Fiddler on the Roof

Question: How do you critique a work that is meant to depict an oppressive society? How do you separate what the society is saying and what the movie is saying?

Yesterday I watched Fiddler on the Roof. I'd been feeling a hankering for the songs (Sunrise, Sunset and La Chaim especially.)

It's difficult, because yes, the three daughters Tzeitel, Hodel, and Chava are very likable characters, and they do rebel against their father, something unheard of in their oppressive society. But to what purpose do the daughters rebel? Not for freedom, but to choose a different owner, a slightly different brand of servitude. This is where my question comes in, because what other life path could they choose? Even outside the bounds of their faith there is really nothing they could do to gain true autonomy. This is just a caution not to view these daughters as liberated.

I think that if they really had decided "screw you, dad, I can make my own life and be free" instead of "screw you, dad, I would like to marry/serve this other man" their characters would not have been portrayed sympathetically. Because the closest character to that ideal is Yenta, and while every character is given some sympathy in the film, she is given the least, and is portrayed as intruding on everyone else's life and not being a welcome sight to anyone. It's okay for the daughters to rebel against the master given to them by their society because they're not really challenging the paradigm that still holds in our society--that a woman needs (must belong to) some man.

And there was a lot of ownership going on from the suitors to their chattel--I mean beloveds.

Least was Motel. I think that the things Motel did were a reflection of his society. In his song Miracle of Miracles, the last line, "God has given you to me" is something that I would frown on if I heard it in a modern song. In the context of their society, though, it seems consistent with the language that he has available to him to describe the nature of his relationship with Tzeitel.

And his extremely rude and bossy handclap as a form of command towards Tzeitel at the wedding was an imitation of Tevye--a clear joke directed to the audience in which we are meant to laugh at their society. (O irony! O infamy!)

Next came Perchik. I don't like Perchik. He was far too physically pushy with Hodel. He was always grabbing her and dragging her somewhere, and doing a "dance" with her that she was clearly an unwilling participant in. (Is this my personal alarm going off? Maybe. I ain't the only one with alarms calibrated so finely, though; not even close: the malady is not a rare one.)

Now, could that just be a reflection of their society? Perhaps, although the movie did go to some pains to establish that Perchik had more respect for women than most men in that society. What wasn't necessary was that the tugging and pulling and dancing led directly to True Love. Aargh.

Okay, and then this Far From the Home I Love thing? It's better than Little Mermaid, because at least Hodel feels sad that she's abandoning her home, her family, and everyone she loves to go live in this strange barren wasteland with her (grabby!) beau--but she still does it anyway. I don't think this is a depiction of her society. Even though her society doesn't exactly oppose her decision, it's not really something that's done very often, and it's not anything they would have encouraged her to do. No, this is our society feeling Hodel's pain but admiring her for making the right decision (doing what our society would have done) and abandoning her identity to serve her master--I mean betrothed.

Last and possibly worst is Fyedka and our little bird Chava. Chava does something very similar to what Hodel does--she abandons her entire identity--her faith!--for this man. (Admittedly Fyedka is much more handsome than Perchik, but beauty is subjective.) This is absolutely not something that was condoned by her society. It is something that we understand given the roles and expectations of our society, and it's harmful.

Equally upsetting was the manner of their meeting. So Chava's out walking her cow when four young Russian men suddenly accost her. The encounter is brief, but you can hear them mocking her language (this is racialized misogyny). She tries to get away. They surround her. Some of them touch her and grab her. She says "please" a few times. I get upset.

But fear not, damsel! Your prince Fyedka has arrived! He quickly sends those gang rapists--I mean ruffians--packing. She's still upset, and I was about to approve, but then what happens? Fyedka guilts her into talking to him by saying "you feel about me the same way they feel about you." Um. Chava is scared of him, and, hey, justification for that attitude is, like, still visible walking across the field. They hate her and were trying to hurt and humiliate her. These are pretty fundamentally different attitudes.

The movie approves of this statement, however, because it gives Fyedka pure intentions and a heart of gold, so that her attitude (although utterly rational) is undermined for our viewing pleasure. Gah, this is just like Hermione all over again.

Damn, I hate that part of the movie.

So there you have it. Perchik and Fyedka are given status over Hodel and Chava that goes beyond what can be explained by their society, and the basic characters of the three daughters are not ones seeking freedom, but rather ones seeking a type of servitude that will make them "happy."

Mulan

Here's the thing about Mulan (and this is going to be my critique for the day): no matter how kickass she is, the film does everything it can to undermine her threat to the patriarchy, in order that we may like her, assured that society will be safe from disruption.

