femtique

femtique

• 10:18:35 pm on December 15, 2007 | # | 3
  

  

  There was little content to analyze in this movie because most of the time Robert Neville (Will Smith) was the main attraction. There were three important female characters in this film. The female characters were Neville’s wife Zoe (Salli Richardson), Marley (Willow Smith), and Anna (Alice Braga).

  Zoe’s purpose was as that of the typical motherly-martyr. Film after film, a wife dies for the sole purpose of giving the male protagonist a reason to fight. The same can be said for children. It is on a rare occasion in film where the husband dies and his wife lives on to seek revenge for her loss. Smith’s role was none other than the typical paternalistic archetype that continues to foster the idea that women are not capable of fighting to make right that which went wrong.

  On the other hand, Anna did save Neville toward the end of the movie. For a brief moment, the hero shifted from Neville to Anna. It was not long until Anna’s role quickly shifted back to a woman’s domestic role as she cooked breakfast for the “man” of the house. She spent most of her time in amazement at the greatness of Neville and strove to please his ego. Anna was was portrayed as optimistic. She had a plan to visit the human colony in Vermont. Neville insinuated Anna plan naive. I wonder how many times a man has called a woman’s idea naive, only later to find out she was actually right? Typically, even if a woman is right, men get credit for her ideas. History is mostly written to glorify men and not women.

  By the end of the movie, Neville saved the human race by creating the cure to save humanity from the zombie disease. Anna’s purpose was as an errand-woman for Neville. She also narrated how without Neville humanity would be lost. Roughly translated, without man, humanity would be lost. This is in staunch contrast to the movie Children of Men, where without women, life would not exist.

  How could this film be feminist friendly and still maintain it’s pop appeal?

  1. Writers continuously base stories on paternalistic foundations. All too often, women and children are portrayed as martyrs to justify a man’s revenge seeking and means to glory. In order to be equal and balanced in film, women need to be given this exact same role. The amount of popular films where this is the case is limited.

  2. A heroine should remain a heroine. How long did Anna remain the heroine? Not long. The story could have shifted where the protagonist was first a male, and then, it could shift to being a female. How much would it hurt to shift from a male hero to a female hero in a film? It would definitely be a nice change of pace. It is almost as if the writers are allowing women a brief taste of heroism, but then, immediately retracting their status as to that of the “assistant” role. How often do women get brief interludes of heroism in films? Think about it.

   

Comments

• 

  trench 12:49 am on December 19, 2007 | # | Reply

  Movie was good. Wrote a review after opening night as well. Not one of Will’s strongest performances however.

• 

  Kevyn Fairchild 6:04 pm on December 19, 2007 | # | Reply

  From the point of view of the feminist critique of the film, what struck me was the continuation of the woman as the cause of the destruction of humanity myth. The Doctor who invents the cure for cancer, and the subsequent cause for the epidemic, is a woman and falls right in line with Eve and Pandora. Granted the ulitmate source of the cure is also a woman, but it is Robert and not Anna who discovers the cure.

• 

  Blade 2:08 pm on January 23, 2008 | # | Reply

  This critique is terrible! Just because there are women in it doesn’t mean that they all serve the men’s devine purpose? Do you have to convince others to hate this movie just because a man stars in it!? If you’re going to look at it from the biased woman’s point of view without looking at how good the movie is at it’s base then whats the point in even watching this film?