Hang up the Chick Habit.
February 7, 2008
A few months ago I saw the Tarantino movie Death Proof and it got me thinking. For the record, I am a fan of his work – mostly for his brilliant use of quick dialogue but also for the blur that exists in his depicting a concrete era. I like the fact that Pulp Fiction is 50s influenced however also very much a contemporary look at the culture at the time. It’s like all of his work, not quite retro, not quite a homage but very much flavourful of a genre or era without being overpowered by it. I also happen to think he has flawless taste in music and so, no matter the film I know that the soundtrack will be a killer.
I remember though when PF came out. Tarantino got a lot of flack for
a) language.
b) violence.
c) lack of strong female characters in his work.
Personally I think all three were bogus complaints all based in truth of course, but bogus nevertheless. I enjoyed the language and violence and if a man can’t make a boy centered movie with a bit of grit then I don’t want to know him. Yes, he uses excessive language and yes some of the scenes in all of his movies are disgusting. So what? Deal with it.
Tarantino was a smart cookie though, he saw how popular his character Mrs Mia Wallace (from PF) was among both ladies and gents that he addressed his lack of strong female leads quick smart and made one of the most kickarse lady movies ever – Kill Bill vol 1 and 2. Death Proof once again looks at female leads, however, he also adds in a strong male character to mix it up: Stuntman Mike.
The movie Death Proof has two parts within the movie – and this is going to be full of spoilers folks… The first part – three girls who think they are “badass” take to the road, visit a bar meet Stuntman Mike and end up dead. The second part – another group of girls, take to the road, visit a diner, meet Stuntman Mike and kick the shit out of him.
What was different? And just how did the second lot of girls outsmart and out kick Stuntman Mike? I mean, this guy had his sadist act down. He has a death proof car folks and he was not afraid to use it to kill women of his choosing.
Let’s just have a little look see at wider society and women. One could argue in this era of post-feminism we have two kinds of women – women who don’t take any shit and women who do. Of course, the reality is that there are many kinds of women, all individual – but this is a MOVIE guys, let’s be serious – plus, we’re looking at generalities here and in terms of a generality this would be right. Shit takers and shit givers. One could argue the same for men as well. People. People are shit takers or shit givers.
The shit takers in this movie would be seen in the first part of the movie. They are the hot, sexy girls who flirt with any man that moves. Why? Well just because they can folks, just because they can. For the record, no man complains about this fact. Who doesn’t want a hot girl dressing sexy and flirting with them? Hell, did I mention they are hot? The guys are lining up to buy them drinks and the girls accept the drinks, give the boys a little sugar by way of kisses and flirting and then leave. Hell, that’s their prerogative, girls don’t have to put out if they don’t want to do they? These girls in part one, in no uncertain terms know what they want. They are not stepford wives. They are not on a hunt for a husband. They are not gold diggers or any of that. They have careers and their own minds. This is very important to the plot because in no way are we to think of these girls as traditionally “weak”.
Things for these girls seem pretty peachy. Everyone thinks they are a lovely, and they are. In the land of successful females they go very far. The thing is though, even though they seem so in control of their lives they are not. All men’s interactions with these girls are only based on sex. The men buy drinks for them because they want sex. The girls promise lap dances for a certain password from men. In fact they are much more crude than the men in the film – they would see themselves as the type of women who are empowered by their sexuality. Watching the movie, you get that impression too. Their “careers” (or just the way they live their lives) are based around sex, or being sexy. Now, sex is a powerful tool and it has been theorised ad nauseum that sex is the most powerful tool that a woman can have in this world. I’m inclined to agree that it IS but I also happen to think that this SUCKS. It means that our options are quite limited if we want to be successful doesn’t it? Here’s what I think about these kinds of women: women who use sex to their advantage in dealings with men (by sex I mean flirting, being sexy to get what they want etc) are not the kind of women I like. I think they are selling all of us short and quite frankly demeaning themselves. HOWEVER, I do think that women who do use sex as power get very far. Mostly because our society rewards this kind of behaviour from women, rather than from men.
