thought id make this my last blog post! very inspirational! it obviously deals heavily with feminism in the media

http://mic.com/articles/105102/the-39-most-iconic-feminist-moments-of-2014?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

also, ‘bed feminist’ made the list!!

I appreciated Judith Mayne’s point in her article when she said that portrayals of gay or lesbian personas in film usually find a way to fall back into the heteronormative formula. One of my favorite quotes was when she said, “The evidence of lesbianism notwithstanding, feminist critics would speak, rather, through a heterosexual master code, where any and all combinations of ‘masculinity,’ from the male gaze to Arzner’s clothing, and ‘femininity,’ from conventional objectification of the female body to the female objects of Arzner’s gaze, result in a narrative and visual structure indistinguishable from the dominant Hollywood model.”

The article references Dorothy Arzner as one of the few women directors who was successful in Hollywood, particularly during the studio years, and still managed to make films that disturbed the conventions of Hollywood narrative. However, none of the feminist critics who analyze Arzner’s work have discussed her lesbianism or her lesbian persona. No one acknowledges that sexual preference might have something to do with how her films function, particularly concerning the “discourse of the woman” and female communities, or that the contours of female authorship in her films might be defined in lesbian terms.

The article questions why feminist film theorists are so drawn to the “dykey” image, yet so reluctant to utter the word, “lesbian.” Mayne suggests that these theorists want the films to stand on their own, and to not have the maker represent the text, or the part represent the whole.

-“There is a striking division between the spectacular lesbian uses to which single, isolated images may be applied and the narratives of classical Hollywood films, which seam to deaden any such possibilities.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAUNFQ6TTI

Interesting video released in amsterdam

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/13/bill-cosby-raped-me-why-did-it-take-30-years-for-people-to-believe-my-story/?tid=sm_fb

The above article ties in with our discussion about whose voices get swept under the rug in stories regarding sexual assault, battery, and rape. The only difference in Barbara’s story is that she was a white woman raped by a black man. However, the catch is that Cosby is an extremely successful, powerful, African American comedian. He has been able to suppress the voices of his female victims for many years. Goes to show the many factors that tie into these cases – such as race, social class, age, etc

Not sure how the newspaper edited my piece, but this is my rough article on Vachon’s visit! Thought I’d post it:

Tuesday night in Oechsle met with acclaimed American film producer Christine Vachon. Vachon did not enter the room with a planned lecture on Producing 101. Although her success in the area is obvious – Vachon has produced acclaimed films such as “Boys Don’t Cry” and “One Hour Photo,” and has been running her successful company, Killer Films, for nearly two decades – she had no interest in showing off. She was in no way making a presentation on the what, when, why and how of her career path. Professor Andy Smith gave a quick run-down of her accomplishments at the beginning of the talk, and then the rest was up to the audience to dictate what topics Vachon would confront.

Vachon was everything you’d expect in a successful producer – quick and to the point. She did not answer a single question the way she thought it would like to be answered, but rather with the most honest answer she could give. When she spoke in my class the following morning, a student asked if she ever gets overly-invested in a project to the point where it is affecting how successfully she completes the project. Answer: “No.” As the classroom waited for an elaborate, heartfelt story on a particular film that stole Vachon’s heart, she quickly brought us back down to earth with a firm, “No. I do not get invested.” A passionate story about her love for a certain project would have been nice, yes, but it’s simply not the job description of a successful producer. She makes sure the film is done and done right.

A film producer’s job is to oversee all aspects of the creation and production of a film, beginning with the story that is trying to be told. The producer must take a chance on the filmmaker and believe that their vision has the potential to be expressed in an accurate and captivating way. Vachon is known for producing low-budget, cutting edge films that feature emerging performers and directors.

“Low-budget filmmaking is like childbirth. You have to suppress the horror or you’ll never do it again,” Vacchon said. While modestly underplaying the glamour and fame of being a well-known film producer, Vachon’s passion for what she does was something that was shown, not told. The more she talked about her work on a certain film, the clearer it became how seriously she takes her work and how rewarding it is for her to see a filmmaker’s vision play out.

