I liked Avengers: Age of Ultron. A lot. What follows is going to read like a very negative review. If I could selectively switch off my feminism, I could write you the most thumbs-uppiest of glowing reviews for Age of Ultron. But I cannot, and this is why my dad would say “it’s hard to be Robin.” But if you’re a regular Bitch Flicks reader, it is also probably hard to be you (that’s sort of why we exist). And you also will probably walk away from this movie with some serious reservations.
Age of Ultron succeeds in all the places you’d expect it to fail: the new characters are compelling; the amped-up battle sequences manage to be as coherent as they are thrilling; and for a movie with 17 actors listed on its poster, it somehow manages to not feel that overstuffed. But while Joss Whedon was tiptoeing around all the expected pitfalls of a major franchise sequel, he stumbled over a cliff when it came to the one character I would have most trusted him to get right: Scarlet Johansson’s Natasha Romanoff, or Black Widow.
Spoilers from here on out, friends.
When Black Widow was introduced in Iron Man 2 (a sequel which DID fail in all the predictable ways), her character was so fully entrenched in the male gaze it was kind of gross. We’re first introduced to her cover identity, Natalie Rushman: a submissive secretary who modeled in Japan and suggestively asks, “is that dirty enough for you” after leaning over to present her boss Tony Stark with a martini. But what’s even hotter Natalie Rushman? Natasha Romanoff pretending to be meek and accommodating while in fact being a badass superspy who can take out fifteen guys, hack computers, and save the day without mussing her flowing red curls (one of the worst wigs in the history of cinema, but that’s just a personal bugaboo of mine). This kind of sarcastic-quotation-marks “strong female character” is a dime a dozen in action movies and not someone I’d beg to see a standalone movie about.
But then came The Avengers, where Black Widow was so much more than the Fighting Fucktoy. She was still a sexy badass, but she also got to be wickedly clever, dryly funny, warm and loyal to her friends, and in what was probably the biggest revelation for a Strong Female Character: fearful of scary things. This more solid characterization carried over to Captain America: The Winter Soldier, where we continued to see Natasha’s rare moments of emotional vulnerability alongside her intellectual and physical competence.
Black Widow had become a character I loved. And I would have given a lot of credit for that to Joss Whedon. But then he went and did this all this to her.
AoU‘s first sin against Natasha is awkwardly shoehorning her into a romantic subplot with Bruce Banner, of all people. Maybe I’d be less disgruntled about Natasha in lurve if the pairing worked better for me? But it felt pretty out of left field, and lacking in chemistry. Like they crossed off the crossed off the characters who already had love interests and flipped a coin to settle on Bruce.
Now, one of the benefits of being a well-rounded character should be the chance for a love interest. The rest of the core six all have their sweeties! But note how all of them had outside characters as their love interest. Usually our male Avengers have their own movie or movies to make space for that character, but Hawkeye’s previously-unseen wife was given screen time in Age of Ultron. It is unthinkable for Natasha to have a similar surprise husband, because “doting pregnant wife” is a complete female character as far as Hollywood is concerned. A side character male love interest is much harder for Hollywood to handle, because they see “man” and think “center of the story.”
So Natasha had to be connected to another main character, and it happened to be Bruce, and even if that didn’t feel as random to you as it did to me, it brings about some problems. First, I wasn’t crazy about Natasha having the role of soothing Bruce out of Hulk form with their”lullaby” ritual to begin with, but adding romantic overtones makes it even more skeevy. There are unavoidable allusions to domestic violence inherent to the Hulk. Having his romantic partner hold the responsibility for talking him down from his rage state, and portraying this as part of their bond, underscores this in an unpleasant way.
Worse, Natasha’s arc in Age of Ultron got completely wrapped up in her feelings for Banner, even though we finally—finally! In her fourth appearance in a Marvel movie—got to see Natasha’s backstory, her childhood training/brainwashing into superspyness by the sinister Red Room. (Granted, we see it in a dream-like flashback that’s only long enough for you to go, “Hey, is that Julie Delpy?”).
Natasha’s history gets rolled over into her romantic subplot in the most bizarre, uncomfortable—let’s just say worst—scene in the film. Bruce is giving Natasha the speech about how she could have no future with him, gesturing around to the child’s room they are in. She tearfully reveals that she can’t have children either, because she was sterilized as part of her “graduation” from the Red Room. She speculates the forced sterilization was to avoid problems, attachments, and that “It made everything easier, even killing.” And then she calls herself a monster.
