If you search the depths of Film Twitter, you’ll discover something about me: I hate everything written by Taylor Sheridan. His films — Hell or High Water, Wind River, Sicario, and Sicario: Day of the Soldado — hearken back to classic cinema, particularly the Western, so it’s disappointing but not surprising that, like most Westerns of the studio era, women are little more than sex objects or nagging shrews meant to cement the goals of the male lead.
Hell or High Water is Sheridan’s aesthetic at its most manageable and mainstream. It’s also the film that completely removes a feminine presence by focusing on male leads specifically. The story of two brothers (Chris Pine and Ben Foster) engaging in bank heists to save their family homestead couldn’t be more of a modern-day Western if John Wayne strode into frame. Toby and Tanner Howards are salt-of-the-earth people who could have struck it rich with oil money if the crooked bank hadn’t fleeced them. (Sheridan’s distaste of bureaucracy is another staple of his work.) The audience empathizes with Tanner and Toby. The dusty small towns are bought out by corporate bigwigs. The flashy casinos filled with prostitutes contrast with the grubby home where Toby’s son and ex-wife live.
When two waitress characters show up, they’re Sheridan’s ideal women: flamboyant, colorful, and insignificant. Jenny Ann (Katy Mixon) refuses to turn over the money she received from Toby because it’s going to her children. Then she’s never seen again — she exists only to bolster the goodness of Toby’s mission. The other waitress (Margaret Bowman), who asks “What don’t you want?” at the steakhouse, provides comic relief by commenting on feminine stereotypes. Sheridan can only be positive by removing ladies from his world entirely.
In three of his four screenwriting efforts women are presented as inept and unable to handle jobs in a man’s world. Elizabeth Olsen’s Jane Banner in Wind River is a prime example. An FBI agent pulled from Las Vegas on a technicality and dropped into the cold landscape of Wyoming to solve a murder, Jane is undermined at every turn while reminding the audience she’s not good enough to be there in the first place. She shuts down mansplaining from a coroner at the beginning of the film, but this seems like Sheridan asking for a cookie because he understands the term. This confidence is undermined the rest of the movie, which Sheridan directed as well as wrote. Jane is objectified — the audiences gets a shot of her thong and backside — while reminding everyone how pointless she is: She can’t dress for inclement weather, doesn’t know anything about the town she’s in, and is only able to shoot someone by accident due to her face being maced. When the film hits its climax Jane is almost immediately shot and nearly dies due to her inability to aim and fire. She is saved by (and thus owes her life to) the true hero of the movie, Jeremy Renner’s Lambert.
The same critique applies to Kate Macer (Emily Blunt), the female lead of Sheridan’s screenwriting debut, Sicario. Kate stumbles onto a massive drug den by accident and is given an opportunity to work on an off-the-books mission with federal operative Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) and mercenary Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro). Kate spends lengthy stretches of the narrative literally silent, as if the script doesn’t have words worth putting in her mouth. When she gets an opportunity to speak it’s to ask questions that are routinely cast aside as unnecessary or pointless by her male colleagues — the price of having a woman on staff. When she refuses to listen to Matt, she is punished and almost killed by a man she picks up in a bar. Matt’s reaction is to remind Kate that he told her to obey his orders.
The threat of violence, usually associated with sex, acts as a warning to Sheridan’s women, reminding them to stay in their spheres. Kate’s attack in Sicario isn’t an explicit rape, but the violence following a sexual encounter so closely, combined with the positioning and framing of the couple, makes the comparison clear. Women, listen to men and don’t engage in casual sex, the film says. Kate’s inability to be useful in her job means she’s forced to be grateful to Alejandro for following her, breaking into her house, and saving her. Kate actually feels bad for deciding to have sex.
Rape is also a central theme in Wind River, to the point that an ending paragraph cites it as the reason for the movie’s existence. Kate is a conduit to introduce Alejandro in Sicario, turning the feature (and its subsequent sequel) into a movie about Alejandro’s grief and vengeance. Wind River does something similar with the murder of indigenous teenager Natalie (Kelsey Asbille). The teen’s death is the catalyst for the film, but like most of Sheridan’s women she spends the majority of the runtime voiceless and off-camera until a third-act flashback where she’s introduced as a rebellious teen sleeping with a much older man. The flashback has the same message as Sicario: sex is bad, ladies. Sheridan’s camera focuses on Natalie’s face as she is raped, the violation clear. But Sheridan wants to raise Natalie as a hero because she ran barefoot for several miles in the snow. It doesn’t matter that she still died because she had such a strong will to live — another moment meant to get Sheridan a pat on the head. It’s worth pointing out that Natalie’s role as the sexy “foreign” girl is mimicked in the 16-year-old drug kingpin’s daughter in Sicario: Day of the Soldado.
