Roger Ebert vs. Harry Knowles on the Politics of Kick-Ass's Hit Girl
We've known for quite a while that Hit Girl from Kick-Ass would be cinematically controversial, but now that the film is in release, the debate about her has gotten kicked up a notch. On one side, you have Roger Ebert, who gives the film one star and questions the delight taken in Hit Girl's R-rated behavior (which involves ultraviolence and a terribly dirty mouth). One the other side, you have Harry Knowles saying, "Naw, old man!" and then ding-dong-ditching Ebert. Let's examine their arguments, shall we?
First up, we have Ebert's take on the matter:
Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find "Kick-Ass" morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? Let's say you're a big fan of the original comic book, and you think the movie does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in. A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context. [...]
I know, I know. This is a satire. But a satire of what? The movie's rated R, which means in this case that it's doubly attractive to anyone under 17. I'm not too worried about 16-year-olds here. I'm thinking of 6-year-olds. There are characters here with walls covered in carefully mounted firearms, ranging from handguns through automatic weapons to bazookas. At the end, when the villain deliciously anticipates blowing a bullet hole in the child's head, he is prevented only because her friend, in the nick of time, shoots him with bazooka shell at 10-foot range and blows him through a skyscraper window and across several city blocks of sky in a projectile of blood, flame and smoke. As I often read on the Internet: Hahahahaha.
Knowles responds with a long treatise about the wide availability of toy guns in Ebert's childhood and the classic films that also put young actors in murky situations:
I remind you that there was a time, when Martin Scorsese was under fire for having a 13 year old Jodie Foster play a whore in TAXI DRIVER - which is more or less about a man that in the end is a hero for taking violent action to protect that girl.
At that time there were critics that wanted to hang Marty. You were not one of them. I remember that time because as a 6 year old I can remember watching you and Gene defend Scorsese and you were my heroes.
I have to say it is a little sad to see you go the route you did in your KICK ASS review. And don't worry, while I suppose you'll never really just get KICK-ASS... You're no square in my book. But you may be in danger of being a 'grown up'.
All right, Harry, good argument. But then you lose me here:
The sort of kids that will see KICK ASS this weekend are well prepared for it. Talk to a teacher at our public schools and you'll hear fouler language than even Hit Girl dishes in the classrooms. Not of a private school, but I have dear friends that teach - their kids know the language and how to use it. They'll see it as just a really cool movie that really let kids KICK ASS. And hopefully it'll make a few kids want to get into acting so they could do stuff like that. Hopefully.
Kick-Ass is going to inspire more little girls to become child actors? BAN IT! KILL IT!
Kick-Ass [Roger Ebert]
Why my friend, Roger Ebert is dead wrong about KICK ASS by Harry Knowles [AICN]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
The "Jodie Foster" comparison doesn't hold up. Apples and Oranges> Two completely different movies/characters/realities.
I haven't seen Kick Ass yet, but I find Ebert's review surprising. I think the Jodie Foster/Taxi Driver comparisons are somewhat valid, even if we are dealing with two different types of films here. It's still the moral outrage about an actual young girl starring in a very adult role.
And as far as the violence, Ebert was also one of the few original critics to call The Wild Bunch a masterpiece, back when the jury at Cannes booed it off the screen, and other critics tore it apart for its hyper-violent style.
Once it gets to be "extreme violence", why does it matter WHO is perpetrating it? It's meant to be absurd. What's the difference between a boy or a girl or a 6 year old or a 60 year old who is that violent? Would the violence be "okay" if it was an older male?
OK... it's a movie people! When oh when, are we going to stop looking to movies beyond just for entertainment and not to be the moral compass for society?! Take it for what it is... entertainment!!! Did I like W Bushy as president? No! Does that mean I let Oliver Stone spoon feed me his entertaining view of W Bushy as fact in his film, "W"? Umm, no! I think ya'll get my drift!
I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE A GIRL KICK SOME ASS ; )
This just goes to America's perverse dismissive attitude toward violence. Now, let's take the guns away and put Hit-Girl into an equally mature role, 11-year old whore. Big Daddy is her pimp. The movie shows her turning tricks in graphic, rated-R detail. Now the supporters can't rightly say, "Chill out, it's supposed to be subversive" because we're experiencing a very horrible world there.
