Ex Machina: Failing the Bechdel Test, But Not Feminism

So I realize I'm a little late to the whole Ex Machina conversation. For months, I was convinced that a film that was ostensibly only about AI was not for me, and that I would be much more content watching Amy Schumer fall in love with a kooky, good-natured guy instead.

Boy, was I wrong. I was speechless for at least an hour after the credits stopped rolling. The following hour consisted of me yelling "but what even ARE humans," and scaring the neighborhood children.

I love a good ethical debate--Alex Garland, writer/director of Ex Machina was not afraid to confront hard-hitting issues such as "is it moral to imprison a machine that has the possibility of consciousness?", "are we entitled to play God? What happens when playing God leads to our ultimate demise?", "do machines deserve equal rights to humans?", and "why is Norway so pretty?"

There were so many moral/ethical issues, it took me a full day to even consider the notion of feminism in this film, not to mention the fact that narrow gender roles is one of the primary themes. What took me by surprise, however, was Angela Watercutter's Argument that Ex Machina is an anti-feminist film.

I have no problem being skeptical of so called "feminist" films. Almost everyone who'd seen Mad Max raved about how progressive it was to see a woman with more than one line--unheard of! And *gasp* she could both plan ahead AND stand up for herself! Surely not!

But I digress. My ambivalence towards Mad Max is for another time.

Ex Machina may seemingly fail the Bechdel test* (in which two female characters have to discuss something other than a man), but that doesn't mean it fails women completely. If anything, Garland makes his audience question our preconceived notions about the role of women, and what men are actually entitled to.

One of Watercutter's primary arguments is that Ava falls into the stereotype that women use seduction to get what they want, and that she is defined by her sexuality. Watercutter states, "Ava does prove to be the smartest creature on the screen, but the message we’re left with at the end of Ex Machina is still that the best way for a miraculously intelligent creature to get what she wants is to flirt manipulatively" (Wired).

Yes, Ava objectively uses her sexuality to get what she wants, but Watercutter fails to understand that while Ava plays into female stereotypes, she does so with an ulterior motive: to achieve complete autonomy, to escape the "male gaze" that she has been trapped in for so long. Ava's goal isn't to win over Caleb so that she can be his perfect lover; she is toying with Caleb's most prominent vulnerability in order to win independence. The ultimate hero is Ava alone. It is also important to note that Ava is not a one-dimensional sex machine--she is simply skilled at noticing others' weakest traits. Ava could have easily tried to seduce Nathan in order to escape, but she realizes those attempts would be futile. Thus, Ava takes a more violent approach when dealing with Nathan. If stabbing someone in the chest and watching them bleed out isn't strong-willed, nothing is.

Her evil plan is working

Watercutter is immediately defensive when we see Ava from the male gaze, and while it's uncomfortable to watch, that's Garland's point. It's not exactly feasible to discuss the problems with oversexualizing women if you fail to show the problem at hand.

One of the most troubling things about Ex Machina is how it tricks the audience into believing that Caleb is a heroic, reliable character. In the beginning of the film, he garners information and processes everything at the same speed/level as the audience--consequently, we begin to trust him, to root for him. However, just because Caleb is a good guy (which, by the way, we never get confirmation from Ava if he's telling the truth about being a good person), and, in comparison to Nathan, treats Ava like a princess, he is entitled to "trap" her into a romance. "He's such a nice guy," we argue, "he deserves her!"  We expect the "happy" ending to consist of Ava escaping one form of imprisonment, only to enter another.

A perfect depiction of "the male gaze"

Garland takes that expectation and smashes it with a hammer. Or, better yet, stabs it with a knife. 

So maybe it was a little extreme of Ava to let Caleb slowly die in Nathan's office, but she has to go to extreme measures to extricate herself from imprisonment--whether it be physical or emotional. The lasting message that Ex Machina leaves us with is that this is Ava's story. She doesn't need anyone to rescue her, or even to accompany her. She doesn't stop fighting until she can reach a place where she can solely rely on herself. In the end, the male gaze is shattered. She is free.

*Just a small technicality, but we don't actually know if Ex Machina passes the Bechdel test or not, seeing as Ava whispers in Kyoko's ear, presumably about strategizing Nathan's death--not exactly the same as talking about how cute some boy is, n'est-ce pas? 

Your "I'm Not Homophobic, But..." Argument Doesn't Fly.

I don't usually post such blatantly angry blogs, but I felt that this had to be said. Just be warned, this is a full-fledged rant, so if that's not your thing, please click away and enjoy some cat gifs. Cat gifs have never failed me.

My homophobic friend, however, has (oooh a transition; she must be a writer). 

The other night, a few friends and I wanted to go to Chumley's--Penn State's sole gay bar. I'd gone once before, and practically died of deliciousness when I tried their Rumchata and alcoholic frappacinos. Those of that had gone before maintained that we'd had quiet, pleasant experiences there, and those of us that hadn't were soon on board after hearing "chocolate and alcohol" in the same sentence.

Except for one friend (we're using that term verrrry loosely here). As soon as he learned that we were taking him outside of his "comfort zone," he very loudly asked "who here wants to go to a gay bar?" To which my friend and I very enthusiastically raised our hands, because if somebody was about to take us away from our Rumchata, there was going to be a problem.

This post is for "that friend" who "isn't homophobic, but..." 

That question is inherently bigoted and hateful, as it holds the implication that there is something undesirable about stepping foot into a gay bar. It makes about as much sense as hearing a gay person refuse to go into literally any other bar in State College because it is a "straight bar." My friend was under the assumption that, because he did not fit into a specific minority, it was scary, or unappealing somehow--which, by that logic, means that he can't be around women or racial minorities as well.

