It's been a source of debate lately the way Hit Girl is portrayed in
Kick-Ass. There are two sides to the argument, but also two focuses. The scene in which she gets beaten by the lead villain is both visceral and realistic. The overall theme of who she is as a person is the other aspect some have trouble coping with. But do we need to just sit back and enjoy entertainment or is everything delivered to the masses, even under the strict R-rating, deserving of such critical social analysis?
We've seen kids beaten on film before in
Leon,
Radio Flyer and
This Boy's Life. Yet, each of these examples are domestic issues. Does this really change what we are watching? The genre of
Kick-Ass shouldn't change the way we react to it, just because the film has comedic tones. The scene was rough and taken seriously. It was in the moment and an overdue expectation of vigilantism. Most of all, it felt like the next step.
But
Roger Ebert decided to pick on Kick-Ass and I'm not cool with that. He makes comments that this film is R-rated, therefore urging underage kids to sneak in, which is inevitable. Then, he argues that 6-year-olds are who he is worried about. Come on, Ebert. 6-year-olds can't see this movie for a thousand reasons, and if they do, it's the fault of the parent. My biggest gripe with Ebert is his inconsistency. Blame this film for one topic, but not even mention the rape scene of a then-14-year-old Dakota Fanning in
Hounddog?
People too often blame films for dealing with questionable subject matter. Instead of gunning for studios or filmmakers, look inward for the problem.
You can't blame a dog for pissing on the floor. But once they have been trained not to do so, to know it is wrong, then can you blame the dog. It is 100% the responsibility of the parent to raise a child to know what is right and wrong. Not the difference between the two, but specifically what is what. Do children get caught in the ebb and flow of cultural trends? Yes. But understanding them before confronting them creates a viewpoint, not just an experimentation.
Without children, I can't say I am the best voucher for the way they think. But, like all of you, I was a child once. Had I known violence was wrong,
Kick-Ass would simply be entertainment. Yet, it constantly shows the audience why regular people can't be superheroes. Kick-Ass questions his own motive and the consequences on a number of occasions. He gets stabbed, tortured and overwhelmed. Were it not for metal plates in is body, death would be inevitable. Watching somebody else go through the tribulations of a dream most of us have constantly, to become a superhero, is the entire point of entertainment.
I don't see how portraying a young girl kicking some ass is so bad. It is stylized violence and there are multiple moments where we recognize she is too young to be in this situation. Ebert goes on to argue she is incapable of doing what she does in the realistic world the film sets up. Wrong. Just watch the Olympics for five minutes. Just listen to the actress Chloe Moretz discuss her training with martial arts legends and world-class tumblers for a sense of how real it became. Girls younger than her are doing triple axles on ice skates.
Could the film use a moment of self-doubt from the girl? Sure. But if anybody cannot recognize the savage actions she is undertaking it is a young girl, versed in only one thing her whole life. Will young girls who see the film want to be Hit Girl? Yes. I know a 20-year-old who wants to be her.
But it is not the filmmaker's responsibility to create characters that tell society how to function. This is why the MPAA works and the responsibility lays on the parents, not the children who watch. Even the theaters deserve to hold themselves accountable. But this is nature vs. nurture. And nurture is king. A well-raised child will watch actions like this and not take it as something to do or try to learn.
When it comes to her taking a beating, the complaints seem to be justified in the graphic nature. A little girl held up by the throat on a bookshelf, feet dangling in the air is a hard sigh to comprehend. But it is necessary for a sense of believability. Do we need to see the villain doing this to prove he is unforgiving and nasty? No, we don't. But it proves there are consequences to killing. And even little girls have to deal with them. Would he have shot her in the face if Kick-Ass didn't show up with a bazooka and blow him into the sky? Would his paternal nature have kicked in? Likely not, considering he wasn't so loyal even to his own son.
When it comes to her dialogue and use of the word "fuck," "cunt," and "bitch," this doesn't seem to be something Moretz was unprepared for. You can't just throw anybody in that role and let them say that. But she was a hilariously mature girl in
(500) Days of Summer and has been in a handful of adult horror flicks. She is mature, as is Hit Girl. Again, back to the parental control, it's not like Moretz pretending to go to school every day, but really go to a film set and secretly make this movie.
More importantly, REAL PEOPLE TALK THAT WAY. Even kids, yes. Sorry to break it to the parents, but when your kids go to school they swear like sailors and think like dirty perverts. It's the way it is. Don't blame entertainment. Blame progression of humanity...or something.
Hit Girl is a strong girl mentally and physically. Her emotional strength is an amazing quality of a girl beyond her age and that should be inspiring to women of all ages, people of all ages. Her choice to be violent wasn't necessarily a choice, but a brainwashed lifestyle from her father, like Tiger Woods playing golf. Read the book
Outliers. It explores the concept that child prodigies are no better than you, they just simply have more experience. It argues a person needs 10,000 hours of practice on a skill to be considered an expert. Given that, a child who starts young can easily be one of the world's best by Hit Girl's age.
There are other perspectives on the film and its portrayals. I get that. Let me know your side. Parents will likely regard Kick-Ass as a stylized example of stealing kids from them in order to entertain. In some ways, it is. But how is that any different than even more influential heroes of violence, like
Iron Man or
Batman? I agree it is not for youngsters, but I also don't think it is the second coming of Marilyn Manson unofficially causing kids to shoot up schools.