Not your daddy’s little girl

Julia Keller, of Chicago Tribune, wrote about the current crop of unpunished dragon ladies:

They’re not meek. They’re not mild. They do as they please and they don’t play well with others. They’re misfits with moxie. And unlike the powerful female characters of a previous generation, they’re not depicted as witches, shrews, hags, evil stepmothers or shriveled-up spinsters who eventually get their comeuppance.

[...]

The new breed of brash, audacious woman has pushed into literature as well. Lisbeth Salander, heroine of the best-selling mystery novel “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” by the late Stieg Larsson, published last month in paperback by Vintage, is “prickly and irksome” but somehow still alluring: “She was like a nagging itch, repellent and at the same time tempting,” the narrator notes. With her tattoos and her piercings and her heavy boots, she’s no debutante. Instead, she’s a brilliantly efficient investigator. Ditto for Darlene O’Hara in Peter De Jonge’s “Shadows Still Remain” (2009), a sassy woman who breaks rules and gets results.

To be sure, strong women characters have been around for centuries. Antigone was no slouch, and if you knew what was good for you, you didn’t mess with Lady Macbeth. But what’s new about the current pack of powerful females is that by and large they’re not punished for their bold, pushy ways. They get by with their brassiness. From the singer Pink to Jada Pinkett Smith — who plays a purposeful, principled nurse in the new cable series “Hawthorne” — such women aren’t forced to apologize for forthrightness and verve.

[...]

Nowadays, many female characters are both pugnacious and popular. Even with a smart mouth and comically poor housekeeping skills, Hunter’s character in “Saving Grace” is not exactly hard up for male companionship. She has a rich and varied social life. She’s a party girl, able to knock back a half-dozen Budweisers and fill up a trio of ashtrays in a single night, but somehow she’s on time for work the next morning. McCormack’s character in “In Plain Sight” is notoriously short-tempered and ill-mannered, but if you’re in trouble, you want her in your corner. And she’s dating a handsome pro athlete. In the current film “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” Amy Adams portrays Amelia Earhart as bold, dauntless, daring — and sexually aggressive with Ben Stiller’s character. The self-confident Stephanie (Sandra Oh) in the 2004 film “Sideways” has no problem speaking her mind — or filling her dance card.

Why are such women showing up on our screens, pages and iPods? Tracking down a single tap root for a cultural shift is always tricky, but many of the works featuring powerful, alluring female characters — such as “Nurse Jackie” and “Saving Grace” — are created or produced by women.

Seeing that women are starting to show up in important places, the expectation may have become exceedingly high – you’re going to have to bake your cake and eat it too. Perhaps my expectation regarding the strong modern woman has been set at this level of success that it was particularly startling to see how Christine in Dragged Me To Hell was depicted in the film. It should be noted that these fierce women Keller spoke of already possessed some power to level the playing field within their context. When you have to climb your way up – keeping in mind the need to appear as a good and competent person like Christine did in the film – perhaps bulldozing wouldn’t be the preferred route. Being mindful of others’ feelings and strategic about when to speak up may still be the smart way towards movement, lateral or vertical. However, due to the increased exposure to loud and successful women, perhaps in time people would be more at ease with (rather than frightened by) women taking the bull by the horn. I know that part of my being able to work with strong willed women has to do with my attributing their tenacious manner to their personal characteristic (of a willful individual) rather than ‘taking it personally.’ Doing so may  prevent unnecessary ego injury or the imposing of moral compass, which people tend to fall into when dealing with these women. This is an up side of growing up with a strong willed woman – familiarity breeds content (or just specific competence)? Increased acceptance may eventually make the idea of ‘having it all’ less a fantasy for these women – until then, it may pose as another oppressive ideal that women feel they must live up to, being aggressive and successful, just like ‘that woman on TV.’

A modern woman dragged to hell

Alison Lohman in Drag Me To Hell

Drag Me To Hell (Raimi, 2009) opens this weekend as a counter-programming film to Disney/Pixar’s Up. For a horror film, especially considering the current crop of films in that genre, its PG-13 rating seemed a little suspect. How can a good horror film have anything less than a presumably envelop-pushing R-rating? What of violence and nudity that make up most of the genre? By the time our heroin, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), engaged in her first battle with the woman who would be placing a curse upon her (Mrs. Ganush, played with ferocity and a sense of fun by Lorna Raver), it was clear that what the film may lack in nudity and gore, it made up for it in humour and over-the-top grossed out goobs.

