I found that at a time dominated by CGI-heavy films, "The Peacemaker" (1997) stands out for its commitment to practical effects. Its approach created a more immersive experience. In particular mimi Leder’s direction not only brings authenticity to the action but also to character development, showcasing realistic growth, particularly in scenes like the Austrian ambush. Leder humanizes even the antagonist, Dusan, by paralleling his traumatic past with present events, compelling viewers to empathize with his plight. This emotional depth is highlighted in the sniper scene, where repeated commands to “take the shot” force audiences to confront the ethical ramifications of violence. "The Peacemaker" succeeds in blending thrilling action with profound reflections on the cost of security and the humanity behind conflict.
As someone whose favorite superhero is Black Widow but who also loves reading romance books, I didn’t expect to feel much from ‘The Peacemaker’. However, I was surprised when, during one of the final scenes, I shed a tear as Dr. Kelly began to cry while leaning against Thomas, who kissed her head in the only form of “PDA” we see in the movie. It was a touching moment that was made even more heart-wrenching as Thomas yelled for her as they were pulled apart. This pulled the ending of the movie together perfectly, as this was not the time for an explosive kiss like in a different action movie. Instead, a moment of relief after saving the city and a soft embrace was needed.
The Peacemaker’s character design is a breath of fresh air when it comes to action movie protagonist. What sets the characters apart is that they both are incredibly intelligent while also very grounded. Their expressions to loss and complex decisions are captured brilliantly by Leder allowing Clooney and Kidman’s characters to feel the weight of their actions. What actions movies today could learn from The Peacemaker is how characters choices in the film can make the action feel justified through real world consequences that don’t feel too far off what could or has happened.
Throughout the film The Peacemaker we see the lead Dr. Kelly being questioned but uplifted simultaneously. At points, she is clearly seen by her colleagues as someone who is trustworthy, cunning, and stellar at her job. At other points we see her being belittled and talked about in a way that not only undermines her abilities but also pushes her into a box. As a female watching the film, especially one who also works in a male-dominated field, I found this push and pull to be very relatable. Including these differences in perspectives allows a film that otherwise might be unrelatable into one that is much more easily grasped by viewers.
The complexity of the emotions in this film was discussed, but I didn’t expect to cry for the villain. In the final scenes, Mimi Leder evokes a full spectrum of emotions, from anxiety and sadness to joy and relief, by paralleling Dusan’s trauma, shown in a flashback, with the current events. Watching Dusan’s family die by a sniper, followed by a scene with an American sniper targeting Dusan, invoked an overwhelming rush of feelings where the villain became human and the heroes seemed cruel. The repeated command for the sniper to “take the shot” until an innocent civilian was killed was the final touch, forcing the audience to fully confront the consequences of violence, no matter how justified the action seemed.
Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997) had me on the edge of my seat throughout almost every scene. Throughout the film, it is a constant cat-and-mouse game and at the end of the movie a bit of sarcasm is shown when Dr. Kelley is trying to diffuse the bomb the children are told to run out of the church and the bomb has a timer set to two minutes. Two minutes isn't enough time to survive a nuclear bomb. The way Leder handles scenes of conflict takes a more subtle and thorough approach and creates a sense that these events can come to fruition rather than a made-up scene from a movie.
Leder does an amazing job of creating moments throughout the film that leave the audience on the edge of their seats.The opening scene displaying the nuclear blasts was a key moment of the movie. Placing this scene at the very start created suspense immediately which carried on throughout the film. By showing off the bomb's destructive capabilities, every shot with the bomb in sight made the scene more tense knowing what could follow its activation. This lingering suspense is highligted in the film's closing moments when the two protagonists Kelly and Devoe are frantically trying to disarm the nuclear bomb while within the church; if they are unsuccessful the audience is fully aware of the mass destruction that will rise making each tick down more terrifying.
In a time where movies are ridden with CGI, it is a breath of fresh air to see 1997’s “The Peacemaker” dedication to practical action. New box office action movies like the Marvel and Godzilla/King Kong franchises use CGI in what seems like the whole movie. While these movies with CGI can be enjoyable, excessive amounts of CGI bring the audience out of the movie experience, sometimes even making viewers imagine only actors in a green room. “The Peacemaker” utilizes practical effects to immerse its audience fully in the character’s dangerous adventure. When Colonel Thomas Devoe, fights to retrieve a warhead from a moving vehicle, we feel in the action as the fast-paced conflict takes place. The tense moment grips the audience on the edge of their seats as Devoe struggles to hook the winch up to the package before the vehicle falls off the cliff.
Mimi Leder utilizes parallelism to demonstrate character growth in her film The Peacemaker. The first and last shots of Dr. Julia Kelly feature her swimming laps in the White House pool. The addition of a scar on her face indicates how significantly her life has changed with the recent events, while also revealing that her core values-such as taking care of her body-are still intact. Additionally, while a government official approaches her in the first scene, it is Thomas Devoe that interrupts her at the end. This also signifies a change in her life: her newfound friendship with the Lieutenant-Colonel.
I appreciate Leder's commitment to realistic characters in "The Peacemaker." In action sequences, like the one in Austria, Devoe is shown to be decisive and unyielding in his reactions to the sudden danger that the characters face. It is clear that LT. Col. Devoe has plenty of experience with violence while Dr. Kelly is experiencing extreme violence for the first time. At the climax of the film, Kelly is now more comfortable with the high stakes and is able to react more efficient than before.
The Peacemaker distinguishes itself with minimal CGI, creating a heightened sense of realism throughout the film, especially in its high stakes action scenes. Amidst an era dominated by digital effects, its reliance on practical effects and authentic stunts bolsters its grounded nature. This commitment enhances audience immersion, allowing full investment in characters and their journey. While I do enjoy CGI in films like Harry Potter or Star Wars, its refreshing to watch an action film that feels realistic. As Dr. Marchbanks noted, unlike typical genre offerings, protagonists exhibit genuine depth, avoiding clichéd, invincible personas. Dr. Julia Kelly, portrayed by Nicole Kidman, epitomizes this refreshing realism, not a mere romantic interest but a competent professional. Prioritizing authenticity over spectacle, The Peacemaker offers a departure from the norm, reinforcing characters' genuine complexity within its narrative.
Mimi Leder has a commitment to upholding a strong standard of the female lead, acknowledging the individual of Nicole Kidman’s character and what she symbolizes. This is seen in her filming style, choice of costume, shot angle decisions, storyline focus, and the script. As pointed out by Professor Marchbanks, Leder doesn’t fixate on the relationship between Thomas and Julia in a romantic fashion. The plot focuses on the passion and emotion they experience in their job rather than from eachother. This keeps the story centered on their mission and purpose in the film, and highlights the turmoil this line of work can bring. Julia’s values and attention lie in the work, which functions as her identity in the story, a dedicated nuclear specialist.
In Mimi Leder’s, The Peacemaker (1997), the film expertly illustrated the excruciatingly heavy decisions that the protagonists and supporting cast faced. Many of these characters are plagued with ethical dilemmas that reminded me of the classic trolley problem thought experiment. When one of the rooftop snipers is ordered to attempt a shot at Gavric despite a child in the way, the sniper hesitates as the decision weighs heavily upon him. Despite the possibility of saving thousands of people from a nuclear explosion, potentially harming an innocent child was too much to bear for the sniper. This film crafted multiple realistic and complex, ethical dilemmas that forced the audience to question what they would do in the situation, resulting in an action-packed thriller.
Mimi Leder not only breaks traditional action movie stereotypes in The Peacemaker (1997), but also introduces factual scientific aspects, rare in blockbuster films of the nineties. While conventional action films often rely on pseudoscience to explain anomalies, Leder thoughtfully details the chemical contents and radioactive aftermath of the train collision. As an environmental engineering student, I appreciated Leder’s precise explanation of the environmental and ecological repercussions of a nuclear explosion. Further, Leder was deliberate in her depiction of how characters detect radiation, employing realistic radioactive decay detectors instead of creating a fantastical device solely to entertain the audience.
A major reason Mimi Leder's "The Peacemaker" is unlike many other action films is the depth of character it gives to its antagonists. We learn more about Dusan than either Julia or Devoe. However, more importantly, the film gives its antagonists depth by differentiating between them. When Julia and Devoe meet Vertikoff and offer him money for information about the truck, we see Vertikoff pause and reject the offer only after his assessment of the price offered. Meanwhile, Dusan's introduction in a poor neighborhood of Sarajevo shows his indifference to money. This indifference is a cornerstone of his drive to explode the nuclear weapon and his suicide in the final scene. Even within those driven by greed, we see the difference between a fearless and ruthless Kodorov and a greedy yet scared subordinate he shoots.
Leder’s The Peacemaker staunchly sets itself apart from the rest of the genre by creating a realistic and relatable protagonist. Julia Kelly does not have superhuman strength, endurance, or special abilities. Rather, Kelly is physically fit and well-trained in her field, but bleeds, bruises, and feels like the rest of us. By making Kelly more like the average person, the audience is able to better connect with the action and the story. When Kelly is yelling at Davoe to “just drive” during the car fight scene, we’re yelling it right along with her. When Kelly takes a moment to collect her thoughts or mourn the loss of life, the scene’s realism connects the viewer to Kelly, making them feel her feelings with her.
The best action movies tend to be those where the characters aren't invincible or apathetic to the violence around them. Some examples that come to mind are Die Hard and the John Wick Trilogy, both of which show the film's hero reacting to their battles, either taking time to rest and recover or clearly showing them slowing down and getting more injured over time. These slower moments, counterintuitively help build tension and stakes for the upcoming action scenes; if we the audience know our hero is slowing down or hurt we will be even more on the edge of our seats to see how they'll make it out of their next challenge.
Mimi Leder's approach to characterization in The Peacemaker (1997) brings an air of empathy and humanization to all groups, regardless of their social implications at the time- besides one. From the strong-willed female lead, Dr.Kelly, to the grieving terrorist, Dusan Gavrich, Leder presented the audience an opportunity to empathize with most of the characters throughout the film. The one character that was rejected this personality redemption was the money-driven General Baluev. This general killed enemies and allies alike for the sake of his own financial gain and seemingly held no hesitation or remorse. Leder’s emotionally-striking insight into every character but Baulev advocates for the audience to offer empathy regardless of affiliations and their implications while also rejecting greed as sufficient reasoning for one’s violent actions.
