Charlie's Angels
The premise of Charlie's Angels (any version) is problematic. Three young women take orders from an anonymous man. McG's 2000 version of the plot made famous in the 1970s TV show doesn't differ on this front. Neither does it differ in the costume-accented overt sexuality of the Angels themselves (the review on the front of the DVD describes it as "Babe-a-licious!"). When it comes to racial stereotypes, Charlie's Angels 2000 one-ups the original, with the inclusion of Asian-American Alex, who naturally has vast technical expertise and is painted as the all-around over-achiever of the group.
When this film was originally released, off our backs pegged it as an example of "free-market feminism," similar to the Spice Girls. Basically, this refers to a kind of feminism that focuses on individual women doing whatever they want and not on any systematic change.
In Charlie's Angels, this plays out with the three women, Alex (Lucy Liu), Natalie (Cameron Diaz), and Dylan (Drew Barrymore) being able to kick ass and take names, but having to employ lots of traditional (and negative) feminine wiles to do it. They all use their bodies to manipulate men (the best example of this is probably when a cleavage-bearing Dylan licks the steering wheel of a car while "distracting" the driver), dress up in ridiculous and degrading get-ups to sneak into places and obtain information, and treat women who aren't as attractive as they are (like Doris, the manager at the office the Angels sneak into, played by the excellent Melissa McCarthy) with extreme disrespect. Though the Angels are clearly smart and skilled, able to do amazing things with technology, handle weapons, and excel in hand-to-hand combat, what the film shows them relying on most is not their skill sets, but their looks.
Characters of color, when the appear, are not treated well, or even rationally, in Charlie's Angels. LL Cool J appears at the beginning of the film, as what turns out to be a costume worn by Dylan. Why her costume is that of a large, traditionally dressed African man is not specified. Later, Natalie and her date, Pete (Luke Wilson) go to the taping of Soul Train, where Natalie takes the stage and dances, ridiculously, to chants of "go white girl!" from the circle of mostly African-American patrons who surround her, who are clearly there only to enhance her experience, and clearly don't mind her taking over their space. None of the actual named characters in the film are people of color, aside from Alex, who is less a character and more an Asian-American racial stereotype.
There are, by my count, exactly two good thing about this film. I will award it one star for each of these things. The first is the Angels' relationship with Bosley (Bill Murray). They are competent, he is not. They save him. I like this reversal.
The second good things is something really important to me, which I almost never see in any film, much less an action movie. Dylan, Natalie, and Alex are honest-to-God friends. They aren't in competition, they don't fight for affection from their paternal boss or go for the same guys. They compliment each other and take care of each other. They seem to have fun together. I've mentioned here before how rare positive portrayals of female friendship are, and seeing one in this movie makes what is otherwise unbearable somewhat worth watching.
(A review of the next installment in this film series, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is upcoming.)
Subscribe to posts
Grace, you lent me the book Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media by Susan J. Douglas - and it mentioned the TV series. What struck me is that Douglas says the Angels were formerly cops who were basically not getting decent assignments and the implication is that this happened because they were women. Can you say anything about the background of the Angels in the movie version? It's been so long since I saw it, I don't recall what backstory they were given.
The film doesn't really address it. It shows a montage of clips of the Angels as kids, then as young women, and says something about "and now they work for me." I think it skips the cop aspect all together.
That seems like a loss to me, then.
Hey All!
It's been a while. :)
Usually when my opinions deviate, I kind of have an idea on where it deviates, and I can still see the other side. This time around, I have to say I am totally baffled!
Like, why is it inherently wrong for 3 young women to take orders from an anonymous man? Is it because he is a man? What if it were 3 guys? And maybe it's a tad unfair since I saw the previous show and maybe I know why they do, but I would think by the end of the movie alone, it becomes clear that he needs to stay in cognito: not only do the angels do dangerous missions but who knows what enemies Charlie may have, and his anonymity protects both the angels and Charlie. This doesn't seem any different than in Mr & Mrs Smith when the assasins from both groups never saw the bosses (nor did the audience, really).
