Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature

Lenka Kivnkov

1990s Hollywood Break-Away Hits: A Feminist Perspective

Masters Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. PhDr. Tom Pospil, Dr.

2010

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

..
Authors signature

I would like to thank my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. PhDr. Tom Pospil, Dr., for his kind help, useful advice and patience throughout my work.

Table of Contents Introduction..........................................................................................................................5 1. Female Characters in Childrens Hollywood Blockbuster: The Lion King....................18 2. Who Laughs in Hollywood Comedies: Mrs. Doubtfire and Forrest Gump...................30 3. The Sixth Sense Women in a Psychological Thriller/Horror Film...............................48 4. Hollywood Action Films, or Females Forbidden?.........................................................55 4.1 Independence Day, Men in Black, Star Wars......................................................... 57 4.2 Jurassic Park............................................................................................................78 4.3 Twister......................................................................................................................87 5. Titanic, or Down with Oppression..................................................................................95 Conclusion........................................................................................................................108 Appendices.......................................................................................................................115 Table 1..........................................................................................................................115 Table 2..........................................................................................................................117 English Summary..............................................................................................................119 esk resum....................................................................................................................121 Works Cited......................................................................................................................123

Introduction Hollywood film was for a long time, especially in the countries of the former Soviet block, generally considered inferior by cultural and film theoreticians and film critics (Skopal 4). Today, however, Hollywood is an acknowledged center of the world cinema and cinematic production. It is a place where new technologies, techniques and modes of production come to existence, and as such deeply influence filmmaking all around the world. It was primarily the work of David Bordwell, whose ideas are nowadays generally accepted by most scholars and film theoreticians and used as the basis for any further studies of Hollywood cinema, which caused the main shift in perception of Hollywood film from intellectually and aesthetically insignificant and inferior to the film composed and narrated according to a complex set of aesthetic and narrative rules and as such worth serious consideration (Skopal 4-5). As Bordwell and others point out, this set of rules created by American filmmakers more than fifty years ago in the era of big studios, constituted an artistic tradition of a classical Hollywood narrative style, which has been followed ever since not only by American filmmakers of mainstream cinema, but also by creators of independent movies, as well as foreign filmmakers around the world (Bordwell 6-8). Being granted its credit and quality by theoreticians, Hollywood cinema has become an integral part of film and audiovisual culture studies currently practiced at universities and colleges. Logically, American universities and research centers were the first to pay systematic scholarly attention to Hollywood film, and thus it is not surprising that nowadays the United States are acknowledged the leading role not only in film practice, but also in film theory and history. Of course, David Bordwell, mentioned above, and his co-workers, such as Kristin Thompson or Janet Steiger form only the peak of the 5

scholarly pyramid. However, the fact that the United States are granted this supreme position does not mean that film studies, or the Hollywood film studies specifically, do not flourish elsewhere in the world or that the research carried out outside the American borders does not matter or does not bring new, interesting or respected ideas. Science does not know the limits of national borders and it is utterly logical, and perhaps even desirable, that non-American scholars pay attention to Hollywood film, especially the contemporary Hollywood film, which is now itself a deeply internationalized entity. Since Hollywood has had a long-established image of the center of world film industry, foreign directors, cinematographers, editors, and actors and actresses often dream about having a chance to participate in a Hollywood film production. Because many of them have managed to make this dream come true, long is the past when Hollywood was a site for solely American artists and filmmakers; nowadays, Hollywood studios and producers employ directors, screenwriters, actors and other artists of various nationalities and backgrounds from all over the world. Hand in hand with the growth in diversity among Hollywood filmmakers, the diversity of the Hollywood film audience has grown, too, and perhaps even faster. As Ruth Vasey explains, American film industry first moved into wide scale international distribution after the World War I (618). Since then its audiences have increased, I am not afraid to say, by billions. With new technologies, among which the DVDs are one of the latest, and the general world globalization, Hollywood films nowadays reach and are viewed by distant foreign audiences in the whole western world and as the various political and cultural barriers in the world keep falling down they continue to reach even further. Though in Hollywood American filmmakers obviously still constitute the majority and American audience is still their primary target, no Hollywood film is 6

nowadays written or created without consideration of foreign markets and audiences. The global dimensions of Hollywoods audience are undisputable (Vasey 617). Undisputable is also the general impact films have on our society. In articles published as early as in 1941 we can read about then widespread opinion that films belong to one of the few instruments, which can shape or sway public opinion (McDonald 127). Power of media, fiction cinema included, is supposed to be so strong that it has often been used as a means of political propaganda in various periods of our history. For example, it is well known that during both World Wars the American government, strongly convinced of the power of cinema, tried to influence the contents of Hollywood films; for example, they desired a negative depiction of fictional film characters coming from countries who were Americas war enemies (Vasey 617-624). Elsewhere, for example in totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, these formerly rather mild attempts at media censorship turned into severe everyday practice such a power was media considered to have. Of course, nowadays the means of influencing the contents of media and cinematic products are quite different. They are rather subtler than harsher and more protective than attacking in general, more democratic, as the world they operate in has become. But their power has grown. With advanced technologies, which nowadays make television and cinema available to most people on the planet, mass media, popular cinema included, is, so to speak horizontally more influential than ever. And as for the vertical line, what scholars only presumed in the 1940s is now a recognized fact; media, fiction film included, without any doubts disposes of powers of persuasion and ability to perpetuate and alter cultural stereotypes [and] social attitudes (Sobchack 298). The cultural stereotypes and social attitudes I am interested in and which I am going to discuss in this diploma thesis relate to position of women in modern western society. 7

Over the past century many things have radically improved and women have managed to secure themselves all the basic rights and freedoms; the right to vote and be voted, the right to property, to higher education, even the right to abortion. But there are still many spheres, social and economic, in which womens position remains undeservingly and unjustly lower in comparison to that of men. In practice, women can now work in business, but we still see them more often in positions of assistants than managers, they can work in health care area, but we find them working more often as nurses than surgeons, they can work in politics, but rather as common party members than their leaders. The male centered and male dominated world we live in still prefers women to stay passive and submissive in most spheres of their lives including family, education, working conditions and others. Women are constantly pushed into positions of helpers and minders (as wives, mothers, assistants) coming across the mythical glassed ceiling every time they want to move somewhere else. As I said, in comparison to what society looked like one a hundred years ago many things have improved, but, as Murray Pomerance puts it, because traditional and stereotypical thinking regarding gender roles still commands our society and prevents from faster changes the disparities between mens and womens experience in capitalist society are still enormous (9). Mass media, i.e. television, radio, magazines, books, and, of course, cinema and fiction films are often criticized for promoting these gender stereotypes. And that is the aim of my thesis to explore more closely where contemporary Hollywood film, one of the most powerful components of popular mass media, stands as far as gender roles and portrayal of women in their film is concerned. Since the very beginning of feminist film criticism in the 1970s, Hollywood production has often been perceived as a textbook example of patriarchal form of film producing sexist and exploitative images of women (Hankov 15-24). For example, 8

Marjorie Rosen, one of the first important feminist film critics was (after having analyzed Hollywood production since the beginning of the 20th century) even convinced that Hollywood intentionally constructed a myth of femininity, which was supposed to keep male control over the society and dominance over women (Hankov 43-45). This idea of intentional conspiracy of men against women was soon abandoned and other early critics, as Molly Haskell, emphasized the importance of filmmakers personal unconscious influences, traumas, anxieties and desires which all influenced them when creating a film. Haskell and others also stressed the importance of historical context and proved that in certain periods of time women figures on the screen appeared even more active then the real female spectators in the audience, rehabilitating thus some stages of Hollywood film in the eyes of feminist critics.1 However, as the critics themselves hastily add, such phases were exceptional and most time Hollywood cinema had the opposite tendency. For example, even in the 1970s, the period of the second feminist movement when feminist activists and theoreticians and critics demonstrated enormous activity and worked intensively to be heard and answered, many of them claimed the films that were made in this very period were displaying the most exploited, omitted and dehumanized film heroines in film history (Hankov 51). Similar opinion was shared by Laura Mulvey, the author of the most important essay for the development of feminist film criticism, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, published in 1975. The impact of Mulveys essay on feminist film theory was vast; it caused that feminist film criticism ceased to live on the edge of film theory and permanently moved to its center where it has remained, next to other important critical and analytical approaches, up till now. There were several reasons for this. While her colleagues had been interested mainly in portrayals and images of women in particular
1

As Hankov mentions, Molly Haskell found out the film heroines of the 1930s had often been very courageous, probably even more than the women that were watching them (Hankov 48-50).

films or works of particular directors, or, alternatively, in re-discovering of forgotten female filmmakers, Mulvey moved away from these very concrete approaches to a much more theoretical level. Mulvey, as the first feminist critic, avoided analyses of particular films or directors and took the general mechanism of the spectators identification with the film hero and the mechanism of a spectator gaining pleasure while watching a film as her prime interests. She also, again as the first one, used Lacan and Freud psychoanalyses, which had been constantly refused by feminists as exclusively male discourses and thus opened an entirely new area for exploration to feminist critics and provided them with new effective tools and terminology. The way she interconnected psychoanalyses and feminist ideology, and logically and convincingly presented her ideas about the inner functioning of Hollywood film and the subconscious interaction between the spectator, society and film apparatus (using a male discourse against males), appealed strongly to majority of film theoreticians and feminist film critics, both contemporary and future, who have thus been in their own works forced to react to Mulveys analysis in one way or other ever since. This is going to be also my case, although I sincerely hope that as I analyze contemporary Hollywood films, I will find that Mulveys observations and conclusions do not apply to these films anymore, at least, not to such an extent. Having based her analyses on films made between the 1940s 1960s, she concluded that women in the audience had to either (sadistically) identify with the main male hero, or (masochistically) accept the position of the objectified to-be-looked-at female character; she saw no possibility of a dignified identification for women in Hollywood films, because traditional Hollywood films offered heroes, not heroines. Furthermore, she found that female film characters appearing in the films had more or less only one function that of bringing pleasure to male part of the audience. While the active male character was there to carry 10

the narrative, the passive female character was there to be displayed and looked at, often to such an extent that they momentarily froze the narrative or flow of action (Mulvey 2234). Mulveys observations lead to wide discussions and further analyses, which were not always approving. For example, most critics pointed to the fact that Mulvey, as much as she presented a perfect analysis of the process of looking and pleasure arising from this process, did not really consider a possible pleasure of female viewers and their possible identifications, automatically attaching all visual pleasure only to male spectators. Mulvey herself later tried to correct herself, explaining, for example, that the male gender she automatically ascribed to her analyzed spectator, was meant to be understood on a rather metaphorical level, rather than as Freudian masculine (Hankov 89-94). The broad discussions, or later Mulveys additions and explanations, however, changed nothing about the firmly established authority of her original text and the mechanisms explained there were (by most) taken for granted. However, the most important aspect of Mulveys essay for me and the purposes of my diploma thesis is that she was not able to perceive women on the screen otherwise than to-be-looked-at objects and automatically omitted female spectators from experiencing cinematic pleasure, which shows how axiomatic was her perception of classical Hollywood cinema as a male-made and male-targeted medium. Of course, the greatest significance of essay still lies in its description of general psychological mechanisms of watching, which had not been probed by anyone before, and in this context the fact that Mulvey concentrated on male spectators was a minor matter. Besides, it was undoubtedly this very essay that triggered immediate discussions about the position and perceptions of female viewers and their pleasures and identifications. Nevertheless, for me the male-centeredness is still telling; for Mulvey and her contemporary feminist 11

critics most of Hollywood films were male-oriented products thriving on womens exploitation and sustaining social and gender stereotypes, promoting inequality between men and women in their real lives. Obviously, as for feminist film criticism Mulveys essay promoted a significant development in feminist film theory. During the following decades feminist film critics carried on with the research of important female and male directors (developing feminist film historiography), but inspired by Mulveys example they also developed discussion around female spectators. They also began to concentrate more on particular film genres and womens representation in them, and identify and explore features specific to female narratives. Gradually, various approaches have appeared within feminist film theory, for example gender theory connected to race, social class or post-colonialism. Last but not least, with growing number of women holding important production and managing posts in Hollywood studios, feminist film analysts also began to concentrate on the mechanisms of Hollywood production and the role women play in them (Hankov 101-102). Developing feminist film criticism into a respected field of studies, feminist film theoreticians interested in mainstream cinema have never stopped accusing Hollywood production of being gender biased and stereotypic and of promoting or sustaining gender and social injustices within (and between) spectators, or society. They recognized gradual improvement now and then, which has been in accordance with improvement of position of women within real society, but they rarely found fiction films completely devoid of gender inequality. Taking these many years of incessant academic criticism into account, in my thesis I would like to focus on a sample of more recent Hollywood films and show how Hollywood presents women nowadays in and whether their criticism helped to change the image of women in them for the better. The period I decided to focus on in my analysis of Hollywood films is the last decade 12

of the twentieth century, which I chose for several reasons. Firstly, it is a decade which came relatively long after the rise of feminist movement and feminist film criticism and can be considered a part of an era in which women enjoyed in comparison to previous decades considerable independence and equality in opportunities. Secondly, this period is distant enough from our time to provide the necessary offset. This second aspect is very important to me because as a sample group of Hollywood film production of the 1990s I chose the ten most successful films of the decade in terms of their receipts and revenues, in other words, the top grossing films of that decade, or, the most successful blockbusters. To identify them it was again desirable to have a certain offset which reveals which films are truly successful and therefore influential in long term. The term blockbuster has now been for long firmly established in Hollywood. It first appeared (though rather by coincidence) in the 1970s with films like Love Story, The Godfather and (especially) Jaws, which were after a period of serious recession and a decline in numbers of cinemagoers the first to capture huge audiences again and in a surprisingly very short time gain enormous gross revenues (Baker, Faulkner 287-290). At first, film industry observers regarded these films as exceptions, but as new and new record-breaking hits appeared (Saturday Night Fever, Star Wars etc.) it became clear that such films were not one-time occurrences. It seemed that in consequence of the after-war baby-boom in the 1950s American population was, then 20 years later, revealing huge potential of new film entertainment consumers. There were now millions of young Americans who were looking for entertainment and, on top of that, thanks to relatively stable economic situation, able and willing to spend their dollars in the cinema (Baker, Faulkner 288-289). Then it was only a matter of time when Hollywood producers would begin to exploit this existing potential and develop a blockbuster production strategy which is used, though in a much more elaborate and developed form, till today. 13

What are then the characteristic features of modern Hollywood blockbuster production? As opposed to the rest of hundreds of film projects realized every year in Hollywood studios, the films believed to be potential hits are, first and foremost, enormously financially supported; as Steve Neale points out, since the 1990s 100million-dollar-budget films have become very common (51). These intentional blockbusters, which are nowadays usually plot-driven, visceral, kinetic, fast-paced [and] fantastic stories, invest the greatest part of their budgets mainly into special effects, often big movie stars and high-quality music (Bordwell 4). As to the marketing strategy, these prospective hits are presented as must-see movies, launched in the summer or Christmas season advertised endlessly on TV and then opening inthousands of theatres on the same weekend [often leading] a robust after-life on a soundtrack album, cable channels [and DVDs] (Bordwell 4). Because of merchandizing and synergies, which were developed in the eighties and nineties, Hollywood blockbusters are nowadays often referred to as multi-purpose entertainment machines that breed TV series, video games, theme park rides, novelizations and comic books (Bordwell 5). Of course, not all the blockbuster productions in the end truly manage to produce a blockbuster because eventual popularity of a film is not totally predictable. Every year we witness at least two or three serious box-office failures of a large-scale production. At the same time, every year a surprise appears in box-office charts in the form of a modest or medium-budget film, which unexpectedly becomes a hit. However, these are rather exceptions and majority of the intended blockbusters do end up on the list of box office hits of a respective period (Dirks). As I said, as a sample of Hollywood films I have chosen to analyze the ten biggest box-office hits of the 1990s. I realize that studying contemporary Hollywood cinema through its greatest hits is not a very commonly used method, nevertheless, it is nothing 14

new and recently the analysis based on this method have been multiplying; as Peter Kramer puts it, film theoreticians have been coming to the recognition that whatever the complexities there are in conceptualizing the popular, the commercial success surely is an important factor (Big Pictures 126). I also realize that at first sight narrowing of the whole Hollywood production of one decade to ten films may seem too radical, but in my thesis I am not going to make generalizations about the whole Hollywood production on the basis of these few films. I am interested in this particular group of films because, firstly, these box-office hits are the films that are watched by most spectators and thus influence greatest number of people and it is therefore important how they portray women. And secondly, as I have already said they are in absolute majority intentional and calculated projects, large-scale productions, which are expected to be watched by millions. I want to focus on them because as they are intentionally made and marketed to reach the widest audiences both in the US and around the world, and I think that their creators and producers should pay special attention to whether their films are politically correct and do not portray any serious gender inequalities or injustices. This would be then my first task - to find out how Hollywood productions handle the gender issue in films, which they intend and hope to be watched by mass audience. Secondly, in case I find examples of unfair gender stereotypes or gender-offensive elements, I want to point to these elements and, in Mulveys words, deconstruct the pleasure these films otherwise bring to general spectatorship. As I have mentioned, in my analysis of Hollywood blockbusters out of feminist and gender perspective I am going to refer to some of Laura Mulveys observations and conclusions, mainly those concerning female characters as objects to be looked at and male characters as bearers of the narrative and others. Nevertheless, my main concern is 15

going to be the textual analyses of these films, combined and supplemented with closer analyses of selected shots and sequences important for my arguments. I am going to devote the following part of the thesis to analyses of particular films grouped according to their genre and ordered (approximately) according to their ranks in box-office charts from the less successful films to the top selling film hits of the decade. For the ranking and grosses I am using the tables and charts published and regularly updated on the respected Box Office Mojo website, which specializes in box office revenues and an excerpt of which I am providing in the appendix of this paper (see table 1). Each analysis I will begin by giving some basic information about the filmmakers, most importantly names of the director (s), screenwriter and the main stars, and also the data of commercial reception and information about the general critical response after the film release (see table 2). Then I will continue with a short summary of the plot followed by the actual analysis. The first film I am going to discuss is the only childrens film among the top ten Hollywood Blockbusters, The Lion King, which is also the only animated feature film among the ten biggest Hollywood hits of the 1990s. Then I will continue with two comedy films, Mrs. Doubtfire and Forrest Gump. Mrs. Doubtfire is not explicitly a childrens film, but rather a family film, and as such it creates a nice link between The Lion King and the remaining eight films, which are all primarily aimed at young adults, or adults. In the chapter that follows I will then discuss the only representative of the genre of thriller, The Sixth Sense, followed by analyses of all the 1990s big budget action films: Independence Day, Men in Black, Star Wars, Jurassic Park and Twister. Finally, I am going to discuss James Camerons Titanic, which was for a long time not only the most successful blockbuster of the respective decade, but up till it belongs to one of the most successful Hollywood of all times. 16

In the very last and concluding chapter I am going to summarize notions I have gained from individual analyses, and adding some statistical information I am going to draw conclusions in an attempt at final syntheses and general look at the ten most successful Hollywood blockbusters of the 1990s out of feminist perspective.

17

1. Female Characters in Childrens Hollywood Blockbuster: The Lion King As I mentioned in the introduction, there is one animated film among the ten highest grossing Hollywood feature films of the 1990s. The Lion King, produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation and released by Walt Disney Pictures in 1994 became, as to the theatrical attendance, the fourth most successful animated film of all times, following only the Disney classics of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, One Hundred and One Dalmatians (both released in the 1930s) and Fantasia (released in 1961) (Box Offcie Mojo). Further more, when the revenues from home video selling and merchandising are included, The Lion King remains the highest grossing traditionally animated feature film in history, selling over 30 million of video tapes and further millions of tie-in products like picture and activity books, shoes, stuffed animals, figurines, linens, toothbrushes, games and soundtracks and dozens of other items, which the enchanted children audience could have only wished for (Ostman). And still, even now the The Lion Kings revenues are getting bigger as new and new re-releases of the film or its special editions containing its two sequels keep coming to the market. Though filmmakers often say that no matter how good their plan is or how hard they work, creating a box-office hit is in the end a matter of coincidence and good luck, when looking back at The Lion King creation team and the way they worked, one cannot help but think that with this project success was a sure thing. Before writing The Lion King, the writers as they said themselves studied famous old myths and stories and took inspiration in such time-proven works as Shakespearean Hamlet and the biblical tales of Joseph and Moses, creating a story whose future strong appeal was not too difficult to predict.2 To achieve the most accurate and realistic

2 Though the Disney creators claim their story is original, some remarkable similarities in characters, composition and even camera angles in some scenes have been discovered between their film and a 1960s Japanese television show, Kimba, The White Lion. Although no official accusations were raised

18

portrayals of the animal heroes and the surrounding nature, the animators went to Africa and studied the animal characters' real counterparts in their real natural environment. Also, the huge production budget of estimated 80 million dollars allowed inviting some of the biggest Hollywood stars to take part in the enterprise. Famous and respected actors such as Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones or Whoopi Goldberg lent their voices to the animated characters. Also, well-established figures of music industry, including Elton John and Time Rice cooperated on the catchy songs and the music score, making sure the film would make a long-lasting impact on its young audiences. As a result of this effort, not only did the film do well in box-office, but also with film critics and reviewers who praised its mature yet entertaining story line, rich and colourful animation, enchanting music and excellent vocal performances, and in the end rewarded the film with several film awards including two Academy Awards for the best original music score and the best original song for Can You Feel the Love Tonight and three Golden Globes for the best original song, score and the best motion picture in the musical or comedy category. However, beside the general appraisal The Lion King received, critical voices appeared, too, and the more success the film gained with its target audience, the more thoroughly scrutinized was the film and its plot by adults. Most of them, obviously, liked and recommended The Lion King story as one of high moral values and most suitable for children. The rest, however, accused its makers of creating a highly racist, sexist, stereotyping and violent film. What led this other, no matter how minor, group to such strong accusations and what did they see in the film that the majority did not? As for the basic plot, The Lion King is a story of Simba, a young royal lion cub, who runs away from his family and kingdom, called the Pride Lands, into the jungle because
by the Japanese filmmakers and Disney's official stand is that all similarities are coincidental, unflattering doubts have not disappeared.

