That's not the question, though. The question (and one of the few points the review makes that I agree with) is how will the film adaptation choose to portray these females? Will Helen be a doe-eyed, passive pawn? Will Athena's wrath be shown in any depth, or will it be relegated to the role of petulance and self-importance? Will they show the gods politicking, scheming, lying to each other, and to what extent will they ignore the nuances of the relationships in order to focus on the lustful, magic-induced, maniacal arrogance of Paris romantic pathos of Helen and Paris?
Tolkien's interpretations of females in the books often had more in their subtext than their text, and the films both did and did not balance that out. I do not like, for example, the portrayal of Arwen as a sword-wielding border guard in FotR, especially since it got completely dropped in the other two films, but mostly because that's not how Arwen operates - she's not a chick in chain mail. The power and influence she wields over Aragorn is completely sexual, and I have a problem, too, with Jackson's decision to retain her as his "inspiration" in that hokey Sir Walter Scott sense, without also playing up the aspect in which she holds his victory over him in the book (i.e., you don't get this until you do what you're supposed to do). The tension between Aragorn and Eowyn, then, is more keenly felt in the book, IMO, *because* she is such a departure from the other woman in his life - all the other women, in fact, but particularly Arwen. He finds the idea of a warrior chick kinda hot, but not sufficiently hot to screw up his relationship with Arwen (which, in and of itself, is remarkable for a man ;^)). And of course, Eowyn's character boils down to a nifty little twist on the whole, "Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripp'd" plotline with the Witch-King.
But mainly, I think, the treatment of women in both Homer and Tolkien is pretty limited, and yet oddly revolutionary. In Homer, because the natural misogyny of the era limited the ways in which his females (except for the goddesses) could exert their power; in Tolkien, not necessarily because of any underlying or deliberate misogyny (I'm far from an expert on his personal views), but because the *story he's telling* is of a world and of a time and of a type where women's roles were more-or-less marked by their gender. Because hes deliberately evoking the Medieval feeling in the books, of course he's going to subjugate women to some degree in them. However, I would really hesitate to say that Galadriel*, Arwen, and Eowyn do not measure up to Athena, Penelope*, or Helen. I think they all exert the fullest influence they're allowed to have within the contexts of the worlds they inhabit.
*Celeborn is whipped...dude, Galadriel is clearly noted to be the one in control there.
*Well, as someone else noted, this chick is possibly the smartest cookie of them all. She's a genius compared to the men of her court. Yeesh.
Well, I am sort of an expert on Homer. I have read it in the original Greek and have my degree in classical studies. I am co-authoring a book on feminine archtypes in Greek texts. You are mischaracterizing both his age and his women, and lumping the Odyssey and the Iliad together. What the commenter (not the review) said was that there were no good women in the Iliad. The movie is not the Iliad, it doesn't even try to be. it encompasses action not in the poem.
Before I start in, though, I do like your analysis of Arwen. It's something my husband and I have discussed.
The misogyny you mention is a function of the Attic era. Homeric Greece was certainly not Berkeley, but it had a very different view of women. I mentioned Penthesilea--she is the queen of the Amazons. I'd put her against Eowyn any day of the week. Every single archetype of the psyche, male and female, is present in the Iliad. That's why it still resonates with us. Hecuba, Cassandra, the gods, these are stunning characters, not only strong but complex--and in LOTR the women are not terribly complex. The Silmarillion deepens Galadriel's character somewhat, but you cannot feed into the movie information which is not there. If Eowyn is given he due in the EE, I'll be mollified somewhat, but that doesn't make her greater than the heroic women of Troy and Greece. The Odyssey is far more complicated--its women are both more complex, more evil, and more benevolent. But they are there, they are fascinating, and to say that Tolkien beats Homer for female characters--far from saying Jackson does, is sort of laughable. Even Breseis, and I wonder if she will be in the movie version, has a moment of standing up for herself.
