Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

News that the BBFC is now classifying films with an eye for discrimination and prejudice, as well as the long-established parameters of sex and violence, is intriguing and welcome, on one level, perplexing and worrying on another.

The new rules seem designed to look at a broader social picture, taking in the context and import behind cinematic representations, rather than just focusing on skin and blood. That seems sensible. But of course prejudice and discrimination is often in the eye of the beholder, and the BBFC may be opening the door to – on the one hand – the PC police, and on the other, endless tabloid barracking.

The first three titles for which certificates have been revised upwards all represent soft targets: Date Movie, Epic Movie and Norbit were rated 12 or 12A and now are classified 15. It’s hard to imagine anyone defending these universally reviled comedies, though I think you could make a case that throwaway comedies shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

But what about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? Rated 12A by the BBFC. Is the 12A classification already a bit harsh (my ten year old wants to watch it) or it too lenient?

The story, such as it is, involves evil robots the Decepticons coming back to Earth to destroy Optimus Prime, their old adversary Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and the planet itself.

It’s questionable just what age-range the movie is shooting for. On the one hand, this is a film based on a line of toys intended for the pre-teens and it’s produced by US manufacturer Hasbro. On the other, the brand was a favourite with kids back in the 80s, so the boys who grew up with them then are now in their late 20s, early 30s, and potentially feeling nostalgic.

If we look to the movie itself for clues, the character of Sam is just entering college, so presumably he is 18 or 19 (La Beouf just turned 23). His girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) isn’t going to college – she’s working in her ex con father’s garage as a mechanic – but she’s the same age (so is Fox).

Does the fact that he’s middle class and brainy and she’s working class and not cerebral mean the movie is sexist? Or does the fact that she is good with motors while he’s a bit of a nerd signal the reverse?

Maybe it’s more telling to look at the way director Michael Bay shoots Fox – a model who doesn’t resemble any mechanic I’ve met. She’s first seen from behind, half-prone on top of a motorbike, her derriere stuck up in the air like a Playboy bunny. That proves typical of her appearances in the movie: she’s constantly posed in a sexually suggestive manner, even when she’s running away from missiles and giant robots (invariably in slow motion).

It’s true that she does save Sam from one Decepticon, but this creature – disguised as a fellow student who seduces/near-rapes him – is hardly a compelling argument against charges of sexism. Nor is the character of Sam’s mum, who is repeatedly shown to be over-emotional, irrational, hysterical, embarrassing, or a combination of all four.

Sexism isn’t a crime – not yet – but do we want our 12 year olds sucking down these kind of stereotypes?

And what about race? Much of the movie takes place in the Middle East, in Egypt and Jordan – in fact Bay destroys several ancient landmarks, including one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Yet as far as I recall, there is only speaking part in the movie for an Arabic character, a checkpoint army officer who is initially presented as a potential menace, and then (when his diminutive stature becomes clear) as a figure of fun, easily distracted from his duty because of his love for New York, of all things.

There is a rather odd reference by one of the US military personnel to imminent rescue by “the Jordanians”, here recast as the Seventh Cavalry, which I assume reflects the filmmakers’ gratitude towards the hospitality of the Jordanian authorities and military during the shooting (though the Jordanian helicopter referred to is promptly shot down by a Decepticon).

More troubling than the film’s implicit sexism and xenophobia, for me anyway, is Michael Bay’s on-going love affair with the US military. Granted the army’s high tech surveillance and weaponry are outgunned for long stretches of this film by the alien invaders, but all the same, Bay shoots the servicemen like they were GQ models, backlit, in slow motion, striding manfully and with purpose. In contrast, we’re told that President Obama has gone into hiding at the first sign of trouble, and his administration’s state department head immediately shuts down the only unit that might actually help in these circumstances, a secret joint US-Autobot outfit.

It is only by illegally countervening these government orders – and later, ordering an unauthorised missile strike on the Great Pyramid at Giza – that army personnel avert disaster.

In other words, democratic institutions won’t save the planet, we need to put our faith in the US military’s pre-emptive strike capability. That might sound like a lot to read into a mere movie, but bear in mind this was the central argument in John McCain’s Presidential campaign last year. “Revenge of the Fallen” indeed.

I don’t know if any of this makes the new Transformers any more suitable for 15 year olds than 12 year olds. But I do know that this overblown, overlong, and unforgivably boring blockbuster must be the longest toy commercial ever made – and my kids won’t be seeing it any time soon.

Titles related to this article

Related/similar articles

• Epic Movie (5 February 2007)
• Hot Fuzz hits UK top spot (22 February 2007)
• Hooray for Hollywood (7 March 2008)
• Fox kills Transformers death rumours (12 October 2009)
• WIN! Transformers action figures (23 November 2009)
• Best of the Decade (1 December 2009)