It is interesting to examine  that she wants to be an actress. Someone who is still looked to for physical beauty, however she is unsuccessful. Even though she is successful in bedding men using her sexuality, she can not seem to be successful  in finding an acting job. When her sexuality is in your face and Bree is naked with her clients, she is successful. But when she tries to be subtly sexual, she is unsuccessful.
Bree could’ve been a multitude of other careers but the decision to make her an aspiring actress says a lot about how different types of sexuality is viewed. She wants to work in a male dominated field where she will constantly be judge for her looks by men but in that field has much less control over her role. The scene when she is auditioning for an ad of some sort and the casting directors simply brush her over for having odd hands struck me. One girl was turned away for being “too pretty.” We never see the casting director’s face in this entire scene. He is simply looking down on all these women. Here the male has successfully dominated these women by being able to look them over quickly and dismiss them.
This film is incredibly subversive. When Bree is challenged in that male dominated world, she creates her own world where her sexuality is her own and no man is equal to her.

The Article is a dissection of the roles of women in noir film, as the title suggests. The article primarily deals with what the author calls the “Spider woman” or the Femme Fatale, the sexy dangerous alluring woman who’s sexual liberty and agency make her dangerous. The Femme Fatale then must be punished as her sexual liberty is  within the narrative a crime against men, and for the man’s own protection she must be destroyed.

In stark contrast to the Femme Fatale there is a homey woman who fulfills the more “traditional” role of woman as caregiver, this archetype offers comfort and nurture without asking for much if anything in return.  This archetype exists to play the foil to the Femme Fatale character and to maintain the ideals set forth by society at the time. The nurturing woman is to be viewed as good, the femme fatale is bad and if if weren’t any clearer the femme fatale is punished for being the femme fatale.

The article then discusses whether Noir is a genre or a movement, highlighting several points and examples to illustrate the point that Noir is movement and therefore transcends genres and noir stylized films or even noir scenes can and do appear in many different genres of film, the most notable example is included via link. While I couldn’t find a video clip (sorry) Ramrod is a western which heavily features Noir elements and themes.

My notes from the article are below and included links to some of the films mentioned.  As are a few critical questions relating to the article.

Which role from the Noir genre as discussed in the article does Bree (Jane Fonda, Klute) fill if any? How about Helen (Dietrich, Blonde Venus) ?

Is Noir a Genre of film or is it a movement and if it is a Movement how is modern Noir accounted for,  Usual Suspects for example.

Is the archetype of the Femme Fatale pro feminist or is it a step backwards in how women are viewed in post war america?

• The woman is defined in relationship to the men
• the femme fatal filling the role of dangerous, sexually liberated dark woman
• the notion of her sexual liberty and agency are what make her dangerous 
• The womans sexual liberation is seen as a crime against men, therefore she must be punished for that crime 
• Despite problems Noir is one of the few period genres in which women are given agency, they are intelligent and powerful
• Rise of the sex goddess (Marilyn Monroe) shifting the archetypal woman post WW2
• We, the audience, do not remember the noir woman’s demise but rather her strong sexuality, her dangerous and exciting nature
• The change in noir film compared to earlier is that the Noir woman must be controlled by the man lest the man be destroyed by her sexuality
• discussion of whether Noir is a genre or a movement, German expressionism, Italian Neo-realism, Soviet socialist realism 
• attitudes on film are reflexive of attitudes of the time, fear of loss of stability, identity and security
• Genres exist through time (What about Noir films produced in modernity, Usual suspects?)
• Discussion of Ramrod
• context is dependent on more than just what’s on screen, previous filmography, era, cultural identities shifting through time etc. 
• Norma Desmond, sunset boulevard, notion of spider woman (clip)
• cigarette as a symbol of womans “unnatural” phallic power 
• strength of the woman is illustrated by cinematography 
• mirror shots to highlight duplicitous nature of the women in the film
• the opposing archetype of the nurturing woman
• woman as a redeeming force
• she gives love understanding and nurture in return asks nothing or very little 
• she is linked to the pastoral elements traditionally associated to her

Christine Gledhill’s article focuses largely on the subversive and often distorted image of the woman in cinema, especially within the film noir genre.

