A lot of the content in this article have been issues surrounding our film analyses throughout the semester. Such as subversive text and lesbian eroticism in film narrative. Briefly we have touched upon that one scene from Morocco where Marlene Dietrich kissed a woman while dressed in masculine attire. It seems that now that this is being brought up again, we as a class, have a better understanding of the importance to these lesbian narratives in film. In a way, our course material is coming full circle. Not only do we recognize that women are represented in film, but we also understand the triumph and tribulation of getting women to be represented in film (and also behind the camera).

This brings me to my next point about the issues surrounding Dorothy Arzner as a prominent film director of the 30s/40s era. Not only is she a female director, but also she identifies as a lesbian. By the way, both identities are problematic for this time period. It seems at times during this article that the criticisms of Arzner’s films were only significant because of her sexual identification.

It seems that maybe Arzner’s work was being obsessed only because she was a female with a full mannish appearance. At a time like this, such an appearance deviates from what is normal. Sequentially, her films fell under much more scrutiny because of her sexual identity and clothing choice.  I wonder if others also felt that while reading this article there was much attention brought to the fact that she wore what is traditionally masculine attire.

Something very apparent in the film, The World Before Her is the use of strategic devices to overcome oppression. Women in India, who are faced with constant gender oppression seek to transcend that treatment. In this film specifically, there are two strategic devices that are outlined. One, utilized by women entering beauty pageants, is using their beauty to gain fame, power, money, and thus independence. In terms of the oppression in their given environment, this device seems helpful in the fact, they channel some sort of agency by opposing ideals that want to keep women covered, hidden, domestic, and subservient to men.  On the other hand there are other women that return to the very basis of their religion, and seek independence by immersing themselves into the progress of their religion. Although both tactics in this film give the women involved some type of agency, there seems that no matter what they do both parties agree that marriage is inevitable.

It is interesting to consider that there are a multitude of strategies to overcome oppression, but according to a specific cultural context and mindset those tactics are very different. Both sides can argue that the other are problematic, in the sense, both reinforce oppression in some way. I think this film asks us a good question, that being: What is oppression? How do we fight it? How can combating oppression be problematic in certain cultural contexts?

I think the cartoon that I inserted below could be helpful in understanding cultural relevancy, in terms of gender oppression.

From what I gathered from the article, Fleeing from Documentary Michelle Cintron, uses the genre of autobiographical film to tell a fictional story that might as well be a true one. She talks about how not only was the film inspired by some true events of her life, but also portrays some events that are perpetuated by the culture that they lived in.

Something that really resonated in me was the choice to use actors in what would be considered to be an autobiographical documentary film. I was especially interested in this because I was curious as to who was holding the camera the entire time throughout the film. Since I am not familiar with this form of filmmaking,  I assumed normal conventions of a documentary film would be implemented. That being  that a documentary is told through the eyes (or the camera) of the person that wants to tell a story. And seeing the subjects of the film on the camera but also expecting them to behind the camera troubled me. But also, I can’t say that I am familiar with the conventions of an autobiographical film, and so I was confused by the use of actors in this film.

Although the Cintron expressed that using actors in this film were to protect the dignity of people who’s stories were being told, I believe there could also be other readings of this choice. My own interpretation of this decision of the filmmaker is to portray the ideas being spoken of these women not only of the filmmaker but also to a larger audience that can identify with some of the culturally relevant idea of the time period. Allowing actors to take on the role, could be problematic in the sense that it takes the autobiography out of the film, and makes the story seem more contrived. But at the same time, allowing actors to take on the voice of the filmmakers story gives the audience a blank palette to identify with, or allows the audience decide if the story speaks for more than these actors, since they know that the actual women speaking these stories aren’t the ones that experience it.

Filming Desire, provided substantial insight on the practices of filming sexual encounters. I found the content of the film to be very interesting and relative to some of the discussions that we have had about constructing that (seemingly unattainable) feminist sex scene.

Before I elaborate on that, I found the introduction sequence and and title cards to be a very distinct part of the film. I thought that it was a very bold choice on the part of the filmmaker to use naked human bodies  to provide transitions to the topics of the film. I thought that, as much as the naked bodies were relative to the topic being discussed in the film, I felt that this creative choice neither added or subtracted anything to the overall message of the film. And, in all, the film could have been just as effective without those topic headings. I found myself shaking my head each time I saw a naked man clapping at the camera or text written above a pair of hard nipples. I’m interested in hearing what other people thought about this choice to include those scenes with the bodies.

