Written by Elizabeth Kiy as part of our theme week on Rape Revenge Fantasies.
Though very different, the two films based on Joyce Carol Oates’s novel, Foxfire: Confessions of A Girl Gang, have a shared message: that rape culture is pervasive and the experiences of girls and women within it are, sadly, universal. In both films, one set in the 90s, the other in the 50s, teenage girls inhabit dangerous territory, full of sexual assaults and near misses, all ignored by the authorities around them. Their experiences aren’t considered unusual or justified within their respective narratives; instead, they point out that women are given a lot of reasons to feel unsafe and afraid in our society. At the very least, we’ve all been told not to walk home at night or to be frightened by a man following too close on our heels.
Unlike a lot of other films discussed this week, the girls of Foxfire are not avenging a particular rape, but are instead rebelling against rape culture in many forms: catcalls, description of women by only their physical attributes, slut shaming, rape and molestation, predatory authority figures and the society that allows men and their opinions more power than women.
While rape revenge films are often criticized for using rape for titillation or as a means to justify nudity and graphic violence, the ideas are invoked here to make viewers think.
In these films, one girl is mocked by a teacher for her appearance and has her intelligence demeaned. One girl is groped while another is shamed. Yet another is offered a free typewriter by her uncle in exchange for sex; a fifth is spied on in the shower. During a trial, the defendant’s promiscuity is the most important factor in deciding her guilt. And when one girl returns home after being raped, her mother’s only response is to tell her to clean herself up before her father sees.
Forming a girl gang allows the characters to stop seeing sexual assault as the problem of each individual victim, but as something that effects all of them. When one girl, Rita, thanks the group for helping her, their leader assures her that she isn’t to blame–if Rita wasn’t the victim, it would have been someone else. Women need to band together instead of shaming each other if they have any hope of changing things.
Both films center on a passionate and androgynous leader, named Legs, who mobilizes the girls, first in a series of pranks and acts of rebellion small enough that viewers can cheer them on, then through several dangerous and criminal acts, before culminating in the kidnapping of a wealthy man at gunpoint. Maddy (Hedy Burress), Legs’s closest confidant, observes the events and acts are narrator, chronicling the group’s rise and fall.
The original 1996 film, starring Angelina Jolie as Legs, is clearly a product of the 90s Girl Power movement, a period known for being overly commercialized, but it’s an earnest effort with a female screenwriter, Elizabeth White and director, Annette Haywood-Carter. It’s also an attempt to modernize the novel, about working class 50s teens in Upstate New York, relocating the story to Oregon and dressing it in grunge fashion, with topics for discussion like sexism, female disenfranchisement, parental neglect, and masturbation. However, as a mainstream film, it’s sanitized, more playful than the book and as the girls are middle or upper middle class, the stakes are less dire. Foxfire never becomes a literal gang or a lifestyle, just an episode in their lives, that facilitates their coming of age.
For the remake, director Laurent Cantet restored the novel’s setting and stuck pretty faithfully to the book, attempting to cram in all the causes Foxfire rebels against, including ageism, racism, animal rights, and economic disparity as well as sexism. Lead by a cast of newcomers, Cantet’s film takes a more cautionary tone, as Maddy’s attempt to redeem Foxfire, now remembered only for their criminal acts, by telling their history and their original noble goals.
While Legs in the remake (Raven Adamson) was a classmate of the other girls who they had known for years, in the original, she’s an outsider, a drifter who enters into their lives one day and helps them find their voices. Legs is given a grand entrance, heralded by thunder and followed as she boldly trespasses through the school halls.
Like a superhero, she arrives to save one of the girls, Rita (Rilo Kiley front-woman Jenny Lewis) who is being bullied by her teacher, Mr. Buttinger, for refusing to dissect a frog. Legs tells the student to “Make him stop,” and it’s a truly revolutionary idea, that a teenage girl could have any power over an adult. Her dream-like entrance and exit through the window, mark her as powerful and unconstrained by society’s rules, she doesn’t go to the school and Mr. Buttinger can’t punish her.
Legs is clearly marked as Other–she’s aggressive, with a leather jacket, heavy boots and swagger. As the camera pans up her body when she’s first introduced, not showing her face for several minutes, it’s clear viewers were meant to think momentarily, that she was a man. It is unclear why she goes by such a strange nickname, one usually thought of as objectifying; perhaps it is an attempt to reclaim something men have called out to her in the street.