So why then do these women die if they have all the power? Well because like all people with only one source of power they are easy targets. These are the girls who are watched and while there is power in being ‘beheld’ there is absolutely no autonomy. All their power is based in sex and so when you take that away – ie: you’re not interested in their sex then you render them completely powerless and useless. They don’t matter any more. They are nothing. And Stuntman Mike, he’s a sadist from way back, he doesn’t care about the sex – only the cruelty that comes with exploiting that. They have no power when it comes to him and rightly so; they all die. Now you see why I think those girls who base all their power in sex sell the rest of us short. They don’t really prosper in dire situations – and life itself is one dire situation after another really.
Enter part 2; 14 months after the part 1 girls have been brutally murdered by Stuntman Mike. Life has changed dramatically in this time. The opening shot, of a cheerleader makes you think that these are going to be yet another bunch of archetypal females that make male fantasies churn, and yet it is realised immediately that this is a big joke on us. These girls might be watched but they also do the looking, and the choosing. These girls are nothing like the ones that came before. It feels like one decade has gone by, socially speaking, rather than only a year. Enter our four main protagonists – again, all sexy/pretty girls who hang out in a male dominated world. They talk about their boyfriends, they talk about their jobs – but they pay their own way. These girls are lovely as well, but they just do their own thing. Their power is based somewhere outside the realm of sex, though it is apparent that they are not abstaining from sex, nor from men. They are just not concerned with flirting it up with randoms. Stuntman Mike notices them though and he’s getting ready to kill again but something happens: The girls won’t be bullied. He can’t take away their sexual power by hating them, because their power isn’t based in sex. They’ve got something different going on.
1) They stick together when it counts.
2) They make their own fun.
3) They are not afraid to get down and dirty.
This is extremely different from the girls in part 1. Both sets of girls have their own jobs and have lives and their own money. On the surface they are poster children for ‘new woman’ – but as always it’s the inside that counts. The part two girls aren’t basing their power in sex. They don’t need their sexuality reaffirmed everywhere they go. And so, when Stuntman Mike approaches them, they aren’t scared into a corner by him, nor are they titillated or charmed like the part 1 girls were. Sure the circumstances were different in part 2, but in the end the part 2 girls were not to be beaten down and killed. They got back on the horse and chased the man down and then beat him until he died. As in, with their bare hands. I have to make the distinction that they’re not targeting normal everyday guys – they aren’t the perpetrators of violence but they can turn it on when someone else starts it – I love that.
In the second part, the twist is that the girls win. Which comes as a surprise because actually no one expects that to happen – it’s so rare in a movie of this sort (slasher/car movie – incidentally movies I grew up watching – especially car movies which I had major nightmares about). These women also stick together and this is an important point. When women base their power in sex then you can easily tear them apart – you don’t even have to try. This is because when you have a group of women who all base their power in the reaffirmation of their sexuality and you add one man into the mix then that group of women will immediately begin tearing each other down in order to get to the man. I’ve seen it a million times before with girlfriends. In the case of the movie you have the part one girls arguing about whether to take the guys home with them, even though they all agreed not to. And you also have them exchange rivalries with each other over men. This isn’t good when you’re trying to make it out alive. The part two girls stick together and don’t have any interest in being rivals at all. It’s why they come out alive.
I guess what I’m saying is, and Tarantino touches on it to, that there are girls who look to men to reaffirm their sexuality and those girls are always going to be beaten down because not only does that not last forever but also there will always be people who will want to exploit that. Hell society exploits that all the time. It may be a HUGE power source to be perpetually sexy – but it’s also one of the EASIEST to exploit and manipulate. A girl who is thought of only as a sum of body parts (only praised because she has a great arse or great legs or whatever it is that is admired at the time) is easily cut down into body parts when it comes down to it. She’s never whole, she’s just legs, or neck, or lips etc. That kind of blows. If a girl only has that going for her then she doesn’t really have all that much at all and if that’s all she’s admired for then it says little about those doing the admiring. You see these kinds of girls everywhere, in life and in blog-land too funnily enough. Sometimes words are enough without pictures even. Everything comes back to sex – or rather to the odd comment or entry that screams; ‘remember, I’m sexy!’. Couple that with being ultra competitive with other women and you have someone who is easily dismantled, humiliated and left alone without backup. Not a good position to be in when being hunted down (aka, life)
Girls, keep your girlfriends close and your interests varied. Girlfriends will back your shit up with the chips are down and if you’re not afraid to smudge the mascara a bit then you can kick some major arse! Don’t worry, you can always keep a makeup compact in your purse, for the touch up afterwards.
