A few weeks ago, I covered Natalie Portman’s Elle UK interview, and people really freaked out. I didn’t really get it. Natalie was talking (out of her ass) about feminism, claiming: “The fallacy in Hollywood is that if you’re making a ‘feminist’ story, the woman kicks ass and wins. That’s not feminist, that’s macho. A movie about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows a real person that we can empathize with.”
I understood what she was trying to say, that a lot of characters are labeled “feminist” when really they’re just dudes in “feminist” drag, or that “feminism” means that every woman has to kick-ass and take names. And she’s right about that, but I took exception to the idea that “a movie about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows a real person that we can empathize with.” I used the example of Bella Swan in Twilight – she’s a weak, vulnerable character throughout much of the series, and many young girls related to her, but she’s not feminist AT ALL. Natalie’s caveat about “empathy” is a very ends-justifying-the-means mode of feminism. Anyway, when Natalie was on the red carpet for Thor 2 in London, she was asked again about feminism:
Natalie Portman says “feminism is misinterpreted” in Hollywood because women’s roles are often “just a fantasy of a male writer”.
Speaking at the world premiere of Thor: The Dark World in London’s Leicester Square, the US actress said that her character is feisty, but female action heroes should not have to “kick butt”.
“I don’t think that’s necessarily feminist to see women like we see men in movies,” she said.
“Just having a range of different ways women can be … weak and strong … just being real is more feminist than ‘she knows how to do kung fu’.”
But the Oscar-winning actress joked that she rather enjoyed slapping her co-star Chris Hemsworth in the film.
“She gives Thor a piece of her mind and a piece of her hand, for all the women out there who had a guy who did not call them back,” she said.
Thor: The Dark World is a Marvel comic adaptation and there is some pressure from the fans to make the film “authentic”.
But Hemsworth and Portman explained that some changes were necessary to bring the story up to date. Commenting on why her character is a scientist rather than a nurse, Portman said: “The Marvel comic books were written a few decades ago and obviously women are still wonderful nurses now, but they’ve also entered into different careers like astrophysics.”
She added: “To reflect the changing times we also have cell phones in the movie.”
Ugh. There’s a difference between writing a character with physical strength and kick-ass abilities and writing someone intellectually compelling, but still… I feel like Natalie is trying to subtly shade all of the actresses who do want to play the action-heroine roles. Is this a subtle dig at Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow? I think Black Widow is more feminist than “the girlfriend” of Thor. Go ahead and yell at me. I’ll wait.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I agree with her. I understand the Bella example you’re giving and I loathe Twilight, but I think her point is that there should be opportunities for women to play all kinds of well-developed and compelling female characters, and Bella isn’t one of those.
One of the most irritating things about feminism/gender norms is the perception that women being more like “typical” men is “empowering” but men (or even women!) being more like “typical” women is still looked down upon. It still places masculinity on a pedestal, it’s just that women are “allowed” to be masculine. I could go on forever, so /endrant for now.
I totally agree
Totally! Feminism is about equality with the genders, not that one is better. It’s commonly thought that women doing masculine things, in a masculine way, is feminist but just further instills that masculine is better in some way than feminine. All genders should be equally free to be who they are, and almost ironically without gender based labels.
Perfect reply, brilliant!
I agree with her too. Hillary CLinton doesn’t need to act like a man to be a good candidate for president; she shouldn’t be shamed for feminine qualities. Obama doesn’t need to act white to be electable–he shouldn’t be shamed for acknowledging the African American community. Natalie is saying we can have feminine qualities and THAT makes us feminists–we don’t need to emulate masculine ones.
Let’s not forget, she did go to Harvard. She’s not an idiot by any measure.
Completely agree! Feminism loses support from a lot of women when it sends the message that strength and liberation go hand in hand with more masculine attitudes and behaviors.
I’m totally on board, too. I see feminism as equality. Should women be able to fill the kick ass roles? Yes, absolutely. But to infer that men are not emotional or whatever is bullshit. It sounds to me like Portman is saying that characteristics we consider “feminine” are not inherently bad, and not necessarily inherently female either.
I don’t see what Bella Swan has to do with any of this. Yes, she’s an awful, weak character, but it isn’t because she’s emotional. It’s because she has no interest in being her own person.
