Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) is a feminized character in that he is overly preoccupied with his appearance and acts in a delicate manner in spite of his physical fitness. The fact that the film is all about male spectacle can also be seen to put his character in a feminized position of being looked at as opposed to bearer of the look.

Right at the beginning, moreover, we are presented with the symbolic castration of Zoolander. As his rival Hansel (Owen Wilson) wins the “Male Model of the Year” award. Derek is deprived of his power which lies solely in popularity, and is left helpless and defeated. He then tries to remedy the situation by going back to his hometown and working in the coalmines with his father and brothers. By trying to fit into their world, however, Derek only furthers this feeling of castration as he is scorned for what he does, and his lack of popularity renders his very existence meaningless and drives him to ask himself “who am I?”

According to MacKinnon (2003: 37) masculine identity is linked with the use of the body as an instrument of power and control. In spite of only using aggression at the very end of the film when he nearly murders the prime minister of Malaysia, Zoolander uses his body throughout to exert his influence and depends on it to advance his career. His trademark look “blue steel” stands in for physical power, as it is what he uses to control and succeed. In the climax of the film, when he uses “Magnum” for the first time, it represents the next level of power and achieves what physical masculine aggression normally would.

Laura Mulvey (1975) describes ‘fetishistic scopophilia’ as the pleasure of looking at another person as an object. The main idea that runs throughout the film is that this is exactly what models are there for, to be looked at, to be empty vessels, objects of that gaze (this objectification is rendered easier still by the low intellect of the model characters). The interesting thing about Zoolander is that in this film the models that we get acquainted with are all male, and according to Mulvey fetishist scopophilia cannot possibly apply to males in cinema. In the Walk-off challenge though, we are presented with a spectacular “fight” that mimics epic scenes from films such as Rocky (enter year) The Matrix (enter year) and any number of Westerns. This turning of a situation into spectacle privileges the fetishistic look, which, according to Ellis (1982: 47) ‘has much to do with display and the spectacular’ as it objectifies the characters.

Derek’s version of Masculinity is not seen as the norm, however, as several others are introduced in the film. The miners in Derek’s hometown represent traditional working class masculinity with a clearly homophobic attitude demonstrated in his father’s statement that he is “dead to him” because of his feminized profession – a statement identical to what you would expect if Derek had declared his homosexuality. However, just like in Billy Elliot (enter year), the father who initially considers the son’s vocation to be a feminine one ends up feeling proud of him. In neither film, however, is the son actually homosexual, so the father is never asked to deal with homosexuality per se, just the impression by the choice of career that the son is indeed less masculine than could be wished. Fatherly approval signifies the “happily ever after”, that everyone in patriarchal society should aspire to achieve.

‘The world of heroes is often homosocial’ (MacKinnon 2003:38), and Zoolander is no exception, as most of Derek’s friends and people he socializes with are male. Yet in spite of the camp attitude of some of those men, male homoeroticism is disavowed mainly through heterosexual relationships. The only homoerotic moment is the fight between Kantinka (Milla Jovovich) and Matilda. When Matilda punches Katinka, she licks the blood on the corner of her mouth and gives Matilda a lusting look. I could be implied that because Matilda has shown a masculine aggressive side she has made herself attractive to Katinka. Suggesting Katinka’s lesbianism implies that strong phallic women are not “normal”.

The “chauvinist pig” represented by Maury Ballstein (Jerry Stiller) demonstrates a sexist attitude throughout the film (Squeezing a female employee’s bottom, telling Matilda (Christine Taylor) that she would look more attractive with a push-up bra) and is never punished for it. Derek’s camp model friends, on the other hand, are used as comic relief and are subsequently killed.

Derek and Hansel, although very concerned with their appearance, escape the above definition of camp by proving their heterosexuality and having sex with Matilda. Her co-worker and would-be suitor Archie, however, never stands a chance with her in spite of his caring attitude and intelligence far superior to that of Zoolander. He is Hollywood’s way of saying that women are only attracted to powerful and good-looking men.

