A particularly interesting idea that stuck out to me in Judith Mayne’s “Lesbian Looks” article was the representation of Dorothy Arzner and how she has been visually represented as a filmmaker. On page 164, it says, “With the possible exception of Maya Deren, Arzner is more frequently represented visually than any other woman director central to contemporary feminist discussions of film. And unlike Deren, who appeared extensively in her own films, Arzner does not have the reputation of being a particularly self-promoting visible, or out (in several senses of the term) woman director.” Further, Mayne says “..she is shown with other women, usually actresses, most of whom are emphatically ‘feminine,’ creating a striking contrast indeed.”

She goes on to discuss Arzner on the cover of the British Film Institute collection. She is shown sitting directorially next to a camera and another man, and they are both looking on to two young women who are being filmed. I thought this was a very interesting idea, because visually, the photograph is implying the notion that as a woman, Arzner is in the male position in terms of the male gaze. Since she is more “masculine” than what is considered “normal” for a woman, she is displayed as more of a male figure than a female figure. Even further, as she is the one shooting, this determines her position of power over these women. The article continues, “Arzner’s look has quite another function, however, one that has received very little critical attention, and that is to decenter the man’s look and eroticize the exchange of looks between the two women.”

I found this point very interesting because this “decentering” of the male gaze very seldom happens; furthermore, the fact that it is done by a homosexual woman almost challenges the power that the man has. It’s interesting to analyze this example that Mayne uses in the article because for once, it is not an image that has been “constructed” and purposefully positioned, as films so often are. It is simply a photograph of a live action, which makes it even more intriguing. This article was difficult to comprehend at times, but this section was a particularly useful take on the representation of homosexual–and more specifically, lesbian– discourse in Hollywood narratives.

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/10/76620/renee-zellweger-responds-new-look

This past week, Renée Zellweger stepped out at the Elle magazine Women in Hollywood Awards on Monday evening and, I’ll admit, looked surprisingly different. But, thankfully, there wasn’t much coverage on the event and everyone moved on with their lives in a quiet manner. HA, just kidding.  Every news source and possible form of social media has been blowing up ever since regarding this supposed plastic surgery transformation. Of course, without fail the brilliant media channels of the world (E News, People, Celebuzz, Hollywoodlife, TMZ, etc) are leading the field day over this “controversy” and have been flooding the Internet with headlines like “Renee Zellweger is Unrecognizable, ” “Oh my God, What happened to Renee Zellweger?”  “Doctors Decode Renee Zellweger’s New Face” and my personal favorite, “Why Renee Zellweger’s Face Matters.”  I have news for you: it doesn’t.

This entire dramatic media-led episode encapsulates entirely what’s wrong with Hollywood and society’s fixation on the female image in general. Why should it matter whether this woman underwent a physical procedure to alter her looks? Isn’t that sort of the point…that it is her looks? How this affects anyone besides Zellweger is above me, but that’s not even what is most frustrating. For me,  what I found most disappointing from all of these responses is that they went as far as criticizing the actress for making any decision regarding her body. Who are we to determine how anyone is supposed to look or present themselves, especially in a way that best suits our tastes?

One especially stupid article wrote this:

“Zellweger exploded onto the scene the same year that Love redid herself for Hollywood after getting raves for The People Versus Larry Flynt. Zellweger was a cuddlier version of the oddball ingenue. When she smiled, her entire face curled up like a kitten. As an actress, her whole mythology was that the awkward girl could get the guy: Tom Cruise, Hugh Grant. That wasn’t the subtext of Jerry Maguire and Bridget Jones’ Diary—it was the plot. She was excellent in those roles, but people rarely talked about her talent. Especially during the two Bridget Jones films, Zellweger could suffer through an entire interview where she was only asked about her weight.

Fans didn’t love Zellweger for her beauty, though she was in her own way very, very beautiful. (Just picture her perfect, shocked pout when Cruise kisses her breasts on the porch.) Fans loved her because her appeal transcended beauty—she was aspirational in a way that didn’t require a knife.

