Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
However when as adults we realise the impossibility of living up to those childhood ideals we become jaded and disenchanted.
This is unhealthy both for ourselves as individuals and for the society we live in.
Pah. And balderdash.
Beg to differ.."
You don't have to beg, and I don't think we are actually differing.
The point I was trying to make was that a story can allow us to rediscover those ideals of our childhood and teenage years, and direct us back onto a more righteous and hopeful path.
Re-read my post and you can see that the danger I was talking about was not the danger of striving toward an ideal, but the danger of disenchantment- that idea that because we cannot be everything we may just as well be nothing
Maybe I was not expressing myself very eptly but you should know O Bear of Iron that it is over 20 degrees here and at those extreme temperatures my brain is apt to go on the fritz.
See I'm even using those horrible emoticons now - that's how bad it is.
We're having weird weather: 100f + in the days, 60 degrees f or so at night.
lectatege wrote:
You don't have to beg, and I don't think we are actually differing.
Yeah... I think the only point of difference is that I see the disillusionment as an effect of an adolescent mindset, rather than a trait of adulthood. True cyicism always has a tone of the pouty teenager to it.
[That may sound odd coming from me - the polished cynic. But I've never claimed to be completely growed up yet. ]
Quote:
Re-read my post and you can see that the danger I was talking about was not the danger of striving toward an ideal, but the danger of disenchantment- that idea that because we cannot be everything we may just as well be nothing
Yeah, that's the adolescent mindset I was remarking on. It's a nihilistic point of view.
And you're right that we need those tales as inspiration. They're better for us than the bleakness of the Eastwood-esque anti-hero.
The Man With No Name is a cool archetype... but that bleak and hopeless "the Good Guy is good because he's deadlier than the Bad Guys" doesn't leave much worth emulating or striving towards. And it feeds back into that "no point" nihilism... a self-rewarding circle.
If you think about it... John Wayne's Jacob McCandles or Rooster Cogburn is no more realistic than Eastwood's Man With No Name... but there's an essence of the Hero's Journey in Wayne's characters - buried in all the swagger and violence - that's missing from Eastwood's anti-hero.
Eastwood's is just a killer. Wayne's is a killer struggling to be something larger than that. A journey of redemption rather than just a trail marked by bodies.
palmers wrote:
Sorry: I haven't been getting notifications on this thread, so thought it had died.
We ran out of e-bots. Diane ordered some more from Amazon, but they haven't arrived yet.
I think palmer's e-bots are defecting to my mailbox - I always get two per notification. Maybe they are too scared to come on their own?
20 C I think - that's about 70 in old. At least you've got a chance of some shut eye once the sun goes down.
I would think you were more sinned against than cynic Ironbear, but I don't see cynicism as an adolescent thing - I was well into my late twenties before I started losing faith but maybe I was just a late developer.
I didn't realise Clit Eastwood was playing an anti- hero, that explains a lot. I have to admit I've never seen any of his films on account of I find his nose, indeed most of his face, way too irritating.
For me the jury is still out on the anti hero in isolation, but I do think in the 'band of seven archetypes' story genre he is a necesssary complement to the hero - he allows the reader/viewer to have the sorts of unworthy thoughts and actions not permissable in the hero but without losing the possibility of redemption and betterment.
Flawed as the anti-hero is he is still not the villain.
Do you think the hero as archetype is more important for boys/men/masculinity than for the distaff side btw, and if so why?
I am not setting you up for a barrage of feminist invective, I am genuinely interested. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
It's easy for any of us to imagine he could be the 9/11 type of hero. We'll probably never get the chance to find out whether we are or not.
The challenge might be to find everyday kinds of heroism: ways of addressing the world which aren't self-serving or unthinking, but are considered and good.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
I didn't realise Clit Eastwood was playing an anti- hero, that explains a lot. I have to admit I've never seen any of his films on account of I find his nose, indeed most of his face, way too irritating.