Different versions of femininity are also explored in Zoolander. The femme (ultra) fatale in the form of Katinka with her stereotypical leathers and strong-colored makeup is meant for impact. She is a phallic woman who is very much aware of her power. The masculinity of this power is brought to our attention when Matilda refers to her as a “She Male” in the scene when she is in a car with Derek. Katinka does not need to use seduction as a weapon because she is strong enough to have it her own way without resorting to this typically feminine tool. She represents the castrating murderous female, the causer of male anxiety and fear.

Matilda is built-up as less feminine because she is professionally successful and wears sensible clothes (a fact much mocked by Katinka). She is seen to despise the shallow, image-centered world of modeling, but it gradually emerges that she herself wanted to be part of it and that as a teenager she became bulimic as a result of the misidentification she felt towards female models. Narcissistic identification in that case made her feel bad about herself and it is implied that this is where her femininity got pushed into the background. In the scene where Zoolander rearranges her hair she is seen to rediscover that femininity in herself and takes pleasure in it. This is the beginning of the process of demystification that will culminate in their sexual encounter.

Laura Mulvey in her famous article ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ (1975) says that the ‘pleasure in looking is split between active/male and passive/female’ meaning that the on-screen woman is there to be looked at, subject to the male active gaze. If we were to agree with Mulvey in this instance, however, and say that this is the only possible structure of looking in narrative cinema, we might have a problem accommodating Zoolander in that frame of thought. We find ourselves looking mostly at male characters, not because they are driving the narrative, but because they are there to be looked at. In this film it is Matilda that drives most of the action in her attempts to save Derek and discover the truth. We tend to look at him through her eyes and her perspective, as she is a character that most members of the audience would find it easier to identify with than the exaggerated Zoolander.

On the other hand we still find many traditional features in the narrative, such as the voyeuristic demystification of the female – as Matilda discloses her most painful teenage memories to Derek and Hansel - followed by her succumbing sexually to them. Also, as mentioned in MacKinnon (2003: 39) ‘The resolution of conflict within the films seems to enshrine the family ideal’, which is certainly true in Zoolander where Matilda and Derek settle down to form a nuclear family. This could be seen as a resource to offset her intellectual superiority and forceful domineering attitude, to make her “safe”. Just as Steve Neale (1983) puts it, ‘Where women are investigated, men are tested’, and this rule is followed rigorously in Zoolander.

Although not strictly speaking a cross-dress comedy, the phrase “male model” is used throughout the film almost as the “third term” as proposed in Garber (1993:10), neither “man” nor “woman” but “male model”. Just as she suggests that transvestites should be perhaps considered a third term as opposed to either “male” or “female”. The principle of desexualizing the transvestite through comedy can be therefore applied here because so many of the male characters in the film wear clothes associated with femininity or homosexuality. They therefore need to be made “safe” both through comedy and through the reassurance that they are indeed heterosexual (bum pinching for Maury Ballstein, Katinka as a companion for Mugatu, sex with Matilda Jeffries for Zoolander and Hansel). Here, like in any film, however, ‘Clothes are not just clothes, they are how the socialized world “reads” and contextualizes the individual’ (Bruzzi 1997: 148). Matilda in her “normal” clothes is the exception, she, like George the dog in Bringing Up Baby (enter year) in a way represents the audience, barking at the “wrongness” of certain behavior.

