First look at Evangeline Lilly in 'The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug'

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bethbery

This is indeed far closer than anything in LotR or TH, but the women are still passive and inadvertent bearers of story details that really are about the men in their lives. Not quite what I had in mind, but I might be too strict in my interpretation of the Test.

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

On the other hand–

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I understand it in an adventure film where bearing arms is what all the protagonists do. She'd hardly be 'equal' to the adventurers, or a relevant part of their story, if she didn't do the same.

Indeed. No offence to Mith or Zil or anyone else, but I’ve often heard this “why can’t they show true, feminine strength” argument in relation to action/adventure heroines, and it sounds fine until you ask yourself what, in practical terms, the lady is then meant to *do* in the story.

See, one hears a lot about the “the need for strong female characters”, but obviously it’s a bit more complicated than that when, even in such a small group, we can’t seem to reach any real agreement about what the phrase means in the first place. (I also find it to be of some concern how restrictive the various criteria are– male characters are always given a lot more leeway.) For my part I’d be reasonably satisfied if this Tauriel’s portrayal doesn’t turn out downright embarrassing– and I think that has more to do with issues other than such relatively abstract ones. Will she get any real characterisation at all, or just be a cardboard cutout? Will she spout allegedly hilarious one-liners? Will her scenes feature endless cheesecake shots? Will we be subjected to the threatened Elf/Dwarf romance?

...Will she *really* look this silly? (“Hmmn... looks like the Costume Department's already over-budget, so we’ll just hire an elf-ranger outfit from Partyland down the road. I’m sure no-one’ll notice...")

[Inziladun]

Meh, I probably shouldn't even be posting here, as I haven't seen AUJ, and I have no plans to watch DOS.

I'll just leave off by saying that if Tolkien fails in his presentation of what one perceives as a "strong" female character, I am not at all confident that the movies, geared as they are toward mass modern audience appeal, will accomplish that better.

[Mithalwen]

Are male characters only strong if they bear arms? Why not have a woman ruler of Laketown? Surely because she would be older and morally ambiguous and wouldn't be hawt enough for the desired demographic. Don't be under any illusion that Tauriel is there for the girls. If there had been a genuine place for a female role model the role wouldn't have changed with the availability of the actress.

I don't get the problem with the Girdle of Melian. We aren't talking about Spanx. If you take the verb formof gird it has rather more positive associations with Knighthood which incidentally I think the gifts in Lorien to Boromir and the younger hobbits are more significant than they may fiirst appear (I am very slowly writing a paper on this so I will spare you further ramblings). Idrll is perhaps the one female character who is unreservedly admirable and it is her wisdom and preparedness that save some of her people and without which even the valour of Glorfindel et all would have been futile.

Finally I reject the suggestion that objecting to Tauriel makes me somehow anti feminist. I care about the story not the gender of the protagonists.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

On the whole I agree with this– however, now that we’ve seen the character, well, she does look like a distillation of every Elf-Mary Sue ever, doesn’t she?

She does. But I still want to see her on the screen before passing my judgment.

Originally Posted by THE Ka

- Serve as a device to bust the dwarves out of prison, since apparently our merry drunken duo and most of Bilbo's crafty reconnaissance and stealth have been dropped out of the film.

This makes me sad because that's the part I had been really looking forward to. Apparently PJ doesn't have the guts to portray the elves as Tolkien did (never mind that the Hobbit can't be seen as canon in every respect). Ah why do they have to be so... first age?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

See, one hears a lot about the “the need for strong female characters”, but obviously it’s a bit more complicated than that when, even in such a small group, we can’t seem to reach any real agreement about what the phrase means in the first place.

Oh but Peter Jackson and his wonderful sense of nuances have already defined it to us! In his world, strong = physically strong and able.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Don't be under any illusion that Tauriel is there for the girls. If there had been a genuine place for a female role model the role wouldn't have changed with the availability of the actress.

Ditto.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

But I think there is a difference between “talking about men” and “talking about a series of events in which men were involved”.

