“Bringing Barbarella Down to Earth” by Lisa Parks discusses the astronaut and
feminine sexuality in the 1960s, focusing on NASA’s exclusion of female
astronauts and the hypersexuality depicted in the 1968 science-fiction film Barbarella. Parks argued that depictions
of female astronauts in fictitious popular culture were manifestations of
society’s general fears regarding the female body, especially the radical idea
of that body in space.
During the early 1960s, NASA forbid
women from joining the space program and undergoing astronaut training, even
women who had passed the same preliminary screening tests as potential male
astronauts. I was surprised to learn how charged the debates over women in
space were during the 1960s. The Lovelace Foundation, NASA’s medical branch, reported
that women were unfit for space travel due to fluctuations in body weight and
mood that occur during menstruation cycle. However, other contemporary research
suggested that women’s bodies were better able than men’s to undergo the
physical and psychological strains of space flight. Despite these promising
findings and many women who desired to be astronauts along with men, NASA
maintained its stance that the variability of a woman’s body made female space
travel dangerous, and somehow a potential threat to US national security in the
Cold War era.
Park’s argues that Barbarella’s “five-star, double-rated
astronomatrix” represents NASA’s fears about sending women into space by
emphasizing her feminine sexuality, noting that “Barbarella’s campy visual style and parodic narrative deflected
attention away from the issue of women’s professional mobility and instead
directed the spectorial gaze toward Barbarella’s excessive sexuality” while
refusing “to imagine the feminine body as anything other than sexual”
(263). Viewers are introduced to the
character of Barbarella through a sexual gaze. The film opens with Barbarella
casually spinning in the air while slowly undressing and removing her spacesuit
to reveal a naked female body. Although she is a high-ranking diplomat on the
Republic of Earth single-handedly entrusted with the important political
mission of finding the space criminal Duran Duran, the mise-en-scene and plot
of the film continually characterize Barbarella through her body and sexuality.
Barbarella’s role as an astronaut is inexplicably tied to her female sexuality
through her skintight and revealing space outfits. Additionally, Barbarella
frequently relies on men to help her out of dangerous situations and even has
sex with men in exchange for their aid in her quest to locate Duran Duran. I
believe that Barbarella represents a problematic character type that persists
in cinema, particularly action films, to this day: the “strong female
character” whose ability to successfully perform her job is somehow dependent
upon her sexuality.
I agree with your analysis of Barbarella as a problematic character. I also think that Parks' reading of Barbarella as a strong feminist character is complicated by the fact that Jane Fonda was manipulated during the filming. It is a very thin line to walk when Parks says, "I want to make clear that my analysis of Barbarella's 'technology of self' refers explicitly to the female astronaut and not to Jane Fonda herself, for in retrospect, Fonda had major objections not only to the promiscuity of the character but also to the manipulative conditions of the film's production" (266). What does it mean to oppress a real, live woman (Jane Fonda) in the making of a character that Parks claims is a vision of female empowerment? Yes, the movie is more than just how Fonda felt about it, but if the prime actress had to be manipulated to produce Barbarella, how much can we really say it that the film did good things for women? This doesn't mean that there are no positive messages to be taken from Barbarella, but it does mean that we should look carefully at both the positive and negative portrayals of women in the film. Barbarella exhibits some sexual agency, however, she still needs to use her sexuality to get men to do things for her, such as fix her spacecraft. She is an esteemed diplomat, but the president tells her that she does not need clothing for their meeting. She accomplishes her mission at the end of the movie, but only because she is so good and pure that the Mathmos refuses to touch her. Parks analysis of Barbarella makes the film too simple by looking only at its positive messages.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how many of the preconceptions or critiques when it comes to the role of women (no matter your stance on the issue) are deeply connected with the body. I like that you commented on the physical aspects of Barbarella and the way people could react to them because it does seem to be the idea on which critics base themselves on to talk about feminism or objectifying of women. It is perplexing why after so many years the debate over the equality of women and men still come down to physical reasons. You mention how NASA specified that women could not be astronauts because of issues with their body, but let’s be honest the only “issue” with women’s bodies according to some men (and most men in that time) was that they are different to men’s bodies. The cold war, as you mention, was a specific time when there existed this fear of the participation of women. Taking into consideration this reading and the text on the involvement of women in the workforce during WWII I think it is coherent to state that most of the ideas of inequality of the genders comes from male fear of seeming less able to women. Not many men would have admitted it at the time, but the forceful exclusion of women from the sciences was mostly a way of preserving the “able male” image.