To be sure, there was not much here in term of plot (as expected in the genre): Christine was a loan officer who, in an attempt to prove her worthiness to her boss, made a decision to shelf away compassion (or was it really guilt?) and deny an old gypsy woman of another chance to live out the rest of her life in comfort and dignity. As an act of vengeance against what she saw as a deliberate attempt to shame her, Mrs. Ganush, after an outrageously funny and suspenseful cat fight with Christine, placed a wretched curse upon her. Christine then met with a psychic, Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) who was not only knowledgeable of the curse but also knew of whom she should ask for help from – at a negotiated price of the cold cash variety. Much haunting ensued within the three days that Chrsitine had left to prevent having her soul dragged to hell by an invisible Lamia. Of course, there was also a twist ending (that we could see miles away, but it was deliciously satisfying, nevertheless), and its conclusion underlined a strong moral statement the film seemed to take a vested interest in.

The Raimi brothers knew how to imbue their picture with a sense of humour while remaining true to the traditions of the genre. This difficult balance – winking while running on adrenaline – played itself out not only with the way the picture was filmed (music, gags, cheesy lines and sound effects were in full force, intermittently interrupted by the still scenes and slow tracking shots) but also in our heroin, Christine. Women are one of horror’s favourite subjects – most of the genre could be argued to have been built on the strength of women’s thighs and other close-by regions.  If the central character happened to be of the female variety, she would be expected to have the audience’s sympathy at least by the end of the film. Our horrified heroin is often violated against in some manners, and she would often have the higher moral ground compared to our villain(ess). In Christine, the Raimi brothers threw in their best twist and most biting comment in the film yet.

Christine was very much a picture of a modern woman, a determined social climber who, on sheer will and smarts, had gone from a chubby pork queen of a farm girl to a candidate for an assistant manager at a bank, with a young and devoted professor of psychology as her boyfriend (his name, Clay, suggested a certain boring malleability though – Justin Long was perfectly cast for once). In her first fight with Mrs. Ganush, after locking down her car windows and watching the old woman flail seemingly helplessly against the glass, she yelped victoriously from inside the car: “I BEAT you!” She was eager for self-congratulations throughout the film – she wanted so badly to beat the odds that she would prematurely celebrate any inroads. There was a certain glee in her tenaciousness and willingness to go the necessary distance to survive. No doubt in her mind she was a worthwhile heroin who would overcome and rise above life obstacles. The events that unfolded would show her to not be completely in sync with what she would like to think of herself, however.

Bond girls – celebrating 46 years of cinematic beauties

Starting with the soon-to-be-released Quantum of Solace and working back from there, these are selections of Bond girls from the 22 films.

Olga Kurylenko

Gemma Arterton

Girl Talk: Heroine & Villainess – Woman-child

Author: amberlita
Heroine: Matilda from Leon
Villainess: Suzanne Stone from To Die For

Matilda – Leon (Besson, 1994)

I didn’t intentionally choose these two characters to contrast them but in considering them afterwards, it’s worth remarking just how much they complement each other. Matilda is the woman-child, Suzanne is the child-woman. Our heroines come in all shapes and sizes and Matilda may be the only child female character I find admirable, whereas Suzanne is someone I wouldn’t piss on if she were on fire. Matilda, a poor 11 year old girl from a broken home forced to grow up faster than the years can pass, with a forceful attitude and an inner strength lacking in women 3x her age. Suzanne, a woman so spoiled and self-centered you want to put her over your knee and smack the sensibility into her with a yard stick.

Matilda is an endlessly fascinating character to me. Like every young girl she carries the desire to be a woman faster than she ought to be. Some of the shots I posted may not be familiar to folks cause they are from the Director’s Cut, where Matilda’s Lolita-like role is fleshed out in more suggestive but (thankfully) nonexplicit scenes. In the American release I could never quite decide if there was meant to be a mutually romantic note developing or if Leon’s confession of love near the end was paternalistic. In the DC it’s a bit less likely to be the latter. Matilda blatantly asks him to be her lover, a ridiculous notion and yet why shouldn’t she? She’s already acted as a mother-figure to her younger brother, suffered the loss of people she loved and hated, been forced to independence…it is not so unexpected that she seeks this as well.

Yet she’s still a child and we can always see that. She rebells, she plays dress-up, she watches cartoons. All the while exhibiting wisdom that I think most of us would lack if thrust into her situation without the tootelage of an uncaring family and unfair hand dealt. She’s a woman in her own right. Mature beyond her years and would we all have a bit of that wisdom even at our age could count ourselves lucky.

