In her critical analysis Teen Film: A Critical Introduction, Catherine Driscoll outlines the construction of "teen film", the genre of typically independent films about and made for teenagers primarily in the last two decades of the 20th century. In this breakdown of teen film, we discover factors contributing to the birth of teen film's sub genres, as well as their exhaustion, ultimately understanding the logistics of the genre from a point of view in hindsight. By providing us with a basic understanding of the sociopolitical and economic concerns of teenagers during the genre's prime, Driscoll lends us the opportunity to take her analysis to further lengths and focus more on the specific controversies that may have played significant roles in the creation of these films.
Here I would like to complicate Driscoll's focus on the exhaustion of teen film and her breakdown of the "revisionist" film series by zooming in on the production of Heathers (1988) and Clueless (1995). Driscoll derives the coining of the term "revisionist" from Timothy Shary's own analysis of American teen film, in which he uses the term "to distinguish [them] 'for their understanding of their generic heritage and, more so, their ability to transcend the typical concerns of subgenres dealing with delinquency, romance, and schooling'". While the subject matters of Heathers and Clueless are vastly different, their settings and commentative properties are quite similar, and seemingly sequential, both concerning the sociopolitical demand for "girl power", the abandonment of female conventionalism, and the overall efforts of the 90s' culmination of third wave feminism. Therefore, Heathers and Clueles, through their revisions of teen film sub genres (the late 80s slasher and 90s romantic comedy, respectively), express the pressures of social conformity faced by adolescents, altogether outlining the progression of third wave feminism from its conception to its concretion.
In order to comprehend how both films work together to portray the movement into the third wave, it is first necessary to understand the makeup of the genres they are working to 'revise' and how they do so. Heathers' revision of the 1980s classic slasher is a perfect model for productive writing against the conservative conventionalism instituted by the Reagan era and the media produced within it. By referring to Carol J. Clover's analysis of the sub genre concerning the representation of gender and sexualities as well as Vera Dika's structuralist approach, the approach to Heathers as a revisionist film becomes quite clear, especially from Sotiris Petridis' historical standpoint. From this viewpoint, we recognize how slasher films have contained "a primitive level of violence against women who embrace their sexuality", a convention of the genre that has carried through from pre-slasher films such as Hitchcock's Psycho all the way through the 1980s, in which the genre prospered at its peak. In her analysis of teen film, Driscoll refers to Veronica as the "final girl" of Heathers, referring to Clover's theoretical approach to a typical slasher ending. This idea defines the Final Girl as the one "who manages to stand out from the crowd and becomes the survivor of the film" by either "find[ing] the strength to delay the killer long enough to be rescued" or simply killing him herself.
To further our comparison of Heathers protagonist Veronica to the Final Girl (and assumingly JD to the slasher), let's look to Dika's structuralist approach to the slasher, or "stalker film" narrative. Dika proposes a two-part structure by which stalker films follow: (1) a Past Event, where the members of a young community commit a fault and, in turn, the killer experiences a loss and begins killing the guilty members and (2) the present day, in which the killer's impulse is reactivated, but the community does not heed the warning, and it is left to the final heroine to subdue the killer. The direct placement of Lehman's metaphorical approach to the revision of the subgenre can become complex, but overall, follows swimmingly in terms of JD as the slasher, Veronica as the final girl, and most importantly for the goal of the film, the school as the young community. The true significance of the film, though, relies on recognizing its place in history, relative to the sociopolitical state of the country and audience. As stated before, the slasher film gained its highest levels of production in the 1980s, or the "classical period", the time period of which Ronald Reagan was almost entirely in office for. Petridis refers to film analysists Benshoff and Griffin in order to point out Reagan's political alignment with right-wing groups that aimed to proliferate the "family values" idea, which "was basically an anti-feminist, anti-gay program to keep straight white men...at the top of the socio-cultural hierarchy". This Reagan-era conservatism along with the occurrence of the AIDS epidemic "provide the basis for the punishment of the sexual act in slasher films of the classical period."
Eventually, "the subgenre's formula and conventions became so predictable that slasher films started to decline" towards the end of the 1980s. The late 80s, therefore, was where the classical slasher was ultimately exhausted and the postmodern slasher was coming into fruition, marked by parody and pastiche of the classic. Amidst this, Lehman's Heathers was produced, emitting a commentative response to the negative conventions of the sociopolitical climate of the era through a medium whose structure could be so easily identified and digestible by teenagers.
