Mulvey's Article and The Piano
One of the questions I had after reading Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" was from her quote, "There is no way in which we can produce an alternative out of the blue, but we can begin to make a break by examining patriarchy with the tools in provides" (Mulvey 35). After reading Lorde's "Age, Race, Sex and Class" where she mentions that one cannot dismantle the master's house using the master's tools, and I was slightly confused as to why Mulvey would say this.
By using the tools that patriarchy gives will not help us further our means. To fully break ourselves away from the oppression that is patriarchy, we must use our own tools and develop our own way of thinking. We have continued to create theory and understand more about how this oppression functions, but we have yet to fully create our own tools to dismantle it.
Some may disagree and say that we need to work within patriarchy to further our means and when we get more objectives accomplished, then we can break away. This is also problematic because one may wonder, " Where does this start and end?" How can we know when we are supposed to break away? Or are we supposed to use only our resources now and try to completely get rid of the patriarchy system? Should we try to change it first?
Patriarchy is within our system of government, and we, as feminists, need to be able to infiltrate the system to create change. Protesting can only do so much. I hope to be able to affect the system from within. Conciousness raising is a huge aspect of change as well. But now I am opening a whole new can of worms.
Back to my original question. This is only a small piece of Mulvey's article, but it stuck with me the most. I believe that to create change, one must be able to utilize their own tools and thinking or they will not get very far. Therefore, with that in mind, does that mean that psychoanalysis is irrelevant to film studies because it is formulated from patriarchy? Of course not. Psychoanlysis gives us a new way to look at the ordinary and think about new ideas.
Mulvey, for example, focuses on the male "gaze," which is very prominent in hollywood films. However, I agree with Diano Saco's "The Piano and 'the Female Gaze' " more so than with Mulvey. Saco brings up the notion that there are films which there is a female "gaze" that objectifies men. "The Piano" is a perfect example of this objectification.
Watching The Piano was a very uncomfortable experience for me. I thought that they way Ada was portrayed was well done, however her character made me so upset. I couldn't understand why she didn't do anything to help herself or her daughter. However, there were parts of the movie that were striking. Depending on the scene and how she was feeling, Ada's hair was worn differently. It rained when her husband died, when she had her wedding picture taken, and when her husband finds Ada sneaking over to Baines' house. The whole movie made me feel depressed and sad. Lighting only seemed to be apparent when it was on the piano or on Ada. The only thought that came to mind directly afterwards was:
"i'm learning to laugh as hard
as i can listen
'cause silence
is violence
in women and poor people
if more people were screaming then i could relax"
- Ani DiFranco -
- My I.Q. - Puddle Dive -