![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's funny - I found myself super-excited about Kick-Ass (which did not disappoint me), and in the months previous finally got around to reading Soon I Will Be Invincible, which is actually more superhero-genre intake for me than I am used to. (I know considering my fandom it doesn't make a lot of sense. Shut up.)
I do recommend the book, which has a well-crafted narrative voice, particularly from the perspective of Dr. Impossible, and highly recommend it for any of you who are interested in reading the story from the villain's perspective. Because Dr. Impossible is a villain, yes, with the typical comical take-over-the-world schemes you're familiar with from your childhood, but those schemes are delivered straight-faced and with a very recognizably human voice. Not human as in it'll touch you, but human as in it feels like an actual person talking. Minus, you know, the whole superhero/supervillain thing. You'll inevitably draw parallels between this book and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog (as far as I know, neither influenced the other), and for those of you PpG fans out there who are interested in villains (Mojo Jojo in particular), you'll probably find a wealth of creative inspiration here.
That's my plug for that. Now. Kick-Ass.
I was giddy like gangbusters about this ever since the red-band trailer w/Hit-Girl came out, and when I finally got around to seeing it last week I had a blast. And I'd talk about how awesome it is, but after reading a few things, I have something else I want to respond to/get off my chest.
Ebert (who I do think has intelligent opinions occasionally, but who I also have been reluctant to trust ever since he put down the awesomeness that is The Powerpuff Girls Movie) gave the film a very unfavorable review, objecting to the violence dealt by and to Hit-Girl. That, and the following comment stuck out to me as well:
Now, the quoted bit first. I would hope that the "home video audience" wouldn't include parents who aren't supervising what their six-year-old is exposed to at home (because the truth is you have parents who don't supervise what their kids watch, either because they don't care or they don't have the time, or because their kids have access to this magical thing called the internet and know of these things called torrents that their tech-illiterate parents aren't aware of). But it's kind of impossible to take that out of the equation, so let's say you have this general pool of kids who are exposed to excessive violence, and blood, and cursing. Out of those kids, you have a relative handful who actually go out and commit violence against other kids their age. And I would assume that's the segment of the population that Ebert is concerned about in that quote.
... I get the impression from Ebert's review that he is actually talking about two different audience segments here - the six-year-olds at home who are being further desensitized to violence via various media, and the older pre-teens/teenagers who are getting involved in gang violence. Maybe it's just me, but... I feel like the type of kid who would go out and shoot another kid isn't going to be saved or corrected by a less violent movie. Millions of people around the world are exposed to this stuff, and a great deal of us do become desensitized to it, but it isn't inspiring significant numbers of us to take arms and go around beating the shit out of other people for giving us crusty looks. When I was nine, I saw seriously violent movies (yay Hong Kong cinema!) and tried to pick up the Playboy station when the parents were out, and I didn't become an instrument of violence, nor a sexual deviant. I daresay I grew up pretty normal, relatively speaking. And I have to assume, based on my limited interactions with the rest of the world, that the majority of us are not going to be induced to more violent behavior just because we saw a violent movie.
With that out of the way, though, the point that's more important to me is a point that Ebert has already shown me he isn't going to get. I am a girl. Or, I was a girl. (I still have a hard time thinking of myself as a woman.) So when I'm watching an 11-year-old girl up onscreen, who is beating up bad guys, killing a bunch of them (who, let's point out, are pretty obviously trying to kill her), taking bullets (sort of), flinging around knives and ninja stars and loading more clips into her guns and running up walls and kicking all sorts of ass? I cheer. I rejoice. I get up and fucking sing. Because there is so much media - so much - that never shows girls kicking ass without sexualizing it, when it decides to show girls kicking ass at all.
Maybe it's just me, but I also feel like when Ebert is appalled at the notion of a little girl kicking ass, he is kind of unintentionally saying that this is not how little girls are supposed to act. Never mind that children in general aren't supposed to act this way: he doesn't call her a "child" hurting people. He really does seem to focus on the fact that she is a girl. I'm sure it is unintentional, as is a lot of sexism (though too little of it, unfortunately), and coming from an adult male, I understand that he isn't going to react to it the way I will.
Because when I see girls like that onscreen? Girls like Hit-Girl and Buttercup? I wish I'd seen them when I was six. Because maybe then I'd have punched the bully in the gut instead of crying. Maybe then I'd have kicked that shitface in the dick when he whipped it out. Maybe I'd have run after the fucker who grabbed my ass and jabbed my elbow into his solar plexus instead of just standing frozen to the spot out of shock and horror.
I need to know I can do that. We all do. We need to know that we are strong and fierce and a fucking force to be reckoned with. We need girls like Hit-Girl and Buttercup, who are violent and bloodthirsty and spit in your face and make no apology for it. We need to know that we can do that. We need to know we are Untouchable.
We need girls who are unapologetically strong in as many ways as possible (and yes, that includes physically and mentally) so we can be, too. Never mind that Ebert objects to Hit-Girl. I don't. I can't. I want to be Hit-Girl. Maybe I already am. (I wish!)
Just knowing that Hit-Girl exists, that the Powerpuff Girls exist, makes me feel like I can (and want to) be a stronger woman. They already make me wish I'd been a stronger girl.
So to hell with the haters. Bring it. Because us girls need to know that we can kick ass.