Many modern action films, such as Marvel’s Cinematic Universe and most of the superhero genre, portray nearly invincible protagonists with almost no weaknesses. Such protagonists create suspenseless and predictable stories as the audience already knows that, in the end, the protagonist will prevail. Contrary to established tropes, Mimi Leder’s “The Peacemaker” (1997) presents two vulnerable protagonists who continuously perform near impossible tasks against strict and unforgiving timers. Scenes from Devoe attaching a cargo hook to nuclear weapons moments before they fall off a bridge, to Kelly successfully minimizing a nuclear explosion seconds before a bomb explodes creates tension, stress, and suspense as the audience remains unsure if the protagonists will succeed throughout the film. Although the protagonists succeed in the end, the uncertainty this film creates results in a tense and thrilling experience.
During the confrontation inside the church, the dark, cavernous space is filled with a haunting silence, broken only by the characters' hushed voices and the creak of the floorboards. The drastic change of audio speed and volume as well as the camera angle change frequency brings the film to a terrifyingly slow pace that pulls the audience to edge of their seat. This tension is enhanced by the fact that we have not seen the bomb's countdown clock in a very long time, making us feel as though time surely must be nearly up. Furthermore, the lighting is crucial, with shadows creating an almost gothic atmosphere. This amplifies the sense of isolation and danger. Lastly, the use of religious imagery contradicted with the imminent threat of mass destruction adds a sense of irony and sorrow to the scene.
In the movie "The Peacemaker", director Mimi Leder employs thematic and scenic elements to enhance the story's authenticity. For instance, the central theme is nuclear warheads. At the beginning, the director highlights the deterrent power of nuclear bombs and uses the suffering of an ordinary elderly couple to convey a message that such horrors could happen anywhere, anytime, around us. I was totally shaken by the bomb blast scene. Given the complex political backdrop and terrorist elements of the film's theme, the director also chooses diverse foreign locations, such as Bosnia and Russia, which significantly boosts the film's realism.
Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker breaks free from the mold of emblematic action films in terms of its female lead. Julia Kelly diverges from the classic female role we are accustomed to seeing in action movies and instead appeals on an innately human level to earn support for her character. Throughout the movie, she experiences mentally grueling situations and handles them professionally, however after each scene, you can see the mental toll that’s being taken on her. She doesn’t fall for her male counterpart but instead creates a cohesive heroic pairing between them, instead of our typical single male hero.
In The Peacemaker, Mimi Leder uses recurring close-ups of officers’ boots to serve as a visual motif that looks into the film’s exploration into authority and moral ambiguity. By using close-ups of the boots of both the protagonist and the villain, we see their shared environment of conflict and the heavy toll of their respective paths, despite their differing motivations. Our character’s here both represent different aspects, with our villain having a focus on power and control and protagonist representing protection. Culturally, boots symbolize both protection and dominance, reminding me of police and military parades where their rhythmic march signifies order and control. This imagery serves to have viewers reflect on the complex interplay of power, duty, and morality in times of conflict.
More grounded action films would bring necessary variety to the genre. One of my favorites from the last decade, Kingsman, is an example of where to would’ve been necessary. Eggsy, the main character, has his main arc including training to become a Kingsman agent, followed later by his quick turn around to save the world. In none of this did he show the wear or tear of his new experiences, and while he had come from a rough background, the events of Kingsman were far beyond anything he had experienced as a character previously. The one exception to this is during his final test that leads to some level of mental stress, and more of that would make the movie even better.
In popular franchises such as “Fast and Furious” or “The Terminator”, viewers expect nonstop action, gory fight scenes, and a romantic relationship between the protagonists. Against the grain of these typical action films, Leder’s “The Peacemaker” places romance and violence on the back-burner, forcing viewers to relinquish their expectations for this genre’s formulaic plots for one that is refreshingly realistic. By highlighting rather than suprpessing the protagonists’ emotional states, Leder allows the humanity behind her characters’ rough exteriors to shine. Unlike the robotic and infallible nature of other films’ action heroes, Leder’s protagonists are distinctively more balanced, compassionate, and relatable.
As filmmakers started to explore new themes, character types, and storytelling techniques, a turning point in the development of action movies occurred in the late 1990s. These innovations would pave the way for action movie generations to come. Women were cast in leading roles, demonstrating their ability to be just as compelling and capable as their male counterparts. Character development became more important to filmmakers as they created narratives that delved into the motivations and inner thoughts of their heroes and villains. As a result, viewers were more emotionally invested in the on-screen action and the characters who were involved.
In discussing how The Peacemaker (1997) was influenced and went on to influence action movies, there is no better connection to modern action flicks than to John Wick (2014). As Dr. M noted, action movies began to be more realistic and gritty in the 2000’s and Stahelski’s gritty spy-action movie represents a trend of growing realism in stunts and fight mechanics. Leder’s film shows a similar kind of restraint in action nearly two decades earlier with Devoe actively reloading in the midst of a shootout and the car chases having hard-hitting crashes. John Wick and other subsequent films choose to portray human beings in the struggle for their life just like Leder’s Devoe is shown throughout The Peacemaker.
Mimi Leder’s unique ability to capture shock in 'The Peacemaker' (1997) distinguishes it from other films. Often, action movies feature predictable moments with simple-minded characters; Arnold will kill the Predator in John McTiernan’s 'Predator' (1987) and Keanu will save the damsel in distress in Kathryn Bigelow’s 'Point Break' (1991) - the predictability numbs the mind. Unlike these films, Leder evokes emotion from unexpected events. The death of Devoe’s friend grasps me by surprise, leaving dread in its wake; the bomb detonation imbues me with sadness for the afflicted couple; and the villain going through with his plan, despite showing humanizing traits, instills a sense of internal confusion. Mimi Leder’s action film is so effective because it combines emotion with shock.
In an industry dominated by convincing CGI and captivating new film technology, Mimi Leder’s portrayal of action provides a refreshing sense of realism that does not rely on new innovations to entertain the audience. Movies with groundbreaking visuals and endless thrills such as “Avatar” (2009) and “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) amaze audiences with their stunning visuals and heroic fights. Mimi Leder manages to captivate her audience by providing a realistic portrayal of action. Her characters, while incredibly talented, struggle with grief and fear in a realistic way. The effects of stress can be seen on their faces, unlike the steadfast gaze of a larger-than-life superhero. “The Peacemaker” illustrates that an effective action movie does not require unrealistic heroes and impossible feats to be successful.
In The Peacemaker, Leder depicts an authentic female protagonist by portraying reactions that are not overdramatized, creating a sense of realism. Throughout the film, Dr. Kelly faces unnerving events that she has never been exposed to before. During the car chase, Kelly is screaming and flinching at every turn. Compared to other action films, in which characters immediately adapt to new stressors and even transform into “badasses”, Leder’s portrayal of Kelly follows the audience's preconceived notions of her character. Furthermore, the film’s ending doesn’t contain a stereotypical romantic arc. After the bomb is defused, Kelly is shaking from the adrenaline of the near-death experience. There is no exaggerated on-screen kiss, despite the romance hinted between her and Devoe, but simply a moment of shared relief.
"Hurt people hurt people" is a phrase I often hear, referring to people that find themselves caught in a repetitive cycle of grief, anger, and lashing out onto others. So then, where does true healing come from? Mimi Leder's "Peacemaker" portrays this tragic phenomenon, especially in the extreme case of Dusan, who has lost those dearest to his heart. To appease his inability to remedy the past, he turns to terrorism, seeking to execute his plan to unleash a deadly nuclear weapon in New York City. But before things got to this point, perhaps Dusan actually wanted to start to heal. If only compassion had been shown and love freely given, I wonder what would have changed. Perhaps the hurt person would have chosen to love.
In Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997), Colonel Thomas Devoe and Dr. Julia Kelly argue over the reasoning behind the main villain’s plan throughout several parts of the film. Devoe believes from the beginning that it is about greed. He is partly correct because the Russian general did want to sell them to Iran, however Dusan’s plan with the one nuke disagrees with Devoe’s thinking. Dr. Kelly believes that there is another motive behind this heist besides greed. Ultimately, she is proven right when Devoe’s friend dies, and when they find the recording of Dusan talking about why he is planned to blow up the nuke in New York City, that it was more than just greed.
The point that resonated with me was the one about antagonists. Prior to this film, it was very black and white with villains. Since this film, there has been a shift away from this and cinema has been all the better for it. Now you have antagonists like Killmonger in Black Panther who have past trauma and a vision to improve the world. These villains aren’t maniacally evil in the same vein as, for example, Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars saga. This film establishes a moral grey area for villains, and it allows audiences to gain new perspectives.
Like the issues with action films, there are types of anime that deal with a near identical setup that’s mainly designed to showcase large dramatic fight scenes where the protagonist never loses. However, there are anime like Demon Slayer, which have significantly more realistic fight scenes and consequentially have that added complexity of the characters that The Peacemaker showcases because they are not all-powerful. Seeing a character vividly experience loss and still have the desire to push forward creates a much stronger bond with the audience than the copious amounts of explosions that some action films try to force in their film.
One choice Leder made in The Peacemaker (1997) that resonated with me was her choice to use CGI sparingly, and instead rely on practical effects as much as possible. I mainly noticed this during the opening action scene where the train robbery and assassinations take place. The action had much more weight and intensity because of how realistic it felt with the practical stunts and minimal CGI. This starkly contrasts the opening of the newest Indiana Jones film, an over-bloated CGI train action scene with a young CGI Harrison Ford, leading this film to fall flat on its face since the action didn’t feel real. It felt more like the uncanny valley than an impactful train action scene like Leder accomplishes in her film.
Leder’s decision to keep the on-screen relationship between the two main characters professional makes Dr. Julia Kelly’s character more powerful. Based on contemporary action films, it seems like the obvious choice would be for Lt. Col. Devoe and Dr. Kelly to have some type of romantic intimacy when placed center stage as colleagues, but the lack of it diverts the focus onto the intellect and independence of Kidman’s character. While she agrees to go out for a drink at the end, there’s no stereotypical kiss and the two protagonists remain independent of each other.
Dr. Kelly and Lieutenant Colonel Devoe' similar alpha personalities yet contrasting ways of thinking complement each other well in their mission. Kelly's methodical and deliberate thought process proves valuable to Devoe's intense eagerness, quick wit, and action impulsive tendencies. Kelly tells Devoe not to take action without authorization because she recognizes his "sloppy impulse control". Although Devoe is competent due to his military background, his extreme eagerness while in flight to pursue the truck housing nuclear weapons is worrisome. Kelly considers possible scenarios including the risk of possible war before authorizing the entrance of Russian federation airspace, harnessing the capabilities of Devoe mission leadership.
