I saw Serenity at a preview months ago, liked it very much indeed thank you sir, although I didn’t think it was quite as good as the best of the TV show it was based on. Still, it was a hell of a lot of fun, and I’m hoping it does well.
Most of the reviews I’ve read are warm but not ecstatic. About half of them, like the Times‘ reviewer, compare Serenity favorably to the recent Star Wars trilogy:
It probably isn’t fair to Joss Whedon’s “Serenity” to say that this unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas’s aggressively more ambitious “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.” But who cares about fair when there is fun to be had? Scene for scene, “Serenity” is more engaging and certainly better written and acted than any of Mr. Lucas’s recent screen entertainments.
The only outright pan I’ve seen so far is USA Today: “Isn’t it asking for trouble to make a movie version of a TV flop?”
There are posters to look at, too. The German poster, featuring Summer Glau in an extremely skimpy dress, is as cheesy as a cheese shop during a cheese convention right after the cheese delivery (and where did she get that haircut? Late 80s Madonna meets Severus Snape). The American poster of Glau in the same dress but a cooler pose is only slightly better. After viewing those two atrocities, this other American poster – which I think is the main poster they’re using in the US – will hardly seem cheesy at all.
I honestly don’t remember if Serenity passes the Mo Movie Measure or not. I’m planning on seeing it again, I’ll report back when I have.
Your failure to worship unashamedly and totally at the altar of Serenity is noted, unbeliever heretic infidel. “A lot of fun”, indeed.
I saw it at the blogger press event and it ROCKED MY WORLD, baby!
I say go see and screw the reviews.
“Late 80’s Madonna meets Severus Snape.”
*bursts out laughing*
Probably gonna go see it. If I can get at a movie theater sometime during matinee hours. It probably will be better than Episode 3—It has more than one female character in it, and said female characters do more than be pregnant, cry a lot, pop out babies, and die. Star Wars was at its best in A New Hope, although standards for female characters have risen enough that I’d love to see it redone with Leia having a bigger role; she has a shitload of power for a woman in a 70’s military movie, but she’s still the damsel-in-distress in a movie about the guy who saves her.
Posters are all cheesy. She’s holding the blade wrong in the German one—that’s a slashing weapon and not as much use if you stab with it. Come to think of it, the axe is held the wrong way too—tucked in by her body like she’s using it as a shield—it’s not in a position where it’s convenient to use it, and in any case the handle’s too short to get leverage enough for it to be a decent weapon.
I really don’t like the third poster though. In the other two, skimpy dress or no, she’s *comfortable* in it, looking like a warrior whose fighting skills cannot be lessened by any stupid wardrobe choice. In the other, she’s standing there uncomfortably, like the dress has imprisoned her in feminine self-consciousness and weakness, and she’s holding the gun like she hasn’t decided if she’ll be able to pull the trigger if it becomes necessary. And the guy whose image is next to her seems to be more the center of attention.
As for the Mo Movie Measure, judging from the two skimpy-dress-and-weapons posters, there are three female main characters and two male ones, so it is statistically likely that more conversations will be between two females than either between two males or one of each. Whether that’s Hollywood-likely or not is up for grabs, although it’s certainly not Hollywood-likely that a movie’s female characters will outnumber its male characters in anything that’s not a romantic comedy.
The Serenity ‘stealth’ media campaign has been astounding. I’m hopeful that more will come of this, and that people will finaly start paying attention to Whedon.
It’s getting great reviews on the right wing blogs as well.
Serenity: Bringing America Together.
FWIW, for the past few days I was tracking reviews by putting pull-quotes into poster-like images on the PDX Browncoats site.
http://www.pdxbrowncoats.com/
But then they got too many, so once both images (the first one is a mouseover to the second), I stopped, leaving another 15-20 unused.
Salon reviewed Serenity and the review was interesting in that she really liked the movie but was disappointed that it wasn’t the TV show. What she ended up talking about was the limitations of the short form (movies) versus the long form (tv shows).
So the solution is for everybody to go see the movie so it makes lots of bucks and becomes a franchise. If we can have endless crappy Nightmare movies, we should be able to have endless great Firefly movies.
And, btw, it’s way past time for another Farscape movie.
