(good) Horror Films discussion

I wrote my undergraduate thesis on feminism in horror film. Would anyone be interested in learning more and discussing this topic?

Of course!

I have a dear friend who is a celebrated feminist writer who lives in Berlin. We are always trying to figure out just what feminism means in this post-post feminist era.

I was trying to bring this element into discussion on the film Martyrs recently. In particular, the element of feminism in the context of colonialism.

Have you seen this film? If not, no worries. Perhaps you could list a few films that you referenced in your paper and we could go from there.

You can do a feminist reading on any film, regardless of whether the film is "pro" female or not, right?

Nonetheless, it would be cool to deconstruct the feminine in a lot of horror narratives. Here are a few that I think would be interesting to kick around:

Let the Right One In
The Exorcist
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Nosferatu (Herzog's)
Bride of Frankenstein
Eyes Without a Face
The Shining
Videodrome (is it horror?)
Martyrs
The Haunting
The Innocents
Blood for Dracula
A whole plethora of Argento, Bava, or Roger Corman films..

Or????

And, as Rob said, post your paper on your profile page, or post a link. I'd read it.

Horror movies sometimes tend to be more anti-feminine, as Rob says, which is why it's always interesting to read feminist discussions about it. Though there are a bunch of horror movies that are notably feminist like Ginger Snaps, Teeth, May, etc...

BTW, here's another book which explores gender roles in horror film. I only read up to part one, but it was pretty interesting

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...

Interesting topic - One of the things that always interests me, particularly in slasher films is the concept that only the puritanical woman generally survives.

The girl that survives is generally:
- Book smart
- Slightly introverted
- Unattached
- Pretty in the Girl-Next-Door kind of way, never the best looking or most well endowed girl in the film
- Generally a virgin, though not always by her choice
- In the 80's she was rarely blond, though in the post-90's Blonds have just as much of a survival rate (perhaps due to less brunette women appearing in horror films overall)
- Generally from a middle income family

I don't know if there is a concious message in that - though it as a girl it sends the message that you really don't want to be a ho, from a rich family, or date

Actually I used both of the books you guys mentioned in my research. Clover's book, "Men, Women and Chainsaws" was basically the jumping off place for my research. I began thinking that I agreed with Ms. Clover theory, but by the end of the process, I found that I disagreed.

The basis of Clover's theory is the idea of the "Final Girl" - Jamie Lee Curtis in "Halloween" chasing Michael Myers with a knife at the end of the film to get her revenge. The "Final Girl" is the survivor that Kristen was describing. The girl that makes it to the very end, but at what cost?

My paper focused mainly on "The Descent" and "The Hills Have Eyes." I also talked about "Nightmare on Elm Steet" and some other films. Rob, although I initially agreed with you that "The Descent" has its feminist moments, I was bothered by the fact that all the events in the movies and the womens' actions focus on or are motivated by the memory of one man - Sarah's dead husband.

Although these films may on the surface seem feminist, in the end, you have to ask yourself what these women sacrifice in order to survive. In reality they relinquish every characteristic that made them who they are. They become just as monstrous as the original killers themselves. Metaphorically, the girl inside them is killed and replaced by someone or something completely different. We see this in "The Descent," "Nightmare on Elm Street," "Halloween" and "The Hills Have Eyes." In all these films, the "Final Girls" are forced to destroy who they are in order to survive.

So yeah, I don't agree with Clover. But I do think this genre can be feminist. ...more on that later. I have to get back to work.

Maybe I just watched the wrong version of The Descent, but I always thought the main character was far more fixated on her dead daughter. It was her daughter that she thought she heard and saw. The Descent is one of my favorites in recent years, in part because of the all female cast of incredibly cool and strong women.

