS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A WOMAN WHO PRIORITIZES HER JOB. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A WOMAN WHO PREFERS TO BE IN CONTROL.
Instead, the movie tells us the opposite. The movie tells us she needs to change, and she's the ONLY CHARACTER THAT CHANGES. And the fact that she gets with Chris Pratt at the end of the film just tells us that SHE was the one that needed to change, NOT HIM, because he was already fucking perfect, right???? With his velociraptor pack bond and his seeing the dinosaurs as animals thing. He didn't need to change, but SHE did, as if there was anything wrong with her.
Then you look at the rest of the movie, and not including the dinosaurs, we have four major female characters: Claire, Karen, Zara (Claire's assistant), and Vivian (the woman who works in the control room with Lowery, the Jurassic Park/dinosaur nerd guy). Claire is a workaholic, Karen is a mother, Zara is cold (or impassive, or also a workaholic, I don't know, we didn't get to see her a lot, but we know she's not good at watching a couple teenagers), and Vivian sends messages across the park and also has a boyfriend. Besides Claire, none of these women really have personalities, and Claire's personality is almost entirely portrayed as negative. Meanwhile, the male characters have humanity (particularly Simon Masrani and Owen) and senses of humor (Lowery) and PERSONALITIES. Sure, they're the villains, too, but that's because they have enough representation in the film and the writers gave them the emotional range to be able to be villainous.
So, yeah, fun movie, but somehow Pacific Rim with its two characters (one of which only has dialogue during combat and said dialogue is mostly in RUSSIAN) is more feminist.
Sorry this is a total mess, I'm still organizing my thoughts, I just wanted to get this out there. I might come back later, or at least post a follow-up (especially after I've seen the film again), but, knowing me, probably not.