19

he is made to believe by his uncle Scar that he is responsible for his own father's death. While Scar, who was the one who really killed the king of the Pride Lands, takes over the kingdom, Simba is growing up in the wilderness having fun with his two new friends, Timon, the meerkat and Pumbaa, the warthog. From time to time he sadly contemplates over his childhood in the Pride Lands and thinks about his mother and friends back home, but because he thinks his father's death was his fault and he does not deserve to live in the kingdom and be happy there, let alone to reign there, he is decided to stay in the wilderness and rather tries to forget about the past he cannot change anymore. In the meantime, the kingdom is being devastated under Scar's rule, mainly because of the hyenas whom Scar allows to share the land, because they had helped him to kill Simba's father. When the situation becomes unbearable for the lions, Nala, Simba's childhood friend, leaves the kingdom to find help against Scar and the hyenas. In the wilderness she discovers Simba and tries to persuade him to come back to the Pride Lands, claim the throne as the rightful king and save the kingdom against Scar. At first Simba refuses, but when an old mandrill Rafiki intervenes, Simba reconsiders his decision and in the end returns to the Pride Lands. There he finally discovers the truth about his father's death, fights Scar and wins the rule over the kingdom. The story ends with Rafiky ceremoniously presenting Simba and Nala's newborn cub to the united inhabitants of the again blossoming land. Looking at the summary of the plot, at first sight there seems to be nothing wrong with the story, rather on the contrary. It seems to be about learning to grow up, taking responsibility and taking courage to fight for one's rights. It teaches that life is not only fun, but often also hard work. That one cannot just enjoy and look after himself or herself, but also after others, especially those close to them and in need. It teaches about mutual dependence of all living beings and, therefore, about the necessity of mutual respect. So,

20

where is the racism, sexism, violence or the other negative features the critics of the film found there? Because I want to concentrate on portrayals of female/male protagonists in the film, I am not going to probe the racism or violence accusations in a very great detail, though they are important issues. Just to mention the most frequently criticized elements of the story, these are undoubtedly the dark-furred hyenas being interpreted by a number of American critics as the symbol of the Afro-American population within the United States, and Uncle Scar who, according to many, represents gays. As to the hyenas, cultural analysts pointed to the colour of their fur, jive talking, and the way they lived; scavenging in a secluded, shadowy place outside the Pride Lands borders, where there is neither sufficient food nor water to sustain them (Schwalm). When they were later allowed in the Pride Lands by Scar, they seriously damaged the delicate balance of nature and nearly destroyed the whole society. As Karen Schwalm mentions, it was suggested by some critics that choosing Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin and Jim Cummings as the voices of the three main hyenas reflects a variety of racist and ethnic biases (Schwalm). She agrees with Mark Leeper's comment, which says that ...outwardly the film has a love of African rhythms and language and yearns for a united world, [but in fact it yearns for a world] everyone but hyenas united [and that is] scary and ugly and concludes that the film's message sending a warning against Afro- American or Latino influences is strong and reads easily (Schwalm). A similar message, in the eyes of many, applies to homosexuals who are in their opinion represented by Uncle Scar, Simba's childless, unmarried, British-accent-speaking uncle coming from the shallow end of the genepool who kills his own brother to take over the kingdom and then nearly destroys it because of his incompetent and incapable governance. Other accusations appeared soon after the release of the film but as I said, my main concern is to show how the film

21

portrays the roles of men and women in society, a topic which I am going to focus on in the following pages. Taking into consideration the plot of the story and what inspired it, it is not surprising that women play only minor role in The Lion King. As opposed to nine main male characters there are only three main female characters in the story altogether: Sarabi, Simba's mother, Nala, Simba's childhood friend and his future wife, and Shanzi, one of the three main hyenas helping Scar in his complot. Many critics have complained about this imbalance and the generally insignificant role of females in this film. However, in the defense of the film I must say I see the story as an old traditional fairy-tale with all its traditional features; patriarchy, monarchism and others included. Although when watching the film for the first time we cannot be immediately sure about its actual setting in time because we can only see an animal kingdom without any presence of human beings, which would have otherwise helped in placing the story in a certain age or period, later, however, the story must be understood as taking place sometime far in the past; the institution of monarchy, the very strong hierarchization of the society, the belief in and presence of supernatural phenomena, the unscientific explanations of nature, or the absence of humans itself indicates much older times than those of our present modern society, and therefore the presence of elements such as patriarchy, primogeniture of sons and others are acceptable. Traditional fairy-tales of European origin are often based on reality from which they emerged, and I think it is not possible to reject them only because they are not as politically correct as we would wish them to be. After all, they are part of our national literatures, our culture, they reflect our past and perhaps most importantly they still have the power to teach our children the basics of good and evil. On the other hand, The Lion King is a film made in the 1990s. It is an artificially created story for children who are going to live the substantial part of their lives in the

22

third millennium where relationships and positions of men and women should be a little different. I agree with Annalee Ward who correctly reminds us that children are more vulnerable, more persuadable, than adult audiences, and therefore require greater care and therefore, I must add, we should take a greater care of the films and literature we offer them (Ward 4). When watching The Lion King children perhaps do not connect hyenas with their darker-skinned co-citizens, or Uncle Scar with sexually differently oriented members of their society, but I suspect they do notice and react to the way family members are presented to them on the screen because their real counterparts are very close to them and in a young age they constitute the greatest part of their entire social interaction. To see if the The Lion King makers took this fact into consideration I am now going analyze the roles and positions of the three main female characters in their story. The first important female figure we encounter in the film is Sarabi, Simba's mother and the king Mufasa's wife. She is the kind and caring mother to Simba, intelligent partner to Mufasa with whom she obviously enjoys a very happy and affectionate relationship and later in the film she is also recognized as the leading hunter of the whole lion party. However, although she is no less intelligent than her royal husband and comes very high on the physical strength ladder in the whole kingdom, she has no real power and does not take part in the rule over the Pride Lands. In the whole film she is not a single one time titled or referred to as the Queen as opposed to Mufasa, or later Simba, who are referred to as kings in every other line. Her function is, simply and only, to provide for her family with food and for her children with daily care. Further on, while her duties and responsibilities are quite clear, what Mufasa's ruling actually contains is rather difficult to say. But he is certainly a very busy and tired man, as the film implies in the scene where little Simba is trying to wake him up early in the morning and make him show him the kingdom as he had promised the day before. In this scene, at first Mufasa

23

does not react to his son's calling and thus Sarabi intervenes telling her husband your son is awake. His reaction is unfortunately that of a working and ruling father who has more important things to do in his life then spend some time with his own children, as he replies to her in tired and sleepy voice before sunrise, he is your son. His reaction is, of course, supposed to be funny and I believe many children find it so, but for mothers sitting next to them in the cinemas it is too a familiar situation to laugh. In the end Mufasa gets up and takes his son out to tell him about the kingdom, but the harm is already done. In my opinion, such a line, which in its consequence only strengthens unfair familial stereotypes, is very insensitive and has no place in modern children's films. From the moment Simba leaves the kingdom and begins to live in the jungle, we do not hear about Sarabi for a long time as he only thinks about his dead father. We meet her again only at the end of the film after Simba returns home to fight his uncle. As he at first hides behind a rock and secretly watches what is happening in the kingdom, we watch Sarabi through his eyes having an argument with Scar about his managing abilities and consequently receiving a slap over her face from him as he gets angry. Certainly, this has a strong appeal to children as it touches their common fears of their parents being in danger or having arguments between each other. Scenes of parents being attacked reliably make the action more dramatic, especially in children's movies, but the question is, whether this particular end really justifies the means. The characters that are slapped or beaten within the fictional family circles are most often women, that is, wives or daughters, while the attackers are often their own husbands and fathers. This motif, as we will see later, appears in nearly every blockbuster I will be analyzing in this diploma thesis. Although these bad guys are usually punished sooner or later because they are generally the negative characters in the films, I do not think such frequent displays of women being attacked by their own family is necessary. I understand the violence against

24

their own family is supposed to stress the general evilness of their characters, but I consider it a very cheap and uncreative way, in children's films in particular. My last point concerning Sarabi is the fact that after her husband dies she is not considered at all for the position of the ruler, though she is strong and intelligent. After Mufasa dies, it is only his son, and if not his son, his brother, who are considered as possible rulers of the country. However, as I have already said, because I understand The Lion King as a traditional fairy-tale entailing all traditional features, primogeniture being one of them, I respect them and therefore do not need to give this fact any further attention. The second and only other female figure of some importance in the film is Nala, Simba's childhood friend and the one he marries at the end of the story. As children, Simba and Nala are best friends, and they spend a lot of time together, playing and running around the kingdom. At that time they are presented as generally equal, with the same daily duties and tasks, though Simba's higher position as that of a king's son is respected. While they are displayed as equally bright, when playing and fighting, Nala manages to pin Simba down to the ground a couple of times as if to remind us of the physical power of lionesses in the real nature. When they come across each other again in the jungle after many years of separation, they do not recognize each other immediately and start fighting, with Nala pinning Simba down again like she used to when they were children, showing she is still slightly stronger than Simba. However, that is where her powers end, because when it comes to important matters, she has only a little influence. This is apparent when she tries to convince Simba to return to the Pride Lands and save the kingdom against Scar and the hyenas. She presents him with all the right arguments, mentioning his responsibility and his rightful place, and though she does make him think about it, she does not convince him. Only when he meets Rafiki, the

25

monkey shaman and experiences a supernatural encounter with his dead father, Simba changes his mind and decides to go back. Another interesting moment concerning Nala and Simba and their mutual relationship comes in the scene in the jungle when they get a chance to share romantic moments together. This long scene, accompanied by the widely popular song Can you feel the love tonight, was occasionally criticized by some reviewers because of Nala's general submissive behaviour, the expressions of her eyes and seductive looks and acts through which she is deduced to be object to be consumed by male (Wong). Personally, I would not be so harsh with the filmmakers for the way they depicted romantic feelings between the two animals. I believe they did not have many choices as the characters did not dispose of any other human means except for talking, facial expressions and gestures. What I did not like about the scene, however, were the accompanying comments of Simba's two best friends, Timoon and Pumbaa. While the two lions are occupied with each other, the two Simba's friends sadly watch them from a distance saying first this stinks and then adding a little song about the end of their happy life in the jungle because if he falls in love tonight, it can be assumed, his carefree days with us are history, in short, our pal is doomed. Although I understand their point of view, as of those who are going to be left behind, I argue that this little tune works well to strengthen the false male and female stereotypical views of their mutual relationship, which is supposedly there for women to enjoy and to take control of men's lives, and for men to give up all their friends and fun they have had before. What Timon and Pumbaa should really be singing and make clear is, that it is in no way their friend Simba who is doomed because he has found love, but rather them, because they have not. As I have said, besides Sarabi and Nala there is Shenzi, the hyena, another (and last) female character in the film. Shenzi complements the wicked trio of Scar's accomplices

26

and we can see her more than once throughout the story, but in her own she plays a minor role in the narrative. Summing up, the female roles and positions as they are presented in The Lion King are nothing to cheer about. As we can see, women basically have only one choice, which is that of a caring mother and loving and understanding wife who has a full responsibility for providing with food for her whole family, but does not have any influence on anything outside it, no matter how intelligent or strong she is. According to The Lion King, if women do not take up this role, they end up like Shenzi - on the bad side. Men's choices, in comparison, are much broader. They can be the powerful rulers like Mufasa, Simba, or Scar, whether they have the abilities and morals for it or not, or they can be the ruler's advisors like Zazu, the happy and funny singles like Timon and Pumbaa, or wise old men like Rafiki. If they slip and become the bad guys, they become challenged and overthrown, but again, only by men women, who are also their victims, are not expected to challenge them, let alone beat them and take over the rule. Having said that, it is no surprise many feminist critics found the role of women as presented by the lionesses in The Lion King unacceptable, especially when they are portrayed not only as intelligent, but also as physically very strong. In this respect it seems the filmmakers were aware of the fact that in nature lionesses are strong and powerful creatures responsible for hunting and tried to portray the females in The Lion King accordingly. Unfortunately, this choice in combination with the lionesses' otherwise subordinate position has become the target of strong criticism. As Margaret Lazarus in her well-known essay, they asked how it is possible that the intelligent and powerful hunters passively await salvation when they would be in fact capable to deal with the evil Scar themselves (Lazarus). The Lion King defenders often opposed by pointing to the hoards of hyenas supporting Scar, and to the fact that the filmmakers only attempted to

27

correctly illustrate the lioness in her natural setting. In my opinion, however, it is not possible to defend the behaviour of animated characters by saying it only depicts the reality, and at the same time endow them with intelligence, emotions and feelings of human beings. Moreover, fiction is there for the oppressed and weak to fight and win. After all, where would Mickey Mouse or Bambi be, had their creators illustrated them correctly according to their real models? As I have already said, I understand The Lion King as an old story set long in the past, and thus I accept the fact that it contains the elements of male dominance, men's privileged position and naturally secondary role of women in society because they belong to such old traditional stories. And I am also convinced the film promotes many important values in young children like responsibility, veracity, courage, respect to one's parents and others and needs to be appreciated for them. The question is, however, whether these values should not be taught - with the same effect - on the background of little more politically correct stories than is that of The Lion King. Haven't we been given enough stories throughout the centuries where the princes always fight, win and get, and the princesses always wait, watch and are given? Where men protect and women ask for protection? Where one's place is firmly predestined through one's social rank and sex, but not through their abilities and talent? I believe filmmakers and scriptwriters of children's films, and of Disney children's films especially, should consider these questions seriously. Disney studios built their popularity on the claim and promise of making only perfectly wholesome, highly moral and fair stories, and as such established themselves and have been now for long recognized as an important moral educator having tremendous reach in American popular culture and nowadays not only American (Ward 1-3). In case of The Lion King, however, I must agree with Annalee Ward who claims that when it comes to sexism in

28

this film Disney lost its moral high ground (32).3

At this point it is fair to mention that the Disney executives probably took these accusations seriously because four years later - in the direct sequel to The Lion King - it turns out that Simba and Nala's cub presented at the end of the first film was a girl (Wikipedia).

29

2. Who Laughs in Hollywood Comedies: Mrs. Doubtfire and Forrest Gump The next film I am going to analyze, Mrs. Doubtfire, has a lot in common with The Lion King. Although it is rather a family film than explicitly a children's film, out of the eight remaining films it is the closest to children's audience. Similarly to The Lion King, among its main themes there is also learning taking responsibility and growing up, its power is also enhanced by an excellently chosen music, and it also offers great - this time not only vocal but full - acting performances. Like The Lion King, it is lively, fastpaced, emotional and, on top of that, extremely funny and entertaining. It is no wonder that it has become the tenth most popular film created in the 1990s, and one of the most successful Hollywood feature comedies of all times (Box Office Mojo). Written by Randi Mayem Singer, directed by Chris Columbus and distributed by 20th Century Fox, it was released in November 1993, and despite a relatively modest budget of only about 25 million dollars, it has earned more than 440 million dollars in the world wide box-office. The success was mainly due - apart from the qualities I have already mentioned - to the outstanding performance of Robin Williams in the role of Mrs. Doubtfire/Daniel Hillard and, in my opinion, the sensitive topic of divorce and dissolution of family, which nowadays concerns an increasingly greater part of general public. Mrs. Doubtfire is a story of a voice actor, Daniel Hillard, who is a very intelligent and humorous man with obvious high moral standards but who is, unfortunately, also unable to take seriously his responsibilities as a parent. Though he loves his family dearly, he is constantly between jobs, leaving all the boring matters like providing for his three children and running the household to his wife, Miranda. After she finally loses patience with him and files for divorce, which happens at the beginning of the story, he finds himself out of marriage and out of his beloved children's daily life, all that quite unexpectedly because he was quite unaware of the deep unhappiness his irresponsible 30

behaviour had has been causing Miranda. As he has no employment or place to live, Miranda is given full custody, while Daniel has visitation rights at the weekends. Because he desperately misses his children and desires a joint custody, he has no other option than to try to change his lifestyle to deserve it. He manages to find a steady job in a television studio and refurnishes his apartment so it is suitable for children, but at the same time his adventurous spirit leads him into a highly risky project which eventually spoils all his efforts and even lessens his chances to stay in his children's life: when he finds out his wife is looking for a house sitter and a nanny, he does not resist the opportunity, visually transforms himself - with the help of his brother, a makeup artist - into an English nanny, Mrs. Doubtfire, and gets the job embarking on a double life style. Working as Mrs. Doubtfire, his playfulness and energy is not lost under the cover, and he soon becomes the children's favourite. As he is also forced to learn all the skills necessary for a professional housekeeper and a child sitter, like cooking, cleaning and making the children study, Miranda is sincerely grateful to him (Mrs. Doubtfire). Daniel even wins her trust to such an extent that she reveals him some painful details from their former marriage, making him understand her point of view. He continues to work secretly at Miranda's house even after his two older children accidentally discover his real identity, but when Miranda herself finally finds out, too, she is furious. New legal proceeding follows and the court, criticizing Daniels double life style and even recommending a psychological treatment to him, confirms its earlier decision to give full custody to Miranda and allows Daniel only supervised visitations once a week. However, even Miranda soon realizes this ruling is too harsh both for him and her children who deeply miss their father and when she sees Daniel's recent success on TV where he now works - made up as Mrs. Doubtfire as a new childrens program presenter she decides to forget about the past and allow him to see his children as much as they all wish. Their marriage does not reunite, but the children

31

have both parents again. As we can see, the comedy is based on the idea of cross-dressing, which, from the point of view of gender analysis, renders any film highly interesting. And because Mrs. Doubtfire also deals with a divorce, breaking of marriage and the role of mothers and fathers in modern western family, this comedy represents one of the most intriguing projects out of the ten highest grossing Hollywood films of the 1990s. Cross-dressing has always been quite a popular topic among Hollywood filmmakers, particularly comedy filmmakers, and ever since the films like Some Like It Hot or Tootsie Hollywood screenwriters and directors have been trying to produce similar comedies which would be equally successful. However, disregarding their eventual success in box office, it must be pointed out that whenever such a film is released, its creators often become the target of feminist film critics who accuse them of making yet another insidious film implying that men make better women than women do (Bruzzi 156). In my opinion, such a view of these comedies is a little simplifying, and I believe, in the case of Mrs. Doubtfire, outright incorrect. Frankly speaking, however, concerning the image of real women in the story, the film is not excessively kind. Starting with the main female character, Miranda, Daniel's wife, she is a rather complicated figure. We see her for the first time is in the scene where her colleague at work tells her that Mr. Stuart Dunmeyer has contacted their company and asked specifically for her, whereupon she reveals a surprised but obviously flattered smile (suggesting her past contacts with Mr. Dunmeyer were not of solely business nature) mixed with an expression of curious expectations, which obviously seems rather inappropriate for a married mother of three and creates a rather negative first impression. Furthermore, this scene comes immediately after our first encounter with Daniel who is introduced as a funny, clever, caring and talented man with high moral principles - first in 32

the scene where we see him working as a dub on a children's cartoon, later when he is picking up his children from school, entertaining them and revealing to them he has prepared a big birthday party for one of them. In comparison to him Miranda creates the impression of a stiff, boringly serious person who welcomes other mens attention though she is married to such a great man like Daniel. In the following scene she is seen entering her house and shocked by a number of children and animals who are there for the birthday party Daniel has organized. Miranda is furious, breaks off the party, and a loud argument follows between her and Daniel in which she reveals she wants a divorce. This paradoxically improves the rather negative impression she has so far made on the audience because it suggests that there have been some serious long-term problems to their marriage and excuses her perhaps too a pleased reaction to the news about Mr. Dunmeyer earlier at work. Through the rest of the film the impression of her gradually improves, but not because of her being presented doing something good or right in particular, but rather indirectly, through other peoples approach to her. Her children never show any disapproval or dislike of her, though they personally heard her asking their father for a divorce after the party and could easily hate her for driving their father away from them. She is obviously successful at work, and there must be something in her personality too, as a very nice, rich and good-looking man like Stuart Dunmeyer starts to date her, showing serious and sincere interest not only in her, but also in all her children. The only moment when she speaks directly for herself is when she discloses her perception of her past marriage with Daniel to Mrs. Doubfire/Daniel himself in the kitchen, making him understand how irresponsible and unhelpful Daniel was as a parent and a husband. Nevertheless, the impression Miranda gives remains rather dubious throughout most of the film, and only at the very end when she seeks for Daniel and allows him to be with their children, she is close to having the audiences sincere

33

sympathies. As for the other female characters, all of them, with the exception of the Hillard daughters, who are however still only children, are presented rather negatively, too. The Hillards' neighbour, Gloria, is presented as a silly old gossiping woman. Daniel's mother whom we do not meet directly but hear about her when Daniel's brother is talking to her on the phone, appears to be rather a nuisance to her own sons who prefer being left alone to staying in her company. Daniel's social supervisor, Mrs. Sellner, the last female character of some significance is not presented necessarily negatively, but because her job puts her into a direct opposition to Daniel, the final impression she creates is that of a strict rigid lady with no sense of humour. As a result, the most positively featured female figure in the film is Mrs. Doubtfire who is, of course, a dressed-up man. In comparison to these generally silly and rigid female characters, at first sight male characters in Mrs. Doudtfire are much more likable. They are either funny and entertaining like Daniel, Daniel's brother and his boyfriend, successful and open-minded like Mr. Lundy, Daniel's boss in the studio, or rich, handsome and kind like Stuart Dunmeyer, Miranda's prospective partner. However, when we look at Daniel's character more closely we find out that under that glamorously smart, funny and kind surface he has many faults, at least at the beginning of the narrative, before his transformation. As for his relationship with his children, he certainly deeply loves them and enjoys spending time with them; as he says himself since the moment they were born there has not been a day he has been away from them. His children love him very much, too, as he is a highly amusing playmate to them, always energetic, very inventive, active and funny. However, when it comes to the serious matters of parenthood, like making the children study better, watch less television and tidy after themselves, he is not a very responsible parent. Most of the time he lets them do anything they want and is unable to impose any 34

restrictions on them. As a result, he pushes his wife, Miranda, into the role of the bad one who makes the children study, incessantly complaints about the mess they make and generally spoils all the fun. Besides being a rather inconsistent parent, Daniel is not very helpful in providing for the family either. Because he is unwilling to submit to any rules of any workplace, he is constantly between jobs, leaving all financial matters to Miranda. And although she obviously has a successful career, for a family of three young children and an unemployed husband one breadwinner is not enough. She manages to earn enough money for all of them only at the cost of long working hours, exhaustion and having only a little spare time and energy for her children. Last but not least, because Daniel is not very good at the general housework or cooking either, this kind of work is left to her, too. Looking at Daniel's character from this perspective, we can suddenly see how irresponsibly, recklessly and selfishly he actually acts. His children love him but that is no surprise considering he only plays with them. At work he follows his own personal principles but he does not take into an account that as a parent he has responsibility primarily for his own family. This changes only when Miranda divorces him and when he loses her and the daily contact with his children. To acquire a joint custody he learns to keep a job he is not satisfied with and through transforming himself into Mrs. Doubtfire, Miranda's child minder, he learns to do housework, cook and be more consistent with the children. The question is, is he able to learn all this only after putting on women's clothes [and thus be able to] accept rules and limits? (Tasker 33). Does the film suggest that our social roles are still so fixed that a man is not able or willing to clean and cook unless he puts on a skirt and a blouse? Or does it even say that a man would do the housework only when he is paid for it, unlike a woman who is expected to do it automatically without any extra reward? 35

