HOMESMAN REVISITED

The film that inspired my investigation of the feminist western in the first place. I will not go into  details of the plot here as there are many synopses available online. Instead I would like to determine whether it is actually a feminist western. Because it seems so at first glance, until you look more closely.

One definition of the genre, published in the previous note about the film, stipulates that this sub-genre of western is characterized by:

-         Women’s dominance 
-         Reversal of gender roles 
-         Subservience of males to female characters.
 

However, a more detailed and precise definition might shed new light and help in determining the alleged feminist nature of the latest Tommy Lee Jones’ film.

For a western to be considered feminist the plot must constitute a subversion and a challenge to a mainstream text; the actions of a female protagonist must drive the plot rather than simply provide a reason for actions of the male character or characters; the dialogue of one or more female protagonists must challenge and subvert masculine discourse, as well as convey agency; and meanings must be plural rather than singular.

Searching for a feminist western: the searchers, the hired hand, and the missing by Maureen T. Schwarz

Considered holistically, in no way does the Homesman assert women’s dominance. While it is true that the main character, industrious homesteader Marry Bee Cuddy (played by Hilary Swank) with her grit, perseverance, strong morals and the propensity for speaking her mind is far from being a typical western woman, other female characters, unfortunately, represent the domesticized, the victimized and powerless. The three mad women and their plot line  (hardships of the frontier, husband’s brutality, illness and death of children) are pushed to the background all too quickly instead of being used as a vehicle of empowerment (as they should in a feminist western).

What is more, the Homesman displays little to none  gender role reversal and Marry Bee proposing to two men does not make a summer. For the sake of protection she is accompanied by a ragged old thug George Briggs (Tommy Lee Jones) whom she had rescued from hanging and conned to join her. What raises objection is the fact that as the journey progresses Cuddy is losing her assertive bearing and seems to be getting increasingly helpless and heavily reliant on Brigs. Which in consequence undermines his initial subservient role and invalidates yet another characteristics of the feminist western.

Moral strength of Cuddy’s convictions could be seen as an expression of the often contested female agency. Not once does she avoid doing the right thing and vociferously criticizes lack of compassion in others. Nevertheless, Mary Bee’s actions become overly influenced by the need for affection to the point of desperation when having her proposal rejected by Briggs she persuades him to have sex only to commit suicide the following day. Instead of subverting the traditional discourse Cuddy’s demise reasserts all the familiar tropes; even in harsh conditions of the frontier life a woman is expected to conform to expectations: to look certain way (she is said to be ‘too plain’ too many times), be meek (she is ‘too bossy’) and be pure as a snowflake waiting to be married. Unfortunately.

In conclusion, The Homesman is not representative of the feminist western as it does poor job conveying women’s dominance, lacks gender role reversal and conforms to rather than challenges masculine discourse.