Texts of popular culture are part of the cultural imaginary and, as such, they both define and reflect how we see ourselves. Jameson (cited in Rogers 1991, p. 37) argues that “popular culture produces texts … that challenge, only to reaffirm, the status quo”. In order for any text to claim a firm footing in popular culture, it must endeavour to “attract the broadest audience possible”, and to do this one should not be surprised by “contradictions and multiple ideological positions” (Rogers 1991, p. 37). Fiske (cited in Martin 1992, p. 41) suggests that although a ‘highbrow’ criticism of popular genre texts may be “their failure to offer any challenge”, this characteristic makes them accessible.

But popular texts do offer a challenge in that they often both affirm and subvert the status quo, and in some cases, both affirm and subvert a different ideology to that considered normal for the society from which they are born. If ideology, as Thwaites, Davis and Mules (2002, p. 159) define it, is “a process of representing material social relations, and of attempting to reconcile them in discourse”, then the texts of popular genres are well placed as vehicles for this process, and a “privileged vehicle for the presentation” of any ideology is science fiction (Lev 1998). Science fiction is not tied down by the need to represent reality, but is more involved in creating new, or other, worlds, that may not have any connection to the present and are not dependent on any current dominant ideology.

Two science fiction texts that take advantage of this are the films, Star Wars (1977) and Starship Troopers (1997). Both depict worlds with ideologies from the past, but this, aside from their overt position in the same genre, may be the only similarity between them.

Star Wars told the world, “The Force will be with you”, but that force was more than just an ephemeral concept on celluloid or a rebel starfighter in the toy box. The most powerful force emanating from this particular text is not the bright blue glow of Obiwan Kenobi’s light-sabre, but the blue-blood shimmer of conservatism. If, as Connolli and Narboni (cited in Ellis 2003) claim, films are the “unconscious instruments of the ideology, which produces them”, then Lucas has plied this instrument to create a world based on that of the 1950s in which he grew up, a world that is “white middle-class California”, a world which includes “sexism, racism and the promotion of a patriarchal, capitalist culture” (Ellis 2003).

According to Brennan (n.d.), Lucas had originally wanted to do a remake of Flash Gordon (Stephani 1936). Unable to obtain the licence to do that, he developed Star Wars, which does contain references to Flash Gordon, including the ‘roll-up’ at the beginning of the film.

Flash Gordon Stephani 1936		Star Wars Lucas 1977
(Images from Brennan n.d.)

This intertextuality offers an insight to the ideology behind this text. Flash Gordon was originally a comic strip created by Alex Raymond during the Great Depression in the 1930s. This was a time of “extreme poverty and despair” from which the science fiction scenario of a “better tomorrow” offered escape (Brennan n.d.). Star Wars fulfils a similar role. It is a fairytale, an adventure, and it is certainly influenced by the work of Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949), which describes the “Hero’s Journey” (Brennan n.d.). The hero in Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, receives his ‘call to adventure’ via the droid, R2D2, with its message from Princess Leia, the ‘damsel in distress’. Under the guidance of his mentor, Obiwan Kenobi, Luke teams up with ‘space cowboy’, Han Solo, and his faithful ‘Tonto’, a wookie named Chewbacca, and away they fly to the rescue, not just of a princess, but of the entire galaxy.

