Comments on: “Her ability to shoot a gun was so the film’s advertisers could put her on a poster wearing a skimpy outfit with a big gun between her legs.”

By: cornflakes

cornflakes — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:01:43 +0000

….okay, so maybe that one was intentional. Heh.

By: Kopakka el Incrópito

Kopakka el Incrópito — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:57:57 +0000

@Anke: Oh my freaking GOD. YES INDEED!!!!!
Hey, i like this site!!!

By: stokes

stokes — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:20:16 +0000

@Anke: Oh my freaking GOD.

By: Anke

Anke — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:01:09 +0000

I realise that this post is way old, and that the following isn’t even a movie, but I just have to add this example, for anyone who comes across this in the future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manhunter_KateSpencer.jpg

By: cornflakes

cornflakes — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:36:11 +0000

Is it possible that this positioning is widespread simply because it shows the female form to the greatest advantage? The pose of the woman in ‘Red Sonja’, for example, shows off her hips, arms and a hint of boob. In contrast Ah-nuld’s pose doesn’t show much of anything.

The woman in ‘High Tension’ though is probably a different case again– it seems to me that it could easily have been a guy in that pose. Indeed I first mistook her for a guy.

No need to revert to Freudian nonsense, imo.

By: karla

karla — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:51:20 +0000

“Freud’s concept of the Phallic Mother is probably as outmoded and tendentious as his concept of Penis Envy.”

I totally agree, Freud is over rated!
JK.. I dont agree at all with his concept, but everything and everyone points at his ideas and our society does seem to be overly absorbed by this

By: Shaun

Shaun — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:19:38 +0000

well, of course it’s not pointed towards her–for one thing, that would be WAY too obvious (you might as well have her masturbating with it), and for another, who points a weapon at themselves? that would be dangerous and stupid–which is NOT the message they want to be sending, especially not subliminally. although if they did, it might cut down on the teenage birthrate in places that believe in “abstinence only ‘education.’”

and yeah, occams razor was what i was thinking of. after all, we already know that sex is at the center of a whole lot of human behavior, so why add in this whole “entity” of the phallic mother which ties into sex or subliminal fear of losing one’s penis (which ties into sex) or whatever?

By: stokes

stokes — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:09:41 +0000

Well, I certainly hope I’m overthinking it. :) You may well be right. Occam’s razor dictates that we search for the simplest explanation, and although what Occam is actually supposed to have said is “entities should not be multiplied without necessity,” we could probably posit a second razor that goes “it’s really all about sex.”

But I’m not totally convinced. Question for you: why is the business end of the implement in question always pointed away from the woman’s body? If she were pointing the gun/sword/whatever towards her body, wouldn’t the feeling of the image totally change?

By: Shaun

Shaun — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:48:01 +0000

i think this whole “phalic mother” thing is overthinking it (sorry for the pun). a woman holding a phalic symbol between her legs/aimed at her crotch sounds to me like another, way more common (and less freaky/incestuous) type of innuendo entirely, if you catch my drift. and if the phalic symbol is a weapon, so much the better–after all, you can’t spell “bloodlust” without “lust.”

it’s all sex, is what i’m saying.

By: Jonn

Jonn — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:33:16 +0000

I don’t think Jessica Alba’s character actually wields a gun at any point in Sin City. She doesn’t need one.

That’s not innuendo, by the way; she simply doesn’t need a gun.