But I'd better shut up now before I go off on a tangent about all the stuff I liked about the film. ;)

Watch EYES OF A STRANGER for a good feminist horror film! The problem with the many films in the horror/slasher genre is that the women are objectified and the audience is "coerced" into experiencing the film from the male perspective...meaning the killer's POV. In Halloween, Jaimee Lee Curtis survives...because she is saved by a man. In TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, we are given more insight into the deranged family than the "cattle" who are slaughtered, and the women becomes only a savage victim of our violent patriarchy (a metaphor?). Both films are excellent and work on many levels, but these classics have spawned the very worst in horror and degraded a once intelligent genre. I consider AUDITION a feminist horror film...and a powerful one at that!

Rob... I agree with most of what you're saying, but maybe we need to clarify somethings.

On your thoughts on the last girl survivor... you say "I don't think there was any inherent message in having the puritanical girl be the last survivor in your typical slasher film." But I don't think this is really about a deliberate inherent message - more like the footprint of society's opinion concerning a specific subject: in this case, the female. I don't know how many artists actually set out thinking, "Okay, I want to write a femenist poem;" it's more just something that happens, something inherent in that artist. I feel that the horror genre itself is one of the most honest reflections of society. There are no boundaries. A writer or director can do whatever he or she wants, and really what could actually surprise us at this point? (It's the really good ones that actually do still catch us off guard...) The honesty (brutality?) behind the horror film is what makes it such a good candidate for this type of analysis....


And concerning you ideas about "The Descent" and "I Spit on your Grave." In most horror films, a female's motivation is some sort of sexual violation - I saw this in every film that I discussed in my thesis, including "The Descent." Sarah is figuratively raped by Juno's trespassing into her bed and relationship. So just like "I Spit on your Grave," "The Descent" is a rape-revenge horror film.

Part of the problem with "I Spit on your Grave" is the fact that it excludes all the flash and glamour that we find in other horror films. The techniques that usually distract us from the fact of just how brutal and grusome the acts of revenge are. "I Spit on your Grave," much like "Deliverance," is all the more disturbing exactly for this reason. So really, what seperates Sarah in "The Descent" from Jennifer in "I Spit on your Grave"? Both are sexually violated, and both get their revenge. Only in Sarah's case, she kills her tormentor in a deep, dark cave, while Jennifer does in the harsh glare of the sun or the bathroom lights.

As you know, I don't agree with Clover's idea of the "Final Girl." Although it can also be about the fact that she is a female, I think the puritanical survivor girl has more to do with society's idea that we are rewarded for our virtues and punished for our vices.

...I wasn't exactly clear about that in my earlier post. There are just so many layers...

There are some very interesting writings by Robin Wood in his collection HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN AND BEYOND on these subjects. Well worth checking out.

It may seem unlikely, but I concluded my thesis with a discussion of Ruby in the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes." Of all the female characters I analyzed, this character, a member of the antagonist family, actually seemed the most femenist. Ruby, like all of the other "Final Girls" destroys herself in the end - but not to take revenge on someone, rather to save a life, that of the female baby. Ruby puts herself in the position to be attacked by her own family, and she sacrifaces her own life to stand up for what she believes in. In the end, Ruby is responsible for saving the lives of the remaining family members. In my eyes, this is a much more femenist portrayal of a female character.

I think Wendy in The Shining is an admirable Final Girl. Unlike her husband, her love for family and her strong will allows her to resist the psychic hold that possesses her husband. She is able to acheive what Ruby manages without sacrifcing her life.

YES! I hadn't thought of her, but that's another great example... and Wendy survives, even better!

I always thought that Stephen King complained that Wendy seemed too timid and weak minded in that film the Shining, the Kubrick one.

Word!

Both book and film work for different reasons (films and books are different! Why must people impose the same expectations?). Shelly was perfect for the role. I don't know how you can like that film and not like how her and Jack are diametrically opposed in interesting and unpredictable ways. Kubrick was too major league to make a Stephen King movie; he was going to make a Kubrick film and that has its own twisted (but perfectly sound) internal logic.

Check out the interview with Spielberg on the Eyes Wide Shut DVD special features. He talks about his initial response to the Shining (which wasn't favorable).

