intro- discussing some of the more noticable and appealing stereotypes in the media and how they have changed, if they have
para1- looking at older movies, psycho for example where the women are shown as being weak and passive apart from the end
para2- looking at the old version of texas chainsaw massacre and comparing it with the newer version and looking at the final girl specifically and how the final girl is represented as being weak and passive in the older one and more physical in the newer version
para3- this paragraph will focus on the other side of the arguement, that stereotypes have not changed over time and remain the same as before, looking at movies like bend it like beckham and east is east
conclusion- summarising the points made in the essay and coming to a conclusion of whether they have changed over time.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Examine the reasons why some stereotypes within the media have changed over time
intro- going through some of the stereotypes and what effect they have on society has a whole (example of women, asians..etc)
para1- focussing on women in particular as it seems to be one of the more important stereotypes in the media, looking at specific examples over time ( james bond movies 1960-2008, looking at how women are shown)
para2- This paragraph will be focussing more on the stereotypes of asians and what has affected the stereotypes of asians and how drastically they have changed over time
para3- looking at older texts and what the stereotypes have been adapted in those adverts and movies
para4- looking at more contemporary texts and how they have chosen to represent certain groups of people and comparisons drawn with older texts.
conclusion- summarising the stereotypes and how they have changed in comparison with original stereotypes.
para1- focussing on women in particular as it seems to be one of the more important stereotypes in the media, looking at specific examples over time ( james bond movies 1960-2008, looking at how women are shown)
para2- This paragraph will be focussing more on the stereotypes of asians and what has affected the stereotypes of asians and how drastically they have changed over time
para3- looking at older texts and what the stereotypes have been adapted in those adverts and movies
para4- looking at more contemporary texts and how they have chosen to represent certain groups of people and comparisons drawn with older texts.
conclusion- summarising the stereotypes and how they have changed in comparison with original stereotypes.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Independent study final draft
“You think of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits”[1]
Historically, James Bond movies have confirmed Laura Mulvey's theory of the male gaze. Is that still the case today?
The 2006 movie Casino Royale represents women differently in comparison to the original Casino Royale (1967). The women in this movie are not depicted in the typical James Bond manner, and this more dominant female role is best shown through the character of Vesper Lynd, as she is seen as being ‘cut above the average Bond Girl’[2]. The more dominant role played by Vesper Lynd contrasts with the role played by Ursula Andress in Dr No (1962), who portrays the objectified female. Laura Mulvey’s theory of the ‘male gaze’ has become a big influence on the way of thinking of women and her views are expressed in her essay ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’. Within this essay, she discusses how women are seen as ‘the bearer of meaning and not the maker of meaning’[3] or perhaps better described by ‘women are not there to drive the narrative’[4]. This can be seen through various scenes in Bond movies especially scenes where women are required to dress or act ‘promiscuously’.
In the past, women in Bond movies have been ‘symbolically annihilated’[5] where men were totally dominant, most notably in Dr No (1962), in particular Ursula Andress’s iconic scene. In this scene, Andress walks seductively out of the water catching the ‘male gaze’ in the form of James Bond and the costume in this scene is particularly symbolic and this is an example of the ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’[6] concept in Mulvey’s theory, where the women is only there for visual pleasure. Her costume includes a bikini, which portrays the promiscuous persona of the Bond Girl, however she is also is equipped with a knife, which in terms of gender equality symbolizes ‘women as representation signify castration’[7], but at the same time is at conflict, with the knife representing a phallic symbol, which places emphasis on the patriarchal society within the media. Similarly in other Bond movies, women continue to be dominated by the ‘superior sex’ and this is exhibited through the nature of the relationship between Bond and Moneypenny, as Gauntlett describes their old flirtation as, ‘this kind of behaviour could qualify as sexual harassment’[8]. The way in which women are portrayed in the movie is separate from the way in which they are seen amongst the audience, as they are able to take any reading of the text they prefer. The physiological battle that women face in the media has become one of the major problems and as Greer puts it “every woman knows that she is a failure if she is not beautiful”[9] and this singular view is explaining the truth within the media, as all movies require good looking females, shown in Bond movies with the inclusion of Halle Berry, Eva Greene and Ursula Andress and this becomes a worry as women are not in Bond movies to ‘drive the narrative forward’[10] but only to seduce men and act as ‘eye candy’.
Looking at other genres of film, the fascination of having a beautiful woman in the movie is continued and this could form an argument of film institutions concentrating more on character looks rather than on the aesthetics of the movie. This can be seen in the 1960’s classic Cool Hand Luke (1967) with the car-wash scene, in which the female character is represented as promiscuous but intentionally provocative. Women in this time period were seen as ‘merely token females’[11] and were given no dominance in film and in Casino Royale, women continue to be stereotyped and dominated with specific reference to Bond girl, Caterina Murino who is left helpless in her demise. In this event, the clothing of the female is very symbolic as to how she is being represented, with her costume being low-cut revealing her cleavage and representing her as being promiscuous. Her constant seductive smiling to Bond reveals much about her role in the movie, as described by the Rolling Stones ‘a babe he takes back to his hotel room for a roll on the floor’[12].
Whether the producers and directors have subverted the representation of women, their intentions will remain to include a good-looking woman who will make Bond look good. Only until recent times has the role of the woman changed in Bond movies and it was made clear by movies such as Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day, as all of these movies included dominant females, however Eva Green has taken the representation of women in Bond movies to a new level, ‘Eva Green, is a cut above your average Bond girl’[13]. The first time we meet Eva Green is in the train representing the national treasury, which is a place of importance for a woman in modern ages. In the first scene including her, she creates an air of mystery around herself, as she is wearing black, which is a masculine colour and creates ambiguity about her. The Guardian describes her as being ‘no run of the mill Bond Girl’[14] and this is further reinforced with her battle of wits she has with Bond, who realizes that he she is ‘the equal of 007’[15] and finds it a challenge, as he has not come across this sort of challenge before. This scene in particular portrays today’s society, as men are at the top and have not been challenged before by women and now women are starting to rise in wealth and status, as seen by women playing the dominating roles such as Judi Dench in Casino Royale (2006) and Angelina Jolie in Tombraider.
