This guest post by Angelina Rodriguez appears as part of our theme week on Rape Revenge Fantasies.
The words “female hero” are likely to fill one’s media-enthused mind with images of scantily clad, predominantly white women wielding weapons–like Lara Croft, Xena, or Wonder Woman. Quentin Tarantino contributes many modernized reincarnations of this caricature in his films. One of his most famous films Kill Bill, starring Uma Thurman as Beatrix Kiddo (also referred to as The Bride) is a prime example. As a result of the male gaze, female heroes that fit a format created by men often fail as heroes in their own right as a result of the male gaze. Even though The Bride is a fierce warrior and martial artist, she is repeatedly raped and must step over the bodies of other women, specifically women of color, on her way to her implied equal, a man.
While The Bride is comatose, the hospital orderly rapes her and accepts money from people in exchange for access to her room so that they can also rape her. It is suggested that he has done this a number of times and the dialogue is delivered as darkly humorous. Why do we rape our female characters? Is it to show exactly what women must overcome? It is concerning that this is seen as an empowering message. Watching a woman, such as Beatrix, repossess her body is moving, but all reactions to rape are valid and require strength. During the film, Beatrix must overcome her foes in an order that mirrors the racial and gender hierarchies that exist within our culture. Her rapist is the first to die; he is at the very bottom of the barrel. His offense transcends race and gender and he is the lowest of the low.
Tarantino’s narrative requires The Bride to murder her rapist and to defend herself with some of the masculine characteristics that are used as institutionalized power to oppress women, such as physical strength and aggression. The film insists that she seek revenge, instead of demanding that men simply do not rape. This is barely better than teaching rape avoidance. It dictates that women must assimilate to a male culture of violence in order to have autonomy over their own bodies. In this scenario responsibility remains on the victim. If she does not prevent her rape she must avenge it. Although rape revenge fantasy can be cathartic, we must question the messages at work within these scenes. This scene, in particular, delivers her rape in a way that is almost humorous. It is disrespectful to our hero and to the countless victims of rape that have viewed the film. Despite Tarantino’s belief in the necessity of rape on the heroine’s journey, our female characters do not have to be raped to find liberation from the chains of rape culture and patriarchy.
Angelina Rodriguez studies Sociology at Fairmont State University. In her free time she thinks about things and pets puppies.
I think Beatrix brutally killing her rapist IS a way of teaching men not to rape. Both of her assailants are brought to a swift, violent end. They get their comeuppance. After being reduced to an object, she resumes control of her body to use it as a weapon against those who have hurt her.
I don’t quite understand this article, because it seems like you’re not sure whether to talk about rape in a general sense or rape on a personal level.
If you were raped, would you be content saying afterward “men, stop raping people!”
In a general sense, men should be taught not to force themselves on to others(even though it should be common sense). But on a personal level, if you were raped, wouldn’t you want revenge? Wouldn’t “demanding” men not to rape not be enough for you? Whether revenge is morally right is another discussion, but it’s hard not to understand the Bride’s point of view.
“It dictates that women must assimilate to a male culture of violence in order to have autonomy over their own bodies.”
Men do NOT own feelings of rage. Men do NOT own violence. This movie doesn’t dictate that women must assimilate, it’s saying that women WHO ARE RAPED all probably feel the way the Bride feels. There’s a reason this movie is called a “revenge fantasy”.
I am writing my response to the article titled “Revenge Is a
Dish Best Served… Not at All?” by Angelina Rodriguez because I share very similar opinions with her. I personally had a very strong dislike towards the movie Kill Bill. In the first paragraph of Rodriquez’s article she says, “ This image of the female hero is scantily clad, predominantly white women wielding weapons.” After reading this I thought, why do we see these women as heroes? Is it because they are taking a stand and fighting back after everything they have been through? There are other ways to combat these problems without using violence, so why not show those non-violent ways? In the movie Kill Bill we see our main character Beatrix, who is a fierce warrior and a martial artist. However, that is not enough to be an empowering woman. In order to prove herself she must seek revenge and use her accomplishments, like being a martial artist, to seek her revenge. Rodriguez also talks about how in this film she is repeatedly raped and must, “step over bodies of other women,” until she is successful in her revenge. The fact that she is stepping over other women and not joining with them on her journey is another problem in itself.