In my opinion, whether answers to these questions are positive or not is not so important. In my view, the point of the story is that a modern man simply should be able to share the housework with his wife and be equally responsible for the general wellbeing of the whole family, because if he is not, the relationship will not work and the family will fall apart. In this respect, I perceive Mrs. Doubtfire as a kind of metaphorical representation of the problems, which exist in our present western society, especially in connection to family arrangement and internal distribution of tasks. Over the past hundred years our society has changed substantially; most women, like Miranda, have put on trousers and began to do something what had until then belonged exclusively to the male sphere they began to work and develop successful careers. The problem is that while women have changed clothes and are nowadays able to do the same work originally only men did, men, as Daniel shows at the beginning of the film, generally have not managed this yet. They still expect their wives to take care of the entire household no matter how hard they work elsewhere. In this respect I appreciate the films effort to point to this problem so common in present modern families, and send a kind of warning, as well as set an example to those members of the male part of the audience who have been still holding on to a male wardrobe. At this point I must mention that I find it very positive to see that while in the past professional women like Sally were often demonized in fictional cinema, the newest generations of filmmakers abandon this style and nowadays make such women more human (Proehl 167). In some earlier films successful career women were often presented as rather dangerous individuals bringing destruction to the men they became involved with, or, when they were already in a relationship with them the men were often shown as if feeling embarrassed - to regress to the position of a child giving up on their own careers and requiring the same care as if they were children, as if only in a mother-son 36

relationship a woman's authority and superiority over a man was shameless and acceptable. Mrs. Doubtfire thus indirectly works against this tendency and suggests that a man living next to a successful wife and their is still more and more of those in our real lives simply needs to learn to accept it and despite this fact behave as a responsible parent and adult. Getting to my final point about Mrs. Doutfire, I must mention one more positive shift this film represents in comparison to earlier Hollywood production. As Robin Wood wrote in her essay about the 1980s Hollywood blockbusters, one of the dominant themes of the films created and released in that decade and earlier were families and familial relations with the stress on the restoration of the father, i.e. narratives which were often centered on incomplete families where the father of the main male hero was missing, dead or otherwise did not fulfil his role (Kramer, Would You Take 295). Those films often used this fact as the basis for adventures of the young male hero and resolved with him becoming reconciled with the loss, finding substitute for his lost father in an older friend or a relative, or becoming a father himself. Looking at Mrs. Doutfire I can thus see yet another positive shift in Hollywood narratives. The story is, of course, centered on a male figure and is built on the fact the main hero is separated from the family and his children but as opposed to earlier films it is no longer told either from the childrens, or the wifes point of view. While in those earlier stories the fact the father was not present was taken for granted (though in a sad way) the story of Mrs. Doubtfire is built on the fact that the father loves his children and refuses to be pushed out of their lives. Thus, despite my criticism of the rather negative image of women in Mrs. Doubtfire I mentioned at the beginning, I do appreciate the dominant theme of the film, which, as Barclay and Lupton underline, is the father's sheer love and affection for his children (70). Let us only hope that the bitter (though, at times, amusing) lesson Daniel Hillard learnt in this film will 37

inspire as many fathers as possible and they decide it is time grow up, or, to broaden their wardrobe, too, before it is too late. The second film that represents the genre of comedy among the 1990s Hollywood greatest box-office hits is the romantic comedy-drama Forrest Gump by the director Robert Zemeckis. Based on the popular novel of the same name by Winston Groom, the film was released with an immediate success in July 1994 paying off its relatively modest budget of 55 million dollars in just a few days and quickly and permanently establishing itself as one of the most popular Hollywood films of all times. Robert Zemeckis' team consequently enjoyed not only the immense popularity of the film with general audience, but also positive reactions by film critics who awarded the film six Academy Awards, seven Academy Award nominations, three Golden Globes and a number of others. These awards were the more valuable to Zemeckis and his colleagues, the greater consensus existed among film reviewers and critics. Large majority of them agreed on the meticulousness of Robert Zemeckis' work, excellence of Tom Hank's performance in the leading role, charm of Alan Silvetri's musical score and especially the so much admired visual effects which made the scenes, in which we can see Tom Hanks shaking hands with several American presidents, or his colleague Gary Sinise getting about limbless, look highly plausibly and realistically. Although a great part of the audience and critics proclaimed their high esteem for Forrest Gump as an artistic piece, its actual contents aroused, similarly to The Lion King, which I discussed in the previous chapter, some very critical reactions, too. Most often, Forrest Gump was accused of being a dismayingly reactionary work [whose main message was that] ignorance is a bliss and obviously and shamefully does not prevent anyone from their pursuit of the American Dream (Time Out Film Guide). According to many the story, under its feel-good surface, on which it seemingly condemns racism, 38

violence and wars, it, in fact, offensively trivializes serious historical events like civil rights struggle or Vietnam War, laughs in the face of those who took part in them and predestines everybody who does not conform to the main-stream ideas about a way of living to the life of misery (Vincenti). I am going to refer to some of those and other accusations in my analyses again later because they are often closely connected and sometimes actually stem from the way how women are presented in the film, the aspect which I am interested in most and which I am going to discuss shortly after summarizing the plot of the film. The story of Forrest Gump, largely retold by the main protagonist himself in a retrospective, begins in the 1950s when we meet young Forrest for the first time. As we watch him being given embarrassing leg braces to strengthen his spine, we learn that not only he is disadvantaged physically, but also mentally, with an intelligence quotient substantially bellow average. However, we also get to meet his devoted mother who obviously loves him more than anything and who is determined to secure fair chances and good future for him despite of her sons lack of natural endowments. Most importantly, she arranges the braces for him and later she has sex with the headmaster of local school in return for him accepting Forrest so he does not have to go to a special institution. Beside Forrest's mother, we also meet little Jenny, his schoolmate, future best friend and the love of his life, who is the only person from his school to care and protect him against all the other children who constantly harass and bully him. It is Jenny, too, who later helps him to get rid of the braces and discover he is an amazingly fast runner, an ability that will be bringing him luck and fortune throughout the rest of his life. Immediately after high school it enables him to enter a college where he becomes the most useful player of the college rugby team. After successful graduation, he enlists in the army and fights in Vietnam where he becomes a war hero because his fast running enables him to save lives 39

of many of his fellow soldiers after they had been injured in a napalm attack. Later on, during his recovery from a minor injury, he discovers his arms are as fast as his legs and becomes a member of the US army table tennis team taking part in the famous ping pong diplomacy contests against China in the 1970s. After he is released from the army, he tries to fulfil the promise he gave Bubba, his best friend from Vietnam, and buys a shrimp boat to start a shrimping business. With some luck and help of another friend from Vietnam, Lieutenant Dan, he becomes a successful shrimp boat captain and eventually a co-owner of an entire fleet of shrimp boats. Lieutenant Dan then invests his money into the Apple Computer company and secures him financially for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, Forrest's love life, which has been turning around Jenny since his youth, is not so happy. While he follows the traditional ideas of a proper life style of a middle-class American, Jenny becomes a part of the anti-culture stream and actively participates in various social movements of the 60s and 70s. Their lives thus differ considerably and although they meet occasionally, and at one point she even stays in his house to live with him for a short time, she refuses to become his real girlfriend in the way he wishes and asks. After she allows him to make love to her at one single time, she leaves him immediately and contacts him again only after several years. When they meet again she reveals to him that he is the father of her beautiful and smart son, and that she is fatally ill. After that they get married, they all live together again in Forrest's house. When she dies, their little son remains in Forrest's loving care. As the summary of the plot indicates, Forrest's life is generally incredibly busy; he plays football, he fights in a war, he plays table tennis, he works on the sea, he spends almost three years running across the country and in between, when a normal person would just rest, he meets American presidents, receives honours and is present to various events crucial to American history. Nevertheless, although he obviously meets a lot of 40

people throughout his busy life, his limited intelligence and somewhat peculiar ways do not allow him to make many friends. There are only four characters in the film of some importance; his mother, Jenny, Lieutenant Dan and Bubba. As we can see, there are two women among them, which is probably maximum, given the social spheres (mostly army, war, ping pong team and sea) where Forrest moves. But although these women play in fact a highly important role in his life, they do not receive much space in the narrative, because Forrest spends most of his time, if with anyone, with his two male comrades and friends, Bubba and Lieutenant Dan. Forrests mother, Mrs. Gump, whose character earned a lot of criticism on the side of gender critics, is the main example of this female importance but not actual presence in the film. Although Forrest loves her very much, once adult, he spends very little time with her, in spite of the fact it is her to whom he owes a relatively happy childhood and probably a successful adult life, too. And it is Mrs. Gump's unlimited support and encouragement of her son, turning at some points into sacrifices surpassing acceptable limits, which has been repeatedly debated and often rejected by gender critics. As I mentioned in the overview of the plot, to save Forrest from a special school, which would have crippled his further chances in life, she agreed to have sex with the headmaster of a local school in return for him accepting her son and providing him with a regular education. Though the act itself, trading a woman's body for a favour, is certainly degrading, I am able to accept that things like that may sometimes happen; we all know human beings in general are able to do a lot for their loved ones, let alone mothers for their children. What I find more problematic, however, is not as much what Mrs. Gump did for her son, as much as the way she approached the whole problem, which actually did not seem to be a problem for her at all. I can imagine women in need or in trouble, getting offer and in the end accepting it. However, I do expect a certain process is 41

necessary before accepting such an offer, a time-, energy- and thoughts- consuming process on the side of the woman which would be filled with strong emotions like rage or anger, or any kind of emotions, for that matter, which would be perfectly valid in such a situation. Nevertheless, the creators of Forrest Gump decided not to allow Mrs. Gump a moment of doubts or indignation and made her accept the headmaster's offer without hesitation, and even indirectly suggested she actually had enjoyed the experience, trying to convince us a mother is happy and grateful for every opportunity to improve the well being of her children, whatever intails. Returning to the question of how often, or rather, how little Mrs. Gump gets to see her only child, as it appears she only meets him at special occasions, such as his graduation or him receiving honours. There we are shown, of course, her proud smiling face, which suggests she is the happiest mother in the world. However, we do not see her reaction to her only son entering the army, or leaving for Vietnam, neither we see her when she is at home alone, with her only child wondering not knowing where. As Lauren Berlant summons up, Mrs. Gump is a virtuous woman who does her business at home and organizes her life around care taking, leaving the domestic sphere only to honour her child (181). Again, I do not wish to argue, taking into consideration the fact that Forrest Gump attempts to refer to historical facts, about how many women/mothers lived in a similar way at that time, but I must again wonder at the confidence with which the filmmakers portrayed Mrs. Gump's total happiness and her absolute containment with it. And though in the context of historical reality Mrs. Gump's life style, her immobility and no apparent existence of any personal ambitions or wishes may represent many real women of her times, in the context of the film, and especially in contrast with the second main female character, Jenny, her outward happiness and satisfaction with her life seems to be strangely intentional. 42

As I have mentioned, Jenny was Forrest's best childhood friend, and later the love of his life. As to her parents, she was not as lucky as Forrest; her father, a poor farmer, was an alcoholic and sexually had abused her and her sisters until he was accused and sent to prison. As an adult, Jenny did not become any more fortunate. Instead of finishing college, she was expelled for exposing herself naked in an erotic magazine. While trying to pursue a career of a folk singer, in which she never succeeded, she participated in various social movements, but her colleagues did not seem to appreciate her enthusiasm or work. In her personal life she was equally unlucky; having spent her childhood with an abusive father seemed to have left mark on her and apparently pushed her into always choosing the wrong men who treated her badly. Finally, although it was not specified in the film and only indirectly suggested, it seems that she caught an HIV virus, perhaps during her hippie period, and died young of AIDS, leaving a little son behind.4 The purpose of the character of Jenny in the film is obvious. While Forrest represents the respected official history of political events like the Vietnam War or Watergate affair, Jenny's life presents us with the history of what some may call counterculture, which included antiwar protests, hippie movement or movement for equal rights of AfroAmericans. Because the filmmakers made sure she always followed the latest fashion and changed her hairstyle, clothes and make-up, her character not only enriched the film visually, but certainly helped to mark the course of time; I suspect not all the audiences can place the Watergate affair in time without guessing, and Forrest who is wearing the same hair-cut for thirty years and whose wardrobe consists of an army uniform and a couple of similar looking suits, does not help. Generally speaking, the sharp contrast between the two characters, their different
4

Some critics suggest Jenny died of Hepatitis C, not AIDS, because at the time of her death AIDS was known, while Hepatitis C was discovered much later and is also rarely transmitted from the mother to a child or to a sexual partner. However, HIV and AIDS are most often interpreted among general audience as the causes of Jennys death.

43

destinies, and the strict division and somewhat black and white presentation of American history along the course of lives of the two characters raised a strong critical reaction among the film, cultural and gender critics. Firstly, if we focus on the ideological lines which the two characters follow, we can see that Forrest - though personally present at crucial political events - never questions them or asks for reasons that are behind them, while Jenny tries hard to understand and influence them. However, as Forrest ends up the lucky guy becoming a millionaire and having a smart beautiful boy, Jenny is symbolically punished for her thirst of knowledge as she dies of AIDS (iek, The Indivisible Remainder 201). As Slavoj iek points out the ultimate lesson of the film is [therefore]: do not try to understand, obey, and you shall succeed! (The Indivisible Remainder 201). Further more, this seems to be true especially of women, as we can se e when we compare the character of Jenny to Mrs. Gump. As I have said, Mrs. Gump who always stays at home and leaves it only to honour her child lives a long and happy life. Jenny, who tries to pursue a career and fulfil her dreams and ambitions experiences only disappointment, disillusionment and in the end dies young. Perhaps, as the film suggest, had she followed Mrs. Gump's example, i.e. stayed at home and did not wonder around the world, she could have been much happier. In the same way in which critics were discontented with the primary ideological axis of the film, they were unhappy about how it presented American history in general. In their view, Forrest's life provided only a superficial magic realist tour of American society from the 50s to 90s presenting many serious events in a highly irresponsible, and sometimes offensive angle (Auster, Quart 182). As they pointed out, while in Forrest's innocent eyes JF Kennedy was killed for no particular reason and the men/or their relatives who fought in Vietnam found their happiness in the end anyway (Lieutenant Dan got new titan prosthetics, a girlfriend and became a millionaire, Bubba's mother became 44

rich and happy), Black Panthers were a bunch of aggressive men, hippies only took drugs and anti-war protesters were a group of disorganized ridiculous youngsters. We can only presume were would women's movement, so important in the time which the film overlooks, be placed had the filmmakers found it worth including it into their film. In the whole story there is only one direct reference to women's rights movement and that is when a journalist, trying to have an interview with Forrest after he has spent past three years of his life running across the country, if he was running for women's rights. This single allusion in a two and a half hour long film, which aspires to present us with historical facts, seems to be rather poor, especially when its main female character, Jenny, may be identified as the resonant symbol of a key facet of women's history the kind of abuse and suffering that helped motivate the second wave feminist movement of the 60s and 70s (Linville 8-9). Talking about the abuse and suffering Jenny experienced, I must conclude that the general portrayal of women in relation to men and the whole society is not very optimistic in this film. Women portrayed here are mostly victims whose role is to expose their bodies, to have sex and to be sexually exploited, humiliated and [sometimes even] physically endangered, Jenny by her father and consequently badly chosen boyfriends, Mrs. Gump by the luscious school headmaster who used her misfortune of raising a disabled child. Logically, the portrayal of men is not very favourable either and also caused criticism among gender critics. Based on the characters of Jenny's abusive father, her aggressive boyfriends, Mrs. Gump's husband who left her a long time ago, less than intelligent Forrest and his friend Bubba, we can see that men are portrayed as either predatory and aggressive, or in some way disabled and that in relation to the way these men treat women in the story the film clearly suggests a man must be a retard in order to respect a 45

woman (Denby 50). Unfortunately, those who suffer most from this unfavourable portrayal of men are once again women who are generally pushed into positions of victims with very few choices. In the narrative Jenny serves not only as Forrest's ideological antipode, but also as the object of his love that he always wants but can never (or almost never) gets. As an adult Forrest proclaims his love to Jenny on several occasions and repeatedly offers her marriage and a home. Jenny always refuses him not only because she has itchy feet and wishes to get to know the world, but primarily because she is a normal intelligent woman whom a retarded Forrest can never make happy. Only temporarily, when she is feeling very bad and is therefore able to appreciate Forrest's kindness and unlimited love, she can see a real partner in him. But such a moment occurs only once and exceptionally and that is not enough for a life-long relationship - at least it would not be enough in a normal life. Nevertheless, Forrest Gump suggests something a little different. It suggests that not only Jenny should have always stayed at home like Mrs. Gump, but she should have accepted Forrest right at the beginning, because as she found out, the world does not offer her any better alternatives anyway; all the other men are either abusive or alcoholics like her father, aggressive like her boyfriends ,or would have left her like Mrs. Gump's husband. Having said that, it comes as a surprise that despite of the highly unfavourable portrayal of men in this film the filmmakers managed to present patriarchy as the final and positive model of society in this film. As Patricia Mellencamp mentions, thanks to his exploitation of Jenny's body, Forrest, instead of ending up with the woman he loves, he rather has a son, a smarter, normal version of himself turning this little child into a male-gendered symbol of hope for a brighter future for himself and everybody around (87). The patriarchal twist at the end of the film is one example of how skilfully the whole 46

film was made and I must almost wonder at how such a film, full of controversial issues, which are not solely gender issues, can achieve such a huge and steadfast popularity among wide audiences around the whole world. At any case, it proves that putting any feel-good narrative into a pretty sentimental cover, filling it with some pop-cultural references, decorating it with a few special effects and a few pretty landscape images, and wrapping it into a well-known popular music is enough, because when all this is used well, no number of critics then seem to have the power to challenge it.

47

3. The Sixth Sense Women in a Psychological Thriller/Horror Film Turning away from the genre of comedy, in this chapter I am going to analyze the only representative of a thriller/horror among the most successful Hollywood films of the 1990s, The Sixth Sense. Released in 1999, directed by a young director, M. Night Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, and starring Bruce Willis, The Sixth Sense became an overnight sensation earning huge popularity to the director, admiration to the child actor Haley Joel Osment for his performance in a supporting role and also more than 600 million dollars in the box-office. Furthermore, although the film did not turn any of its six Academy Award nominations into an Oscar, it was generally highly praised by film critics and reviewers who admired the precise directing work of M. Night Shyamalan, the subtle atmosphere and especially the final twist in the narrative that puts the whole story into an entirely new perspective. Nowadays, Shyamalans films are well known for these narrative twists, but at the end of the 1990s it was rather an intriguing novelty among Hollywood big screen projects, as well as the genre he employed. There was a significant period in Hollywood filmmaking when films with horror elements were quite popular and supported, but in the 1990s this genre had been for long put aside as suitable only for television and not for big budget productions, which became more oriented on family audience. That is, of course, not to say that The Sixth Sense is a scary movie full of scenes of graphic violence. Though some scary shots do appear there occasionally, what intrigued the spectators most was rather its overall modesty and quiet, though tense, atmosphere reminding of classical chamber dramas of the 1950s and 60s. After a row of bombastic spectacles filled with overwhelming visual effects the 1990s otherwise offered, a nice and quiet story enriched in a detective plot turned out to be a welcome and pleasant change.5

According to Wikipedia the production budget of the film was only about 40 million dollars, but another

48

As to the story line, it starts in the home of Dr. Malcolm Crow and his wife, Anna, where they are happily celebrating his receiving an award from the city mayor for his medical achievements as a child psychologist. Just when they retire to the bedroom, they discover a strange half-naked young man is standing in their bathroom. The man first hysterically shouts at Malcolm revealing he used to be his patient when he was a child and that Malcolm failed him because he did not cure him, and then he abruptly shoots Malcolm in his stomach and himself. The next fall, as we read on the screen, we see Malcolm again, now a broken man who has problems both in his private and professional life. As he explains later, the incident with Vincent, the young man from his bathroom, had a profound affect on his life, both personal and professional. As a person he changed so much that his wife does not like him anymore, and as a psychologist he is struggling to regain his former self-confidence. Nevertheless, now he is just starting to work with a new patient, a schoolboy Cole, a troubled child of weird behaviour, who struggles to make friends at school and suffers from unexplainable anxiety and occasional fear attacks. At first Cole is sceptic and reserved towards Malcolm, but he gradually gains trust in him and finally reveals to him that he can see ghosts of dead people, and that is what terrifies him. Malcolm first considers Cole hallucinating but then he believes him and convinces him to listen to these ghosts and help them if they need it, instead of fearing or trying to escape them. Thus encouraged, Cole hears out a dead girl, Kyra, who makes him go to her wake and reveal to her father (via giving him a secret tape as evidence) that it was her own mother who was responsible for her death, not a disease. After that Cole finally discloses his secret to his mother, too, who has been, till then, worried about him but unable to understand or help him. His mother does not believe him first but he manages to convince her and they end up in a happy embracement. Having
about 25 million dollars were invested into the advertising campaign, which partially explains the huge success of the film with cinema audience.