I agree with what people are saying here, but I just want to point out that traditional feminism wasn’t pushing the concept of acting like men. It’s this crazy little thing called “post-feminism” that purports that. Similar to consumer feminism in which you are apparently empowered by what you buy, the idea that feminism=acting like men is just another twisted form of the patriarchy. Most feminists who really understand feminism are humanists who see that the patriarchy is bad for both men and women. Therefore, we need new templates for everyone.
@MaiGirl, I agree!
I think Black Widow is more feminist than “the girlfriend” of Thor.
ITA
Thank you
Except that reducing women who are in relationships with men to “just the gf” and negating their own agency and POV is terribly problematic. So….whatever.
Exactly Andrea. I don’t get why we have to belittle one to make the other more valid.
Feminism is about ending sexist oppression, not pitting women against each other for who is more worthy of that title.
She’s right. A feminist character doesn’t have to kick butt, or show traits associated with men to be admired. It also made me think of Kristen Shaw’s sexy Halloween costume for men “Hollywood producer who hires women over 40 for meaningful, age appropriate roles” on the Daily Show.
The problem is exactly this- these are the options we are reduced to. There just simply needs to be MORE. More complex, multi-dimensional female characters. Right now, given that dearth of representation, we are compelled to be and to root for the “strong” representation. (Which I personally love.) I think we’re afraid to write/celebrate anything less than that superwoman archetype because of how uneven the playing field still is, and how few representations we have to choose from.
Exactly. We either have the girlfriend/wife character to the male hero or we have the “kickass” character.
And that’s it. Nothing in between.
I want to see female characters be allowed to be as complex as their male counterparts, that is weak, strong, unlikeable, selfish, irritating, nice, funny, boring, generous, stupid, etc.
Basically I want complex female characters.
@Myrto the only thing I disagree with you about is the comment that there are only girlfriend/wife to the hero or the kickass character. Look at characters like Erin Brockovich. Look at Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, she played a character we loved and hated at the same time. Yes she was a shrude business woman but she also came off as a bit vunerable. She had different layers to her. Look at the show Elementary, Joan Watson is almost equal to Holmes in her intellect and ability to help solve cases. He looks at her as a valuable asset because of her speacial abilities, not just because she’s a hot piece of ass. So there are roles out there for women that goes beyond gf to hero or kickass women.
@V4real Heehee, “almost equal.” No, I kid. That just made me giggle. But I think what the heart of the problem is, in any one piece of work, there is usually just the one female archetype or another. Sometimes two, but really only one complex female character, and the other one a flat stereotype of some sort. There just needs to be more representation in each show/movie/comic/etc. Not just one good one in each episode or movie.
@Lolo I get what you’re saying but perhaps the problem lies with the male dominance of Hollywood. Most script writers are male and we are seeing things from a male perspective. The same argument can be made for why we do not have enough positive roles for African Americans. Why do AA always have to play the slaves, the thugs, the drug abuser or the sidekick to the female character in a romantic film. Basically it’s an uneven playing field from the start.
But to say there are only movies with gf to heroes or just kickass women is false.
Lolo-ology, I completely agree with your comment 100%, every word!!!!!! Very well said!
Especially the “daarth of representation” part!
V4Real, I think you are correct about the root of the under-representation. Variety had stats from 2010 about females in the industry, and they show that when a man writes a script, less than 25% of the characters are female. When a woman writes a script, 49% of the characters are female on average.
The same trend continues into the genders of the directors, etc. Who is working behind the scenes is reflected by who is on screen and how they are presented.
Isn’t she some kind of a scientist in Thor? That’s very cool, IMO.
Seriously. But she doesn’t wear a skintight leather catsuit and fly around in the air, so she’s antifeminist, I guess.
That photo with Tom makes me melt. Hopefully he didnt rub off too much of his makeup onto her shirt!
I see this as a comment on those writing the female characters, not the actresses playing them.
YES. I kinda got into this point a little bit in the comment above. 🙂
Agreed J.eyre. But if she were more upfront about this we’d be reading about how ungrateful she is,….
If it comes to decide between Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson in what feminism is concerned (in their acting career I mean), then team Portman all the way!
I love Black Widow but yes, it is problematic to pretend that she’s more feminist than Jane simply bc she physically beats the crap out of people and Jane is a woman in a career.
