Independent Study

Is Mulvey still relevant when analyzing female representation in action films, with particular reference to ‘Kill Bill 2’?


This essay will be looking at the representation of women in action films which is more or less a male dominant genre. The representation of women has changed over the years due to second wave feminism, which started in the 1970’s where women fought for their rights and equality. “Mulvey argued that the only way to annihilate the "patriarchal" Hollywood system”[1]was to fight for equality. Laura Mulvey argued that Hollywood cinema objectified women in a image for the pleasure of men, where cinema followed a patriarchal ideology this, vision was called the ‘Male Gaze’. The theory made in the 1970s where not just Hollywood but most of the world was male dominated. The action genre in particular has been challenged by Mulvey’s theory; men have played the active role whereas the woman plays a more passive role. “Hollywood female characters of the 1950s and 60s were, in Mulvey’s view, presented with "to-be-looked-at-ness[2]." Mulvey stated that there were two distinct modes of the male gaze of this era: "voyeuristic" (seeing women as 'whores') and "fetishistic"[3]. Mulvey argued that women where set into to different characters one which was to be the sexually active female and the other who was seen as a powerless female stereotypically seen as ‘The housewife’. This theory has dominated Hollywood action films for quite a while but has recently been challenged by films like ‘Kill Bill 2’ which have challenged this theory and provided a more exciting role for women.

Laura Mulvey is a feminist film critic who is thought of as “lead[ing] the way of modern feminism in the cinema”[4]. She said that most films presented images of women that were produced simply for the ‘gratification’ of male viewers. She developed a theory based on the idea that because we live in a patriarchal society, men enjoy looking at images in a sexual way, where the male being active and the female being passive. She thought that Hollywood films used women as “erotic objects” [5]and that the narrative of most films is constructed to give heterosexual male audiences the opportunity to stare at the woman. “Often, as in sex scenes the camera circles on physical (breasts) aspects of a woman for so long that the image becomes almost iconic for male viewers.” [6]This means the interests seen on screen are made to fulfill with the dominant males that arguably run the industry. “Furthermore, various other studies in the 1970s found men to be the dominant characters and decision makers on TV.”[7]. It is at the vision of the director that makes the movie typically in the ‘male gaze’ which combines the theories of voyeurism and fetishism. Feminists such as Mulvey stated that “women should shun this traditional narrative and begin to consider the idea of a ‘female gaze,” [8]which could change the representation of women.

“One of the most influential feminist film theorists and critics in the world, Laura Mulvey….”[9] Mulvey has been very influential in the past and has been used as a tool of psychoanalysis for many years. “In the past, lead roles for women have always seemed scarce compared to males”[10]. Laura Mulvey said "narrative fiction film created images of women used for the gratification of men"[11]. Feminism became a step in the new direction for women in Hollywood cinema where male dominance was challenged. Laura Mulvey theory became of great power used by the feminist movement (1970s) which demanded change in representation. The theory became as influential because of the revealing of representation of women in the 1970s.

“….in action adventure shows, only 15 per cent of the leading characters were women.” [12] the action genre was on genre that was really the key place in TV where women where hardly given a dominant or independent role. Women where only given a margin of main roles which usually given by playing along side a male figure. This can be supported from the action kids TV show Fantastic Four which had four main characters of which three where male and one was female.

“Women had important roles in many but were far more likely than men to be shown as frightened, in need of protection and direction, and offering lone and support to the male lead character(s).” [13] Women in the past to an extent can be argued did have important roles but where not as independent and self driven like men. This can be shown from such films as high Noon (1952) and Angry Men (1957) where the female character had some importance apart from being a object but where represented as the weaker figure compared to the male characters.

“Women, in any fully human form, have almost completely been left out of film….The role of a women in a film

Kill Bill Volume 2 (2004) has a different view to representation of women. Uma Thurman is represented with such great power, more than men with the help of her samurai sword throughout which demonstrate her dominance over the ‘unequipped male’. Uma Thurman is negatively represented throughout the film which her original intent to ‘Kill Bill’ where she adopts male characteristics of being violent. However, it can be argued that the film also conforms to Mulvey’s theory - the job of seeking revenge on her family is also given to the female character thus conforming to stereotypes where women are seen to be possessed with family and emotional. Uma Thurman is represented as powerful and dominant, men are still getting their voyeuristic pleasures by watching Thurman on her Killing rampage as her outfit is tight fitted which makes her attractive to look at the same time and thus giving the male viewers the chance to objectify the female as an sex object. The action genre which the ‘Male Gaze’ would support this as it describes what Mulvey saw as the “male point of view adopted by the cinema”[14] for the benefit of an assumed male audience. Furthermore, the male audience may feel a little relieved by watching powerful and dominant women shown in control by using many phallic objects, such as the samurai sword.