In the Peacemaker by Mimi Leder, characters have to make a choice to either allow for casualties or to allow these nuclear bombs to get away. I was struck by the scene where the sniper is being told to shoot while his aim is going back and forth from Gavrich and a small child he is hiding behind as she rides on her parent’s shoulder. This same theme was reflected when Gavrich runs into a school and as the pursuers follow him inside, a bunch of children run out screaming in the hall; as Colonel Thomas shoots, it seems like he was very close to missing the shot and shooting the children. This film spoke of the dichotomy between doing what’s right and not causing harm in the name of good, especially when that concerns innocent people such as children.
Leder's The Peacemaker stresses above all else realistic characters and psychological impact of violence. We see this most clearly during the car chase scene where Devoe not only kills multiple men in an effort to stay alive but also seemingly as revenge for killing his friend earlier. Later we see both him and Dr. Kelly reflect on what just happened and trying to come to terms with the consequences. Dr. Kelly specifically throughout the movie is often shown to be intelligent but compassionate trying to minimize damage whenever possible such as during the interrogation scene. Unfortunately this character trait was seemingly lost in the final chase sequence where she pressures a sniper to take a shot into a crowd of people. One could argue that she was simply trying to minimize lives lost by apprehending the suspect now rather than risk him escaping, but this was in stark contrast to the helicopter chase scene where she risks losing the nuke from the satelite.
Violence has consequences. This is a reality that many classic action movies choose to ignore in an effort to keep the tone of the movie light and enjoyable. It’s an effective strategy for allowing viewers to indulge in the morbid curiosity of bloodshed without the baggage that comes with it, sacrificing a meaningful connection to the fictional world. These contemporary action films flip this strategy by actively confronting viewers with the conflict’s aftermath, challenging their enjoyment of it. Instead of just glamorizing the action, this forces those watching to feel the same gravity and seriousness as the characters on-screen.
A few years ago, I would have considered myself an avid 90s action film viewer. I was drawn to films that discussed topics such as politics and international affairs with a more face-paced and action-packed lens. While Mimi Leder’s, The Peacemaker, is not necessarily a serious movie, it does however maintain a complex international affair storyline. Leder does not attempt to woo her audience through romance and intense action, rather, she uses decision-making and investigation to maintain a high-stakes atmosphere. She is able to bridge the gap between politics and action through the use of her two practical main characters.
The Peacemaker and most other action films offer both a critique of modern geopolitics and a thrill. The peacemaker makes many references to the conflict in the Caucuses that permeated much of the '90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cleo referenced much of the Algiers conflict as that was the issue of the day. As the fears of the US changed from the Soviet/Russian threat to terrorism, action films shifted their focus. Stories such as the Hurt Locker are set in the modern-day warzone of Iraq. - Aditya Garg
Although The Peacemaker may not be considered the ultimate action movie the emotional response of characters in the film generates a different thrilling feel for the audience. Not everyone is a cold hard killing machine, but everyone is human, and it can be seen in times of hesitation and reflection in characters. The presence of a female director in a blockbuster action film emphasizes the trauma that individuals in a situation like this might experience making a more compelling movie for all.
George Clooney’s character, Lt. Colonel Thomas Devoe, is initially portrayed as wildcard soldier who “doesn’t play by the rules.” However, once he is called to action, his wildcard persona softens, and greets the world with the grim outlook of a soldier who understands what needs to be done. He is willing to be ordered around by a woman, which is not what his initial portrayal would have us believe. In fact, Nicole Kidman’s character specifically asks for a man who can “take orders from a woman”, further displaying Devoe’s open mind. (I wonder if Leder is attempting to insert a little bit of herself into this role; it could not have been particularly easy to be a woman directing an action movie in the 1990’s).
Leder’s main character in 'The Peacemaker' was successful in accurately representing women in power positions due to Dr.Julia Kelly’s understated heroism throughout the film. She was the “man in charge,” making decisions such as risking war while flying through an unauthorized zone over Russia, but never asked for praise from her peers when missions went successfully. While Julia went through trials while performing a high stakes, male-dominated job, it was not Leder’s goal to make Julia a purposefully “feminist” character, made evident by Julia’s sorrowed reactions to death and anxiety when risking the lives of U.S. operatives.
The action movies of today seem to only have one goal in mind, creating the biggest eye-catching box office success. Action movies now utilize new technologies in CGI to create films that blur the line between fiction and reality. Mimi Leder's The Peacemaker (1997) does an excellent job of creating high stakes within the film without losing its sense of realism, her characters take time to mourn and internalize the high-stress situation they find themselves in. Mimi Leder’s characters have believable emotions about the murder and death they experience.
The Peacemaker portrays its female lead in a manner that isn’t reminiscent of any conventional action movie trope. Dr. Julia Kelly is not portrayed as a damsel in distress, nor is she a battle hardened, stone-faced femme fatale. Instead, Kelly is characterized as an intelligent, competent individual who lacks real-world experience. This sets her up to develop throughout the film, becoming more comfortable in life-or-death situations and eventually using her intelligence to ultimately save the day. Unlike most other action films of this era, Kelly’s character is never pushed into the background by the heroics of her male co-lead.
While surface level, cliché-ridden action movies may be dismissed in favor of more grounded, emotional films in critical circles, they cannot be denied their place as an art form. The purpose of art is to evoke emotion, and the means by which these blockbusters produce thrill and gratification hold no less merit than those of an arthouse film. Like some types of pop or rap music, the goal is not to provoke thought but rather an adrenaline rush, which these media accomplish masterfully. “Cheesy” action movies do not lack art in comparison to “real” cinema, they simply have different goals.
I vehemently object to the notion that Mimi Leder's film lacks the ultimate thrill and adrenaline rush when compared to films like Mission Impossible or Marvel movies. Unlike those movies that feature implausible stunts and fictitious scenarios, Leder's cinematic masterpiece presents a realistic portrayal of action that are raw, visceral and true-to-life. The lead female protagonist exhibits a remarkable level of practicality in the face of war and violence, providing a refreshing departure from the damsel-in-distress archetype. The film boasts a plethora of scenes that leave the audience on the edge of their seats with their heartbeats racing, including intense car chases and jaw-dropping fight scenes.
Kris Kelvin and Dusan Gavrich are a prime example of how a similar tragedy can have vastly different outcomes. The psychological struggles of each character drive them toward the same goal of restoring the past. While reflecting on the station, Kris cannot come to terms with change and chooses to live the life he once had. Dusan counters this idea, knowing the past cannot be repeated, he attempts to make others understand and feel his suffering. The human desire for connection and belonging drive the actions of both characters, but they end up on opposite sides of the coin. If we were presented the opportunity to undo a personal tragedy, would we?
Dr. Kelly's belief that the nuclear attacks were driven by personal, emotional rage with the intent to kill , as opposed to Devoe's theory of money crime, is proven correct at the end of the film. Devoe's persistent challenge of Dr. Kelly's opinion and dismissive banter toward her views imply that he thinks her ideas are illogical and overly emotional. Mirroring the way men in my life have often disregarded my instincts and emotions, I am frequently encouraged to “think rationally” and suppress my emotions (even though my intuition is often accurate).
Society’s progression towards increasingly smarter technology capable of configuring unrealistic CGI is transforming cognitive stimulation and people’s perceptions of reality. Humans as a collective have become desensitized to the gore, impressive stunts, and unfazed responses to tragedy which characterizes contemporary action film. The decreasing levels of verisimilitude in media is fueling the reliance on increasingly more intense components, like fighting and sex, to maintain engagement and feelings of satisfaction of an audience. I experience this phenomenon by not being as captivated by older forms of media while my younger sister embodies it, prioritizing enjoyment from video games above anything else.
Leder's practical, sensible approach to Dr. Kelly was crucial for a different take on the female hero. THE first female action hero, Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games (2012), embraced this approach and reproduced Kidman's relatability. When first cast to lead the blockbuster franchise, Lawrence was asked to lose 10 pounds. Instead, she decided to look fit and strong- not thin and underfed. When directors and talent are more intentional with character portrayals, they bolster their impact on the audience. Humor aside, Lawrence's realistic take energized a new generation of moviegoers to shatter her female action predecessors' box office records.
Mimi Leder's approach to creating a female action hero that is practical, relatable, and human is an essential step forward in the fight for gender equality in film. Movies like The Peacemaker and The Hunger Games help shatter box office records, energize new generations of moviegoers, and giving viewers a respect for all genders in film. The female leads also play a crucial roles in inspiring and empowering young viewers, and serve as role models to young women. Through heroism and relatable portrayals of women lead actors, a new generation of film can been paved, helping the male viewers view women as equals in the space of action movies.
In Mimi Leder's The Peacemaker (1997), every character seems to be more complex than they initially let on. Contemporary post 9/11 action films involving terrorism seems to glorify the heroes and reduce antagonists to basic villains. For instance, in "24" and "Homeland," protagonists are flawless defenders of justice, while terrorists are faceless threats. Leder's characters instead reflect the global fear felt in a post Cold War era. The historical conflict ended with no heroes or villains, and Leder's film attempts to show the vulnerabilities and humanity within people, while not being afraid to do what it takes to reflecting maintain global security.
The Peacemaker was a great action film because of Leder's accurate depiction of the consequences of violence for both the perpetrator and victims. Violence was not rendered in great detail on-screen; however, the faces of the actors depicted enough horror to evoke a deep response from the viewer. Additionally, her use of match cuts throughout the film made meaningful comparisons that induced reflection on various social issues. The match-cut between Dusan in the warzone and then him carrying the bomb in NYC raises opposition to traditional Western narratives of terrorism. The United States does not take accountability for its continuous use of innocent lives as leverage in economic and political objectives. Furthermore, romanticizing violence could be contributing to the widespread desensitization surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Peacemaker differentiates itself from fellow action movies of its time by focusing on the practical and emotional effects of its dramatic scenes. CGI plays a major part in every action movie of today, adding in either extreme a better sense of realism or fiction. American Sniper however is another example like The Peacemaker of building suspense and pathos to achieve audiences’ attention. The opening scene of American Sniper follows a U.S. soldier debating whether to snipe a child carrying a bomb, focusing closely on the dilemma of the distraught shooter over the exaggeration of the bomb's explosion. Movies like Mad Max Fury Road also allow directors to differentiate their films by focusing on practical effects instead of the abundance of CGI.