And please don’t fall into the trap of “just the gurufriend” crap. Many of these comic narratives feature amazing women that totally subvert the “girlfriend” trope bc these women are heroes and inspirations on their own. Lois Lane was the flat out co-star and female hero of the Superman franchise for years on television and in comics. A partner in every respect and Clark’s hero in the narrative just as he was the worlds. Mary Jane Watson was the anchor for Peter Parker through years of comic books and a woman who’s POV was a values piece of the story. Thor didnt always have this with Jane. But they clearly are trying to give Jane her own values POV in the narrative and I think that’s something to celebrate and not something to disparage.
There is room for both. We need women in action movies who have superpowers and physically kick butt. But it’s equally as dangerous to feminism to pretend that physical power is the only way to be the equal of a strong man or make an impact. The human women in these stories who don’t wear sexy costumes (that yes, we’re designed to appeal to men) are often equally as feminist and are often able to stand outside the male gaze. I think that’s all she’s saying.
Good comment. +1
Lois Lane is a terrible example!
An “investigative journalist” who spends extensive quality time with both and can’t tell that Clark Kent and Superman are the same guy?!!
At least Natalie’s Jane Foster (in Thor) is an astrophysicist who seems competent at her job…
You know it would help if you knew what you were talking about before making such a dumb comment.
Lois Lane was a career woman in 1938 before that was acceptable. She was an assertive figure who ran into danger when women were often portrayed as passive. She always knew that Clark was Superman and for years set out to prove it. She was often the ::only one::: who knew.
She knew who he was for 30+ years in the modern comics and Man of Steel followed through with that which was one of the strengths in their flawed film. Lois Lane was a feminist inspiration for a lot of female characters you see in narratives.
You wouldn’t have Pepper Potts as the CEO of Stark industries or Gwen Stacy as a brilliant student or Jane Foster as a scientist if Lois hasn’t already fought that battle decades earlier —/often as the true co-star of the narrative and hero in her own right.
If you are going to snark about comic books at least know what you are talking about.
@Andrea:
And yet Natalie Portman is talking about how the characters are portrayed in HOLLYWOOD.
In every film/TV adaptation of the Superman story Lois Lane has been pretty much relegated to rescue-candy.
What the character was in 1938 has been deemed largely irrelevant by the movie money men…
Andrea I just want to say imagine if there were no movies that featured women in action roles then we would be complaining about why we don’t see women doing action type films.
Also remember Portmam was pretty kickass in Jane Got A Gun, She was no slouch in the Star Wars Episode films. She was pretty tough in V for Vendetta to endure torture and I try my best to forget the horrible Your Highness. Her career also took off when she played a tough little girl in The Professional. So now maybe that she’s an oscar winner she might be throwing a bit of shade.
+1 Ms. Portman is referring to feminism as a matter of equality with no action movie cliche limitations- everywoman relateable. I agree, most females have little interest in wearing latex costumes with guns on the thigh. Wouldn’t fly at my office.
And let’s face it: the only way we accept women kicking ass in action movies is if they look “hot” for men as they do it. Sexy costumes. Huge chest. Sultry gaze. It’s always sexualized. I really do appreciate seeing women in these movies that aren’t sexualized bc sometimes it just feels like if you want to save the world as a woman you better wear a catsuit or a bathing suit!
I relate more to the human female heroes in these stories. Lois Lane was my hero growing up. She helped saved the world while wearing a business suit doing her job. As a kid, I really responded to that. And I’m happy that the Thor franchise is taking the time to expand on Jane.
And let us not forget that these female action heroes are always wearing ridiculous sexualized outfits that would never be practical for actual battle. Chain mail bikinis, high heel boots, latex cat suits , or those silly armored cleavage enhancing corsets you see in Thor.
Edit: I see you already made that point above….
It is interesting to me that a lot of older films and stories are better for feminism that what comes out nowadays. The Wizard of Oz for gods sake. Lois Lane, yes. Even James Bond’s original “Bond babe” Vesper Lynde wore a pants suit and had a real career.
Ellen Ripley is one of my favourites , it’s a shame you can’t see characters like that anymore.
