Feminism in 'The Dark Knight'

*Originally published on 2/16/09



I already wrote about the state of feminism in everyday society. Today I'm going to look at how they respond to the media, more specifically film.
I'm going to start with The Incredibles. No critics actually raised a fuss, but I did read one commenter state that they did not like how it reenforced "traditional gender roles". As I said before, there is nothing wrong with a woman staying home to raise a family. I wouldn't even say that the film glorifies it. They're hiding in plain sight against their wishes. They're making due, but it's clear that they want to go back to the days of crime fighting. As far as women being incapable, need I remind you that she, in fact, rescues him later in the film? There are times when legitimate points are raised, and other times where people read way too much into things.

Another film that raised the eyebrows of feminists was The Dark Knight. The complaint was that there were too few female characters and that the few female leads were all negative. I say hooey on this. Let's break it down shall we?

1. Rachel Dawes was fridged: This I actually can't disagree with. I saw it more as casting off dead weight but this is a legitimate criticism. She was killed solely to have the others get mad and try to avenge her. The good news is that this opens up plot options to bring in Selina Kyle or Talia, characters who are stronger and richer characters than Rachel ever was.

2. Ramirez was corrupt: A corrupt cop? On the Gotham City police force? Gasp! You don't say! Wasn't it established in the last film that practically everyone was on the take? This was fine when they were all fat men,but show one woman, just one who's corrupt and everyone cries out "No! No! Foul! Unacceptable!" It's a load of hogwash. Yes, it's true that the police force has improved since Ra's attack but it is by no means squeaky clean. She's not even all that bad, just caught in a tight situation and stuck between a rock and a hard place. Flass was a much more negative portrayal than she was.

3. All Mrs. Gordon did was cry and be ineffectual: OK, that's true, but I will argue that this is not a negative thing. It's true, she could have used some more screen time, but the film was long as is. I'm guessing Nolan wanted to keep the padding to a minimum. Back to my point, how is her crying all the time not negative? Simple, look at the circumstances. When we first see her it's when two officers report her husband has died. She breaks down and starts to cry. This is a normal human response. The man she loved is dead, what do you want her to do? Start singing "Roll out the barrels" before running off to go sleep with the pool boy? That would be a much worse portrayal for women than what we see here. We see her again, albeit briefly, when Gordon returns. Now she's crying tears of joy. She loves her husband, again, this is a good thing! When next we see her, she (along with the rest of the Gordon family) are being held hostage and at gunpoint by the crazed vigilante known as Two-Face. She lets out some whimpers of fear. She's holding up better than most would in my opinion. Even Gordon's horrified for his family and starts to tear up so I don't think less of her for being scared because an insane DA turned serial killer is holding a gun to her son's head.

The Dark Knight was a big movie that featured an ensemble cast, a movie more about the city as a whole than any character individually. Would a larger female presence have helped the film? I don't know, probably. I don't think it was out of any disregard for strong women that the film turned out as it did. The story just simply ended up that way. I mean with all that was going on in that film, did it really need another subplot? Heck people were saying that it was too padded as it was!

There's one film though, where I am actually 100% in agreement with the women who complained. The Little Mermaid seems harmless enough. Then you realize that she's selling her soul (as well as giving up a part of her self, something that makes her unique) to get the love of a man that she barely knows. It's a warped Aesop to be sure. The fault lies with Disney here though. In the original story, the prince ends up marrying another woman and Ariel ends up dying. The lesson being essentially "don't do that". Disney decided to go with a happy ending and it just makes what she did seem like the right thing to do.

My normal response in situations like this is to shrug and think that the person just needs to relax and take the film for the escapist fare that it is. Other times, they raise a good point and make you view a movie in a whole new light. People should be careful though, you don't want to cry "Feminism foul!" at every movie. You'd lose credibility and when you do have a legitimate complaint, no one will bother listening because they've heard it hundreds of times before.