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

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.

Continue reading "In Response to a Previous Post Titled "Today"" »

Posted by R.S. at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

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.

Continue reading "Water" »

Posted by Timac at 04:48 PM | 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.

Continue reading "Water Analysis" »

Posted by Lindsey Peck at 03:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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)

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 08:25 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 07:02 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 06:02 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 06:52 PM | 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)

The day we watched this movie about strippers was the day I came to class in my stripper costume. I wasn't dressed as the stereotipical stripper with the long legs, big boobs and a nice body, but I was a much larger, unattractive woman. I admit that my costume was somewhat mocking strippers, but I just had to wear it because I got a kick out of it. I also have never been to a strip club, but the way I portrayed them didn't exactly fit the way the women were on screen. A big thing that stuck out was that some were educated, which I did not expect. However, what I 've seen in other movies or tv shows often portrays a sterotypical stripper to be a single mom trying to raise a child. To me this movie showed both ends of fence from having educated women to the typical image of a stripper that gets protrayed in the media.

Posted by Cassie Setter at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I am very glad I got to see this movie. My minor is in African American studies, so I especially liked it because of that. I agreed with a lot of the critiques of the form of the film that we discussed afterwards, but I have to say, while I was watching (even though this is a film studies course) I was so moved by the content that I really didn’t notice anything bad, at least not to the point of distracting me from the message.

Continue reading "NO!" »

Posted by Emily Dolentz at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As i was watching thie screen and the article about it, i felt that the women who were in the movie are very strong woman. Most often, people want to hide "happens" to the other people because they feel embarace and guilty which they shouldn't think in that way. Thus, they wouldn't like to talk about that subject matter and start to distrust people once they got hurt from the other. However, I thought that those women are very strong emotionaly and physically and mentally.

I read the article about three weeks ago that a korean female movie director is producing an independent movie about herlife which she had been raped. I can't remember the name of the movie or her name (I was just reading it for fun,,;;) but she said that it is hard to tell the story that isn't from herself. Because people don't want to show embaracing moment or want to only say something that they think it is okay and not say things that they don't want to, she decided to put her story into her movie and convey the message.

Although she might took alot of time to heal herself from her memory,I thought that this director is brave on her decision and she is powerful woman, because she is telling the truth that many other people don't know.

Posted by Stella at 09:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before I went to class on October 31,2007 I have to admit, I had a completely different idea of what the film Live Nude Girls Unite would be like. Just from the title of this film I was picturing strippers on a stage infront of old, drooling, married men, just there to gain pleasure (and the strippers high on multiple types of drugs). However the film really wasn't like that at all. I thought it was done very classy and in a very mature manner, but most importantly depicted real life/job struggles. The film was truely about a union and I'm happy to say that pleased me. Before this documentary I had different ideas about what it was that strippers were like or what they represented. I guess I have lived kind of a shettled life, but I have never known a stripper or been to a strip club, so I had this idea (ignorant) that strippers were usually uneducated, easy, and drug users. On the other hand, this film had strippers that were very educated and determined, which made me think "Wow!! I was wrong." These women were determined for all the right reasons and now I have a whole new idea, and respect for the sex industry in a sense. I no longer think these women as uneducated or easy, but just out making a living like everyone else. I'm very thankful we screened this film in class because I feel like I learned something from it and something about myself (that sometimes I'm too quick to judge others and I should probably evaluated where I gain my knowledge from before I apply it to a whole working class of individuals).

Posted by Jessica Haddrill at 04:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I really enjoyed Live Nude Girls Unite. I think Julie Query made a very honest and revealing documentary about an area of the sex industry, but also I think it is a great look at the struggle of workers trying to unionize. Although I would assume that these workers had a much harder time unionizing then other industry workers have. Seeing who the ladies really were i(n the "real world") was very interesting and enlightening. Also, hearing their views on the issues involved with the job was quite interesting. It was very uplifting to see women triumph and feel empowered while working in a job that many feel is degrading and objectifies women. I still am not sure how I personally feel about the sex industry, I really do see both sides of the argument. The documentary reminded me of a book I read this summer, "Candy Girl: a Year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper" by Diablo Cody. It is a writers yearlong experience working in many different strip clubs and peep shows in the Minneapolis area. it is a very witty and revealing story so check it out if you get a chance.

Posted by Emily Dolentz at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We didn't get to discuss a couple of the questions much in class, so I thouht I'd post something about the choice of actors/actresses and the role of alcohol.

Continue reading "Boys Don't Cry - various observations" »

Posted by Maren Mattson at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I hadn't seen this movie until I previewed in class, and I found it very moving. You could see the struggle Brandon had to deal with every day, which ranged from personal to legal issues. I found it interesting the time and process “he” spent in transforming to a male, but yet no matter what he did he still couldn’t stop the fact that he was biologically a female. For example when "Aunt Flow" came there’s was nothing he could do. Cleaning the stain and buying pads put him in awkward and uncomfortable situations, but yet I think the worse part of having his period to him was actually having a daily, mental reminder that he wasn't biologically a male, but actually a female.

Posted by Cassie Setter at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's true I always wanted love to be
Hurtful
And it's true I always wanted love to be
Filled with pain
And bruises

And there's no rhyme or reason
I'm changing like the seasons
Watch! I'll even cut off my finger
It will grow back like a Starfish!
It will grow back like a Starfish!
It will grow back like a Starfish!

