Women Kicking Ass


We had this conversation once before, wherein I claimed that the trope of the woman who can fight and straight up beat a male opponent is a kind of sexual fantasy. I was just reading this short article from Cracked.com about prejudices that still show up in films, and came across a bit about how the tough ass-kicking woman in a movie (they cite Michelle Rodriguez) has to die, while the tough-ass kicking woman who wins at the end is prettier and more traditionally feminine. While not precisely the same thing perhaps, I think it tends to support my argument. I offer this, not necessarily to re-open the debate, but for your amusement and consideration.

An excerpt and the link:



For a woman, it means she has to die -- over and over and over again,
each time making way for the petite model to take down the villain with
her Waif-Fu
instead. That's the phrase TV Tropes coined to describe the martial art
that allows a woman to thrash trained soldiers twice her size while
having no musculature on her frame at all. It's considered empowering
when Joss Whedon includes ass-kicking females in everything he writes,
but when he needs a badass kung fu killing machine, he casts the pretty,
wispy Summer Glau.

Read more: 5 Old-Timey Prejudices That Still Show Up in Every Movie | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_19549_5-old-timey-prejudices-that-still-show-up-in-every-movie.html#ixzz1dtLfX3be

Of course, one could make the argument that for the hero(ine) to triumph (s)he needs to overcome great odds, and using the more feminine actress for that role accomplishes this. I think its a valid and true argument. One could also argue (as I do) that there is an underlying masochism for men to seeing a woman open the proverbial can of whup-ass on a big strong male. One can see it easily if one has read much pornography.

Comments


  • I think it's in the presentation. you can't say that having a female superhero is intrinsically pornographic, but when a movie (or comic) depicts them in a sexualized way, often decked out in fetish clothing it becomes so. Having these women beat up exclusively men, sure, that's a masochistic fantasy. Having them beat up women is jelly wrestling. But again, it's in the presentation. 

    Now find me a movie about a female superhero that doesn't do this.

    Compare and contrast Ripley from the Alien movies. She's never sexualized by the camera, whether she is fighting monsters or crewing a spaceship. She's never Pretty For the Camera. She has the foundation of being a genuine character, rather than a "spinny killbot" (to borrow from John Scalzi). she doesn't have a cute name, and is in fact known almost exclusively by her surname. 

    Now consider that, in the original ALIEN screenplay, the character of Ripley is male.
  • Although in the article, Ripley is presented as an example of the more attractive female being the one who lives while the less attractive woman is among the dead. And if you didn't think final scenes with her stripping down to her undies was sexy, then you were too young when you saw it :)

    But indeed, contradictory things can both be true, especially in the arts.

    I like the term, jelly wrestling.

  • I guess it's "jello wrestling" for you North Americans... :)
  • I don't think Weaver was any better looking than Veronica Cartwright in the first one. Aliens is another matter.
  • edited November 2011
    It's been a while since I saw ALIEN, but wasn't the other woman more of a screamy girly-girl as opposed to Ripleys toughness? In my book, ALIEN subverts the cliché. As for how attractive both were, that's subjective, of course. The question is, how feminine were they?

    Michelle Rodiguez, of course, is a very good example. Again, eye of the beholder, but she does come across as less feminine than, usually, most anybody in a movie, including several of the males. Also, she always dies early-on.

    On the other end of the spectrum, I used to suspend my disbelief whenever I watched NIKITA. Maggie Q just seemed way too thin for those kind of skills. Until recently she had a scene in underwear and, where I expected to see, dunno, ribs sticking out like you usually see with thin Hollywood women, she displayed quite distinct muscles. Guess she's taller than I thought. So looks may be deceiving, as far as ass-kicking skills are concerned.
  • As I recollect Alien, and it has been quite a long time. Everyone looked tired and rough around the edges, but I would say I perceived the Veronica Cartwright character (thanks Justin) as being more tired and dogged then Weaver who certainly was not portrayed as a glam queen. But then, Ripley doesn't outfight the Alien hand to hand, she uses weapons and luck.

    And Max, its your perceptions of Nikita that count, not the reality of Maggie Q's body. It is fiction.
  • edited November 2011
    imageimageimageimage

    OK, so just to test our memories of the characters, I grabbed a movie still of Weaver from early on in the movie, before her trials, and a publicity still of Cartwright, where she's looking her best. One could certainly make an argument about who was the more attractive woman... personally, I find Cartwright's strong nose to be more interesting than Weaver's upturned button, but that's neither here nor there.

    Note though, that Weaver is given long curly hair, a kind of dark halo about her head, while Cartwright's cut is shorter, tossed and dare I say it, slightly more butch than Weaver's. I think it was intended that Weaver be he more feminine of the two, whether or not that works for any of us personally. I would add that she appears to be younger, whether or not that's the reality of the two actresses.

    Of course, in later movies, they toughen her up, including the shaved head.
  • Regarding Michelle Rodriguez, it was interesting to me that she prefers and selects these kind of roles for herself.
  • I think overall it would be better for storytellers (from comics, movies, etc.) to be less cliched- especially regarding women. I constantly wonder why movies and comics insist on using the same motivations and outcomes for characters.
  • people often go to stories for their comfort factor. they want to see what's familiar.
  • Regarding Michelle Rodriguez, it was interesting to me that she prefers and selects these kind of roles for herself.
    'Cause they kick ass? Or 'cause they die early and she doesn't have to work as much?
  • I think she just doesn't like the girlfriend or damsel in distress. Read the article, she goes into it a little.
  • I got dragged to the new twilight movie this weekend (it was complete garbage if anyone is wondering) and I saw the trailer to the re-vamped snow white movie, which showed scenes of snow white as some sort of Joan of Arc character. Why must all of these re-do's involve this sort of thing? I rolled my eyes and went back to sleep.
  • Do you suppose it was Willingham who set this particular train of revamps in motion with the success of Fables?
  • Probably.  It's hard not to connect the dots from Fables to Once Upon A Time and Grimm.  But there's been a bit of it in the air lately which isn't quite so directly connected to Fables, such as Syfy doing revamps of the Alice, Dorothy, and Peter triumvirate.
  • Speaking of Twilight, Jennifer de Guzman has another angle on "empowerment" and kick-ass girls vs. girly-girls:

