I'm Cold, and There Are Wolves After Me

In disaster movies, we expect our heroes to face all manner of obstacles. If it's a sinking ship, you're gonna have flooding, freezing, dangerous debris. If it's a burning building, you're gonna see flames, smoke, falling structures. Either might explore obstacles in the form of human weakness or selfishness. But for the most part, we want the obstacles -- all of them -- to be the direct result of the initial disaster.

Which is why the wolf sequence in The Day After Tomorrow feels so lame. Here we've got climate going haywire, killing millions, burying major cities... but we're going to watch a couple of kids getting chased by CG wolves on a boat.

The wolves feel tacked-on and strain credibility. They're bordering on Kim Bauer's foot getting caught in the cougar trap. Just what are the odds?

Imagine there was a sequence in Inconvenient Truth about how maybe we'll all also be in danger of hungry, roaming wolves when the climate shit goes down. (There isn't, is there?)

I know it was tough, Day After Tomorrow -- how can you continue to up the stakes when your disaster, your antagonist, is basically winter? I wish you'd turned your attention inward, to human conflict in that library, instead of throwing wolves at the problem.

Bitch Bitch Bitch

I got out a lot, into the sun, this long weekend. Honest, I did. But I also spent a little over two hours in the darkness of the theatre, with an old friend named John McClane.

Live Free or Die Hard was a lot of fun. I'm not going to break it down for you... I think you're pretty much going, or not. But something did occur to me during this movie that I think is worth mentioning. Very early on, there's a moment in which a henchman tells another henchman -- both of whom have just screwed up -- "You tell her." And for about .0015 of a second I thought: ooh, is the big baddie in this Die Hard a woman?

It's not. I'm not even spoiling anything -- the villain is not kept secret long. And while a "he" is in charge, his number two is definitely a force to be reckoned with. And it occurred to me: why the heck couldn't the supervillain in this movie have been a woman? And why is this so darn rare?

Here, I think, is the problem, broken down into its problem-parts:

1) A big, bad villain has to be really powerful and bad-ass. That can be a woman, but there's this general feeling that a super-strong woman is an exception to the rule. (Though TV seems to make this exception all the time for gals like Buffy, Veronica, Xena, Sydney Bristow, Jamie Sommers, Painkiller Jane, Jessica "Dark Angel" Alba, etc.)

2) On a related note, many find depictions of evil women lacking in credibility. Women are believed to be more nurturing, more community-minded... less selfish, less on-the-take. My argument to that? Do you find the male villains in action movies credible as human beings?

3) I have to wonder if there's a sense that we won't enjoy seeing a female villain getting the snot kicked out of her when her time comes. I have to say--the new Die Hard doesn't pull a single punch (or McClane-quip) from the female baddie, and I, for one, found that refreshing. I wasn't uncomfortable, because she was his physical match. They were equals; she was no victim.

4) It's possible that many filmmakers are reluctant to write a female villain because the very act of casting a woman as evil can feel political: mean women tend to be either androgynous monsters (Tilda Swinton as Narnia's White Witch), traiterous whores (Lena Olin's Mona in Romeo is Bleeding) or hideous, loveless, jealous, bitter crones (pretty much any Disney villain from the '30s through 1989). To that, I say the obvious: well then, do something else with your mean ladies!

Now, I don't expect to reconcile everything about men and women and the male gaze, and give birth to a new form of feminism that makes everyone feel equal to the point where characters are accessing the whole spectrum of human possibility... but wouldn't it be cool if I did? Take that, all you people who think blogging's a waste of time! Ha! (Hey, would you guys mind backing me up here? Could you go ahead and write some awesome female villains, that are interesting and credible and ass-kicky, so my blog legacy will live on? Thanks, I owe ya!)

*Props to Joss Whedon for Glory and Jasmine, among others, as well as Glenn Close for her Marquise. Feel free to add your props-deservers below.

Going the Other Way

When I finally saw Casino Royale, I understood why everyone was excited. (Beyond Daniel Craig's abs. Can we focus, please?)

A big part of the reason Casino Royale was so fun was because it was full of surprises. It was full of surprises because it repeatedly turned our expectations on their heads.

Exhibits A through E:

A. He's a blond, thick, serious looking Bond. There was hoopla over the casting. Clearly, the intent was to go as far away from Pierce Brosnan's prettiness as possible. Which lent the movie some bad-assishness.

B. This bond is anything but effete, and doesn't quite belong. Shaken or stirred? they ask. He answers: "Do I look like I give a damn?"

C. The little details don't work out the way they normally do. At one point in the hotel hallway, Bond's earpiece gives him away. (I've always wondered why that doesn't happen more often.)

D. When this Bond is tortured, he doesn't seem unhurtable. He's actually pretty darn vulnerable. In fact, the torture he goes through is about the worst (and possibly most humiliating?) a man can suffer. This movie risks emasculating Bond, which actually has the opposite effect.

E. This Bond genuinely loves the girl, and has a complete character arc. Refreshing!

It's hard to say if many of these particular "fresh takes" can be repeated as the series continues, or if they're "reboot" factors. Nevertheless, if future Bond films surprise us by intentionally doing the things we don't expect them to... I'm in.