Inspired by James Cameron's recent arguments against Wonder Woman, and in favour of his own creation, Sarah Connor; I have decided to do a little analysis of my own. Here I will be performing something of a comparison between the two, and trying to present my arguments about their merits in their roles as both women, and action heroes.
This post will be a bit more formal, than my usual posts, as I will be attempting to put forward an actual argument, rather than just giving my impression of something. For each of these characters I will be examining their differing goals and motivations, how sympathetically the narrative treats these goals, and the general attitudes of the characters themselves.
Since this is an analysis rather than a review, there will probably be spoilers for both films ahead.
I suppose that this is a counter-argument to James Cameron's assertion that Sarah Connor is an inherently superior character, and that Wonder Woman is a step back for women in cinema.
Despite my use of citations, this is still an opinion piece, I am not trying to present my opinion as objective fact. I also enjoy both Terminator 2, and Wonder Woman. This is just my view of the situation, so feel free to disagree.
To start with, in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema states that women in cinema are the “bearer not maker of meaning,” [Mulvey, 1975;59]. According to her argument women lack agency, as they largely exist to further the story of the male lead, existing mostly as a motivation or a goal. Sarah Connor is no exception to this, in the first Terminator [Cameron; 1984] she exists as the motivation for Kyle Reese, the male main character. It is his job to protect her from menace of the titular machine, and she is largely passive for most of the film.
Likewise, even though she has a more active role in Terminator 2 [Cameron, 1991], her role still revolves around her son John. It is her destiny that is important, and by comparison, she is expendable; she says as much herself. Also, in comparison to Sarah in the first film, John plays a much more active role in the plot, making decision on where to go and what to do.
Conversely, in Wonder Woman [Jenkins; 2017] the plot is mainly driven by Diana, as the lead character. It is her decision to leave her home and journey out into the world at large, and her decision to press forwards when most of the world seems trapped by convention. This is best exemplified by the scene in no man's land, when Diana chooses to push forward, when all others had given up hope; and in so doing, inspires others to follow her. Also, unlike Terminator, it is Diana's destiny, and her life, that remain of central importance to the plot.
This helps the film to counteract Mulvey's earlier assertion that women are “the bearer not maker, of meaning,” [Mulvey, 1975; 59]. Since Diana is a mostly proactive character, doing things of her own accord, and sometimes despite the protests of those around her.
Steve Trevor, Diana's love interest, does have a more active role than most female love interests, but it is still secondary to hers. Whilst he does make great stride towards the end of the film, it pays to remember that he was one of the ones warning Diana not to cross no man's land earlier on. Steve retains a lot of his own agency, but does not detract from Diana's.
Now we come to the next topic of our analysis, themes and motivations. Sarah Connor falls into the trap that plagues a lot of female characters in Hollywood, motherhood. As Yvonne Tasker notes “Female action heroes are constructed in narrative terms as macho/masculine, as mothers, or as others; sometimes even as all three at different points within the narrative.” [Tasker, 1998; 69]. As such, despite her actions, Sarah Connor still inhabits a very traditional role for women within the narrative of the film. Indeed, the film plays this up when Sarah states “you don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you.”
Sarah's primary concern is protecting her son. A natural desire for a parent, but one that has become overplayed when it comes to women in film. As Stuller puts it they are “written and played as intelligent, compassionate, and tough, their main purpose is to birth, protect, or otherwise nurture the male “savior”,” [Stuller, 2010; 117]
Conversely, Diana's motivation is to stop a war, and to prevent all of the death and suffering that comes with it. As she says, "It is our sacred duty to defend the world and it's what I'm going to do." Hers is a very grand goal, and one that is a cut above most female characters. It also shows that she has a respect for things like duty, whilst still working outside what would normally be considered female responsibilities.