-antony and the johnsons

I believe that any reference to Jane Campion's film, "The Piano," as being a "feminist film" ie, a film propagating feminist themes and beliefs, is highly problematic. First of all, let me clarify, I am in no way arguing the artistic merit or questioning the cinematic “value” of this filmic event. I am not debating the content of the film, its sex appeal, or questioning its themes (though I could).What I see as the danger, surrounding this film is any reference to it as being a “feminist film.” This statement (to be highly unprofessional and personal) fills me with horror.

To begin with, let me offer a working definition of feminism. I offer this definition as a base to work off and I am not making assumptions that disregard intersectionality. To clarify, due to time constraints I will try to restrict myself to simply addressing the relations between the two lovers (Ada and Bains). I am failing to address the issues of race, colonization, silenceing of women, mother daughter relations, and the stereotyping of women and men. I will now offer a working definition that I feel will provide me adequate fuel to argue.

“Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (hooks).

Continue reading "The Piano : "Is it really the best we can do, to arm wrestle over whose world its gonna be? (the one according to you or the one according to me)" »

Posted by Alissa McCourt at 03:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Don't get me wrong, I believe "The Piano" to be a very smart movie, rife with feminist theories and building blocks. But at the end of the day, Campion correctly distinguishes a "film about feminism" from a "feminist film".

Continue reading "THE PIANO: my two cents" »

Posted by Christopher Kehoe at 09:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I can understand why many people would argue that this film is not feminist. I however, would have to disagree. I think that the film is feminist. Just because the main character isn't an outspoken, independent, career driven woman, does not mean that the film isn't feminist. Feminism comes in many different forms and personalities. Also, there needs to be conflicts within a film to make it interesting. For the sake of good filmmaking, there needs to be different points of views within it.

The camera focuses on the naked male. Ada is only naked a little bit in the movie, and when she is the camera does not focus on her body, it just focuses on the scene. Both George Baines and Alistair Stuart are naked on camera. Only when the males are naked the camera gazes at them. It moves up and down their body for long periods of time. It is a sexual gaze. This is the opposite from almost all other Hollywood films where the naked female body is the main object to look at.

Going back to Ada, I think she has a lot of feministic qualities. She sticks up for herself and doesn't let anyone push her around, not even her husband. Which is a good accomplishment guessing that it is some time very well in the past. She is very stubborn and always gets what she wants. Even when the men tell her no. She lets George sexually do things to her in order to get her piano back. Even though she sort of sells her body for her piano, she does not loose her pride. The piano is what she wants, and she is going to get it no matter what. She shows no signs of being ashamed. Thats another good quality Ada possesses. She never feels sorry or ashamed of herself. She stands up for herself. Everyone is frustrated that she can't talk, but Ada does not care. She does not want to talk and so she does not. Also, she is not ashamed of wanting to have an affair with George. I realize that it is very unethical, but that is besides the point. She does not love her husband, but she does love George. So she sees him and has an affair with him. Feminism is about women being able to make their own choices. The marriage of her husband was a forced marriage. She broke free from it.

There was a lot of feminist points in the movie, the biggest most obvious one to me was Ada. She is a very strange person, but I believe that in her own way she exhibits feministic qualities.

Posted by Whitney Hanssen at 06:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before this class, I had never studied any sort of feminism. I have brushed upon it slightly in one or two of my other classes in high school, but I really didn't know exactly what it was. After being educated on the subject, the people in the video that we saw on the first day of class seem extremely silly. I think a lot of the reason why their answers were so pitiful is because they are uneducated on the topic. I think when the word feminism comes up, men don't care and aren't interested because they think it is only for women and it does not affect them, so they choose not to learn about it. What they don't know is that it affect both genders and it is positive. A lot of them are probably even intimidated by it. I think spreading the word of what feminism really is will make feminism a more positive word.

Posted by Whitney Hanssen at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm not sure I would consider The Piano a feminist film.

Continue reading "The Piano" »

Posted by JC at 11:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I first watched The Piano when I was 14 years old. I found it in the library and wanted to rent it because it was rated R for "explicit sexuality." What can I say; I was a horny teenager.

Continue reading "Sex-Positive Feminism and The Piano" »

Posted by crowjane at 09:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I remember the clips that we watched on 9/19 that a guy asked people (males) about what they think about feminist.

On my way home, I wondered what if I was interviewing men and they say " women seems equal to men now and they have same previleges that men have so what is so bothering feminist that they should keep fight for it. Women are in higher position in thesedays compare to old days." If I am in that position, then I wouldn't be able to defend my position where there is still need of feminist to voice ther opinions.

Then later I found the answer! Feminists are making sure all the women's rights and previleges are settled and they are fight for women against women. I know that woman movement has been started since 1750 but real feminist theory is settled in 1940 which is not long enough time to settle them down and make it stable. I think what feminist are really need is to make sure if the rights and privileges that we earn is correctly translated to everyone.
And also, my understanding of fight is not feminist against men but women against women. Some female don't have the equal amount of access to the world while other females are. And this is the point where feminist step foreward to help them out. Especially women in third world, they need special care for them to protect them from the patriarchy society.

Posted by Stella at 04:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week you must post at least two comments on this blog. You can post comments on any posting.

Remember this video clip screened in class on the first day?

A suggestion: you could make a list of all the women directors you can think of (pictured in the clip, or not) in the comment field of this post.

Posted by Rae at 09:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)