“Frequently the female figure exists as a crucial feature within a dangerous criminal world which hero struggles with in the course of his investigation and as often as not constitutes the central problem in the unraveling of truth. Woman becomes the object of the heroes investigation. Thus the place of the female figure in the puzzle which the hero has to solve often displaces the solution of the crime as the object of the plot; the process of detection…are submerged by the hero’s relations with the women he meets…” (77)

“Rather than the revelation of socio-economic patterns of political and financial power and corruption which mark the gangster/thriller, film noir probes the secret of female sexuality and male desire in patterns of submission and dominance.” (77)

In the case of Alan J. Pakula’s Klute, we can see Gledhill’s argument play out quite clearly. In the movie Klute’s initial suspect (and only lead) is Bree, and even as the two of them go person to person investigating Tom’s disappearance, Klute never takes Bree off the suspect list. For a while their relationship is fairly platonic, but it isn’t long before Bree finds her way into Klute’s bed. In the scene where Bree wakes Klute up because she doesn’t want to be alone, she finds herself slipping into Klutes bed only to sleep with him and walk out. This scene is quite interesting as it establishes non-platonic dynamics into their relationship.

Bree’s relationship with Klute is then further analyzed  in a later moment when Bree is talking to her therapist. Bree mentions how she feels comfortable with Klute around because she’s been on her own for so long and now there is someone there watching/protecting her. Her discussion with the therapist can be read in multiple ways.  In the context of this class, I think it is valid to look at the conversation as a commentary on how films seem to depict women as needing a male presence in order to be comfortable/happy. However, I also feel it is fair to make the argument that Bree has been working as a call girl for so long that she has forgotten what it is like to have a real relationship, and Klute has given her the opportunity to be with someone on equal footing (that is be with someone who is not paying her to be with them).

Going back to Gledhill’s analysis of film noir… Bree’s sexuality is put into question as the longer she is with Klute, the more she seems to fall for him. However, the dynamic in the relationship between Bree and Klute is undermined as Klute is unable to take Bree off the suspect list. Looking at Klue and Bree’s relationship we can see some of the qualities of film noir at work. Although Bree is not our standard femme fetal, it is clear that she is a source of “female sexuality and male desire” as Gledhill explains is common in the noir genre.

Female sexuality is constantly being questioned within this movie. Bree uses her sexuality as a call girl and even explains that she enjoys being a call girl because it gives her confidence by placing her in situations where she is able to put on an act and be in control of the person she is with. But, then at the end of the movie there is an interesting twist placed on Bree’s occupation. When Bree is finally approached by Peter Cable, he makes a statement that I thought was extremely controversial:  “[You] Make a man think that he’s accepted. It’s all a great big game to you. I mean, you’re all obviously too lazy and too warped to do anything meaningful with your lives so you prey upon the sexual fantasies of others.” When I heard Peter saying this I was shocked to hear such a blatant verbalized description of a call girls work. All too often do we hear that being a call girl is wrong because its association with prostitution, but here we get a different perspective. In this scenario we have Bree who has admitted to enjoying the control that her job gives her being contrasted with a man who has felt the negative consequences of that very control.

So in this movie we have a woman who sees opportunity to make a living by demonstrating  her sexual control, confidence, and prowess doing something she enjoys being contrasted with a man who fell for the allure of a call girl then felt that his sexual fantasies  were exploited causing a dark part of himself to be awakened. Subversive? I’d say so!

Gledhill marks Klute as an interesting film as it combines the two very different genres of realism and noir, which typically showcase very different characteristics in their characters, especially female characters.  Film noir usually exaggerates female characters so that they are either the killer femme fatale or the domestic housewife, while humanist, realist films attempt to show women as real people with real problems.