After reading Foxfire, we see just how much power women can have if they stick together. From getting a teacher fired because of his actions against women, to protesting against what they feel is not right, we see women have power in numbers. The Foxfire girls make things happen they
wouldn’t be able to do by themselves. The overall message in Kill Bill as Rodriguez explains is that, “women must seek revenge, instead of demanding that men simply not rape.” The idea is that women must conform and adapt to this violent society or be a victim to the acts against them. This puts more blame on the victim rather than the actual problem. It doesn’t teach women that they are strong and can overcome these obstacles, it simply teaches rape avoidance. We see this in the movie Teeth. The main character Dawn, literally adapts to this male violent culture. Her vagina evolves and grows “teeth” to protect her. I agree with Rodriguez when she says that in certain scenes of Kill Bill it, “delivers her
rape in a way that is almost humorous,” because I thought this movie was so dramatic and so violent that the serious message was not recognized.
Instead of trying to fight back with more violence, why not
address the rape issue at hand and try to stop it before it happens?
Angelina Rodriguez’s “Revenge is a Dish Best Served… Not at
All?” attracted me with the idea that these rape revenge films that turn women into vigilantes actually undermines the character. I personally dislike the “strong female characters” Quinton Tarantino creates. Rodriguez wrote that this character type “…dictates that women must assimilate to a male culture of violence in order to have autonomy over their own bodies.” Tarantino’s female leads, such as the Bride in Kill Bill, are creatures of violence that can only find agency through violence. The Bride must go down a road of violence to seek her justice. This shows a flaw in Tarantino’s pseudo-progressive motif. If the only way a woman can have control over her life is to adapt the mannerisms of a man, is that really a form of female power? How, then, should women respond to rape, if not violently? According to Rodriguez, “The film insists that she seek revenge, instead of demanding that men simply do not rape. This is barely better than teaching rape avoidance.” Rodriguez insists that speaking out against rape culture is the best option.
I agreed with the above premise, mostly. However, I feel the need to point out a weakness in the argument. The idea that violence is purely masculine actually sets up a greater divide between women and men. Believing that women are incapable of being naturally violent implies that women can only ever be the victims, not the perpetrators of violence. This is untrue. Beatrix Kiddo, the Bride, was a naturally violent woman. Even before she went on her long revenge campaign she was a murderer. The only thing that deterred Kiddo’s ambitions as an assassin was the need to protect her unborn child. Beatrix Kiddo did not become violent because she was raped, or even because her fiance was murdered, she was violent before that. Assuming violence can only be acted upon by men, or women assuming a masculine role, actually works against the idea of equality.
In her post, Revenge is a Dish Best Served… Not at All, Angelina Rodriguez brings to the surface the many issues with the movie Kill Bill. Her primary issue with the movie, as the title of her post suggests, is that the Bride only seems to find power when she is raped and seeks revenge. In a film whose movie poster describes it as a “roaring rampage of revenge,” Kill Bill presents rape and rape revenge in a humorous way. Angelina insists that by treating rape in this manner and responding in a revengeful way the film does little to actually empower women. Rodriquez says, “The film insists that she seek revenge, instead of demanding that men simply do not rape. This is barely better than teaching rape avoidance.” Our society always makes the women responsible for protecting herself; whether it be taking preventative measures to avoid rape or seeking revenge, Rodriguez stresses that the “responsibility remains on the victim.” This doesn’t get at the heart of the issue, and it doesn’t put any responsibility on the rapist. Rodriguez seems to be encouraging the audience to be more conscious. While Kill Bill may seem like a cool action packed movie, the male gaze and the circumstances that provide the Bride her power actually make this strong female character a failed hero. I agree with Rodriguez’s argument, Quentin Tarantino’s film does not help the views and ideas about rape that already exist in our present society. He instead confuses it, and encourages the idea that rape and its revenge is a fight for control and power, power, which can supposedly can only be possessed by one person or gender.