In regards to the content of the film, I found that a common trend amongst some of the filmmakers being interviewed was this idea that sex is more than just the physical act, and the troubles of using a visual medium to portray these scenes. One filmmaker made a point of saying that sexual sensations are something that are within, but the camera is not. That being said, it seems almost contradictory to use solely a visual medium to portray an act that is compiled of so many more levels.  A few filmmakers noted that they used voiceover to communicate some of the thoughts going through the minds of female characters to display that they are more than just their physical attributes.

Does it seem like voiceover is this the only way that we can have anything close to a feminist sex scene? Since voiceover allows us to understand what is happening underneath the physical aspect of the sex scene, it seems appropriate that it adds complexity to female (and in some cases, male) characters. But in a way, using voiceover can take away from the visual representation. Even if there is voiceover will problems with visually portraying the male or female body still arise? In fact, is it fair to say that voiceover can compensate for any misrepresentation of those images?

Where Should the Birds Fly was a powerful documentary, not only in the sense that it captured some of the emotional repercussions of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but also in the way that it demonstrated and acknowledged the power of film-making.

There was one line that really caught my attention. In the narration, director Fida Qishta says, “My camera is my only weapon…I feel safe behind my camera…it will capture the bullet that will kill me.” This statement portrays the power of capturing moving images, and the way that documentary film can be a powerful tool to show real experiences. A statement, like above, really captured the position of the filmmaker in this particular instance. In the midst of a political/social conflict, an average citizen (and woman) given menial tools was able to effectively tell a story. But while she told that story, she realized her responsibility, being that she had the means to document the conflict and its effects. Both these aspects of the film come together to make an influential and emotional film, which holds a lot of power to make a difference.

Something that is often overlooked in a feminism, or in our own feminist analysis, is looking at the way that masculinity is constructed and reinforced. Feminism tends to have a certain type of connotation that it only deals with women’s issues. But something important to note is that we wouldn’t have a “woman” category with something that is opposing it–or something that, in some cases, even negates it. In this case that is what the “man” category does. People tend to associate Feminism with putting the woman as the “other” or the “victim” and this reinforces that males/masculinity is the superior group. But it’s worth noting that this isn’t always the case, and the film Boys Don’t Cry supports this claim by demonstrating what a tight construct of masculinity exists for men.

Constantly throughout the film we see ways in which Teena achieves her masculinity. This is by the way she dresses, her haircut, getting in a bar fight, or simply driving a car really fast. These are ways that she has interpreted through her upbringing as ways to identify as male. Her struggle to identify as a man confirms the notion that constructs of masculinity is just as hard to achieve as constructed norms of femininity. There were even times in the film where Brandon was ostracized for not being what a typically masculine male would be.

Something else worth exploring is the rape scene between John, Tom and Teena Brandon. This scene is carefully placed right after Teena’s sex is revealed. It stands almost as a way for John and Tom to reclaim their masculinity by exhibiting their power over Teena Brandon. I speculate that there is also a battle for territory for John, since he is aware that Lana and Teena have been seeing one another.

In fact, it can be argued that rape is not so much about sex as it is about power, force, or ownership. In the films that we have seen in class, rape always occurs after very powerful moments for characters in films. For example, in Foxy Brown, Foxy is raped after she exhibits her independence. Teena Brandon is raped, not only it is discovered he is having an affair with a woman that John loves, but John is also challenged by the fact that Teena Brandon is a woman who is charming the woman he loves. In his flight to regain the woman he loves, he exhibits his power over Teena Brandon by raping her, ultimately to possess what he believes rightfully belongs to him.

In response to the video we watched on Friday’s class, I think that  it is interesting that this woman from the video is so concerned with the notion that a privileged white woman had to speak for the black women, but can she not understand that although this might be offensive/oppressive, it makes a statement about the oppression that black women faced at the given period of time this film was set in. And yes, the other types of violence in the film were also underrepresented But can she not understand that this is a film and that for the length that it was there wasn’t much time to explore all types of racial oppression. The screenplay was obviously written in such a way to tell ONE story, not all of them. (I’m not saying that those other stories/issues are not important, but I think it’s ridiculous that she would expect one movie to capture every instance of violent racial oppression)

I can see how certain stereotypes came into play in this film. But she doesn’t understand that this is a film based on historical figures/events. The screenwriter and director had to embrace the fact that maybe certain things that we consider offensive stereotypes now, were normal things to be talked about at that given point in time. I think it would be ridiculous to expect that something like that would be completely overlooked when trying to write a historically accurate screenplay. (I’m not trying to reinforce those stereotypes, but I’m noting that those things are hard to avoid when diving into another period of time.)

