final-revised

The commodification of the strong woman and the open
texts of Hollywood science fiction.
Laurence Prieto
Student No. 12617244
Final Year Project
BA Film and Media
1 May 2013

2
Contents Page
1. Introduction 3
2. The Science Fiction Genre and the Female Role 6
3. Science Fiction Film Narratives as Open Texts 11
4. New Hollywood Marketing 14
5. Commodification Processes in Science Fiction 15
6. Case Study 1 – Sarah Connor and the Terminator 21
7. Case Study 2 – Ellen Ripley and the Alien 27
8. Conclusions 34
Bibliography 37

3
The commodification of the strong female character and the open texts of
Hollywood science fiction film.
Introduction
In a cyclic pattern, Hollywood commodifies material for narratives - original
novels, real events and people – and in turn blamed for contributing to the
corruptive forces of commodification in mass culture. In many instances
Hollywood uses stereotypes and the commodification of material to accelerate
identification for time economy (while also benefiting from the
commercialization) yet due to its narrative time and space displacement, the
commodifications in science fiction film have the ability to challenge the
dominant ideology, promoting images and narratives portraying anti-
establishment ideas or oppositional comment on contemporary societies’
issues. However, the oppositional or negotiated ideals it fosters are
counterbalanced by readings, which temper any progressive elements with
reassurances to the dominant culture. These heavily contradictory narratives
arguably result in the creation of an open text in which the complexity of the
numerous readings has the ability to undermine the stability of the whole
feature. These contradictions may compromise representations within these
subversive texts and raise the question that they are simply lip service to the
audience as Hollywood continues to pursue profit, appearing topical while
appeasing the widest possible audience.
A particular instance that well illustrates the contradictions resulting from the
tensions between the establishment that is Hollywood and its desire to meet

4
market forces is that of the representation of the strong female. From early
Hollywood production, the power of the female image has been realised as a
product and the viewer ‘a consumer of idealised images of the femininity on the
screen’ (Stacy 1994:183). Women’s roles in different genres – for instance the
Film Noir femme fatale or the horror film’s final girl (Clover, 1992) – will be
commodified through a different set of parameters and although by definition
not necessarily negative representations, they would generally be reduced to
objects by the male gaze (Mulvey, 1975).1 Due to its distance from the
contemporary world science fiction has a greater capacity for oppositional
representations and the female character commodification in the genre is able
to show a stronger female than may be expected in other genres, such as
Ripley in Alien (1979) Sarah Connor in The Terminator (1984) Dana Scully in
The X-Files (1993-2002) or Trinity in The Matrix (1999) yet this does not mean
the gaze is abandoned for all characters, see the hyper-sexualised Sil in
Species (1985) or Aeon in Aeon Flux (2005).
Within science fiction commodification will adhere to different forces than other
genres taking the form of: location displacement, time displacement, technology
(innovation of and position to), the hybrid body or the displacement of the Other
leading to the usurping of the gaze. They will also be influenced by real world
factors commodified by a science fiction trope – Sarah Connor’s reproductive
future is revelled to her by time traveller/lover Reese. It is in these twists of
commodification that the open texts of science fiction appear and can be
1 This view has been criticised numerous times, no more so than by Mulvey herself,
but for this establishing argument the simple premise of the existence of a gaze is
useful. Particular see Silverman (1981), Mulvey (1981), Neale (1983) Kaplan
(1983), or De Lauretis (1985).

5
exploited, leading to contradictions and oppositional reading. On the other
hand, we must be wary of the authenticity of these seemingly open text’s origins
as in allowing the maximisation of audience interest and interpretation
commercial gain is increased.
As a business, market forces run Hollywood forcing it to operate within such
contradiction: a profit-motivated industry but also the liberal ‘dream factory’.
Stars label themselves liberal but it is corporate funding and capitalist ideals
that finance films and as such Hollywood can never be expected to accept too
radical ideas. Hollywood thus finds itself in positions of contradiction by
appearing modern, progressive, liberal and anti-establishment while
simultaneously promoting individualism and maintaining the conservative
capitalist agenda of the institutionalised dominant western ideologies. Yet while
Hollywood maintained the dominant ideological resolution would be ultimately
adhered to around any rebellious text, the mere raising of such images and
possibilities within the popular culture may be enough to produce a cognitive
dissonance in the audience. On the other hand the development of the open
text could itself be an illusion manipulated by Hollywood to give the appearance
of choice. The evidence for this can be seen in the methods and systems of
commodification through the marketing and promotion, which although supply
the viewer with digressions for alternative reading, does so in a predefined and
structured way: how a trailer is cut, what the product tie-ins are, promotional
artwork, merchandise, star appearances or the importance given to special
effects. Within this process of promotion we can also situate the
commodification of the strong female character. Such contradictions inherent in

6
science fiction narratives all contribute to question the authenticity and stability
of the genre, as Hollywood is forced to entertain such contradictory texts to
maximize profit while risking sowing the seeds of discontent to a film literate
and ideologically cynical audience at the possible expense of the whole
narrative failing.
To examine the commodification of the strong female and to what extent the
contradictions and binary layers of interpretation undermine the narrative I will
begin by addressing science fiction film and the role of the female character and
subsequently at how these texts may be interpreted as open. I will then analyse
the importance of marketing and the commodification process in the science
fiction narrative. To then elucidate the commodified strong female I will provide
case studies of two critically proclaimed progressive characters, Ellen Ripley
(Sigourney Weaver) in Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986) and Sarah Connor (Linda
Hamilton) from The Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
(T2). I revisit these examples as their commodification produced the prototype
strong female character in Hollywood science fiction, and they are still the
benchmark to which progressive characters are measured, both male and
female. This recognition, even after such time has elapsed, is evidence of the
questionable effectiveness of their progressive characteristics, however
genuine, at undermining dominant ideology and highlights how through
contradiction and the open texts, by design or interpretation, Hollywood
produces inherently unstable science fiction narratives.

