ATTENTION: movie spoiler alert (although, not a very good one).
I once heard an activist writer say that if you can count the number of exceptions to the rule, then the rule still applies. It doesn't matter how you explain the importance of women owning their sexuality in film, I’m still reticent to say that a woman’s sexual agency is an important part of her cinematic identity. Because, no matter what cultural lens you filter information, or process experiences, through, you are always introduced to femininity (and by extension, female leads) as a third party bystander to the development of a meaningful storyline. What does this mean? It means that femininity is always secondary. Whether or not this is accidental or the byproduct of male voice dominating film is irrelevant. My personal experience suggests that each time I watch a film, no matter how avant-garde or progressive the work, I’m constantly let down by the portrayal of women as the sex object, sexual foil, or sexual “arbiter”* (see note below). The new Stark Trek movie was no exception.
I know what you are thinking. There goes Watson over analyzing stuff again. Let me say that Star Trek was good. No amount of sexism can refute that. However, I’m still processing my feelings about the film. If I were put in a corner, and asked for my knee-jerk emotional reaction to the lead female character, I would say I feel disappointed, at best, maybe even a little cheated. Many people were pleasantly surprised and cheered the introduction of Spock and Uhura as love interests (don’t worry, it’s not as interesting as it sounds). I admit that my prudish sensibilities are the main cause for my resistance to the pairing. Why must sexual tension always act as propulsion for the interpersonal relationships of different sex characters? But, with the introduction of this colorful relationship (no pun intended), it offers more of a distraction to the plot, which is to vanquish the enemies, both internal and external. But, that is only a surface level issue for me. I’m more concerned with what it says about the female archetype in film.
Uhura is a character who’s been compromised by years of cultural baggage: the only female character with a voice, surrounded by males and multi-manifestations of masculinity. She was already at a disadvantage coming into the new film, having to overcome the glorified secretary/operator role where she sat (literally and figuratively) for three seasons and forty plus years of pop-lore. This 2009 film was her opportunity to breakout of type. Unfortunately, as is the case with any targeted or marginalized group who has the opportunity to defile stereotypes, the insignificance of the type itself keeps them bound to the rigidity of their assumed “performance”. For, what else could the attractive female lead do but perform to the expectations of heterosexual male assumptions and fantasies? To be the marker of sexuality for a male lead is what’s assumed. It wouldn’t, based on the feminine type articulated by dominant male culture, happen any other way. You don't think so? Then ask yourself two questions.
1.) Would we ever see Uhura hit on Kirk, and he in turn resist her advances?
2.) Would we watch Spock come to play Uhura's comforter in times of emotional distress or difficulty?
No, what we get is what we expect- a woman aboard a starship in a professional environment playing up her sexual identity at the expense of accessing equality and power in the very environment where it’s necessary- a community where survival is dependent on being detached from vulnerability that comes with forming sexual connections.
Am I saying that we should reject sexual identity and chemistry as important factors in character relations and development? No.
Am I saying that the American media sacrifices women’s intrinsic value by making them solely sexual beings? Yes.
Am I saying that Uhura’s character is compromised in this film? Mostly.
Am I suggesting that her sole purpose was pleasing the audiences thirst to see a heterosexual hookup? Not necessarily.
But, the embodiment of her character does raise the question of whether her sexuality could have been assumed without playing it out in such a stereotypical way. After all, she artfully evaded the role of sex object. Unfortunately, her role as sexual “arbiter” wasn’t quite as nimble. I guess we could look on the bright side and say that her character managed to escape the entrapment of the female as sexual foil. But, at least as the foil, she would have been a more active participant in her own betrayal.
