So much was written when The Hobbit trilogy of films came out about the romance between Tauriel and Kili. Purists focused on the fact that she was an added character not in the original text. Others argued that the interracial romance was out of step with the rest of the story. Honestly, I didn’t mind the love story or the fact that Peter Jackson decided to add a character to the movies. My problem is something entirely different.
First, let me explain why I don’t have an issue with the interracial love story. It all stems from my problem with Legolas in Fellowship. There’s no easy way to say this; Legolas is straight up racist. He has no reason for the animosity he feels towards Gimli other than that he’s a dwarf. It’s unclear how much interaction Legolas had with dwarves prior to meeting Gimli in Rivendell, so all we know is that Legolas is prejudice against dwarves. While it doesn’t excuse his dislike of Gimli, the love story adds some context to the situation that is otherwise missing. Legolas is mistrusting of dwarves because one once stole the heart of the love of his life. Legolas is Paris to Kili’s Romeo. Only in this case, Paris’ dad (Thranduil) is saying that Juliet isn’t worthy to marry him, and love is pointless. Oh and Juliet doesn’t die this time, only Romeo.
As someone who has studied the works Tolkien extensively, I’m not even mad that Jackson added a character not found in the world. My problem is why she was added. Tauriel was added simply because the producers were worried that they could not attract a female audience without more women in the show. I totally get that there are not enough women in the fantasy genre, in general, so I understand the impulse to add more female characters. However, adding female characters simply to be more inclusive doesn’t necessarily add to the story. It can lead to the disconnect that people complain about with the love story.
The other problem with adding female characters to try and appeal to a female audience is that it does not recognize that women can identify with male characters. The appeal has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with who the character is. For example, I am a Sam. When I first read The Lord of the Rings trilogy and watched the film, I knew right away that if I were in Middle Earth I would be Samwise Gamgee. Of course, I would love to be Eowyn so much so that, if I ever have a daughter, I will name her Eowyn. Eowyn loves her family and wants to fight for them, but she is also drawn to fight because she wants to be more than what her station in life is. She seeks glory and honor. That’s a great thing too. She is strong and brave, but so is Sam in an unassuming way. Sam is loyal and kind. He doesn’t seek out adventure and fame. He goes with Frodo because he promised Gandalf that he would protect Frodo on his journey. Sam’s word is his bond. Sure, he has his issues with Smeágol and is unkind to him, but Sam is coming from a place of wanting to do right by Frodo. I’m proud to be a Sam.
The point is that adding a strong female character doesn’t make something feminist or even appeal to a female audience. Women like the same things as men in characters. We like characters who are brave, kind, and loyal. They can fight or be in love regardless of gender. Little girls can play pretend as Frodo, Sam, Eowyn, Galadriel, or Bilbo. We don’t need Hollywood to patronize us by adding female characters just to add a female character. What we need are strong female characters that exist on their own merits, not a character thrown in to placate a female audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment