A Response to "Maleficent Unpacked: A Black Feminist Review"

earlier this week, Judith Jones at Crunk Feminist Collective published a review of Disney's Maleficent (2014) in which she analyzes the film through a Black Feminist lens. in it, Jones dictates several concerns that she has with the film, chief of those concerns being that, in her opinion, it "contributes to rape culture".

i'm sure you know the story of Sleeping Beauty (1959). a king and queen have a baby girl named Aurora, and an evil fairy named Maleficent curses her: "before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday, she will prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a sleep like death" and she can only be awakened by "true love's kiss." the prophesy comes to pass, Maleficent is killed by Prince Phillip, and Aurora is awakened by his kiss.

note: if you have not seen the Maleficent and have plans to do so, i suggest that you delay reading this post until after viewing the film. there are spoilers beyond this point.

this film tells Maleficent's side of the story: her curse on Aurora serves as revenge against King Stefan. in an interview with BBC Radio's Women's Hour, Angelina Jolie confirmed that the scene in which Maleficent's wings are stolen is a "metaphor for rape" after much speculation from fans. in the aforementioned scene, Maleficent shares a drink with Stefan, whom she trusts and has been in a romantic relationship with since their teenage years. after drinking from the bottle which he has given her, she quickly falls into a deep sleep, resting her head on his shoulder. Stefan contemplates killing her, but finds himself unable to perform the act of murder. instead, he slices off her wings (off screen). when Maleficent awakens, she discovers that her body has been violated and releases a long, deafening cry as she mourns the loss of her wings.

afterwards, she suffers in silence and isolation. she shuts others out and does not speak of the attack to anyone, sinking into a depression that is reflected in the world around her. she becomes critical and cautious of relationships, romantic and otherwise, which is a logical reaction to being betrayed by someone whom you trusted and loved. her sadness soon becomes fury. she does not take the assault lightly and she does not accept the status of a shameful victim. the film acknowledges that Maleficent was wronged and that she is rightfully angry. Stefan becomes king after presenting her wings to his predecessor as proof of his worth, but the film does not let Stefan prosper on his ill-gotten throne. he spends sixteen years obsessed with Maleficent after she curses Aurora, struggling with paranoia and madness in isolation, and talking to Maleficent's amputated wings which he has kept as trophies. he is the true villain of the story and ultimately meets his well-deserved end when he is dropped from the air by Maleficent and falls to his death.

this is not a perpetuation or glorification of rape culture. rape culture apologizes for rapists, blames victims, and promotes the idea that rape is just a part of our existence as living, sexual beings (because of evolution, or a gift from god, or whatever) and should be accepted and ignored. this film does none of those things.

what the film does seem to do is indict rapists and the evils of patriarchy. it is Stefan's greed and desire for power, as well as ownership of the princess, that drives him to steal Maleficent's wings (the dying kings says, "i would choose a successor to take the throne and care for my daughter. who among you is worthy? kill the winged creature. avenge me, and, upon my death, you will take the crown."). the film is critical of that fact, rather than reinforcing a patriarchal structure like most Disney films.

in her piece, Jones writes: "Disney used the imagery of a broken, mutilated female body, in which her greatest strength was taken from her out of fear and greed in order to break her. Unfortunately, this image of the mutilated female form is often exploited throughout film as a humanizer and way of depicting vulnerability."

here, she seems to equate Maleficent's wings with her power. with its connections to rape which have already been established, she is also making the assumption that rape inherently strips women of whatever powerful virtues they may possess. i think that this is an incorrect assumption, as it suggests that power and strength is merely physical. Maleficent's power comes from her resilience which is evident throughout the film, before and after her wings are stolen. it is clear that her wings are not her only source of strength, for she continues to maintain her emotional, spiritual, and mental fortitude even without them. she continues to be the most powerful of all the creatures in her land and she protects them from the tyranny of King Stefan. also, we see the mutilated scars on her back only twice in the film, and they are not overtly displayed. i would not say that they are "often exploited" at all. nor do they "humanize" her. technically, she is a fairy, not a human at all, but Maleficent shows her compassion and her capacity for identifying with all forms of life at an early age. this is evidenced by the fact that she befriends Stefan when they are children, even after he tries to steal a precious jewel from her magical land.