Should girls kick arses or are they better off just using sex to get what they want? Is not using sex too utopian for the society we live in – do women HAVE to use their sexuality to their advantage in order to get ahead, not just in work but in life, generally speaking?
How do men use their sexuality to get what THEY want – and why doesn’t anyone ever call them on it?
February 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Excellent post! A movie review combined with social commentary! Which is why I love reading your stuff! And I love Tarantino, too. His movies are damn awesome.
And you make excellent points and ask excellent questions. I agree that women who stick together no matter what are strong women. It’s a hard decision to make – do you act coy and sexy and get your way or do you get your way because you fucking deserve it and worked hard for it and will not conform to societies view of how you should act?
I strongly believe that the downfall of women is the fact that we don’t stick together. We are quick to turn on the other the moment a penis walks into the room. Because it’s perceived that the this guy has the power. What they aren’t seeing is that the deference they are showing to the guy takes their power away. They can think all they want that if they act sweet and sexy, they’ll still get what they want yet feel like they are still in control because they’re making the guy feel like he has the power. But in reality, they lost their power the moment they decided to let the guy be more important.
I don’t know…that might not have made any sense…I have a lot of strong feelings about this topic and it’s hard to put it into words sometimes.
February 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I also agree. But we should also be equally careful not to assume that a sexy woman isn’t also bright, articulate, and all that and a bag of chips. Sometimes, they are despised and accused of using their sex appeal, when in fact, they have benefitted through no fault of their own. It’s a problem with our society where value is placed on money, power, looks, fame, etc. The greater point, and I think you speak to it, is that woman should be more united and value their relationships with one another. Single, dating, then married I had the same support group of wonderful women friends and I miss them terribly now that I live far away.
February 7, 2008 at 5:57 pm
First off, my college professor would have given you and A++ for that analogy!
I’ve met men who felt entitled because of their looks. The difference is that, because they were the penis in the room, their expectations were supported by the first type of women you talk about. Why? Because of their inherent power in addition their dashing good looks.
February 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm
arm – thank you! The women who turn on each other are women who have no other place to turn than sex in the first place. It’s a general thing that happens, even look at women in the public eye and how they are torn down.
diane – yes you’re right and that is what I was trying to say as well. These women in part one and to generalise to other kinds of women, were not dumb in any way. They would have otherwise been considered strong women. It’s just that at the core their only source of power (that THEY used) was so easily cut down.
sarah – yes! That’s so true, I never thought about that!
February 8, 2008 at 12:09 am
Great commentary.
And you have actually made me want to actually go and see a Tarantino movie for the first time, ever!!
February 8, 2008 at 12:49 am
Fantastic post M.
You make many interesting points and it makes me wonder if QT had analysed all of this before making the movie. I tend to think he had, because he is a smart cookie, but never-the-less, the dissection of the characters in the movie makes the movie all the more interesting.
Not being a woman, I don’t think I can comment on some of the things you mention. I admittedly do not know what goes through a woman’s mind 90% of the time but your post and comments have given me a little more insight.
The whole ‘power’ issue is ambiguous. Why does either gender need the power? What does the power give you? Isn’t power just another way of saying that you have self-confidence or believe in yourself?
I don’t think it’s power that people need, it’s just the knowledge that nobody out there is better or worse than you simply by the way they look. Of course this is easier said than done and the people who dress or look a certain way believe that they possess the ability to influence other people’s perceptions by how they look.
Anyway…without rambling too much. Thanks for the read.
February 8, 2008 at 9:18 am
Awesome post! I feel like, like…I dunno, going kickboxing or some shit!
I gotta see that movie.
February 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Must introduce myself to your blog because I love this response to Death Proof – like others I’m tempted to see it finally too. It’s a homage to the exploitation film though, right? So that should carry with it a general awareness that its politics *are* supposed to be obsolete. So if QT is, as you say, presenting a stronger, collaborative unit of women in the second half of the film, I think this is as much dictated by convention as it is, say, fashioned by his own authorial voice.
Echoing your good self, I think Pulp Fiction is awesome – but for the most part I’m wary of Tarantino; I’m not convinced he has a handle on gender politics, and if he isn’t careful sometimes he makes the mistake of presenting a trendy, consumerist ideal which he can’t resist monkeying around with.
