Saw Avengers the other night. I think it's pretty clearly the genre high point of the mainstream superhero movie to date. Its execution ranged from solid to masterful, it was exhilarating, funny and gorgeous. But.
Avengers has approximately five main characters, four secondaries, and a handful of tertiaries. Of the five protagonists, four are male and all are white. The four secondaries are three white and one black male. There is exactly one tertiary character of any significance who is not a white male -- two if you count Gwennyth Paltrow's twoish scenes as Iron Man's girlfriend.
Needless to say, it abjectly fails the Bechdel test.
I swear it's an idea I got from Richard Morgan, though now that I go looking I can't find the original quote -- but for the sake of expedience let's call it the Morgan Rule, even if it's a misappropriation: in the process of constructing a narrative, particularly in boys-club genres like superhero, sci-fi, or action films, if there's no specific reason for your protagonist not to be female, of colour and/or a sexual minority, they probably should be.
In the case of Avengers, for better or for worse, we're pretty firmly locked in to four probably white probably straight men for our main characters (Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk and Thor), and of course ScarJo as the fifth. None of that can really change without it being a pretty big shake-up, and this isn't a genre that's inclined towards subversion. That's fine.
But really, thus constrained, why the ever-loving fuck do you choose another straight white dude as your sixth character? Especially an egregiously dull B-lister like Hawkeye?
I've been complaining about this for months, since the first trailers came out, but having actually seen the movie it's even worse than I'd thought.
Black Widow, ScarJo's character, and Hawkeye are portrayed as a bit of a pair. And don't get me wrong, it's a good, they play off each other well, and Jeremy Renner's portrayal is perfectly strong. There are narrative parallels too: they're the only two heroes without overt superpowers, relying on skill, grit and intelligence instead of invulnerability and lasers. There's some emotional heft to that, a kind of battlescarred camaraderie.
But recasting Hawkeye as some equivalent female hero, or even Hawkeye as a female hero, would have been strictly better -- then, we'd also have sympatico via female veterans of a male-dominated world, to go with that of (comparatively) ordinary humans thrown in with the demigods. And though I really appreciated the depiction of a non-romantic mixed-gender friendship, it's not like female friendship is over-represented in action flicks. I think it could have been extremely fruitful, in an otherwise entirely unchanged movie.
There's also the plain question of avoiding tokenism. When your hero squad has one woman, she feels like a token (particularly with a name like Black Widow), no matter how strong and well-developed. Add a second minimally developed female character and this is just less of a problem, optically.
But the larger issue is that throwing in Hawkeye adds nothing to the film. He is, I'm told, one of the original Avengers in the comic, but he hardly brings an established fan-base. The archery schtick is kinda dopey and stretches credulity. Making him the sixth was an affirmative choice, made somewhere presumably quite early in the film's conception, and there's no reason, save uncritical laziness, to have chosen this particular male hero for the role.
Diversity is worthwhile for its own sake, of course, but it's also interesting -- the movie was constantly concerned about how its main cast would interact, and adding more women into the mix simply opens up a wider range of possibilities, even if we're staying strictly hetero. Sexual tension and power dynamics and condescension: you've got a character from the 1940s, ferchristssake! This stuff doesn't need to be especially deep or thoughtful, but a broader cast just gives you more to work with, period. So why Hawkeye?
All this doesn't even touch on the race question, nor broader problems endemic to the superhero genre of highly sexualized female characters (in the film's defense, I suppose, the camera isn't shy about lingering lovingly over skintight leather-clad mancandy either), nor the total lack of queer anything, and so on. But the choice of Hawkeye as the sixth Avenger is just baffling in its dull thoughtlessness. Can't get over it at all.
(I should add that I am in no way a comic book reader -- everythng I know about these characters was picked up through the Hollywood films or second-hand through friends. But I have it on good authority that there are a great many perfectly acceptable female candidates in the Avengers canon who could have been brought in for the role.)


Salon.com
Comments
According to better comic book historians than I, mainly Gerard Jones, Marvel had regular black supporting characters. They introduced the first mainstream black hero, the Black Panther. (No, not a political guy - named before the political movement, and he, T'Challah, was the king of an African kingdom that combined ecology and mysticism with high technology.)
In the 70's, Marvel introduced Luke Cage, eventually named Power Man, a brawler with impenetrable bulletproof skin. He's still around.
I ought to point out that Nick Fury has only been black for about eight years. Before they cast Samuel L. Jackson in the part, Nick was a white veteran of World War II - made almost immortal by a strange serum. He was a contemporary of the World War II Captain America. Making him black was remarkably good - Jackson offers a confidence and intelligence the old Nick never had.
I'd guess the only reason they didn't put Black Panther in the Avengers is that Disney didn't want to make the movie. The name is a problem. (At one point even Marvel, pre-Disney, tried to rename him as "Black Leopard." Didn't work.)