As we can see, Clueless, written and directed by Amy Heckerling, takes on a much lighter tone, perhaps due to its ambitions as a celebration or even proliferation, as opposed to a resistance. That is, while Heathers was part of a postmodern movement mocking a genre of film and subverting its structure in order to promote ideals that said genre stood directly against, Clueless seems to poke fun at the easily identifiable tropes within coming-of-age or romcom subgenres of teen film. Perhaps we get the most apparent gilmpse of this in a 60-second sequence involving the 80s-born classic "makeover montage", in which our protagonist, Cher Horowitz, gives her new friend, Tai, a more fitting look for surviving in upperclass highschool society. Displayed over the pop track "I Want to be a Supermodel", this montage, by the time Heckerling utilized it, was an unarguably conventional aspect of a movie about teenage girls. Furthermore, Heckerling also included many common tropes concerning the protagonist's romantic relationships. This does not only include the typical ending in which the narrative "contradicts" our expectations by having the shy guy win the popular girl, but it also shows her negative interaction with the dreamy guy who is already in the protagonist's high-end social circle. In this scene, Elton, the dreamboat, cannot explain why he belongs with Cher as opposed to new-girl, Tai; he only reassures her of his romantic certitude by repeating, "it makes sense." Despite how cliché these moments may be, Clueless managed to gross over $56 million dollars the summer it hit theaters, and is known for tapping into a "heretofore untapped movie audience: teen girls themselves." Perhaps Heckerling's success in her manipulation of these conventions is her inclusion of them early on in the second act, as opposed to using them as the climactic plot points toward the resolution of the film; this seems to establish her narrative as an ironic revision, rather than simply falling in line with the writers of the past.
Now that we understand how these films function separately within their respective subgenres, we can focus in on their similarities within the industry, and ultimately within the general social context. As teen films, the general aspect that links them most strongly is the setting, that is, high school. High school, for the teenager, functions as a microcosm in which one develops their own societal groups. The formation and separation of these collectives within a high school setting, according to teen film, can be based on a number of characteristics, but are most typically related to class, ethnicity, and leisurely/academic interests. Establishing the social constructs of a particular high school setting is necessary for any teen film narrative to prosper, as these distinctions within the microcosm are often, if not always, the source of conflict. Thanks to Amy Heckerling, the teen film genre acquired what Catherine Driscoll refers to as the "anthropology shot". Coined by film analyst Kaveny, the anthropology shot is the guided tour of high-school groups in which we learn how to identify the different social groups in a high school setting through the eyes of the protagonist. After its use by Heckerling in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, the efficient montage-like sequence fastened itself into the teen film genre, appearing in many later films including Heathers, Clueless, and Mean Girls. In some cases, the anthropology shot can be expanded throughout the entirety of the movie in some sort, acting as the basis of the narrative (e.g. The Breakfast Club's).
The contrasts between Heathers and Clueless reflect the social climates that the two movies were born into quite well. In Heathers, Heather Chandler's outline of the social hierarchy labels "highly recognizable but only superficially coherent cliques", a sequence in which we take note of classic distinctions such as geeks and jocks. Conversely, the anthropology shot in which Cher explains to Tai how the school system works involves a much more original, less established set of distinctions amongst the class, including the 'Persian Mafia' and the 'TV station crowd'. This alternative approach, while it does exist somewhat because the anthropology shot is Heckerling's own invention, is very indicative of radical changes that had occurred within the adolescent social sphere between the late 1980s and mid 1990s. As Driscoll points out, the "cruelty of Heathers is more intentional, impersonal and strategic." This harsh intent aims to construct a class system within the school with a much more rigidly integrated set of lines of distinction, as a response to the socioeconomic climate that Lehman's revisionist film is responding to. While both Heathers and Clueless create these distinctions as a set of boundaries from which their protagonist's are meant to escape, Heathers' watered-down, unexciting mid-west structure works to mirror the era's conservative conformism. On the other hand, Cher's classification of the distinctive groups on campus does not vilify her as an evil teen queen as Heathers does to Chandler, but instead highlights her personal involvement with and respect for the natural order of things, while still placing herself at the top of that organic hierarchy. As a result, the audience witnesses social climate that boasts diversity and a sense of individualism based on specific and genuine interests within a group, rather than forceful clumping together based on physical ability or familial wealth. Altogether, solely within the duration of anthropology shot, Heckerling acknowledges society's strides away from Reagan-era white-washed conformism.
Veronica's battle against Heather Chandler's proliferation of this conservative social organization leads to the death of Chandler, which, although she feels responsible for, she believes will ultimately be better for the adolescent community around her. At the midpoint of the film, though, Veronica remarks that she cut off Heather Chandler's head and another one simply grew back its place, referring to the uprising of Heather Duke as the school's new devious teen queen. This irony of this vindictive rage against the Heathers is encompassed early on in the film by her statement, "I hate my friends", but her continuation of the relationship remains quite ironic. It is isn't until the end, when Veronica saves the school from JD and assumes the role of teen queen that the girls' contrasts are visibly noticeable. Here, Veronica finishes a cigarette and walks proudly with burnt, frizzed hair, ashy skin, and disheveled clothes, flaunting quite the rebel girl aesthetic as opposed to the frilly, uptight and conventionally feminine look of Heather Duke's shoulder pads and bright red cheeks. As a result, the audience can finally visually associate her with rebellion against conformism and recognize this change as a successful in which social barriers will be broken down thanks to "a new sheriff in town". Ironically, Cher, presents the embodiment of "girl power" in Clueless, but never manages to stray away from female conventionalism in terms of her external make up. In fact, Cher, the white, blonde, constantly made-up teen queen mirrors Heather Chandler, the villainous antagonist in the first part of Heathers. The question arises, then, "why do we like Cher Horowitz?"
