Raw L. The Ridley Scott Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

aud being deluded into believing he has killed D’Hubert and

running out of bullets; however, D’Hubert does not kill his

unarmed adversary, preferring to let him live. The sequence

is certainly dramatic, with the soundtrack helping to create

an atmosphere of suspense; the audience quite literally does

not know what will happen next. In thematic terms, how-

ever, it demonstrates how far the two protagonists have trav-

eled from the world of civilization.

This may appear positive at first glance: now the char-

acters can behave as they wish, without having to conform

to any particular codes (especially the code of honor which

determined their behavior throughout the preceding

sequences). However, it also means that the two of them are

totally isolated; they have nowhere to go to except back into

the wilderness. This is emphasized in the film’s final shot,

which shows Feraud standing high on a hill, silhouetted

against the landscape, watching the sun rise over the water

stretching out in front of him. Truly he is a man alone; as

Scott himself suggests (in the director’s commentary to the

DVD release), he is like Napoleon in exile, someone who

overreached himself and paid the consequences for doing

so. The Western hero may be alone and independent, but he

is also isolated.

None of this exists in Conrad; but Scott deliberately

incorporated such images to remind audiences of the paral-

lels between The Duellists and the American western. The

historical period might be different; but the themes remain

similar. I suggest that this decision to reshape the material

was a commercial one—a deliberate attempt to sustain Para-

mount Pictures’s interest. The film was never going to receive

more than art house distribution (it was only released in the-

aters in NEW YORK and LOS ANGELES), but it helped to

launch Scott’s Hollywood career. His next film, ALIEN,

although made in Britain, was backed by Twentieth Century-

Fox to the tune of $11 million, which suggests that his mar-

keting ploy paid off.

The Duellists is not just a film designed for marketing

purposes, however; it provides a good example of how Scott

endeavored to incorporate cinematic techniques derived

from advertisements into his narrative. Unlike the HER-

ITAGE FILMS characteristic of directors such as Merchant-

Ivory, which often employed long takes and close-ups to

draw the viewers’ attention to the historic locations and col-

orful costumes, Scott is more concerned with moving the

narrative forward by means of sequences comprised of fast

cuts. This is especially evident in the first duel sequence,

where the camera alternates between behind-the-shoulder

shots of the duelists, point of view shots from both of their

perspectives, and shots with a hand-held camera swooping

downwards towards the ground, emphasizing the violence

of the conflict. The sequence itself lasts no more than one

minute; but within that time we are made well aware of the

fact that this is a fight to the death. It becomes a mini-story

in itself. Scott was well versed in such techniques, having

made over three hundred commercials before he began his

career as a film director, including classics such as the adver-

tisement for HOVIS BREAD (1973), which became so pop-

ular in Britain during the early 1970s that it spawned several

sequels. His ability to tell a story in a short space of time

proved invaluable in The Duellists, transforming Conrad’s

tale into a gripping epic by using the kind of shot-strategies

which would subsequently become characteristic of the pop

video, and which were were later incorporated into adapta-

tions such as Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet (1996).

The Duellists was the British entry at the Cannes Film

Festival of 1977, where it won the prize for Best Debut Film.

It was marketed as a fresh look at a classic text, helmed by a

producer, DAVID PUTTNAM, who according to the press-

book was “not the type to sit at a desk with a phone in his

ear and his feet propped on the desk.” Some reviewers

responded enthusiastically: the London Daily Express felt

that “the balance between visual appeal and human content

is just about perfect.” While the Sunday Telegraph reviewer

enjoyed the photography, he felt that the film lacked “some

deeper sense of the personal, social and historical seeds from

which this bizarre enmity [between D’Hubert and Feraud]

must spring ...what we mainly retain is the impression of

two clockwork antagonists.” The Monthly Film Bulletin com-

plained that the film “clearly betrays the dampening influ-

ence of television,” by relying heavily on brief, static scenes

comprised of close-ups. Despite the hard-working cast, the

film proved once again “that Conrad does not translate to

the screen too easily.” Despite favorable reviews from critics

such as Pauline Kael, the film did little or no business in

America. Scott recalled in the “Director’s Commentary” that

Paramount made precisely seven prints for distribution.

Since its premiere The Duellists has received a goodly

share of critical attention. A1980 article “Conrad Drama-

tized” took issue with the Monthly Film Bulletin by arguing

that Scott’s adaptation was “cinematically effective,” partic-

ularly at the end when Feraud is represented “as a symbol of

the ultimate futility of Napoleon’s military glory.” Two years

later the British critic Patrick Stoddart celebrated Scott’s abil-

ity “to express specific moods and ideas” in visual terms; he

“gets a lot more than a thousand words out of every picture.”

A decade later Charles Shiro Tashiro discussed the film’s rep-

resentation of the “two-faced ideal” characteristic of the

eighteenth and early nineteenth century military: “one,

bourgeois, austere, republican ...repressive; two, aristo-

cratic, military, flamboyant.” Scott’s film was even judged

faithful to Conrad’s text (“[he] establishes the visual quali-

ties of The Duellists as the cinematic equivalent of Conrad’s

meditative tone”), which reveals how questions of fidelity

frequently depend on individual perception. James Clarke

100

■

THE DUELLISTS

called it “an essential Ridley Scott film, of economical and

powerful storytelling . . . A quiet classic.” Since then it has

achieved cult status: Richard Collins remarks that “it set the

themes and genre for Scott’s later films, for here the heroes

are most conspicuously defending, in good swashbuckler

fashion, ‘a point of honor,’ and simply for its own sake.”

References

Alan Brien, “The Duellists,” Sunday Telegraph, 5 February 1978, 22;

Ian Christie, “Fur Coat and Knickers Too,” Daily Express,4 Febru-

ary 1978, 13; James Clarke, Ridley Scott (London: Virgin Books Ltd.,

2002), 28; Richard Collins,“Truth in Adversaries: Ridley Scott’s The

Duellists and Joseph Conrad’s “The Duel,” Studies in the Humani-

ties (2000): 17–18; Roderick Davis,“Conrad Dramatized: The Duel-

lists,” Literature/Film Quarterly 8, no.2 (1980): 129; Pauline Kael,

“The Current Cinema,” New Yorker, 23 January 1978, 80; Tom

Milne,“The Duellists,” Monthly Film Bulletin, December 1977, 258;

Pressbook: The Duellists (London: Paramount Pictures, 1977), 4;

Ridley Scott, “Director’s Commentary,” to the 2003 release of The

Duellists by Paramount DVD in the “Special Collector’s Edition”

(London: Paramount Home Entertainment, 2003); Allan Simmons,

“Cinematic Fidelities in The Rover and The Duellists,” in Conrad on

Film, ed. Gene M. Moore (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1997), 121; Patrick Stoddart, “Video Views,” Broadcast, 17 May

1982, 21; Charles Shiro Tashiro, “The Bourgeois Gentleman and

The Hussar,” The Spectator: University of Southern California Jour-

nal of Film and Television Criticism 13, no.2 (Spring 1993): 39.

