Tuesday, October 9, 2012

REVIEW: The Avengers


The Avengers was a fun ride. Like its Marvelous predecessors, it managed to serve up considerable amounts of cheese, but a well-paced story, an ensemble of engaging and quirky characters, and a heavy dose of artistic excellence kept the film both engaging and enjoyable.

The Art 

The Good 

There's a lot to say about the quality of the films that Marvel has been pumping out recently. The crisp, clean videography, combined with directorial panache, make them a pleasure to view- even when they aren't a pleasure to watch. The music, while perhaps not always amazing, is usually tasteful and at least industry grade. Sometimes we are even treated to some great themes, like in Silvestri's Captain America.

In The Avengers, I thoroughly enjoyed the script, which was full of witty banter and genuine humor. Many of the actors also sold their parts very well- particularly Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark, whose sense of humor and sense of humanity rescued the film from rising amounts of cheese on multiple occasions.

"Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?"

The story, too, was more satisfying than that of some other Marvel endeavors, neither feeling rushed nor long-in-the-tooth. I suspect that these three things combined- the well-scripted, entertaining, and endearing interactions of the well-acted characters in an engaging story- are the strongest points of The Avengers' art, and are largely responsible for its remarkable success.

Then there's Loki.


Many a good film lacks a great villain.  Not The Avengers.  Loki is at once evil enough to hate, personable enough to like, and human enough to sympathize with- all without there ever really being a blurring of the lines of good and evil.  The strength of the hero(es), it has been said, can only be as great as the strength of the villain.  Loki was not only a convincingly formidable opponent- he also just felt believable.  Even with the goofy helmet.

I found Silvestri's Avengers theme very appropriate and well-used, and the impressive visual scope of the film is also definitely worth mentioning.


The Bad 

I mentioned cheese, and I shall mention it again. Though the good points of this film rendered the cheese to be eminently bearable, the fact still remains that Velveeta made many a cameo in this filmographic masterpiece. From moments of stone-faced "I'm awesome"-


to exploits too unbelievable even for supermen-


this film delivers an exquisite array of some of the finest cheeses this aficionado has ever tasted. Firing two pistols at once may look cool, but I don't recall ever seeing a real soldier running into battle wielding both his Glocks at once.  Talking of cheese, I think the film would be rendered more effective if the names of the characters weren't so far-fetched. Nick Fury? Seriously?


The egalitarianism in this film is something that I'll go into more depth on in the worldview section, but the truth is that androgeny isn't just bad philosophy- it's bad art, too. To portray a woman fighting with and overpowering men like this film does begins to smell like an ideology being forced into the story, at the expense of art, realism, and even the story itself. (I mean, seriously, it would be corny enough for a guy to snap out of a chair in which he is bound and level a room full of interrogators!)

The graphics were good, but at some (otherworldly) points I found them a bit ridiculous- at once not creative enough and overly bizarre. I found some of the costuming, too, a bit fantastical, especially on the SHIELD ship, which felt more to me like the Starship Enterprise than the USS Enterprise.


The Worldview

The Good

There is a lot to be admired in the eccentric group of people known as the "Avengers", and there are some quite good morals to be taken away from their story. Captain America remains my favorite of the heroes, being a strong leader, a moral man, and a man of principle devoted to ideals higher than himself.

"You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing."

And his line, "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that," was my favorite line in the film.


One of the strongest moral messages in Avengers came from the ongoing interchange between Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Tony Stark. The climax of their rivalry came as Rogers accused Stark of being, in a word, selfish- being a man unprepared to lay down his life for a cause greater than himself. Stark's reaction shows that, deep down, he knows it is true. But in the final moments of the film we see Ironman make a decision that proves that he is more than just an immature playboy in a robot-suit- that he is prepared to do the right thing, even at risk of his own life- that he is a real man.


Real men are prepared to make sacrifices. Real men are prepared to lay down their lives for the innocent and for the Truth. The greatest example of this, of course, was given by Jesus Christ Himself- Who went beyond laying down His life for the innocent, and gave it for the guilty. So this message, and this character transformation on the part of Tony Stark, was a very strong and beautiful portrayal that added depth to the film, power to the story, and genuine character to the personality of Ironman.


The Bad

Of course, Ironman also deserves a mention in the not-so-great section of my worldview analysis. His self-described playboy character is incompatible with a Biblical definition of what makes a hero. Tony Stark is likable, he is funny, he even does heroic things, but until he submits to Christ, no act of heroism which he makes can make him truly a hero.


