Core Response #3: Terminal Masculinity

I have to admit, I didn’t really like watching Terminator 2. I came into the film not having any more experience with Terminator films than an unpleasant experience of an attraction at Universal Studios, and I must admit I wasn’t expecting great things. However, when I first saw Sarah Connor I thought that maybe I had found a character I could be interested in. I was pretty annoyed by the Terminator character, with all his muscles and brute strength. Even his attempts at being human weren’t doing it for me. Sarah Connor seemed to be a strong female character, being shown first doing chin ups in her prison cell. And sure, physically she’s strong, but emotionally she’s stunted and incapable of being a good mother; we’re shown that the Terminator is a better mother than she is. She said he was a good father figure, but really he’s a replacement mother figure. Which makes me wonder what that means for traditional male masculinity. Arnold is the epitome of a man’s man, but he’s a better mother figure to John than his biological mother is. I found “Terminal Masculinity” to be a really interesting essay, not only in the dissection of Terminator 2 and Beauty and the Beast, but also in its discussion of the “new” man of the early 90's. It says that the “hard bodied man [learns] from his past mistakes to produce a changed character, a “new,” more internalized man, who thinks with his heart rather than with his head.” According to the chapter, men learned that the old ways (from the 80's, particularly) of violence, single-mindedness and goal-orientation were destructive, and it is especially apparent in Terminator 2. It makes me wonder what has happened in society today with representations of masculinity. Are we regressing back to the 80s? Or are depictions of masculinity even more “internalized?” It’s hard to tell, with so many different types of films coming out, but films like No Country For Old Men and the Indiana Jones movies makes me think that maybe the hard bodied mindset (not necessarily physique) of the 80's are coming back…

Star Bodies and Performance

Dyer's short chapter on the star body and the way in which an actor's physique and vocal transformation (or lack there of in some cases) reminded me of recent Oscar-winner and Hollywood beauty, Charlize Theron. In "Star Bodies and Performance," Dyer points out that there are far more diverse body types than simply physically fit heroes and heroines. Again, my thoughts darted back to Charlize in Monster as Aileen Wuornos in a rather obscuring role for such a pretty face. I've read before that she was a former ballerina in her native South Africa and seems to have possessed her slender and immaculately toned body all her life as a result of such discipline and endurance. The reason I bring her up is because I wanted to put into comparison her actual Hollywood body with that of the body in which her character inhabits in Monster, as well as comment upon how this specific bodily transformation within a fictive context warranted her her first Oscar.

Not only do star's bodies in their everyday lives- dress, physique and speech- capture the publics' attention, but those of their characters in films as well. Dyer refers to Bryan S. Turner in considering how the star body could be seen as a vessel for expression regarding problems of politic; essentially as an embodiment of culture. As outsiders looking in at Charlize Theron, we see a personality and talent encased within the acceptable beautiful (body) ideal of woman. Though seen as "soft" in everyday life- as opposed to the notion of the hard-bodied male in 80s and 90s films- in the film Monster, she seems anything but. And how could she transform herself, we all asked? Some of us may have been skeptical that someone so naturally beautiful as her could be made to look like Aileen Wuornos, who isn't exactly of the pin-up variety. Perhaps even her role in the film was kept mum so as not to demean or deign the film as any kind of star vehicle- though in the end, I'm sure much of her stardom (or perhaps it came after her Oscar win?) was more beneficial in the end in drawing critical and public attention to the film.

The reason I wanted to parallel both Charlize's actual body with that of the character she plays, Aileen, is because I wanted to bring to light the argument that in order for an actor- especially female- to receive any critical recognition and accolades is to physically alter and transform their appearance when fulfilling a role. Of course, convincing, moving and ingraining delivery of dialog and gesture- not to mention handling subtext with great care - should be taken into account apart from just their physical transformation. Or does the physical transformation really matter? Does that extra bit of bodily transformation (weight gain/loss, cross-dressing, debeautifying) become a deciding factor when deliberating on awarding certain actors over others? Certainly, Charlize wasn't "playing herself" in the way that Schwarzenegger plays himself in every other movie he's cast. In fact, she even oned-up Meryl Streep's various vocal transformations and adoptions of particularly difficult accents and manners of gesture, by completely changing her way of dress, speech, and bodily appearance on screen. Yet, the question is, is it truly that extra bit of physical bodily transformation of an actor into a character that demonstrates the better actor?

Core Response #3

In reading the Jeffords article about masculinity I began to think about the femininity that must mirror the masculine roles of the early 90s. In the example of Beauty and the Beast discussed at length in the article in order for the Beast to become human again he must be loved by a woman and learn to love her, but when examining Belle we aren't allowed much of a view into her character beyond the stereotypes of femininity, with the possible exception of her reading. She is kind, gentle, patient, in need of protection, but we aren't allowed to glimpse her flaws, unless her one flaw is reading books.

The article made me think about how femininity is an expectation in order to mirror masculinity, in order for the Beast to become what he truly is Belle must allow him to protect her and love her. While she teaches him about eating properly and dancing in matters of life and death she cannot protect herself. Belle is required to bend to the will of the Beast, he gives orders rather than making requests, such as at the beginning of the film where he tells her if she does not have dinner with him she will not eat at all. She is saved from a night without dinner by the kindly servants, the two who take charge both male.

