Analyse de Michael Dans Nikita

8/2/2019 Analyse de Michael Dans Nikita

1/6

JOHN THE OBSCURE 2006

Cherchelhomme: La Femme Nikita and Macho Drag

Drag is a (perhapsthe

) revolutionary modern aesthetic. In a society increasingly churned by role-playing, identity-seeking and gender-definition-questioning, its everywhere, from actual drag shows tothe gender/identity ambiguity of the Internet and video games. (Even the relatively dry, numbers-

crunching, currency-tracking site Wheresgeorge.com classes users self-reported gender as People

generally consider me a.)Thats not to say that all drag is revolutionary. Indeed, the classic drag queen gig is crypto-sexist,

a menstrual show answer to the minstrel shows of yore. Less obviously, much of the straight masculinity

it rejects is its own lethal sort of drag.

This can become apparent in extreme, costume-based examples: heavy metal bands, neo-Nazis,

investment bankers (or, as is quite possible these days, all of the above).

But that only reflects the insidious internal drag that demands that men cloak their inner worlds

with emotional deadness. There may only have been one Man in the Iron Mask, but the vast majority of

us still have this disguise riveted firmly in place, from our Mean Dad of a president on down the sullenline.

This affectlessness is, of course, not just for effect. Macho masculinity is not merely an act or a

costume; its ingrained behavior. Indeed, its usually a useful adaptation in a sick society that expects and

demands males to provide and survive violence. (I grew up in schools that in aesthetics, administration,

population and threat level replicated minimum-security prisons, and found grim detachment a potent toolindeed.) Useful, but insidious, as most circumstances in our highly culture-crafted world are not

unavoidable high-noon showdowns. I fear that, like all adaptations, the emotional death that characterizes

modern masculinity seeksor createsits own biological niches: battlefields, torture chambers, serial

killer basements and suicides-by-cop. Or, to be less dramatic and just as tragic, broken marriages,

abused/neglected children and joyless, wasted lives.

While this stoic phenomenon is very realeven promoted as a lifestyle or apotheosized as somekind of genetic inevitabilityit is also illustrated and informed by entertainment. Obviously, the defininggenre is the action movie, with its ever-narrowing emotional range. The early, impenetrably gruff icons

like John Wayne gave way to the likes of Clint Eastwood, someone so lifeless that only the occasional lip

curl lets you know youre not watching a documentary about pharaonic mummies. And even he wassupplanted by walking tree stumps like Chuck Norris or quasi-sentient fleshblobs like Arnold

Schwarzenegger and Steven Seagal.1

Like all drag, macho expressionlessness has elements of camp. Ive always enjoyed action movieswhile finding them hilarious at the same timean experience that, I think, is common but unstated.Sometimes the movies themselves dip into it, like the quasi-parodies Commando and The Dead Pool

(of Schwarzenegger and Eastwood, respectively) or the general eyebrow-arching of Dwayne The RockJohnson. Humorlessness is often humorous. But action movies are meant to be taken seriouslynot in

their fantastical content, but in their emotional tenor.

Action movies are often talked about in terms of their politics, since theyre usually

about crimefighting or international conflict. But what theyre really about is blue-collar jobscops andsoldiers, especiallyand the frustrating crappiness thereof. Even the sleek James Bond was a workingman who had to show up at the office to get his assignments. The vast majority of action movies are

damn-the-boss fantasies. Paranoia, delusions of grandeur and false moral clarity are typically injected to

heighten the high.

The defining trait of the action movie is what it presents as a successful coping strategy for

crummy work environments: numbness, hostility, uncommunicativeness and eventual explosive violence.


2/6

And maybe theres something to be said for all that. However, the action movie is all about justificationand nothing about consequences.

Perhaps the only significant action movie to let the drag slip, to appear briefly sans make-up, is

First Blood, the outstanding first Rambo movie. In this tale ofVietnam vet flashback freak-out and

revenge on vile, small-town cops, Sylvester Stallone makes it clear his character is motivated largely by

fear, and collapses blubbering at the end.

Still, the main impression of the movie is Rambo as an invulnerable ultimate survivalist whoseunleashed vengeance cuts through cops, an entire town and the National Guard like a custom-made Bowie

knife through butter.2

I bring all of this up because I have belatedly discovered a true action epiphany, the 1990s

syndicated TV series La Femme Nikita, a show that uniquely explored macho action drag in-depth andfound it to be, well, a drag.