Miss Natasha Romanoff is also a character in need of redemption (for what, exactly, the film does not specify). Somewhat like Mr. Stark, Natasha seeks to erase the "red in her ledger" by committing acts of heroism.


This is a picture of redemption that is futile, unsatisfying, and contrary to Scripture. Miss Romanoff needs to find her redemption and identity in Christ. Only by the blood of The Savior can the red in her ledger ever be fully washed away. The Scriptural picture of sin and salvation is not the balancing act of yin and yang. No amount of good deeds can outweigh the evil of a single sin to make the sinner holy and justified in the eyes of a thrice holy God. The wages of sin is death, and without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. Praise God for His marvelous mercy in providing a way for sinners like me- and like Natasha, were she a real person seeking redemption- to be saved. What a glorious gift.

Natasha also embodies one of the most dangerous messages of this film- feminism, all growed up. She isn't alone, joined in the ranks of he-women by Nick Fury's gun-totin', pants-wearin' secretary. 


(STRAW MAN ALERT: "Gabriel is saying that women should never carry guns or wear pants or they are wicked feminazis!" No. I'm not.)

Throughout the film, we watch Miss Romanoff fighting men and monsters indiscriminately. The androgeny is thorough, and apparently no one, the whole film long, gives a second thought to the fact that they're fighting against (or alongside) a woman. Would a man like Captain America, with the chivalry of the WWII era still strong in his mind, even consider treating a woman- regardless of her ability- like just another soldier? More importantly, would Jesus? (Neh. 4:14)


My siblings and I have been listening in to the Botkin sisters' excellent webinar on what the Bible has to say about beauty, specifically in the realm of feminine fashion. Last Tuesday, the webinar featured an analysis of the fashion of certain eras and how those fashions correlated with the culture's view of womanhood at the time. What does Natasha Romanoff's wardrobe say about America's view of women today?

I submit that it says two things, loud and clear:

1. We see women as indistinct from men in any significant way beyond the obvious physical differences. The costumes of the heroine are very utilitarian, with no frills, no skirts, no lace, no feminine touches whatsoever. Men don't usually spend much time beautifying themselves. Neither does Natasha, nor the new woman that she represents. She dresses to kill.


(STRAW MAN ALERT: "Gabriel thinks that women aren't anything more than eye candy and their primary job is to look pretty for their husbands." Nice try. Wrong.)

2. We really enjoy drawing attention to and sensualizing the obvious physical differences. Let's be honest, folks, the skin-tight wardrobes of the primary female characters in the film are immodest. They're sensual, shapely, and suggestive. Just because she's covered doesn't mean that she is covered. Miss Romanoff is dressed to kill in more ways than one. (Pr. 7)

(By the way, some of our male heroes could do with a wardrobe increase of a size or two. Steve Rogers has no more right to showcase his muscles than Natasha Romanoff has to draw attention to her curves.  I've heard enough girls drooling over Thor that I'm ready to suggest a looser pair of trousers.  Male modesty is different from female modesty, but it isn't less important- more on that here.)

So, really, in the name of making women equal, the feminism and egalitarianism that we see in films like The Avengers does just the opposite. It degrades womanhood, casting it aside in favor of a perverted mixture of sensuality and androgeny. It reduces both men and women to their anatomical differences, making them objects to be consumed, lusted after, and used, while any significant distinctions in role are cast aside. What kind of liberation is this? It discourages Biblical manhood in favor of a feminized and soft masculinity, and it erases Biblical femininity, sending the women to the front lines to fill the role of the men whom it just sent away from the battlefield!

Men, we need to take the lead. Be the man. When something goes bump in the night, don't send your wife out with the gun. I don't care if she's a Russian-born assassiness. It's our job and our calling to be both the physical and the spiritual protectors of our families. It should also be our joy. We've abdicated this position for far, far too long.

Ladies, come home! Not just in the basic stay-at-home-mom sense, but in the deeper sense of being a keeper of the home, who loves being a wife, a mom, a sister, a homemaker, a woman. Don't let the feminists set the narrative. Don't buy their lie. Natasha Romanoff will never have as much impact on the world as one faithful mother.

One more observation. There were a couple of scenes where Miss Romanoff was in serious danger, and the tough-guy bravado peeled away for a moment.


In those moments, she seemed small, soft, feminine. In those moments, I wanted to protect her, to rescue her, to be her knight in shining armor. Most of the time, she was hard and masculine, and I was kinda left hoping one of the guys would show her up.