Her relationship with Maddy is marked by obvious lesbian subtext, as they frequently flirt, confess their love for each other and share a bed, but her sexuality is never explicitly discussed. It is problematic that the character with the courage to fight against rape culture is the one given traits marked as masculine, while the girls she recruits, are mostly feminine and/or weak. It is also troubling that Legs’s suggested queerness is paired with her hatred of men, two things which are often falsely equated.
In both cases, the girls are enamored with Legs, who quickly becomes their hero and undisputed leader. In the original, they are all introduced as broad high archetypes, Violet (“the slut”), Goldie (“the druggie”), Rita (“the fat girl”) and Maddy (well-rounded and popular), characterizations which become more three dimensional as the film goes on.
When the other girls learn Mr. Buttinger has been groping Rita’s breasts during detention, they originally hold her responsible. It’s Legs’s influence that makes them realize there is no excuse for Mr. Buttinger’s behavior and no way Rita could deserve his abuse. In the remake, Legs blames Rita only for not fighting back, telling her, “It’s up to you to decide how men are going to treat you.” Rita takes this message to heart, exposing him as sexual predator by painting statements about his attraction to young girls on his car.
In the original, Legs tells the girls that the only way to stop his is to band together. During Rita’s detention, the girls gang up on him, physically assault and threaten him. Rita begins to come out of her shell, finally gaining the confidence to confront her abuser, threatening to castrate him if she ever touches her again. The next day, the girls are called into the principal’s office and suspended, despite their claims of sexual harassment, which are ignored.
Legs’s idea, that they can fight against abusive men only if they all stick together, but not as individuals, leads them to start Foxfire as their own collective, their own subculture. Before they had banded together, the girls went to the same school and had shared experiences, but cliques kept them segregated. Maddie, from her privileged perspective as a popular girl, looked at someone like Goldie as a sideshow, dismissed Violet as a slut and disdained Rita’s shyness as pathetic, and the cause of her own problems. Later, when they become friends, Goldie is hurt when she notices Maddie’s art project includes an unflattering Polaroid of her, clearly posed as someone to mock.
They begin to gather in an abandoned house in the woods, which they use to make a community and a safe space. Hanging around in the house, they become real friends and partake in typical teenage bonding practices, drinking, dancing, ogling guys, and laughing together. They cement their bond by tattooing each other’s breasts with a small flame logo, marking themselves as part of Foxfire, grouped together for life.
In the remake, the girls rent a house and live together in their own cloistered society as Legs intends to create an institution that would outlast her. The idea of a formal female gang with a manifesto, rules, ritual tattooing, criminal practices and recruitment, is an example of young women adapting masculine rough culture and altering it to suit them. Gangs are typically the province of disenfranchised youth (usually male), those neglected by mainstream society, such as racial minorities and the working class. Foxfire suggests the characters are disenfranchised as women and it is natural for them to act out against the society that oppresses them, as the men around them, in their own gangs, have been doing for years.
In the original film, rape culture is tied to sports culture, as both are posed as masculine spaces men feel women have no right to infringe on nor attempt to police. Their attack on Mr. Buttinger upset a group of jocks who respect him as the coach of their football team and they resent the girls. The boys begin harassing them, visiting their house in the woods and attempting to attack them, eventually trying to rape Maddy. Struggling to escape the jocks, the Foxfire girls steal a car and are arrested for it. At their trial, is implied that the jocks lied and blamed the girls for everything, leading to a “he said, she said” dynamic where the boys’ testimonies are taken more seriously. Legs in sentenced to juvie, while the others are on parole. For trying to dismantle rape culture and save themselves from attack, they are punished and lose Legs, the heart of the group.
There are also girls who help the jocks; one lures Maddy into an ambush, understanding the goal is to rape her, and lies at their trial. Later she gains some redemption when she confesses to the judge. Early on in the remake, the girls in Foxfire are reluctant to let Violet, a beautiful girl all the boys are crazy about, join. They decide Violet is promiscuous because she attracts male attention, without any evidence she returns their interest, and look down on her for it. In the remake, Legs’s mental state begins to deteriorate as she becomes disillusioned with her vision of women helping each other as a community after watching women fighting each other in juvie.