Jones also questions whether the films can actually be considered feminist, whether female characters must be victimized in order to find redemption, and what Aurora's ultimate role is in the film: "My counter to the feminist argument would be, do women have to be broken (in film) in order to be reborn and viewed as good?  Her wings were a source of power and strength and they are taken early on in the movie. And as a result she is left alone and to an extent othered by her community. Her “dirty” body is then paired with darkness and she is perceived as evil and witchy. This often happens to women of color in films. She is then positioned next to a blonde, blue eyed, pure “pretty” girl making Maleficent’s ways more apparent. The image of darkness juxtaposed with light has always had light as the saving grace, as if the image of darkness (in this case, Maleficent) could not save itself. In a variety of movies and shows a white character is the savior to the women of color and the voice of reason, while the person of color adds excitement and spice to the white character persons content life. This white “savior complex” reinforces racist ideals of women of color lacking ability to run their own life and as a result need the guidance of a white woman. Sleeping Beauty is Maleficent’s white savior. She is only redeemed by loving this innocent blonde girl."

A) this assumes binaries of good and evil, and broken and whole, and draws natural connections between them. Maleficent is not broken and she is not evil. she retaliates against patriarchal violence and she succeeds in the end. B) Aurora is initially used as a tool in her scheme, but Maleficent eventually understands that she has been "lost in hatred and revenge" after she grows to love the girl. in addition, Maleficent watches Aurora closely as she grows from an infant into a young woman, and in fact provides for her and protects her anonymously until they finally meet in the forest. Aurora is not her "white savior", as Jones argues, nor is she her "voice of reason". Maleficent is her own voice of reason. this is because Maleficent is a complex character with morals, a conscience, and an appreciation for all living things, virtues which she displays from the very beginning of the film. the "white savior complex" does exist, of course, when people of color are saved by a white character who is unexpectedly introduced into the culture and takes pity upon them and their struggle with poverty, invisibility, or other forms of racialized oppression in a white dominated society. see: The Help (2011), Freedom Writers (2007), Hardball (2001), and Avatar (2009) - which is essentially Dances With Wolves (1990) with blue Native Americans and set in the future with amazingly beautiful CGI (we see you, James Cameron). none of this is the case in this movie. most obviously because Maleficent is also a white woman. C) in Jones' argument, Maleficent is equated with a woman of color because she wears dark colors. again, i think that this assumption is wrong and problematic. in fact, i would argue that the film challenges the cultural association with darkness and evil because Maleficent wears dark colors throughout the entirety of the film (as does Batman, by the way) and she is an ultimately good character. 

Jones does write that the film is "feministy" because it passes the Bechdel Test: two (named) female characters speak to each other about something other than men. this is true, but the film goes beyond that and is a huge improvement upon the original Sleeping Beauty, in which Aurora is a completely passive character and Maleficent has no legitimate motivation for casting a spell on a baby. this is actually one of the best Disney films in terms of female character development (aside from Aurora's mother, who is conveniently removed from the plot by a mysterious illness. she exists only as a prize for Stefan and a womb to bring forth Aurora. she literally only has three lines and 30 seconds of screen time near the beginning before she disappears for the rest of the film). while Maleficent's trauma is used as a plot point, it does not define her. she experiences a trauma which is a logical catalyst for her becoming an antihero, she is not defeated or saved by a male character, and she develops a meaningful friendship with another female character. Aurora is initially constructed as the perfect female subject, as the pixies bestow upon her the gifts of beauty, grace, and perpetual happiness when she is an infant, but she is also an adventurous girl with a healthy imagination and curiosity. when she learns of her true royal heritage from her pixie guardians, she journeys to the castle on her own to meet her father. when she succumbs to the curse and falls into a "sleep like death", it is the kiss of Maleficent which revives her, rather than the kiss of a young man whom she had only met once before (Disney has also used this premise of friendship between women as "true love" in Brave (2012) and Frozen (2013). finally!). furthermore, when Maleficent is captured by the king, even though her male servant is present and in the form of a fire-breathing dragon, it is Aurora who saves her by freeing her wings from their encasement so that they may return to their rightful place. the film ends with Aurora being crowned as the queen by Maleficent, uniting their two kingdoms. thus, it is the "true love" of friendship which ultimately saves them both. all things considered, Maleficent seems down right feminist to me, and certainly does not perpetuate rape culture. 

