Gaiman, Neil - Stardust (reread) and Stardust (2007 movie)
Mon, Aug. 20th, 2007 04:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oyceterI reread Gaiman's Stardust after watching the movie this weekend because I disliked the ending and the gender politics so much that I wanted to see if a) it was the moviemakers being stupid or b) I had overlooked the skanky gender issues in Gaiman's book.
Thankfully, I think it is more a) than b); though Gaiman's book isn't absolutely wonderful on gender, it is also not the glaring awfulness that is the movie.
I don't think I would have minded as much had it not been an adaptation of a book I loved; I am so used to seeing this blatant gender typing in movies that I have all but stopped being angry at it. This makes me sad.
The book Stardust is a lovely little fairy tale in the best of senses -- it is odd and wry and frightening and grand and quiet. A star falls, and young Tristran Thorn promises to bring it back to Victoria, whom he is infatuated with. So he sets out to the world beyond the Wall.
Book and movie comparisons, spoilers for both
The movie started out all right; the opening narration about the astronomers was a little twee, but it was also cute and fun. And while I disliked how Victoria seemed to be playing Tristran and the other guy against each other, I didn't take too much note of it, because it did feel magical, like it was supposed to.
Yvaine started off being nicely sarcastic and angry. I liked the ghost brothers, though they were more funny than the creepy they were in the book. And then there were the witches.
I have so many problems with the entire "OMG! Age! Woe! I must be beautiful forever!" thing that I will sum up with this: ARGH!!! WHY???
The film kept beating us over the head with it by showing Michelle Pfeiffer freaking out every time she did magic and got age spots or wrinkles. The princes got to fight over Yvaine and the stone for power! For a throne! For a kingdom! The witches' motivation was supposedly power, but the way the film played it, it was more for eternal youth.
This part is mostly the film; I think Gaiman's narrative also notes that the more magic the witch uses, the less she has and the older she gets, but it's not the focus of the witch. Both she and the brothers seem to be after the power in the book. Also, she and her sisters are called the Lilim (I think... book is at home), which automatically makes me like them more even though it is potentially problematic because damnit, Lilith is cool. And I've read Sandman, so I have Gaiman's version of Lilith and Eve in my head, which makes things better.
I had some problems with the stereotyped portrayal of the Robert DeNiro character, although I was ultimately happy that he got his crew and got to challenge stereotypes (you can love crossdressing and still be a kickass pirate in an airship!).
BUT. I hated pretty much everything else about the airship sequence, which is totally made up for the movie (it's about one brief paragraph in the book, and it only mentions that they were on an airship at one point and were happy there). Cute bumbling Tristran is turned into dashing swordsman Tristran, courtesy of the captain. We get the normal training montage set to music, intercut with scenes of Yvaine learning too.
Yvaine, however, gets to learn how to waltz. And she glows. Why not teach her how to fence, given that everyone is after her heart and not Tristran's? Because she must remain pretty and glowy and starlike! My eyes roll forever.
The movie also completely screws up the ending by turning it into a giant action fest; I hadn't remembered that from the book, and from rereading, it is because the book ends somewhat anticlimactically, which I love. I like that in the end, no one defeats the witch; in fact, Tristran doesn't even realize that the old woman at the end is the witch. In the movie, you have Yvaine helplessly tied down as Tristran swordfights his way through and battles the evil, ugly, old witch. Then the witch pretends to let them go because she grieves the deaths of her sister. Except it is a trick! She is glad her sisters are dead because it means more power for her!
Have I mentioned before how much I absolutely detest female friends or siblings fighting each other for power or men or anything? And the entire trope about women being backstabbing, catty bitches?
Yeah.
Then! Yvaine saves the day!
But not like you think. She doesn't get to kick butt or anything. No, no, she saves the day by glowing.
I am not making this up.
"Why couldn't you just do that before?" Tristran asks.
"Because I didn't think you loved me!" Yvaine replies.
So even the lame save-the-day-by-glowing trick is essentially attributed to Tristran.
Oh, I forgot. Una is there during the entire action sequence, and instead of doing anything useful, she cowers so Tristran can heroically swordfight. Then she lets him know he's the heir to Stormhold because he is her son.
