Gaiman, Neil - Stardust (reread) and Stardust (2007 movie)

[oyceter]

I 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:
- rushthatspeaks' review (spoilers)
- sophia_helix's review (spoilers)
- Feminist SF's review

Comments

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this; just now I was thinking, "Well, I loved the book, so I'm betting I wouldn't notice any skanky gender issues with the movie, because they're the same, right????"

Obviously not.

[oyceter]

Yeah... I mean, I am glossing over the skanky gender issues in the book (to wit: the whole imprisonment of Yvaine thing and the general lack of women who aren't a) evil or b) involved in Tristran's fate somehow). But wow. The movie made it a billion times worse.

[rilina.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess I don't have to watch this movie now.

[shewhohashope.livejournal.com]

I was really looking forward to this.

I've removed both TDiR and Starust off my 'films to see' list in one day. There's still the Bourne Ultimatum, I already know that that will have skanky gender issues.

[oyceter]

Yeah.. the beginning wasn't stunning, but it was cute and fun, but then it went off into skanky gender issue land.

Also, they completely overdid the sound effects and the score to make it sound large and epic, which annoyed me.

[oyceter]

Siiigh. I was off and on about it; the previews didn't interest me, but when the movie started getting some good reviews, I got my hopes up.

And I was really happy in the beginning, because it was fun and funny! And then... not so much.

[cofax7]

Well, The Bourne Ultimatum didn't have any more skanky gender issues than the first two did. There's only two women characters in the movie with lines, and they're both smart, sympathetic, and active, for what it's worth. But they are not the Action Heroes, and yeah, one of them does have to be saved from imminent peril.

[sajia.livejournal.com]

What you said. As I wrote in one of my recent posts, it was a mistake to leave out the "Tori-tree" sequence - even if you are a Tori-hater - because a) it is one of the most magical sequences in the book and b) Tristan's decision to unchain Yvaine is a key point on his road to maturity.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

Grar.

I loved the graphic novel version of Stardust. Thanks for warning me off the film version, since I would've hated it for the same reasons you do. Fucking Hollywood... not only will they not make films on their own that don't reinforce sexist and racist stereotypes, they will pervert any property which consciously avoided such stereotyping in its original format if the creator is foolish enough to sign away the rights to it.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the Gaiman, but spot on with the movie. I enjoyed the pretty--it was fun fluff--goat guy was hilarious. But genderwise it was totally regressive, and all white. I enjoyed it visually, but it left me empty.

[darkelf105.livejournal.com]

Thank you for articulating what I was thinking. I was going to re-read Stardust, but now that you've pretty much nailed what I was thinking I am going to scratch of my list. I'm glad you mentioned the scene with Robert DiNero's character. Normally, I would be all for a flashy, cross dressing sky pirate who catches lightening played by DiNero, but the way the movie makers portrayed him, felt so flat any lifeless. And because they managed to screw something like that up, I am not surprised by how flat the rest of the movie fell. After that, I was pretty much done. I'm just sad that all of my friends really, really loved it and I had a hard time explaning why I enjoyed parts, but for the most part was giggling over the ridiculous.

[oyceter]

Oh, I hadn't realized that the tree was supposed to be Tori.

Yeah, I wish that Tristran in the movie had decided to unchain Yvaine on his own.

[oyceter]

The thing is, I didn't really hate the movie. I was having some fun up till the end, which is when I started rolling my eyes. The sad thing is, the beginning really is rather charming! Then they sort of mess it up.

[oyceter]

Yeah, me too. I was really hoping it'd be a wry, charming little piece, but alas.

[oyceter]

Yeah, the sad bit was that there were parts that were good! And then it went Standard Hollywood Movie, and it was not so good =(.

[maeve-rigan.livejournal.com]

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).

Finally, you confirm what I've been thinking, but couldn't confirm for myself because I've lent my copy of the book to someone (WHO???). No wonder I couldn't remember any such character as "Captain Shakespeare"!

[oyceter]

Yes! You are not imagining things! I was so boggled when I read reviews because I could not for the life of me remember the airship or the captain.

[genarti]

I liked Stardust, even with all of this. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, though I keep meaning to. I went with people who had and who liked the movie, though.) It's pretty, it's fun, it's very Princess Bride-esque, and at least nobody's as bad as Buttercup. (I realize that's not hard. But. For me, the skanky gender issues mostly glossed over into fairy taleness, up till the ending which was just weirdly disjointed. And deus ex machina-y.)