Except, it turns out that she did. Or rather, that she somehow became convinced of it. ”

What’s wrong with this article (besides everything) is that it is trying to formulate its argument in a feminist way, but it so tragically contradicts itself as it goes on. I get the purpose of the bit that Zellweger was only interviewed about her weight with Jerry Maguire, because that’s so blatantly absurd and insulting we don’t even need to get into it. But when it transitions to saying “fans loved her because her appeal transcended beauty,” it’s basically just saying Zellweger didn’t need to fit our definitions of what beauty is because she had other qualities that redeemed herself. But, don’t worry–“She was, in her own way, very, very beautiful.” I love that it had to clarify she could potentially be considered beautiful, just in her own way. (Technically, aren’t we all beautiful in our own way? Marilyn Monroe was beautiful in her own way. Marion Cotillard is beautiful in her own way. Melissa McCarthy is beautiful in her own way. Because they are all different people– hence the different faces.) The article is essentially saying, Renée– you we liked you on the inside and sometimes even on the outside too, so what happened?  Uh…. what? Even further, it harps on the disappointment that she finally succumbed to going under the knife because “she somehow became convinced of it.” How does the writer of this article have any idea what she was or was not convinced of? It’s disappointing that people are calling their interpretations of this event (which shouldn’t even be deemed an event in the first place) at all feminist because the very act of dissecting a woman’s choice regarding her own body is the antithesis of feminism. The link I posted above is Zellweger’s response to all of this criticism, and it’s just sad to me that something like this elicits a response at all. Okay– that’s enough of my rant. Going now!

https://blog.sweetyhigh.com/girl-power/emma-watsons-heforshe

Yesterday I was having a normal, relatively casual conversation with one of my friends and the topic of Emma Watson’s trending U.N feminist speech came up. I commented that I hadn’t seen it but very much intended on doing so because it was so relevant to my Women in Film class. My friend, who is female, immediately said “Oh, I’m not a feminist so I don’t really care about stuff like that.” I (easy-goingly) tried explaining to her that feminism is simply the idea of gender equality in every aspect of life, and that unless she believed women (or any gender) were actually lesser than men in value, she was a feminist. Though she nodded along and pretended like she understood, I could tell by the dulled look in her eyes and urgent change of topic afterwards that I hadn’t made much of an impact. (Sorry guys– I tried!!)

But then something interesting happened — later that day I was online and came across a picture of Harry Styles holding up a sign with the hashtag “#HEforSHE,” which has now become the trending response to Emma Watson’s feminist speech. This friend is an avid and somewhat obsessed Harry Styles lover (aren’t we all), so I snapped a picture of it and sent it to her with the message: “So Harry Styles is a feminist…does that change anything for you?” Within 5 seconds she responded back a very enthusiastic and all-caps “YES.” She then proceeded to research feminism out of curiosity and found that it was much simpler than she’d thought.

I posted said picture of Mr. Styles above so if you haven’t seen it yet and want to take a gander, I don’t blame you. (I’ve glanced at it once or twice and definitely did not hate it). But my point is this— since we were talking about if feminism can be impactful for men at the end of class on Wednesday, I think this is a powerful example of how men can actually influence women to embrace feminism. It is widely assumed that the women are the ones trying to convert others, particularly men, to “join the cause,” if you can even phrase it that way. I guess the thought process behind this is, if men can be unabashed feminists and educate others on what it actually means to be feminist (and/or postfeminist, but I won’t get into that whole thing now), they clearly have just as much to do with feminism as anybody. If all it takes a hot picture of Harry Styles to spread feminist awareness to young girls (and apparently even college girls) who don’t yet understand feminism, I’ll take it.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/10/02/sinead-oconnor-miley-cyrus-open-letter/

Letter from Sinead O’Connor to Miley Cyrus over the Wrecking Ball video controversy (for those who didn’t read)

“The New Yorker: Against Nature – Elisabeth Badinter’s Contrarian Feminism” by Jane Kramer