I honestly don’t remember if Serenity passes the Mo Movie Measure or not.
Yes.
What’s the Mo Movie Measure?
Link in Amp’s post. The short version is that there must be two female characters who talk to each other about something other than the male character.
Come to think of it, I believe there’s only one scene in Serenity at all where two women talk about the male lead, in that photograph/movie Mal watches for about a minute.
**Mild Spoiler Alert**
I just saw it last night and, unfortunately, don’t think that it does pass the test. I can’t remember one scene, other than the picture/movie mythago mentions, where two female characters even have a conversation. And the picture/movie, while I can’t remember if they are talking about Mal or not, is presented to us through Mal watching it- classic voyeurism.
Thus I have to say that, as much as I loved the movie and found it the best sci-fi film I’ve seen in a while, I was generally disappointed in its gender politics. Inara is all but cut out in the film, her job as a companion is virtually ignored; Kaylee, my favorite character on the TV show, has her motivations reduced to wanting to hav sex with Simon; and River, while she can kick ass, is barely more than a screwed up little girl. Zoe is the only female character from the show who remains intact as a character, though I think she is more hypermasculine in the film and, in the end, suffers the greatest loss.
Again, I loved the film and hope it does well – Joss is usually better than this and more films would allow him to bring out more of the complexity of character that makes his work so rich.
Oh, that’s right, bean. It still passes. (The female characters also talk to the male characters about something other than Their Relationship.)
There aren’t any scenes where two female characters, alone, have a conversation–but there pretty much aren’t any scenes where two people of any gender “have a conversation”. (I think the chat between Mal and Shepherd Book is about the longest sit-down-and-talk conversation in the entire movie. )
I’m not getting how Zoe is hypermasculine.
Actually, having seen Serenity again last night (and I really enjoyed it, again) I can think of several conversations between men, in which female characters either weren’t present or were more observers than participants. The discussion between Jayne and Mal in which Jayne criticized Mal’s running of the ship and accused Mal of being stuck in the war; the discussion in the bar between Mal and the criminal twins; the discussion between Mal and the nameless operative in which n.o. tried to convince Mal to turn over River (although I did think it was cool that when the scene changed from a conversation to a fight scene, Inara actively participated); the discussion between Simon and the doctor about River, followed by the discussion between n.o. and the doctor about River. The climatic fight scene/discussion between n.o. and Mal.
Serenity passes the Moe Movie Measure, because of the opening scene, in which the child River and her schoolteacher (who’s a woman) discuss politics and why the rebels resist Alliance rule. (There are boys present in the scene, but they’re acting as spectators, not participants.)
(Plus there’s the scene in which River and Zoe silently discuss which of the customers at the bank robbery is about to try and be heroic. However, the customer in question is male, so I’m not sure if that counts or not.)
I guess I should be contrite for also not “worshiping unashamedly and totally at the altar of Serenity”. It’s based on “Firefly”, right? I have to admit I’ve never seen “Firefly”. (Oh, no, here come the flames!!)
I’ve been in a TV-watching mood with all the new supernatural shows on. I’ve heard “Firefly” is good. Can someone please tell me when it’s on and on what channel? I might as well start watching “Firefly” before I see “Serenity”.
I apologize profusely for not worshipping unashamedly as I should have been doing for the number of years “Firefly” has been on. ;)
I don’t think that the voyeristic aspect of it prevents it from passing the MMM; however, they do spend most of the scene discussing Mal, as I recall.
Actually, I think virtually ignoring her job improves the gender politics. I always found the “honored space companion” bit way too Spider Robinson.
I agree about Kaylee, although I’m sure that mainly came down to screen time; there just isn’t the space to develop supporting characters on a movie that there is on a TV show. Maybe if there’s a sequel she’ll get more to do.
I disagree about River; our desire for better gender politics shouldn’t translate to objecting to multifaceted characters. I think that she’s completely screwed up AND kicks ass makes her a better character, and the specific cause of how she was screwed up was hardly a sexist stereotype.
Admittedly, River is more screwed up than any of the other characters, but that also means that she got more development and screen time than almost any other character.
I think it’s actually to Joss’ credit that he allows Zoe to have stereotypically “masculine” traits. And there’s nothing sexist about her suffering a great loss.
