How come all murderers are portayed as men in films?

gcgirl wrote: »

Women don't kill they get some one else to do it, a bit like the black widow

Black Widow's kill things.

The King of Moo wrote: »

True, the horror genre has a disproportionate number of heroines compared to other genres.

Almost every slasher film (eg Halloween, Friday the 13th) features a "final girl" who survives and defeats the monster, with all or most of the male characters killed off.
One of the standard explanations for the appeal of the subgenre is that it puts men in a feminised position, relating to the perspective of the active, capable heroine, thus giving the film a transgressive appeal.
Note also how many killers in slasher films are men with sexual issues like a fixation with their mother or arrested sexual development.
So, arguably, the horror in slasher films comes from showing masculinity in a perverted or powerless position.

Even going back to the Hollywood classics of the 1930s, the conventional male leads are usually boring and completely ineffectual against the monsters, with the female characters much more interesting and complex, flitting over the line between good and evil at will, and being damn sexy to boot.

Yeah, but in most of the movies she has to be the only one that does not put out. The girls who get laid, get killed. Only the virgin can conquer the man with the sexual issues

jujibee wrote: »

Yeah, but in most of the movies she has to be the only one that does not put out. The girls who get laid, get killed. Only the virgin can conquer the man with the sexual issues

That is true to an extent, but I think it's a bit overstated a little.

Laurie in Halloween, for example, is kind of willing to have sex (though not as much as her friend) and talks a good bit about the boy she fancies.

I'd also say that the fact that the final girl combines being attractive with being smart and resourceful (usually, not counting when they go into the basement alone!) outweighs their virginity, which is never really focused on too strongly in the films.

Though it is true that in slasher films it's the kids who have sex who are usually killed. I think a lot of that is down to the fact that it's a little more exciting to include some t&a in the death scenes, and it makes the characters more vulnerable/unaware of their surroundings.

The 30s films are actually very interesting in terms of gender. Even though the female characters do still have to be rescued (though by the older male helper character like Van Helsing, not the "hero") they're much more interesting than the bland chaste heroes, and get to pretty openly display a strong sexual interest in the older, "exotic" villains without really being punished or criticised for it.
Zita Johann in The Mummy and Helen Chandler in Dracula are good examples of it, with the hero in both films (played by David Manners) completely useless and openly mocked. The films are basically romances between the female characters and the villains, with an annoying guy bugging them occasionally.


Re: Ripley in Alien/s, I think she's a great character simply because the films don't make a big deal of her being a woman. She's just a smart, tough, no-nonsense character who happens to be a woman.

Simply put, men are more likely to murder. However, what about Basic instinct, basic instinct 2, fatal attraction(she murdered a bunny). I'm sure there are others

jujibee wrote: »

I think I read somewhere that in the original drafts of the screenplay Ripley was a man but I am not sure of the veracity of that belief.

I think that's true, and I could imagine a man playing the role without it being very different.

That's what I like about the character: she's not defined by her gender. Too often in sci-fi there are generic "tough girl heroine" characters which seem to scream Spice Girls style "girl power!" but the characters are just so two-dimensional: "women who can fight and shoot guns and stuff."

Ripley is just a professional, tough individual, and neither of the first two films, nor the characters in them, ever really make a point of the fact that she's a woman.

It's a pity we don't see more characters, male or female, who aren't defined by their gender like that.

Squ wrote: »

Yup, all the stats are based on people who are caught.
So if more men are caught, that means women are better at getting away with it. So would obviously do it more and more..

It's all stats and science, i dont want to get into it this late.

You're right there. Women get away with ****ing murder alright.

Dudess wrote: »

Had a feeling you wouldn't.

Pretty flimsy theory. I'd have no problem with this fact (if it is a fact) if there was something more solid to support it. What about all the bodies of the people killed by these countless women who get away with it?

What's not to get.

there are no stats because the crimes were never reported. A male partner goes missing and thats that.

It's happening everywhere, probably in your neighbourhood. Rampant so it is, I believe.

jujibee wrote: »

I think I read somewhere that in the original drafts of the screenplay Ripley was a man but I am not sure of the veracity of that belief.

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah there are others listed on this thread.

Jujibee I'm pretty sure that's correct about Ripley originally being male.

Indeed she was originally a male character. The entire concept behind the first Alien movie was to set a slasher film in space...and as pointed out the majority of protagonists in slasher movies are female and the writer and Scott wanted to avoid that very cliche.

They changed that character over to a female after SW auditioned for a different role in the film , they thought she would kick a whole load of ass in the lead and they were spot on.

Squ wrote: »

Obviously never seen wonder woman!

Wonder Woman was originally the secretary for the Justice Alliance believe it or not. When a chick showed up with super powers it just meant she could be used to type real fast.

The King of Moo wrote: »

No no, you've got it all wrong!

They don't kill, they cocoon you and then implant you with a facehugger which plants an embryo inside you which then bursts out of you!

Or I might be a little confused because I'm watching Alien now. Damn you representations of male fears of rape and sexual passivity!

The funny thing about that chest exploding scene is when they shot it none of the cast knew what was happening...the script just said "the creature emerges", the majority of the cast were sent on a break while they prepped the set for it, they came back and it was all set up.

They even did a false start where just a little bit of blood leaked out on purpose, to sucker all the cast into leaning in real close then BOOM...****ing blood explosion. Apparently a few members of staff needed medical treatment to lower their heart rate and blood pressure after it.

(Yeah, i know a really sad bastard amount of info about films i like).

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The funny thing about that chest exploding scene is when they shot it none of the cast knew what was happening...the script just said "the creature emerges", the majority of the cast were sent on a break while they prepped the set for it, they came back and it was all set up.

They even did a false start where just a little bit of blood leaked out on purpose, to sucker all the cast into leaning in real close then BOOM...****ing blood explosion. Apparently a few members of staff needed medical treatment to lower their heart rate and blood pressure after it.

(Yeah, i know a really sad bastard amount of info about films i like).

You can really see in Veronica Cartwright's expression that she was genuinely shocked! And I think she got covered in most of the fake blood.

The smell was pretty horrendous too: though I think the fake blood was standard issue fake blood, they did stuff the fake chest with sundry thrown-out organs from the nearest butchers!