7
The Science Fiction Genre and the Female Role
Science fiction (together with the western and war film) is a genre strongly
associated with white heterosexual masculinity with environments extrapolated
by males from a male dominated society. Political ideologies construct
environments, which are then populated with cultural and social issues
reflecting contemporary anxieties and concerns. Yet the temporal displacement
‘short-circuits the implicit ideological censors operative in the reigning realist
narrative regime of Hollywood’ (Ryan & Kellner, 1990:254). Therefore science
fiction makes the image of a strong female more palatable by locating these
women in strange times and alien worlds, far from the viewer’s reality, where
their threatening and boisterous behaviour may be qualified, emphasising they
are extreme women in extreme circumstances. In this way the strong female is
commodified by her dislocation from ‘reality’ yet may still be located as Other.
However, science fiction makes possible the insertion of a different ‘Other’ - in
Alien the creature and in The Terminator the T-800 and T-1000 machines –
which means the female is no longer placed in opposition to the male but to an
alternative Other. Therefore the man can justify identify with the female; she is
not against me (male) but for me (human) against the alien/machine thus the
female role can be commodified to the binary of human/other above
male/female.
Technology is an integral element of science fiction construction as in these
texts technology has the ability to usurp the gaze – both male and female –
ultimately fetishizing masculinity through the incorporation of technology,

8
repositioning character roles and providing a metaphor for imagined futuristic
masculinity. ‘This fetishisation of masculinity via technology in science fiction
differs from typical fetishisation in other genres, in which the fetishised object is
always feminine’ (Fernbac, 2000:234). Doane (1991) outlines such an instance
in Blade Runner (1982) during the sequence of Deckard processing Leon’s
photograph. Usually in cinema pleasure and knowledge are conflated by the
projection onto the woman yet here the manipulated technology is substituted.
This diversion may commodify the female away from the object and allow the
opportunity to operate outside of the dominant ideology but it does not ipso
facto place the female necessarily more positively. For example in The Matrix
the gaze is placed on the fantastical effects yet Trinity, a strong science fiction
female, still fetishised in leather and reliant on Neo.
Yet while audiences enjoy futuristic technology, technophobia is an historic
staple of science fiction texts. Since the 1950s an increase of domestic
technology had bought science fiction into the home increasing our familiarity
with technological innovation, yet there continues to be a contradiction and
ambivalence to our relationship with technology as we simultaneously embrace
and yet are repelled by scientific study scared that we have lost control. We fear
technology such as gene modification, nano-technology and cloning yet do not
fear the Terminator as we know he is fictional, likewise we do not fear the alien
encountered on LV-426 as interplanetary travel is not yet possible. Science is
beyond the comprehension of the lay person and technology out of our hands
so we rely on scientists to protect us from the ‘bad’ science such as these
scenarios, a distrust manifested in Hollywood’s representation of the mad

9
scientist, which pander to our insecurities. However technology is still
associated with the male. Even though much of the technology in Alien is
cobbled together, not sleek and glossy, it is done so by the male, likewise in
The Terminator much of the technology is homemade – the bombs for instance
– but done so with male knowhow.
Yet technology can be utilised by the female for the female gender. Donna
Haraway (1985) views male technoculture as oppressive but suggests it may
offer female liberation. The appearance of the part-human/part-machine cyborg
in science fiction is disrupting the easily identified binaries of the
human/mechanical, male/female, natural/cultural, and (as with other
technologies such as genetic engineering and cloning), leads to contradictions,
adding to apparent the openness of science fiction texts. These disruptions also
appear when technology is apprehended by the female such as Ripley’s use of
the loader in Aliens and can be considered threatening to the transparency of
identity at a personal and social level. Against the aggressive alien and the
powerful terminator, white masculinity is marginalised. However, the multiple
and conflicting identities within the cyborg can also undermine the narrative.
Functioning as both the human and machine, the cyborg exists as a floating
signifier and provides the capacity for alternative and contradictory readings.
Hayles (1995) attributes a fundamental contradiction to the cyborg’s being
through its status, both as a metaphor and also a physically realizable entity as
the cyborg acquires its potency through epitomizing existence in the cracks
between identities.

10
It is not only representation on screen that Hollywood uses to construct
meaning. The techniques and technology of production and exhibition used to
produce the text also become fetishised and present another contradiction
apparent in Hollywood. Technical aspects of the special effects in relation to
geek fandom are a significant element of science fiction, promoting discussion
and alternative readings outside the given text. Immediacy is attempted by the
creation of realistic narratives within fantasy environments, aspiring to
completely immerse the spectator and make them unaware of the ‘act’ of
watching the film. However it is also hypermediate often relinquishing power to
the image through special effects, drawing the viewer from their immersion to
marvel at the technical achievement; ‘We go to such films in large part to
experience the oscillations between immediacy and hypermediacy produced by
the special effects… the amazement or wonder requires an awareness of the
medium’ (Bolter & Grusin, 2000:157). This action again usurps the gaze acting
to commodify the female - the camera lingers voyeuristically over the molten
transformation special effect of the T-1000 of T2 far more than it does over
Sarah Connor’s physique. These actions work in a similar way to Brecht’s
“alienation effect”, which explicitly distance the spectator and demand they think
rather than just blindly identify, encouraging alternative readings, producing
challenging and open texts. This offers that if a viewer is in a position to think
for themselves, the consequences cannot be measured by Hollywood which
could be a step further than they may have anticipated and an undermining
danger of the open text.

11
Science Fiction Narratives as Open Texts
The open text is not subject to rules of linearity, coherence and closure.
Science fiction when seen as a producerly text (Fiske, 1987) allows the
spectator to use their existing competencies to interpret meaning by selectively
appropriating material. An open text suggests freedom of choice but it must be
stressed this is not merely a site upon which the ‘reader as writer’ can
haphazardly construct meaning. It is recognised science fiction texts are often a
vehicle for promoting radical positions, meaning they will inherently contain
built-in tensions contradicting the establishment and allowing for alternative
readings, yet this in itself does not necessarily designate a science fiction text
as unequivocally open. Thus although these texts may represent an
oppositional narrative around a strong female role, the effectiveness is often
purposely compromised by commodification, which acts to undermine radical
positions by offering contradictory or binary oppositions that increase the
capacity for alternative readings which contribute to a reassertion of the status
quo.
Science fiction reflects modernity and - although written in reaction to the
banality of Fiske and Chambers – Morris’ quotation is a good starting point;
‘people in modern mechanized societies are complex and contradictory; mass
cultural texts are complex and contradictory’ (Morris in Mellencamp, 1990:24).
We can certainly apply this (arguably simplistic) logic to cinema texts and
modern Hollywood blockbusters such as Inception (2010) and Cloud Atlas
(2012) which contain multiple complex and contradictory plot lines, a point