If it's any consolation, one of the little blurb lines they used to use in the Avengers comic was, "Through the years, their roster has prospered, changing many times, but their glory can never been denied!" So maybe they'll throw The Falcon, or Luke, or T'Challah in the next movie.
yeah hawkeye was definitely a 3rd rate superhero, but I didnt notice anything lame about him in the movie.
as for making superheroes more PC, dude, thats an awfully lame sentiment.
so which is it gonna be dude, PC or non PC? I think maybe its you thats quite mixed up, but congrats on so expertly making it appear otherwise :p
a) man it was sure like the last xformers movie with the portal to the other world and the invading alien force, having to close the portal, the war in a downtown metro area, etcetera.
b) the hulk has never been able to *control* when he wants to get angry, right? I always thought that was what was so contrarian about him compared to other superheroes, but they violated that tenet at the end of the movie....
You questioned why the filmmakers would ever pick Hawkeye as the sixth member of the team. It turns out that you yourself had answered your own question quite effectively. Well played.
As an aside, may I ask why you assume that Hawkeye (as presented in the movie) is straight?
Good point about Hawkeye not necessarily being straight. That would be a pretty delightful twist for his own spin-off or the sequel. Somewhat immaterial for this film, where his sexuality is unspecified, but you're right, I shouldn't assume. I do suspect that homosexuality is still pushing it for Hollwood re: male superheroes (much like out male athletes are still extremely rare), but I'd love to be shown otherwise.
Strangest thing I've ever read on OS. A rant against Hawkeye.
Black Widow is actually the third woman to join, officially in 1973 though she'd been an associated character for a while before that. She's followed by several other female characters through the rest of the 70s.
Most of these characters started out white. As I suggested, they could have added in characters that were created black - Black Panther has often been an active Avenger. But the last time there was a black guy wearing the Captain America outfit, the Red Skull summarily killed him. (Check out the "Nomad" period of Cap's existence.)
Looks to me that your argument is more with Disney/Marvel's corporate decisions about what characters to put in their tentpole film, than with comic books themselves. If and when AOL Time Warner/DC Comics ever makes the Justice League movie, you should be more satisfied. One of the Green Lanterns is black, and Icon was created by the black, talented and late Dwayne McDuffie.
By the way, how do you feel about the casting problems on Broadway's Miss Saigon, where the casting rules were loosened up to assure racial balance so severly, that black men were cast in the roles of Vietnamese women?
I definitely remember the Heimdal affair -- fans can be really terrible people. Just seemed so pointless and petty to complain about.
As far as the whole question about characters who were created black versus simply casting black actors to play characters that were created white goes... I think there are advantages to both. Fidelity to source material can be a positive, and if the characters are there and not terrible than we should definitely be making good use of them. But I think there's also something to be said for understanding these properties as products of their eras, and being flexible in reimagining to make them more palatable to modern audiences isn't a bad thing either.
I'm not familiar with the Broadway/Miss Saigon incident in particular, but I do think it's defensible to have a non-diverse cast when there's good reason (if the play is set in Vietnam, why not cast Vietnamese actors to play Vietnamese characters?) -- at the same time, outside of period pieces there's often no reason for a given character to have a predetermined ethnicity at all. Mostly I just like to see evidence of thoughtfulness -- has a production gone out of its way to cast blind? (as Vancouver Opera did up until this year) I can respect that. Has it gone out of its way to cast accurately, say Vietnamese actors in Vietnamese roles? I can get behind that too.
Affirmative action and quotas in theatre seem a little more dubious to me. Not saying it's absolutely a bad idea, but I'd have to be convinced. I'm also very sceptical about actors portraying characters of other ethnicities: I'm sure there are examples of it being done alright (and I thought Downey Jr's send up of the phenomenon in Tropic Thunder was hilarious), but often it just seems like both a recipe for disaster, and a role that could go to a minority actor going instead to a more famous white person...
There is a category of production that I feel should try to divest themselves of their historical settings: works like the Mikado and Madame Butterfly that are probably better served by setting them in a fictional analogue setting and/or casting blind, rather than carefully replicating their original racism. I don't think we shouldn't stage them, necessarily -- they're artifacts of their eras, often great on their own merits -- but should definitely approach them maturely, acknowledging their faults. Same with a lot of Shakespeare, really. Something to think about with comic franchises as well -- a lot of them date back to periods with very different values, should we really be shy about tweaking the source material when needs be?
This is somewhat beyond my more basic beef with Avengers, though, which is simply that when presented with an Avenger#6 slot, they could have made a more mindful choice than Hawkeye, without messing with canon at all.
It seems ironic, and against the way things normally work, but because DC was bought early by the giant AOL Time Warner, they were more interested in expanding the appeal of comics. DC gave the aforementioned Dwayne McDuffie and Denys Cowan their own label, Milestone Comics, where black creators were able to create black characters. The late McDuffie proved his capability of a creator so well, that before his death, he was producer of the popular Justice League Unlimited and Ben 10 animated shows.
(I met him once. Nice guy. REAL tall. When he created the comic Damage Control, about a business that cleans up disasters in the Marvel universe, he was the model for the company's financial director. He was the guy on one cover in a three-piece suit, thrusting a bill towards an armored villain saying, "Doctor Doom...you will PAY!")
So, really, it's Disney's corporate decisions versus those of AOL Time Warner. (Yes, they're still AOL, they will be so eternally.) And you are quite right in questioning them; it's just knowing exactly who to criticize.