• Gledhill also suggests that there are two ways to read Klute for meaning.  The first is the humanist literary method in which the film and every detail of it can be read for metaphorical meaning.  The second way of reading this film is through Marxist aesthetics.  This theory essentially states that you cannot decipher the absolute meaning of the film, but you can analyze how the meaning is produced.  It also states that this film is a product of all feminist film to come before it and it’s meaning is a result of history that has come before it.

The author identifies five main features of noir film and how they generally tarnish the appearance of the female character.

1) Investigative Narrative

• the hero is usually trying to figure something about a woman
• the woman is either the femme fatale or the domestic house wife
• if she is a working woman it is usually in a degrading job
• she can never both a family and a career, only one

2) Flashback/ Voice Over

• It is usually a man telling the story and dictating which details are shared about the woman.

3) Point of View

• The story is usually told from the man’s perspective and results in a fragmented incomplete portrayal of the female characters

4) Characterization of the Heroine

• The female character always seems to be switching between moral and immoral unlike the straightforward moral trajectory of the man

5) Visual Style

• The way the film is shot emphasizes the sexuality of the woman as it relates to men.
• Her body is usually shown in fragments.

In conclusion, the noir film and realist film (which are shown through the fact that Bree is a working girl, seeking psychotherapy, and taking control of her life) should not be able to coexist in the same film.  How do you think they hold up together?

Sarah Baartman was a South African female sold into slavery in the 19^th century. She was showcased around Great Britain and France because she had a relatively large posterior. An obsession was created among these European societies with her different body type casting Baartman, and therefore all African females, as others against the white European norm. Her body was labeled as grotesque because she was curvy in a way white European women were not. She was overtly sexualized and objectified in front of paying crowds. Her body became an object of desire for white males due to what was considered obscure feminine characteristics thus, leading to the creation of the bustle. White women of higher class wore the bustle to make their rear ends appear larger than they were, but a large rear end was not considered overly sexual on them because at the end of the day, these women could remove the bustle making them superior to Baartman and African females. Baartman’s objectification and sexualization is noted as the origin of the obsession with objectifying and sexualizing women of color, especially their posteriors. The story of Baartman highlights intersectionality of ethnocentrism, race, class, and sexuality. Sarah Baartman’s stage name was Hottentot Venus.

When Marlene Dietrich’s character in Blonde Venus performs for the audience of the film for first time, the stage is a jungle with women of color dressed up in tribal garments performing behind Dietrich. Dietrich undresses from the gorilla costume and puts on the blonde Afro, and is objectified and sexualized by the audience in both the film and the viewers of the film. Dietrich’s character’s stage name in this scene is Blonde Venus. I thought this scene was interesting because I wonder if the name Blonde Venus is correlated to Hottentot Venus. Hottentot Venus being an object of foreign, erotic, African marvel, desire, and primitive sexuality during her parade around Europe. During her performance, Blonde Venus also being an object of primitive sexuality by being surrounded by women of color who are portraying primitive, tribal women.

I tried to research the connection, but there was not any free articles related to the subject.

One of the questions we posed today in class was whether it would be possible or not to create a feminist film. After hearing some of the points brought up in class today, I’d have to say the answer is no, and if yes, then it would be very difficult. The reason for my belief is based off of a double standard that exists among the female population. When women are looked at one way, they are automatically criticized and questioned for not being a different way. An example of this is as follows. Let’s say you make a feminist film. The lead female character is strong, independent, and self-sufficient. Because of the way society is “coded” we will have a problem with this portrayal. “Why isn’t she allowed to be sexually free? Why does she have to be independent and without a man in order to be successful?” These are some of the questions that would follow. Furthermore there is another side to this. Now you make a feminist film, but the female is free, not tied down to one man, and not afraid to use what she has to get where she wants to be. Now the questions will be turned more into statements. “She’s a (fill in the blank here) slut, bimbo, etc.

