Some may argue that the movie The General conforms to traditional patriarchal gender roles. Annabelle Lee, the heroine, is kidnapped (albeit inadvertently) by hostile soldiers and needs the heroic exploits of her lover to rescue her. She is portrayed as submissive to her father and brother, ineffectual in plotting own escape (such as throwing a stick of wood into the train furnace or failing to stop the engine so her lover can board it), and often exhibiting domestic inclinations ( as when she sweeps the engine with a broom).
Do you agree with this picture of Annabelle Lee -- or is it more complicated? Is Annabelle a stereotypical damsel in distress or is she a more progressive figure? Is there something about her a feminist could admire? What is this film saying about gender roles?
I agree that Annabelle Lee is the stereotypical damsel in distress. Around her father and brother she is passive and very much abiding by the social constructs of that time period. On the train she exhibits similar behavior by not fighting harder against the Union soldiers. She waits for her love to come and rescue her, so she hardly attempts to save herself. She lets the soldiers lock her in a room and keep her hostage. Then by sweeping on the rescue train ride back she displays typical women behavior.
ReplyDeleteIf she were to be more progressive, she would have fought to get away from the soldiers instead of doing nothing. Annabelle is far from demonstrating feminist behavior and is not a progressive character. She is the stereotypical damsel in distress; which also shows the filmmakers opinions of gender roles. The film is saying that men have to be the ones to save the women. When the women get into trouble, they need help to get out of it and it’s the man’s job to do so. The film also says that women have to carry out the household chores, like when Annabelle sweeps the train during their getaway.
I agree that the character Anabelle Lee doesn't seem to be very independent in this film. The film definitely presents her as a submissive girl. However, I think we also need to remember that this film predates the feminist movement, as it was made in 1926. The filmmakers were probably not concerned with gender roles. Also, things like her domestic tendencies add to the humor of the film, just as Johnny's bone-headed mistakes. I think if the film were made today, it would be more about Johnny trying to impress Anabelle, rather than him having to "save" her.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with Joey and McKenna I see Annabelle Lee as a character that portrays the traditional women but shows many important "flashes" of progressive women characteristics. Contrary to Joey, I see Annabelle Lee as more of a progressive women but she is just in a situation where straying from the normal isn't the right thing to do, especially in the south. She could be considered a damsel in distress but what could she have done going against multiple Union soldiers in attempt to escape? Not much... The things she does when she is actually saved lean toward progressive women. I think that the progressive women acts she does plays more into the role of comedy for the film to poke fun at her lover. Even though it might be intentional, it is still progressive, like her getting herself onto the train with ease. The things she does that are more traditional, like sweeping the train when there is nothing for her to do, also add comedic relief during the film. Overall I think Annabelle Lee is a progressive character but can't break out of her shell because of her geographic location leaving her as a traditional character or a damsel in distress.
ReplyDeleteI would most certainly view the character Annabelle Lee not as a conformist but more of a “progressive’ character for two main reasons. Firstly, the satirical nature of the film naturally inhibits issues like sexism and certainly racism from being of any importance to the plot or construction of the movie. Secondly, the fact that Annabelle was so pivotal as a sort of “springboard” for Keaton’s character makes her more important than the usual female role of the time would seem.
ReplyDeleteThere is a saying (although, I'm not sure who the speaker is) that goes something like "there is some truth behind every joke." And while I would concur that Keaton's portrayal of Annabelle Lee is in no way a "true" showing of a woman's role because of her submissiveness to men, I also think that comedic exaggeration is relevant here and that the "truth" in this silent comedy comes from the culture of the time and the audience that Keaton was filming for. Of course, by today's standards the women's "role" according to Keaton would seem overtly sexist and clearly old-fashioned. However, in Keaton’s time, gender roles worked quite differently and the stereotype was most likely accepted more than it is today. But isn't that also partially how comedies work today? Don't we still take some stereotypes and exaggerate them to the extremes for the sake of laughter? Before we vilify The General and condemn it for “conforming” to gender roles, we should consider the idea that it is just as much of a satire on gender roles and Southern culture of the time as it is on the Civil War.
I would go on to argue that Annabelle’s presence and involvement in so many of, in my opinion, the funniest moments of the movie caused her as a character to stand out to me. Although one could argue that Keaton was “insensitive” by making Annabelle’s character so clearly a damsel in distress type of role, one would have to also consider the fact that in order to satirize a culture, a filmmaker (or artist in general) has to establish the social tendencies and a general backdrop from which to work. Having Annabelle succumb to the Union soldiers, waiting for her lover, sweeping on the train and out of place amongst the burning furnace at the front of the train are all traits of the time that were not as extremely frowned upon as they might be today. And although “The General” was not well received to begin with, the humor would probably be a little less understood without the old-fashioned gender roles.
This entire discussion, in my opinion, brings us back to the idea of comparing the humor of Keaton with that of Melies. Keaton seems to be closer to the realistic side of the spectrum, whereas Melies clearly plays on the comedy of fantasy—in other words, A Trip to the Moon was funny because it wasn’t realistic. Keaton on the other hand had to make The General realistic in order for the humor to make sense. Realistic at the time meant old-fashioned gender roles.
I feel Annabelle Lee is the stereotypical damsel in distress. The movie depicts her as helpless and stupid in many parts of the movie. Although the movie shows Keaton doing some stupid things they seem to be a lot more playful and clearly a joke, whereas the many of similar situations with Lee seem to be a lot more demeaning. The movie actually has her doing many of the things the stereotypical woman does such as, sweeping up on the train, not being weak and unhelpful in the scene where she puts the tiny piece of firewood into the engine, as well as being shown as stupid in the scene where she can't figure out how to use the train. One thing to consider is the time period and that is the main reason why Lee tends to be placed into the woman stereotype; however, saying that the stereotyping is intentional to add to the humor of the film is not the idea. The movie seemed to be pretty deliberate in portraying the weaknesses of Lee, which can lead viewers to believe that they aren't just making her look stupid to get a few laughs.
ReplyDeleteI think that the portrayal of Annabelle is not complex or satirical in any way, but a reflection of the stereotypes for women of that time. Annabelle Lee is portrayed as a weak, naïve, and somewhat superficial female throughout the entire film. She is submissive and obedient to every man around her, even the guards who captured her. She must wait for her “knight in shining armor” to rescue her. She also acts coldly towards Johnnie when he was not enlisted within the army. All of these aspects of her personality are stereotypes that women have tried to break away from over the ages.
ReplyDeleteAnnabelle’s portrayal of a weak and dependent woman is nothing short of predictable. Throughout history women have always been depicted as being weaker than men and needing their protection. This was no difference in early American media. To depict women any other way may have been controversial. Whether or not the writers believed in this stereotype is unknown. However, they may have depicted Annabelle this way because they wanted her to be accepted by the audience. Audience members and critics probably would have reacted negatively to a film about a woman who saves herself.