RECORD SCRATCH. Wait, a woman who can’t get pregnant is A MONSTER? On a level comparable to a dude who turns into an actual unstoppable force of destruction we had just seen level a city? What… I just… what? What!!!!????? The idea that anyone—*cough* Joss Whedon *cough*—would think infertility makes a woman something less than human is extremely gross, but it’s even worse to see Natasha internalize such warped misogyny and biological essentialism.
And I haven’t even mentioned the part where Black Widow gets kidnapped by the bad guy and locked in a dungeon. That really happens. For real for real. I assume this was to accommodate Scarlett Johansson’s pregnancy during filming, but there are plenty of ways to write her out of the story for a little while without making her a damsel in distress (send her on a side mission, any side mission, DON’T LOCK BLACK WIDOW IN A DUNGEON). And thinking about how Johansson was pregnant at the time somehow manages to make that horrible sterilization confession scene even more unpleasant.
The only good news when it comes to Black Widow in Age of Ultron is that she’s no longer saddled with being the Smurfette, as Elizabeth Olsen’s Scarlet Witch provides us with a Sassette Smurf of sorts. Cobie Smulders is also back as Maria Hill, but she doesn’t have much to do. Claudia Kim plays Dr. Helen Cho, who does things that are important for the plot but gets less character development than Hawkeye’s wife, who might as well be listed in the credits as “Hawkeye’s wife.” But even though Natasha isn’t the only woman in Age of Ultron, she’s still the one nearest and dearest to the audience, and it is heartbreaking to see her utilized so poorly.
Robin Hitchcock is a writer based in Pittsburgh who has never been pregnant. Is she, too, a monster!?
I wouldn’t say the infertility is what Nat was referring to when she called herself a monster. Both she and Bruce have serious blood on their hands. Their ability to wreak such violence is what’s considered monstrous.
I think you are right in that that is what was *intended* but the words literally come out as being about her sterilization. It’s weird enough to the point where I have to wonder if there’s a weird editing snafu happening.
Thank you Liz, you said it better than I could have myself! <3
I feel like her whole “arc” (may be generous here) in the film can best be seen as evidence to the MCU Avengers needing more female members, which is one of the things thankfully remedied by the end.
Yes, and I think the backlash about Black Widow in this movie is partially due to fans being extra protective of her because she WAS our only female hero for a while.
Her arc is about escape. That’s why she winds up trapped later in the film. She’s trying to find an escape from a life attached to something bigger than herself that she has no control over (and which can often be bad/belittling). …Obviously, Hulk/Banner represents the suggestion of a new life or form of escape wherein, despite there being something “bigger,” she firmly knows where she stands. That’s why she can “tame” him and there’s mention of them running off together a couple times.
All of which, in terms of the MCU overall, is a change of pace (character development) for her following the events of CA: Winter Soldier, where she found out the “good guys” she was working for (as opposed to the seeming “bad guys” she used to work for) housed a ton of bad guys and then she came to accept the darkness of her past (which is part of what results in her then wishing to find a way to leave it behind in this film – “escape” – but, as the MCU has previously suggested, you can’t just do that).
…I don’t see why more people aren’t latching onto her arc. In the film, she’s one of the few who actually goes somewhere kind of “full” emotionally by the end, with both herself and Banner winding up roughly trapped in the horrors that got them to where they are and the scars that remain. Many of the rest of the character’s portrayals just start to tease stuff (arc-wise) for things like CA: Civil War.
Well, and I’m by no means an expert in this so I apologize profusely should I be out of line, but couldn’t that part about Black Widow’s infertility be being taken the wrong way by some? Cause, I mean, considering how the film is framed the audience is clearly meant to sympathize with Natasha and disagree entirely with her assessment of her own self-worth?
There are, tragically, a lot of women who consider themselves ‘damaged goods’ due to being sterile. It is an issue that comes up in real life more often than most people would think and wouldn’t it be nice to see it get some time or representation in fiction? Especially taking into account it goes on in a scene explicitly connecting Black Widow with a human being who considers himself a monster when he very clearly isn’t. Bruce says he can’t have the whole family man, picket-fence kind of life and he takes that to mean he can never be happy, but the film seems to be entirely against him on that point. Like she said after being told she’s being too hard on herself, “here I thought that was your job.” The way I took the scene was as two individuals very clearly obsessed with self-flagellation finding some common ground and some comfort. Comfort in realizing there’s more ways to be happy in life then a “good, old fashioned family values” type of life. Isn’t that great? Isn’t it great to see kids taught that not having a “normal” life doesn’t mean it’s gotta be a crappy or lonely one? At least, thats what I took away from it.