Bibliography

Donald Chase, “Ridley Scott Directs The Duellists,” in Ridley Scott

Interviews, ed. Laurence F. Knapp and Andrea F. Kulas (Jackson:

University Press of Mississippi, 2005), 3–11; Brian J. Robb, Ridley

Scott (Harpenden: Pocket Essentials, 2002).

DUNE

US 1984 r/t 137 min col. (original release). Production Com-

panies: De Laurentiis. Producer: Raffaella De Laurentiis.

Director: David Lynch. Writer: David Lynch, from the novel

by Frank Herbert. Director of Photography: Freddie Francis.

Production Designer: Anthony Masters. Music:Toto.Cast:

Francesca Annis (Lady Jessica), Brad Dourif (Piter De Vries),

José Ferrer (Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV), Linda Hunt

(Shadout Mapes), Kyle MacLachlan (Paul Usul Muad’Dib

Atreides), Virginia Madsen (Princess Irulan).

Frank Herbert’s novel, first published in 1965, took a

long time to reach the screen. Producer Arthur P. Jacobs took

up an option on the novel in 1971, but died two years later.

Subsequently a French consortium purchased the rights and

announced that Chilean director Alejandro Jodorowsky

would direct. Many of the talents who would later work on

ALIEN were engaged, including H. R. GIGER, Chris Foss,

and DAN O’BANNON. By late 1976 DINO DE LAUREN-

TIIS had purchased the rights and commissioned a script

from Frank Herbert, which was later deemed unsuitable.

Some two and a half years later he engaged Scott as director,

following the success of Alien; work began at Pinewood Stu-

dios with Giger rehired to work on storyboards. After eight

months the two men had created what they considered a

workable script. By mid-1980 Scott had begun production,

using a script created by Giger and Rudolph Wurlitzer; how-

ever, by September the project had been shut down, with

script difficulties proving too difficult to overcome. Scott left

the project, citing pressure of work and the recent death of

his elder brother Frank as reasons for doing so.

Eventually David Lynch was hired to complete the proj-

ect; following a great deal of preproduction difficulties, the

film was eventually released on 3 December 1984 to indif-

ferent reviews. Never one to mince words, Roger Ebert

described it as “a real mess, an incomprehensible, ugly,

unstructured, pointless excursion into the murkier realms

of the one of the most confusing screenplays of all time.”

References

Dune: Book to Screen Timeline, www.duneinfo.com/unseen/timeline

.asp (accessed 25 February 2009); Roger Ebert, “Dune,” http://

rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19840101/

REVIEWS/401010332/1023 (accessed 25 February 2009).

DUNN, KEVIN (1956– )

Studied drama at Illinois Wesleyan University and appeared

on stage in Chicago as well as at the Williamstown Theatre

Festival. Dunn made his film debut in 1988 as Agent Bird in

Mississippi Burning (1988). Had supporting roles in The

Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), Hot Shots! (1991), and Chap-

lin (1992).

Cast as Captain Méndez in 1492: CONQUEST OF PAR-

ADISE, Dunn’s role is to express the feelings of Columbus’s

(GÉRARD DEPARDIEU’s) crew, as they spend endless years

at sea without sight of land. He represents the skeptical voice

that Columbus has to overcome if he is to have any chance

of fulfilling his desires both to discover new territories and

create new worlds. His role in the film is similar to that of

Gaff (EDWARD JAMES OLMOS) in BLADE RUNNER.

Despite the hardships involved, Méndez remains a supporter

throughout—even if, at the end, he realizes that the mutiny

of the Spaniards, led by Moxica (MICHAEL WINCOTT)

results in the total collapse of the dream of creating a New

World. Robert Thurston’s novelization of the screenplay

expresses Mendez’s feelings succinctly: “Beside Columbus,

Méndez started sobbing. Columbus realized suddenly that

it was not just his world being destroyed, but the world of

Méndez and the others, the loyal ones who had faith in his

grand design. It was as if the design was being swept away

by the current, too.”

DUNN, KEVIN (1956– )

■

101

References

Robert Thurston, 1492: Conquest of Paradise Based on a Screenplay

by Roselyne Bosch (London: Penguin Books, 1992), 171.

DYSTOPIA

Scott is especially concerned to create a dystopian city in

BLADE RUNNER. In an interview with Harlan Kennedy

published at the time of the film’s original release, he

described it thus: “I think various groups are developing

today—faction groups which are religious, social, whatever—

and Punk ...some louts ...who developed their own little

culture of protest . . . and I think the police force will become

a kind of paramilitary . . . We’re in a city which is in a state

of overkill, of snarled-up energy, where you can no longer

remove a building because it costs far more than construct-

ing one in its place.” What makes the society in Blade Run-

ner so frightening is that it resembles our own. Just like

Neuromancer and other CYBERPUNK dystopias, Blade Run-

ner does not predict change, but escalation. Every negative

tendency in our time has been amplified. In the Ridley Scott-

produced film THE LAST DEBATE, director JOHN BAD-

HAM applies the dystopian idea to contemporary American

society. In a world dominated by the media, in which poli-

tics has become a branch of show business, no one cares any

more for old-fashioned virtues such as loyalty and integrity.

This is a world in which journalists take the electoral process

in their own hands as they systematically destroy the Repub-

lican presidential candidate Richard Meredith’s (Stephen

Young’s) chances of winning the election. Meredith storms

off the stage yelling “Is this what America is? God is gonna

punish you!” Sadly his prediction proves inaccurate: no god

exists in this amoral world.

Scott creates another dystopian world in LEGEND,as

Lily (MIA SARA) ignores Jack’s (TOM CRUISE’s) orders

and ushers in a new ice age, where the forest is covered with

a blanket of snow, human beings are frozen to death and the

world is plunged into darkness. In this kind of atmosphere

Darkness (TIM CURRY) can implement his campaign to

deprive the world of all sunlight and thereby assume

absolute power. TRISTAN + ISOLDE employs a similar

design concept, as designer MARK GERAGHTY creates a

world of the Dark Ages whose principal colors are black,

gray, and off-white. Everything seems pale and washed out:

no one wears bright clothes for fear of being considered an

outsider. The only ray of light in an otherwise drab world is

the central love affair between the two protagonists (JAMES

FRANCO, SOPHIA MYLES).