I like Eastwood. But he really didn't start exploring the flawed hero/journey of redemption theme in-depth much until the fourth Dirty Harry movie, In the Line of Fire, and Pale Horseman and Unforgiven. His spagetti westerns were pure anti-hero, in my viewing. Anti-heroes with a great deal of depth, as in High Plains Drifter and Joe Kidd, but still anti-heroes. "Good Guys", but they're good because they find themselves in a situation where they're opposed to Bad Guys... you get the feeling they could easily be on the other side of the fence in a different situation, and do it just as remorselessly as they played the "Good" role.
The Outlaw Josey Wales is both his best work, and the very first where he explored the Wayne style Jacob McCandles type role: the death weary killer attempting to escape his past and become something better. That's why it works as well as it does, IMO - Wales is a complex character, rather than merely a cynical killing machine.
Eastwood's spagetti westren and Dirty Harry films really popularised that character archetype in film, more than the influence others had on it.
lectatege wrote:
For me the jury is still out on the anti hero in isolation, but I do think in the 'band of seven archetypes' story genre he is a necesssary complement to the hero - he allows the reader/viewer to have the sorts of unworthy thoughts and actions not permissable in the hero but without losing the possibility of redemption and betterment.
Flawed as the anti-hero is he is still not the villain.
*nod* Akira Kurosawa. And the very excellent US takeoff on the archetype of "The Magnificent Seven".
You're right. Except Chris and the rest of the Seven aren't anti-heroes: they're classic western archetypes. Heroes with flaws, but still heroes. Likewise for Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.
Red Sun, another US adaptation of a Kurosawa is a lot closer to what you're saying: the Samurai is the classic hero, Charles Bronson's gunslinger is the anti-hero, dragged into heroism against his will almost.
They *are* a neccessary complement to each other. What's unhealthy is the emphasis that western culture placed on the anti-hero to the exclusion of the heroic through the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
lectatege wrote:
Do you think the hero as archetype is more important for boys/men/masculinity than for the distaff side btw, and if so why?
No. Not *more* important, equally important for both.
For the male child... heroic archetypes are critical, yes. Males are inherently uncivilized. Young males are savages at heart. [I used to be one, and I grew up around young males. I know. ] It's important for young males and young men to have exposure to both heroic figures in fiction to temper and contrast the real life villany and anti-heroic elements that are all around them, and real life heroes to measure against.
This is what a man is, and this is what a man does, and why. It's ok to fall short - it's not ok to not even try.
And the corrollary: This is villianry, and it is what a man isn't.
Without that... we have feral children who grow up to be feral adult males, and I think we can both see examples of those without looking too far from our keyboards, ne?
It's equally important for the distaff side [love that phrase ], the young women.
The heroic archetype doesn't have to be male, it easily includes women.
The heroic archetype tends to dispell the anti-male myths that have been propogated, especially if it's matched by young men who grew up influenced by it. And it shows what a man should be, and what to avoid. Naturally, the archetype needs to be reinforced by examples of real heroes around for contrast: fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, good cops, and other people who're both heroic and real.
That keeps things in perspective. John Wayne, Superman, and Lancelot are impressive... but they're not "real", and if you strive to be them or expect to find them, you're bound to be dissapointed.
I think young men need strong women heroes as well as male, also.
lectatege wrote:
I am not setting you up for a barrage of feminist invective, I am genuinely interested.
I'm going to give you an example of what I meant up above...
My dad was a hero. My uncles were heroes. And I don't mean that in the fictional "John Wayne" sense, either.
My dad was dirt poor and proud. Relatively uneducated compared to me or you. He did a lot of the things as a very young man that would seem like the stuff of adventure novels to people today: bootlegger, gentleman adventurer in latin america, roughneck... He also injured his leg, badly, when he was in his early thirties. And he worked on it at a physically demanding job [executive chef] for decades without complaining as it steadily got worse so that he could earn enough of a living to pay for private school for me as I got older. And it eventually became cancerous and it killed him. He never once talked about what it cost him to do that. He could have done a lot of things... spent his earnings on things for himself and his wife [my mom], but he didn't.