That some wouldn't recognize the same horrible aspect with Hit-Girl being a gunslinger versus her being a prostitute says a whole lot more about the American moral center right now, and it's rotting from the inside out.
Look, I think for some girls it wouldn't matter if Hit Girl was a kid or a teenager or an adult. Look at what the so called teenage singing idols sing about and do on stage when its aimed at kids? This movie isn't aimed at kids, no adult would take their kids to see it.
When are people going to stop blaming the production of movies like this on influencing kids when its up to parents to prevent their children from seeing it? IT is R rated for a reason, it isn't the movies fault if a parent is stupid enough to take their kids to see it. Where the responsibility lies is with the movie going public, not with the movie itself. Adults wouldn't let kids to go see a Tarantino movie, so why would this be any different? Its about time that people took responsibility for their own actions, what they see and what their children see - rather then rely on other sources like the movie studios to police things like this.
Plus, I don't know if anyone realizes, but the comic book was British, and it was made in England? I'm Australian and even I find that this whole 'blame America for everything' attitude idiotic.
Just on a side note:
I grew up on action movies, I wanted to be Sarah Connor from the moment that I see her on screen. Now, at 26, I've been in martial arts for 14/15 years, I get weapons for any occasion that calls for presents and I have an arsenal of Swords, Knives & Chain based Weapons - all that I can use with much proficiency - and have done so since I was a kid. And yes I am a stable productive member of society. I also teach Kids karate, trust me when I say that the level of violence in this movie is nothing compared to what they talk about from their own imaginations after video games, anime and the news.
Love Roger but he does miss one now and then.
Will never forget him panning "Reservoir Dogs". Only then he ridiclued it for being "too talky", at a time he and Gene would cream in their jeans over every fellow Chicagoan David Mamet's talkfests, whether they were distinguished or not.
Of course, realizing he and Gene were on the wrong side of history, he then over-compensated in every review of Tarantino ever since.
God forbid one of the main characters were to smoke a cigarette onscreen.
OK, cutting through all of the outrage and controversy, why did Ebert decide to spoil the ending in his critique? No SPOILER WARNING or anything. I mean, yes, the story has appeared in comic book form, but I haven't read it. I don't even know if the ending (or the rest of the movie for that matter) is totally faithful to the book. But, either way, not everyone has seen the movie and those people wanting to see it haven't necessarily read the book -- By comparison, I read the Wanted comic book after seeing the movie.
So, I'm more outraged that I read this article and read Ebert's description of probably a pretty crucial part of the movie.
Thumbs down Ebert, thumbs down.
Wouldn't The Professional aka Leon, be a better comparison, with a 12 year old Natalie Portman in it, training to be a hit-man? Everyone knows how skewed perception of violence in movies versus sex in movies is in America compared to the rest of the world.
I'm not real interested in seeing an 11 year old girl get brutalized with a hammer, but bazooka vengeance sounds like fun.
"which is more or less about a man that in the end is a hero for taking violent action to protect that girl"
Ugh. Harry Knowles is just not an intelligent person.
The fact that Travis becomes a 'hero' is bleakly satirical. It's an indictment of our whole society. It's SUPPOSED to be hypocritical.
Way to miss the point of the whole film, Harry.
As for the common argument that movies don't have a negative influence on people? Nonsense. No one wants to distance themselves from the consequences of their at when people tell them it's made a positive difference. But the second you talk about negative consequences they wash their hands of responsibility and talk about how their work exists in a vacuum. Well they can't have it both ways. If art can reach people for the better, it can reach them for the worse.
"which is more or less about a man that in the end is a hero for taking violent action to protect that girl"
Ugh. Harry Knowles is just not an intelligent person.
The fact that Travis becomes a 'hero' is bleakly satirical. It's an indictment of our whole society. It's SUPPOSED to be hypocritical.
Way to miss the point of the whole film, Harry.
As for the common argument that movies don't have a negative influence on people? Nonsense. No one wants to distance themselves from the consequences of their at when people tell them it's made a positive difference. But the second you talk about negative consequences they wash their hands of responsibility and talk about how their work exists in a vacuum. Well they can't have it both ways. If art can reach people for the better, it can reach them for the worse.