And you can't fucking touch us.
I do recommend the book, which has a well-crafted narrative voice, particularly from the perspective of Dr. Impossible, and highly recommend it for any of you who are interested in reading the story from the villain's perspective. Because Dr. Impossible is a villain, yes, with the typical comical take-over-the-world schemes you're familiar with from your childhood, but those schemes are delivered straight-faced and with a very recognizably human voice. Not human as in it'll touch you, but human as in it feels like an actual person talking. Minus, you know, the whole superhero/supervillain thing. You'll inevitably draw parallels between this book and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog (as far as I know, neither influenced the other), and for those of you PpG fans out there who are interested in villains (Mojo Jojo in particular), you'll probably find a wealth of creative inspiration here.
That's my plug for that. Now. Kick-Ass.
I was giddy like gangbusters about this ever since the red-band trailer w/Hit-Girl came out, and when I finally got around to seeing it last week I had a blast. And I'd talk about how awesome it is, but after reading a few things, I have something else I want to respond to/get off my chest.
Ebert (who I do think has intelligent opinions occasionally, but who I also have been reluctant to trust ever since he put down the awesomeness that is The Powerpuff Girls Movie) gave the film a very unfavorable review, objecting to the violence dealt by and to Hit-Girl. That, and the following comment stuck out to me as well:
When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny.Let it be known on my part that I tend to take what individual critics say with a grain of salt, as the opinions I form about what I watch tend to matter more to me than others' (as it should be).
Now, the quoted bit first. I would hope that the "home video audience" wouldn't include parents who aren't supervising what their six-year-old is exposed to at home (because the truth is you have parents who don't supervise what their kids watch, either because they don't care or they don't have the time, or because their kids have access to this magical thing called the internet and know of these things called torrents that their tech-illiterate parents aren't aware of). But it's kind of impossible to take that out of the equation, so let's say you have this general pool of kids who are exposed to excessive violence, and blood, and cursing. Out of those kids, you have a relative handful who actually go out and commit violence against other kids their age. And I would assume that's the segment of the population that Ebert is concerned about in that quote.
... I get the impression from Ebert's review that he is actually talking about two different audience segments here - the six-year-olds at home who are being further desensitized to violence via various media, and the older pre-teens/teenagers who are getting involved in gang violence. Maybe it's just me, but... I feel like the type of kid who would go out and shoot another kid isn't going to be saved or corrected by a less violent movie. Millions of people around the world are exposed to this stuff, and a great deal of us do become desensitized to it, but it isn't inspiring significant numbers of us to take arms and go around beating the shit out of other people for giving us crusty looks. When I was nine, I saw seriously violent movies (yay Hong Kong cinema!) and tried to pick up the Playboy station when the parents were out, and I didn't become an instrument of violence, nor a sexual deviant. I daresay I grew up pretty normal, relatively speaking. And I have to assume, based on my limited interactions with the rest of the world, that the majority of us are not going to be induced to more violent behavior just because we saw a violent movie.
With that out of the way, though, the point that's more important to me is a point that Ebert has already shown me he isn't going to get. I am a girl. Or, I was a girl. (I still have a hard time thinking of myself as a woman.) So when I'm watching an 11-year-old girl up onscreen, who is beating up bad guys, killing a bunch of them (who, let's point out, are pretty obviously trying to kill her), taking bullets (sort of), flinging around knives and ninja stars and loading more clips into her guns and running up walls and kicking all sorts of ass? I cheer. I rejoice. I get up and fucking sing. Because there is so much media - so much - that never shows girls kicking ass without sexualizing it, when it decides to show girls kicking ass at all.
Maybe it's just me, but I also feel like when Ebert is appalled at the notion of a little girl kicking ass, he is kind of unintentionally saying that this is not how little girls are supposed to act. Never mind that children in general aren't supposed to act this way: he doesn't call her a "child" hurting people. He really does seem to focus on the fact that she is a girl. I'm sure it is unintentional, as is a lot of sexism (though too little of it, unfortunately), and coming from an adult male, I understand that he isn't going to react to it the way I will.
Because when I see girls like that onscreen? Girls like Hit-Girl and Buttercup? I wish I'd seen them when I was six. Because maybe then I'd have punched the bully in the gut instead of crying. Maybe then I'd have kicked that shitface in the dick when he whipped it out. Maybe I'd have run after the fucker who grabbed my ass and jabbed my elbow into his solar plexus instead of just standing frozen to the spot out of shock and horror.
I need to know I can do that. We all do. We need to know that we are strong and fierce and a fucking force to be reckoned with. We need girls like Hit-Girl and Buttercup, who are violent and bloodthirsty and spit in your face and make no apology for it. We need to know that we can do that. We need to know we are Untouchable.
We need girls who are unapologetically strong in as many ways as possible (and yes, that includes physically and mentally) so we can be, too. Never mind that Ebert objects to Hit-Girl. I don't. I can't. I want to be Hit-Girl. Maybe I already am. (I wish!)
Just knowing that Hit-Girl exists, that the Powerpuff Girls exist, makes me feel like I can (and want to) be a stronger woman. They already make me wish I'd been a stronger girl.
So to hell with the haters. Bring it. Because us girls need to know that we can kick ass.
And you can't fucking touch us.
