Published June 17th, 2015 at IHateCritics.Net
“Jurassic World” has been called ‘”sexist,” “anti-feminist” and, in one review, “gendered,” a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are aimed at the portrayal of the character Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career-oriented, driven administrator of the Jurassic World Theme Park.
Claire’s character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain. However, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc — you know, like a movie character.
As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition threatens to legislate traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters that stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws.
One of the criticisms of Claire as an anti-feminist symbol is centered on her clothes. Bear in mind: We are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in board rooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. Being chased by dinosaurs was, quite fair to say, not on Claire’s schedule EVER.
And yet we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs.
The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire’s comfort comes from achieving her ambition, which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait, but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition, then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack, then what is the dramatic arc?
Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominus Rex — maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. She was a little busy for a wardrobe change: There’s a freaking dinosaur on the loose.
I hate to engage in a cliched argument, but I will: If Claire were a man, would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan, would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits. A female character, apparently, has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like keeping a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage.
If there is an anti-feminist moment in “Jurassic World” it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park. Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen’s dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw.
That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen, who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn’t see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back, pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward. Karen’s insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers.
It’s a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she’s changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking “Jurassic World” the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt’s hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she’s going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That’s quite a leap of logic.
So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What’s the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive, then is it not perfectly alright that she’s attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him? Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. She’s more loving toward her nephews, but that’s because they’ve all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma.
Context is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn’t perfectly suit the writer/critic’s world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one for which she was quite fairly unprepared.
Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense, but that doesn’t matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn’t fit their agenda is simply wrong.
Look, my fear here is that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world views.
Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her. She’s the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She’s a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition effects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she’s a warts-and-all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her.
