From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: Feminist Perspective of Batman Returns
Keywords: Batman, feminist, confusion, symoblic
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:12:54 GMT

Kenneth - you're right.  You overanalysed this movie.  8-)

In article <poznikof.711847807@sfu.ca> poznikof@fraser.sfu.ca (Kenneth Shane Poznikoff) writes:
>
>I am writing a paper for my Women's Studies class.  The class is
>called "Women and Horror".  In it we discuss the horror genre and
>talk about the negative and possibly positive portrayal of women in
>horor film.  Although Batman Returns is not a horror film, I couldn't
>help but wonder about the strong gender specific statements of
>the film.  I hope to use any comments people might have as a spring
>board for more reasearch for my paper.

Already it sounds to me like you're going into this moving "expecting"
to find "statements," as if the moviemakers wanted you to derive something
from the film.  I think you may be giving this movie too much credit.
As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

>For example, the cat woman:
>Yeah sure she is sexy but she also stands for women's liberation.

She does?  What makes you say she stands for women's lib?  She never
does anything so blatant as call herself a feminist, so I'm not sure
how you can leap to that conclusion.

>There is a conflict of ideologies.

Is there?  Is there some rule which states that a woman cannot be liberated
and sexy at the same time?  What exactly *is* a "liberated" woman?

>This is not to say that liberated  women have to be bull dykes.

Then what can they be, since you imply that they can't be sexy?

>I think she represented some sort of males view of the liberation movement.

Again, why?  I will admit, there *are* times when moviemakers deliberately
present a character as some sort of archetype for some group of people.
There are also times when the character is meant to be evaluated on his/her
merits alone, and indeed is often meant to be considered an outcast,
loner, maverick, etc. of society.  I think most of the characters in
Batman Returns would fall into the latter category, if anything.

>She is somehow sexy, psychotic, crazy and after revenge against men.
>(Please read on before you cast judgement on these statements.)

Well, first off, I think it's unwise to assume that Catwoman is an embodiment
of the average female any more than Batman is an embodiment of the average
man (unless there are a lot more guys out there who want to dress up in
black and beat people up than I think there are).  Average women do not
fall a few hundred feet onto a sidewalk, get resurrected by cats, and
put on a black suit anymore than average men lose their parents at an
early age and spend the rest of their lives training to be vigilantes.

Also, I never really got the impression she wanted revenge against all
men.  She certainly wanted Max (was that the corporate guy's name?)
dead and, after her first scuffle with Batman, wanted revenge against
him too.  And one could argue that she may have been cast as a stereo-
typical man-hater, but I'm not sure I agree.  Personally, I feel Catwoman
was too psychotic to be considered an archetype for any women.

>Then when Cat Woman and Batman are fighting he ends up knocking her
>down and she says "How could you,  I'm a woman".  That is so pathetic.
>This sends out a very negative message about the women's movement.  If, 
>for a moment, we take the view that she represents a positive image of 
>woman (ie strong and powerful, knowing what she wants) this scene 
>completely negates all of her strong attributes.  She has reverted to 
>a meek stereotypical woman.  It trivializes the feminist movement.

Gee, did you blink during the next five seconds, when Batman moves forward
to apologize and gets kicked for it?  She demonstrated her cunning and
played Batman as a dupe, and it worked.  By falling into the "meek
female" archetype, Batman's "chivalry" came into play and she took advantage
of it.  I would think this would present a new dimension to her character -
having already proved her physical prowess, she shows she can think too
and can be more ruthless than her adversary.  Arguments over the feminist
movement aside (again, I think you're reading more into this than you should
be), it showed she could be smarter than Batman; she still lost the fight,
but he had to win through brute force rather than guile like she used.

Of course, you could also get into an argument that this is a *different*
negative stereotype of women - as the sly manipulator of men, using them
as she sees fit -  but then this all starts getting a lot more convoluted
than I intended for it to...

>Taking a quick first look at this scene you may think that it was
>just put in to grab a few laughs.  When I saw it though, I heard
>only a few groans.  The groans could have come because the audience
>recognized the horribly cliched line or, as in my case, because the
>audience recognized the trivializing effect it had.

