Introduction
The Chris Columbus film Mrs. Doubtfire depicts archetype evolution in which characters abandon their traditional identities in pursuit of artificial values. According to Indick (2004), the traditional feminine or masculine roles predispose the male and the female to perform specified tasks. At the time of the setting film, the traditional male attributes and ideals were not only covetable, but also protected jealously by the male folk. Interestingly, the film presents characters that went against the grain of common seed to pursue artificial ideals of the female counterpart. To some extent, the characters that chose to bend their male traditional values and ideals surrendered the coveted values. In a dramatic twist, the female…show more content… In the Doubtfire, career obsessed absentee fathers do not only re-evaluate their social paths, but also assume the traditional feminine roles of primary caretaker and homemakers so that they remain close to their children. The starring, Robin William switches from a male character, Daniel Hillard to a female persona Mrs. Doubtfire. Circumstances such as lose job followed by the nasty divorce forced William to switch his identity from the male to female. William needed to remain close to his children even though he had divorced the wife. Attempt to actualise this intention forced him into surrendering his traditional male ideals and values for the less coveted feminine…show more content… Doubtfire is a proof that identity is an artificial construction gratified from one generation to the next. Since the society has pegged certain attributes to the female and male, one would fall in either of the two groups. Additionally, the society extends further to exert judgment on the behaviour of either gender. Interestingly, when one fails to fit in the presumed gender, the society would doubt. In the film, when Daniel as Mrs. Doubtfire forgot to change his outfit before returning to Mr. Jonathan Lundy’s table. This signifies inability to fit exclusively in a given gender without forgetting the attributes of the gender. Arguably, whereas Daniel tried to fit perfectly in the place of a woman, the exaggeration of the female qualities does not only make the female remain melodramatic, but also leads the audience into questioning the real identity of the character in question (Indick,