Lee, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, wears work clothing that others read with a degree of self-interest. Her exclusion from the drive introduces an unease that Death Proof leaves unresolved.
An outfit that belongs to her work as an actress
Lee is part of the group linked to a shoot that appears in the second half of Death Proof. Her cheerleader outfit does not show that she is a student, nor that this activity defines her life away from the film set. It is the costume of an actress within the fiction. Distinguishing those layers prevents an immediately recognisable image from becoming a biography the film does not provide.
The uniform sets her apart visually from her companions. While Kim and Zoë are introduced through a more direct connection to movement and physical work, Lee is marked by a role she is playing for another production. Her body carries a manufactured professional identity, even during downtime. The film uses that condition to encourage others to project ideas on to her.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives the character a warm, slightly disorientated disposition in certain conversations. That does not oblige us to describe her as incapable of deciding for herself or to attribute total innocence to her. Lee has less information about some proposals and does not share all of the prior rapport between Kim and Zoë. Part of her position comes from how the group is arranged around her.
The relationship between costume and the character’s identity becomes especially visible here. The outfit says something true about her immediate work, but it makes false readings of who she is easier. The later scene will use precisely that distance between appearance and identity.
The deal that leaves her as collateral
To get proof of the car, the women agree to leave Lee with its owner while the others head out. The situation is presented as a practical solution to the problem of the loan. However, the arrangement is not made between people who know and equally accept its terms. Lee is placed in a position others have defined for her.
Abernathy adds false sexual information about her friend to persuade the man. That lie alters the meaning of the wait. What Lee may understand as spending a few minutes with the owner is received by him through an expectation she has not authorised. The scene creates humour through the mismatch, but that humour does not erase the inequality.
The cheerleader outfit helps make the projection immediate. The owner does not need to know Lee in order to accept the story he is told. Her appearance is used as a kind of visual proof of an invented identity. The film thus shows a form of objectification that does not depend directly on Mike and also stems from the women’s decisions.
The discomfort matters because it complicates the group’s solidarity. The protagonists who later act together against an aggressor have previously treated a companion as a resource for getting something they want. It is not necessary to equate that behaviour with Mike’s violence to notice the problem. They are different actions, but both require us to observe who decides about the place another person occupies.
What the film does not show afterwards
Lee remains out of the final chase. The film does not return to her to close off her wait, nor does it show a later reunion with her friends. It therefore cannot be claimed that she suffers sexual assault, escapes in any specific way, or is rescued after the credits. Those possibilities are not confirmed by the narrative.
That absence leaves an open question that changes how the ending is read. While the trio reaches an euphoric conclusion, one member of the original group remains off screen. The audience can enjoy Mike’s defeat while also noticing that the film has not resolved every situation it introduced. The ending is selective.
The exclusion also has a structural consequence. The action concentrates its capacities in Kim, Zoë and Abernathy, while Lee is tied to the earlier negotiation. She is not given an equivalent opportunity to take part in the response. Her position reminds us that the group of women is not treated uniformly, even if it shares conversational scenes at the start of the segment.
The character does not need an invented fate in order to have a purpose. Her costume introduces an overlapping identity, the deceit reveals a fault in the friendship, and the later absence prevents a completely comfortable closure. These operations are observable without turning Lee into the centre of an imaginary sequel.
The lack of closure also does not show that the film approves of everything the friends have done. It allows for a critical reading of the contrast between the final celebration and the person they have left behind. That reading comes from the editing and its selection of characters, without any need to add events.
Separating Lee from Winstead is equally necessary. The film plays with a real actress playing another actress, but the lie told to the owner and the group’s decisions belong to the fiction. The performer constructs the character’s reaction to a disconcerting arrangement; she is not offering information about her own life or her professional career.
Return to the Death Proof guide.