Each Mad Max movie is a product of its time. The original “Mad Max” (1979) was clearly aligned to the conservative law-and-order revenge thrillers of the 1970s. The sequel, “Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior” (1981), relies heavily on Joseph Campbell’s narrative on the hero’s journey, made popular in Hollywood by George Lucas in his “Star Wars” trilogy. “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome” (1985), the third installment and final to star Mel Gibson, was the result of a bloated, too-big-to-fail studio system — all you needed then was a movie star and a pop song on the soundtrack to make it into theaters.Last week marked the release of director George Miller’s fourth film in the franchise, “Mad Max: Fury Road,” a movie I wasn’t particularly clamoring to see. At the theater, I was struck by the age-range of the audience, mostly teenagers who were too young to see any of the previous films on the big screen. Are nostalgic parents pushing these films on their children? Does that explain why this franchise, after over 30 years of dormancy, has returned to such fanfare?That might be part of it, but the hype cycle surrounding “Fury Road” has been spinning its wheels faster than one of the film’s many dune buggies. The film will do well at the box-office because of the strong marketing campaign, and there will be sequels, maybe a spinoff, a video game, probably an app. And we’ll buy them all.Even if you wanted to, it’s not easy to avoid such a massive marketing campaign. “Fury Road” is everywhere. Posters are plastered on subway walls and billboards, and it’s all over the Internet. These days, movie franchises are mostly focused on cross-promotion and creating platforms to make more, and more, and more. The films become commercials for the next commercial, and they’re often insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.This is not to say that “Fury Road” should escape thoughtful criticism — nothing should. Here, it is the critic’s responsibility to look beyond the hype of spectacle. In thinking about “Fury Road” critically, it’s necessary to take into account a trend that has in recent years come to play a significant role in big-budget films and their reception in the media: the celebration of a perceived political subtext. It’s the latest thing that the Hollywood machine has latched on to, a way to give an ultra-stupid film a serious lift. The movie industry is not content with draining money on frivolous, often offensive products for monetary gain. Now it wants to be financially successful but also socially conscious. Hollywood, in other words, is not only greedy, but also self-important.We see this idea pushed rather frequently in the marketing campaigns of studio films. Take last year’s “Snowpiercer,” a middling film with a weak political metaphor about the crushing force of capitalism and revolution spread on top like butter, or “Dawn of the Apes,” an even worse film with an even weaker and nonsensical metaphor about the allure of war. Or we hear often how Joss Whedon has “slyly inserted politics” into his superhero films, as if he’s acting subversively. The latest case is, of course, “Fury Road,” which many different outlets are calling a feminist film. Even “Vagina Monologues” author Eve Ensler, who consulted on the film, has been singing a similar tune in the press.This gives “Fury Road” an air of importance, a way to differentiate it from the rest of the dreck that comes out in theaters in the summer months. But the problem is that it’s far fetched. It’s a nice tagline, and bringing Ensler on board from the beginning means that Miller and company must have had something like this in mind, but after watching the film it’s hard to make sense of what they mean when they call “Fury Road” a feminist work. Is it because Charlize Theron, admittedly the best part of the film, plays a strong, empowered female character? That’s worth noting, but that does not make it a feminist work of art. The main narrative of the film is pushed forward by acts of violence against women by men in power, and there are major supporting roles that are wonderfully played by great female actresses of all ages who fight back. This certainly makes it a better film than most of its ilk in terms of dealing with violence against women, but this is still a male-centered film, featuring a strong male character in a male-centric world who is essential to securing the safety of the female characters who survive. What the film ultimately tells us is: there are strong women in this world, but their only way to safety, to freedom, is through the help of a man.Here’s what would have made “Fury Road” a better film: eliminate the main character. There is no need for Max, in this film played by Tom Hardy, to even exist anymore. He grunts his way through the film and escapes death a million times. What would happen if he died and the female character became the hero? That doesn’t sound so far-fetched, right? Or maybe Miller, who has been cranking out animated kids movies for the last decade and making serious bank, could have stepped down from his director’s chair and let a female director take his place. Would that have been so crazy? Oh yeah, when Hollywood hires a woman to direct a big-budget action film, they fire her after becoming “increasingly concerned” that she can’t handle it. There is room for a feminist action film, even a demand for one, but “Fury Road” doesn’t come close. It’s not a feminist film. It’s a film made by men, for men that is using feminism as a marketing tool to bring in a female audience.
↧