One issue concerning the make-up of the female character lies within the gender of the producers and directors and with all of them being male, ‘the audience is forced to see the film from a male point of view, whatever gender is watching’[16]. A spokesperson for an actress was quoted by saying ‘all actresses had to perform a bedroom scene with Daniel’, gives a clear indication of the patriarchal society that is surrounding the media today, however the male directors have managed to give the female a more dominant role as it subverts the old stereotype of women only being any use for domesticated jobs such as cleaning. Women in the past were looked at as only being concerned with ‘cleaning and family’, however this movie shows different. The second wave of feminism also comes into effect here, as after the 1960’s through till the late 1970’s, women did not get the equality the thought they deserved and when they did, it started to reflect it in the movies and the movies with powerful women in them were in essence reflecting the zeitgeist.
Beauty was one of the reasons that some scenes were shot and they were seen to be objectifying women however; it does fall down to the audience’s interpretation of the movie. The scenes being focussed on are the scene including Ursula Andress and Halle Berry, as both were in identical scenes and can be contrasted with Daniel Craig’s scene in Casino Royale. Both women are dressed in bikinis which can be seen as provocative and also are carrying weapons in knives, which portray them as being a threat to male dominance as they ‘signify castration’[17]. The women in these scenes are the ‘figure in [the] landscape’[18], as they are the centre of attention in these scene but they are also being gazed upon by Bond, therefore reinforcing Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’[19]. These two symbolic scenes can be contrasted with a scene in Casino Royale, in which Bond is seen coming out of the ocean in a small pair of shorts and this can be said to be feeding into the ‘female gaze’[20], whereby a role reversal occurs and the male is being sexually objectified and in essence is being seen as a ‘merely token [male]’. This key scene in Casino Royale can be linked to the ‘new man’ and how men these days are sometimes forced to bring out their feminine sides or act become more sensitive, in essence ‘ a more acceptable and appealing version of masculinity’[21], which represents the attitude towards men regarding the ‘new man’ and also portraying the zeitgeist.
Bond has been the ‘figure in [the] landscape’[22] for the whole length of the series, showing the patriarchal society however, Bond has not and is not the most powerful person in the Bond series, as his boss ‘M’ is being played by a woman, Judi Dench. ‘M’ is the person in control and she makes her power felt to the men in Bond, especially Bond himself who she sees as a “cold hearted bastard”[23]. Scenes in the movie such as, when Bond has the tracking device planted in his arm is an example of ‘M’ exerting her power over Bond and bringing to the forefront the accumulated power of women over the past ten or twenty years, “we’ll know where you are”[24]. Scenes such as this one are there to show that the media and spy movies in particular are not overly controlled by men and that the female is able to be powerful in the media, and generally confirms to the up rise in powerful females in recent Bond movies, with Halle Berry and Eva Green leading the way and Gauntlett reinforces this shift in representation with ‘Although Bond changes little, the female characters have become more resourceful as the series has progressed’[25]. With women pushing the equality amongst the genders, the producers felt that it was important to show that the leading Bond girl Vesper Lynd was shown to be confident and self assured when it came to meeting with Bond. “I am the money”[26] is the first sentence spoken by Vesper Lynd as she first meets with Bond and it is very significant, as it shows her to be confident and by saying this, she is aware of how valuable she is to Bond, also connoting that women are very valuable to men in everyday life, not just in movies.
In previous James Bond movies, women have been given a voice and have been given more importance however in this latest movie women have been placed in positions of jeopardy for example, looking at the scene where Vesper Lynd has her hands tied behind her and is placed in the middle of the road. This could be a case of her being treated in a more sadistic manner to satisfy the audience’s generic expectations and in some cases the audiences misogyny. Historically, the Bond girl who is by the side of James Bond is always put in jeopardy, as in the context of the James Bond series; she is portrayed as ‘merely a token female’[27] and it can be argued that the directors have done nothing to subvert this stereotype from carrying on its path in demoralising the female gender.
Looking at Goldeneye (1995), the way in which women are being represented in that movie is very contrasting within the text, as there are two main women in the text, both of which are shown in contrasting ways. Natalia is shown to be the ‘damsel in distress’ figure even though she is portrayed as being intelligent and self assured, as shown by her job, working with computers in a society where she is surrounded by men. The other male counterpart, Xenia Onnatop, is represented in a complete contrasting manner, as she is shown to be the action female, with her being on the fight against good. Her power is shown through her aggressive nature, particularly when racing against James Bond, which usually is associated with men. Another side to her is shown, but this time it is shown through her sexually seductive nature, in which she is completely dominant over her male counterparts. Xenia is the perfect symbol of Mulvey’s theory of ‘women as representation signify castration’[28], as she literally attempts to dismantle her sex partners into submission, therefore exerting her power over males. In this genre of film, women are shown to be more powerful than normal, whereas in other genres such as the slasher genre, women are seen to be smarter and more durable, hence the ‘final girl’[29], so women in general in the media are more powerful and have more assertive and ‘to be reckoned with’ roles. However, this view is contrasted with the views and ideologies of Sharon Smith who argues that ‘the role of women in a film almost always revolves around her physical attraction and the mating games she plays with the male character’[30] which does represent the zeitgeist and can relate to specific scenes in Casino Royale such as, Bond taking Caterina Murino back to the hotel to play ‘mating games’[31]
One of the reasons for the male dominance and the objectification of women is because it lies within the character make up of James Bond, as from the start of the series, he has always been ‘fascinated with women’. In Dr No (1962), Bond who is being played by Sean Connery, keeps watch on Ursula Andress, as she becomes an iconic figure in the epic Bond series. The character make up of Bond has been kept throughout the series as has some characteristics of other characters. Ursula Andress being a ‘self-educated orphan girl’[32], proves a great make up of a strong minded and confident character, and this can be seen in the character of Vesper Lynd as well, as she is also an orphan child. Looking at similar scenes from Dr No and Die another Day, both Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan are constantly gazing at Ursula Andress and Halle Berry and this gazing at women in two different time periods, shows how similar MGM have tried to keep Bond’s character over a period of 40 years, as his character has attracted a huge following including younger generations of people. Looking at Casino Royale however, the character of James Bond has been slightly altered with as he is shown to be more mechanical and muscular however, the aesthetics of Bond have remained, ‘Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond’[33].
