Unmasking Masculinity - Ian Farwell Core Post #5

Before I get into the reading, I must comment on the end clip on Terminator 2. There is a scene where the strong maternal character Sarah Connor it blasting the Evil Terminator with the most Phallic of items, a badass shotgun-like piece of equipment with about 10 rounds, which she must pumps repeatedly as she fires into the bad terminator. However, just as she need only one more shot to push the bad terminator over the edge into the hot melting inferno below, you hear the click of her empty gun. Thus, her strong phallic object is rendered impotent. Luckily (conveniently) Arnold in pulled over a large gear mechanism to blast the terminator with an even larger gun which implodes in the guts of the unsuspecting evil terminator and the masculine man saves the day. Why couldn't she have struck the final blow?

Now to the reading. Dyer talks about how some believe that masculinity is not respected as a talent with the modern movie goer. In fact, Dyers points to the fact that masculinity and the strong body is often laughable and quite the anti-talent in Hollywood. Examples of Maryl Streep are used to counter how impersonation in the form of vocal changes and other non-bodily rational in film more seem to exude talent and thus receive Oscars accordingly.

Ironically, I think it is funny to think about acting like a robot (or terminator in this case). I usually think of acting as eliciting and impersonating some kind of emotion. I mean to say that we are human and all of us (short of us with Schizoid Personality Disorder or High Levels of Psychopathy) have emotional responses, and thus to make one believe that you are actually a robot that has no emotion is kind of remarkable if one stops to ponder it. However, I guess one can argue either way and I would not disagree.

But, not to digress away from the masculine construct and the body. Dyers seems to argue, with the help of others, that the body is what we are in fact pining over in action films. However, I think the human species in general seems to be much more involved in wanting control. I think the physically strong characters like Sarah Connor and the Terminator take control of their environment. We as human will all face our own death one day, and thus we actually know that we have no control over our futures. Thus, characters that can put up a fight are provocative. We all have a survival instinct, and a strong body screams out "I can take care of myself and others". Many of the main characters in action films have money, physical strength, and charism, because they all scream "power". I think this power allow viewers the luxury escapism. People don't go to the action movies to me enlightening so much as to escape the harsh reality that all that is certain is "Death & Taxes". However, I do understand that there is a fascination with the human body, otherwise the Olympics wouldn't be so popular.

Furthermore, on a final note, The Terminator series is loitered with cultural norms. For instance, the nuclear family. Father (Arnold), Mother (Connor), & Son (ed). Another, is that the bad guy takes on the impersonation of an authority figure cop. And, they're are many others.

Questions:
1) What would the ending of The Terminator 2 look like if Sarah Connor delivered the finishing blow instead of Arnold?
2) Who was a better Californian actor gone politician Reagan or Arnold?
3) How is Arnold portrayed differently across his films such as Predator and Terminator, and compared to Bruce Lee?