3/27/18

Tomb Raider Reaction - Respect Your Action Heroine Elders and Let People Have Their Feelings

I held back on publishing this for days. Mostly because it's a topic I've written about over and over again.

I promise this is the last post where I wax poetic about the action heroine's cinematic past. It's too broad a topic to live in comfortably.

As a writer, sometimes you have to ask yourself who you're trying to persuade. When I feel compelled to defend what I love, I think I'm writing to old bullies. Old boyfriends who told me I was wasting my time. It's time to move on to my own characters and scripts

But one last time for the people in the back. This is why Tomb Raider is important.



My tickets to the original and the reboot.
I just got back from the movie theater.

It's been seventeen years since the first Tomb Raider was released. Before that? Fifteen years since a female-dominated action adventure struck gold at the box office.

For the record, it was Sigourney Weaver in Aliens back in 1986.

(Yes, my fellow genre nerds, I know technically it was sci-fi. But there was action...and it was an adventure. Can we broaden the definition a bit for the purposes of this essay? What say, ye?)

Sure, there were other strong women on film. But Sigourney was an action hero with a capital H. A Rocky. A Rambo. A Ripley.

Unlike the cultural minefield that was Ghostbusters, Tomb Raider fans are accustomed to Lara growing and changing. When Eidos created her, she was a he. And he was basically Indiana Jones.

Watch this special feature for some Eidos history: "Where's his whip? We're gonna get sued."


After he became a slightly boxy she, the character was gifted with impressive, ahem, assets. Mathematically staggering assets. Eh, why play coy? Lara Croft had huge breasts in most of her incarnations. For the record, this never bothered me. But it's certainly worth mentioning and we'll revisit this fact later.

Over the years, Lara's development kept pace with technology. She even got a gritty, realistic reboot in 2013.


Sidenote: For me, that game was equal parts exhilarating and sickening.  When Lara died, it was violent and bloody. Bone-crunching. Cringe-inducing. I'm sure the impetus behind that decision was that if her death seemed hyper-realistic, we'd play our aspirational avatar more carefully. But I couldn't bear to see her struck down that way. End Sidenote.

Okay Audrey, but what about the movie?

I liked it. I didn't freak my freak quite like I did when I was eighteen and saw the first one. But that's just the ravages of time doing their thing. And you guys, they love. to do. their thing. #decay

The new movie soars when it brings the game to life. Fortunately for us, that's often. It's chock-full of direct references, broken down to great effect here by IGN.

The first time I smiled was during the shipwreck scene. When Lara grabbed a pole to swing to safety, I silently cheered. I felt that same adrenal thrill when the floor was falling away or Lara was ducking and diving.

Just as I suspected in this naval-gazing foray into solipsism, my thumb repeatedly tried to press a phantom "x" button on reflex. Ah, muscle memory and the ways I could be using it to better myself instead of playing video games.

But real quick...

What kind of a world are we living in where Dominic West gets cast as the grizzly old father? I'll tell you what kind. Oldsville. But, as Lara said in the original 2001 movie, "tempis fugit". It's never felt more true.

Because it's a prequel, Lara lacks most of her trademark chutzpah. But that's the whole point. To watch her grow. To see her survive the events that will shape her preference for questing and her choice of workouts for years to come. (Note to self: Start working that upper body strength.)

Not only does Lara feel more grounded due to the film being a prequel, she feels different because the world around her, and us, has changed. Drastically.

In 2001, we liked a lot of swash with our buckle. Pierce Brosnan was still Bond. We didn't mind a little silliness. A wink and a smile. Huge...assets. (Boobs, remember?) Lots of people look back on the original Tomb Raider movies now like they're a pair of their parents' [insert old, outdated piece of clothing roughly the age of your parents here].

They seem silly. Out of date. How did anyone ever wear those things?

Also worth noting, new Lara is competing with the entire cast of Black Panther, which contains female warriors of many beautiful shapes and sizes. Brainy ladies. Tough dames from all age demographics. From the background players to the leads, each of them wields various weapons. Slicing and dicing to the brilliant, blistering score. It's a thing of beauty.

I haven't written about Black Panther because there are other voices more important than mine. But I've seen it twice. I'll definitely own it. It's just...what can I say about it that hasn't already been said? Here, or here, or here.

And anyway, here's the thing about Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft. Her portrayal seems silly now. Maybe they were aiming for silly, based on a character designed so specifically for the male gaze. She was so much woman she was almost camp. A second wave sweetheart.

But without her, we might not have our onscreen versions of Black Widow, Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, or any of those aforementioned Wakanda warriors. You go even further to say that Lara wouldn't exist without Linda Carter. The point is, we have our present because of our past, whether we consider our artifacts from that past to be critical or cultural failures or successes. 

