COURSE BLOG for GWSS 3307: Feminist Film/Media Studies (Fall 2007)

This blog is a course blog for GWSS 3307: Feminist Film/Media Studies, in the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department at the University of Minnesota, Fall 2007.

The course has ended.

Please feel free to browse the site, and remember blogs happen in reverse chronology, so if you want to start at the beginning, click HERE and scroll to the bottom, or browse the links on the right-hand sidebar.

If you'd like to start at the beginning of this page (which is the end of our course), you will be reading/viewing summaries of our final papers and media projects like this collage project:

Read on and enjoy!

Posted by Rae at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

For my final project my partner and I created a large collage piece examining how the media uses products and the demand for products to make women’s bodies marketable for the benefit of capitalist patriarchy. We looked at how all of this is connected to normativity, fragmentation of the body, the issue of agency, performativity of gender, objectification, and use of a male gaze. We used theory about the implications of these forms of representation to argue that the media creates and reifies normative femininity as a product we unconsciously internalize and consume.

In order to do this, we tried to arrange the images in a certain way that created a progression through the piece. In the beginning, there are fragments of a woman's body arranged in a grotesque manner to create a "full" body. For us, this was representative of the ways the media attempts to reduce women's bodies to fragments before they try to piece it back together in a "proper" way. In conjunction with this beginning are the images of women's heads that go along the bottom. We were exploring ways the media relies on decapitation to silence women. The next section explored images that indicate the ways the media (specificially advertising) tries to sell women products in order to make them fulfill the requirements of normative femininity. The message is literally that femininity can be bought. The following section looked at images of women's bodies being objectified and sexualized in order to sell products. Only the bodies that have consumed the proper femininity are included in these images, because they are the only bodies that are visible. The final section explored what it means for a woman to become a literal product. In the images she is being held, consumed, gazed upon. The body is an object that is no longer connected to the individual.

In conclusion, we attempted to explore the possibility of creating a new space for feminism that exists outside of the realm of capitalist patriarchy in order to create a feminist form that supports the feminist content. This idea was in part inspired by Foucault’s discussion of hetertopic spaces. My paper discussed in detail what the piece was attempting to convey and presented the theoretical support.

This project proved to be a challenge and definitely changed throughout the process. We had to scale down many of our ideas due to budgetary and time constraints. At first this seemed unfortunate, but looking back, I think those constraints helped us to focus on the core message that was important to us at the time, and kept us form getting lost in extraneous elements.

The sources from my paper are listed below:

1. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Great Britain: Routledge, 1990.
2. Currie, Dawn. Girl Talk: Adolescent Magazines and Their Readers. Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 1999.
3. Doniger, Wendy, and Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. Off With Her Head: The Denial of Women’s Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1995.
4. Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces, Heterotopias.� Architecture/Mouvement/Continuité. Oct. 1984.
5. hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1984.
6. Kaplan, E. Ann. “Is the Gaze Male?� Feminism and Film. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2000.
7. Wykes, Maggie, and Barrie Gunter. The Media and Body Image. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2005.

Some Pictures:

Posted by R.S. at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“I had to leave the house of fashion,
Go forth naked from its doors
Because women should be allies
And not competitors.
I had to leave the house of television
To start noticing the clouds
Its amazing the stuff you see
When you finally shed that shroud.�
-ani difranco

In my final paper/project I argue that in a media culture that perpetuates representations of the female body that reduce it to an exchangeable commodity, the female cannot find self-actualization or experience self-love.

Germaine Greer States:

-. “The media, which makes news as well as carry it, are the real sources of power in our pseudo-democracies
-“A woman’s body is the battlefield where she fights for liberation. It is through her body that oppression works, reifying her, sexualizing her, victimizing her, disabling her. Her physicality is a medium for others to work on�

I argue that the female body in advertising media is exploited in three ways:

1. She (the female body) participates in the perpetuation of self-hate to sell products for female consumption.

“As a way of inducing them (women) to buy products of no use or value, women have been deliberately infected with BDD (Body Dysmorphic Disorder).
Multi-million dollar industries exploit both her need for reassurance and her need to do something about the way she looks� (Greer 25).

2. Using the erotized female body to sell objects, sell commodities.The act of eroticizing the body is an act of silencing. It reduces the woman from “seer� to “seen.�

3. The media fully claims and oppresses the female form by transforming it literally into the sellable object. . This is a crafted representation, a ploy to dismantle female liberation under the guise of sexual freedom.

"If equality means entitlement to an equal share of the profits of economic tyranny, it is irreconcilable with liberation. Freedom in an unfree world is merely license to exploit."( Greer13).

Women must acknowledge that the institutions governing the media under which we function do not want our self-actualization, do not want our independence, these attributes take away from their control of our bodies. Take back the power, take back control, take back your body.

Posted by Alissa McCourt at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I wrote a paper exploring the philosophy of behind the construction Boys Don't Cry – with regards to representation versus simulation. Baurdillard's theories of simulation destroying the representational subject came screaming to my mind after we watched the movie in class, and I wanted to use this paper as a chance to connect some of my thoughts.

A brief selection:

"Although the film tries to serve as a historical account, much of Boys Don’t Cry is actually pure fabrication. First and foremost, the leap from actual persons to scripted characters necessarily results in a series liberties being taken. Even if the person in question is totally compliant in being analyzed and recreated on film, the simple premise of an actor representing a subject automatically creates a gap between the “truth� and the “medium,� inevitably producing an imperfect duplication. Even the most iconic “method� actors who meticulously assemble their most memorable performances (for example, Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda or Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote in Capote) openly admit the impossibility of living up to the real thing. This gap is littered throughout Boys Don’t Cry; how accurate can the many private dialogues between John Lotter and Tom Nissen (the rapists/murderers who did not contribute to the film) and Brandon Teena (the victim who died long before preproduction began) actually be?"

"In the case of Boys Don’t Cry, the subject of Brandon Teena is realized by the medium of actress Hilary Swank. In her article “Branding Teena,� however, essayist Annabelle Willox illuminates some shortcomings of a representation that relies solely on a reconstructed subject. The filmic character of “Brandon� is based upon interviews from those who knew Brandon Teena but not Brandon himself, and without that authenticity as a frame of reference, his life, passions, and quest become “simplified and described in uncomplicated and unquestioned terms� (Willox 408). In this sense, Willox demerits the efforts of both Swank and Pierce, labeling Boys Don’t Cry as a film that only “attempts to show the complexity of the main character� but never actually succeeds (408). She also denounces the efforts of critics and audiences to fully understand the complexity of Brandon Teena through the film alone; they will “almost inevitably fail� (408)."

My quote from Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation:

"Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference…that constituted the charm of abstraction. Because it is difference that constitutes the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real. […] This imaginary of representation…disappears in the simulation whose operation is nuclear and genetic. […] It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real… (Baudrillard 2)"

And my references:

• Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
• Dannenbaum, Jed, Carroll Hodge, Doe Mayer. Creative Filmmaking From the Inside Out. Fireside, 2003.
• Imdb.com. 11 December 2007. .
• Mitchell, W.J.T.. “Representation.� Critical Terms for Literary Study. Ed. Frank Lentricchia, Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. 11-22.
• Wikipedia.org. 11 December 2007. .
• Willox, Annabelle. “Branding Teena: (Mis)Representations in the Media.� Sexualities. Vol. 6. California: SAGE Publications, 2003. 407-425.

Posted by Christopher Kehoe at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

On the perspective of women in the fashion world, designer Donna Karan once said, “Today, fashion is really about sensuality—how a woman feels on the inside. In the '80s women used suits with exaggerated shoulders and waists to make a strong impression. Women are now more comfortable with themselves and their bodies—they no longer feel the need to hide behind their clothes.� What Karan states is a true point concerning the fashion world today. Is it about women being more comfortable with their bodies, or are they rather simply being exploited?

For my final paper, I focused on three different fashion brands that implement various types of sexualizing + objectifying tactics in their advertising with women. For each brand I selected one advertisement to represent these tactics. From this advertisement I analyzed Brand History, Representation (Of the Model), Gender (Of the Model), Race (Of the Model), Gaze, Visual Elements, and Intended Product output.

The three brands I selected were Dolce & Gabbana, Calvin Klein and Sisley.

A common misconception about fashion advertising is that they are only selling products. But rather, they are selling and portraying a lifestyle that they want their brand to be associated with. If you buy into their brand, you are participating in lifestyle that fits into a certain gender, race, class and so forth. Being a huge fan and follower of the fashion industry, I am very aware of the different representations for each brand. Given this inherent understanding, I found it easy to dissect each advertisement and relate it to this brand representation. I took these constructed lifestyles and used that to shape my critiques of the ads.

The results were that there is a common, underlying misuse of female bodies in fashion advertising. I found varying degrees of objectification and sexualization of females in these ads. Some, like the Dolce & Gabbana advertisement, were blatantly putting the female on a platter for pure objectification purposes. On the other hand, there are others, like the Calvin Klein advertisement, which displayed objectification and sexualization in a more subtle manner. It doesn't have to show a woman in a direct sexual situation in order for it to be considered misuse of the female body. There are many other actors that play into this determination, like the positioning, visual techniques of the ad, camera angle (gaze) and so forth.

Citations:

"Calvin Klein: Corporate." Calvin Klein. Phillips-Van Heusen. 2007 .

"Dolce & Gabbana: Coporate." Dolce & Gabbana. Dolce & Gabbana. 2007 .

Kaplan, E. Ann. “Introduction.� Feminism and Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Lindner, Katharina. "Images of Women in General Interest and Fashion Magazine Advertisements from 1955 to 2002." Sex Roles 51 (2004): 409-421.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.� Feminism and Film (2000): 37-38

"Overview: Who We Are." United Colors of Benneton. 24 Oct 2007. Benneton Group. 12 Dec 2007 .

Posted by Mr. Hilton at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I decided to write my paper on the idea that many filmmakers seek “real� stories to make their films about. I based the paper on the film Boys Don’t Cry, directed by Kimberly Peirce and distributed by Fox Searchlight in 1999. I analyzed the way Peirce used a construction of reality within Boys Don’t Cry in order to produce a representation of Brandon Teena’s true story. By analyzing Kimberly Peirce’s film Boys Don’t Cry as a constructed reality, I showed the relationship between real stories and the cinematic representations of them.

In analyzing the accuracy and process of cinematic representations of true stories, I considered a few important factors that I thought effected the Peirce’s construction of reality. One is Peirce’s auteurship in the production of film, and how this might effect the representation of the truth. Another is the context of the film, which is useful in determining how the circumstances the film was made in might have also effected its production. Also, the use of cinematography within the film’s construction of a true story can show how the depictions of the true story are helped or hindered by the cinematic affects. The use and understanding of the viewer’s spectatorship can additionally help establish how Perice might have changed her representation of the truth according the audience. Lastly, the (mis)representation of the subjects in the film, and the effects these representations have on an audience (especially when it is understood that the film is representational of a real story).

Bibliography:

Althusser, Louis. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.� Notes Toward an Investigation (1969).

Dannenbaum, Jed, Carroll Hodge, and Doe Mayer. Creative Filmmaking from the Inside
Out: Keys to the Art of Making Inspired Movies and Television. New York City,
New York: Fireside, 2003.

Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Wang, Zheng. Plot Summary of Boys Don’t Cry. 2007. IMDb. 6 Dec. 2007
.

Willox, Annabelle. Branding Teen: (Mis)Representations in the Media. Cardiff, UK: Sage
Publications, 2003.

Posted by Timac at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My partner and I created a documentary-ish short film which strives to prove that feminist studies are still needed today. We had discussions, played games, debated, and enlightened two high school English classes. We wanted to record attitudes towards feminism coming from the youth of America. Also, we talked to several teachers, parents, a coach and a barista – all with intriguing responses to our questions.

We attempted to highlight all of the misconceptions that exist regarding the women’s movement, feminist theory, and gender equality. Throughout our film you can witness an abundance of misinformed responses regarding these issues. Some of the students thought a feminist was someone who dressed girly, another thought it meant she looked like a boy, she hates men, she’s an attention-seeker, and on and on and on. To be fair, there were of course several high school students who had a more legitimate grasp on feminism and recognized its role in gender equality. We also found that the students had extensive knowledge about actresses, models, and other celebrities, but couldn't name Roe v. Wade, female politicians, when women got the right to vote, and other questions regarding women in power and women's rights. It was blatantly obvious that our culture values and emphasizes a certain type of woman over the other.

In addition to footage of our interviewees in action, we have also included statistics, media images, and audio to enhance our arguments. For example, clips from The Devil Wears Prada and She's the Man were included. Also, statistics regarding the U of M's presidents and coaches (overwhelmingly male!) were highlighted. To further prove the necessity of women's studies, we talked about how only 12 of the Fortune 500 company CEOs are women. Title IX was also discussed and the regrettable state of women's sports. At Park High School, the women's softball team faced extensive neglect and had to file a Federal complaint to get an acceptable field.

I believe we captured and created several moments that stress the importance of still studying women and gender today. It was an incredibly challenging project which required hours of filming, editing, and re-editing – but it was an awesome first experience with film making.

Posted by Luna Lovegood at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I also wrote under Prompt #4. I tried to tie in the idea of “emotional reality,� which I think is very important, sort of the idea that you can have an emotional reaction that makes the cause seem real, even if it may not be. An example would be in Boys Don’t Cry, when Pierce keeps cutting down the rape scene, because the emotional reaction of the audience was more necessary than the fact that the scene was supposed to be longer. Also, in Watermelon Woman, how Fae was not a reality at all, but still helped Cheryl find herself as a woman and as a filmmaker. I consider these aspects of media just as important as to the factual evidence. Well… I suppose it depends on how truthful the media-maker is claiming to be. So I used this outlook, plus the idea of authorship, ethics, the gaze, spectatorship, and filmic construction to look at the differences between narrative films ‘based on true stories’, mockumentaries, documentaries, and reality TV. I think I should have started a lot earlier.

Posted by Magyar at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I wrote the final paper on feminist praxis in media.

Thesis: In this paper, I intend to explore the ways in which stereotypical representations can be challenged through feminist praxis activities and to discuss some areas where feminist praxis may be useful to challenge stereotypical representations.

My basic argument is that forms of media with feminist theory as an influence are more socially progressive and less stereotypical than other forms of media. For this reason, I determined that feminist praxis should be part of media studies. My paper focused on the concept of voice and especially on the concept of representation. I used The Watermelon Woman and NO!: The Rape Documentary as examples of 'positive' representations. These specific films construct identity in a new and interesting way, and their subject matter is very feminist. Additionally, the independent spirit of these productions, and Simmons' creation of a female production team are also feminist in nature.

I contrasted these representations with the representations presented in surgical reality TV shows. While this is an odd choice to make, given the obvious differences between the mediums, I thought it was a useful one. Many of the surgical reality TV episodes center on conception of self and how surgery will help make people "complete." Additionally, this is a different way of presenting reality in comparison to documentaries, or mockumentaries that seek to illuminate a social truth. I thought that feminist praxis could be useful in these kinds of shows, to highlight the racial and gender bias that drives many people to have cosmetic operations -- and to present a more honest, holistic picture of the recovery process.

My last example was FIRE (Feminist International Radio Endeavor. I thought it was interesting to use this form of media, because it is online and thus very widely available in Western contexts. Additionally, I thought that it was telling that a source dedicated to expressing the voices of Third World women, who are so often bearing the brunt of world conflict, features these women in such a disembodied form. So while it is certainly a problematic representation, I thought that FIRE was a really interesting counter-production in comparison to "ordinary news."

My conclusion was that given the differences in representation between feminist praxis projects and projects with no interest in feminism, we can hardly afford to not have feminist praxis in media.

Sources
From A to Z: A Conversation on Women's Filmmaking. Pat Aufderheide and Debra Zimmerman

A Black Feminist Statement by the Combahee River Collective

The War Against Black Women, and the Making of No! by Aishah Simmons

Feminist media coverage of women in war: 'You are our eyes and ears to the world' by Margaret Thompson, Maria Suarez Toro, and Katerina Anfossi Gomez (Gender & Development journal)

Television and the Domestication of Cosmetic Surgery by Sue Tait (Feminist Media Studies journal)

Posted by Heather Larson at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I wrote my final paper on the three works of Baz Luhrmann: Strictly Ballroom, Romeo and Juliet, and Moulin Rouge, otherwise known as the Red Curtain Trilogy. I analyzed how the three films place female characters into stereotypical roles, such as the lover or the prostitute, follow the female bodies with a male gaze, especially in scantily clad dance scenes, and objectify the women for male gain. I also compared the three films to each other artistically, watching the patterns in filmic choices, including dramatic use of text, color, and frames of time. I really enjoy Baz Luhrmann's bold theatrical style, and it was very interesting to analyze him in through a feminist lens.

Posted by Katherine Schmieg at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my final paper I focused on the differences between real stories and media representations. I argue that the relationship between the viewer and the filmmaker is one of trust in which the viewer trusts that they are being given a true story and the filmmaker trusts that the viewer understands that the film is based on a true story. Therefore in my understanding of films inspired by life, it is the viewer’s responsibility to take that phrase to heart and see that the filmmaker may have employed artistic license in order to create a more coherent film. Therefore, an interested audience member should invest time into researching the events that the film was based on if they are really want to help bring light to the cause. The filmmakers main goal is to see that the issues that the true story represents and the struggle that person underwent are acknowledged by the general public. However, they are creating an artistic film at the same time and artistic license cannot be taken away. So, it is in the viewer’s hands to embrace the subject they are presented and look into the true events that inspired the filmmaker. I based my arguments on Kimberly Pierce's Boys Don't Cry and Lourdes Portillo's Senorita Extraviada. I also made small connections to films not screen in class also based on true stories such as North Country by Niki Caro, Erin Brockovich by Steven Soderbergh, and Iron Jawed Angels by Katja von Garnier.

Works Cited
Enríquez, Alejandro. “Lourdes Portillo’s Senorita Extraviada: The Poetics and Politics of
Femicide.� Studies in Latin American Popular Culture. 123-136.
Walker, Janet and Diane Waldman. “Introduction.� Feminism and Documentary.
University of Minnesota, 1999.
Willox, Annabelle. “Branding Teena: (Mis)Representations in the Media.� Sexualities.
2003. 407-425.

Posted by Katie at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I discussed the questions posed in Essay #4 for my final paper. I chose to focus on the interpretation levels by both filmmakers and theorists and the audiences that are viewing the text. I reviewed the process of representation and what the advantages and disadvantages of a real story vs. a cinematic representation are. I find that within cinematic representations, we as an audience cannot directly connect what issues and ideas are being conveyed without knowing the motives of the author of the work. This leaves many issues and topics to the audience discretion through interpretation. We must know enough about ourselves to choose what is being represented correctly and what is just propaganda within a story. And finally, nothing is ever as real as the real thing; cinematically, theoretically, or otherwise.

Posted by Nicole Berg at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For this project, my partner and I were trying to prove whether or not it is still important to have feminist studies. To prove this we went to a high school and talked with two eleventh grade English classes. We had the students engage in a wide variety of activities including: choosing which person was a feminist based on physical appearance when shown two pictures, react to a clip from “I Was a Teenage Feminist�, and asked them questions about women in popular culture and current news. We also went around to different teachers asking them their thoughts on feminism.

Initially, we believed that the students would be very uninformed about issues outside the walls of high school. However, after talking with the students we learned that we had undermined their intelligence. The students were aware of the inequalities that exist but they were also very uninformed about women that have been or are in power. For example, some did not know the current secretary of state, speaker of the house, or when women got the right to vote. They did know characters from Grey’s Anatomy and Friends, who played Michelle Tanner on Full House, at least one of the Victoria’s Secret models, and at least three of the names of the Spice Girls. Therefore, this shows that it is necessary for feminist studies.

We used a clip from “She’s the Man� to show the inequalities that many females go through with sports even though the federal government requires that the genders are treated equally. This shows that when money or demand is down, female sports or extra-curricular activities are the first to go. Also, it shows that many men today, still believe that women are not as physically strong as men. The clip from “The Devil Wears Prada� shows our culture still values the strong, ambitious male over the strong, ambitious female. Many students agreed that men can get away with sleeping around and being successful, but if a woman were to sleep around or be in a position of extreme power, she would be labeled a slut or bitch. Through this we can see that women who conform to the gender roles are valued over those women who are ambitious, strong, intelligent and successful.

It took us a little over two weeks to put this project together. We taped most of the footage in one day while we were at the high school. The majority of time was spent editing and discussing the message that we wanted to convey. I have made other videos before, but I found this one less stressful than the others for some reason I am unsure about. It was a great experience though, and shifted my view on high school students.

Posted by Tapex002 at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I also wrote on writing prompt #4. My writing was informed by the idea that all texts (films included) are a (re)presentation or (re)telling of a story (whether fictional or real). All films and media can do is reconstruct the real world on film, and we as viewers are responsible to judge the degree to which it is an authentic (re)presentation. I tried to explore the question of: do films and media need to be "real stories" to reveal truths or realities? I used the films The Watermelon Woman, Boys Don't Cry, and Live Nude Girls UNITE! as well as the television genres of news and reality television to illustrate different ways reality can be constructed on screen. I found that directors/producers/writers have a lot of power as intermediaries between real stories and any cinematic representation. (If one were to draw a picture it might look like this: REAL WORLD–>writers/directors/producers->MEDIA) In retrospect, I wish I had realized how ambitious this paper was and started it much earlier.

Posted by Eben Kowler at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My paper focused upon the relationship between the film's of Alfred Hitchcock and feminist theory. Both Laura Mulvey in her article Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema as well as Kaja Silverman in her chapter Suture use the films of Hitchcock as their primary source of example to exmaine issues of symbolic patriarchy and subjectivity. The film's in which I focused on were Psycho, for its brutal treatment of the viewer in its repositionment of subject relationships, Vertigo, for its sadistic handling of the its female character, and Rear Window for its treatment of voyeurism. I also explore the issue of sexual representations, specifically in how it relates to the Hays Code in its limitation of sexual content and the ways in which this leads to fetishization within the cinema.