and, besides, Angelina Jolie is perfect.

Dear White People, a viewing guide (sort of)

as we are anticipating the theatrical release of Dear White People, i thought that it would be nice to have some things fresh in our minds about the issues that will most likely be explored the film. so, here is my own little open letter filled with things that i've been wanting to say for while now. hopefully, it will be obvious that i am not addressing all white people or every person who identifies as white. this is based on my personal experience of discussing race/racism with people who are unable to (or refuse to) grasp certain concepts, and those people happened to be white. so...

dear white people (or, to whom it may concern),

let's have an honest discussion about racism. yes, i know, it seems like we talk about racism all the time, but are you really listening? it feels like you're not really trying to understand. it seems like you're holding on very tightly to those same ideas and beliefs that you've had for a long time now, and that's the reason that we keep ending up back here, having this same conversation about how it feels when you ignore me, silence me, stereotype me. i keep trying to tell you that there is this thing called institutional racism. i give you examples of racial microaggressions which i have personally experienced. i speak the names of the unarmed black men who have been gunned down by law enforcement or civilians for simply existing in their black bodies in public spaces and because they "looked/seemed" suspicious or dangerous. i quote the numbers on the (pre)school to prison pipeline, the prison industrial complex, and the insidious ways in which capitalism works to ensure racial/class disparities. i provide you with an abundance of evidence, and still you refuse to acknowledge that these things and my experiences are valid because "not all white people" are racist, or because your other black friend/acquaintance had a different version of the same story, or because rap music is violent, or because you spent three months building a school in Africa. 

listen, none of these responses are valid or well-constructed arguments to contradict what i've presented to you. so, you can stop using those now. do not tell me that racism no longer exists because Oprah is rich, Barack Obama is a two-term U.S. president, and white people like Beyonce', too. do not tell me to just accept the fact that racism will always exist in our world. accepting an institution as being all-powerful and inescapable discourages any critical thinking and social progress. do not tell me not to take racism personally. racism is personal. do not tell me that you "don't see color" or that "there's only one race and it's the human race". none of these things are productive. please, do me the favor of listening to me for a moment and actually trying to understand my words as i dictate a few of my concerns here:

we should go ahead and get the "n-word" part of this discussion out of the way now, even though we've talked about it so many times before. no, you may not say the n-word. yes, it is because you are white. no, it is not "unfair" or "racist" that you are not allowed to say it, though white privilege might have you believe that something is being taken away from you because others have the right to something that you do not. you should understand that the history that is attached to that word is a painful one. it is true that some black people may choose to include it in their vocabulary as slang or as an attempt to reclaim the word from its racist underpinnings and re-operationalize it as a term of endearment or otherwise. you may encounter the word frequently in music and movies. you may see it on crude t-shirts. you may even hear it in your presence among a group of friends or acquaintances. in none of these scenarios is it acceptable for you to say "nigger" or "nigga(h)", even as a joke or as a song lyric. in the same way that you should never call an Asian person a "chink" or a Mexican person a "wetback", you should never utter a racial slur for black people around black people. that's just good manners.

no, you are not being oppressed or personally attacked when someone calls you out on your privilege. white privilege does exist and it does not mean that all white people are racist. it simply means that, historically, white people have benefited socially, economically, and otherwise through the colonization, imperialistic rule, enslavement, oppression, etc. of people of other races, and those benefits continue today, even if they are not as apparent to you as they are to people who are sometimes negatively affected by it. whiteness is what we are critical of. not white people. 