Also, I think it is important to understand that because feminism has become such a loaded term, I don’t think it is fair to just have a feminist reading of a film. There needs to a set definition of how the analysis will be produced. Are we looking at gender? Are we looking at race? What are the socioeconomic condititons at the time of this film in which the content is based? And how that be applied to the way we will critique the film now?

So it is not fair to just look at a film based on one type of “feminism” but rather look at the film with an appreciation for the fluidity of the term feminism, not only now, but also how it has changed over time. (For example, Did black feminism exist at the time this film was based? If not, why would it be assumed that such principals would be included in that film?)

The reason that I bring up the multitude of definitions of feminism is because this video made me think back to the first day of class when we went around the room and shared our own definition of feminism. An experience like that shows how that word can be defined differently. And those different definitions can also shape the way that we apply those principals to film analysis. Although it might be hard to come to one solid definition of feminism, I think that when you approach a film from a feminist analysis it is important to consider how this term can be defined so differently in the analysis you create.

From The Help, a scene that really stuck out to me was the scene in which Skeeter and Charlotte, are positioned in front of the mirror in Charlotte’s room. This scene, one of the first encounters that we are introduced their relationship as mother and daughter. We see that Charlotte is pressuring Skeeter to try on clothes, jewelry, hairstyles that aren’t really her style, in hopes that she would wear such clothes on a date with a man. There are a few seconds where the camera is showing us the reflection of both Charlotte and Skeeter looking into the mirror where Charlotte is standing behind Skeeter. The use of the reflected image of the mirror suggests that what we see of Skeeter and her mother is symbolic of the way that Charlotte wants her daughter to reflect herself. Additionally, because Charlotte is standing behind Skeeter, she wants to exert some sort of dominance over her, as she peers down at her in the mirrored image but also as her body frames Skeeter’s body.

This is supported by Williams argument in Something Else Besides a Mother where she states,

“Clearly, the paralleled closeness and similarity of mother to daughter sets up a situation of significant mirroring that is most apparent in these films. One effect of this mirroring is that although the mother gains a kind of vicarious superiority by association with a superior daughter, she inevitably begins to feel inadequate to so superior a being and thus, in the end, to feel inferior. Embroiled in a relationship that is so close, mother and daughter nevertheless seem destines to lose one another through this very closeness” (479).

I  took this claim quite literally and applied it to The Help by singling out a scene that uses a mirror. Since Williams is speaking about the way that mothers seek to cultivate daughters to become their respectable mothers, the mirror is a cinematic way of suggesting a reflection without expressing it explicitly in dialogue. Throughout the film, we see Charlotte attempting to remain a superior figure in Skeeter’s life, although Skeeter exemplifies just as much superiority from going to college.  The scene that I mentioned is especially important in establishing the way the mother tries to keep her superiority before she inevitably accepts her inferiority later in the film.

Something that I found to be very interesting about the film Klute is that framing becomes a very important element to the film. Not only do we see framing in the way that the camera focuses on the subject but also photo frames, window frames, and framed mirrors are repeated elements throughout the film.  So within the camera’s frame (what is contained on the screen) we also see people contained in the various frames in the setting in the film.

According to Janey Place, mirrors and the framed portrait of the woman become very important elements to the film noir genre. Before reading Women in film noir I already had a hunch that those items were crucial to understanding the film because they were almost always present in Klute. Not only in the sense that Janey Placey talks about, but the use of of fences, wires, and even the cage elevator all contribute to the idea of the “framed” or “contained” woman.  She specifically states, “The framed portrait of a woman is a common motif in film noir. Sometimes it is contrasted with the living woman…” She mentions that within the frame a woman is, “under-control, static, powerless” Then she concludes that “The lesson is obvious: only in a controlled, impotent powerless form, powerless to move or act, is the sexual woman no threat to the film noir man.” I think that Place’s point can be taken further and be applied to the use of any type of object to frame the subject. This is something we see with Bree almost entirely throughout the film. However, we never see her in a framed photograph on the wall like we do with the first woman within the first ten minutes of the film. I think that this speaks a lot about what these women stand for in terms of how they control their sexuality.

Something also interesting is the way that we see men’s photographs framed in the film. I mentioned Mrs. Gruneman’s portrait earlier, but during the scene when we see Mr. Gruneman and Mrs. Gruneman’s portraits on the wall we see a man’s framed portrait. In this scene we see that Mrs. Gruneman’s framed portrait is entirely displayed on the wall, whereas Mr. Gruneman’s framed portrait is cut off by the way the camera frames this scene. This might suggest that Mr. Gruneman’s sexuality isn’t contained like Mrs. Gruneman’s sexuality is. (That is, if we are referring to portrait framing in Klute to the containment  of the danger of a sexual being).

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?