Jeffords, Masculinity & "The Terminator"
In the article, Can Masculinity Be Terminated? Susan Jeffords opens by describing the predominant mode of masculine representation in Hollywood blockbusters of the 1980’s. Stating that in these films it was the “externalization” of the male body itself that became the main form of spectacle she explains how in the Reagan era, masculine proficiency was reconstituted in the “high concept film” by putting an external emphasis on the relation between male body and territory. Jeffords describes how the first instalment of franchises such as Rambo or Lethal Weapon would include some emotional depth to their hero’s psyche, though this was simply to establish a body of character. And by the time pre-production for the sequel began all masculine inner feeling had been erased. This overarching narrative formula for these blockbusters was a huge success and the process of repetition perpetuated that success. In turn, narrative explorations of psychological states were not encompassed within this formula. Though Jeffords also outlines an internal shift in masculine representation that developed in the 90’s she names several examples of films in which their male protagonists possess inward qualities and tendencies that differentiate them from the ample hero of the 80’s. These films move away from the ‘bar room fight’ and focus on the emotional hardships endured by the leading man; a shift moving towards a new dawn for the “self-effacing” man in contemporary Hollywood cinema.By examining James Cameron’s The Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) Jeffords illuminates certain ambiguities surrounding such thematic relations as masculine representation and repetition with the seven year gap between instalments enabling her to inquire further into the crossing from externalized stature to internal awareness. Her article is broken down into different segments which focus on specific relations. In the first segment, entitled, Masculinity and/as Repetition, Jeffords states that the theme of repetition is at the heart of these films –“repetition as self-reproduction, as the future steps back to re-write the past.” (Jeffords 247) By John Connor’s ability to reach back and direct his conception he is in a sense producing himself. The sequel, T2, as Jeffords says “self-consciously” plays with this repetition by changing its content ever so slightly, a process of “inversion rather than duplication.” (Jeffords 248) This new Terminator has had its personality reprogrammed by the man of the future (John Connor). Instead of hunting Sarah he protects John; instead of killing he only injures. He is the conscious guardian and saviour of youth –the life of future generations. This inversion deposits the Terminator as the “sole parent” as Sarah Connor’s character shifts over into a primitive persona. Unable to control her emotions she removes herself as the mother, stepping back into total absorption in the mission –chain smoking, trying to stay sane in the face of the impending judgement day. “[John] and his future self-programmed private Terminator are in control.” (Jeffords 253)
In the second segment Masculinity and/as Fathering, Jeffords states how the main noticeable change in the Terminator’s personality comes from his new inclination to develop; to learn not only from the mind but from the heart. He questions things, acknowledging John’s feelings, interacting with him and adapting new forms of behaviour. This ability to recognise and change is what distinguishes the man of the 90’s. Jeffords explains how the link to this internal self is ‘fathering’. Both the Terminator and the scientist Miles Dyson accept the entirety of their responsibility as fathers. By protecting the youth and sacrificing themselves they become the fathers of the future.
In the third segment Masculinity and/as Individualism, Jeffords describes how oppositional role reversals within minor characters such as policemen are presented in such a way as to emphasize individual human action. Cameron implements an array of minor conflicts and oppositions that make the Terminator’s efforts seem imperative. Jeffords says how in a world in which its society is becoming similar to the routinized characteristics of a machine, a man’s self-assertive decisiveness is indispensible. She suggests that The Terminator films are pushing the ‘everyday man’ to let go of his insecurities attached to the outer system and regain his power through the domestic sphere; that man can come to release his own identity through the relationship with younger generations –a son.
In the last segment Masculinity and/as Self-reproduction, Jeffords explains how T2 embodies the masculine transition from external to internal by manipulating space and time. By John’s actions in the future to program a kinder Terminator for the past he becomes the hero of these blockbusters. For John not only endures the exposure to both old and new masculine personalities, he comes to understands them. As John stands above the melting pot of dissolving masculine portrayals, the slate of external man is washed clean and the child looks inward towards the future of a new man.