    http://www.jenniferdeguzman.com/2011/11/17/unpacking-empowerment/

    I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that qualities like determination and courage are somehow just "guy things", but I do take her point about Twilight being a pretty good approximation of how adolescent girls act and feel.
  • edited November 2011

    My opinion: giving a female character power, or powers, is not a substitute for making her a... you know... character. "Screaming girlfriend" or "spinny killbot"--neither of those is an actual character. 

    Giving a female character powers and dressing her up like a fetish doll is just another kind of objectification. It's not 'empowering'. 

  • edited November 2011
    Yeah, the character of Bella is kind of the antithesis of what we're discussing here, isn't it?  I also think it's a little lazy to characterize a woman with strength and aggressiveness as simply constructs of male fantasy or wish fulfillment.  J.K. Rowling created a few of them and she's a woman, isn't she?
    image
  • Amala isn't really sexualized at all. She's not that kind of character (or person). Ripley is a pretty good analogue, except a little crazier.

  • I generally try not to 'sexualize' my female characters as well. This doesn't mean that they don't have sex lives, mind...

    I've never read Twilight, or seen the films, and so I have nothing against them, per se, but I will say that it sounds to em as if the protagonist is passive. Regardless of gender, every modern screenwriting text that you will read requires protagonists to be active. A character does not have to kick ass, or even to behave in a masculine way, to be an active participant in a story. 




  • I haven't seen Twilight either, but based on my understanding of what I've read (mostly here) Bella is needy and pathetic, but not necessarily plot inactive. "I purposely put myself in danger just to hear Edward's voice."

    Her "passivity" sounds a bit like Hamlet's.
  • I'd like to throw in my two dollars worth.

    First, speaking to the waif vs butch arguement, I have a real life example. My best friend and I are both 5'4" and we can both comfortably leg press 300. My friend is a larger woman and so it doesn't really come as a surprise that she is able to do this. However I am not a large woman by contrast and people don't believe my claim, until they actually watch me do it. I know that this strays a bit from strong females as part of a sexual fantasy but I did want to point out that while it may be implausible it certainly isn't impossible for a small woman to be wiry an capable of some pretty amazing feats of strength.
    I think it is accurate that many adolescent girls identify with Bella which explains why Twilight is such a success.
    I personally think it's sad that such a large portion of our young girls feel that way but there are also a bunch of young girls who used Buffy as a role model. Not necessarily identifying with her entirely but being shown that a girl can be both strong and feminine which a lot of girls have difficulty coming to terms with.
    Do they need to use whisper thin girls to make this point? No they shouldn't have to. But extremes are easier for the media to portray than reality.
  • Having had my ass kicked in real life by women in various dojos, I'd like to toss in my 2 cents (again). Now that I think of it, there are relatively few "butch" women martial artists - most are pretty good looking, intelligent and interesting ladies. It's not really a sexualized culture, but there are some groupies that go after the Senseis. Women tended to bond closely, and some of the the higher grade female martial artists were role models for the others. There was also a contingent of gay women at my last dojo, which reflected the local culture more than anything else. And redheads - lots of redheads. 

    So yeah, you could construct a sexualized fantasy out of all that, but it would have little to do with reality. But I guess that's sort of the point of fantasy, isn't it? 
  • In reality, women can inflict damage on men and sometimes defeat them in some kind of hand to hand combat. And this gives a veneer or realism to the depictions of women taking men on this way in film and the funnies. But it doesn't change the fact most men will beat most women most of the time. Of course this fictional trope that has developed over the last few decades usually involves well trained women.

    Interesting to me is the revenge fight that Zoe Saldana has with the brute who killed her parents in Columbiana. She was(portraying) a trained assassin, but it wasn't like ScarJo as Black Widow taking out security guards while barely working up a glow. The Saldana fight was rough, nasty, and very much in doubt until the end. She could easily have lost if she wasn't the protagonist.
  • I think I mentioned it last time, but it depends on the context. I know, for sure, that despite my enormous weight advantage ( and not insignificant strength advantage) Gina Carano would kick my ass, and I am not completely without some level of boxing skill. Her skill level just outstrips my physical advantage. A woman who is actually good at a practical maritial art can kick the ass of a guy twice her size.

    Where it gets dodgy is when it's a trained woman against a trained man. That is going to favor the man. That's not even a matter of sex - most men are a good chunk bigger than most women, and stronger, and when skill levels are similar, that matters a lot. Manny Pacquiano is awesome, but a heavyweight who was never even close to being champion would put him in the hospital. Those kind of gaps are really difficult to overcome.

    Anecdotally, I routine beat people sparing that wanted to 'fight' some big even though they were objectively more skilled than me. They just weren't skilled enough to outfight mass, strength and reach.

  • Truth of the matter is that most people don't have any real skill at martial arts. A lot of people blow in and out of dojos and they pick up one or two tricks, but very few people stick around for more than a couple of years.

    In a real fight, technique is the first thing to go and unless you are really are a trained martial artist it usually comes down to size and aggression. 

     


Sign In or Register to comment.