"Sorry, miss, but you've only trained to be a man.  I was born one."

Even better, that one of the guys would treat her with gentlemanly courtesy and expect her to act like a lady, instead of accepting her as "one of the guys."

(Note- I don't mean to suggest that "showing her up" would be a proper course of action on my part or the part of the male heroes, and I hope that if I met Natasha Romanoff I would treat her with the same courtesy, chivalry, and love that I aspire to treat all women with.  For me to try to "show her up" would be a violation of the very principles that I'm talking about in the first place.)

(STRAW MAN ALERT: "Gabriel thinks that women should be fearful, weak china-dolls who can't do hard things, can't work hard, can't sweat, can't use a gun, can't throw a punch, can't protect themselves and their families." Wrong on every count.)

Manly Amazon-womanhood trades in chivalry for competition, and the immense value of the gift of femininity for a cheap wannabe-masculinity.

This competition isn't a problem with the male heroes. In their case, I would be equally glad to have a friendly tussle or to fight alongside them against the bad guys.


Indeed, I would certainly enjoy the competition ("Come on, Captain, let's see who can do more push-ups!"), and there would be a mutual friendship and respect and camaraderie that just would not be there between myself and miss Romanoff- so long as she insisted on me relating to her as a man.  I mean, really... what guy wants to lose in an arm-wrestling match with a girl?  And what guy really wants to win in an arm-wrestling match with a girl?  He's left with two bad options.  That's a real bummer of a competition.  (The right choice? The third option.)

So, ironically enough, the only way for me to truly relate to Natasha with the same feeling of togetherness and unity as I would with the guys would be if she lived out a different role from my own.  Only then could we enjoy true equality.

She can never be equally as manly as the men.  Even the good ol' egalitarian US military, now proudly sending the precious daughters of our country into front-line combat to be shot-up and mutilated (yay for progress!), still has different- easier- physical fitness requirements for women than it does for men.  How does this make any sense at all?

If she seeks equality by becoming a man, she will be disappointed, because she is not and cannot be equally manly.  She was never supposed to be.

But if she seeks equality by seeking womanhood she becomes priceless.  Now she can become everything that she was created to be- a helper suitable for the man.  (Gen. 2)  Now we have true equality- each of us fulfilling our God-given roles, finding equal value in different purpose.  Now we complement and need each other (because even as she was created for the man, remember that it was not good for the man to be alone either!).  Now the woman needs the man to be what God has called him to be.  Now he needs her, because she is something he isn't, and she does something he can't.

Of course, ultimately, our goal should not be to find equality, but to find Christ.  To seek first The Kingdom of God, and His righteousness.  Then comes the rest.  Praise God, included in that little "the rest" is not only equality as brothers and sisters in Christ- but also the amazing privilege of being joint heirs (though we could never be equal) with Christ Himself!

So I thought the two major worldview weaknesses with The Avengers were feminism and a false portrayal of redemption by our own good works.

Some other issues worth mentioning:

Thor and Loki are supposed to be gods.  The film makes light of this, but they do wield supernatural powers.  Captain America's line really rescues this issue for me, but it's still important to remember that anyone but The One True God claiming godhood isn't a joke, it isn't funny, it isn't artistic- it's blasphemous, sinful, and wrong.  We can find other ways to tell our stories, without toying with things that are not for us to touch.  May God give us the eyes to see these things as He sees them.


A related point to this is the almost Scriptural importance given to the Tesseract- an object which one character says is more than knowledge- it's truth.  This is an eerie contradiction to Christ's claim that He is The Truth. (Jn. 14:6)

On a similar note, the earth does not need Thor's protection- we need the protection of Almighty God.

Our heroes have a good bit of rivalry shared between them, which isn't necessarily bad worldview on the part of the film (it's not shown as a good thing), but which does provide a great opportunity to discuss pride, gentle answers which turn away wrath, and so on. (Pr. 15:1)


Mr. Banner- the Hulk- is always angry?  That's not an admirable or heroic trait.


The topic of aliens and other worlds is also one that may warrant discussion.