12
emphasised by Elsaesser: ‘there is clear evidence that cinematic storytelling
has in general become more intricate, complex, unsettling, and this is not only
in the traditionally difficult categories… but right across the spectrum of
mainstream cinema’ (Elsaesser in Buckland, 2009:19). Modern spectators
understand cinema basics and through our experiences of (post) modern
consumption – video games, the MTV-generation’s quick cutting – no longer
require, or desire, the classical narrative of “excessively obvious cinema”
(Boardwell, Staiger & Thompson, 1985:2).
Morley (1991), whilst agreeing with Morris however, urges the need to look at
how and for whom it is complex or contradictory and within the science fiction
genre the influence of technology on female commodification is pivotal to
exploring such complicity. Science fiction narratives present binary oppositions
that promote paradox and contradiction, forcing argument and interpretation,
that in turn produce a more open text than is apparent in other genres. Any
genre may exhibit certain binaries within their texts: male/female, life/death,
mind/body, subject/object, yet classically in these instances they stipulate
diametric absolutes, the detective is male, the wife is dead, or propose choice
to the characters rather than the audience. However the existence of
technology within science fiction narratives will offer both sides of the binary,
the detective is a cyborg, the wife is a computer (and thus was never ‘alive’),
which blur the boundaries that were previously focusing interpretation adding to
an open text.

13
The layering of such binary oppositions within certain science fiction texts
intensify complex and conflicting situations that then cannot rely on standard
resolution techniques. This allows exploration outside of the recognised
templates for unorthodox closure, (for example the female can be the hero) thus
producing a considerably more open text than available to other genres
adhering to the recognised methods of resolution within the ‘real’ world.
However, this does still provide a version of classical closure. Although open
texts can be associated in every genre of modern Hollywood, their effectiveness
within science fiction can be contributed to by the hybridity of their make-up.
Similar to the layering of binary oppositions the regular crossing of genre
boundaries with Film Noir, horror, comedy, western, or action, allows the
insertion of technological commodification and thus propose alternative
readings into narratives with more traditional readings, (the reimagining of the
western through Cowboys and Aliens [2011] for example) destabilising the
narrative and acting to open the text of previously ‘known’ genre narratives.
Importantly simple pleasure in the text must not be underestimated in its
promotion of openness. We enjoy playing with these fantasy narratives, taken
to endless distortion through the internet and fandom, agreeing with the
impossible, or at least highly implausible, and adopting it as real. Both Ripley
and Sarah Connor have enjoyed an extensive life through fandom with writings
on Ripley and Hicks starting a new life together after Aliens and Sarah’s life
after the war didn’t happen after T2. Fandom has become crucial to science
fiction (Serenity [2005] was produced after fan motivation when the TV series
Firefly [2002-2003] was cancelled) and the extended storylines and

14
characterisation discussed on forums across the net promote the alternative
readings of films as well as proving a large merchandising base exists long after
the film.
The New Hollywood Marketing
The arrival of the blockbuster through Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) would
signal increased box-office revenue by producing fewer pictures and investing
in popular interest themes, conflated with aggressive television advertising and
saturation openings.2 Although rare the considerable returns by these features
bought interest from major corporations. The buying into Hollywood by these
institutions during the early 1980s bought an enhanced financial mentality to
Hollywood, reflecting the capitalist growth of the new Republican government
and re-centering creative control back from directors of the ‘new-Hollywood’ to
the studio, thus moving culture production ‘into the control of conglomerates,
financiers and managers who treat them as ordinary commodities’ (Kael, 1980)
The appearance of the commodified strong females or Rambolina (as Weaver
called herself in interviews) were highly marketable and Linda Hamilton’s
training regime for the hard-body role of Sarah in T2 was crucial to the
promotional process featured in the popular film press: ‘The goal of promotion is
to produce multiple avenues of access to the text that will make the film
resonate as extensively as possible in the social sphere in order to maximize its
audience’ (Klinger, 1989:10). It is these resonances however, that create the
2 Justin Wyatt extensively explores the history of this era further in his book High
Concept, including an analysis of the Alien title sequence.

15
ideological incoherencies that help maintain the open text, which contains in its
openness the seeds of reactionary reassertion.
As Hollywood cannot afford domestic cinema flops3, it currently safeguards
profit through other sectors; licensing to other media, video-on-demand,
increasing foreign sales and an increase in television production. The
techniques employed to promote Jaws and the merchandising for Star Wars
convinced Hollywood of the advantages of creating a consumable identity for
their film from trailers, adverts, posters, merchandise and star interviews, all of
which the audience would encounter before they entered the cinema, all of
which would help expand the possibilities of alternative readings. Adorno (1979)
in believing the culture industry comprised of an endless repetition of the same
commodified forms linked viewer distraction to these processes of
commodification that prepares a film for consumption. This commodification
process means elements within the film are not seen as individual functions
within the narrative, opening the opportunity for networks of meaning and
interpretation to be increased.
Commodification Processes in Science Fiction
Commodification opens the insularity of the text and disseminates it into chunks
of consumable elements. During viewing, elements may cause spectator
digression by producing ‘other narratives’, where viewers access known
3 In modern Hollywood big budget science fiction has more than its fair share of expensive
flops, particularly due to the large costs involved in constructing fantasy sets and visual special
effects; The Invasion (2007) -$40M, Rollerball (2002) -$45M, Battlefield Earth (2000) -$52M,
The Postman (1997) -$72M, John Carter (2012) -$200M.

16
references such as the difficulties with the effects for a stunt, or an interview in
a ‘making of…’ special. The spectator digresses to acquire interpretational
(inter-textual) support, using background links and inter-textual references to
provide the text with a social identity, combining other media with knowledge of
narrative construction, their cultural background and genre tropes learnt through
their film going experience. Stuart Hall (1973), one of the main proponents of
reception theory, explored this process of construction through his
Encoding/Decoding model of communication to claim meaning is not inherent
within the text but created by the relationships between it and the spectator to
some extent dictated to by their cultural capital and class background. The
audience’s position in interpreting media texts can take three decoding stances;
preferred reading, the manner in which the producer intended; negotiated
reading, the audience partly agrees with the text or; oppositional reading, when
an audience does not agree with the text’s messages.
In this sense the text is open during the process of social apprehension; there is
an amplification of productivity, individual elements are realised as polysemic,
interruptions occur and re-narrativising may reassemble how texts were initially
constructed for consumption (Klinger, 1989). The result is an amalgamation of
spectator actions, the text and the production’s attempts to promote meaning
through promotional apparatus. This represents a significant component in the
film/viewer interaction. Mass culture reception is influenced by numerous
factors and these elements deliver examples that may not reproduce the single
intended meaning of a text (as modern film is a collaborative effort it is doubted
this could actually exist) but may not necessarily be oppositional or subversive.

