Badmovies.org Forum

One of the things that sometimes irritates me are the newer realistic period films that feel as if they have to have women who can fight.  I don't mean films where that's the point of the film, I mean films where it's as if they were checking a box that said "Attempt to appeal to women" or something.  You know, where it's just not believable giving the realistic historical setting or scenario of the film, and there is no real context for the character given.

I was reminded of this because of the new Robin Hood - in this one, Maid Marion dons armor and fights in the final battle.  Seriously?  I thought it was also ridiculous in Prince of Thieves, but at least it wasn't a major plot point.

This doesn't ALWAYS come across as so silly.  The Clive Owen King Arthur somewhat gets away with it a BIT because they made the Guinevere equivalent a Celt.  It just came across a little hard to believe when they cast Keira Knightley, one of the waifiest actresses of the modern screen in the part.

It's not that I mind women warriors in film, quite the opposite.  I'd like a film about Tomoe Gozen, Pavlichenko, or from a fantasy angle, Hervor, I just don't like it when it's done poorly.

That bugs me too. I think you are exactly right, it's a checkbox thing that suggests it is becoming formulaic.

Look, this is not a sexist thing in any form. History is history. In these historical settings, women simply did not fight. The celts are an exception, but in the King Arthur example you give, they're using the celt aspect as a justification for "check the box."

I'm a big fan of capable, headstrong women. I married one. There are plenty of opportunities in history to demonstrate the strength of women. The obligatory fighting women thing is really annoying and I wish they would stop. I understand some women may feel that they are only being portrayed as "damsels in distress," but rewriting history is not the solution.