SOAPBOX
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.