Of all the things currently floating around the ether of the internet, one thing in particular has captured my attention. Its a movie that has a ton of dinosaurs... as well as critics, bearing their teeth.
Of course, I'm talking about Jurassic World.
Fair warning, this may come off as a bit of a rant.
I saw this movie three times in theaters (including IMAX) and was, overall, very pleased (otherwise why go for a second and third viewing right?). It had plenty of references to the films predecessor (the very first Jurassic Park, not those other crappy sequels), the scenes involving dinosaurs both old and new were visually stunning, and the story, while predictable, was done pretty damn well.
That brings me to the characters of the story, or rather, one in particular....Claire. Claire, who serves as the park's Operations Manager. Claire, the woman who many consider to be the protagonist of the movie. Claire, whose icy, career-driven demeanor and high heels garnered a lot of rage from critics and fans alike, most notably Joss Whedon (if you don't know who that is, what are you even doing on my here?) who stated that Claire's role in the movie echoed 70's era sexism. Joss tweeted:
"She’s a stiff, he’s a life-force—really? Still?”
I had to admit, there were many scenes in this film involving Claire that reminded me of Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom as Chris Pratt secured his role as the rough- around-the-edges action hero. Appropriate, as it was also directed by Speilberg and Pratt will soon star as the whip cracking archeologist/adventurer. Pratt's Character, Owen, must brave the dangers of the 65 million year old wilderness, all with the bickering damsel in tow who ultimately falls for him (a.k.a Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard).
But, is the movie Jurassic World really as sexist as critics are saying? Is the character of Claire really worth such disdain?
To answer that, I'm going to break it down here and address the specific criticisms people have in relation to the films sexist attitude.
1. The caricature of a modern career woman.
In the film, Claire is portrayed as a workaholic whose maternal compass doesn't exactly point north. When her nephews arrive on Ilsa Nublar, she all but ignores them (at least until she learns that Indominus Rex might be using their bones to pick its teeth). There is even one scene where Claire has a conversation with her sister and they exchange banter about when...if...when Claire will have children of her own. I all but groaned during the entirety of that conversation as it vaguely implied that Claire is incomplete without a brood of her own to take care of. Amazing job be damned woman! How dare you maintain a career you are proud of! This isn't to say that motherhood isn't a career unto itself. It is. But was this conversation between sisters even necessary? Did it add anything to the film? Put simply, the answer to both questions, is no. And while Claire might have initially opted out of spending quality time with her nephews, its not like she tried to feed them to the Mosasaurus either. A woman's status isn't dependent upon whether or not she has a family of her own, nor is it whether she has a career. Having one does not simply negate the other.
To be fair, while I do believe that writer and director, Colin Trevorrow could have given Claire's character a bit more depth, I personally think Claire's demeanor is not so much a caricature of the modern career woman as it is a caricature of what the park itself has become. If you really think about it, in this movie Claire takes the place of John Hammond, the man responsible for the park's existence. If you are not convinced, take a look at John and Claire's outfits when they are first introduced:
Ta Da!
They are both wearing all white
. White is also the color of naivety, a trait both Claire and Hammond share.
Both Claire and Hammond also express a desire for the park to expand, but in vastly different ways. Despite his age, Hammond's character is very childlike when it comes to his beloved park. Although he created the park from the ground up, his excitement is that of someone who is seeing it all for the first time (just look at him in the picture above). His main priority is the joy Jurassic Park will bring to the world, hence the whole "spare no expense" mantra.
Claire on the other hand, looks at everything like she's seeing numbers. Where someone sees a dinosaur she sees a dollar sign. Claire is the embodiment of what Jurassic Park has become over the past decades; a theme park whose main goal is to create bigger and better attractions (within a viable profit margin). As Claire herself states in the film "kids now look at a stegosaurus like its an elephant." All of the joy and wonder of dinosaurs that was captured in the first movie has fallen prey to what became the death of the original dinosaurs: time (well, that and a meteor six miles wide but that doesn't really suit the poetic meaning I'm going for here.)
Anyway, back to the whole sexist thing...
2. The Outfit//Running in Heels
Besides the symbolic color of Claire's outfit, many people on the internet seem to take issue with the ensemble itself as well as the fact that this character spends the majority of her time running in heels. What do I have to say to that ladies and gentlemen?
Big F*@ing Deal....
Was it practical for Claire to don a skirt and high heels while traipsing through the prehistoric jungle? No! But guess what...Why should it be practical? Unlike Dr. Ellie Sattler (see pic below), from the first film, Claire isn't a Paleobotanist. Why would we expect to see her in a hiking boots and shorts when she has a cushy office job. Her outfit of a skirt, high heels and a flowy blouse suits her environment, just as Dr. Sattler's outfit suited her's. That being said, I did find the fact that Claire's skirt gets ripped up her left thigh a bit ridiculous, that was totally an excuse to show a bit of skin.
3. Her "Romance" with Chris Pratt's character Owen.
I do agree with Joss Whedon regarding the overall dichotomy of Claire and Owens relationship. It is exactly as he says, shes a control freak, hes a rebel. I know opposites attract, but still, to say these two are lacking in chemistry is putting it gently. The only thing that we, the audience have to go on as to what sparked their initial attraction is that it is revealed early in the movie that the two went out on a date in the past....one that did not go well.
I know that the writers used the differences between these two characters to infuse a bit of comedy in the movie. Personally though, I would have found it more interesting if their "one date" past was replaced with more of a shared history, one where the two had a deeper relationship that simply lost its spark and they had to find it again. That would have been more compelling story as far as the romantic part of this movie was concerned.
I will say, neither one does all the heavy lifting in this movie. The two do save each other an equal number of times. I suppose that accounts for Chris Pratts final line in the movie "We should stick together, for survival." Still though, that line and this romance seemed very outdated. I don't care if the two are frolicking amidst the dinosaurs, it takes place in the 21st century for crying out loud!
4. Embracing ones "Femininity".
This kind of elaborates on what I already stated in point number 1. I've seen a lot of articles/tweets stating that Claire's whole journey throughout the movie culminate into her learning how to be more "motherly" and therefore more "feminine." I don't think this is necessarily true or, at the very least, wasn't intentional on the part of the writers. As I said before, the minute Claire becomes aware that her nephews are in danger, she springs into action. She may be a bit of a perfectionist, but she certainly isn't heartless. Also, side note... implying that a woman who doesn't have children isn't feminine is extremely insulting. Likewise, looking after children doesn't necessarily make a woman "motherly" it just makes her a good human being. I could go on and on regarding this point....but for the sake of being succinct I'd rather not.
Overall, If somebody asked me directly if I thought this movie was sexist...I would offer them a casual shoulder shrug and a hesitant "sort of". It would be far too easy to see Claire's character in black and white, especially since not all the women in this movie fit a single mold. For instance, Vivian, played by Lauren Lapkus had many facets to her character, even though her time on screen is extremely short. Shes very bright, interesting, warm and professional (even with a dino-hybrid on the loose). (Spoilers!) When her coworker tries to play hero and kiss her, she stops him and tells him point blank that she has a boyfriend whom she didn't care to mention as she wanted to keep her private life private. With such a strong, positive female role model like Vivian around, it begs the question...why the hell isn't she in charge?!
But I want to know your thoughts dear readers. What did you think of Jurassic World? What did you think of the women in this film? Does it's portrayal of women fall short when compared to other films such as Mad Max: Fury Road? Tell me below in the comments!
Much Love,
Hayleigh