Sam Potoczak

The readings we got for the weekend were very interesting to me because they talked in depth about female actresses in the media. In “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” by Laura Mulvey, one of the main points she made was that women are to be “looked at” while men doing the “looking”. Although she makes the assumption that the audience of these movies consist of predominantly heterosexual males, I thought back to one of my previous film classes where we listened to the song “Bitch Bad” by Lupe Fiasco. Mulvey states that many males viewers of the movie identify with the main hero of the film and so view the co-starring actress through the hero’s eyes. In many cases this behavior translates into reality, yet does a similar behavior exist in women? Like the song states, there are many females who may watch the same films and identify with the female characters. Most times both genders have been socialized to associate certain parts of the female body with sexual activity and nothing more. They are also being told what images are “beautiful” and what are distasteful.

Johnston goes into the topic of objectification of women and socializations as well. Johnston credits the term “iconography” as being partly responsible for the stereotypes placed on women in the media. In the past and in present day as well, women are filmed in different ways than male actors in a movie. I find myself getting bored with females in action movies because I know that they simply exist in the movie to as a causality, and  for the inevitable sex scene. For almost all other scenes in the movie, she is not important. And in both of these scenes as well, the main hero is involved and is also the one in charge.

Johnston believes that all decisions in film have been made intentionally. A blonde actor is chosen, and the light hits her hair every time she is present in the movie. She is naive and innocent, or a damsel that must be protected. There are many examples of decisions filmmakers have made in order to portray women in a certain light. As both authors have pointed out, women in a movie are almost always connected to a male figure. In class Professor Sikand posed the question “Is it possible to make a feminist film?” I think it will be very difficult to do so because you would have to be very aware of the decisions you are making in terms of visual and narrative. And after all of that work, would anyone watch it? A phrase I’ve heard a lot is “Sex sells.” and this is very true in the media world today. But is it really that impossible to make a very interesting action movie without a sex scene?

Question

One of the points that I was a little confused by was Mulvey’s use of terms such as “castration” and “phallus”. I know the definitions of these terms however, she refers to the woman with some of these terms. In class Professor spoke about the lack of a penis being connected to the reason why men are more dominant than women. I found the following line thought provoking:

“…it is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies.” (1st pg)

Do you agree with this quote? Is it possible to make a feminist film without addressing this?

Claire Johnston writes, “…it is not enough to discuss the oppression of women within the text of the film; the language of the cinema/ the depiction of reality must also be interrogated…” By this Johnston says that it is not enough to have a strong female character in the film the other characters must treat her appropriately.  It is common practice in films with strong female leads for the other characters to try justifying why the lead is female.  In a film with a male lead there is no need to mention why he is the main player, but with a female lead, many films strive to point out how much of an anomaly it is.  By pointing out that a female lead is strange it conveys to the audience the idea that a strong female lead should not be expected.  This says that the average woman does not have it in her to command as much power as the average male lead does, and that it is only occasionally that a woman can do so.  If a woman is to be the lead in a film, then the dialogue of the film should treat the woman as it would for a man.  If the dialogue and the actions of the film do not match, then it creates confusion in the viewer who may be unsure of the film’s actual position on the female lead.

The first part of this blog post will be a brief summary of Women’s Cinema as Counter-Cinema for today’s class. In case you missed some of the important ideas of the article here they are.

Most importantly, you should understand the following ideas: Myths, Iconography, signs, stereotypes, counter cinema, and the difference between idealism and realism and how that is important to the construction of the film.

The most important quote from the reading is, “There is no such thing as unmanipulated writing.” (page 28)  I felt that this is the core to the argument  in Johnston’s article. I thought that the discussion about myths and the malleability of their signs provided a good backbone to this statement. To be sure you understand what a myth is, I would look on page 22-23 to better understand this concept.