49

solved Coles case, Malcolm goes back to his old recordings with Vincent and finds out his problems probably stemmed from him having the same ability as Cole. Having regained his self-confidence as a doctor, he continues to fix his personal life, too. But when he approaches his sleeping wife, he notices she is holding his wedding ring in her hand. Looking at his empty ring finger and feeling for the first time his wound from the shot he got from Vincent, he realizes he has been one of Coles ghosts all along and like them, he did not know about it. Saying a final reconciled good-bye to his wife, he disappears. As we can see from this short account, the film focuses on interaction between Malcolm and his patient, Cole, and does not provide much space to female characters, represented here by three women: Anna, Malcolms wife, Lynn, Coles mother, and Kyras mother. As for Malcolms wife Anna, her character is actually a victim of the twisted narrative, because for most of the film she does not make a very good impression and only at the very end, when we are revealed the truth, her behaviour becomes understandable. Her first important appearance is in the living room scene where we can see her celebrating her husbands award with him. At first sight we can see a certain imbalance in their relationship; while her husband is sitting on a sofa, she is sitting on the floor at his knees, reading out proudly the praising text on his award plate, looking lovingly up into his face. That her visual subordination reflects the real state of their relationship is further confirmed in their further interaction. While she is proud and serious about his award, he is mocking it, and only after she gently reminds him he puts everything second (including her) to be a good therapist, he becomes serious for a second and thanks her for her appreciation. Nevertheless, soon after he seems to be more interested in her lips and body, as he starts embracing and kissing her, than to what she is 50

saying. Conclusion, although there is a couple present almost through this entire initial part of the film, the woman is there only to stress how highly appreciated Malcolm is as a professional and how much he is loved as a man and a husband. We do not learn anything about Anna herself, apart from the fact she admires, respects and loves her husband although he neglects her because of is work. When we see her again the next fall, she is, however, significantly changed: she is flirting with another man and looks as if she is just embarking on an affair, and in general she seems angry with Malcolm, treating him harshly and with reservation. The most memorable scene is the scene in the restaurant where they are supposed to celebrate their wedding anniversary and where Malcolm comes very late and spoils the whole event. When he tries to apologize, she ignores him completely and after paying her bill and wishing him happy anniversary in a somewhat sarcastic tone leaves the table. Because by that time we identify with Malcolm and we see their relationship only from his perspective, we disagree with her behaviour for which there is no clear or valid explanation. In a conversation with Cole Malcolm once mentions he has changed after the incident with Vincent and his wife does not like the man he has become, suggesting his part of the blame for the fact their relationship is falling apart, but in general we are made to believe Anna mainly lost her former respect for him because it turned out her husband was not as a great psychologist as everybody believed. As we could see at the beginning of the film in the living room scene, his professional excellence was very important to her, and it is suggested that once he lost credit and damaged his career, she stopped loving him. Thus, the impression she creates is that of a vain superficial woman who loves her husband when he is successful, but despises him when he is not. Only at the end of the story we find out she did not ignore him or stopped loving him, but that she did not react to him because she did not see him, because he was a dead ghost. When we are revealed this, she immediately turns (in our eyes) from a selfish

51

calculating woman she has been for the most of the narrative into an ideal, i.e. into a heart-broken mourning woman who must take antidepressants to relieve her sorrow, who cries at nights watching old videotapes of him reminding herself of happy times, and goes alone to a restaurant they used to go together, pronouncing anniversary wishes as if he was still there. Like at the beginning, Anna goes back to her former function in the story, which is to show how much loved and missed Malcolm was, having barely any life or personality of her own. Furthermore, it is Malcolm's ghost who in the end allows her to let go and possibly start a new life, because only when he discovers he is dead, he says goodbye and he leaves her, she is able to reconcile with his loss and possibly start anew. While Anna stands for an unhappy widow, Lynn, the second female character in the film, stands for an unhappy single mother. Similarly to Anna, except for the fact she is divorced and has two jobs, we do not learn much about Lynn herself throughout the narrative, other than she loves her son who means the world to her. Unfortunately, loving and caring as she is, she is not able to help her troubled child. She knows that he suffers and feels that there is something terribly wrong with him, but she does not know what and cannot help him. Fortunately for her, Malcolm appears on the scene, gains her sons trust, discovers the cause of his problems and helps him to solve them, making his single parent family work again. As we can see, the theme of missing father, which was used in many Hollywood films of the 1990s repeats in The Sixth Sense yet again. In this case, the director even puts a direct emphasis on this when letting Malcolm underline this fact in his notes both about Vincent, the man who killed him and then committed a suicide, and Cole, and insinuates the probability of single mothers not being capable of raising their children without problems. Some critics suggest Cole's problems stem from the lack of communication between him and his mother, but in my opinion it is caused rather by his general insecurity about his secret supernatural experiences, because we can see his 52

mother repeatedly talking to him and asking him questions with genuine interest. But as Cole explains himself, he does not tell her things because he does not want her to think he is a freak, actually, he does not tell anybody because of that. But it is true, that while he does not trust and is afraid to confide in his mother, Malcolm, supplying for the absent father figure, manages to gain his trust and convince him to tell him what is happening to him. As the narrative continues, it gradually shifts from the theme of incapable single mothers to the mothers who are outright bad. In case of Lynn this is insinuated only momentarily in the story, when she is questioned in hospital by Cole's doctor about her son's bodily bruises. Because we still do not know Cole's secret yet, we grow suspicious about his mother who pronounces our doubts by herself, when responding to the doctor, half unhappily, half angrily, if he thinks she is a bad mother and hurts her child. But our doubts are driven away a moment later when Cole finally discloses to Malcolm he sees dead people who are the cause of everything. However, the scene foreshadows future events which surround the third female character in the film, Kyra's mother. We see her only briefly towards the end of the film, but we meet her daughter, Kyra, several times in course of the narrative as she repeatedly returns to haunt Cole as one of his ghosts. After Malcolm convinces Cole that he should find out what the ghosts want from him, she turns out to be the one who needs his help most. Kyra did not die of a disease as her family thought, but her own mother was poisoning her and now she is trying to do the same to her little sister. Kyra wants to save her, and therefore she gives Cole a videotape proving her mother's deed, to pass it to her father so he can stop his wife from hurting their younger daughter. Thus, we are being shifted here from a helpless single mother character to a bad mother character, or, a monster mother, who kills her own children. Being presented with both Cole's and Kyra's completed stories, we are 53

made to conclude that not only should be fathers or father figures present within families, but it is also necessary for them to actively participate in raising their children, because, as we can see, single mother may be incapable and married mothers need to be watched not to do any harm. As the film suggests, single mothers may be so incapable that a dead strange man is a better parent to a child than them. Conclusion, The Sixth Sense is not very generous as far as women's portrayals are concerned. A manipulative superficial wife, a broken-hearted widow, an incapable single mother and a monster mother, these are the options it offers. It is a common knowledge that horror films or films with horror elements are preferred by male spectators and therefore they give most space to male heroes, pushing female characters to the background and often rendering them negative on the way; at least, such was the practice in the 70s and 80s. However, with a 1999 blockbuster one would expect more balanced distribution of power, abilities and good among its characters.

54

4. Hollywood Action Films, or Females Forbidden? In this chapter I am going to focus on the genre which has the most representatives among the ten highest-grossing Hollywood films released in the 1990s, i.e. the genre of action films. The term action film is rather broad and may comprise many sub-genres, but in case of the 1990s blockbusters it is mainly the sub-genre of science fiction action films, which clearly prevails. Films like Independence Day, Men in Black, Star Wars and Jurassic Park all carry the label of a science fiction film. Except these, there is one nonscience fiction action film, Twister, which does not offer science fiction elements like the others, but disposes of the same portion of both the action and special effects, which are nowadays inseparable from big budget action films. The production of science fiction films has been consistently widely supported by Hollywood studios since the late 1960s, as soon as Hollywood producers identified young male teenagers as their target audience (Maltby 21-22). Since then, science fiction films have enjoyed the advantage of biggest budgets, broadest advertising campaigns and, consequently, often the highest profits and revenues. It is therefore not surprising that four out of ten most successful blockbusters of the 1990s are science fiction action narratives. Of course, like most film genres, science fiction films, too, have undergone certain changes and development. In comparison to their predecessors from the 1970s and 1980s, the science fiction films created in the last decade of the century were faster, included more action, displayed (with the help of computer generated imagery) better visual effects on a larger scale, but also, in my opinion, became relatively lighter and funnier. In accordance with the general tendency to broaden cinema audience and bring - besides the targeted young male teenager also the whole families to the cinemas, meaning younger children and their parents, the films would include much less direct violence, less or no 55

sex or erotic scenes, and only sporadic signs of romantic love, which is in a large number of cases replaced by parental love or friendship (Kramer, Would You Take 297). Summoning up, indispensable elements of majority of science fiction action films would then be aliens, star ships, hi-tech machines, robots, weapons, futuristic cities and planets, peculiar creatures and animals and, of course, physical action meaning one-to-one fights, battles and wars, or alternatively threats of wars, clock-ticking and, as many film critics complain, last but not least also often week and implausible characters and a rather simple and shallow plot. As David Bordwell describes, this kind of criticism stating that in action films ... spectacle overrides narrative and that they betray the Hollywood classical narrative tradition, has existed as long as science fiction action film big-budget production itself (Bordwell 104). On the other hand, many others, David Bordwell among them, stand in defence of action Hollywood blockbusters and claim that despite the emphasis on the provision of the overpowering spectacle, they are still equipped with the typical features of traditional coherent narrative such as goals, conflicts, foreshadowing, restricted omniscience, motifs, rising action, and closure (Bordwell 104-107). And Bordwell and others also add that classical narrative has always been only one aspect of classical Hollywood and that non-narrative aspects, including elements of sensation and spectacle, have been also important (King 181). This narrative-versus-spectacle discourse in contemporary academic film criticism is, of course, very important and interesting, but because I am interested in another aspect of these films I will not probe into it much further. However, before analyzing the given films from the gender perspective, I need to clarify I am aware of the specifics, and perhaps certain artistic limits of these films, which they undoubtedly have. As far as the gender issue is concerned, I must point out that although there have been several famous 56

exceptions in the science fiction and action film production where the main heroines were women (Alien, Terminator 2, Lara Croft) or when the films managed to draw large female audience into the cinema, the fact remains that films of this genre are mostly about males and for males and I do not expect any substantial active participation of female characters in the development of the plots or actions in these films, and I will consider any such participation or significance rather a positive plus in itself. I am going to begin my analyses with Independence Day, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Men in Black. Although Jurassic Park displays very similar thematic and formalistic features to those three films, I consider it different in so many interesting aspects which I am going to explain later that I decided to analyze it separately in a special subchapter. In the final sub-chapter I am then going to focus on the only non-science fiction film, Twister, which also differs from the other action films in an important aspect; its leading character is, quite unusually, a woman.

4.1 Independence Day, Men in Black and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace Although I said I am aware of the fact that action films usually dispose of certain artistic limits and I am not going to criticise them for that, starting my analyses with Independence Day, I have to return to this theme because this was one of the most criticised films among the highest-grossing Hollywood blockbusters of the 1990s. Directed by Roland Emmerich who also wrote the screenplay (in co-operation with his Stargate partner Dean Devlin) and symbolically released on 2nd July 1996, it perhaps earned as much criticism as no other film in the 1990s top ten.6 When reviewing the film,

American Day of Independence, of course, falls on July 4, but the film was released on July 2, because that is when the story of the beginning of the narrative is set, forty-eight hours before, ending with the victorious finale two days later, on July 4.

57

many dissatisfied critics pointed to schlocky plot elements and cardboard characters based on stereotyping ... of Jews, gays, alcoholics, scientists etc. (Turan) and concluded that these characters give merely adequate back-seat support to the special effects that drive this big-budget thriller (McManus). Truly, the story line of the film is very simple. On July 2 a huge alien ship approaches Earth and the American president assisted by a Jewish computer wizard, an African-American jet army pilot and a drunken veteran from Vietnam, has only a little time to save the mankind before the aliens destroy everything on the planet and invade it. By July 4 these four protagonists manage to combine their skills and courage and defeat the aliens; first the computer genius comes up with an idea of disabling the protective shields of aliens' ships through implementing a computer virus into their communication network, then the talented Afro-American pilot takes him into the space (in one of the aliens' aircrafts) to the alien mother ship to spread the virus and insert a bomb there, and then the American president, building on his combat flying experience from the Gulf War decides to pilot one of the American army jets himself and leads an air-attack against the alien ship waiting above the American soil. At first the attack does not go well, but the Vietnamese War veteran saves the situation, commits a kamikaze air-raid against the ship and finally saves the world. As far as the gender issue is concerned, as I have said, in my opinion it would be pointless to expect of action films in general any serious implementation of female characters into their plots and I do not expect it with Independence Day either. Women do appear, of course, at certain points in the story but, as expected, they have a minimum impact on its development. However, it is still interesting to comment more closely on their roles and standings.

58

The first of the three female characters in the film is The First Lady, president's wife, who is happen to be fulfilling her duties in Los Angeles when the aliens arrive. Her husband asks her to leave the city, but she decides to stay there and follow her itinerary ending up wounded after the aliens attack the city. She is later rescued and brought to the president and her daughter but dies of her injuries. The second female character is Constance Spano, president's close colleague, directing his communication with public media and David's, the computer wiz, ex-wife. Although she still loves her ex-husband, she divorced him to pursue her career in the White House and to get away from his lack of ambitions which she could not understand, being aware of his talent and abilities. However, when he attempts to help the president and save the planet she becomes his girlfriend again. The third woman in the story is Jasmine, an exotic dancer, mother to a little son and Captain Hiller's, the black pilot, life partner. While he is fighting the aliens, she rescues The First Lady and brings her to the president. Before her boyfriend sets off for a dangerous mission into outer space to implement the computer virus into the alien mother ship, she marries him in the presence of the newly re-united couple of Constance and David. Looking at these three characters, we can say that with few exceptions the plot does not advance through them, in general they rather function only as complementary parts to their heroic male partners whose lives, however, they tend to complicate by making their own decisions and also by the very fact they are working women. As I said, when the aliens arrive the president's wife is in Los Angeles fulfilling her duties of the First Lady. Though the President asks her to leave the city and join him in safety, she stays and is seriously injured in an attack that follows. Later on she is rescued and meets her husband again, but she dies of her injuries, her last words being I am sorry that I did not come when you asked me to. Her unwise decision and urge to work thus 59

directly resulted in that her husband lost his wife, her young daughter her mother and the country her First Lady. As for Constance, her job in the White House may have helped to rescue the president (and her ex-husband) but generally ruined her marriage to David, whose lack of ambitions was unacceptable to her while she was pursuing her own working career. Though she has not developed any other relationships with another man since their separation, it is him, his lasting love and his wedding ring, which he still wears three years after their divorce, what is emphasised. Of course, at the end of the film Constance happily welcomes David after he returns from the risky space mission suggesting she was wrong about David all along and that their relationship does have a future. Finally, Jasmine, Captain Steven Hiller's girlfriend, is an exotic dancer whose job is suggested to be an obstacle to his dream of becoming an astronaut. The negative aspect of her job is stressed much more than the fact her little son probably does not have a father to support him financially and she needs to work hard to make a decent living for the two of them. Although Steven obviously loves them both very much, only under the threat of the destruction of the world and of them all dying he proposes to her. Although the female characters are not very complex, which, however, in case of Independence Day does not apply only to them, one fact is clear: in Independence Day working women are a problem to be solved (Tasker 79). Generally speaking, what the story suggests, women should be passive and leave the activity to men because when they are active things usually go wrong. This diegesis of Independence Day: male active contra female passive may be also seen in connection to the aliens spacecrafts. While the mother ship patiently waiting in the distance for the other smaller ships to prepare Earth for invasion is 60

supposedly female, occasionally called the fat lady, the small alien aircrafts, which take active part in the air-battles (as well as their pilots) are several times titled boys. However, as soon as Steven, the jet pilot, learns to operate one of the small aircrafts he calls it a poor girl. Talking about air combat and pilots featured in the film, it is perhaps worth mentioning that some critics noticed there is no female pilot even mentioned, although it is a fact that women in the real history have been incorporated as combat flyers (Feinman 208). A female pilot would of course contradict the passive female proposition promoted in the film, but still it is interesting to realize, as Ilene Feinman points out, that when the army in the film becomes short of trained active pilots it prefers a drunken Vietnam veteran instead of drawing on the historically permissible resource of women pilots (208). However, as I have said, Independence Day is an action film and therefore has its limits. Moreover, it is well known that in Roland Emmerich's films women are generally not involved in the narrative, and while [his films] may involve a love relationship ... they are never about such relationships in any real sense (Haase 119121). Instead, as Independence Day proves, they Emmerichs films are mainly interested in men's homosociality and focus on male relationship and male bonding (Haase 119121). Having said that, I find it disappointing that although women have so little space in this film, the creators managed to find many opportunities to stress the importance of their physical appearance/beauty. In one of the first scenes, when a state employee is woken up by an early phone call, he reacts by saying If this is not an insanely beautiful woman I am hanging up. This phrase, of course, is meant to be there only for comic relief as we know that even if there was a beautiful woman on the line he would not be able to see her, but it also suggests that in case of women it is as important what they say as how they 61

look. Another example comes in the scene that follows soon after, where we can see the American president making a phone call to his wife, telling her I have a confession to make. I am sleeping next to a beautiful young brunette... Only then the camera moves next to him to reveal the brunette is his own little daughter, making clear he was only joking. However, the importance of a woman's appearance is established, as well as the existence of the threat of one woman being replaced by another. The motif of a woman under a threat of being replaced indirectly repeats in the case of another female character, Jasmine, at whose case the importance of her looks is given as she works as an exotic dancer. However, even Jasmine, an objectively beautiful woman finds herself under a threat of being replaced, in her case, not by another woman, but by anything newer and more interesting. We can see that in the scene in the bar where she is on the stage dancing but all the guests are positively ignoring her because they are watching news on television about the aliens. In case of Constance, the threat of replacement does not come up, because, despite their divorce they both admit love for each other, with David even still wearing the wedding ring. But again it is David's father, not Constance's, whom we can hear encouraging his son to find another partner and move on. Having probed the role of female characters in Independence Day, it is not surprising to find out some critics conclude that women seem to appear in Emmerich's films generally mainly for visual pleasure, to support their men's heroism and as a superficial, token nod toward feminism and equality of the sexes (Haase). Unfortunately, in case of Independence Day female characters carry so many conservative stereotypes, that what was perhaps meant to be a nod toward feminism, remained only a rather unsuccessful attempt. The next film I am going to analyze is a film which does not represents a frequent approach to the space invasion genre. Hugely successful Men in Black, the only comedy 62

among the science fiction films I analyze, presented, according to many, a breath of fresh air for its unconventionality, humour and irony not very common with science fiction films made in past two decades. The general lightness and modesty of the film enchanted both the audiences and critics who considered it the perfect blend of science fiction-style action with comic dialogue unusual in mainstream science fiction (Berardinelli). Men in Black, directed by Berry Sonnenfeld and released in 1997, was simply one of the few science fiction films, in which the main characters received more space than the visual effects, which were, in comparison to big epics like Independence Day used rather modestly and subtly implemented into the story, but at the same time were no less sophisticated. As James Berardinelli says, the chief pleasure of Men in Black isn't being dazzled by the special effects, but enjoying the deadpan performances of [the main protagonists:] Tommy Lee Jones ... and Will Smith. This is a rare case when the multimillion dollar, computer-generated creatures don't upstage their real-life co-stars (Berardinelli). Of course, although the alien creatures in Men in Black are not overwhelming, they do play substantial role in the story. After all, they have been among us for some time already, as the film proclaims in its typical matter-of-fact way at its very beginning. The film starts with a scene near the American-Mexican border, where an enemy giant warmlike alien is identified among illegal Mexican immigrants and destroyed by two secret agents, members of the top secret agency, Men in Black, which is in charge of all aliens living on the planet. The operation, though successful, was an overly unpleasant experience, and makes the older of the agents reveal to his partner, agent K., that he feels too old for the job and that he is going to retire. After that, the agency start searching for a substitute for the retired agent and after an interview and some testing they offer the post to James Edwards, a New York police officer. Because working as a Man in Black means 63

accepting several strict rules like no identity, no private life and no connections outside the agency, James takes some time to consider the offer, but in the end accepts, becoming agent J. Just as the two protagonists are thus paired, they must face their first difficult mission together. It was discovered that while the agency was dealing with their internal affairs, a Bug, a giant alien cockroach arrived on the planet Earth with the intention to capture a tiny Galaxy in the shape of a key ring, which is currently in possession of Arquillians, extra-terrestrials living on Earth. The Galaxy is a vast source of energy and could be very useful to the Bug and his civilization. After his arrival, the Bug kills a farmer called Edgar and putting on his skin, which makes him look like a human, he drives to the city of New York, kills the Arquillian guardians of the Galaxy and captures the key ring. Unfortunately, the Arquillian government send warning from the Space to the MIB stating if the Galaxy is not returned to them shortly, they will destroy the planet. Not knowing where the Galaxy or the alien thief are, the agents first have difficulties to catch up with what has happened, but with the help of Edgar's wife, some other aliens and Dr. Laurel Weaver, a deputy medical examiner, they manage to find the Bug, kill him just before he leaves the planet and return the recovered galaxy to the Arquillians. The planet is saved, but similarly to his former partner, agent K realizes he also wants to leave the agency and start a normal life with his former girlfriend he still loves. After he leaves, Dr. Weaver takes his place and becomes a new J's partner. Although the film is science fiction and also its very name quite clearly suggests which gender is in the centre of attention, from the summery of the plot I have just given we can see that it does have some female element in it. And surprisingly, when we look closer we can even see that this element brings a certain feminist edge to the story. Of course, objectively speaking there are few female characters; as opposed to twelve male characters, there are only three female characters in the whole film (including a 64

second-lasting appearance of a pregnant woman/alien in a car halfway to the film). However, as I said before, such rate is more or less expected with contemporary films of science fiction genre and for me the way the female characters are presented is more important than how many of them there actually are. Concerning the depiction of women's role and position in society, the very first impression the film creates in this respect is not very positive. The first of the three female characters we meet is Beatrice, Edgar the farmers wife, who gets killed by the alien cockroach and whose skin the alien puts on to disguise himself for a human being. We encounter Beatrice for the first time in the evening scene where her husband just comes back home after a workday in the fields and scolds her violently for making another poisonous dinner, for not being able to keep the house nice and clean although that is the only thing he asks for and for being generally useless. His loud insults gain even more emphasis as we do not actually see either of them at that moment, but we only hear the husband shouting inside of the house which we see only from a distance. When a minute later an alien cockroach lands with a crash in front of the house and the farmer comes out to look what has happened, he still keeps shouting over his shoulder back at his wife to keep her big but back in the house (we soon find out Beatrice is, in fact, thin). However, after a very short confrontation with the alien, Edgar is killed, being symbolically punished for his unacceptable behaviour to his wife. We meet Beatrice again one more time when the two Men in Black, agents J and K, interrogate her about what happened to her husband in her house. She gives them an account of the incriminate evening as they ask, but what is interesting about the conversation is that she does not reveal any emotions or understanding of further consequences of the fact that her rude husband has gone missing. Although we may assume she is still too much in shock to think about it as she knows that an alien landed 65

on her land and killed her husband, the total absence of emotions or any kind of negative or positive conclusions on her side are strangely missing. And what is even more interesting, the two agents supply for them for themselves at the end of the interrogation. As they do with every person who experienced an encounter with an alien, they flash their neurolyzer at her, a machine which is able to erase the memory of an encounter of the third kind and replace it with anything the agents say aloud at that moment. While the older and emotionless agent K chooses to tell Beatrice that her husband ran off with an old girlfriend and that she should now go and stay with [her] mother for a couple of nights to get over it and in the end decide [she] is better off, the younger and generally more warm-hearted agent J offers an opposite explanation. He explains and that memory would be final that in fact she kicked him out because he never appreciated her anyway. While agent Js idea is, of course, very nice and reveals his own kindness and understanding, the scene at the same time shows that Beatrice herself is not able to realize she was treated badly, let alone to change it. She had to wait for an alien to arrive and kill her husband to get rid of him, and then for secret agents to literally inject the idea of her own self-esteem into her brain to gain freedom and dignity. The second and only other female character in the film, Dr. Laurel Weaver, is, in comparison, depicted as a much stronger character. She is an educated, intelligent, young and attractive woman working as a deputy medical examiner whose self-confidence and independence is apparent at the first sight. She does not seem to be a part of any couple or a family, she works long hours and she seems perfectly satisfied about her life-style. However, when it comes to the Men in Black, she - as everybody else - is, of course, powerless. The agents use her services without her awareness or approval, they flash their neurolyzer at her any time they need and they keep pretending and lying to her as it suits them. She makes her first major appearance in the film in the scene where the two Men in 66