As a result of both his profession and his earlier life, he knew a LOT of interesting people. He went out of his way to expose me as a child and as a young man to a number of them... took me out with his friends or introduced me to people at his work. John Wayne, Fritz von Eric, Jay Silverheels, Elvis Presley, Jimmy Stewart... I met people at an early age that are mythical to a lot of people today. AndI learned from watching them nad my dad that they were "just folks": they got drunk, told dirty jokes, flirted with waitresses.. and had time for a very young kid without making him feel "less than". Big men, in all senses of the word: they were "just folks", but there was something a bit larger than life about them. You could sense it.
And they were friends or acquaintances with my dad. And they respected him.
I didn't appreciate this until I was in my 30's almost, but my dad's example and the people he exposed me to shaped a lot of my conceptions and attitudes - for the better, once I got old enough to pull my head out of my ass and understand it. I won't pretend that my dad or his friends were perfect, he had his flaws [and what those were are both irrelevant and none of your business, thank you], but he was *real*.
That's a Hero. But I don't think he'd have been what he was if he hadn't been exposed to examples of men just like that when he was growing up.
And that's what heroes are for. That's why they matter.
I could tell you similar stories about my uncles and grandfathers... including sitting and listening to my gadfather and the older men talk about fighting Quannah Parker's raiders into the Cherokee communities in Oklahoma in the early 1900's [the man I considered my "grandfather" was born in the late 1880's] ... but this post would get entirely too long. My other grandfather - my dad's dad - taught me what a man isn't: he abandoned my dad and his sister when they were very young and dumped them with relatives to raise.
Exposure to the heroic ideal, to the myths, and to the people who try to emulate it shapes you in ways that you often don't realise until long, long afterwards. And it doesn't matter if you're a young man or a young woman for that shaping to occur: this cuts across gender.
I don't want to be a 9/11 type hero, palmers. I'll be satisfied enough if when I die it can be said about me that I was half the man my father was. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Paradoxically, although in real life most of the people I know who embody heroic ideals are women, once past puberty my heroic archetypes have been exclusively fictional males.
Now this may just reflect a dearth of heroic women in fiction but assuming it is not a quirk peculiar to my psyche it does make things problematic for women seeking to emulate the heroic ideal.
If vital heroic characteristics are confined entirely to the masculine, it makes it difficult to identify with the same because, Freud's theories of penis envy notwithstanding, most women (even feminists) do not want to be men, believe it or not.
A parallel can be drawn with the business world where generally women (and men) can only succeeed if they conform to stereotypical male standards of behaviour.
For what it is worth, my theory is that there are two seperate but equally important strands of heroic behaviour - the element of strength - not only (or even) physical strength, but moral and mental also - and the element of self-sacrifice, the willingness to subordinate one's individual needs to that of a greater good.
Both strands are evident in the characters of the best heroes including Superman and your Dad
However at some point the two elements have become gendered - strength and toughness have become essentially a masculine preserve, and, just as conveniently for the status quo, quiet self-sacrifice has become predominately female territory (particularly prevalent in the doctrines of the Catholic church).
Now whether this is a societal construct or something innate to the natures of man and woman is a moot point.
I know what I think - and I bet you do too.
btw your Dad does sound a hard act to follow and the 64 thousand dollar question is...
How well can you cook? _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Now this may just reflect a dearth of heroic women in fiction
It doesn't.
Honor Harrington in modern sci-fi, quite a few of Heinlein's female characters in past fiction, Wonder Woman in comics [and others], Penthesilia in classic fiction [the entire range of strong female Norse, Greek, Finnish, and Sumerian deities in mythology], and others. They're there... but admittedly you do have to look harder for them.
And there may be a pecuiliarity to the human psyche in that once we assimilate a stereotype - that males are herioc figures - we notice the norm and not the exceptions. And that breeds its own preponderance of imitators of what's seen as the norm.
lectatege wrote:
If vital heroic characteristics are confined entirely to the masculine
Which "vital heroic characteristics"? Strength and muscle and combat? Or... honor, faith, courage, stalwarthiness, stoicness, resoluteness, keeping ones word, honesty, defense of the weaker, and standing firm for one's convictions?