Although this film is undeniably conservative in its presentation of good versus evil, and the position of men as saviours and women as in need of assistance from men, Lucas does allow Leia to exhibit some strengths of character, perhaps as a concession to 1970s feminism, that is almost incongruous with the text’s strong ideology. When Leia is taken prisoner and questioned, interrogated, even subjected to a ‘mind probe’, she resists defiantly. Indeed, were it not for her flowing gown, ‘hour-glass’ physique, and fastidious hairstyle, one could be forgiven for not realising that this is actually a ‘damsel in distress’. She rarely shows any feminine emotional weakness that is typically espoused by the patriarchy as a trait of women, even when she witnesses the destruction of her home planet, Alderon. During her rescue by the ‘dynamic duo’, Luke and Han, and the “walking carpet”, Chewbacca, Leia is not reluctant to fire a gun or to take the lead. When the Imperial guards have them cornered, she grabs the gun from Luke, shoots a hole through the wall, and says to Han, “Somebody has to save our skins. Into the garbage chute, fly-boy”. This show of strength leads Han to quip to Luke, “I don’t know if I’m going to kill her or if I’m beginning to like her”. Unfortunately, Leia’s lead has led them to an even more precarious situation, and more opportunity for the duelling banter between Han and Leia, with Han claiming “I had everything under control until you led us down here”. After they escape from the garbage compactor, Han suggests that “If we can just avoid anymore female advice, we ought to be able to get out of here”. But Leia reasserts her position of authority, to which Han declares himself to be his own boss. Leia’s sarcastic rejoinder, “It’s a wonder you’re still alive”, as she walks on determinedly. But remarkably, after the boys have been able to show their true prowess via an almost masturbatory scene (Luke and Han firing their respective weapons at the pursuing Imperial fighters), and have successfully completed the rescue operation, Leia takes on a more submissive, background role, as though she has been served a patriarchal writ with far more potency than Darth Vader’s ‘mind probe’ or even his ‘Death Star’. She, and the women she represents, is disempowered by simply being pushed into the background, being removed from the “dominant discourse” (Central Queensland University 2001, p. 5-9).

So although the only female character in the film, aside from Luke’s aunt who has a short-lived role as a farmer’s wife, has been presented initially as a strong, and even equal, member of this adventure, that portrayal does not survive the hegemonic masculinity that is such a powerful force behind this narrative. The final scene, where Leia awards Luke, Han and Chewbacca with medals in front of a military parade, reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl’s 1935 Nazi propaganda film, Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will), reaffirms the ideology of military and masculine supremacy.

Triumph des Willens Riefenstahl 1935

Star Wars - the final scene Lucas 1977

(Images from Brennan n.d.)

As Leia places their medals around their necks, Han’s pathetically lustful wink at Leia, and Luke’s equally pathetic boyish grin, only bolster the patriarchal attitude towards a woman’s role in society. Though the film’s subtitle is “A New Hope”, it depicts a desire to bring back an old moral viewpoint. Lucas (cited in Ellis 2003) says, “I wanted to make a kids’ film that would … introduce a kind of basic morality”. His intention was to “present positive values to the audience” (Lev 1998). Whether or not a return to the patriarchal ethos of 1950s California is positive or not is a subjective decision.

Another text that has referenced Leni Riefenstahl, and also has some of the feel of a ‘white, middle-class’ California, is Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers (1997). This has been a very misunderstood text, with some critics praising its parody, while others have admonished it for its promotion of violence and fascist ideologies. Based on Heinlein’s 1959 novel of the same name, Starship Troopers is undoubtedly a parody, of not necessarily fascist ideology, but of military or forceful imperialism in general. Whereas Heinlein’s novel centred on the development and maturation of the main character, Johnny Rico, Verhoeven’s film considers a different side to Johnny’s world. Telotte (2001) argues it:

focuses on how people are educated in this future world, indoctrinated on every level, from the classroom, to the sports they play, to the training they undergo in the military, to the pervasive media, to the very structure of society which rewards those who follow the paths it lays out.

Another important difference between the book and the film is how the story is told. Heinlein gives the reader Johnny’s point-of-view. Verhoeven presents the story through the eyes of the government’s media, the ‘Federal Network’. The film opens with a broadcast from this monopoly, showing soldiers on parade, urging viewers to “Join up now”. Soldiers, including a young lad, declare “I’m doing my part”. The narrator asks “Are you?” This is followed by a story about a ‘bug meteor’, a meteor being fired at Earth by the ‘bugs’ on the other side of the galaxy. Reality has just been blasted from the screen, and, just as Virilio (cited in Telotte 2001) suggests that “the concept of reality is always the first victim of war”, it is also a victim of parody.

The audience is then taken to the battle zone on the ‘bug’ planet, Klendathu, via a ‘live’ transmission that ends with the violent deaths of both reporter and camera operator. The extremely explicit violence in this scene is to be repeated throughout the film, but for now, the audience is given a reprieve and is taken to a high school in Buenos Aires, that might as well be in California. But this California is a far cry from that presented by Lucas in his “galaxy long ago and far away”. In this superficially superficial ‘90210’ world, the lesson taught in class is that democracy has failed and the veterans of war have taken “control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since”. In this world, “a citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life” and the only way a ‘civilian’ can become a ‘citizen’, and therefore obtain the right to vote, is to undertake military service. Even the act of voting is considered a use of force or an act of violence. As the school teacher instructs, “When you vote, you are exercising political authority. You’re using force, and force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived”. The ‘squeaky-clean’ innocence of the students in this class should quell any doubts as to Verhoeven’s intention to parody such a sentiment. This classroom lesson does, however, provide an understanding of the ideology that bears the brunt of this parody – military imperialism. Though some critics may have chastised Verhoeven for supporting, or proposing as ideal, a fascist society, what his aim has been is to subvert this ideology and provide a celluloid ridicule of it.