Audience play a major part in the success of the Bond series but also play huge parts in determining how women are being represented, as the audience are able to take an oppositional or preferred reading of the movie. All of the Bond movies have a vast following and all of the movies have a diverse target audience, with there being people who have followed from the beginning, to youngsters who want to be like Bond. The aesthetics of Bond have remained and that will appeal to the long time followers, ‘although Bond changes little’[34]. The more recent movies such as, Casino Royale and Die another Day on the other hand, would be attracting new members of the public because of the way in which women have been portrayed, which is ‘more resourceful’[35] and more dominant as the series as gone along. As well as the male segment of the audience having their hero in Bond, newer female members of the audience will also have their heroes, as they would want to be idealising strong female character such as, Halle Berry as ‘Jinx’ and Eva Green as ‘Vesper Lynd’. ‘M’, is the only woman who has played a dominant role throughout the movies she has appeared in and in the context of the movies, she is seen as the perfect role model for the female segment of the audience, as she dominates Bond and shows her power. “You are a sexist misogynistic dinosaur”[36] is the kind of power that she exerts over Bond and in the context of her role; she is the ‘maker of meaning’[37] and also the main portrayal of ‘castration’[38].
Another key factor in the women being objectified as sex objects is the fact that Casino Royale (2006) has not put enough emphasis on all of the gadgets, which have become an essential part of a Bond movie. It can be argued that some of the aesthetic pleasure has been lost and more concentration has been put on sexual beauty. However, the lack of spy equipment and gadgets is another reason as to why women have been given more dominance and more importance during the movie. Eva Green who plays Vesper Lynd has been given the responsibility of playing a more ‘resourceful’[39] role in the movie whereas 40 years back, Ursula Andress was given the ‘eye candy’ role whereby she was there to please males. The clothes and the props in Casino Royale are contrasting to the clothes and props in Dr No, whereby Eva Green is strong minded without the use of violence or weapons, whereas Ursula Andress is a symbolic representation of castration, as she is equipped with a knife.
Overall, Bond has managed to subvert Mulvey’s theory, as the way in which women are being represented has moved on and become more dominant and more hands on. Looking back to the first Bond movie in the epic series Dr No, it is made clear how far the character make up of the female has progressed throughout the series, most notably the Bond girl, who has been the main focus when it comes to women. The older movies were more traditional in stereotyping, as women were being subverted to the historical stereotypes of being weak, fragile and domesticated. The latest James Bond movie has been successful in subverting the historical stereotypes especially with the role of the Bond girl played by Vesper Lynd who subverts all of the labels that women were given before, such as weak and domesticated and dominated by a patriarchal society. Women being ‘symbolically annihilated’[40] has been evaporated by this performance by Eva Green, as she has carried the weight of women being objectified on her shoulders and she has succeeded in subverting the way in which women have been represented and has introduced a new outlook on the Bond girl.
Word count: 3280 words
Bibliography
Works cited
Books
Gauntlett, D. (2008). Media, Gender and Identity. New York: Routledge.
Greer, G. (1999). The Whole Woman. New York: Doubleday.
Gunter, B. (1995), Television and gender representation, London: John Libby
Journal. S, (1972) Women and film
Mackinnon, K. (2003). Representing Men: Maleness and Masculinity in the Media (Arnold Publication). London: A Hodder Arnold Publication.
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema: screen 16, pp 6-18
Tuchman, G. (1978), The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media
Turner, G. (2001). The Film Cultures Reader. New York: Routledge.
Internet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
(Guardian review of Casino Royale by Peter Bradshaw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._No_(film)
(Information page on Casino Royale including actors, directors and the plot of the text)
http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf
(An essay on whether or not there is a female gaze)
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html
(Notes on Laura Mulvey’s theory, the ‘male gaze’)
http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830§ion=review
(‘Casino Royale overview’, review of the text by channel 4)
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7349978/review/12450444/casino_royale
(‘Casino Royale’ review by Rolling Stones)
Moving image texts
Casino Royale (2006), directed by Martin Campbell
Die another Day (2002), directed by Lee Tamahori
Dr No (1962), directed by Terence Young
Cool hand Luke (1967), directed by Stuart Rosenberg
Works consulted
Books
Morley, D. (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (Comedia). New York: Routledge.