ReplyDeleteBarbarella is certainly a problematic character, especially as she was the first popular representation of a female astronaut. I think that Parks does a good job highlighting the tensions between Barbarella as an accomplished space explorer with technological knowledge (both of gadgets and her body) and the objectification and fetishization of her body throughout the film. On one hand, we have a depiction of a protagonist who embraces her sexuality and is extremely accomplished in her career (“a skilled state agent, a technical master, and accomplished diplomat” pg263). On the other, male characters are also constantly saving her and the editorial choices of camera angles, costume, etc. put the focus on her appearance (“Barbarell’as space suits focus attention on her body through strategically plaed cutouts or peepholes that expose her flesh” pg265). This line between objectification and female empowerment remains a matter of debate today with media like Nicki Minaj’s Anaconda video. Are women who put themselves on display, embrace their sexuality, and sexualize themselves “empowered” or are they giving into the “male gaze” and objectifying themselves? Is it possible to objectify yourself as a woman or is it empowerment if you’re in control of the image produced of yourself? Obviously Fonda wasn’t in control of her image in Barbarella, but Barbarella as a character was.
ReplyDeleteThe point about Barbarella being a problematic character is well-made. I think it's interesting to bring in modern cultural reference points like Nicki Minaj to draw comparisons and contrasts as well. The notion of the thin line between objectification and empowerment in media representation is fascinating and almost necessitates historical context for a closer examination. For example, Minaj's "Anaconda" video is in many ways a byproduct of characters like "Barbarella" already existing. But it is an active subversion of this image of objectification, one that toys with similar imagery and concepts but places the autonomy solely in the protagonist's hands. I think that is indicative of a progression of time and also different expressions of feminism in modern pop culture.
ReplyDeleteI love the inclusion of the “strong female character” trope in your post. The critique of this “strong” character is that while she may have strength in her character make-up, it doesn’t make her character any more complex, realistic, or nuanced. And just because she might have a bit of personal independence, her decisions have little effect on the narrative flow. Mulvey touches on this last bit, that a woman’s “visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation” (Mulvey 203). While Mulvey is mostly commenting on camera work and how focusing or gazing upon a woman and her body stops the flow of the narrative, the idea remains for “strong female characters.” We take in their “strength,” but that strength does not extend to the plot progression.
ReplyDeleteBarbarella can be thought of under this “strong female character” trope. In some ways, she is strong: she’s crafty and ultimately completes her mission. Barbarella, “although controlled by state interests and masculine voyeurism, also manages to use her own body and its sexual potential to assert power… she does demonstrate how one might use the body as a technology of power within a patriarchal visual regime” (Parks 271). However, Park also notes on the same page that Barbarella is not a “free agent.” Barbarella is reactionary to the plot, and although some of her decisions do affect the plot, she is mostly dragged from place to place. Like Barbarella, a “strong female character” might be lauded for her strength, but that doesn’t mean she’s given complexity and complete independence from patriarchal narrative confines.
