Girls on Film

I went to see the movie ‘Hanna’ (warning: this blog contains spoilers) and I’ve decided I don’t get it.

Hanna is a young teenage girl trained by her father (ex-CIA) to be a very efficient spy and killer. He does this because another CIA agent wants to kill them both, and will attempt this as soon as she finds out where Hanna and her father are. It’s a good action movie – chase sequences, fight scenes, a fairly minimum amount of actual gore – and I did enjoy it, as a film. Despicable villains, sympathetic supporting characters and heroes. Given all of these ingredients, the whole Galinka sub-plot becomes a bit redundant.

Yes, it gives a reason why the CIA, particularly the villainess, want Hanna dead. But as the villainess is operating outside normal protocal, the reason could have a been a lot more personal and human. All the Galinka sub-plot really does is reinforce the meme that no female could be that good a fighter or killer without being genetically mutant in some way. Dark Angel worked the same meme. Why?

I’m sure the writers weren’t deliberately thinking that way, and will doubtless point to impeccable gender-equality credentials if confronted, but the fact remains that when the hero is a killer boy, he doesn’t need to be a GM experiment. When it’s a girl, there seems to be a need to explain away her skills. This supports the patriarchal status quo in which we live, which is probably why we do it, but why support and perpetuate a lie?

While there is no hard evidence for it (due to lack of reliable records from the period) most Wing Chun practitioners accept the story of it’s founding by the nun Ng Mui and Miss Yim Wing Chun. Most Shaolin kung fu sources accept Ng Mui as one of the Legendary Five Founders. And, as I’ve tried to illustrate on this blog, there are other legendary female fighters with dazzling tactics and incredible skills – so why does the 21^st Century supposedly equal West feel the need to negate the idea that girls can be that good a warrior naturally?

Just wondering...