But on the whole, I certainly agree with you that the characterization of every character but Mal and River got short shrift here, compared to the TV show.
Joss’ next two movies both have strong female lead characters, by the way, from what I’ve heard about them.
Trish, Fox cancelled it because they were idiots, but it’s very widely available on DVD. If you have Netflix, that’s a cheap and easy way to see the series. Watch the actual pilot episode before “The Train Job” (which aired first).
I can think of several conversations between men, in which female characters either weren’t present or were more observers than participants
Oh, sure. The fact that the lead character and lead villain are male is going to make that pretty near inevitable.
The real point of the Mo Test, though, is not to approve of any movie where two female characters discuss anything other than a man (however briefly)–it’s more of an observation that so few movies have more than one main female character, and her role is generally to be the protagonist’s romantic interest. If there’s another woman, she doesn’t talk to the female lead much–and if she does, it’s about The Man. When you apply such a simple criteria to the movies, it’s startling how many are screened out. You’d expect not to include a handful–say, Master and Commander, which after all is set on a British man-o-war, but so few “mainstream” movies pass the Mo Test that it’s an eye-opener.
As a few reviewers have noted, Serenity is like a super-duper episode of Firefly. In any episode, you get more focus on whichever characters’ storyline is in the forefront, which is Mal and River in this one. So we barely see Kayley, Wash or Inara in the movie.
I totally agree. There are any number of good movies I like which can’t pass the Mo Test.
For me, the point of the Mo test is to take something which is invisible – which is how completely male-centric pop culture generally is – and make it more visible. It’s got nothing to do with how good or bad any particular movie is; it’s about the unstated assumptions which go into making nearly all movies.
Loved the movie, and been catching up on the old Firefly shows as Sci-Fi channel shows them at 7 EDT on Fridays.
This is my first time posting a comment here, and I hope it isn’t rude just to cut in.
Anyway, I thought the most interesting thing about River was how the men kept TRYING to “save” her, when all they had to really do was help her figure out what had happened to her. That it was the horror of what she gleaned that made her crazy, and that she was freed by discovering/sharing it. It was a great twist on the “damsel in distress” that she could have been reduced to. Mal actually served her and himself best by seeing what they had in common, by giving her a chance to save herself. She responded by saving them. Wonderful twist … I love the way Joss twists those old female archetypes back on themselves.
Zoe is a second in command, and she was on the show too. I found her character to be very consistent. Love that character. Definitely hope for more Kaylee next time.
Hopefully, there will be more movies, or perhaps Universal could work their Viacom connection to give them a slot on Showtime.
Anyway, I thought the most interesting thing about River was how the men kept TRYING to “save” her,
Er, no. Without giving the plot away, this can only be said to be true about one of the male characters. Another was ambivalent until he plumped for her *and* Simon, and another was down right anti-River.
I agree with what both mythago and Ampersand say about the Mo Test. It works as a means of drawing attention to that which we do not pay attention to – “the assumptions” as you put it Ampersand. When I think about Serenity through the test, though, I am disappointed. Given the show, the range of characters, and Wheadon’s history in general, this is one film that you would expect to pass with flying colors. So, I left disappointed in a very good film.
Not sure who Spider Robinson is, but what I liked on the show and missed in the movie was how Inara often served to poke a hole in Mal’s bravado and macho. That usually came up through his barbs about her position and were often the moments where I liked him least as a character.
I wholly agree about not objecting to multifaceted characters and that the cause was not sexist. My initial problem with River was that, even though she could kick ass, she was made that way by others, rescued by her brother, able to be “turned off” by her brother, and ultimately “figured out.” After reading the comments here and thinking more about the film, I realize it is not that simple, that the film is doing more with River, but I am still left unsatisfied. I am open to seeing her in another light, and am trying to, but just not there yet. (FYI – she was one of my least favorite characters on the show. I thought she worked well as a plot device getting the narrative from one place to another, but I never was drawn into her story.)
Let me clarify here too and, to a degree, back off of the “hypermasculine” characterization. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with Zoe, or any female character, having stereotypically “masculine” traits, I think there is a need to avoid simply reversing the positions and giving credit for giving a female character “masculine” traits.
