So close...and yet so far
In my PowerPoint (and also in my paper) I will be discussing Steven Shainberg’s two films Secretary and Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus. Although I am critiquing his films, I hope to critique Steven Shainberg as a director, and to question his thought process and the reasons behind his decisions.
I intend to argue that Shainberg should be praised for making films that feature strong female protagonists and that expose controversial aspects of sex and relationships. I will be discussing female agency and male/female gazes in Shainberg’s films, and how his protagonists’ gazes often do not objectify the female body, contrary to many Hollywood narratives.
However, despite their progressive elements, Shainberg’s films reinforce patriarchy and heteronormativity in our society as well as in the Hollywood cinema because of his problematic plot choices. As such, his films fail to challenge conventional modes of cinema, which would otherwise be possible if Shainberg put forethought into his films and resisted what are considered “normal� events within the plot, such as closure (according to Kuhn). My sources include: Kuhn’s article “Passionate Detachment,� Mulvey’s article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,� an interview with Shainberg about Secretary (courtesy of Lions Gate Films), and an interview with Shainberg about Fur by Peter Sanchez.
Format of PowerPoint:
Background on Steven Shainberg
Context of Secretary
Context of Fur
Interviews with Shainberg, demonstrating his good intentions for his films
Good Aspects of his films: Female Agency
Male/Female Gazes—Objectification of the male
Problematic Plot Choices in both films that compromise their potential