This part is in the book, and this is where I am a little mad at Neil Gaiman. Why primogeniture? Why not let Una take the throne?
At least Gaiman lets her rule as a regent for quite some time, but I think it would have been ten times more awesome had Una just marched in, stated that her brothers were all dead, and taken the kingdom.
On the other hand, after Tristran dies in the book, Yvaine becomes the ruler, and presumably, that's how everything ends.
I liked Gaiman's women much better. Victoria isn't a flirt who's stringing Tristran along because she likes the attention; it's pretty clear that she sets him an impossible task as a dismissal and doesn't expect him to take it seriously. I also liked that she is straight with him in the end -- she says she intended to reject him, and didn't expect him to take her seriously, that she wants to marry Mr. Monday, but she will keep her promise. And Yvaine is less glowy and waltzy and in love; she doesn't have as much personality, because the book is still Tristran's story, but at least there isn't the "Love saves me!"
I also liked Una in the book much more. I am probably reading too much into it, but I felt that in the book, she was actively working against her imprisonment. Mostly, the women in the book aren't central, but they feel like individuals who have their own lives and their own thoughts; they're just briefly showing up in Tristran's story. In the movie? Not so much.
Links:
-![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rushthatspeaks' review (spoilers)
-sophia_helix's review (spoilers)
- Feminist SF's review
Thankfully, I think it is more a) than b); though Gaiman's book isn't absolutely wonderful on gender, it is also not the glaring awfulness that is the movie.
I don't think I would have minded as much had it not been an adaptation of a book I loved; I am so used to seeing this blatant gender typing in movies that I have all but stopped being angry at it. This makes me sad.
The book Stardust is a lovely little fairy tale in the best of senses -- it is odd and wry and frightening and grand and quiet. A star falls, and young Tristran Thorn promises to bring it back to Victoria, whom he is infatuated with. So he sets out to the world beyond the Wall.
Book and movie comparisons, spoilers for both
The movie started out all right; the opening narration about the astronomers was a little twee, but it was also cute and fun. And while I disliked how Victoria seemed to be playing Tristran and the other guy against each other, I didn't take too much note of it, because it did feel magical, like it was supposed to.
Yvaine started off being nicely sarcastic and angry. I liked the ghost brothers, though they were more funny than the creepy they were in the book. And then there were the witches.
I have so many problems with the entire "OMG! Age! Woe! I must be beautiful forever!" thing that I will sum up with this: ARGH!!! WHY???
The film kept beating us over the head with it by showing Michelle Pfeiffer freaking out every time she did magic and got age spots or wrinkles. The princes got to fight over Yvaine and the stone for power! For a throne! For a kingdom! The witches' motivation was supposedly power, but the way the film played it, it was more for eternal youth.
This part is mostly the film; I think Gaiman's narrative also notes that the more magic the witch uses, the less she has and the older she gets, but it's not the focus of the witch. Both she and the brothers seem to be after the power in the book. Also, she and her sisters are called the Lilim (I think... book is at home), which automatically makes me like them more even though it is potentially problematic because damnit, Lilith is cool. And I've read Sandman, so I have Gaiman's version of Lilith and Eve in my head, which makes things better.
I had some problems with the stereotyped portrayal of the Robert DeNiro character, although I was ultimately happy that he got his crew and got to challenge stereotypes (you can love crossdressing and still be a kickass pirate in an airship!).
BUT. I hated pretty much everything else about the airship sequence, which is totally made up for the movie (it's about one brief paragraph in the book, and it only mentions that they were on an airship at one point and were happy there). Cute bumbling Tristran is turned into dashing swordsman Tristran, courtesy of the captain. We get the normal training montage set to music, intercut with scenes of Yvaine learning too.
Yvaine, however, gets to learn how to waltz. And she glows. Why not teach her how to fence, given that everyone is after her heart and not Tristran's? Because she must remain pretty and glowy and starlike! My eyes roll forever.