In BLACK RAIN Scott returns to the theme of the

decaying city with the portrayal of Osaka in JAPAN as a

place of alienation, full of flashing lights and high-tech

CARS, but simultaneously a threatening area where individ-

uals such as Nick Conklin (MICHAEL DOUGLAS) and

Charlie Vincent (ANDY GARCIA) are continually under

threat from faceless gangs. However this film differs from

Blade Runner in its portrayal of a dystopia. According to

Andrew Milner, the earlier film suggests that in the futuris-

tic LOS ANGELES it is no longer important whether men

and women are “still actually human, no longer persuaded

of our evolutionary superiority as a species” in cities com-

prised of “the mounting wreckage of a civilization nearly

beyond repair.” By contrast Black Rain restores our faith in

humanity by showing the two policemen Nick and the

Japanese police officer Masahiro (KEN TAKAKURA) bring-

ing the yakuza leader Sato (YUSAKU MATSUDA) to justice

and thereby ridding the city of gangland influence. This cli-

mactic moment to the film suggests that the dystopia can be

improved so long as there are police officers with sufficient

confidence to rely on their own instincts. No such redemp-

tion exists in the London of A GOOD YEAR; it is a place

reserved for moneymakers who spend all their days staring

at plasma screens with little concern for what happens in the

outside world. The central character Max Skinner (RUSSELL

CROWE) only discovers what life is like when he quits the

city altogether and moves to PROVENCE. The same also

applies to the Harlem of AMERICAN GANGSTER, which is

so overrun with drug-pushers and corrupt police that no

one has any sense of right and wrong any more.

References

Harlan Kennedy, “21st Century Nervous Breakdown,” Film Com-

ment 18, no.4 (July–August 1982): 64–68; Andrew Milner, “Darker

Cities: Urban Dystopia and Science Fiction Cinema,” International

Journal of Cultural Studies 7, no.3 (Autumn 2004): 259–79.

Bibliography

Peter Brooker, “Imagining the Real: Blade Runner and the Dis-

courses on the Postmetropolis,” in The Blade Runner Experience:

The Legacy of a Science Fiction Classic,” ed. Will Brooker (London

and New York: Wallflower Press, 2005), 213–25; Judith B. Kerman,

“Technology and Politics in the Blade Runner Dystopia,” in Retro-

fitting Blade Runner, ed. Judith B. Kerman, 2nd ed. (Bowling Green:

Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1997), 16–24; Brian

Opie, “Android Textuality, or Finding a Toad in the Desert of Amer-

ica,” in Remembering Representation, ed. Howard McNaughton

(Christchurch: University of Canterbury, Department of English,

1993), 76–89; Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner, “Technophobia/

Dystopia,” in Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader, ed. Sean

Redmond (London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2004), 48–56;

Vivian Sobchack, “Cities on the Edge of Time: The Urban Science

Fiction Film,” in Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader,ed.

Redmond, 78–87; Brian Winston, “Tyrell’s Owl: The Limits of the

Technological Imagination in an Epoch of Hyperbolic Discourse,”

in Theorizing Culture: An Interdisciplinary Critique after Postmod-

ernism, ed. Barbara Adam and Stuart Allen (London: UCL Press

Ltd., 1995), 225–35.

102

■

DYSTOPIA

EDEN ROC CHANEL No. 5 (1989)

GB c.1989 Commercial r/t 1 min col. Production Company:

RSA Films. Director: Ridley Scott. Cast: Carole Bouquet.

This was the first Chanel No. 5 advertisement featuring

the French actress Carole Bouquet. The featured music is

Nina Simone’s “My Baby Just Cares for Me.” This advertise-

ment suggests that the perfume makes the central character

irresistible to men. Bouquet is shown kissing an old man and

subsequently tantalizing a much younger man while sitting

in the driver’s seat of a bright red automobile. Eventually she

meets the man of her dreams; the two of them come

together into a kiss as the commercial fades to black. The

action ends with a close-up of Bouquet saying “Share the

fantasy. Chanel No. 5” with her hand on the bottle.

Another commercial demonstrating Scott’s visual flair;

there are long panning shots of a desert landscape (a precur-

sor to THELMA & LOUISE) with Bouquet’s car no more

than a red speck at the center of the frame.

Reference

“Eden Roc Chanel No. 5,” www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Dq

UpSHIb8 (accessed 4 February 2008).

EDEN ROC—CHANEL No. 5 (1990 )

US c.1990 Commercial r/t 1 min col. Production Company:

RSA Films. Director: Ridley Scott. Cast: Carole Bouquet.

Another commercial for Chanel, released soon after the

first one featuring Carole Bouquet. Set on a gloriously sunny

day beside a swimming pool, this advertisement focuses on

Bouquet’s body as well as her face as she takes a drink and

sunbathes on a chaise lounge. A man walks towards her and

kisses her; Bouquet throws her head back as if expecting the

kiss. The commercial ends with a shot of Bouquet in close-

up speaking the words “Share the fantasy. Chanel No. 5” as

the camera cuts to a shot of the perfume bottle. As with the

EDEN ROC CHANEL NO. 5 (1989) commercial, Scott

makes clever use of unusual shots—for example, shots of the

man’s legs, or Bouquet’s feet, to suggest the sensuality of the

occasion.

EDUCATION

Some of Scott’s films touch on the question of educating the

young. In MONKEY TROUBLE, Eva (THORA BIRCH) has

to make a presentation at school, using a pet or a younger

family member. At first she cannot do this; as someone com-

ing from a largely dysfunctional family, she lacks both the

application and the talent. However, as the film pro-

gresses, she learns self-reliance and confidence through

caring for the monkey, learns to confide in Christine the

teacher (Andi Chapman), and realizes the importance of

telling the truth. The school in this film is identified as a

place where students can develop themselves both socially

and intellectually.

