I have always really loved films, and as a GWSS minor, I love seeing films with strong female characters. Naturally, I was really thrilled to see advertisements for a new action movie by the same male director as 300. However, after watching the trailer I was a bit disappointed to se what I should have been expecting: girls dressed in fetish attire wielding knives and guns. It seems like if a movie is going to feature a female protagonist, it must portray women in a hypersexual manner. The main question to be asked is, is this movie using the womens' sexuality as a way to empower them or is it just using their sexuality to bring in a larger audience?
What's Sex Got To Do With... "Suckerpunch?"
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/145329
I completely agree with you on the sense that when I also first heard of this movie I was hoping for a more realistic portrayal of the female characters.I feel a womens' sexuality is rarely used to empower them. Even when you look at a stereotypical feminist, many conclude the image of a butch looking lesbian. It is an attempt to make women more like men. and in this movie I know they were trying to bring a chick flick and an action movie together (in an attempt to bring a larger audience) but they couldn't do so in a way that doesn't exploit the femininity of the characters. That also leads onto the question of where do we draw the line between what is acceptable to portray a woman as? In the movie "The Italian Job" the woman portrays an aggressive female but in my opinion the role doesn't subject her to such an extent of the damsel in distress, and racy clothing.