Opengender

In Alien, Aliens and Terminator II, the lesbian implications of female protagonism are narratively suppressed. I now want to look at a text in which the lesbian potential of the female warrior is manifest content. Red Sonja is different generically from the other films under discussion and its presentation is relatively 'camp'. It is self-consciously a sexual spectacle for a male audience.

The subject of 'camp' and female parody has always been a bone of contention between lesbians and gay men. The parodic representation of femininity is a point of identification for gay men (the 'phallic-feminine' of drag). 'Camp' is notoriously difficult to define. Medhurst [1991] separates texts which are 'taken up by camp audiences' — that is texts which become camp through gay reading strategies; from mainstream representations which consciously capitalise on the humourous self-reflexivity, parodic wit and pastiche style of camp.

Arguably, camp became respectable during the 1960s, when it became a popular parodic style. Camp is sex — even when it is 'The Brown Derby restaurant on Sunset Boulevard in LA' [Sontag, 19892]. But mostly, camp is unmistakably sex — and unmistakably deviant sex. In the mainstream, camp is the form of permissible representations of deviant sexuality, where 'perversity' is displayed as pleasurable spectacle, and/or parodic excess, for heterosexual consumption.

'The androgyne is certainly one of the great images of Camp sensibility [...] Here, Camp taste draws on a mostly unacknowledged truth of taste: the most refined form of sexual attractiveness (as well as the most refined form of sexual pleasure) consists in going against the grain of one's sex [...] Allied to [...] a relish for the exaggeration of sexual characteristics [...] ' [Greenberg, 1991]

In other words, the most 'refined [...] sexual pleasure' contains an element of the self-consciously deviant. But camp in the mainstream has another function. Camp is, as Medhurst points out, primarily an adjective, sometimes a verb, but rarely a noun. It is traditionally a reading strategy deployed by gay people (though principally a male preserve) in and through which gays were able to construct identifications and pleasures denied by the dominant culture. However, this could not explain mainstream-heterosexual pleasures in camp representations.

In the mainstream, camp representation is often parody of popular genre forms which foregrounds suppressed implications of 'deviance'. The camp 'sensibility', alive to the 'difference [...] between the thing as meaning something, anything, and the thing as pure artifice' [Sontag, 1982] lends itself easily to genre-spoofs. But camp, expressing the disruptive distance of 'estranged' gay subjectivity which reveals culture as a construction of dominance, cannot be seen as quite the same phenomenon as the self-affirming 'knowingness' of bourgois sophistication or and/or adolescent cynicism — however pleasurable (and even affirming) the resultant sexual spectacle may be for gay people.

Whilst lesbians have developed similar strategies of reading against the grain (although not usually the same texts), the implications of mainstream (or even gay male) 'camp' representations may not be the same. 'Camp' as sexual spectacle has political ramifications for lesbians that are not the same for gay men. For male gays, 'the female' is a cultural site which they may enter and leave at will. Women — marked as the site of the feminine — obviously have a very different relation to the spectacle of feminine sexuality.

Male appropriation of the codes of femininity (though often misogynistic) may reveal the critical difference between representation as meaning and as artifice. It can be, and frequently is, argued that when a woman takes on the codes of masculinity, a similar effect is produced. However, because gender categories are not symmetrical, the effect produced clearly cannot be symmetrical either. To be coded masculine is to be coded positively. To be coded feminine is to be coded negatively. Consequently, when a man enters the feminine, he becomes unspeakable. When a woman takes on certain masculine codings, her aspiration to freedom may be seen as logical ('tomboyishness' is seen as rather audaciously charming, at least in a young woman).

In the English tradition, the familiar pattern is that a 'plucky' woman who adopts male coding in the name of the law (tomboys, 'principal boys', warrior-maids, cross-dressing heroines of romantic novels, and Virgin Queen Bess) is stripped of her (feminine) sexuality, and becomes a kind of a-sexual androgyne figure. The woman who challenges male power (the law itself) — by attempting to subject men to a 'feminine' regime — is coded with an excess of femininity (sexuality) and punished by death. To put it another way, a man who appropriates feminine coding will be excessively sexualised as deviant. A woman who appropriates masculine coding will be desexualised. A woman who 'usurps' male power will be excessively sexualised as deviant.