After juvie, both versions of Legs turn to darker, more violent acts. Narrating the remake, Maddy says the committed many crimes against men but most of their were not reported because their male victims were ashamed of having been attacked by girls. The films suggest revenge is acceptable to a certain level, where it’s exposing men who have who they know to be predators or teaching lessons to men who have wronged them, but is wrong once the focus moves away from specific individuals. When Foxfire starts targeting men in general, moving out of the area of defensible grey morality, Legs moves into villainous territory herself.
Strapped for cash, Foxfire (in the remake) begins to use its most conventionally attractive girls to bait men, luring them into secluded areas and then ambushing them and stealing money. One girl, Violet, finds she can make more by pretending the man tried to rape her and acting afraid until he gives her money to try and comfort her. Though baiting, these girls attempt to turn rape culture on its head and make it work for them. These acts are justified in their eyes as Foxfire begins to operate with the view that all men are rapists deserving punishment, even casting out any girl involved in a relationship as the enemy.
Out of the group in the original film, only one girl, Goldie (Jenny Shimizu) has a dysfunctional home life. In one scene, her father orders her into his car and hits her while her friends watch. Instead of struggling or hitting back as would be expected from the character, Goldie submits. When the girls discover Goldie has been using drugs, Legs goes to her father, demanding money to pay for rehab. When he refuses, though he can clearly afford it, she kidnaps him at gunpoint and ties him up, continuing to pressure him for money. The girls, as both teenagers and girls, would ordinarily be powerless to help Goldie, here, as in many areas of their lives, they find they can only get results through violence. In these scenes, the other girls surround her yelling that she’s gone too far.
In the end, Legs leaves town to escape arrest, as well as the loss of the other girls’ respect. These girls who had previously viewed Legs as a hero, looked at her with disgust and disappointment and admitted to being afraid of her. In the remake, we get some understanding of Legs’s family and background, as her father, an alcoholic, condemns her at her trial and refuses to let her live with him. Conversely, the original leaves Legs’s origins a mystery. She’s clearly damaged and something must have happened to make her, a teenage girl with a criminal record, no place to live, and roaming from town to town. The easiest explanation, is that she may have left home because of her own abuse and it’s easy to speculate that her anger at society, particularly fierce towards Goldie’s father, comes from projecting her own experiences onto their relationship.
Moreover, the 1996 version is framed as a coming of age story, cast as the year Legs came to town, changing everything, making Maddy question her perfect world and then disappeared never to be seen or heard from again- merely an episode in her life. But while the Maddy is central to the remake as its narrator, her observations of Legs and Foxfire’s history form the thrust of the narrative, rather than her own maturation. Both films end with the mystery of Legs’s disappearance and Maddy’s continuing obsession. In the original, Maddy’s decision not to go with Legs when she leaves town is framed as the one decision of her life she has always looked back on, wondering “what if?”
While the original film shows what happens when the leader of a group becomes an extremist or is mentally unstable, the remake suggests the whole group, excluding Maddy who defects, has begun to reject the rules and laws of society. Toward the end, most of the other girls are excited by their efforts at baiting and see Foxfire as one big, dangerous game that allows them to reject the limiting framework they grew up in. For her part, Legs always means well, trying, in the only way she understands, to help her friends and women as a whole.
Both endings are bittersweet. Foxfire disbands and the girls stop fighting for their causes, but they’ve helped some people and made their mark. But Legs is gone and it’s uncertain what ideas viewers are meant to come away with. It’s tricky to judge, as the films are full of feminist ideas and urgings for female empowerment, yet have dark endings where characters are hurt and disgraced. A tagline for the original celebrates the girls’ rebellion and encourages the teenage girl viewer to follow suit: “If you don’t like the rules, Make your own.”
But what are these films saying about young women who dare to break the rules? That their efforts will succeed unless our leader is unstable? That movements for rape revenge will always become uncontrollable and dangerous or that they’ll succeed only while punishing the guilty, but not when attempting to change the culture?
In the end, what the girls of the Foxfire films have is a strength they might not have found otherwise. That strength and the idea of community are what viewers should remember.
__________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth Kiy is a Canadian writer and freelance journalist living in Toronto, Ontario.
In “Girl Gang Fights Rape Culture in ‘Foxfire’” written by Elizabeth Key, the thesis, in her writing is very much: “The girls of Foxfire are not avenging a particular rape, but are instead rebelling against rape culture.” This is done by creating a community of women who push back against rape culture and the exploitative capitalist society it dwells within. I agree with the author that the community Foxfire builds is the greatest asset to fight rap culture. When the author writes “Forming a girl gang allows the characters to stop seeing sexual assault as the problem of each individual victim, but as something that effects all of them.” It makes you stop and realize that rape culture does indeed, affect all of us.