Theres a bit of the ridiculous in me gushing about a decade-old series I still havent watched allthe way through.3 But this particular facet of the popular show seems to have drawn little attention. The

ground this show broke, and the incredible talent it displayed in so doing, deserve much wider

recognition.

La Femme Nikita is based on the 1990 Luc Besson action movie of the same name, a modern-day Pygmalion about a woman street criminal who is unwillingly turned into an assassin by a cynical

government agency. That was itself a groundbreaking action movie that plays madly with gender rolesand macho drag. (The woman as action hero is a subversive subgenre all its own, with rules and

influences that are frankly too complicated to fit into my glib action movie encapsulation above.)

The TV show (1997-2001) followed the same basic storyline, with the remarkable Australian

actress Peta Wilson in the title role. But naturally, it domesticated the show more, turning Nikita into amember of an anti-terrorist spy team called Section One, and documenting the grotesque office politics

that unfold in the groups subterranean headquarters.The strange seas Nikita navigates are a diabolical blend of male and female evil, with

undercurrents of brute force and cruel manipulation. The gestalt is built and personified by the Sectionsevil Daddy and Mommy, the vicious Type-A executive Operations (Eugene Robert Glazer) and the icy

psychologist/analyst Madeline (Alberta Watson).

All Section agents are convicted murderers operating under constant threat of death if they fail or

disobey. Emotional suppression is demanded; horrifying ruses and exploitations are routine. Nikita, alively, emotional, basically decent person, struggles daily to survive the insanity.

Someone surviving well, and typifying the macho drag portion of the program, is Michael (the

French-Canadian actor Roy Dupuis), Nikitas mentor, evil genius and love interest. Stoic to a point ofZen-like facial immobility, Eastwoodian reticence and robotic economy of movement, and capable of

killing anyone, anywhere, anytime in about a nanosecond, Michael is a classic modern action hero.

Thus, he should also be a classic bore. Instead, hes a remarkable, moving deconstruction ofmasculinity, thanks both to the screenwriters conception and Dupuiss talent, which results in one of thefinest screen performances Ive ever seen (speaking as a one-time professional critic of such things).

As in all action movies, Michaels persona is presented as an efficient, useful adaptation to ahideous job. But La Femme Nikita lets slip the dirty secret that at best its useful only in highly limitedcircumstances. It tells us that Michael has a much richer inner life. It shows him fumbling to reach Nikita

through his own emotional armor, and Nikita similarly unable to touch him. It shows Michaels mask assomething he struggles to remove, something that sometimes suffocates him. It shows him dying to reveal

himself, but feeling more comfortable in disguise. It shows him confusing his identity with his act.

In short, it shows us your average guy writ large.

The masks in the show are almost literal. Facial expressions and other emotional displays are

verboten in La Femme Nikita; its drama happens almost entirely through the eyes. Glances, blinks and

eye contact have stunning significance in this creepy little world where human relationships can transpire

only as a form of espionage. Wilson, whose eyes are among the most captivating in the business, and who


3/6

has a remarkable ability to express several emotions simultaneously, leads the way, her active vision

discomfiting everyone else as they carry out their poisonous routines.

But Dupuis is even more restricted. Indeed, his performance is avant-garde in its astounding

minimalism, something that goes beyond the required machismo and into a realm that, if he had flubbed

it, would have risked his leading-man status. At virtually all times, his face is less mobile than an Easter

Island head. He works almost exclusively with his soft, blue-gray eyes. (In this way, Dupuis reminds me

of Alain Delon in the great crime film Le Samouraonly better.)Their language is not the squinty glare of classic action heroes. Michaels eyes are open, receptive,

but also shy and avoidant. The primary syntax of Michaels glances involves him looking away briefly,

blinking thoughtfully, as if repressing an emotional response, then locking eyes, as if trying to imply a

much deeper message than the few words he might be simultaneously offering up. As the friend who

turned me onto La Femme Nikita put it, Michaels eyes are never hostile, even when hes dispatchingvillains. (Ditto for his face; Michael/Dupuis is truly expressionless, as opposed to scowl-locked like the

classic one-note action hero.) And far from the Classical Reptilian spoken by, say, Norriss eyes,

Michaels looks are relentlessly communicative. While the classic action hero attempts to look like apredator through and through, Michaels eyes constantly tell us that his dispassion is just a necessary act,

that there is something still living inside him that is frightened by the evil hes forced to commit. Heappears not angry, but shell-shocked.

