Whedon writes female characters either a lot like he writes his male characters. In some ways how he makes his female characters "different" is by adding male traits to them. There is also a lot of male fantasy to his female characters. I don't find that to be the best way to convey a strong female character.
'Male traits'? Could you be a bit more vague with that criticism? Do they pee standing up? Keeping with the subject of Natasha primarily, but this does bleed into his other characters obviously, traits include: intelligence, a dry sense of humour, arrogance, independence, concern, cynicism, fear, self delusion and pride. Which of those are characteristics that women shouldn't (or is it can't?) display?
Isn't taking characteristics that are fundamental to the
human experience and applying utterly arbitrary gender restrictions and limitations to them just propagating the notion that men and women are completely different? Whedon likely holds the belief that gender equality is grounded in the idea that men and women all share in a communal experience and that no progress can be made by making the distinction of what is 'masculine' or 'feminine'.
It's very likely that there is a strong element of male fantasy in his female characters, just as there is in his male characters. Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, James Bond, Indiana Jones, all of these characters are obvious male fantasy characters but it doesn't make them any weaker characters. Even ignoring those more extreme examples, I'd imagine he wishes he were as smart as Banner or as commanding as Fury. Writing characters with desirable attributes or who you would like to be/be around does not weaken the character.
Presumably you're referring to the fact that Whedon likely finds some of his female characters attractive/appealing and would like them were they to exist in reality. I don't see what the criticism is here, why should anybodies external perception of what is sexy be taken into account when passing judgement on whether a character is strong or not? If Whedon were to suddenly become asexual would your assessment change and his characters acceptable at conveying strong female characters?
As to Black Widow, I never said she was badly written. But she is a stereotype, and unlike the others, relies solely on her position as one. Her first scene in the film is based around your breast jiggling and her doing the typical Joss Whedon, "small woman, badass warrior" thing. Just because the character serves her purpose in the film, that doesn't make it the character particularly strong. It also didn't help Johansson just doesn't fit the role.
And while I actually do find the vast majority of the characters underwritten in the Avengers, it still featured Thor, Loki and Banner, who with little screentime still proved to be atypical.
Just because it is a team up comic film, doesn't change the goal post. I have seen Nolan versions Bruce, Joker, Dent and Bane. Same for McAvoy's Charles and Hiddleston's Loki.
How can a character 'rely solely on their being a stereotype'? What does that mean? Rely on being a stereotype for what? Surely stereotypes (I'm assuming you're using the term as synonymous with archetype) exist to fulfill specific roles in a story, a kind of narrative shorthand. 'Unlike the others', what about the other characters means they
don't 'rely' on being stereotypes? If they don't fulfill the role that the archetype exists to fill then the label is meaningless. Furthermore, if you're calling Black Widow a stereotype, presumably of a woman who uses her sexuality to display power over men, then I don't see how she relies solely on that definition.
Her arc has nothing to do with being a woman or behaving sexually. She is used to demonstrate and sell to the audience the potential danger of the Hulk, which means she has to be a genuine victim rather than a manipulator. She also proves to be the most pragmatic, recognising her own weaknesses and instead applies herself in a more effective way in the final battle. There is really only one scene in the Avengers where that dynamic comes into play, Loki interrogation, and even that works on a level beyond 'feminine wiles defeat arrogant men'.
By saying her first scene is based around 'breast jiggling' and playing on a similar Joss Whedon dynamic, you're not actually making any criticism of the strength or portrayal of the character. You can point out that Whedon isn't innovating with this scene or stepping out of his comfort zone but that's largely irrelevant. The scene demonstrates Black Widow's personality, gives us an idea of who she is, how she operates and shows her making decisions based on her own goals. In a story, good characters do these things. Your reducing the scene to 'breast jiggling' is disingenuous and suggests that you feel that her cleavage undermines any aspect of her character.
It is typical now. Has been for years. That is how you portray a "badass" woman. It isn't new. It isn't playing on the audience expectations, but it is exactly what they expect now. It is the mundane, the obvious. Especially when you play up her sexuality and how men fall victim to it. It is complete male fantasy and I am not sure how it is empowering. The idea that the way a woman can be powerful by taking on the characteristics of a man, while being sexy.
The scene has nothing to do with with men falling victim to the sexuality of women. Her sexuality is not an aspect of the scene, her seeming to be incompetent and out of the loop in terms of her profession is. Again, of all her scenes, only one is slightly guilty of this, and that scene doesn't show Natasha actually using her sexuality actively. Male fantasy doesn't mean 'not empowering'. They are far from mutually exclusive.
I don't know. There is a lot of grey area for women and action roles/features.
How seriously can you take a female action star to be honest? Is it realistic for a tight, slender woman to fight off grown men that outweigh them 50-100 pounds? Sometimes it is tough to take hand to hand combat seriously because the male actors/stunt doubles are more reluctant to take chances and go at it opposite a female co-star. Men go in with the mentality of "I'll be (said female action hero) whipping boy because that is how the director/studio wants it to play out."
With Avengers being a comic book, I can give Whedon a pass in flaunting Black Widow in action. Renner would pile drive ScarJo in two seconds in real life, but I can "buy" that she is an expert assassin that can potentially hold her own against a male of proportional size. Still far from realistic, and let's be honest, Black Widow is primarily eye candy and nothing more. Catwoman is another character that was well done. Her action didn't bother me either because I could buy it for the universe it was in. That doesn't mean it has to be a comic book. Look at something like G.I Jane, even though that wasn't really an action movie let alone a comic book movie.
Then you get pure crap like Legend of Chun Li which no longer makes you wonder why females don't get their fair shake in action roles.
To speak further generalities, it goes back to females sports. Do people want to watch lingerie football? After the first five minutes it gets kinda boring. Do people want to watch women's MMA/UFC? I don't. Most females don't. There just isn't a market for it.
Why is Black Widow primarily eye candy and nothing more? What makes her nothing more than an aesthetic pleasure compared to people like Thor, showing off his muscular arms. Thor doesn't even have an arc which Black Widow does. Heck, the same is pretty much true of Cap, am I to assume they are also primarily eye candy and nothing more?