But, again, I’m not an expert and much less do I know what it might come across to a woman actually living with infertility so take this with a grain of salt and I apologize once more if this is out of line.
Oh, and also terrific article! I definitely agree it is kinda weird and skeevy to see the whole motherly angle used in the lullaby scenes.
I would have to see it again to remember exactly how Bruce reacted, because I was too busy sputtering with confusion.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but none of the articles I’m reading mention Bruce *clearly* stating “of course you’re not a monster!” which, if we’re supposed to root for this guy as a romantic lead and/or see this scene as Black Widow’s distorted self-image seems pretty important.
“RECORD SCRATCH. Wait, a woman who can’t get pregnant is A MONSTER? On a
level comparable to a dude who turns into an actual unstoppable force of
destruction we had just seen level a city? What… I just… what?
What!!!!????? The idea that anyone—*cough* Joss Whedon *cough*—would
think infertility makes a woman something less than human is extremely
gross, but it’s even worse to see Natasha internalize such warped
misogyny and biological essentialism.”
Reading the other comments I think I’m not alone in this one. I really don’t think the monster reference is due to her infertility, but due to the killing, and for me and the people that saw the movie with me it was kind of clear, but I may be wrong, I need to watch it again to see it.
I agree pretty much on all counts here. However, I’m like… 99% sure she references herself as a monster because she’s killed so many people in cold blood and without conscious. The scene was written in a confusing manner, so it almost sounded like she was calling herself a monster due to her infertility, but that more related to “I can never have a normal life, like you. Also, I’ve murdered/tortured/blown up like 1000 people, so you’re not the only one who’s fucked on the morality train.”
That’s how I took it at least. Anyway, that’s no excuse for a lot of the shit she’s delegated in the rest of the movie. BUH.
I’ve heard plenty of people interpret it that way, and I HOPE that was what was intended, but I’m certainly not alone in hearing it as “infertile = monster”, so that scene needed a re-write for clarity at least.
I totally am with you there. Honestly, I thought she WAS referring to herself as a monster due to infertility for a few seconds, then I had to think really hard about what she was saying and realized it wasn’t. I can’t blame anyone for jumping to that conclusion.
But she does clearly say that being sterilized made killing easier, which is problematic in of itself.
Yes, that is. The scene itself was just bonkers. I wonder if it was the writing or the editing that made that scene as jumbled as it was. Probably both. On one hand, forced sterilization sounds pretty dehumanizing. I *like* to think it’s more an issue of having her agency/autonomy taken from her that made killing easier. I think her backstory/infertility had a lot of great potential from a development standpoint, but in the end it was presented in the most awful way.
why is it problematic? It refers to the fact that then you have no one to care for other than yourself or the mission. this might come a bit of topic but, I have a couple friends in the army, two of them with kids now, and they consider it’s far more difficult to go and risk their lifes now.
Well she specified killing being made easier, not just risking her life. Which to me indicates an association between fertility and moral purity, which makes my face scrunch up.
Did she say that? I thought the way she said it implied that she thought the people who did it to her thought it made the killing easier, which doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the point of view of either Natasha or the writers. It’s the point of view of an evil organization.
I didn’t hear it that way at all, and was surprised when it was brought up, but you’re absolutely right more clarity was needed.
I get the impression that the scene (like the film) was chopped up a decent amount (to its ultimate detriment in terms of clarity/arc/development in many regards, in my view) so I imagine that editing led to the issue more than writing.
Not only that, but they all referenced themselves as monsters throughout the film. It was a common theme. I’m on board with the other points made (I hated the “romance”), but not this one. I actually thought it was quite clear that she was a monster because she was made to be a “killing machine”. And they all see that in themselves.
I didn’t see it as she was a monster for being sterilized.
I saw it as her being a monster because she was made to be a killing machine. She doesn’t kill people because she can’t have kids. She can’t have kids because she kills people.
Then why include her the literal forced sterilization in her backstory?
Because Banner just told her he can never be a father.
It applied to the conversation.
It showed that she wasn’t just a killer that switched sides, she was essentially rebuilt from the ground up to be something else.
Does being infertile make her a monster, no, but the process of making her infertile is part of how they made her one.
It *can* be read that way. But it could have been written as “I’m a monster because I killed people. Also, I can’t have kids either” rather than “I can’t have kids… I’m a monster”. At the very least, Joss Whedon is cluelessly opening up the interpretation that Robin raises, by not thinking hard enough about the implications in his writing.