Your description of Barbarella as being a problematic character is right on; in fact, as you allude to, Barbarella in many ways actually reinforced the narrative NASA made in regards to the supposed “impossibility” of sending a woman into space. It is quite notable that most of the negative reviews Parks cites when talking about Barbarella’s critical reception accused it of being “unrealistic,” to the point of comparing it to 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film, released in the same year, which was widely praised for its scientific accuracy. What Parks fails to explicitly mention is that it was also “realistic” in the sense that none of its astronauts were women. Indeed, while 2001: A Space Odyssey is certainly more scientifically accurate than Barbarella, its complete lack of any female astronauts echoed a narrative wherein women were seen as being “unsuitable” as astronauts, displaying a very traditional view of what roles women and men were “capable” of in the process. In light of this narrative, then, Barbarella “could be scarcely anything but fantastic, for,” as Parks notes, “the specter of a real – not to mention logical – female astronaut was at the time impossible,” which makes it unsurprising that many critics ended up savaging it precisely because of its “unrealistic” nature (61). Not only was it not scientifically accurate in the slightest, but its very title character represented what many thought to be an outright impossibility.
ReplyDeleteYet, despite Barbarella’s supposedly “fantastic” nature, its depiction of a female astronaut is just as mired in (at the time) modern assumptions about the viability of a female astronaut as many of its contemporaries. Far from upending the view that women were somehow “unfit” to be astronauts, Barbarella largely reinforces it, as you describe all too well. Barbarella, as Parks admits, represents precisely the kind of woman NASA “wanted to keep out of space,” and her portrayal as being largely incapable of doing things on her own merely helps to uphold their assumptions (60). Whereas 2001: A Space Odyssey reinforced a narrative that described the female astronaut as an impossibility by not having any, Barbarella, as what Parks calls “a parodic narrative that ridicules the viability of a female astronaut,” instead reinforced it by portraying a female protagonist defined, as you state, entirely by their volatile sexuality (61).
I agree with the interpretations of Barbarella as a problematic film with a problematic protagonist. In addition to the observations in the main post and throughout the comments that Barbarella's feminine sexuality is continuously reinforced to a parodic degree via her costumes and the number of sexual encounters she has throughout the film, I was also struck by the number of times she is tortured throughout the film and subjected to pain apparently as a means of punishing her female body for her sexual desire and assumption of the traditionally male role of an astronaut. The tiresome trope of a woman being punished for having sexual desire reminds me of horror films in which young female characters caricaturized as promiscuous are generally the first to die, often gruesomely. Furthermore, as several people mentioned in class, Barbarella is coerced into sex throughout the narrative, rather than initiating sexual encounters herself. These narrative patterns function to code Barbarella's as dangerous and in need of being kept in check somehow, once more reflecting the misogynist anxieties surrounding the notion of the female astronaut, and still more broadly, the female body in general.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that Barbarella, as a character, is very problematic. While Barbarella is meant to be a strong female character, her methods of “thanking” and “paying” the men who help her suggest that all she has to offer is her body. While I do agree with Parks that Barbarella’s command of technical and scientific jargon does make her appear competent and capable as an astronaut, this capability is completely overshadowed by her using her body to “pay” for services that men provide her. In addition, Barbarella seems to be completely at the mercy of the narrative, rather than directing it herself. This passivity takes away from her role as a strong character. I find the introduction of the movie to be completely bizarre. The way that she undresses while in zero gravity dehumanizes her. We see her various body parts (hands, legs, arms) before we see her face, giving the viewer the idea that Barbarella is just a body, rather than the eminent diplomat we find out mere minutes later that she is. This introduction and her subsequent naked conversation with the president invalidate her role and rank. Barbarella is presented as a supposedly strong and capable female character while simultaneously being reduced to little more than her body, which is especially evidenced by the creepy way the president suggests they meet in person. Barbarella did much more harm than good for women astronauts in its portrayal of Barbarella as a passive and sometimes incapable astronaut who uses her body as a means of getting what she needed.
