 |
| Two humans are sacrificed on this picture. One is drowned in a holy spring and one is burned. The man with a sword symbolizes probably another way of sacrificing of humans. To the right worshipping people. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| A young woman, with her arms and legs bound, waiting at the edge of the river to be sacrificed. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Ultimately both the set-up of the victims, and the spectacularly blood-soaked consequences of refusing to be sacrificed, become apparent. Marty however vehemently declines to be sacrificed for the sake of the world. The result is the end of the world as we know it.
So why does this feel right to me? Sure, Marty has a right to feel peeved that he has been manipulated into being sacrificed. But now that the stakes are clear - now that he knows exactly what will be saved if only he consents to be sacrificed - shouldn't he just buckle down and accept that that's really the only option?
But instead he and Dana are both fine with the idea that the world will end if he doesn't die. "If this is the best we can do, I think something else deserves a chance," says Dana, and they hold hands and smoke a joint as the world ends. Not because sacrificing yourself for the greater good is a bad thing to do; but because they were manipulated and lied to. A culture that would treat them that way doesn't deserve to be saved; it isn't a "greater good".
And this feels like a very feminist move to me; although it's Marty, the male, who needs to be killed, and Marty who ultimately says, bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm not doing it. But it is a feminist and egalitarian choice: because our culture is based in the unrecompensed, unrecognized sacrificial "voluntary" labour of all except the privileged classes; all women, and a hell of a lot of men; all of whom who have been manipulated into filling roles that don't actually match their characters, and into sacrificing themselves and thinking that their sacrifice is their choice. Marty could, once the manipulation becomes apparent, agree consciously to sacrifice himself. But why should he sacrifice himself for people who are willing to lie to him, and his friends?
Why, then, does the film ultimately hinge on Marty's choice, and not the sacrificial "virgin"'s? Perhaps because a man in this culture has a right to refuse to sacrifice himself, and it's not 'making a feminist point' or 'displaying an obnoxious feminist agenda'. If Dana had been the one to refuse, the movie would have been condemned for one-note strident feminism, and we wouldn't be having the discussion we can now have; about whether he was right.
But his choice is feminist all the same. Because the choice not to sacrifice yourself for a culture that manipulates you into that sacrifice and, far from honouring the sacrifice, blames you for being in that position in the first place, is feminist as hell.
And that is why his choice seems right to me. Good work, Joss; I hope the Avengers is anything like as good as Cabin in the Woods.