To be fair Jolie was kickass in Salt and Wanted, without a costume or tight fitting clothing. Mr. and Mrs. Smith showed Angie to be as powerful as Brad and she did not wear a costume or tight clothing. Uma Thurman wasn’t all about the tight costume s in Kill Bill. Trinity wasn’t sexualized in The Matrix franchise. Look at the four women in Tarantino”s Death Proof, they didn’t play on sex at all and was dressed in regular attire.
I say this because of the comment s about women superheroes in tight costumes. Let”s be fair male superheroes wear tight spandex as well. Women were going crazy over Evans ass in his CA spandex. Batman wears a tight latex suit. Look at Superman, that’s a tight suit. In the Fantastic Four films the men spandex was just as tight as the female played by Alba. Look at the original XMen franchise they were equally matched when they suited up in their tight spandex jumpsuits. All I’m saying is that in the supethero movies the male and the female heroes wear tight fitting attire. Hawkeye leather pants were just as tight as Widow’s. In her defense we didn’t see any cleavage either.
@V4Real – i dont think that we cn compare the role of male super heroes in their spandex costumes vs female, as they’re not starting on a level playing field. These are movies written, directed, and produced by men, for a majority male audience.
true Bella is not a good role model but i dont think characters need to be good role models.
you can also take a look at male action stars. they are hardly deep with interesting traits. they only kick ass and their only feelings are revenge and rage.
im aware that a super sensitive action star would most likely not work but its also very stereotypically macho.
I always felt like Natalie Portman was miscast as the girlfriend of Thor. I’m hoping they end the “relationship” they have in this new movie. They have zero chemistry. Maybe Dennings and Portman should have switched roles, at least that would be a hot match.
I agree, she has zero chemistry with Hemsworth and her acting was annoying in Thor 1. If she is so keen on “real” roles, why is she taking on the role of a GF of a burly superhero in a genre fantasy movie.
I thought her scene with Mila Kunis was off putting, not because it was a female on female sex scene, but just because it was so badly done. Portman is such a constipated, try hard actress. But to me the whole movie was terribly pretentious and laughably unbelievable.
Has she ever had any chemistry with anyone?
Mila kunis
The only thing Portman has chemistry with is her Oscar.
Except kat dennings is incredibly annoying and a mediocre actress. I have no idea why people like her or her terrible show and Darcy is a complete waste in Thor. The cliche comic relief that is somehow still not funny.
I agree Natalie was kinda miscast. As stunning as she is her and hemsworth have zero chemistry. I haven’t seen thor 2 yet so maybe it’s gotten better.
re: Kat Dennings. Thank you! She’s bloody useless in the films and that t.v show she’s in is horrible too
Arrrrgh please enough on the feminism talk..
Yeah guys let’s talk football!
I actually agree with her for once.
+1
Arrrrgh please enough on the feminism talk..
Is that the only thing female stars are asked about??
Hollywood is notoriously sexist and ageist towards women and this bleeds into our entire culture. Why do you have such a problem with women finally talking about it?
Almost ever single “sweetheart” type actress like Roberts, Lawrence, Aniston, Witherspoon, and then even more lesser stars have talked about feminism to try to seem so “I’m all about standing up for you women” but they aren’t willing to go further than that.
They’re just using feminism to make themselves seem cool. Notice how actresses who really embody the feminist ideal like Meryl Streep, Angelina Jolie, etc. don’t ever really talk about feminism.
Maybe they don’t because they are privileged with roles?
I think it is a big assumption to say ” they don’t go further than that”. I know that there are many actresses out there who use their production companies to further female stories as well as writers/directors/etc. because they are needed behind the scenes as well. I know Bullock, Garner, Witherspoon, etc. do this (as well as others who I can’t directly talk about).
Gina Davis started “See Jane” an organization that focuses on the way women are represented in film and tv. Most notably, she focuses on the fact that men out number women on screen something like 6-1, even worse after age 40.
These actresses who complain about Hollywood being ageist, are all over 40. When they were young and getting lots of movie roles, they weren’t complaining then. They made lots of money from Hollywood’s sexist, ageist industry. Many of these actresses (Meg Ryan, for example) had very little acting talent at all; they were just cute and pretty. Meg Ryan was washed up after age 40, as many others in her ranks were. The actresses who had real talent, like Susan Sarandon, kept going strong.