Dupuis vocalizes Michael in a similar way. He employs a low Eastwoodian whisper that matchesthe screenwriters Eastwoodian terseness of dialogue. Much of Michaels dialogue is literally one wordlong, delivered so as to convey the message that the conversation is now over. While it is fundamentally

cold and menacing, it is also unfailingly calm and politeonce again, not hostile. It is also avoidant,hinting at contempt for his own actions; one of Michaels favorite responses is simply, Of course, a linethat sums up his air of machine-like obedience mingled with implicit distaste.

Besides intent and talent, happenstance also aids this sense of emotional repression. Dupuis has

a qubcois accent (though so terse is he, it took me about three episodes to notice). The huge French

vowels often battle with the American English terseness inside his mouth, sometimes creating a clipped or

slightly choked sound. Facially, this is accompanied by Dupuis opening his mouth a bit more than a pure

English-speaker would, then catching himself and closing it up again, drawing his upper lip down more

tightly. By nature, Dupuis has to hammer flat his beautifully expressive native tongue; by accident, it adds

greatly to Michaels aura of emotional strangulation. At times, it makes him sound almost on the verge oftears.

4

Dupuis/Michaels appearance, again by both accident and design, has similar hints of softness.Dupuis is a dazzlingly attractive guy, well-built with a strong jawline and the usual hunky fixins, but

made truly gorgeous by individualizing imperfections (most prominently, a nose that appears to have

been thoroughly broken at one time, probably with a hockey stick). He exudes athlete-warrior typing,but he also has those remarkably plush eyes, as well as a somewhat sensual mouth. Design-wise, Michael

is always dressed in trim, funereal black and bedecked with macho stubble, but also with longish hair that

softens his otherwise severe visual impact.

Watching Michael is like observing an eclipsea darkness surrounded by a halo of fiery hints.

Theres no doubt hes dangerous, virtually invincible. But hes also buried alive in a tough-guy coffin,

and were given plenty of chances to smell the dirt around it. Dupuis gives us a Michael who seems less

cruel than clinically depressedwhich is what most tough guys are.Michael is a brilliantly designed and executed character, but the show doesnt just let him float out

there on his own subtleties. It actively explores the themes of macho drag.

In the shows theme song, a female voice muses, Cherche la femme, and indeed, much of thefirst season is about Michael seeking Nikita. Using (and abusing) his authority as her mentor, he stalks

her in her private life, breaks into her apartment on a regular basis, and generally expresses romantic

interest in highly dysfunctional ways. But when Nikita challenges himor worse, responds to theinterestthis tough guy turns on his heel and flees back into the underworld. Macho machines who are


4/6

little boys inside are not the meat and potatoes of action dramas, but La Femme Nikita spills the secretrelentlessly.

Indeed, by the second season, its now, Cherche lhommeNikita seeking Michael as hewithdraws further behind his walls. Like so many shows, La Femme Nikita is built around the sexual

tension between its leads. Unlike the rest, it takes the amazing step of plopping them in bed together at the

beginning of the second season. That would be a farewell, they-lived-happily-ever-after episode of any

other series, considered both the pinnacle and death of the drama. In La Femme Nikita, its where thedramaand the realismreally begin.

After finally confessing and expressing love together, Nikita and Michael do not become warm

and fuzzy. In fact, Michael doesnt even get his pants back on before becoming icy and withdrawn,already disappearing back into invulnerability. This stunning retreat into emotional unavailability right at

the culmination of intimacy is criminally absent from most romances, even as its utterly familiar to, I

daresay, the vast majority of men and women. Its one of La Femme Nikitas most remarkable andhonest moments.

Michael is literally naked during the scenebut only physically. Emotionally, you can almosthear him saying, Time to become a man again.Time to disappear behind the mask.5

The show doesnt constantly focus on this theme, but it keeps Michaels choice between romanticlife and emotional suicide constantly in play. When it does delve deeper, it remains powerful and

insightful.A key example is a nice twist on a hoary spy clichthe amnesia episode. Drugged by terrorists,

Michael loses his memorynot only of his past, but of his macho drag. We see the real Michael for a

brief timekind, affectionate, expressive. Painfully, but wisely, Nikita pulls away from him. This isntyou, she says in a searingly complex line; of course, it is him, but not the Michael she can have long-term, once his memory returns. In a bit that is simultaneously very funny and deeply sad, Nikita instructs

Michael (whose amnesia, if revealed, would get him executed) how to act inside Section: Use as fewwords as possible. Be terse. She trains him in rebuilding the macho mask shes struggled so long to

smash. In the end, Michael regains his memory, and Nikita re-loses Michael.6

Nikita, an innocent who cant stop trusting and caring, is the shows poignant victim. But Michaelis its most tragic figure.