17
All the elements absorbed by the spectator are influences of the social
institution’s intentional multiplication of readings, combined with their own
experiences, culture and ideological framework as Hollywood encourages a
diverse reading of the film. As Klinger observes though ‘advertising and
promotional forms do not reconstruct the text, but fragment and extend it for the
purpose of consumption, their analysis does not necessarily lead to a coherent
reconstruction of the text.’ (Klinger, 1989:8) This incoherence in science fiction
results from the compromising of the progressive, radical message. It is
perhaps this incoherence in science fiction that renders the genre to be often
dismissed as light and not taken seriously, a comforting reassurance for those
that seek it.
These actions of commodification thus reach beyond simple replication of the
text. The newly configured consumable identities produce a ‘distracted viewer’
who may only tune into certain aspects of the text they highlighted as valuable.
However as Hall (1973) argues the assumption we experience media texts
passively is incorrect. Within science fiction for example, viewers actively take
notice of text style, highlighted by jarring special effects and the spectacle
involved to propose questions to the narrative, using past experiences of the
media. We are now cynical to the representations we see and are - to some
extent - aware they are only illusions. We know the good guys do not always
win. We know crime can and often does pay. We are aware the liberal freedom
fighter on the screen is a conservative actor. We are aware that a Hollywood
film showing subversive or radical standpoints are playing to our desires as
entertainment.

18
Logan’s Run (1976) is an illustration of the contradictions within interpreting an
open text; rebellion against the techno state seems to indict the military-
industrial complex of the US and once ‘free’ in nature this rejects all technology
represents. Yet as the rejection is of a socially equal world the escape may be
conservative, affirming the culture of (capitalist) individualism. This
interpretation goes against the grain of regular ideological reading,
deconstructing the order to uncover tensions below the surface and an
alternative subversive power at work. Success of the commodification relies on
personalization; the process is socially meaningful as the element it sets up
encourages the spectator to internalize the film. ‘In such cases the individual’s
manipulation of commodity discourses may not testify to his/her autonomy and
ability to react to the system, but to the achieved strategies of these
discourses’. (Klinger, 1989:17)
Complete freedom of interpretation exhibited by the open text then, can be
treated as an illusion; production is not a collection of unconnected inter-texts to
be chosen at will as spectators are unavoidably influenced by the dominant
ideological structures of society. Although directed towards a television
audience Morley fittingly states, ‘audiences produce meanings, but have to
work on material which has been pre-selected and organized in particular ways
by producers’. (Morley 1991:122). This fact is commercially exploited by
Hollywood as while multiple readings may seem available to the viewer,
whatever one’s interpretation may be, it still leads to the same conclusion,
benefiting the dominant ideology (preferred reading) by securing financial

19
success for the product.
For example, all commodified elements surrounding a film’s pre-exhibition will
be carefully manufactured by the production company. The Making of
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) extensively covers the special effects using
such language as ‘expensive’ ‘innovative’ ‘never done before’ while the poster
for Aliens has Ripley in the iconic pose with Newt and the flame-thrower stating
‘This Time It’s War’ (also tying Ripley back to masculinity). The viewer is
therefore already being manipulated into what to engage with before they enter
the theatre. Conversely the active spectator will flatter themselves with an
awareness of the numerous contradicting elements within the production and
will place these within context rather than deferring to a single opinion. On the
other hand this presumes that the text is open to the viewer and not open by
design and thus choice may actually only be an illusion to the viewer.
Our reading of narratives may present a conflict with the dominant
representations that act to test the limits of the dominant ideology yet this could
only be illusionary. The representation of a strong woman may only pay lip
service to expectations of the modern woman, marking the films commercial
value while retaining the status quo. The rarity of presenting a strong heroine
means it remains sensationalist, and although this may ultimately undermine
any complex significance, positively draws casual media attention to the
oppositional representation.
We exist in such a mediated society it is unlikely we should assume that one

20
film could have any lasting influence. On the other hand, should a film be
commercially successful then repetition and variation are central Hollywood
actions to maximize the audience and in turn profit so sequels will be put into
production – both The Terminator and Alien films for example are currently
franchises of four films. Any Hollywood genre film consists of selecting from an
array of familiar standard components. The act of production utilises these
interchangeable elements in such a combination as to mark its individuality
while still maintaining a resemblance to other past products made from
selections of the same standards, creating ‘an aesthetic regime of regulated
difference’ (Maltby & Craven, 1995:112). However this repertoire of elements
can be supplemented with new elements over time, thus the ‘independent
woman’, ‘black hero’ ‘gay leading man’ will eventually not be sensationalist but
another standard component incorporated into the mainstream.
Meanwhile Hollywood continues an outward concern for topicality, while
remembering its first obligations are to entertain the audience and turn a profit
proving ’there are contradictory impulses… involving both the recognition and
disavowal of Hollywood’s power’ (Maltby & Craven, 1995:383). ‘One of the
contradictions of late capitalism is that its obsession with market forces stops it
stifling work that puts a quasi-oppositional case to the values and political
causes it seeks to patronize.’ (Kaveney, 2005:7) Thus the increased
commercial implications of mainstream film production mean establishment
institutions are willing to promote oppositional and contradictory ideas within
narratives if they secure proportional financial returns. Hollywood realized that if
treated appropriately this discontent could be harnessed in a ‘socially aware’

21
feature film, which would curry favor with the public and bestow prestige on the
studio and producers.
Both Ripley and Sarah Connor fall into this bracket and have been popular with
the public for appearing to promote oppositional positions, yet as we now
examine their commodified forms we see the openness of the texts produced
are so heavily contradictory they can be read as conservative and adhering to
dominant ideologies.
Case Study 1 – Sarah Connor and the Terminator
During the 1980s science fiction produced a backlash against the rise of
feminism that had been seen during the 1970s. The cool cold alienated
masculinity of the previous decade was now replaced with the muscular and
aggressive male violence of the conservative Regan era as the US became
more stridently belligerent and conservative family values were set in opposition
to feminism. The hyper-masculine body of The Terminator can be seen as the
defensive sign of a masculine crisis while T2 seven years later repositioned the
cyborg as a father figure and refocused the film on the father/son relationship
between John and the terminator.
In The Terminator, Sarah is introduced as timid but an assertive and
independent woman; her date cancels so she happily goes to the movies by
herself, yet as the film progresses and Reese arrives from the future we learn