Further questioning of this ideology comes subtly by way of the issue of class. Johnny’s parents do not want him to join the military. They would rather he take a holiday at an expensive “off-world” resort, before then going to an exclusive and expensive university. Johnny’s parents are not ‘citizens’, yet they are wealthy. This would seem to go against what one would expect in such a totalitarian society. Even within the military, there are class distinctions. At boot-camp, the inductees share a common shower, male and female exposed as one, as if to say there is no difference between them. But there is a difference. The service is divided into classes based on intelligence, or high school grades, at least. Johnny did not fare too well at school, and so has been put into the mobile infantry. His high school sweetheart, Carmen, has fared better and trains to be a pilot. Another classmate, Carl, heads to the upper echelon, military intelligence. The patriarchy is challenged somewhat with Carmen’s training when she becomes a better pilot than her male trainer, Zander, which is, perhaps, not a result that Lucas may have considered. Later, after a fight between Johnny and Zander, whom Johnny, quite rightly, believes is intent on the attentions of Carmen, Dizzy, a fellow soldier and woman after Johnny’s heart, tells him to forget about her, that pilots and the mobile infantry “don’t mix”. But issues of class are soon swept aside on the battle field, where rank or social standing are of no concern to the relentless ‘bug’ horde, that continues to outsmart the humans.

In their strive to ensure “that human civilisation, not insect, dominates this galaxy”, it becomes apparent to the humans that there exists a ‘smart bug’, and that “to fight the bug, we must understand the bug”. The idea that any creature, particularly a ‘bug’, could be smarter than humans causes great debate, with one scientist declaring, “Frankly I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive”. It is a common human trait, perhaps even an ideology, to believe in the superiority and “pre-eminence of humans”, something that is certainly evident in Star Wars, where even though Lucas creates a world with a wide variety of alien races, humans still run the show (Lev 1998).

For the troopers on Klendathu, a similar result to the efforts of Luke and Han, that of human supremacy or the victory of the ‘right’, is achieved. The ‘smart bug’ is caught, but not by military intelligence or “some fancy new weapon”, but rather, by “a drill instructor named Zim, who captured a brain”, thus reaffirming a belief, wise or unwise, that nothing can outsmart a human, even if that human is a mere ‘grunt’ from the mobile infantry. In this final celebratory scene, Carl, who has telepathic powers, places a hand on the ‘smart bug’ and discovers “It’s afraid!”, though this is not surprising, given it is surrounded by soldiers and has just had its mind read by a man in a uniform that would not be out of place in the wardrobe of Heinrich Himmler. Carl, Carmen and Johnny then walk arm-in-arm, victorious. Carmen says “whenever the three of us are together, things might just work out”. Is this a call for the elimination of class segregation? If so, it is a call unlikely to be heard by the ruling class of this future society. The film ends with another broadcast from the Federal Network calling for more recruits to join the ranks – “We need you all. Service guarantees citizenship”.

Just as the ‘battle of the bug’ is not over, neither is the battle between the ‘Force’ and the ‘Dark Side’. For Lucas, the future is a well-ordered, uncluttered, clean ‘Mr. Sheen’ world, but for Verhoeven, the future may be ordered, but it is an order contained by military rule and violence. Though both futures are driven by ideologies of the past, Lucas offers his vision as a ‘new hope’, a reaffirmation of the patriarchy of his own personal past, while Verhoeven, having grown up in Nazi Europe, offers his vision for ridicule and derision. Where one looks back and smiles, the other looks back and laughs. But this difference is an important aspect of the role that popular genre texts play – a role that both affirms and subverts the ‘norms’ of culture – a role that provides sites of contestation for the values, beliefs and ideologies of this contemporary universe.
References

Top of Page