The complete opposite is true of THE BROWNING

VERSION. Set in a boys’ private school in the rolling Eng-

lish hills, the film suggests that education has very little to

do with growth or self-development and everything to do

with creating generations of emotionally stunted young

men committed to outdated ideals of MASCULINITY

(being good at games, enduring punishments and not

showing one’s emotions). This ethos—if it can be

described as such—dominates the teachers’ behavior as

much as the students’: Crocker-Harris (ALBERT FINNEY)

would far rather conceal his emotions rather than criticize

the headmaster (MICHAEL GAMBON) for denying him a

pension or slighting him by asking him to speak first at the

prize-giving ceremony, though it is his right as senior

teacher to speak last. The student Buller (Walter Mickleth-

wait) quietly whimpers in a corner of his dormitory, hav-

ing discovered that his parents cannot come to the

end-of-term ceremonies. Another pupil tries to console

him by saying, “Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it, believe

me.” Buller’s response is succinct and to the point: “Fuck

off.” This is precisely director MIKE FIGGIS’s point: why

should young people have to “get used to” this kind of

environment, where they are treated as human cannon

fodder, and forced to learn archaic subjects such as Latin

and Greek? Education should consist of a lot more—as

Crocker-Harris admits in his climactic final speech in

■

103

which he wishes he could have taught with sympathy,

encouragement and humanity.

The same point recurs in WHITE SQUALL, where the

parents of the teenage crew are shown to be either repressive

or insensitive—for example, when Chuck Gieg’s (SCOTT

WOLF’s) father Charles (Jordan Clarke) takes him clothes

shopping immediately upon his return from the voyage in

the belief that this will provide a suitable means for his son

to forget the experience. Inevitably Chuck rebels by running

out of the fitting-room and into the street, pursued by his

father (who pauses to tell the store owner, “We’ll be right

back.”). The true “fathers” in the film are the boys themselves

and Captain Sheldon (JEFF BRIDGES). Sheldon occasion-

ally might be extreme in his behavior—for example, when

he forces the acrophobic Martin (RYAN PHILLIPPE) to

climb the rigging—but he manages to create an atmosphere

in which the boys can mature very quickly. At one point the

English professor McCrea (JOHN SAVAGE) quotes from

Kipling’s poem “If . . . ” which is all about the idea of acquir-

ing maturity. Scott shows that the boys clearly understand

the implications of these words. Gieg observes at the end

that, “[We] shared his [Sheldon’s] burden, the burden of sea-

captains and fathers, the burden of men.” By contrast, Gieg

believes that when parents send their children away, “they

want to keep their kids the same.”

EJIOFOR, CHIWETEL (1974– )

Born in London, Ejiofor made his feature film debut in

Steven Spielberg’s Amistad (1997). A decade later he won a

Golden Globe nomination for Best Performance by an Actor

in a Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for Kinky Boots

(2005). Recent stage work includes Othello in London

(2007).

Cast as Huey, one of Frank Lucas’s many brothers on

AMERICAN GANGSTER, Ejiofor teamed up once again

with DENZEL WASHINGTON, with whom he had already

worked on Inside Man (2006). Unlike Frank, Huey is a flam-

boyant personality, fond of wearing expensive clothes and

jewelry. This represents a threat to the stability of Frank’s

organization, which prides itself on wearing “expensive tai-

lored suits” and persuading their partners to be “nicely

dressed—not too much makeup.” The main intention is to

sustain a façade of respectability so that they do not get

noticed by the police. By contrast, Huey’s clothes are, in

Frank’s words,“a costume. With a sign on it that says Arrest

Me . . . You wanna be Superfly? Go work for him, end up in

a cell with him.” Huey might be loyal to his brother, but his

grandiosity eventually causes Frank’s downfall. He shouts

loudly on a pay phone, and by doing so unwittingly reveals

the number of the flight bringing the latest shipment of

heroin from Vietnam.

Reference

Steven Zaillian,“American Gangster: Final Shooting Script” (27 July

2006), www.roteirodecinema.com.br/scripts/files/american_gangster

.htm (accessed 8 February 2009).

ELASTOPLAST AIRSTRIP PLASTERS

GB 1970 Commercial r/t 30 sec col. Production Company:

RSA Films for J. Walter Thompson. Director: Ridley Scott.

A commercial demonstrating the versatility of Elastoplast

adhesive bandages. A little girl does a ballet dance, bending her

knees and putting her hands above her head to the tune of “I

Am a Courtier Grave and Serious” from Gilbert and Sullivan’s

The Gondoliers. An adult female voice—presumably the ballet

teacher—is heard on the soundtrack, telling us that Elastoplast

is “waterproof, dirt proof and germproof. In fact, almost every-

thing-proof. Yet it still breathes in air.” Compared to later works

such as McDOUGALLS PASTRY MIX or HOVIS BREAD, this

commercial sells a product directly to the viewer without

creating a mini-narrative. Many of the camera techniques

used have their origins in B-Movies (recalling ADAM

ADAMANT LIVES!), for example, the use of zoom out as

the girl twirls round, her hands above her head.

ELLZEY, LISA (?– )

In 2007 Ellzey was a production executive at Twentieth

Century-Fox. Previously, she was the president of SCOTT

FREE Entertainment, the company owned by Ridley Scott

and Tony Scott. She produced TRISTAN & ISOLDE, IN HER

SHOES, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, A GOOD YEAR,and

THE GATHERING STORM. In 2002 she co-executive pro-

duced the reality television show AFP—AMERICAN

FIGHTER PILOT. Ellzey began her career by producing the

low-budget independent film The Poison Tasters, starring

French Stewart, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festi-

val in 1995. Between shooting the film and taking it to the

festival, she worked at Creative Artists Agency for three years

as an assistant in the Motion Pictures Literary department.

EXCALIBUR

GB/USA 1981 r/t 140 min col. Production Company:Orion

Pictures Corporation. Producer/Director: John Boorman.

Writers: Rospo Pallenberg and John Boorman, from La

Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory. Director of Photography:

Alex Thomson. Music: Trevor Jones. Production Designer:

Anthony Pratt. Cast: Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mir-

ren (Morgana), Nicholas Clay (Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi

(Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Perceval), Nicol Williamson

(Merlin), Robert Addie (Mordred).

A spirited account of the legend of King Arthur, which

inspired DEAN GEORGARIS to write the screenplay for

TRISTAN + ISOLDE.

