Quoting
StuSmallz (view post)
I think that boiling the trilogy's portrayal of female characters down to nothing more than "rah rah women" is an over-simplification, and I also can't agree with the idea that there's no ideological tension or anxiety in the trilogy's depictions of women; it's just that it's not super up front about it (although even that is ignoring Aragorn's concern about the road to Rivendell being too dangerous for Arwen, or his potentially chauvinistic surprise at Eowyn for being a woman that has some "skill with a blade"). After all, the movies didn't come out in some sort of social vacuum, and similar to the way that Gone With The Wind reflected Great Depression-era anxieties about women in a Civil War-set narrative, the Lord Of The Rings movies reflected a number of conflicting historical and artistic contexts, as they were obviously produced as early 2000's adaptations of mid-20th century novels, and co-written by two New Zealand women, but adapted from the writing of a British/South African man born in 1892, a writer whose depiction of female characters has often been criticized as reflecting regressive personal views on his part.
So, there's a ton to study there as a result, whether it's the debate we're having on whether the films' portrayal of women was a mindless appeal to modern "gurl power!" sentiments, or an intriguing subversion of our expectations for how women would behave a presumably more patriarchal, medieval-style society (I obviously fall in the latter category), whether the deletion of certain supporting female characters from the books in favor of brevity was justified, in light of the overall reduction in female presence they resulted in, and whether they did more to reinforce regressive depictions of women as mere love interests by bringing the romance between Aragorn & Arwen more to the forefront, or did enough to offset that by portraying her as more of a warrior on the whole. So, as far as I'm concerned, there's just as much intellectual juice to be wrung out of the more implicit gender tensions of the trilogy as when that theme is more overt, and certainly more than actual examples of empty, contrived "gurl power!" in film:
Anyway, as for the complaint about the portrayal of women being "sex-less", that strikes me as being an oddly narrow criticism, and ultimately an irrelevant one as well, because, just like I can't imagine something like The Handmaiden being as good as it was without its relatively graphic sex scenes (because they're essential to the overall effect of that film), I also can't imagine LOTR being better with more sexual female characters, because that all depends on the particular movie in question, and whether or not it needs sexual content in general. I mean, the sexual content of Game Of Thrones worked because that series was designed from the ground up to be a grittier, more realistic deconstruction of the High Fantasy style that Tolkien popularized (although even then the show went too far with it at times), but something like that would be a terrible change to include in an adaptation of Rings, and none of the female characters in the trilogy would be improved at all if they were more sexual, IMO (because the scene in Fellowship where Arwen tells Aragorn that "I would rather share one lifetime with you than face all the ages of this world alone" is already as romantic as it gets, and nothing about the depiction of their relationship would be improved if she were a sexier character, or if she and Aragorn were shown to be doing it at any one point).