In short, myths and the sign system that they are based on are highly malleable. Although you might think that one sign denotes something, it can easily be manipulated to refer to something else. Thus, creating a whole new denotation and altering the meaning of something that you originally found to be true. (Also worth noting, is that this concept can be applied to the conversation that we have about subversive messages)

Next point to be familiar with is, Idealism vs. Realism. Bottom line is, movies do not represent reality. Movies represent ideas. Johnston wants us to reject the sociological approach to film critique and understand that a film does not represent a culture, but is rather formed by a current cultural idea which is entirely at the scrutiny of the filmmaker at the time of production.

To connect this with the Blonde Venus, I wanted to focus more in depth on a specific passage. One quote that specifically stood out to me is (on page 30) “Any revolutionary strategy must challenge the depiction of reality; it is not enough to discuss the oppression of women with the text of the film; the language of the cinema/the depiction of reality must also be interrogated.” My original question is, how do we see this in Blonde Venus, and consequently, how do we respond to this? However, I think that this statement is particularly interesting because it started to make us think about feminist films and if they are even possible to make. How do we respond to the context of which a film is made when we aren’t in the era that this film is made.

I thought that the discussion that we had in class was really interesting. One point that was brought up was the fact this film was made in 1932. We can all agree that a lot has changed since this point in film history. To better understand the cultural context of this film we need to understand the process in which the film was made. We noted that at this time the hayes code, the male director, and the sexist ideologies were all contributors to that culture at that point in time.  I think that without those factors we can’t necessarily decide what this film is trying to say about women. I won’t elaborate on what I think this film is trying to say, but I can comment on the fact that I don’t think that it’s as easy as I thought to determine the meaning of this film after reading Johnston’s article.

I think just the fact that we are unsure about what this film is proves Johnston’s original argument. That is, films are based on ideas not reality. More specifically, films are based on the ideas of the filmmaker who is constructing that film.  For that reason, can we ever really be sure what the director was intending for us, since we don’t necessarily know what he had in mind. However, Johnston gives us a lesson in iconography in order to apply this to the films we watch. That brings me to this next quote, (on page 29) “Clearly, if we accept that cinema involves the production of signs, the idea of non-intervention is pure mystification. The sign is always a product.” I think that if we are to use this idea of iconography in the films we watch then we can better understand the way in which these films were intended to be seen.

So, before I end, in regards to the original question that I address in the title, I would like to hear more comments on this.  Can we have a feminist film? Like I mentioned in class, I do think it is possible, given that what Johnston said about films being about ideologies as opposed to reality. So if feminism is an ideology then it should be possible for a film to be of a feminist nature. The problem remains that regardless of any director’s intention the problem remains with the audience. The audience is, in most situations, oblivious to certain cultural issues and for that reason the meaning of the film could be lost or misinterpreted. So how do we overcome this, and that being said, is that even possible?

During the film, I could not help but to watch how the costuming replicated the mood of Helen. In the beginning when she is nude, it represents the idea of Helen as a fairy. Then she is in very motherly outfit: an apron and dress, as she attends to her child and duties around the home. But once she must become the seductress, her outfits reflect this too. A hat carefully covering one eye to show that she is hiding a part of herself, the large coat to display her previous successes. All of these play into the role she is playing. When she brings her costume home, it is the sign that she has shifted away from mothering and into supporting her family as a man would. The glamor of the costume brings about a feelings that the world she is in is too small for her to be a part of. When Helen eventually turns her son over to her father, she is again in motherly clothing. These clothes are tattered, covered in patched, and simply awful to see a woman in. This is symbolic of her mothering technique. Its gone downhill. She can no longer care and provide for her child like she thought she once could. In Paris, her singing outfit is a suit. No longer in dresses and frills, Helen herself has turn cold and is supporting only herself, much like a man who would wear such a power suit. She has abandoned her roles of  motherhood.  Her return home, she is at the door in a luxurious coat. But she sheds it when she tells Johnny the loves story. Here again she is wearing a simple dress, completing her journey and ending it again as a mother.