Originally Posted by Mith

Finally I reject the suggestion that objecting to Tauriel makes me somehow anti feminist. I care about the story not the gender of the protagonists.

Well, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that, Mith. However, I do think there has been an overreaction to the mere fact of this character's being a girlie– which doesn’t, in itself, break the universe as far as I’m concerned. Neither does her bearing arms, in my opinion– of course it’s not the only way for a woman to be “strong”, but it’s a way, isn’t it? What I think matters anyway isn’t how closely a female character fits any given viewer’s or reader's ideal (feminist or otherwise) but how well-written and portrayed she is– and *that’s* where I fear it’s all going to come unstuck.

Hmmn. Seems I’ve got myself out on a limb here. Ah well.

[Mithalwen]

But it has been implied that it is the only way that a woman can be strong inthis film. I don't have a problem with female warriors per se and I certainly haven'T conformed to them in my own life (am I a strong woman because I played rugby but a weak one because I embroider and knit?). But i had the blessing to be born at about the first moment n time when having two x chromosomes wasn't such a limiting factor though I was born a little to soon to be able to realise my unlikeliy childhood ambition of being a RAF pilot and it is still unusu for women to chose frontline military roles. My Naval cousin observed that the women in his cohort at Dartmouth chose logistics not Warfare. Female warriors are not a usual part of Tolkien's universe and unless Tauriel is somme Jeanne dArc type figure it makes little sense for there to be a female captain if there are no women in the rank and file. I just think it ts the worst kind of facile tokenism and as such insulting to women.Makes about as much sense as having the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan played by a woman. Maybe PJ is salving some lingering resentment that he never worked on Xena. Dunno but I don't see how this character will be an improvement. If they were serious about it there would have been no need for a recreation when Ronan was unavailable. Too many changes seem to have been made to accommodate Jackson's pet actors for me to have an iota of faith that there is any real vision or integrity. It just seems to be pure self indulgence and the lack of female characters in the original a convenient but unconvincing excuse.

[Mithalwen]

We do not hear enough of Idril but she is far more proactive than any other woman. and can manage Daddy so she marries the lover of her choice AND is the only woman that does anything altruistic the only one who shows any leadeship and awareness of the wider context rather than forcing others into danger by wilful behaviour. Unlike certain others who we never hear the end of who are essentially only motivated by self interest.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't get the problem with the Girdle of Melian. We aren't talking about Spanx. If you take the verb formof gird it has rather more positive associations with Knighthood which incidentally I think the gifts in Lorien to Boromir and the younger hobbits are more significant than they may fiirst appear (I am very slowly writing a paper on this so I will spare you further ramblings).

Oh, it's not the 'girdle' that bothers me; nor it's reference to a woman. I know Tolkien well enough to understand that he often was recovering an early meaning of word almost lost and he cared little if it required educating readers about the lost meaning. And we've all had our fun following Aragon, Legolas and Eomer in the van. And I know what 'gird up one's loins' means.

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that one can barricade or wall oneself in from danger or evil. I know this was well the case with many medieval walled cities and indeed with many 'gated' communities in the US these days. I believe that action simply exacerbates the social problems. The moment we claim some places are bad, we also fall prey to treating everyone there as bad and start expecting trouble. And vice versa, everyone in a good place as good. It's not a concept that resolves the difficulties but which makes rapproachment more difficult. So it is hard for me to see this as a positive activity and to regard the character who does it as a champion. There is in LotR--well, I think so, anyway--some suggestion that Galadriel's attempt to hold back time in Lorien was a mistake.

Idrll is perhaps the one female character who is unreservedly admirable and it is her wisdom and preparedness that save some of her people and without which even the valour of Glorfindel et all would have been futile.