22
she is still part of the dominant ideology. Sarah is depicted as the victim and
then as the damsel in distress. Sarah’s dream of the future around halfway
through the film sees Reese killed and reminds us he is more than just there to
educate and protect. If he were removed from the equation in such a way (i.e.
before he was able to come back in time) John would not exist. This reasserts
Sarah within the patriarchal ideology as mother and lover, no less strong in her
character but existing within the dominant social structure – she has a limited
identity beyond motherhood and protecting her son. Sarah functions as ‘a mere
conduit of male power and supremacy between her son and her lover, assigned
her role by their male discourse, most specifically John Connor's message from
the future and Reese's directives in the present’ (Goscilo, 1988:46).
At work, waitress Sarah is ‘coded for incompetence, even helplessness’
(Goscilo, 1988:39) yet she is transforms from victim in The Terminator to hero in
T2 by acquiring aggressive masculine traits. Her muscular hard body
commodifies her into a new body hybrid, just like the cyborg, and for a scene
Sarah resembles the terminator while attempting to assassinate Dyson, with her
eye viewed through the scope and the red laser sight reminiscent of the
machine in The Terminator. (Fig. 1) However it is ultimately motherhood that
transforms her, a transformation that is problematic as the images of the
woman as a mother plays in conflict to the image of a fighting heroine. In the
first instalment, the terminator hunts Sarah for her generativity, which here is a
stand-in for the generativity of the human species, and her capacity to be a
mother symbolises human reproduction and possession of the future (Mulhall,
2002). Thus even before she becomes a mother her identity is tied to her

23
reproductive quality alone and as with home-makers in the nuclear family
framework is shown with limited skills (‘I can’t even balance my cheque book’)
and minimal career opportunities. Sarah is forced into adhering to conservative
ideals through her carrying the hope of humanity; an abortion (even a
retroactive one) is obviously out of the question, enforcing conservative and
religious America’s position. And of course true to patriarchal values she will
bear a male saviour.
While she is not sexualised in T2 Sarah is still defined by her relationship to the
male – mother to John and lover to Reese. Unlike their male counterparts for
strong female characters family is not given as an available option. Both Ripley
and Sarah are single mothers which is a ‘progressive’ contemporary
commodification but one in which they are both shown to have abandoned their
responsibilities through either career choice or mental instability. Both are
Fig. 1.
Sarah’s commodified hybrid body adopts the appearance and directive of
the terminator (complete with red laser sight) as she attempts an
assassination. (T2)

24
condemned for being a single mother, both an ‘example of the ‘soft’ Carter era
women mislead by feminists and the idea of the New Woman... that lead
directly to her failure to keep her parental promises’ (Gallardo & Jason Smith,
2004:76). She loses custody of John through her lifestyle choices and while in
an asylum John passes, unsuccessfully, through the care system. However
Sarah’s continual sacrifice of every aspect of her life is certainly a very strong
image of the single mother and a symbol of a powerful woman. We also learn
that before being committed she and John travelled around learning what they
could from the different men Sarah met and here we see a reversal of the
traditional masculine/feminine sexual power structure allowing us to read the
Sarah as the dominant partner.
Yet to make sure patriarchy is resumed, the bonding process between the
terminator and John is so successful even Sarah is forced into admitting that
the machine has surpassed the human as the compassionate father figure:
‘Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear… Of all the would-
be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, was the
only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice’
reasserting an ambivalence to technology and commodifying a quasi-family
unit. But still because of what she has seen Sarah believes that it is technology
that will cause the end of humanity, the death of the future, which she equates
with masculinity’s desire for creative technological progress. She chastises the
creators of AI: ‘men like you think they are so creative…you don’t know what it’s
like to really create something, to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to
create is death and destruction’. This comment directed at the male excuses

25
used to defend reckless technological innovation may reaffirm the traditional
binary gender implication that the female creates (nests) and the male destroys
(conquers) yet occurs during a crucial confrontation that exposes or resolves
several oppositions including: man/machine (the terminator lectures Dyson)
humanity/technology (Dyson realizes where his work will lead) the mother/son
(they bond for the first time) followed closely by male/female (John takes
control).
Through acts of validation Sarah’s character attempts to blur the gender lines
between the previously mentioned nester and the conqueror by her use of
violence in her mission (protect her son) but she breaks-down, unable to kill
Cyberdyne scientist Miles Dyson. She is forced to realise technology is no more
destined to destroy all life than biology is to affirm it - after they visit Dyson he is
more than willing to aid them in destroying SkyNet to change the course of
history and ultimately sacrifices himself; the terminator’s ability to become a role
model to John and the realisation to herself that by trying to kill Dyson she has
failed as a moral person and also a mother. The binary between (her) nature
and (Dyson’s) technology is weighted toward her educating Dyson – we see
reproduction with no female leads to carnage - suggesting a positive
representation of the nurturing female as humanising which posits her more
towards a stereotype. This is her moment of weakness and John asserts male
dominance by comforting her and taking control of the situation, commanding
the machine to educate Dyson in what his work will achieve.

26
Sarah and Ripley may represent the progressive female role but it’s an illusion
as regards happiness resolution compared to their male counterparts; should
the victor be male he triumphs over all – kills the bad guy, gets the girl and
saves the entire planet. Even a strong female character, however, will have the
reward withheld, and cannot complete a happy ending. Sarah in The Terminator
survives her ordeal but loses Reese, her lover, as he is killed. Alien similarly
sees Ripley victorious but alone and drifting with no certainty and even in Aliens
once she has seemingly been rewarded a makeshift family they are pitched into
an unknown space sleep where within the first frames of the third instalment it is
revealed Ripley is the only survivor when Newt’s pod is damaged.
The Terminator films attempt to be progressive through Sarah’s commodified
toughness, resilience and courage but are continually qualifying her role
through genre conventions. She may be commodified by technology (in the fact
that she easily appropriates male machinery) but any power we see her with is
temporary and learnt from males: in The Terminator it is merely to hand down to
her son while in T2 she is always second to the father figure of the machine in
protecting John. The final five minutes of the first film are notable however as
Reese is killed and Sarah defeats the terminator alone which is certainly a
concession in a genre often a showcase for macho heroics. Yet as we have
already seen family is not optional for the strong female so she must share her
victorious ride into the sunset with her Alsatian rather than lover.