Black come to her work to find out about the killed Arquillians, the guards of the Galaxy. The interesting moment comes when she while examining one of the bodies openly flirts with young agent K, telling him how very pretty eyes he has. He does not reply but the expression in his face lets us know he feels flattered, though perhaps a little embarrassed, too. Later in the same scene, agent K reveals he finds her very attractive, too, as he, when asked in a private conversation about the body by his older colleague, mistakes the subject of matter and instead of giving opinion about the dead Arquillian he has just examined, he appreciates the great body of Dr. Weaver. The fact he likes Dr. Weaver as much as she likes him, but is not able to tell her or respond to her accordingly suggests, he is astonished by the fact a woman made advances on him as the reverse (or nothing) is more acceptable. That fact that the film promotes rather conservative modes of behaviour is confirmed later in the story in the scene where the Bug/Edgar comes to Dr. Weavers work to look for the Galaxy. First the Bug forces her to tell him where the key ring is, but when agent J unexpectedly appears in Dr. Weavers lab, too, he hides under the table, secretly holding her ankle and insinuating her to send the nosy agent away. As agent J is standing on the other side of the table, Dr. Weaver tries to reveal the Bug's presence him telling him she would really like to go with him and that she really must show him something pointing downward under the table with her finger, but agent J does not help her because he does not perceive her hints correctly and understands them as another sexual advance. The scene culminates a moment later when the Bug spots the key ring, jumps out of his hiding, seizes it and then seizes Dr. Weaver, too, to hold her hostage. A quick argument follows between agent K and Dr. Weaver, who accuses him of being thick because he did not understand her gestures. He answers he could not know what she was trying to say because when they met last time she was coming on like a drunken prom date. She 67

begins answering angrily that that is so typical, any time a woman shows the slightest sign of sexual independence she is considered a whore, but she actually does not finish her speech because she is silenced by the Bug who squeezes her neck and holding her tight escapes with her through the window. Dr. Weaver is thus directly severely punished for her sexual independence, i.e. her previous flirting with agent K not only by not being able to get his help when she needs it but also by being kidnapped by an alien putting her life in a great danger. However, everything turns for the better soon. After the Bug leaves the morgue with her, he aims for a spaceship located in an isolated place outside the city centre. When they arrive, at first he attempts to take Dr. Weaver with him to the Space because the journey is going to be long and he is going to need a snack. But because she is slowing him down as she is kicking and screaming and generally making a nuisance of herself, he releases her. She falls into a tree and then on the ground from where she is watching the arrival of the agents and their consequent battle for the Galaxy with the Bug. For most of the time she is only a viewer, but just when the two agents sit happily on the ground with the Galaxy in their hands thinking they killed the Bug for good while the alien is quietly recovering behind their backs and preparing a fatal attack, she shoots him dead and saves the agents lives and the Galaxy. Finally, after we witness agent J leaving the agency and starting a normal life with the woman he has always loved, we can see Dr. Weaver as a new Man in Black, wearing the indispensable black suit and sunglasses, and setting off to a another mission with agent J as her partner. Conclusion Dr. Weaver is taught her lesson. She learns that female sexual independence is dangerous and risky and deserves a punishment. She also learns that she can be highly intelligent, courageous and physically active but because these are rather traits of a man, she will be able to use these talents safely only when she also looks like a 68

man. During the whole Bug mission she proves herself capable and helpful in many ways, so when she shows her interest in the job of a Man in Black she rightfully acquires it. Of course, only at the cost of suppressing her sexuality and feminine appearance, because with the male job she must also accept the male looks and wear a black trouser-suit, a tie and glasses so she resembles a real Man in Black as much as possible. However, there is also a positive side to the conclusion of the film. Dr. Weaver, definitely, is a positive representative of a strong, intelligent and independent woman. Although she must sacrifice some traits of her personality, which are natural to her, becoming a Man in Black makes her a winner; because it proves women can have the same abilities as men and can be equally rewarded and appreciated for them. However, here I must mention that the film Men in Black unfortunately follows the formula used in the Star Wars episodes. While the female hero is victorious at the end of Men in Black, in its sequel her power diminishes and she does not appear in the story any more. Thus, the film joins the long line of narratives, which allow the leading female character to be part of the finale, or play a significant role in it, but when it comes to the full story from the beginning to the end, the filmmakers do not have the courage or are not willing to put the woman upfront, not even next to a man as his partner. To conclude my analysis of Man in Black, I would like to point to one more motif, which repeatedly appears there, and that is the rather negative image of heterosexual relationships, meaning romantic relationships, marriages and families. In the course of the narrative we encounter three relationships. Firstly, it is the marriage of Edgar and Beatrice, which does not remind of a perfect harmonious family even from a distance; Edgar is rude and violent and treats his wife with utter disrespect and abomination. The second example is the marriage of Reggie and his wife (whose name is not mentioned), a couple, whom the agents stop outside New York on their run from the Earth. We do not 69

see both of them, but because they are running away together from the endangered planet and Reggie seems to be a nice man, their marriage does not get under suspicion. However, when the pregnant wife gives birth to her squid-like baby after a rather frightening and violent labour (read comical), their relationship is utterly ridiculed, to say the least. The third relationship involves older agent J and the woman he loves, but who he has never really been with, as he preferred his career in the agency to living with her. Only after thirty years he decides to leave the agency and go back to the woman who has been, of course, patiently waiting for him for all those years. Like with the woman in lead, we may catch a glimpse of a working relationship at the end of the film, but there is no place for it in the narrative as such. Summoning up, out of the three relationships depicted in the film, one is bad and worthless and as such destined to end (luckilly), second is depicted as a kind of joke, and the third has never really existed. Whether the filmmakers realized it or not, they, unfortunately, seem to have reflected the current tendency of breaking of traditional family in western society where in todays busy world relationships quickly fall apart or have difficulties to be started at all. The third representative of the science fiction action genre, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, which was released in 1999 and belongs to the Star Wars saga that has also been traditionally focused on male friendships and male relationships, especially those between fathers/father figures and their sons/apprentices. Since the release of the first feature film in 1977, all Star Wars episodes have been also known for using and implementation of innovative special effects, which, according to many critics, have by now become the focus of the episodes to such an extent that they completely override the narrative. Beside the excessive special effects, George Lucas, the director and screenwriter of Star Wars, is also criticised for modifying the film scripts in such a way that they can be easily used for commercial purposes. In case of The Phantom Menace it 70

was mainly the character of completely computer generated Jar Jar Binks who accompanies the main protagonists throughout most of their adventures and who can be easily turned into a cute toy (Higgins et al. 115). Under such circumstances it is obvious the expectations concerning the roundness of characters or the depth of the narrative can not be too high, let alone the expectations concerning the portrayal of female characters which I am interested in most. In short, The Phantom Menace, with its long scenes of pod races, air battles and light-sabre fights is not meant for female audience; as George Lucas allegedly admitted himself, it's not Titanic, it is the boy movie (Brooker 200). All the more it comes as a surprise that one of the main protagonist, this time a real active hero(ine) through whom the narrative advances, is a woman. The story starts, as usual, with a written on-screen introduction of what is happening in the Galaxy at the moment explaining to us that the Galactic Republic is currently in a period of decline caused by incapable and corrupt senators. Then the story itself begins and we watch the greedy Trade Federation, which runs the interplanetary trade, to take advantage of the situation and send its army to blockade and invade a small planet of Naboo, presuming the Galactic Republic would not react on its behalf. Amidala, the Queen of Naboo, is captured by the army but she soon escapes with the help of two Jedi knights and flies to the Coruscant, the capital planet of the Galactic Republic, where the Galactic Senate sits, to announce the attack of Naboo and ask for help. On her way she is forced to stop on a desert planet of Tatooine where the Jedi knights meet Anakin Skywalker, a young slave boy with whom the Force, every Jedi's attribute, is exceptionally strong. Before the Queen continues her journey the Jedi help to free Anakin and take him with them. At Coruscant the Queen's pleas to the Senate are not answered but the two Jedi knights are officially assigned to return with her to Naboo and help her to deal with the invaders and solve the crisis. When they arrive the Queen Amidala seeks for 71

the Gungans, another people of Naboo who have so far lived separately from her own nation in a passive hostility, and convinces their king to form an alliance and fight the invaders with her. While the Gungans are fighting in a battle against the army of Federation droids, Amidala, with the Jedis help, finds her way into her occupied royal palace and captures the invaders' chief commanders. After young Anakin accidentally joins Amidala's pilots in an air battle and helps to destroy the main Federation spaceship disabling the droid army fighting on Naboo, the invaders finally yield in and the planet is saved. The Galactic Senate then elects a new capable and incorrupt chancellor, Anakin becomes a new Jedi apprentice and on Naboo Amidala and the King of Gungans confirm newly established friendship and peaceful alliance of their two nations. Although the plot described above is wrapped into endless scenes of races, fights, shootings and battles in which all the male characters play the most important roles, when looking closely at the bare storyline of the film we can see it truly and surprisingly for a boy movie does advance significantly through the female character of Amidala, the queen of Naboo. This is quite a change in comparison to the first three episodes of the Star Wars made in the 1970s and 1980s, where the leading female character, princess Leia, is largely subjectified and lowered into a position of a woman in need of her male friends help and protection. Although Amidala may be also perceived passive at the beginning, unlike Leia she gradually uncovers her real powers and abilities, which lead her to the victorious finale. When we meet Amidala for the first time, we see her surrounded by a group of male advisors helping her to deal with the blockade and consequent attack of Trade Federation. Despite her attempts at resistance and defence, she is captured by the attackers and only when the two Jedi knights sent to Naboo to negotiate with the Federation help her, she manages to escape. In these first scenes the treatment Amidala receives and the way she 72

acts herself is stereotypically feminine; her advisors are all male, she claims to do anything to prevent war and when she is captured, she is threatened by seeing her people suffer if she does not cooperate with the occupiers. Further on, she only escapes with the help of two Jedi knights who are, of course, also male. However, from then on she gradually becomes more and more active. When she escapes from Naboo and lands with the Jedi on Tatooine, she disguises herself as one of her maids and accompanies the Jedi to the inhabited inner land of the planet. As an ordinary maid she does not dispose of any power, on the other hand, she still chooses to risk her life (so she could get acquainted with the life and people of an unknown planet) to sitting passively in the ship and waiting for the Jedi to come back. When she reaches the capital planet of Coruscant and gives a pleading speech in the Senate, she is not heard out or otherwise helped, but that only makes her further more inventive and decisive. In the Senate she (advised by the Senator of Naboo) asks for a vote of no confidence in the Supreme Chancellor, being probably the first politician to openly show her dissatisfaction with him. As for her own planet of Naboo, she invents a plan of alliance with the Gungan people and their joint counterattack against the invaders. Thus, instead of staying safe on Coruscant waiting for help from the Senate, she returns to Naboo and fights on occasions literally. On Naboo she finds the king of the Gungans and convinces him to start a battle against the Federation, which would clear her way to the palace. Later, advancing through the palace she uses a decoy to draw attention away from her and taking active part in the shootings against her enemies she successfully reaches the heart of the building and captures the invaders' commanders. Though she is all the time assisted by the Jedi and in the finale substantially helped by Anakin, there is no doubt the Queen Amidala disposes of more actual power, abilities and respect than any other female character in the Star Wars saga before. This general activity and power, not very common 73

in Star Wars female characters, or, for that matter, most science fiction narratives, also relate to one more detail; while princess Leia from the first trilogy gained her status due to her royal birth, in The Phantom Menace Amidala becomes the Queen through elections. It is a pleasant change to see that the creators of the films allowed a female character to be voted the queen and then even allow her to behave accordingly throughout the whole narrative. Comparing The Phantom Menace to the original trilogy, we may also notice another positive change, and that is the inclusion of women in positions, which were originally exclusively male. For example, while in the first three films all twelve members of the Jedi council were strictly male, in The Phantom Menace we can see if only shortly also two females. Similarly, when watching the space-battle between the Naboo pilots and the Trade Federation spaceship we notice there are female pilots among them, too. Though these short glimpses of females on traditionally male positions are scarce, I give the Star Wars creators credit for obvious attempts to include women into their boy movie. It proves that the notion of equity of sexes is nowadays so strongly present in film industry that it found its way though sometimes awkwardly even into such a male dominated area as science fiction movies. However, despite these positive sides relating to the portrayals of women and women's roles in society the film undoubtedly contains, I must make clear that in the context of the whole narrative they are still rather inconspicuous, and an attentive viewer discovers them especially the fact of Amidala's actual power really only after stripping the film off all the incessant fights and battles in which males play the main, and often the only role. Though Amidala is a powerful woman, next to the two Jedi who constantly negotiate, give advice, help and fight, young Anakin, who wins the famous pod race and then pilots a spacecraft to destroy the enemy's battleship, next to all the male 74

Senators, Jedi councillors and the Gungans, she constitutes a little particle of the narrative. On top of that, there are some elements that work against the generally positive portrayal of female characters in the story and work against the relatively high position of females set by Amidala. Among the minor matters I include for example the female robot TC-14, which appears at the very beginning of the film in the scene where the two Jedi knights arrive on the spaceship of the Trade Federation to negotiate the blockade of Naboo. While all the commanders on the ship are obviously male, the robot, which they send to serve drinks to the Jedi, i.e. a mechanical machine, which only distantly reminds of a human being and whose voice could be artificial and gender neutral, has for some reason a female voice. Another example is the woman figure standing next to Jabba the Hutt during the famous pod race on the planet of Tatooine in which young Anakin Skywalker takes part. Jabba the Hutt is one of the local powerful creatures sponsoring the race and as such he comes there surrounded by a group of servants. Although he looks more like a huge toad than a human being, one of the servants standing next to him is a pretty young human girl wearing a bikini-like suit scarce in amount of fabric. Although we do not see much of Jabba the Hutt or the girl during the race as the camera focuses on Anakin, it is apparent she is standing there having no particular function except for showing her pretty body. From the earlier episodes of Star Wars Jabba is known for having all kind of vices, including keeping slave girls, but in The Phantom Menace he or his way of life is completely irrelevant and as such I do not see any reason for displaying a half-naked girl next to him. Except for these two scenes there are other examples, such as the prevailingly male Galactic Senate on Coruscant etc., but as I said I consider these elements only minor matters, for which women pilots or female Jedi knights portrayed in the film more or less 75

compensate. However, they are probably not enough to balance the character of Shmi Skywalker, besides Amidala the only other female figure in the film. Shmi, Anakin's mother, is a complete opposite of the Queen; she is middle-aged, a mother and a slave having no power over herself let alone others. Her sole function in the story, and supposedly the only aim of her whole life is to give birth to Anakin, a future Jedi knight. After learning about her virgin-like birth of her son, we may assume that not only has she no power over her life and future, but she has no power over her body, either, which is used by the obviously prevailingly male Force to give life to Anakin. After involuntarily giving birth to him she is allowed to nurture him for a few years but it is clear that if Anakin stays with her he has no future; only other men who eventually come, set him free and take him away from her, have the power to make him what he will become (Rofel 189). After Anakin leaves Shmi, we never encounter her again, though we hear about her when the boy is tested by the Jedi council in Coruscant to find out whether he is suitable for Jedi training or not. Though he is in the end accepted as a Jedi apprentice, the council is very reluctant to allow it as they discover his thoughts dwell [too much] on his mother. They argue that Anakin is far too old for the training, suggesting that he has been living with his mother for too long. Thus, not only Shmi was involuntarily used for giving birth to a child, but the fact she ever raised him becomes an obstacle to the child's own dreams and chances to develop his talents; had she perhaps restricted her activity to giving birth to him, Anakin's life would have been much easier, the story seems to imply. On their parting on Tatooine Anakin promises her to come back and free her (making clear yet again who is the active agent out of the two of them), however, as I said, this does not happen and we do not see her anymore in this episode. We only meet her again in the following part of the Star Wars, Episode II, but only just before she dies in Anakin's arms after being kidnapped and maltreated by the Sand people on Tatooine.

76

Such ending, unfortunately, further reinforces the confirmation of her giving birth to Anakin being the sole purpose of her existence. It is sadly ironic that although she was used to give him birth, she obviously needs him for her own protection. Without his presence, her life loses all its purpose and ends. Talking about the following episode of Star Wars prequel trilogy leads me to my final comment, which does not concern The Phantom Menace directly, but which I find interesting to such an extent I cannot not ignore it. As I showed, the main female character of Queen Amidala of Episode I is exceptionally strong, not only in comparison to female characters that nowadays appear in films of science-fiction action genre in general, but also in comparison to Princess Leia, the leading female character of the original Star Wars trilogy. However, now I am speaking in absolute terms, because when taking into consideration that more than twenty years passed between the original Star Wars (1977) and The Phantom Menace (1999) and the context of social reality in which the films were created, the comparison ceases to be all that positive. Firstly, though I must admit Amidala is the most powerful woman of the whole Star Wars saga, I must mention many critics perceived Princess Leia of Star Wars of 1977 as a character who breaks barriers for white women of the respective decade as she acts as a spy, a political leader and a gun-fighter (Estrada 85) but, at the same time, manages to keep an apparent sexual independence resisting the traditionally narrow choices given to powerful women of fiction, who were most often presented only either as angels or whores (Green). Taking this into account, Queen Amidala is no breakthrough, but on the other hand, in my opinion, her character safely manages to reflect the changes which have occurred in our society since the 1970s, or at least, not to deny them. All the more I find it sad that despite the gap of twenty-two years Amidala's character awaits a very similar fate in the following episodes of the second Star Wars trilogy, as awaited Leia in the two following 77

episodes of the first series. Like Leia, who gradually becomes overly sexualized in the remaining movies of the [first] trilogy (Green), Amidala, too, loses much of her feminist leanings as her prequel trilogy evolves (Estrada 87) and she gradually changes from a leading politician and a warrior into a weak woman dependent on her lover's (Anakins) decisions and being rejected, she dies of a broken heart in the third episode. I would expect that after quarter of a century women would deserve more than being yet again portrayed as victims of their own emotions who always die for their men's honor or dishonor (Estrada 87). However, such judgement really applies to the trilogy as a whole, or to the next two episodes. As for The Phantom Menace, I do adhere to what I have said before; considering we are discussing a science fiction action film where women are not generally found in great numbers or important roles, due to the leading female character of Amidala I consider the film quite a successful attempt for a positive representation of women. As I said in the introduction to the most popular Hollywood action films of the 1990s, I find the last science fiction action film, Jurassic Park, different from the others because in my opinion it contains some deep messages, it reflects some of the current highly topical issues and it is generally much more complex and complicated. Furthermore, it touches the theme of femininity and gender roles, which are crucial to my analyses on more than one level and thus directly asks for more space and special attention. Therefore I am going to analyze this film separately from the other narratives in the following subchapter. 4.2 Jurassic Park Based on the novel by the best-selling writer Michael Crichton and directed by no less successful Steven Spielberg, Jurassic Park broke all possible box-office records after its 78

release in June 1993. A mixture of family adventure and science fiction with a few horror elements drew adults, teenagers and children alike to the cinema, with the latter more or less expected because of the generally well-known irresistible appeal of dinosaurs to children (Kramer, Would You Take 302). As a result, Jurassic Park held the first post in world-wide box office charts until James Cameron's Titanic and was labelled one of the most successful films of all time. Beside general audience, prominent film and cultural critics showed great interest in the film, too, mainly because of its rich subtext and hidden messages which were referring to many topical issues like new discoveries in genetics, interaction of businessmen and scientists, power of nature and, last but not least, also femininity and family issues. Looking first at the film plot, we learn that it is not particularly complicated. Set in the present, the film starts as a story of John Hammond, a Scottish businessman and entrepreneur, who is just about to complete the biggest project of his life, a dinosaur theme park. This park, called Jurassic Park, is built on an isolated island and its main attraction shall be living dinosaurs genetically developed by scientists and genetic engineers hired by his company. Unfortunately, just before the scheduled opening of the park one of local workers is killed by a raptor in a tragic accident. Threatened by a costly lawsuit, Hammond's investors require a safety inspection and recommendation of external experts before opening the park to public. While they send their lawyer Donald Gennaro to the island, Hammond invites palaeontologist Alan Grant, palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler and a mathematician and chaos theoretician, Ian Malcolm, to visit the park and support the project. At the same time, he also invites Tim and Lexie, his two grandchildren, to see the island while their mother is going through a divorce and needs some time alone. When all his guests are presented with some of the island's dinosaurs and the way they have been created, the scientists are stunned but also worried and doubtful of the 79

Hammonds scientists' and managers' capabilities to really control such a huge enterprise because they suspect that nature cannot be controlled in this way, especially the nature which has been extinct for millions of years. However, the next day they all together with the children take part in the first trial ride around the park. Unfortunately, while the group is outside, the park's leading programmer Dennis Nedry partly turns off its security system so he can steal and secretly deliver dinosaur embryos to his accomplice outside the control centre. Because some of the electric fences are shut down, the group gets under attack of dinosaurs and in a storm, which hits the island at the same time, are forced to fight for their lives. While Ellie and Dr. Malcolm - after some difficulties - reach the control centre, Gennaro (and later Nedry himself) are killed and eaten by dinosaurs. Alan and the children also get under attacks but manage to stay alive in the bush overnight. While they are trying to survive and find their way back to the centre, Ellie, Hammond and a few park employees, who did not leave the island like the other employees and stayed in the centre, attempt to turn the security system back on. Because Nedry, whose computer is the key to this goal, left his computer blocked with a password, they decide to turn off the power grid of the entire park to restart the whole security system. In the pursuit of this task two more of the group are killed by raptors that got over the disabled fences but in the end they manage to turn the power back on. Soon after that Alan and the children reach the centre and after the final fight against the raptors, Ellie, Alan, the children, Hammond and Malcolm manage to escape the building and reach a helicopter, which evacuates them from the island. As we can see, Jurassic Park is not only another colourful, entertaining cinematization of another fight of humans against creatures from another world as science fiction stories generally tend to be. In contrast, it touches some of the deep concerns which stirred western society in the 1990s following the newest discoveries in science and 80

important inventions in technology. DNA research, genetic engineering, first attempts at animal cloning, mapping of human genome, experiments with human embryos and also advancements in computer technologies and beginnings of internet; these are only some of the novelties science brought in the 1980s and 1990s and amazed and also scared not only thinkers and philosophers, but also general public who began to realize how powerful science is and how easily misused it can be. Worried public reacted by asking for a greater transparency and control of unusual and potentially dangerous experiments and pointed to serious ethical and moral problems such experimentation raised. Jurassic Park tapped into these anxieties and supported this criticism not only through the resolution of the story, which suggests it is impossible and wrong to control nature, but also directly through the statements and comments of the characters, especially the characters of the experts Hammond invited to the island and whom we repeatedly hear to call for greater respect towards natural forces, criticize the lack of humility before nature and warn against possible fatal consequences of scientific experiments getting out of hands. The fact that Jurassic Park comments on such moral and ethical questions that were connected to changes and developments, which were (and still are) really happening in the real world, distinguishes it from most of the other science fiction narratives, which usually restrict themselves to depiction of a fight between good and evil somewhere in a galaxy far far away. Of course, the incorporation of the serious issues into its narrative is probably not the reason why Jurassic Park became so successful with general audience. However, the simple fact it did become so popular, adds all the more significance to any of its analyses, in my case the analyses of the representation of women and gender roles in this film, on which I am going to concentrate in the following paragraphs.