I think it was more likely the former than the latter...  Although I would
add the alternative, it was all the guys going, "Oh god, how stupid can
he *be*?!"  8-)

>Also, in and around that scene there is a lot of sexual tension 
>between Cat Woman and Batman.  Then they start fighting.  This
>immediately caused me to cringe for I recognized the association
>of sex and violence.

I would prefer to view it as a physical manifestation of the conflicts
between the genders - sometimes fighting, sometimes coexisting peacefully,
but always together and distinct.  Sort of a Yin-Yang symbol come to life.

Assuming I wanted to view it as anything more than a neat fight sequence
with an undercurrent of sexual tension, that is...8->

>> Like the security guard said, "I don't know whether to open fire or fall in
>> love!"  (As Catwoman was destroying a display case.)
>This is so G__ D___ed corny and such a cliche.

In case you hadn't noticed, Batman is based on a comic book, and comic
books are renowned for their cliches.  So it's perfectly in keeping with
the subject matter for it to be cliched.

>In this scene
>also, the cat woman uses her whip to disarm the guards.  She makes some
>comment about their guns which is an allusion to their penis.  This to
>is such a cliche.  Sociologits are quite aware of the association of
>a gun and the penis in popular culture.  There are hundreds of articles
>written about it.  Its very old, very tiresome.

See previous comment.

>There are theories that argue that men's greatest fear is of castration.
>When she removes the guns, she is symbolically castrating the men.  This
>is effective (but none the less, cliched) method of raising feelings
>of resent in the male viewer.  There are other scenes that do this also.

Dude, keep the phallic imagery analysis under control!  Not everyone who
carries a gun is exerting their male dominance over others, and just
because someone's been disarmed in combat doesn't mean we're supposed
to immediately think of the symbolic castration (although apparently
some do 8^).  Besides, what would you have preferred her to do, surrender?
God, talk about grist for the mill...

>And when the Penguin says that line about "pussy".  (I think it was
>something like "Just the pussy I've been waiting for").  I, nor any of my 
>companions, could beleive that they used such an obvious dumb line.
>The writer's attempt at sexual innuendo is overdone as if no one would
>get the association of woman and cat/pussy.  It is so overdone and
>poorly done that it becomes painful to watch.

I got the impression that the blatancy was deliberate.  For starters,
the Penguin was not a...subtle character, in terms of his actions.
And notice how Catwoman led him on in order to get him to help her.
Similar to what she did to Batman, she's using her "feminine wiles"
to get men to do what she wants them to.

>I have no idea what to make of the (obvious) parallel of the Penguin
>being dropped in a basket to float down the creek and the story of
>Moses.

Try not to let it keep you up at nights.

>I've really confused about the message in the films and what they
>are trying to say.  After hearing the last line in the film: "Peace 
>on earth, good will towards men... and women.", I knew that all the 
>gender specific aspects off the film were no accident.  

I'm not surprised...

>As you can imagine, the last line of a film is the writers attempt
>to draw a conclusion or to deliver the final message of the film --
>to summarize the message.

They do?  Geez, now I know what I've been doing wrong as a writer all this
time!

>With a line like that I feel no doubt
>that the central message of the film has something to do with
>equal rights for men and women.  This line confuses me though.
>
>I feel that the film had nothing positive to say about women, yet
>the final utterance in the film draws attention to the notion of
>equal rights for women.  Why would they draw atention to equal 
>rights (a women positive notion) when the film was filled with
>women negative messages?

You're the one who says all these messages about women are negative.
I didn't think they were; I felt, if anything, Catwoman was a victim
who managed to emerge from her difficulties - if not victorous, then
at least intact, which is more than Max or the Penguin can say.  She
was not perfect, but perfect people are dull, besides being a myth.

>I might be interpretting all the symbolics incorrectly.

Go with that idea...

>For example, recall that scene discussed earlier where Cat Woman
>says "How could you, I'm a woman." after Batman knocks her down.
>If we take the view that view (Cat) woman as a compitent adversary 
>for (Bat) man -- a positive image of women, this line emphasizes
>that fact that she is actually a women and not androgynous.  It
>emphasizes that women are equal adversaries.  Unfortunately, it 
>does so in such a blatent way that it is annoying.  Maybe 
>this blatency is the writers way of assuring the layperson 
>gets the messages -- what ever they may be.

