I know I’m supposed to find the character of Pepper Potts in Iron Man offensive and sexist. As the main female character in the movie, she’s, well, a servant. From one perspective, she’s like a fantasy wife-for-hire—hot, devoted, thoughtful, and submissive. She never brings the coffee cold and relieves Tony Stark from his duties for running the dull, domestic parts of his life, freeing him up to conquer the world. But I liked Pepper a lot. She was smart, wry, and professional, and her attraction to Tony seems to be a result of her being a workaholic, and she snaps out of it at the end of the movie. She’s brave and clever under fire. But I was ashamed to put it that way, because none of that really addressed the fact that she’s still a personal assistant.
And then I read this thread, where a discussion about whether or not Pepper is negatively portrayed as materialist hinged on her purchase of an evening gown with Tony’s money for her birthday. I actually thought the dress incident had nothing to do with materialism, and Pepper’s choices were cast in a flattering light. I’d say the dress incident in the movie has two plot functions: to show that Pepper has really good taste like she always said (we usually see her wearing all black) and to show that she has this whole inner life that Tony wasn’t aware of. There was no intention to shame the character for materialism.
Then it hit me: A personal servant who knows the boss better than he does himself, a servant who is portrayed as hyper-competent, unceasingly professional (Pepper has a code of honor as a personal assistant that seems too professional for our modern times), who wears black all the time, who has astoundingly good taste, who has a wry sense of humor and a devotion to the job that elevates it from being just a job to an art form? That works for a boss whose casualness and lack of competence in his daily affairs is both her challenge and main source of exasperation? That finds herself having to reach beyond the call of duty normally expected of a servant, and who always rises to the occasion because she’s so clever?
Pepper Potts is Jeeves. Her direct action and her good taste in clothes make her closer to the original Jeeves character in the P.G. Wodehouse stories than most of the butler characters—including Alfred in the Batman stories—that have been modeled on the original in the intervening years.
I only have my own internalized and unwanted sexism to blame for why I didn’t see it before that thread. I kept trying to compare Pepper to other female characters, which prevented me from seeing that the archetype she fits is actually one that’s been predominantly male over the years. Considering that her character type is usually a male character, it does change the discussion about how sexist the role is, though. Obviously, it’s not sexist to have a man playing a butler, so can we say that putting a woman into a role previously reserved for a man is sexist? From one sense, yes, because it’s a servile role, and so not much of a stretch in our culture. On the other hand, there’s a delicious gender-bending in the fact that a woman has been put into such a classically masculine archetype.
They apparently had to change a lot of stuff up from the comics in order to make Pepper a Jeeves-type character. In the comics, Tony has a butler and a secretary, and Pepper is his secretary. In the movie, the butler is moved out the way by turning him into the AI computer that Tony uses, opening up the spot for Pepper to move in as his personal assistant, a modern day version of the butler. They didn’t have to do this, so I have to assume that the changes to make Pepper the butler character instead of a secretary were intentional.
It also explains why I felt warmly towards her the second I saw her bustling around Tony’s house onscreen. I love the Bertie and Jeeves stories, and so seeing someone update the Jeeves character in a new and fresh way like that pleased me, even if it took me awhile to figure out why.
31 Responses to “Paltrow and Downey in the new Bertie and Jeeves series!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Not to mention the fact that when she’s supposed to swoon and fall for Stark at the very end, when he’s recalling the moment they came closest to kissing, she’s like “nuh uh” and reminds him (and the audience, who may have not even realized since the camera follows Stark) that he just abandoned her and that basically, he treats her like a jerk. It’s not like she doesn’t care for him anyway, it’s not like she isn’t loyal — but at least she has the chutzpah to stand up for herself and call him on his crap, with a wry smile, instead of swooning happily ever after.
I’m pretty sure that in the second film (spoiler alert) we’ll see her follow the original plot arc of her character where she starts dating someone else, and given the character development so far, it’ll probably be tied in with the fact that Stark hasn’t really shown her enough respect for her, even though he’s drawn to her. Whether they’ll actually get together at the end or Iron Man 2, classic Hollywood style, is anyone’s guess. If they do… well, that would put the fact that she’s been his butler for years in a rather different light, maybe a little more problematic. I’d hope she’d lose the air of “competently making everything is prepared just right for you, Mr. Stark” and become more of an equal.
You know, I should have put spoiler warnings at the beginning of my comment too, sorry. The romantic subplot doesn’t have that much to do with the rest of the film and isn’t terribly unpredictable or anything, but I still did mention what its ending is.
I’m sure there are many more people bothered that a man was replaced with a computer than that a personal assistant was a woman.
