While watching Children of Men, Apocalypto, and 28 Days Later, I was drawn to the role that women played in each of the post-apocalyptic scenarios. I first questioned in Children of Men why the women were made infertile and the men were not. In Apocalypto, I compared Seven to Kee from Children of Men, both of whom offered hope from their pregnancies. In 28 Days Later, Selena is an independent survivor who, at first, seems like more of the traditional hero-type than anyone else. As Professor Quinby points out her essay, these empowered female characters completely contrast the roles of women in traditional apocalyptic myth and create a certain ambiguity in the distinction between masculine and feminine in terms of the traditional romance (2). However, though these gender roles are blurred during ensuing apocalyptic chaos, the hope of salvation does not seem to fully arise until traditional gender roles are reassigned.
In Children of Men, the ever-approaching demise of the human race is due to the infertility of every woman on Earth. My first question while watching this was “Why women?” At first, I thought it was a bit sexist to blame the end of humanity on the women’s inability to procreate. However after reading Quinby’s essay, I reconsidered this. Perhaps it was done to not only say, “Where would we be without women?” but also to set Kee up as the miraculous savior and purveyor of hope. From the moment we find out she’s pregnant, Kee holds the power to the salvation of humanity. Yet at the same time, she is most vulnerable to the untrustworthy people who will take advantage of her pregnancy. Thus it is her vulnerability that facilitates the rise of Theo as the unconventional hero of this story. The gender roles become ambiguous between these two as they struggle through the surrounding chaos. Theo acts as Kee’s midwife for the birth of her child, providing “ironic commentary on the traditional romantic hero” (Quinby 15). Yet throughout all of this, we are never quite sure that the “Human Project” actually exists. The hope is never certain. Only at the end, when Kee is stranded on the rowboat completely powerless, essentially becoming the traditional “damsel in distress,” does the boat come to save her. Only then does the hope that she represents come to life.
In Apocalypto, a similar ending occurs. Throughout the movie, while Jaguar Paw is attempting his escape from his captors, his pregnant wife Seven is struggling with life threatening battles of her own. She is given power not only as the only hope to save herself and her son, but also as the only hope to continue her destroyed village society by giving birth and raising her two sons. This represents her untraditional gender role. However, the hope she symbolizes is impeded by the fact that she’s stuck in a hole. Though she shows valiant efforts to escape, she does not succeed independently. It is not until Jaguar Paw comes to her rescue when she is about to drown that the hope she offers is fully established. She, like Kee, became a damsel in distress in need of a traditional hero to save the day and return hope.
In 28 Days Later, gender roles are distorted even more, but still a similar ending occurs. Selena is the most romantically untraditional character. In the beginning, she is the obviously more masculine character in comparison to Jim. Between these two, gender roles are not just blurred, but are essentially reversed. Jim is like her damsel in distress, always needing her to save him from danger. She initially holds hope for their survival. However, once they reach the military “sanctuary,” their roles completely revert to the traditional. Selena becomes in danger of being raped and Jim begins his “rebirth as a masculine warrior” (Quinby 11). Though gender roles once again come into question as Selena and Hannah save Jim’s life after he was shot, the last scene restores them again. Selena is sewing (a typically feminine activity), and we know that Jim was the only one who knew about the virus being contained in England, thus restoring hope for their future.
Though the traditional romantic gender roles are reassigned at the end of each of these doomsday films, the women still facilitate hope. However, it is the cohesive pair of man and woman working together that enables the hope to exist in the foreseeable future. It is this conjunction of male and female that broadens the constraints that traditional romances leave us with and gives us a wider range of possibilities for hope in the future.
Your point that each of the movies reinforce traditional gender roles, as well as the cohesive coupling of a man and a woman, reminded me of the Hiroshima lovers in “Watchmen.” The silhouettes of the man and woman embracing each other are ubiquitous in the graphic novel; they are found on walls and buildings across the city and unknowingly mimicked by Dan and Laurie. Even though it is a depiction of traditional, and therefore accepted sexuality, it is still rife with ambiguities. It represents hope for the future, as well as impotency in the present; it embodies the characters’ acceptance of their sexuality, as well as their alienation; it can be an exhortation to “make love not war” while it is symbol of one of the greatest war tragedies in human history. I think gender and sexuality are such fraught concepts in our society, that it is difficult to avoid inconsistencies, ambiguities, and contradictions.