Feminism and Semiotics in ‘The Creature From The Black Lagoon’
(The best monster movie of all time)
Audiences rely on semiotics, the study of cinematic signs, to interpret film. Semiotics help break a film into its constituent parts; look at characters, action and dialogue. The framework of film can be broken down into five fundamental units of meaning: the enigma code; the connotative code, the action code, the symbolic code and the cultural code.
The Creature from the Black Lagoon, directed by Jack Arnold in 1954, is one of the most popular B-grade cult films of all time. Referred to as the first Freudian science fiction film (Venner, M.2002), The Creature from the Black Lagoon is a classic 50’s horror film.
It follows a group of scientists including a marine biologist by the name of David and his adventurous partner Kay, as they head deep into the amazon following the discovery of a prehistoric creature’s fossilised claw. In search for the rest of the fossil the expedition travels deep into the unknown waters of the amazon, unaware that the creature is still alive and they have invaded its habitat. After several members of the crew are hurt and killed by the creature, they hunt it, with little forethought as to its real motivation.
Themes were expressed in an implicit manner, in a B-grade format, to enable this films release to cinemas. Even though the 1950’s have produced a number of infamous B-grade horror movies, The Creature from the Black Lagoon was one of the earliest movies to use 3D and feature a woman in such an independent role, hinting at the implicit recognition of feminism in film. This analysis aims to deconstruct the semiotics of The Creature from the Black Lagoon with respect to the the connotative, symbolic and cultural codes of meaning.
In the opening scenes we are introduced to the stunning heroine Kay, steering a boat to pick her partner up. This foregrounds her as an atypical heroine of the time, a blend of independence, beauty, naivety and innocence. While she looks like the other 1950’s heroines, she doesn’t act like them; she is clearly and educated woman, who has no difficulty holding a convocation with older men of status. This suggests that she has come from a fairly wealthy upbringing, where independence was prized; which is developed as a theme though the way she presents herself in her speech, dress, confidence, and ability to communicate articulately. Her direct eye contact and active contribution to the convocation lie in direct contrast to her coquettish and charming behaviour. Standing shoulder to shoulder and patting the other characters arms throughout the film, she softens her directness and forms emotional connections.
Her partner David also is aiming to shatter the scientific stereo type that all scientists are old men, though his physical appearance, youthfulness and his dialogue:
CARL
DAVID, you still don’t look like an ichthyologist.(Chuckles)
KAY
A geologists point of view. He expected a loveable old professor with a beard.
CARL
I didn’t expect him to look like he did when he was a student of mine.
In the following lines of dialogue they break social stereotypes and values again. In response to a quip about their relationship.
CARL
Are you two married yet?
KAY
No. No, DAVID says we’re together all the time anyway, might as well save expenses.
CARL
Did you ever hear of two living as cheaply as one?
KAY
Thats what I keep telling him, CARL.
DAVID
I’m waiting for Williams to give her that raise. Then she can afford me.
These pieces of dialogue and the actions that accompany them imply an extramarital relationship of familiarity between Kay and David; particularly when she lends him a shoulder to lean on as he drys himself and when she hands him his bath robe. The comment about Kay getting a raise implies both that she is employed by the institute and is not financially dependent on anyone, also that David isn’t threatened by it. At the exit of the scene, the three sit shoulder to shoulder as she drives the boat to shore; this matches her intellectual equality with her visual equality amongst the other scientists.
Kay would be a regular character in contemporary cinema, however due to the ideology of the era, she is an unusual character and this leads to her eventual objectification in the final scene. She still differs incredibly to the other heroines found in 21st century cinema. In comparison to the attitudes and behaviour expected of house wives outlined in an article from ‘Ladies Homemaker Monthly’ entitled The Good Wife Guide: 19 Rules for Keeping a Happy Husband published the year after the films release; a wife is expected to meet his every need, never complain, question or challenge him and to know her place. If Kay was presented in the film as David’s devoted wife she would never have gotten away with her radical persona, values and actions. These specific character examples use cultural codes to connotatively challenge the current ideology, whilst simultaneously denoting that the characters still fit the hyper sexualised cultural expectations set.