27
Case Study 2 - Ripley and the Alien
Ripley is in the first instance commodified by time and location. While the
captain is admittedly a white male the ship of the future initially seems gender
equal. However the environment is reflective of the social situation circa 1970s
and it is through Ash, appearing as the white middle-class male in opposition to
the rise of feminism, that the male reasserts himself through a series of small
victories - disobeying Ripley’s orders, with-holding information – that climax in a
violent physical attack. As Ash attempts an oral rape (echoing that of the face-
hugger on Kane) with a pornographic magazine in the console area (boldly
decorated with naked female pinups) he demonstrates the male, dehumanised
by their rage at women (Newton in Kuhn, 1990). Revealed then as an android
however, means these acts are abruptly disassociated from the middle class
white male spectator. Here technology does not so much undermine an
oppositional position but reaffirm the dominant ideology as we recoil in horror at
what Ash is.
Ripley in Alien can be considered androgynous, blurring gender boundaries and
commodified by her boiler suit hiding her sexuality (until her brief strip down)
and there is no surprise in the oft-quoted fact that the script was written so
Ripley could be either male or female. Even though Ripley and Sarah Connor
didn’t quite look like men Tasker suggests this physically assertive hard woman
posed a ‘challenge to gendered binaries through her very existence’ (Tasker,
1998:69). Her sex was presented as female (as film expectation dictates) but
her fierce character, strength, determination and fight commodified her ‘un-

28
femininity’. On the other hand it is as Ripley strips down near the climax of Alien
she ‘exchanges one kind of power for another, her sudden vulnerability at the
narrative level belied by her sudden sexual potency as a visual representation
on the screen’ (Sobchack 1985:106). It is in this moment Ripley becomes a
woman, simultaneously marked as a victim; but she also becomes ‘an irrational,
potent, sexual object – a woman, the truly threatening alien generally repressed
by the male-conceived and dominated genre’ (Ibid: 107)
Ripley operates in a post-feminine environment, Alien may not be feminist but
makes fear of feminisation very clear; male insemination and birth; through the
male ‘pregnancy’ the natural procreativity process is distorted and reinterpreted
as reproduction terrorism, making it frightening, painful and ultimately lethal.
Ripley is the liberated woman but she has been blunted, not allowed
association with the other repressed – the black, the working class, the other
woman – and while in the climax we witness her dispatch the creature we
paradoxically also see her at her most feminised – stripped down to her
underwear and cuddling the cat and of no threat to the dominant male order.
However Ripley initially presents the utopian women’s liberation fantasy. She
achieves this goal through taking the male hero’s place, not through masculinist
methods but by being methodical, skilled, fair and resourceful (to the extent
Sobchack [1987] makes Ripley sound like a machine by saying she is an
irrational and asexual functioning subject).
As Newton highlights though it is as a ‘mark of 1970’s cynicism and despair,
perhaps, that Ripley saves only her own humanity’ (Ibid, 84) and Ripley is

29
initially shown as having no tolerance for the working class retorting to Parker,
‘You’ll get what’s coming to you’. She is initially marked as aloof and one of
‘them’, the corporation, rather than one of ‘us’, the workers, like Parker and
Brett. However being mainly concerned with their bonus payments both workers
also buy into the corporation’s capitalist values, affirming Newton’s observation
‘now everybody is forced to be a company man’ (Ibid, 82). In fact the alien
represents the perfect example of the Wayland-Yutani company employee,
‘unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality’. And yet while
Ripley suggests ‘we have to stick together’ she is still set apart from the others
(the black, the working class, the other woman) whom are dispatched on the
dangerous lower decks while Ripley busies herself on the flight deck looking for
Jonesy the cat.
In Alien the creature reproduces parthenogenetically only needing a host,
(drawing parallels to Frankenstein and the male scientist who reproduces
without a partner) yet in Aliens the reproductive capacity of the alien mother is
seen as a threat to civilisation as technology cannot tame it. Aliens represents
extremes of the maternal nature at war – that of the chosen (Ripley
representing the technological and culture) and the biological (alien mother
representing the natural and nature). Ripley is ideologically conservative as she
destroys the representation of the part of her that is threatening - that of
reproductive capacity. In comparison to the alien mother Ripley is the
‘acceptable form and shape of woman’ (Creed, 1993:23). Furthermore,
Bundtzen (2000) sees the overt feminism in Aliens as being in service to
technology over nature, a ‘corporate feminism’ that divides women, distancing

30
them further from any power that may be obtained by their shared community.
Between the anti-feminist company and the non-feminist alien Ripley’s feminism
becomes aligned to the company.
However, Ripley can equally be simply seen by the audience as victorious
where the might of the military and the establishment had failed. Initial reviews
in the popular press were positive, especially of Weaver: ‘She (Ripley) looks
strong, intelligent and tough enough to be a convincing part of the space team
— unlike the flossy girls of the early S-F movies’ (Hinxman, 1979). On the other
hand academics would see Ripley as just a male stand-in (Newton, 82) and not
read the character as particularly progressive: ‘she is simply an agreed-upon
fiction and the male viewer’s use of her as a vehicle for his own
sadomasochistic fantasies an act of perhaps timeless dishonesty’ (Clover,
1993:53). Ultimately Ripley still stands for the traditional rational-humanist
subject and one of the most familiar reoccurring tropes is that of the binary
opposition of human/alien with the difference being the absence of emotion.
This binary often slides into the emotional/rational binary and/or male/female
which place Ripley back into the conservative dominant ideology.
The traditional mythic pattern defines men/culture by opposition to
women/nature so Ripley must be masculinised and her feminism commodified
as being in the service to technology. Conservative cinematic rules dictate
females can use technology under male supervision and Ripley has Hicks, yet
Ripley is commodified by technology and thus exhibits technological savvy. She
competently uses the loader becoming a cyborg to defeat the monster. (Fig. 2.)