Like many a false feminist ally, Sheridan’s films imply a “woke” sensibility. He includes women and minorities in his features, but only to exploit them or mistreat them. The audience is seemingly told they should be happy these characters exist at all, or aren’t played by white men. The old Westerns are still revered, but audiences understand they’re products of their time. Sheridan doesn’t subscribe to this belief. His films are fantasies for straight white men living in Middle America, reminding them of the “bygone” era where white men saved the day and women were beautiful, silent, and sexually compliant.
J.D.
July 5, 2018 at 1:49 pmWOW this article makes such a stretch to fit the narrative that you want to tell. Not everything is sexist, anti-feminist or racist. Your rant about the female characters in these great movies seems to contradict other reviews you have posted. TS is currently on a 4-film streak that both female and male audiences have enjoyed. The films are small budget, with rich storytelling and great characters. The lead females are strong, courageous, and have a realism to them that the average person can relate to. I notice you seem to have a problem with ALL OF THESE FILMS and how they portray female characters, and yet you didn’t have a problem with how Deadpool 2 just fridged Morena Baccerin for no reason whatsoever (effectively killing off a strong character from the first film). You gave that movie a high rating and said it was enjoyable, and didn’t even mention Baccerin at all. It all seems a bit inconsistent.
Renato Barbosa
September 24, 2018 at 12:13 pmI agree with everything that JD said!!! TS aborda temas extremamentes dificeis para qualquer pessoa, onde a falta de experiência e dificuldades durante a trama, impacta em uma falsa impressão de falta de força
Josiah
October 26, 2018 at 11:48 pmWow. So firstly I must say I have only seen Sicario and no more of the movies listed here.
I must have missed the part where Emily Blunt’s character is portrayed as a brainless, useless and inferior person because she is a woman.
Her character in the movie is a consummate professional woman who is a “door kicker” in law enforcement, kicking in doors to take down and arrest evil people, and that is somehow a negative?
As to the part of the movie where she takes a guy home to her apartment, you missed the entire point with your ‘feminst-splaining’. Like the fact that she tried to play by the rules and be a good professional the scene before and that exposed her to the cartel and put a mark on her head. She goes to a bar, flirts with a guy who her friend even knows and speaks well of and then this guy turns out to be on the payroll of the cartel and nearly murders her. The point of the scene is to show that she has been thrust into a situation she is not willing to accept, like a shadow war with evil forces and no rules or clear boundaries.
What exactly is a strong woman according to the holy gospel of feminism? If a law enforcement agent who goes after violent criminals and repeatedly risks her own life to bring them to justice is not, nothing is. Well nothing short of a lesbian Supergirl, I guess. Oh, and bonus points if she is an overweight, lesbian superhero, of course. With hairy armpits.
B Norton
November 1, 2018 at 11:39 pmI guess that makes the Coen Brothers are right up there with TS given No Country for Old Men……..not an accurate article at ALL! #himtoo
Angelique
November 5, 2018 at 4:54 pmThe truthful story behind “Wind River” , pretty sure you missed it!!! Have you investigated the realness of what this movie is about? Probably not, your obliviousness rings quite clear that you only see this as a “movie and entertainment.” The movie was to portray a Real Problem. The Director had a friend that experienced a missing person case within the reservation. He grew up on the reservation during his summers, he states that in an interview for “Wind River”. If you look and actually EDUCATE yourself on Native People, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women IN America, the studies, the targeting, and where state and federal jurisdictions lie, maybe you won’t be so offended as a white woman seeing herself in these characters. There’s no objectifying, you know nothing of the characters or understand the deeper meaning of this movie. I just ask, look it up, read some articles, educate yourself, then watch it again. Get a clue.
Mike
November 9, 2018 at 3:01 pmAlright Kristen. Taylor Sheridan is easily my favorite writer in Hollywood right now so I’m going to defend him here quite passionately by analyzing your whole article. Let’s start with “Wind River”:
“Elizabeth Olsen’s Jane Banner in Wind River is a prime example”…of a really strong female lead. The men dismiss Jane as useless at first not because she is a woman, but because she works for the federal government. This is the same government that provides so little for the residents of the plantation, thus leading to assumptions that the federal government, and by extension the men and women working for it, is useless and incompetent (a core theme of the film). This mistrust in the government is why Jane is often talked down to by the other characters — not because she is a woman, but because she is an agent for the FBI. Jane actually proves to be on of the most competent characters in the whole film, as she is really passionate about solving the murder and knows how to handle herself when shit hits the fan. “and is only able to shoot someone by accident due to her face being maced” — this made me chuckle, because she empties a whole sidearm magazine into the guy who is shooting at her with a shotgun. I would not call that an accident… also the fact that she hits him while essentially blinded by mace is an impressive feat all in itself.