BTW, I just read that AUDITION is also being released on Blu-ray in October...along with ICHI.

Phillip wrote: "You can do a feminist reading on any film, regardless of whether the film is "pro" female or not, right?

Nonetheless, it would be cool to deconstruct the feminine in a lot of horror narratives...."


I find that interesting that Let the Right One In would be feminist because in the book, the character of the girl vampire Eli was something other than female. I suggest you read the book because I think the movie took a wrong turn near the end of the story.

I read the book. In what way did you feel the film went in the wrong direction? I thought choices the director made were for the best. Notwithstanding any feminist perspective for the moment, I feel to keep the ending the book offered would have invited more of a typical Hollywood ending, where Eli's caretaker comes back to the basement and there is a big climax in flames...I would have felt really diiferently about the film had it ended that way.

Back to the feminist angle, yes, I'm aware that Eli is a boy inthe book, but there are angles of feminism you can explore withthe other women in the narrative, as well as exploring gender constructs...

BOOK SPOILER ALERT!


The film showed the character Eli as a girl vampire even at the end, when really, he had been a boy who was casterated.

The book as you said, explored gender constructs, because the boy Oskar was drawn to Eli and then repulsed by him/her only to save him at the end. It reminded me of childhood feelings toward children of same genders and opposite genders, that children don't think of genitalia to define masculine or feminique traits.

I apologize for thinking you did not read the book, I should have not assumed that you did not read the book.

While the movie does have their good points, I wish they would have remained faithful to the concept of Eli's being a boy despite the lack of his genitals and despite being looked upon as a girl by the molestor who was like his keeper.

It would have called into question how genitals define a person's masculine or feminine traits, which I believe is an important part of the book.

I think the book is more about end of Oskar's innocence and self awareness that you can love someone no matter what form he or she takes.

Patrick,

No need to apologize...how could you have known I read the book?

I understand your concern about the gender issue - yes, it could have been more interesting to show (in the film) that Eli was a castrated boy, but the filmmaker would have had to deal with all of that backstory on "how it all happened". Again, I really like the battles he chose to take on from the book and which ones he didn't take on. The film is mysterious enough just pondering what Eli's gender is exactly...I like it that some things are not explained explicitly.

And that is also my response to Rob's question. I think the filmmaker just chose to let the viewer wonder/ponder what is going on with Eli's gender. I don't know the etymology of the name Eli (but I know Eli is a boy's name in English!), but in the film Oskar seems puzzled when she says her name....like "isn't that a boy's name?" I imagine it reads differently in Swedish.

I agree with Patrick that the film is about the end of Oscar's innocence. There's that one scene after Eli has shown all to Oskar (revealing her identity as a vampire) and he goes back to his place and is toying with his toy cars on the shelf. He closes the hatch on one of the cars, and it seems to be symbolic of him closing the chapter of childhood...a beautiful, small detail easily overlooked.

For me, this is a film about friendship and what it means to be human: there is a lot of compare and contrast going on in the script exploring what constitutes "right" behavior, in terms of violence, neglect, emotional bonding, love, personal responsibility, etc. Eli and Oskar develop a friendship that literally saves both their lives.

Nonetheless, I still think there are feminist threads floating around in the film. What about Oskar's mother? What's her existential conundrum? Or the woman (can't remember her name) that is bitten but refuses to turn and sacrifices herself to the light? Or that whole subterranean community of existential sludge she lives in (unemployment, alcoholism, dead-end friendships) could be explored in a more in-depth discussion of the text/film narrative. That's one for the feminists debating the possibility of spiritual wholeness in the soviet environment. I know that in Russia the whole "woman question" was explored in society long before there was a women's movement in America. The communist lifestyle was supposed to secure that women would have a place in the workforce, earning the same money for work as a man, etc. That whole debate started in Russia in the early 19th century....100 years before it showed up on the table for debate in America. It's interesting to think of what the soviet construct promised women (and what actually was available to them) when you look at a film like this.