Posted by Robin Youngman at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My final paper was on a discussion of what is "reality". I talked about how films can be labeled "real" while they have completely excluded major occurrences. For example in "Boys Don't Cry" another murder was excluded from the film. I also discussed how most "real" films focus on people outside the social "norm" (white, upper-class, heterosexual males)

Posted by Amanda Amundson at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I chose to do my paper on prompt number one and really go into why women need to be studied. I chose to take a look at popular culture and discuss what so many people are missing when they watch the most seen shows on television and in cinema. I discussed the ideas of Bell Hooks, Laura Mulvey and ideas from other sources. I also discussed what people were missing and what they were buying into when they watched what popular television had to offer. Take the show, "Grey's Anatomy" this show has many stereotypes in it that ignore the ideas of feminisim. They display the many boxes that women are put intio such as, dumb and pretty, smart and ugly....They go on and on. The point is that this show puts out all of these ideas and is watched by many Americans regulary. These people may not know who the great feminist theorists are and what ideas they have to offer. Therfore they are being fed this garbage about what women should be. Until everyone is at least informed on these topics, there will be no change in how women are seen. This is why I felt women need to be studied.
I also looked into how these ideas connect to race, sexuality and gender ideals. I studied shows like "Real World" and "Will and Grace" reruns. In each one I found most of the same ideas. None of these groups of people had any place in television or in Hollywood that didn't include certian stereotypes or ideals of what and how we should act and think. Some of these people, especially when it came to race were kept invisable all together, giving them no voice at all. What is the public taking away from this, other than the fact that being a homosexual is shameful and funny, and people of color should not be seen. Looking at this, obviously there is still a need for feminist studies!!!

Posted by sketch at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My topic dealt with Ridley Scott’s films he’s directed focusing on minorities in the films Alien, G.I. Jane and American Gangster. Throughout his work there are patterns of traditional and modern roles for how women and people of color are portrayed. The male gaze is seen in all three of these movies, and it focuses on the female body being objectified by the viewer or another male character...

Scott also uses the camera and lighting to really emphasize the femininity or masculinity of each role. For example Demi Moore is shot with softer light and has more of a glow to her face with bubbles everywhere in the bathtub scene with her boyfriend, but when she is in the middle of combat the camera quickens and uses harsh lighting to emphasize her masculinity and battle wounds. Scott’s work also has the stereotypical female roles in his films, which is seen in American Gangster, and the lead female role is beautiful, feminine and passive. Again, in G.I. Jane the lead female role is really perceived as an outcast, who is masculine and aggressive, two characteristics that really go against the traditional characteristics of female roles.

You can also see patterns throughout Scott’s films dealing with the minority race. Many people have small, insignificant roles, or their role has been negatively portrayed by focusing on their lower social class and their involvement in sex, drugs or violence.

SOURCES
Cyber Diver News Network. "Navy SEALs Seek Racial Mix." CDNN. 19 Aug 2002. 8 Dec. 2007
.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (2007) "Consumer Behavior Meets the Nouvelle Femme: Feminist
Consumption at the Movies." Advances in Consumer Research 20:1. 41-47. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 8 Dec. 2007 .

Hooks, Bell. "Artistic Integrity: Race and Accountability.� Reel to Real. Routledge Pubg Inc.,
1996. 69-76.

Mulvey, Laura. (2000) "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Screen 16: 34-47.
Saco, Diana. “Feminist Film Criticism: The Piano and ‘the Female Gaze.� 1994. Document
created 30 Apr 1997.

Torry, Robert.(1994) “Awakening to the other: Feminism and the ego-ideal Alien.� Women’s
Studies. 23:4. 343-363. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 8 Dec. 2007 .

Posted by Cassie Setter at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My final paper explored the question: In film is it still relevant to study women? politics? gender? I felt it was still necessary because in feminist theory and feminist film theory we are just begin gin to recognize that nation, religion, and politics play a part in a women’s life and in the stories she is trying to tell. For example in Water, the director told the story of the widows in the context of their nation and religion, instead of trying to mold it into something that fit western ideas of feminism. This is important as many, many women see themselves as more than women, but see themselves as women of a particular country or religion. Because I feel this 'west knows best' idea still stretches into feminist theory, there is still a lot of ground to be covered as women all over the world express their unique standpoint or viewpoint through film.
I would also like to mention how interesting I found the presentation on Pink Films to be. I'm a big fan of Quentin Tarantino's films and it was great to see an other genre of film that he bases his work on. Its also great to know where some of the critisims come about his films. So thank you!

Posted by Ashley Day at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my final project, I focused on the pre-approved question number four; real and cinematic representations in media. The films I chose to use for my paper are in Monster, directed by Patty Jenkins and Aishah Simmons’ NO!. I wrote about how both types of films are very different, but also similar. The directors are both directing a film that they are obviously passionate about, but one of the differences is the approach the directors choose to deliver their performances. One is an example of a more “traditional� documentary and the other is more of a “Hollywood� film and how each type of film has its advantages and disadvantages and what kind of audience is exposed to each.

Posted by Kristen Kramer at 1:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my final paper i chose to look at four films directed by Quentin Tarantino. i analyzed Jackie Brown, Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2, and Death Proof.

i looked at the different ways he uses strong female characters, specifically as lead characters, and the ways in which he uses sex to sell the idea of a strong woman to his audience. the progression of more and more sexiness through each film was surprising and interesting to me. Jackie Brown was the least sexual of the four films, and by death proof he had his female leads in nothing but underwear at times. in my paper i argued that as far as hollywood films go, tarantino is as close to feminist as we are going to get, and that he has figured out that sex does sell. so if you want to make a statement it's gotta be sexy.

Posted by Emily Dolentz at 12:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my final paper I discussed the representation of women in the cinematic adaptations of Frank Miller’s comic series Sin City and 300. Obviously, blatant stereotypes about women run rampant through Miller’s fictionalized worlds, but I was more interested in the ways in which these films expressed ideas of performative gender and the female gaze.

I studied gender as a performance in Sin City, noting in particular how Miller creates female characters as not just objects, but totems of feminine ideals: The Martyr [Wendy], The Angel [Nancy] and The Whore [Gail] (Note the conspicuous lack of motherhood, or the ideas of parenting at all). In the reviews and articles I read, many people defended Miller against the “feminist backlash� by claiming that the women had power in their own right. But when I really broke it down, the female characters used their power to stay in the sexualized realms they were already in. The prostitutes had guns to defend their rights to be prostitutes. Wendy uses her sexuality to gain a protector. These women perform as a certain type of woman in order to conform to the male narrator’s ideas of what is worth protecting/fighting for/etc.

In 300, I was most interested in the idea of the female gaze. Women went to this movie specifically to see Gerard Butler’s bulging pectoral muscles, or to see men running around in leather speedos sticking phallic objects into each other. But the characters in the movie followed this pattern as well. The very first scene is a male baby being examined to see if he is healthy or strong enough to be considered ‘good enough’ to live. I could go on and on, but the point is that by showing such an extremely polarized version of masculine vs. feminine, what Miller really did was create men as objects to be gazed upon.

A couple sources for this paper were Kaplan’s Is The Gaze Male? and Mulve’s Visual Pleasure in the Narrative Cinema, as well as various interviews and reviews of Miller’s two films.

Posted by Jessica Vaughan at 10:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My paper revolved around women, gender, and politics in the media. I had multiple articles about women,gender, and the media. There are still many parts that need to be changed and studied. For example, the career that has grown so much for women is being a journalist, but even though there are more women in journalism, men still get the "better" stories. Men usually get the promotions, and men get the stories that are more challenging. Women in the journalism career have said to feel that they have to work harder to prove that they are capable of writing the challenging stories and it is a lot harder for them to be promoted. Another reason why we should still study the women, gender, and the politics in media is because media is such a powerful tool in this world today. Using media to help the study of women, gender , and the politics if the best way to reach people the quickest, to make a difference without physically being there. Some examples I used for what has changed since the study of women, gender, and politics is that more women are becoming CEO's, we not only have a man of color running for president but we have a woman running for president. Women have been the background workers for years now, and men would get the credit for it. Already, the media has changed so much. A woman is actually allowed to run for president. It is worth continuing on with the study and the analysis of women, gender, and politics because it is making a difference.

Posted by Padao Vang at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my paper I am writing about how Classic Disney (Cinderella, Snow White, Hercules, etc.) influences children into certain normative gender stereotypes. The normative gender roles reinforce Mulvey's gaze, and the patriarchal heteronormative society.

Posted by Ashley Pritchard at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my final project I choose to explore the film Northern Country that was directed by Niki Caro in 2005. For anyone who hasn't seen this film I feel like it is a very powerful and moving story, especially for women. The cast in this film are all very well known and do a great job in my opinion as far as reenacting what occurred back in 1989. I choose this film for the topic of my analysis because not only is it based on a true story but I wanted to examine how genders and classes of people are represented as a whole. I also thought it would be a good film to analysis how men are portrayed in male based jobs and what types of messages the film industry is selling to audiences. So I did this analysis by first watching the movie a few times, and taking notes on what was actually occurring and why. Then I told the story throughout my paper and used feminist theory to explain what I thought was really occurring. This was difficult because as a female I felt sympathy for the women experiencing the heart ships in this film. I felt like the film was made in good taste overall and was feminist media in a sense because it represented women coming together and using the union in their favor. Throughout my paper I used examples of how men were portrayed and how the women responded back to them. I also looked at how the characters had agency and what gave them their power. It was very interesting to look at how the gaze(s) were used in this film. So in my conclusion I feel like film and media can be feminist if done correctly. And without stories like these we may not have laws that protect us from sexual harassment in the work place today. Here’s a clip of North Country with some interviews so you can get a little taste of what I feel like feminist film is and about. Enjoy!

Posted by Jessica Haddrill at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I decided to analyze how women were and still are portrayed on album covers. I believe that this is an issue that is very relevant to feminist film/media studies because it exposes women through a certain type of media. I believe that for the majority of album covers that do include a woman or women on the cover, they are portrayed as some type of object, usually sexual.

The female stereotypes that we are exposed to everyday have become part of our culture. It has become something that doesn’t even shock us any longer because we are so immune to viewing these images and portrayals. When it comes to the portrayal of women in the media, studies have shown that women are portrayed stereotypically across all media types and more likely to appear as sex objects and less likely to be shown as professionals or in positions of power (Foust & Bradshaw). An example of a study includes Alison Poe’s 1976 examination of magazine advertisements showing women in sports noted that the portrayal of women was based on the following beliefs: “a) the woman’s place is in the home; b) women do not make important decisions or do important things; c) women are dependent on men and are isolated from their own sex; d) men regard women as sex objects; they are not interested in women as people� (Foust & Bradshaw). Beginning in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the second wave of feminism was launched, with liberal feminism bringing issues of women's equality into public and academic communication. The second wave of feminism saw women as an oppressed group who needed to stand up and escape the oppression for their own interests. Out of the second wave, the concept of patriarchy was developed. Women felt as though patriarchy was the central structural standard of society at the time. Women’s disadvantages also were credited by stereotypical images that were held by men and internalized by women through families, schools, and the mass media (Leahy). One major area of liberal feminist research is mass media images of women. Since the early 1970’s, liberal feminist research in mass communication has examined how women are portrayed through gender stereotypes. After looking and researching some of the history and women in the media, I wanted to take a closer look at how images of women in popular music varied from one style to another. I was wondering what exactly was created by the artist’s album cover and what kind of impressions it makes on the viewers. I firmly believe that advertisers believe that women’s bodies sell products and so therefore many images of women are entirely visual.
The album cover is one of the most direct and visible means used to establish a singer’s image and display it to the public. Considerable care must be taken to select the right photograph for a particular singer and album. The marketing campaign must always be thinking in terms of “the big picture� because the album cover is often reproduced in the form of posters and advertising companies. This is so it reaches a wider audience, who in turn form their opinions on the basis of the cover picture (Thaxton & Jaret).
Overall, I still more confidently believe that women are negatively portrayed through the majority of the mass media, especially on album covers. I am grateful that not all album covers that include a woman or women on them negatively portray women. However, even though women may not be the main visual images of some albums, they certainly are the main focus of the lyrics. Take for example songs like Nelly’s “Tip-Drill� or Snoop’s “Groupie.� There is still a long way to go when it comes to respecting women in all aspects of music. I think a lot of it has to do with the particular label that an artist signs with, because the artists do not get to make all the decisions. I am glad that there are many different types and forms of media today that does women justice and presents strong, independent, and sexy without the sexual exploitation.

Works Cited

Foust, James C. and Bradshaw. "Something for the Boys." Journalism History Summer 2007 [p93-100]. 26 Nov 2007.

"Funk up the Web." Ohio Players. Mar 2002. Raz-Up Inc. 10 Dec 2007 .

Ginsburg, Sandra. "Liberal Feminism Theory and Women's Images in Mass Media." Cycles of Favor and Furor 10 Sep 1999 .

Harding, Deborah, and Nett. "Women and Rock Music." Atlantis 10(1) (1984): [60-76].

Leahy, Terry. Second Wave Feminism: The Opening Debates. 1990. 10 Dec 2007 .

Mulvey, Laura. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Feminism and Film 16(1975):

Nelson, Michelle, and Paek. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexual Advertising Content." Sex Roles 53(2005): [371-383].
Thaxton, Lyn, and Jaret. "Singers and Stereotypes: The Image of Female Recording Artists." Social Inquiry 55(1985): [239-263].

Posted by Rachel Kyllander at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My final paper was written in response to question one; this question refers to whether we still need women studies today in politics and media. My response was yes we do.

I took a stance in representing the move towards an individual attitude as woman and not necessarily as a gender against men. What does it mean to be a woman today? Do we need to hyper-masculinize to fit into a corporate system where men are hired more often? I wish to say no. I analyzed a couple of pieces of feminist theory and post-feminist theory and agree more with the latter’s wishes. One example is the move towards the heroine portrayed in movies. The heroine is not necessarily pro-feminine. She has a barely-there outfit and is never ugly. But she is the protagonist of the film. She is the hero, the person fighting to save the day. Lara Croft is an example of this. This project opened my eyes to see that there is a large part of intersectionality and individualism in being a feminist today. We all seek equality, but how it is gained and represented is something personal. That is what I feel previous times of feminism dismissed. And yes we still need to study feminism because in film I feel we are starting to view a more ambiguous gaze (mostly outside of Hollywood). In other scenarios of life, for the first time in forever a woman is being considered for presidency in the United States. We need to continue proving that we deserve this equality.
As for this class, this is the first class I have taken that discusses feminism and also film. Both sides of the course offered me a lot of knowledge and wisdom. I used to think that feminism was good, but past its time. Now I realize that it is not and media is a display of what can improve. Thank you to everyone in this class because the ability of seeing many points of view is what makes this class interesting. Thank you for allowing me to write a final paper agreeing that feminist study is ST

Posted by Lindsey Peck at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My paper is focuses on why it is still important to study media with a feminist perspective. Media is where everyone turns to for entertainment and information therefore holding an immense impact on society and shaping social norms. For these reasons, it is paramount to study feminist theory in relation to media making. My paper studies the messages and images that the media portrays of women, race, and sexuality. It outlins why feminist theory still needs to be studied in media making by examining what problems exist and need to be addressed in media according to feminist theory.

The major themes in this paper will focus on four distinct areas of the representation of women in the media: woman as object, stereotypes, patriarchal images, and intersectionality; and explain why these images/ideas are negative and need to be addressed.

I basically mentioned different forms of media (ie.films, TV shows, music videos, commercials, advertisments, news) that fit into each theme of writing.
1.Woman as object: women being objectified, highly sexualized: advertisements, music videos- Byron Hurt's documentary Beyond Beats and Rhymes
2. Steoreotypes surrounding women: woman as dumb, domestic, highly materialistic & how this affects society: films like Mean Girls and reality shows like Newlyweds with Jessica Simpson, and advertisements/advertisements/TV shows with Paris Hilton. Also the TV show Desparate Housewives and many disneychannel original movies, and Miss Congeniality.
3. Patriarchy: how men are represented as being dominant/superior to women in media: violence against women in advertisement photos/ television/ pornography. Movies like Overboard and TV shows like Beauty and the Geek.
4. Intersectionality: how "women of color" are represented differently in media: Asian= exotic, domestic; African American= highly sexual, welfare queen: movies like Goldeneye, Karate Kid II, American Pimp, Idiocracy, TV shows like I love New York, and music stars like Beyonce.

Sources:
Joanne Hollow's Feminism, Femininity, and Popular Culture
Paul Martin Lester, Susan Dente Ross: Images That Injure: Pictoral Stereotypes in the Media
Byron Hurt's Beyond Beats and Rhymes

Posted by Magda Bilska at 12:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ashley and I studied the roles of women in Star Trek: the Next Generation season 1. Our thesis was that, despite the fact that the series takes place in the future (24th century), women are still fulfilling basic 20th century roles. We looked at the 3 main character women: Deanna Troi, Tasha Yar, and Beverly Crusher. Deanna Troi fulfilled the sexy, empathetic woman's role. Tasha Yar was supposedly masculine yet overly emotional and sexual. Beverly Crusher was the ship's mother figure.

We used the book by Robin Roberts, Sexual Generations. Also, we used an article by Lynn Joyrich, called "Feminist Enterprise? Star Trek: The Next Generation and the Occupation of Femininity". Otherwise, we used E. Ann Kaplan's article on the male gaze.

On a side note, discussing the oppression of women in one of my favorite childhood television shows was a sort of depressing activity. Now I can't stop doing it and I'm beginning to annoy my friends.

Posted by Karin Fisher at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my final paper, I looked at the ways in which realness was embodied in the film, "Paris is Burning." The film was amazing to view and I really enjoyed critiquing it through my newly educated, film fanatic gaze that I obtained through this class. "Paris is Burning" is a film about the ball scene in New York City. It tells the lives of the families taking place in balls and their battle of being accepted in society because of their sex, race, gender and sexual desires. The film is directed by Jennie Livingston. I used a lot of citations from Judith Butler's scholarly pieces. It was a great way to notice the reality of the troubles people face with their gender and the society they live in.

Posted by Greta Fay at 10:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my and my partner’s final project we analyzed the three main women’s roles in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season One. We chose season one because there are seven and doing the whole series would have been too much work than we had time for; plus we believed the three women are categorized and shown in very stereotypical roles even though the program was supposed to be progressive. Our working thesis during this project was even though this was placed in the 24th century the women (Tasha Yar, Deanna Troi, and Beverly Crusher) were all portrayed in very feminine 20th century roles.

We discussed each of the three women’s portrayals in the episodes and touched on other alien species and their depiction of women (being subordinate or openly mocked for being a maternal society.)

We used three articles to help with our thesis. The in class reading was Kaplan and the gaze. The two out of class articles were Lynn Joyrich’s “Feminist Enterprise? Star Trek: The Next Generation and the Occupation of Femininity� and Robin Roberts’ “Sexual Generations, Star Trek: The Next Generation and Gender.�

Posted by Ashley Abel at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When I began this class, my only expectation of it was that I would have a better understanding of women filmmakers and would be able to see some of these different perspectives that normally aren't in the "spotlight" of major Hollywood films. Um...I couldn't have been MORE wrong. This class hasn't changed just the way I watch commercials, (because I definitely can't do that anymore without thinking about "the gaze" and how poorly the company is representing race, women, gender, sexuality or all of the above) it's changed the way I interact with other people and the way I view social situations.

Every time I go out, I see men gazing at fragments of women's bodies shamelessly--like they've been conditioned to believe that this fantasy life that the camera portrays actually means that they have a shot at any woman they see--as if each one is an available "product" to be sold to the highest bidder. I'm not saying I'm completely cynical, but as a person highly involved in DFL politics, it's interesting to see where our country is headed in terms of social politics. More and more, I do hear people scoffing at any type of attempt at "feminist" representation--like it's outdated, passe; a phase.

That's the idea I had in mind when I wrote this paper--not just whether the study of feminism through film and media is still relevant, but how the academic discipline as a whole contributes to the discussion and the effects it has on real-world politics and pop culture. In my reading, I read account after account of feminists talking about the different "waves," and how new groups are entering the discussion and new battles are being fought on multiple fronts. Even if the feminist name isn't attached to the tagline, you can bet it's in the bedrock of the discussion.

In my paper, I worked to incorporate the proposed questions about leading academic feminist and queer theory regarding the case for studying these topics through film and what makes it relevant for today. In making my point about why it's relevant today, I consistently pointed out how feminism has been on the forefront of almost every major sociopolitical debate in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and how these same major debates that have been fought in full view of the public consistently crop up time and time again with a new guise. I work to prove how the study of feminism has incorporated these major battles into its study, and how studying this gives this field the unique ability to detect and predict underlying cultural and political trends, and actually effect the outcome of these events by providing an academic check on the patterns they detect.

The majority of the criticism, I point out in my paper, comes from those either working to silence and marginalize groups or those who can't see that this area of study is so precious because of it's consistency in it's ability to interpret and even alter events not just in pop culture, but in the political atmosphere as well.

I worked to show that due to the chameleon-like ability of the program to shape and shift with relevant civil rights issues of every generation and every decade, the discipline is more relevant than most other static academic programs that are limited to the study of one aspect and is not as readily able to ebb and flow with political and cultural tides.

Before taking this class, I didn't understand how much this program stretches into so many areas that are constantly in the limelight of public policy and culture. However, studying it has enhanced my ability to read people, situations and interpretations of social and political atmospheres in a much more dynamic way.

In short, history repeats itself. If we don't continue to study the patterns of social and cultural psychology through a media venue, we neglect a study that is able to detect underlying aspects of every major cultural and political issue. Further, we would be doing a disservice to communities relegated to the sidelines of the social and political arena by not providing them with a forum to voice their ideas and put an academic check on the priorities of our leaders and the media.

Posted by J Kriegs at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading the Women’s Press that we were given in class a few weeks ago I feel that the main articles in the paper point heavily toward a need to continue our women studying.

The front page article about the play “Shipside� and the tragedy of women killing their children was one such article. The vulnerability of women in our society is an important topic that women’s studies does focus on and is in need of social implementation. Single women of color depending on a system that does not help them raise their children, that does not offer support for mental illness, that did not give them the resources of education or health services in the first place is something that needs change. I am in a psych of women class that uses women’s studies to analyze the effects of social pressures in order to better treat and understand the reasons behind feeling that killing yourself and your children is the only way out.