You can't find exmples of women both in fiction and in history that embody those last characteristics?
lectatege wrote:
For what it is worth, my theory is that there are two seperate but equally important strands of heroic behaviour - the element of strength - not only (or even) physical strength, but moral and mental also - and the element of self-sacrifice, the willingness to subordinate one's individual needs to that of a greater good.
Bingo.
Katherine Hepburn's character in Rooster Cogburn is just as heroic as John Wayne's.
Lauren Bacall embodies just as much of the heroic ideal as Humphrey Bogart in her roles - it's just a different aspect of heroism: class, grace under pressure, bravery.
The moral, ethical, and mental elements of heroism are as integral as the physical: a large part of Ulysses heroic journey wasn't just the pyhsical courage and bravery it took, but also the mental and moral fortitude it took to survive those trials without breaking. And the faith and example it took to inspire his men to not break.
There are parts of both Dante and Milton where the struggle and the heroism are entirely mental, ethical, and moral - but the triumphs are no less heroic for that.
Both men and women have those traits. And both men and women often lack them.
lectatege wrote:
However at some point the two elements have become gendered - strength and toughness have become essentially a masculine preserve
Physical strength *is* a masculine preserve. All of the wishing of extreme feminism won't make it not so. There's a reason why men and women compete in different strength and agility classes in sports, and it's biological.
Toughness has two seperate elements: physical, and mental and emotional. Men and women share all three to varying extent, depending on the man and on the woman.
lectatege wrote:
Now whether this is a societal construct or something innate to the natures of man and woman is a moot point.
It's hardly moot. But there's often no profit in the argument on it.
lectatege wrote:
btw your Dad does sound a hard act to follow and the 64 thousand dollar question is...
How well can you cook?
Very well. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Quote Ironbear:"Physical strength *is* a masculine preserve. All of the wishing of extreme feminism won't make it not so. There's a reason why men and women compete in different strength and agility classes in sports, and it's biological."
But I thought that we had already agreed that true heroism is very little to do with actual physical strength (and a gun is a great leveller) - the strength that I was referring to is that quality which can be crudely summed up as 'guts' and that is by and large what fictional heroic women are not allowed to embody.
The most you can expect is that a woman will be allowed to be 'feisty' i.e. Bolshie enough to be interesting and a bit of a challenge but inevitably destined to revert to her true girly nature by the last reel
The only fictional heroine that I can think of that bucks that trend is Ripley in the first Alien film.
Tellingly in the second film her more confrontational qualities were softened by introducing a little girl for her to protect so that her otherwise unwomanly behaviour could be justified by the fact that it was all down to maternal instinct.
By the time of the last film they reverted to the stereotype of woman as hero through the medium of complete and literal self-sacrifice.
She could not be allowed to ride off into the sunset as James Bond and Indiana Jones do.
Even when morally good a strong and independent (ie independent of men) woman is transgressory and threatening, she cannot be allowed a happy ending, or indeed in most cases to live.
And this was the problem for me as a young woman - I did not need a self-sacrificial role model - they were ten a penny and in any event that role is so identified with the feminine it is not even seen as exceptional or heroic - it is what is expected - women are always expected to put others first and are criticised if they don't.
What I needed a role model that was not afraid to be confrontational, that was not afraid to go it alone, and the only ones that were available were men.
"quote Ironbear
lectatege wrote:
Now whether this is a societal construct or something innate to the natures of man and woman is a moot point.
It's hardly moot. But there's often no profit in the argument on it. "
No, I don't think its moot either but in a fit of uncharacteristic humility I decided to allow for the slim chance that I might be wrong.
I mean - in an infinite universe anything's possible...
Right? _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Joined: Jun 28, 2004 Posts: 200 Location: between here and insanity
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject:
Gonna step in a second...
Hollywood is the last place you really want to look for female or even male rolemodels. If anyplace is stuck in the dark ages it's today's tinsletown. You can't be ANYTHING unless you fit the model set forth by the old boy's club out there. If that's what you're using as an example, then I can why it's hard to come up with good examples.