Rodriguez directly tackles the issue concerning rape revenge very well, but she also touches on the marginalization which is seen in the order in which the Bride kills. This hierarchy places Bill, a white male, at the top. It is Bill who the Bride is really after he is the last stop on her list. On the bottom of the list we find an African American, Asian, and then Caucasian women. She must get revenge on them before can seek out Bill. Rodriguez rightfully notes that the Bride, “must step over the bodies of other women, specifically women of color, on her way to her implied equal, a man.” If killing this white male, Bill, is the way to find power then the film suggests the other kills were not as meaningful because they were only women, and not only women, but women of color. This idea was very interesting and it would have been nice to see it explained a bit farther out. However Rodriguez handles the topic of rape revenge in a way that leaves the audience with little to question on her views on the subject: rape revenge does not empower women.
In her post, Revenge is a Dish Best served..Not at All, Angelina Rodriguez is trying to stretch out a line that in a Tarantino film, is not necessarily there. The Bride kills her rapist first because he is there, she has a plan to Kill Bill, but this man is in her way and because of his crimes she takes time to kill him. You can argue that she is “assimilating into a man” but what about when she chooses to show restraint to the daughter of Vernita Green, and the asian man she says is too young for all this. These are moments where she is not on an all out killing spree, but just taking out the people who killed her, her husband, and her child (so she thinks). The film is not about rape revenge, Tarantino is trying in vain to show what he believes is empowerment, which is violence and power.
I do not disagree with Rodriguez’s overall message here, in that rape revenge does not empower women. But its misplaced in a film where the goal is to kill the people who killed her friends, husband, and child. The rape that occurs is but one part in the film, and its not part of the overarching plot. To look at this film in both parts shows in a way how little the rape scene contributes to the film and its message. I am in no means saying the rape is unimportant, but to say the film is a rape revenge, and that this is all a hierarchy of rape revenge is just a bit misguided. I understand what she is trying to say, but her argument falls flat given the film she tried to tie it to in my opinion.
I agree with Angelina Rodriguez’s 100% in her post, “Revenge Is a Dish Best Served… Not at All?” The reason for this is because she is pointing out how once a woman is raped she is suppose to stand up for herself; fight for what is right. This is showing that the woman is the only one who can really protect herself. If she does not want this to happen again she needs to take matters into her own hands. I am not a fan of the Kill Bill movies at all. The reason for this is because Tarantino portrays women in such a twisted view. He even has the main character Beatrix unnamed for almost the entire movie. To me I was extremely frustrated by this. She was the main character you would think he would want the audience to be able to know her name. Beatrix Kiddo in the movie was only able to show power through her violence. Quentin Tarantino is all about the big fight scenes and I am not sure if he even realizes how poorly he portrays women in this movie.
Movies of course are very dramatized, but while watching the film as a woman it made me think about how messed up the rape scene was in Kill Bill. Angelina states Quentin Tarantino almost makes the rape a humorous event. Rape should never be a humorous matter or something that is played off lightly or shined in a light that down plays the rape.
Society loves to
watch an enraged, kick-ass female whoop butt on the big screen, and many movies
made today contribute to the “reincarnation” of these revenge-seeking women.
However, one has to ask the question “Is this how women want to feel
empowered?” In Angelina Rodriguez’s blog post “Revenge is a Dish Best Served
Cold… Not At All” she does just that. She shows how Quentin Tarantino presents
many of these women in his films, and all of these women use violence to get their
point across. In Tarantino’s Kill Bill,
the main character Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) engages on a killing spree to
avenge her ruined wedding day, and her family that was killed in the process. She
was not killed, but laid comatose in a hospital for four years. While in the
hospital, her orderly raped her, and allowed others to do so as well. When she
awoke from her coma, she killed the orderly immediately, and set out to seek
her revenge. Her main target was a man named Bill, and the assassins a part of
his crew, who orchestrated the wedding day homicides. Rodriguez responds in her
post with “Why do we rape our female characters? Is it to show exactly what
women must overcome? It is concerning that this is seen as an empowering
message,” I completely agree with her. Instead
of the film focusing on showing men that it is crucial not to rape women, it
focuses on a woman’s quest to find power by seeking revenge.
