Isn’ t that Inara in the third poster, not River?

No, I’m pretty sure that’s River.

I was wondering, about the “male companions” (damn that euphemism): are they suppose to “service” female or male customers (or both)?

Robert:

There were male companions in the crowd scenes at the House.

Well, if they were wearing some special garb that distinguished them from clients, I wouldn’t have known, given my overall unfamiliarity with the show. In any case, big deal. It doesn’t change my main contention: Despite the likeability of the character, scratch away the veneer and you still get “Hooker-With-A-Heart,” one of the oldest and most annoying cliches’ in popular fiction, and one that’s left strictly to females 99% of the time. Were there male “companions” on the show who were anything other than a small component of a backdrop ? Somehow, I doubt it.

Actually you would. Just re-saw the movie yesterday with my wife (got to do our bit to get the box office up - fanboy, much?) and caught some things that we missed first time out. In the scene where Mal is watching Anara and Kaylee goof around with the future-tech camcorder, Kaylee refers to Anara “entertaining clients in this very bed!” and it’s pretty obvious what she’s talking about.

And also, I’m afraid that conversation probably should be disqualified from the MMM. While they do start out talking about things-other-than-Mal, they quickly segue into talking about Mal. Not that I blame them, him being so dreamy and all.

There were male companions in the crowd scenes at the House.

Isn’t it funny how the “companions” are always female ? (Yawn.)

Eh, I liked it. Easy for me to say, since I haven’t got the emotional attachment to the show that most people do.

As usual, it’s noted that nine out of ten movies in the previews don’t have any women featured at all, or only one woman of the dutiful housefrau/clinging vine variety. (”Narnia,” being the exception. Two of the siblings are female, and they’re likely a tad young to be standing around talking about boyfriends/husbands all the time.) I don’t hold out much hope of that ever changing. :(

Of course, there is that whole scene where she tells Simon that he’s been protecting her for so long, and now it’s her turn…

I still don’t get the idea of Zoe as ‘hypermasculine’. She’s a soldier and a good one–that makes her masculine somehow? We don’t, sadly, get to see as much tenderness with Wash as in the TV show–but remember that it’s Zoe who’s tearing up at having left the would-be hero behind, and arguing with Mal about it.

Actually, I think virtually ignoring her job improves the gender politics. I always found the “honored space companion” bit way too Spider Robinson.

Not sure who Spider Robinson is, but what I liked on the show and missed in the movie was how Inara often served to poke a hole in Mal’s bravado and macho. That usually came up through his barbs about her position and were often the moments where I liked him least as a character.

I disagree about River; our desire for better gender politics shouldn’t translate to objecting to multifaceted characters. I think that she’s completely screwed up AND kicks ass makes her a better character, and the specific cause of how she was screwed up was hardly a sexist stereotype.

I wholly agree about not objecting to multifaceted characters and that the cause was not sexist. My initial problem with River was that, even though she could kick ass, she was made that way by others, rescued by her brother, able to be “turned off” by her brother, and ultimately “figured out.” After reading the comments here and thinking more about the film, I realize it is not that simple, that the film is doing more with River, but I am still left unsatisfied. I am open to seeing her in another light, and am trying to, but just not there yet. (FYI - she was one of my least favorite characters on the show. I thought she worked well as a plot device getting the narrative from one place to another, but I never was drawn into her story.)

I think it’s actually to Joss’ credit that he allows Zoe to have stereotypically “masculine” traits. And there’s nothing sexist about her suffering a great loss.

Let me clarify here too and, to a degree, back off of the “hypermasculine” characterization. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with Zoe, or any female character, having stereotypically “masculine” traits, I think there is a need to avoid simply reversing the positions and giving credit for giving a female character “masculine” traits.

Zoee struck me, in the film, as simply the soldier: she provides muscle in the heist, she defends Mal against Jayne, and she becomes the soldier with nothing left to live for against the Reavers. Again going back to the show, there was little of the complexity of character that I loved about her there in the film. There were few, if any, of the great moments from the show, between her and Wash particularly, that made her a complex character there and more than just a soldier woman. This is also what I meant by her suffering the “great loss.” It, in itself, is not sexist, but again it felt motivated by a need to bring out her anger for the film, to show her at her badest, but without showing us why she would feel that way. I know from seeing the show why she reacted as she did, I just don’t't think it was in the film. That, to me, contributed to making her more of a simple reversal of gender traits rather than a necesarily progressive treatment of them.

Let me finish, sorry for going on so long, by mentioning Jayne as a way to tie some of these things together. The complexity of his character from the show remained intact, I felt, in the film. The continued puncturing of his facade that was in the show remained here through his dialogue, the dialogue of others, the way the camera looked at him, and generally in all the ways it was on the show. I liked him as a character on the show and that richness carried over into the film. When I put him against the other characters, though, I wonder even more why the same did not happen for them. As Mal and Jayne show, complexity of character can be conveyed as simply as a camera cut, a reaction shot, or a line of dialogue here and there. Kaylee, Inara, and Zoe, especially, do not get that in the film - they are the ones who are “sacrificed” along with Wash and Shepherd Book to the streamlined story of Mal (mainly), River, and Simon. I understand why, industrially, it happens, but it is what left me disappointed in the end.

Again, sorry for going on so long. I have long loved this blog without commenting much and appreciate the chance to engage in a very ineresting discussion of this film.

Er, no. Without giving the plot away, this can only be said to be true about one of the male characters. Another was ambivalent until he plumped for her *and* Simon, and another was down right anti-River.

This is my first time posting a comment here, and I hope it isn’t rude just to cut in.

Anyway, I thought the most interesting thing about River was how the men kept TRYING to “save” her, when all they had to really do was help her figure out what had happened to her. That it was the horror of what she gleaned that made her crazy, and that she was freed by discovering/sharing it. It was a great twist on the “damsel in distress” that she could have been reduced to. Mal actually served her and himself best by seeing what they had in common, by giving her a chance to save herself. She responded by saving them. Wonderful twist … I love the way Joss twists those old female archetypes back on themselves.

Zoe is a second in command, and she was on the show too. I found her character to be very consistent. Love that character. Definitely hope for more Kaylee next time.

Hopefully, there will be more movies, or perhaps Universal could work their Viacom connection to give them a slot on Showtime.