Me, I grew up as an only child in a neighborhood with few kids. As such, I read a LOT. Not much in the comic book department, but I did grow up with a few Wonder Woman comic books (mostly thanks to the TV series) and watching Princess Leia on the big screen. I read a lot of fairy tale stuff, but someone, the gender rolls presented there never got drilled into my head - in my stories I was the knight who saved the prince and my family did nothing to discourage this (heck, I had a plastic suit of armor when I was in second grade) I knew what made a heroic character (strenght of character, strong will, cleverness, persistance, etc.) and gender never really entered into it.
For roll models, I read up on Joan of Arc, and the Practical Princess and Dorthy of Kansas (as well as Betsy and Trot and Ozma) and Hapsetshut the female Pharoh and even Deborah and Esther from the bible (I had the comic book/illustrated bible too) and I rooted for Scarlet and Lady Jay when I watched GI-Joe, Wonder Woman on live action and various HB cartoons, Isis in several incarnations, and so on.
It wasn't until I started getting older that I actually started to notice the female minority in the so-called "heroic" genre. I remember complaining bitterly after seeing "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" that Maid Marion went from kicking Robin's butt to wussy "Oh save me" in the course of the movie (okay the whole thing was pretty weak, but that stuck out in my mind) but by then, I already knew that a woman could fill the roll of defender, protector, hero, etc just as well as any guy and I had plenty of examples I could think of.
In recent years, Hollywood's been backsliding even worse (I've ranted about it before so I won't here), but you can still find good examples outside the silver screen. Samantha Carter of SG-1 is a good example, smart, gutsy, and tough and still going strong after 10 years. Honor Harrington is another good example in literature, though I confess to only having read the first two books so far.
A book you might enjoy lectatege is "Monstrous Regiment" by Terry Pratchett - the story of a girl who joins the army disguised as a boy and her resulting adventures. Some very interstesting commentary on gender rolls and war as well.
As for comics, I admit I've let my pull list slip over the years so I can't tell you the first thing about the current crop. Sorry there.
Fact is though, there is a percieved LACK of market for that type of character, going back to focus groups and old boy's network and so on (remember, female action figures don't sell oy...).
Though unless something is a complete breakout hit and makes a TON of money, the mass media will continue to stick with what's safe, namely forumlas, which mostly include certain set roles that must appear with only minor variation because that makes cash. Sad, but the basics of mass media. _________________ "Flash, quit heckling the supervillain!" - Green Lantern
The Ether Forge: http://www.stkp.com/POSER/
But I thought that we had already agreed that true heroism is very little to do with actual physical strength (and a gun is a great leveller) - the strength that I was referring to is that quality which can be crudely summed up as 'guts' and that is by and large what fictional heroic women are not allowed to embody
We can come back to this at some point, if we really want. It's not moot: it's peripheral I think to the overall heroism subject.
My objection was solely to the "has become" phrasing, not to the view that heroism and physical strength are basically unconnected except by "accepted wisdom". [Which is generally neither accepted nor wisdom]
lectatege wrote:
The only fictional heroine that I can think of that bucks that trend is Ripley in the first Alien film.
Film heroine? I can think of several in the broader realm of fiction. Ripley was somewhat unique in film though.
lectatege wrote:
Even when morally good a strong and independent (ie independent of men) woman is transgressory and threatening, she cannot be allowed a happy ending, or indeed in most cases to live.
You *definately* need to spend some time browsing at the Women In Refrigerators link I posted last discussion.
There's been a long noted trend that comic, novel, and film writers can't seem to handle a strong female heroic protagonist without eventualy abusing and degrading her in ways that they wouldn't a male character.
This doesn't seem to be confined to male writers exclusively. Women writers, oddly enough, seem to be just as guilty of it.
lectatege wrote:
No, I don't think its moot either but in a fit of uncharacteristic humility I decided to allow for the slim chance that I might be wrong.
I mean - in an infinite universe anything's possible...
Right?