Films like Tarantino’s Kill Bill show that a female must kill
the male perpetrator(s) instead of implying that men should not rape woman at
all. A woman should never have to resort to violence to get her point across.
It should be instated in men that they respect a woman, and all her counterparts.
Men are portrayed in films as doing whatever they please, and the women do
whatever it is they need to take down the male. It should not be this way. Men
should respect women, and if not legal actions should be brought upon them,
thus leading for justice of the women. Despite popular belief, two wrongs must
definitely do not make a right.
I agree wholeheartedly that “our female characters do not have to be raped to find liberation from the chains of rape culture and patriarchy.” It is absurd to think that a woman must be raped to truly hate and fight back against rape. Why must a woman endure awful actions by men in order to become strong enough to fight men? None of that makes sense and it essentially discredits Tarantino’s film, as well as all other rape revenge films. Films and books such as Foxfire offer much more positive actions against rape, where rapists are physically subdued before any sort of sexual contact ensues. The girls from Foxfire did not need to be raped in order to fight patriarchy and rape. They fought against those things because they knew that was the right thing to do for themselves and society as a whole. While those girls used violence to get their point across, they never lost their autonomy. That itself sends a much more positive message to readers and viewers.
However, the rape revenge genre itself exists solely so that the cathartic violence enacted by a woman who has been raped can play out in front of an audience. Most of the time, these films are directed by men. Thus, the creation of the story we see was done through a male lens. Because of this, we get scenes like The Bride’s rape scene where the feel is “almost humorous.” To make matters worse after the shallow rape scene, we see a physically attractive caucasian woman, dawned in a tight leather suit, killing off mostly women of color and men to get her revenge. The idea of the vengeful woman killing men in droves in order to regain her autonomy is dangerous. It is insensitive to victims of rape and sends younger viewers a skewed idea of what it is like to be a rape victim. Just like a woman should not have to practice rape avoidance, she should not have to practice rape revenge. A world where either one of these practices is needed is a world that needs vast improvement. With that being said, the genre of rape revenge is not in the business of spreading the right message to the world. The genre of rape revenge exists so that the cathartic viewer can walk away satisfied. Sadly, the viewers of these films are, more often than not, more interested in the mindless bloodshed than they are in the real life issues of rape being played out in front of them. Revenge is indeed a dish best served not at all. A woman should not have to seek revenge for her rape because she should be able to live her life without getting raped. That is a statement that any person in their right mind would not argue. However, Tarantino is interested in making money. In our culture, a movie about rape and the ensuing violence after a rape is a goldmine. Does Kill Bill send a good message to the audience about rape? Absolutely not. But, that is something Tarantino can live with. Especially after he receives his paycheck.
Angelina has some good points about Beatrix, however I do not particularly agree with them. One point she makes is that Bill, the man Beatrix is working to try to kill, is her “implied equal.” While this is true, Angelina’s statement implies that the women Beatrix kills on her way to kill Bill are not equal to either Bill or Beatrix. This is unfair to the women that she murders; they all worked together as assassins and are all equally as violent and capable as performing brutal acts. This article argues that the only thing Beatrix is going out to seek revenge for is for being repeatedly being raped while she is in a coma. The way I understand the film is that she is seeking revenge on Bill and her ex-coworkers for intruding on her wedding, killing everybody there including her unborn child, and leaving her for dead; the rapes just adds fuel to the fire and make her even more vengeful.