I found Can Masculinity Be Terminated? to be a very insightful article, and a pleasure to read. Susan Jeffords not only analyzes and elaborates on a very interesting shift in masculine representation within Hollywood cinema but she also picks a surprisingly appropriate film to apply her theories to. I say film, because I believe the potency of Jeffords article comes from her capacity to effectively attach a number of complex ideas about masculinity to Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Though she may have stated that she would be examining both films, her article focuses very little on the first instalment, The Terminator, I do not find this weakens her argument, for her interest lies in the latter half of the masculine transition which is the internal shift of the 90’s. In this respect, T2 blatantly becomes the more appropriate choice. The very nature of the film, the increased level of intricacy present (not only in character but in all elements of form and content) compared to its predecessor mirrors the point Jeffords is trying to make. The Terminator narrative evolves from a simple, rigid premise to an elaborate, conscious statement about mankind. This statement is executed by a switch in masculine depiction, from the external hollow workings of the machine to the reflexive internal qualities of the human. Throughout the Terminator saga the Connor’s exposure to the extent of man’s endeavours leaves them with a lot to tell as narrators and in turn we as absorbing audience members are left with a lot to process. The universal, internal importance attached to these films can easily be missed through blinding, dazzling, Cameronian spectacle. That is why I find Jefford’s article to be very instructive at uncovering and clarifying the multiple layers at work in the Terminator films. As Sarah says, “a person could go crazy thinking about this.” (James Cameron 1984)
Outside Jefford’s analysis of T2 (which accounts for most of the article), I have a few comments directed toward certain claims she makes at the beginning of her article. I agree with Jeffords that there was definitely a shift in the 90’s towards the internally-aware man. And that this shift was present not only in the examples of dramas she presents: Field of Dreams (1989), Regarding Henry (1991), Beauty and the Beast (1991)) but also in action films like T2. However I feel Jeffords ought to specify that running parallel to these narratives of “domestic triumph” was the external man of the 80’s. The same old mindless, Reaganite, escapist entertainment was still being produced: The Last Boy Scout (1991), Under Siege (1991), Demolition Man (1993), all the way to Desperado (1995) and Face/Off (1997). All the male protagonists in these films portray little to no emotional sensitivity that would suggest a change in their representation. When all the domestic drama becomes too mentally exhausting to bear, Castor Troy offers an alternative, “Oh well…plan B. Let’s just kill each other” (John Woo, 1997) Externalization endures!
Furthermore, on the opposite side of the spectrum I do not fully condone the argument that the franchise heroes of the 80’s were total external embodiments of ‘spectacle’ without any multidimensionality even though the issue of the external body as spectacle is a prominent factor: Rambo’s camouflage blending him into the forest, John McClane bolting up a flight of stairs in a ‘wife beater’ or Sergeant Riggs sprinting down the boulevard with his shirt barely attached to his chest. The marketing in the trailers for these films all clearly emphasize the body as being one of the main attractions. But there are other traits existing within these characters; traits that manage to survive the transformation into sequel, for example, the use of the “inner monologue” in the Die Hard films. Though McClane is portrayed as the strong and competent New York City police officer he is not the full blown, macho embodiment of external masculinity. McClane has a relentless inner monologue that is constantly at work which in turn inhibits his actions. He hesitates, reflecting upon every decision he makes. “Why the fuck didn't you stop 'em, John? 'Cause then you'd be dead, too, asshole.” (John McTiernan 1988) This internal debate between the self-sufficient officer and cautious cop exemplifies an increasing inability for flawless action.
Besides those two comments in response to her introduction, I am aware that Jeffords by choosing T2, has chosen an action hero who possesses all of these traits: the responsibility of the domestic sphere, increased emotional sensitivity and internal self- recognition. The film then becomes the action film for the experienced film goer, satisfying both the lust for spectacle and the desire for narrative introspection. The film transcends not only the Reaganite boundaries that restricted its counter-part including its marketing imagery. By placing the Terminator on a motorcycle in the poster for T2, the Terminator separates himself from mechanical representation, immediately appearing to be the more human of the two. Only the one red eye through the sunglass lens suggests the continual presence of a mechanical nature. Now the question still remains, since T2 steers towards the internalization of masculinity how well can Jeffords’ theories be applied to The Terminator?