I couldn't imagine the film without the speakerbox Charlie. Probably my personal view, but if you deviate to far from what the source material, you lose the audience that will wactch the film in the first place - rather, you have a greater chance at doing that; I mean it's not like it was original fare where they could create what they wanted.
I also disagree about the whole take on the Soul Train scene. I think Charlie's Angels (both really) played with stereotypes, but also undercut them at the same time. So you have the stereotyped hard african american bouncers at the door, with the usual emotionless grimace, but by the end of that scene they open up, and the conversation doesn't seem trite, but of guys just generally hanging out. Besides, I could barely catch Soul Train on tv, let alone referenced in any outlet other than a show/movie/special/etc. that was geared specifically towards an African American audience. That they did it here, without any other issues than Natalie & Pete thought it was cool was definitely a step in the right direction, even if it was a bit cheesy. The fact that they cheer her on was not because of her ridiculous dancing, but because of the enthusiasm and the exuberance at which she did it. If I recall (been a while since I saw it - I see the second one more often than the first) they look aghast at first, but then later accept her. Considering how many times we see african americans scoffing and making insulting remarks at people who they feel do not dance well in various media, this scene seems more to go against the stereotypes we usually see in this regard - not support them. And while it could have taken a more stereotypical turn, it was grounded in a way that sort of buffets against it. I didn't like the white girl chant, but I wonder if they added that to try to do what you weren't too thrilled about: the fact that she takes center stage; it kind of qualifies it.
But what I am completely surprised by is that none of the great action scenes weren't referenced. I don't think at all that it showed more that they relied on their looks; it was just a tool among many that they used. They were supposed to be masters of disguise, and while they did dress sexy, they also dressed not sexy (as when Dylan was dressed as a guy).
And what really stood out to me was their fighting prowess. How Alex avoids all those bullits in the trailer, how Natalie defeats the guy in the bathroom. There is the nice piece with the thin man, and one of their memroable poses, and by far one of the best scenes that I remember: when Dylan takes down all those guys after KNox leaves her for dead. But she not only does this, but she tells them EXACTLY how she is going to do this, and she does this with her hands tied behind her back! Awesome. In fact, all of the women get nice fight scenes by the end of the movie. Natalie can take apart many of the henchmen she faces (when she was on the phone), but it's the female villain who eventually gives her the hardest time, with a silly banter-filled, but very real fight scene.
On top of that, they lead the film! And each character has a nice character arc (from Dylan and her guy & family issues to Alex and her struggle to keep a guy and pretend to be something else, or tell him the truth and risk losing him. It is goofy, but it's supposed to be comedic, not a strict interpretation of the former (which was more serious).
These were action females who, like you said, were the best of friends, but moreover they didn't act dour, they could crack jokes, they could handle all kinds of intricate and deadly weaponry, they could have relationships and without the usual 'they guy is at least my level or above'. They save the day! These were whole characters.
I dunno, I loved this film, and when it came out there really wasn't much like it... I'd say still isn't. :)
thanks for the read!
d
d, I very much appreciate that you have a different take on the movie but you're willing and able to explain it in a courteous, friendly way. Grace and I often disagree even between us, so we definitely expect that some of our readers will disagree with one or both of us at times!
Absolutely! I've been trying to reply to your post point-by-point, but haven't had the uninterrupted time to do so. You bring up some very good points, especially your reading of the Soul Train scene. I will definitely be keeping your post in mind when I watch the next installment of Charlie's Angels.
Uninterrupted time? Is there even such a thing? I must have it! :p
But no, thank you guys! And I was thinking after I posted that I probably don't chime in enough the other way - often times when I do agree with you both; when your assessments seem dead on! :)
Movies are just so emotional, and I have been for the life of me really trying to find a way to quantify that somehow, and I haven't figured it out yet. If you guys have discovered a way, do let me know!
And I've always figured that some ways in which I see things might be deemed crazy. I had a friend who I loved, who said I loved bad films. At the time we were discussing Catwoman, and while I wasn't loving it, I saw some credible points sections, or at least ideas. Maybe I was just heroine-content starved... He thought it was an interesting pov, but wasn't buying any of it! But if I can articulate why I see things the way I do, I figure at least you'll know why I'm crazy!