In her documentary film about cultural criticism, bell hooks offers up analyses of (then-)current trends in entertainment in a way that is both thoughtful and easy to understand. One thing she argues is that "there is a direct link between representations and choices we make." This link proves how crucial it is that we, as consumers of media, understand what the deliberate choices of, say, filmmakers mean and how they impact the way we behave toward others.
To analyze film, hooks wants us to understand the "conscious manipulations" of filmmakers, for example, choosing that thieves and villains be portrayed by black men. To be critical viewers (or "enlightened witnesses, as it were), we must understand not only what is being shown on screen, but why, who has written it, for whose consumption, and what the end goals of the entertainment are. She also warns against viewing transgressive tastes as radical or progressive ones, a connection I had not yet considered.
I think the most compelling tactic hooks outlined for us to be enlightened witnesses is to acknowledge that everyone who makes (or authorizes and promotes) films is making strategic choices. By acknowledging that, we can begin to critique both those choices and their impacts. Relating this to queer cinema, I am excited to discuss the application of concepts like the gaze and the deliberate choices of filmmakers. I am also interested in the political issues and contexts explored (or parodied) by queer cinema and the social repercussions of queer films.
I agree with the idea that this film will open a discussion of the intentions of film makers. Hooks put a lot of importance on this subject and I think it is crucial part of building representations. The gaze is a topic i discussed in a previous class and i feel that without looking into what the producers of media were thinking about, there is no way to define or even talk about the gaze. The discussion of the conscious manipulations are a fantastic way to get into the mind of the producers, as well as give us a more intellectual analysis of what we ourselves are thinking about while watching these movies.
While recognizing the examples hooks uses in her analysis and the film itself are dated, I believe it is important to recognize that many of the tropes she is challenging are still present in today's media and popular culture. I'm not sure that we, as a larger society that produces and consumes popular culture, have reached a place where racist, misogynist, classist and heterosexist stereotypes do not still run rampant in media representations. Reading your full response I don't believe that you are stating anything has drastically changed, I'm just questioning the use of the "(then-)" when describing trends in film and music.
I believe something else that can be stated is that the "gaze", and use of lighting in film, can offer different meanings depending on who produced media and why. Using lighting as an example, lighting is used as a marker of race but it is also used for the purposes of making a subject unknowable and mysterious. During the OJ Simpson trial, Time Magazine used a picture of Simpson on their cover that was digitally enhanced to make him appear darker skinned. How could this use of lighting differ when used on a body that one may recognize as white? As queer?