I get tired of the "it's just a movie" argument.
Let's not forget that Tv, music, and movies, influence about 90% of how we think. We're a pop culture society. Every time something goes so far over the top, it lowers the bar just that much more.
@Lani: "This movie isn't aimed at kids, no adult would take their kids to see it."
Oh really? If this movie was really nothing more than a "superhero satire", then why the need to employ any minors at all? Wouldn't it have been much cheaper and easier to make (don't have to worry about child welfare laws!) with adults in all the roles? But wait...now you're saying it wouldn't be the same movie anymore? Why not? Unless...the target audience for this movie is actually kids.
Yes, I know exactly the same kinds of kids Harry knows, and I've talked to many eleven and twelve year-olds who have seen just about every R-rated movie released over the last ten years. And do you think their parents took them to these movies, holding their little hands the whole time? Heck no! Bit-torrents, late-night cable, duped and traded DVDs--they're proud of the fact that their parents don't know half of the things they've seen. They'll gobble this movie up, because they know it really was made for them.
I thought this movie was hilarious! Get over the language and the violence...its a MOVIE! And I hear kids in REAL LIFE younger then Hit-girl (who is 13 in real life btw) who use fouler language than she did! These kids are no stranger to bad words and violence. At least here its in A MOVIE instead of in their parents bedrooms! You wanna complain about a movie? Dont see it. Then go sign up to volunteer to help REAL LIVE KIDS IN REAL LIVE BAD SITUATIONS IN REAL LIFE! Quit your bs and go help help a kid who isnt a freaking movie character being played by an entertainer to entertain us!
Oh god, call the fun police. Everybody put away your fun
I am sorry Tao, but I do work everyday with kids whose lives describe what you say above. The problem is, I not only have to help them deal with their own lives, but I also have to teach them that the message shown in this movie is not one to follow. Kids are seeing these movies from kindergarten on and are being desensitized to violence and also learning it is a solution to problems. The glamorization of it all just magnifies the affect. Violence is increasing in our youth...that is the reality. As adults, we need to take action to make this reality change.
Some people still think they can understand everything.
...because some things are pretty easy to figure out. Like Hit-Girl's Catholic schoolgirl disguise: Symbol of innocence, or sexuality? If you're uncertain, maybe you should check out Atom Egoyan's "Exotica", Kevin Smith's "Dogma", and several art films made in the San Fernando Valley with "Lolita" in their title.
Now I think you're getting the picture. Pigtails and a plaid skirt have symbolized underage sex for over two decades now, and putting an eleven year-old actress in such a getup is a bit, um, questionable, since here it's merely being used as a disguise to gain entry. But Chloe Meretz in that outfit looks great in all the promo materials, eh? That picture's everywhere!
Who knew James Cameron had time to troll at Movieline?
@rudyv its easy to over analize something as minor as a costume that appeard in rough 10 minuets of the film and a few pictures online.. umm everywhere show me a promo poster with that picture.. you cant. but please do overlook the humor in putting a charactor thats so deadly in an over the top inconcent outfit, i found it ironic if somebody found it provocadiv i think they have deeper issues and need to look in the mirror more then at a movie screen.
Why don't we just make a movie of 11 year old girls being sodomized by goats? What's the problem? I bet that would make Harry happy, 'cause all the kids talk filthy these days anyway, in his reasoning.
If the target audience was kids, it wouldn't have had an R rating. As it is, you couldn't find the first few issues of the comic when it came out because the writers printed it from the equivalent of their basement and it wasn't until the third or fourth installment that its circulation picked up. The average comic reader is over the age of 18, by the way.
I totally agree with Rhino, Nice Spoiler warning....Not. Glad to know she doesnt get a bullet hole blown through her head, and I'm glad you let me know I was about to ruin the end of the movie (Again... Not.....) Awesome Ebert.. Awesome... (you know whats coming...) Not....
It is like apples to oranges...comparing apples to oranges is a completely reasonable thing to do. Both are fruits, both are round, both contain the seeds of trees. Both movies are grity, both show gratuitous violence, both are controversial.
And as Knowles points out, Ebert takes opposing sides on a similar issue presumably because he is now an older man.
Completely fair comparison, just as fair as comparing apples to oranges.
Next »