81

As we could see from the summary of the plot, there are only two female (as opposed to nine male) characters in the story, Dr. Ellie Sattler, the paleobotanist, and Lexie, Hammond's teenage granddaughter. At first sight, both of them seem to represent a contemporary, 1990s feminist vision of women and girls (Freeland 209). Ellie is intelligent, well-educated and ambitious young woman who shows she is an expert in her field on several occasions. She contributes to serious discussions about the park occurring repeatedly among her (male) colleagues and expresses her own opinions confidently and independently. Although it seems Hammond originally planned to invite primarily her boyfriend, Dr. Grant, and she gained the invitation only thanks to her relationship with him, after she arrives to the island she immediately becomes, thanks to her obvious intelligence and expertise, an equipollent partner to the other two scientists in their discussions. Furthermore, she is courageous, physically active and she even occasionally makes cracks about the other character's sexism (Freeland 209). On the other hand, as many critics pointed out, too, she also often displays a rather stereotypical feminine behaviour; in a private conversation with Dr. Grant early in the film she mentions her wish to have children in the future (as opposed to his proclaimed dislike of babies and kids) and in the park when the group comes across a sick dinosaur she immediately takes great interest in it and as the only person out of all the newcomers decides to stay on the spot to nurse it. Finally, she allows Ian Malcolm to explain the chaos theory to her in a context of a teasing sex scene, and she constantly, again as the only one in the group, wears little shorts that show off her long coltish legs (Freeland 209). As far as the character of Hammond's granddaughter is concerned, it is not developed very much but explored as it is it seems devoid of any negative stereotypes, rather to the contrary. Similarly to the character of Ellie, Lex also quite successfully fulfils temporary feminist ideas about modern women who are smart enough to understand modern 82

technologies, as she is a self-proclaimed computer hacker.7 The only feminine trait about her would perhaps be that she excessively fears dinosaurs, as opposed to her younger brother who loves them and knows just about everything about them. Towards the end of the narrative both Ellie and Lex play important roles in saving the whole group of survivors and escaping the island. First Ellie, who risks her life when she decides to go outside the control centre to switch of the main power grid, and then Lex who saves their lives again after she manages to get into the computer system and shuts the safety door preventing a dangerous raptor to come through in the last second. The representation of femaleness and femininity, as I suggested before, does not end with these two female characters in Jurassic Park, but it is also strongly present within the very subject-matter of Hammond's enterprise, i.e. the dinosaurs. Hammond's bioengineers made a great effort for safety and business reasons to have all the animals in the park entirely under their control. To achieve this they engineered only female dinosaurs to prevent the park animals from natural independent breeding. As one of the scientists explains, they chose the female sex, instead of male, because all dinosaur embryos are initially female and thus females are easier to breed. When Hammond's guests find out about the dinosaurs being exclusively female, they openly doubt the possibility of controlling nature in this way, and Ian Malcolm, in particular, claims that such control is impossible because as evolution has taught us, life finds its way under any circumstances. Later in the film his words actually prove to be true because Hammond's scientists make a mistake and the dinosaurs begin to breed independently.

Cynthia Freeland argues that the fact Lex is a computer hacker is introduced rather casually and coincidentally toward the end of the film and does not seem especially well integrated into her character but in my opinion the fact she is scared of the natural (for example the big dinosaurs) fits well into the idea of her enjoying herself inside of a room safely sitting at a computer (209).

83

Unsurprisingly, the whole theme of female dinosaurs restricted from breeding but ultimately finding their way of breaking these restrictions drew attention of many feminist critics. Most often they complained about the filmmakers resurrecting the old myth of a she-monster well-known from ancient mythologies (Warner). Like Marina Warner, they also often read the film story as a depiction of a naked confrontation between nature, coded female, with culture, coded male and criticised the filmmakers for inconspicuously reinforcing one of the popular stories in mass circulation today ... [that] women in general are out of control and feminism in particular is to blame (Warner). Other critics concentrated on the animals, which they saw as representing a standard array of culturally coded, negative messages about females ... [because they are depicted] like women fat, sweet and gentle ... [or] thin, vicious and scheming but never sweet and smart at the same time (Freeland 209-210). They perceived the dinosaurs as a culturally coded threat centering upon a kind of uncontrolled, rampant female sexuality, as well as awesome reproductive abilities (Freeland 210). In my opinion, some of these interpretations are too far-fetched and over-simplified. For example, I disagree with the suggested male/cultural contra female/natural discourse of the story, if only with regard to the female characters, Ellie and Lex, who are much closer to cultural than natural, as one of them is a scientist and the other a future computer expert. However, I do agree with some of the other notions, especially the obvious resemblance of the female animals getting out of control in Jurassic Park to the way women got out of control in the past decades while gaining equal rights. Also, as other critics, I find the depiction of female sexuality and reproduction abilities in the film highly problematic. Not only because they are presented as if following old earlymedieval myths as something uncontrollable, mysterious, scary and dangerous, but also 84

because all females in the film are ascribed the automatic and overpowering urge and desire for reproduction. First we can see this with the dinosaurs, which have this urge so deeply imbedded in them that despite the restrictions imposed on them they find a way to breed. As for the human female characters, one of the first things we hear from Ellie Sattler is her proclaimed wish to have children in the future. Later in the film we witness her playfully manipulating Hammond's grandchildren into spending some time with her lover, Alan Grant, who despises children. Finally, after the survivors take off in the helicopter at the end of the film, we can see her smiling approvingly at Alan who created a strong emotional bond with the children during their adventures in the bush and now happily lets them rest in his arms. Thus, as Cynthia Freeland points out, from the beginning the film suggests that the central aim in Ellie's life [is] to convince her lover to have children (210). Obviously, we can watch the same topic from a male, or Alan's, perspective, too, and in accordance with Slavoj iek, who calls Jurassic Park a drama about the trauma of fatherhood, claim the film does not emphasise the existence of reproductive instincts only in women, but also in men (The Metastases of Enjoyment 180). Looking at the story from Alan's point of view, we can see him first scaring a child at an excavation spot by a very graphic description using a dinosaur claw of what a carnivorous dinosaur would do to him if it caught him, and in the conversation immediately following hear him openly expressing his aversion to the idea of ever having children. Later in the story, however, as he finds himself with Hammond's grandchildren alone surrounded by dangerous animals in the wilderness, he is forced to play a protective father figure to them and discover that not all children are noisy, messy and expensive, and as a symbol of this discovery he throws away the claw from the earlier scene. Moreover, in the final scene in the helicopter, not only lets he the children fall asleep in his arms, but he returns 85

Ellie's smile suggesting he may possibly reconsider his former decision about not having children. Thus, we could say the film simply emphasises the fact that life finds its way in women and men equally, but I see a serious example of stereotypes in depicting men as those who are not aware of such instincts, fight them incessantly and recognize them only after they have a chance of playing a heroic protector in a life-endangering situation, while women, or females, seem to have nothing else on their mind than having children since the moment they were born, or, bio-engineered. Getting to my final comment on Jurassic Park, I must stress that despite the examples of gender stereotypes the film includes I consider its basic message rather positive. Although the dichotomy of genders, putting males generally into the position of agents in control, and females into the position of objects being under control is disturbing, in my opinion the film does not imply, as some critics suggest that women are voracious, cunning girls still too closely, and therefore dangerously connected to mother nature and as such they need to be kept under control. In my view, the central message of the story is rather the opposite as it says that men symbolized in the narrative by the exclusively male scientists, computer specialists, engineers, wardens and executive managers of Jurassic Park, cannot control women symbolized by the exclusively female dinosaurs. At the beginning of the story we can hear Hammond's scientists claim that they chose to breed female dinosaurs mainly because they are [technically] easier to breed meaning that females are easier to control. Their presumption is confirmed throughout the narrative through different means for example, as other critics noticed, while the central characters call most of the small and seemingly less harmful animals she, when the huge T-rex attacks them they call it he although they all know there are no male animals in the park. (Martin)8 However, as the resolution
8

Some commentators claim this was a deliberate error by the filmmakers to show how deeply the false

86

of the film suggests such assumptions about females being the weaker sex and consequent attempts at their control are false. Reading the resolution of Jurassic Park from a gender perspective, we may say that its main message actually contains a warning against the attempts of men controlling women. As its ending shows, when they try it they will have to face the consequences, because, paraphrasing Ellie's words, women, as any oppressed living beings will defend themselves, violently, if necessary.9

4.3 Twister The last action film I am going to discuss is the 1996 runner-up, Jan de Bont's Twister. Released in the same year as Independence Day, it belongs to the strong wave of special effects feature films whose production was so enthusiastically supported by Hollywood in the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, it also belongs among those action films, which obtained the harshest criticism from film critics and reviewers who perhaps had high expectations of a film created by the director of Speed, written by Michael Crichton, budgeted over 92 million dollars and starring Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. After its release critics almost unanimously agreed that the film disposes of an extremely thin story line, absolute lack of dramatic conflict, one-dimensional characters and general emotional shallowness (Henderson). Nevertheless, in spite of this criticism, the filmmakers were probably satisfied in the end, because not only did they receive two Academy Award nominations for best visual effects and best sound, but they also created the seventh commercially most successful film of the respective decade.

presumption of most people on the island, including the guest scientists that females are easier to control are ingrained in them (Martin). 9 It is not clear from the conversation whether she is talking specifically about plants (as a paleobotanist) or animals in general, at any case her words certainly do apply to all living beings in general.

87

Surprisingly for some, and interestingly for feminist film critics, the film achieved the commercial success despite the fact that the main character was a woman. Although there had already been made some very successful action films with a female character in the lead, in general, such action films were not (and still are not) very common. Hollywood producers still consider a young male spectator their main target and generally hesitate to support production of films with a woman as a central figure, which this target audience would not accept easily. The artistic quality of Twister is questionable but its role as a proof that a film centred on a female character may do very well in the boxoffice is significant. The story of the film is truly simple. It begins with a depiction of a personal tragedy when a tornado hits a family farm in rural Oklahoma and kills the father as he is trying to protect his wife and a little daughter, Jo. Then the film moves from the past to present and shows the daughter again, now a young adult scientist and a professor, Jo Harding, who works as the head of a group of tornado researchers. The group's current project is to release hundreds of little sensors from a technical device called Dorothy into the funnel of a tornado, which would help to better knowledge of how this dangerous natural phenomenon works and consequently improve the tornado warning system.10 The task is obviously very risky as it requires somebody to place Dorothy directly into the way of a tornado but Jo, who cannot forget the memory of her father being swept away is determined to accomplish it. Just as she is ready to place the first of her four Dorothies, her estranged husband and a former colleague, Bill, appears on the site and asks her to sign their divorce papers. Accompanied by his fiance, Melisa, Bill reveals to Jo he is planning to get married and pursue a career of a television weather reporter. However,
10

Here it is worth to mention the name of the device, Dorothy, of course refers to the main heroine of the famous children's novel written by L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, who was taken away by a tornado. It is also interesting that real tornado researchers use a similar device called TOtable Tornado Observatory and nicknamed "TOTO" after Dorothys little dog.

88

when he sees Jo's Dorothy, which was constructed according to his own original design, he does not resist and joins the group at their first attempt at placing it in front of a tornado. The attempt fails as well as the other two that quickly follow but the project reminds the couple of the old times and allows them to share their passion for tornadoes, research and the life on the edge again. When Melisa, who turns out to be terrified by tornadoes and repeatedly suffers from serious panic attacks, overhears Bill insinuating to Jo he still cares about her, she decides she and Bill are not right for each other and leaves the group. After that, and thanks to Jo's further improvements on Dorothy, Jo and Bill together finally manage to place the last device and successfully release the sensors into the strongest tornado. Having reached their goal and survived the tornado they happily declare re-connection of their careers and restoration of their relationship. As we can see, though Bill plays an important role in accomplishing the Dorothy project in designing the device and then personally cooperating in its successful placing, in general the project belongs to Jo more than anyone else, neither Bill nor any other person in Jo's group. Thus, unlike in other action films mentioned in this thesis, e.g. unlike The Phantom Menace, where women are officially in the lead but their role is somewhat overshadowed by male characters, in Twister the female heroine is not pushed to the background. She remains, if largely assisted by her male partner, upfront till the end. Looking at Jo's character more closely, from the beginning she is depicted as a strong, smart, courageous and independent woman with obvious leading and organizational skills. When we first encounter her in the scene where Bill arrives to their site with the divorce documents, we can immediately notice her supreme position within the group not only through the way the others talk to her, but also visually, as she is up on the truck, while all the others are down sitting in the car or walking on the ground. While 89

she is up on the bed of the truck repairing a broken device, a colleague who replies to her from down the truck calls her a professor and a boss within one short conversation emphasizing her superior education and her position of a leader. Neither of these qualities is questioned throughout the rest of the film, rather to the contrary. For example, when later in the film Bill discloses to Jo that his fiance, Melisa, is a psychological therapist and they embark on a discussion about the possibility of him personally actually needing one, he encourages her to tell him about his possible psychological problems because she would, surely, know as she is the doctor. Although the film does not mention she should be also a physician apart from a natural scientist, she answers seriously and he listens to her in the same manner. Once again, her superiority and the authority of her opinions, even to Bill's, are confirmed.11 As to her physical appearance and behaviour, in many other films female scientists and women in lead generally tend to be portrayed either as very attractive women, wearing make-up and short skirts or shorts (Men in Black, Jurassic Park), or crosseddressed power women, looking neat and wearing lose trousers, shirts and jackets (Mrs. Doubtfire). Jo Harding's character does not confirm to either of these stereotypical portrayals; she is neither excessively sexualized, nor is she pushed into having to resemble a man. She wears lose trousers, but a rather tight sleeveless top. She has long hair, she wears a necklace, and though she does not wear a visible make-up, she is still an attractive young woman, taking care of her looks about as much as a woman chasing tornadoes in the open nature can. I find it positive that the film makers did not consider it necessary to balance their female heroine's intelligence and leadership abilities with an

11

At first it seems he is mocking as her there is no information in the film she is a psychologist or a physician, only a natural scientist, but the conversation is probably not meant to be a joke as she answers seriously and he listens to her in the same manner. It also may be an error on the side of the filmmakers, another example of the week screenplay. Nevertheless, it still confirms the respect and superiority Jo enjoys.

90

excessively sexy looks or manly behaviour. Apart from her rather male first name and at times unusually emotionless and stoic behaviour, they chose to portray their heroine smart and strong but at the same time, in my opinion, naturally feminine without any unnecessary exaggerations.12 Such characteristics, however, do not apply to Melissa, Bill's fiance and the other woman in the love triangle. As Jo's opponent, she is her opposite in many ways, though she has some features in common with her, too. Like Jo, Melissa seems smart and intelligent. She introduces herself to her clients as a doctor, revealing she is, like Jo, highly educated. However, in all other ways, visible and invisible, she represents, at least in comparison to Jo, a woman with excessively feminine features and behaviour. Firstly, she works as a reproductive therapist focusing on relationships between a man and a woman, their sexual relationships, childbearing and parenting, i.e. themes usually closely associated with women. As for her appearance, she wears fashionable clothes and haircut, apparent make-up, earrings, necklaces, sunglasses and other accessories. She also uses a mobile phone, still a novelty in the mid-1990s. As opposed to Jo, she is terrified by tornadoes. When she narrowly escapes a truck falling in her way from above, she starts crying and screaming uncontrollably being terrified to death. This repeats every time the group encounter a tornado and although her reactions would be, actually, otherwise perfectly natural and understandable, because she is the only person so terrified within a relatively big group of people her behaviour seems rather hysterical and ridiculous, especially in comparison to the always calm and fearless Jo. However, it is must be understood that Melissa is not a negative character. In fact she is a very nice, intelligent and attractive woman, but the fact she loses in her pursuit of Bill

12

Yvonne Tasker classifies Jo as a tomboy because of her competence in mechanical and other practical skills and an active, masculinised body (81).

91

to Jo places her at the negative tip of the triangle. However, she does not lose only simply because of her (seemingly) bimbo-like nature and manners but mainly because she represents the urban in a narrative, which obviously generally promotes and glorifies the rural. From the start the film celebrates country life and people who live it; the life in the country is pictured as tough, dangerous, sometimes even life-threatening, but always challenging, fast-paced, changing and beautiful. Consequently, people who choose to live it are fast, smart, skilful, confident, courageous and therefore admirable. Jo and her group represent such people; smart, courageous, talented and always on the move. Melissa, on the other hand, represents the town's people, whose life is slow, calm, safe and boring and does not require any special abilities. Where Jo, the country girl, is calm and courageous, Melissa, the city girl, is crying, shouting and panicking. Where Jo is protecting others, Melissa is reaching out for protection. And where Jo the scientist is solving serious life and death situations, Melisa the therapist is solving feelings and emotions of her clients (who are, of course, also city people) looking ridiculous in comparison. Apart from these two main female protagonists other characters add to the rural vs. urban discourse, too. When Jos group visit Meg, Jo's aunt, who lives by herself in a little Oklahoma town, they admire her for killing her own cows for meat and later they immediately run to help her when they find out her town has been hit by a tornado. Furthermore, the rural vs. urban axis of the film dividing the characters applies to male figures, too. At the beginning of the film, before Bill gets fully absorbed into Jo's project, he is mocked for his stable city life and a safe job of a television weatherman. Last but not least, Jo and Bill's rival, Dr. Jonas Miller, who has stolen the Dorothy project idea and connected himself to a group of city sponsors, businessmen and TV stations, gets killed in a tornado as if punished for betraying his colleagues who stayed faithful to the rural lifestyle. Thus it seems that Melissa, who comes from the city and as such is weaker, slower and less important is

92

predestined to lose her fight for Bill who is not able (good for him) to suppress his instincts for nature and wild country life. As I said at the beginning, I appreciate the fact that Twister filmmakers placed a female character into the centre without compensating for it by rendering her excessively sexually attractive or too manly, which often happens in such cases. However, they held to another rule often applied to action films with a woman in the lead. As Peter Kramer reminds us, female-centered action films often explain their heroine's drive and motivation by a traumatic childhood experience, which sets up and motivates the whole action story (Women First 113). As we do not see this that often in male -centered action films, Twister again confirms the idea that a woman requires much stronger motivation for action than a man. My second and final remark concerns the emotional shallowness of the story I mentioned at the beginning. As I said, Jo, the main heroin, displays especially in comparison to Melissa unusual calmness and emotionless throughout the whole story. It is difficult to say whether this was truly intentional but it seems that the creators tried to implement as few emotions and feelings as possible into the story out of fear that the film would have discouraged young male spectators, otherwise the Hollywood target audience. Feminist critics thus may appreciate the fact a female centred film was supported with a high budget and a powerful advertising campaign, but at the same time complain about a very careful approach as far as the main character herself is concerned. Twister's main hero is a woman, but the story is not told from her perspective. Honestly speaking, the story is not told from anyone's perspective, neither Jo's, nor Bill's, or Melissa's. This approach may have secured more young male fans to the film, but at the same time contributed to the general lack of dramatic conflict and flatness of the story so many critics, feminist critics included, complained about (Henderson). 93

Although the very last film I am going to analyze, Titanic, has also a female in the centre, no such criticism has ever been directed at it. Titanic, the highest-budgeted film of the 1990s and by then commercially the most successful film ever showed no fear or respect to the rules under which Hollywood film production had been operating. Female centered, female oriented, and disposing of deep emotions and big dramas, Titanic and its creators once again changed, or at least seriously shattered, the presumptions about Hollywood cinema audience.

94

5. Titanic, or Down with Oppression The last film I am going to discuss in my thesis is the 1997 romantic adventure drama by James Cameron, Titanic. Cameron, who also wrote the script and co-produced the film, started to work on Titanic in early 1995 and by the time the film was released in the United States in December 1997, it had been surrounded by a great publicity due to the rumours about Camerons working methods and continually escalating budget spreading into the national press. Cameron not only personally dived several times to the actual wreck of the ship, which served as a setting for his story, but he also built its full-size movable replica in a seventeen-million-gallon water tank constructed especially for the filming. Employing thousands of stunts and actors he was said to run the Mexico filming site like a military camp forcing his actors working long hours in an ice cold water, making some of them seriously ill. Investing millions of dollars into computer generated imagery to help him recreate the sinking of the ship, he raised the budget of the film to unprecedented 200 million dollars, creating a public hype rarely registered even when compared to the most expensive Hollywood blockbusters. After the film was first premiered at Tokyo International Film Festival in November 1997, which signified its worldwide ambitions concerning its future audience, it was released to American movie theatres seven weeks later, on December 19. Registering a rather average attendance during its opening weekend, which usually serves as a reliable indicator of a films future success or a failure, James Cameron team began to worry. However, all their fears disappeared by the end of the following week when cinemas started to sell out and it became clear that Titanic was not only not going to sink, but that it would sail for a very, very long time, breaking many film records on the way.

95

Titanic turned out to be an immense success in every way, commercially and critically. Among other things, it remained number one of American and Canadian charts for fifteen weeks, an achievement which has never been surpassed by any other film before or after. It became the first film in history to earn more than one billion dollars worldwide, and its oversees gross earnings of 1.2 billion were also a record achievement. Nowadays its total gross revenues reach 1.8 billion dollars, which makes it the sixth most successful film in history when inflation is taken into account, and by far the most successful film of the 1990s. As for critical success, Titanic was nominated and awarded countless film awards both in the United States and around the world, including record 14 Academy Award nominations, out of which it gained 11 Awards, including the highly valued categories of Best Picture, Best Director, Best Editing, Best Costumes, Best Sound, Best Music, Best Visual Effects and others. Having earned such high gross revenues and gained so many Academy Awards, Titanic soon became to be compared to the most successful Hollywood film of all time, Gone with the Wind, and not only because of its similar commercial and critical success, but also because of the similar format and contents, which, being a love story set on the background of a significant historical event and centred upon a main female character, strongly reminded of the famous 1939 saga. The fact is, however, that while big budget historical films focused on a female character were not unusual in the fourties and fifties, in the 1990s such films were of rather a rare occurrence, especially when talking of a female character being put in the centre of a narrative. In this aspect Titanic totally ignored the usual pattern of late twentieth century Hollywood films, which usually focused on a male protagonist in the effort to appeal mainly to young male audiences. In this context, making a young girl the protagonist of a film with the budget of 200 million dollars was quite a courageous act, even for a director who was well known for 96

employing strong female characters in his films, and whose work is sometimes described as influenced by third-wave feminism. In this case, however, the risk paid off and Titanic, with Kate Winslet in the role of Rose, the main protagonist, became an icon of the 1990s Hollywood film industry. And it is primarily the character of Rose on who I am going to focus in the last chapter of my thesis. The beginning of the story of Titanic is set in 1996, when a treasure hunter Brock Lovett manages to lift up an untouched safe from the wreck of the RMS Titanic, which shipwrecked in 1912 in the Atlantic Ocean after hitting an iceberg. Instead of a precious diamond he was searching for, the Heart of The Ocean, he finds only an old drawing of a nude young girl wearing the diamond on her neck. After the news of his founding is broadcast on television, he receives a phone call from an old lady, Rose Dawson Calvert, who claims she is the girl in the picture. Although Lovett does not believe her very much, he is desperate to find the diamond and therefore he invites her and her granddaughter to his ship, encouraging her to tell him and his crew everything she remembers from the night Titanic sank. Instead of assisting them in their pursuit, Rose begins to tell them a very personal story about her, her life, and mostly about her first love, Jack Dawson, whom she met on the ship. Rose was seventeen years old when she sailed on Titanic to America. She was a beautiful, smart and educated member of upper-class Philadelphia society, and to America she sailed with her mother and her rich fianc, Cal Hockley. Rose did not love Hockley but was pressured into marrying him by her mother, Ruth, because only a rich husband could help them out of severe debts Rose's father had left, and maintain their high social status. Frustrated with her mothers pressure, Cals tendency to control her, vision of the end of her (relative) freedom, and the general restrictiveness of her social circuits, 17-year-old Rose decided to end her life by jumping off the ship. However, a poor young American artist travelling in the steerage who happened to be at 97

the same place at the same time, convinced her against her decision and saved her life. When Cal came to the spot, he did not find out what had really happened, but he understood Jack had assisted his fiance and to thank him he invited him for dinner the next evening. The next day, before the dinner, Rose spent more time with Jack, being engaged in an interesting conversation with him and learning he was a talented artist. Later at dinner, poor but smart and intelligent Jack continued to impress her, as well as most of the other upper-class guests at Cals table. When the dinner finished, Rose secretly met Jack again and went with him to the real party on the low deck where she had a great time dancing and drinking with Jack's associates. When Cal found out about this, he was furious and violent, which finally lead Rose to the realization she would not be able to live with him. She found Jack, and hearing out his previous professions of love, the couple shared their first passionate kiss. Then she asked him to make a nude drawing of her wearing the diamond Cal had given her as his proof of love at the beginning of their voyage, and finally made love to him in the ships cargo deck. Just after that, however, the ship hit an iceberg and began to sink. After overhearing how serious the accident was, Rose and Jack returned to the upper deck to warn her mother and Cal, but was not heard out. Furthermore, Cal tricked Jack into making him look as if he had stolen the diamond, and had him arrested and chained in an office in a lower deck. Rose, who knew there was a shortage of lifeboats on the ship, had a chance to rescue herself with her mother and Cal, but decided she could not leave Jack and ran away to the low deck to rescue him. Later, when they got together on the upper deck again, the situation repeated and she again refused to leave Titanic without Jack and went back to him, leaving her mother alone. The couple then remained on the ship until it finally sank. After that, finding themselves in the ice cold water among hundreds of other victims, exhausted Rose climbed up a piece of debris, which was, however too small for both of them, and

