Why ‘Hanna’ is the Feminist Action Hero we’ve been waiting For

There exists basic criteria in action cinema that grants a woman permission to kick ass only if she is:

Raped

A Sex Symbol

Masculinised

Protecting her family

From as far back as the 60s to now, our favourite action heroines rarely avoid categorical placement into one or more of the above archetypes. It’s as if filmmakers need to provide the audience with a valid reason for why their heroine has rejected traditional roles of femininity for a ‘masculine’ life of guns and violence. Whether it is in vengeance of a brutal sexual assault or out of maternal protection, a woman needs permission to kick ass. And if not, she wears skin-tight leather and a wonder bra whilst doing it.

Alien had Ripley. An undeniable warrior. Though by being given an androgynous name and shaved head, she renounces femininity in her progress as an action hero. But not before she is conveniently stripped to her underwear and sexualised. The same can be said about Trinity from The Matrix and Terminator’s Sarah Connor – their hair is scraped back and they are dressed in outfits that hide their femininity. Sarah also fits the maternal archetype, killing to protect her son.

The ‘rape revenge’ genre involves a heroine – often shy and reclusive, suffering a horrific sexual assault, and then enacting her revenge on her rapist. Post-rape, she becomes an awakened sexual being, with a new-found confidence and a hot outfit. Ms. 45 goes from beige jumpered recluse to smoldering fishnets and heels in her vengeance. And Jennifer in the original, infamous I Spit on Your Grave seduces her victims before killing them. Indeed, perhaps the only commendable asset of its remake was that 2010’s Jennifer was allowed to maim whilst still in her jeans and T-shirt. Kill Bill’s Bride enacts brutal, brilliant revenge in sexually neutral attire – but before doing so, she endures years of comatose molestation.

Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Barbarella and Lara Croft are all sex symbols. Coffy is avenging her sister‘s mistreatment in the hands of pimps. Foxy Brown and Cleopatra were two of the 70s’ most popular sex symbols. To be a Bond Girl, it’s part of the package.

In the past few years, action cinema has given us Angelina Jolie’s ‘Fox‘ (Wanted), and Salt. Both incredibly sexy. The former with a gender-ambiguous name, and the latter a role originally designed for a man. Last month gave us Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch. A quintet of action heroines who fight phenomenally – but do so as dressed as pornographic clichés in Snyder’s overblown masturbatory opus.

But this month sees the release of the action heroine we’ve been waiting for: Hanna. A 16-year-old assassin on a mission to escape death from a ruthless intelligence agent. Dressed simply and ordinarily, in mountain bearskin to hostage overalls to Moroccan gown, she is never sexualised or clichéd – even when she wears make up in her coming of age sequence. Yet she is still a woman – her name exclusively female, her hair worn down. Her excuse for murder is not rape or maternal instinct; it is a reason exclusive to its plot.

And nothing is sacrificed. Every inch of this action film is still as heart-pumping as we expect; the plot fantastic and its lead relentless. It proves an action heroine doesn’t need to be raped, sexualised, masculinised or maternal to both inspire empathy and excite.

Not since 1990's Nikita have we had such a fierce heroine exist in a sphere devoid of push up bras and gang rape. Kick-Ass gave us another child action star; Hit Girl – and a swathe of scrutiny concerning the sexuality of her purple wig and leather outfit. Nevertheless, she was inarguably tough. But Hanna needs no gimmicks to be an action star. She is just pure bad ass.

By Nicky

On Abolishing Sexist Language

There is a double standard in society where the sexual actions of a female are much more harshly criticised than a male. People even openly admit this and defend this. These stands like truisms yet people don't seem to do enough about it.

Think of terms intended to criticise someone's sexual activity in a negative manner. 'Whore', 'slut'. Both of these words are used at males, but we all acknowledge that these words are used the vast majority of the time against women. There is no word in the English language which criticises almost exclusively the sexual activities of males. We even tacitly acknowledge this by altering the word 'whore' into 'man-whore' – if the word whore didn't lay in language ready to be deployed against women, we wouldn't need to add 'man' in front of 'whore' just to criticise the sexual activity of a male.

The words 'whore' and 'slut' are sexist words because they are aimed almost exclusively against women. Not always, but almost exclusively against women. Seeing that these are the words we use to harshly criticise someone's sexual activity, and these are mostly aimed at women, these words continue the myth that women have much more moral responsibility over their sexual activity – that women are more worthy of criticism than men when it comes to their sexual activity.

I've recently been in various discussions with a friend who argues that they're not being sexist when they use these words because of the context they're used in. Admittedly, I've seen them use such words against men more than women. I know they're not sexist despite using sexist terms. However, there's still harm in using these words.

You might not use these words mostly against women, but other people do. Every time these words are used, you are enabling the existence of these words, and the sexism behind them. The way you use these words do not alter how other people use them.

The problem is, however, not the word itself but what lays behind it. We should stop using words like 'slut' and 'whore' not because the words are sexist within themselves, but because of the sexism behind the use of these words, whether or not people realise it.

I propose that we eliminate the words 'slut' and 'whore' from our vocabulary and, every so often when appropriate, challenge people who use such words. You can challenge them on the basis that words like 'slut' and 'whore' are aimed almost exclusively against women, and there is no common word like that against men. They shouldn't use them because it continues the idea that women are more immoral than men when their sexual activity is not agreeable.

The idea that we try to shame women, and not men, over their sexual activity is terrible.

And finally, to end with, the words 'slut' and 'whore' should not exist in our language in the first place as negative terms. We shouldn't particularly care about the consenting sex lives of others.

By 'Ad Hoc'