For aspiring students looking to break into the industry, Vachon’s talk was discouraging in some ways and encouraging in others. Vachon had no idea what she wanted to do upon graduating college, and came from a university that was in no way the typical “film school.” She started working as a Production Assistant and worked her way up. Although it was encouraging to hear of someone who comes from a similar background as Lafayette students, it made it all the more clear how there is no “one way” to break in.

When she came to my class Wednesday morning, she touched on the concept of graduate film schools. Although these schools seem like the logical choice for aspiring film students, they are actually a subject Vachon was surprisingly unsure about. “It’s hard to teach about an industry that is constantly changing. These programs are incredibly expensive and I’m not entirely sure where they get you,” she said.

Vachon’s knowledge and expertise is rooted in one thing: experience, experience, experience. There are no formal degree programs in film production. The key is to learn about filmmaking as early as possible, and jump in. She answered the majority of people’s questions with a detailed story about a past project, not with a sentence that started with: “The number one thing I learned in film school was…” Finding her career in film was not a direct path, but more of an awkward stumble. Although Vachon’s talk was not a lecture in “How to Become a Film Producer,” there was not a single question she could not answer about the art of producing.

In her article Mohanty analyzes what is next for feminists at the beginning of the twenty-first century. She argues that the rise of religious fundamentalisms with their deeply masculinist and often racist rhetoric poses a huge challenge for feminist struggles around the world. This shed light on The World Before Her for me, because the Hindu fundamentalists are so eager to make sure their culture remains free from further westernization.

In the film, the fundamentalists’ main sources of anger are the beauty pageants in India. The contestants in the beauty pageant, such as Ruhi, have less traditional takes on the practices of Hinduism. On the other hand, Prachi, the leader of the camp that trains “proper Hindu women,” is a Hindu nationalist concerned with upholding the deeply rooted values of her culture. Initially, the film made it seem like these two, opposing sides were polar opposites striving for separate things.

However, in analyzing the film from a feminist standpoint, the two sides begin to blur together. Both groups of women face oppression from different sources. In the film, Prachi talks about her father’s mistreatment of her. At one point he chuckles at the memory of burning his daughter’s foot with a flaming iron…? He emphasizes her “duty” to marry and have children, while Prachi is more concerned with working full time for the Hindu movement. Prachi’s story is ironic because although she teaches young girls to be proper Hindu women, she herself is violating the norms of traditional, “Mother India” in refusing to marry and have children.

The contestants in the beauty pageant view the pageant as a means to escape this oppressive society highlighted by Prachi’s situation. However, the film did a great job of capturing how as these women leave one oppressive society, they quickly enter another. They find freedom from the strict boundaries of life as a traditional, Hindu women, and enter into an Americanized society that values consumerism and capitalism. This is ironic seeing as Mohanty believes that the theory, critique, and activism around anti-global capitalism has to be a key focus for feminists. At one point the members of the ‘Miss India’ pageant find themselves in a photo shoot where they place white sheets over their heads and upper bodies (so as to only emphasize and show off their legs). It is interesting to notice how the people who dictate these photoshoots (the photographers, etc) are all men. One woman questioned whether the loss of her dignity is worth it in achieving her dream.

Prachi and Ruhi represent two, paradoxical types of Indian women. For example, although Prachi claims to uphold the values of traditional Hindu life for women, she herself represents the hard-working, independent, non-traditional Hindu women. As Ruhi claims to strive for independence and freedom from the bounds of Hindu society, she finds herself under the objectification and degrading nature of American society in regards to women’s value. I think Mohanty is trying to suggest in her article that women should not bear the brunt of mistreatment in oppressive societies, but should also not buy into the brainwashing nature of capitalism either. The answer is a new, unrestrained feminism that can cross these boundaries.

