Occupation: Girl

Please close the door and switch on the fun without fail.

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Those who are about to be flamed salute you
Okay, I'm having to explain a fragmented discussion to so many people that I want to recap it in one place. I am probably going to get my ass kicked for this. I am trying to convince myself that I regret nothing.

I liked The Avengers.

It's cool that you adored The Avengers.

I am not trying to rain on your parade. I am not trying to be that person who tells you that everything you love is bad and you should feel bad.

I don't actually feel the need to go on and on about this, but I'd rather have it all in one place and get it all out at once. If nothing else, this is a way to explain to people who are curious as to what the whole foofaraw is about. I will not bring it up again after this entry.

The Avengers was a great movie that had one sour note in it.

SPOILERS: That note was Loki calling Natasha a "mewling quim." Maybe that whole monologue went by so fast that no one was able to transcribe it; I can't find the full quote anywhere. Basically, if you haven't seen the movie or you missed this scene, Natasha/Black Widow has gone in to trick the trickster and lay out her own vulnerability so he'll let down his guard and tell her what the team needs to know. We saw her do this in her first scene with Russian gangsters; we know this is her specialty, using her presumed weakness as strength. Loki turns her "I just want you to spare Hawkeye" ploy against her (possibly she meant him to?), insisting that she really feels guilty about all the bloodshed in her past and thinks that saving one person will erase "the red from her ledger," and it won't. My memory gets fuzzy about the progression of the whole thing, but at some point he starts snarling about how he'll mind-control Hawkeye into killing her in the most horrible painful ways he can think of, and Natasha will feel horrible about it, and then Hawkeye will feel horrible about it, and then they'll both die feeling horrible about it together, or something. Somehow, this monologue climaxes with Loki calling her a "mewling quim." Scarlett Johansson's acting seems to indicate (in my interpretation) that Natasha is shocked and taken aback by Loki reaching past the false vulnerability she offered as bait and reaching down to some real pain, but she keeps rolling with it, gets the information the team needs, and when she turns back around to face him, her face is completely calm and unemotional; she tricked the trickster, etc. I feel like she really did feel pain in that scene; her strength is not that she faked it, but that she kept going anyway. I actually thought it was a really cool scene, and that the way Natasha turns sexist assumptions around to her own ends was really interesting; I liked the character a lot more than I expected. And yet... something felt really ugly and unnecessary and unpleasant about the whole thing.

I know more about vulgarity through the ages than I probably should, and I immediately recognized the word "quim." My jaw literally dropped, in the literal sense of literally, when I heard it. I mean, not onto the floor or anything, but it genuinely dropped a good inch or so. In less fancy English, Loki called her a "whining c---," a gendered insult in American usage that even I don't like to write out, and I curse a good bit. My understanding is that the word quim dates back to the early 1600s, meaning the female genitalia; in the Victorian era, it meant the female genitalia and/or the fluids therein as well. It is largely British usage, not American. (Supposedly it's not even English slang these days, just Welsh. Brits can confirm or deny this.) Which is, I'm pretty sure, the reason the word was used by the filmmakers and allowed by the MPAA: they didn't expect a whole lot of people to understand it. The American equivalent never would have made it in, particularly because it's pretty much the last expletive in American culture that's genuinely taboo. Coyly archaic or not, "mewling quim" was a really unpleasant thing to say, in a matching tone of voice that gets the spirit across if not the precise meaning, in an otherwise all-demographics PG-13 family-friendly superhero epic, and I don't understand why it was necessary.

So I was surprised when I saw this in Joss Whedon's letter to his fans:

RDA: What do you feel is the greatest achievement of "the Avoiders"?

JW: Getting "mewling quim" out there to the masses. Also, Hulk.

He's... proud of that? It's not just something he kind of sneaked in and hoped no one would understand?

I... well then.

(I concede the Hulk. Mark Ruffalo was pretty awesome.)

We had a large sub-discussion within the huge general discussion of the movie this week (seriously, I don't know that I'm caught up on all of it yet). The line bothered some people, and didn't bother others. Jim Hines discussed with us as well, then posted his own thoughts about it. I read some of the discussion on both of his comment sections (his website and his LJ); through all of it, some interesting points came up:

1) "Quim," like the C word itself, has a more casual, less sexualized meaning overseas. Well, but I'm not sure why Loki would use the off-color equivalent of "wanker" to insult a woman he was angry at, then. So I tend to think that the more derogatory meaning was intended.

2) Oh, but that whole scene's a riff on Silence of the Lambs, sort of a critique/deconstruction, where the imprisoned sociopath actually does lose control because Natasha is such a strong, strong woman. Actually, I can argue this movie all day, because it's my favorite. There actually is a scene where the C word is used. And it's not used by the film's incredibly popular villain-turned-antihero. Lecter is actually the one who says, "Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me; I would not have had that happen to you." Sociopathic face-eating cannibal: better manners than a demigod. Odin is disappointed in you, Loki.

3) Villains do vile things. In terms of narrative, it's both their nature and a way to show just how evil/awful/vicious/insane they might be. Point taken: Loki basically said (again, can't find a transcription) that he was going to make Hawkeye kill Natasha in the slowest, most painful way possible, and then make him realize what he'd done, and then make everyone feel horrible about it right before they both died. That's pretty vile. It was way more intense than the other antagonistic interactions in the movie; it might be to show that someone can get to Loki for once, that he's not psychologically invulnerable, that Natasha is stronger than he is. Okay, it's characterization. But I feel like the threat itself gets that across pretty thoroughly without resorting to the insult. It was really disturbing, but I'm more "disturbing in a good way" on that part. Again: I get it.