Lest I get too gushy, it must be acknowledged that La Femme Nikita also exploits the macho

masquerade as much as it peeks behind the mask. Michaels main attraction is his standing as theUnattainable Hunky Boss of romance clich, a role many women have been trained to respond to

submissively by the deathly macho codes that pervade much of our storytelling. (To the shows credit,Nikita at least challenges and rejects Michael as much as she yearns for him.)

More significantly, Michael is still a credibility-straining superhero whose macho shell is justified

in classic action-movie terms by the false clarity of externally imposed forcesvile bosses and even more

vile villains. Action heroes are never responsible for themselves; theyre always forced to beobnoxious.

For most men, the only real imposition is the emotional deadness itself, presented as a tautological

definition of masculinity. Real emotional deadness is a symptom, not a solution.

Michael compensates by becoming extremely competentindeed, as one episode mentions, it

appears to be his only determination of self-worth, possibly his only pleasure. There is considerable

emotional truth to that; our society often forces men into perfectionist personality disorders, then rewardsthem well for it in work environments.

Still, most men do not become glamorous ultra-heroes like Michael. They become gray drudges

with early heart attacks.

This concept of the action hero as a glorification of (over)compensation has some relationship to

stories that present handicapped people as bearing magical powers. A good example is the amusing TV

show Monk, a mystery-comedy about a severely obsessive-compulsive detective. (Like La FemmeNikita once did, it airs on the USA Network.) Monk, who evinces a veritable DSM-load of neurotic


5/6

symptoms, is depicted as benefiting from his extreme detachment and attention to detail. He becomes one

of the worlds greatest detectives, though his emotional life is tragic and crippled.

Of course, most real neurotics or other injured people do not have amazing compensations.

Theyre just plain screwed. Normal, screwed people.

Likewise, someone who acted like Michael in real life would almost surely not be pursued by

women. He would be laughed at. (Remember that all drag has camp elements; Michaels seriousness begs

to be mocked, and one of the thrills of Dupuis performance is how dangerously close it comes to beinga punchline. Indeed, in at least one episode about subliminal persuasion, Michaels deadpan image isemployed as unintentional self-parody.)

And in the worst irony, most men who emotionally duplicate action heroes are not active. Theyrefrozen, dormant.

Less obviously, few men act like any one thing, hard as they may try. Obviously, Michael has

struck me because he resonates with my own personality, which involves many of the same syndromes

and flaws. But Ive begun thinking of myself as responding more on a Nikita-Michael spectrum

sometimes more acting out, like Nikita, sometimes more cold and shielded, like Michael. Still, most men

identify with the male gender role and actively imitate it, whatever their actual spectrum of behavior.

All that being said, La Femme Nikita deserves enormous credit for its honesty and how much itgets right. It shows love as the ultimate secret mission in a male world. It shows that emotions are the real

action, the real danger, the real terrorism. It suggests that emotionally dead people may make greatfighters, but in another way have already lost. I fear in some ways its unbearably, specifically timely, as Iponder what impact our cynical warfare and cultural paranoia is having on mens souls, and what will

happen when soldiers come back home.

One of the dangers of macho drag is confusing image with reality. It would likewise be dangerousto equate Dupuis with Michael. Indeed, from what I can tell, much of Michaels effectiveness as acharacter seems to stem from Dupuis being a very different person, or one who lives out the similarities in

very different ways: shy, retiring, sensitive, witty, emotionally open. (He reportedly choked up while

addressing a La Femme Nikita fan convention and cried off-stage.) Upon playing a gay hustler inBeing at Home with Claude (1992), he freely discussed how it led him to question his sexuality beforesettling into straightness. He praises the feminine. He seems comfortable with himself, living a rural life,

supporting environmental and disabled-assistance charities. In short, he seems like a much healthier

person, and role model, than his famous alter ego.Back in the La Femme Nikita days, interviewers often asked Dupuis what it was like to play

Michael. His typical answer: Exhausting.As any man can tell you, it sure is.