I sometimes think I'm wrong, but I'm usually mistaken. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Hollywood is the last place you really want to look for female or even male rolemodels. If anyplace is stuck in the dark ages it's today's tinsletown. You can't be ANYTHING unless you fit the model set forth by the old boy's club out there. If that's what you're using as an example, then I can why it's hard to come up with good examples.")
I am, and not just because it backs up my argument but because Hollwood and TV are for most women in the West the main forms of storytelling, and therefore important.
(Quote= Glitchgirl "Me, I grew up as an only child in a neighborhood with few kids. As such, I read a LOT. ....For roll models, I read up on Joan of Arc, and the Practical Princess and Dorthy of Kansas (as well as Betsy and Trot and Ozma) and Hapsetshut the female Pharoh and even Deborah and Esther from the bible (I had the comic book/illustrated bible too) and I rooted for Scarlet and Lady Jay when I watched GI-Joe, Wonder Woman on live action and various HB cartoons, Isis in several incarnations, and so on.")
There is quite a healthy supply of female heroes for the under tens - (I'm not too sure about Dorothy mind, she always struck me as being a bit on the wet side), my heroines of choice were Jo from Little Women (stop sniggering at the back) and Beryl the Peril.
(Quote=Glitchgirl "It wasn't until I started getting older that I actually started to notice the female minority in the so-called "heroic" genre...but by then, I already knew that a woman could fill the roll of defender, protector, hero, etc just as well as any guy and I had plenty of examples I could think of. ")
This is the problem I was talking about - chiefly the lack of heroines for the woman full grown - once I'd got to a certain age, although she laid the foundations Beryl the Peril just didn't do it for me any more..
Now here's a thought : Women have a lot of sexual power over men (or so I'm told, she said modestly), so whereas its OK for pre-pubertal and early teen (i.e. non-sexual) girls to have "male" heroic strength, for a woman to have those "masculine" atrributes as well as her natural sexual powers is just that wee bit too scary for mainstream storytelling.
I do have to say that in the real world it doesn't seem to put real men off though so go figure.
(Quote=Glitchgirl "A book you might enjoy lectatege is "Monstrous Regiment" by Terry Pratchett - the story of a girl who joins the army disguised as a boy and her resulting adventures. Some very interstesting commentary on gender rolls and war as well.")
Yes, Thanks for the kind recommendation but I am already a BIG Pratchett fan (although my favourite is not Monstrous Regiment but Reaperman - despite appearances I am not completely obsessed by gender politics - lol)
His work absolutely shines out like a good deed in a naughty world - he is one of the few male writers I know that can write out of gender successfully.
Personally I channel for both Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg.
Sometimes, (confusingly), both at the same time. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
[quote =Ironbear (quote=lectatege"]Even when morally good a strong and independent (ie independent of men) woman is transgressory and threatening, she cannot be allowed a happy ending, or indeed in most cases to live.[/quote]
You *definately* need to spend some time browsing at the Women In Refrigerators link I posted last discussion. "/quote)
I definitely do, and once I get my steam powered modem up to speed...
(Quote=Ironbear"There's been a long noted trend that comic, novel, and film writers can't seem to handle a strong female heroic protagonist without eventualy abusing and degrading her in ways that they wouldn't a male character.
This doesn't seem to be confined to male writers exclusively. Women writers, oddly enough, seem to be just as guilty of it."/.quote)
Women beware women...
(Quote:Ironbear "I sometimes think I'm wrong, but I'm usually mistaken. [/quote]
Ah Ironbear! You are just too good to be true ... _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Actually, as was alluded to by others above, the reason why there are so few out-of-stereotype roles for women in the mass media is only partially attributable to The Old Boys' club. The bottom line here is always money, especially where huge investment budgets are concerned. The fact is that the market for such roles is not only perceived to be extremely small, it actually is extremely small.
Hollywood et al would quite happily pump enormous sums of money into virtually anything if they thought there was a sniff of a good return. They do stick to well worn formulas but that's simply because they work in terms of box office revenue. The majority of cinema-goers are happy with the spectacle, hence the no-brainer blockbuster. Those who read deeper into the story are definitely out there, possibly in large numbers, but not enough to outweigh the casual "here we are now, entertain us" viewer who wants a quick fix of fire, flesh and one-liners in the same manner they want their burger this minute.