• Elisabeth Badinter polled France’s “most influential intellectual” in 2011

o   Believes that young women are “falling victim to sociobiological fictions that reduce them to the status of female mammals, programmed to the ‘higher claims’ of womb and breast.”

o   Wrote 5 bestsellers on feminism

o   1^st: “Lamour en Plus” : a history of the changing notions of mother love

o   Dismisses the myth of maternal instinct as a somewhat “cultural construct”

o   Latest book: “Le Conflit: La Femme et la Mère”

• Analysis of what she sees as a “spreading cult of ‘motherhood fundamentalism’ in the West
• Denounces the model of motherhood : “that primitive idea that nature is God” – “I have a horror of that naturalistic ideology”
• Questions just what we mean when we say “maternal instincts”
• Feminist guide to her readers
  • Sees a conspiracy against women’s freedom, fuelled by economically uncertain times and religion
  • Calls it “an identity crisis perhaps unprecedented in human history”
• Badinter rarely mentions her mother, who worked for “Elle” magazine – says the relationship between mothers and daughters is “complicated”

o   Had a very special/profound relationship with her father

o   Suspects that most strong women have fathers like hers

o   Married a man 14 years older, had 3 children in 3 ½ years because “he was older and he wanted it”

• Always had an au pair for her children—couldn’t have completed her exams without one

• Criticism of today’s mothers:

o   Rejects the notion that a child needs “only” its mother

o   Women are falling victim of a movement that is a modern, moral worship of all things natural

• Ex: Won’t use epidurals because they want to “feel” what it is to be a woman
• Idea that if you’re not suffering, you have failed the experience of maternity

• Badinter: You should decide for yourself what’s “right” as a mother
• Kramer asks her: How can equality happen if we will make no exceptions for inequality?

o   Badinter answers: “There are no exact solutions. Women still bear the burdens of private life—home, children, family, and also of work, of public life—and without the equality of private life we will never have the same liberty as men.”

• Questions:

o   The male characters in “The Help” had particularly minor roles, with the exception of Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain)’s husband, Johnny – do you think this was necessary in order to focus on the relationships between the women and establish a sense of female dominance, or could the same effect have been achieved had there been more of a male presence? (Did the female-female dynamic accomplish something that a male-female dynamic couldn’t have?)

o   Badinter rejects the notion that children “only” need their mothers; even though many characters in the film had strained mother-daughter relationships, they still emphasized the role of the maid in raising the children (and still maintained the mother-like figure). So, by her standards, is “The Help” Badinter-approved? Does it display that children don’t really depend on their mothers, or does it show that they need some sort of motherly figure to raise them, even if it is not their biological mother?

For those interested (or weirded out,  either one) by the feminist sex scene discussion and my contribution in class, here is the link to the list I was talking about on Friday:

http://www.alternet.org/steamiest-pro-woman-sex-scenes

Going over this list now, I actually noticed something that I hadn’t caught before– in the first paragraph, there is another link that goes to a controversial quote from Shailene Woodley about feminism. Apparently when Woodley was asked if she was a feminist, as all of her major roles have been strong and independent young female characters, she stated:”No, because I love men, I think the idea of ‘raise women to power, take the men away from the power’ is never going to work out because you need balance … And also I think that if men went down and women rose to power, that wouldn’t work either. We have to have a fine balance. My biggest thing is really sisterhood more than feminism. I don’t know how we as women expect men to respect us because we don’t even seem to respect each other.”

I’m glad I was able to catch this, because this kind of thinking is so clearly pertinent to what we’re trying to analyze and study in class this semester. The fact that the basic definition and meaning of feminism is still a gray area for people (particularly female actresses who so actively need to be thinking about how they are portrayed on screen) is a troubling issue. Also, the way celebrities and Hollywood is so idolized in Western culture gives even more weight to what actors/actresses are saying in the media; if skewed or flat-out incorrect interpretations of feminism are being dolled out by one female actress after another, this only gives feminist awareness an even tougher job of being properly represented in the world of film.