Action films with female leads, such as Nicole Kidman’s character in Leder’s The Peacemaker, serve crucial roles as role models for young viewers of all genders. For the young women in the audience, such characters display admirable qualities for these viewers to aspire to behold, which are vastly underrepresented in most of American film history. As for the male viewers, this may serve as way for them to avoid the consequences of only viewing men as possessing such favorable qualities, and hopefully will come to age with a respect for all genders as forces to be reckoned with.
I think The Peacemaker excels in subverting the audience’s expectations that are based on previous action movie tropes so predictable to the average viewer today. We anticipate the male and female leads to romantically embrace at some point during the film because it’s a trend that’s been ingrained in us, however, only the possibility of romance is depicted at the conclusion which is much more realistic. Leder, instead, puts all of the focus on the politically charged suspenseful story reminiscent of Tom Clancy but with the pleasant surprise of emotionally driven characters and a sympathetic, misguided villain.
I find it challenging to become immersed in realistic action films; the ambiguous roles of characters within these films are hard to follow, leading me to believe these films are created solely for action movie fanatics. The complex motivations and shifting allegiances assume a familiarity with the genre, which leaves average viewers, like me, feeling confused, frustrated, and left behind. This is how I felt while watching Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997). On the other hand, I enjoy the fantasy action and thrill presented in Marvel movies, and how character motives are comfortingly predictable. Therefore, it is my opinion that depending on filmmakers’ differing approaches to storytelling, they have the power to either alienate or captivate viewers through realistic or fantasy-based action films.
The Peacemaker stands out because it features a strong and capable female protagonist, played by Nicole Kidman, in a traditionally male-dominated genre. The film subverts gender stereotypes by portraying Kidman's character as a no-nonsense expert in her field who takes charge and makes tough decisions, rather than a damsel in distress. The Peacemaker represents a significant step forward for women in action movies and showcases the talents of its lead actress and female director. The story strays from the norm by not becoming reliant on a romantic relationship that progressed throughout the movie, giving it a sense of reality.
It is true that The Peacemaker makes many lasting developments for the action film genre, but at what cost? Comparing Leder’s 1997 film to earlier action classics, such as 1988’s Diehard, we see that characters are made more realistic and relatable at the expense of the film’s simplicity and decisiveness. Die Hard is an example of entertaining American cinema at its most engaging. In contrast to The Peacemaker, there is no need to fill screen time with the villain’s complex motives. Likewise, the characters need no justification for crawling through ventilation ducts or detonating C4 in an elevator shaft… In the end, it is clear which style of action film was more influential-especially considering the infamy and pop-cultural domination of Die Hard.
In a primarily male dominated industry, Leder’s film showcases a strong female lead through the eyes of a trailblazing woman director. Leder’s own struggles in position of power in the film industry bring a sense of truth to Kelly. The progressive action film contrasts the typical portrayal of the superficial sexualization of a female protagonist. Positively depicting woman differently allows for a film focused on the actual emotional impact of the action, getting to truly understand the impact on the character. Even with this step forward, the male savior complex is still unfortunately present in Devoe, overshadowing Kelly’s leadership role.
Dr. Julia Kelly’s capability is undercut almost every step of the way in the film, “The Peacemaker.” It starts with her coworker, then the President, followed by government officials, business associates, and most evidently, by General Devoe. While the audience watches Kelly’s intellect decode and analyze every detail of the complex situation, we see Devoe dismiss and diminish Kelly’s theories, area of expertise, and authority. While commentary on gender roles in an action film is refreshing, I believe Leder’s portrayal of Kelly and Devoe’s relationship, although better than its predecessors, continues to portray stereotypes that cater to hegemonic masculinity.
Men do not receive the same pushback when portraying the “hard as nails combatant” that women do sometimes appear as. Women in this role appear unreasonable while men in this role appear powerful and decisive. Though playing the same character, their actions are interpreted differently. Despite the interpretations of this female role, I still believe it was necessary in the development of expectations of women in power. Though these characters are looked down on by many, they emphasize the importance of disregarding others’ judgement. They embody the concept of living for yourself, not simply for what society expects of you.
The way that women are portrayed in movies is related to the way that women are treated in real life. There are the two extremes that we see in films, one where the woman is commanding and a boss biotch if you will. Then there are other films which have women playing more secondary roles or needing a man to make her feel better. In society, there are some women who are examples of each of these extremes. The difference is that in society there is also a middle ground added. Some women can take on a leading role while still needing the support of others.
In current day action movies like the Mission Impossible and Marvel Franchises, they intentionally lead us away from senseless violence, often showing loss through explosions of buildings and property, rarely ever do we see the graphic depiction of death. This intentionally leads the viewers in a more heartfelt direction using loss to propel the plot, but not to register the stress and horrors associated with our protagonists. In Peacemaker gruesome death is shown repeatedly, on and by both sides. This effectively places the viewer in the stressful situations that Dr.Kelly and Davoe are in. Throughout the film I found Davoe to be rather reckless, often rushing to take action without thinking everything through. In contrast Dr.Kelly was very calculated. Leder using moments of pause to register her thinking through her emotions. Contrast this with the Mission Impossible protagonist Ethan Hunt who has both the brains to focus on the efficiency of the mission, and the guts to decisively take action. In seperating these two aspects within her male and female, lead Leder is making the argument that men and women rely on each other to accomplish difficult tasks.
While offering a powerful symbol of female leadership, which challenges traditional gender roles and breaks down barriers for women in positions of power, Dr. Kelly’s intelligence is prioritized, rather than sexualizing her. Her character fights neck and neck with her colleagues, while she seemingly feels the need to constantly prove her competence while her co-workers threaten to undermine her in the competitive environment portrayed. Despite the progress made for women in action movies, it reverts to traditional gender roles ending with the cliche ‘the guy gets the girl’ and the coddling of her around violence
Mimi Leder has managed to both infiltrate a male dominated field and insert a feminist film into mainstream media without the notice or overt critique from her peers. It seems to strongly contrast action films that receive great praise, such as the Bond franchise and other films mentioned by Dr. Marchbanks, but Leder’s use of big name actors, known for their performances in stereotypical action films, help pull in a wider audience. This film is a bold move for feminism and does a great job at flipping the character narrative in a way that is accepted by a general film audience.
Gloriously delirious mayhem plays a distinctive and enjoyable role in cinema. "The Peacemaker" uses mayhem effectively to maintain tension and incorporate a commentary on gender roles, all while delivering an entertaining and cliché-laden ride. However, not all action films must adhere to this formula. "Sicario" takes a more grounded approach to action by strategically deploying intense and believable violence at crucial moments in the plot. In both films, the strong and competent female lead characters are portrayed without gratuitous sexualization or objectification, illustrating that different approaches to action in a movie can be equally effective.
While I appreciate Leder’s commitment to changing the narrative of the typical woman lead in an action film, I left the theater feeling annoyed by the way Dr. Kelly was written to compliment Devoe’s brash personality. Realistically, this movie did not do enough to deconstruct the female stereotype of being the calm, anti-violence character that has to reign in her male counterpart. Although Dr. Kelly is quick on her feet, the only groundbreaking part of her role is that the audience gets to see a semi-realistic depiction of what it’s like as a woman in a position of power.
While I agree that the peacemaker certainly offers a much less problematic presentation of its female lead, I feel it doesn’t go far enough to completely break free from the male savior complex. I appreciate the depiction of Dr. Kelly’s complex feelings surrounding geopolitical conflict and death, however, consistently through the movie, Devoe mansplains, interrupts, gives direct orders to, or questions the abilities of Dr. Kelly without any recourse from any other characters. In many ways, especially because we spend the most time with him, it feels like he becomes the main character and the one calling all the shots.
Although I can acknowledge Leder’s depiction of a more realistic and progressive female action movie star being ahead of its time, I was left utterly disappointed after watching The Peacemaker. I was under the impression that Dr. Kelly would represent an intellectual, powerful, and commanding female lead, but in reality, she is just a damsel in distress. Additionally, I was appalled to see that, despite Dr. M saying their traumatic experience would not bud into a romance, Dr. Kelly accepts the date invitation in the final scene!
Despite recent progress made towards more empowered and complex representations of women in action films, there are still some ways in which the portrayal of women has not changed over time. Females remain largely characterized by their physical appearance and occupy less significant roles than men. While actresses like Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron may play intelligent and well-developed characters in modern films, a heroine who is anything but white, thin, and beautiful is much harder to find. Furthermore, current action blockbusters continue to fail the simple Bechdel test, indicating that female roles are far less meaningful than their male counterparts.
Mimi Leder creates an action film without using classically gendered emotions that typically action movies portray on each character. We see the patriarchal standard for character emotions wiped away in this film as our female protagonist is shown as a strong independent agent. Atypical action films today where women are characterized as those needing to be saved and not the ones doing the saving. This patriarchal balance of protagonists makes the outcome of the film uncertain whereas films today will typically have a climax with our male protagonist saving the female protagonist.
The Peacemaker is NOT a good film. Instead, it’s one that has/does a few good things. Arguably, the thing it does best is present the audience with not just a strong female lead, but a realistic one. Indeed, Dr. Kelly is one of the strongest female action characters of the 90’s. Though she’s still subjected to “typical” female lead cliché’s-flinching/screaming continuously during the car chase, for example-, the rest of her character is fleshed out in such a way that the reasons why are not only understandable to the audience, but RELATABLE/AUTHENTIC as well. Thus, Leder’s work can perhaps be considered ahead of its time, as action films with strong [central] female characters are only just now becoming common within the genre.
Although the role of women in action films has evolved, it's hard to see significant improvement. The cliche of the woman as the helpless sex object has certainly diminished, but it has largely been replaced by the equally one-dimensional token strong female lead. Although there have been great examples of strong women in action movies, many portrayals come across as pandering rather than activism. Take Captain Marvel for example. The character feels lifeless and robotic. Her appearances in films like Avengers Endgame are more motivated by profit than a desire for change. Is this really the representation we've strived for?
Mimi Leder not only breaks traditional action movie stereotypes in The Peacemaker (1997), but also introduces factual scientific aspects, rare in blockbuster films of the nineties. While conventional action films often rely on pseudoscience to explain anomalies, Leder thoughtfully details the chemical contents and radioactive aftermath of the train collision. As an environmental engineering student, I appreciated Leder’s precise explanation of the environmental and ecological repercussions of a nuclear explosion. Further, Leder was deliberate in her depiction of how characters detect radiation, employing realistic radioactive decay detectors instead of creating a fantastical device solely to entertain the audience.