31
This not only undermines the technology but echoes (in reverse) male
attempted appropriation of female reproductive power – from Frankenstein to
Blade Runner and Species. These contradictions cause the audience flip-flop
between views of the female celebrated then undermined.
Ripley begins both the second and a third instalment ostracised as the other
and is pushed towards more ‘male’ genre situations. Producer David Giler
admits they wanted Aliens ‘to be a cross between Southern Comfort and The
Magnificent Seven’ while Cameron made it clear it was ‘not going to be a
remake, it was going to be a war movie’ (The Making of Aliens, 2010).4
4 In this documentary Cameron relates Fox had tried to get a version without Ripley once they
heard Weaver’s wage demands but he refused to change the script and eventually Weaver got
paid what she had initially demanded.
Fig. 2.
Ripley appropriates the male technology and appears as a ‘cyborg’ to
fight the alien mother (Aliens).

32
However Alien had ended with images of Ripley as Sleeping Beauty in the
escape pod, a theme returned to here as the female marines mock her; ‘who is
Snow White?’ and while Ripley is briefing the marines they suppose she is
telling them some kind of fairy tale, setting her in opposition to the nightmare
about to unfold. Not only is the strong woman commodified by location in a
fantasy future as delineated by science fiction, but she may be no more than a
fairy tale.
Yet Ripley can be seen to move towards masculinisation as the quadrilogy films
progress. Her appearance, while it was never very feminine, becomes more
toned, maybe not as much as Vasquez but there is a progression; her wardrobe
goes from ambiguous boiler suit to military vest and combat attire and her hair
gets shorter to be completely shaved in Alien3. The shaven head however does
have an ambiguity about it; is could be the shedding of her feminine coding or
her introduction into the patriarchal system by becoming one of the men.
However it must be noted that Sarah and Ripley are not simply operating in a
role reversal with the male but also straddle the binaries of the male/female
continually across the films, becoming more masculinised not only in
appearance but more efficient with recognised male icons of weaponry and
technology while simultaneously being repositioned towards motherhood. This
is visually signified by the image of Ripley with Newt on one arm and the flame-
thrower in the other. In Alien Ripley’s sexuality was ambiguous and hidden
(apart from her strip in the final scenes) but in the subsequent films it becomes
almost flaunted by the open tension between masculine and feminine traits.

33
While not positioning her as the villain (this is still the company’s role) her
threatening politically progressive image is removed and she is demonised with
the alien. However the narrative manipulates us in rooting for the female, with
no other choice given the human/alien binary forces presented to the spectator.
Ripley as a mother figure is absent in Alien (one could argue she is mothering
to the crew) but very much apparent in Aliens. Ripley left her 11-year-old
daughter Amy to leave earth on the Nostromo and 57 years later she has now
passed away. This maternally commodification galvanises an immediate
maternal link with Newt (her unkempt appearance shows what happens to
children when they are motherless) who is similar age to Amy when Ripley left
earth. At the beginning of Aliens Ripley is presented as broken; failed as a
mother through absence, as an employee by destroying expensive equipment
and not capturing the alien, has psychiatric issues and is now stuck in a dead-
end loading job - a victim of the choices she has made. The offer to go into
space gives her the opportunity to reintegrate into society, to save the children
and put her demons to rest.
Her salvation commits to the values of the nuclear family as her ‘new woman’ is
accepted back into the existing patriarchal structure. By arousing the natural
maternal instinct her violence is directed away from independence and self-
sufficiency to protecting the child and a wish to return to the patriarchal
definition of the ‘normal life’. But the male order has been undermined by her
appropriation of masculine technology and her defeat of the alien mother where
otherness in terms of excessive machine-like reproduction is desired by the

34
male company for its weapons research programme. What is more, as human
‘mother’ versus alien, Ripley embodies what science fiction regularly offers as
the distinguishing narratives of being human – emotion. Is this a binary of good
nature over bad nature? Seeing Ripley as a champion of emotion can be
equated with conforming back to the stereotypical view of women.
Conclusion
Ultimately Hollywood is a profit making industry so cannot be expected to
promote any oppositional positions too radical. However the industry realises to
continue to make money it must make concessions to the public and show them
the films they want to see. It is within this contradiction that Hollywood operates
and in trying to please as many paying customers as they can, produce
narratives with multiple contradictions, open to alternative interpretation that
although may show representations of anti-establishment norms can offer no
hope of oppositional resolution. Ripley’s victory gives hope that one can be
victorious against the institution; you can fight and win, yet this overly optimistic
and progressive evolutionism merely supports the theory that the oppressive
system works. The financial consequences involved in the film industry are so
vast that the commodification processes examined in the marketing of a film are
carefully planned to give the appearance of choice while actually an illusion,
where the open texts merely provide several decisions that feed back to the
same conclusion, playing on our cynical expectations and allowing the
spectator to flatter themselves and give reassurance where needed.

35
This cynical view can also be applied to the popularity that both Ripley and
Sarah Connor enjoy over thirty years after the original films were released. That
they still appear in the top ten lists of strong female characters proves how little
changes and how few truly oppositional characters are provided by Hollywood
science fiction. We have seen that even though both characters are certainly
progressive their commodification, initially appearing oppositional, always
serves the dominant ideology. Both women are single parents in a
contemporary and progressive twist but are commodified through time
displacements developing ‘a conservative moral lesson about maternity,
futuristic and otherwise’ (Penley, 1986:77) that undermines their motivations ‘as
though motherhood alone could evoke and account for a woman’s exceptional
achievement’ (Goscilo, 1988: 50) and labels them as bad mothers. Technology
acts as a commodifier in each film and usurps the gaze but then forces it back
upon the characters as both must then rely on technology to aid them: Ripley
becomes a hybrid body with the technology, a cyborg, while Sarah has to
concede the machine makes a better father than a human. Again the female is
commodified with the fetishisation of the special effects as the gaze is
refocused but as seen this does not automatically place the female more
positively. Likewise the commodification of the female through the displacement
of location may allow Ripley to operate in an environment where she is a
ranking officer but it can be casually dismissed that she is placed in an
unrealistic setting. And of course neither are allowed the complete happy
ending that would be bestowed upon a male counterpart and have reward
withheld.