Zoee struck me, in the film, as simply the soldier: she provides muscle in the heist, she defends Mal against Jayne, and she becomes the soldier with nothing left to live for against the Reavers. Again going back to the show, there was little of the complexity of character that I loved about her there in the film. There were few, if any, of the great moments from the show, between her and Wash particularly, that made her a complex character there and more than just a soldier woman. This is also what I meant by her suffering the “great loss.” It, in itself, is not sexist, but again it felt motivated by a need to bring out her anger for the film, to show her at her badest, but without showing us why she would feel that way. I know from seeing the show why she reacted as she did, I just don’t’t think it was in the film. That, to me, contributed to making her more of a simple reversal of gender traits rather than a necesarily progressive treatment of them.
Let me finish, sorry for going on so long, by mentioning Jayne as a way to tie some of these things together. The complexity of his character from the show remained intact, I felt, in the film. The continued puncturing of his facade that was in the show remained here through his dialogue, the dialogue of others, the way the camera looked at him, and generally in all the ways it was on the show. I liked him as a character on the show and that richness carried over into the film. When I put him against the other characters, though, I wonder even more why the same did not happen for them. As Mal and Jayne show, complexity of character can be conveyed as simply as a camera cut, a reaction shot, or a line of dialogue here and there. Kaylee, Inara, and Zoe, especially, do not get that in the film – they are the ones who are “sacrificed” along with Wash and Shepherd Book to the streamlined story of Mal (mainly), River, and Simon. I understand why, industrially, it happens, but it is what left me disappointed in the end.
Again, sorry for going on so long. I have long loved this blog without commenting much and appreciate the chance to engage in a very ineresting discussion of this film.
My initial problem with River was that, even though she could kick ass, she was made that way by others, rescued by her brother, able to be “turned off” by her brother, and ultimately “figured out.”
Of course, there is that whole scene where she tells Simon that he’s been protecting her for so long, and now it’s her turn…
I still don’t get the idea of Zoe as ‘hypermasculine’. She’s a soldier and a good one–that makes her masculine somehow? We don’t, sadly, get to see as much tenderness with Wash as in the TV show–but remember that it’s Zoe who’s tearing up at having left the would-be hero behind, and arguing with Mal about it.
Thanks, Mythago. We get Netflix, and I’ll definitely check out “Firefly”. I do remember hearing that it was cancelled. I remember when “Farscape” was cancelled, and I thought that was the stupidest thing The Sci-Fi Channel had ever done.
Actually, I think virtually ignoring her job improves the gender politics. I always found the “honored space companion” bit way too Spider Robinson.
Isn’t it funny how the “companions” are always female ? (Yawn.)
Eh, I liked it. Easy for me to say, since I haven’t got the emotional attachment to the show that most people do.
As usual, it’s noted that nine out of ten movies in the previews don’t have any women featured at all, or only one woman of the dutiful housefrau/clinging vine variety. (“Narnia,” being the exception. Two of the siblings are female, and they’re likely a tad young to be standing around talking about boyfriends/husbands all the time.) I don’t hold out much hope of that ever changing. :(
Alsis,
Do you think that someone who shares your views on prostitution could see it without being too bothered by the “courtesan” parts? I might give it a try when it goes out in France (or wherever I’ll be at the moment), but I was wondering about that aspect (I never saw the TV show, but I am curious about the Chinese swearing and the feminist, or at least less androcentric than usual, touch).
Isn’t it funny how the “companions” are always female ?
There were male companions in the crowd scenes at the House.
Jimmy Ho, I can’t answer for Alsis – but I can say that if you didn’t already know, you’d never guess that the character is a courtesan from what’s in the movie. So I think that the movie wouldn’t be much of a bother on that account.
I can say that if you didn’t already know, you’d never guess that the character is a courtesan from what’s in the movie…
Actually you would. Just re-saw the movie yesterday with my wife (got to do our bit to get the box office up – fanboy, much?) and caught some things that we missed first time out. In the scene where Mal is watching Anara and Kaylee goof around with the future-tech camcorder, Kaylee refers to Anara “entertaining clients in this very bed!” and it’s pretty obvious what she’s talking about.