This may well be because the masculine coding of the female body has a fetishistic effect for the male spectator which disarms her 'castrating' potential. The male spectator may simultaneously identify with her as a 'masculine' character and desire her as 'really' a — passive — woman. This narcissistic desire is clearly not heterosexual, but this need not be acknowledged because it is mediated by a female body. This is one source of the 'refined sexual pleasure' in question. It is the eroticised 'phallic' woman or the feminised-phallic male who is punished — not the asexual tomboy.

The male spectator may, however, respond masochistically to the 'phallic' woman instead of sadistically. This raises the question of parody in mainstream camp. In her critique of recent theories of masochism and male identification, Modleski [1991] argues that the position of the masochist is a 'juridical' one. The male masochist deploys his internalisation of the symbolic order (vested in the superego, according to Silverman) to punish himself — his ego (narcissistic identification with — homosexual love for — the father). Modleski points out that, when he 'fashions' the woman as phallic tormentor (the symbolic father who beats out his narcissistic love for the male parent), the substitution renders the symbolic order — the law itself — ridiculous. This is seen as subversive by many critics. However, Modleski aregues that, as feminists, we should sceptical of the double-edged effects for women when representations of female 'authority' are constructed by men in order to signify the illegitimacy of of male authority. Much of the 'fun' for the heterosexual male spectator derives from this very effect.

Red Sonja cannot really pass as 'camp'. It entirely lacks the spectacular pleasures of its precursor, Barbarella, but, more importanly, it lacks its parodic edge. On the other hand, it does have camp codings in its mode of representing 'perverse' sexuality as pleasurable spectacle for a principally heterosexual male audience through masochistic fetishism. It is given camp readings by subcultural audiences.

Generically, it is classifiable more or less as sword-and-sorcery, but it has generic connections to the Conan cycle — being based on the works of the same writer. (Conan films are sort of hybrid sword-and-sorcery, gladiator-muscle-epic, and ape-man flicks which circulate through the video-market — to male adolescent rather than cult audiences). The Conan films are right-wing muscle-fests. In Red Sonja, the homosexual implications of the male gladiatorial spectacle (e.g. Conan) are feminised in order to exploit their erotic potential without challenging a heterosexual male audience. It is not exactly critical of the dominant male order. Why, then, should it be popular with some lesbian audiences?

It Can Only Be Touched By A Woman . . .

Red Sonja has many elements from the literary traditions of the female warrior and evil queen in a contemporary context. It is a variation on one of the standard formulaic sword-and-sorcery plots. Swarzenegger, as Kalidor, occupies a controlling position in the narrative, both in terms of genre codings and the scopic structure. The lesbian implications of the female warrior's appropriation of 'male' characteristics are brought to the fore, but contained both by the narrative closure and by the overlooking male gaze of Kalidor (played by Schwarzenegger). Kalidor's controlling, phallic gaze is signified by the setting-up of the relay through which the male spectator controls the image of the woman. There is an establishing shot as Sonja rides off across the plains to begin her quest filmed in longshot with the camera positioned behind Schwarzenegger's shoulder apparently from a 'vantage point' in the mountains. This constitutes a point of insertion for the male spectator which positions both women as voyeuristic spectacle, disarming the threat of exclusive female-bonding. The male spectator is able to have his cake and eat it between sadistic-voyeuristic looking at the lesbians and masochistic-fetishistic looking at the eroticised spectacle of feminine excess.

In the opening scenes the voice-over narration explains that the evil despotic queen Gedren 'wanted [Sonja] for herself' and attempts to kidnap her. But Sonja's (played by Birgitta Nielsen, whose (bi?)sexuality has been the subject of much gossip) 'disgust was clear' — enacted by slashing Gedren's face with her own orb/mace (symbol of authority). Gedren's face, which was covered by a veil, is thus exposed and scarred (cliched metaphors: veil=femme-fatale, scar=homosexuality). Sonja is granted strength by a divine visitation in order to fight for 'justice' and she goes off to a warrior school apparently borrowed from the kung-fu genre.