In conclusion what Zoolander shows us in the beginning is a world of feminized males and domineering females in which traditional gender roles are effectively reversed. As the narrative progresses, however, we find that the main feminized male character in question is tested in the traditional Hollywood style and in his triumph demonstrates his heterosexuality, physical aggression and gains his father’s approval, which stands for the approval of a patriarchal society. The female characters, in turn, are either punished (in Katinka’s case) for their perversion of traditional female roles or change their perspective (in Matilda’s case) and take on the traditional role of sexually submissive female and mother. The film’s subliminal message is therefore that there can be no heterosexual relationship outside prescribed gender roles. As long as their roles were reversed, Derek and Matilda could not be together. Both of them had to undergo significant change in order to fit into their “proper” roles before their relationship could succeed and their nuclear family be formed. Just like in horror films, however, there is a final twist in that their son, by demonstrating the same “deviant” behavior in his “first look” starts the cycle all over again. Society, it seems, is never safe.

The action is played out on a harsh, out of the way stretch of the coast of Uruguay, a landscape which reflects the lives of the family concerned. They have retreated there from the interfering interest of family, friends and other well-meaning people in their native Buenos Aires. Separated now from their former life by the Rio de la Plata, they involve themselves in marine conservation / research as 15 year old Alex, now sexually on the boil, heads towards adulthood, with serious decisions looming on the horizon, but who should make them?

Alex's situation becomes public knowledge, leading to inevitable cruelty and suffering. She (for that's how she has been allowed to develop to this point) is sexually at odds with herself and stops the medication that suppresses the masculinity within her make-up, and there is growing pressure to consider surgical intervention in spite of the laissez-faire attitude her parents have adopted until now, particularly her father.

The main issue revolves around the decision whether to intervene. Should the parents, medical expertise or society in general make a decision in the early days, weeks, months of a hermaphrodite's life regarding their gender, or should that decision be deferred until the person is old enough to make up their own mind? Should any action ever be taken, medical, surgical or psychological, or should the person be allowed to go into free-fall and find their place as a double-gendered person in a world of two strong camps into which they do not fit? Why should a hermaphrodite be forced to chose? By extension, why should anyone, no matter what their “disability”, have to be forced into the mould of their neighbours to gain acceptance?

The film, although harsh, is sensitive, though none of the characters is particular attractive. Each of the options available to the parents is distasteful, but there is the hint of the possibility of true acceptance and love, but only a hint. After all, what parent would be happy with their son falling for a girl with a penis?

Hollywood Panders to Gender Stereotype

While Hollywood pandered to the gender stereotypes of the time, it made it virtually impossible for women to occupy roles that did not challenge society's norms and beliefs. Society believed males to be masters of science and mathematics, society branded them providers and protectors, while women were branded images of domestic and supporting help to a man's dominance as head of the household.

Consequently, a male-dependent woman in need of rescue from impending doom was engendered on screen. Men were saviors to women from outer space monsters, men were sky captains and knowledgeable scientists, while many films at the time limited the roles of women in science fiction to helpless beings clad in scanty metal bikinis or torn, rugged garb to satiate the male appetite for sex goddesses on screen.

Women suffered through these roles early as 1931 with the launch of Frankenstein (possibly earlier) to The Forbidden Planet of 1956 and were excluded from occupying roles that extended the range and possibilities of the female existence.

The Feminist Movement and a Change in Depiction

It was not until the second wave feminist movement of the 1960's and the subsequent rise of feminist science fiction that women really challenged these stereotypes. Films such as The Bionic Woman (1976), The Stepford Wives (1975) and Born in Flames (1983) questioned and challenged old stereotypes of a feeble woman. Writers became influenced by the ideas of equal opportunity for men and women in society and this idea paved the way for a far more intelligent depiction of women in science fiction films without challenging society's norms to its core.

By late 20th century, however, women's role in science fiction cinema had drastically changed for the better. The feminist movement had ended, women established themselves as world leaders, scientists, providers, protectors and moved forward in establishing a more serious female presence in the world and on the silver screen.

To this end, women in science fiction films are now portrayed as scientists, warriors and even villains! Science fiction films such as Terminator III, The Cave, I, Robot, Serenity, the Alien franchise and The Matrix franchise, show a diverse possibility of female roles; a far cry from the first images of female gender presented on screen.