We can't judge the movie yet. I'm fairly sure it will suck. But the person I was responding to couldn't even come up with the name of Hecuba ( I think that's who she was referring to) and yet thought the three measly female roles plus one non-speaking hobbit rated more consideration than women whose lives and names have become metaphors for the deepest parts of the human psyche.
I'm not saying that Tolkien's females beat Homer's (and I'll defer to your expertise in classics); I'm just saying that they're none of them slouches given the periods they represent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pegkerr![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Feminism in texts
Date: 2004-04-09 09:55 am (UTC)lustful, magic-induced, maniacal arrogance of Parisromantic pathos of Helen and Paris?Tolkien's interpretations of females in the books often had more in their subtext than their text, and the films both did and did not balance that out. I do not like, for example, the portrayal of Arwen as a sword-wielding border guard in FotR, especially since it got completely dropped in the other two films, but mostly because that's not how Arwen operates - she's not a chick in chain mail. The power and influence she wields over Aragorn is completely sexual, and I have a problem, too, with Jackson's decision to retain her as his "inspiration" in that hokey Sir Walter Scott sense, without also playing up the aspect in which she holds his victory over him in the book (i.e., you don't get this until you do what you're supposed to do). The tension between Aragorn and Eowyn, then, is more keenly felt in the book, IMO, *because* she is such a departure from the other woman in his life - all the other women, in fact, but particularly Arwen. He finds the idea of a warrior chick kinda hot, but not sufficiently hot to screw up his relationship with Arwen (which, in and of itself, is remarkable for a man ;^)). And of course, Eowyn's character boils down to a nifty little twist on the whole, "Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripp'd" plotline with the Witch-King.
But mainly, I think, the treatment of women in both Homer and Tolkien is pretty limited, and yet oddly revolutionary. In Homer, because the natural misogyny of the era limited the ways in which his females (except for the goddesses) could exert their power; in Tolkien, not necessarily because of any underlying or deliberate misogyny (I'm far from an expert on his personal views), but because the *story he's telling* is of a world and of a time and of a type where women's roles were more-or-less marked by their gender. Because hes deliberately evoking the Medieval feeling in the books, of course he's going to subjugate women to some degree in them. However, I would really hesitate to say that Galadriel*, Arwen, and Eowyn do not measure up to Athena, Penelope*, or Helen. I think they all exert the fullest influence they're allowed to have within the contexts of the worlds they inhabit.
*Celeborn is whipped...dude, Galadriel is clearly noted to be the one in control there.
*Well, as someone else noted, this chick is possibly the smartest cookie of them all. She's a genius compared to the men of her court. Yeesh.
Re: Feminism in texts
Date: 2004-04-09 03:12 pm (UTC)Before I start in, though, I do like your analysis of Arwen. It's something my husband and I have discussed.
The misogyny you mention is a function of the Attic era. Homeric Greece was certainly not Berkeley, but it had a very different view of women. I mentioned Penthesilea--she is the queen of the Amazons. I'd put her against Eowyn any day of the week. Every single archetype of the psyche, male and female, is present in the Iliad. That's why it still resonates with us. Hecuba, Cassandra, the gods, these are stunning characters, not only strong but complex--and in LOTR the women are not terribly complex. The Silmarillion deepens Galadriel's character somewhat, but you cannot feed into the movie information which is not there. If Eowyn is given he due in the EE, I'll be mollified somewhat, but that doesn't make her greater than the heroic women of Troy and Greece. The Odyssey is far more complicated--its women are both more complex, more evil, and more benevolent. But they are there, they are fascinating, and to say that Tolkien beats Homer for female characters--far from saying Jackson does, is sort of laughable. Even Breseis, and I wonder if she will be in the movie version, has a moment of standing up for herself.
We can't judge the movie yet. I'm fairly sure it will suck. But the person I was responding to couldn't even come up with the name of Hecuba ( I think that's who she was referring to) and yet thought the three measly female roles plus one non-speaking hobbit rated more consideration than women whose lives and names have become metaphors for the deepest parts of the human psyche.
Re: Feminism in texts
Date: 2004-04-09 05:32 pm (UTC)