Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Reading Response #5 - Week 11

Dyer's article "Star Bodies and Performance" was particularly interesting because of our screening of Terminator 2.  Both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton represent the ultimate star body that Richard Dyer is talking about in his article.  However, Hamilton's body was almost masculinzed, rather than feminized like Jodie Foster was in Silence of the Lambs.  I've studied both films extensively, as I've written papers on both, and have only just realized how different the representations of the female are in both films.  Laura Mulvey's article obviously has an impact on this discussion of representations of the female in films because of her assessment of the male gaze.  It seems like the male gaze is apparent in Silence of the Lambs, but not in Terminator 2.  Linda Hamilton is very masculinized, whereas Jodie Foster is very feminized.  The opening scene of SOTL is Jodie Foster running through a forest, obviously very vulnerable.  In the opening scene of T2, Linda Hamilton is doing pull-ups in her jail cell.  This shot is not exactly feminine.  Her body almost represents a male body, and Jodie Foster represents the female body.  

Laura Mulvey's article proves to be outdated because of the representation of females in the way Hamilton is in T2.  I find it interesting/weird that Hamilton was represented the way she was in T2.  I get it that it was a male-targeted movie, but then why wouldn't you want to make practically the only female character hyper-feminized?  Obviously not in this case - and it worked because of the film.  In this type of action film, all my guy friends say that Linda Hamilton is "hot."  But if she was the same character in SOTL it would have been terrible.  It all depends on the screenplay of  what kind of female representation you are going to portray.

I personally love the power that Linda Hamilton embodies in Terminator 2, and I'm not a feminist or anything, but I just think its much more modern than something like Laura Mulvey's article describes.  I hate the fact that she says females are there for the "male gaze" and only to appeal to that.  T2 is an action packed movie, but also has a story to it.  I think the female character functions in this aspect, but does so extremely well to not make it too hyper-feminized.  Both articles provide valid points, but all in all, Mulvey's is outdated according to the current general perspective on the female in film.

1 comment:

sarah b. said...

I find that the “hypermasculization” of Hamilton reminds me of Carol Clover. Clover wrote a book about Gender in Slasher Films. I can sum up her argument (as I understand it) as, women as “heroes” are often portrayed as masculine because they generally target a male audience. It allows for the male viewer to relate/identify with the “female hero”
because she has masculine attributes. I don’t think that if Hamilton was super feminized in this film it could be believable. Not that the story is believable, but you get my drift, if Hamilton was worried about her appearance and breaking nails then she couldn’t pull off kicking the T-1000’s ass (or at least with the help of the governator). Either way Hamilton would have to be masculine to pull this film off. Whether or not her body looked more masculine in this film she would have to have other traits that represented masculinity to fit into Clover’s argument. Also I don’t think that Hamilton was meant for the male gaze, in fact, I think Clover argument again makes sense in that her character was meant to be identified with by a male audience.

p.s. I’m not trying to be a bitch, I’m just asking. Why aren’t you a feminist? Why point out at all that you’re not a feminist? Is there something wrong with feminists? Specifically, why is it important for women to distance themselves from being labeled “feminist” when describing strong/powerful women?