98

thus Jack remained in the water, slowly freezing to death. Before he died he had made Rose promise to live a long and full life the way she wished. Without fully realizing Jack was going to die, she gave him the promise and continued waiting for rescue boats. When they finally came, Jack had been already dead. When she saw it, for a moment she went back to sleep in resignation, but then she pulled herself together, said goodbye to him, pushed him gently into the water, called back a rescue boat that had passed by, and saved herself. After she arrived to New York and an officer asked her about her name, she used Jacks surname as her own, pretending Rose Butaker had died in the ocean. At that point the film then returns to the presence showing us how deeply touched Brock Lovett and his co-workers are by Roses account, realizing they have never understood the human side of Titanic tragedy before. At the very end, we see old Rose the story-teller, standing aboard Lovetts ship, holding the sought-after diamond in her hand and then throwing it into the water. Finally, we see her sleeping in a cabin, surrounded with pictures documenting her active and full life (showing her riding a horse or flying a plane), peacefully dying in an old age as Jack foresaw it. In her dreams she returns back to the Titanic as a young girl and reunites with Jack, being applauded by a cheering assembly of all those who died on the ship when it sank. As we can see from the summary of the story, out of gender perspective Titanic is very different from all the other films discussed so far. As I described in the previous chapter, Twister also focuses on a female character, but Titanic goes much further in that it is actually told from her perspective, too, which Twister more or less avoids. In Titanic, the only exception is at the beginning of the narrative, when we are introduced to the main character of the framing story, the treasure hunter, Brock Lovett. While he is exploring the wreck of Titanic with his robotic remote-control camera, he accompanies the visual with a spoken word, expressing his hopes and thoughts, leading the entire 99

action and making us identify with his perspective. However, once Rose comes to his ship, she takes over the role of the story-teller and for the rest of the narrative she reduces Brock Lovett to being part of [her] audience (Kramer, Women First 120). As for Jack Dawson, he obviously plays a significant role in the story, but no matter how it may linger on his predicament, the narrative never switches to his point of view (Buchanan). Therefore, we are left with the character of young Rose as the main object of the analyses. To begin with, young Rose de Butaker is truly constructed as the perfect female film heroine. She is smart, educated, self-confident, and beautiful (in an accessible way) and born to a respected upper-class family, but still with a heap of serious personal problems she needs to fight and overcome in the course of the story. Her most immediate problem is she is being forced into the marriage with a man she does not love. Roses family have always belonged to wealthy and respectable members of upper-class society, but since her father died and left her and her mother with serious debts, they have been threatened with the possibility of losing their wealth, high social rank and all advantages that relate to it. Unfortunately, as Rose's mother explains to her in the scene where she is tying her corset, their only option, which will enable them to keep their privileges, is her marrying a rich man like Cal Hockley. Cal is wealthy enough to be able to take care of Roses family debts, and on the other hand he will welcome the chance to be connected to a family holding a fine name, as his own family has gained their wealth and status only recently and cannot boast with a long history so highly valued in the upper class world. In Ruths eyes the marriage is a mutually favourable business, and the fact her daughter does not love her fiance is in her eyes subordinate in their situation. As she reminds Rose they are women, and their choices are never easy, and if Cal or life in shame and destitute are their only choices, their choice, though not easy, is obvious. 100

Thus we learn that Roses immediate problem is actually a part of a much greater issue, being the unequal conditions which the society she is part of, i.e. the early twentieth century upper-class society, offers to men and women. Based on patriarchal principles according to which men rule, control and possess, and women obey, are controlled and possessed, it truly leaves her with very limited choices on every level, not only when it comes to her future marriage. Although at first sight Rose has nothing to complain about, as she is beautiful, born to an upper-class family, well brought-up, able to pursue her various interests in arts and literature, not forced to work and, on top of that, has a rich and handsome fiance, it becomes soon apparent she may be considered fortunate only within the terms of patriarchal society which does not require, or, for that matter, does not want women to be, have or pursue anything more. Rose, however, is more open-minded than most of the other women around her, and finds the space restricted to her free will unbearably small. When Jack Dawson later tells her about his flexible lifestyle, she wishfully responds she would like to head out for horizon whenever [she] feels like it just like he does. Unfortunately, she knows that in her position she will never be able to do that. Rose's life is limited both on a personal and general level. On personal level she is directed by her exploitative mother, whose interference is soon to be limited, but only in favour of Rose's controlling future husband. Unfortunately, Cal's possessive and controlling tendencies are so great that they influence every detail of Rose's everyday life. At lunch he automatically orders a meal for her without asking what she really wishes, when he wants Rose to stop smoking, he simply takes a cigarette out of her mouth. While for him these are petty things, for Rose they are crucial reason for resenting him because they stripe her off the last possibilities to make her own decisions even in everyday situations and close her life into a hermetically tight private prison (Beason). Further 101

on, Cal's way of gaining her respect turns out to be violent, too, which we can see in the scene where he erupts in anger after he finds out Rose spent an evening with Jack Dawson on the low deck; he does not hit her (that comes later) but he aggressively demands that as his future wife she must honour him the way a wife is required to honour her husband and threatens her that she will have to face the consequences if she does not follow this advice. On general level her life is, of course, limited by generally doubtful and degrading attitude of society/men towards women, for whom many activities are considered inappropriate or too difficult. Common comments like women and machinery do not mix or the purpose of university is to find a suitable husband (meaning when Rose is engaged, she does not need to study anymore) reliably add more locks on Rose's private prison door. Although Rose realizes there are many women, her mother included, who respect and support this society, she blames all its faults and injustices mainly on men upper class men obsessed with power who oppress everybody else in their effort to gain it and use it. Several times she points to the fact that as an external sign of their power they often consider the size (together with the cost, beauty or preciousness) of what they possess or control, like diamonds, beautiful women, or big ships like Titanic, which she explicitly identifies with oppressive phallic power, telling its owner, J. Bruce Ismay, that Freud's ideas about the male preoccupation with size may be of interest to him (Kramer, Women First 119). The ship, in general, plays an important role in the narrative because it carries a deep symbolic meaning. Most importantly, it serves as an allegory to Rose's society, physically organized the way her society is organized, with rich upper-class males staying/standing at the top of the ship and poor low-class men and women on the bottom, with the two groups being strictly separated and not allowed or expected to mix at any circumstances. Class criticism is strong in the Titanic story and for Rose class 102

discrimination is yet another thing which she does not identify with, and for which she hates men (and women) around her who promote it. To her the ship represents the oppressive society because it is structured in the same unfair way, is equally limited in space and opportunities and makes her dependant on it while she lives within it. As the corset her mother tries to tie so tight around her represents the pressure and the limits of her very personal life, the ship represents the pressure on the broader level - to free herself from the corset and responsibilities her mother puts on her would not be enough, she would have to change the perspective of the whole society around her, which would mean to change the course of the giant ship (or outright destroy it, which actually really happens in the end) but, being a woman, that is not in her powers. She realizes this fully when she sees a little girl being taught by her mother proper manners at a dining table: if women want to stay aboard, and most of them do, they have to behave. And vice versa, if they refuse that, they have to leave. Her mother is aware of the difficulties which surround them, but she respects and values the patriarchal society and the advantages it brings them and plays along with its rules. She cannot imagine not being a part of it and though she knows her daughter is not happy, she believes her marriage with Cal is for her own benefit and she will appreciate it sooner or later. At the beginning of the story, both Rose and Ruth, though they have different attitudes, share one common viewpoint concerning their social class; they do not see beyond it, because the rules of their class, which stands so apart and above all others teach that there is nothing else, and certainly nothing better then that. Believing in this notion together with having personal qualms about not willing to help her own mother, Rose - being seventeen years old - reaches the point when she does not see any other option than committing a suicide. And it is at that moment when she meets Jack, who

103

shows her she is not obliged to scarify her entire life for her mother's comfort and vanity and that there are other options. Jack is in many ways opposite to Cal Hockley, not only in his objective standing as a poor artist, but especially in relation to Rose (and women in general). Where Cal ventilates his possessive tendencies and the need to control, and puts a heavy necklace (a chain) around Roses neck suggesting she (and her body) belongs to him, Jack supports Rose so she can fly free and in her own will. Where Cal demands her proper behaviour, Jack promises to teach her ride a horse like a man. Where Cal seems to appreciate mainly Rose's beauty and attractive outer appearance, Jack admires and is able to see her (and other womens) other qualities, like sense of humour or courage. Jack never sees her as an object, not even in the drawing scene where Jack is drawing a nude picture of her wearing only the costly diamond from Cal around her neck. As Adrienne Munich points out, the scene completely reverses the logic of the male gaze, as Rose shifts her position from model to purchaser of the drawing. In addition, she is no passive receiver of the male gaze, she is the erotic subject of the scene, not only in control of events but explicitly aroused, again reversely. (Munich 161). Of course, the reversal here refers to the traditional mechanism of a male gaze vs. female objectifying as described by Laura Mulvey, and interestingly makes a naked woman in such a control of a situation where she is being looked at by a fully dressed man that she is able to make him blush. The fact that she orders the work, she pays him for it and after they finish she dresses up again without objectifying herself by making love to him further proves she is in full control of her mind and her body. The diamond she is wearing during the drawing scene carries a great symbolic meaning, too. First it is seen (through Brock Lovetts eyes) only as an object of material value, but from the moment Cal gives it to Rose as a present it gains a great manifold 104

symbolic meaning which shifts more than once in the course of the film. While Cal most of all wishes his present to be understood as a symbol of his love for Rose, to Rose, who, when she gets it, states she feels overwhelmed and touches the necklace on her neck with a disbelieving, thoughtful and rather pessimistic look of a captured animal, the heavy diamond on a thick heavy chain serves to her as a proof of Cals possessive desires for her love (and her body), which does not know any limits, and therefore it is a desire, which is, in the same way as the chain, choking her. At first she accepts the gift, but later, when she decides to run away from Cal and her mother and asks Jack to make a drawing of her (naked body), wearing only the necklace and then leaves the drawing together with the diamond in Cals safe with a note saying now you can keep us both locked in your safe, she demonstrates she values her freedom more than Cals money and neither her love nor her life (or body) are to be bought. However, by coincidence (and Cals mistake) the diamond gets among her possession once again, as she finds it in the pocket of her coat when she arrives to New York. With Jack having died and the ship sank, it immediately turns into the symbol of her love for him as it is her only material commemoration of their moments together. The great symbolic value the diamond carries is further proved when we see old Rose at the end of the story tossing it into the ocean right above the wreck of Titanic, and above the place where her beloved lover died; although she had literally nothing except the diamond after she got off Titanic, she never sold it, proving again that her feelings were not for sale. Nevertheless, the fact that she never forgot about Jack and deep in her heart never stopped loving him does not mean that she spent her life passively grieving for him. She was too strong and self-aware become another Madam Bijoux, a lady portrayed on one of Jack's drawings, who, as Jack told her, spent her life sitting in a bar every day, wearing all the bijoux jewellery she owned, waiting for her long-lost love. In comparison to her, 105

Rose, as a Miss Jewel, as Adrienne Munich titles her, wears nothing [literally during the drawing scene, and symbolically during the rest of her life which is not about money or possession] and eventually will wait for no one (Munich 161). Unlike Madam Bijoux's, Rose's lost love does not stop her life; her dream was to be free, to travel, to experience things and although she was planning to pursue them with Jack by her side, his death does not prevent her from pursuing them, as we can see from the pictures on her bedside table in the final scene. And this is what makes Titanic a feminist film. Some critics say that the fact that Rose's accomplished life is presented as the fulfilment of her contract with Jack significantly compromises any understanding of this film as ... a feminist tale but in my opinion it is absurd to claim that Rose lives active and full life just because she promised it to Jack. Of course, his death touched her deeply and whenever she rode a horse or flew a plane we might expect she remembered him and knew he would be glad to see her pursuing her dreams, but she did all those things because she wanted, and because they made her happy, not because her dead lover wanted her to do so. Back on Titanic, when she decided to leave Cal and live with Jack, she was primarily choosing a way of life, not a man. She was choosing a free and active life and she chose a man who would not prevent her from living it. Undoubtedly, Jack played a vital role in this decision making process, because he opened the door for her, which other people never even told her about. But it was her who finally walked through it and took a chance on what was behind it. And the fact that Jack's death did not discourage her from doing so makes her all the stronger. As Alexandra Keller puts it, Titanic is [thus] not a genuine love story, but a quest narrative, a story of feminine self-discovery offering its spectators an undeniable form of feminism, especially within the context of Hollywood film (Keller 144). And as Katha Pollitt points out, radical feminism for Hollywood stops with Thelma and Louise (1991), 106

and therefore ... Rose of Titanic is a marked improvement, since her road trip, unlike the gals in the turquoise convertible does not end with a fatal swan dive and she lives on and lives on the way she wants (Keller 144).

107

Conclusion Summarizing the notions I have taken from feminist analyses of the ten most successful Hollywood break-away hits of the 1990s, the overall impression of what Hollywood of this decade offers is not very positive. Starting with The Lion King, Disneys animated musical for children, I must agree with those critics who claim this film is sexist and promotes strong patriarchal stereotypes. There are only three female protagonists (one negative included) as opposed to nine male characters in the film. They play solely the roles of mothers, food providers and child minders and they are officially and mentally dependent on and inferior to their male counterparts although they are often physically stronger and equally (at least) intelligent. Their abilities and talents are automatically at service to their husbands and sons and their rightful place is not next to them, but clearly below them. As such their task is to provide, care and assist, not to manage. In case of problems they are expected to wait, hope, or (at best) look for help obviously with a male. Conclusion, in 1994 Disney came up with an enchanting colourful tale, which effectively teaches the youngest audience the importance of good, courage and responsibility, but on the background of traditional patriarchal principles, which renders the film not so wholesome as Disney studio proclaim their films always are. Unfortunately, patriarchal principles are also strongly promoted in the most successful Hollywood comedy of the 1990s, Forrest Gump. In this film, as for a number the sexes of the main protagonists are more balanced, as there are two main male and two main female characters. However, that is where all balance ends. While the main hero becomes despite all his disadvantages a college graduate, a famous sportsman, a war hero, a successful businessman and a father of a beautiful child, his female counterpart is expelled from college, fails in her pursuit of a singing career, works as a stripper, takes

108

drugs and in the end dies of AIDS. The only balance in this film lays in the fact the male characters are portrayed very negatively, too, which is, however, not a great consolation. At any case, women in this comedy have nothing to laugh at, as they are victims of irresponsible husbands, licentious headmasters, abusive fathers and violent boyfriends. The reputation of the most popular Hollywood comedies of the 1990s slightly improves with Mrs. Doubtfire, where women are portrayed as generally too serious, stiff and lacking sense of humour, but whose overall supportive message makes up for this deficiency. Not only it shows a figure of a loving and caring father, but it shows men are able to change for the better to be with their children and to learn to be responsible parents learning and practising skills and duties it requires: keep a steady job and do housework. Under an amusing coverage it sends an unobtrusive warning to that part of the male audience which has not learn this yet and shows they need to share responsibility for the family in every way, otherwise they may lose it. The films I analyzed next belong to the film genres of which we have generally low expectations as far as the feminist and gender perspective is concerned. Surprisingly, I must admit that some of them positively exceeded my expectations and when probed in detail reveal some interesting points. However, the most popular 1990s Hollywood thriller/horror film, The Sixth Sense, is not one of them, as it fully focuses on the relationship between the two male protagonists, and the only female characters it offers are a manipulative superficial wife, a broken-hearted widow, an incapable single mother and a monster mother. Independence Day does not constitute a great surprise either. It does give some space to three female characters, but they function only as complements to their male counterparts who are the real heroes of the story. And I use the word complements 109

rather generously as these female characters generally tend to complicate their heroes lives by being too active, i.e. by working or having careers. In Independence Day men are those who are predestined and encouraged to act actively, while women are advised to give their energy mainly into celebrating their husbands and boyfriends success, future and past. Similarly to Independence Day, Men in Black also focuses on a male relationship and interaction. Although there is an important female figure involved that even occasionally comments on the other character's sexism and thus seems to promote the notion of equity of sexes, when we follow the actual development of her character, we discover that the narrative pushes her from the position of an initially strong, independent and intelligent woman to the position of an imitation of a man stripping her off her all previous femininity. At the end of the film she becomes a Man in Black, which on the outside appears as her victory, but in fact it only confirms a chauvinist perception of the world in which men only are capable, smart and courageous. If a woman has these qualities, too, she may join them but only when she pretends she is a man. While The Sixth Sense, Independence Day and Men in Black follow the usual pattern of the film genres they represent and do not allow female characters to enjoy qualities or opportunities equal to those of their male counterparts, the remaining action films I have dealt with in my thesis are not so conservative and show that even in them female characters may play truly important roles and carry the narrative, or they may contain some important messages and thus positively contribute to current general feminist discourse. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is certainly one of them as it is a female character who leads the action and substantially develops the storyline. Although it is 110

wrapped into countless fights, races, chases and battles in which many various males play central roles and which conceal her importance a little, she is an undisputed carrier of the narrative during which she displays all signs of a capable and good leader: she comes up with clever ideas and skilfully implements them, makes good decisions and she is confident and courageous. Although the second female character in this film, whose body and life are literally exploited to give birth and raise a future male hero, subverts a little the high standard of female characters set up by the central figure, and the film may be generally considered as one of those which support equity of sexes in society. Jurassic Park does not contain an excessive number of female characters either, but those who are there, especially the main female character, correspond well to current ideas of a modern woman/girl; the main female protagonist is educated, smart, talented and confident and does not ignore other characters sexist behaviour. More important than the individual characters, however, is the central message of the narrative, which we can read as an allegory of an attempt of men at controlling women. As the story clearly says, women, though seemingly weaker, are not to be controlled and if men attempt it, they will have to face serious consequences. Twister, the last action film I analyzed, was upon its release harshly criticised for having too a simple plot, displaying flat characters and lacking a dramatic conflict, but for me it is one of the more important popular blockbusters of the 1990s because its leading character is a woman. Though the story is not really told from her perspective, she is from the beginning to the end in the centre of attention. Although assisted by her male counterpart, she is the leader of a group (comprised largely by men) which, thanks to her skills, expertise, courage and determination, completes a project successfully. Although the filmmakers, as it seems, were too cautious to allow the presence of some serious

111

emotional drama in the film, the fact they put a female into the centre of a film with a budget of 92 million dollars makes up for it. The last film I discussed in my thesis is at the same time the most significant one of them, because it appears even today that it did not become only the most successful film of the 1990s, but it has become one of the most successful films of all times. Interestingly, Titanic, by James Cameron, is in comparison to all other most popular blockbusters of the respective decade clearly a feminist piece of art. A tale about a young girl fighting an oppressive patriarchal society she is part of and about her final victory, after which she leads her life independently the way she wants, supports greatly the feminist discourse of today. Told from her perspective and offering to female audience a clear point of identification in a strong and victorious heroine, it stands far apart from the other 1990s break-away hits. The question is, whether she, together with the other minor exceptions, is enough to make up for the victimized, subordinate and conservatively stereotypic female characters most of the other films display. Statistically speaking, out of the ten top 1990s Hollywood break-away hits, six of them have gender-neutral titles, three of them refer directly to the male gender (The Lion King, Men in Black, Forrest Gump) and a single one of them refers in its title directly to a female, who is, however, in fact a male (Mrs. Doubtfire). Out of the ten blockbusters, in eight of them the main protagonists are male/males, in one of them it is a female, but the story does not focus on her perspective (Twister) and only in one of them the central figure is a female and the narrative is told from her perspective (Titanic). Altogether, there are 22 female and 33 male main/significant characters. As to their professions, among the 33 male characters, there is a king, a kings advisor, a 112

sportsman/soldier, a TV presenter, a psychologist, a president, a computer expert, a combat flyer, two secret agents, two knights/diplomats, a mathematician, and at least two scientists and three businessmen. Among the 22 female characters, there are two queens, a hostel owner, an interior designer, a social worker, an antique-shop owner, a psychologist, a presidents PR, an exotic dancer, a coroner and two scientists; the remaining female characters do not have jobs or careers and their defining position is that of a wife, a mother or a girlfriend. Furthermore, even with those female characters that have an occupation, it is not what defines them. For example, Sarabi of The Lion King is a queen, but when her dead husbands brother takes over the rule, she is subordinated to him as everybody else. Mrs. Gump of Forrest Gump is a hostel owner, but what defines her is the fact she is Forrests sacrificing mother, Anna of The Sixth Sense is an antiqueshop owner, but what defines her is the role of a broken hearted widow, and so on. While with a great majority of the male characters their professions define them to a great extent and the narratives usually turn around their careers because they are important for the story, as to the female characters, the same applies only to six of them: to the social worker in Mrs. Doubtfire, the PR in Independence Day, the coroner in Men in Black, the Queen in Star Wars, and the two scientists in Jurassic Park and Twister; with the others their profession is non-existent or irrelevant. These numbers, of course, relate to the fact that out of thirty directors and screenwriters who co-operated on creating these films, only six are women. Thus, great majority of them are made by men who make films about men and for men. Luckily, there is one exception. James Cameron is nowadays a well-established Hollywood director who has always put an emphasis on strong female characters and has managed to put through realization of films which displayed them even within such a male dominated industry as Hollywood filmmaking. Usually, to a great satisfaction of female 113

audience which showed on box-office receipts; Sara Connor in Terminator, Ellen Ripley in Aliens, and, of course, Rose Dawson in Titanic have been welcomed by female audience who are otherwise scarcely offered strong, capable and successful female characters as their points of identification. Nevertheless, most Hollywood filmmakers were in the 1990s obviously still interested in male heroes and male audience. Furthermore, women also tend to watch and enjoy these male-centered Hollywood blockbusters, which as I have shown, despite their innocent appearance of heroic and amusing adventures to a great extent still do promote patriarchal stereotypes, push women into subordinate positions, limit their roles to family and household, show them in professions a level lower or non at all, and occasionally show them in positions of victims of violent behaviour and sexual exploitation. Apparently, they do not display female characters only as object of visual pleasure of male audience and women who appear in the stories do not freeze them as Laura Mulvey could see in films created several decades earlier. Some of the 1990s Hollywood blockbusters even carry some important messages and help the feminist issue. However, the other serious vices mentioned above are still strongly present in majority of them. Let us hope, that a greater and greater part of female audience learns to deconstruct them and stop enjoying them because Hollywood filmmakers will include the examples of female subordination in their films as long as female audience allows it. At the same time, let us hope that more filmmakers will follow James Camerons example and have the talent and will to incorporate strong female characters into their narratives as he does. After all, as he has shown, it is worth it.