Just some thoughts...

Hmm, I remember that crotch shot and it seemed that it looked like Eli had a vagina but I guess I would have to watch it again. I never knew that Eli was either gender until I read the book.

I just think that it would have added more to the film if the director included the gender aspect because part of growing out of childhood is realizing the difference in people and accepting or rejecting that. It could be done in a few dialogues. Also I think in the book Oskar's father was gay and it seemed that the movie glossed over that.

But the director made his choice and I really love that pool scene, with the bully's legs dangling in the water full speed then the decapitated head floating downward. Then the other bully's torn off hand sinking, and it really shows Eli as a quite fiercious vampire. It was comical that peaceful scene of Oskar's resigning himself to possible injury or death, his closed eyes unaware of all the violence that takes place unseen above water. It could be also about the severe or severed consequence of bullies. You should not mess around with something you really don't know about.

The book does seemed to be more of a feminist issue, the gender identity mostly, than the movie but that only reinforces that the book is always better than the movie.

in the film there is a quick shot of eli's groin and there is a scar, nothing more. the scar is located where his penis should be...it's a really quick shot, and it seems to me that it was meant to raise as many questions as it might answer.

nonetheless, eli is the first transgendered vampire to exist in what could constitute mainstream cinema.

That was the argument many feminists gave when criticizing I Spit...that it was made for sickos to get off to. That we identified with the rapists rather than the woman being raped. Maybe there are guys that get their jollies off that, but they'd have to be pretty depraved in the first place because those rapes are brutal. It's all a set-up for the woman's revenge. The rapes are meant to be so vile that nobody would blame the victim for eventually offing the whole gang.

I tend to think that I Spit... IS meant to be a film for men to get their rocks off, and the ending revenge is a psychological "out" for them to tell themselves, consciously or not, that they didn't really enjoy watching a woman be brutalized, that they didn't really identify with the rapist characters, and that they really are cheering on the female character's revenge tactics.

Feminist readings of horror movies is a topic near and dear to me, so I would also love to read your thesis as well, Anna. Has anyone here seen Zombie Strippers? I'd put it alongside Teeth and May as a feminist horror film.

Maybe we should have started this thread with a definition of feminism in cinema. I see it as physical but more importantly psychological empowerment in the female character. TEETH walks close but sells out at the ends and leaves Dawn as a victim to wander forever, preying upon old dirty men instead of feeling safe in her own skin. I believe it's difficult (not impossible, mind you) for a man to grab this lightening in a bottle, to write and feel from a female perspective. Philip K Dick was finally able to achieve this in TRANSMIGRATION OF TIMOTHY ARCHER but few Directors have. I think EYES OF A STRANGER is one of the best in the past 30 years...and very few people have seen it. Most films masquerade as feminist but are mere exploitation, like DESCENT: meaning just another reason to see chicks in tight shirts get dirty. This is also a topic dear to me but one I've never really written about in length, but have mentioned in specific reviews. Maybe that's why Hitchcock's SHADOW OF A DOUBT is my favorite; it's as close to a feminist character he ever came! Though the niece is called "young Charlie" after her uncle and is only complete with marriage in her future. Even Bergman in SPELLBOUND is only the reflection for Peck's character to subsume. NOTORIOUS is close...man great topic, gives me a lot to think about though I just derailed the horror train of thought. Pedro Almodovar's films are good examples but VOLVER isn't exactly horror either...but it is about murder.

I didn't care for the ending of Teeth either, though it could be read two ways; your way, Alex, or that Dawn doesn't have to feel victimized any longer since she has a means (though an overtly sexual one) to protect herself. I also appreciated the send-up of abstinence education, a peculiarly American art form, which winks and nods at boys while singling out girls for scare-tactic tales of lifelong ruin if they dare to exert sexual independence.

