Introduction

Notes Introduction 1. The context for this warning was that of law and order, with Blair deriding the need for citizens to barricade themselves into their homes as a measure against crime, just as Tyrell lives in seclusion from the masses. However, the reference has additional implica- tions in warning against creating such an intensely polarised class system as is found in Blade Runner. 2. As professor of cybernetics at Reading University, Warwick has used his own body as the basis of his research. In 2001, he had a silicone chip implanted in his left arm and that of his wife, Irena, with a power source, tuner, and radio receiver surgically connected to nerves in the couple’s arms, enabling Warwick to send signals to his wife. Such experi- mentation was said to potentially help people with spinal chord damage, yet Warwick’s high media profile might be seen to serve less altruistic motives. 3. Marie O’Mahony, Cyborg: The Man-Machine (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002), p. 3. 4. Although man-machine hybrids have appeared throughout history in myth and litera- ture, the term ‘cyborg’ is relatively new, devised by Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline for a Space Flight Symposium sponsored by the US Air Force School of Aviation Medicine. For further information on the contents of this paper, ‘Cyborgs and Space’, accompanied by an interview with Manfred Clynes, see The Cyborg Handbook, ed. Chris Hables Gray (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 29–53. 5. Stelarc, ‘From Psycho-Body to Cyber Systems: Images as Posthuman Entities’, Virtual Futures: Cybererotics, Technology and Post-Human Pragmatism, ed. Joan Broadhurst Dixon and Eric J. Cassidy (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 116. 6. Erik Davis, TechGnosis: Myth, Magic and Mysticism in the Age of Information (London: Serpents Tail, 1999), p. 10. 7. Chris Hables Gray, Cyborg Citizen: Politics in the Posthuman Age (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 2. 8. Hables Gray, Cyborg Citizen, pp. 2–3. 9. Douglas Kellner, Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and the Postmodern (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 24. 10. Donna Haraway, ‘A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s’, originally published in Socialist Review, no. 80 (1985) reprinted in Coming to Terms: Feminism, Theory, Politics, ed. Elizabeth Weed (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 174. 11. Anne Balsamo, Technologies of the Gendered Body: Reading Cyborg Women (London: Duke University Press, 1996), p. 156. 12. The correlation between Springer and Dery in this context is perhaps explained by the fact that they acknowledge one another’s influence in their respective books, yet Dery articulates the explicitly fascistic claims in more detail in his work, Escape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996), pp. 266–7. 13. There is some confusion in the Terminator films regarding the serial codes and models used to describe Schwarzenegger’s character. He is referred to in both Terminator and Terminator 2 as ‘Cyberdyne Systems Model 101’ yet many critics have termed him as a ‘T-800’ in reference to the endoskeleton his flesh is built around. The confusion is merely intensified by Terminator 3 because he is explicitly referred to in the film as a ‘T-101’, while writers of the third instalment have additionally referred to him in interviews as a T-850 model because his endoskeleton has been upgraded to store hydrogen fuel cells! The ‘Major Candy’ sequence deleted from the film and included on the DVD 210 Notes 211 version of T3 explains the new use of ‘T-101’ by the fact that a new company is respon- sible for his design, and have consequently re-named him, yet the anomalies are all too evident and come across as a continuity error – of which there are many in T3. In order to avoid any further confusion, and in an effort to retain consistency, I retain T-800 throughout as T-101 makes no sense for an upgraded cyborg when the earlier 600-series mentioned by Kyle Reece in the first Terminator film was a clear predecessor. 14. See for example, Susan Jeffords, who concurs with Haraway in viewing signs of masculine sen- sitivity as both a marker and a denial of ‘the privileges associated with white US masculinities’, ‘The Big Switch: Hollywood Masculinity in the Nineties’, Film Theory Hoes to the Movies, ed. Jim Collins, Hilary Radner and Ava Preacher Collins (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 207. 15. Mary Anne Doane’s ‘Film and the Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator’, Screen, vol. 23 (Sept./Oct. 1982) – can be linked to Joan Riviere’s ‘Womanliness as a Masquer- ade’, Formations of Fantasy, ed. Donald J. Burgin and C. Kaplan (London: Methuen, 1986) as well as Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble and will be further explored in Chapter 4. 16. J.P. Telotte, Replications: A Robotic History of the Science Fiction Film (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), p. 5. 