Hey there, we're talking about a very important and pressing subject today. No, this isn't about the impending doom of climate change, or Cuban protests over food and medicine shortages. We're of course talking about boobs you silly person.
I just recently read an article titled "Zendaya Responds to Space Jam 2 Lola Bunny Redesign Controversy" by ScreenRant, and it was frustrating to me in how it took the side of de-sexualizing a classic character while presenting its central defense for this as just a self-evident assertion that required no further justification. It's strangely dismissive despite the unearned confidence.
For full disclosure, I did see the original Space Jam as a kid when I was very young. I haven't really rewatched it since (though I did look up a few clips for writing this article to make sure my facts were accurate), and I have no particularly vested interest in this franchise specifically. The new quasi-sequel that just hit theaters doesn't look like my cup of tea and I'm probably not even going to see it. At the time that I saw the original, I enjoyed the film for the silly popcorn entertainment that it was, but I have no idea if it would still hold up today. However what I can say for sure is that its characterization of Lola is perfectly fine and I take issue with the broader sentiment in general that sexy characters are just inherently bad in some way.
This is a strangely regressive and prudish mindset that the left has been adopting in recent years, which is ironically conservative in nature. Traditionally it has always been the right that has consistently told women to cover up and dress appropriately, or else it is somehow an invitation for would-be rapists and harassers to take advantage of you. Now thankfully the left doesn't necessarily argue that latter part, but it still adopts the former based on no real grounded justification for itself; the argument being that dressing or looking sexy is somehow inherently objectifying.
To quote the article from above, this is the kind of sentiment I'm talking about:
"In prior interviews, [director Malcolm D. Lee] shared his surprise when he first watched Space Jam, explaining his unease when he witnessed the sexual objectification of Lola Bunny. As a result, Lee focused on adding greater depth to her character by emphasizing her skills as an athlete and leader."
This is the first instance in the article where it mentions objectification, and it does so by just casually assuming from the outset that the movie did in fact do this to Lola's character merely because the director of the new film said so. At no point does it actually explain where in the film it allegedly "objectified" Lola, so I can only guess what they meant based on surrounding context and what I could find in the movie.
So, in reviewing footage of Lola from the original Space Jam, the strongest case I could find for her being objectified was in her introductory scene, where Bugs calls her "doll" in a clumsy attempt to hit on her. Now there are technically at least two ways you could look at this. Yes, on the one hand you could take the very literal interpretation that a doll is in fact an object, so by calling her that, Bugs is equating Lola to an object, and therefore objectifying her.
On the other hand though, dolls are typically toys designed specifically to look attractive, so by calling Lola "doll", Bugs is not trying to imply that Lola is just some plaything for his amusement, but rather is complimenting her on her beauty by suggesting she looks as attractive as a doll. This does not have to imply anything else about her character beyond that. It does not necessarily have to denote that this is the only thing about Lola that matters.
Hell, with the way Bugs delivered the line, it's possible it might not have even meant anything other than just a feminine substitute for his usual word he uses to refer to people; like from his famous slogan, "What's up doc?" He didn't put any suggestive emphasis on the word when he used it.
Regardless, Lola did seem to take offense to the term; possibly because she viewed it as objectifying anyway, or maybe it's a term she just personally doesn't like for whatever arbitrary reason. The movie never exactly does clarify why, and it's probably not important because I think the real goal of the script here was simply to set up some excuse to build tension between the two so Lola could challenge Bugs to a game of basketball and show off her skills. There was likely no political commentary meant by it.
But for the sake of steelmanning the argument, let's just grant everything to the white knights here. Let's assume Bugs did mean to use "doll" in a demeaning and objectifying way, and Lola took offense to it specifically for that reason. Even if we grant all that, the film still seems to side with Lola on this. Bugs is portrayed in a negative light by calling Lola something she doesn't want to be referred to, as she ends up humiliating him for it, and the movie never tries to make the audience sympathize with Bugs for losing against Lola at basketball. He's just defeated and the scene moves on to the next set of gags; no violins to be found. In other words, even if we concede that Lola was being objectified, the messaging of the film still doesn't suggest that Lola's treatment was a good thing in this instance.
But that's just one angle of looking at this. The other angle to this is the insinuation that female characters being too attractive is inherently sexist. Once again, neither the article's author nor the people quoted in it make any attempt to explicitly spell out where the supposed sexism or objectification took place, so I can only shoot from the hip here and guess what they meant by it, but it does seem to be frequently suggested that merely being sexy by itself is automatically degrading.
If anything, the irony here is that I'm the one who should actually be allowed to get away with making a blanket declaration as if it is self-evident, as the point I'm about to make should be obvious at face value. But I'm going to defend my point anyway, and the point is this: Sexualization is not inherently objectifying a character.