Clover, C. J. (1993). Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. London: Bfi Publishing
Bennett, T., & Woollacott, J. (1987). Bond and Beyond (Communications & Culture). New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Internet
http://www1.medialiteracy.com/representation.jsp
(Link to a website, which focuses on the representations of women and the general roles of gender, race and representation)
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/MC30820/represent.html
(Link to a website which focusses on the representations of different groups in the media and how they affect the media)
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/gaze/gaze.htm
(Notes on the male gaze, just giving an overview of the theory)
Moving image texts
Goldeneye (1995), directed by Martin Campbell
[1] Casino Royale (2006)
[2] Film 4 review of Casino Royale (2006)
[3] Mulvey Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[4] Ibid
[5] Tuchman Gaye, 1978, ‘The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media’
[6] Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’
[7] Ibid
[8] Gauntlett David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’ New York: Routlege
[9] Greer Germaine, (1999), ‘The whole woman’, London: Doubleday,
[10] Mulvey, Laura (1975), Visual pleasure and narrative cinema, pp6-18
[11] Gunter Barry, (1995), ‘Television and gender representation’, London: John Libby
[12] http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7349978/review/12450444/casino_royale
[13] http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830§ion=review
[14] http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
[15] http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830§ion=review&page=2#reviewnav
[16] Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’
[17] Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp6-18
[18] Turner, Graham, (1989:20), ‘The film cultures reader’ New York: Routlege
[19] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[20] http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf
[21] Mackinnon, Kenneth (2003), Representing men, p15
[22] Turner, Graham, (1989:20), ‘The film cultures reader’. New York: Routlege
[23] Casino Royale, (2006)
[24] Casino Royale, (2006)
[25] Gauntlett, David, (2002), Media, gender and identity, New York: Routlage, pg47
[26] Casino Royale, (2006)
[27] Gunter, Barry, (1995), ‘Television and gender representation’, London: John Libby
[28] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[29] Clover, Carol J. ‘Men, Women, and Chainsaws’. Princeton, pg34
[30] Sharon Smith journal (1972), ‘Women and film’
[31] Ibid
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._No_(film)
[33] http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
[34] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlege
[35] Ibid
[36] Casino Royale (2006)
[37] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[38] Ibid
[39] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlege
[40] Tuchman Gaye, 1978, ‘The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media’
Historically, James Bond movies have confirmed Laura Mulvey's theory of the male gaze. Is that still the case today?
The 2006 movie Casino Royale represents women differently in comparison to the original Casino Royale (1967). The women in this movie are not depicted in the typical James Bond manner, and this more dominant female role is best shown through the character of Vesper Lynd, as she is seen as being ‘cut above the average Bond Girl’[2]. The more dominant role played by Vesper Lynd contrasts with the role played by Ursula Andress in Dr No (1962), who portrays the objectified female. Laura Mulvey’s theory of the ‘male gaze’ has become a big influence on the way of thinking of women and her views are expressed in her essay ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’. Within this essay, she discusses how women are seen as ‘the bearer of meaning and not the maker of meaning’[3] or perhaps better described by ‘women are not there to drive the narrative’[4]. This can be seen through various scenes in Bond movies especially scenes where women are required to dress or act ‘promiscuously’.
In the past, women in Bond movies have been ‘symbolically annihilated’[5] where men were totally dominant, most notably in Dr No (1962), in particular Ursula Andress’s iconic scene. In this scene, Andress walks seductively out of the water catching the ‘male gaze’ in the form of James Bond and the costume in this scene is particularly symbolic and this is an example of the ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’[6] concept in Mulvey’s theory, where the women is only there for visual pleasure. Her costume includes a bikini, which portrays the promiscuous persona of the Bond Girl, however she is also is equipped with a knife, which in terms of gender equality symbolizes ‘women as representation signify castration’[7], but at the same time is at conflict, with the knife representing a phallic symbol, which places emphasis on the patriarchal society within the media. Similarly in other Bond movies, women continue to be dominated by the ‘superior sex’ and this is exhibited through the nature of the relationship between Bond and Moneypenny, as Gauntlett describes their old flirtation as, ‘this kind of behaviour could qualify as sexual harassment’[8]. The way in which women are portrayed in the movie is separate from the way in which they are seen amongst the audience, as they are able to take any reading of the text they prefer. The physiological battle that women face in the media has become one of the major problems and as Greer puts it “every woman knows that she is a failure if she is not beautiful”[9] and this singular view is explaining the truth within the media, as all movies require good looking females, shown in Bond movies with the inclusion of Halle Berry, Eva Greene and Ursula Andress and this becomes a worry as women are not in Bond movies to ‘drive the narrative forward’[10] but only to seduce men and act as ‘eye candy’.
Looking at other genres of film, the fascination of having a beautiful woman in the movie is continued and this could form an argument of film institutions concentrating more on character looks rather than on the aesthetics of the movie. This can be seen in the 1960’s classic Cool Hand Luke (1967) with the car-wash scene, in which the female character is represented as promiscuous but intentionally provocative. Women in this time period were seen as ‘merely token females’[11] and were given no dominance in film and in Casino Royale, women continue to be stereotyped and dominated with specific reference to Bond girl, Caterina Murino who is left helpless in her demise. In this event, the clothing of the female is very symbolic as to how she is being represented, with her costume being low-cut revealing her cleavage and representing her as being promiscuous. Her constant seductive smiling to Bond reveals much about her role in the movie, as described by the Rolling Stones ‘a babe he takes back to his hotel room for a roll on the floor’[12].
Whether the producers and directors have subverted the representation of women, their intentions will remain to include a good-looking woman who will make Bond look good. Only until recent times has the role of the woman changed in Bond movies and it was made clear by movies such as Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day, as all of these movies included dominant females, however Eva Green has taken the representation of women in Bond movies to a new level, ‘Eva Green, is a cut above your average Bond girl’[13]. The first time we meet Eva Green is in the train representing the national treasury, which is a place of importance for a woman in modern ages. In the first scene including her, she creates an air of mystery around herself, as she is wearing black, which is a masculine colour and creates ambiguity about her. The Guardian describes her as being ‘no run of the mill Bond Girl’[14] and this is further reinforced with her battle of wits she has with Bond, who realizes that he she is ‘the equal of 007’[15] and finds it a challenge, as he has not come across this sort of challenge before. This scene in particular portrays today’s society, as men are at the top and have not been challenged before by women and now women are starting to rise in wealth and status, as seen by women playing the dominating roles such as Judi Dench in Casino Royale (2006) and Angelina Jolie in Tombraider.
One issue concerning the make-up of the female character lies within the gender of the producers and directors and with all of them being male, ‘the audience is forced to see the film from a male point of view, whatever gender is watching’[16]. A spokesperson for an actress was quoted by saying ‘all actresses had to perform a bedroom scene with Daniel’, gives a clear indication of the patriarchal society that is surrounding the media today, however the male directors have managed to give the female a more dominant role as it subverts the old stereotype of women only being any use for domesticated jobs such as cleaning. Women in the past were looked at as only being concerned with ‘cleaning and family’, however this movie shows different. The second wave of feminism also comes into effect here, as after the 1960’s through till the late 1970’s, women did not get the equality the thought they deserved and when they did, it started to reflect it in the movies and the movies with powerful women in them were in essence reflecting the zeitgeist.