Since many of Jefford’s points are directed solely at T2, it is difficult to apply the same theories to T1. I would like in this application to expand on the points she makes with regard to the Terminator and also to branch out on other theories that can also apply. As Jeffords says, the main way in which the range of masculine representation is depicted is through oppositions; Kyle Reese (human/internal/good/protector) vs. The Terminator, “Cyberdyne Systems model 101” (machine/external/bad/hunter/killer). The Terminator is the total embodiment of the mechanized external force with a masculine body. Arriving naked upon the vista of California he probes the landscape in search of a single target, without a single thought except for the desire to visit a gun store. He is completely free of any internal human qualities but possesses all of man’s external qualities; As Reese explains to Sarah, he has sweat and bad breath but not fear, pity or remorse. The Terminator uses his masculine external tissue as a disguise to cloak his lack of human behaviour. Anonymously blending into society he is free to rip the heart out of anyone who stands in his way.
On the opposite side of the scale, we have Kyle Reese. Reese is the man from the future, the protagonist from the 90’s (so to speak) sent back through time to oppose the externalization of the 80’s counterpart. He is the elite human response to this opposing mechanized being. The opposition is clearly stated, “Nobody goes home, nobody else comes through, it’s just him and me.” (James Cameron 1984) Reese’s masculinity is complex. He is a man who is not only aware of his internal self but is haunted by it. His repeated flashbacks entrap him in a world of fear. Fear of man’s underestimation of machines, and the possible fate that awaits if he should fail. His military survival training has taught him to not embrace or dwell on his emotional intelligence but to disconnect from it. “Pain can be disconnected”, he says. Due to Reese’s mental state the main emotion that he conveys is anger. We see in Reese exactly what Jeffords was talking about in Sarah’s personality shift. Reese is the mercenary father figure, the primitive animal who will do anything to survive, freak out in order to break free; again, like Sarah in T2, total absorption in the mission for mankind.
Through Reese’s tough military shield, and burdened emotional state a combination of energies occurs. On the topic of self-reproduction, I believe something happens to both Reese and Sarah when they make love towards the end of the film. There is an internal alteration. Reese’s military vest is removed by Sarah, he forgives himself and for a brief moment in time he becomes completely immersed in one moment –the moment of rebirth. Not only is John born but Reese is also reborn, he learns to love. As Sarah reconnects his emotions he also transfers some of his masculine power over to her. For in the sequences that follow we see an immediate role reversal. It is now Sarah who is aiding Reese. As Reese hits the floor, she yells “On your feet soldier!” It is as if Reese’s job here on earth is finished, the seed of mankind has been planted within Sarah and it is now up to her. From here Sarah’s character resembles Reese; in T2 she becomes the continuation of Reese’s persona. As Jeffords says, the first time we see her in the sequel she is doing pull-ups. And regardless of the conscious father sacrificing himself for the future generation, it is Sarah, the mother of the future who terminates the externalized machine. Ironically, her sensitive nature comes to rely on the use of a machine to close the gap between past and future. With the contemporary hydraulic press crushing a creation of a possible future, there is still hope for man’s endeavours. But as the mechanical arm reaches through its cage towards the future, Cameron poses the question – where can the line be drawn?
Work Cited
Die Hard. Dir. John McTiernan. Perf. Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman. 20th Century Fox. 1988.
Face/Off. Dir. John Woo. Perf. John Travolta, Nicholas Cage. Touchstone Pictures. 1997.
Jeffords, Susan. “Can Masculinity Be Terminated?” Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema. Ed. Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark. New York: Routledge, 1993. 245-261. Print.
The Terminator. Dir. James Cameron. Perf. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton. Hemdale Films. 1984.
