I’m slightly on the fence as to whether or not the “Final Girl” is an excuse, but I think I’m inclined to agree that it is. The article was pretty convincing in stating that it is, but even if it is I don’t think I really have a problem with that.
Honestly, I feel like its pretty much understood that most horror films are geared towards a male audience. Most women seem to get this concept and those who do are perfectly capable of making up their own minds as to whether or not they will go to see a film. For some reason horror films seem to favor a female heroine who survives to the end. I’m not sure whether this is because of the need for justification or some other reason. However, the need for justice seems a good reason to me.
Personally, I equally enjoy having either a hero/heroine in the end of a film; it doesn’t bother me either way. However, if it does bother some women that there is a final woman standing, then I’m willing to try and understand this. The article suggests that the woman may survive to the end, but in the process she takes on the characteristics of a man. Through the use of phallic devices the women seems to become more masculine in the end. Here I can understand a woman being upset.
The scene in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre where the heroine takes control of the chainsaw, the chainsaw can be construed as a phallic symbol. In this case, a woman getting angry is justified. There is no need for the heroine to become a man, but I don’t think that her standing up for herself necessarily means she’s acting like a man. If the sexual innuendo with the chainsaw, and other such objects, were dropped I don’t think I’d be able to find anything really worth complaining about in horror films.
No comments:
Post a Comment