MovieChat Forums > Sicario (2015) Discussion > Biggest Female Trope Woman Character Eve...

Biggest Female Trope Woman Character Ever Created In The History Of Film

posted 9 years ago by JimmiesRustler
44 replies | jump to latest

I'm going to preface this by saying I was in a combat unit for 6 years in the Army. I don't claim to be Special Forces or anything but here is my opinion from someone who has been down range.

This was truly an 8.5 movie turned into a 5.5 movie because the retarded woman that is Emily Blunt playing the most unbelievably naive of roles ever created. She's a 100 lb soaking wet SWAT HRT agent with eyes in the back of her head, she's divorced(I wonder why), and when given the opportunity of a lifetime to work with Delta Force and the CIA in a joint mission(take it from someone who has kind of been there in the military, this is rare and great opportunity as this is the one assignment that define's peoples careers) she is acting like a total puss-cat and threatens to divulge state secrets about how the CIA and Delta does business in Mexico when she agreed to be apart of the operation. I couldn't possibly think of a more annoying character, I think she treats her partner like crap considering how loyal he is to her, her "loyalty" to him is pretty evidently not as strong.

Women should be madder than anyone from seeing this film. She's supposed to be a hardcore HRT agent, I've met one before he was 200 lbs of solid muscle and his neck was bigger than Triple H, yet she throws up and has a damn near heart attack when she goes through a house and finds dead bodies. Really? HRT is world class and trains with the British and Australian SAS, Navy SEALs, Delta, and a host of international other forces to become some of the best trained people out there, and she couldn't even fill the boots of local tactical unit based on her performance. This movie in almost pathetic in how it portrays women. There are some badass women who could have totally owned the role, as ridiculous as it is, but they picked someone who can't act and then wrote her to be a trope. Whoever is responsible for writing her character should be thrown off the Empire State Building and never allowed in HollyWood again.

To be clear. I don't have a problem with her being 100lbs and an HRT leader. That's unrealistic, but whatever it's HollyWood, I can get over that. What I can't get over is her attitude, personality, and bearing is completely unlike that of a FBI HRT new guy, much less a team leader(think a team leader leads multiple men, into battle, these people are inspiring and almost scary at how much confidence and knowledge they posses) her character would not have got that promotion in any field office based off the above mentioned characteristics. Her bearing is more than an FBI human resources analyst with a couple courses at the range, compared to a hardened FBI HRT team leader, most of which have special operations military experience, and then another 5+ years as a cop(usually on a tactical unit before applying to the FBI and then going through another rigorous process just to become a team member)

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/february/hostage-rescue-team-the-crucible-of-selection

[–] SingleServingJack 9 years ago

People disagreeing with the OP really are either very young, or very naive.

Life is not done just by-the-book and people in most occupations find that out couple years after entering the workforce. Not just military and police - almost every job includes some form of overstepping boundaries.

That is why it was absolutely unbelievable and irritating that an agent that actually has been doing the job for some time is shocked and disgusted at the situations presented in the movie.

It made no sense.

Why would she be angry after the border shootout? The guys in the car were obviously going to kill them and the entire team spotted them very soon and handled the situation professionally.

Same goes for when she is busting everyones balls about arresting Diaz due to his illegal cash flow, when the bigger picture in using him to get to the drug lord is very obviously more important and it is perfectly understandable and logical.

Really, she was so naive and so stupid, it made the movie worse. I wonder why Sheridan wrote the character this way - if there was some intention or some goal that Im not seeing. Or whether he just has no clue how the real world works.


Laura:You left a dead prostitute buried alone in the desert?
Kyle:She's not alone.

[–] apm_bay 8 years ago

People disagreeing with the OP really are either very young, or very naive.

Life is not done just by-the-book and people in most occupations find that out couple years after entering the workforce. Not just military and police - almost every job includes some form of overstepping boundaries.

What the… And that's her character right there: Young and naive. This movie's subject is a who-thinks-she's-seen-it-all cop's run-in with reality. Why do you insist that it makes no sense? There have been thousands, literally thousands of movies about cops who don't play by the book. Now we have a movie about a cop who tries to do things by the book and fails.

I can only reiterate myself:

Yes, that Kate Macer woman is meticulous, stiff and kind of uppity. So what? It's a screenplay decision. Her character is not supposed to be likable. Have people forgotten that cinema and story-telling in general aren't supposed to be The Avengers all of the time? Not everyone is a shining, cheerful hero in real life. Folks have flaws, folks can be annoying, folks fall victim to their own stubbornness. People who have a hard time grasping this concept should opt for feel-good-cinema instead.

Some of the replies in here explain why 95% of all movies nowdadays are shallow CGI extravaganzas with protagonists shaped exclusively to please the masses.

Emily Blunt did what she was told to do, and mostly succeeded. The only aspect of her character that I found worthy of criticism was her handling of firearms. Too much flinching and whatnot. Maybe it was meant to show that Kate Macer was less of a professional than she believed, but production news here on IMDB said she had little time to prepare. I think it shows.