As if that wasn't hateful enough, my friend continued to assert that he would refuse to walk into Chumley's, that we'd "found his breaking point." He stated that, instead, he would "awkwardly hit on girls at Indigo," a MUCH more dignified way to spend your time, if you ask me.

This is where shit gets real. If you claim that you are not a homophobe, that you're really, deep down a nice guy, then proceed to deny the fact that gay people are humans too, you need to do some serious self-reflection. Then get a serious education. You may not be beating anybody up or setting anyone's houses on fire, but refusing to acknowledge a certain minority as worthy (or even tolerable) is, guess what, just as hateful as any act of violence. It is perpetuating the systematic intolerance that gay people have had to fight for literally hundreds of years. It is re-defining white, male, straight privilege as "normal." It is stating that objectifying and dry humping women at a club is a perfectly respectable activity, while having a conversation with a fellow human being is reprehensible and not worth any straight person's time.

It's laughable that there's still controversy over setting up ONE establishment where gay people can feel safe and secure. It's even more laughable that you've probably had conversations and, dare I say it, pleasant interactions with gay people without knowing their sexuality, but put a label on them and all of a sudden they're threatening you with their appletinis and penises.

You know where I've seen grossly oversexualized, animalistic behavior? At "straight" dance clubs. Which you seem to have no problem glossing over, since it benefits your straight male needs.

What gets me is that you think that this form of intolerance and discomfort is deemed more justifiable, more acceptable than other (more logical) forms of discomfort. If, for instance, you took your gun out and started waving it around me, chest puffed out and testosterone levels through the roof, I would begin to feel a little uncomfortable--justifiably so, seeing as GUNS FUCKING KILL PEOPLE. But if I were to say "raise your hand if you want ____to put his gun away," or simply asked you to put your gun away, I would be "stripping you of your rights as an American citizen," or deemed just plain crazy (which in itself is a problem that perpetuates sexism, but that's for another post). I'm not saying that every homophobic person has a gun, but my point is that other people's discomfort is seemingly illogical if it fails to benefit you as a privileged straight, white man.

Your life is not in imminent danger at a gay bar. Your sexuality is not in imminent danger. The only thing you are in danger of is seeming like a class-A asshole.

No one's asking you to be gay. No one's even asking you not to be proud of your sexuality. You must be very brave, stepping into a world that pours privilege on you and benefits you every single day. But what we are asking you to do is realize that this is the 21st century, you've already lost your homophobic battle, and that you can spend an hour in a room with people who are different from you. You might even learn something about the world.



 

Anorexia Triggers: How to Stop

It's been ten years since I was diagnosed with anorexia. Having had only a brief flirtation with this illness--although it didn't feel very brief at the time--I can easily make the distinction between a "past life," something that hardly feels connected to me anymore, and who I am at age twenty-two. However, despite being technically free of anorexia for eight years, I still battle with disordered thinking--something that, no matter how irrational it may seem, will never completely go away. Not a day goes by when I don't think about my weight, or compare my body to those around me. While I rarely act on it, I have consistently wished I was twenty pounds thinner, regardless of my weight at the time.

It's exhausting. It's infuriating. And for those of us who aren't on the brink of death, it's seemingly ignored. 

While there's a lot more awareness about how we can actively combat anorexia, we seem to forget about the long-term recovery process. I'm lucky enough to be surrounded by supportive friends, family, and cake, which has helped me become as fully recovered as possible (especially the cake). But I've noticed, that on any given day, there are multiple trigger warnings for anyone with disordered thinking/body image issues.

It's easy enough to pinpoint the sickly skinny models, the weight loss commercials, the "pro-ana" websites. Those, while deeply concerning, have been covered to death. I'm talking about more personal trigger warnings, something that friends and families of recovering anorexics should be aware of and make an effort to stop.

I live in an apartment of four girls. At this point, it's almost expected of us to make generally negative comments about our bodies. One of the first things we bought for our apartment was a bathroom scale. And when one of us makes a disparaging comment about her body, the rest of us infer, "well, if she hates her body, I must be a disgusting, horrifying creature." And then we throw out all our cupcakes, which is just sad, since cupcakes make everything better. But there are days when we seem to engage in "who can hate her body the most" competitions, with weight almost always being the winning argument.

I'm not saying we can feasibly live in a world where we stop talking about our weight or bodies in general. That's unrealistic, especially in good old 'Murica. But there's a difference between working towards health and obsessively measuring. And while everyone's experience is different, I've noticed that when others begin obsessively comparing/measuring, I think I'm at fault for not doing the same thing.

One of the least helpful things you can do around a former anorexic is count calories. Especially when you go out to eat. I just want to eat my burrito in peace. The caloric content in a given food does not connote its nutritional value. If I had to point out one thing that perpetuates obsessive disordered thinking, it would be calorie counting.

Barring the point that it's exceedingly boring to hear someone else's food intake of the day, it's also exceedingly risky. Again, it perpetuates unhealthy comparisons. Among girls, the "oh my gosh, I ate so much," complaint is oftentimes a humble brag about how little food they can survive on. When I hear a friend complain about being full from smelling a pancake, I can only conclude that I am the scum of the earth for needing three complete meals a day (ice cream not included).

If you do not want to hear my stomach imitate what can only be described as the mating call of a killer whale, don't talk to me about how you "ate so much."

I know these triggers aren't malicious, and nobody wants someone they love to suffer through an eating disorder. These comments, in most cases, go unnoticed, but it affects us more than you may think.

(Also, I'm aware that somewhere in the middle of this post, I went full-on sarcastic on you guys. My apologies for the change in tone. Apparently I'm not able to cover serious topics without throwing in a burrito reference or five. Let's chat about my sarcasm problem over a burrito).

Namaste.