I never thought I'd see "Hitchcock" and "feminist" in the same sentence in my lifetime. :)

I think we need to watch how a story is filmed; that is, what is your attention being drawn towards as a viewer. To be more specific, what is the camera actually focused upon: this is classic male-dominated filmmaking. It's been a while since is watched DESCENT but women generally don't go spelunking in makeup with perfect hairdos, or look like they walked off the pages of Cosmo. So I would consider this film to be exploiting their bodies for the sake of eroticism while masquerading as a feminist flick. DESCENT would have played exactly the same with a mixed cast because its focus is horror. Which is fine, I enjoyed it until we began seeing too much of Gollum...errr...the crawlers and descends into formula trappings of the genre.
Speaking of THE WRESTLER, we could talk about Tomei's multi-dimensional character which at first seems exploitive...but that becomes the point that she transcends. Randy the Ram is a realistic portrayal of a defeated man, his body is his profession too: he's exploited by his fans and falls into that trap (that Tomei escaped from) where he loses his true identity, which is the film's epitaph. THE WRESTLER is profound.

EDIT: Rob, you've really inspired me to watch DESCENT again with your viewpoints because I'm writing from a 2 year perspective. I believe it's available on Blu-ray too:)

I haven't seen I Spit on Your Grave. I've never been drawn to it. I haven't seen Teeth, but it sounds like it's worth checking out.

I thought 'Teeth' was awful in almost every respect. The characters were one dimensional and the script was cringe-inducing.
It's hard to believe that the writers had an editor or that they wanted to produce anything except a teen gross out experience.

I think that a lot of it depends on the actual director - the Descent might have been written as a female power type of movie, but by casting a bunch of hotties, dressing them in tight t-shirts and ensuring that their rear-ends made it into enough camera shots - then you're exploiting them. I personally didn't find that the cheating husband made it a non-feminist film. Rather then it actually being about the man, I viewed it more as the betrayal of someone trusted, then being thrust into a position where people who have betrayed one another have to rely on eachother for survival.

For me, "positive women characters" in film, regardless of the genre, means that the woman makes her own choices that are informed by whatever knowledge or wisdom is available in the universe of the movie. They make their choices and accept whatever consequences may come as a result of those choices. "Victims" in movies, regardless of gender, let things happen to them without much knowledge of those consequences.

Can a female character be admired or accepted if she has flaws? Can a female character be deemed 'interesting' if she whines or bemoans her fate either by fate or conseqence? I think that would have been interesting spin on female characters rather than make them strong or almost like The Madonna and add more depth.

I like how Let the Right One called into question the concept of feminique or masculine in character.

I went and found Joe Bob Briggs' review of I Spit.... He makes a couple of decent points; one, that at no point is the film told from any point of view except the female character's; and two, that the apocryphal tales of men cheering in theaters during the extended rape sequence is a way for the nervous energy and tension to be burned away, or a way for hardened horror film buffs to pretend that what's onscreen doesn't bother them. (Something similar happened to me when I saw House of 1000 Corpses; the scene where the cop is on his knees and Otis is about to shoot him through the head, and the camera pans back slowly and there's no music playing and the damn thing seems to last forever...I and several others in the audience started laughing just to break the tension.)

Also, and I didn't know this, but the director of I Spit was inspired to make the film after he helped a naked and brutalized woman in the aftermath of her rape; he wanted to depict how ugly rape is. So maybe one more check in I Spit's feminist column?

I think the difference in a male dominated business becomes identification versus objectification. Rob, you make your point clear because you identify with the women and their plight, and that transcends their objectification (even if that was the Director's point!). I always respect your opinion and want to watch this film again too. Not many films ask the viewer to actually relate to the female character, only to look at how pretty she is. Granted, you can have both, but it all depends on the creative vision. John Huston's THE MISFITS is ripe with objectification of Monroe but that becomes one of the points of the story. Even though her marriage to Arthur Miller was falling apart, her character has some of the best lines! Also, I just watched WENDY AND LUCY and I would file this under the feminist genre...though it's not a horror film and I'm getting off track again. Patrick, I think Wendy would answer your questions.

