So what gives? Because this trend has been touched upon by popular media outlets (including a recent NYT piece on the subject), and rather than undertake a full-on analysis that overdoes it and eviscerates any joy from these movies, I’ll just shoot my mouth off on a couple of intriguing aspects on both these films and the NYT article.
First, I think it’s no surprise that we as a culture are fascinated with young women kicking ass. I don’t think, as A.O. Scott posits, that it’s about our “deep anxiety about female sexuality.” My guess is it’s mostly the irony. Young women are not inherently threatening (unless, of course, you’re another teenage girl, but that’s another topic). So when a petite blonde is paired with deadly ninja killing skills, we’re caught off guard and that’s intriguing. It’s kind of like our current national obsession with Betty White: we like our sweet, little old ladies, but we like them better when they drop f-bombs. As an audience, we want surprise. We want the unexpected.
The fact that each of these girls is mentored by a male figure — usually dear old Dad –- has been hailed as a major problem with these films, but I don’t take too much issue with that. I see it as a sort of passing of the torch by male on-screen characters to the next generation of female characters. Maybe by the time Evelyn Salt has kids, she’ll be the one passing the torch. Until then, we’ve got the men. More problematic is that these films need to invent a really good reason to drive women to violence to be violent. To be a badass girl in these films you’ve either been raped, almost raped, misused by the government, or getting revenge for your father. These are the things that drive women to violence. It has to be pretty extreme. I’d like to see a female action star who didn’t badly need an appointment with her therapist.
I will take issue with one particular point, which is Manohla Dargis’ statement: “It’s tricky whenever a woman holds a gun on screen.” Great, are guns officially off limits for women in movies? Can we never have a depiction of a woman with a gun that’s anything other than fraught with problematic problemy problemness?
Perhaps it’s my Texan upbringing, but I like to think of guns as a sort of great equalizer. Put an average adult woman and an average adult man in a steel cage match and ask them to go at it mano-a-mano, and odds are the man will win. Extend that to hand-to-hand combat that involves fighting with pointy objects — long swords, katana, clubs, etc. — and again, the guy is probably going to win. Give a man and a woman a grenade, bomb or gun and that difference begins to decline. Admittedly, I am WAY over-generalizing here, but I’ll say it anyway, guns have the great potential to render irrelevant differences in physiology between men and women when it comes to on-screen conflict, and that’s important for movies.
Because let’s face it, short of being blessed with a supernatural gift (a la Buffy) or a DNA booster shot (Hanna), a story line set within more conventional boundaries needs to have women using guns if we want
the women to have a fighting chance. I don’t think creating movies where the female characters use guns is any sort of betrayal, and I say how dare you to those who equate using that as some sort of acquiescence to the patriarchy. I have the same kind of special loathing for those who claim that female filmmakers shouldn’t be working using the same storytelling techniques and tropes as male filmmakers, that they have to go out and invent a female cinema. How dare you.
As I descend from my digital soapbox, let me recap.
Girls kicking ass?
More irony than anxiety.
Their daddy mentors?
Possibly patronizing, but ultimately redeemable.
Their emotional baggage?
Troubling.
The use of guns by female characters?
Priceless.
On the whole, this is a trend which, even at its worst (see my previous article on Sucker Punch), I’ll embrace. I don’t think we have the perspective to understand this and unpack it now, and won’t for another 10 to 20 years. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it, but it does mean we should stay away from any definitive and divisive conclusions. Because maybe at the end of the day it’s just selfish. Maybe it’s as simple as saying that for my $14 when I go to the movies, I wanna see more women because I just want to see protagonists that look like me.
End scene.
****
maybe if we read guns as being major phallic symbols (or small ones — but does size really matter?), the whole thing is an unintentional reference to women seeking revenge by giving their violators a taste of their own medicine. i totally agree with the idea of it being a passing of the torch, as well as with the irony factor, but part of me can’t help but wonder if female action stars just feed into some unconscious part of the male psyche that wants to be dominated. the fact that these women are nearly always sexualized/objectified (save for Hanna and maybe Chloe Moretz (which is debatable, given her disconcerting school-girl duds)), but also carry guns makes me think that these movies are every closeted S&M-loving dude’s secret fantasy-escape.
the only film i can think of where the armed female lead isn’t sexualized in the slightest is The Silence of the Lambs — that whole scene in the murderer’s dungeon is unbelievably feminist and gender-issue-driven, and pretty much rips apart the idealized formulation of the kind of protagonist in question.
…i’ve lost my train of thought. and my apologies for the rambling: i recently turned in about 30-pages worth of gender-themed film analyses. ay, caramba.
I think it makes sense that girls with guns have “problematic problemy problemness”. It’s just a formula, and also, young good looking girls who kick ass and have daddy issues may be just what happens to sell. Yeah it sucks, but I know there are definitely some films out there where the girl with the gun has been given a job to do (like in Mr. & Mrs. Smith or something) or is a villain… I do agree with you though, that young girls with guns is definitely unexpected.