104

■

EJIOFOR, CHIWETEL (1974– )

FAISON, FRANKIE (1949– )

Born in Newport News, Virginia, Frankie Faison made his

debut in the film Permanent Vacation (1980). In Michael

Mann’s Manhunter (1986), the first of the Hannibal Lecter

films, Faison played Lieutenant Fisk; five years later he

played the ward orderly Barney Matthews in THE SILENCE

OF THE LAMBS. Repeating the role once again in HANNI-

BAL, Faison has a small part as someone who is eventually

persuaded by Clarice Starling (JULIANNE MOORE) to

refrain from selling Hannibal’s (ANTHONY HOPKINS’s)

X-Ray and return it once again to its rightful place. If not,

then he will be arrested on fraud charges. While Barney is

right in claiming he is fundamentally “not a bad guy,” he is

an example of the institutional corruption that permeates

the film. Faison reappears in the fourth Hannibal film Red

Dragon (2002) in the same role.

Reference

Steven Zaillian, “Hannibal: Screenplay Based on the Novel by

Thomas Harris,” Revision (9 February 2000), http://sfy.ru/sfy.html

?script=hannibal2001 (accessed 15 December 2008).

THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

USA 1964 r/t 188 min col. Production Company:Samuel

Bronstein Productions. Producer: Samuel Bronston. Director:

Anthony Mann. Writers: Ben Barzman, Basilio Franchina, and

Philip Yordan. Director of Photography: Robert Krasker. Music:

Dmitri Tiomkin. Production Designers: Veniero Colasanti and

John Moore. Cast: Sophia Loren (Lucilla), Stephen Boyd

(Livius), Alec Guinness (Marcus Aurelius), James Mason (Tim-

onides), Christopher Plummer (Commodus), Mel Ferrer (Cle-

ander), Anthony Quayle (Verulus), Omar Sharif (Sohamus).

Legendary Roman epic, whose plot was largely bor-

rowed by DAVID FRANZONI and JOHN LOGAN for

GLADIATOR. The film tells the story of a moment in his-

tory when Rome—the mightiest empire—paused on the

crest of its glory before plunging into oblivion. Part of a

cycle of epics Bronston produced; others included El Cid

(1962), 55 Days at Peking (1962), and Circus World (1963).

While condemned by reviewers at the time for its exces-

sive length, The Fall of the Roman Empire contains many of

the themes that would resurface in Scott’s films, especially

the emotional EDUCATION of the hero and the idea of tests

(by joust or by fire) set against the backdrop of epic land-

scape. The film was also noticeable for the non-appearance

of RICHARD HARRIS, who was due to play Commodus

but walked out of the film before the cameras rolled. Eventu-

ally the role was played by Stephen Boyd. Harris played

Commodus’s father Marcus in Gladiator.

Bibliography

“The Rise and Fall of an Epic Production: The Making of the

Film [Fall of the Roman Empire],” Documentary on the 2008

release of Fall of the Roman Empire (Los Angeles: Paramount Pic-

tures, 2008).

FANCHER, HAMPTON (1938– )

Actor and screenplay writer. Fancher’s career as an actor

included supporting roles in television series such as Gun-

smoke, Rawhide, Perry Mason, and Bonanza. BLADE RUN-

NER was his first major assignment as a writer.

The story of how the script evolved and how Fancher’s

role changed in the process of bringing PHILIP K. DICK’s

work to the screen has been recounted both by PAUL M.

SAMMON and in the documentary Dangerous Days: Mak-

ing Blade Runner, included in the five-disc BLADE RUN-

NER: COLLECTOR’S EDITION (2007). IVOR POWELL

claimed in an interview that, while Fancher’s original script

had its virtues, DAVID PEOPLES was brought in to improve

it because “Hampton was, quite frankly, exhausted after

working on this for a year or two before we [Powell and

Scott] came along ...Hampton Fancher is a very romantic

writer and in his original script the relationship between

Deckard and Rach[a]el was much stronger and in the end

she realises that there isn’t much future for them because

he’s human and she’s a REPLICANT. She is standing on the

roof and he realises that she might be going to do something

stupid and he rushes to her. He gets up on the roof and she’s

■

105

standing on the edge of the roof holding onto the real sheep

that he’s bought . . . A very powerful scene.” On the other

hand, Powell observed in a 1982 article that “there were

some things in Fancher’s script which were unacceptable.

For instance, Deckard just arrives at Zhora’s place without

an explanation as to how he got there.”

Fancher himself recalled in 1997, “At the end of 1980, I

began to realise there was a slow process of involuntary addi-

tion and elimination going on in what was now called Blade

Runner [a title Fancher had appropriated from WILLIAM S.

BURROUGHS’s 1979 book, Blade Runner: A Movie] through

Ridley, who was jettisoning key concepts in my screenplay.

That horrified me, and I became very vocal. I found out I’d

been kicked off the picture in a Christmas party, when I

picked up a Blade Runner script I’d never seen before with

the name David Peoples on it. I thought, ‘Who the fuck is

that?’” However, Fancher eventually obtained a credit as

co-author and executive producer on the film. In a 1999

interview Fancher recalled that he had originally believed

that Rachael should have died at the end of the film, as

Deckard shoots her: “They’re [Deckard and Rachael] in

love, and he’s become kind of human through this ...he

becomes less of a machine through the ordeal of falling in

love with her. She’s smarter than he is and she’s better than

he is, and at the end, he kills her. And it’s not an outright

execution. It’s elliptical. But you hear the shot, and you see

where it took place, and you saw her face, and she wanted

it, and it was an act of love.” However, Fancher seemed to

have reconciled himself to the fact that despite the some-

times-negative experiences in working on it, Blade Runner

was a great film: “Everybody made that movie. It’s not just

one of us.”

References

Jeffrey M. Anderson, “Interview with Hampton Fancher” (24 Sep-

tember 1999), Combustible Celluloid Magazine, www.combustible-

celluloid.com/intfancher1.shtml (accessed 13 April 2008); Phil

Edwards and Alan McKenzie, “The Blade Runner Chronicles: Ivor

Powell,” Starburst 50 (October 1982): 27–28; Paul M. Sammon,

“Fear of a Bleak Planet,” Neon, March 1997, 103; Paul M. Sammon,

Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, 2nd ed. (London: Gol-

lancz, 2007), 24–29, 36–38, 52–64; “Incept Date—1980: Screenwrit-

ing and Dealmaking,” Disc 2 in Blade Runner: Collector’s Edition

(Los Angeles: Warner Bros. Entertainment and the Blade Runner

Partnership, 2007).

FANDOM

Several of Scott’s films have exercised considerable influence

over popular culture, especially ALIEN and BLADE RUN-

NER. Not only have they spawned their own websites,

fanzines, chat groups, but they have given rise to new ver-

sions of the films spread over the Internet. Alien (and the

three films in the sequence) spawned a series of comic books

produced especially for the fans of the series.