And also, I’m afraid that conversation probably should be disqualified from the MMM. While they do start out talking about things-other-than-Mal, they quickly segue into talking about Mal. Not that I blame them, him being so dreamy and all.
Jimmy, I’d actually forgotten all about the “companion” bit when I went to see the movie. I don’t even remember where I’d heard about it in the first place (probably from all the fans here or on another board), but yeah– it did make me a bit queasy. The thing that struck me most about the character is that she was not –except in one “stealth” scene which I won’t ruin in case you decide to go see it– a physical fighter, which makes little sense to me. You’d think that if anyone needed to be able to fight at the drop of a hat, it would be a “companion.”
Robert:
Well, if they were wearing some special garb that distinguished them from clients, I wouldn’t have known, given my overall unfamiliarity with the show. In any case, big deal. It doesn’t change my main contention: Despite the likeability of the character, scratch away the veneer and you still get “Hooker-With-A-Heart,” one of the oldest and most annoying cliches’ in popular fiction, and one that’s left strictly to females 99% of the time. Were there male “companions” on the show who were anything other than a small component of a backdrop ? Somehow, I doubt it.
Alsis,
Thank you very much for the detailed response, which matches exactly my concern; that makes me glad I asked you (and thank you, too, Ampersand and Robert, for your different perspectives).
What you describe, I am sorry to say, corresponds to what I was feeling about that part (I think I first read about it on the Wikipedia). To make it short (I don’t want to derail this thread into another depenalization vs. legalization debate), most depictions of prostitution in cinema make me, as you put it, “queasy”.
While it would have been a great surprise if they had decided to imagine a society where prostitution is not “a necessary thing”/”just another job” (“Why, a woman always has that option“) , but a marginal, superfluous activity nobody really needs, that would have been quite revolutionary, but if they went the old steretypical “Golden Heart Prostitute” way (does it have a blasé-looking “Madam” who’s “good with the ‘girls'” and knows how to “handle” the “customers”, too?), I guess it is “yawn”, indeed (kinda like the unavoidable “double-entendre” in your average Old West “saloon” scene).
Of course, I understand your criticism does not extend to the picture as a whole, since you enjoyed it, but I would lie if I said that this is not important to me (I am not shocked, just irritated that not all traditional gender and social roles are equally challenged).
I was wondering, about the “male companions” (damn that euphemism): are they suppose to “service” female or male customers (or both)?
When I said I didn’t want to derail, I really meant it. The realistic balance in the way a society is shown matters more to me than whatever opinion the director and the writers have about the issue. I have no preference between the “Happy Hooker” and the “tragic soiled dove” clichés.
(I also wanted to address a few of Ampersand and Robert’s points, but i will have to delay it for now.)
Isn’ t that Inara in the third poster, not River?
Jimmy, did you happen to see the “Heart of Gold” episode?
No, I’m pretty sure that’s River.
Flamethorn,
I haven’t seen that episode, nor any other episode (I don’t have a television, but even if I did, I doubt I could watch it in France).
I mentioned the “Golden Heart Prostitute” cliché merely as an equivalent to Alsis’ expression “Hooker-With-A-Heart”, but I didn’t know there was an episode with a similar title (though I may have seen it listed on the Wiki pages). Is it centered on that character? Most series taking place in a “violent” society seem to have an episode like that. Now that i think about it, I remember that there was such a character in Dr. Quinn, which a relative of mine was following.
A quick update on the French poster, which I saw just tonight during my ritual walk: apparently, they chose the American version.
Also, I wanted to illustrate what I meant by “Alsis’ ideas on prostitution” and tried to retrieve a great comment she’d wrote on one of the heated threads on that topic, but it has apparently disappeared (many threads have been “cut”). Too bad (I know this sounds ridiculous now, but at that time, I was about to propose to her to republish it on my now-defunct blog as a guest-post or something: it expressed everything I was feeling and thinking about the issue).
(When I say that “many threads have been ‘cut'”, I don’t mean to imply that this was an intentional action by Ampersand; he himself has explained it was due to the multiple host moves.)
Heh. Thanks, Jimmy. Since I haven’t seen the series, only the movie, I guess I’ll refrain from any further comments until I have time to do something about that. :o