Odd question here but... What is exactly your take on the Gotham Girls, specifically Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and what they represent in terms of femininity and sensuality? In a lot of art work, official and fan art, I see people drawing them as being very feminine but also owning their own sensuality and sexiness. What are your thoughts on this?
Hate to be that blogger hyperlinking to vaguely similar past posts, but, here I am and here I was answering What It’s Like Being a Female Nerd.
Your question is great, though and I’m about to sound like a dick. I don’t like Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman because she wasn’t sexual enough. But, what about that sentence is going to offend some people? It will probably be because they think I’m basing my enjoyment of an on-screen female comic book character purely on her sexual appeal; that I’m probably wanting Berry’s impractical leather crime fighting bra and Pfeiffer’s face licking in the snow; that I appear to negate a subtle sexuality and power in Hathaway’s performance because I crave more leg skin and ledge crawling; and, that Catwoman is a woman. She is more than a sex symbol as all women are more than their bodies and sexual aura.
Of course. I get that logic and agree (especially with the latter sentence). But, I still don’t like Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman because she isn’t sexual enough. Back in 2012, a review in Vanity Fair labeled Hathaway as the “Best Catwoman Ever.” The writer stated: “I never thought there would be a better Catwoman than Julie Newmar, never, but Anne Hathaway owns the role after uttering a single “Ooops.” It’s an “Ooops” dripping in sexiness and insincerity.”
Hathaway’s costume is clearly inspired by Newmar’s - their acting is also similar. And, what I should make equally clear as these costume resemblances, is that they are doing their job as actresses well. They are acting as the Catwoman their director is telling them to act as: subtly sexual Catwoman.
For Newmar, this made sense. Batman starring Adam West (which Newmar was featured on) was televised in the 60’s. Of course, you could not “have” verbose sexuality like how we see in the comic books and general media of today. Nolan’s Batman films are notorious for their grounding in realism. A hyper-sexualized, fantastical looking Catwoman is not going to work. That would be like seeing Schwarzenegger’s Mr. Freeze in Dark Knight Rises. It would be weird. Here, I made a bad photoshop to show you how visually off that would be:
(No, I didn’t edit him to be bluer. That’s natural.)
With that being said, and the fact remaining that I don’t like Hathaway’s Catwoman, I feel Nolan made a mistake not directing his Catwoman be less subtle with her sexuality. No, she doesn’t need a plunging V-neck. But, there is this focus on Hathaway’s abilities physically (fighting) and mentally, that’s all great, but, I firmly believe a key aspect of Catwoman is her emboldened sexuality. Her ability to own and use that as a tool. Hathaway’s character almost restrains this ability. She feels like a more tactical character. Which, again, fantastic, we need more female roles like that, but, is that what Catwoman is? The boldest sexuality (besides vocal sass/flirting and nuanced facial expression) we get out of Hathaway is that heel scene.
What Wii Fit yoga level was she on to do that because that angle does not feel humanly possible.
As DC’s official website describes, “Selina Kyle has led many lives as the feline fatale Catwoman—but one thing remains the same: Whenever this cat crosses your path, she’s equally likely to steal your heart as well as your wallet.
Growing up an orphan in one of Gotham’s worst neighborhoods, Selina turned to a life of crime to not only keep herself alive but her friends as well. The vivacious villainess elevated cat burglary to an art form, stealing whatever may be necessary—and sometimes even more—to survive and protect those closest to her. Utilizing a cat mask and suit to steal from the city’s rich and corrupt, she’s a master at hand-to-hand combat and acrobatics, stealthy as a ninja and an expert at breaking and entering.
However, despite her burglarious nature and antagonistic origins, Catwoman walks a fine line between hero and villain. She balances precariously on the precipice of good and evil, of doing the wrong thing for the arguably right reasons. And as such, Selina doesn’t look at the world in black and white, but shades of gray.”
Catwoman is just as, if not more complex than Batman. She predominantly exists in this “gray” space of sexuality, tactical, and mental power. You can not isolate any of her natures or focus on one more than the other as Nolan’s erroneously does putting too much in the tactical and mental. And, arguably, as Burton’s (Pfeiffer’s) Catwoman focuses too much on the sexual.
So, which Catwoman do I think represents the character best?
In a 2011 review entitled, “Catwoman steals the show in Batman Arkham City” on VentureBeat.com, the writer notes: “Catwoman is the clawed ballerina to Batman’s brutish brawler. As someone who usually chooses the more nimble characters over the sluggish tanks, she’s the perfect character for me. She’s so nimble, in fact, that she can run up behind enemies without being detected. Her animations are masterfully done, simultaneously depicting the part-time villain, sometime-heroine’s seductively sensuality, cat-like grace, and femme fatale brutality.”
Nimble. Cat-like grace. Femme fatale brutality. This is Catwoman.
(To be honest, not too sure what the writer of that article meant by “seductively sensuality.” But, I like where he’s going. What I think he means is that Arkham City’s Catwoman has agency of her sensuality. She can be forceful or seductive with it – she can put it on or turn it off. Sexuality isn’t just her, it is a part of her, and a part she damn well understands.)
Hathaway’s Catwoman doesn’t have this. For a movie made in 2012, she should. My hypothesis is that Nolan was trying to normalize sexuality and not make it a huge part of her character. As I mentioned earlier, he was all about making it realistic. But, in an attempt to make female sexuality realistic he lowered the power and sexual agency of a character built around those traits.
As for how women characters are drawn in comics, as a woman (putting it out there for reference), I’m more offended when women are drawn as helpless rather than when drawn as extremely endowed. But, don’t appreciate men who think all women have to look like they have pumpkins (big pumpkins) for boobs in order to be attractive. (That discernment was the basis for the hyperlinked post above that I am shamelessly hyperlinking again.)
This is a topic I could honestly keep going on about. I haven’t even mentioned the dynamicisim (yeah, now that’s a word) of Eartha Kitt’s Catwoman, the fantasy of Pfeiffer, or the total 2000’s cultural allusion that is Berry’s Catwoman.
Nor have I covered Poison Ivy or Harley Quinn. So, for brevity (attention spans) (and the pizza I have being delivered any minute) I’ll make a separate post about them. Granted, much of what I said here will parallel my specific commentary on their character(s).
So, here’s the thing, what people find sexually attractive is like ice cream flavors at Ben and Jerry’s: No one has a clue what’s going on but, either way, all of it is pretty good. Unless Ben and Jerry’s poisons the Cherry Garcia and unless comic book writers, media creators, and audiences force women to be a certain way all the time – like a mold of only big fruit boobs or a mold of only slender, “realistic” “Ooops” girls - well, then, it’s going to be fine. That’s art. That’s sexuality. It is in the eye of the beholder and it is in all of our hands to sculpt our characters, movies, drawings with our definitions and individual agencies of what sexuality is through art.
The big and only rule: Don’t poison the Cherry Garcia. And don’t use sexuality to intentionally poison or cause harm to anyone. (BDSM not included in that rule… I guess (?)… I don’t know… That’s a different topic. Pizza’s here.)
tangentwithtanner
areudirty
kaledo-art
andulkaphoto
yousharknotpass
