How does the text construct representation of gender in the extract?
In this scene there firstly is a mid-shot of the woman entering the room with some non-diegetic music playing in the background to put emphasis on her walking into the room. This puts all the attention on her and makes the audience pay special attention to her, as she is the main part of the shot. This mid shot lets us see the sort of facial expressions that she has and could give us a good idea of what she is thinking. I thought that she looked quite concerned or anxious about entering the room. As the mid-shot tracks the woman across the room it shows her glancing at one of the men in the room, he then tries to move towards her but is stopped. This is used by the director to show the woman as weak and needing protection from whatever the threat in the room is. The woman the looks up towards another man who is up some stairs looking down at her. He tells her to ‘kneel’. This is also used to show the male dominance in the scene and to portray the woman as weaker.
The camera is then directed at a low mid-shot facing up towards the man up the stairs from the prospective of the woman who is kneeling down on the floor. This shows that at this point the man is in control as he is at a much higher level than her, showing more examples of male dominance. The man at the top of the stairs then has a speech, in which he acts very confident showing his dominance over all the others in the room. When the man stops talking the woman who is still kneeling down starts to speak and tells a story which builds up a more positive and dominant force towards her. Her facial expressions change and she becomes a more confident individual who seems to take charge of the scene and take away the male dominance from the man at the top of the stairs who after hearing what the woman has said seems less confident about being in control and his facial expressions change to being very nervous and agitated by what the woman has said. While this is happening the non-diegetic music in the background changes and becomes more positive showing more power is being shifted to the woman. The woman is also now standing up at a more even level with the man on the stairs and seems to be matching his dominance with hers. This shows more female dominance in the room.
The camera then shows a close up of the doctor in his cage and then switches to a mid-shot of him breaking out of the cage and becoming young and tall again. The shot then shows him glowing and floating in the air, which could portray him as being a sort of god like man or having magical powers. This switches the dominance in the room over from the man on the stairs to the doctor and gives him the most power. The final shat that we see is of the man on the stairs falling to the floor with a very scared and concerned look on his face as the doctor moving towards him. This shows that the doctor has now gained all the power and is the most dominant in the room. This switches the scene back to being more male dominant but the males being a good force instead of a kind of evil one.
KickAss
Lionsgate announced yesterday that Kick Ass “proved dominant across all revenue channels this past week.” The film debuted in the number one position in DVD and Blu-ray sales – as well as the top movie download on iTunes since its release August 3rd.
The critical success of Kick-Ass hinted at the potential for excellent performance in home entertainment sales. While it wasn’t a huge surprise, for many of us, it offers a welcome sense of validation. Those of us who believed in the film’s potential for ‘cult’ success were rewarded with quantifiable proof this week.
Last April, there was much ado about nothing with regard to the film’s “failure at the box office.” In fact, the film was only a “failure” when measured against the inflated projections for opening weekend numbers – numbers that were based on perceived “audience awareness.” What these projections failed to consider was that the perceived awareness was isolated to a powerful, but segmented, fraction of the population at large – meaning an improper sampling. The blogosphere often becomes a self-cannibalizing entity and the response to Kick Ass illustrates that trend beautifully.
There was (an understandable) fan boy and girl fervor in anticipation of the film. One which lead credence to the notion that Kick Ass would strike it big opening weekend – and by big I mean projections forecast a $35 million open weekend – for a film that cost $25 million to make.
There was also an enormous influx of trailers, videos, and other marketing materials prior to the release of the film – a tactic that could have backfired, positioning the audience to rail against a film – as a result of overexposure. When the film failed to perform as projected, the blogosphere (unsurprisingly) jumped at the opportunity to write a bunch of snarky articles outlining the film’s financial shortcomings. To put that in perspective – remember the film cost $25 million and went on to make $96 million worldwide.
Here is what those projections failed to account for:
- As mentioned, the “audience awareness” sampling came from a community predisposed to be aware of, and interested in, a film like Kick Ass – as well as its source material. Without a recognizable name attached, or broader brand appeal, that awareness wasn’t representative of the general movie-going audience.
- Much of the target audience for Kick Ass was not old enough to take themselves to an R (hard R) rated movie, and this film is not an easy sell to parents. “Oh yes mom, can I please go see this film that features an adorable mass murdering twelve year old who makes liberal use of the ‘C’ word? Yep, it’s the very one Roger Ebert called ‘morally reprehensible’!”
- How hopelessly square Americans really can be (this feeds off of number two on the list). Now, don’t misunderstand, I like Roger Ebert. I don’t always agree with him, but I like him. However he asked in his review if his response to Kick Ass made him “hopelessly square.” My response is – yes, yes it does.
- Misinterpretation or rejection of the film’s central characters and story lines. Again this is a follow-up to number three on the list. I will use Mr. Ebert as the singular representative to a broad stick in the mud reaction to the film.
Many felt that the film was morally bereft due to its depiction of an exquisitely violent little girl. Emphasis on little girl. I contend that Hit Girl’s gender played a powerful subconscious role in some people’s negative reactions to her. Further, people felt that the film lacked a broader social message. To that I would ask: What kind of message would you like? A lie? Would you like to be told that good triumphs over evil every time and all is really simple and neat in the end?
I would follow those questions up with another: Is a film under an obligation to deliver a standard ‘moral of the story’ which is easily digestible by all? An idea already broadly accepted that adds nothing new to our cultural discussion? Or can it not simply be tons of fun and wickedly entertaining? I did myself the favor of steering clear of all the videos released for Kick Ass prior to its open. As a result I was both delighted and surprised with Chloe Moretz. I found Hit Girl’s action sequencesalone enough to justify a trip to the movies.
However, I would argue that the film does in fact have a moral and societal message. A very simple message perhaps, but a clear one imbued in every moment of the movie. The message is this: You, even you, ordinary, non special “regular Joe” you who is just like ordinary, “regular Joe,” non special me can do something – so why don’t you? Why do you, do we instead just sit back and watch?
We see this in the character of Kick Ass himself. This perspective is clearly laid out in his “YouTube treatises,” but can also be seen in everything he tries, fails and succeeds at doing throughout the film. We see this theme play with Nick Cage as the hilariously overzealous Big Daddy – crazy, but committed. We see this in Kick Ass’s love interest Katie who takes the more traditional social action route. We particularly see this in the character of the “bystander” who watches, but does nothing – and is eventually shot for it.
What Kick Ass does so beautifully is set itself up as a film that is going to be the “anti-comic book” movie, the one that breaks all the rules – and pokes fun at the accepted tropes of the genre. Then at a certain point (around the time of Big Daddy’s confrontation with his ex-partner) the film takes a turn and fulfills every aspect of a standard comic book tale. Kick Ass tells you it is making this turn by visually propelling us into the comic book world of Big Daddy’s creation. This is some fun and outstanding filmmaking.
Kick Ass felt like a film that was destined to be misunderstood in its initial release and then appreciated by a large cult audience as time progressed. The kids who could not get their parents to take them to the movie can now buy the DVD. Those who balk at $10 in the theater seem okay with $15 spent on the more permanent DVD or $25 for a Blu-ray.
“Word of mouth” has had a real chance to spread to the general population. Many “non-traditional” films have followed this same trajectory to cult film success. Some notable selections include;Blade Runner, Office Space, Fight Club, TV series would include Firefly, Freaks and Geeks andArrested Development.
What do you think the future holds for Kick-Ass?