In the meantime, her sister, a member of an order of warrior priestesses, is massacred by Gedren. Gedren steals the talisman used by 'God' to create the world, the destructive power of which has become too powerful for the priestesses and must now be consigned to 'eternal darkness' in the earth. The talisman can only be touched by women, and becomes dangerous in the light, causing earthquakes and storms (traditional powers of witchcraft). The feminine creative principal can no longer be controlled and must be 'buried' in the earth. In the hands of the lesbian Gedren, it will destroy the world in 13 days if Sonja cannot get to the talisman first and destroy it.

Sonja, initially, 'hates' men and is warned by her martial arts master that 'hatred of men in a lovely young woman could be your downfall'. Sonja does not hate 'all men', however, but has taken a vow that 'no man may have me unless he has beaten me in a fair fight'. In other words, she is dedicated to the 'restoration' of the 'natural' order of heterosexuality disturbed by Gedren's deviance. As she sets out in her quest to find and destroy the talisman, Sonja arrongantly refuses Kalidor's help — guardian of the talisman unbeknownst to her. However, subsequent events show that she does need Kalidor, who repeatedly saves her life. Finally, Sonja kills Gedren, destroys the talisman of female power, and goes off with Kalidor and the boy.

In her first swordfight, Sonja is challenged by a toll-keeper to whom she has refused sexual favours. This fight is filmed quite differently from every other fight in the film. In general, fights are in mid-shot, with the protagonists level. Sonja's first fight is filmed mainly in close-up. Her opponent is shot from below head-on and she is shot from above in reverse shot. Her opponent looks aggressively head-on to the spectator. This kind of sequence would normally set up a suspenseful identification with the imperilled male hero, but here it has the effect of objectifying Sonja. Shots of Sonja generally show her crouching or pinned defensively whilst her opponent lunges. The effect is to disempower her and represents her as vulnerable sexual object, in spite of her winning the fight. Her opponent's troops then advance on her and she is saved by Kalidor. It is interesting to note that in Red Sonja — as with all the films under discussion — the female warrior always has her mouth set in a grimace as she performs the 'distasteful duty' of violence. Schwarzenegger (as Kalidor), by contrast, looks as if he is profoundly enjoying himself — his violence is 'legitimate' in and of itself.

On the way, Kalidor and Sonja acquire a boy-child, who is a dethroned prince, and his servant. Sonja adopts a motherly role in relation to the boy — the boy veers between treating her as mother, father and wife. The relation of the prince to his servant/mentor is 'unbalanced'. Although the 'civilisation' in which the servant's deference made sense has been destroyed (by Gedren), he continues to obey the child, although to do so often puts the child in danger. Sonja restores the 'natural' order by 'putting the boy over her knee'. During the scene in which Kalidor sets out to 'conquer' Sonja (sexually), the boy leaps onto Kalidor's shoulders attempting to 'defend' Sonja who is, of course, metaphorically making love. The fight-scene is constructed in the boy's point of view whilst the boy 'shadows' the lunges, feints and parries with his own small sword until losing interest, remarking: 'Why does she fight so hard, she doesn't want to win!'. Sonja and Kalidor finally sink down exhausted on the ground, evenly matched. Besides the obvious reference to the Freudian 'primal scene', there are resonances of 1960s male 'buddy' films in which the buddies (or sometimes father-son) fight to exhaustion before embracing in mutual recognition — the homoerotic sub-text of which has frequently been remarked on.

This scene makes the function of the Amazon in male culture fairly clear. Gedren's feminine regime has destroyed the 'natural' order of authority, from father to son via mother. Sonja represents feminine self-control as the mainstay of the family. She is supposedly 'equal' to Kalidor, the guardian/father, but in the 'feminine sphere'. She concerns herself with the talisman which Kalidor explains is ultimately his responsibility, but which is entrusted to the priestesses because it cannot be touched by men. That is, the sexes have 'equal' power in their appointed spheres, although ultimately the 'divine right' belongs to males. The priestesses will only take responsibility in Kalidor's absence. Sonja has to learn to rely on him and not to try to exist alone. The boy must accept the 'proper' order of accession to power in the correct Oedipal configuration. He must learn that a 'real' man respects his mother/wife as having an important task in the feminine sphere.