I have no issue with you as a feminist critic but I think you are a bit shit as a film critic. You state that:
“Age of Ultron succeeds in all the places you’d expect it to fail: the new characters are compelling; the amped-up battle sequences manage to be as coherent as they are thrilling; and for a movie with 17 actors listed on its poster, it somehow manages to not feel that overstuffed. But while Joss Whedon was tiptoeing around all the expected pitfalls of a major franchise sequel, he stumbled over a cliff when it came to the one character I would have most trusted him to get right: Scarlet Johansson’s Natasha Romanoff, or Black Widow.”
None of this is true. The movie was an overwrought mess of incongruent plot points, inane dialogue, lack of character motivation, hamfisted inclusion of marvel film cannon, cheap sentimentality that failed because Whedon gave us no reason to care about the characters (it was so overstuffed with side characters who had no reason to even be there, who had the screen time to establish anything about them? The assumption obviously was that if you care about them as commercial properties from the comics, you automatically care about them on-screen), and generally a story that exists to to tell special effects rather than the other way around. The action sequences look like a video game, are tired, overly long + loud and just generally mindless. This movie lacks anything resembling coherence or imagination. Its just a mess of pretty computer generated stuff (a lot of which looks fake), loud noises and fan service largely as a vehicle to sell more of these stupid movies. ‘Man of Steel’ was probably a better movie than this and that was unrelenting garbage from the get go.
As you point out, it also has the problem of being pretty sexist. Really nothing to recommend this mess.
Maybe Robin just went into the movie with much lower expectations and was pleasantly surprised 😉
This seems to be based on the false presumption that I went in with any expectations for the movie. It is a movie about angry robots and people in spandex punching each other. I wasn’t exactly expecting ‘La Strada’.
I found the film passable (for mindless blockbuster popcorn entertainment with some vague intelligence associated – I assume most of the major issues arose from cutting the film down to the point of near unintelligibility) but I generally agree with the confusion about how one could assert its success in the portion you quoted. That was most of the stuff that dragged it down.
For the record Bruce in the comics has never shown violence towards women, he was a total gentle giant with Betty when in Hulk form, the fact that he even attacked Widow in the first movie was really out of character it was Joss inserting a crappy sub plot for shock value (but I;m not going to lie I can see the domestic abuse undertones in Joss’s hulk) Also I think joss’s whole line of becoming a monster because you can’t get pregnant is a really stupid way to make out that, that is the reason Widiow became a killer. Even though in the comics it shows clearly that the Russian black widow program the candidates were taken as children and brain washed to kill, Joss could have taken any off this plot line and used it but failed to do so. Also I’ve never heard of any female criminals out in the real world killing because they couldn’t have children I’ve heard them killing because they were sexually assaulted or abused so it doesn’t even hold water in terms of criminology. The line also insults women who may not be able to have children due to medical reasons but this is typical joss he tries to sell that he is a caring kind feminist but when it comes to actuality thinking about women’s rights and their bodies and how they feel he’s an utter failure.
It’s presumably not the context you were speaking in relation to but there have been female murderers who killed (or attempted to kill) women in order to steal their children (fetus or otherwise), although I’m unaware of the specifics regarding if there are cases where this was specifically influenced by the perpetrator’s infertility (although it seems likely to have been the case in at least a few).
I’m from Colombia, I don’t know if its because of the subtitles but no one here NO ONE got the idea of “infertile = monster”. We all know she is no angel, and I’m no talking about the comics, this is MCU, and from the first avengers movie it was clear that she and Hawkeye had “Red” in their “Ledger” and I believe that was clear about a killing record on their resume, and Winter Soldier made that more clear, about her past, she was an assassin and that makes her a monster in contrast of the rest of the avengers.
Really, why is people in the US getting this wrong, you are making us believe that you really need everything explained in play-doh
It is easier for people to go with their gut instinct that they are primed to feel or associate due to their own personal concern/awareness of (or confusion over) such matters (how the value of women is often – and, clearly, problematically – associated with their fertility, in this instance) than show consideration for the full context of the situation. As a result, rather than reconsidering their take and allowing for its framing in the context of the scene/character overall which gives the scenario the benefit of a doubt (so this whole “issue” becomes a minor footnote), people tend to point fingers and fall into patterns of confirmation bias.
I must have watched a different movie because I did not get a single thing you criticized. I understand that this is all subjective though, so I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.