1Im being conveniently glib and overly dynastic here. In fact, there have been some interesting

developments away from these stereotypes in modern action movies, not the least of which has been the

massive influence of Hong Kong action movies with their scrawny stars, female leads and occasional

actual non-rage emotion. Also, the big-screen advent of extremely popular superheroes has included the

geeky, sensitive Spider-Man and, in the hands of a gay writer/director, a Wolverine who manages to

epitomize macho bloodthirst and cigar-chomping invulnerability while also expressing a range of

emotional states. The Hong Kong influence is staggering and complex beyond the scope of this essay,much less this footnote; the neo-superheroes are still subtle in their paradigm shifts (and perhaps not so

different from the 1970s Superman in these regards anyway); and neither force has had anything like a

Wayne or Eastwood impact on the image of masculinity, which the movies as we know them are in any

case probably now helpless to touch, only to follow Frankenstein-like across their own glacial wastes.

Another interesting take on modern masculinity is the latest version of the BBC sci-fi show

DoctorWho. The time-traveling Doctor is a typical emotionally broken hero, but atypically hidesbehind boyish enthusiasm, geekery and certain kinds of self-effacement. The shows classic quote aboutthe Doctors physics-defying time machine, the TARDIS, sums up not only its most remarkable physical


6/6

attribute, but also modern masculinitys most remarkable emotional attribute: Its bigger on the insidethan on the outside.

2Living well is certainly not the best revenge in action movies. Indeed, the heroes often live

morose, frugal lives that appear to punish themselves more than the villains. Obviously, the modern

action movie owes a lot to Jesus. Meanwhile, its worth noting the old acting saw that its always morefun to play the villain. Thats often attributed to it being more fun to be evil; but its typically because

action-movie villains are the only characters with an emotional life.3

(placeholder footnote so that after John watches all the episodes he can confirm how right he

was) (update: Man, I was soooo right.)4Dupuis has said he purposely retained his accent to give Michael an added musicality

another hint of softness. Also, Michael was French.5

I have used the metaphor of a mask, implying a true identity beneath. In advanced cases, the true

identity suffocates and the result is a death mask, an image that is the only part of the man that is actually

alive. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the post-modern action hero, is a great example. Hes famed as abodybuilder, movie star, politician and entrepreneur, but those are just personas he uses in an ambitious

quest for abstract power. He takes none of these personas, these self-advertisements, very seriously,

variously joking ironically about them and even fudging his way through them for the appearance of

success (from steroid use to secret corporate funds and political donations). Even his marriage has

bizarre aspects of political ambition and lurid cheating. The mask is the only thing about Schwarzeneggerthat appears to truly be alive. Hes become a self-promotion without a self. The epitome of thephenomenon is our clearly movie-imitating prep-school cowboy, G.W., a man so thoroughly phony that

many people have embraced him as utterly authentic, apparently because they simply cant comprehendthe depths of such personal and emotional vacuity. Fleeing regularly to his Texas ranch, he clearly

doesnt even much like the presidential mask (and attendant responsibilities) his own ambition led him to

put on. Perhaps when his term ends and hes able to drop the act, he can return home, visit with himselfonce again, and see if anybodys still there.

6Quotes are paraphrased from memory.

Significant sources not cited in the text or footnotes include:http://lfnforever.tripod.com ; La Femme Nikita Seasons 1-3, Warner HomeVideo;www.imdb.com; and various interviews atwww.roydupuis-online.com,www.petawilson-online.com andwww.royettes.com. Some of my

ideas about masculinity were loosely informed by the works ofTerry Real. Many thanks to Christine atThe Boston French Centerfor double-

checking my French. Any remaining errors are my own. Posted July 23, 2006. Updated Aug. 13, 2006 and Nov. 1, 2008.

JOHN THE OBSCURE HOME
http://lfnforever.tripod.com/http://lfnforever.tripod.com/http://lfnforever.tripod.com/http://www.imdb.com/http://www.imdb.com/http://www.imdb.com/http://www.roydupuis-online.com/http://www.roydupuis-online.com/http://www.petawilson-online.com/http://www.petawilson-online.com/http://www.petawilson-online.com/http://www.royettes.com/http://www.royettes.com/http://www.royettes.com/http://www.relationalrecoveryinstitute.com/http://www.relationalrecoveryinstitute.com/http://www.relationalrecoveryinstitute.com/http://www.frenchlib.org/http://www.frenchlib.org/http://www.frenchlib.org/http://www.stupidquestion.net/http://www.stupidquestion.net/http://www.stupidquestion.net/http://www.frenchlib.org/http://www.relationalrecoveryinstitute.com/http://www.royettes.com/http://www.petawilson-online.com/http://www.roydupuis-online.com/http://www.imdb.com/http://lfnforever.tripod.com/

Documents

Analyse de Michael Dans Nikita