In a discussion concerning movies' aim to eradicate conventionalism, Cher's attitude, aesthetic, and interest do seem to contradict the portrayals of "girl power" that Heathers, as well as the Riot Grrrl movement that initiated the third wave, attempted to eliminate. The simple answer, though, is that the goal of eliminating oppressive female conventionalism was not to create a new standard, but to move the agency away from the media's portrayal of women into the hands of the women, themselves, allowing them to follow whatever trends they may please. Arguing that girl power only lies within Doc Martens and the rejection of consumer beauty products only furthers a form of conventionalism. Heckerling, in her screenplay, includes many elements emphasizing Cher's intelligence and agency, in order to combat this questionable perception of Cher as a victim to female conventions.
In her essay on Constructing Girls on Film in the Era of Girl Power and Girls in Crisis, McCord emphasizes the importance of image maintenance acknowledged in Cher's makeover of Tai, noting how "Tai’s makeover gives Cher a chance to experience what Dionne calls a 'sense of control in a world full of chaos.'” The makeover montage, therefore, is a source of agency not only for Cher, but also for Tai, who "by the end of the 60-second sequence, Tai appears jubilant, appearing in a miniskirt and t-shirt in Cher’s three-way mirror." The significance of the makeover montage as a celebratory statement for young women is outlined by Mary Wilkinson, where acknowledges the obvious controversies surrounding females' "obsession" with body image in teen film. She notes that "in spite of its emphasis on traditionally ‘gendered’ values, the makeover sequence in... teen film centralized notions of self-transformation, and increasingly opened up space for the celebration of the teenage girl’s ability to construct and perform her own femininity." So, through Heckerling's direction, Cher still successfully represents the a young woman's freedom of agency in a third wave world.
Adversely, in Heathers, Heather Duke, who is initially belittled by Chandler and struggles to find her own identity, eventually gains confidence and power, but only because she believes she is what Chandler once was. This is signified by her disturbing obsession with Heather Chandler's belongings, which she does not hesitate to take from her deceased friend's locker. Although Veronica does remove Chandler's infamous red hair tie from Duke's head and place it on her own as she says "there's a new sheriff in town", its placement in the very last scene of the movie, as well as Veronica's physical state post-explosion and her stroll down the hallway with now-disabled Martha, does not have the chance to contradict our assumption that Veronica will reign as a teen queen the way Chandler and Duke once did. While Veronica's role as a fighter against conservative conformism is very easy to discern for most viewers, the audience of Clueless is often left with many unsettling questions concerning feminist controversy, particularly Cher's submission to the male gaze. This concern firstly appears as a response to Cher's pursuit of Christian. Through a series of actions, all of which fall in line with traditional gender roles (diverting his attentions to her feminine attributes and even attempting to cook for him), she attempts to seduce him. McCord touches on this discourse. "Ultimately,... Cher decides not to pursue a sexual relationship. The film affirms not only this decision by Cher, but also Dionne’s decision to have sex with her boyfriend and Tai’s self-acknowledged status as sexually-active. In this way the film affirms the girl power position of self-confidence and agency. Cher’s decision to remain a virgin is seen, therefore, not as the 'right' choice, but rather as the right choice for her."
Nevertheless, McCord has to touch on the continuation of the controversial discourse concerning the final scene of the film, in which Cher, Tai, and Dionne, all attend a wedding with the significant others. There, "Josh informs Cher that the guys have placed a wager on which girl will get the bouquet; Cher confidently assures him that “it’s in the bag.” She succeeds, at which point Josh smiles approvingly, which McCord's research has led her to recognize only as instilling 'hyperfeminine and heteronormative characterization' that ultimately serve to reinscribe patriarchal values" (Newsom 2005 qtd. by McCord 40). McCord writes off the scene as an unavoidable moment in the movie which had to occur as a proper homage to Jane Austen's novel Emma, which the screenplay is based on; regardless, Newsom's controversial commentary seems to suggest an unrealistically radical viewpoint, in which the only approach to modern feminism involves the eradication of institutions, such as traditional activities within a modern wedding, that came about prior to feminism’s current progression. If, for example, Heckerling wished to combat that controversy, which she may very well have expected, she could perhaps included a part of the scene in which the bachelor's perform the equivalent activity, but this clearly does not hold as much narrative function in the resolution of the movie no matter which guy wins. The scene was clearly an final approach to pay homage to Jane Austen, while giving a final form of emphasis to Cher's girl power.
At the end of it all, Clueless maintains its standing as an ultimately productive film, portraying Cher and her friends as entirely independent of social construction as young teenagers can be, only subject to the lure of 90s consumerism that define their very generation. Likewise, Heathers makes a power remark on the possibility of girl power, though it takes a drastically darker approach, revising the structure and gendered conventions within 80s classical slasher films (as opposed to Heckerling's playful romcom). Thanks to their revisions, or perhaps even mocking, of typical teen film sub genres, Heathers and Clueless are able to outline the movement of adolescent society from the overbearing conformism of the 1980s into the more liberal prosperities of the 1990s, particularly as a result of third wave feminism's influence on teen culture.