Angelina claims that “the film insists that she seek revenge, instead of demanding that men simply do not rape.” While it does encourage Beatrix to seek revenge, I think that the way she murders the man who exploited her is a way of demanding that men do not rape; if they rape women, they may be subjected to a brutal (and in my opinion completely justified) murder. We have been continuously demanding men to not rape and they continue to do so. In a society where justice systems so often fail rape survivors, is Angelina implying that it is not acceptable to seek revenge on rapists that might continue to rape?
I would also like to point out that Angelina’s article implies that she believes that being violent is inherently masculine. She claims that Beatrix is “assimilat[ing] to a male culture of violence.” Yes, most societies do consider violence to be masculine, but the Kill Bill movies work to defy that stereotype. Many of Tarantino’s movies, especially Kill Bill, include many strong female characters that are violent. I think that it is extremely unfair to consider Beatrix’s violence a “masculine characteristic” when this is a movie that is all about subverting the stereotype that women cannot act violently on their own accords.
In response to Angelina Rodriguez’s blog post “Revenge is a Dish Best Served… Not at All?” I disagree with a few points. I agree that women are portrayed poorly but to say that her seeking her revenge is her assimilating to the male violence culture is a stretch. That there is an issue with your argument because to say that a woman seeking revenge in a violent way is only a male characteristic is saying that women can’t be violent and angry just because they are violent and angry. I think that, although I agree that is it much less common in movies, a man seeking revenge on a woman could be just as justified and understandable. Not to say that her killing of all these people was justified but when I watched the movie, I thought Kiddo took matters into her own hands very well. She was determined and knew what she had to do to make this okay in her own mind.
I think maybe by Tarantino giving these “masculine characteristics” to Kiddo, he was empowering women in a way. I’d argue that maybe these are not masculine characteristics at all and women have just been denied them in movies for a long time. These are characteristics of an angry person seeking revenge, male or female. I know this view lacks a lot of support because I’ll admit, there haven’t been any movies made with a male seeking revenge after being raped repeatedly and all his loved ones being killed, but as I said before, her actions are still understandable. I’d like to think Tarantino did women a little bit of a favor just by not repeating the damsel in distress stereotype.
In this post, Rodriquez brings up the burning question of “why do we rape our female characters? Is it to show exactly what women must overcome?” While my immediate response to this question is yes, I think that there is more to this answer.
Beatrix is a woman with agency, power, and the desire to kill men. Strong women like this shake and scare the patriarchal institution, so to make Beatrix less frightening, we have to watch (because knowing would not be enough), her rape. Raping Beatrix in her comatose state is reducing her to nothing more than a body. This objectification of her physical form, something that soon she takes back through sheer force of mind and determination (as she regains movement from paralysis), strips away all physical power as she cannot act. Totally passive, Beatrix is something that men can commodify and hold power over to physically and emotionally pleasure themselves with. After she wakes, the viewer now has a justification for her future violence—things were taken from her and she wants revenge. The institution now has control over her, because they justify her need to kill. She is no longer acting violently because she wants to, she is violent because she has no other choice. From here, Beatrix is given a sword, made by a man with his permission to kill. The metaphor here is almost literal—man deems it acceptable to kill others with something phallic if you are woman. You need this masculine power and acceptance to succeed.
In her rape, she is destroyed. Given agency, she is now allowed violence because she is not frightening to the institutions at work. She is justified through being raped, she is given (literal) permission, and she is given a brightly colored jumpsuit so she is objectified the entire time. Beatrix is a commodity, whether her name is The Bride, Black Mamba, or Mother. She is now a product rather than a producer, and she is no longer a threat to the institution—just to the men and women who “deserve” it.
In this post, what stuck out to me the most was when Rodriquez said “The film insists that she seek revenge, instead of demanding that men simply do not rape. This is barely better than teaching rape avoidance. It dictates that women must assimilate to a male culture of violence in order to have autonomy over their own bodies.” This really hit me because I never thought of rape culture in this way. All of the movies and readings we have done in class all revolve around the women who were raped, getting revenge. This is basically telling society that it is okay for men to rape women; they’ll just get revenge. Instead, society should be taught that men should not be taking advantage of women and being violent towards them. I think the whole concept of the women being “strong” and “determined” (in the sense that they go kill) are great qualities for women to have. However, people like Tarantino should make movies where women use those qualities in more positive ways. They do not need to have been raped in order to posses those qualities and take action with them.