However, Diana does fall victim to one of the other primary motivations for female heroes, romantic love. “Often with women, love is stressed again and again – making it necessary to wonder about this particular emotion, or ethic, consistently being linked to the source of a female hero's strength.” [Stuller, 2010; 88] Notably, this motivation does play a big role in the climatic scene at the end. That said, Diana's primary motivation for most of the film is her duty; she does not head into the horrors of World War I solely for the sake of love. In fact, the romance does not really become explicit until over halfway through the film, as the story establishes Diana's character first.
Then we come to the final point I want to talk about, the idea that a female character must sacrifice any hint of femininity to be taken seriously as a badass.
Now, I want to note that I have no problem with “butch” female characters, one of my favourite action films is Haywire, which stars former MMA fighter Gina Carano. The problem develops when people insist that this is the only archetype of female character that can function as an action hero; at that point you're not dispelling gender roles, but simply creating new ones. Not to mention that argument equates femininity with weakness.
As William Malton Marston, Wonder Woman's creator, once said:
“Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”
Whilst Marston's other views on women may be questionable, he is right when he states that while “softer”, “feminine” qualities are treated with scorn, they will continue to be perceived as negative attributes. Which is why I think Wonder Woman is to be congratulated for having a female lead that is able to slip into traditionally “male” roles, without having to adopt traditionally masculine behaviours.
Compare this with Sarah Connor, who's appearance in the second Terminator comes with her wearing combat fatigues, and an overall butch manner, which actually enhances the gender division, “it is understandable that women would want to be men, for everyone wants to be elsewhere than in the feminine position” [Doane, 1982; 138]. Again, this helps to reinforce the notion that femininity is a weakness, and a woman must purge herself of it in order play the role of the hero.
In fact, the film almost fetishizes her butchness presenting us with her “bulging muscles as the doctors and interns look at her through a window in the door.” [Neroni, 2005; 84] Immediately seeking to distinguish Sarah as different from other women, and almost like an object to be studied. This helps to emphasis the otherness around the character, which would not be as bad if they had not made such a show of her new musculature.
Once more, I wish to stress that “butch” female characters are not a problem by themselves. It is when this archetype is insisted upon as the only way for a realistic heroine, that it starts to carry some unfortunate implications.
Now, it may be that some think that the them of motherhood takes the edge off of Sarah Connor's roughness, and you might be right, but not in the way you think. Whilst Sarah is a mother, she is a very rough and angry one. So now that the writers had created their strong, female character, they may have been afraid to show a softer side to her, for fear of it being seen as weakness.
However, the traditional role of motherhood creates a point of reference for the audience, helping to ease tensions over her breaking the mould. The character is too “other”, and must be brought back to the status quo in some way, for the sake of the audience. As Yvonne Tasker states, often these female characters must “grow-up” and “accept limitations and responsibilities within the terms of heterosexuality.” [Tasker, 1998; 71]
Overall, I believe that Wonder Woman is a step forwards for women in film, as it allows its heroine to mix both masculine and feminine qualities, without fear of being perceived as being weak. Further, it allowed her motivations outside of love or motherhood, and gave her a grand journey that was all her own, making her the maker and not bearer, of meaning.
Until next time,
PhoenixAct.
Bibliography
Wonder Woman [Film] 2017, Patty Jenkins dir. USA. Warner Bros.
Terminator [Film] 1984, James Cameron dir. USA. Hemdale. Pacific Western. Euro Film Funding.
Terminator 2: Judgement Day [Film] 1991. James Cameron dir. USA. Carolco Pictures. Lightstorm Entertainment. Pacific Western.
Mulvey, L. (1975/1999) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, in Thornam S, P. (ed) (1999) Feminist Film Theory: A Reader. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press. Pp.58 – 69.
Tasker, Y. (1998) Working Girls: Gender and Sexuality in Popular Cinema. Abingdon. Routledge.
Stuller, J, K. (2010) Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors: Superwomen in Modern Mythology. London. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd.
Doane, M, A. (1981/1999) Film and Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator, in Thornam, S. (1999) Feminist Film Theory: A Reader. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press. Pp.131 – 145.
No comments:
Post a Comment