The profile on Susan Hubbard entitled “Recycling rules!� was another example of what different facets of women’s studies is involved with. Hubbard and many around her have battled cancer, and our lack of conscious in dealing with issues of pollution is largely to blame for this. The things that we are putting into our environment are not only killing it, but killing us and our children. I took a class with Professor Jacqueline Zita this semester; she is one of the women interviewed in the “Is Women’s Studies Still Relevant?� article. Perhaps it is because of her and her involvement in environmental issues that I do believe that awareness of what we are doing to our world is a feminist issue.

In short, yes, women’s studies are still relevant. And I think that the changes being made inside of the discipline are largely positive ones. A movement cannot be effective without encompassing the problems that we have deal with in constantly changing world.

Posted by kate at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I did my final paper on the history of the Best Actress award at the Academy Awards. I discussed how the roles for women have changed over time. One point I mention is that the average age of the women who have won the Best Actress Oscar is significantly younger than the average age of the men who have won the Best Actor Oscar. I also noticed that there has been a tendency for woman who played either some form of prostitute, actress, or woman with a disability seemed to win often. Particularly in the earlier years the roles for women were very limited. The films I use in my paper are: A Streetcar Named Desire, A Touch of Class, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Boys Don't Cry, Butterfield 8, Caberet, Coming Home, Driving Miss Daisy, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Mary Poppins, Million Dollar Baby, Monster's Ball, Norma Rae, On Golden Pond, Places in the Heart, Seventh Heaven, Silence of the Lambs, Street Angel, Sunrise, The Accused, The Farmer's Daughter, The Lion in Winter, The Piano, The Sin of Madelon Claudet, The Three Faces of Eve, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, and Women in Love.

The citations for my paper:
A Streetcar Named Desire. Dir. Elia Kazan. Perf. Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando, and
Kim Hunter. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1951.

A Touch of Class. Dir. Melvin Frank. Perf. George Segal, Glenda Jackson, and Paul
Sorvino. Burt Productions, 1973.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Dir. Martin Scorsese. Perf. Mia Bendixsen, Ellen
Burstyn, and Alfred Lutter III. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1974.

Boys Don’t Cry. Dir. Kimberly Pierce. Perf. Hilary Swank, Chloe Sevigny, and Peter
Sarsgaard. Hart-Sharp Entertainment, 1999.

Butterfield 8. Dir. Daniel Mann. Perf. Elizabeth Taylor, Laurence Harvey, and Eddie
Fisher. Afton-Linebrook, 1960.

Caberet. Dir. Bob Fosse. Perf. Liza Minnelli, Michael York, and Helmut Griem. ABC
Pictures, 1972.

Coming Home. Dir. Hal Ashby. Perf. Jane Fonda, Jon Voight, and Bruce Dern.
Jerome Hellman Productions, 1978.

Dittmar, Linda. “Performing Gender in Boys Don’t Cry.� Sugar, Spice, and
Everything Nice: Cinemas of Girlhood.

Driving Miss Daisy. Dir. Bruce Beresford. Perf. Morgan Freeman, Jessica Tandy, and
Dan Aykroyd. Majestic Films International, 1989.

Filmsite.org. Oct. 2007. 9 Dec. 2007. .

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Dir. Stanley Kramer. Perf. Spencer Tracy, Sidney
Poitier, and Katharine Hepburn. Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1967.

IMDB. 1990. 30 Nov. 2007. Amazon.com. .

Kaplan, E. Ann. “Is the Gaze Male?� Feminism and Film. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000. 119-138.

Mary Poppins. Dir. Robert Stevenson. Perf. Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, and
David Tomlinson. Walt Disney Productions, 1964.

Million Dollar Baby. Dir. Clint Eastwood. Perf. Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and
Morgan Freeman. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2004.

Monster’s Ball. Dir. Marc Forster. Perf. Billy Bob Thornton, Halle Berry, and Taylor
Simpson. Lee Daniels Entertainment, 2001.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.� Media and Cultural Studies.
Ed. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner. Malden: Blackwell
Publishing, 2006. 342-352.

Norma Rae. Dir. Martin Ritt. Perf. Sally Field, Beau Bridges, and Ron Leibman.
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 1979.

On Golden Pond. Dir. Mark Rydell. Perf. Katharine Hepburn, Henry Fonda, and Jane
Fonda. Universal Pictures, 1981.

Places in the Heart. Dir. Robert Benton. Perf. Sally Field, Lindsay Crouse, and Ed
Harris. TriStar Pictures, 1984.

Seventh Heaven. Dir. Frank Borzage. Perf. Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrell, and Ben
Bard. Fox Film Corporation, 1927.

Silence of the Lambs. Dir. Jonathan Demme. Perf. Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins,
and Scott Glenn. Orion Pictures Corporation, 1991.

Street Angel. Dir. Frank Borzage. Perf. Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrell, and Alberto
Rabagliati. Fox Film Corporation, 1928.

Sunrise. Dir. F.W. Murnau. Perf. George O’Brien, Janet Gaynor, and Margaret
Livingston. Fox Film Corporation, 1927.

The Accused. Dir. Jonathan Kaplan. Perf. Kelly McGillis, Jodie Foster, and Bernie
Coulson. Paramount Pictures, 1988.

The Farmer’s Daughter. Dir. H.C. Potter. Perf. Loretta Young, Joseph Cotton, and
Ethel Barrymore. RKO Radio Pictures, 1947.

The Lion in Winter. Dir. Anthony Harvey. Perf. Peter O’Toole, Katharine Hepburn,
and Anthony Hopkins. Haworth Productions, 1968.

The Piano. Dir. Kimberly Pierce. Perf. Holly Hunter, Harvey Keitel, and Sam Neill.
New South Wales Film & Television Office, 1993.

The Sin of Madelon Claudet. Dir. Edgar Selwyn. Perf. Helen Hayes, Lewis Stone,
and Neil Hamilton. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor (MGM), 1931.

The Three Faces of Eve. Dir. Nunnally Johnson. Perf. Joanne Woodward, David
Wayne, and Lee J. Cobb. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 1957.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Dir. Mike Nichols. Perf. Elizabeth Taylor, Richard
Burton, and George Segal. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1966.

Women in Love. Dir. Ken Russell. Perf. Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, and Glenda
Jackson. Brandywine Productions Ltd., 1969.

Posted by Brigitte Bartholdi at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My final project was on Japanese Pink Cinema or Pinku Eiga (as most of you know because I presented it in class). The most significant characteristics of Pink Cinema are the combination of ultra violence and sexuality. Commonly the plot of these films is about a woman or a young girl who has had something wrong done to her, such as betrayal or rape, and thus she seeks revenge on the men who did her wrong by using her sexuality and extreme violence. Pink films are commonly described as soft core porn or sexploitation films. However, Pink Cinema offers a much more complex product than adult film in the United States due to the distinct art house style of the films, the regulations of Japanese cinema, and the complexity of the representation of gender. In my paper I argue that due the limitations on Japanese filmmakers, the sex scenes in pink films are often long, drawn out and present the female and her body in a repressed context.
In my presentation I analyzed a pink film from 1972 titled Female Prisoner 701: Scorpion directed by Shunya Itso. It is a part of a series of “women in prison films� called Scorpion.
These are the sources I used for my paper:

Burch, Noel. To the Distant Observer: Form and Meaning in the Japanese Cinema. University of California Press, 1979. 351-354.
Desser, David. Eros Plus Massacre: an Introduction to the Japanese New Wave Cinema.
Indiana University Press, 1988. 99-107.
Harritz, Pia D. “Consuming the Female Body: Pinku Eiga and the case of Sagawa Issei.�
in media res 1.2 (2005) 5 December 2007
.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.� Feminism and Film. Ed. Ann E. Kaplan. Oxford University Press, 2000. 34-47.
Turim, Maureen. “�The Erotic in Asian Cinema.� Dirty Looks: Women, Pornography, and Power. Ed. Pamela Church and Roma Gibson. British Film Institute, 1993. 81-88.

Posted by MacKenzie Duffy at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I chose to write on prompt one, which asks if we still need to study women? Gender? Politics? with regards to media making and analysis. I took a very supportive stance on this subject, because after this semester I realized the importantance of analyzing women in the media. My thesis covered the ideas of people being uneducated about women's studies and the slim number of educated people supporting women's issues. I took a look at women in the media today, even though they are more present than 50 years ago I looked at what is still needing and lacking attention. I used our class on reality televsion, which shows many of the problems that women are still facing in the media. I also brought up the combining and expansion of women's studies with other programs such as gender and sexuality studies. Even though, there is the possibility of this taking focus away from women's studies I showed that it will actually open many opportunities and aid the women's movement.
I used many readings from class like: the newspaper aritcle from the Women's Press "Is Women's Studies Still Relevant", Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", and Mollie Gregory's "Women Who Run the Show". I also used many websites like our very own Unversity of Minnesota Department of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies site and the National Organization for Women's site. From all these sources I found tons of information that backed up my thesis.

Posted by Marial Weidner at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I also wrote a paper on the Dove Real Beauty Campaign.

Borrowing theory from Judith Butler, Susan Bordo, Sandra Lee Bartky and Laura Mulvey I was able to argue that the Dove campaign is working to perpetuate a heteronormative society, stressing the importance of a conscious consumer and target market.
Though I am a fan of the Real Beauty campaign I was able to point out that it relies on the normative image of women fed to us in a heteronormative society to sell its products. Our need to be soft, tan, cellulite free and young beauties in order to be real women is exactly what Dove is selling us, just in a more inclusive way. It is a great strategy that seems to be working, I like to buy Dove products.
Unilever owns not only Dove, but Axe as well. I am sure most are aware of the Axe effect on women, we are rendered helpless sex toys in the presence of such a manly product. I used this fact to point out that the company that sells us empowering images of women is also relying on a degrading and stereotypical depiction of objectified women to market to men. Strengthening my point on the need for smart consumerism.
Reading this, I am crossing my fingers that it all came through in my paper. It was one of the more fun ones I've been asked to write.

Posted by kate at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My final paper was entitled “Studying Gender and Identity Politics in Relation to Media and Feminist Activism.� As implied by the title, I addressed how alternative media could be used as a vehicle for feminist activism and as a means of reinvigorating feminism itself. I discussed the absence of representation of diverse identity positions in the mass media, as well as the lack of global issue coverage. In a world where we are increasingly relying on media and technology, it seems atrocious that the mass media still refuses to tell the stories of serious global issues such as AIDs epidemics and war that are facing people around the world. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to find non-stereotypical representations of individuals from diverse identity positions in the mass media.

I also addressed the apathy that seems to be found among today’s students toward feminism. There seems to be a growing lack of commitment and a reluctance to identify with feminism among young people and students. In fact, before I took this course, I myself was beginning to feel a discontentment within the feminist movement and stagnancy in GWSS department courses. However, exposure to alternative or independent films such as Water that use art to creatively address current local and global issues facing women and other marginalized groups, helped to renew my commitment and excitement toward feminism. In such a way this class helped make feminism sexy again, by exposing me to media that challenges essentialist, patriarchal, heteronormative notions of reality. This exposure, coupled with a new understanding of and respect for women and minority media creators, has allowed me to envision a new wave of global feminism that could use media and technology as a way to reinvigorate feminist activism. I attempted to explain with my paper how such a new wave of global feminism could unite students, educators, artists, activists and others who are committed to using media creations as a vehicle to raise awareness and generate social change around important issues facing women and other marginalized groups around the world.
I also state that in order to make a feminist activist art movement effective, it is imperative for activists to understand and challenge the disparity and inequality that faces women directors and artists both in Hollywood and the independent film industry. I cited the Guerrilla Girls as an example of feminist activist artists who have challenged the film industry’s sexist hiring and promotion practices. I also cited and discussed examples of films which have already been, or have the potential to become tools for global feminist activism. I cited Lourdes Portillo and Deepa Mehta as a few examples of directors who have used their work to bring awareness to important global issues facing women. Specifically, I discussed how Señorita Extraviada succeeded in moving audiences to political activism.
Another issue that I discussed is how alternative media makers have chosen protagonists for their films that give agency to the most marginalized individuals in patriarchal society. Specifically, I referenced The Watermelon Woman as a film in which director Cheryl Dunye uses herself as the protagonist in a way that serves to address the intersectionality of her unique identity categories as an African American, lesbian, female filmmaker. I also referenced Boys Don’t Cry as an example of a film that gives agency to the marginalized of society while simultaneously raising awareness of the very real issue of hate crimes.
I also addressed the importance for students to understand their role as critical spectators. I argue that it is through such spectatorship that we can not only resist and challenge mainstream media representations but also decide what feminist media means to us and create our own representations and meanings of reality.

Posted by Rose Coleman at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'd like to further add to this confusion.

to the author of "today," I'd like to ask you about your comment on R.S's blog post.

This is not about content of arguments anymore. This is about discussion, respectful discussion.

R.S composed an argument, an intelligible, respectful, supported argument. This person read and sought to engage with your writing.

The least you could do is return the favor.

Though you claim, your response is "not a personal attack,� I would ask you to reread some of your statements and question whether this is truly the case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples from your comment:

"That being said, if you have such a problem with the way this country functions LEAVE!!!"

"However, you think women are treated and portrayed poorly in this country, you're in for a rude awakening sweetheart."

Instead of education, do you think illiteracy is more ideal? How would you suggest that our country survives on us all living in shacks and sleeping on the dirt ground. There are plenty of places on this earth where that is the living conditions, I'm sure you could make yourself at home."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Your comments are condescending and rude. I respect whatever points you choose to argue. However, I will NEVER respect an argument that seeks to personally attack, belittle, and silence. That is what you have presented.

May I also suggest use of a less fallacious argument? I am uncomfortable with hypothetical examples of how I should be indebted to society because at least I’m not in
a
“war zone where your being abducted into sex-slave service while your 9year old brother is beaten and then drafted into the Rebel army to fight in combat to kill your best friends mom in the nearby village. Is advertising as bad as that?!?!(RowGophs)�

Thank you.
-----------------

bell hooks, on the formation of a new social order:

“New social orders are established gradually. This is hard for individuals in the United States to accept. We have either been socialized to believe that revolutions are always characterized by extreme violence between the oppressed and their oppressors or that revolutions happen quickly. We have also been taught to crave immediate gratification of our desires and swift responses to our demands.

“The formation of an oppositional world view is necessary for feminist struggle. This means that the world we have most intimately known, the world in which we feel “safe� (even if such feelings are based on illusions), must be radically changed.�

“Those revolutionary impulses must freely inform our theory and practice if feminist movement to end existing oppression is to progress, if we are to transform our present reality.�

Posted by Alissa McCourt at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I want to start by saying that I appreciate someone engaging in material from class a step beyond our required posts. Thank you for that. I do, however, feel a strong need to respond to your post because I think you bring up some interesting points that actually hinder your argument. One of the first things you say is “However, what I must say, is that without this form of media, what would our country be like?� I find this statement intriguing for multiple reasons. First, all media is not advertising. Advertising is just a form of media—albeit a very prevalent form, but not the only form. Second, why can’t we try to envision a world that doesn’t rely on “this form of media?� Why would we not want to live in a country that didn’t rely on exploitation through derogatory representations to sell products?

You go on to say, “We all enjoy commercials in between our sitcoms or news broadcast.� I think that you should be careful about speaking for everyone, when I think you mean to speak for yourself. I, in fact, hate commercials in between shows. During commercials I will change the channel, put the tv on mute, or simply walk away. I am tired of being bombarded with the same images over and over again and I don’t appreciate seeing bodies on display for the sake of making money. That is just me. I realize that. In the same way that enjoying the commercials is just you. Others may feel the same way as me, or you, or neither of us, but I don’t think it is our place to speak for them.

The next part of your post that caught my attention was when you said “The advertising world we live in not only decorates our streets and fills our magazines (no matter what magazine you read), but markets for the financing and economic support of millions in this country.� I recently read an article in Adbusters about the recent ban on outdoor advertising in São Paulo. I will include a portion of the interview with a current citizen of São Paulo below:

Vinicius Galvao (citizen): São Paulo’s just like New York. It’s a very international city. We have the Japanese neighborhood, we have the Korean neighborhood, we have the Italian neighborhood and in the Korean neighborhood, they have a lot of small manufacturers, these Korean businessmen. They hire illegal labor from Bolivian immigrants. And there was a lot of billboards in front of these manufacturers’ shops. And when they uncovered, we could see through the window a lot of Bolivian people like sleeping and working at the same place. They earn money, just enough for food. So it’s a lot of social problem that was uncovered where the city was shocked at this news.

Bob Garfield (reporter): I want to ask you about the cultural life of the city, because, like them or not, billboards and logos and bright lights create some of the vibrancy that a city has to offer. Isn’t it weird walking through the streets with all of those images just absent?

VG: No. It’s weird, because you get lost, so you don’t have any references any more. That’s what I realized as a citizen. My reference was a big Panasonic billboard. But bow my reference is art deco building that was covered through this Panasonic. So you start getting new references in the city. The city’s got now new language, a new identity.

I think it’s interesting that you perceive advertising as a decoration and a necessity for “economic support for millions in this country.� What if there are people literally masked by this advertising? What about the rest of the country that isn’t economically supported by advertising. Consider the possibility that in addition to the exploitation of bodies, there is labor exploitation. “Imagine the millions of people from the corporate office, to the advertisers, to the grocery store stockers, to the hair dressers, to the manufacturers, to the truck drivers, to those that do the grunt work to make the product, those in the factories that make the cans they go into.� Do you think “those people� who work in the factories to make cans for our hair products work there because it has always been their dream? Possibly, but probably not. I can guarantee you that when I worked at Applebee’s as a server it was not because I cared so much about supporting yet another over-priced restaurant and serving angry people their food. It was because I needed to make money so I could pay yet another over-priced, “educational� institution. I worked there full-time and I wasn’t making close to a living wage, while the company itself was rolling in the dough (especially during the holiday season). I doubt this is a singular example. I think I can safely assume that other workers (perhaps the ones canning our hair products) do not make a living wage either. So should we settle because they have jobs—jobs you think rely on the exploitation of bodies to sell the products they make? Or is it more complicated than that? Who really benefits from the money that advertising rakes in?

Continuing with these thoughts, I was interested in your comment about the supposed necessity of this derogatory media. “Women aren't the only thing that are pieced together for our enjoyment. Men have equal pressures of body image as we do. Again, it's not to say that either should have support to continue this way, but without this media we would not be able to have a prosperous world we do today.� I agree that men’s bodies are objectified as well as women’s bodies. That doesn’t make it okay. You go on to say, “These commercials and images, while possibly not putting men or women in the best light, are almost a necessity.� Why? Why does it have to be a necessity for the media to use our bodies in such a degrading way? Why does it have to be “this media� that creates our supposed “prosperous world?� Why can’t we envision different types of representation that don’t reduce our bodies to mere flesh? Why can’t those healthier, more positive images create a prosperous world? And I am skeptical about this idea of our current, prosperous world. Census reports from 2003 reported 12.5% of the nation living in poverty—roughly 39.5 million people. In a report about 2005, it had increased to 13%. I’ve included links to these articles below if you would like to read them in their entirety.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/NewDataRevealWidespreadDisparitiesinUSStatePovertyRates.aspx

While I acknowledge that there are problems with collecting/using census data as “the truth�, this is the information distributed for us to see, and I am unaware of where to get “more accurate� numbers. If you know of any, please let me know.

In conclusion, you say, “Entertainment and consumerism are two huge factors in the society we live in today, and neither are a negative.� I would argue that consumerism as it operates in our current society has many negative effects. One article explores a few of the problems. Once again, I’ve included the link below.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption/Effects.asp

“As hinted above, within the current economic system of “perpetual growth�, we risk being locked into a mode of development that is:
• destructive, in the long run, to the environment
• a contributing factor to poverty around the world
• a contributing factor to hunger amongst such immense wealth
• and numerous other social and ecological problems�

[We] have to get the resources from somewhere to make the factories that make the products. Therefore, [we] abuse natural resources to create those huge factories that give off tons of pollutants, further destroying the environment. [We] have to employ people to work in the factories, but of course [we] wouldn’t want to compensate them appropriately for their labor because that would mean [us] consumers would have to pay higher prices for the products [we] buy. This means people end up working for unfathomable wages, thus contributing to the current poverty level. The list goes on. Sure, there are seemingly “positive� aspects to the current understanding of consumerism. It means I get to buy whatever I want, almost wherever I want to buy it, and if I buy it at Wal-Mart, I don’t have to pay much at all—but someone always pays. It’s not just a coincidence that I have such easy access to such cheap products. I’m not sure how all of this can be viewed as not “a negative.�

As I said at the beginning, I think that it’s great that you are engaging in the material and voicing disagreements. I don’t want everyone to agree—in the same way that I don’t want everyone to settle. Of course it’s difficult to present media as entirely feminist. I’m not even sure I know what it means yet to be “entirely feminist.� At the moment, it’s about being conscious of the choices I make and the things I say and I am hoping that in those small steps, I can begin to create what it means for me to be a feminist. I would hope that you would do the same, or at least be aware of the implications of the statements you publish on this blog, and anywhere else you make your voice heard.

Posted by R.S. at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

I did my final paper about the short films, commercials, and print ads of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. If anyone is interested in checking out the short film or commercials, go to Youtube and search for Dove, "True Colors" or "Girl's Self Esteem". In my paper I talked about how common media images of women is violence against women that perpetuate sterotypes and gender roles. With Dove commercials and media specifically it appears as though a new representation of women is possible. Could this be a representation of women through a feminist lens? No, *sigh* it seems it is not. Unilever who owns Dove, Slim fast, and about 3 billion other companies (that was an exaggeration not an exact number) is selective in where they want to portray women in a 'real' way. So Unilever is using the feminist idea to portray women in a truthful way and confront the ways media portray an unattainable concept of beauty, in connection with the Dove products of course, as an advertising gimmick. I talked about how the Dove commercials are considered avant-garde (from Feminist Film Criticism: The Piano and 'the Female Gaze' by Diana Saco, but really is Mulvey's idea) but spectator's may not feel pleasure in watching alternative media, and this could alter the effect the Dove commercials have on viewers, and ultimately determine whether this way of advertising will be continued.
All in all I really liked critiquing these media and learned a lot in the process. I came into the project thinking the dove media was an innovative and progressive step towards advertising, but now I realize the message upfront is progressive and a step in the right direction, however, the inconsistencies within the commercials and the company show the advertising industry has a lot of work ahead of us to accurately represent women through a feminist lens.