Overall,

I really enjoyed The Avengers.  Fun, funny, yet meaty, with a surprisingly good moral to the story, it's one I'll definitely watch more than once.  It is worth mentioning that I watched a cleaned-up version, so while I know that there was some bad language, I didn't hear any!  Also, along with the tight clothing throughout, one of the opening scenes involves a woman in attire that shows more skin than would be preferable- parents be wary.  Children might also be scared by some of the alien creatures.  There are a few mild innuendoes also woven into the script.  That said, for a "grown-up" movie, The Avengers was pretty clean.  Despite the occasional shot of cheese, I found it well worth the watch (unlike some other superhero films that I've seen recently...), and thoroughly enjoyed the ride.  I look forward to seeing it again.

4/5


25 comments:

Josiah said...

I rather enjoyed that analysis, and look forward to seeing the film eventually.

Where do you obtain "cleaned-up" versions of films? That is something that I'd love to get involved with, as a lot of good films have so much offensive language.

Kyle Prohaska said...

Hmm not sure I would agree with everything in your review. I think it's goofy to quibble about the names, the heroic "I'm awesome" moments, the fantastical styles of clothing, etc. You are talking about a movie made to exist within the Marvel Universe. It's a superhero movie for goodness sake, lol. The film was better for those things and gave the film its Marvel feel. The whole point is to be fantastical and epic.

Pinecone said...

No, it's a movie made within God's rules, and needs to conform to God's standards, regardless of whether or not we put in pumped up superheroes or not.

That means the clothes, the moralities, the false gods, etc, need to come under the Bible.

Pinecone said...

And, I'm going to write a post about the whole idea of superheroes, too (on Librarysessions.blogspot.com). I'll keep you posted.

Pinecone said...

edit: I meant: "no, it's a movie made within God's world"

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Josiah:

http://www.clean-edited-movies.com/

You can also get programs that clean up films as you go, instead of buying each new DVD pre-cleaned.

Hey Kyle! Thanks for stopping by. You're right, this is a comic-book movie. It's just that for this reviewer the comic-book movie would have been more effective if it was just a little bit less comic-book and a little bit more movie. :-D

Kelsianne said...

Wow, excellent review, Gabriel.
It seems a woman in a typical film is portrayed as a strong, "I can out-best you", feminist type, or she is a delicate flower, who will "swoon" under the slightest ounce of pressure. I think the former is prevalent, however, as we see in the Avenger's. And yes, while the woman's modesty was an issue, I have always found the tight body-suits worn by the men *slightly* disturbing. :-)

"Velveeta made many a cameo in this filmography masterpiece" Great wording. Love it.

I, too, would place Capt. America as a favorite. As you pointed out, some great character qualities, and of course, the "favorite quote". :)

Thank-you for this review, Gabriel. Very well put, I think.

Kelsey

Kyle Prohaska said...

To be more clear for Pinecone, I was referring to Gabriel's comments regarding the fantastical element of the clothes, not the modesty. I'm not in disagreement that it all needs to come under the Bible but some of what Gabriel had to say felt more like opinion and nothing more. Also I still maintain that it's a movie that takes place in the Marvel Universe, which is a fantasy world with its own rules. If someone wants to argue that the Marvel Universe as a whole is troublesome then that's a good argument but trying to shoehorn a story's world into ours always causes trouble. The same could be said for Lord of the Rings, where Middle Earth's time and place is very ambiguous. It would be goofy to look at that movie and go "hey! where's their bibles?" even though it would be fine to evaluate the movies morals from a biblical standard. You also have to get into the debate of what's ok to show if the characters call for it. Because modesty is the right course of action doesn't mean every character has to be modest does it? The same could be said for characters who do evil actions when we know what they're doing is wrong. If every character is saying what a Christian should say, wearing what a Christian would wear, doing what a Christian should do, etc. then that would make for a pretty bland and boring piece of entertainment.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Thanks, Kelsianne!

Kyle, it is my opinion, definitely, on the cheese and the Star Trek suits. :-)

"You also have to get into the debate of what's ok to show if the characters call for it."

This is a very important debate. I would, however, differentiate between modesty and villainy when it comes to this, because modesty is one of those things that isn't just portraying evil- it's inviting it. It arouses the viewers to lust, and that's dangerous.

So while I'm a big fan of stories with vicious villains, I think that modesty is a different issue.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Oh, another thought for Mr. Prohaska:

Isn't The Avengers technically set in our universe? Yes, it's an augmented universe, but still ours.

Just throwing that out there.

Pinecone said...

Gotcha (on the clothes).