Beauty was one of the reasons that some scenes were shot and they were seen to be objectifying women however; it does fall down to the audience’s interpretation of the movie. The scenes being focussed on are the scene including Ursula Andress and Halle Berry, as both were in identical scenes and can be contrasted with Daniel Craig’s scene in Casino Royale. Both women are dressed in bikinis which can be seen as provocative and also are carrying weapons in knives, which portray them as being a threat to male dominance as they ‘signify castration’[17]. The women in these scenes are the ‘figure in [the] landscape’[18], as they are the centre of attention in these scene but they are also being gazed upon by Bond, therefore reinforcing Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’[19]. These two symbolic scenes can be contrasted with a scene in Casino Royale, in which Bond is seen coming out of the ocean in a small pair of shorts and this can be said to be feeding into the ‘female gaze’[20], whereby a role reversal occurs and the male is being sexually objectified and in essence is being seen as a ‘merely token [male]’. This key scene in Casino Royale can be linked to the ‘new man’ and how men these days are sometimes forced to bring out their feminine sides or act become more sensitive, in essence ‘ a more acceptable and appealing version of masculinity’[21], which represents the attitude towards men regarding the ‘new man’ and also portraying the zeitgeist.
Bond has been the ‘figure in [the] landscape’[22] for the whole length of the series, showing the patriarchal society however, Bond has not and is not the most powerful person in the Bond series, as his boss ‘M’ is being played by a woman, Judi Dench. ‘M’ is the person in control and she makes her power felt to the men in Bond, especially Bond himself who she sees as a “cold hearted bastard”[23]. Scenes in the movie such as, when Bond has the tracking device planted in his arm is an example of ‘M’ exerting her power over Bond and bringing to the forefront the accumulated power of women over the past ten or twenty years, “we’ll know where you are”[24]. Scenes such as this one are there to show that the media and spy movies in particular are not overly controlled by men and that the female is able to be powerful in the media, and generally confirms to the up rise in powerful females in recent Bond movies, with Halle Berry and Eva Green leading the way and Gauntlett reinforces this shift in representation with ‘Although Bond changes little, the female characters have become more resourceful as the series has progressed’[25]. With women pushing the equality amongst the genders, the producers felt that it was important to show that the leading Bond girl Vesper Lynd was shown to be confident and self assured when it came to meeting with Bond. “I am the money”[26] is the first sentence spoken by Vesper Lynd as she first meets with Bond and it is very significant, as it shows her to be confident and by saying this, she is aware of how valuable she is to Bond, also connoting that women are very valuable to men in everyday life, not just in movies.
In previous James Bond movies, women have been given a voice and have been given more importance however in this latest movie women have been placed in positions of jeopardy for example, looking at the scene where Vesper Lynd has her hands tied behind her and is placed in the middle of the road. This could be a case of her being treated in a more sadistic manner to satisfy the audience’s generic expectations and in some cases the audiences misogyny. Historically, the Bond girl who is by the side of James Bond is always put in jeopardy, as in the context of the James Bond series; she is portrayed as ‘merely a token female’[27] and it can be argued that the directors have done nothing to subvert this stereotype from carrying on its path in demoralising the female gender.
Looking at Goldeneye (1995), the way in which women are being represented in that movie is very contrasting within the text, as there are two main women in the text, both of which are shown in contrasting ways. Natalia is shown to be the ‘damsel in distress’ figure even though she is portrayed as being intelligent and self assured, as shown by her job, working with computers in a society where she is surrounded by men. The other male counterpart, Xenia Onnatop, is represented in a complete contrasting manner, as she is shown to be the action female, with her being on the fight against good. Her power is shown through her aggressive nature, particularly when racing against James Bond, which usually is associated with men. Another side to her is shown, but this time it is shown through her sexually seductive nature, in which she is completely dominant over her male counterparts. Xenia is the perfect symbol of Mulvey’s theory of ‘women as representation signify castration’[28], as she literally attempts to dismantle her sex partners into submission, therefore exerting her power over males. In this genre of film, women are shown to be more powerful than normal, whereas in other genres such as the slasher genre, women are seen to be smarter and more durable, hence the ‘final girl’[29], so women in general in the media are more powerful and have more assertive and ‘to be reckoned with’ roles. However, this view is contrasted with the views and ideologies of Sharon Smith who argues that ‘the role of women in a film almost always revolves around her physical attraction and the mating games she plays with the male character’[30] which does represent the zeitgeist and can relate to specific scenes in Casino Royale such as, Bond taking Caterina Murino back to the hotel to play ‘mating games’[31]
One of the reasons for the male dominance and the objectification of women is because it lies within the character make up of James Bond, as from the start of the series, he has always been ‘fascinated with women’. In Dr No (1962), Bond who is being played by Sean Connery, keeps watch on Ursula Andress, as she becomes an iconic figure in the epic Bond series. The character make up of Bond has been kept throughout the series as has some characteristics of other characters. Ursula Andress being a ‘self-educated orphan girl’[32], proves a great make up of a strong minded and confident character, and this can be seen in the character of Vesper Lynd as well, as she is also an orphan child. Looking at similar scenes from Dr No and Die another Day, both Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan are constantly gazing at Ursula Andress and Halle Berry and this gazing at women in two different time periods, shows how similar MGM have tried to keep Bond’s character over a period of 40 years, as his character has attracted a huge following including younger generations of people. Looking at Casino Royale however, the character of James Bond has been slightly altered with as he is shown to be more mechanical and muscular however, the aesthetics of Bond have remained, ‘Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond’[33].