Posted by Sparky4 at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I choose to write my paper on Classic Disney films. My thesis is that Classic Disney socializes children into certain gender roles. These gender roles, create the patriarchal oppressive society in which we live. Boys are taught to be strong, independent, and active in their life by imitating the princes, while girls are to be emotional, domestic, and passive by imitating the princess. By following these normative gender roles the gaze is formed. The gaze is shown multiple times and ways in the Disney films. Classic Disney films produce the heteronormative society we live in by the content with in the films. The main films I used and cited were:
Cinderella
Snow White
Sleeping Beauty
Hercules
Aladdin
Beauty and the Beast

Posted by Ashley Pritchard at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Context:

Directed by Deepa Mehta, written by Mehta and Anurag Kashyap. It was released and distributed in the United States in 2005 by Mongrel Media and A David Hamilton Productions. It was the third part to her Elements Trilogy Fire, Earth and Water. While shooting the film in India there were controversial issues surrounding the film, which led to the crew not being able to finishing filming in India and instead finishing the film in Sri Lanka. The film was set in 1938, which was when India was still under colonial rule of the British. During that time, when a woman’s husband died she either had the choice of joining by being put to death or living in a widow’s ashram.

Content:

The film focuses on the character named Chuyia (Sarala Kariyawasam), who when she is 8 is forced to join a window’s ashram when her husband dies before after their arranged marriage. In the ashram, Chuyia is exposed to other women who have been living under the same cultural and literal restrictions most of their lives. While there she befriends two other widows living there named Shakuntala (Seema Biswas) and Kalyani (Lisa Ray). Shakuntala and Kalyani help show Chuyia how they are continuing to live their lives in these conditions, and also help protect Chuyia from the other widow’s living there.

Form:

Camera: The camera is used as tool to document the lives of the women living in the ashram, creating a flowing and natural progression of the story. Many of the shots frame the women within the camera to show their oppression and restriction in the ashram despite the vast and beautiful area surrounding them.
Lighting: There is strong contrast between the widow’s sari’s and their skin tones. This might be showing the purity the widow’s possess despite their name they are forced to carry with them their entire lives.
Colors: There is an overall blue and green overtone in all of the shots within the film. Mehta describes this as her way of getting the “water� feeling within the film, and also the overall sad state many of these women are living in.

Analysis:

Water portrays a strong sense of connection and sympathy towards all the women living in the ashrams. I believe this film has many feminist ideals within it, such as giving light to the social restrictions a certain group of women are forced to live under by the patriarchal laws and enforcement of these policies. Something I had an issue with is the possible misinterpretation of the Indian society Mehta is portraying in the film. It does not give a full explanation of the culture and practices of India, which could give the audience a false idea of Indian culture and history, and could possibly create a prejudice within them towards Indian culture as a whole.

Posted by Timac at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I chose to write my final paper on prompt #3: on why feminist film/media studies should be a praxis process. I talked about why feminist theories need to be put into practice making films. I discussed feminist theories if intersectionality, representation, agency, heteronormativity, and gender roles. I discussed how feminist theories were "tools" that could be used to both analyze film/media and make film/media.

I used examples from lots of films including:

Legends of the Fall
Dirty Dancing
The Matrix
Brokeback Mountain
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
The Color Purple
Fire
If These Walls Could Talk

My citations are:

Aufderheide, Pat and Debra Zimmerman. From A to Z: A Conversation on Women’s Filmmaking
McCabe, Janet. Feminist Film Studies: Writing the Woman Into Cinema.
Walker, Janet and Diane Waldman. Feminism and Documentary.

Posted by crowjane at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

i thought that filmmakers often desire to affect social problems and to inspire social change in such issues as race, gender, identity, and sexuality. So... I decided to take a position to discuss that documentary film is a vehicle for social change because documentary film offers more flexibility in discussing the truth of human nature from the perspective of our common experience than do other media forms such as editorial news and newspapers which have a more limited format and targeted audience. Furthermore, documentary films can immediately address current social circumstances that audiences may not be aware of and it is a strongly persuasive method that the directors use to motivate audiences to participate in the cause. Documentary film calls upon the audience to act in clever and critical ways in dealing with social issues that harm society. Documentary film is an especially effective mode of expression for feminist filmmakers and feminist theorists to present their arguments.

I watched.....
Monster (2003) directed by Patty Jenkins, LIve Nude Gils Unite!, Boys don't cry, selling of a serial killer directed by Nick Broomfield.

I though reading interviews about each director helped me alot to know why they chose to make documentary film to evoke audience for social change. I searched each director's website to dig more information on movie and most of them were making film to alert problems in our society. I discusses Ann Kaplan and Mulvey's theorty and our course reading "feminism and documentary" to enlarge my knowledge on documentary film and the gaze in documentary film.

I recommend others to watch the movie MOnster and the Selling of a Serial Killer to know how this two movie uses the story of Aileen's killing story to evoke audience's reception.

Posted by Stella at 5:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Through out this semester, I watched so many different kinds of media to encounter feminist media. I believe that feminist film is about women’s story, in that film itself teaches us about our society. When I had to watch the movie piano, I thought that it is feminist movie, because the movie focuses on women instead of men for subject. Although women were portrayed as weak and not as powerful as men, camera focuses on woman, her journey and her experiences or thoughts.

I don’t think there is definite line to categorize which movie is feminist movie or not, but what is more important is audience’s reception. We all know that film production cannot be done without audiences. I think it is audience who determine what is feminist media and some are not, because there are diverse audiences as well as diverse mass media. Therefore I believe that media should aware that who is going to watch and know what the impact on watching media is going to be.

In this class, I learn how to watch media critically, not just for visual pleasure, and understand what director’s tension making film. It was very good for me to take this class, because I learn both mass media(especially film) and feminist theory on film that is around people all the time.

Posted by Stella at 4:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just for the record, I would like to offer the possibility of a working definition of feminism. In my digestion of several posts on the concept of "Feminist media" I noticed several confusing and contradicting statements. My main concern is the lack of clarity on the goal of feminist media. Women artists and not inherently feminist, women on screen are not inherently feminist, discussion regarding sex, power, race, or class are NOT INHERENTLY feminist. Also, can we clarify the difference between watching "feminist media" and analyzing media through a "feminist lense"? Because these are two very different events. It is incorrect to operate under the assumption that all of the films screened in class are inherently "feminist" because they were viewed in a feminist film context. Not the same. Not the same at all. Rachel never said to my knowlede that these were all feminist films, they were films we were instructed to analyze under a feminist lense.

Ex) The Piano. Not a feminist film. If you disagree with me, please! tell me! engage with me! tell me your arguement. I would love to discuss, mostly because I feel so strongly about this subject. When feminist tropes are mistaken for feminism, the result is a devestating landslide of destructive, unintentional ignorance.

I feel its safe to use bell hooks definition of feminism. That won't get me into too much trouble right? She is a highly respected scholar and writer and she seems credible enough to avoid conflict..

“Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression�

So,

can we start over now?

where do we go from here?

Also,
I'm done with equality. We've all "agreed" on equlity, we've "done that."
I want more. I want liberation.

"If equality means entitlement to an equal share of the profits of economic tyranny, it is irreconcilable with liberation. Freedom in an unfree world is merely licence to exploit." (greer)

Posted by Alissa McCourt at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

throughout this class my eyes have been opened alot through the films and other medias we have looked at. my two favorite pieces were byron hurt's beyond the beats and rhymes and Aishah Shahidah Simmons' no!. i would classify these films as feminist films. i think any film that discusses or examines issues that feminists discuss can be classified as a feminist film. i don't think the mediamaker has to stand up and shout from the rooftop "i am a feminist filmmaker!" also i don't think just because someone does declare that, that their films can automatically be classified as a feminist film. i think the art itself and the viewers need to be the speaker of if it is feminism.

the problem or frustration i guess i have with the idea of feminist media is that it is usually made by feminists for feminists. what i mean by this is, a filmmaker like Aishah Shahidah simmons makes her No! film and because of her place in the hierarchy of movie making only a limited amount of people see it, particularly people who are already interested or aware in some way of the issues she discusses in the film. for example, if i never took this class i probably would have never seen that film in my whole life. the thought of never seeing that film makes me cringe because it affected me so much. these feminist films NEED TO BE SEEN. they need more agency than they are getting. the media culture is basically driven by $$$, if your film is not going to bring in the money then your not going to get the exposure you more than likely deserve. i am a bit perplexed with this question of what is feminist media because as i try to answer i create even more questions that i can't really answer. one in particular, that i posed in my final paper is basically, can feminism or feminist media be "sexy"? just because the mediamaker wants to give feminism a voice does that mean that it can be visually pleasing? for instance, the dove real beauty campaign, i would classify as like "mainstream feminism", yeah they are using more "real" women. tall ones, short ones, fat ones, old ones, but still the women are not "ugly" they are all what i would say is attractive. do i think this lessens there feministic qualities, no. i think in order to have a voice, a voice that is actually heard, feminism needs to go mainstream, they need to "play the game".

Posted by Emily Dolentz at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don’t think I can specifically state what qualities feminist media must contain in order for it to be thought of as feminist. One quality that I believe is important is the equality of genders. Many women understand the inequalities that exist between the sexes, but once more men begin to see this we may be able to change the way we internalize and visualize the relationship between the genders. I don’t think men are just responsible for the objectification of women in media. Women also objectify men. For example, McDreamy and McSteamy in Grey’s Anatomy. I enjoy tuning into Grey’s Anatomy every week to see these two who bring many viewers a great amount of visual pleasure. But why is this okay? It isn’t, but by acknowledging the objectification of both sexes implies that the structures need to be changed.

I believe that feminism is trying to inform others who are unaware of the inequalities that exist today with gender, race, and sex. Media that takes on the perspective of someone different than you will allow you to see their point of view. No one will ever be able to understand completely what it is like to be someone else. I would consider No! The rape documentary to be a feminist form of media because it is sending out a message about rape from a black women’s perspective. This perspective is not completely different from mine. However, I will not be able to ever experience what it is like to be a minority of both gender and race.

I don’t think that you can label one specific type of movie feminist or not. I think it depends on the person and whether or not a movie makes an impact on them. This impact could be either negative or positive. It can speak to your personal experiences, or change the way you view the world. Feminist media is completely up to the person who is deciding what media is feminist and is based on their morals, beliefs and values.

Posted by Tapex002 at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Through out this semester, this class has exposed a lot of different types of media (documentaries, movies, advertisements, etc.) that I normally would not have encountered. After watching the media, and at the same time becoming more and more educated on feminist theory, I have come to some of my own conclusions on the subject matter.

I think that it is very hard to put a piece of media into one category: For example, feminism. A film may have feminist attributes to it, but it may also have other attributes to it as well. For example, in the film The Piano, I definitely saw feministic qualities expressed through the main character. She was not a "typical" well behaved girl like most men like. She didn't listen to the men in the film very well, and she had a mind of her own. However their were parts that don't go along with feminist views as well, such as when the main character becomes aroused when her husband is touching her/raping her. Since the film has some feminist traits, does this make it feminist media? Most would argue not, and it should not be.

This kind of argument, to me feels like a circle. It keeps going round and round in my head. Well...it could be feminist media...but it's not.

Even though I do think this, I think the videos that were screened in class are evidence that women are going in the right direction. One major thing that I have learned about feminism in this class is that there are so many different levels of it. It is not something one can just put the tip of their finger on. One thing that is so great about it is that everyone can have their own views, opinions, and ways of thinking within feminism (of course to be feminist they must follow the feminist theories). Another important thing in feminism is that there is a mutual respect for women, even if you are not in their shoes and don't completely understand what they are going through, or their decisions. You can just know that they are other women who do want the same thing: equality.

This class has opened me up to different ways of thinking that I have never thought about before, and now that it has opened that door, I am definitely going to see what is inside.

Posted by myk08 at 10:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Context:
Water was written and directed by Deepa Mehta in 2005. It is the third in her elemental trilogy (following Fire and Earth). It premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, and was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Film category. Because of the controversial subject matter of her previous films, the filming of Water attracted hostile attentions. The day before filming was scheduled to begin, protesters wrecked the filming site. Mehta was forced to film in Sri Lanka instead of India as originally planned, and had to work on it under a false name (River Moon).

Content:
The film takes place in India in the 1930s, and centers around the plight of a group of widows. We are introduced to this world through the eyes of Chiuya, a seven year old girl who was sent to live as a widow when her husband died. The widows live as aesthetics to atone for the bad deeds they had supposedly done in an earlier life to incur the bad karma of losing a husband. Throughout the film, the audience sees not only the hardships the widows experience, but also the indifference of the rest of society. The film ends with Didi, a widow whose strong sense of morals conflict with her faith, saving Chiuya from the horrifying life of a widow-turned-child prostitute.

Form:
The juxtaposition between the poverty of the widows and the lush surroundings outside the walls were expressed through colors. The palate of the film was an array of brownish blues and bright greens. Music also played an important role in the mood and tone of the piece---Mehta employed not just an orchestra, but singers as well to heighten the emotions of the audience.

Analysis:
For me, the contrasts are what made this film so powerful. Water is both a symbol of femininity and also the essence of life; Water, the title of a film about women who are desexualized and debased to what they actually need to survive. For Kalyani, and later, Chiuya, it is the road to their pain and shame of prostitution. Water pulls the characters along, until the end, when Chiuya escapes over land on the train.

Posted by Jessica Vaughan at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Context- This was a film by Deepa Metha. She used it to complete her trilogy. There was great controversy over this film becuse of the content, which was thought to be anti-religous to this culture. It was set in the 1930's and deals a lot with emotion and opression.
Content- The content of this film is about widows in India. These women are told within their religion that when their husbands die, half of themself also dies. Because of this these women are forced to live in houses, away from thier families and friends. They are also restricted from doing a lot of things and are openly mocked by the public. This movie centers around one house and a woman who decides to go against her cultural and religous belifes to find love again.
Form- This film is so beautiful. It uses lush and vibrant colors to tell it's story. They use a pallet of blue, green, and what looks like yellow. This just makes the scenery pop against the harsh reality of the story being told. Using color in this way enhaces and makes the story so much more personal because when you look at the screen it really draws you in.

Posted by sketch at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I chose to write about Question number 4 on the syllabus that addresses the issue of the relationship between “real� stories and cinematic representations.

My thesis states: “The process of filmmaking is a vehicle for filmmakers to present their personal interpretation of a story and often results in their manipulation of a “real� story for a designated response.�

I support this argument by first addressing the issue of authorship and explaining the importance of the “Five I’s� in the book Creative Filmmaking From the Inside Out. Then I address the issue of the message that a filmmaker tries to put out through film and how this is done through fiction, narrative and propaganda. I focused on the issue of spectatorship as well with an emphasis on the desired response from the filmmaker and the actual response from the spectators. I conclude the paper by stating that viewers can more adequately judge the validity of a film or constructed reality by becoming familiar with the filmmaker themselves and also the process of making that film because no one ever really sees reality exactly the same.

Sources:
1. Dannenbaum, Jed, Carroli Hodge, and Doe Mayer. Creative Filmmaking From the Inside Out. Fireside, 2003.
2. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “On the Nature and the Natural Man.� Emerson: Selections from Self-reliance, Friendship, Compensation, and other Great Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Kansas City: Hallmark Editions, 1969.
3. Enriquez, Alejandro. “Lourdes Portillo’s Senorita extravida: The Poetics and Politics of Femicide.� Studies in Latin American Popular Culture.
4. Gaut, Berys. “Cinematic Art.� Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. (U.S.A.), vol. 60, no. 4, Fall 2002, pp. 299-312, bibliog.
5. Simmons, Aisha. “The War Against Black Women, and the Making of NO!� Color of Violence. South End Press, 2006.

Posted by Mary Ellen McCormick at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Context:
A film by Deepa Mehta
-Third part to her controversial elemental trilogy
- Got inspiration for film from seeing an old widow distraught on the street because she lost something. No one paid any attention to her nor did any one try to help her.
-Mongrel Media and A David Hamilton Production
-Based in India in 1930’s
Complications during production included massive protesting during shooting in India and delayed filming for 5yrs. They had to relocate to Sri Lanka and film under a false title for safety reasons.

Content:
Overall the content of this film addressed the role of widowed women in India whose lives were ruled by ancient religious texts. The story is focused on the journey of a young Hindi girl named Chuyia, who becomes a widow at a very young age and is forced into a life of seclusion. The other women who share this life all have different ways of getting by but together, their struggles weave a story of love, passion, religious ideals hardship and freedom that ultimately is ruled by identity and ethical inquiry.

Form:
Colors: Blues and greens were emphasized throughout the film primarily to give the feel of water. Also these colors were used to give the viewer a sense of calmness and break from the struggles and tensions of the characters in the film. The color blue was also mentioned in the behind the scenes section as the color of Krishna.
Location: The complications in shooting the film are fascinating and to think of the bravery that it took to re-locate to Sri Lanka after huge protests is admirable. In reading about the locations on the link that was assigned the funniest thing that stuck out to me was that the crew had to build Hindu temples along the river in a town that was primarily Muslim. The funny thing being that tour boats would ride up and down the river telling people about the ‘ancient Hindu temples’ and had to be chased out of the scene. The river itself being hard to light at night and difficult to control (tour boats), I felt as I watched the film that the location felt real and did not seem to be constructed at all. This is due to the use of nature as it is with beautiful shots of trees and the river shoreline.
Camera: In the behind the scenes section that we watched in class, they talked about the camera being non-intrusive and strictly observational. This gave a smooth flow to the film and allowed the spectator to become lost in the world that this film constructed.

Analysis:
The importance of water in this film represents this uncontrollable flow or current that ruled these women’s lives. This current also represented the uncontrolled fate that was to happen later in film. In the beginning, Chuyia believes that she is just a visitor and that she will not be staying long. This is reinforced when she meets Kalyani who says that Krishna says Chuyia will not stay long either.
Feminism (vs.) Humanism
Deepa Mehta sees herself as a humanist rather than a feminist. In the link I have never made a film for ‘shock factor’, Mehta explains that she hoped that this film would allow the viewer to feel compassion for the characters in the film even if this was a whole new world for the viewer. She specifically says that this is a humanist film.
I completely agree with Mehta, but I feel that it is not too different from feminism. I feel that in order to make feminist media, women must be humanized first because women are usually objectified first. Is humanism the new feminism?

Posted by Mary Ellen McCormick at 9:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thank you for a thoughtful and engaging semester. We are excited to read your final papers! So that our whole classroom community can share in our knowledge production, for your final post, in the category "Final Paper/Project Highlights," please:

- share your topic, thesis, and themes you discuss in your paper (not just, I did #1 - share details please!)

- note what films you analyze (w/title, director - so we can look up the films and watch!)

- share your citations (include title and author, or full citation, of theory you use to support your arguments)

- and anything else you deem relevant (like links, images, ppt of your presentation, etc...)

Posted by Rae at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think the film Water, is my favorite film that we have watched all semester. I enjoyed that the movie was subtitled, and took place in a country whose culture is very foreign to me. The story that is being told is so emotional and I just absolutely fell in love with the little girl. I felt so sorry for the oppression that the widowed women experienced. It’s like they are basically walking dead, left to never experience love and passion from another human being. It’s sad that traditions such as keeping women so horribly oppressed still exist. I had no idea that this sort of thing happened in the world today. One of my favorite parts of this film was when the women, I think, got to celebrate color and all of them had bright beautiful color all over their faces and their stark white Saris. The colors just popped and made the scene seem happy, hopefully, and light, despite the fact that their situations are unbelievable. It is like a short escape from the life that they live and know.
Mehta did an excellent job with this film. She got her point across in such a way that the audience is left with a heavy heart and questioning the ways in which a society justifies treating women as they are in Water.

Posted by Kristen Kramer at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While in this class I have been exposed to a group of film makers that I didn’t know were making so much media.

My interest in women’s studies has helped me to realize that the term feminist is one that many don’t feel the need to adhere to. Sitting through a semester of a psychology of women class has also made me realize that many people think that feminism is dated, or that it is consists solely of lesbians and hippies. So I now do not expect everyone I meet to realize the significance of being a feminist, that there is a place for men and women in the movement, and that it is a serious political stance.
While it does not surprise me that women are making incredible movies under the name of feminism I also think that there are many women and men who are taking into account the intersections of race, class, nation, sex and gender, who are questioning the social constructions and implications of such in their work. I would call these feminist issues myself. I just discovered the channel Logo the other day and was able to watch a short film about a gay zombie. This is something that I would view as an entire feminist channel. Bringing to light issues of agency, who is able to speak and who is heard, allowing us to view formally (and not so formally) deviant sexualities and making this visible to us is a feminist spin in many regards. There are so many different definitions of feminism that I don’t know if it matters if someone declares her/himself a feminist or not. As long as there is media being made that points out humanitarian issues, that explores and questions the social construction of ideals and keeps us thinking I do not personally need a declaration of a feminist standpoint.

Posted by kate at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Content: Deepa Mehta's film, Water, is about the oppression that widowed women in Inda must live with. She shows the despair and anguish that drenches their life because of their placement in society. The main characters, who are almost entirely women, must deal with moral and societal issues that make their life difficult in order to survive in a patriarchal society.

Context: The film Water, by Deepa Mehta, displays her strong feelings towards a feminist issue that she feels needs to be revealed to the world. In the film, she shows the power that a patriarchal and class-based society has on women. The film outlines how women, whose status is based on the relation to thier husbands, are affected by this patriarchal classification of their gender. It shows an ultimate example of how women, especially young women who have absolutely no agency, are affected by the views and beliefs of society. Mehta wants to reveal the subordinate life that women live in subjection to men in India. She wants the viewer to empathise with a socity that oppresses women on the basis of their gender.
This is a powerful message because it provides a view that supports the feminist notion of univeral oppression of women. The title of the film, Water, is a significant metaphor because like societal construction, water is the basis to all life; and if society oppresses women they must live within these social constructions in order to survive.