36
And yet, as Klinger (1989) observes as the extensive promotion does not
extend but fragment the text and with the commodifications working to give an
alienation effect, distancing and challenging the viewer, the consequences may
be more than Hollywood anticipated. Thus the development of these open texts
may initially be manipulated by the studio but with so many splinters: trailers,
merchandising, video game tie-ins, score, making of spots, music video, lavish
special effects, television spots and celebrity interviews to name just a few the
beast will start to have a life of its own. This is even before the international
market, fandom, forum theories or leaked set photos and the aftermarket of Blu-
ray and television. With so many commodification possibilities the result may be
only distracted viewers who only highlight certain aspects of the text, while
there is the real danger that the mere raising possibilities within the narrative
may be enough to sow the seeds of dissonance in the audience. Yet the
number of layers of binary conflict and contradictions produced open texts to an
extent that causes confusion leading to instability in the narrative which may
allow detractors to dismiss the science fiction genre as light with no hope of
affirmative resolution. It seems that in the science fiction genre, Hollywood’s
attempts to produce a product that appeals to all audiences through the
commodification of oppositional and alternative characters, often generates
contrary and open texts that combined with the market saturation of promotional
material provide just too many interpretations for clear resolution and lead to
positions that cannot be resolved and crucially destabilise the narrative.

37
Bibliography
Adorno, T.W., & Horkheimer, M., 1979. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated
by J. Cumming. London: Verso.
Balsamo, A., 2000. Reading Cyborgs Writing Feminism. In: Kirkup, G., James,
L., Woodward, K., & Havenden. F., eds., The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader.
New York: Routlege,
Boardwell, D., Staiger, J., & Thompson, K., eds., 1985. The Classical
Hollywood Cinema, Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. New York:
Routlege.
Bolter, J.D., & Grusin, R., 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media.
London: MIT Press.
Buckland, W., ed., 2009. Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in Contemporary
Cinema. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cornea, C., 2007. Science Fiction Cinema: Between Fantasy and Reality.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Clover, C., 1993. Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror
Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
De Lauretis, T., 1985. Aesthetic and Feminist Theory: Rethinking Women's
Cinema, New German Critique. 34, pp.154-175. [online] Available at:
<http://www.peripatetic.us/deLaurentis.pdf> [Accessed 25 April 2013].
Doane, M.A., 1987. The Desire to Desire. London: Macmillan Press.
Doane, M.A., 1991. Femme Fatales Feminism, Film Theory, Psychoanalysis.
New York: Routledge.
Fernbac, A., 2000. The Fetishization of Masculinity in Science Fiction: The
Cyborg and the Console Cowboy. Science Fiction Studies, 27(2). [online]

38
Available at: <http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/81/fernbach81art.htm>
[Accessed 20 November 2012].
Gallardo, X., & Jason Smith, C., 2004. Alien Woman The Making of Lt. Ellen
Ripley. Continuum Publishing: New York.
Johnston, K.M., 2011. Science Fiction Film: A Critical Introduction. New York:
Berg.
Goscilo, M., 1988. Deconstructing The Terminator. Film Criticism, [e-journal] 12,
pp.37-52. Available through: Birkbeck University Library
<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 27 November 2012].
Hayles, N.K., 1995. The Life Cycle of Cyborgs: Writing the Posthuman. In Gray,
C.H., ed., The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge.
Kaplan, E.A., 1983. Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera. New York:
Methuen.
Kaveney, R., 2005. From Alien to the Matrix: Reading Science Fiction. London
& New York: I.B. Tauris.
Klinger, B., 1989. Digressions at the Cinema: Reception and Mass Culture.
Cinema Journal, [e-journal] 28(4), Summer Issue, pp.3-19. Available through:
Birkbeck University Library <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 20
November 2012].
Kuhn, A., ed., 1990. Alien Zone. London: Verso.
Kuhn, A., ed., 1999. Alien Zone II. London: Verso.
Mellencamp, P., (ed.) 1990. Logics of Television. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

39
Morley, D., 1991. Where the global meets the local. Screen, [e-journal] 32(1),
<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 27 March 2013].
Mulvey, L., 1975. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen, [e-journal]
16(3), pp.19-28. Available through: Birkbeck University Library
<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 10 November 2012].
Naremore, J., & Brantlinger, P., 1991. Modernity and Mass Culture. Indiana:
Indiana University Press.
Neale, S., 1983. Masculinity as Spectacle. Screen, [e-journal] 24(6), pp.2-17.
Available through: Birkbeck University Library <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/>
[Accessed 22 March 2013].
Neale, S., & Murray Smith, M., eds., 1998. Contemporary Hollywood Cinema.
Neroni, H. 2005. The Violent Woman. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Penley, C. & Ross, D., 1990. Cyborgs at Large: Interview with Donna Haraway.
Social Text, [e-journal] 25(26), pp.8-23. Available through: Birkbeck University
Library <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 22 February 2013].
Penley, C., 1986, Time Travel, Primal Scene and Critical Dystopia. Camera
Obscura, [e-journal] 15, pp.66-85. Available through: Birkbeck University Library
<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 18 February 2013].
Redmond, S., ed., 2004. Liquid Metal, The Science Fiction Film Reader.
London: Wallflower Press.
Ryan, M., & Kellner, D., 1988. Camera Politica: Politics and Ideology of the
Contemporary Hollywood Film. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

40
Sanders, S., ed., 2008. The Philosophy of Science Fiction. Kentucky: University
Press of Kentucky.
Short, S., 2005 (2011). Cyborg Cinema. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Silverman, K., 1980. Masochism and Subjectivity. Framework, [e-journal] 12,
<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/> [Accessed 18 April 2013].
Sobchack, V., 1987. Screening Space The American Science Fiction Film. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Sontag, S. 2009 (1961). Against Interpretation and Other Essays. London:
Penguin Classics.
Springer, C., 1996. Electronic Eros: Bodies and Desire in the Postindustrial
Age. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stacey, J., 1994. Star Gazing, Hollywood Cinema and the Female Spectator.
Stacy, J., 2010. The Cinematic life of the Gene. London: Duke.
Tasker, Y., 1998. Working Girls Gender and Sexuality in Popular Cinema.
London: Routledge.
Tasker, Y., 1993. Spectacular Bodies: Gender, Genre and the Action Cinema.
Telotte, J.P., 2001. Science Fiction Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Telotte, J.P., 1995. Replications. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Wajcman, J., 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. Oxford: Polity Press.
Wolmark, J., ed., 1999. Cybersexualities. A Reader on Feminist Theory,
Cyborgs and Cyberspace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

41
Wyatt, J., 1994. High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin:
University of Texas Press.

final-revised

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to final-revised

Similar to final-revised (20)

final-revised