“The actresses who had real talent, like Susan Sarandon, kept going strong”
Except the statistics don’t back that up. If you look at men and women in movie and tv, after age 40 men make up about 70% of the characters. Quality of talent makes no difference.
@Emma,
Then you don’t know Meryl Streep very well. She donated $1mil dollars to the National Women’s History Museum and is a major player in raising funds for the project. Streep stated,”I think that that memory of when we were disenfranchised is important to learn.”
As far as Jolie? She takes it to an extreme. When filming “Salt” she commented that they had to make the movie “darker and we had to make it meaner than the boys.” Why? Then the woman just becomes a caricature. Women can be strong and win battles without being absurdly written. Jolie has perpetuated the notion that a woman must portray herself as the biggest badass in to be an action hero.
But let’s face it, any woman with a pretty face will have to be meaner or get dirtier to get those roles. If they don’t, they won’t be taken seriously. And that is just another problem they face.
Elle i think what emma is trying to say is that these women don’t keep talking about it but go ahead and do it,which is very important because actions speak louder than words.
Uh, I’m pretty sure to be labelled an “action hero” the character, male or female, by definition, has to “kick butt”.
I don’t think it’s a dig at anyone. But it is true that it seems these days female characters are only deemed “feminist” if they can physically kick ass.
@EmmaV1: Regarding your claim that “sweetheart” type actresses talk about feminism to try to seem as if they are all for women, then do not take it any further. I wonder if you could provide examples?…I’m not trying to be bitchy, I’m truly curious. Could you provide facts to support your claim?.
One of my fictional heroes Miss Piggy used Kung-Fu all the time. Sometimes it’s necessary~like to kick down that fug skirt Natalie’s wearing??? One well placed ‘hiya!’ would fix that whole sad sad situation.
Yeah, feminism for me really means being ‘allowed’ to be whatever you want to be. My favorite ‘feminists’ right now are the girls over at hotmessmoves on youtube.
The problem with Jane Foster is that she is just there as a GF– she’s a scientist and has all kinds of potential, but from the moment Thor shows up, it’s all about him. Even her research becomes all about joining him again. Thor 1 did *not* pass the Bechdel Test. (Google if you are not familiar– it’s a test that most films fail completely, and it says a lot).
This in my opinion is the problem. It takes a lot more than throwing in some kung fu or making the GF be a scientist to allow female characters to have some complexity and stories that go beyond the boyfriend story. Hollywood is still churning out Dating Game stories, and lets itself off the hook because it threw in some kung fu for the girls. So I get what NP is saying.
I’ve heard of the test..didn’t know its name. Thanks.
I thought it just squeaked a pass. There are a couple of Jane/Darcy interactions that aren’t about a guy (some science babble and Darcy complaining that SHIELD stole her ipod).
They’re not in-depth conversations by any means, and the female characters are all very much stock-standard clichés (I agree Jane turns into GenericGirlFriend as soon as Thor appears), but I’d give it a D rather than an outright F.
I agree. I’ll go one further for Thor II: Jane goes to Asgard. Thor is about to ascend to the throne. Jane is staying at the palace and wearing beautiful gowns and fine jewels. (Online images) This subplot looks like a Cinderella story. If Jane marries Thor she becomes princess of Asgard and eventually queen consort. I think Natalie is talking in terms of her character is this: does Jane put on the glass slipper or does she remain on Earth to keep her career?
Natalie’s source material:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters
Here’s a quote:
“But the phrase “Strong Female Character” has always set my teeth on edge, and so have many of the characters who have so plainly been written to fit the bill.
I remember watching Shrek with my mother.“The Princess knew kung-fu! That was nice,” I said. And yet I had a vague sense of unease, a sense that I was saying it because it was what I was supposed to say.
She rolled her eyes. “All the princesses know kung-fu now.
”No one ever asks if a male character is “strong”. Nor if he’s “feisty,” or “kick-ass” come to that. The obvious thing to say here is that this is because he’s assumed to be “strong” by default.”
…and it goes on. I doubt she intended to shade anyone. She was just making a point that came straight from the article.
The problem as I see it is that she is equating “kicking butt” only as masculine and that women who kick butt must only be emulating men.
THAT fallacy is what’s limiting women’s roles, not the roles themselves.