Mulan disobeys her father, but does she do it for herself? Does she do it because she has a desire to fight in the army? No. Even though she has shown that she desires to learn and think and be heard, privileges reserved in her society for men, she has not shown any desire to fight or kill or become a soldier. She disobeys her father, enforcer of the patriarchy, in order to save her father, to serve him.

This is true of China, the captain, and the emperor as well. These are all entities that have actively contributed to her oppression as a woman, and what she does, she does for them. She is fighting to save the system which is responsible for all the misery in her life, and because of that, her disobedience is acceptable.

Then, when it's all over, when she has fought through hatred and bigotry and danger to save China and the emperor, she is offered a job on the council. Does she take it? Does she take this opportunity to have what she most craves: respect, independence, acceptance, the opportunity to learn and think and be heard? No. The threat to this society which has spit on her so is passed, and now, well, "I think I've been away from home long enough." You certainly have, you uppity girl.

Then she goes home. She gets approval from her father (approval from her mother or grandmother didn't merit a touching scene, I guess), which is good. Then--you know what would make Mulan really happy? A husband, of course! You see, something just for you, Mulan. We all know how much you like marriage.

Seriously. What the hell? Now that Mulan is done with her silly excursion, she gets wholly enveloped back into the patriarchy, with the approval of all the men in her life. Her grandmother's line when she sees Shang ("Woo! Sign me up for the next war!") implies that the thing of greatest value that Mulan did while she was away was find a husband. Fuck this shit, I tell you what.

Hunchback of Notre Dame

Ever seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Probably the darkest movie Disney has ever done. ("And now all Paris is burning because of you!") Also one of my favorites (Bells of Notre Dame? EPIC)

It's also a movie that has the potential to be very socially conscious. Sexism, racism, religion, deformity, class awareness--this movie touches on it all. Sadly, it fails to follow through on these issues.

Esmerelda. She's pretty cool. A little cliched, the highly sexualized spunky girl with a heart of gold. Still, she's a fun, talented, brave woman.

But did you notice that she was basically the only woman in the movie? Racking my brains for other women, I come up with 1) Quasimodo's mother, 2) that little girl in the purple dress, and 3) Laverne the gargoyle. Either way, note that she is the only adult human woman alive during the actual story.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that the three other main characters are all attracted to her. Quasimodo is helplessly in love with her, Phoebus finds her exciting, and Frollo has unholy desires for her. Did anyone else notice this? It's kind of freaky.

Because, okay, here's the thing. Only having one female character is bad. Women make up half of the population and that's about what it takes to satisfy me. A scarcity of women results in situations like we have with Esmerelda the Only Woman Available, and also the beginning of the movie.

Quasimodo's mother, as she must be defined, for her character gets its importance only from her relation to a man, dies in the first four minutes of the movie. She dies a heroic death in the service of a male, and that's what makes her likable. This may be the only situation like this that has been pointed out to you, so you may think I'm coming out of nowhere on this one, but I'm starting to get pretty tired of women who we approve of because they make sacrifices for men.* (Harry Potter also made a pretty big deal out of this.) I'd like to see someone we approve of because they make a sacrifice for a woman.

You may say "But this is bullshit! Quasimodo's mother (whose name we do not know) would have done the same thing for a daughter!" Well, that's the thing. She didn't have a daughter. Quasimodo was a male. (So was Harry Potter.) This is what happens when you have almost every character be a man: women don't get a chance to interact with each other.

And interacting with other men, Esmerelda is always in a subordinate role (Clopin's assistant, the archdeacon's, um, advice-taker, the soldiers' victim) or in a sexual one. There's probably some really nasty stuff to unpack here given that she is not just a woman but a woman of color, and that the men who love/fetishize her are all white, including Quasimodo who should be a man of color but is distinctly not--but I'm not as familiar with the patterns of racial oppression. Suffice it to say that I think it adds to the creepy.

One more thing that annoyed me was the climax. Esmerelda is a fierce, competent woman and would have been at least as valuable an asset as Phoebus in fighting Frollo and his soldiers, but instead she is incapacitated. First she is tied to that whole burning stake, putting the woman in danger so that the man can find his character development. Then, she is unconscious, making it look like the woman is dead so that the man gets extra emotion for the fight. She is completely put out of commission, and robbing such a strong character of the chance to be in the final battle, except as an object of motivation for the man, is lame. This is, like, the gypsy princess here. Can she get some action?

Le sigh. Some things they did right:
1. Phoebus does not beat Esmerelda in their fight in the cathedral.
2 Laverne is just as likable as the other two gargoyles, and not defined by her sex.
3. Esmerelda ends up with Phoebus, not Quasimodo.
4. Clopin is the shit.

*Arwen is pretty much the gold standard for this phenomenon.