Audience play a major part in the success of the Bond series but also play huge parts in determining how women are being represented, as the audience are able to take an oppositional or preferred reading of the movie. All of the Bond movies have a vast following and all of the movies have a diverse target audience, with there being people who have followed from the beginning, to youngsters who want to be like Bond. The aesthetics of Bond have remained and that will appeal to the long time followers, ‘although Bond changes little’[34]. The more recent movies such as, Casino Royale and Die another Day on the other hand, would be attracting new members of the public because of the way in which women have been portrayed, which is ‘more resourceful’[35] and more dominant as the series as gone along. As well as the male segment of the audience having their hero in Bond, newer female members of the audience will also have their heroes, as they would want to be idealising strong female character such as, Halle Berry as ‘Jinx’ and Eva Green as ‘Vesper Lynd’. ‘M’, is the only woman who has played a dominant role throughout the movies she has appeared in and in the context of the movies, she is seen as the perfect role model for the female segment of the audience, as she dominates Bond and shows her power. “You are a sexist misogynistic dinosaur”[36] is the kind of power that she exerts over Bond and in the context of her role; she is the ‘maker of meaning’[37] and also the main portrayal of ‘castration’[38].
Another key factor in the women being objectified as sex objects is the fact that Casino Royale (2006) has not put enough emphasis on all of the gadgets, which have become an essential part of a Bond movie. It can be argued that some of the aesthetic pleasure has been lost and more concentration has been put on sexual beauty. However, the lack of spy equipment and gadgets is another reason as to why women have been given more dominance and more importance during the movie. Eva Green who plays Vesper Lynd has been given the responsibility of playing a more ‘resourceful’[39] role in the movie whereas 40 years back, Ursula Andress was given the ‘eye candy’ role whereby she was there to please males. The clothes and the props in Casino Royale are contrasting to the clothes and props in Dr No, whereby Eva Green is strong minded without the use of violence or weapons, whereas Ursula Andress is a symbolic representation of castration, as she is equipped with a knife.
Overall, Bond has managed to subvert Mulvey’s theory, as the way in which women are being represented has moved on and become more dominant and more hands on. Looking back to the first Bond movie in the epic series Dr No, it is made clear how far the character make up of the female has progressed throughout the series, most notably the Bond girl, who has been the main focus when it comes to women. The older movies were more traditional in stereotyping, as women were being subverted to the historical stereotypes of being weak, fragile and domesticated. The latest James Bond movie has been successful in subverting the historical stereotypes especially with the role of the Bond girl played by Vesper Lynd who subverts all of the labels that women were given before, such as weak and domesticated and dominated by a patriarchal society. Women being ‘symbolically annihilated’[40] has been evaporated by this performance by Eva Green, as she has carried the weight of women being objectified on her shoulders and she has succeeded in subverting the way in which women have been represented and has introduced a new outlook on the Bond girl.
Word count: 3280 words
Bibliography
Works cited
Books
Gauntlett, D. (2008). Media, Gender and Identity. New York: Routledge.
Greer, G. (1999). The Whole Woman. New York: Doubleday.
Gunter, B. (1995), Television and gender representation, London: John Libby
Journal. S, (1972) Women and film
Mackinnon, K. (2003). Representing Men: Maleness and Masculinity in the Media (Arnold Publication). London: A Hodder Arnold Publication.
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema: screen 16, pp 6-18
Tuchman, G. (1978), The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media
Turner, G. (2001). The Film Cultures Reader. New York: Routledge.
Internet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
(Guardian review of Casino Royale by Peter Bradshaw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._No_(film)
(Information page on Casino Royale including actors, directors and the plot of the text)
http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf
(An essay on whether or not there is a female gaze)
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html
(Notes on Laura Mulvey’s theory, the ‘male gaze’)
http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830§ion=review
(‘Casino Royale overview’, review of the text by channel 4)
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7349978/review/12450444/casino_royale
(‘Casino Royale’ review by Rolling Stones)
Moving image texts
Casino Royale (2006), directed by Martin Campbell
Die another Day (2002), directed by Lee Tamahori
Dr No (1962), directed by Terence Young
Cool hand Luke (1967), directed by Stuart Rosenberg
Works consulted
Books
Morley, D. (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (Comedia). New York: Routledge.
Clover, C. J. (1993). Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. London: Bfi Publishing
Bennett, T., & Woollacott, J. (1987). Bond and Beyond (Communications & Culture). New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Internet
http://www1.medialiteracy.com/representation.jsp
(Link to a website, which focuses on the representations of women and the general roles of gender, race and representation)
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/MC30820/represent.html
(Link to a website which focusses on the representations of different groups in the media and how they affect the media)
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/gaze/gaze.htm
(Notes on the male gaze, just giving an overview of the theory)
Moving image texts
Goldeneye (1995), directed by Martin Campbell
[1] Casino Royale (2006)
[2] Film 4 review of Casino Royale (2006)
[3] Mulvey Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[4] Ibid
[5] Tuchman Gaye, 1978, ‘The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media’
[6] Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’
[7] Ibid
[8] Gauntlett David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’ New York: Routlege
[9] Greer Germaine, (1999), ‘The whole woman’, London: Doubleday,
[10] Mulvey, Laura (1975), Visual pleasure and narrative cinema, pp6-18
[11] Gunter Barry, (1995), ‘Television and gender representation’, London: John Libby
[12] http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7349978/review/12450444/casino_royale
[13] http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830§ion=review
[14] http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
[15] http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830§ion=review&page=2#reviewnav
[16] Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’
[17] Mulvey, Laura (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp6-18
[18] Turner, Graham, (1989:20), ‘The film cultures reader’ New York: Routlege
[19] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[20] http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf
[21] Mackinnon, Kenneth (2003), Representing men, p15
[22] Turner, Graham, (1989:20), ‘The film cultures reader’. New York: Routlege
[23] Casino Royale, (2006)
[24] Casino Royale, (2006)
[25] Gauntlett, David, (2002), Media, gender and identity, New York: Routlage, pg47
[26] Casino Royale, (2006)
[27] Gunter, Barry, (1995), ‘Television and gender representation’, London: John Libby
[28] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[29] Clover, Carol J. ‘Men, Women, and Chainsaws’. Princeton, pg34
[30] Sharon Smith journal (1972), ‘Women and film’
[31] Ibid
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._No_(film)
[33] http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
[34] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlege
[35] Ibid
[36] Casino Royale (2006)
[37] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[38] Ibid
[39] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlege
[40] Tuchman Gaye, 1978, ‘The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media’
Monday, 20 April 2009
Genre texts have sometimes been criticised for being predictable and unimaginative. Discuss
Introduction: Going through certain famous and well known slasher movies and explain what separates them apart from others and how they differ.