Suzanne Stone is the poster-child for vanity. She’s played perfectly by Nicole Kidman and written perfectly too, as I don’t recall a single scene where Suzanne isn’t doing or saying something to advance her career prospects which may in fact be the only thing this woman ever thinks about. She doesn’t just believe she was meant to be a star journalist, she believes she deserves to be one. Inherently, as a divine gift. Moreover, she believes you ought to feel priviledged to be a part of her ascent to superstardom. It is almost ludicrous how vane Suzanne is. I’ve never met a woman like her and I hope I never do. This is the woman women love to hate and the worst part is that she knows it. She knows what she has and that you don’t have it and that your natural reaction should be to envy her.

And she’s right, in a way. She has all the things we are trained to strive for as a woman, intentionally or not. She’s flawlessly beautiful, wealthy, married the guy all the other girls wanted, has a perfect home a perfect wardrobe, and grand career aspirations. There’s a few snags in her perfectly tailored yellow polka-dot suit though, not the least being that she’s a complete moron, lacking in the basic ability of self-analysis. It’s like Suzanne sprung from her mother’s womb already with her hair neatly tressed and skin perpetually unblemished. Suzanne’s never known herself to have a weakness and if Freud is to be believed she’s also never bothered to develop a superego. She is the center of her own universe.

I could go on and on describing her faults but ultimately this has to end. It’s not hard to see where the line becomes drawn with these two. Character isn’t born of age but of hardship. Little chicks breaking through shells. Matilda has to fight her way through and comes out the stronger for it. Suzanne has the whole thing chipped away for her and her character is crippled permanently, ultimately leading to her demise. I guess age really is just a number.

Girl Talk: Heroine & Villainess – Heroine or Villainess?

Author: Kari
Heroine: Selene from Underworld
Villainess: Selene from Underworld

Heroine or Villainess?

Selene – Underworld (Wiseman, 2003)

Everyone knows I love the Underworld movies. The lead character, a female vampire named Selene has really captured my interest and my heart. Is she a heroine, or is she a villainess, or is she just an innocent bystander caught in the middle of centuries-old lies.

Selene is a Death Dealer, a heroine to her coven, a villainess to all lycans. For the past 600 years, her job has been to seek out and destroy all lycans, the immortal enemies of the vampires. Her only reason for hunting and killing is revenge for the destruction of her family 600 years earlier. Her centuries of training have taught her the lycans are responsible for the death of her entire family. Lycans are evil and must not be permitted to live. She never once questions this information. Selene is a soldier, she does her job very well, almost too well and after 600 years, she has finally begun to question herself and her devotion to this cause.

It all starts one evening while Selene and her fellow Death Dealers are following a group of lycans. She happens upon a human, Michael, and is immediately drawn into Michael’s human innocence. At that one moment she is oblivious to the war that is happening around her. She immediately catches herself and reminds herself what her purpose is…revenge…to hunt and kill all lycans, that is all, nothing else.

Selene easily dismisses this moment as some type of school girl infatuation and continues to investigate the whereabouts of the lycans. During her investigation she realizes Michael is more than just a mere human, he is the key to her salvation. He is also the key to the lycan’s salvation and they will do anything to get him, even turn him into a lycan.

While trying to keep Michael away from the lycans, Selene forms an unusual friendship with him. She has never known love. She has never let herself love. Unbeknownst to Selene, Michael has been bitten and is now a lycan, her immortal enemy, the enemy she has sworn to hunt and kill until the entire species is eradicated. Michael is completely oblivious to the lycan/vampire war and has no idea why a strange man would bite him or why a beautiful strange woman would help him. All he knows is he is in love with Selene. With the full moon approaching, Michael begins to notice signs of the change. He turns to Selene for answers.

Upon learning the truth about Michael, Selene sets out to find answers to all those questions that have been haunting her since meeting this mysterious man. She cannot bear the fact that duty implies she kill this man, this lycan, whom she has fallen in love. Digging into the past is forbidden, however, that does not stop Selene. She needs answers, now. Through research she soon realizes her entire vampire existence is a lie.

She is not the heroine her coven has made her out to be, she is a killer. The lycans did not destroy her family, it was the vampires, her own kind. They spared her life six centuries ago, giving her immortality and turning her into a warrior, a heroine to the vampires, a villainess to all lycans, including the man she now has fallen in love with.

Selene faces the biggest challenge of her life. Does she continue on her same path, live with the lies that she has been told and kill Michael, the only person she has ever loved? Does she defy her coven and leave with Michael, her sworn enemy, or does she save Michael and the rest of his species; thereby becoming a heroine to the lycans?

Selene’s love for Michael takes over and she ends up killing her mentor, her teacher, her vampire father. The man responsible for her immortal life, the man responsible for telling her lie after lie, the elder to her own coven. She, herself, is now the immortal enemy of her coven, a villainess to her own kind. Does this make her a heroine to the lycans?