I found that at a time dominated by CGI-heavy films, "The Peacemaker" (1997) stands out for its commitment to practical effects. Its approach created a more immersive experience. In particular mimi Leder’s direction not only brings authenticity to the action but also to character development, showcasing realistic growth, particularly in scenes like the Austrian ambush. Leder humanizes even the antagonist, Dusan, by paralleling his traumatic past with present events, compelling viewers to empathize with his plight. This emotional depth is highlighted in the sniper scene, where repeated commands to “take the shot” force audiences to confront the ethical ramifications of violence. "The Peacemaker" succeeds in blending thrilling action with profound reflections on the cost of security and the humanity behind conflict.
Please add something new to the conversation!
As someone whose favorite superhero is Black Widow but who also loves reading romance books, I didn’t expect to feel much from ‘The Peacemaker’. However, I was surprised when, during one of the final scenes, I shed a tear as Dr. Kelly began to cry while leaning against Thomas, who kissed her head in the only form of “PDA” we see in the movie. It was a touching moment that was made even more heart-wrenching as Thomas yelled for her as they were pulled apart. This pulled the ending of the movie together perfectly, as this was not the time for an explosive kiss like in a different action movie. Instead, a moment of relief after saving the city and a soft embrace was needed.
The Peacemaker’s character design is a breath of fresh air when it comes to action movie protagonist. What sets the characters apart is that they both are incredibly intelligent while also very grounded. Their expressions to loss and complex decisions are captured brilliantly by Leder allowing Clooney and Kidman’s characters to feel the weight of their actions. What actions movies today could learn from The Peacemaker is how characters choices in the film can make the action feel justified through real world consequences that don’t feel too far off what could or has happened.
Throughout the film The Peacemaker we see the lead Dr. Kelly being questioned but uplifted simultaneously. At points, she is clearly seen by her colleagues as someone who is trustworthy, cunning, and stellar at her job. At other points we see her being belittled and talked about in a way that not only undermines her abilities but also pushes her into a box. As a female watching the film, especially one who also works in a male-dominated field, I found this push and pull to be very relatable. Including these differences in perspectives allows a film that otherwise might be unrelatable into one that is much more easily grasped by viewers.
The complexity of the emotions in this film was discussed, but I didn’t expect to cry for the villain. In the final scenes, Mimi Leder evokes a full spectrum of emotions, from anxiety and sadness to joy and relief, by paralleling Dusan’s trauma, shown in a flashback, with the current events. Watching Dusan’s family die by a sniper, followed by a scene with an American sniper targeting Dusan, invoked an overwhelming rush of feelings where the villain became human and the heroes seemed cruel. The repeated command for the sniper to “take the shot” until an innocent civilian was killed was the final touch, forcing the audience to fully confront the consequences of violence, no matter how justified the action seemed.
Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997) had me on the edge of my seat throughout almost every scene. Throughout the film, it is a constant cat-and-mouse game and at the end of the movie a bit of sarcasm is shown when Dr. Kelley is trying to diffuse the bomb the children are told to run out of the church and the bomb has a timer set to two minutes. Two minutes isn't enough time to survive a nuclear bomb. The way Leder handles scenes of conflict takes a more subtle and thorough approach and creates a sense that these events can come to fruition rather than a made-up scene from a movie.
Leder does an amazing job of creating moments throughout the film that leave the audience on the edge of their seats.The opening scene displaying the nuclear blasts was a key moment of the movie. Placing this scene at the very start created suspense immediately which carried on throughout the film. By showing off the bomb's destructive capabilities, every shot with the bomb in sight made the scene more tense knowing what could follow its activation. This lingering suspense is highligted in the film's closing moments when the two protagonists Kelly and Devoe are frantically trying to disarm the nuclear bomb while within the church; if they are unsuccessful the audience is fully aware of the mass destruction that will rise making each tick down more terrifying.
In a time where movies are ridden with CGI, it is a breath of fresh air to see 1997’s “The Peacemaker” dedication to practical action. New box office action movies like the Marvel and Godzilla/King Kong franchises use CGI in what seems like the whole movie. While these movies with CGI can be enjoyable, excessive amounts of CGI bring the audience out of the movie experience, sometimes even making viewers imagine only actors in a green room. “The Peacemaker” utilizes practical effects to immerse its audience fully in the character’s dangerous adventure. When Colonel Thomas Devoe, fights to retrieve a warhead from a moving vehicle, we feel in the action as the fast-paced conflict takes place. The tense moment grips the audience on the edge of their seats as Devoe struggles to hook the winch up to the package before the vehicle falls off the cliff.
Mimi Leder utilizes parallelism to demonstrate character growth in her film The Peacemaker. The first and last shots of Dr. Julia Kelly feature her swimming laps in the White House pool. The addition of a scar on her face indicates how significantly her life has changed with the recent events, while also revealing that her core values-such as taking care of her body-are still intact. Additionally, while a government official approaches her in the first scene, it is Thomas Devoe that interrupts her at the end. This also signifies a change in her life: her newfound friendship with the Lieutenant-Colonel.
I appreciate Leder's commitment to realistic characters in "The Peacemaker." In action sequences, like the one in Austria, Devoe is shown to be decisive and unyielding in his reactions to the sudden danger that the characters face. It is clear that LT. Col. Devoe has plenty of experience with violence while Dr. Kelly is experiencing extreme violence for the first time. At the climax of the film, Kelly is now more comfortable with the high stakes and is able to react more efficient than before.
The Peacemaker distinguishes itself with minimal CGI, creating a heightened sense of realism throughout the film, especially in its high stakes action scenes. Amidst an era dominated by digital effects, its reliance on practical effects and authentic stunts bolsters its grounded nature. This commitment enhances audience immersion, allowing full investment in characters and their journey. While I do enjoy CGI in films like Harry Potter or Star Wars, its refreshing to watch an action film that feels realistic. As Dr. Marchbanks noted, unlike typical genre offerings, protagonists exhibit genuine depth, avoiding clichéd, invincible personas. Dr. Julia Kelly, portrayed by Nicole Kidman, epitomizes this refreshing realism, not a mere romantic interest but a competent professional. Prioritizing authenticity over spectacle, The Peacemaker offers a departure from the norm, reinforcing characters' genuine complexity within its narrative.
Mimi Leder has a commitment to upholding a strong standard of the female lead, acknowledging the individual of Nicole Kidman’s character and what she symbolizes. This is seen in her filming style, choice of costume, shot angle decisions, storyline focus, and the script. As pointed out by Professor Marchbanks, Leder doesn’t fixate on the relationship between Thomas and Julia in a romantic fashion. The plot focuses on the passion and emotion they experience in their job rather than from eachother. This keeps the story centered on their mission and purpose in the film, and highlights the turmoil this line of work can bring. Julia’s values and attention lie in the work, which functions as her identity in the story, a dedicated nuclear specialist.
In Mimi Leder’s, The Peacemaker (1997), the film expertly illustrated the excruciatingly heavy decisions that the protagonists and supporting cast faced. Many of these characters are plagued with ethical dilemmas that reminded me of the classic trolley problem thought experiment. When one of the rooftop snipers is ordered to attempt a shot at Gavric despite a child in the way, the sniper hesitates as the decision weighs heavily upon him. Despite the possibility of saving thousands of people from a nuclear explosion, potentially harming an innocent child was too much to bear for the sniper. This film crafted multiple realistic and complex, ethical dilemmas that forced the audience to question what they would do in the situation, resulting in an action-packed thriller.
Mimi Leder not only breaks traditional action movie stereotypes in The Peacemaker (1997), but also introduces factual scientific aspects, rare in blockbuster films of the nineties. While conventional action films often rely on pseudoscience to explain anomalies, Leder thoughtfully details the chemical contents and radioactive aftermath of the train collision. As an environmental engineering student, I appreciated Leder’s precise explanation of the environmental and ecological repercussions of a nuclear explosion. Further, Leder was deliberate in her depiction of how characters detect radiation, employing realistic radioactive decay detectors instead of creating a fantastical device solely to entertain the audience.
A major reason Mimi Leder's "The Peacemaker" is unlike many other action films is the depth of character it gives to its antagonists. We learn more about Dusan than either Julia or Devoe. However, more importantly, the film gives its antagonists depth by differentiating between them. When Julia and Devoe meet Vertikoff and offer him money for information about the truck, we see Vertikoff pause and reject the offer only after his assessment of the price offered. Meanwhile, Dusan's introduction in a poor neighborhood of Sarajevo shows his indifference to money. This indifference is a cornerstone of his drive to explode the nuclear weapon and his suicide in the final scene. Even within those driven by greed, we see the difference between a fearless and ruthless Kodorov and a greedy yet scared subordinate he shoots.
Leder’s The Peacemaker staunchly sets itself apart from the rest of the genre by creating a realistic and relatable protagonist. Julia Kelly does not have superhuman strength, endurance, or special abilities. Rather, Kelly is physically fit and well-trained in her field, but bleeds, bruises, and feels like the rest of us. By making Kelly more like the average person, the audience is able to better connect with the action and the story. When Kelly is yelling at Davoe to “just drive” during the car fight scene, we’re yelling it right along with her. When Kelly takes a moment to collect her thoughts or mourn the loss of life, the scene’s realism connects the viewer to Kelly, making them feel her feelings with her.
The best action movies tend to be those where the characters aren't invincible or apathetic to the violence around them. Some examples that come to mind are Die Hard and the John Wick Trilogy, both of which show the film's hero reacting to their battles, either taking time to rest and recover or clearly showing them slowing down and getting more injured over time. These slower moments, counterintuitively help build tension and stakes for the upcoming action scenes; if we the audience know our hero is slowing down or hurt we will be even more on the edge of our seats to see how they'll make it out of their next challenge.
Mimi Leder's approach to characterization in The Peacemaker (1997) brings an air of empathy and humanization to all groups, regardless of their social implications at the time- besides one. From the strong-willed female lead, Dr.Kelly, to the grieving terrorist, Dusan Gavrich, Leder presented the audience an opportunity to empathize with most of the characters throughout the film. The one character that was rejected this personality redemption was the money-driven General Baluev. This general killed enemies and allies alike for the sake of his own financial gain and seemingly held no hesitation or remorse. Leder’s emotionally-striking insight into every character but Baulev advocates for the audience to offer empathy regardless of affiliations and their implications while also rejecting greed as sufficient reasoning for one’s violent actions.