The debates we have on sex, sexual expression and exploitation have moved on and become more human (thank god!) since, say, the release of Thelma and Louise. Death Proof might be making a statement there in saying these ‘new’ girls, because they survive, have a place in a society which isn’t necessarily patriarchal anymore. But as you point out, popular film can only ‘do’ generalities – women’s liberation and empowerment can be viewed from a ‘raunch culture’ perspective, or its glamorous and trendy antithesis. At least in his crude way QT *is* saying men/women are emotionally empty, lonely and have zero self-worth if all they trade on are their bodies. And to advance the argument, I suppose he’s saying definitively that this mentality of fast sex is itself obsolete (and if not, then a serious dead-end if all we are doing is trading bodily fluids)? My two cents.
February 8, 2008 at 7:12 pm
girlabout – if you’ve never seen a Tarantino then don’t start with Death Proof, it’s not one of his best. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill are better choices. Seriously, all are brilliant films. Avoid Jackie Brown like the plague. hehe.
mick – I don’t know if he did. I think he wanted to have the ladies kick butt in the second part and I *do* think he was being political to a certain extent…but not all the way.
Power…well, if someone is going to be empowered, whether individually or as a group of people then that too involves power. I don’t mean it in an oppressive way but in order for someone to come to the conclusion that they are going to negotiate the culturally attributed gender roles to their own best interests, then that is both empowerment and a powerful thing. I don’t mean it to sounds as though there is an agenda to dissempower women by focusing on sex – there’s no agenda but it happens nevertheless because women allow it to. There is a lot of strength in owning your sexuality but in this day and age owning your sexuality and being ’sexually empowered’ is such a catch phrase for women and so if it’s the only way they know how to create all their dealings with men and society then we haven’t moved very far since the cave days at all.
steph – I know! I think that if a movie makes you feel that – no matter the politics then that’s very cool.
ian – Thanks! Welcome! yeah, T was making an exploitation film first and foremost and inherent in that are certain gender politics. And I agree he was making a comment on empty sexuality and how it has little power. All the other political musings are put forth by me, mostly because I’m interested in these kinds of things. Not sure if T was thinking about feminism and post feminism, nor about the role of sexual power overall. Though I think he did intentionally make the first lot of girls weak by virtue of the way sex was used in the first part of the film and similarly he used ‘more than sex’ in the second part in order to have the girls kick butt.
Films can never tell the whole story, you’re so right! My take on the film is a gender political and sexual political point of view, because that is my background – anyone who is more versed in say racial politics, or the exploitation film genre and even slasher films probably has a completely different take on the film from me. This is what I love about film studies actually.
February 9, 2008 at 1:56 am
I simply love your interpretation of that movie and now I definately must see it myself because 1) I love QT movies and 2) Your thoughts seem to come from solid foundations.
Lately I have bumped into a few girls I knew from high school, all were over achievers but they never had boyfriends because they might of been percieved as ordinary or not pretty enough. However now these girls are now earning good money because they have solid jobs and are surrounded by friends. The pretty girls on the other hand (the ones I have seen), the ones who had the boys chasing after them, are still chasing their dreams of modeling or are still working in the same job they had ten years ago.
February 9, 2008 at 8:53 am
I still find it hard to like Tarantino movies due to the excess (and more often, irrelevant) dialogue. I prefer his buddy Robert Rodriguez over him, but he does disappoint every now and then (Dusk til Dawn).
Personally, I think you give guys too much credit, especially knowing the fact that we think mostly with the lower brain. We’re mostly easily manipulated with the promise of sex, a weakness that you women don’t have since we’re doing all the chasing.
February 9, 2008 at 10:32 am
Fantastic post, Ms Mez — I think you’d have an interesting time discussing it with Quentin Tarantino, although I’m not entirely sure I agree with you all of the time.
Do the girls in part 2 survive because they stick together, or is it because they act like boys? Do women have to become like men to be successful, to survive?
I do think it’s a little unfair on the girls in part 1 — I think the circumstances count for a lot, if the girls from part 2 had been hit in a high speed head on collision they didn’t see coming, it wouldn’t have counted for much. As it was, he took them on on their own territory — Zoe especially was a professional stunt double and they had grown up with cars.
What if Abernathy had been driving in part 2? Or worse yet, it was her on the car’s bonnet? And what about Lee, provocatively dressed like a cheer leader whom the girls leave with the redneck Jasper, having told him she’s a porn star?
Anyway. Loved this post. You would be an awesome person to watch movies and discuss them with.
