F06 :: Feminist Film Studies

Last weekend I watched "Secretary," Steven Shainberg's film starring Maggie Gyllenhaal as Lee Holloway, a recently hired secretary for James Spader's character, Mr. E. Edward Grey, a "mysterious lawyer." The employer/employee relationship is quickly broken down, as the characters' mutual feelings for each other are exposed.

Because of the Feminist Film Studies course, I found myself analyzing "Secretary" in ways I would not have done before. For example, I noticed that Mr. Grey was often the voyeur, staring at Lee from around a corner, peeking out his head so he could gaze at her but she didn't always notice him. This power of looking that he has over her reinforces the power he has over Lee as both her boss, and as the dominant character in the dominant/submissive relationship they forge.

I also noticed that at the end of the film, when the two have reconciled and are back at Mr. Grey's house, Lee is, for much of this portion, naked, while Mr. Grey is fully dressed, or at the most, briefly shirtless. Looking back, I think Lee's nakedness reinforced her vulnerability, because people who are nude lack the protection and power of clothes. This choice of wardrobe (or lack of it) also reinforces a typical mandate of today's media: a woman will often be seen naked, but a man rarely will.

Posted by Kristen Mueller at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Last weekend I ended up "home" in Wisconsin, which means access to cable television. Usually when I'm confronted with 100 channels of filthy reality TV shows and cheesy sitcom dramas, I end up over-indulging in them to make up for the lack of TV consumption I get at my real home in Minneapolis. But last weekend, I just couldn't do it. Fifteen minutes of MTV's "Tiara Girls" was all I could take. (Plus, I had free rentals from Blockbuster.)

The show was about an over-zealous beauty pageant mom and her teenage daughter. Editors showed the daughter straightening her blonde hair, practicing her dance routine, showing off her sparkly, body-clinging costumes (most designed and sewn by the mom), and answering practice questions, such as "What would you say to a girl who is thinking of entering a pageant?"

After a few minutes of viewing the mother-daughter team whine and complain to each other, all I could picture was the giant monster mother shown in class last week by the first pair of presenters. I kept waiting for the real mom on TV to grow tentacles and blobs of fat and suck her perfectly primped child back into her womb.

Unfortunately, this did not happen, and I turned off the TV before I could see how the girl (and her mother) did in the contest. The contest based primarily on looks. On the scaling of bodies. Where an actual point value is assigned for smiles and limbs and clothes.

Posted by Kristen Mueller at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I wasn't sure what to expect before I saw this film. In actuality, I wasn't sure I wanted to see the film. After watching the preview, I didn't know if it would interest me. I am a big fan of Mel Gibson's Braveheart and i think that his direction in Passion of the Christ was good, although a bit gory. This weekend I decided to check out the new AMC theatre in Roseville and decided to hit up the film. Again, I think it is evident along with this film that Gibson certainly knows how to direct a film. The story was very interesting and utterly enjoyable if the bloodshed isn't too much to handle. Based on the decline of the Mayan Empire, there is enough action in the film to keep you interested, although at times it might seem like too much. As I was watching the film, I decided to evaluate the role of women in the film.

All of the women in the film were of Mayan culture, placed sometime around their initial interaction with mankind. The costumes were stereotypical of the time period. The women were often shown with essentially nothing covering the upper part of their bodies. They stayed at the encampment with the children as the men go off to hunt for food. The main story with a woman comes, however, when the Mayan camp is overtaken by another tribe and all of the women are killed off and most of the men are caught and forced to accompany the enemy tribe. Jaguar Paw, who is the main character in the film, manages to hide his pregnant wife and child in a cave that is probably anywhere from fifty to one hundred feet below ground. One of the enemy indians cuts the rope before they leave, which trapts them down there helpless to get out. The men are meant to be sacrificed at a ritual, but Jaguar Paw gets away. Meanwhile, the woman basically sits there with her child and in some ways trys to escape the cave, but is unsuccessful. An interesting note, however, is that the wife of Jaguar Paw manages to protect her and her son by killing a wild animal that falls into the hole. As the cave is flooding later on in the film, she also manages to keep herself, her son, and a new born child above water just as the husband returns. I think this at least shows that the woman was capable of protecting her family. She was not completely helpless. Most films might contradict this notion, and although she certainly wouldn't have survived had her husband not returned, she was capable of prolonging the lives of her children. I think Gibson does a fairly adequate job of portraying the values of family, and I think that the beliefs and family values are the strongpoint in the film.

Posted by Jacob Deibele at 3:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

So, over the weekend I relaxed a bit and saw the film Evelyn (starring Pierce Brosnan).
I basically saw this movie because I always meant to see it, but I never got around to do it… and I highly recommend seeing it—the story was very beautiful, and Evelyn was so talented, innocent, and sweet.