[–] davmur1 9 years ago

The Emily Blunt character is TOTALLY unbelievable and lets down what is otherwise an outstanding thriller. I can only assume she was there for eye candy. Hollywood being so patriarchal that an attractive woman is just too irresistible for their box-office mentality.

[–] Duckybooze 8 years ago

or maybe the director told her to act like that

[–] whitneysnd 8 years ago

I agree, the director told her.. though he way overdid that part of the movie. She was too much and her behavior made no sense. They could have played her to be smarter or bewildered in those situations.. maybe?!?!? . The other characters were great though, aye? So why did they make them so cool and her so ridiculous? Fricken Hollywood, I couldn't relate to her at all, and I am a woman.

[–] krupocin-1 8 years ago

It wasn't about being relatable, she was a character in a story not an extension of you or I. I don't mean for that to come off as rude because it's not meant to be, but rather that it is meaningless whether we can relate to every character, some are there just to show us a different point of view from what we already so relate to and believe.

[–] gecko-23rd 8 years ago

YES!

Thank You!

How many "posters" have been involved with the so called "war on drugs?"

Any?

I have. Sometimes you puke, sometimes you soil youself...

My experiences are from the early 1990's. Mexico was a growing concern. Emily Blunt was great in this film! We men seem to undrestimate how FIERCE women can be.

Speaking for SOUTHCOM/USARSO, and Special Forces (NOT was was then called SFOD DELTA) [Special Forces Operational Detachmeant: DELTA)

If you have not known professional females, like the one portrayed in this film, if you have NO experience in the "Joke with No Punchline," known as the U.S. "War on Drugs," and if you never saw inter agency cooperation in the field...

Then Shut Up!!! Pret[b][b]ty Please.

Thanks for reading if you did.

P.S. Sorry about the small rant.

Regards,

gecko

[–] DaveDiggler 8 years ago

To be perfectly honest there was no reason for a female to lead this movie. It's almost the equivelant of putting a male in a predominately female work environment and expect the audience not to question what he's doing there.

The second I see Emily Blunt walking around in tactical gear as a member of the FBI doing a raid on a major player in the US whose suspected of having hostages? Really? We're going there? And then to see her make entry into a room where a guy has a shotgun, ready to use said shotgun, and he throws one round towards her, and, as she just notices him out of the corner of her eye, she falls down (or tactical drops down) to smoke the bad guy with a fully automatic weapon? I almost wanted to stop watching right then and there.

Only with Hollywood. Horrible casting. If Leonardo DiCaprio was doing this, it wouldn't be as bad, but it still would be unbelievable.

In real life - and this is not an exaggeration - if she was on a SWAT team, her role would be so limited it's almost as if she wouldn't even be on it. She would hold a permiter while more tactically skilled, stronger, agile and focused men breached doors and took care of business. That's just the way *beep* works in real life. And that's not a joke. Maybe they would let her throw in a flashbang or something.

My chief complaint involved her useless, clueless character. I mean, she's completely wrong for the mission. The questions Brolin asks during her interview about being married - not having any attachments with kids - is supposed to make us believe that she's so career driven that she's capabale of doing dangerous operations because there's a lack of emotional attachment or fear of (family) loss. Which only reinforces my initial point even more as it's become such a cliche to see a "woman handle a mans job." As I'm watching the scene I'm sitting there rolling my eyes thinking, "Oh look, another woman who can hang with the men. Yeah, I got it. They're equal and stuff." While the other officer who has military experience is disqualified because he has a law degree, and he'll ask questions. So he's a no go. Oh wait, here is, on the missions though, so I guess, that was entirely pointless. So the black partner still hangs around and she wonders around like the babe in the woods. "Who is this guy? Who do you work for? What's our objective? Where are we going?" Seriously? This is the movie character your want to give to a female? Someone who just wonders around asking dumb questions 3/4 of the time?

Im not sure if I can ever remember a movie having a lead character that was entirely not needed. She served no purpose, but to make some political point at the end of the movie.

So frustrating because there's 3 or 4 set pieces in this that the director killed. The bridge sequence is so bad ass. One of the absolute best scenes in the last decade.

Poetry don't work on whores.

[–] activista 8 years ago

Not needed? She was the main character the story was structured around. What a stupid sexist thing to say. If the main character was a man, you wouldn't been spewing all this BS. The fact that a woman was the main character is what made it a little more interesting than the usual macho man sausage fests Hollywood pumps out every month. And she clearly proved she was capable of the job, so your whiny complaint is that her character should have been a man. Yeah, we get it---you don't like seeing a woman do a "man's job", every though women do such jobs in real life all the time. As a woman, I liked the film the way it was, and her character made the film a little more interesting. You also forgot to mention how her character was deliberately kept in the dark about certain things in the mission,too. That didn't make her stupid or useless---it's made clear in the beginning that she was tapped to go with the mission because she was considered the best pick and had the experience for the job. Tired of you whiny a** men on here complaining because a woman was the main character in this flick. Just shut the hell up about it already---geesh.

[–] PlzStopTrolling 8 years ago

it's made clear in the beginning that she was tapped to go with the mission because she was considered the best pick and had the experience for the job.

You didn't pay much attention to the movie, huh.

