Why is the "Hero" So Often. . . A Heroine?

Let me say at the outset that I don't have any problem with the following phenomenon. It's just something I noticed and thought worthy of discussion.

The phenomenon is this: in slasher movies in particular, the last survivor is very often a woman. Some examples I thought of off the top of my head are:

Laurie Strode, surviving all the "Halloween" movies she was in (remember, she wasn't in III), especially I & II;

Heather Langenkamp, ditto for the "Elm Street" movies;

Ripley in "Alien" (not a slasher, I know, but same idea);

Fran from "Dawn of the Dead" (although Peter did tag along at the last minute);

The girl at the end of "Friday the 13th" (Sorry; I forgot her name);

A woman even administered the fatal axe blow to the killer in "Prom Night".

The mother & her daughters surviving "Wicked Little Things" (with a little help from the creepy neighbor guy);

Penny survives horrifying torture in "Penny Dreadful".

There's tons more, I'm sure. The question I pose is: why? Most of the filmmakers responsible for the above films are men. And to my knowledge, none of them has gone on record as a feminist.

I suppose the argument could be made that Carpenter and other pioneers did it to turn the typical horror movie scenario they grew up on in the 50's - where the swooning heroine is carried off by the guy in the rubber suit to be rescued by the straight talking, square jawed, more often than not military man hero - on its head as a form of innovative filmmaking. But after the dirst couple guys did it, it isn't new and different anymore, and eventually sort of became the rule rather than the exception.

So is that why it's still so prevalent today? Mere inertia? No better reason than because it's become the norm?

I'm sure sometimes it is done to make a statement (a review I read of "Silence of the Lambs" thought the strong character of Clarice Starling, and to a lesser extent, katherine martin, who was "no mere passive victim", opined Harris & Demme may have had strong feminine leads in mind on purpose). But some of the obviously lowbrow films that use this device surely aren't making that kind of statement.

And except for very rare instances (such as "The Descent"), the argument that "Well, that's who he victimizes - women - so of course any survivor would have to be a woman" doesn't really ring true, either. Plenty of men die in all the examples I cite above.

I suppose the argument could be made that women are still perceived (and I'm not saying they are!) as more vulnerable by much of the general public, making our empathy w/ their on screen travails scarier, thus heightening the tension, so it makes sense to have the character with the most screen time, who endures the most of the psycho's rampage, be a woman.

Try as I might, I can't really get my mind around why this concept has become more or less the standard ending in horror films. Keeping in mind the generally synical view of moviemakers Death Surge has written about (and which I agree with), the successful formula is what sells the most with the least risk, and will allow them to get the most Friday night date dollars from the teens, who perpetually seem to be their target audience. An audience, Surge says, that recycles itself every few years, thus perpetuating devices we long time fans have probably seen lots of times before, but which are still at least kinda new to each fresh crop of teen moviegoers. Leading me to the lamest of conclusions: I think it really IS, in most instances, just inertia, and an unwillingness to now deviate from what's now become the norm.

I welcome differing opinions. Please share them here.

I haven't seen Behind the mask yet (Waiting for it on netflix queue). As for Saw & Hostel: I haven't seen Hostel 2 (lukewarm buzz didn't get me intrigued enough to see it in the theatres), but I understand that had a female lead. As did Saw III. Sort of. Movies w/ male protagonists have always been around, though. All the characters in The Thing were male, for instance. So was just about everyone in The Lost Boys. But Gayest may be right and the trend may be starting to change direction in some recent major productions, but the vast majority of horror cinema is the DTV stuff, and they're largely following the traditional formula. I imagine they'll keep following said formula until the big productions change that formula and substitute a new one.

Actually, it really doesn't. I can understand the line of thought that finds this symbolism to the imagery in the films. That probably is what they're doing, consciously or unconsciously. But, given the fact that most horror fans are young males (and if Surge's theory holds true, horny teenage males); why would they want to see female leads OVERCOME the phallic symbol? Does the perceived threat to masculinity add to the fear experienced by the male viewer, theoretically enhancing the experience?

[QUOTE=KaPabLe][QUOTE=IggytheBorg] why would they want to see female leads OVERCOME the phallic symbol?
Presumably, the decapitation is a symbolic "screwing". If, that is, you subscribe to the theory that the murder implement is, in fact, a phallic symbol.

Also, I'm honored Greg agrees w/ me.

Rereading this post got me to thiking: maybe the trend Gayest posits as taking over, i.e., male leads getting tortured by the antagonist & surviving, possibly not in the best of shape, a la Saw & Hostel, may be a brilliant idea. As Greg says, women were used as the leads for a while, because it was OK for them to show fear, but that it'd turn an audience off to see a man doing the same. BUt some of the scenes in Hostel, in particular, w/ the male characters screaming & begging for their lives, are all the more disturbing because, along w/ the gore, we males get the douche chills because maybe this hits a little too close to home. We wonder: "Would I break down like that? I mean, they just chopped off 3 of his fucking FINGERS and shoved a power drill into his shoulder. . . . he's gota know he's gonna die. How would I handle that?"

Maybe with 50's era societal norms of male behavior finally being cast aside w/ the march of time, and younger filmmakers not brought up in that tradition finally at the helm of the filmmaking process, the time is ripe to see MEN get scared for a change. Roth may be some kind of brilliant after all for recognizing and capitalizing on this trend, if not outright starting it. Perhaps, along with the abolition of strict societal mores in the horror film, the abolition of strict gender roles in horror films is a device that makes them more effective as well.

Don't you mean MS. - direction?