I think it’s clear that rape culture can be ended through collective action, and a sense of community that makes rape conscious as a violence which effects the community as a whole. Legs understood the need for community, and action. Even though things ended badly for the girls of Foxfire they still made an effect on the community they were part of. Those who want an end to rape culture need to form new collective communities to battle against a society willing to the the blame of rape on a single individual.
In Girl Gang Fights Rape Culture in “FoxFire” by Elizabeth Kiy her thesis is
clear: The girls of Foxfire are not avenging a particular rape but instead
fighting back against the rape culture. I think this post really did an awesome job interpreting the message of the both films because they are completely different. In the 1996 version it is modernized and is perfectly summed up in this sentence by Elizabeth Kiy “It’s also an attempt to modernize the novel, about working class 50s teens in Upstate New York, relocating the story to Oregon and dressing it in grunge fashion, with topics for discussion like sexism, female disenfranchisement, parental neglect, and masturbation.” I love that description because unlike a discussion in class it makes this version seem just as important although it strays from the original novel. This version still contains controversial and important issues that may have not been relevant in the 50’s when the book is time but in the 90’s. Personally some of these issues such as sexism is timeless and seems like society has been dealing with it for a long time, so putting a modernized spin on it made it even more relatable to audiences in the 21st century.
However an important similarity, in both versions Legs is the person that brings these completely opposite girls together and make them realize that their voice is important and they can fight back to abusive men. There might not be many likenesses between the two versions but this blog post mentioned an important one when Legs was the character that brought them all together for such a crucial reason. The blog post seems to convey an important message that the films were trying to get across, that individual women cannot beat the rape culture and they cannot stand there and blame other women for it. Instead they have to unite and do something about it together.
Elizabeth Kiy’s “Girl
Gang Fights Rape Culture in “Foxfire”” did a great job pointing out that
although there were a significant amount of differences in the two film
versions, the films both intended to create a strong message regarding rape
culture in society. After reading the novel and originally watching the 1996
film, I was upset with a few changes that were made. I didn’t like the idea
that the girls were much older and that the film was set in the 90s rather than
the 50s. There were many circumstances that I felt their age took away from
their innocence that I interpreted in the book. I also felt that the 1996
version took away many complexities of intersectionality that I enjoyed in the novel
and the new version of the film. For example, in the 1996 version the girls don’t
come from broken homes, and there is not as much agency in their rebellion.
That being said, I
appreciated this author’s interpretation of the difference in the 1996 film. Elizabeth
Kiy wrote, “The original 1996 film, starring Angelina Jolie as Legs,
is clearly a product of the 90s Girl Power movement, a
period known for being overly commercialized, but it’s an earnest effort with a
female screenwriter, Elizabeth
White and director, Annette
Haywood-Carter. It’s also an attempt to modernize the novel…” After
reading this statement I took a moment to reflect on the 1996 version of the
film once again. My first reaction was that the changes were put in place to
make a “good movie”, but now I can see how the screenwriter and director were
actually trying to modernize the problems faced by the girls of Foxfire. The
1996 version of the film seems to have been trying to help women of the 90s
more closely relate, and hopefully become motivated to take a stand for the
problems that society at that time was facing. My only criticism of the 1996
film still is that I feel Foxfire was too quick to use violence when fighting
back against rape culture.
I agree that a positive message that can be deduced from both versions of Foxfire is that women can find strength greater than themselves if they can learn to stick together. At the same time, I think both films explore why this is so difficult and I also feel that while it is human nature to search for a simplified message to text, I believe Foxfire intentionally does not offer one. If I were to attempt to deduce a message from Joyce Carol Oates’ Foxfire I would say it is a story that recognizes the strength and value of female collectivity, but exposes the institutionalized divisions that make this collectivity impossible. We live in a patriarch and a patriarch is built on exploitation. In order to exploit, division must take place. It is the idea of divide and conquer, and Foxfire had to be conquered.
Both versions of Foxfire feature groups of males whom are immediately threatened by a group of females. In the 90s scenario it is the sports team, and in the 50s scenario it is the male gangs. The connection in of how “rape culture is tied to sports culture” is brilliant and so fittingly demonstrates the modern normalcy and powerful influence of male comradery. In both versions the school is an institution that is threatened by a female group and works (along with the sports team and the gangs) to break up Foxfire. This goes to show first how uncommon female comradery is, and second how male groups instinctively see the need to divide such a group because it threatens their systematic dominion. So while I agree a positive take away of Foxfire could be the strength of female comradery, I think it also works to reveal how difficult, perhaps even impossible, that will be in a man’s world.