That aside, I spent some time wondering how just about anyone (aside from a nosy, sexual-conquest of a reporter) could just walk inside a billionaire’s home before I remembered that I was watching a movie about a flying suit powered by a superheart.
That may have been a big part of it - your comparison to Jeeves is very apt - but I think they also did it so Downey would have someone to talk to while he’s in the armor.
Also it should be noted that Jeeves traditionally hews much closer to the male stereotype than Bertie does - Bertie is a fop, not a philanderer.
Not that Jeeves is a philanderer either. Stark, I was referring to.
In other words:
Potts and Jeeves are similar in the ways you outline, and from that standpoint, Potts is fulfilling an archetype that is traditionally not only male, but MORE ‘male’ than the person the archetype serves; however, Stark’s archetype also fulfills a separate, traditional male role, that of eternal juvenility, which Wooster displays elements of but not to the same extent.
In a way, Rhodes is Wooster, open to dissolution but still trying to be the voice of reason.
Ah well. This all has me considering the brilliance of Fry and Laurie, and realizing that I need to track down that show again.
I wasn’t bothered at all because it was clear that she had enormous power in that relationship. He was utterly dependant on her skills (hello, she fixed his HEART). But also because I think there was a strong spark of literal truth to her comment that she ‘hated job hunting,’ or in the scene where she’s trying to dissuade him from going to be a hero becasue ‘you’re all I have.’ She was loyal not exactly to Stark qua Stark, but to Stark as manic workaholic billionaire who needed her specialized yet wide-ranging skill set and could pay her REALLY well for it. There aren’t going to be that many opportunities for such a position.
Meanwhile, he may kind of own her professional life, but he clearly doesn’t own HER. She has independant taste; she is not jealous about ‘taking out the trash’; and she’s smart enough not to let herself get emotionally stuck on him because she knows it would be a personal disaster and he’s not really worthy of her in that way.
I totally loved her. She also, by the way, has strong echoes of some of Dr. Who’s best women companions. /nerd
Not that Jeeves is a philanderer either.
Re-read some of the early stories when Wodehouse was still figuring out the characters and you’ll be surprised. There’s one where the ending is that Jeeves gets Bingo’s uncle to fall in love with Jeeves’ “fiancee” so he can romance someone else. (It also gets Bingo out of an unsuitable engagement, but the implication is definitely that Jeeves is thinking of himself first and uses Bingo to get out of his own situation, too.)
I bought an oddly entertaining book by Kristin Thompson called Wooster Proposes, Jeeves Disposes that breaks down all of the Jeeves/Wooster stories without ruining them one bit. Some of the best literary criticism I’ve ever seen, because it gives you a deeper understanding of the books.
I don’t think Pepper’s shown as materialistic at all. I didn’t really notice if she was portrayed as specifically having good taste–I can’t figure out where in the movie that would have come up as something even remotely noticeable.
I also didn’t have any cognitive dissonance about Pepper’s domestic a’la magnifique role–if they’d left her in it I’d never have given it a second thought. After all, most admin assistants ARE women, still! My issue was, they pulled her out of that role by thrusting her into situations that, had she handled them with anything approaching her portrayed cool professionalism when it came to scheduling Stark’s press conferences and fetching his coffee, would have been fine. But she became a screechy, fumbling gi-iirrlll the instant anything more demanding was required, where it was sheer luck she wasn’t the author of Stark’s demise, more than once.
My only problem with Potts was that during the climax she suddenly became useless for about a minute, which was totaly out of character and didn’t even help the tension of the scene!
You’re absolutely right, I had completely forgotten.
Also, I forgot to mention Aunt Obadiah.
Jeeves or Bunter? Since Bertie’s distinguishing characteristic is to turn absolutely ever situation he touches to crap, I’m not sure it’s right here. Bunter is the perfect valet for the hero who isn’t a complete loser but still can’t do nearly everything.
I’ll be damned. I read the comics for almost 20 years, and when I saw the movie that never occurred to me. But then I started reading after Pepper Potts was gone - she’d gone off and married Happy Hogan (played by John Favreau in the movie), and there was another, much more interesting girlfriend character for awhile - a female bodyguard, of all things - Bethany Cabe. She was a deliberate attempt to break the traditional “maiden in distress” stereotype.
I went into the movie knowing a little of the background–Iron Man has never been one of my favorite comics, but I’ve read some–and expecting to cringe my way through Pepper’s scenes. When I didn’t, I kind of wondered if it was because I was just distracted by all the nifty explosions and my newfound crush on Robert Downey Jr. But this post explains what it was I liked.