Para 1: Talk about the changes in target audiences and audiences generic expectations in the different time periods of slasher films.
Para 2: Audience expectations would change throughout time so the genre would need to as well which it does in the 90s (more advanced, in 1980's aswell with nightmare on elm street)
Para 3: Compare the codes conventions and iconography of Halloween/ nightmare on elm street (70s/80s slasher ) to post modern scream and scary movie.
Para 4: Whether changes in the genre and films reflect the zeitgeist of the 80s and 90s especially in reference to it being to predictable i.e feminism bringing out more fighting qualities in the final girl
Para 5: discuss the differences between older slasher movies and current movies and decide whether or not the differences are enough to make movies now less predictable.
Conclusion: I think that for a while they were guilty of becoming dull and predictable especially for a period in the late 70s however, changed in the 80s because of other elements coming along like the supernatural and zombie elements coming into effect.
Para 1: Talk about the changes in target audiences and audiences generic expectations in the different time periods of slasher films.
Para 2: Audience expectations would change throughout time so the genre would need to as well which it does in the 90s (more advanced, in 1980's aswell with nightmare on elm street)
Para 3: Compare the codes conventions and iconography of Halloween/ nightmare on elm street (70s/80s slasher ) to post modern scream and scary movie.
Para 4: Whether changes in the genre and films reflect the zeitgeist of the 80s and 90s especially in reference to it being to predictable i.e feminism bringing out more fighting qualities in the final girl
Para 5: discuss the differences between older slasher movies and current movies and decide whether or not the differences are enough to make movies now less predictable.
Conclusion: I think that for a while they were guilty of becoming dull and predictable especially for a period in the late 70s however, changed in the 80s because of other elements coming along like the supernatural and zombie elements coming into effect.
'Genres must adapt in order to survive'. Discuss
Intro: introduce the slasher genre, and how it has to change to survive, eg
P1: audience generic expectations, what they generally expect from the movie or genre as a whole
P2: technology- the difference in the time period and the resources available to the production team
P3: changes in society – ideologies, values and representation/ eg, the era of the second wave of feminism changed everything. Eg ,from being subservient and controlled in Psycho to the protagonist role in Switchblade Romance. Phallic symbols are needed to ensure the woman has complete power.
P4: censorship on channels or different times when showing, censoring certain aspects of the movie.
P5: any other changes that have to occur to make the genre adapt
Conclusion: genres have to adapt because society and their expectations have change, therefore in order to make a profit, the institution has to appeal and try to attract an audience
P1: audience generic expectations, what they generally expect from the movie or genre as a whole
P2: technology- the difference in the time period and the resources available to the production team
P3: changes in society – ideologies, values and representation/ eg, the era of the second wave of feminism changed everything. Eg ,from being subservient and controlled in Psycho to the protagonist role in Switchblade Romance. Phallic symbols are needed to ensure the woman has complete power.
P4: censorship on channels or different times when showing, censoring certain aspects of the movie.
P5: any other changes that have to occur to make the genre adapt
Conclusion: genres have to adapt because society and their expectations have change, therefore in order to make a profit, the institution has to appeal and try to attract an audience
How do genres adapt to changing social, economical and political contexts?
Intro- Introducing the slasher genre, maybe a few general conventions of the slasher genre and talk a little bit about the current SHEP aspects affecting the media.
p1- Talk about the SHEP aspects in more depth and discuss what effect the social contexts would have on the genre, for example the women in society have been making an uprise for a number of years and it shows in slasher movies with 'the final girl'.
p2- Moving on to the economical contexts of todays world and discussing what the 'credit crunch' will do for the media (change the budgets and resources) for example, some current movies may use previous resources and technology because budgets are low.
p3- Moving onto how the political contexts would affect the genre of slasher movies, however it is more difficult to affect the genre with politics because of the genre doesn't target politicians.
p4- Perhaps talk about historical with previous slasher movies having an effect on current institutions.
Conclusion- The genre of the slasher movie has changed in relation to these contexts because of the economic effect (the money), the social because of audience generic expectations, so therefore the institution has to change their movies to adapt to current situations.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
texas chainsaw massacre comparative essay
Texas chainsaw massacre (1974) was one of the first slasher movies that were made famous because of their explicit and visual scenes from killing the victims to cutting off various body parts. This movie brought about the infamous ‘leather face’ for his unusual face features and also brought about the fascination with the chainsaw and landmarked it as a symbol of the slasher genre. The 2003 version was responsible for starting a rebirth of the legend that was ‘Texas chainsaw massacre’ and revitalised the concept of the chainsaw and the character of ‘leather face’. The main difference between the two movies was the change in the technology and the more advance creativity that was used in making the movie. The newer movie was made to be more gruesome as it showed graphic images of the injuries and the killings taking place.
The lighting in both movies is mostly natural lighting because of the emphasis placed on the authenticity, particularly in the original version, whereas the newer version used more of a mix between natural lighting and low key lighting. The low key lighting used in the newer version is there to create the ‘scary’ and the intense atmosphere whereas, the natural lighting is there to create the authentic look for the audience. Some scenes in particular have used the different lighting to very good effect with the scenes at the beginning in the vans being drawn together by the natural lighting. The beginnings of both movies are exactly the same with a group of young people travelling in a van in the middle of nowhere, looking for somewhere to find shelter. This plot at the starting is there to raise the imagery of fun with friends being together and joking with each other however, the fact that they are travelling in the middle of nowhere raises the awareness of negativity and warns the audience that something is about to happen. The narrative in the original begins to change when we get the first glimpse of a maniac who is at the side of the road and enters the van, showing no awareness of surroundings. The scene when the maniac cuts his own hand is the first sighting of things going strange and it represents the first instant of good vs. evil.