Form: The movie uses bright and extreme lighting in order to emphasis the women's beautiful surroudings in relation to their oppressed and angusihed lives. The natural surroundings contrasts the unnatural societal constructions glorifies the struggles that the women face.

Posted by Magda Bilska at 7:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Content: Deepa Mehta's film, Water, is about the oppression that widowed women in Inda must live with. She shows the despair and anguish that drenches their life because of their placement in society. The main characters, who are almost entirely women, must deal with moral and societal issues that make their life difficult in order to survive in a patriarchal society.

Context: The film Water, by Deepa Mehta, displays her strong feelings towards a feminist issue that she feels needs to be revealed to the world. In the film, she shows the power that a patriarchal and class-based society has on women. The film outlines how women, whose status is based on the relation to thier husbands, are affected by this patriarchal classification of their gender. It shows an ultimate example of how women, especially young women who have absolutely no agency, are affected by the views and beliefs of society. Mehta wants to reveal the subordinate life that women live in subjection to men in India. She wants the viewer to empathise with a socity that oppresses women on the basis of their gender.
This is a powerful message because it provides a view that supports the feminist notion of univeral oppression of women. The title of the film, Water, is a significant metaphor because like societal construction, water is the basis to all life; and if society oppresses women they must live within these social constructions in order to survive.

Form: The movie uses bright and extreme lighting in order to emphasis the women's beautiful surroudings in relation to their oppressed and angusihed lives. The natural surroundings contrasts the unnatural societal constructions glorifies the struggles that the women face.

Posted by Magda Bilska at 7:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was incredibly impressed with Deepa Mehta’s film Water. She created a beautiful looking film with an emotionally gut-wrenching story. I think this combination really works. It shows how rough things can be in a place that appears so beautiful. I think the look of the film also carried a subconscious message of hope throughout the film. I appreciate that Mehta considers herself a humanist filmmaker. This is an issue that has an effect on many different people. We can this in the main male character’s troubles.
Also, I have never encountered a scene as powerful as the last when the woman is running to get the little girl onto the train. The direction in this scene is absolutely perfect and effective (it was for me at least). I am even more impressed by the quality of the film knowing the conditions it was made under. Wow.

Posted by MacKenzie Duffy at 6:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that there needs to be a sense of social consciousness for something in the media to be considered feminist, whether it is explicit consciousness about a particular issue, or an implicit consciousness about representations. I think a feminist film, TV show, or advertisement needs to ignore what will sell or what is typical and “normal� and just present something how it really is. Show women completely without makeup, show people with mental health issues, show a diversity of races in the contexts that they really are in, show homosexuals. What I’m trying to say is, there needs to be diversity, but the diversity cannot be a special case or a novelty. For example, having a sassy black best friend in a movie is a stereotype.
On the otherhand, I think showing things “how they are� can be problematic. First, because with movies, things are made up, it’s not real life. Second, because it could perhaps perpetuate roles that women might be stuck in.
I don’t think a filmmaker needs to claim him or herself as a feminist to be a feminist. I find the film Coal Miner’s Daughter about Loretta Lynn is empowering and feminist. Maybe it is because the story is inspiring and it’s about a woman in poverty and repression but she goes ahead and does a “man’s thing� (playing guitar, writing music) and succeeds. I think Sissy Specek does a really good job of presenting a strong woman in the film.

Posted by MacKenzie Duffy at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have learned that feminism is like politics there are some people who pull strongly to one side, feminists, and some who pull strongly to the other side, anti-feminists. Just like politics though, many fall somewhere in between. Many filmmakers don't want to associate with feminism because it may take away from their work, but in reality they may actually be projecting the ideals of feminism in their work. Although they are being cowardly and not standing up for what they believe in sometimes this does have advantages. People who would have never gone to a feminist movie will go see these movies that are not classified as feminist but may actually be.

I don't have a definition of what feminist media is, because from what I have learned from this class I believe if you analyze and critique correctly then you will see that feminism is all over the media although it is not labeled directly. Now don't get me wrong, I know many Hollywood films don't present feminisms well, but I would argue that in almost any film with females we could pick out some sort of feminism. Whether women are being misrepresented or if they are given power a feminist interpertation could always be taken away from films. So I don't think that filmmakers have to label their film as feminism, but if they choose to include feminist thought or theory than more to them.

Many filmmakers don't call themselves feminists but they create feminist films like Andy Tennant. He has directed many films including Hitch, It Takes Two, and Ever After. He doesn't call himself a feminist but he created a feminist piece of work with Ever After, which is acutally a post-feminism interpertation of Cinderella. Now here are some examples of filmmakers who actually declare themselves as feminist filmmakers that I have come across this semester: Claire Denis, Jane Campion, Neema Barnette, Byron Hurt, Callie Khouri, and Kimberly Pierce. This is a pretty amazing list too, because at the beginning of this semester I couldn't list one feminist filmmaker! This class has definetly opened my eyes not only to feminism and media, but also how they work together.

Posted by Marial Weidner at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Determining whether or not media is feminist has to do with the way feminist media separates its construction from other non-feminist medias, which usually produce misrepresentations of the subjects within the media. Feminist medias serve as forms to contest these normalized misrepresentations of people by producing medias that do not need to have problematic issues involved with them in order to make the media interesting or entertaining. Feminist media producers recognize these problematic issues within non-feminist media, and adjust their constriction of their media accordingly with a hypercritical eye.

Recognizing media that is absent of problematic issues found in mainstream media such as misrepresentation, voyeuristic gaze, binaries of sex and gender, subject/object relationship, is a form of identifying feminist media.

I do not believe that media needs to be self-identified as feminist in order for it to really be feminist. I think that this can help someone find these medias easier, but it does not prohibit a media from still embodying feminisms. I watched the movie Chocolat the other day for a fist time in a while. While watching it, I realized that it has many feminist qualities within it, ones that perhaps I would have not been able to identify alone before this class.

Posted by Timac at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I thougt Deepa Mehta's Water was a really moving film. The director was already familiarized with the Indian culture being that she is a native-born Indian woman really adds to the the culture of the film and how it is perceieved. Her story of the lives of widowed Indian women is very touching, and she does a great job of representing the gender differences and inequality seen within the Indian culture. Men clearly have dominion over the women and are treated with a higher respect and dignity. The use of colors Mehta utilizes also really adds to the film. The bright, beautiful, green landscapes show how these women live in this beautiful, uplifting country, but the dark, dirty blue color reminds them of their unpurposeful life they must live as a widow. The river signifies a place to retreat to for cleansliness and bathing. It is also the place Kalyani turns to to escape from her trapped life she lives. Overall, Water was an eye-opening movie that really is able to educate the viewer as to the life some women must lead in a foreign country.

Posted by Cassie Setter at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that I have a solid foundation for feminist/gender/queer studies after this semester. However, I also think that I have just learned how much I still have to learn. There are, as people of said, so many different forms of feminist media, and such a variety in feminisms, that I don’t think I will ever be forced to watch another movie that does not interest me. Anyways, I started off believing and still believe that one must label oneself “feminist.� I think that there can be “feministic� filmmakers, who make films which are seen as feminist to some, such as Jane Campion and The Piano. I also believe that anyone can make feminist media, as my personal idea of feminism is also about equality, fairness, and knowledge. I hope that filmmakers continue to make alternative and experimental films about all sorts of subjects, because they are truly intriguing and challenging, and I think that we need to be challenged. I believe that just knowledge and thought could lead to a lot of understanding which would make great strides towards eradicating oppression and othering. I really loved and appreciated Water, and am so glad that we watched it. That is a culture that I am so interested in and yet still know nothing about, and the story was sad, but so beautiful. In essence, though I still don’t know many feminist filmmakers outside the one’s we’ve watched and discussed in class, I think that I now see that a lot of people are putting a lot of work into changing the perceptions that people have and the actions they may ignorantly take. And that is brilliant.

Posted by Magyar at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I wrote my final paper/project on the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The creator, Joss Whedon, is openly feminist and his TV programs (Angel and Firefly in addition to Buffy) are full of feminist themes: he empowers his female characters with agency, allows them room to grow and mature, and resists creating women who fit solidly into one gendered catagory. I almost wish we would have had time to explore positive images of women on TV...the reality TV assignment included a few, but mostly we focused on gender/class/sexuality/racial stereotypes. I would have liked to see what other feminist (even those who do not claim the term for themselves the way Whedon does) media makers are doing within the context of contemporary television.

That being said, Whedon's work is wonderfully surreptitious. He is quoted somewhere as saying "I didn't make 'Buffy the Lesbian Separatist'" because it would have alienated viewers. Instead, he creates a strong female character who isn't afraid to be both "girlie" (she likes her fashion, likes boys, et cetera) and to also embody traditionally "masculine" characteristics: strength, rationality, leadership (remember our lists of gender boxes?). Without ever saying the word "feminist" in the show, the show is DECIDEDLY feminist, and works its way around having to peg itself as such. In this way, Whedon can create a (relatively) plausible world where women and men are equals, and can explore these relationships and the empowered people in them in a way that is funny and entertaining but also meaningful.

If you have many, many hours over break to get really into something entertaining and special, go rent Buffy. All of it. :-)

Posted by Maren Mattson at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If there are hundreds of different ways to be a feminist, are there an equal number of ways for media to be feminist? This makes it difficult to pin down one thing that makes media "essentially feminist," in fact it would be very un-feminist to say that there is a single thing that unites feminist media other than the label of feminist. So in one way, feminist media is only a label. However, not everything can be labeled as feminist media. I think we can agree that there are certain things that are not feminist, The Man Show, spaghetti westerns, Fox News. I think something that these kinds of media share is an unwillingness to surrender hetero-normativity at all. Shows like Top Model and Queer Eye, while overwhelmingly counterproductive, still have some small element of subversion– even if it has been coopted by "the man." They have something in them that could be construed as feminist. Defining feminism by the goal of removing the good/bad qualities from binaries like man/woman, white/not white– with the desire to eventually dissolve the binary. Any kind of media that in some small way challenges an anglo-centric heteronormative world view, is in my opinion feminist.

Posted by Eben Kowler at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I believe that feminism is all about equality. It is not necessary for a filmmaker to stand up and say 'I am a feminist'. The choices within the work speak for themselves. The choice to include actors that are powerful performers, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation. That to me is feminism, the inclusion of all people. This class focused on the subject matter of the film. This is a defining characteristic as well, films about all people. We watched films about women, about people of color, people of homosexual orientation, people living in an oppressive society. These untold stories are finally being told. That is a feminist film. The choice to take a chance on something that may not be profitable, that may not be seen by millions, but that is a statement worth saying, a message that whatever the profit, the filmmaker wants to share. And sometimes they are noticed, like 'Million Dollar Baby', a film whose main character is a female athlete, she's not the lover of the lead male. She is the story, and it was a great story, a story noticed by audiences and critics. 'Boys Don't Cry' is another example of a film that told a powerful story about a type of main character that we rarely see, and it made some noise. Perhaps Hillary Swank is just good at choosing her jobs;) A lot of the films we watched in class obviously weren't blockbuster hits, but they were powerful in their own right. It is becoming a trend to follow more indie films, and i think this is a great thing. Big stars are aiming for more intense or politically motivated roles, like 'Brokeback Mountain'. And maybe its their controversial storylines that make these films get noticed, but for whatever reason, more feminist films are breaking into the mainstream, and that sense of equality is a beautiful thing. I just hope that the trend doesnt end before it really gets started, and more stories as moving as 'Water' will have a chance to be heard.

Posted by Katherine Schmieg at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Feminist media is media that puts forward a feminist message or otherwise moves the cause(s) of feminism forward. This does not have to be done in a manner as blatant as saying “I am a feminist filmmaker and this is a feminist film.� Media that discusses or portrays issues that are important to women's lives can be feminist as well. In some cases, particularly for marginalized populations of women, simply putting media out there that reflects their existence as empowered agents or counters stereotypes can be a feminist act. Context, content, and form are all important when deciding whether media is feminist or not.

A classic example of radical feminist media is the film Born in Flames, made in 1983 by Lizzie Borden. This film depicts a feminist revolution in a male-dominated post-socialist-revolutionary society, discussing along the way issues such as race, class, work and sexuality. It is notable for its frank treatment of these issues, as well as a prescient pre-9/11 scene of the feminists blowing up the World Trade Center.

A clip from that film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nns8seQuY5o

Real Women Have Curves is a good example of a film that is feminist without actively saying so. The film is about a young Latina woman who deals with issues such as school, family, poverty, body image, and first love. The heroine is strong and smart and makes her own decisions, ultimately choosing to go to college and making it happen for herself.

A scene from that movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG1L3wIIxlc

Another film that does feminist work by discussing issues that are important to girls and women is Just Another Girl on the IRT, which is about a teenage Black woman who gets pregnant, has her baby and finishes school. The film deals with teenage pregnancy in a sensitive and honest manner that doesn't stereotype or demonize, which does not often happen in public discussion of that issue.

I could not find a clip for that one, but the IMDB link is here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104575/

Several notable feminist blogs are linked to at http://feministblogs.org. I also like Angry Black Bitch, which can be found here: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

I think all of those express different aspects of media that can be feminist in different ways, although there are many other ways that media can be feminist as well. I think the common theme they have is depicting and discussing issues that are important to women's lives, as well as speaking out in some way for justice and change.

Posted by Peachtree at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After viewing many films in this class by women in general, whether or not they declare themselves as feminist filmmakers, I am even more confused by the concept. It seems to be subjective to the viewer as to whether or not the film is feminist. If someone sees a film to have feminist topics or characters, they may then view the film as feminist. But if it’s not obvious to the viewer then it may not be. For example, I think a film like Iron Jawed Angels would be an obviously feminist film. But then something like The Piano may not be so obviously feminist to the casual viewer. Because “femininity� means so many different things to people, it may be difficult to label a film or filmmaker feminist, unless they, of course, say so. Of course, a filmmaker never needs to say or declare their stance as a feminist filmmaker to be considered one. During an interview with Deepa Mehta, she never says “I’m a feminist filmmaker�. She considered herself to be a “humanist filmmaker�. As feminism no longer is limited to just men versus women, filmmakers are no longer constrained by that dichotomy. Any one can reach out to any group and try to tell their story in the context of their nation, politics, religion, etc. The film “Born into Brothels� was directed by a white woman and man, but they managed to create a documentary literally through the eyes of the children and their families they were filming, by giving them cameras to take pictures of their lives. While feminism is still important, I think that the broadening of the term will allow for more objective viewing and filmmaking, which is not black and white.
http://www.kids-with-cameras.org/bornintobrothels/

Posted by Ashley Day at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To me, I believe that media is feminist if it tells women’s stories. I believe that women’s stories are very important, and they rarely get told. In TV and movies, women are often just stuck in stereotypical roles and not part of the story being told. Although I believe that motherhood is very important, I don’t think that it should be the only story being told. I don’t believe that for media to be feminist the creator has to say they are a feminist filmmaker. A film can be feminist without the creator labeling themselves as a feminist. If it tells women’s stories, or avoids stereotyping women into traditional gender roles, or examines race/class/gender, or explores women’s sexuality or desire, etc. I believe that it is feminist. A media maker does not have to call themselves a feminist to make media that is feminist.

Posted by crowjane at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is hard for me to explicitly state what I think qualifies something as feminist media. Although I do believe there are inherent many qualities that can help in characterizing it. It is important for the maker of the media specifically to believe in their work, not for selfish reasons, but because they are making a statement or sending a message.

What is created should not be purposely hateful, hurtful or degrading to either sex. In Water, it was necessary to show the pain and degradation widows had to go through in their lives in order to convey their suffering. In circumstances like that, where it adds to the specific message of a piece, not just for masochistic purposes, is it understandable.

The work should also be empowering and provide the ability for the audience to identify with the content. For example, the film experience should engage the viewer and provide a story with a message that both educates and arouses their mind.

There are so many mediums that degrade, abuse and objectify both sexes. Our society is conditioned into accepting certain representations of race, class and gender that when we see something that is outside of the norm we fear it. A lot of media makers don’t like to associate themselves with any connotations as to not isolate and deter their audience. But when someone labels themself as a feminist filmmaker, for example, a bout of hesitancy comes about. What do we really fear: the fact that they letting the public acknowledge their personal identification, or the fact that we fear someone that is different than ourselves? There is a difference between intentionally not labeling your work and the need for not explicitly saying it so as to let the work speak for itself. I think this is just as powerful, because it will allow the audience to interpret the piece itself without any labels, and potentially learn feminisms without knowing it. Although I wish there was more proper representation of feminism in different medias, I applaud those who are creating it.

Both in and out of class this semester I have encountered and experienced different feminist media makers. We have studied the works of various filmmakers from Jane Campion to Kimberly Pierce. Outside of class, I viewed works of feminist filmmakers like Mira Nair and studied the works of feminist friendly photographer Annie Liebovitz.

Posted by Mr. Hilton at 8:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Within the context of multiple feminisms, I am not sure that any piece of media can really be wholly ‘feminist,’ regardless of the intention of the filmmaker. It is very unclear who owns ‘feminism’ as a concept, and after taking this course, it is obvious that there are a number of ways in which a piece of media can be approached from a feminist perspective. The kind of feminism that people see within a movie like The Piano is probably not exactly the same feminism that people see within a movie like Boys Don’t Cry or The Watermelon Woman.

The nature of feminism is really problematic. For example, as we were discussing The Piano, there were many problematic facets of the movie mentioned during class. The depiction of persons “of color� was one point of contention. Different people are able to read the same representation from their own perspective.

Still, because the politics of representation are so important within feminist theory and activism, I think that if my definition of a feminist media source, would have to include something about an attempt to render representations of gender, sexuality, race, and class as weapons of fighting hegemonic views that dominate ‘mass’ media. I would add that the subject matter should be of interest to women, but that is redundant—there is no issue that comes to mind that isn’t a women’s issue in one way or another. Also, I think that media that encourages feminist, intersectional dialogue, whether the media itself promotes feminist ideology or not, is part of the feminist media project in that it opens up the floor for analytic discourse.

I think that even pieces of work without an overall feminist tone and/or framework can contain moments that challenge hegemony. So sometimes a piece of media can be rendered feminist in a moment, while not really being feminist overall. Furthermore, I think that a non-explicitly feminist identified filmmaker could make a feminist film. Media created by non-feminist sources can certainly push the boundaries of the representation of gender, sexuality, race, and class.

Directors that have produced works that I believe are feminist include Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don’t Cry, Jamie Babbit (But I’m a Cheerleader), Cheryl Dunye (The Watermelon Woman), Gina Prince Bythewood (Love & Basketball), and Aishah Shahidah Simmons (NO! The Rape Documentary). The fact that the list is so heavily reliant on resources we have viewed as a class this semester speaks to how difficult it is to find feminist media works outside of an environment that is explicitly trying to promote / discuss / analyze them.

Posted by Heather Larson at 5:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does having a feminist undertone to a form of media make the director a feminist? This is a question we have been asking all semester as we witnessed The Piano by Campion, who is a self-proclaimed non-feminist film maker.

There are many people who fight to produce films for the feminist cause and others who fight to keep the patriarchy of today’s society. As stated before there is groups that without trying or meaning to, give cause to feminism by promoting and displaying its message. Feminism/feminist is a subject or person fighting for equality between all genders. These genders can be blurred depending on who you are talking to and intersectionality also plays apart of many feminist directors and activist. There are causes that Women of Color need to demonstrate for their particular group as No shows us rape and gender violence as there is the need for Indian women to educate others on their oppression as in Water. Overall there is a movement toward acceptance of feminist movies and (can I be brave enough to say) a feminist viewpoint or the development of a new gaze. Some authors we have seen in this class feel that this is an impossible objective. I am going to take a post-feminist approach and say soon the day will come for a feminist gaze to be accepted. Media is feminist through female authorship, female voyareuism towards male characters, female heroines who possess masculine qualities, and the breaking of former barriers. This class has expanded my viewpoint on gaze and roles in moves. The male gaze of Hollywood is keeping the mainstream audience oblivious to more appreciative pieces that linger under indie titles. After this class I can look at a movie like Water (Mehta) or Boys Don’t Cry (Pierce) and see the underlying messages. Women oppression is too apparent and feminist film makes people aware from a different more raw standpoint than normal films do. Feminist media is materializing whether the author was aware or not and the feminist media is bringing a new wave of equality and independence to the feminist thought.

Posted by Lindsey Peck at 3:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does having a feminist undertone to a form of media make the director a feminist? This is a question we have been asking all semester as we witnessed The Piano by Campion, who is a self-proclaimed non-feminist film maker.

There are many people who fight to produce films for the feminist cause and others who fight to keep the patriarchy of today’s society. As stated before there is groups that without trying or meaning to, give cause to feminism by promoting and displaying its message. Feminism/feminist is a subject or person fighting for equality between all genders. These genders can be blurred depending on who you are talking to and intersectionality also plays apart of many feminist directors and activist. There are causes that Women of Color need to demonstrate for their particular group as No shows us rape and gender violence as there is the need for Indian women to educate others on their oppression as in Water. Overall there is a movement toward acceptance of feminist movies and (can I be brave enough to say) a feminist viewpoint or the development of a new gaze. Some authors we have seen in this class feel that this is an impossible objective. I am going to take a post-feminist approach and say soon the day will come for a feminist gaze to be accepted. Media is feminist through female authorship, female voyareuism towards male characters, female heroines who possess masculine qualities, and the breaking of former barriers. This class has expanded my viewpoint on gaze and roles in moves. The male gaze of Hollywood is keeping the mainstream audience oblivious to more appreciative pieces that linger under indie titles. After this class I can look at a movie like Water (Mehta) or Boys Don’t Cry (Pierce) and see the underlying messages. Women oppression is too apparent and feminist film makes people aware from a different more raw standpoint than normal films do. Feminist media is materializing whether the author was aware or not and the feminist media is bringing a new wave of equality and independence to the feminist thought.

Posted by Lindsey Peck at 3:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Water is a moving piece that opens our eyes to the oppression of Hindu Indian women widows. The fact that this movie was set to take place in the 1930’s yet the brutal act still occurs today makes the viewing of the film only more crucial.