Also, it didn’t hit me until a while after I saw the movie that Pepper’s dialogue about why she shouldn’t be seen dancing with Tony is a very accurate description of a nasty bit of casual misogyny women face all the time. Tony’s money and reputation with women makes it so that she would be seen as a desperate, gold digging slut, even though he asked her to dance. I’m not sure I’ve explained that properly, since it’s been a couple of weeks since I saw the movie, but I liked that she mentioned it.
Pepper Potts is a coward because she starts running and screaming when the fucking huge ass Iron Monger tries to squish her?
I really hope Marvel decides to make a She-Hulk movie just for the conversation it would generate on this blog!
I really hope Marvel decides to make a She-Hulk movie just for the conversation it would generate on this blog!
I wish I could hate you bald. and there will never, ever be a She-Hulk movie, because all her best movies are so painfully caught up in continuity heavy stuff that the audience wouldn’t follow it. You want a female lead Marvel movie, I really really can’t think of anything better than the T-bolts, with Songbird at the helm, both working with and against Zemo. Because Janet Van Dyne is tragically worthless, and Ms Marvel is cancer in 4-color comic format.
Setting that aside, Pepper’s role is greatly expanded from what she did in the comics, although this actually reasonably reflects her current job. for the longest time, the role played by Pepper Pots here was more closely filled by Happy Hogan (who was “the guy who obviously works for Stark and has like 6 lines in the whole movie.”) He recently died in the comics, so Pepper might well be expanded when they get back to non-crisis mode they’ve been locked into since Civil War started.
One thing I’m not looking forward to is if the Avengers movies continue, how they’d handle the Pyms’ domestic violence thing, as the only ways to possibly handle it is portraying it as not a big deal and profoundly sexist, or going absurdly over the top like Ultimates did and still being profoundly sexist. It’s been such a big part of both characters’ backgrounds for so long that they really couldn’t include them in the movie without doing so, and the alternative is to completely remove a third of the the Avengers core team and their greatest enemy.
For heaven’s sake, why? Some high-powered men have a woman as their assistant, some high-powered women have a man. So?
I would hardly call her a “servant”. Not many butlers can hack into a mainframe and steal top-secret information.
Nor did she strike me as submissive either. Sure she gets Tony’s coffee and dinner, etc., but from what I hear that’s just part of being an assistant to a high-powered executive.
I didn’t think the portrayal of Pepper’s personality was fantastic, but at least there was some effort to give her a personality, which puts her above the love interests in every superhero movie since the original “Superman.”
I would love to see a movie of the recent She Hulk series.
Dan Slott won my eternal love and gratitude when he repeatedly, over the course of his time as writer, had her ask “Why is it okay for Tony Stark to sleep around, but I get called names when I do it?”
I love that series so, so much.
I talk about how awesome She-Hulk (and Power Girl) are here!
Seriously, I’d love to see honest-to-God feminist takes on these characters.
It would be RAD.
Here’s the thing about that, though: in one scene, two decades ago, Hank Pym, while in a massive depression and drunk, during an argument with his (super-powered) wife, slapped her. Once. And immediately was horrified by what he had done, went even further into depression, withdrew from the world, et cetera and so on.
That was the sum total of the domestic violence in the Van Dyne-Pym household. It was writers, years later, who kept bringing it up constantly apparently just to torture the character, as Hank Pym has become the favourite angst-target of Marvel writers. There was never any indication of domestic violence before or after that single incident, but that incident was referenced so often that people now assume Hank Pym was slapping around his wife regularly. In the Ultimate Universe he did, but in regular Marvel continuity, no.
So the easy way to deal with the “domestic violence’ issue? You don’t have to.
I’m fully aware. and it’s actually much, much worse than “he was drunk and depressed” when you add “mindfucked into thinking he was a supervillain who had MURDERED his own alter ego, who was then tricked by Janet into marrying her because Janet was for decades the most sexist icon in comics, and shallow manipulative bitch was the sum of her character” and that it was the sum total of it.
But later writers have hung up on that. to the degree that almost no one really acknowledges that either of them have personalities outside of SVU Domestic Violence victim and Guy who regrets slapping his wife once.
they let Reed Richards move past it, even though he did it REPEATEDLY for DECADES. They let spidey off the hook for super-strength shoving MJ into a wall while she was pregnant. twice. and he wasn’t even mind controlled. just “stressed.”
but they don’t give either of them a personality outside of it, so that’s what they are.