Just as Ripley paved the way for Geena Davis in Cutthroat Island, early Lara paved the way for New Lara. Scrappy, willowy Lara. She's no less strong. I'm here for petite Laras and curvy Laras and while we're at it, can I have some more Geena Davis and Sigourney Weaver and a thousand more Black Panther movies and PLEASE can we get a Black Widow standalone?

In the past, there were so few female-led action movies, that executives watched their box office performances and tracked them as indicators of how well a female-led movie could do.

Somehow, over the years and years of massive successes (9 to 5 and God help us, the Sex and the City movies) anytime a female-led flick under-performed (Catwoman, Salt) those stats were used as evidence in the argument that action movies with female leads "didn't work".

The successes have always been mysteriously factored out of the equation. Flukes. And the entire history of movies as an art form hasn't been all that long enough to really argue the point. Sometimes even engaging in the argument felt like setting off a mouse trap. A frustrating, sexist mouse trap. Until recently, when the evidence became too great to ignore. Even then, the semantic arguments continued. (Even though they matter a whole lot less now.)

When many of us cried our way through last year's Wonder Woman or publicly sang its praises, a meme circled in response. It showed Buffy spliced next to Wonder Woman with some quote about "We've never had such a strong woman on film before."

People would come into my facebook comments and scoff, "Said noone ever." Lots of my male friends said, "That's not an actual argument people were having." It was so weird it was confusing.

Let me give you an example. It was always some version of this:


Were we being criticized for liking Wonder Woman too much or for not liking Buffy enough? It was a no-win situation. No matter what we did, two vastly different characters were being pitted against each other as evidence to neutralize...I'm not sure what exactly. Each other? The fans?

A. The above quote seems pretty fake.

B. I don't remember anyone ever saying Wonder Woman was the first strong woman on film. I certainly didn't make that argument. So that's hyperbole in reaction to accused hyperbole, and...

C. In the wake of all the Batman movies and Superman movies, the Seagals and Van Damme's and and even indie darlings like The Crow, our female action heroines were much fewer and further between. MUCH fewer and further. You can look that up. Statistically. It's just the truth.

Dudes had more. That's not every dudes fault. I'm not salty about it. That's just...how it was for a super long time. A fact. If a male-lead action film flopped, it wasn't used as evidence to never make another male-lead action film. Never ever.

I'm not saying that not having as many action heroines as I would've liked crushed my soul or ruined my life or anything. After all, I grew up with She-Ra and Leia. Yes, I remember Sarah Conner. Yes, I liked Resident Evil. Sure, I thought Mad Max: Fury Road was an absolute revelation.

It's been a joy to this geek girl to have more of what I love. So friggin' sue me for being excited about Wonder Woman. About the women of Wakanda. About Lara Croft. About Ghostbusters last summer. About Harley Quinn being in a movie even if it was flawed. Any of it. All of it.

Only very recently have we started to live in the era where a female-led action flick can under-perform, as Tomb Raider is doing now. As it was projected to do, and therefore moved out of summer blockbuster territory. It's fun if you're a fan, but it's not the best action movie ever made. But this time that presents less of a risk to this genre geek.

Why? Because there is another female-led action flick locked and loaded right behind it. Wasp is on her way. Wonder Woman will be back on big screens in a sequel. This time, I know there are more action heroines forthcoming.

Back in my day? They were few and far between. And no, I'm not going to make that uphill in the snow joke. Actually, you might think action heroines have been on a slow but steady uphill climb. You might think they only emerged with the comic book boom back in the thirties. They actually appeared much earlier. As early as silent film.

In fact, there were several in the silent era. As just one example, Pauline from The Perils of Pauline. She had to mostly be in danger to do stunts. But she existed and that's not nothin'. Before that?

Action heroines had to appear within the confines of gothic novels, where all the action took place in secret corridors and passages because a woman's place was literally in the house. It wasn't socially acceptable to buy or read a book where a woman has adventures outdoors. This was back in the hysterical era. You know, fainting couches and corsets.

Totes didn't pay for this stock photo, guys.
Before that? Early American Captivity Narratives. Even Shakespeare had to shipwreck a chick every now and then to let her in on the action.

The point? This moment in movie history could represent the tip of the spear. Are we in a style cycle or are we beginning to see more women in more diverse roles? And whatever intentions Lara was designed for, I believe she's a huge part of what lead to this moment.

In summation, I'm really glad Tomb Raider's box office numbers won't be so closely watched that it's performance is heretofore linked to the potential future success of any action movies starring a woman as the protagonist.

You don't have to like the new movie. You don't even have to see it. I respect your cinematic choices, whatever they may be. And remember my fellow geeks, bring to mind the wise words of our people's philosopher...

No comments:

Post a Comment