Equal-Opportunity Lechery

[taste_is_sweet]

I took the kid to watch Thor: The Dark World on the weekend. I can say without any spoilers whatsoever that it is a gripping, exciting and surprisingly dramatic movie that, IMHO, didn't deserve the bad rap it's been getting from critics. I loved it.

One of the many things I loved about the movie at the time was how Thor (i.e., Mr. Chris Hemsworth the beautiful) spent a short scene without a shirt, giving the audience a long, pleasant eyeful of the results of his extensive workout regimen.

Here is a picture for your edification, because I'm nothing if not thorough when it comes to research. (I know the picture is from his first movie, but the only differences are that in Thor 2 he's wetter and wearing different pants.)

You're welcome.

As I said, I loved it, though that love was as much from the knowledge that it was complete and utter fanservice as it was from getting to see the dimples above the man's ass. (And it was even acknowledged as fanservice, in case you were wondering--poor Hemsworth struggles through discussing it here.)

I've posted about fanservice for women (and gay men) before, and my feeling is still that it's about damn time we females and non-het males get some of our own back too.

Mostly, anyway.

The thing is, when I was enthusing about the movie to my sister squeakyoflight that evening, she told me that she didn't like that scene precisely because it was fanservice. Objectifying men as well as women is still objectification, she said. And no one deserves to be treated like an object.

At the time, my argument was that since North American (and world, really) culture is patriarchal, that it's impossible to objectify men the same way we objectify women. We were seeing Thor's power there, as much as just seeing his body. But I've been thinking about it since then, and now I'm no longer so sure.

There was a great deal of completely reasonable uproar about the gratuitous scene showing Alice Eve in her underwear in Star Trek: Into Darkness, and in that scene Dr. Marcus's near-nudity is at least barely (ha! 'Bare'-ly) justifiable (she was changing into a special suit for diffusing a bomb). Hemsworth's scene in TtDW is not. It exists for no better reason than for the audience to admire him.

Fascinatingly, in the video interview I liked to above, Hemsworth says that the idea for the shirtless scene came from Joss Whedon, who said the movie needed a little 'romance' (which is I guess what they call fanservice in Hollywood). Whedon, of course, probably knows something about the male gaze, given his reputation of being one of the only Hollywood feminists out there. (Though admittedly your mileage may vary on the 'feminist' part.)

So on the one hand: thank you, Mr. Whedon, for recognizing that not every member of the audience for a superhero movie is going to be a straight male. On the other hand: really? Is this what you're advocating now, purposely setting aside screen time just for ogling? And why is this supposed to be okay?

It's not okay. It's definitely pretty and certainly amusing, but much as I've joked about it and I admit I enjoy it; even I know it's really not okay.

But as long as it's continuing, I'll still be happy that the men are getting semi-naked too. Maybe two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make things a little more fair.

(Movie still is from The Everett Collection.)

Comments

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh, this is a sticky wicket for sure.

I, for one, don't feel terribly guilty about ogling nice samples of either sex. Anthropologically speaking, there are reasons why our need to look and appreciate are hardwired to our need to perpetuate the species. That impulse is a hell of a lot older than the societal dictate that we respect the example as a person - so we're a long ways off from shelving that primal instinct.

On the other hand, I get pretty bloody tired of having a hard body thrown into my field of vision as distraction from other issues (like, for example, that Alice Eve's character in ST:ID was mostly expositional b.s. - T&A doesn't change that). This happens with male characters as well (I recently watched a film called Paranoia in which Liam Hemsworth took off his shirt 3 times in 25 minutes for no good reason), but I think we can all agree that female characters bear the brunt of this. Just give us A REASON for the bareness - that's all I'm asking for!

I'm also a little wary of making an Body-Objectification!What?! argument about a spandex-goes-boom movie. Face it, if Thor were portrayed by Gary Oldman, The Dark World would've made about $47 in profit (though might have been more interesting). We're there for the muscles and the dodgy physics - we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Well, one thing about comic book movies is that the actors really should look the part (or be Michael Keaton, apparently. Eurgh). I admit that Chris Hemsworth wasn't exactly a drawback to seeing the movie, but I really didn't go to watch him. I went to watch the action and the dodgy physics.

Would I have been as willing to see it in a theater if Gary Oldman was Thor? Probably not, but I think it would be the incongruity of it as much as the looks. I don't need Thor to be a blond, blue-eyed embodiment of physical perfection, but I do need him to look like he could actually lift the hammer. :)

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

Ohhhh, don't bash Michael Keaton... he wasn't much to look at (and his hair was sorta air fluffed road kill) but he really was the precursor to any attempt at a decent, believably-motivated emo billionaire. And he was head and shoulders above George "Nipples" Clooney ;)

Okay, so the Oldman thing was hyperbole (though I probably would pay money to see that), but the short list of actors who tried out for the role were uniformly buff, symmetrical, well over 6 feet, blonde (or could conceivably go blonde) - in short: it was a physical choice. They weren't looking for someone who had done Ibsen and Strindberg. They signed up to be objectified and we signed on to that objectification when we bought a ticket to see it, whether Hemsworth does anything for you or not (in my case, not so much). That's all I'm saying - I don't see it as a value judgement on the viewer so much as just a fact of the genre. When we see bodies objectified in, say, a mystery thriller, that's a different argument.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. :)

I love your description of Keaton's hair. For me it was the eyebrows. God, I hated those eyebrows. And in truth I didn't enjoy how he played Batman/Bruce Wayne, either. Then again, I liked Val Kilmer in the role I doubt I'm the best connoisseur of the Batman movies.

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

I'm a fan of Keaton's Bruce Wayne (not so much his Batman though), and, ya know, Kilmer wasn't that bad either but I don't think the world was ready for a blonde Bruce Wayne. Clooney just sucked dead donkey balls though. *shivers*

The Burton Batman series is a very specific fan iteration of the comic book mythos - I'm honestly surprised that it did as well as it did.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

They totally should have dyed Kilmer's hair; I'm sure his being Batman would have gone over better.

I guess a lot of people are into angst and misery these days, I suppose? That's why Burton's Batman was so popular? I watched the first one, but it really didn't appeal to me. I'm afraid I've never been much of a Batman fan.