[–] roncell 8 years ago

Yeah, I know... I'm a little late to the party. Two points: 1). The only reason why she was part of the strike team is that she gave the CIA agents all the reason they needed to justify carrying out their plan which ultimately was to kill the cartel boss who murdered del Toros wife and kid. 2). When's the last time you saw a female roofer? Lineman?? Tree trimmer?? Plumber??? My point is, while I'm certain that these occupations have their share of female workers, it definitely is not to the point where you should consider celebrating. Women are woefully under-represented in these and many other lines of work. Bottom line: it's physically demanding work. I'm not telling you that women CAN'T perform these types of jobs, it's just very highly unlikely.

[–] elgatonegro765 8 years ago

Don't use the word "sausage fest," it makes you sound like a skank. Hopefully you're not.

[–] elgatonegro765 8 years ago

Don't use the word "sausage fest," it makes you sound like a skank. Hopefully you're not.

[–] pp31246 8 years ago

"The fact that a woman was the main character is what made it a little more interesting than the usual macho man sausage fests Hollywood pumps out every month."

That's a weird thing to say. Women have been main characters in action movies to the point of boredom since 1979's Alien. In fact if that Alien came to Earth today he'd probably get the impression from Hollywood that women did most of the ass kicking in the world. To suggest that a female action character makes a nice change is just ridiculous.

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

You are reading them all wrong.

She didn't do a damn thing, the whole way through. And the fact you are referring to them recruiting her because of all her skills indicates you didn't really pay attention. She was necessary excuse for the CIA to operate domestically, and her skills were utterly irrelevant. They humored her, and patronised her, and gave her just enough info to maintain the illusion of her being important to the mission.

She was used as bait, and when push came to shove she was useless in an actual engagement when they had far superior operators both at the border, and going back in to Mexico, and in the end they threatened to kill her making her a fall guy.

Watch it again, she is a patsy, nothing more. The only reason she is important is the relationship she has with the assassin.

So their point is she was not needed by the CIA team. The story could have occurred without her involvement. It would be about the CIA, and the prosecutor turned assassin. She was not materially needed to tell that story. This isn't sexism, this is just the opinion of some shallow viewers that weren't interested in her story. And wanted some brainless CIA Steven Segal, go get Osama Bin Laden story...

That would be a fairly boring story, and miss the important relationship between her and the assassin which provided the 'moral' or point or whatever in this film.

I think it curious that you are both arguing, but both missed or didn't value some pretty important elements of this movie.

[–] JimmiesRustler 8 years ago

I fixed it. My bad, I didnt know what a Mary Sue was. Thanks for the correction.

[–] rjbiggs1 8 years ago

yeah not really buying emily blunt as an FBI agent. She's one of my favorite actresses
but not for this part.she's got that english rose look going on too much.don't know
why the CIA picked her to go into mexico in the first place. I'm sure they could have
easily found someone with a less rigid moral code.they just wanted someone to sign the
damn paper.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emncaity 8 years ago

Well, you have certainly pissed people off and sent them into fits of trivial b!tching. Stop trying to confuse them with the facts already.

I thought exactly the same thing, start to finish. My wife (a cop herself, the second best shot in her department, and nothing at all like this character -- even though in her earlier life she was, I'm not kidding, a scholarship dance major) and I were just talking about this after seeing the film. Pretty much down the line what you're saying. She works with border agents, Rangers, U.S. Marshals, et al. all the time.

Her dad, by the way, was a medic during wartime in Korea and Vietnam, and a drill sergeant and MP before and after Vietnam. Serious tough guy. That apple is directly under the tree, trust me. And characters like this annoy the living sh$% out of her.

[–] JimmiesRustler 8 years ago

Hey I appreciate the support, and your wife sounds like a total badass! I agree that these roles tend to piss REAL badass women off the most. Most of the female soldiers and cops I know would have killed for her position, hell anybody would. What an awesome assignment to get. It honestly felt like the story was written by somebody who has never worn a badge.

[–] emncaity 8 years ago

So true.

And yeah, any woman who's worthy of the job isn't going to go wandering around in shock, looking like she needs somebody to take care of her. Some of these women -- while not as physically powerful as men, it's true -- are just unbelievable mentally when it comes to the ability to endure difficulty, to see things unimaginable to an ordinary person without falling apart, etc. I think a lot of people would be really surprised.

So if you take this character out of the movie entirely, and do a rewrite around the people who belong there, how does that hurt the film?

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

Men wouldn't want to see it.

Most of the complaints about her casting are complete bs. She looks like an English rose... She isn't 180lbs of testosterone imbalanced gym bunny...

I did not like that she was so emotionally, or mentally fragile, and un-commanding. They rendered her a naive, ineffectual, petulent girl, instead of a forceful woman with years of experience operating in a very masculine, and at times violent world.

If she were a woman adapted to a masculine world at the start then this film would have trouble making sense. It would have required her character discovering she was still at the mercy of her sex. Which would be a betrayal of feminism, which this film was.

I really enjoyed Haywire, for it featuring a female character that was hardened, could really handle herself in a fight, and not being reducing her to some aggressive machoed up Amazon like James Cameron feels the need to insert in every film.