The movie also completely screws up the ending by turning it into a giant action fest; I hadn't remembered that from the book, and from rereading, it is because the book ends somewhat anticlimactically, which I love. I like that in the end, no one defeats the witch; in fact, Tristran doesn't even realize that the old woman at the end is the witch. In the movie, you have Yvaine helplessly tied down as Tristran swordfights his way through and battles the evil, ugly, old witch. Then the witch pretends to let them go because she grieves the deaths of her sister. Except it is a trick! She is glad her sisters are dead because it means more power for her!
Have I mentioned before how much I absolutely detest female friends or siblings fighting each other for power or men or anything? And the entire trope about women being backstabbing, catty bitches?
Yeah.
Then! Yvaine saves the day!
But not like you think. She doesn't get to kick butt or anything. No, no, she saves the day by glowing.
I am not making this up.
"Why couldn't you just do that before?" Tristran asks.
"Because I didn't think you loved me!" Yvaine replies.
So even the lame save-the-day-by-glowing trick is essentially attributed to Tristran.
Oh, I forgot. Una is there during the entire action sequence, and instead of doing anything useful, she cowers so Tristran can heroically swordfight. Then she lets him know he's the heir to Stormhold because he is her son.
This part is in the book, and this is where I am a little mad at Neil Gaiman. Why primogeniture? Why not let Una take the throne?
At least Gaiman lets her rule as a regent for quite some time, but I think it would have been ten times more awesome had Una just marched in, stated that her brothers were all dead, and taken the kingdom.
On the other hand, after Tristran dies in the book, Yvaine becomes the ruler, and presumably, that's how everything ends.
I liked Gaiman's women much better. Victoria isn't a flirt who's stringing Tristran along because she likes the attention; it's pretty clear that she sets him an impossible task as a dismissal and doesn't expect him to take it seriously. I also liked that she is straight with him in the end -- she says she intended to reject him, and didn't expect him to take her seriously, that she wants to marry Mr. Monday, but she will keep her promise. And Yvaine is less glowy and waltzy and in love; she doesn't have as much personality, because the book is still Tristran's story, but at least there isn't the "Love saves me!"
I also liked Una in the book much more. I am probably reading too much into it, but I felt that in the book, she was actively working against her imprisonment. Mostly, the women in the book aren't central, but they feel like individuals who have their own lives and their own thoughts; they're just briefly showing up in Tristran's story. In the movie? Not so much.
Links:
-
rushthatspeaks' review (spoilers)-
sophia_helix's review (spoilers)- Feminist SF's review
(no subject)
Thu, Aug. 23rd, 2007 10:12 pm (UTC)I think a good deal of people I've seen on LJ went to see the movie anyway.
That's reassuring. A number of people seemed to be saying that they would skip the theatrical release.
It's quite true that women need to be steered away from the idea that the only way to be fulfilled is through others, whether those others are partners or offspring or pupils or patients, etc. It's also rather despicable how Hollywood's idea of simplifying things for mass audiences invariably ends up meaning that the subtler forms of action (such as Una's apparent long-term plan for escaping and taking her rightful place in the scheme of things) get lost. There are forms of action other than running someone through with a sword, but that seems to have become the default symbol of taking charge in on-screen fantasy, and if the female characters don't do that, then they don't do anything.
I'll also freely admit that my own raison d'etre is people-oriented - not necessarily service and sacrifice, but human interaction. (My more cerebral sister says that I have boundary issues.) So love - whether friend-love, parent-love, or partner-love - tends to be a major motivator for me in real life as well, and I'm viewing the situation through that filter. But it's unrealistic and oppressive to expect that all women would do so - and just as bad as to expect that there aren't any men who might.
(no subject)
Mon, Aug. 27th, 2007 07:00 pm (UTC)*nods* Yeah, I can definitely see a critique from that angle. Which is to say that I agree and think that it is also not entirely feminist to say all female characters must act stereotypically male to be accepted; it's equally important to stop the denigration of traditionally feminine traits and activities. What bugged me about the movie was how clearly the traditionally masculine and the traditionally feminine were paralleled, particularly in the sequence of Tristran learning sword-fighting and Yvaine learning to dance.