Let's put it this way: no God, no rules. Star Wars proved this. Yoda wanted Anakin to erase Padme from his mind (probably a good thing, since their relationship was illicit). However, he also wanted Anakin to erase love, too. Emotion is qualified as bad, and if Anakin wants to emote, he needs to switch sides. Also, the Force (ultimate standard of morality?) can be used for both good and evil. There's no representation of God here, folks (despite the attempts of professing christians to argue otherwise). We don't use God to do evil. Then, check out Star Trek. In this scenario, human emotions, particularly the desire for freedom, are portrayed as heroic, and the Borg's stoic assimilation is considered evil. So what's so horrible about assimilation? Is the Captian better off as Locutus? Which side would Darth Vader be on if he ended up on the Starship Enterprise?

Does this mean that the Bible has to come up in every movie? I suppose not, although I find it curious that Christians are so eager to remove that incredible blessing and weapon (which the first 4000 years of earth history didn't have in its fullness) from the hands of their cinematographic heroes. But the morality of the Bible should, as defined by God. And if there are any questions about who authors those morals in the movie, God should be the answer (from the goodguys). Also: when we remove the Bible and morality from movies to make it sell better, we are cowards and fools. I'm not going to pull any punches on that one.

Can our movies escape reality? No, they can't. Why? Two reasons: one, they are within God's universe (in which He defines reality), and two, the movies affect the viewers (regardless of how you feel about it). The filmmaker is indirectly responsible for the results of the movie. How much evil should we permit on our screen? First of all, we don't have a biblical example, since everything within the Bible actually happened, and not only that, the Bible is literature. The different medium makes for very different effects upon the observer, which was done on purpose. None of us should watch Judges 19:29, for instance.

Can I give you the modesty and violence level that a movie should conform to? No, I can't. But let me give a guideline: no intentional stumbling-blocks. If the content mars the viewer (leading to sin) because of an overabundance of evil, the producer is partially to blame for letting that evil in. If we start placing wicked women in our films that are seductively dressed, not only do we give them a platform to seduce, but we simultaneously cause the viewer to disobey Proverbs 6:8. It doesn't matter how terrible the end they receive is: that doesn't justify the platform. On violence, when we induce bloodlust in the audience, we are no better than the circus owners of ancient rome, and are equally guilty of the love for vengeance that we induce. Someone could be induced to sin by lusting after a fully dressed nun, it is true. Someone could also be induced to lust for murderous blood upon seeing a man stabbed in the heart (no blood shown). But I would think that these situations are not the producers fault, because he has not shown pictures that should have caused that reaction: the problem lies in the person's heart alone.

Cinematography has all too often become a cliff dancers world; but Christians are not cliff dancers, and their films should not represent this norm. For the reader who loves Harry Potter; examine yourself as to why that is. You will not find a good reason (although you are certainly welcome to try).

Bria said...

Fantastic job once again Gabriel! I agree on every point. Avengers would have been much better if Natasha had been absent, and Iron man were altogether a more upright man.

And yes, compared to all the rest, Captain America seems to be the epitome of Integrity.

And the viewer doesn't exactly know as much about Hawkeye so it's hard to judge what kind of man he is. (I did a review about The Bourne Legacy Renner played in on Google +)

I will definitely look into the clean play movies.

Bush Maid said...

Excellent review, Gabriel! I agree on all points. My family and I generally regard the feminist "superheroines" as a joke, really... When my siblings and I first saw the opening scene where Romanoff decks everyone in the interrogation room, our highly sarcastic response was, "Yeah, right! Like that'd happen!" (in the middle of the movie theatre... Oops) It's an unBiblical role for a woman to play, and besides the fact she didn't seem to really have any "super powers" worth mentioning, she felt like a poorly cast accessory for the most part. Anyway. Agreed there. :)

And Loki... I can count all my favourite villains on one hand, and he jumped to first place when I saw this movie and Thor. You nailed it here: "Loki is at once evil enough to hate, personable enough to like, and human enough to sympathize with- all without there ever really being a blurring of the lines of good and evil." He's the most well developed, complex, and believable character out of the whole cast in my opinion, and I think boosted the success of the whole movie. (I'm also a sucker for sympathetic characters too, which probably amounts to much of my being a Loki fan)

So again, very good review, Gabriel. I appreciated all the straw men references you stuck in there too. ;)

Kelsianne said...

Oh, I meant to mention that my Mom and I are listening to the Botkin sisters webinar as well. I've really enjoyed what they've had to say so far. What did you think of tonight's session?

Kelsey

Gabriel Hudelson said...

I loved it. My posture is better and I'm working on my laugh. :-D

Suzannah said...