Iconography in both movies is very significant with there being many things that make this movie in particular very famous and very noticeable such as the leather face mask, the chainsaw that is used as the main weapon and the house standing in the landscape by itself providing the atmosphere needed to bring the audience into action and create a more visceral affect. The more physical and visceral effect would be more affective amongst an audience that is new to slasher films rather than an audience who have already seen various slasher movies and have experienced this behaviour before. The chainsaw being included in the movie has been a revelation but has also proved to be unique as no other slasher movie has a weapon as loud or as large as this movie however, it has proved to be a big hit rather than being strange because of the adrenaline that comes along with the sound of the chainsaw.
The special affects in this movie have lifted this movie from what was a old movie with ordinary effects to a movie which has used special effects to a new height, especially in the areas like the leather face mask, the connotations of the weapon and the setting, paying particular attention to the night scene where the light is used to good affect to add more watch-ability to the scene. This movie’s killing scenes in particular are unusual of a slasher film, as a lot of noise is made right before the killings which is unusual as the killings are supposed by done quietly and very discretely, compared with other slasher movies where the killings are done with much less noise, as the killers are more undercover and the silence adds a more sinister side to the killings.
The roles played by the characters go along with the generic expectations that the audience members would have of the movie with there being the psycho killer who is out to kill innocent people and then you have the bad people who have sex, who end up getting killed and then you have the final girl who in the 2003 version is played by a now experienced actor, Jessica Beil. Having the killer and the final girl at the end of the movie creates and moves the narrative along with the movie as a whole and creates an opposition as well. The role of the final girl has been given more importance because of Carol Clover’s book, ‘Men, women and chainsaws’, which is a book which is specifically derived to cater to the needs of the slasher genre. The final girl has become such as big part in slasher movies because of the fact that it creates an opposition and also because it makes a change from the men being in control throughout the movies, it gives the women power over the villain who are males.
One of the major changes between the two sets of characters was the willingness not to give up on life and carry on fighting until they died. In the 1974 version it seemed that not one member of the group put up a decent fight to survive and all died in weak and feeble circumstances. In the old movie, the killer was killing everyone with ease as no one was trying to put a fight even the final girl was feeble and very weak towards the end and in contrast to the new one, the final girl puts up more of a fight to save her life and it shows through her behaviour being very anxious and very on edge to show that she has put a price on her life and is willing to do anything to save herself.
The lighting in both movies is mostly natural lighting because of the emphasis placed on the authenticity, particularly in the original version, whereas the newer version used more of a mix between natural lighting and low key lighting. The low key lighting used in the newer version is there to create the ‘scary’ and the intense atmosphere whereas, the natural lighting is there to create the authentic look for the audience. Some scenes in particular have used the different lighting to very good effect with the scenes at the beginning in the vans being drawn together by the natural lighting. The beginnings of both movies are exactly the same with a group of young people travelling in a van in the middle of nowhere, looking for somewhere to find shelter. This plot at the starting is there to raise the imagery of fun with friends being together and joking with each other however, the fact that they are travelling in the middle of nowhere raises the awareness of negativity and warns the audience that something is about to happen. The narrative in the original begins to change when we get the first glimpse of a maniac who is at the side of the road and enters the van, showing no awareness of surroundings. The scene when the maniac cuts his own hand is the first sighting of things going strange and it represents the first instant of good vs. evil.
Iconography in both movies is very significant with there being many things that make this movie in particular very famous and very noticeable such as the leather face mask, the chainsaw that is used as the main weapon and the house standing in the landscape by itself providing the atmosphere needed to bring the audience into action and create a more visceral affect. The more physical and visceral effect would be more affective amongst an audience that is new to slasher films rather than an audience who have already seen various slasher movies and have experienced this behaviour before. The chainsaw being included in the movie has been a revelation but has also proved to be unique as no other slasher movie has a weapon as loud or as large as this movie however, it has proved to be a big hit rather than being strange because of the adrenaline that comes along with the sound of the chainsaw.
The special affects in this movie have lifted this movie from what was a old movie with ordinary effects to a movie which has used special effects to a new height, especially in the areas like the leather face mask, the connotations of the weapon and the setting, paying particular attention to the night scene where the light is used to good affect to add more watch-ability to the scene. This movie’s killing scenes in particular are unusual of a slasher film, as a lot of noise is made right before the killings which is unusual as the killings are supposed by done quietly and very discretely, compared with other slasher movies where the killings are done with much less noise, as the killers are more undercover and the silence adds a more sinister side to the killings.
The roles played by the characters go along with the generic expectations that the audience members would have of the movie with there being the psycho killer who is out to kill innocent people and then you have the bad people who have sex, who end up getting killed and then you have the final girl who in the 2003 version is played by a now experienced actor, Jessica Beil. Having the killer and the final girl at the end of the movie creates and moves the narrative along with the movie as a whole and creates an opposition as well. The role of the final girl has been given more importance because of Carol Clover’s book, ‘Men, women and chainsaws’, which is a book which is specifically derived to cater to the needs of the slasher genre. The final girl has become such as big part in slasher movies because of the fact that it creates an opposition and also because it makes a change from the men being in control throughout the movies, it gives the women power over the villain who are males.
One of the major changes between the two sets of characters was the willingness not to give up on life and carry on fighting until they died. In the 1974 version it seemed that not one member of the group put up a decent fight to survive and all died in weak and feeble circumstances. In the old movie, the killer was killing everyone with ease as no one was trying to put a fight even the final girl was feeble and very weak towards the end and in contrast to the new one, the final girl puts up more of a fight to save her life and it shows through her behaviour being very anxious and very on edge to show that she has put a price on her life and is willing to do anything to save herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)