Both in its narrative and mise en scene, Red Sonja simultaneously incorporates and disavows the homo-erotic pleasures of sword-and-sorcery and/or 'gladiator-muscle' epics. The male appetite-whetting spectacle of the clash of Amazons depends, in part, on its lesbian-erotic elements which, in this film, are not disavowed (as they are in the science-fiction films under discussion). The 'cat-fight' is not unusual in genres aimed at predominantly male audiences, such as Westerns, buddy-movies, women's prison films, kung-fu/martial arts, and some fantasy genres. It's lesbian-erotic element is frequently played up as fetishistic spectacle, but also signifies the 'illegitimacy' of female rule.

Gedren is mad, bad, feminine-fatal, and a thoroughly histrionic excess of signification. The mise en scene associates her with the female genitals. Her castle is deep pinky-red with round openings and subterranean tunnels. In contrast to the 'shinie cleare' preistesses and their temple, Gedren and her castle are obscured by dim lighting, and smokey atmospheres. She wears black and gold, hiding her scarred face with a gold mask (masks being another traditional metaphor for sexual deviance). Besides her veils, scars, masks, witchcraft, and supernatural vision, she has a pet black spider (significant of voracious female sexuality and lesbianism). The men who serve her are signified as sexually deviant/inadequate.

The contrast between Gedren and Sonja is underlined in a sequence where Gedren watches Sonja (through her supernatural vision) watching the child go to sleep. Sonja has an expression of maternal softness. Gedren's hand is clenched and she has an expression of hard lust for possession: 'Spare her, I want that beauty here with me' ('hatred of men [lesbianism] in a lovely young woman could be your downfall' — Sonja is, of course, the vengeful 'Fury' who pursues and kills the lesbian Gedren). She will not listen to the advice of her male minister, insisting on generating the talisman's 'full power' although she is told that it will become 'beyond control', whilst Sonja gradually respects Kalidor's authority. Whilst earthquakes shake the castle and storms rend the sky, Gedren curls up on her throne laughing hysterically. Both Gedren and the talisman signify feminine excess — out of control, the monstrous regiment of women will destroy civilisation. Men can no longer control this excessive female sexuality — which destroys men if they touch it. It remains to the chaste maiden to extert feminine self-control, under the proper guidance. This is an extremely traditional protestant ideal of 'companionate' heterosexual femininity.

It is interesting to note that lesbians who say they enjoyed Red Sonja say that it was the image of Birgitta Nielson's Sonja which attracted them — which gave them pleasure. It is particularly telling that, in such a narrative, lesbian spectators would identify with the 'Fury' dedicated to the vengeful destruction of the lesbian? This is in contrast with, say, lesbian vampire films in which lesbians will tend to identify with the vampire rather than with her heterosexual-female victim (with the possible exception of The Hunger — another profoundly anti-lesbian narrative). What is the structure of identification that could produce this effect? Could this be connected with the difference between the predominantly voyeuristic scopic structure of the vampire film as opposed to the predominantly fetishistic scopic structure of the 'gladiatorial' film?

But what of the lesbian spectator? The obnoxiousness of Red Sonja's narrative is 'edited out' by many lesbians because of its 'knowing' camp excess. However, this would not explain why lesbian identification should focus on Nielsen rather than Bergman. Extra-textual sub-cultural gossip that Nielsen is lesbian (or bisexual) may go some way to explaining this paradox. However, similar structures can be seen in the science-fiction films without the element of sub-cultural identification attaching to the actresses playing the female protagonist. I will look at similarities in the ways in which these films construct the female warrior and her 'opposition' to female-excess. Rather than dismissing lesbian pleasure in these films as 'misguided', I want to try to theorise the structures which align female spectatorial identification to the 'male' perspective in these narratives, and then analyse whether the lesbian spectatorial position (assuming that there is such a thing) destabilises this recuperative process.