you see, identities (racial and otherwise) do not pre-exist social institutions. rather, these categories are socially constructed and prescribed value, and as we name these categories, we attach significance to them. we define them through a series of exclusions, over and against other identities. whiteness is an a idea; a system of beliefs about the social value of a certain group of people. it is a property that only certain people can lay claim to, and it comes with privileges and socially granted permissions. if discussions about race and confronting the ways in which whiteness is privileged make you uncomfortable, then you should have those discussions more often and be more open-minded to perspectives that are not your own.

your token(?) black friend is not the ambassador of all black people. nor am i. it doesn't matter if you grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood or went to a predominantly black school. you cannot use one person or a group of people as the basis for your beliefs about the behavior(s) and experience(s) of an entire race. "not all white people" act/think the same, as you sometimes like to point out. similarly, not all black people act/think the same. we adopt the colloquialisms, behaviors, and ideologies of the environments in which we exist and the communities that we are a part of. that is human nature. here, i'd like to say that, at some point, we should all stop being products of our environment and become products of knowledge. 

speaking of the "not all white people" argument, do not interrupt or co-opt a discussion about institutional racism with this line of logic. even if you as an individual are not a racist or a white supremacist, that does not negate the fact that racist and supremacist ideals still exist and they still affect our lives. just because you personally have not experienced or witnessed it, does not mean that you get to deny the legitimacy of another's experience(s). being "colorblind" is not helpful either. just because you ignore race, even if your intentions are good, that does not mean that racism does not still exist, or that you don't participate in subtle, subconscious, every day racism (see: microaggressions). we should all be aware of race and we should actively make an effort to combat racism.

no, we don't blame you personally for slavery, but we will hold you accountable for your own words and actions. i know what you're going to say: white bodies have also been enslaved throughout history. we know. we also know that the enslavement of black bodies left a legacy of systemic and systematic racism in ways that other forms of slavery have not; Jim Crow laws, government sanctioned violence(s) and discrimination, disenfranchisement, blackface minstrelsy, etc. the civil rights movement did not end in 1968. the Voting Rights Act was signed only 49 years ago (in the words of Louis C.K., "there are three guys in my building who are older than American democracy!") and many are still facing voting restrictions. the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruling was only sixty years ago. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not eradicate racist ideologies, nor did the election and inauguration of President Obama. we do not live in a post racial society. black people are still being lynched. acknowledging that the enslavement of black bodies has left a legacy of racism is not useless complaining and it does not delegitimate the history of enslavement of white bodies. all slavery is horrible. in no way is anyone saying that white slaves didn't also suffer violence. the point is that, regardless of your history, as a white person in this world, your life is valued more than the lives of people of color. you should be aware of the ways in which people of color are devalued in everyday situations and how it compares your own experience in this world.

lastly, if a person of color informs you that something you did or said is racially insensitive or offensive to them, do not tell them that they are overreacting or being hypersensitive. racism hurts. if you've done or said something offensive, you should 1) apologize, 2) politely make an attempt to understand why it is offensive, 3) listen to what they have to say with an open mind and respect the legitimacy of their experience(s), 4) never do/say it again, and 5) hold other people accountable if you see/hear them commit this same offense in another space. this is how you can help to actively combat racism.

racism isn't a tangible thing that sits on a shelf collecting dust until someone decides to take it down and weaponize it. it is an entity; ever living and breathing, and at its heart is hatred and fear. it may not always manifest in ways which are easily recognizable to you, but the destruction that it leaves in its wake is evident in the lives and experiences of many. though it can be a ruthless force, racism is not impenetrable. it can be confronted and it can be diminished. the responsibility belongs to all of us to engage with it, and we can have constructive discussions by first acknowledging the fact that it exists and the (subconscious) ways in which we participate in it. and so, here is where i end my rant. thanks for listening. that's all for now.

all my love.