Ulf Dalquist states that in _Terminator 2_, "Sarah isn't locked up without reason. The pressure of knowing about the coming end of the world as we know it and the fact that she's the only one who could stop it, has definitely turned her into a psychotic (or whatever the clinical diagnosis would be)." Ulf has hit upon precisely the reason that the Sarah Connor character was (and is) so attractive to many young feminists. This film gives the audience a female heroine--or more strictly speaking, a female *hero*. Sarah Connor acts in exactly the same way that other, male, film action heroes act. Why is that considered "psychotic?" Admittedly, Sarah's single-mindedness in pursuit of her objective could be argued to be symptoms of less-than-utter-sanity, but again, a male character in this position would (probably) be taken for granted as "normal," whatever that means when the entire world is resting on your shoulders. And just why would a female character in this position be an example of "moral ambiguity" if an equivalent male character would not? For that matter, one could just as easily say that *male* action heroes are all psychotic. Or are they not psychotic when they *are* psychotic? The character of Martin Riggs in the first _Lethal Weapon_ film comes to mind. Just my way of saying that the subject of "moral ambiguity and female characters in film" deserves some further interrogation in terms of its gender role assumptions, if any. Kimberly Ladd American Studies The College of William & Mary Williamsburg, VA [log in to unmask] ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]