ReplyDeleteLike others, I really appreciate the point made about Barbarella being a “strong female character.” It is truly unfortunate when women in today’s media are still portrayed as dependent on their sexuality to succeed, which is something that was very clearly present in Barbarella. Although she is presented as a first-rate astronaut, her skills and attributes on screen are reduced to her sexuality and ability to please men.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Parks’ chapter, I was curious about the link between the presence of female astronauts in NASA. This is something I wish we could have covered more in-depth in class (but of course time always runs out!) because I find the link to be surprising and not a connection I would have naturally made. By placing the character of Barbarella within a narrative entirely based on parody and campy soft-core scenes, any link to the legitimacy of female astronauts is inherently undermined. While it is unlikely that the filmmakers consciously made the decision to undermine the efforts of female astronauts, it simply goes to show the ingrained patriarchal Hollywood system that Mulvey analyzes.
I don't buy the influence of Barbarella for NASA, because Star Trek had been on air already 4 years before Barbarella, and Barbarella is very special. Barbarella is also very French.
ReplyDeleteOne must remember that the first women were allowed to normal army only in the 70s and the first female test pilot was in the 80s, almost 90s. It's a boys' club, Barbarella has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yes, Barbarella cannot be separated from her sexuality or gender. Why should it?
If you remove all the nudity, cover everyone up and remove all sex, the movie won't change much.
Now, there are only two parts where her sexuality (or sensuality) is important for the movie plot.
1) she "heals" the angel with sex. 2) she breaks the orgasmatron or what ever that thing is with her ability to tolerate pleasure.
Of course, one could discuss the feminism of this, but this is Barbarella - a silly, fun, erotic space adventure.
In my mind Barbarella isn't defined by her sexuality, but by her "goodness" and determination and resourcefulness.
She isn't a "high-ranking diplomat". She is a "five-star, double-rated astronavigatrix (not astronomatrix) with "incomparable talents".
In my mind the dialogue with the ship computer gives us an image of a capable astronavigator. She obviously knows what she's doing. When the ship doesn't function as it should, she swifty and decisively solves the problem.
She is entrusted with this mission, saving the peace of the whole universe. Obviously she is respected and seen as a valuable member of the society, not a sex object.
Of course, it is insinuated that her "incomparable talents" have to do with sex, but it is not said - so we really can't say. In the end of the movie, she is saved by her "purity" and goodness. That, to me, is also important, different from mainstream and feminist. She has sex with a lot of guys, but is not seen or treated as a slut for that, doesn't lose her purity and goodness just because she obviously enjoys sex.
(Also, even though we are made very aware of that she enjoys sex, she isn't going to have sex with the thugs trying to rape her, nor with the "one-eyed girl" who rescues her. She isn't using sex to reward people for rescuing her, she has sex because she wants to with whom she wants to. It's apparent to me that she initiated sex with the angel just because she wanted to. Not because he saved her (he didn't) or to reward him for anything. Also, she didn't have sex with professor Ping who actually repaired her spaceship.
Barbarella isn't "frequently relying on men to help her out of dangerous situations".
First a man saves her. Then a woman saves her. Then she saves a man. Twice. Then she is saved by a man, then by herself, then by a woman.
She doesn't have sex with men in exchange for their aid. The hunter had already saved her and offered her a lift back to her aircraft when she offers to do something for him, and he asks if she would have sex with him, and she agrees. Then she has sex with the angel. Then she has sex with the resistance leader, not as exchange or reward. He wants to use her weapons and ship, and she agrees, but he gets them only after she is done with them.
"character whose ability to successfully perform her job is somehow dependent upon her sexuality"
No. She makes her decisions herself, based on what is most beneficial to her and her goals, she has a goal and most everything she does is to reach this goal. Frankly, sex is one of the few things that she does that doesn't have anything to do with her mission.
In my mind, even though everybody seems to look at her and appreciate what they see, the only two scenes where she is treated with anything but respect is when the thugs abduct her and when the villain tortures her. Both times it says more about the bruteness of the villains than her sexuality.