“Men and women are seen working side by side, as equals, in the hospitals, schools and police stations of television.” [15]Not only have women arguably progressed in cinema by playing the independent protagonists but, have also played active roles beside men being in many ways equal. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) is one text that does this very well. The film acts around two protagonists, one male and one female who both share the same occupation. The occupation of both characters is as secret agents. Independent women have also adopted more man like characteristics which has lead to greater gender equality in Hollywood cinema. This shows that women have now started to play along side male characters and share a dominant role.

Moreover, roles of women are changing in the power house industry of Hollywood as they include female characters that do scenes in the same kind of roles as men would usually be given without their femininity ever really becoming an issue. Kill Bills Vol 2 main characters are all women, and although the film is both a martial arts film and directed by a man, the women still retain their femininity. This is done through the certain parts of the narrative, such as Uma Thurman’s character gaining revenge on villains who attempted to kill her and killed her family, and also through costume, as the women are not made to appear masculine in any way this can be shown by an example of her skin tight orange suite which not only elevates the figure of the female character but also pays greater attention to her breasts.

“The representation of women in film is all based upon the understanding of the director's view within the ideology of the narrative of the film in which they have formed the film around the institution that best suits the script therefore constructing the film.” [16]Directors are in popular cases in contemporary film portrayed as strong figures that help in the narrative and show the plot and control the representation of females. This can be seen as Laura Mulvey pointed out “by taking advantage of the femininity of the female body and manipulating the sexual figure in order to gain a sexual aspect to the film and producing a male view on the film”.[17] The representation of women in films tend to be in most films for the use of comedy and sexist, this clear in such films as Austin Powers, in which Powers simply sees women as objects for his desire and pleasure and based from the 60's its seen as normal where a time s where of male dominance. This is shown by the statement "You're an object Baby" [18] as it is degrading to a woman's freedom and shows the possession of a man, this is one of Austin's regularly used phrases in all the Austin Powers movies. This is one of many examples the movies of contemporary time that have been sexist towards women in such a way and been successful in its promotion and showings this conforming to Mulvey’s theory.

Kill Bill Vol 2 (2004) also challenges Mulvey’s theory in other ways. The narrative of “Kill Bill Vol 2 (2004)” follows a female character played by Uma Thurman, and her quest to seek revenge on the death of her family and her baby inside her stomach. To an extent the narrative conforms to stereotypes as it shows the protagonist Uma Thurman to pose typical familial ideologies that a typical female conforms to. However, this can be argued by the lose of her family; Uma Thurman is left independent to seek her own revenge with the help of no being.

The mise en scene in ‘Kill Bill 2’ also helps represent the character in a way appealing to the ‘gaze’. Uma Thurman is modified and specially designed in any way to enhance her femininity. The actress is also shown in a way that makes her look ‘sexy’, with makeup and emphasis of her figure through the tight clothing. This emphasizes her appeal to the male audience. However, the low angle shots of the protagonist give her a greater power as the audience is projected to look up at her. “Overall, men were more likely to be assertive (or aggressive), whilst women were more likely to be passive”[19] In the majority of the film Thurman is hardly ever smiling showing the breaking of barriers where women in the past had to smile and look attractive on the camera to draw attention.

Furthermore, as the years change so have women's roles in society and therefore so has the representation in the media. Changes in female representation media images still portray women as sex objects as independent (but still sexy) career women; as loving mothers obsessed with food and clean clothes. “Women are still portrayed as objects to lust after; they are often the focus of the male gaze”[20] camera effects, mise-en-scene and sound are used to alter what is being represented. But the definition of beauty has changed. “Movie producers are wary of having women as screaming victims, and have realized that kick ass heroines do better business” [21]Images of women as dizzy blondes or mothers have been replaced by a new type. In the past most males wanted a powerless cleaner for a wife. Now men are looking for intelligent and confident as this is seen as sexy and attractive. This can be related to Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman is presented as a ‘ass kicking’ female who is shown as independent and powerful. But arguably Uma Thurman is still dressed to appeal to the ‘gaze’ through her costume.

Stereotypes that exist in contemporary films are used in more clever ways that make it hard to notice they are being used deliberately. The obvious stereotypes are easily visible such as the ‘bimbo’ [22] this role appears in ‘Charlie’s Angels (2000)’ where females are used as a device to distract men. This is addressed by exposing the female’s physical attractions such as figure and breasts to overpower the male. This representation is used in the from the beginning where the Charlies Angels (2000) show a display of “ass kicking female empowerment” [23]using their strength to save a kidnapped man this was a total role change for the representation of women in the past where they were once the “damsel in distress” who was portrayed as helpless and weak. However, although women are in more empowering and active roles, they are still subordinate to men as they are mainly seen as the “objects of the gaze”. This means that they are represented as tools of visual pleasure and not for their other qualities such as acting ability, undermining a women’s ability to succeed without resort to her looks this is supported by the movie as the females are constantly showing off there physical appearances in order to entertain.