In order for someone to prove me wrong, they would have to somehow demonstrate that Lola can't simultaneously be sexualized while also having a fun and independent personality, as well as a great talent for basketball. This is of course an impossible task to prove, because it is self-evidently absurd that Lola can't be all these things at the same time. There's nothing inherently stopping her from being a great leader and basketball player while also just happening to have some nice curves on top of it all. Big tits and curves don't magically cast a spell on her which bars her from having other traits about her character, even if that was the way they chose to portray her in the movie.
But it turns out that the original Space Jam didn't portray her that way anyway. She was a talented basketball player, and she was characterized as very strong-willed and independent. And yes, the film didn't shy away from showing off her curves too, but the point is it wasn't her sole character trait. As mentioned before, in her very first appearance she swats away Bugs' advances while completely embarrassing him at a match of basketball. How is this anything other than female empowerment?
There is however one scene where Lola gets rescued by Bugs, as one of the villains from the film, a "monstar," was about to unsuspectingly body slam her from behind. Now, looking at this one way, you could characterize this as a stereotypical damsel-in-distress trope which plays to certain sexist attitudes; however by this point in the film it was already thoroughly established that Lola was easily one of the best basketball players on the team; if not the best player outside of Michael Jordan himself. She just happened to be caught off-guard in a rare instance of her lacking awareness, so Bugs pushed her out of the way in self-sacrifice as he took the fall.
You know what this is called? A well-rounded character in that despite her being generally skilled at the sport, she can still make mistakes and has to rely on her teammates once in a while, as any good depiction of a team-based sport should be. Granted, the scene was really just an excuse to build a shallow romance subplot between Bugs and Lola. Still a lazy cliche in the way it was executed I suppose, but not a sexist one when taken in full context. It should also be noted that this was the only instance in the entire film where Lola showed any kind of vulnerability.
Rick and Morty's recent season opener began with an episode about Rick's
highly sexualized arch nemesis Mr. Nimbus, but I didn't see anyone
characterizing his depiction as objectifying just because he was
portrayed in a sexually provocative manner. You could argue that this is
because he's also a character shown to have a strong sense of
independence and strength, as well as some nuance in that he ultimately
ended up allying himself with Rick and his family, so he has some characteristics that go beyond him just acting sexy. Huh, I wonder if
there's another character similar to this in animated media... Oh right
that's Lola Bunny! It's almost as if we're just cherry-picking our outrage when
women are sexualized because it's the hot button issue of the current
zeitgeist... Almost.
Now, the characters of Space Jam in general were pretty one-note to begin with. This wasn't exactly a very deep film; it's about a bunch of silly cartoon characters coming together to have a big basketball tournament, and that's really all there was to it. But to the extent that Lola had a personality, it offered just as much depth as any of the other characters on the team. Hell, Daffy Duck was treated more degradingly than Lola with how much he was used for nothing more than mockery and gags. Lola meanwhile was actually contributing to the team.
People with big boobs and nice curves do exist in real life. They do possess skills and personality traits that go beyond their looks. If anything, it is insulting and demeaning to them to suggest that they are somehow inherently lesser people just for being sexy. There's nothing wrong with sexy characters being sexy. I can't believe I have to actually say this, but apparently it's not that self-evident to people now.
I know we're talking about a cartoon bunny here. I realize this discourse is inherently kinda weird and silly, and there are probably too many people online taking this whole "controversy" too seriously. But as I said, my critique here isn't even about Lola specifically; it's about a general trend in the industry of de-sexualizing female characters as if it is some kind of sign of moral progress. It's just not though. Being sexy isn't a crime, context matters, and no, Lola being a cartoon bunny doesn't change anything about this either. Weirdness does not equivocate to immorality. It's just weird.
Why are we even conceding this ground to the right when we don't have to? Because I consider myself a lefty, but the sad reality is, I know there are a lot of people out there who unironically would sacrifice Medicare For All, $15 minimum wage, ending the drug war, and other important issues on the altar of "but muh SJWs; they're taking away my big rabbit tiddies!" This is how republicans sucker people into voting on non-issues because they don't have anything real to offer their constituents, so let the right be the out of touch prudes crying about girls dressing too revealing. That's what they used to be 15 years ago. How did we end up getting saddled with this? We can have our sexy female characters. Hell, make everybody sexy. Big dicks and boobs everywhere. I don't care. We can have our cake and eat it too. We don't even need to concede this ground. Why are we doing this?
Here's a big brain take for you: people like attractive characters in their fiction. Wow, what a shocker there. Truly a revelation. It turns out, attractive characters are attractive, and we like to see them. Also, making your characters intentionally uglier or less attractive does not automatically give them more depth either. Good writing gives your characters more depth, and no amount of shrinking their boobs or straightening their curves is going to make up for that. You're not some hero for deflating Lola's fictional rabbit tiddies, so stop pretending that you are.
Anyways, don't censor the booba. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