Indeed, she does have the foresight to build a way out of the enclosed city, which makes an intriguing contrast with Galadriel and Melian, but the actual building of it and escape through it is little dwelt upon. It's there and a salvation, but it is almost little more than a plot device. She is also largely represented as a possession and one of the motivations for Maeglin's malice and betrayal. Her character is admirable but her role in the narrative, grand as it is, is ultimately driven by men's attitude towards her: she cannot stop Maeglin, only escape from him. Maybe that's all the agency most women have ever had in history. I really wish we heard more from her. And perhaps this is one of the problems with discussing the Silm: it is not truly a novel with characterisation explored through dialogue, so how are we to evaluate the characters who are not thoroughly represented as characters are in realistic novels.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

Originally Posted by Agan

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

Oh, I hope that doesn't make me as yummy as a berry pie.

Yes, that's what I meant. The conversation is more a plot device that an expose or exploration of their characters.

Originally Posted by Inzil

I'll just leave off by saying that if Tolkien fails in his presentation of what one perceives as a "strong" female character, I am not at all confident that the movies, geared as they are toward mass modern audience appeal, will accomplish that better.

Aye, there's the rub. I happen to think that Ioreth is one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters and as best as I can recall there's nary a sign of her in PJ's RotK.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that one can barricade or wall oneself in from danger or evil. I know this was well the case with many medieval walled cities and indeed with many 'gated' communities in the US these days. I believe that action simply exacerbates the social problems. The moment we claim some places are bad, we also fall prey to treating everyone there as bad and start expecting trouble. And vice versa, everyone in a good place as good. It's not a concept that resolves the difficulties but which makes rapproachment more difficult. So it is hard for me to see this as a positive activity and to regard the character who does it as a champion. There is in LotR--well, I think so, anyway--some suggestion that Galadriel's attempt to hold back time in Lorien was a mistake.

I think you're right earlier in the thread when you say you suspect that Tolkien had the same objection--virtually every one of his "gated communities" fails spectacularly: Nargothrond, Gondolin, and Doriath rather obviously; and you've mentioned how Tolkien censures Lorien and Rivendell as proceeding from the wrong ambitions--and thus the Elves failed. Likewise, with Gondor: Gandalf criticises Denethor's strategy of remaining behind guarded walls and it is only when Gondor marches out of itself to the Morannon that it can truly be said to contribute positively to the salvation of Middle-earth. Even Valinor, though it never falls in its isolation, fails from it.

Also, a brief hiccup of a thought:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...she cannot stop Maeglin, only escape from him.

Substitute a couple characters and you get:

...they [all good folk] cannot stop Morgoth, only escape from him, which reads rather like the entire Silmarillion in microcosm--though Túrin's story, at least, suggest that the flight is ultimately impossible (and Gandalf says as much about the recurring waves of evil).

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

[Galadriel55]

Firstly, for all you Betchal testers - what think ye of Morwen and Nienor and the "generation war for independence"?

Originally Posted by THE Ka

It's always a good thing to remember that in homages and recreations of works where a female figure has been inserted for appeasement purposes or else, it can still be pandering and sexist (maybe even more so) than if no character had been added to the original material. Mostly because, in the often wrong hands, such a character comes off as just 'eye candy', 'comedic', 'one dimensional' and/or 'useless'. It just ends up being heaped upon the burn pile of 'ugh, not another fan-service to feminism' for those who tend to think us females rattle our sabers over nothing.

That's quite true. I think also that putting a woman in the plot just for the sake of having a woman in the plot is making things worse, because it has the overtone of "the only reason she's there is to make you happy. See? Happy?" No, not happy. It's too obvious. I am not against feminism, but I dislike over-the-top demonstrations of the phenomenon (Agan will now for sure beat me with a banana when we meet in the indefinite future ). I easily agree with the phrase "why are women worse then men?", but have you ever thought of the opposite - "why are men worse than women?"? Male elves aren't good enough for PJ&co, it seems. Even disregarding the first point, it's one thing to plop a new female character in. It's another thing to have that character take over the job/scenes that were originally meant for male characters - characters that are no worse than hers, may I add.