Watching Daughter Rite, I definitely recognized the theme of violation. At first the two daughters emphasized the mother’s violation of privacy and how she would read their diaries, etc. It was clear that the mother had serious issues. This became all the more clear during the one daughter’s description of her rape. She was obviously violated by a man in one of the worst and traumatic ways a girl can be violated. Her violation was clear when she described how she felt the need to cover herself up and swaddle herself in her bedspread. What was debatably equally worse was how her mother reacted to the rape.  She tried to ignore the fact that the incident happened all together.

While watching, I was thinking how much this, too, was a violation. In ignoring her daughter’s pain and trauma, the mother is consequently complicit in the situation. In standing by and not doing anything about the rape, I felt that the mother as well was a participant in this violation. If a mother does not stand up for her daughter, especially in the face of serious danger, she is in a sense condoning the violating behavior against her daughter.

In the film we watched last class, that touched on the filming of intimate love scenes, it was really great seeing so many interviews featuring female, film experts. I was very intrigued by their input on many of the topics that have been coming up in class. I also think the article “Avant Gardes in Europe and the USA” ties into the film because it discusses the tactics of  feminist filmmaking and where it is headed. Filmmakers Sally Potter and Lea Pool talked about similar things – mainly how the majority of desire comes from the imagination (making it difficult to depict on screen). If the filmmaker has an idea of what he or she wants his characters to be thinking/feeling in an intimate scene, that doesn’t necessarily mean that viewers will infer this information. Kaplan’s article discusses how it’s important to present new images of women that belie those that the commercial cinema constructs out of its patriarchal position.

“This often involves trying to represent relationships that are not constructed by the dominant order,” says Kaplan. My favorite part of the film was an interview with one of the female filmmakers whose name I can’t remember (in my eyes she resembled Susan Sarandon, if that helps). She talks about how feminists have been enraged by the objectification of women in the history of filmmaking. However, she says: “I’ve never had a problem with this. I think it’s natural, while being intimate, to view the other as an object of desire. I have a problem with the obvious fear of filming male genitals that has always been present.” The problem lies in the fact that males have not been depicted as objects of desire – which they obviously are seeing as half of the people on this earth are attracted to men…

This was the argument in the film that struck me the most because I completely agree with it. There has always been a huge stigma against shooting male genitals, while the erotic areas of a women’s body have always been cut up and exploited. Equalizing this double standard could be a great stride in feminist filmmaking. It is the shooting of men that also needs work.

I really appreciated this article because for once it put the focus not on what women can change and do differently, but what America’s society today can change in regards to the way we view mothers in the professional world. Slaughter is a successful working woman and mother who points out that the idea of women being able to have a satisfying amount of time with their children in addition to a high-powered career is unrealistic (particularly trying to do both at the same time). However, Slaughter emphasizes that this is not something the mothers are doing wrong, but is rather a problem within the professional world and how it views female parents.

One of my favorite moments in the article was when Slaughter said: “Whenever I am introduced at a lecture or other speaking engagement, I insist that the person introducing me mention that I have two sons. It seems odd to me to list degrees, awards, positions, and interests and not include the dimension of my life that is the most important to me – and takes an enormous amount of my time.” Slaughter commented on how genuinely sad it is that working women feel the need to suppress their maternal circumstances while on the job, and act like their situation has no effect on them whatsoever while at work. This is a problem in our working society.

I agree with Slaughter in the sense that the “family” discussion needs to be worked into the mix more during professional conversation. She brought up a female principal who continued to reference her children and end meetings early to get back to her family. Although many thought the principal was demeaning herself and making her co-workers see her in a less-serious light, it was in fact a deliberate choice. Her point was that reasonable compromises can start to be made for working mothers if the professional atmosphere becomes slightly more welcoming and understanding on the topic.

Women who want to be mothers these days are faced with three choices: either choose between the career and motherhood, become a mother while settling for a less demanding job, or try to juggle an extremely high-maitenance position with caring for your children. Slaughter points out that none of these options, at least for women who desire to be mothers, are very appealing. The fourth option could benefit everyone: changing the values of society today and creating a society that puts professional and personal choices on the same level.