114

Appendices Table 1 Hollywood Films according to their US Grosses - Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation
Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Title Gone with the Wind Star Wars The Sound of Music E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial The Ten Commandments Titanic Jaws Doctor Zhivago The Exorcist Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 101 Dalmatians The Empire Strikes Back Ben-Hur Avatar Return of the Jedi The Sting Raiders of the Lost Ark Jurassic Park The Graduate Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fantasia The Godfather Forrest Gump Mary Poppins The Lion King Grease Thunderball The Dark Knight The Jungle Book Sleeping Beauty Shrek 2 Ghostbusters Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Love Story Spider-Man Independence Day Home Alone Pinocchio Cleopatra (1963) Beverly Hills Cop Goldfinger Airport American Graffiti Studio MGM Fox Fox Uni. Par. Par. Uni. MGM WB Dis. Dis. Fox MGM Fox Fox Uni. Par. Uni. AVCO Fox Dis. Par. Par. Dis. BV Par. UA WB Dis. Dis. DW Col. Fox Par. Sony Fox Fox Dis. Fox Par. UA Uni. Uni. Adjusted Gross $1,537,559,600 $1,355,490,100 $1,083,781,000 $1,079,511,500 $996,910,000 $976,712,200 $974,679,800 $944,670,800 $841,427,600 $829,490,000 $760,370,300 $747,154,600 $745,780,000 $743,767,500 $715,792,100 $678,377,100 $670,759,500 $656,026,500 $651,198,300 $645,524,400 $631,960,900 $600,600,700 $597,732,100 $594,963,600 $587,733,900 $585,374,500 $569,228,000 $565,286,600 $560,704,100 $553,064,800 $540,697,600 $538,260,000 $536,945,300 $532,685,900 $528,778,900 $527,136,100 $515,457,200 $512,939,400 $511,266,100 $511,011,600 $504,543,000 $503,106,900 $500,085,700 Unadjusted Gross $198,676,459 $460,998,007 $158,671,368 $435,110,554 $65,500,000 $600,788,188 $260,000,000 $111,721,910 $232,671,011 $184,925,486 $144,880,014 $290,475,067 $74,000,000 $743,767,458 $309,306,177 $156,000,000 $242,374,454 $357,067,947 $104,901,839 $431,088,301 $76,408,097 $134,966,411 $329,694,499 $102,272,727 $328,541,776 $188,389,888 $63,595,658 $533,345,358 $141,843,612 $51,600,000 $441,226,247 $238,632,124 $102,308,889 $106,397,186 $403,706,375 $306,169,268 $285,761,243 $84,254,167 $57,777,778 $234,760,478 $51,081,062 $100,489,151 $115,000,000 Year 1939 1977 1965 1982 1956 1997 1975 1965 1973 1937 1961 1980 1959 2009 1983 1973 1981 1993 1967 1999 1941 1972 1994 1964 1994 1978 1965 2008 1967 1959 2004 1984 1969 1970 2002 1996 1990 1940 1963 1984 1964 1970 1973

115

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

The Robe Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Around the World in 80 Days Bambi Blazing Saddles Batman The Bells of St. Mary's The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King The Towering Inferno Spider-Man 2 My Fair Lady The Greatest Show on Earth National Lampoon's Animal House The Passion of the Christ Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Back to the Future The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers The Sixth Sense Superman Tootsie Smokey and the Bandit Finding Nemo West Side Story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Lady and the Tramp Close Encounters of the Third Kind Lawrence of Arabia The Rocky Horror Picture Show Rocky The Best Years of Our Lives The Poseidon Adventure The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Twister Men in Black The Bridge on the River Kwai Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World Swiss Family Robinson One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest M.A.S.H. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones Mrs. Doubtfire

Fox BV UA RKO WB WB RKO NL Fox Sony WB Par. Uni. NM Fox Uni. NL BV WB Col. Uni. BV MGM WB Dis. Col. Col. Fox UA RKO Fox NL WB Sony Col. P/DW MGM Dis. UA Fox Par. Fox Fox

$498,109,100 $491,821,900 $491,723,100 $484,851,700 $481,161,400 $479,084,600 $477,490,200 $468,305,200 $467,068,800 $457,808,100 $456,600,000 $456,600,000 $455,764,900 $454,353,800 $451,460,100 $449,375,500 $438,567,500 $438,177,200 $436,495,300 $433,039,000 $432,498,600 $428,728,200 $425,933,900 $425,497,800 $424,142,500 $422,929,900 $421,468,800 $419,078,300 $418,854,200 $418,550,000 $417,803,900 $416,296,800 $416,176,700 $415,632,900 $413,984,000 $410,186,100 $409,991,900 $409,478,900 $408,545,600 $408,536,800 $407,384,700 $406,895,100 $400,928,200

$36,000,000 $423,315,812 $42,000,000 $102,247,150 $119,500,000 $251,188,924 $21,333,333 $377,027,325 $116,000,000 $373,585,825 $72,000,000 $36,000,000 $141,600,000 $370,782,930 $380,270,577 $210,609,762 $341,786,758 $293,506,292 $134,218,018 $177,200,000 $126,737,428 $339,714,978 $43,656,822 $317,575,550 $93,602,326 $132,088,635 $44,824,144 $112,892,319 $117,235,147 $23,650,000 $84,563,118 $314,776,170 $241,721,524 $250,690,539 $27,200,000 $402,111,870 $46,332,858 $40,356,000 $108,981,275 $81,600,000 $179,870,271 $310,676,740 $219,195,243

1953 2006 1956 1942 1974 1989 1945 2003 1974 2004 1964 1952 1978 2004 2005 1985 2002 1999 1978 1982 1977 2003 1961 2001 1955 1977 1962 1975 1976 1946 1972 2001 1996 1997 1957 2009 1963 1960 1975 1970 1984 2002 1993

Source: Box Office Mojo. IMDb.com, 1999. Web. 21 July 2009. < http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm>

116

Table 2 Basic Information about the analyzed films Title (Released) Budget The Lion King (1994) $45,000,000 Director(s) Screenwriter(s) Female Characters Sarabi* Nala Shenzi Male Characters

Roger Allers Rob Minkoff

Irene Mecchi* Jonathan Roberts Linda Woolverton

Forrest Gump (1994) $55 million Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) $25 million

Robert Zemeckis Chris Columbus

Eric Roth Winston Groom Anne Fine Randi Mayem Singer Leslie Dixon M. Night Shyamalan Dean Devlin Roland Emmerich

Jenny Curran Mrs. Gump (Mrs. Doubtfire) Miranda Hillard Gloria Chaney Mrs. Sellner Lynn Sear Anna Crowe Constance Spano Marilyn Whitmore Dr. Laurel Weaver Beatrice Queen Amidala Shmi Skywalker

Mufasa Simba** Scar Zazu Rafiki Timon Pumbaa Banzai Ed Forrest Gump Lt. Dan Taylor Daniel Hillard Stu Dunmayer Jonathan Lundy Uncle Frank Hillard "Aunt" Jack Hillard Dr. Malcolm Crowe Cole Sear Captain Steven Hiller David Levinson President Whitmore Kevin/Agent K James/Agent J Qui-Gon Jinn Obi-Wan Kenobi Anakin Skywalker

The Sixth Sense (1999) $40 million Independence Day (1996) $75 million

M. Night Shyamalan Roland Emmerich

Men in Black (1997) $90 million Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) $115 million Jurassic Park (1993) $63 million

Barry Sonnenfeld George Lucas

Ed Solomon Lowell Cunningham George Lucas

Steven Spielberg

David Koepp Michael Crichton

Dr. Ellie Sattler

Dr. Alan Grant Dr. Ian Malcolm John Hammond Dennis Nedry Bill Harding

Twister (1996)

Jan de Bont

Michael Crichton Anne-Marie

Dr. Jo Harding Dr. Melissa

117

$92 million Titanic (1997) $200 million

James Cameron

Martin James Cameron

Reeves Rose De Butaker Ruth De Butaker

Jack Dawson Cal Hockley

* Names of all female filmmakers and female characters are in bold ** Names of main protagonists are underlined Source: Wikpedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2001. Web. 8 July 2009. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page >

118

English summary This thesis analyzes the ten most popular Hollywood blockbusters of the 1990s out of feminist perspective. It is examined how these overwhelmingly budgeted films, which in the end truly significantly succeeded with general audience and since their release have been watched by millions of both male and female viewers all over the world, portray women and what message they convey as to their role within a family, society and a professional world. In the first chapter I analyze the only childrens film, an animated musical, The Lion King, which I find to be promoting traditional patriarchal society, as its story is based on old patriarchal myths and legends. The second chapter is devoted to two most popular Hollywood comedies to the 1990s, Forrest Gump and Mrs. Doubtfire, first of which also promotes patriarchy and conservative gender stereotypes, but the latter carries an important message about the necessity that responsibility for family and household is evenly shared by the two parents. The next two chapters focus on traditionally male film genres, a thriller and action films. While The Sixth Sense, Men in Black and Independence Day stay faithful to their traditional formulae and concentrate their attention on male bonding and interaction, in Star Wars, despite countless males in action it is a woman who leads them (and herself) to a victorious finale. Jurassic Park, too, carries a hidden warning against an attempt to control women, and Twister (unusually for an action film) centers on a female protagonist, even though it is not told from her perspective. The last chapter is devoted to Titanic, a romantic adventure drama, the top break-away hit of the 1990s, which has at the same time become one of the most successful films of all times and which I find to show all signs of a feminist tale, as it portrays a successful fight of a young girl against male oppression and her journey towards freedom and independence. 119

Summarizing the notions from individual analyses and adding statistical data about the main characters, their numbers, their professions and comparing these information out of gender perspective, I finally underline the significance of those films which support equal position of women in society and deconstruct those, which, despite their general popularity, support patriarchal society, false gender stereotypes and of which there is, unfortunately, a majority among the 1990s Hollywood break-away hits.

120

esk resum Tato prce analyzuje deset nejoblbenjch Hollywoodskch blockbusterovch film devadestch let 20. stolet. Zkoum, jak tyto filmy, kter i dky ohromn finann podpoe nakonec skuten u divk usply a byly od sv premiry shldnuty miliony divk, zpodobuj eny, a co sdluj ohledn jejich role v rodin, spolenosti a profesn sfe. V prvn kapitole analyzuji jedin dtsk film, animovan muzikl Lv krl, u kterho shledvm, e podporuje tradin patriarchln spolenost, protoe je zaloen na starch patriarchlnch mtech a legendch. Druh kapitola je vnovna dvma nejoblbenjm komedim devadestch let, ktermi jsou Forrest Gump a Tta v suknch. Prvn z nich tak podporuje konzervativn patriarchln uspodn spolenosti, ale druh v sob nese dleit poselstv o tom, jak je nezbytn, aby se o odpovdnost za rodinu a domcnost dlili oba rodie rovnomrn. Dal dv kapitoly se sousted na tradin musk filmov nry, thriller a akn film. Zatmco est smysl, Mui v ernm a Den nezvislosti zstvaj vrn jejich tradin formuli a sousteuj svou pozornost na ptelstv a interakci mezi mui, ve Hvzdnch vlkch, i pes bezpoet muskch hrdin v akci, je tm, kdo je (i sebe) ve skutenosti vede k vtznmu finle, ena. Jursk park v sob tak nese skryt varovn ped pokusy o ovldnut en, a v centru dn Twisteru je ensk hrdinka, i kdy pbh nen vyprvn z jej perspektivy. Posledn kapitola je vnovna filmu Titanic, romantickmu dobrodrunmu dramatu, kter podle mho nzoru vykazuje vechny znmky feministickho pbhu, protoe zpodobuje boj mlad dvky proti muskmu tlaku a jej spnou cestu za svobodou a nezvislost. V zvru shrnuj poznatky z jednotlivch analz a dodvm statistick daje o hlavnch postavch, jejich potu, zamstnn a tyto informace generov srovnvm, nae 121

s konenou platnost podtrhuji vznam tch film, kter podporuj rovnoprvn postaven en ve spolenosti, a dekonstruuji a zavrhuji ty, kter, i pes svou veobecnou oblbenost, podporuj patriarchln genderov stereotypy, a kterch je, bohuel, mezi nejspnjmi Hollywoodskmi blockbustery devadestch let 20. stolet vtina.

122

Works Cited

Primary Sources Forrest Gump. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Perf. Tom Hanks, Robin Wright Penn, Gary Sinise, Sally Field. Paramount Pictures, 1994. DVD. Independence Day. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Perf. Bill Pullman, Mary McDonnell, Jeff Goldblum, Will Smith. 20th Century Fox, 1996. DVD. Jurassic Park. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Perf. Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough. Universal Studios, 1993. DVD. Men In Black. Dir. Barry Sonnenfeld. Perf. Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, Linda Fiorentino. Columbia Pictures, 1997. DVD. Mrs. Doubtfire. Dir. Chris Columbus. Perf. Robin Williams, Sally Field, Pierce Brosnan, Harvey Fierstein. Twentieth Century Fox, 1993. DVD. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Jake Lloyd. 20th Century Fox/Lucasfilm, 1999. DVD. The Lion King. Dir. Roger Allers, and Rob Minkoff. [Perf.. Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones, Jonathan Taylor Thomas.] Walt Disney Pictures, 1994. DVD. The Sixth Sense. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perf. Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment, Toni

123

Collette, Olivia Williams. Buena Vista Pictures, 1999. DVD. Titanic. Dir. James Cameron. Perf. Kate Winslet, Leonardo Dicaprio, Billy Zane, Francis Fisher. 20th Century Fox/Paramount Pictures, 1997. DVD. Twister. Dir. Jan De Bont. Perf. Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Jami Gertz. Warner Bros/Universal Studios, 1996. DVD.

Secondary Sources Auster, Albert and Leonard Quart. American Film and Society since 1945. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2002. Print. Baker, Wayne E., and Robert R Faulkner. Role as Recourse in the Hollywood Film Industry. The American Journal of Sociology 97 (1991): 279-309. Print. Barclay, Lesley and Deborah Lupton. Constructing Fatherhood: Discourses and Experiences. London: A SAGE Publications Company, 1997. Print. Beason, W. Keith. Beyond Time: Other Themes in Titanic. KeithStuff Homepage, 1998. Web. 10 December 2009. <http://www.angelfire.com/ga/wkb/beyondtime.html> Berardinelli, James. Men In Black, A Film Review by James Berardinelli. The ReelViews, 2010. Web. 9 March 2009. <http://www.reelviews.net/movies/m/mib.html> Berlant, Lauren G. The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and 124

Citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997. Print. Bordwell, David. The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Print. ---. Box Office Mojo. IMDb.com, 1999. Web. 21 July 2009. <http://boxofficemojo.com/> Brooker, Will. Using the Force: Creativity, Community, and Star Wars Fans. New York: The Continuum Interantional Publishing Group Inc., 2002. Print. Bruzzi, Stella. Clothing and Identity in the Movies. London: Routledge, 1997. Print. Buchanan, Ian. Misrecognition in Titanic. Australian Humanities Review. Association for the Study of Australian Literature (ASAL). n. pag. Web. 10 December 2009. <http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-May1998/buchanan2.html> Denby, David. Stupid Fresh. New York Magazine. 18 July (1994) 50-51. Web. 8 November 2009. <http://books.google.cz/books?id=WMCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=da vid+denby+stupid+fresh&source=bl&ots=KSHNssP02X&sig=5_ki3O_hmNwVgJTxi 9Pcg_lJbMo&hl=cs&ei=spzES93nG8iROJTnqM0P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result &resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=david%20denby%20stupid%20fr esh&f=false> Dirks, Tim. www.filmsite.org. American Movie Classics Company LLC, 1996. Web. 20

125

July 2009. <http://www.filmsite.org/> Estrada, Gabriel S. Star Wars Episode I-VI: Coyote and the Force of White Narrative. The Persistence of Whiteness: Race and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Ed. Daniel Bernardi. Abindgdon, UK: Routledge, 2007. 69-90. Print. Feinman, Ilene R. Citizenship Rites: Feminist Soldiers and Feminist Antimilitarist. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Print. Freeland, Cynthia A. Feminist Frameworks for Horror Films. Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies. Eds. David Bordwell, and Noel Carrol. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. 195-218. Print. Green, Pamela. Presenting a Feminist Ideal-Star Wars. Feminist.com, 1995-2002. n. pag. Web. 10 March 2009. <http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/media/review2.htm> Haase, Christine. When Heimat Meets Hollywood: German Filmmakers and America, 1985-2005. London: Camden House, 2007. Print. Hankov, Petra. Pandoina sknka aneb co feministky provedly filmu? [Pandoras Case, or What Have Women Done to Film?] Praha: Academia, 2007. Print. Henderson, Eric. Twister A Movie Review. Slant Magazine. Slant Magazine, 8 May 2008. n. pag. Web. 11 July 2009. 126

<http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/twister/3572> Higgins, Matthew and Warren Smith. `Trust No One`: Science Fiction and Marketings Future/Present. Imagining Marketing: Art, Aesthetics and the Avant-garde. Eds. Stephen Brown, and Anthony Petterson. London: Routledge, 2000. 105-120. Print. Keller, Alexandra. Size Does Matter: Notes on Titanic and James Cameron as Blockbuster Auteur. Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster. Eds. Kevin S. Sandler, and Gaylyn Studlar. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1999. 132-154. Print. King, Geoff. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. London: I.B Tauris, 2002. Print. Kramer, Peter. Big Pictures: Studying Contemporary Hollywood Cinema through its Greatest Hits. Screen Methods: Comparative Readings in Film Studies. Eds. Jacqueline Furb, and Karen Randell. London: Wallflower Press, 2005. 125-131. Print. Kramer, Peter. Women First: Titanic, Action-Adventure Films, and Hollywoods Female Audience. Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster. Eds. Kevin S. Sandler, and Gaylyn Studlar. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1999. 108-131. Print. Kramer, Peter. Would You Take Your Child to See this Film?: The Cultural and Social Work of the Family-adventure Movie. Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Ed. Steve Neale, and Murray Smith. London: Routledge, 1998. 295-311. Print. Lazarus, Margaret. All's Not Well in the Land of The Lion King. Sauthern Methodist University, 6 February 2006. Web. 10 February 2009.

127

Linville, Susan E. History Films, Women, and Freud's Uncanny. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. Print. Maltby, Richard. Hollywood Cinema. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003. Print. Martin, Sara. Jurassic Park. St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture. FindArticles.com. 1-3. 12 April 2010. Web. 20 March 2009. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100661/> McDonald, John. Films. The Opinion Public Quarterly 5, (1941): 127-129. Print. McManus, Kevin. A Sci-Fi Flash in the Pan. The Washington Post, 5 July 1996. n. pag. Web. 10 November 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/style/longterm/review96/independencedaymcma
n.htm>

Mellencamp, Patricia. A Fine Romance: Five Ages of Film Feminism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995. Print. Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. The Sexual Subject: A Screen Reader in Sexuality. Ed. Many Merck et. al. London: Routledge, 1992. 22-34. Print. Munich, Adrienne and Maura Spiegel. Heart of the Ocean: Diamonds and Democratic Desire in Titanic. Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster. Eds. Kevin S. Sandler, and Gaylyn Studlar. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1999. 155-168. Print. Neale, Steve. Hollywood Blockbusters: Historical Dimensions. Movie Blockbusters. 128

Ed. Julian Stringer. London: Routledge, 2003. 47-60. Print. Ostman, Ronald E. Disney and its Conservative Critcs: Images Versus Realities. Journal of Popular Film and Television (1996). n. pag. Web. 10 February 2009. < http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18838471.html > Pomerance, Murray. Introduction. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls: Gender in Film at the End of the Twentieth Century. Ed. Murray Pomerance. Albany: Sunny Press, 2001. 1-15. Print. Proehl, Goeffrey S. Coming Home Again: American Family Drama and the Figure of the Prodigal. Danvers: Associated University Presses, Inc., 1997. Print. Rofel, Lisa. Modernity's Masculine Fantasies. M. Critically Modern: Alternatives, Alterities,Anthropologies. Ed. Bruce M. Knauft. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002. 175-193. Schwalm, Karen. Patriarchy in the Pride Lands: A Cultural Analysis of the Lion King. 1995. n. pag. Web. 10 February 2009. <http://staff.gc.maricopa.edu/~kschwalm/lionking.html> Skopal, Pavel. Nov Hollywood: produkce, technologie, styl a narace v souvislostech blockbusterovho filmu. [New Hollywood: production, technology, stale and narrative within the context of blockbuster film] MA Thesis. Masaryk University, Brno, 2001. Print. 129

Sobchack, Vivian C. Beyond Visual Aids: American Films as American Culture. American Quarterly 32 (1980): 280-300. Print. Tasker, Yvonne. Working Girls: Gender and Sexuality in Popular Cinema. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. ---. Time Out Film Guide. Forrest Gump A Film Review. Rotten Tomatoes, 26 January 2006. n. pag. Web. 21 July 2009. <http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/66926/forrest_gump.html> Turan, Kenneth. Movie Review: Independence Day. Los Angeles Times: The Guide, July 2 1996: n. pag. Web. 8 November 2009. < http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie960716-1,2,1312906.story > Vasey, Ruth. Foreign Parts: Hollywoods Global Distribution and the Representation of Ethnicity. American Quarterly 44 (1992): Special Issue: Hollywood, Censorship and American Culture 617-642. Print. Vincenti, Marc. Palo Alto Weekly. Embarcadero Publishing Company, n. pag. Web. 19 July 2009. < http://paloaltoonline.com/movies/moviescreener.php?id=000634&type=long > Ward, Annalee R. Mouse Morality: The Rethoric of Disney Animated Film. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Print. Warner, Marina. The Reith Lectures 1994: Monstrous Mothers. The Independent. 130

Independent News and Media Limited, 1994. Web. 10 July 2009. < http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-reith-lectures-1994-monstrous-mothersmarina-warner-is-this-years-reith-lecturer-her-six-lectures-which-are-called-managingmonsters-explore-how-myths-express-and-shape-our-attitudes-here-is-the-first-in-theseries-1409697.html > ---. Wikpedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2001. Web. 8 July 2009. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page > Wong, Vicky. Deconstructing The Walt Disney Animation The Lion King: Its Ideology and the Perspective of Hong Kong Chinese. Kinema: a Journal for Film and Audiovisual Media (2008): n. pag. Web. 15 February 2009. <http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/article.php?id=210&feature> iek, Slavoj. The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Shelling and Related Matters. London: Verso, 1996. Print. iek, Slavoj. The Metastases of Enjoyment: The Six Essays on Women and Casualty. London: Verso, 1994. Print.

131