Well, aside from the fact I think you're *still* reading too much into
this movie, try this interpretation on for size...

Batman was portrayed as being in the dominant position, with Catwoman
beneath him - a typical portrayal of male-female relationships.  Catwoman
utters her, "I'm a woman," line and when Batman comes to help her,
she kicks him: in this scene she has symbolically taken what is considered
a weakness - namely the fact she's a woman - and turned it into an advantage.
She reverses - at least temporarily - her role to Batman and takes the
dominant position.  Message: women's weaknesses can also be their strengths.

>What I mean by "adversaries" is that women can successfully compete 
>with men in the real world.  My limited view of the "real world" 
>centers around attaining success in the work place.  Therefore
>the message is:  women are (should be) (can be) (will be) entitled
>to equal pay for equal work because they are men's equal.

Pretty major leap of faith you made there, Kenneth.  Going from a single
fight scene to a social commentary on the necessity of equal rights in
the workplace.  I'm impressed.  I thought only fundamentalists could
jump that far.

>You may think that I have over analysed the film.  Or you might
>think that it is unlikely that the writers wanted to send out all
>these messages so they wrapped their point of view up in a
>popular movie so they could disseminate their ideas.  The 
>former may or may not be the case.  The latter is a warrents
>a little more discussion.

Howzabout a third possibility: that the writers weren't *trying* to
convey *any* message per se, but it is a reflection of their (and, if
you want to make the leap, society's) beliefs.  So, while they aren't
trying to communicate any "point" to the audience, the movie does
subconsciously betray their values and prejudices.  In this case, one
should not evaluate the symbolism in terms of "what does it mean?" but
rather in terms of "what does it say about the creators?"  In this
way a critique of a movie could be an indirect psychoanalysis of its
creators.

>Remember that nothing in a movie is arbitrary.  Every scene and
>every camera angle and every dialog is carefully planned and has
>a purpose.

Well, yes.  But if you try to argue that a movie like, say, Commando
has something deep and meaningful to say based on the way the action
scenes are filmed, I think you need a reality check.

>It is true that there is no conspiracy among Hollywood
>writers to disseminate their views subversively through popular
>film.  On the other hand, it is true that their point of view,
>their way of seeing the world, will be reflected in their work.

See, you're on the right track here.  I think this is much more valid
then your current line of reasoning.

>Its like art or doodling.  When you doodle, your drawing reflect
>how you feel, your point of view, whats on your mind, etc.  The
>creator of a film may not be trying to disseminate his/her views 
>but they are evident in the product.  When we watch the product, 
>his/her views reach us, thus reaffirming his/her ideologies as
>acceptable.  This is disturbing because his/her ideologies are 
>most likely conformant with dominant ideologies -- capitalism 
>and patriarchy (male dominant society, hateful of women).

Whoa!  Who said that patriarchies were hateful of women?!  How can you
arbitrarily support the conclusion that they are?!  Does this mean a
matriarchy is therefore hateful of men?  I think you're making another
major leap of faith again, Kenneth; keep it up and you'll be entitled
to sainthood.

There are all sorts of men out there, from the women haters to the ones
who put them on pedestals to the ones who consider them his equal to
a few who think they're better than we are 8-).  Be careful what you
say about all of us - after all, you're one of us!

>Still, the image of (Cat)woman (strong, independent), juxtaposed
>with her psychotic (feeble-minded) nature seems to be a reflection of
>some male's view of the women in the feminist movement.

Again, try this on for size: maybe Catwoman's psychotic nature is due
to the conflicting forces society places upon women.  They are
expected by turns to be sexy, meek, and submissive by the "male
establishment," as some might put it, while at the same time are
pressured by others (namely the feminist movement) to be more
assertive, independent, and, if necessary, aggressive.  Catwoman's
personality is a result of this conflict; she tries to balance out
these opposing forces, with limited success.  Just as Catwoman-Batman's
relationship could be seen as representative of male-female conflicts,
Catwoman's psychosis is representative of the conflicts over what
women should be in society.

>Someone
>pointed out to me that except for her psychotic nature, the Catwoman
>may actually represent a strong/powerful female character, without
>having to adorn the female with masculine qualities.   Let me explain.
>
>A common "complaint" amoung feminist reviews of film is that in order 
>to have a female character that is powerful (not a victim), she is
>often given masculine attributes.