The many versions of BLADE RUNNER that have

appeared since 1982 have stimulated fandom even more.

There have been three separate prints of the film—the orig-

inal version, the DIRECTOR’S CUT, and the FINAL CUT—

and since the early 1990s the Blade Runner cast and world

have been taken up by novels (Blade Runner 2, 3, and 4)

written by K. W. (Kevin Wayne) Jeter. One video game was

released in 1985; Westwood Studios released another Blade

Runner game in 1997.

Such materials have stimulated a whole host of fan sites

which invite surfers to become part of the Blade Runner

world, offer a series of incredibly detailed questions and

answers based on the various versions of the film, and pro-

vide numerous opportunities for blogging and/or other

commentary. Will Brooker comments that fan groups visit-

ing such sites are stimulated by the film’s introspective

nature: “[The film] attracts a project based not so much

around community but solitary dedication, and is as such

something quite unique among the Internet fan groups

described in academic study to date.” By comparison, the

Alien fans respond most to “‘the buddies shooting the bull’

mode . . . an online equivalent of the role-playing groups

whose popularity peaked in the mid to late 1980s.”

The same phenomenon is evident with LEGEND, which

has become a cult film even though it flopped on its first

release in 1985. As a result, perhaps, of the film’s growing

cult status (a Legend FAQ website was created and currently

exists on www.figmentfly.com/legend/background1.html),

Scott collaborated with his long-term video producer

CHARLES DE LAUZIRIKA to produce an “Ultimate Edi-

tion” DVD of Legend, with a new 113-minute LEGEND:

THE DIRECTOR’S CUT, including deleted scenes and inter-

views with some of the production’s main personalities.

NUMB3RS has spawned numerous fansites online,

notably Numb3rs.org, the Numb3rs Fan Club, everythingis-

numb3rs.eponym.com, and the official website maintained by

the producers CBS (www.cbs.com/primetime/numb3rs/).

Reference

Will Brooker, “Internet Fandom and the Continuing Narratives of

Star Wars, Blade Runner and Alien,” in Alien Zone 2: The Spaces of Sci-

ence Fiction Cinema, ed. Annette Kuhn (London: Verso, 2000), 56, 70.

Bibliography:

Kerry Gough, “Translation Creativity and Alien Econ(c)omics,” in

Film and Comic Books, ed. Ian Gordon, Mark Jancovich, and

Matthew P. McAllister (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi,

2007), 37–64; Christy Gray, “Originals and Copies: The Fans of

Philip K. Dick, Blade Runner and K. W. Jeter,” in The Blade Runner

Experience: The Legacy of a Science Fiction Classic,” e d. Wil l Brooker

106

■

FANCHER, HAMPTON (1938– )

(London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2005), 142–59; Jonathan

Gray, “Scanning the Replicant Text,” in The Blade Runner Experi-

ence: The Legacy of a Science Fiction Classic,” 111–24; Matt Hills,

“Academic Textual Poachers: Blade Runner as Cult Canonical

Movie,” in The Blade Runner Experience: The Legacy of a Science Fic-

tion Classic, 124–42; Paul M. Sammon, Future Noir: The Making of

Blade Runner, 2nd ed. (London: Gollancz, 2007).

FARAHANI, GOLSHIFTEH (1983– )

Daughter of the Iranian actor and theatre director Behzad

Farahani and sister of noted actress Shaghayegh Farahani,

Farahani began studying music and piano as a child. She was

supposed to continue her education at the Vienna Conser-

vatory in Austria but decided to pursue her acting career

instead. Her film credits include Niwemang/Half Moon

(2006), for which she won the Golden Sea Shell at the 2006

San Sebastian Film Festival.

Farahani made her English-language debut in BODY OF

LIES as the nurse Aisha, who falls in love with Roger Ferris

(LEONARDO DICAPRIO) but retains a commonsense

understanding of the world around her. Although Ferris stays

in Jordan and tries to continue the relationship, we are left in

doubt as to whether it will flourish in a world where Ferris

will always be a marked man, even if he has left the CIA.

In the production notes Scott commended Farahani for

her “strength and dignity ...The camera really loves her.”

The actress herself liked the role she was offered: “In the

beginning, she [Aisha] finds Ferris interesting, but she

doesn’t take him seriously. When she discovers that he has a

good heart, she lets herself get more involved. She is dis-

armed by his sincerity.” However, their attraction is compli-

cated by the conventions of her culture, which frowns upon

men fraternizing with unmarried women, as Scott observed:

“He [Ferris] can’t even shake her hand because he knows

that would be very bad for her.” Nonetheless in DiCaprio’s

opinion “Ferris feels a very strong affinity for Aisha. He’s

very respectful of her culture and tradition, and he works at

developing a relationship with her.”

Reference

Production Notes: Body of Lies (Los Angeles: Warner Bros. Enter-

tainment, 2008), http://mix96tulsa.com/movies/notes/body-of-

lies/note/4 (accessed 16 January 2009).

FARGO

US 1996 r/t 98 min col. Production Companies:PolyGram

Filmed Entertainment, Working Title Films and Gramercy

Pictures. Producers: Tim Bevan, Joel and Ethan Coen. Writ-

ers/Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen. Director of Photography:

Roger Deakins. Music: Carter Burwell. Production Designer:

Rick Heinrichs. Cast: Frances McDormand (Marge Gunder-

son), William H. Macy (Jerome “Jerry” Lundegaard), Steve

Buscemi (Carl Showalter), Peter Stormare (Gaear Grimsrud),

Kristin Rudrüd (Jean Lundegaard), Harve Presnell (Wade

Gustafson), Tony Denman (Scotty Lundegaard).

Jerry hires two men to kidnap his wife so he can get his

rich father-in-law to pay the ransom of $1 million. Once the

ransom is paid the kidnappers will get forty thousand dol-

lars and Jerry will get the rest. That’s the plan—but what

happens is something totally different. Blood is shed when

a cop and two innocent people are killed. Marge Gunderson

is the police chief who investigates the murders. While she

does so, Jerry gets involved in deeper problems, ranging

from financial troubles to threats from the kidnappers.

Cult film set in SMALL TOWN America which by the

admission of director DAVID DOBKIN served as the inspi-

ration for the Ridley Scott-produced film CLAY PIGEONS.