4) However, a number of Thor fans expressed surprise in the comments--they didn't even feel that an insult like "mewling quim" was in-character for Loki anyway. Even considering that, here's the thing about writing something in or out of character: The Avengers was not a documentary. You can say, "Well, Loki would say that, that's just how he is, here's why he did that." Actually? "Loki" didn't do that. He doesn't exist in the real world. Joss Whedon wrote that. (Given how pleased he seems with the line, I'm inferring that he wrote it. No one has claimed it was an ad-lib or came from the comics.) Whether he thought people would recognize the word or not, why was that a sentiment he wanted in his movie? I don't know.

The question may come down to, is it Loki's sexism or Whedon's sexism? (ETA: LET ME REPHRASE. Loki's moment of intended sexism, or Whedon's moment of unintended sexism? WE CAN ALL HAVE THEM.) I know he's a feminist. A number of things he's written seem to walk that "have my cake and eat it too" line. Are we talking about critiqued/subverted sexism, or actual unintended sexism, or both? It's such a fine line that I can't even make that call in my own mind. I just know that I was watching this movie, and at one particular moment, I felt uncomfortable, and this line seemed out of step with the overall tone and the character.

Some commenters, both male and female, said they had no problem with it. I'm not saying you're wrong or stupid or "not getting it." You have a valid interpretation of why that line worked and I am totally okay with that. Joss Whedon's proud of it, and... good for him, I guess. I'm glad The Avengers broke records and made people happy. For the love of lofty Norse demigods, I liked the movie. I wasn't fond of that line. This is my explanation why, because people on Twitter wanted to know what was going on. That's all.

That said: I really appreciate the incredibly civil discussion we've had here the last couple of days (and always). I will do whatever I have to do, as a moderator, to keep it that way. Let's continue to have nice things.

ETA on Thursday afternoon: I'm leaving comments open and will continue to read and moderate, but I won't be discussing anymore. I'm discussed out. We're at 353 comments as of this writing, and anything after that won't get a reply from me. If civility continues to hold, anyway.

ETA: Our very first nasty comment showed up sometime after 400! It is late Saturday night and I am tired and I don't want to deal with this entry ever again. Thank you for being 99% cool, and good night.

Site Meter

  • 1
Yeah... I hadn't even thought of it that way, only frightening with a female character. That's... somehow even worse. It's so weird to me that this streak of--something--crops up in Whedon's work, because I liked that there were three women (three! three whole actual women!) in the movie who didn't have cleavage hanging out and got to be capable and strong and useful, and he's clearly got SOME feminist themes going for him, and then... always something like THIS.

(People also pointed out that "...he's adopted" also ruined the Thor/Loki brotherhood dynamic for a one-liner.)
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

(People also pointed out that "...he's adopted" also ruined the Thor/Loki brotherhood dynamic for a one-liner.)

True. Hilarious? Yes. In character? Not really.
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

Basically, it seems as though any time Whedon thought he could get a "cool" snarky line in or some funny moment, he threw continuity and character out the window.

Which is a shame.
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

Just for the record, I can't agree that he was only portrayed as frightening with the female character. I just think that is going to vary according to the viewer.

The scene of his that I found the most disturbing -- probably moreso than the BW scene -- was the one where he uses the icky device to rip out the guy's eyeball while the guy is screaming. I have an eyeball squick. I was super happy they didn't show anything too graphic, but they showed just enough to really get me. I thought he was genuinely frightening in that scene. Particularly because the guy was just some innocent bystander, not a hero (like BW) who is presumed to be better equipped to stand up to the villain.

But, that's just me. I've heard comments from people about how Loki's killing of Coulson was the scary thing for them (and no, personally, the leavening of black humor in the scene doesn't negate that for me as a viewer).
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

And and implication that adoption = not a "real" sibling. :/
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, this is actually my main problem with Once Upon A Time. The birth mother turns up and it's all BYE, ADOPTIVE MOM, I DON'T LOVE YOU AND I DON'T CARE THAT YOU SPENT TEN YEARS RAISING ME, SHE'S MY REAL MOM AND I LIKE HER BETTER. Which might be fine if it were only coming from the kid, who obviously has a lot of confusion and IS A CHILD, but everyone calls this kid "your son" to the birth mother and saying things like "you're his mother, it's your job to take care of him." Like the fact that the other woman (who, being generally evil aside, has never abused or neglected the kid and seems to love him as far as we can tell, although we don't get a lot of genuine emotion from her) has legal rights to and responsibilities for this child, and changed all his diapers and feeds him and clothes him and stuff doesn't matter at all. Because... only birth families are "real."
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

I have no truck whatsoever with OUaT's grating adoption/REEL FAMILY!! storylines, but Regina tries to convince her child he is insane and needs to be 'fixed' because it would inconvenience her, and she makes multiple deliberate attempts to emotionally destroy him in order to sustain possession of him. Sooooo though that doesn't excuse the behaviour of any other characters besides Emma (who sees it happen) and maybe Mary Margaret, due to her closeness, there's no doubt that Henry needs to get away from Regina.
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

I mean, no, she's horrible. But there are Unfortunate Implications in the way it's set up.

I did love last week when Mary Margaret suddenly started talking sense after Emma tried to run away with Henry. "You don't want people to rely on you, so you took a kid with you? What a reat home for Henry to grow up in." Hee. But then she ruined it by finishing with "You're his mother. It's your job to take care of him," which was effective for making Emma think about what she was doing, but also it isn't her job because she isn't his mother. And no judge in the world would give her custody, even if it were common for judges to reverse adoptions when children were ten.
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

I remember in the first episode when I was like 'okay, props to you Emma for briefly floundering because you didn't want to call yourself his mother' and then for the next twenty episodes going 'seriously, show? Seriously? Emma may, for example, have an explanation for being so vehemently against the foster care system, your narrative does not.'
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

  • 1

Log in