Furthermore, the changes in representation of women can be seen in the Terminator' trilogy. In Terminator 1 Sarah Connor, the main female protagonist is portrayed as typical female, screaming and in need of rescue. Terminator 2 shows her as a strong, powerful/independent female able to hold her own this links to the change in society where women are becoming more independent. The two main female characters in Terminator 3 are Kate Brewster and the TX, a lethal but sexy killing machine that uses her sexuality as a weapon for example enlarging breasts are used to attract males and get out of trouble from the police. Both of the two robots the Terminator himself also known as Arnold Schwarzenegger and the female Terminator, the TX, are robots supposedly with no human feelings showing some level of equality in some characteristics.

This is also shown in James Bond Movies. “Women have gradually become more independent and powerful in Hollywood cinema”[24]. As time has changed so have women roles in movies since James Bond ‘Goldfinger’ (1964) before the wave of feminism, to the present ‘Casino Royale’ (2006), post feminism. James Bond was an icon in Hollywood cinema where females where famously named “Bond Girls”[25]. A Bond girl is a character portraying Bond's love interest or sex object. In most films, they are victims rescued by Bond. This dependence on a male figure became an icon theme to all Bond movies. However, this representation of ‘Bond Girls’ has been challenged in contemporary movies. In ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’(2004) Halle Barry has been given a professional occupation where she is also seen with possessing male characteristics. But this is done to an extent as the female character is also seen sleeping with Bond after meeting him for just a couple of hours thus conforming to typical representations. This also supports the idea that women in James Bond films usually conform to the whore stereotype. As well as the promiscuous female representation Halle Barry is also objectified as a sex object for the pleasure of men which can be supported by the dress code of the female.

Another film that challenges Mulvey’s theory is ‘Blue Steel’. The narrative of ‘Blue Steel’ (1990) follows the character of Megan Turner and her life when she joins the police force. Throughout the film she faces disrespect from her workers, unfriendliness from men and hate from her family just because she is a woman on a career that is famous for employing men for the majority of times. The audience grows to understand that the character is experiencing hard work within her to build the confidence to succeed at a job which leaves her prone to sexism. There are two sides to the protagonist Megan Turner’s police force investigating a serial killer, and one of a man who she becomes involved with the use of a man shows her reliability to a male in order to be a female protagonist. This point argues that even though female are achieving greater roles males are still required in the storyline and shows some figure of significance. The villain could be seen to achieve the ‘male gaze’ because he is made to be Turners lover and the killer. He objectifies Turner, worshipping the image of her holding a gun. “Mulvey theory of the pleasure a male gains from watching conforming to stereotype of women being passive, appealing to male fetishism of domination and power[26].” The mise-en-scene of the film also affects on the representation of the lead character. Her costume, a police uniform, is not modified or specially designed in any way to objectify her female characteristics. This can be however challenged by relating to Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman is shown wearing enhanced costume to emphasis her female characteristics.
The key focus of my study has determined that women in film have become excessively dominant roles
In conclusion Mulvey still has relevance in representation of women in action films but it has been less consistent over the years. In present day women have broken stereotypes and made individual identities in films for there superior roles. This has happened consistently in action genres in more contemporary films like Kill Bill Vol 2 where the female plays a powerful figure that is not just playing a dominant role but also projected to be more superior to the male. There is also progress to an extent in the way that women have played along side males in films and shred professions with male characters therefore achieving superior roles. The theory of Laura Mulvey seems to be die down time goes by the venom of the male gaze has be taken out and women are less apparent to the subject of the male gaze.

[1] Laura Mulvey (1989). Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[2] Laura Mulvey (1989). Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[3] Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.
[4] Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.
[5] Laura Mulvey (1989). Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[6] http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Releases/2006/032406.html
[7] Gunter (1995)
[8] Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.
[9] http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Releases/2006/032406.html
[10] Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema
[11] Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.
[12] David Gauntlet
[13] Gunter (1995/
[14] Genre and Hollywood by Steve Neale
[15] David Gauntlet
[16] Genre and Hollywood by Steve Neale
[17] Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema by Laura Mulvey
[18] Austin Powers Gold member
[19] Gunter (1995)
[20] Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema by Laura Mulvey
[21] Gunter (1995)
[22] Inage And Representation by Nick Lacey
[23] http://www.movieviews.org/reviews/may-july2003.shtml
[24] Genre and Hollywood by Steven Neale
[25] Box Office History for James Bond Movies
[26] http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Releases/2006/032406.html