FARR, DIANE (1969– )

Born in New York, Farr’s credits include the television series

Like Family (2003–2004) and Rescue Me (2004–2005). Farr

played FBI agent Megan Reeves for sixty-three episodes in

Series 2–4 (2005–2008) of NUMB3RS. Always a practical per-

sonality, Megan carries out her job to the best of her ability,

even when faced with extreme danger; for example, in the

episodes “Spree” and “Two Daughters” (Series 3, Episodes

1–2), in which she is held captive by a psychopathic woman,

Crystal Hoyle (Kim Dickens). The two-part story ends with a

shoot-out reminiscent of THELMA & LOUISE,where Crys-

tal escapes from her FBI pursuers in her car and hits the open

road, only to be shot in the head by Agent Ian Edgerton (Lou

Diamond Phillips). Megan sustains an on again/off again rela-

tionship with the academic Larry Fleinhardt (PETER MAC-

NICOL). While the two of them are obviously fond of one

another, they can never make their love affair work. Eventu-

ally the two split up when Megan leaves the FBI to return to

New York.

Bibliography

Michael Ausiello, “Diane Farr’s Numbers Up,” TV Guide, 25 March

2008, www.tvguide.com/news/Exclusive-Diane-Farrs-8105.aspx

(accessed 22 February 2009).

FEMINISM

Several of Ridley Scott’s films have engaged the issue of fem-

inism. In ALIEN, for instance, Ripley’s triumph can be per-

ceived as utopian, fulfilling the fantasy that white, middle-class

women can not only be accommodated into the world of

work but also emerge victorious. However, her “victory” is

somewhat lessened by the fact that, in stripping down to her

underwear, she is also presented as sexually desirable. Crit-

ics have long disputed Ripley’s role in the film: Chad Herr-

mann, for example, observes that while she defeats the alien,

it is a “hollow victory . . . she saves only herself and a cat. She

FEMINISM

■

107

effectively loses everything, and she is lost herself: alone,

drifting hopelessly through space, with the haunting mem-

ories of one dead father figure and four murdered children.”

Sasha Vojkovic celebrates Ripley’s status as someone who

matters: “the features that confirm her status as an outsider

in the symbolic universe of the father, such as ‘alien,’ ‘mon-

ster,’ or ‘synthetic humanoid,’ if taken within a new, norma-

tive injunction, can become the features that matter. These

features matter because they mark a deviance and differ-

ence from ‘woman’ as a universal category.”

BLADE RUNNER has likewise caused considerable crit-

ical debate. While the film certainly contains strong women

such as Zhora (JOANNA CASSIDY), there remains a sense

in which Scott presents the female body voyeuristically,

appealing to the male viewer. For example, why does Zhora

have to strip naked in the shower, after she has finished her

performance with the snake; and later on, why does she

escape from Deckard through the Los Angeles streets clad

only in her underwear and a plastic mackintosh? During the

final conflict between Pris (DARYL HANNAH) and Deckard

(HARRISON FORD), Pris takes Deckard’s head between her

legs and sticks her fingers in his nostrils: in visual terms this

scene reminds us of the image of the “monstrous feminine”

giving birth in Alien, when the creature appears out of

Kane’s stomach. Another monstrous female appears in THE

HIRE: “HOSTAGE,” when the company CEO, Linda Delacroix

(Kathryn Morris), recovers from a kidnap attempt to con-

front her adversary Harry (Maury Chaykin), who has tried

to kill himself and is now in the hospital. The sight of Linda

standing in front of him, mockingly likening him to a moth

who must now “embrace the flame” is enough to kill the

unfortunate Harry.

As long ago as 1984 Douglas Keller, Flo Leibowitz, and

Michael Ryan complained that Scott’s work contained reac-

tionary features: “It is especially regressive in its sexual pol-

itics.” This view can certainly be defended in the light

of Scott’s subsequent work: television series like THE

HUNGER are especially regressive in their stereotyped rep-

resentation of gender roles. Similarly, in TRISTAN +

ISOLDE, King Donnchadh (DAVID PATRICK O’HARA)

treats his daughter Isolde (SOPHIA MYLES) as a commod-

ity to be given as a reward to his favorite soldier Morholt

(Graham Mullins). Feminist critics in the journal Camera

Obscura tried to defend Scott’s view of gender: Janet

Bergstrom argued in 1988 that Blade Runner collapses gen-

der distinctions, a point developed by Kaja Silverman three

years later. Valerie Su-Lin Wee refutes these arguments; she

believes that the film continually objectifies women “by the

use of techniques such as slow motion, the manipulation of

the soundtrack and the highly conscious, controlled con-

struction of the images” (for example, in Zhora’s death

scene, where the camera focuses on her bloodied corpse).

Moreover Scott represents the woman as “a threatening,

destructive aggressor, a representative of Otherness who

must be eliminated so that order and stability can be

restored.” The same theme resurfaces in LEGEND, which

draws on a tradition extensively analyzed by Julia Kristeva

in which women are constructed as abject. Lily appears out-

wardly pure in her white dress, but is simultaneously por-

trayed as inwardly corrupt: “abjection is no longer exterior.

It is permanent and comes from within.” The division of

pure/impure is transformed into one of inside/outside.

Although not directly concerned with feminist issues,

SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME deals with the subject of

gender roles. The title is significant—that “someone”

entrusted with the responsibility of caring for others might

be a male or female, depending on the context. Mike Keegan

(TOM BERENGER) believes it is his duty as a man to watch

over his family and Claire Gregory (MIMI ROGERS). How-

ever, as the action unfolds we see him neglecting his duty as

he fails in love with Claire. Eventually the roles are reversed;

it is Claire who volunteers to take care of Mike. Meanwhile,

Mike’s wife Ellie (LORRAINE BRACCO) takes on the role

of protector once her husband moves out; she practices fir-

ing a shotgun, using an image of a man as a target. Unable

to accept the idea of a man in her life, Ellie assumes the roles

of both mother and father. Even though she is reconciled

with Mike at the end of the film, we are uncertain as to

whether the two of them will reassume their appointed roles,

in spite of Mike’s desire to start again. Someone might not

suggest anything radical about gender constructions, but it

returns to an issue previously explored in Alien of what con-

stitutes “MASCULINE” and “feminine” behavior.