Thanks for the thoughtful and entertaining review.
I too enjoyed the line, “There’s only one God, ma’am, and He doesn’t dress like that.” But I felt it could perhaps have been improved by a lengthy dissertation on Books VIII-X of The City of God. For one thing, it could have been really funny, and for another it would actually have transformed a line intended to pacify Christians into a line that respects Christians.
Without that, it felt like Joss Whedon (the director) tossing the Christians a bone, like he does occasionally. “See, I can be sensitive to your silly little religion.”
I mention this because it answers another of your points, made in passing, that you were uncomfortable with Thor and Loki being called “gods.” Augustine, conducting an internal critique of the Neo-Platonist worldview in the aforementioned books, discusses their cosmology: men in material bodies inhabiting the earth; demons in airy bodies inhabiting the air below the Moon; and gods in aethereal bodies inhabiting the aether in the realm of the stars. Outside the cosmos existed the Primary Good, the Ground of Being…some kind of “God”. According to Plato, the gods were eternally blessed and if there are stories of the gods acting in evil or scandalous ways, this has only occurred when demons masquerade as the gods. While St Augustine does not accept the Platonic worldview or the full Platonic cosmology, he identifies these blessed “gods” as “the holy angels” and actually makes a fair (if not 100% convincing) case for it from Scripture, claiming that in some passages angels are referred to as “gods”.
So while you have a fair point, this is just to say that Augustine wouldn’t have turned a hair ;).
I also enjoyed your discussion of feminism, which is one of Whedon’s pet hobby horses. Interestingly, his feminism probably shows most in the characterization of Black Widow as someone who can use people’s expectations about women against them. That is, she makes herself vulnerable as a way of extracting information from evil men who think she’s a poor weak woman. That happens at least twice that I can think of: it’s her establishing character scene as well as the tactic she uses against Loki. Oddly (in the grand old tradition feminists have of not being able to make up their minds what they really want), I recently read a feminist critique of the movie complaining that this is kind of disturbing: putting yourself intentionally in such a vulnerable position and inviting abuse is not really the most empowering interrogation tactic.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Bria, I read and enjoyed your thoughts on "The Bourne Legacy." I'm looking forward to seeing that one myself.

Suzannah, that's a very good point. It does have the flavor of a "here you go, Christians" line which the Christians just jumped on and seized.

I still love it, though. :-D

But I don't think we should read too much into it and be satisfied with films so long as they throw a little bone to the Church of God.

Very interesting comments about Augustine.

That's also fascinating about the feminism- and that some feminists are unhappy with Natasha's brand thereof.

Great comment- thanks for stopping by!

Jason Vaughn said...

Should people involved in Christian film really talk about comic book cheesiness? lol :)

Jared Reighard said...

Bestest movie ever.

J. Grace Pennington said...

Very good review, Gabriel! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)

Jake Goodman said...

"I wanted to conquer her, to remind her that I'm a man, and she's a woman, and she can't "take me."

Is it just me, or does this really sound like you want to rape Black Widow back into knowing her place.

And seriously, your general argument against her turns into the idea that women's highest aspirations should be to run their husband's house and pump out kids for him? I know the bible says judge not lest ye be judged, but I am pretty sure there are a few women who have had greater impacts on the world than they could've ever had sitting at home with their kids. Who has had more impact on the world, Condoleezza Rice or the average housewife?

Gabriel Hudelson said...

"Who has had more impact on the world, Condoleezza Rice or the average housewife?"

Sounds like you have a low view of the power of housewives, my friend. I'd say the average housewife has- or at least can have- more impact than Miss Rice could ever dream of. By far.

Tabitha said...

Gabe, if you like the movie, you can say so :P .

And yes, I think it is totally possible to do what Black Widow did in the opening of the film. You just have to have the right training. If you don't think so, convince your dad to watch some Jet Lee or Bruce Lee films. Those are some guys who can clear bare-handed.

Tabitha said...

Oh and about not sending your assassin wife to check the door? How about having her at your back as back up just in case?

The family that fights together stays together ;).

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Jake, in response to your first sentence, a couple of others brought to my attention the dangerous implications of that section of my post, if taken by itself. Thanks for mentioning it; I've edited the post to hopefully remove any confusion. Abuse of any sort is something which I neither advocate nor meant to even reference; my point was talking about simple physical competition.

'Cuz I don't want to lose a race. But I really don't want to lose a race to a girl. :-D