There could be strong female characters even if the Bechdal test is not satisfied (and by strong I mean both a strong character and a strong impression on the reader/viewer). The classic Love Story movie is an example. Jennifer is, to my memory, the only female character who even appears on screen for any considerable length, and she doesn't even do anything spectacular, yet she's a strong person in all the meanings of the word. Lately, though, in many cases women who are presented as "female Harry Potters", for lack of a better term - noble, brave, overcoming unfairness, fighting, etc - end up becoming rather weak-charactered Mary Sues. You don't need a bow in your hand to be a strong character. Giving a bow to a person who has a weak character and/or impression makes it look like one of the over-the-top demonstrations of feminism which quickly turn into something akin to REB.

My concluding thought: Either have a character who will leave the reader/viewer with a strong impression - a deep character, of any gender - or don't disgrace yourself with a shallow desperate fighter character of any gender.

And, by the way - even with Tauriel TH movie still doesn't pass the Bechdal test, so what's the argument about?...

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Yes - and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are. Try to think of a popular book/film that does NOT have two male characters, who talk to each other, about something besides a woman.

One of my favourite books (in Russian) nearly meets your inverted Bechdal test. In the first chapter a military commander in charge of a rural area asks a higher-ranked commander for a troop of men who wouldn't get drunk every single night. And so the second man sends him a troop of women. The main idea of the story, though, is the opposite of what you would call feminist; actually, if you think about it, it has nothing to do with feminism or otherwise at all. The only male character reflects constantly on what a war could do - that these girls were not meant to carry rifles. It's bad enough that men kill each other; it is ten times worse that girls risk their lives.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

However, I do think there has been an overreaction to the mere fact of this character's being a girlie– which doesn’t, in itself, break the universe as far as I’m concerned. Neither does her bearing arms, in my opinion– of course it’s not the only way for a woman to be “strong”, but it’s a way, isn’t it? What I think matters anyway isn’t how closely a female character fits any given viewer’s or reader's ideal (feminist or otherwise) but how well-written and portrayed she is– and *that’s* where I fear it’s all going to come unstuck.

Hmmn. Seems I’ve got myself out on a limb here. Ah well.

Actually, I think you have a very valid point. I mean, as I said before, one of my most favourite books has fighter females. But if she's going to be portrayed as just a kick-butt fighter... You're entirely right. It's all about the writing and portrayal.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Melian at least protects her people her selfish daughter sits in a tree until it is in her own interest to get of her backside. Her proactivity is merely to satisfy her own desires and gets Felagund killed. I despise her and we hates her forever! Precioussesss

I have to say that Luthien is not one of my favourites, but I have to disagree slightly with this. Yes, she does not fight Morgoth because it is right to fight him, she does it to get Beren. But I wouldn't really blame her for sitting safe and snug and happy in Doriath while others are fighting. With the same effect one could quote Boromir on indirectly accusing the hobbits and other western folk of sitting idle while Gondor's forces are being exhausted. Aragorn's rebuttal to that is that the whole reason for the fighting is to ensure that somewhere folk can live in peace and be happy. So the whole point of a "safe Doriath" is so that within the Girdle people could live in peace and sing and dance all they want.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

So straw poll...does Tauriel look more like Peter Pan, Robin Hood or....?

My gosh, that's amazing! It's a shame I can't rep you for this.

And here's the picture again since the original link isn't working:



The longer I look at it, the more inspiring Mith's words become. Someone smack me on the head. Now.

Edit: xed with Zil. That's a good one!

[Bêthberry]

This has been quite fun. It's been a long time since I've seen a thread move so quickly and inspire so many Downers' responses.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I think you're right earlier in the thread when you say you suspect that Tolkien had the same objection--virtually every one of his "gated communities" fails spectacularly: Nargothrond, Gondolin, and Doriath rather obviously; and you've mentioned how Tolkien censures Lorien and Rivendell as proceeding from the wrong ambitions--and thus the Elves failed. Likewise, with Gondor: Gandalf criticises Denethor's strategy of remaining behind guarded walls and it is only when Gondor marches out of itself to the Morannon that it can truly be said to contribute positively to the salvation of Middle-earth. Even Valinor, though it never falls in its isolation, fails from it.

thanks for all the other examples! Interesting that he made the immortals so uncomfortable with change. It's actually one of the main reasons I'm personally not so keen on the high elves. For all their love of music and the fine arts, they are rather self-involved.