Following the premiere of THELMA & LOUISE, a syn-

dicated piece published in the US in 1991 and reprinted by

Shoma A. Chatterjee credited the film with the rebirth of

feminism. The story began: “First, it was Thelma and Louise

battling sexism across the southwest. Then it was Dr. Frances

Conley blowing the whistle on harassment at Stanford Uni-

versity Medical School.” In her view, Thelma & Louise was a

film that focused attention once again on what the term

“battle of the sexes” actually meant. She related the film to

women’s inferior status in the workplace and interviewed

women who felt discriminated against because of their gen-

der. Quoting a 1990 Department of Labor report, Chatter-

jee reported that women accounted for just 3 percent of

senior managers and an overwhelming 84 percent of infor-

mation and service jobs, similar to those held by Louise

(SUSAN SARANDON).

The film was released at a time in the early 1990s when

the second-wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s had

emerged from the 1980s in a fractured state. Not only was

the whole concept of “MASCULINITY” and “femininity” in

question (as Scott’s earlier films had shown), but the rise of

108

■

FEMINISM

conservatism in the 1980s, in particular Reaganism and

Thatcherism, had put feminist principles under the micro-

scope. Central to many feminists at that time was the figure

of the male-bashing feminist, who wanted to gain power by

taking over men’s roles. Much of the criticism of Thelma &

Louise came from feminists who believed that the film

showed precisely this: the two central characters choose to

behave like men. Does feminism mean that women have the

same right as men to hit the road, take delight in blowing up

trucks, and rob convenience stores? Manohla Dargis wrote

in the British journal Sight and Sound that “Thelma & Louise

sells a kind of feminism brut, inarticulate and inchoate. Yet

after more than ten years of Reagan, Bush and the murky

chimera of post-feminism, how many can still speak the lan-

guage of liberation with any assurance?”

However, such comments overlook the fact that Scott’s

film focuses less on violence per se than on the way in which

there is no going back once one has killed, the remorse that

emerges from having acted impulsively with a gun. In spite

of Dargis’s remarks, the film is actually not that violent—a

woman robs a grocery store, a policeman is locked in the

trunk of his car, a truck is blown up with no one in it. More-

over, such comments overlook the complexity of the film’s

ending, which might show the two characters driving to

their deaths, or might also show them rejecting the patri-

archy once and for all and entering a new world of bright

lights and female bonding.

G.I. JANE can be seen as either an extension or a rebut-

tal of the ideas of Thelma & Louise. Whether or not the film

can be considered “feminist” depends very much on whether

one believes that women have to behave like men in order to

be accepted on equal terms. There are certainly some overtly

misogynist references in the script, ranging from the

(unnamed) Flag Officer’s observation that “No woman is

going to last one week in a commando training course,” to the

scriptwriter’s stage direction showing the recruits “glancing

Jordan’s way, cashing in on a cheap wet T-shirt contest,” to the

Commanding Officer Salem’s (SCOTT WILSON’s) observa-

tion that he resents Jordan O’Neil’s (DEMI MOORE’s) per-

fume, “however subtle it may be, competing with the aroma

of my fine three-dollar-and-fifty-nine cent cigar, which I will

happily put out this very instant if the phallic nature of it hap-

pens to offend your goddam fragile sensibilities.” Even

scriptwriter DAVID TWOHY observes later on that “at least

the two of the guys in her [Jordan’s] crew are blue-ribbon

misogynists.” The question is whether Jordan’s deliberate

shedding of her female identity—cutting her hair, her

deliberate decision to share a room with the male soldiers,

and her willing adoption of rituals such as drinking in a

bar—represents a bid for feminine freedom or a willing sub-

mission to masculine rituals. The same ambiguity also applies

to HANNIBAL: Clarice Starling (JULIANNE MOORE) is cer-

tainly a strong woman with a capacity to dominate her male

colleagues, but our understanding of the character is very

much influenced by JODIE FOSTER’s performance in

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Linda Mizejewski explains: “[The

film shows] the more complex traits of this character: power-

ful, competent female authority, beauty without glamour;

and a sexual attractiveness that excludes easy categorization

. . . the sexuality of Starling . . . is more acceptable if read

through Jodie Foster, whose persona makes some of these

contradictions or unanswered opinions acceptable.”

By contrast, WHERE THE MONEY IS rejects the oppo-

sition between MASCULINITY and femininity. Rather, it

suggests that men and women alike should be free to play

whatever roles they choose, without fear of peer pressure.

Henry Manning (PAUL NEWMAN) plays a stroke victim, a

gentleman, a religious zealot, and a tough guy with equal

facility; his sidekick Carol MacKay becomes his surrogate

mother, his partner in crime and a telephone operator.

While the film has a wish-fulfilling ending—the two of them

escape the clutches of the law to pursue their lives of

crime—it nonetheless represents a step forward from the

rather hackneyed conceptions of gender in G.I. Jane.

The Ridley Scott-produced IN HER SHOES can be seen

as a post-feminist text, being characterized by an emphasis

on neo-liberal feminine subjectivities (as personified by the

two sisters Maggie (CAMERON DIAZ) and Rose (TONI

COLLETTE) and their grandmother Ella (SHIRLEY

MACLAINE). It also focuses on key discourses such as the

notion of the BODY as the key source of identity for

women—focusing in particular on the representation of

Diaz on the screen; discourses of boldness, entitlement, and

choice; and a belief in the integrity of women’s worlds.

References

Janet Bergstrom,“Androids and Androgyny,” Camera Obscura 15

(October 1988): 36–43; Shoma A. Chatterjee,“Two Women,” Deep

Focus 4, no. 2 (1992): 76; Manohla Dargis, “The Road to Freedom,”

Sight and Sound, July 1991, 18; Chad Herrmann, “Some Horrible

Dream About (S)mothering: Sexuality, Gender and Family in the

Alien Trilogy,” PostScript 16, no.3 (1997): 38; Douglas Kellner, Flo

Leibowitz, and Michael Ryan, “Blade Runner: A Diagnostic Cri-

tique,” Jump Cut 29 (1984): 7; Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An

Essay on Abjection, trans. Leon S. Boudiez (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1982), 113; Linda Mizejewski, “Stardom and Ser-

ial Fantasies: Thomas Harris’ Hannibal,” in Keyframes: Popular Cin-

ema and Cultural Studies, ed. Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarejo

(London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 165–66; Kaja Silverman,

“Back to the Future,” Camera Obscura 27 (September 1991):

109–31; David Twohy, “G.I. Jane: First Draft” (6 August 1995).

Unpub. Screenplay, http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=gi_jane (accessed

21 October 2008); Sasha Vojkovic, “What Can She Know, Where

Can She Go? Extraterritoriality and the Symbolic Universe in the

FEMINISM

■

109