Context: Deepa Mehta is the director of this film which completes a collection that was labeled fire, earth, water. Originally trying to film in Indian there was enough resistance that she had to relocate to Sri Lanka. The film had to be re-casted and postponed, but once it was created and complete the message was worth the wait. Mehta is not a feminist filmmaker, but a humanitarian filmmaker.

Content: There is a rule that women who are widowed must live as untouchables in a house of outcasts. There is certain food they cannot eat and they are ignored and shunned by normal society. The film takes us through the role of being a widow and how those who do not obey the rules lead a uncomfortable fight. At the end there is hope as one widow who always obeyed the religious law broke it to save a little girl that was to grow up and live as she did. The ability for her to break against everything she previously held as true is strong and brave. Questioning faith and disobeying it are two very different things. The one death that occurs symbolizes the girl who was too broken after trying to free herself from oppression. She feels death is a better sentence than the pain she has endured. No one should be treated in this manner, driven to suicide because of being shunned and abused.

Form: As the title signifies the water of the movie is important. The holy river in Indian is to wash away sins the widows are not allowed to wade into the water, they are suppose to dwell in self-sin. The beauty of nature is significant also. The director herself said the natural beauty contributed another element to the film. The beauty of innocence and ignorance shines through as if to say life should be this easy.

Analysis: All I can say is this is an amazing film. I love learning things about other cultures and I knew nothing of the shunned widows of Indian. The story is painful yet the hope of a happy ending like that of the little girl is the glimmer of hope we all love in the end. There is a possibility to break free, but there is also a significant expression of the oppression women should not have to endure in this stage of evolution. The ability to tell the world that as we fight for the right of a feminist gaze, other women fight for the right to love and be loved, it is an eye-opener to all. Mehta did a great job.

Posted by Lindsey Peck at 3:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

throught out this semester, I learned that there were so many kinds of media that considered to be feminist media. Honestly, I can't define what is feminist media and what is not, but I can say that some media (films) have more power over the others. THe power that make audience to critically think about our society and power that evoke out awareness of cultural differences as well as class, race, gender and sexualiy.

I think that feminist media is alternative, in that there is no certain rules that feminist media have to be made out of certain sources. Actually, it was interesting when i watch the movie and realized all movies that i watched in this class consider about all different kind of subject matter. I think this is what makes feminist media which discuss something that hasn't been discussed.

I understood that face that the most impact on feminist media is audience. It is so important for audiene to watch feminist media, and responds to them. Because film work cannot be done without audience's reaction with film.
it should be clear that the more society causes so many issues about class,race, gender, and sexuality, the more people should crtically understand them and know what is right and what is truth.

Posted by Stella at 3:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In creating a film like Water, Deepa Mehta had felt so strongly about the importance of conveying to others that there is a world that few many know about, but that people are being severely affected by. To me, this film represents an idea that we are controlled by our society in many ways. Though I have not experienced the extreme oppression that the women in Water did, I recognize that there is a certain level of power and authority given to individuals who are not always making decisions for the good of all people under them.
So we come to the question of who is right and who is wrong? What is to be trusted, law or faith? I think that within this film it is obvious that there is a case of pointing fingers and those who are weak under the faith will be oppressed. The audience is left to deal with who really wins in this film.
At first in the film I was angry that the women did not choose to speak out and stand up for themselves. But after I had watched the entire film I realized that the characters in the film were so conditioned out of tradition that they were almost oppressing themselves unknowingly. They have lived in a culture that is strong in its traditions and know the consequences and hardships set forth for them. But they have also been lied to. Though some of the women sensed the urgency to remove themselves from this lifestyle, I never really got the feeling that any of them thought that they deserved a better lifestyle. They knew that there were better things out there, but not necessarily that those things were acceptable for them to have.
Overall, I feel that Mehta was asking the audience to think about where blame can fall and who it should really being falling upon. She does not point fingers at who is to blame herself, but rather leaves the audience to make their own decision based upon their personal feelings on the issue. I find this quality in a filmmaker to be most valuable because they are not making a decision with their film, but rather encouraging a decision because of how the film is laid out.

Posted by Nicole Berg at 2:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“Censor the body and you censor breath and speech at the same time…write yourself. You body must be heard. Only then will the immense resources of the unconscious spring forth�
-Helene Cixous

“As human beings in the developed world become more and more blind to the signals sent out by the body, they become more and more dependant upon the silver screen (…) it is only real to them when they see it on TV.�
-Germaine Greer

“Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression�
-bell hooks

I’m angry. I’m tired, but mostly I’m just pissed off. Its time to be angry again. I’m having a difficulty, a difficulty that comes with the realization that I am not in control, the difficulty that accompanies the unpacking of an internalized structure of thinking, a patriarchal construct of knowledge.
Existing to deepen my sadness is the knowledge that the institutions governing traditional representations of women in the media not only know that these representations are harmful, it is an intentional harm. “A woman’s body is the battlefield where she fights for liberation. It is through her body that oppression works, reifying her, sexualizing her, victimizing her, disabling her� (Greer). How is it possible to come to a state of peace in a media driven culture that turns a profit on female self-hate? “Multi-million dollar industries exploit both her need for reassurance and her need to do something about the way she looks� (Greer).

“Imagine you’re a girl
Just trying to finally come clean
Knowing full well they’d prefer you were dirty
And smiling�
-ani difranco

No matter how beautiful, how successful, how joyful, how giving, how loving, how radiant, how glorious a woman may be, it will never be enough. If there was an end point, a point where finally we could breathe, we could laugh, we could say “look at us! Look how beautiful we are! I’m so glad we invested in all those name brand expensive beauty products and trendy outerware�, if such and endpoint existed, consumerism would suffer. If you are never good enough, you will never stop buying, buying products, buying ideas, buying the dream of acceptance and love that you pray to find in the packaging of your exfoliating cream. We are bombarded with “images suggesting that male sexual domination in no way threatens female autonomy or independence� but we know in our bodies (our good bodies) that this in simply not true. This shit does matter. Rationalizing and perpetuating images of domination over women negates the possibility that love and liberation will ever exist for women. Justifying abuse with love (The Piano), with religion (Water), with political statements and priorities (No), should no longer be tolerated. These are not arbitrary or innocent representations. (hooks). What do you do when you realize that in truth, there is more profit in perpetuating self-hatred rather than self-actualization? The world wants us prostituted, silent, and shopping.

I’ll tell you what I want.
It’s quite simple.

-I want a space where I am not drowning in representations of love that have taught me to internalize an eroticization and acceptance of abuse under the guise of sexual liberation.
-I want a space where multi million dollar companies who turn a profit by first creating, then exploiting my insecurities do not determine my self worth.
-I want a space where I see women’s bodies represented in a fashion that doesn’t invite consumption, assimilation, and obliteration.

-I want a space that wants me in it.

“What more could women want?
Freedom, that’s what.
Freedom from being the thing looked at rather than the person looking back. Freedom from self-conciousness. Freedom from the duty of sexual stimulation of jaded female appetite, for which no breast ever bulges hard enough and no leg is ever long enough. Freedom from the humiliating insults heaped on us by the top shelf of the newsagents; freedom from rape, whether is is by being undressed verbally by men on the building site…greasily teased by our male workmates, pawed by the boss, used sadistically or against our will by the men we love, or violently terrorized and beaten by a stranger.�
-Greer

“Female power will rush upon us in the persons of women who have nothing to lose, having lost everything already�
-Greer

Take back power, take back control, take back your body.

Posted by Alissa McCourt at 1:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I entered this class being exposed mainly to feminist visual artists and this course allowed me to branch out my knowledge to more film artists. The way that filmmakers and visual artists portray their feminist points of view is very similar; it’s merely that the form is different. Therefore, in the same way that not all art by women is feminist, not all films made by women are necessarily feminist. Even if the main character is a woman it does not instantly make the film feminist. Films that are actually feminist films should address the issues of feminism in both form and content, looking at or trying to change the traditional roles of women, the way women are viewed in the media, create a safer and equal environment for females in relationship to males, etc. Feminist films should offer a critique of the patriarchal and heteronormative culture in which we live.

Some filmmakers may not self-identify as feminist but can create a film that addresses the issues of feminism in a way that causes the film to be absorbed into the “f� word heading. The content of these films supercedes the filmmaker’s personal context. Some people lack an understanding of the positions of feminists because of the plurality of the subject and therefore have a stigma against labeling themselves or their films in such a manner. I know many people who have a negative view of people like me who self-identify as feminist and that negativity on their part is often due to ignorance. It is understandable that the media makers would not want their films under a perceived negative category, but those films can still touch the feminists and their cause.

This course has been very helpful in expanding my knowledge of feminist media makers and will be very beneficial in my continuation with feminist art.

Though there are quite a few feminist films in existence these are a few that I enjoy that were not viewed during the semester:
North Country
Erin Brockovich
The Color Purple
The Handmaid’s Tale (book turned movie)
And other works by Margaret Atwood

Without repeating our list of feminist filmmakers from previous blogs, here are a couple other feminist media makers that I enjoy:
Eve Ensler
The Guerrilla Girls

Posted by Katie at 1:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In creating a film like Water, Deepa Mehta had felt so strongly about the importance of conveying to others that there is a world that few many know about, but that people are being severely affected by. To me, this film represents an idea that we are controlled by our society in many ways. Though I have not experienced the extreme oppression that the women in Water did, I recognize that there is a certain level of power and authority given to individuals who are not always making decisions for the good of all people under them.
So we come to the question of who is right and who is wrong? What is to be trusted, law or faith? I think that within this film it is obvious that there is a case of pointing fingers and those who are weak under the faith will be oppressed. The audience is left to deal with who really wins in this film.
At first in the film I was angry that the women did not choose to speak out and stand up for themselves. But after I had watched the entire film I realized that the characters in the film were so conditioned out of tradition that they were almost oppressing themselves unknowingly. They have lived in a culture that is strong in its traditions and know the consequences and hardships set forth for them. But they have also been lied to. Though some of the women sensed the urgency to remove themselves from this lifestyle, I never really got the feeling that any of them thought that they deserved a better lifestyle. They knew that there were better things out there, but not necessarily that those things were acceptable for them to have.
Overall, I feel that Mehta was asking the audience to think about where blame can fall and who it should really being falling upon. She does not point fingers at who is to blame herself, but rather leaves the audience to make their own decision based upon their personal feelings on the issue. I find this quality in a filmmaker to be most valuable because they are not making a decision with their film, but rather encouraging a decision because of how the film is laid out.

Posted by Nicole Berg at 1:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I believe that feminism is a combination of a celebration of real women in all their forms (different races, religions, sexual orientations, shapes, etc) and a move for equality of women across these forms and between genders. Therefore, I believe a form of media is feminist when it celebrates different types of women. We have seen this in class before with “the Watermelon Woman� celebrating women of color and homosexual women or in “Live Nude Girls Unite� celebrating women in their chosen profession and moving for equality. Therefore, I believe a filmmaker need not necessarily declare a feminist stance as long as they portray women realistically without stereotypes and celebrates their differences.
I enjoy the blog www.feministing.com which discusses various things occurring that deal with women and interviews various important inspiring females. Also, my sister subscribes to the magazine Bust – and although it still deals with fashion and pop culture in some ways, it also deals with many different forms of women and doesn’t deal with “How to please your man� articles.

Posted by Karin Fisher at 1:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First of all, I want to say that I think this is a brilliant article. Its influence and importance are highly significant. However, I do have some reservations about it in its appropriation of Lacanian psychoanalysis to further its claims of the cinema being a tool that furthers patriarchy. Within the article, there is the implication that the gaze of the camera itself represents patriarchy. This claim holds more weight when one is to observe a film made from the era of classic Hollywood, as the usage of camera positions tends to convey a dominantly male sense of subjectivity. However, we have now become so accustomed to the cinematic aperatus that the aperatus itself has become the subject in which the viewer's identification rests within. In Lacanian terms, this perspective of the camera is not inherantly male, but instead represents the perspective of the the symbolic world. It is the physical manifestation of the religious illusion (Debord, Society of the Spectacle), a perspective from God's eye. There is nothing inherantly gendered about the perspective of the camera, which is the perspective that the viewer is to dominantly identify with. This of course is not to imply that the camera is objective or apart from ideology: the world of camera reality is the realization and actualization of every last referential, the final triumph of the capitalist system over lived reality.

Mulvey deals with this problematic at the end of her article, mentioning the possibility for the transformation of the cinema into its "materiality in time and space" with the establishment of an alternative cinema. But today, even for non-alternative cinemas, the camera is where the viewers primary identification resides within. So much so, in fact, that the camera has become a character onto itself. This relationship is not inherantly gendered, even while a film text will further the conventions and attitudes of patriarchy through its content.

Posted by Robin Youngman at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It was interesting watching No! and Beyond Beats and Rhymes within two weeks of each other. Both films deal with content that is very important, but in terms of stylistic execution, the two couldn't be further apart. I'm just gonna say it: stylistically, No! is a terrible documentary. Almost every formal aspect, every stylistic choice is ill-concieved. It's poor execution make the film needlessly difficult to watch, paced in such a way that the film feels like its ending for an entire half-hour. Beyond Beats and Rhymes, in contrast, is one of the most entertaining and stylistically captivating documentaries I have ever seen, and it uses its stylistic conventions in an inteligent fashion that doesn't put it into the "style over substance" camp that many contemporary documentaries fall into. It does a great job of examining multiple perspectives and multiple voices in relation to the issue of masculinity within hip-hop culture.
The stylistic problems with No! cannot solely be atributed to film's lack of resources. The problems run much deeper than this. In praising Beyond Beats and Rhymes for its style, I want to make it clear that I do not feel that documentaries need to or should be heavily stylized. Generally speaking, the more stylized a documentary is the further it becomes pushed into the realm of fiction/ideology. Some of my favorite documentaries are extremely sparse in their usage of stylistic conventions. Titicut Folies for instance, a 1967 film which examines the inner workings of a mental institution without utilizing any formal elements that extend beyond the diagesis of the film, a film which is completely free of any kind of emotional pandering. Another documentary is After Innocence which focuses on the stories of inmates who have been released from prisons following DNA evidence proving them to be innocent. This particular film doesn't appear to be made for a lot of money, but its handling of the material is very minimalist and stark, allowing for the subjects of the film to speak for themselves. The biggest problem with No! is that it doesn't allow for the subjects to speak for themselves. Instead, the viewer inapropriately uses an emotionally pandering musical score, cheesy and unnesecary historical reenactments, freeze-frames during the interviews, and other annoying stylistic conventions which take away from the power of the stories that the women in the film are telling. These stylistic conventions are not necessary for the film, and in fact, do a great deal to take away from the reality that the film is meant to reflect. It is not merely a question of budgetary constraints, for the film would have actually been cheaper to produce if the material was handled in a more formally minimialist style.
While the poor execution of No! brings down the quality of the film, the content that is explored by the film is still able to shine through. As a viewer of a documentary such as this one, it is important to extract whatever content a film is conveying, even while the execution of such a film may not be of the highest quality. However, one needs to be careful while discussing and analyzing a film such as No! as it is irresponsible to copmletely ignore the stylistic flaws of such a film and overpraise it because it conveys a good message. It is highly important to be able to assess a film's message as well as the success of a message's execution, as the formal qualities within a film such as No! can actually work to undermine a film's message.

Posted by Robin Youngman at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This class has helped to provoke me into thinking about the conventions of patriarchy within American cinema, and how these conventions can be challenged. The ways in which films utilize formal techniques in order to provide convey male subjectivity, with women being treated as objects of scopophilia, has been praticularly of interest to me in my analysis of patriarchal film texts. While the formal conventions that Laura Mulvey, for instance, maps out bear more significance in application to the films of Classic Hollywood, the overall picture that she paints of the ways in which narrative works within Hollywood cinema is still applicable to current media texts. The majority of films that are released are still male dominated, focusing on strong male characters who drive forward the narrative of a film, often times through violent action. Women today still dominantly play a supporting role within mainstream American productions.
I remain skeptical about a true alternative cinema being able to be developed today. While it is certainly true that many women have made important films that deal with questions of gender/sexuality in representation (The Watermellon Woman, for instance), as well as films that allow for women's stories of oppression to be broadcasted (No would be an example of this kind of film), I am still not sure if these kinds of films represent a real challenge to the hegemonic structure of patriarchy. While new media technologies, such as the proliferation of digital equipment, make it possible for a greater range of individuals to be able to share their own stories, I am skeptical of this kind of media technology enacting real change within society. New technologies, such as the internet, always have effects that are inherant to these technolgies, and while the internet does provide for a new space of communication, I am skeptical of this kind of communication as representing any kind of real social network, fearing that it leads more dominantly to a sense of generalized seperation. Any system that is this totalizing, however, is going to have inconsistancies which allow for room in order to enact social change, and it is through this change that hope may possibly exist for feminist media to present a challenge to patriarchal hegemony.

Posted by Robin Youngman at 10:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In our class discussion of "No! The Rape Documentary" I got very frustrated listening to many of my classmates critque and say that the scenes of the black female slaves and their masters were annoying and pointless. I did understand that they were renacted and a bit corny, but with such little resources this is probaby the best that they could do. Movies are not just about the image they are also about the message. The message that these scenes represented was very important because even today they are not being mentioned. This idea of the white, male being more powerful and taking control of the black females was not addressed 100 years ago, but it is still not being addressed today. I can't even begin to tell you all of the alerts and warnings that the University has sent me through email this semester. They are keeping us updated about the crime and violence going on around campus, but almost every email has described the attacker as a black or asian, male, age 19-24, and usually wearing a hooded sweatshirt. There is also an excerpt at the bottom of all these emails stating that racial segregation is not something to act on alone, but with all these emails repeating the same image people are going to associate them with crime. My point is that there are other people out there commiting these same crimes, so why aren't we getting emails about them? Well, this is due to the same issue that the film "NO!" brought up people are too scared to report crimes commited by white males, because it is more likely that officials will not listen or act on these reports especially if the males are wealthy or upperclass. White males are still receiving power and privelege over females especially over women of color, which is giving them easy access to not only rape, but abuse verbally and physically. Not enough attention is being directed toward this issue, which is why I was so upset after our discussion because I believe those scenes were very important.

Posted by Marial Weidner at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just finished taking a really interesting theatre history course this semester. In preparation for the final class, we were asked to pick a topic of interest from the breadth of material covered in the course and review our notes for an in-class discussion. Throughout the semester, we had touched upon the role of women in theatre, on the stage, and as playwrights. Unfortunately, for the most part this was always an extra side note, never anything we explored in-depth. That is, until we reached the Restoration period of the 18th century (the first time a woman’s body was seen on stage). Instead, the class was structured around the various transitions in modes of thinking and knowledge production. “Identity is constituted ‘not outside but within representation’ and invites us to see film ‘not as a second-order mirror held up to reflect what already exists, but as that form of representation which is able to constitute us as new kinds of subjects and thereby enable us to discover who we are’� (hooks 213). Although hooks is speaking specifically about film, I think these ideas about representation apply to the theatre as well. All semester I thought there were these huge shifts throughout history that altered all aspects of representation. After reviewing my notes, I began to realize some interesting “side-notes� I had never pieced together before.

Since I am interested in the representations of women in theatre, I decided to go through the plays we read and make an outline detailing these representations. Here are some of the thoughts I gathered and some interesting connections I am in the process of working through.

I will first deal with the two translations of Medea we read, the first by Euripides and the second by Seneca. In Euripedes’ Medea he presents the act of being socialized into a silent woman. What constraints exist that govern our way of thinking and our ability to speak and be heard? The first time Medea speaks, she is offstage. In order to have a voice, she must be represented through a form of decapitation, therefore her body and her voice are not allowed to coexist. In Seneca’s Medea, a tension exists between being an Athenian or a barbarian. The process of othering becomes the tool to silence Medea and the chorus represents the beginnings of this dichotomy through their juxtaposed representation. This later develops into an angel/whore dichotomy which continues to be perpetuated. One must become a silent woman of Corinth and attempt to internalize the practices of society—therefore, a woman must accept her creation under a male gaze. Both playwrights rely on various constructions of madness to create a sense of displaced and silenced femininity. “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing on them the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer, not maker, of meaning� (Mulvey 35).

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Ophelia is represented through very similar constructions of madness. It is her refusal to exist in a world which is not her own which leads to her death, suggesting that a woman with knowledge, awareness, and agency is a woman who can not live. This constructed madness is used to juxtapose the concept of the irrational, emotional woman with the stabilizing force that is man. Ironically, it is men, and the male gaze that orders this particular universe and is ultimately responsible for Ophelia’s death.

In The Duchess of Malfi, the only character without a name is the Duchess. She exists only in reference to her function in yet another male-ordered universe. In McCabe’s article “Woman Is Not Born But Becomes A Woman�, she discusses Simone de Beauvoir’s theory that “patriarchal culture is somehow responsible for generating and circulating self-confirming parameters that institute gender hierarchies and sexual inequalities. The female emerges as condemned to her subordinate role, ‘defined exclusively in her relation to man’� (McCabe 4). The Duchess attempts to break out of the stagnant state of her repressive society and marry against her brother’s wishes—thus creating a world constructed through a feminine gaze (arguably a heterotopia). It is this choice that leads to her death, once again silencing a woman through the removal of agency and punishing those who do not conform to the accepted realities.

In various Restoration plays, such as The Country Wife and The Lucky Chance, a woman’s body becomes sexed through male anxiety about the implications of having a woman on stage, and through the layering of various gazes. “Men do not simply look; their gaze carries with it the power of action and of possession that is lacking in the female gaze� (Kaplan 121). These plays make it very clear that since everything is defined through commerce, a woman’s worth is defined by her virginity since that is what makes her “sellable.� This continues to perpetuate an angel/whore dichotomy.