Note:
*Sexual arbiter, being one who is responsible for making decision about the sexual vigor or stuntedness of another. One who acts as a sexual marker, if you will. It’s like the sexual equivalent of the hypeman in hip hop music. This role, in my opinion, betrays the notion of femininity valued on its own merits, not subjugated by its relation to masculinity. Yes, I know it's boring, but it's the stuff I think about. Trust me, I'm getting bored just writing it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Feminine Bystander (in Star Trek).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13704
The premise* of your argument appears to be that any presentation of female sexuality (or femininity, as you noted) is necessarily detrimental (or non-augmentative) to both the film and the character herself. Following, it is detrimental because any presentation of female sexuality, no matter how subtle or ostensibly empowering, is non-advancing or even a negative because it inherently must be viewed from the audience's perspective and not the character's. And so, because film, like everything else in our society, is by and large framed through a patriarchal lens, such a perspective must be suspect because we can't escape defining female sexuality outside of the male eye.
Is this along the lines of where you're coming from?
*Apologies in advance if mine is a misinterpretation of your argument.
Star Trek is a difficult example. As a reboot of the original series, they're more or less stuck with the characters they could get away with in 1967. The only females that are 'available' are Uhura and Nurse Chapel. It's difficult to make a linguist or a nurse the center of a two hour movie, in their capacity as a linguist or a nurse. That more or less leaves personal relationships, and that's inevitably going to tend towards romance. The alternative would likely be to make Uhura a bit player, and that would hardly be better.
Uhura was groundbreaking in her day, and in this film, I thought she was a totally atypical in that she didn't succumb to Kirk's advances, and she was on the main star ship -- quite an accomplishment for her low rank and young age.
I think that you are also discounting Trek history. Uhura was inspiring for so many people of color and women. I think that she will even more interesting in the prequels, or at least I hope.
If we are going to critique Trek, I think we need to critique it for going from the most progressive program on TV to a relatively anti-progressive one. Where are the gay characters?
I think we can all blame Rick Berman for that one! Roddenbury was so innovative and took plenty of risks. A trek that pushed boundaries in the way TOS (The Original Series) did would likely not get made today. I wish they had a producer who shared Roddenbury's vision. Enterprise was supposed to have a gay character but Berman apparently put a stop to that.
One big worry of mine is that future films won't include gay or minority characters or story lines that promote the original social justice oriented vision because producers worry about alienating their new found audience (since it is now a bonafide blockbuster).
(I think the site ate my comment the first time I tried. Sorry if this shows up as a double post.)
"If we are going to critique Trek, I think we need to critique it for going from the most progressive program on TV to a relatively anti-progressive one."
That's a really good point. Enterprise struck me as one of the least progressive Trek incarnations even though it was the most recent. The fact that they ended the show with the line "where no MAN has gone before" was pretty symbolic of the entire run of the show. Way to regress to the 60's there... Though I guess "where no straight white male or token person of color who never gets any lines has gone before" might be more accurate.
On the subject of excluding gays and minorities in future movies... If they keep JJ Abrams in charge of the franchise, I'm not too optimistic. Lost (one of his other projects) has a fairly diverse cast in terms of race, but nearly all the main characters are male at this point, and I don't think the show has even acknowledged the existence of any LGBT characters.
Would anyone else be interested in seeing a BSG-style reimagining of the original Star Trek? I'm picturing Kirk as a woman...
I agree with your overall premise about women in film, etc. But, I'm not sure the following two questions are the best indication of that ...
>> 1.) Would we ever see Uhura hit on Kirk, and he in turn resist her advances?
>> 2.) Would we watch Spock come to play Uhura's comforter in times of emotional distress or difficulty?
The answer to these questions is clearly "no". But, these are established characters with a 40+ year history -- and to answer "yes" to either of these questions would fundamentally change the characters of Kirk and Spock. Kirk is cavalier, and a womanizer -- he would not turn down a female advance. Spock is logical, cold and calculated -- thus unlikely to emotionally comfort anyone.
I think your point is well taken ... but I'm not sure these two examples are the best illustration of that. Your questions seem to require that JJ Abrams fundamentally change the established traits of these two characters, which would somewhat defeat the purpose of the reboot.
kbz
Star Trek was awesome!! Much better than Terminator 4!
I agree with the OP. This bothered me as well.