What the article made me wonder is how does the ideal of femininity change to fit the ideal of masculinity? Obviously both ideals change, but do they change together, as one sex becomes weaker the other becomes stronger? My thoughts after reading the article tend to be that the ideal woman is always weak to some extent, while ideal men are given more flexibility in their roles. Women will never be idealized as protectors, and even when men are expected to express emotions they are also expected to protect women from evil.

CORE: GOVERNATOR

So as much as I love Terminator 2 ( I grew up on the film) I can't ignore how much it screams hyper masculinity.  Everything from the budget of the film to the plot and story to the acting to the DVD casing and packaging says, he "We are Men!"  The movie is filled with never ending moments of Arnold letting everyone know he is a guy.  For instance, why does he have to time travel naked?  the film shows very early on two naked guys and of course Arnold gets a good 10 minutes of beating up an entire bar of heavy duty biker men naked, where he gets his clothes and wheels, and shades,not to mention a bunch of tag lines that will become famous since the creation.  Which can be argued that this is yet another example of the manliness since the idea is always to let your legacy live on forever and clearly Arnold's lines are quoted and referenced in pop culture almost everywhere.  

The budget should be addressed on this topic since another way of displaying one's "size" is how much money they spend.  According to Wikipedia, $100 millions was spent on the film. 

The devices used in the film which are obviously revolving around technology.  But both terminators drive their cars which is another a heavy masculine element.  Arnold drives his motorcycle and a few trucks, the other one takes a cop car, cop bike, helicopter, and 18 wheeler truck.  Nothing can beat these guys throughout the film and the only way to propperly get rid of Arnold is to melt him in lava, which is such an extreme way to go, yet caters to the hyper masculinity as he lowers himself into the boiling mass, because even though he is a robot, he is still a man and a man can tolerate pain, similarly to when he does his own operations or when he cuts open his arm just to prove he is a robot, from the future.

Lastly, lets look at the dvd packaging for it.  For while there was the option to get this film which was housed in a titanium casing of the terminator skull embosses into the metal.  If this doesn't say overkill, I don't know what does.  Did I buy it? Of course, did I buy the film on bluray when it came out despite the fact I already owned it on regular... obviously.

I think it also important to mention the fact that all of this has helped Arnold's political career.  Now even more so he can show off his manliness because he rules California.  It should be noted he commutes to Sacramento every day and back to home to his home in LA on his private jet.

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.

Reading Response #3

In reading Dyer’s chapter on “Star Bodies and Performance,” some things initially seemed like common knowledge to me, of course star bodies have a great deal to do with their performance and characters. But then thinking more it seemed like, in our body image obsessed culture of today, it seems obvious that this seems obvious, (but as we’ve seen with Valentino, Marilyn, and others bodies were always an important part of stardom). But the differing projections on the idea of the hyper-masculine action star really intrigued me. I had always assumed that the emergence of the Arnold/Sylvester/Jean-Claude action star was a product of the 80s feminist-backlash and an attempt to show off the all-encompassing awesome of men. Certainly that is part of it, but unintentionally by constructing masculinity in such an extreme it comes off as a parody of masculinity then an example of it. Just take a look at Terminator 2.

Arnold as the terminator seems to be a parody of all of societies expectations for men, and can only achieve this because he is a machine. He is tough, emotionless, intelligent (he has all those files of information), confident, and of course physically strong. The joke seems to be on those men that admire the character as an archetype of masculinity. The differing reactions of audiences that Dyer mentions, “some moviegoers seriously admire the hero’s strength, for others the incredibility of his power becomes a source of disdain or laughter.” Today, watching the Terminator may induce laughter for a number of reasons (aka the Governator), but at the time there were many who found it still laughable. But these types of viewers that are described, I would be willing to bet, fall roughly along gender lines. Despite who one would assume would like to watch male bodies on display (heterosexual females) these actions stars seem more like they would appeal to the heterosexual male. With definite homoerotic undertones, men wish to identify with these action stars as idealized masculinity. Whereas women, sensing this ridiculousness of masculine fantasy would laugh at them, rather than find them physically attractive. The female action stars Dyer discusses, such as Sigourney Weaver and T2’s Linda Hamilton, probably would find the same breakdown. Women might admire in Hamilton the strength and toughness they would want for themselves (I do), men probably didn’t swoon for her too much. But here is a difference; the male action star is masculinity to the extreme, whereas the female action star is not extreme femininity, but some kind of rogue, or even freak, from society.

Stars' Name Change

Today, my roommate was showing me a page in the recent "US Weekly" that showed 12 actors/actresses and their real names. Luke Perry's real first name is Coy, Miley Cyrus' real name is Destiny, Reese Witherspoon's real name is Laura, and Jude Law's real name is David.

It made me wonder why stars choose to change their names it all. I guess if their names are hard to pronounce to begin with it makes sense. But most actors probably change them because they think that their new names will sound better or more unique. It made me realize how much an actor's stage name contributes in creating an entire persona. If Tom Cruise went by his real last name, Mapother, I have a feeling it may effect the way we think of him. Then again, I don't see the difference between "Jodie Foster" and "Alicia Foster" in terms of uniqueness, which makes me wonder how stars go about picking a new name to begin with. Thinking about it, few stars in Hollywood even have the same name. That can help people in pop culture refer to stars as "Paris," "Lindsay," "Britney, "Miley" etc. It just further shows how much an actor puts on a facade and a face to the public; it is to the point where they change their names to sound more likable and attractive. It makes me wonder, if you were a star, would you change your name or keep it?