This is just a rough outline of the representations of women in a few of the plays we read. What is interesting about this collection of information is that it spans from the problematic origins of theatre in Greece, all the way through the Restoration in 18th century England. This wide range of time is highlighted by various shifts in modes of knowledge production, and representational practices, although, when I look at this outline, I don’t see those shifts in the representations of women. How can an entire society be said to have shifted modes of thought from similitude to resemblance, to the French Neo-classical ideal, etc if an entire group of people is excluded from that shift? Do these transitions really exist if despite them the theatre continues to reify accepted forms of representation of women on the stage? Why is it that these shifts explain everything except the role of women in individual societies? It is almost as if the act of organizing history based on these changing modes of thought masks the stagnant representations of women and keeps us from questioning what it means to indeed shift our processes of thought. “‘Representation of the world…is the work of men’ which depicts it ‘from their own point of view’ and is confused ‘with absolute truth’� (McCabe 4).

Disclaimer: I know these are very disjointed thoughts, but I just started researching this yesterday so this is just the beginning.

Posted by R.S. at 8:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I believe that a film feminist is anyone who makes a film (either documentary or narrative) that brings awareness to the issues of gender, race, class, and sexuality. A media feminist is someone who does the same thing, but uses any type of media, not just film. Either way a feminist is someone who works toward ultimate tolerance. The feminist film and media makers that I have encountered have been mostly in class. Katja Van Garner, Jane Campion, Bell Hooks, Cheryl Dunye, Kimberly Pierce, Julia Query, Aishah Simmons, Byron Hurt, and Deepa Mehta. In another one of my classes I was shown one of Jane Campion's first shot films called Peel, which was interesting to see. I enjoyed seeing the film, perhaps more than others in the class, because I knew who Campion was and knew some of her other work. I do not think a filmmaker/mediamaker needs to say that they are a feminist filmmaker in order for it to count. However, if the individual is strongly opposed to being called a feminist filmmaker then I would not consider their work feminist. If the artist does not make a stance either way, then it is up to the individual observer to decide if the work should be considered feminist, and there will be no right or wrong answer. In my opinion, anyone who makes a film or piece of media with the goal of working ultimate tolerance exceptance then I consider their work to be feminist.

Posted by Brigitte Bartholdi at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before this class I never took a film/media class let alone feminist class. I came in not knowing what to think. The only images that came to my head when hearing the word “feminist� was a bunch of women burning their bras, and looking disheveled. My image of feminism has changed greatly by taking this class.

A feminist in my opinion is anyone, male or female, who believes in equality between the sexes. With this being said, a feminist filmmaker is one who produces/directs films, with an equality mindset. This would mean that through the movie’s content and during production no favoritism is shown to one sex or the other. An example of this is Rebecca Miller who directed Personal Velocity. Instead of having a team mainly composed of men, she hired more women who were just as qualified to make the team more even. Those who consider themselves feminist, I would probably agree with. If they share the ideals of not letting men and others with more power carry out control over others.
In the media, I have realized that many of the directors are men. Even for the classified “women shows� men direct them. Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives are both directed by men. After looking harder to find women directors, more and more were seen. For the series Gilmore Girls, most of the episodes were directed by women, and the many films we watched in class, with directors such as Campion (The Piano), Dunye (The Watermelon Women), and Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry).

Posted by Ashley Pritchard at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before this class I never took a film/media class let alone feminist class. I came in not knowing what to think. The only images that came to my head when hearing the word “feminist� was a bunch of women burning their bras, and looking disheveled. My image of feminism has changed greatly by taking this class.

A feminist in my opinion is anyone, male or female, who believes in equality between the sexes. With this being said, a feminist filmmaker is one who produces/directs films, with an equality mindset. This would mean that through the movie’s content and during production no favoritism is shown to one sex or the other. An example of this is Rebecca Miller who directed Personal Velocity. Instead of having a team mainly composed of men, she hired more women who were just as qualified to make the team more even. Those who consider themselves feminist, I would probably agree with. If they share the ideals of not letting men and others with more power carry out control over others.
In the media, I have realized that many of the directors are men. Even for the classified “women shows� men direct them. Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives are both directed by men. After looking harder to find women directors, more and more were seen. For the series Gilmore Girls, most of the episodes were directed by women, and the many films we watched in class, with directors such as Campion (The Piano), Dunye (The Watermelon Women), and Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry).

Posted by Ashley Pritchard at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After all the critique, I think the thing that makes the media feminist is the way the film is portrayed and what messages it sends to viewers. My stance on feminism, and the view in which I consider myself as one, is for the equality of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. For example, our viewing of “Live Nude Girls Unite� is considered feminist because the women are portrayed as fighting for their cause and it sends the message of strong women who want equality. In the movie NO! Aishah Simmons creates this film to bring equality to women of color, and light to the cause of the unnoticed raping by black men of black women.

Outside of class I have encountered what I would consider to be feminist media makers. The first one who comes to mind is Joss Whedon. Whedon is the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Series in which shows Sarah Michelle Geller kicking vampire ass. This shows Buffy is a strong female, who does this better than the men can. Also, a film I will argue as feminist is Pride and Prejudice. This movie and book shows a very strong woman, Elizabeth Bennett, who in her own 18th century world has a witty and smart brain. This movie depicts Darcy and Elizabeth as equals in the end because of their respective intelligence and not because of their looks, gender, or connections.

These two examples are of media makers who do not explicitly say they are feminists. A work can be feminist without proclaiming “I am a feminist film maker!� However, we can read the subtext of the media and realize this is the case.

Feminist media: NO! Aishah Simmons, The Piano, Pride and Prejudice, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Live Nude Girls Unite, Cheryl Duyne, Byron Hurt, and many other films and media makers.

Posted by Ashley Abel at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I believe that anything can make media feminist. It can change from how a character is displayed, the clothes that they wear, the way they talk, the way they stand, the way you are suppose to view them.
I don’t think I have a straight answer for what makes a film feminist but for certain what makes a film feminist is going against how the majority of media display women or even having a feminist director.
The feminist films that I have encountered are mostly from the class, even the directors I have learned from this class.
I have learned that it doesn’t matter if the filmmaker is a feminist, but if depends greatly on the story they are trying to display and for what audience.
One movie that I think is feminist is “Freedom Writers�. This movie is about a female teacher that has the power to make a difference.
This class has taught me about feminist, and has talk me a lot about myself. I always stood up for many things that I thought was wrong, mostly surrounding race, class, and gender. All my life, I knew I was different. I’m hmong, I’m a woman, and I don’t have a lot of money and my family doesn’t have a lot of money. There are so many strikes against me. There are many things that I notice now, how I am treated because I am female. It seems like no matter what there will be obstacles to fight through or you will never survive in this cruel world.

Posted by Padao Vang at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Deepa Mehta’s Water has been my favorite film of the course – it resonated with me in a way that not many films do. I thought Mehta’s method of prodding rather than preaching was incredibly effective. She forces us to contemplate but not necessarily adopt any positions. An example of this forced contemplation is with an interaction between Narayan and Kalyani:

Narayan: All the old traditions are dying out.
Kalyani: But what is good should not die out.
Narayan: And who will decide what is good and what is not?

This question lingered with me as the credits rolled. Who will decide what is right and what is wrong? Who is to say which culture is the cultural ideal?

Deepa revealed the roots of a controversial cultural practice without being disrespectful or unauthentic. Her script is compelling and crucial -- when Chuyia asks where the house for the men widows is, once again the viewer is left to ponder the answer for herself. On a side note, Chuyia (Sarala Kariyawasam) is so impressive as an actress and I hope to see more of her as she grows up.

It is interesting that when Auntie (I think) dies, one of the other widows says, “God willing she’ll be reborn as a man,� rather than “God willing, one day women will be treated as equals.� There is an absence of hope, an absence of resistance – as if how it is, it always will be. With the rise of Gandhi’s movement depicted, we are able to see a glimmer of change waiting in the wings. Another incredibly powerful moment of dialouge was when Narayan said that this act of punishing widows is “disguised as religion� but is in actuality just about money. One less mouth to feed. One less person to house. Perhaps the most controversial statement of the film, it forces us to think what else lies disguised amidst our lives.

Posted by Luna Lovegood at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have done a lot of my own studying into this issue in India and surrounding countries and I was impressed how well this film was done. I think Deepa Mehta did an excellent job on presenting us with their reality and the issues they face over there. She was able to engage the audience well, however I feel like there was no solution or a way presented in which we can help- Or can we? is that just part of their culture that we need to except and let them work out their own issues or how do we help- was the question I left asking myself. I agree that knowledge is power, but what will bring about change for these people? I have no answers myself and I just thought I would point out what issue I thought there was with the film since we didn't discuss it at all after. Overall, I feel like the film is successful and the use of colors, and images was extrodinary throughout the film. The characters were clearly passionate about their roles and I respected that. In America I think actors/actresses tend to take jobs depending on how much money is offered to them and I think this film was truely about an issue that needed to be talked about. So in conclusion I'm glad we screened this in class, I think it was very productive and makes us realize that other countries value different things.

Posted by Jessica Haddrill at 7:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Women's Press that was handed out in class was very, very interesting to me because it presented such a wide array of topics and stories within it. This newspaper focused on women's issues and where we've come from and where we need to go academically. The article about whether women's studies is still relevant was written very well and I feel like it told the direction we need to take our issues as women. It told the story of how women's studies has become a large study group within college campuses in such a short time period and appeals to a lot of different cultures and genders. Women's studies I feel has liberated women and has encouraged women to be their own people whether they support the first woman president or stand up against domestic violence. Therefore women's studies has opened the door to involve gender issues, sexualtiy issues, and racism. It's to the point now I feel like that women have gained everyone's attention and can start to bring up more serious issues that are still being surpressed. This newspaper provided ways in which women could get involved in women studies programs, research, stories of struggle from all races, rape, good books to read, weight solutions, and many other sections that make women's studies still relevant. Overall a good tool and best of all, it was free! A good source to see what is going on around us in the world of women. So the short answer is Yes, it's relevant because we have so much further to go but we can't get there without remembering where we came from.

Posted by Jessica Haddrill at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This film brought out a lot of feelings for me inside. Not only did I feel sorry for how women are taken advantage of but also how this society doesn't deal with what is actually going on. The film was filled with heart wrenching stories and really made me think about how we deal with rape and how we don't deal with rape. I felt extremely bad for these women and honestly I felt even worse for those who had taken advantage of their minds and their bodies. I say this because it takes a really sick person to take advantage of someone else and it makes me wonder what on Earth made them think they could take someone's control and power away from them. This whole topic really hits home with me because growing up I have a very close friend of mine be abused and touched by her uncle. What enraged me about it was when she told me about it I believed her and I wanted to help her. but when we told her mother she did not believe her own daughter. So the abuse continued for years and eventually my friend took her own life, as a way to escape the pain any longer that she could no longer endure. So with that said this film I think was very important to express how people's lives are impacted when their control is taken out of their hands and placed into someone elses. I think that feminist film makers do an excellent job when they advocate for womens' rights and bring up issues that people don't want to hear about or maybe don't know about. It makes me proud to be women and it's films like this that remind me that we have some serious issues that are not taken as seriously as they should be.

Posted by Jessica Haddrill at 6:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the beginning of this course I felt like I had no sense of what a feminist film was or who made them and why, however at this point I feel like I have some type of foundation to base my newly gained knowledge upon. My foundation is made up of many different definitions as to what it means to be feminist and is also made up of different theories. These theories are made up of ideas from feminists like Laura Mulvey, which presented the ideas of "The Gaze" and "Visual Pleasures". Ann Kaplan, who first introduced "Feminism & Film" and "Is The Gaze Male". Bell Hooks who introduced the "Oppositional Gaze of Black Spectators". These women have similar ideas but also feel differently about certain issues, which I think makes this a difficult topic to learn and apply. However, it's easy to look at their work and know that it's feminist because we know that they clearly designate themselves to be a feminist. There are other feminists that do not declare themselves feminists like that of Deepa Mehta who claims that she is a humanitarian. Therefore, I think it's of importance to recognize that not all feminist films have to be written by a feminist film maker, but can also be made by a male or female of the mainstraim who challenge norms in gender roles, sex, class, ethnicity, and morals.

It was news to me that men could make feminist film/media before I had taken this course. I had made the assumption that all feminist were female, however throughout many different screenings of films in this course have I learned otherwise. I'm now able to take the ideas of what makes a film feminist and relate it into other pieces of work and see what makes a film important. I think a feminist film maker brings important issues to the table and makes them relevant even when it is bad taboo to talk about them in our country and other countries. I feel like feminists often take a stand at things and speak them as they are and challenge many norms.

I feel like feminists challenge the roles that women play in cinema today by critically looking their scripts and how they are portrayed to the audience. I feel like they critically look at sex, gender, roles, and how the female body is represented in cinema and media by challenging what mainstream portrays as normal. They have brought it to our attention that what we see everyday and everywhere is not normal or healthy for the female population in general but sometimes degrading. I feel like they are advocates for equality and fair representation of the female body in cinema/media. However, with that said I'm not sure I have a clear definition as to what makes a piece of cinema feminist other than consider who is making it and what side of the spectrum they are trying to represent or illustrate. Overall, to my understandings this far the best way I can describe what I have learned is on a continuum, where you have feminists who speak up loud and clear like Bell Hooks vs. people like Deepa Mehta who claim they are not feminist but rather humanitarian. In summary I have learned that there is a lot of different components that go into feminist film theory and are very vital to our society.

Posted by Jessica Haddrill at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am a GWSS major and because of that I think I have seen a handful of feminist films throughout college. With that said, it is still hard for me to define exactly what makes feminist films feminist? I think a large part of it is if the filmmakers themselves considering themselves feminist followed by the direction of the film. If the film is made as a part of social activism or with the idea of creating a real image in society more known to the world, perhaps that is what makes them feminist. Specific issues involved with sex, gender, race, and class that are displayed in films could also be considered feminist. I think it depends on how a film is looked at, what audiences are watching it, and who makes the film. I think it would/ could make a difference if the filmmaker says they are feminist for a couple of reasons. If they say this, society will place them in that category and perhaps think about the events of the film. The audience may decide to or not to watch the film because of the "status" of the filmmaker/film.

Posted by Greta Fay at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am a GWSS major and because of that I think I have seen a handful of feminist films throughout college. With that said, it is still hard for me to define exactly what makes feminist films feminist? I think a large part of it is if the filmmakers themselves considering themselves feminist followed by the direction of the film. If the film is made as a part of social activism or with the idea of creating a real image in society more known to the world, perhaps that is what makes them feminist. Specific issues involved with sex, gender, race, and class that are displayed in films could also be considered feminist. I think it depends on how a film is looked at, what audiences are watching it, and who makes the film. I think it would/ could make a difference if the filmmaker says they are feminist for a couple of reasons. If they say this, society will place them in that category and perhaps think about the events of the film. The audience may decide to or not to watch the film because of the "status" of the filmmaker/film.

Posted by Greta Fay at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Honestly, this is a tirade. But there is free Kenneth Anger inside.

There's this great philosopher named Theodor Adorno (heck, I may have even quoted this in a previous post) who once said: "content is fleeting; form is the invisible pistol held to people's heads." PS: He's writing about the post-Holocaust world at this point.

In this class, we have seen great feminist filmmakers, in the sense that they have not been male, white, straight, rich, or some combination therein.

We have also see great feminist content, in the sense that it doesn't necessarily follow Aristotelean "rising action, climax, denouement" plotlines, doesn't have Hollywood endings, doesn't necessarily make you feel better than when you came in, refuses to simply be consumable entertainment, or some combination therein.

What I have yet to experience is FEMINIST FORM - something that breaks tired, preprogrammed conventions of cinematography, lighting, framing, music, pace, and identity. Why are these conventions still around? Because Western audiences (feminist or no) are by and large addicted to cinematic storytelling.

It has to make sense and tell a story that audiences can follow and anticipate the first time through. Otherwise we throw it away.

Even "Water" (female Indian director, story of female oppression by a hetero-normative ideology, Bollywood-ish plot structure) inevitably fell guilty of Hollywood form:
-well-lit, beautifully composed, nicely paced shots
-featured attractive romantic leads (especially by Western standards)
-taught audiences to identify with the victimized child
-vilified one agenda (Hindi widows) while praising another (Ghandi)
-flagrantly othered the one sexually "questionable" character in the entire movie

When I think of non-Hollywood cinematic form, two examples leap to my mind. First, "Scorpio Rising" (1964) by Kenneth Anger. Here's a clip.

Confused? GOOD. Granted, this footage is once Anger really gets going; the opening stuff is my personal favorite.

My second example is "Persona" (1966) by Ingmar Bergman. I honestly can't provide a plot description because the plot is trippy beyond words. What I do remember, though, are jarring camera angles, long-duration shots, and an incredibly creepy scene played twice-over from a different angles.

"Oldboy" (2003) has glimpses of formulaic brilliance (especially with shot duration and a twisted plot), but lands safely in the hands of the Hollywood "revenge thriller" mold.

To actually answer the questions posed in the blog post: a feminist filmmaker does not need to claim his/her feminism – if his/her physical body and personal lifestyle falls outside the hetero-normative male, white, straight, rich mold, then he/she is technically a feminist filmmaker. HOWEVER, not all (and I would argue: few) feminist filmmakers actually make feminist films and, in a sick twist of irony, a straight, white, rich, man could just as easily make one.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: if feminism is about questioning and criticizing established relationships of power, then feminism is quickly becoming a human-wide issue and not just a "woman's only club".

Bring on the hate.

Posted by Christopher Kehoe at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What makes media feminist? This seems like such an easy question, right? Honestly, at this point, I really only feel like I have tiny fragments of understanding and I’m still not quite sure how they fit together.

My first instinct is to say that feminist media is the alternative, or the response, to mainstream media. It provides a space for conflicting views of reality to exist and strives to work from within the structures of representation to alter our understanding of sex, class, gender and race. I also feel like feminist media works to create a way to represent bodies that does not objectify those bodies. This is where I get stuck. I’m still not sure how this idea manifests itself successfully in media. The nature of most media as a form of artistic expression and knowledge dissemination relies on a particular gaze of a particular audience to be successful. If this is true, how can feminist media alter the act of gazing upon a body in such a way that removes the notions of objectification? Unfortunately, I am no where near finding an answer to that question but it is certainly a thought I am trying to exist within.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about this idea of objectification in media and my own response to a world of representation I can no longer exist within. For the longest time I struggled with the possibility that my ideas about feminist media were dangerously close to censorship. The best I’ve come up with at this point is that feminist media can avoid becoming censorship by existing among mainstream media, not attempting to cover/oppress/get rid of it. This [new] type of media is simply offering possibilities where none existed previously. It is simply suggesting an alternative understanding of our realities.

I almost think there is some aspect of feminist media which is impossible to gain by working within the confines of what already exists. This system of representation does not work for feminists, or at least it does not work for my feminisms. It’s like trying to fit a square inside of a circular hole…it just doesn’t work. I think for feminist media to exist as wholly as possible, there has to be a radical shift in ideas about media. We can’t follow [their] rules anymore and just add our content. We need to make our own rules that support our content. I just keep thinking about this line from an Ani DiFranco song… “Who says I like right angles, these are not my laws, these are not my rules.�

In terms of who “counts� as a feminist media maker, I don’t think self-declaration as a feminist is necessary. As viewers/audience members, we bring our understanding of the world and the lenses we choose to view that world through, and we create our own subjective experience. I think artists can articulate certain ideas about feminism and not pinpoint it as such. In some respects, this can become a really interesting idea for alternative media. In not labeling something as feminist media, the creator does not confine the work to any sort of box. The work can maintain a sense of fluidity and can express that person’s understanding of the world without having to speak for all of feminism.

Since I am still in the process of discovering what it means to be a feminist media maker, I don’t have a real list of people. I am interested in looking further into the work of certain filmmakers, such as Cheryl Dunye, Deepa Mehta and Lourdes Portillo.

So here are some of my scattered ideas that I’m trying to weave into an understanding of what it means to create feminist media. I feel like I am leaving this class with more questions than answers, but that is such a great place to be right now, so I don’t mind.

Interesting things to check out:
1) The current issue of Adbusters magazine has an interesting article about the recent law passed which bans all outdoor advertising in São Paolo, Brazil. I'm not sure if it's published online, but just in case.
http://adbusters.org/

2) http://thecurvature.com/
I just stumbled upon this today and I’ve skimmed through it and it looks like it has potential. Not sure of all it has to offer yet, but I thought I’d share.

3) http://bitchmagazine.com/

Posted by R.S. at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Deepa Mehta's answer to whether or not she is a feminist filmmaker was dead on. She said she is a humanist filmmaker, and that is apparent in Water.

She captured, through many of the characters, a real feeling of love and selflessness. The use of color is stunningly used to show that there is beauty everywhere, and signifies the resilience of the human spirit. Although this film is lovely and groundbreaking in many ways, the love story irritated me. The man’s interest in the women is based almost entirely on her looks, which makes him no different from her clients. I was pleased that, contrary to my expectations, he didn’t physically rescue her from her captivity, but it marrying him still served as her way out of the life she was formerly leading, which, in essence, makes him the hero for doing nothing but wanting to marry a gorgeous woman.
I enjoyed the way nature was used in the film. Water is used to cleanse the body and spirit of sins and impurities. It is also shown as a great divide, the wealthy families live on one side of the river and the widows live on the other side. The dichotomy between the two significances of water are similar to that of the Hindu religion in that it brings people together and also divides them. Green in the marsh and trees is representative of youth, hope, and a new beginning, while the clouds represent turbulence and passion.
I know that many people protested the making of this film because of the way
India is portrayed. I don't think that it concentrated specifically on India but on individual beliefs with in the country’s culture. It showed how resilient women can be in the face of despair. It showed the struggle between religious and personal beliefs. It showed how the government manipulates its citizen using religion, something common in many parts of the world not excluding the US. I didn't walk away thinking about how messed up India is, but how messed up people can be.

Posted by Tara Weinberg at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was really moved by the film. I thought Deepa Mehta did a wonderful job portraying the widows of India.