Not many films ask the viewer to actually relate to the female character...

That's the sad truth, in any genre of film. There's a law/rule/test/whatever known in feminist circles as the Bechdel Test, named after a comic strip character who states she only watches movies that feature:

1) Two women
2) Who talk to each other
3) About something other than a man.

It's harder than one might think to come up with a film that meets these requirements.

Hmmm... trying to think of possibly strong female characters...

Ripley from the Aliens series

Vasquez from Aliens - she was awesome

Annie (was that her name?) from Misery? She was certainly a dominant force in that film... though it was still about a male obsession

Mrs. Vorhees (hmmm... thinking strong women must be insane)

Many of the women in Descent WERE strong characters, and I admit to loving that film.

The Sister in Ginger Snaps might qualify, though I haven't seen that movie in a while

Clairese (sp?) in Silence of the Lambs, starts out fairly timid though smart, and grows into a powerful character

The Female Lead (black lady, can't recall her name) from 28 Days Later - even though she was about to be gang raped, she was fully functioning and planning to get the better of them in the end, and still managed to protect the girl.

I don't personally concern myself with the character's motivations so much when watching films, I get more irritated when it feels like the women are subhuman, something to be stared at or objectified. I really don't even have an issue with the guy rescuing her... just so long as the camera doesn't linger on her boobs or rear for half the movie because then she's only there as a mobile set-piece.

Natalie,

In the past month I watched two films that well suit your "Bechdel Test"

They are:
Wendy and Lucy
Cleo from 5 to 7

Yes, it is RARE, even in films made by women filmmakers, to find narratives where women are allowed to be alone or not to be fixated on men. I might add that neither of the films I cited are horror films. I might add Bergman's The Silence, but I remind myself that one of the women exists without a man and one inevitably makes a game of seducing a man for the sake of catharsis.

There are a few great films where"exorcising" a man from a woman's psyche is the force that drives the film. Antonioni's L'Eclisse comes to mind. What about John Sayle's film, Passionfish?

I've gone way off topic here, forgive me. Imsuffering from jetlag and serious cultural disorientation. And I have to play a gig in a little while.

Phillip - the best film, and a mainstream one, that satisfies the Bechdel Test requirements that I've seen in a long time is actually Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof." The eight principal female characters in the film spend most of the time...talking. About men, sure, but also about getting drunk and stoned, about music and film, about self-protection at night, about getting laid on their own terms - the same things that my girlfriends and I discuss. Really, it's most of the reason why I love that film so much. I was even able to disregard Tarantino's very obvious foot fetish in his actresses this time. :p

I forgot about Death Proof, but I saw that when it came out and liked it quite a lot. Has Grindhouse been released on DVD? I want to pick that up when I get back.

It has been, but they split the films into two different DVDs and left out the trailers. It was a complete and total travesty. :(

I agree that QT makes feminist films, and have defended him in this regard before. He occasionally makes some dumbass antifeminist move, though - he was on the Jimmy Kimmel show after Grindhouse was released, and was proudly showing off the doll made in his likeness of his own character from "Planet Terror," known in the credits as "Rapist #1." I had a complete "WTF?!" moment with that one; that was a pretty disgusting character, wasn't integral to the plot in the least, and was only in the film for maybe five minutes at the outside.

On the whole, however, I can forgive an occasional misstep when QT has given us the Bride, Jackie Brown, Mia Wallace, and Death Proof.

Word. You know Q loves him some Pam Greer.

Too bad the Grindhouse stuff doesn't include the previews!

Not particularly horror, but I was thinking of what a great film Shadow of a Doubt is. The young woman played by Teresa Wright really summons a lot of courage to go up against Joseph Cotton. And it's a part with a lot of emotional nuances. There is the added love interest which lends to the more conventional female constructs, but I think the merits far outweigh the deficits. In Charley's defense, she doesn't bat her eyelashes or lose any of her inner strength when she is in the presence of the detective, nor does she rat out her Uncle Charlie to the cops. She takes him on mano a mano in that final riveting scene on the train....