I think the motivation behind this blog post is that Rodriquez is trying for a call to action. She wants people to understand and do something about how we view rape. When she talks about The Bride getting revenge using masculine characteristics, I feel as though she is saying women can only have those characteristics if they are raped (which I disagree with). Women can act any way they want to, at any time. Women can have whatever characteristics, masculine or feminine, they please. And they especially do not need to go through something traumatic in order for them to come out. It just all depends how they use their characteristics. We will never know if The Bride would have acted similarly if she had not been raped. I am sure she would not have killed anyone, but she very well could have been aggressive, showing her masculine qualities. I do not agree with the thought of those qualities being a result just because of rape.
Angelina Rodriguez argues that the only way that female characters in today’s movies can become empowered in our rape culture is by being raped themselves and then fighting back against their attacker and society as a whole. Rodriguez also argues that in order to rise above the perpetuation of the rape culture, The Bride must take on male characteristics, like adopting a violent nature. I agree with both of these ideas. These ideas are not new ones and they are mirrored in American society already. One example of how women must be masculine to be independent in American culture is with Hilary Clinton. When she was passionate about a topic she would be criticized for being too emotional or hormonal because she was a woman and women are automatically seen as easily upset. So Hilary had to take on a more cool, calm, and detached persona that is normally seen as a masculine trait because women are supposed to be easily attached and caring while men are more detached in our culture’s idea of gender norms.
Rodriguez finally argues that the rape revenge genre is not conductive or cathartic to its viewers. She writes that rape revenge is merely a warning that violence could ensue if a man were to rape a woman, which makes it no better than teaching women “rape avoidance” strategies. These movies only perpetuate the rape culture that we live in because women are still being seen as a commodity and they are still being abused in order to find self-efficacy. These victims are still forced to take responsibility for the rape and the subsequent revenge. They must then seek revenge themselves instead of seeking help from the society that built a culture where this type of abuse is accepted. This article argues that women can essentially have power with out being raped, which I totally agree with. There is no reason that some one should have to have violence perpetrated against them in order to advance in society.
While I agree with the points made about The Bride’s
rape and how she responds, I wish race would have been left out of the
conversation. I did like the first sentence, “Even though The Bride is a fierce
warrior and martial artist, she is repeatedly raped and must step over the
bodies of other women, specifically women of color, on her way to her implied
equal, a man.” I thought this was a good observation, one I had thought a lot
about as well. However, race is only mentioned one other time: “During the film, Beatrix must overcome her
foes in an order that mirrors the racial and gender hierarchies that exist
within our culture. Her rapist is the first to die; he is at the very bottom of
the barrel. His offense transcends race and gender and he is the lowest of the
low.” I wish Rodriguez would have expanded upon this further because I am not
entirely sure what it means. I understand the reasoning that the rapist and orderly
are first and that race does not change the circumstances of their deaths. However,
the first death on The Bride’s hit list is a biracial Asian woman. I really
would have liked to see input on this, what Rodriguez’s thoughts are. Does it
question white and Asian relationships? Are white people and fair-skinned
Asians supposed to battle for power? Is this commentary on USA and Japanese
relations? If so, what does this mean for Asians that have darker skin? The
other death we witness is that of a black woman, a death that is witnessed by
the woman’s child. It is the death of a black woman at the hands of a white
woman nicknamed “Black Mamba.” Is this commentary on race relations in the US?
How do we view mothers of different races and their relationships to their
children? I think these are all important questions to be thinking about in
regards to Kill Bill and race, however, it doesn’t have much to do with rape
revenge so I understand why it is mentioned and not expanded upon.