Symbolically, Kay represents the free independent woman of the future, not limited to the constraints and expectations of marriage. She is able to be physically affectionate towards other male characters, outspoken to her partner and is not subservient to him, nor bound by the values so highly regarded in the The Good Wife Guide.
Her partner, similarly challenges not only the stereotypical male hero of the time, but the scientific role model as well. He is not the least bit dependent on her or worried about her challenging him. Both being such independent people, their relationship is a early depiction of relationships today, and not of that generation; the pair comfortably share each others company without marital restrictions. The Creature from the Black Lagoon may have been a catalyst for cultural change at that point.
However the real comparison comes between David and the Creature know commonly as the Gill Man. David was hunting for an evolutionary dead end, where he found a living, breathing opponent.
David’s physical appearance; his clean-shaven face, hairless chest, smaller frame and loose shorts suggest that he has become slightly androgynous, surrendering the expected masculine traits, both emotionally and physically. Where as the Gill Man’s large framed, physically dominant body, depicted him as the alpha male in the film. The names of the characters also mate an implicit biblical reference to universal themes in David and Goliath.
When the waiting monster took Kay form the boat, his powerful movements spoke of aggression, juxtaposed to the tenderness he showed in placing her on the rock; which both revered and sexualised her simultaneously. His possession of her, symbolised two of the dominant themes found in 1950’s B-grade cinema: the sexualisation of women and the possibility of alien invasion or mutation, following the nuclear bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Arnold, though his love of independent characters and his scientific knowledge, created The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Kay’s characterisation of a free independent woman shows a premonition of futuristic women and their relationships. The evolution of the creature in the black lagoon, is a metaphor for the evolution of Kay as a woman in her own right.
This film has had the freedom and poetic licence to explore more themes that A-grade movies by their very nature could not in 1954. Semiotic features, including the connotative, cultural and symbolic codes are aptly found and observed within The Creature from the Black Lagoon. This film has gone on to help the transition into the creation and representation of independent women and characters on screen and culturally. It has also become one of the most popular cult horror films as it’s combination of modern and dated ideology’s are interesting and empowering to watch onscreen. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is still being enjoyed by audiences to this day.
References:
- Hagner, M. (1999). Enlightened monsters. In W. Clark, J. Golinski, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The sciences in enlightened Europe (pp. 175–217). Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press.
- Jankovich, Mark. Rational Fears: American Horror in the 1950s. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.
- Wiesenfeldt, G. (2010). Dystopian genesis: The scientist’s role in society, according to jack arnold. Film & History, 40(1), 58–74. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.saeaustralia.edu.au:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/753503396?accountid=145504
- Venner, M. (2002). THE CINEMA OF PARANOIA. Film Ireland, (84), 20–23,5. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.saeaustralia.edu.au:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/194688636?accountid=145504
- Weinstock, J. A. (Ed.). (2014). The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. Brookfield, GB: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
- The Creature from the Black Lagoon. (2008, March 8). The Economist, 386(8570), 97(US). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.saeaustralia.edu.au:2048/login?url=http://ezproxy.saeaustralia.edu.au:2054/ps/i.do?p=EAIM&sw=w&u=saeinstitute&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA176155515&asid=d64b28ef0ae8fc2438f5969a9716fda6
- The Good Wife Guide: 19 Rules for Keeping a Happy Husband. (1955). Ladies Homemaker Monthly, 1–28. Retrieved from http://www.littlethings.com/1950s-good-housewife-guide/
- Edgar-Hunt, R., Marland, J., & Rawle, S. (2010). The language of film (1st ed., pp. 1–37). Lausanne: AVA Academia.