It's not the utter travesty that tDiR is, by a long shot; at least, I don't think so, and that's not the reaction I've seen from people who loved the book and have seen the movie. (Whereas I do not know a single book fan, myself firmly included, who's heard anything about the movie and not placed it firmly on the mental list of soul-sucking horrors.) Just be aware that it does, in fact, have the gender issues.

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

...oh, ICK.

Thanks for the heads-up and the links. Yeah, this is definitely getting shunted off to the "low expectations, wait for cable" list. Thanks, Hollywood.

I am probably reading too much into it, but I felt that in the book, she was actively working against her imprisonment.

It's not just you! I would have to dig up my copy and reread to come up with actual evidence to back up my vague recollections, but I know that I always thought that Una was very, very much her own person, and rebelling against both the status quo of her upbringing in Stormhold and her imprisonment by the witch. It's subtle, she can't really strike out too directly against her captor, but I never got the sense that she was just passively biding her time waiting for rescue; she was plotting and taking what actions she could within the limits of the spell binding her.

[oyceter]

Ok, phew, not just me! I remember coming away from the book with the reading that Una had pushed the entire thing into motion by sleeping with Dunstan, even though textually it never says that.

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

Yes, EXACTLY! That's just the way I saw it too; she was scheming from the very beginning, a very slow long-term-thinking sort of plan, but given the lifespan of the Stormhold folks she could do that. She reminded me a bit of Frix, if you've ever read Fritz Leiber?

[chomiji]

I can't entirely disagree with what you've pointed out, even though I rather enjoyed the movie.

The trouble is, even with all those flaws and Hollywood simplifications, this still represents one of the few times that Hollywood has allowed a genre author like Gaiman such a large amount of control over a film. Even with the annoying changes, it's still much more true to its source than many (a couple of people have already mentioned the disgusting in-process adaptation of The Dark Is Rising, and there's always the Earthsea travesties ... ).

So how does one support the moviemaking effort enough to allow more and possibly better genre films to be funded, without betraying one's ideals? Because if "Stardust" doesn't do decent box office, the Hollywood bottom-liners are going to say "See, we were right - these stupid nerdy fantasy authors don't knowhow to make movies that sell. LotR was a fluke, and we're going back to making movies exactly the way we always make them."

I have no answer myself.

(BTW, is the idea that True Love allows an individual to "shine" necessarily so awful? If it was clear that Tristran was able to do what he needed to do solely because of love, would that make the idea less offensive? Or was it just that the love shine stuff on top of the rest of Yvaine's wimpification was so nasty? Even after all these years, I'm still a big fan of the idealization of love, especially in fairy tale settings.)

[oyceter]

So how does one support the moviemaking effort enough to allow more and possibly better genre films to be funded, without betraying one's ideals?

Well, I think that depends on the individual. Also, I think a good deal of people I've seen on LJ went to see the movie anyway.

BTW, is the idea that True Love allows an individual to "shine" necessarily so awful? If it was clear that Tristran was able to do what he needed to do solely because of love, would that make the idea less offensive?

Well, first, I dislike the trope of True Love empowering the individual to do everything in the first place.

Second, it would be different if it were Tristran because most representations of men in fiction show them gaining power through many means, not just love, whereas most representations of women in fiction show them gaining power via romantic heterosexual love or via maternal love, which is very limiting and stereotyping.

Actually, that ties in with my first point, because a large reason why I dislike the trope of True Love empowering so much is because it is so often used on women in a way that shows them as passive. Also, when it's used on men, the men generally get to be active -- they win her heart, or love gives them the power to battle, or it's the love of a dead woman that motivates them, but in the end, the focus is on him and his actions. Whereas with women, True Love is often shown with them being the objects to be won. They are The Girl, the women in the refrigerators, the mother figures that empower their children, but all their power lies in being static, much like Yvaine's in the film lies in her not having a sword or fighting, but in simply standing still.

Even after all these years, I'm still a big fan of the idealization of love, especially in fairy tale settings.

And that's cool. I think it's possible to view things as problematic and still enjoy them, or to entirely ignore the problematic aspects. I love fairy tale setting as well, and fairy tale romances, but I still think there are honking big issues with them.

[chomiji]

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.

[oyceter]

if the female characters don't do that, then they don't do anything.

*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.