Another female led-movie, another manufactured controversy. We saw it with the female-only screenings of Wonder Woman, and the ridiculous harassment of Star Wars’ Kelly Tran. The recent stir surrounding Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel shows we just can’t get enough of being angry about something.
More than being a conversation about feminism, comic books or even movies, this media storm shows that we live in a culture obsessed with being outraged. If we look rationally at both the film and the conversation around it, we’ll find that marketing and a few poorly-worded comments from talent were mixed and injected into the current “outrage culture,” making for a social media/ internet frenzy that was unwarranted.
Captain Marvel came into existence as a feminist representation. Carol Danvers has always been the female answer to male superheroes. From her official introduction as Ms. Marvel, through her name change to Captain Marvel in 2012, the character has maintained her status as a social commentary. She drives any story arc she appears in, which is a departure from the usual love-interest role of female comics characters. She even had her own title for twelve years and became a primary Avenger!
Releasing her film on International Women’s Day should have been a nod to the history and accomplishments of women. The real statement would have been to present Carol’s story as an unmissable event, demonstrating that by excluding women, society suffers. However, Disney’s pushing of the ‘first female-fronted Marvel movie’ narrative got in the way of actually making Carol’s introduction a “can’t miss” event. The movie, unfortunately, doesn’t play a huge part in the larger MCU, which I think is a missed opportunity. If we truly want to consider female heroes integral, their movies need to be unmissable.
During the press tour for the movie, Brie Larson talked about her efforts to bring more diversity to her press junkets and interviews. She shared that she had a conversation with a sociologist who studies demographics of the entertainment industry. That researcher was Dr. Stacy L. Smith, the director of the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative at USC, who studies inequality in media. Larson referenced findings from their recent study on film critics, which showed a glaring lack of women of color, and acted on that information.
This is actually exactly what we should all be doing. Agree, disagree, or otherwise with Larson’s objectives; we need to take note of the method. Larson notices a trend in her work environment. She mentions the trend to a trained researcher who is able to determine if what she thinks she is observing is actually happening. The research comes back in the affirmative. Larson then acts on this information, attempting to correct what she sees as a biased or discriminatory trend. Admirably, she spoke up for those whom she thought weren’t being heard. This is a reasoned, thoughtful, and useful method – more on that later.
But thoughtfulness doesn’t go viral. Her less well-stated comments about ‘white dudes” reactions to A Wrinkle in Time made the rounds because they were viewed as more incendiary. Suddenly, Larson looks like an anti-white dude talking head, promoting a strongly feminist movie. To be fair, the media played into this madness, with headlines citing ‘trolls’ and ‘sexism’ before the film had even opened, then gushing over its success opening weekend.
Contrary to what was was repeatedly and incorrectly reported, the film was not bombed with ‘fake reviews.’ The ‘Want to See’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes was flooded with down-votes, presumably from those offended by Larson’s ‘white dude’ and diversity comments. Considering the total number of votes was less than 60,000, one would imagine this was not in fact, popular opinion, but a concerted effort against Larson. Fueling the vitriol, RT eliminated the ‘Want to See’ meter – which never should have existed, in my opinion – further angering the same folks.
Online culture can be toxic in any space. With feminism splintering, the conversation around and within has become increasingly loud and, at times, venomous. This means even the slightest perceived push-back against women is characterized as misogyny and bigotry. In this outrage environment, it’s no wonder online polls are having to change their gathering methods.
This was not “Captain Feminism, the movie.” There were a couple quips which could possibly be interpreted as aggressive feminism, but you had to be looking for those issues in order to find them. There was no man-bashing, no “angry feminist moments.” Carol Danvers is a woman who doesn’t hesitate and gets things done, which is refreshing. It was a good film, not a great film.
The film did riff on the unfortunate everyday problem of men telling women to smile. Carol handled it wonderfully. Another irony was the recurring theme (often repeated to women) of not letting emotions get out of control and make a mess.
The marketing for this movie is where the feminist angst did a disservice.
What originally seemed an excellent moment for girls and women, quickly became grating for some audiences. Disney’s “HER – HERO” gimmick came on a bit strong in the marketing, but the movie itself was nowhere near as overt as the trailers might appear. Many bloggers objected to having this female ‘strongest Avenger’ shoe-horned into the Avengers’ storyline, seemingly casting aside the lineup in favor of a feminist hero. Many remain concerned Captain Marvel will show up in Avengers Endgame to single-handedly save the day, again beating audiences over the head with girl power.
It has a 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which seems appropriate. In a ranking based on Rotten Tomatoes ratings, the film would fit at number 16, right above the first Thor movie and below the first Captain America movie, respectively. It does feel similar to those movies in that it may take a couple films for Captain Marvel to gain her footing.
The facts are this: Captain Marvel had the biggest global opening of a female led film ever. It opened in the US at $153 million. In its second weekend, this past weekend, the film brought in $69 million. It is currently sitting at $760 million worldwide. The numbers say the film is a solid hit.
Since the film hasn’t suffered, one might conclude that the ‘controversy’ was really a lot of hot air. Rather than reserving judgement for the actual film, people took sides in a polarizing political argument. This happens everyday in the political arena on social media. Are we really this quick to find things that anger us? Do we really just love being angry?
The answer is yes. According to psychiatrist Jean Kim, we are addicted to the adrenaline rush that comes from anger. In a recent article on Americans’ outrage, Ephrat Livni suggests that the healthier route for everyone is to take a step back and give yourself a moment to think rationally about whatever you’re consuming. Take a look at the quotes and evidence before inciting a social media mob. Outrage is only useful if it is channeled into a useful outlet.
Was this film the feminist icon-maker that the writers and directors wished? I don’t think so. I don’t see this film being a landmark in feminism, because it simply isn’t a great film. It is entertaining, and with a run-time right at 2 hours, the perfect length. It’s a fun movie, but you don’t leave the theater feeling that history has been made or a major shift just occurred.
The real takeaway from all of this is, as the movie suggests, to not let our emotions run out of control.