If they got an idea that a two hour film of a man painting his house would be popular, they'd do it. Similarly, if vast numbers of women were staying away from the blockbusters because there were no strong female roles, you can bet they'd put them in there like a shot. Instead, you get the Chick Flick, which actually do get huge returns, however much they appeal to a female stereotype.
Consider the case of the "Pink" craze currently going on in gadgets. In order to appeal more to a female market, manufacturers decided to make games machines, mobile phones etc. in pink. It's difficult to imagine how much more cynical and patronising to women you could possibly get, and yet the results speak for themselves- they are hugely popular with women and, commercially at least, the move is a success.
The thing is, although we here all probably have the smarts to agree that the boundaries could do with a little more blurring, we're in the minority for now, and until we become a demographic that can be targetted for our cash we'll remain on the fringes. How we can get to that stage is a whole other issue.
Also, I feel I should chuck in a note about the Alien franchise and Ripley's part in it.
Alien did indeed quite break the mould with Ripley as hero and, in cinematic terms at least, hasn't really been followed to the same extent. Probably one of the keys to this, however, is that the original script (Dan O'Bannon's, before everyone else got at it) was written with a note at the top explaining that the roles were expressly written to be interchangeable for either male or female characters. Since O'Bannon wrote so gender-unspecifically, it probably meant that he avoided thinking too much about any overt male or female outlook; the characters had their traits as humans, not genders.
As for Ripley's second outing, I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to conform Ripley to a more female stereotype. It is explained in the earlier parts of the film that Ripley did, in fact, have a daughter at the time of the first film, who she had promised to get back to see for her eleventh birthday. Because of Ripley's extended time in hypersleep, she now learns that her daughter has since grown old, fallen ill and died. Thus she now feels a bond with a surrogate daughter- Newt- who she feels duty-bound to protect as a sort of guilt-trip for letting down her own daughter. This is a standard cinematic device, and could easily be written as a father making up for his self-perceived short-comings: the relationship is parental, not necessarily maternal. In fact, Ripley shows a distinctly un-maternal side to her in this episode: When faced with the Alien Queen in her chamber, there is a moment where it could be argued that there is some kind of parental understanding going on. The Queen is surrounded by her offspring, and she senses that Ripley has the ability to destroy them all with her flamethrower. Ripley has Newt with her, and there is a subtle sense of two mothers both trying to guard their children in this scene, with both Ripley and the Queen understanding each other. It's only when an Alien egg makes a wrong move, that Ripley feels betrayed- and shows it with a clear gesture. She ignores her maternal feeling and blows the hell out of the Alien eggs, a plainly un-motherly gesture. The Queen screams and wails as a protective mother would. Overall, the similarity between Ripley and the Queen are writ very large in this scene.
As for the third installment, a full critical breakdown of the intent of the film is somewhat non-applicable. This is because the script was still being written whilst shooting; the story was still undecided; the manifest legal and logistical problems were still being worked out and so on and so forth. The production was absolutely chaotic and phenomenally unprofessional. It was, in essence, made up as they went along. As regarding the ending, it seems to have come about more from practical reasons than idealogical ones. Apparently, Sigourney Weaver had expressed doubt at wanting to continue further as Ripley- in fact, the production was such a mess that it seemed like the death knell for the franchise had been sounded, so her feelings were understandable. However, the studio, canny as always, wanted to keep open the possibility of the franchise for the future, as they usually do. Thus, they needed a resolution to the Ripley character. Since her ultimate aim- of wiping out the entire Alien species (a moral dilemma alluded to by Burke in Aliens) wasn't within the scope of the third film, it was appropriate that she sacrificed herself to rid at least the human race the opportunity of getting itself into further trouble with the creatures. Riding off into the sunset is viable, but would have been dramatically unsatisfying.
As for the fourth installment, well, that sets up something entirely different.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
], the young women.