Many modern action films, such as Marvel’s Cinematic Universe and most of the superhero genre, portray nearly invincible protagonists with almost no weaknesses. Such protagonists create suspenseless and predictable stories as the audience already knows that, in the end, the protagonist will prevail. Contrary to established tropes, Mimi Leder’s “The Peacemaker” (1997) presents two vulnerable protagonists who continuously perform near impossible tasks against strict and unforgiving timers. Scenes from Devoe attaching a cargo hook to nuclear weapons moments before they fall off a bridge, to Kelly successfully minimizing a nuclear explosion seconds before a bomb explodes creates tension, stress, and suspense as the audience remains unsure if the protagonists will succeed throughout the film. Although the protagonists succeed in the end, the uncertainty this film creates results in a tense and thrilling experience.
During the confrontation inside the church, the dark, cavernous space is filled with a haunting silence, broken only by the characters' hushed voices and the creak of the floorboards. The drastic change of audio speed and volume as well as the camera angle change frequency brings the film to a terrifyingly slow pace that pulls the audience to edge of their seat. This tension is enhanced by the fact that we have not seen the bomb's countdown clock in a very long time, making us feel as though time surely must be nearly up. Furthermore, the lighting is crucial, with shadows creating an almost gothic atmosphere. This amplifies the sense of isolation and danger. Lastly, the use of religious imagery contradicted with the imminent threat of mass destruction adds a sense of irony and sorrow to the scene.
In the movie "The Peacemaker", director Mimi Leder employs thematic and scenic elements to enhance the story's authenticity. For instance, the central theme is nuclear warheads. At the beginning, the director highlights the deterrent power of nuclear bombs and uses the suffering of an ordinary elderly couple to convey a message that such horrors could happen anywhere, anytime, around us. I was totally shaken by the bomb blast scene. Given the complex political backdrop and terrorist elements of the film's theme, the director also chooses diverse foreign locations, such as Bosnia and Russia, which significantly boosts the film's realism.
Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker breaks free from the mold of emblematic action films in terms of its female lead. Julia Kelly diverges from the classic female role we are accustomed to seeing in action movies and instead appeals on an innately human level to earn support for her character. Throughout the movie, she experiences mentally grueling situations and handles them professionally, however after each scene, you can see the mental toll that’s being taken on her. She doesn’t fall for her male counterpart but instead creates a cohesive heroic pairing between them, instead of our typical single male hero.
In The Peacemaker, Mimi Leder uses recurring close-ups of officers’ boots to serve as a visual motif that looks into the film’s exploration into authority and moral ambiguity. By using close-ups of the boots of both the protagonist and the villain, we see their shared environment of conflict and the heavy toll of their respective paths, despite their differing motivations. Our character’s here both represent different aspects, with our villain having a focus on power and control and protagonist representing protection. Culturally, boots symbolize both protection and dominance, reminding me of police and military parades where their rhythmic march signifies order and control. This imagery serves to have viewers reflect on the complex interplay of power, duty, and morality in times of conflict.
More grounded action films would bring necessary variety to the genre. One of my favorites from the last decade, Kingsman, is an example of where to would’ve been necessary. Eggsy, the main character, has his main arc including training to become a Kingsman agent, followed later by his quick turn around to save the world. In none of this did he show the wear or tear of his new experiences, and while he had come from a rough background, the events of Kingsman were far beyond anything he had experienced as a character previously. The one exception to this is during his final test that leads to some level of mental stress, and more of that would make the movie even better.
In popular franchises such as “Fast and Furious” or “The Terminator”, viewers expect nonstop action, gory fight scenes, and a romantic relationship between the protagonists. Against the grain of these typical action films, Leder’s “The Peacemaker” places romance and violence on the back-burner, forcing viewers to relinquish their expectations for this genre’s formulaic plots for one that is refreshingly realistic. By highlighting rather than suprpessing the protagonists’ emotional states, Leder allows the humanity behind her characters’ rough exteriors to shine. Unlike the robotic and infallible nature of other films’ action heroes, Leder’s protagonists are distinctively more balanced, compassionate, and relatable.
As filmmakers started to explore new themes, character types, and storytelling techniques, a turning point in the development of action movies occurred in the late 1990s. These innovations would pave the way for action movie generations to come. Women were cast in leading roles, demonstrating their ability to be just as compelling and capable as their male counterparts. Character development became more important to filmmakers as they created narratives that delved into the motivations and inner thoughts of their heroes and villains. As a result, viewers were more emotionally invested in the on-screen action and the characters who were involved.
In discussing how The Peacemaker (1997) was influenced and went on to influence action movies, there is no better connection to modern action flicks than to John Wick (2014). As Dr. M noted, action movies began to be more realistic and gritty in the 2000’s and Stahelski’s gritty spy-action movie represents a trend of growing realism in stunts and fight mechanics. Leder’s film shows a similar kind of restraint in action nearly two decades earlier with Devoe actively reloading in the midst of a shootout and the car chases having hard-hitting crashes. John Wick and other subsequent films choose to portray human beings in the struggle for their life just like Leder’s Devoe is shown throughout The Peacemaker.
Mimi Leder’s unique ability to capture shock in 'The Peacemaker' (1997) distinguishes it from other films. Often, action movies feature predictable moments with simple-minded characters; Arnold will kill the Predator in John McTiernan’s 'Predator' (1987) and Keanu will save the damsel in distress in Kathryn Bigelow’s 'Point Break' (1991) - the predictability numbs the mind. Unlike these films, Leder evokes emotion from unexpected events. The death of Devoe’s friend grasps me by surprise, leaving dread in its wake; the bomb detonation imbues me with sadness for the afflicted couple; and the villain going through with his plan, despite showing humanizing traits, instills a sense of internal confusion. Mimi Leder’s action film is so effective because it combines emotion with shock.
In an industry dominated by convincing CGI and captivating new film technology, Mimi Leder’s portrayal of action provides a refreshing sense of realism that does not rely on new innovations to entertain the audience. Movies with groundbreaking visuals and endless thrills such as “Avatar” (2009) and “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) amaze audiences with their stunning visuals and heroic fights. Mimi Leder manages to captivate her audience by providing a realistic portrayal of action. Her characters, while incredibly talented, struggle with grief and fear in a realistic way. The effects of stress can be seen on their faces, unlike the steadfast gaze of a larger-than-life superhero. “The Peacemaker” illustrates that an effective action movie does not require unrealistic heroes and impossible feats to be successful.
In The Peacemaker, Leder depicts an authentic female protagonist by portraying reactions that are not overdramatized, creating a sense of realism. Throughout the film, Dr. Kelly faces unnerving events that she has never been exposed to before. During the car chase, Kelly is screaming and flinching at every turn. Compared to other action films, in which characters immediately adapt to new stressors and even transform into “badasses”, Leder’s portrayal of Kelly follows the audience's preconceived notions of her character. Furthermore, the film’s ending doesn’t contain a stereotypical romantic arc. After the bomb is defused, Kelly is shaking from the adrenaline of the near-death experience. There is no exaggerated on-screen kiss, despite the romance hinted between her and Devoe, but simply a moment of shared relief.
"Hurt people hurt people" is a phrase I often hear, referring to people that find themselves caught in a repetitive cycle of grief, anger, and lashing out onto others. So then, where does true healing come from? Mimi Leder's "Peacemaker" portrays this tragic phenomenon, especially in the extreme case of Dusan, who has lost those dearest to his heart. To appease his inability to remedy the past, he turns to terrorism, seeking to execute his plan to unleash a deadly nuclear weapon in New York City. But before things got to this point, perhaps Dusan actually wanted to start to heal. If only compassion had been shown and love freely given, I wonder what would have changed. Perhaps the hurt person would have chosen to love.
In Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997), Colonel Thomas Devoe and Dr. Julia Kelly argue over the reasoning behind the main villain’s plan throughout several parts of the film. Devoe believes from the beginning that it is about greed. He is partly correct because the Russian general did want to sell them to Iran, however Dusan’s plan with the one nuke disagrees with Devoe’s thinking. Dr. Kelly believes that there is another motive behind this heist besides greed. Ultimately, she is proven right when Devoe’s friend dies, and when they find the recording of Dusan talking about why he is planned to blow up the nuke in New York City, that it was more than just greed.
The point that resonated with me was the one about antagonists. Prior to this film, it was very black and white with villains. Since this film, there has been a shift away from this and cinema has been all the better for it. Now you have antagonists like Killmonger in Black Panther who have past trauma and a vision to improve the world. These villains aren’t maniacally evil in the same vein as, for example, Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars saga. This film establishes a moral grey area for villains, and it allows audiences to gain new perspectives.
Like the issues with action films, there are types of anime that deal with a near identical setup that’s mainly designed to showcase large dramatic fight scenes where the protagonist never loses. However, there are anime like Demon Slayer, which have significantly more realistic fight scenes and consequentially have that added complexity of the characters that The Peacemaker showcases because they are not all-powerful. Seeing a character vividly experience loss and still have the desire to push forward creates a much stronger bond with the audience than the copious amounts of explosions that some action films try to force in their film.
One choice Leder made in The Peacemaker (1997) that resonated with me was her choice to use CGI sparingly, and instead rely on practical effects as much as possible. I mainly noticed this during the opening action scene where the train robbery and assassinations take place. The action had much more weight and intensity because of how realistic it felt with the practical stunts and minimal CGI. This starkly contrasts the opening of the newest Indiana Jones film, an over-bloated CGI train action scene with a young CGI Harrison Ford, leading this film to fall flat on its face since the action didn’t feel real. It felt more like the uncanny valley than an impactful train action scene like Leder accomplishes in her film.
Leder’s decision to keep the on-screen relationship between the two main characters professional makes Dr. Julia Kelly’s character more powerful. Based on contemporary action films, it seems like the obvious choice would be for Lt. Col. Devoe and Dr. Kelly to have some type of romantic intimacy when placed center stage as colleagues, but the lack of it diverts the focus onto the intellect and independence of Kidman’s character. While she agrees to go out for a drink at the end, there’s no stereotypical kiss and the two protagonists remain independent of each other.
Dr. Kelly and Lieutenant Colonel Devoe' similar alpha personalities yet contrasting ways of thinking complement each other well in their mission. Kelly's methodical and deliberate thought process proves valuable to Devoe's intense eagerness, quick wit, and action impulsive tendencies. Kelly tells Devoe not to take action without authorization because she recognizes his "sloppy impulse control". Although Devoe is competent due to his military background, his extreme eagerness while in flight to pursue the truck housing nuclear weapons is worrisome. Kelly considers possible scenarios including the risk of possible war before authorizing the entrance of Russian federation airspace, harnessing the capabilities of Devoe mission leadership.