17. Telotte, Replications, p. 7. 18. Scott Bukatman, Terminal Identity: The Virtual Subject in Postmodern Science Fiction (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993), p. 6. 19. See Alien Zone for a reprint of Bruno’s article, pp. 183–95. 20. See Julie F. Codell and Doran Larson, both of whom are referenced in Chapter 3. 21. See Robert Barringer, referred to in Chapter 3, and both Rhonda Wilcox and Daniel Bernardi, who are further discussed in Chapter 5. 22. John Hartley, A Short History of Cultural Studies (London: Sage, 2003), p. 56. 23. Douglas Kellner, Media Culture, p. 24. 24. Haraway, ‘A Manifesto for Cyborgs’, p. 177. 25. Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (originally published in 1968, reprinted by Granada Publishing, 1977), p. 43. 26. Heather L. Graham, Representations of the Post/Human: Monsters, Aliens and Others in Popular Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), p. 16. 27. Per Schelde, Androids, Humanoids and Other Science Fiction Monsters (New York: New York University Press, 1993), pp. 242–4. 1 Cycles, sub-genres and cyborg cinema 1. Thomas Schatz, Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Film Making and the Studio System (New York: Random House, 1981), p. vii. 2. Schatz’s model is effectively summarised in the introduction to Deny All Knowledge: Reading the X Files, ed. David Lavery, Angela Hague and Marla Cartwright (London: Faber & Faber, 1996), p. 18. For Schatz’s own summary of cyclical development see Hollywood Genres, pp. 37–8. 3. Schatz, ‘The Structural Influence: New Directions in Film Genre Study’, Film Genre Reader II, ed. Barry Keith Grant (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), p. 99. 4. Steve Neale, Genre and Hollywood (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 9. 5. Alan Williams, ‘Is a Radical Genre Criticism Possible?’, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, vol. 9, no. 2 (Spring 1984), p. 121. 6. Thomas Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 38. 7. Rick Altman, Film/Genre (London: BFI Press, 1999), p. 59. 8. Ibid., p. 60. 9. Ibid., p. 140. 10. Jim Collins, ‘Genericity in the Nineties: Eclectic Irony and the New Sincerity’, Film Theory Goes to the Movies, ed. Jim Collins, Hilary Radner and Ava Preacher Collins (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 250. 212 Notes 11. Altman, Film/Genre, p. 21. 12. Ibid., p. 62. 13. Robin Wood, ‘Ideology, Genre, Auteur’, Film Genre Reader II, ed. Barry Keith Grant (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), p. 62. 14. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 15. 15. Alan Williams, ‘Is a Radical Genre Criticism Possible?’, p. 124. 16. Thomas Schatz, ‘The Structural Influence: New Directions in Film Genre Study’, Film Genre Reader II, p. 97. 17. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 35. 18. Judith Hess Wright, ‘Genre Films and the Status Quo’, Film Genre Reader II, p. 41. 19. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 265. 20. Schatz, ‘The New Hollywood’, Film Theory Goes to the Movies, p. 9. 21. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 38. 22. Steven Keane, Review of Universal Soldier, City Limits, 23/7/1992, p. 25. 23. J. Hoberman, ‘Terminal Systems’, Village Voice, 9 July 1991, p. 56, quoted by Janice Hocker Rushing and Thomas S. Frentz, Projecting the Shadow: The Cyborg Hero in American Film (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 192. 24. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 38. 25. Rushing and Frentz, Projecting the Shadow, p. 183. 26. Geoff King, New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction (London: IB Tauris, 2002), p. 143. 27. John Clute, Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia (London: Dorling Kindersley, 1995), p. 293. 28. See Mark Crispin Miller’s article of the same name in his book Boxed in: The Culture of TV (Chicago: Evanston Northwestern University Press), 1988. 29. Ibid., p. 302. 30. At the time of writing, 9 of the top 20 highest grossing films of all time were in the SF category, including all the Star Wars films, ET, Spiderman, Jurassic Park and Independ- ence Day, while recent releases such as The Matrix: Reloaded, X-2 and Armageddon also feature prominently. Source: The Movie Times.Com web-site, which holds useful information on box-office records. 31. Steve Neale, ‘Questions of Genre’, Film Genre Reader II, p. 174. 32. David Sanjek, ‘Same as it ever was: Innovation and Exhaustion in the Horror and Science Fiction Films of the 1990s’, Film Genre 2000: New Critical Essays, ed. Wheeler Winston Dixon (New York: State University of New York Press, 2000), p. 113. 33. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 40. 34. Sanjek, ‘Same as It Ever Was’, p. 114. 35. Schatz, Hollywood Genres, p. 266. 36. Schatz, ‘The New Hollywood’, Film Theory Goes to the Movies, p. 8. 37. See for example, Movie Blockbusters, ed. Julian Stringer (London: Routledge, 2003); and Geoff King, Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the Age of the Blockbuster (London: IB Tauris, 2000).

Load more