Also, a brief hiccup of a thought:

Substitute a couple characters and you get:

...they [all good folk] cannot stop Morgoth, only escape from him, which reads rather like the entire Silmarillion in microcosm--though Túrin's story, at least, suggest that the flight is ultimately impossible (and Gandalf says as much about the recurring waves of evil).

lol, perhaps I should have said she does not confront him. But perhaps that's the situation of a woman in her culture.

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

I come back again to the point that much of what we know of Idril is reported to us; we have hardly any dialogue between her and other characters. It might be interesting to posit why Tolkien presented her this way and gave more narrative development to others.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But I think there is a difference between “talking about men” and “talking about a series of events in which men were involved”.

True, and as Agan has pointed out the Bechdel Test is not a standard for feminist depiction but for representation or gender bias and I do find myself falling into looking at the characteristics of the depiction. It is true that Melian uses the conversation--or perhaps I should say Tolkien uses it--to elicit information that is needed for Thingol's motivation.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

It seems to me that, for whatever reason (under-representation, maybe?) female characters, I think particularly in SF, tend to be seen as Woman rather than women, and therefore have a quite different set of demands made of them from that made of male characters. You often get the impression that writers ask themselves not “is this character in any way likeable, interesting or even believable?”, but “can she be passed off as an Ideal Female Role Model (while remaining palatable to the male audience)"?

I think that's a valid generalisation. Not particularly relevant here, but I've always been intrigued by Asimov's Susan Calvin and her role in the creation of the robots, because of the studiously cold manner he gives her and the events of the short story "Liar". Asimov was clearly wanting to show a capable woman in a positive, intellectual light, but fell pray to using romance as a plot device.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I'm sorry, but creating characters where they don't belong, by a director and scriptwriter who is a notorious failure at deviating from an original story line, is the height of hubris, and stinks to heaven of high-handed Hollywoodish scripting for marketing demographics. Thank the Lord Sir David Lean did not create a female Bedouin love interest for Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

Well, we all know why Lean could not create a female Bedouin love interest for Lawrence.

Thomas Leitch's book Film Adaptation and Its Discontents examines the many ways in which a novel can be represented on the screen. Not all of the great films are seamless transpositions. Several theorists posit a range of three or up to six different ways to frame the relationship. So a director is free to interpret his material as he sees fit. I think the great problem with Jackson is that he really isn't sure himself just what kind of adaption he is aiming for: pure transposition, analogy, or any of the other way of transtexual or intertextual relationship. He's got a bunch of other ideas mixed in there with Tolkien too.

It's not like he's Joss Whedon doing Much Ado About Nothing as a modern romance and getting it bang on while maintaining Elizabethan English.

As the responses to this thread have shown, there is also a variety within Tolkien's own work. The Hobbit was bed time story for his sons and as such has no female characters. Is it fair to imagine what it would be if he had included his daughter in his immediate audience? I would argue yes, particularly in the hands of a good artist. But that isn't Jackson's MO.

Lord of the Rings provides more gender variety and The Silmarillion even more (despite my own personal disappointments with many of the characters). An interesting question might be to ask why that difference exists in Tolkien's representation of woman.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I come back again to the point that much of what we know of Idril is reported to us; we have hardly any dialogue between her and other characters. It might be interesting to posit why Tolkien presented her this way and gave more narrative development to others.

Perhaps he never had an opportunity to flesh it out. It is part of his "unfinished, published posthumously" work.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I'm sorry, but creating characters where they don't belong, by a director and scriptwriter who is a notorious failure at deviating from an original story line, is the height of hubris, and stinks to heaven of high-handed Hollywoodish scripting for marketing demographics. Thank the Lord Sir David Lean did not create a female Bedouin love interest for Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

Ah, but think of all the other things he didn’t do either... here we are dealing with a story that’s being violently shoved into the Standard Hollywood Blockbuster Template anyway, so what difference does one extra character make, really?