As for the questions you raise — I don’t think women need to use sex, but I think there need to be more procedures in place to level the sex battlefield. Why would men use sex? They already have taken all the money, power and influence.
February 9, 2008 at 10:33 am
I was also going to comment some about the lyrics of the song ‘Chick Habit’, but meh, can’t be arsed
Did you see I posted the French version a short while back?
February 9, 2008 at 1:25 pm
gena – thanks! It’s true, some girls never move past that phase. And also, if you have no other aspirations then it’s all rather sad.
iron – ha! I love the excess dialogue. The actors always sound like they’re reading from a script which is a bit of a quirk that I love but understand how annoying it is. Kevin Smith movies are the same way.
jay – in part 2 of the movie the girls themselves actually address this ‘are they acting like boys’ thing. In the diner they’re talking about ‘vanishing point’ and one of the girls makes a crack about how the other two don’t know these great movies because they were watching Pretty in Pink or some shit – and Rosario Dawson retorts with a ‘well didn’t YOU watch PNP?’ and Tracie Thoms says something like ‘of course, I AM a girl you know!’ – funny. I don’t think they’re acting like boys – that’s undermining any power they have. They’re just not being sex kittens. Is being a sex kitten the only way to be a girl? I hope not. I fail so badly.
Again the cheerleader is very interesting. I think it’s a throwback to the hetero male fantasy of the cute cheerleader stuck in a secluded house with a big guy but with a huge twist. She ISN’T a cheerleader at all, she’s an actress playing one. This is totally at odds with the first act where the girls aren’t acting but actually BEING a hetero male fantasy. When the girls hand their actress friend over to the man, implying that she’s a porn star it’s not sexy at all. It’s the girls making fun of how dumb they think the guy is because they’re certain that he’ll actually fall for something like that. And he does. They use a tried and true method to exploit the man in order to get his car, which they then total.
You’re right about the circumstances – they are totally different. Maybe if the three in part 2 were hit head on they would have died but the point is, they weren’t. Tarantino didn’t choose to kill the girls in part two, he only chose to kill the ones in part one – and the implication of that is that the first act is a traditional look at BOTH gender roles and the exploitation flick and the second is a look at how if the gender roles are twisted a little and the girls aren’t only sex kittens then they’re finally not being exploited. Someones else is.
I LOVE the French version (well both versions really)! <3 And go on..
February 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I actually enjoy Silent Bob speeches. Not only are they relevant, but meaningful as well. Not all of them have the same impact though. Yeah, that it… you nailed it: the speeches sound too forced.
I can even tell which parts Quentin did in Sin City. I think.
February 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm
What I was going to say about the song is that the ‘Chick Habit’ refers to is the man’s (or men in general) dependency on women — and that it will lead to disaster. I think the English lyrics are more of a loose translation to try and keep the words and the ryhmes, and seem to fit better with the film.
Not exactly revelatory stuff, but hey.
February 9, 2008 at 8:07 pm
iron – I have an enormous crush on Silent Bob. He’s so wise. T has a very distinct style…it sort of stands out in a line up really.
jay – ha, yes! But not dependency – - exploitation or manipulation of women! Though, the title suggests dependency – maybe it’s a dependency to exploit
February 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm
M:
if a man can’t make a boy centered movie with a bit of grit then I don’t want to know him.
Do you even like men?
Graffiti
February 10, 2008 at 8:37 pm
pfe, I’m equal opportunity in my hate of men and women – and it’s not about gender either. I like people who are respectful, kind and wonderful. That okay with you?
If you don’t like me writing about body issues, cultural idiosyncrasies between men and women, violence against women, or asking questions about how men and women relate to each other then you don’t have to read this blog ya know. ciao.
February 10, 2008 at 11:30 pm
In answer to your last question, I think women should use ass kicking and sex in equal measure – except where a natural ability or deficit exists on one or the other
February 11, 2008 at 11:49 am
IMHO, girls should always try to kick arse first and if that doesnt work out there is still time to suck it up.
February 12, 2008 at 11:20 am
gb – good thought!
mone – lol, true.
February 13, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’ve just added Death Proof to my LoveFilm rental list.
This post was brilliant – you didn’t need the questions at the end. You’ve completely addressed all the feminist issues.
February 14, 2008 at 8:23 am
ant – hehe, thanks! And no one ever answers my questions anymore anyway. wah.