In the Peacemaker by Mimi Leder, characters have to make a choice to either allow for casualties or to allow these nuclear bombs to get away. I was struck by the scene where the sniper is being told to shoot while his aim is going back and forth from Gavrich and a small child he is hiding behind as she rides on her parent’s shoulder. This same theme was reflected when Gavrich runs into a school and as the pursuers follow him inside, a bunch of children run out screaming in the hall; as Colonel Thomas shoots, it seems like he was very close to missing the shot and shooting the children. This film spoke of the dichotomy between doing what’s right and not causing harm in the name of good, especially when that concerns innocent people such as children.
Leder's The Peacemaker stresses above all else realistic characters and psychological impact of violence. We see this most clearly during the car chase scene where Devoe not only kills multiple men in an effort to stay alive but also seemingly as revenge for killing his friend earlier. Later we see both him and Dr. Kelly reflect on what just happened and trying to come to terms with the consequences. Dr. Kelly specifically throughout the movie is often shown to be intelligent but compassionate trying to minimize damage whenever possible such as during the interrogation scene. Unfortunately this character trait was seemingly lost in the final chase sequence where she pressures a sniper to take a shot into a crowd of people. One could argue that she was simply trying to minimize lives lost by apprehending the suspect now rather than risk him escaping, but this was in stark contrast to the helicopter chase scene where she risks losing the nuke from the satelite.
Violence has consequences. This is a reality that many classic action movies choose to ignore in an effort to keep the tone of the movie light and enjoyable. It’s an effective strategy for allowing viewers to indulge in the morbid curiosity of bloodshed without the baggage that comes with it, sacrificing a meaningful connection to the fictional world. These contemporary action films flip this strategy by actively confronting viewers with the conflict’s aftermath, challenging their enjoyment of it. Instead of just glamorizing the action, this forces those watching to feel the same gravity and seriousness as the characters on-screen.
A few years ago, I would have considered myself an avid 90s action film viewer. I was drawn to films that discussed topics such as politics and international affairs with a more face-paced and action-packed lens. While Mimi Leder’s, The Peacemaker, is not necessarily a serious movie, it does however maintain a complex international affair storyline. Leder does not attempt to woo her audience through romance and intense action, rather, she uses decision-making and investigation to maintain a high-stakes atmosphere. She is able to bridge the gap between politics and action through the use of her two practical main characters.
The Peacemaker and most other action films offer both a critique of modern geopolitics and a thrill. The peacemaker makes many references to the conflict in the Caucuses that permeated much of the '90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cleo referenced much of the Algiers conflict as that was the issue of the day. As the fears of the US changed from the Soviet/Russian threat to terrorism, action films shifted their focus. Stories such as the Hurt Locker are set in the modern-day warzone of Iraq. - Aditya Garg
Although The Peacemaker may not be considered the ultimate action movie the emotional response of characters in the film generates a different thrilling feel for the audience. Not everyone is a cold hard killing machine, but everyone is human, and it can be seen in times of hesitation and reflection in characters. The presence of a female director in a blockbuster action film emphasizes the trauma that individuals in a situation like this might experience making a more compelling movie for all.
George Clooney’s character, Lt. Colonel Thomas Devoe, is initially portrayed as wildcard soldier who “doesn’t play by the rules.” However, once he is called to action, his wildcard persona softens, and greets the world with the grim outlook of a soldier who understands what needs to be done. He is willing to be ordered around by a woman, which is not what his initial portrayal would have us believe. In fact, Nicole Kidman’s character specifically asks for a man who can “take orders from a woman”, further displaying Devoe’s open mind. (I wonder if Leder is attempting to insert a little bit of herself into this role; it could not have been particularly easy to be a woman directing an action movie in the 1990’s).
Leder’s main character in 'The Peacemaker' was successful in accurately representing women in power positions due to Dr.Julia Kelly’s understated heroism throughout the film. She was the “man in charge,” making decisions such as risking war while flying through an unauthorized zone over Russia, but never asked for praise from her peers when missions went successfully. While Julia went through trials while performing a high stakes, male-dominated job, it was not Leder’s goal to make Julia a purposefully “feminist” character, made evident by Julia’s sorrowed reactions to death and anxiety when risking the lives of U.S. operatives.
The action movies of today seem to only have one goal in mind, creating the biggest eye-catching box office success. Action movies now utilize new technologies in CGI to create films that blur the line between fiction and reality. Mimi Leder's The Peacemaker (1997) does an excellent job of creating high stakes within the film without losing its sense of realism, her characters take time to mourn and internalize the high-stress situation they find themselves in. Mimi Leder’s characters have believable emotions about the murder and death they experience.
The Peacemaker portrays its female lead in a manner that isn’t reminiscent of any conventional action movie trope. Dr. Julia Kelly is not portrayed as a damsel in distress, nor is she a battle hardened, stone-faced femme fatale. Instead, Kelly is characterized as an intelligent, competent individual who lacks real-world experience. This sets her up to develop throughout the film, becoming more comfortable in life-or-death situations and eventually using her intelligence to ultimately save the day. Unlike most other action films of this era, Kelly’s character is never pushed into the background by the heroics of her male co-lead.
While surface level, cliché-ridden action movies may be dismissed in favor of more grounded, emotional films in critical circles, they cannot be denied their place as an art form. The purpose of art is to evoke emotion, and the means by which these blockbusters produce thrill and gratification hold no less merit than those of an arthouse film. Like some types of pop or rap music, the goal is not to provoke thought but rather an adrenaline rush, which these media accomplish masterfully. “Cheesy” action movies do not lack art in comparison to “real” cinema, they simply have different goals.
I vehemently object to the notion that Mimi Leder's film lacks the ultimate thrill and adrenaline rush when compared to films like Mission Impossible or Marvel movies. Unlike those movies that feature implausible stunts and fictitious scenarios, Leder's cinematic masterpiece presents a realistic portrayal of action that are raw, visceral and true-to-life. The lead female protagonist exhibits a remarkable level of practicality in the face of war and violence, providing a refreshing departure from the damsel-in-distress archetype. The film boasts a plethora of scenes that leave the audience on the edge of their seats with their heartbeats racing, including intense car chases and jaw-dropping fight scenes.
Kris Kelvin and Dusan Gavrich are a prime example of how a similar tragedy can have vastly different outcomes. The psychological struggles of each character drive them toward the same goal of restoring the past. While reflecting on the station, Kris cannot come to terms with change and chooses to live the life he once had. Dusan counters this idea, knowing the past cannot be repeated, he attempts to make others understand and feel his suffering. The human desire for connection and belonging drive the actions of both characters, but they end up on opposite sides of the coin. If we were presented the opportunity to undo a personal tragedy, would we?
Dr. Kelly's belief that the nuclear attacks were driven by personal, emotional rage with the intent to kill , as opposed to Devoe's theory of money crime, is proven correct at the end of the film. Devoe's persistent challenge of Dr. Kelly's opinion and dismissive banter toward her views imply that he thinks her ideas are illogical and overly emotional. Mirroring the way men in my life have often disregarded my instincts and emotions, I am frequently encouraged to “think rationally” and suppress my emotions (even though my intuition is often accurate).
Society’s progression towards increasingly smarter technology capable of configuring unrealistic CGI is transforming cognitive stimulation and people’s perceptions of reality. Humans as a collective have become desensitized to the gore, impressive stunts, and unfazed responses to tragedy which characterizes contemporary action film. The decreasing levels of verisimilitude in media is fueling the reliance on increasingly more intense components, like fighting and sex, to maintain engagement and feelings of satisfaction of an audience. I experience this phenomenon by not being as captivated by older forms of media while my younger sister embodies it, prioritizing enjoyment from video games above anything else.
Leder's practical, sensible approach to Dr. Kelly was crucial for a different take on the female hero. THE first female action hero, Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games (2012), embraced this approach and reproduced Kidman's relatability. When first cast to lead the blockbuster franchise, Lawrence was asked to lose 10 pounds. Instead, she decided to look fit and strong- not thin and underfed. When directors and talent are more intentional with character portrayals, they bolster their impact on the audience. Humor aside, Lawrence's realistic take energized a new generation of moviegoers to shatter her female action predecessors' box office records.
Mimi Leder's approach to creating a female action hero that is practical, relatable, and human is an essential step forward in the fight for gender equality in film. Movies like The Peacemaker and The Hunger Games help shatter box office records, energize new generations of moviegoers, and giving viewers a respect for all genders in film. The female leads also play a crucial roles in inspiring and empowering young viewers, and serve as role models to young women. Through heroism and relatable portrayals of women lead actors, a new generation of film can been paved, helping the male viewers view women as equals in the space of action movies.
In Mimi Leder's The Peacemaker (1997), every character seems to be more complex than they initially let on. Contemporary post 9/11 action films involving terrorism seems to glorify the heroes and reduce antagonists to basic villains. For instance, in "24" and "Homeland," protagonists are flawless defenders of justice, while terrorists are faceless threats. Leder's characters instead reflect the global fear felt in a post Cold War era. The historical conflict ended with no heroes or villains, and Leder's film attempts to show the vulnerabilities and humanity within people, while not being afraid to do what it takes to reflecting maintain global security.
I recall some very complex villains in both 24 (particularly later seasons) and Homeland . . . Tell me more about which storylines you have in mind!
The Peacemaker was a great action film because of Leder's accurate depiction of the consequences of violence for both the perpetrator and victims. Violence was not rendered in great detail on-screen; however, the faces of the actors depicted enough horror to evoke a deep response from the viewer. Additionally, her use of match cuts throughout the film made meaningful comparisons that induced reflection on various social issues. The match-cut between Dusan in the warzone and then him carrying the bomb in NYC raises opposition to traditional Western narratives of terrorism. The United States does not take accountability for its continuous use of innocent lives as leverage in economic and political objectives. Furthermore, romanticizing violence could be contributing to the widespread desensitization surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Peacemaker differentiates itself from fellow action movies of its time by focusing on the practical and emotional effects of its dramatic scenes. CGI plays a major part in every action movie of today, adding in either extreme a better sense of realism or fiction. American Sniper however is another example like The Peacemaker of building suspense and pathos to achieve audiences’ attention. The opening scene of American Sniper follows a U.S. soldier debating whether to snipe a child carrying a bomb, focusing closely on the dilemma of the distraught shooter over the exaggeration of the bomb's explosion. Movies like Mad Max Fury Road also allow directors to differentiate their films by focusing on practical effects instead of the abundance of CGI.
