Female Soldiers Take Lead in Military Film “G.I. Jane”

In the late 1990s, a distinctive trend emerged in Hollywood’s action landscape: women breaking into traditionally male-dominated roles, particularly those in uniform. From Jamie Lee Curtis’s police officer in “Blue Steel” to Jodie Foster’s FBI agent in “The Silence of the Lambs,” and Michelle Yeoh’s law enforcer in “Police Story 3,” the decade measured female empowerment through institutional advancement. Perhaps no film embodied this phenomenon more directly than Ridley Scott’s 1997 military drama “G.I. Jane.”

Nearly three decades after its release, “G.I. Jane” stands as a fascinating cultural artifact that simultaneously showcases Demi Moore’s remarkable physical transformation and commitment to the role while raising complex questions about female empowerment. The film follows Lieutenant Jordan O’Neil (Moore), selected as a test case to determine whether women can complete the grueling Navy SEALs training program that has a 60% dropout rate among male candidates.

From its opening scenes, “G.I. Jane” approaches its subject with little subtlety. The film begins with Senator Lillian DeHaven (Anne Bancroft) grilling a Secretary of the Navy candidate about the military’s gender inequality. DeHaven points out that because women aren’t permitted in combat roles, nearly a quarter of military positions—including many with the fastest paths to advancement—remain inaccessible to them.

The film does develop more nuanced dimensions as it progresses, revealing how different factions view O’Neil’s candidacy. Department of Defense officials want the experiment to fail, while Senator DeHaven primarily seeks a photogenic candidate with public relations appeal, even asking whether O’Neil has a boyfriend to ensure she isn’t “batting for the other team.”

Where “G.I. Jane” falls short is in its characterization. Unlike “Top Gun,” which populated its world with memorable supporting characters like Goose and Iceman, Scott’s film presents O’Neil’s fellow candidates as an indistinguishable mass of machismo. More problematically, O’Neil herself lacks dimension beyond her determination and professionalism. Despite Moore’s committed performance, the script offers little insight into her character’s motivations for joining the military or pursuing such a challenging path.

Command Master Chief Urgayle, played with intriguing ambiguity by Viggo Mortensen, emerges as the film’s most complex character. During a prison simulation exercise, he threatens to sexually assault O’Neil to test her fellow candidates’ reactions—a scene that highlights the film’s uncomfortable relationship with the institution it portrays.

Herein lies the contradiction at the heart of “G.I. Jane”: viewers are asked to root for O’Neil to succeed in an organization depicted as systematically abusive and dehumanizing. The film spends considerable time showing how SEAL training strips candidates of their individuality and transforms them into components of a military machine, yet presents O’Neil’s ability to endure this process as triumph.

The film’s message ultimately centers on choice rather than equality for its own sake. It argues not that the military should have gender parity, but that women deserve the same career options as men without arbitrary restrictions. This pro-choice sentiment, however, sits awkwardly alongside depictions of training designed to eliminate individual choice entirely.

For Moore personally, “G.I. Jane” marked a critical but complicated juncture in her career. Despite critical praise for her performance—including those famous one-armed push-ups—the film followed her controversial starring role in “Striptease,” for which she had commanded an unprecedented $12.5 million salary. The public backlash against Moore’s perceived overexposure, combined with her age (35—often a turning point for actresses), led to her retreat from Hollywood despite the physical transformation and commitment she demonstrated.

As Moore later reflected, “With ‘Striptease,’ it was as if I had betrayed women, and with ‘G.I. Jane,’ it was as if I had betrayed men.” Yet she also calls the film her proudest professional achievement, encapsulating the contradictions within both the movie and its reception.

In retrospect, “G.I. Jane” represents an important marker in the evolution of women-led action films, even if its approach now seems heavy-handed. The film raises valid questions about gender equality in institutions while inadvertently highlighting deeper concerns about the institutions themselves. For a mainstream 1990s action movie, it contains surprising complexity beneath its sometimes on-the-nose messaging—even if what it’s trying to say isn’t always clear.