Usually because strength, toughness, agressiveness, power, etc. are
associated with masculine traits.

For example, in Aliens^3, Ripply
>is forced to shave her head (become one of the guys), and she behaves
>like a male in all of the Aliens films.  The truth is, I find it
>difficult to buy into this theory.  But its got to make you wonder:
>Remember, nothing is arbitrary in a film.  Why did the writers 
>find in necessary to shave her head?  What does this mean?

Well, the explanation the film gave was that they shaved their heads
because of the planet's lice population, but I guess it would be silly
to take that at face value, huh?

>[Aside:]
>On the other side of the coin, if a male is a victim of an attack,
>feminist theorist postulate that the most frieghtening attacks are
>those that feminize the male.  For example, in the movie Videodrome,
>the hero ends up with a gaping, vagina-like wound in his stomach.
>[End of aside]

[rolls eyes]  No comment, other than a hole in the stomach can be just
that - a hole in your stomach.  Painful and unpleasant way to go.

>Catwoman may be what feminists are looking for:  A strong female
>character that isn't masculinized.  She is a sexy woman, and she 
>knows it.  She is smart so she uses everything she has got, 
>including here sex appeal.  She knows that men (are stupid and) are
>driven by sex so she uses it to get close enough to her adversaries 
>to fight them.

So what does her physical agility and combative ability mean?

>On the other hand, Catwoman can be seen as a negative image of a 
>strong female.  It boils down to "she uses sex to get what she wants."
>She has no morals.  (Somewhat equivalent to a woman sleeping her
>way to the top.)  Taking this interpretation, Catwoman certainly is
>not a positive image of woman.  It reflects the common patriarchal 
>view that women are morally inferior (to men, of course).

Is what she does any different than if a man uses his charisma to get
women to do what he wants them to?  She's making use of her assets.

>Which one of these interpretations is correct?

"Correct" implies there is One True Interpretation of this movie, which
I don't believe.  "Valid" might be a better word.  In any case, maybe
they're both valid interpretations?  Since a lot of Batman Returns
deals with conflict, both inner and outer, why not have conflicting
interpretations that are equally valid?

>Now, as for the *intent* of the writers of Batman Returns:  
>people are not only responsible for their intentions.  They are also
>responsible for the effect of their actions.  They degree of
>responsibility varies of course.  Even though, the writers did not
>intend to send out certain messages, they still get sent out.

Should the writers be blamed if the audience gets the *wrong* idea, though?
If the message doesn't come across properly, whose to blame - the creators,
for not making it clearer, or the audience, for not being perceptive
enough or looking at it in the same light the creators intended for you
to.

>When looking at a movie like Batman Returns, we cannot simply
>consider the fact that the concept was created in the 30's 
>therefore any messages that it has today are irrelavent.  We
>have too consider that the movie was actually created in
>today's social context.  Also, remember that this film is
>not disseminating ideas, but rather is reflecting the ideology
>of the writers -- assumedly the ideologies of the dominant
>social order.  (By presenting these ideas to the audience, 
>the ideology is reafirmed, thus ensuring the ideology's servival.)

This assumes it is presenting the dominant ideology, but I don't wanna
get into that.  [Y'know, I wish you'd make up your mind - is this movie
disseminating the creator's ideas or is it unconsciously reflecting
them?]

Well, this was *far* longer than I had intended it to be or what
anyone would want it to be, but let me summarize my main points: (1) I
think you're looking at this movie in the wrong light - as you may
have noticed, I disagreed with most of your interpretations; (2) I
think it's a bad idea to assume that the creators are deliberately
trying to further their own values upon the audience - it seems far
more likely to me the movie is a reflection of their values; and (3) there
does not have to be only one interpretation to a movie nor is there
any such thing as a "correct" interpretation - some are better
"proven" or backed up by the evidence (for instance, you'd have a hard
time convincing me Batman Returns is actually a retelling of Arthurian
legend, with Batman as Arthur, Catwoman as Guinevere, and the Penguin
as Lancelot), but all of them have merit.

[God, I can't believe I actually cared enough to write all that.  I must
be bored out of my mind...]
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.