Action films with female leads, such as Nicole Kidman’s character in Leder’s The Peacemaker, serve crucial roles as role models for young viewers of all genders. For the young women in the audience, such characters display admirable qualities for these viewers to aspire to behold, which are vastly underrepresented in most of American film history. As for the male viewers, this may serve as way for them to avoid the consequences of only viewing men as possessing such favorable qualities, and hopefully will come to age with a respect for all genders as forces to be reckoned with.
I think The Peacemaker excels in subverting the audience’s expectations that are based on previous action movie tropes so predictable to the average viewer today. We anticipate the male and female leads to romantically embrace at some point during the film because it’s a trend that’s been ingrained in us, however, only the possibility of romance is depicted at the conclusion which is much more realistic. Leder, instead, puts all of the focus on the politically charged suspenseful story reminiscent of Tom Clancy but with the pleasant surprise of emotionally driven characters and a sympathetic, misguided villain.
I find it challenging to become immersed in realistic action films; the ambiguous roles of characters within these films are hard to follow, leading me to believe these films are created solely for action movie fanatics. The complex motivations and shifting allegiances assume a familiarity with the genre, which leaves average viewers, like me, feeling confused, frustrated, and left behind. This is how I felt while watching Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997). On the other hand, I enjoy the fantasy action and thrill presented in Marvel movies, and how character motives are comfortingly predictable. Therefore, it is my opinion that depending on filmmakers’ differing approaches to storytelling, they have the power to either alienate or captivate viewers through realistic or fantasy-based action films.
To what "shifting allegiances" are you referring?
The Peacemaker stands out because it features a strong and capable female protagonist, played by Nicole Kidman, in a traditionally male-dominated genre. The film subverts gender stereotypes by portraying Kidman's character as a no-nonsense expert in her field who takes charge and makes tough decisions, rather than a damsel in distress. The Peacemaker represents a significant step forward for women in action movies and showcases the talents of its lead actress and female director. The story strays from the norm by not becoming reliant on a romantic relationship that progressed throughout the movie, giving it a sense of reality.
It is true that The Peacemaker makes many lasting developments for the action film genre, but at what cost? Comparing Leder’s 1997 film to earlier action classics, such as 1988’s Diehard, we see that characters are made more realistic and relatable at the expense of the film’s simplicity and decisiveness. Die Hard is an example of entertaining American cinema at its most engaging. In contrast to The Peacemaker, there is no need to fill screen time with the villain’s complex motives. Likewise, the characters need no justification for crawling through ventilation ducts or detonating C4 in an elevator shaft… In the end, it is clear which style of action film was more influential-especially considering the infamy and pop-cultural domination of Die Hard.
In a primarily male dominated industry, Leder’s film showcases a strong female lead through the eyes of a trailblazing woman director. Leder’s own struggles in position of power in the film industry bring a sense of truth to Kelly. The progressive action film contrasts the typical portrayal of the superficial sexualization of a female protagonist. Positively depicting woman differently allows for a film focused on the actual emotional impact of the action, getting to truly understand the impact on the character. Even with this step forward, the male savior complex is still unfortunately present in Devoe, overshadowing Kelly’s leadership role.
Dr. Julia Kelly’s capability is undercut almost every step of the way in the film, “The Peacemaker.” It starts with her coworker, then the President, followed by government officials, business associates, and most evidently, by General Devoe. While the audience watches Kelly’s intellect decode and analyze every detail of the complex situation, we see Devoe dismiss and diminish Kelly’s theories, area of expertise, and authority. While commentary on gender roles in an action film is refreshing, I believe Leder’s portrayal of Kelly and Devoe’s relationship, although better than its predecessors, continues to portray stereotypes that cater to hegemonic masculinity.
Men do not receive the same pushback when portraying the “hard as nails combatant” that women do sometimes appear as. Women in this role appear unreasonable while men in this role appear powerful and decisive. Though playing the same character, their actions are interpreted differently. Despite the interpretations of this female role, I still believe it was necessary in the development of expectations of women in power. Though these characters are looked down on by many, they emphasize the importance of disregarding others’ judgement. They embody the concept of living for yourself, not simply for what society expects of you.
The way that women are portrayed in movies is related to the way that women are treated in real life. There are the two extremes that we see in films, one where the woman is commanding and a boss biotch if you will. Then there are other films which have women playing more secondary roles or needing a man to make her feel better. In society, there are some women who are examples of each of these extremes. The difference is that in society there is also a middle ground added. Some women can take on a leading role while still needing the support of others.
In current day action movies like the Mission Impossible and Marvel Franchises, they intentionally lead us away from senseless violence, often showing loss through explosions of buildings and property, rarely ever do we see the graphic depiction of death. This intentionally leads the viewers in a more heartfelt direction using loss to propel the plot, but not to register the stress and horrors associated with our protagonists. In Peacemaker gruesome death is shown repeatedly, on and by both sides. This effectively places the viewer in the stressful situations that Dr.Kelly and Davoe are in. Throughout the film I found Davoe to be rather reckless, often rushing to take action without thinking everything through. In contrast Dr.Kelly was very calculated. Leder using moments of pause to register her thinking through her emotions. Contrast this with the Mission Impossible protagonist Ethan Hunt who has both the brains to focus on the efficiency of the mission, and the guts to decisively take action. In seperating these two aspects within her male and female, lead Leder is making the argument that men and women rely on each other to accomplish difficult tasks.
While offering a powerful symbol of female leadership, which challenges traditional gender roles and breaks down barriers for women in positions of power, Dr. Kelly’s intelligence is prioritized, rather than sexualizing her. Her character fights neck and neck with her colleagues, while she seemingly feels the need to constantly prove her competence while her co-workers threaten to undermine her in the competitive environment portrayed. Despite the progress made for women in action movies, it reverts to traditional gender roles ending with the cliche ‘the guy gets the girl’ and the coddling of her around violence
Mimi Leder has managed to both infiltrate a male dominated field and insert a feminist film into mainstream media without the notice or overt critique from her peers. It seems to strongly contrast action films that receive great praise, such as the Bond franchise and other films mentioned by Dr. Marchbanks, but Leder’s use of big name actors, known for their performances in stereotypical action films, help pull in a wider audience. This film is a bold move for feminism and does a great job at flipping the character narrative in a way that is accepted by a general film audience.
Gloriously delirious mayhem plays a distinctive and enjoyable role in cinema. "The Peacemaker" uses mayhem effectively to maintain tension and incorporate a commentary on gender roles, all while delivering an entertaining and cliché-laden ride. However, not all action films must adhere to this formula. "Sicario" takes a more grounded approach to action by strategically deploying intense and believable violence at crucial moments in the plot. In both films, the strong and competent female lead characters are portrayed without gratuitous sexualization or objectification, illustrating that different approaches to action in a movie can be equally effective.
While I appreciate Leder’s commitment to changing the narrative of the typical woman lead in an action film, I left the theater feeling annoyed by the way Dr. Kelly was written to compliment Devoe’s brash personality. Realistically, this movie did not do enough to deconstruct the female stereotype of being the calm, anti-violence character that has to reign in her male counterpart. Although Dr. Kelly is quick on her feet, the only groundbreaking part of her role is that the audience gets to see a semi-realistic depiction of what it’s like as a woman in a position of power.
While I agree that the peacemaker certainly offers a much less problematic presentation of its female lead, I feel it doesn’t go far enough to completely break free from the male savior complex. I appreciate the depiction of Dr. Kelly’s complex feelings surrounding geopolitical conflict and death, however, consistently through the movie, Devoe mansplains, interrupts, gives direct orders to, or questions the abilities of Dr. Kelly without any recourse from any other characters. In many ways, especially because we spend the most time with him, it feels like he becomes the main character and the one calling all the shots.
Although I can acknowledge Leder’s depiction of a more realistic and progressive female action movie star being ahead of its time, I was left utterly disappointed after watching The Peacemaker. I was under the impression that Dr. Kelly would represent an intellectual, powerful, and commanding female lead, but in reality, she is just a damsel in distress. Additionally, I was appalled to see that, despite Dr. M saying their traumatic experience would not bud into a romance, Dr. Kelly accepts the date invitation in the final scene!
Despite recent progress made towards more empowered and complex representations of women in action films, there are still some ways in which the portrayal of women has not changed over time. Females remain largely characterized by their physical appearance and occupy less significant roles than men. While actresses like Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron may play intelligent and well-developed characters in modern films, a heroine who is anything but white, thin, and beautiful is much harder to find. Furthermore, current action blockbusters continue to fail the simple Bechdel test, indicating that female roles are far less meaningful than their male counterparts.
Mimi Leder creates an action film without using classically gendered emotions that typically action movies portray on each character. We see the patriarchal standard for character emotions wiped away in this film as our female protagonist is shown as a strong independent agent. Atypical action films today where women are characterized as those needing to be saved and not the ones doing the saving. This patriarchal balance of protagonists makes the outcome of the film uncertain whereas films today will typically have a climax with our male protagonist saving the female protagonist.
The Peacemaker is NOT a good film. Instead, it’s one that has/does a few good things. Arguably, the thing it does best is present the audience with not just a strong female lead, but a realistic one. Indeed, Dr. Kelly is one of the strongest female action characters of the 90’s. Though she’s still subjected to “typical” female lead cliché’s-flinching/screaming continuously during the car chase, for example-, the rest of her character is fleshed out in such a way that the reasons why are not only understandable to the audience, but RELATABLE/AUTHENTIC as well. Thus, Leder’s work can perhaps be considered ahead of its time, as action films with strong [central] female characters are only just now becoming common within the genre.
Although the role of women in action films has evolved, it's hard to see significant improvement. The cliche of the woman as the helpless sex object has certainly diminished, but it has largely been replaced by the equally one-dimensional token strong female lead. Although there have been great examples of strong women in action movies, many portrayals come across as pandering rather than activism. Take Captain Marvel for example. The character feels lifeless and robotic. Her appearances in films like Avengers Endgame are more motivated by profit than a desire for change. Is this really the representation we've strived for?
Mimi Leder not only breaks traditional action movie stereotypes in The Peacemaker (1997), but also introduces factual scientific aspects, rare in blockbuster films of the nineties. While conventional action films often rely on pseudoscience to explain anomalies, Leder thoughtfully details the chemical contents and radioactive aftermath of the train collision. As an environmental engineering student, I appreciated Leder’s precise explanation of the environmental and ecological repercussions of a nuclear explosion. Further, Leder was deliberate in her depiction of how characters detect radiation, employing realistic radioactive decay detectors instead of creating a fantastical device solely to entertain the audience.