Back to the feminist sex scene though, the 2 that stuck out most to me were “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” and “Love and Basketball.” I’ve seen both films and each one has a very different sexual dynamic. In the first, Rooney Mara overtly dominates Daniel Craig (not to say he isn’t willing), but in terms of the equal relationship and role dynamic we were discussing, I’m not sure if this scene would qualify. “Love and Basketball” would probably be more accepted on an equality level, but there is still a male-dominated presence that the camera gives us. The male character is much more experienced than the female character, so he’s the one taking charge and enlightening her, so to speak. It’s unfortunate to admit, but I can’t say if I’ve ever seen a truly feminist love scene. The very fact that I couldn’t think of one when the topic was first brought up in class says enough. Who knows though, hopefully I’ll be enlightened as the semester goes on. After all, I’m still just a young tadpole in this sea of feminist film knowledge! I can only hope to one day sprout into a beautiful feminist frog.

I apologize if I misled anyone by my title, but unfortunately I am not posting to talk solely about that Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt movie, “What Women Want” (even though it is pretty great). I included it as my title because A, I thought it was a good pun and some nice alliteration and B, this is the question I found myself asking over and over again while watching Blonde Venus. At first I believed that Helen was the happiest at home as a housewife and loving mother to Johnny; however, even then I found her relationship with Ned to be formal and almost stiff, as if there was some underlying tension not being fully addressed in the marriage. I don’t doubt that she loves Ned, but it seems to be more of a mothering love than a romantic love. She cares for him deeply and this is the reason she returns to the stage, but I didn’t note any true desperation and heartbreak in the fact that her husband and supposed “true love” was near his death bed. To me, she returned to the stage out of simple necessity, but also slightly out of boredom and and a yearning to fill a void. After all, in Germany where she had been free and full of life, she was doing the thing that brightened her most: performing. Thus, she goes back to “work.” (Is it really work for her, though?) Anyway, here’s where things start to get gray for me, because even when Helen becomes a major theater star and all the world is at her feet, I don’t get the sense that she is truly happy. I believe she is attracted to Nick and finds him endearing, but there is equally a wall being put up between the two. I think Helen recognizes the type of man Nick is; he is primarily interested in her physical appearance and the mind that comes behind her beautiful face is just extra. She knows this. She is fully aware of Nick’s motives and lack of genuine care. This is why their relationship falls through when Helen is truly in need of support; Nick disappears for months, maybe even years (it was never really made clear), and it’s hardly even addressed.

I’m going to skip over the tumultuous mess that happens in the wake of Helen’s stardom (not because it’s not important, but because I don’t even know what to make of it yet). Finally, after a very depressing downward spiral (where I’m positive she’s not at all happy), Helen finds herself back in the arms of Nick and discarding the idea of being a mother to Johnny. Again– why? Doesn’t she love Johnny? Is it just a façade? To me, most likely. After all, she wouldn’t have gone through the exhausting trouble of hiding Johnny from the authorities and Ned if she didn’t love him the most. But still– she eventually returns to Ned and Johnny and slowly slips back into the mothering role (perhaps to both of them). Helen now has all she wanted: she is back in her own home with her loving husband and adorable little boy. In fact, one might even say she has returned to square one. But, the question remains: IS SHE HAPPY? She has been through the most emotionally exhausting journey imaginable. Now, at the end of all things when she’s back in the arms of her loved ones, shouldn’t she be ecstatic, overjoyed, and simply relieved? You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Honestly, I just don’t know anymore, because even as Helen settles into her home and returns to the role she always wanted, I felt the same underlying dissatisfaction that I felt from the first scene, even after all that’s happened. Therefore, I can’t tell if this film was subversive, slightly subversive, subversive at times, purposefully non-subversive, or plain and simply not at all subversive. I don’t know. I think writing this post has made me even more confused, so I hope I can be enlightened by you all come 12:45 on Monday. My question remains: What does Helen want?