“When the film hits its climax Jane is almost immediately shot and nearly dies due to her inability to aim and fire.” She gets blasted through a door by a shotgun-wielding assailant that nobody could see…I do not think that one’s ability to aim and fire would have any impact on the situation. This whole scene actually disproves your point entirely. Jane gets blasted to the point that she flies back a good seven or so feet. In the ensuing gunfight, she still has the will and ability to shoot, while on her back after getting hit point blank by a shotgun, one of the security men. The only reason Jane needed saving is because her weapon got grabbed while she was trying to reload, which I imagine would be very difficult to do in her condition.
“Rape is also a central theme in Wind River, to the point that an ending paragraph cites it as the reason for the movie’s existence.” The ending sentence cites the reason for the movie’s existence is the lack of representation Native Americans get by the Federal Gov’t, seeing as they have no statistics for missing indigenous women. While rape is a major theme of the film, it’s not the central focus.
Now for my personal favorite, “Sicario”:
“When she gets an opportunity to speak it’s to ask questions that are routinely cast aside as unnecessary or pointless by her male colleagues — the price of having a woman on staff.” I think you may have missed something here. The whole operation of the film was very hush-hush (hence why when Brolin’s Matt Graver recruited Kate for the mission, he did not bring her partner Reggie because, being a lawyer, he would have asked too many questions (“No lawyers on this train”). So when Kate starts asking questions, they are cast aside as pointless and unnecessary because Matt does not want the mission details exposed, and for a very good reason. Later in the film, Kate and Reggie go to their boss and talk about the mission, the very thing Matt was trying to avoid happening by being secretive and dismissing any questions.
“Women, listen to men and don’t engage in casual sex, the film says.” Matt warns Kate not to go into the bank because of the security cameras that spot her. I suspect that some of the bank employees were on the cartel’s payroll as well, so they would also see Kate’s face and would be able to tell a cartel member about it. Sure, you can take this warning as a “men are right, women are wrong” message, but I take this as more of a “Matt knows a hell of a lot more about how cartels operate than Kate does so he knows what will happen if she goes in there” message. I know Matt’s character can often be seen as a “mansplainer”, but let’s be honest, his character was always right.
Now for the elephants in the room:
“It’s worth pointing out that Natalie’s role as the sexy “foreign” girl is mimicked in the 16-year-old drug kingpin’s daughter in Sicario: Day of the Soldado.” ……You think a 16-year-old is a sexy foreign girl?
“He includes women and minorities in his features, but only to exploit them or mistreat them.” Women in his film are actually very strong characters. Kate is on a breach and clear FBI team, Jane is a badass FBI agent, and Isabela is one fiery teenager. The whole point of “Wind River” is to show how mistreated Native Americans are by the federal government and how they feel about the government in response. I’m sorry to have to tell you this Kristen, but mistreatment of minorities is a real thing, not something Sheridan just made up in his head.
“The audience is seemingly told they should be happy these characters exist at all, or aren’t played by white men. The old Westerns are still revered, but audiences understand they’re products of their time. Sheridan doesn’t subscribe to this belief. His films are fantasies for straight white men living in Middle America, reminding them of the “bygone” era where white men saved the day and women were beautiful, silent, and sexually compliant.” I’m rather confused by your closing argument, as well as troubled by it. I do not get the sense that the films are telling me that I should be happy that these characters aren’t played by white men. If the films did have an all white cast, then they wouldn’t make any sense. You then go on to say that these films are “fantasies”. Yes, most films are fantasies, hence why they are fictional material. But Sheridan’s films tackle real life topics and issues. Drug cartels and border control are fantasies? The federal mistreatment and lack of care for the Native American population is a fantasy? Yet you attribute the word “fantasy” to these films simply because they have “straight, white men” in them. Is being a straight, white man now a fantasy? I know I’m straight and white and I know I’m not a fantasy. You also say the films reminds white men of a “bygone” era of Westerns. Which bygone era Westerns had drug cartels and border control as central themes? Which bygone era Westerns had female leads?
All in all Kristen, I feel like you were just too blinded by your disdain toward straight white men (why else would you conclude with this?) to actually give Sheridan’s films the thought they deserve to understand the complexity of the real issues his films delve into, such as border control, drug cartel violence, and government military and agency actions. His films do not take a direct stance on these issues, which allows the viewer to make up their own mind as to how they feel about them. Except you did not look at these films through that mindset. Instead you ignorantly dismissed the films as anti-female, pro-male propaganda that take place in Disney World. I ask that you re-watch at least one of his films now and consider that there are much deeper meanings than woman vs. man.