I saw them when I caught the double feature in the theaters. That's why I'm bummed they are not on the DVD.

Thought I'd finally chip in on myriad points...

RE Wendy in The Shining - my theory has been since watching that movie many times, that Kubrick deliberately wanted Wendy to be as annoying as possible, so that in a way you would understand why Jack wants to kill her...That sounds extremely anti-feminist, doesn't it? But, I do think she is horribly annoying, and of course she wasn't like that in the book.

The Descent - yes, the 2 main women get locked into a battle because one of them had an affair with the other woman's husband. But, notice that the wife finds out because another good friend in the Descent band tells her, and gives her an earring with the key saying on it. There's examples of both "good" and "bad" friendship in the movie. I thought the movie was more about the betrayal of a friendship, and the wife's grief, then any gratuitous shots, or yet another "mancentric" stance. And yes, I do see this film as feminist.

Men, Women and Chainsaws - I read this book a long time ago, and still think it makes some interesting points. I disagree that the Final Girl is having to tear down her entire personality and become something else in order to survive - to me, the Final Girl is a girl/woman who finds a core strength in order to survive. After all, in movies where there's a strong male protagonist who has to fight an overwhelming villain (Ah-nald Schwarz comes immediately to mind, in Predator), we don't think that he is having to completely change his personality. (and yeah, I know, Ah-nald in that movie is already a pumped-up dude - but he still has to use brains and ingenuity to fight the Predator).

What about Ripley in Alien and Aliens (I found the 3rd movie way depressing and was pissed that Newt and the male interest got toasted. The 4th - wow! almost a genre unto itself)? I've always seen her as way strong. Again, it's brains operating too, not just raw strength. And that's a key to Final Girls, isn't it?

Totally agreed on your annoying Wendy stance. There are times in every marriage and/or LTR when you're fed up with your partner and are ready to strangle them (but, of course, you control yourself and don't). The film of The Shining takes the isolation element and drives it over the edge, and because Jack is possessed by the Overlook, he can't resist that urge to throttle Wendy. He is berated by the Overlook and it's inhabitants and surrenders to their voices and gets busy with the axe.

I think someone else cited Ripley and that's a damn good call. I remember thinking the very first time I saw it when it was first released and thinking WOW, the girl made of to the end!

Well, is Ripley in her undies gratuitous or an effort to make her as completely vulnerable as possible? Is a naked Arnold in Terminator gratuitous, or not? I think, not. As for the Descent, perhaps the rear end views are a bit exploitative even if clothed, although I didn't personally think so in the theater at the time, but is that the image of these women that the audience takes home with them, or is it the shots of them battling hammer and tongs with the swarms of monsters with only rocks and pick axes and nary a machine gun or flame thrower in sight?

Regarding Ripley: How is not saving the cat not feminine? What mother lion would leaver her young in harm's way? And, in all the Alien movies you strip down when it is time to go into cryogenic freezing. In Aliens, all the Marines are stripped down to their skivvies, and I never read that as being overtly sexy, it's just what the characters are doing....they are getting dressed. Not all flashes of skin HAVE to be viewed as intentional eye candy.

Having said that, I do remember Ripley's undergarments were pretty skimpy (in the first film). But when I saw that I assumed the filmmaker did it to increase her physical vulnerability.

I think Joseph Campbell was one of the first to try and present an overview of the whole mythic cycle in modern film, (as well as stories throughout history of course); a 'hero' will always need to become someone else in order to fulfill his or her destiny.
So, I agree with Amy that these trasformations are nothing to do with feminism as all.
This narrative goes back thousands of years and has always included male and female characters no matter what the culture.

I also don't know any guy who watched 'The Descent' in order to see women crawling ahead of the camera!