Feminine Masculinity: The Rise of Women in Action Films
This vision of the working class, suburban male as a money-driven individual whose success comes from flexing corporate muscle rather than body muscle fits into the idea that males are no longer defined by the macho characteristics associated with the Reagan-Bush ‘80s. The emergence of this kind of re-defined male has a strong correlation with the rise in and acceptance of females in masculine roles in the media. “Girl-power flicks like Charlie’s Angels, Crouching Tiger, and Tomb Raider are topping the $100 million mark once dominated by men like Schwarzenegger”. (1) She also mentions the very poor box office numbers from the recent films of Schwarzenegger and Stallone.
There is obviously a strong correlation between the changing roles of men in society and the decreased success of hard-body action films but there is also a strong change in the roles of females. With the rise of the self-sufficient woman, the male-defying woman, the single mother, the working class female and the female bosses in society there has been a rise of women in film who are meet these same characteristics.
The successful female action films up until recently have featured what were essentially women playing men. Sigourney Weaver as Ripley in the first two Alien films, Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Brigette Nielsen in Red Sonya were women who shared similar characteristics: strong, muscular, hard-edged and essentially masculine characters who wield large guns and swords as though they are substitute phalluses. They are not overtly sexual beings but instead are women who can step into roles that could easily be occupied by men.
The women in films such as Charlie’s Angels, Tomb Raider, and Crouching Tiger have progressed from feminized-masculinity to sexy, attractive women who are genuinely skilled with their bodies. As men no longer have to be hard-bodies in order to succeed on film, neither do women. Films like Charlie’s Angels are gratuitous in their depictions of the female body. The curves rather than the muscles are emphasized.
The women in these films have developed their bodies to become supreme sexual beings, capable of attracting sexual attention and being able to out-fight anyone who doesn’t like it. The success of this kind of female could be attractive to the new American male who has accepted the new ideal of masculinity. But can these films be attractive to females? Mencimer doesn’t believe so. She argues that “the feminist critics are right: Women are still only be allowed to be violent within certain parameters largely proscribed by what men are willing to tolerate”. (5)
There is obviously a strong correlation between the changing roles of men in society and the decreased success of hard-body action films but there is also a strong change in the roles of females. With the rise of the self-sufficient woman, the male-defying woman, the single mother, the working class female and the female bosses in society there has been a rise of women in film who are meet these same characteristics.
The successful female action films up until recently have featured what were essentially women playing men. Sigourney Weaver as Ripley in the first two Alien films, Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Brigette Nielsen in Red Sonya were women who shared similar characteristics: strong, muscular, hard-edged and essentially masculine characters who wield large guns and swords as though they are substitute phalluses. They are not overtly sexual beings but instead are women who can step into roles that could easily be occupied by men.
The women in films such as Charlie’s Angels, Tomb Raider, and Crouching Tiger have progressed from feminized-masculinity to sexy, attractive women who are genuinely skilled with their bodies. As men no longer have to be hard-bodies in order to succeed on film, neither do women. Films like Charlie’s Angels are gratuitous in their depictions of the female body. The curves rather than the muscles are emphasized.
The women in these films have developed their bodies to become supreme sexual beings, capable of attracting sexual attention and being able to out-fight anyone who doesn’t like it. The success of this kind of female could be attractive to the new American male who has accepted the new ideal of masculinity. But can these films be attractive to females? Mencimer doesn’t believe so. She argues that “the feminist critics are right: Women are still only be allowed to be violent within certain parameters largely proscribed by what men are willing to tolerate”. (5)
|
|