I agree that a positive message that can be deduced from both versions of Foxfire is that women can find strength greater than themselves if they can learn to stick together. At the same time, I think both films explore why this is so difficult and I also feel that while it is human nature to search for a simplified message to text, I believe Foxfire intentionally does not offer one. If I were to attempt to deduce a message from Joyce Carol Oates’ Foxfire I would say it is a story that recognizes the strength and value of female collectivity, but exposes the institutionalized divisions that make this extremely difficult, if not impossible. We live in a patriarch and a patriarch is built on exploitation. In order to exploit, division must take place. It is the idea of divide and conquer, and Foxfire had to be conquered.
Both versions of Foxfire feature groups of males whom are immediately threatened by a group of females. In the 90s scenario it is the sports team, and in the 50s scenario it is the male gangs. The connection in of how “rape culture is tied to sports culture” is brilliant and so fittingly demonstrates the modern normalcy and powerful influence of male comradery. In both versions the school is an institution that is threatened by a female group and works (along with the sports team and the gangs) to break up Foxfire. This goes to show first how uncommon female comradery is, and second how male groups instinctively see the need to divide such a group because it threatens their systematic dominion. So while I agree a positive take away of Foxfire could be the strength of female comradery, I think it also works to reveal how difficult, perhaps even impossible, that will be in a man’s world.
The word “patriarchy” implies that oppression exists. In order for one group of people to obtain more power, that leaves everyone else to
be marginalized. Because we as a culture have been socialized into patriarchal structure, we often tend to normalize these behaviors. By normalizing we tend to overlook how deep-rooted oppression is. Oppression is a lack of power; it is prolonged cruel or unjust treatment. At its core, however, oppression is a vicious cycle of lose-lose. I think this reminder is perfectly executed in Foxfire. The girls of foxfire band together to raise awareness and rebel against patriarchy. Isn’t it just a little ironic that in order to fight the oppression of women, women automatically resort to enacting violence and masculine qualities? Unfortunately, this is the society
we live in. This idea and rationale for violence exposes in itself the danger
of patriarchy; as a whole we are so accustomed to “Violence=Power” that women standing up for their rights must enact violence to prove a point. Even then, they are not taken seriously. I love that in this article you say, “It is also
troubling that Legs’s suggested queerness is paired with her hatred of men, two things which are often falsely equated.” The most widely recognized stigma of feminists is the aspect of “male-hating.” Feminists seek political, social, and economic equality. Where in that definition does it say that we feminists hate men?! Are we so lost in these patriarchal ideas that we fail to see equality at face value? The girls of Foxfire eventually lose touch with their original goals. Foxfire transforms from the vision of destroying rape culture to using rape culture as a vantage point to gain agency and capital.
Foxfire fell apart, in my opinion, because of the hunger for power. Legs emerged from Red Bank mentally transformed. For the first time, she realized that it wasn’t merely oppressive men they were fighting against, but women so socialized into patriarchy that became enforcers. Legs realized that this war was far greater than she had initially thought. Because Legs unconsciously recognizes how great this battle is, she begins to aggress and target all men, not the particular rapists or perpetrators. She begins to see all men as vile. “If it wasn’t you, it would have been one of us,” she says to Rita. FOXFIRE HOOKING transforms the group, as you said, into something much darker; Legs is becoming hungry for power and answers; she becomes insatiable. Although you mention the ending to be bittersweet, I happen to find them the perfect level of satisfying. Humans are storytelling animals. In knowing that it, is also crucial to recognize that not every story has a satisfactory ending, or any ending at all really. The uncertainty which remains at the end of the film I see as a reminder and reality check. Although as a culture we have made progress, we need to keep working. All people, no matter what size, shape, or color, should be banding together to create a world that is comfortable to live in. The ending of Foxfire spoke to me, because not only did Joyce Carol Oats deliberately end the story this way as a harsh reality check, but also to call us to action. In reality, marginalized groups are full of lose-lose scenarios, but she reminds us that this battle is far too big to be fighting on our own. One small group cannot change the face of mankind, but may influence the thought processes of people all over. This is what we need in order to seek equality.