There are plenty of women who kick butt who are REAL people, representing them on screen is a good thing, and long over due.
Now it’s time to write complex characters who kick ass and happen to be women.
THANK YOU!! I can’t believe people are too blind to see this.What about women who love to kick butt?are they not real people too?Men aren’t the only ones allowed/able to kick butts!.If no woman was ever given a kick-ass role then these same women would be complaining about that.
What? Nobody is blind to this. The whole point is that it should go further and not have strong female roles LIMITED to the kung fu ladies.
I’m interpreting her comments from an entirely different angle than most of you.
Portman always gives socio-political slants to her characters because I think she truly thinks she’s playing groundbreaking roles every.freaking.movie.
She suffers from a a type A personality, where everything has to be perfect and with everything she does she has to be single-handedly revolutionizing the entertainment industry. What’s amusing is that she can’t even act that well, much less deliver a memorable performance (apart from her the Professional). I’ll be happy when she starts to fade–along with her other crappy-acting peers–and maybe we’ll get some respite.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. If Portman were famous for being a SW nerd fantasy and self-aware, that would be one thing. But she is famous for being a SW nerd fantasy, and genuinely buys her own hype that she is a breath of fresh air in an intellectually stagnant industry…which just makes her eye-rollingly obnoxious.
Thank god this woman is on a timer–she is certainly not famous for her acting ability or her decorous persona, and I do not see a Meryl/Helen/Sig-like longevity for her career. She–and her pretentious attitude cramming every freaking magazine on the rack– will be caput the second her middle age years start to show in about a decade.
WTF? It sounds like she is trying to justify this pretty flimsy role.
1)Her character is in the film for maybe 10 minutes
2) She has nothing to do and nothing important to really say
3)they make her a scientist so that the character seems important
4)And then she slaps Loki and Thor to make her seem strong.
And that’s a pretty good (bad?) example of the pseudo-strength that Portman is trashing here.
Exactly!
Honestly, if being a feminist means being anything like Natalie Portman, then I don’t want to be a feminist.
I do like seeing female characters with battle scenes and action scenes, but I also agree that female characters don’t have to always be physically strong, kick ass, and be aggressive in order to be empowering or feminist. Although I would hate it if a female character could only be a powerless Princess Peach who needs to be rescued by her boyfriend (not that I don’t love the Mario games).
My favorite type of female character is one who is relatable and well-rounded- she has strengths and weaknesses and quirks, and especially one who is supernatural or magickal in some way.
Nat portman has supported a rapist director giving her full support for him not to be prosecuted. When she came out in public to do that she lost all credit to me to say she is a feminist.
I’m sorry, Miss Portman, but defending a known and convicted child rapist and then allowing him to film you wrestling another woman (after she sensually sniffs your neck) on the ground over a perfume bottle…is not feminist. Period.
One does not need to know Kung Fu in order to be a strong female character…that doesn’t high school the last time she played a strong female character in any movie that celebrated female empowerment (which, no, Mrs “I went to school in Boston” Millipeid, is not the same thing as Kung Fu chick movies).
Pathologically chosing weak women roles is one thing, but trying to justify it by claiming that your roles are ‘still feminist’ is just pathetic. It’s just her typical have my cake and eat it too attitude. No matter what…Natalie Portman is never wrong!
No offense to all you strong powerful women out there but I don’t get why labeling someone as feminist is that important. At the end of the day, isn’t being a good person matters more? I’m so sick of reading all these feminist thing.
+1
It’s become tiresome for me too.
Growing up with a mother who worked her way up the corporate ladder and a grand mother who seemed more comfortable learning new recipes and cleaning house I never really related to the concept of feminism. I mean I understood the idea of breaking the confining mold of what women were previously locked into by society. But seeing women in my everyday life happily filling varied roles sort of robbed me of the passion behind the wave.
It was much much later that I started to recognize a ceiling and boundary that still exists held there primarily by men.
What disappoints me is the fact that younger women today are falling into a kind of warped trap where they believe that being sexually promiscuous or provocative is inherently empowering when they are actually being exploited by big businesses run by or catering to men. Women are being fed lines about feminist freedom while being violently exploited.
Spot on, I agree with her. Real strength is in the heart and mind. For both sexes actually.