Alright, this is the review by Liza Schwarzbaum from EW for Killers. I thought in some ways it speaks to the ladies in action movies. It also made me want to give Charlie's Angels a little slack, and to decompress the whole totally feminist anti-feminist, which I feel like has been a trend lately (I could rant about that... maybe later... it's a lot of rant, but it includes feeling angry about girls who are angry about how pretty they are)
Ok, quote:
I could explore any one of those components further. But I prefer to go with a dissection of the wreck that is Heigl's character, Jen. In the course of 100 minutes, Jen is presented as 1) a lonely, uptight loser (disguised by the flawless body and blonde prettiness of the star who plays her) who has been recently dumped by a man; 2) an infantilized adult woman whose parents micromanage her life; 3) a ditzy girl-woman who knows how to wear sexy lingerie but not how to own her sexuality; 4) a competent working woman (she does something corporate that requires her to wear sleek, feminine office-wear) who gets flustered when asked to make an important presentation; 5) a stereotypical girly-girl who unhelpfully screams EEEEEEEEEEE!!! when she and her husband face danger and who demands answers to her questions at really inopportune times like when the couple are being shot at; 6) a woman who's too gullible; 7) a woman who's impractical; 8) a female character who chews noisily on junk food in the movie world's universal lazy symbol for unladylike behavior; 8) a woman who handles a firearm as if it were a snake; 9) a wife who requires ''managing'' by her husband; and 10) a female character stapled together with every dispiriting, routinely accepted trait so popular and so soul-killing in the female characters we find in CARCs like Killers.
This could probably also be another one of those tests we did. A strong/nuanced/ interesting female character can show NONE of these qualities. Long live heteronormative cliches.
No comments:
Post a Comment