Even if Hank Pym SCIENCE! Adventurer is possibly the best comic concept ever executed by anybody ever. Mr. Wizard vs Aliens, with a belt of gadgets ranging from bunsen burners to a fucking CHAINSAW? No. too awesome.
but then, you’ll also note that the whole “pepper pots as a romantic interest” was kind of shoehorned in, just like they’ve shoehorned in a romantic interest into every goddamn Batman movie because… well, I’m not really sure why.
The very first comic book story that dealt with domestic violence, AFAIK
Howbout a tribute to disco?
for the record… and no, it was NOT a good movie and they really do need to try again and i would LOVE She-Hulk… there WAS a female-lead Marvel Movie.
it was Elektra.
for the record… and no, it was NOT a good movie and they really do need to try again and i would LOVE She-Hulk… there WAS a female-lead Marvel Movie.
oh, really? awesome. I wonder who was in it…
it was Elektra.
boy, I can’t wait for you to tell me which heroine was in some awesome marvel movie, because surely it would be a good movie that we have every reason to acknowledge it exists.
“Pepper Potts is a coward because she starts running and screaming when the fucking huge ass Iron Monger tries to squish her?”
It would have been nice if they’d let Paltrow do a little less flailing while running and screaming, but my biggest complaint about that scene is the shoes they put her in. I mean, really, she’s off to do something where she might wind up doing the 100-meter dash from security after, and they have Ms. Competent pick out five-inch stilettos held on by an ankle strap?
The scene where he tried to paint her as Lois Lane Mark 2 and she reminded him that she doesn’t stop existing just because she’s out of his line of sight was brilliant, though.
It would have been nice if they’d let Paltrow do a little less flailing while running and screaming, but my biggest complaint about that scene is the shoes they put her in. I mean, really, she’s off to do something where she might wind up doing the 100-meter dash from security after, and they have Ms. Competent pick out five-inch stilettos held on by an ankle strap?
to be fair, they had just come from the SHIELD offices and her report, which she left for from her “walk around the offices like everything’s normal” spy work. so I can see why she’d still be in the impractical shoes. I don’t really get why you’d bring a civilian along to the site of your hopeful arrest, but I guess she was useful in opening all the doors they had to get through until the top secret one. still, “If you’re wondering how Joel eats and breathes…”
SuzanneM: YES! I loved that scene - how often does a summer blockbuster pay attention to the self-respect conflict felt by the love interest in such a situation? Although when it started to look like they were going to kiss I just sat there whispering, “Leave the balcony now, leave the balcony now, don’t undo it all!” And then, okay, Stark left instead, but the cleverer-than-I-expected script remembered and acknowledged and used it as fuel for Pepper to get over Stark, so further yay.
preying mantis: *snorts* We were amused by the fact that Pepper’s outfits seemed to get more low-cut as her heels got higher, and that we don’t see her feet when she runs because, boy, her ankles. The pain.
In general, I was pleasantly surprised. Though it was irritating that she was reduced to shrieking “Tony!” at random intervals during the climactic battle. Push the damn button already!
“to be fair, they had just come from the SHIELD offices and her report, which she left for from her “walk around the offices like everything’s normal” spy work. so I can see why she’d still be in the impractical shoes.”
I actually meant the spy work. I understand why they wouldn’t have her go change shoes in between the “Oh, hey, they’re building a bigger, better robosuit of doom and tried to assassinate my boss and are now probably also going to try to assassinate me” discovery, but the fact that somebody decided that she’d head into a corporate espionage mission in ridiculously cumbersome and fragile-looking high heels instead of sensible, sturdy, modest high heels seemed completely ridiculous. She understood what he was after, expressed an initial unwillingness to do it, and then decided to stick with the crazy stilt shoes instead of a heel that would least hold up if she had to race-walk past security? Given that they showed her in non-”come fuck me” outfits earlier in the movie, it would hardly have been out of character for her to head out for that errand in a black pantsuit and shoes with a 1″ heel with a solid base to it.
The shoe choice just didn’t really make me roll my eyes until she had to flee from the supervillain in them and then run around on that grate flooring surrounding the reactor. I kept waiting for her to break a heel and thereby need to call one of the SHIELD agents for help or create some ridiculous zomgrescue! moment for Stark.
He didn’t say Elektra was an “awesome marvel movie.” He said it was a movie with a female lead.
I’ve been wondering for a while when there would be a Dazzler movie. It would seem like it should be pretty easy to shoot technically, since her powers are based on light. Probably lack of any good story ideas and the relative obscurity of the character are more of a factor than anything technical. What if Hannah Montana did her own light show effects? Just ditch the roller skates…
A She-Hulk movie could work, there seems to be something of a bout of Hulk-mania around for whatever reason. Finding an actress to fill the role could be…interesting.