Before this film I was completely unaware of the life of widows in India. I was taken back by their beliefs and rituals of leading a life of self-denial. I also thought it was odd that young girls got married when they were so young. I could not imagine getting married at a young age. I empathized with the widows and how other towns people treated them like dirt because they were widows. I enjoyed following the story line of the little girl. I was glad that she spoke her mind and tested things that she did not understand. I also enjoyed the behind the scenes so I could gain a batter understanding of the making of the film. I still can not believe that in 2007 there are still 34 million widows in India. I can still picture a part in the movie that has stayed with me. It was when Didi was talking to the one man that holds services everyday. She asked him about why widows have to live like this. He almost did not mention the fact that a law had just passed saying that widows can re-marry. He also said that they do not bother about the laws that do not "benefit them." I thought to myself, who wouldn't that law benefit?" I wanted to slap him for saying that and thinking that way. Hinduism is a conflict between consciousness and faith. I am going to rent the two movies that Deepa made before Water because I am sure that they will be as moving as this one was.

Posted by Rachel Kyllander at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Context:
Water is a film directed by Deepa Mehta, it is the third film in her elements film trilogy following the films Wind and Fire. This film follows the lives of widows living in the desperate conditions of an Indian ashram in 1938. Deepa stunningly exposes the extreme social ostracism in the name of religion that these women experience. With dialogue and excellent character development the spectator is persuaded to empathize with the widow’s hardship as well as recognize their incredible and seemingly undying courage in the face of extreme adversity. Deepa Mehta does not call herself a feminist filmmaker, rather she identifies as a humanist filmmaker. Which I think is illustrated by her desire to expose the extreme human rights violations that Indian widows have had to endure for many years. The making of water was certainly not easy; Deepa and her crew had to face several barriers, including violent activist protests, no defense or support from local government who sided with protesters, a dwindling budget, recasting, a forced location change to Sri Lanka and a five year delay in filming. Clearly, in the face of all these obstacles Deepa’s commitment to telling the story of Indian widows illustrates that she most certainly is a humanist director.

Content:
The film follows three main characters. The first of which is a 7 year old girl who at the beginning of the film is told that she has become a widow and must live in an ashram. The other two main characters of the film become her allies in the ashram and the film highlights the relationship between the three women. One of the two women is a middle-aged woman who has enormous faith in her religion and becomes a kind of maternal figure for the little girl. Although, this woman is seen as being pious and virtuous in the beginning she reveals a different more vulnerable side of her character through her bond with the little girl. The girl reminds her of a free time when she had big dreams for herself before she became a widow and was forced to hide from the world and live in destitute conditions. In so doing, the little girl helps her to have fun and inspires her to question the repressive systems that put her in her current situation. The other woman that befriends the little girl is a beautiful young woman who is the only woman in the commune who has long hair and her own room. She is playful and kind and appears to refuse to accept the repressive fate of widowhood. She is forced into prostitution by another woman in the ashram and earns the money for the rent in such a way. Despite that seemingly dismal piece of her reality she is able to maintain her spirits and her faith through her relationship with the little girl. One of the main pieces of this story is when the young woman falls in love with a wealthy, educated and handsome young man who is a liberal-thinker and wants to marry her despite her being a widow. This beautiful love story turns tragic when they discover that the man’s father was one of the young woman’s “clients� and the young woman kills herself out of depression and shame. In a horrifying scene toward the end of the film, the little girl is tricked into prostitution with a false promise of being able to return home. In the last scene, the middle-aged woman takes the traumatized little girl with her to a train station where Gandhi is speaking and as the train leaves she hands her off to the young man who is aboard to save her from future abuse in the ashram and give her the opportunity at a life she herself was denied.
Form:
The film was shot in a lot of blues and greens to highlight the extreme beauty of the Indian landscape but also to counteract the extreme pain and suffering of the characters living within that landscape. The water in the film almost acts as another character. Specifically, water is employed in every scene to symbolize the characters’ emotions. There are big rain storms in dramatic and exciting scenes, there are bonding scenes as the women wash up together at the river, there are dark gray rain clouds over the river in the sad scenes and happy sounding light rain in the joyous scenes. The death scenes all involve the use of water as a healer, soul keeper and in the form of holy water. Water an element often associated with a wide variety of emotions is employed beautifully to highlight them throughout the film. Color is also used to denote class for example, all of the widows wear plain white saris and the ashram is a dull beige rock whereas everyone else in the film besides the young man wears bright vibrant decorative colors and festive jewelry. This distinction is particularly salient in the scene in which the little girl is prepared to go to the ashram and her long brown hair is shaved off, her red bracelets are cut off and her pretty red dress is replaced by a plain white sari. This ritual symbolizes the dramatic entrance into poverty that widows face in India. Color is also used to convey the undying hope of the widows. The scenes with grief and death are almost totally devoid of color whereas, the scenes with love, happiness and hope show brilliant colors. For example, the scene near the end of the film with the color festival shows all the widows dancing together and rubbing brilliant colors on each other’s faces, symbolizing that despite all the hardship they still maintain hope and create their own happiness.
Feminist Analysis:
This film tells and brings awareness to the important story of the lives of widows in India. Deepa Mehta skillfully gives a voice to these women, a voice that inspires deep compassion from the film’s audience. She uses the medium of film to bring awareness to an issue that women have been facing for years, an issue of the extreme violations of women’s human rights. Through filmic construction Mehta also shows the world that these women have been impressively resilient despite the extreme human rights violations they endure daily. By fighting to tell this story and telling it in a way that serves the widows of India some of the long overdue justice they deserve, I would argue that Deepa Mehta is a feminist filmmaker. Whether she chooses to identify as a humanist or a feminist, with Water Deepa Mehta has told a story about the lives of women and made the world face an issue that the Indian government did not want exposed. That seems pretty feminist to me.

Posted by Rose Coleman at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film Water by Deepa Metha is about misogyny of women, specifically widows in India in 1938. Although Metha does not identify as a feminist film-maker, she identifies as a humanitarian film maker, which I believe to be very closely related. The film is shot in a blue/green light to accentuate the natural beauty around the Ganges river and to give the audience a break from the depressing lives of the widows who are caged inside this poor housing complex. The use of other colors, I understood the significance of the color black the best, I believe it signifies sin. This can be seen in cutting off all of the women's long black hair, in the small black dog Kaulu being a bad omen to the house(spelling?), and even when Kalyani first meets Narayan, he is wearing a long black overcoat.

The creation of this film is an act of agency by Mehta, because she is using her tools of film-making toward bettering the lives of Indian women widows and raising awareness of the lives these women are living. The public has a lack of understanding and no respect for women other than as sexual beings designed for the use of men, and once their men can no longer use them, they are a wasted corner of the home, just another mouth to feed. Metha addresses this misogyny and also addresses issues of class. Narayan comes from an upper class family, of the Brahmin class, while the widowed women are considered low class, the untouchables. In the film, Narayan's dad comments on how Brahmins have certain privileges and are closer to God than the untouchables are, because Brahmins can sleep with whomever they want, and it is actually serving the untouchables like a blessing.

I liked the film because it was depressing and ugly showing the lives these women live with their social restrictions and their hopelessness until Ghandi instills a new sense of faith. In the end Chuyia becomes a daughter of Ghandi where she is allowed to love and have a good life. In the end Chuyia is a symbol of resistance to the confins her society has placed on her, and she represents the hope that the wrong-doings against these women will end.

Posted by Sparky4 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Water

Context:
The director Deepa Mehta, as a part of her Wind, Fire, Water trilogy, wants to expose the mistreatment of women in India. Mehta is a humanitarian director who's primary goal is to inform in the most realistic sense possible. Although set in the 1930's, women are still being put in homes for being widows, and are essentially exiled from the rest of society. Mehta attempts to inform her viewers by following the story of an eight year old indian girl who is put in the house after the husband she never met passed away. In addition, you also follow the stories of two other women, one who is rebelling against the norm of widow behavior and another who regrets her life and tries to make it better for others.

Content:
The film deals with womens banishment by society and the roles they must play because of it. The young woman, Kalyani, refuses to keep her head shaved, a known indicator of being a widow, and the woman who runs the house sells her to 'customers' for sex. Kalyani meets a man who loves her despite the fact she's a widow, and acts on her own agency and rebels. She doesn't want to be a sex slave, or a lonely widow, so she does everything in her power to change it. With the help of and older widow, Kunti (?) she is able to escape the hold the place has on her. Kunti also acts on her own agency, in an attempt to free both Chuyia and Kalyani. When Baba, the head widow, locks Kalyani in her room so she cannot re-marry, Kunti is the one that gets the keys to let her out. Also, after Chuyia is sent to a 'customer' by Baba, Kunti takes her to watch Ghandi speak at the train station. She knows that Chuyia has no hope of another life if she stays in the town, so she gives Chuyia to Narayan, the man Kalyani was going to marry, so that she can have a better chance of having a good life. The women in the film struggle to find their identities in a culture that refuses to allow women any rights.

Form
Deepa Mehta used a wide variety of filmic construction methods to make the film powerful. She let the natural environment of India be as colorful as possible, while keeping the characters more dull. As she says, she did it to show that there are bad things inside of seemingly beautiful things. I think also, that the brightness can be seen as an outlet; an outlet to a place that the widows would rather be. When Kalyani meets Narayan under the large tree, the sun is beaming and the colors of nature are vibrant, as if they are trying to be a part of that beautiful world even though they are stuck in their dull white sari’s. The opening scene is of a lily pad farm with the sun rising over the trees behind it. The rising sun could be interpreted as the birth of new hope for the women as a new day begins. The new day brings about the wave of change that is accompanied with Ghandi’s movement. Another symbolic tool Mehta used was the correlation of thunder and love. Whenever Kalyani and Narayan were going to run into each other or going to meet, there was always thunder in the distance. Thunder, obviously, is paired with lightening which is a destructive force. This is to say that although their love itself may not be destructive, there is something else that will destroy it and cause them pain. Mother natures actions were not the only symbolism used. Seeing as how the title of the movie is water, it is not surprising that water is included in almost every scene. Water is used for drinking, traveling to the other side of the river, as a blessing, as a way of cleansing and even a means of death. Metha makes water take on many roles beyond just for human needs. It can be a means to cleanse and wash away dirt, but it also functions as a preface for bad things to come (such as rain or the river Kalyani drowns herself in).

Posted by RowGophers at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Labor and Women Film Series
Tuesday Dec 11th 6.30-8.00 pm in WSAC Coffman 202

***Made in India***

&

***Made in Thailand***

(read after jump for film synopsis)

Facilitated discussion will follow with Marion Traub-Werner, graduate student in Geography with a focus on global work issues.

This event is free. Bring your friends!!! Free Food!!!

***Made in India***
A film by Patricia Plattner
This powerful documentary is a portrait of SEWA, the now-famous women's organization in India that holds to the simple yet radical belief that poor women need organizing, not welfare. SEWA, or the Self-Employed Women's Association, corresponds to the Indian word sewa, meaning service. Based in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad, a dusty old textile town on the edge of the Gujarati desert, SEWA is at its core a trade union for the self-employed. It offers union membership to the illiterate women who sell vegetables for 50 cents a day in the city markets, or who pick up paper scraps for recycling from the streets--jobs that most Indian men don't consider real work. Inspired by the political, economic and moral model advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, SEWA has grown since its founding to a membership of more than 217,000 and its bank now has 61,000 members, assets of $4 million and customers who walk in each day to deposit a dollar or take out 60 cents. Following the lives of six women involved in the organization, including Ela R. Bhat, its visionary founder, Plattner's documentary is an important look at the power of grassroots global feminism.

***Made In Thailand***
A film by Eve-Laure Moros and Linzy Emery
In Thailand, women make up 90 percent of the labor force responsible for garments and toys for export by multinational corporations. This powerful, revealing documentary about women factory workers and their struggle to organize unions exposes the human cost behind the production of everyday items that reach our shores. Probing the profound impact of the New World Order on the populations that provide the global economy with cheap labor, MADE IN THAILAND also profiles women newly empowered by their campaign for human and worker's rights. Several of these women are survivors of the 1993 Kader Toy Factory fire, one of the worst industrial fires in history. Today they are highly effective leaders in the grass-roots movement mobilizing workers in their recently industrialized country.
Facilitated discussion will follow with Marion Traub-Werner, graduate student in Geography with a focus on global work issues. This event is free. Bring your friends!!! Free Food!!!

Posted by Rae at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In this course we've done a lot of feminist analysis of media (films, TV, images...). I'm wondering now, after all of the critique, what you believe makes media feminist? Do you have a definition that outlines what makes a film feminist? Who are some feminist film and mediamakers that you've encountered?

Does a filmmaker/mediamaker necessarily need to say "I am a feminist filmmaker..." to count? Can you declare a piece of media as feminist even if the maker doesn't articulate a feminism?

Please, list (and/or link us to) films, shows, blogs, vlogs, film and media makers that you believe are feminist.

Posted by Rae at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here are some examples of what student groups from previous terms have done for final projects:

<

Posted by Rae at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

SInce the first wave of the women's movement feminists have come a long way. The problem is that now we are in a bit of a rut. This article about women's studies touches on the many issues that are slowing the feminist movement.
Many students see female senators and hear about courses such as Feminist Film Studies and they think the women's movement is done. So many students especially females are not getting as involved as past classes. I think students learn about the great things that the first and second wave feminists accomplished, and believe that their work is done. We are forgetting that there are still issues that we must fight for. This is why I believe that the introduction of new programs like "gender studies" and "sexuality studies" are crucial for the women's movement to continue. In this article they argue that by combining these its making women's studies less relevant, but that is exactly the opposite. It is opening up women's studies for new ideas, opinions, and people to get involved. I think many good things are to come by studying intersectionality and thinking of a larger picture, instead of just one thing like gender. So is women's studies still important? Of course, but now we have to look beyond just women and get more people involved.

Posted by Marial Weidner at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Context:

Directed by Jenny Livingston and documented in the mid 1980s in New York. The film was produced and distributed in 1991 by Miramax Films, with a budget of about $500,000.

Content:

“Paris is Burning� is about large events that take place in New York called “balls�. Balls are drag and voguing competitions that take place within different categories of the balls. A few categories are “Pretty Girls,� “Town and Country,� “Executive Realness,� and “Butch Queen�. The competitors are transwomen that dress and perform in these categories which depict different types of women in “the real� world. There is a runway that participants walk down and at the end there are judges who score them on how close to they look to “the real� women. Pepper LeBeija, the mother of House LaBeija, says, “A ball, to us, is as close to reality as we’re going to get.�

Form:

It was a documentary film that consisted of interviews of the drag-ballers, those living in the community who had heard of the balls, and the actual balls themselves. During the interviews, the person being interviewed was set up within the frame in order to give context to their lives (whether they were in their home and had their personal items in the frame with them or they were on the streets with people and places the interacted with everyday). You can tell the film was made on a low budget due to the little use of cinematography within the film, making it even more apparent that the film was a documentary.

Analysis:

Livingston has agreed that she was able to do this documentary because of her social standing as "educated" and "white", whilst the drag queens would not have had access to the grants and financial aids necessary to the making of the film. Moreover,it has been said that while the documentary made a filmmaker out of Livingston, the drag queens remained in the same financially-strapped and discriminated-against position as before the film. bell hooks also commented on her displeasure of the film, stating that although it pointed out negative social constraints of the binaries of gender, the subjects in the film were clearly trying to imitate white gender normatives.

Posted by Timac at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today in class when we went on our "field trip" for a groups presentation, there was a lot of discussion on the topic of if feminism is even present in our media, and if it is, what is it really representing? Are even the creators of feminist film having a hidden, possibly subconscious, agenda? In a sense, I understand the complexity of this topic, because I feel that it would be extremely difficult to present yourself in a true feminist image. However, what I must say, is that without this form of media, what would our country be like? We all enjoy commercials in between our sitcoms or news broadcast. All of those commercials, even those trying to inspire a message (ie anti-smoking campaign), are selling something. All, without the presence of a woman, will have a product or idea to sell. The advertising world we live in not only decorates our streets and fills our magazines (no matter what magazine you read), but markets for the financing and economic support of millions in this country. Think if there were no hair products on this earth except for a hair brush. Imagine the millions of people from the corporate office, to the advertisers, to the grocery store stockers, to the hair dressers, to the manufacturers, to the truck drivers, to those that do the grunt work to make the product, those in the factories that make the cans they go into. Without the hair products we all use today, thousands would be jobless, our economy would have much less to work off of, making our country less of an economic and political power that is required to go about international functions. And thats just hair products. Think if we apply that to all the places that women are objectified. Women aren't even the only ones that bodies are broken into pieces for visual pleasure. Take the Hot Bod commercials

Women aren't the only thing that are pieced together for our enjoyment. Men have equal pressures of body image as we do. Again, it's not to say that either should have support to continue this way, but without this media we would not be able to have a prosperous world we do today. Whether you're someone to say it out loud or not, we all need money to survive, we all want money to improve the quality of life. These commercials and images, while possibly not putting men or women in the best light, are almost a necessity. As mentioned by one of the class members, you cannot have media involving human beings that are put in front of the camera, without some kinda of visual pleasure. Even the most bundled woman or man will have some beauty to be seen. So what does that limit us to? Dogs? Stick figures? Entertainment and consumerism are two huge factors in the society we live in today, and neither are a negative.

Posted by RowGophers at 6:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I find myself being asked this question frequently. From my advisor to my friends, they all are curious why I am doing a major that, to them, doesn't fit with my major, Advertising. To me it is clear, the reasonings couldn't be more apparent. But to them it seems be disconnected.

After reading the article "Is Women's Studies Still Relevant" by Kendall Anderson, I found myself asking questions. The direction of these questions were to myself. Before even reading I asked, "Why wouldn't it be relevant?" I believe that Women's Studies is extremely important. I can understand why some feminists might find this steady inclusion of Gender and Sexuality into the curriculum titling as problematic. For such a long time some studied the curriculum under one singular title. While Gender and Sexuality were always mentioned in the curriculum, they didn't feel a need to alter their titling. Now that there is this altering across the country, they feel they are being watered down and being constructed as more approachable.

I don't think that by adding Gender and Sexuality Studies to the curriculum title is watering down the meaning of the studies in any sense. I also don't think it's trying desexualize it by making it more marketable to both men and women. I believe that in our culture, it's important to take the studies of Gender and Sexuality into consideration when looking at Feminism. To me, they go hand in hand. I find it hard to use one without the other.

There is great relevance of the curriculum to my life. In advertising, when we discuss its' creative aspects, I always find myself reverting to my GWSS knowledge. I am easily able to tackle the subject matter in a way different than other people. While anyone can say, "Oh they are selling the women's body" I am able to say the Why. In the Advertising business, it is very important to understand all subsets of the market and their needs. I find that my GWSS studies have made me more aware of these different needs, understandings and representations. You cannot work on an advertisement for a product marketed towards women without understanding their representations. Furthermore, you cannot do the same for any group of people without this knowledge.

Referring back to those in my life who question it's relevance, I can easily explain the need for it in my life and future. It is not just a stand alone curriculum that I will never use. It is so integrated into all areas of life, that it would not be sensible to know it, learn it and apply it.

Posted by Mr. Hilton at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before this class I watched movies with my friends, but I usually just laughed at the punch lines and enjoyed the overall picture. Now after a semeseter of Feminist Film Studies I noticed that I am analyzing films even when I am not thinking about it. This past weekend I watched the movie "She's the Man" with a couple friends from my dorm. I had never seen this movie before and while watching it I realized that clips had been used from this movie in the film final project we watched. I enjoyed this movie, because it was a comedy and it took a new look at the women's movement while it's target audience was teenagers and young adults. Its utlimate goal was to project that women are equal to men. It did this by using sports and showing that a woman could play on an all boys soccer team. However, like a lot of media we have been analyzing this semester its overall goal of projecting a feminist film wasn't exactly a success. There were so many heternormative ideas being projected and so many stereotypes of women that even though this film started with a good idea of equal rights in the end it was another Hollywood hit that supported a poor image of women and a heteronormative society.
Amanda Bynes played the leading role and she like most of the other girls on screen had long beautiful hair, was very skinny, and of course was dating a jock. Her boyfriend like most of the other boys on screen was tall, muscular, and not very smart. There were plenty of shots in the shower room to create the audience gaze and there were many scenes of women in beauty contests, swim suits, etc. to create the male gaze. Throughout the movie Amanda Bynes had to disguise herself as a man to get ahead, which is an idea that is hurting the feminist/women's movement every day. This is shown through the title "She's the Man" the pronoun she represents women as a whole. Women need to be treated and act as equals, but this movie is just another eye opener that shows us that being a male is often easier in our society today. When women were not disguising themselves as men they were being portrayed as the "stereotypical slut". Mini skirts, low cut shirts, and way too much make-up were applied. Although this movie was entertaining I couldn't stop analyzing all these things. I began watching this movie with the idea that it was feminist film showing the strength of women, but after seeing the film I realized it was covered with heternormative images and showed that women had to disguise themselves as men to get ahead.

Posted by Marial Weidner at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my midterm paper I watched the first Rocky, and I analalyzed the Adian, the lead female character. I really saw how she had the traditional female role charcteristics, like being passive, shy and beautiful. I am very faminilar with the Rocky suequence of movies, and I just recently watched Rocky IV, which I think is everyone's favorite of the six films. I realized there was a trend in Adrian's character that parallels her role in the first Rocky...

She still is this passive, beautiful character who is there for Rocky to lean on and provide for. Rocky's character tends to be the opposite where he is this dominant male character who is portrayed as a tough, masculine man who uses his strength to describe himself as a man. Rocky's love for Adrian is an important key part in the film because if he does not have her support he can't win the fight against Ivan Drago. Even though he is looked at as being one of the strongest men in the world, it is her love he needs and relies on to over come his componant. This pattern is seen in all of the origincal sequence where if he doesn't have Adrian's support he can't win. Although Adrian is seen as this passive, weak female character it is her love that allows Rocky to win and become this strong, masculine man.

Posted by Cassie Setter at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When reading some of the other post, I would also have to disagree that this film is not feminist. In one post they are talking about how the gaze is sexual when it is on the males. I would also like to add that when Stuart is naked, he is seen as very vulnerable. This is something usually not seen in non feminist films. In this scene Ava is in charge sexually and he is seen as the subdued character. She is taking charge and he is passive and uncomfortable, which would not be seen in a movie about a woman being married off to a man, if it were not feminist. In these films the woman would most likely be violated throughout the movie because she would have been viewed as property. Not in “The Piano� however. Ava is the one deciding what she is going to do and to whom it concerns.

Posted by Amanda Amundson at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)