Context:
(made in 2002) It’s based on the true story of a man, Desmond Doyle, in Ireland in 1953. Directed by Bruce Beresford (Driving Miss Daisy, Double Jeopardy )and written by Paul Pender (it looks like it’s his first major project).

Content:
In the beginning, Doyle’s wife leaves him for another man, his three young children (Evelyn, Dermot, and Maurice) are taken away from him (and sent to separate orphanages, one for Evelyn, and another for the boys) because the law prohibits him to raise them in a poor environment without a wife, and he basically resorts to alcohol to numb the pain. In the end he fights to win his children back by getting a job and a team of lawyers to plead his case before the Irish Supreme Court. Not only does Doyle get his kids back, he also changes the law—a very demanding and hard thing to accomplish in one lifetime.

Form:
Generally slow paced. A very gloomy, dark, and rainy atmosphere. Lot’s of green color. Mpst of the scenes are held in the courts and at the local pub (very dim and yellow, I think).

Overall, I thought it was really interesting to see a very traditional Irish catholic family suddenly turn completely around: the wife deserts the family (had about 5 minutes of screen time and I get the impression that she’s very cold, heartless, and cruel), while the husband is left to fill in the mother figure role for his children—although you can really see that he always had this very close/intimate connection to them.
I don’t consider this to be a feminist film, but it’s an amazing film nonetheless—I especially loved the sensitive and emotional side of Pierce’s portrayal, and the "angel rays." An interesting research assignment could be the comparison between the real story and the cinematic representation… and even the role reversal of the wife and husband.
also, in the homepage, one reviewer commented how Brosnan left 007 (his famous role as James Bond) to "show off his true acting skills"--not sure exactly what it means but perhaps the reviewer noticed how his role as James Bond was very masculine/domineering/, while his role as Doyle seemed to be more real/sensitive/sweet/family-like

here's where you can find the trailer and homepage:
http://www.mgm.com/evelyn/

Posted by Elizabeth Bodnia at 1:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Because this movie was written and directed by a woman, Nicole Holofcener, I had hopes that it would portray women and gender in a positive way, but I was disappointed. Obviously people disagree with me because this film wom the Dorothy Arzner Directors Award at the Women In Film Crystal Awards. This movie contains so many stereotypes about gender and gender roles that I have to wonder if it was on purpose. This film centers around four women, three of which are married and one is single. The three marriages vary; although none seem extremely happy. Catherine Keener's character Christine is extremely unhappy and ends up wanting a divorce by the end of the movie. Franny's (played by Joan Cusack) marriage seems slightly more functional, but they do argue about money because Joan Cusack is worth much more than her husband (although she still must check with him before loaning money to friends). Frances McDormand's character, Jane seems to have to most understanding and sympathetic husband, but there is speculation throughout the movie that he is gay, and a strong relationship between him and a man that resembles dating develops. The one single woman, Olivia, (played by Jennifer Aniston) is a stereoptypically "single" woman. She is depressed, poor and completely obsessed with her ex-boyfriend. She calls him repeatedly throughout the film, despite the fact that he is married. She also has the worst job of the four women (as a maid, a stereotypically female job) and the least money. She begins dating a man in the film, who is by far the biggest jerk of all the men in the film. He sits on the couch while Olivia cleans and then asks for money at the end of each job because he "helped". At the end of the film she begins dating a new man; he is nicer but unattractive and overweight. This opens up an entirely new can of worms; why is it plausible in films and television for a beautiful woman to date a heavy, unattractive man, but an unattractive woman is never shown with a handsome man? I would be interested to know what other people thought of this film and the stereotypes it portrayed.
For more information about this film, checkout the website:
Friends With Money

Posted by Annette Bonner at 1:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Hey, it’s me again…
Seeing Tootsie over the past week made me think of another related film—What Women Want (with Mel Gibson).

Considering context:
Tootsie (1982) was directed by a man, Sydney Pollack (who also directed The Way We Were, and The Interpreter), and written primarily by men.
While What Women Want (2000) was directed by a woman, Nancy Meyers (who also wrote/directed Something’s Gotta Give, and wrote Private Benjamin and Father of the Bride I and II) the majority was written by women.

Considering content:
Both involve men experiencing what a woman goes through everyday—like putting on make-up, wearing tights (by the way I hate it when people refer to it as “pantyhose,� and underwear as “panties�—it’s probably too late for comments, but doesn’t it give you this weird feeling. I don’t think degrading is the right word, but it’s somewhere in that area.)…anyway, so being in a heterosexual relationship (although Tootsie ventured somewhat into lesbianism…can’t remember if What Women Want did it too), doing your hair, being discriminated in the workplace, etc.

Considering form:
Both films were very similar.
In the comedic scenes, the editing was generally fast and the dialogue was witty and quite hilarious. The dramatic/romantic moments were slower, and things seemed to pause and focus more on facial expression.
From time to time product placement is integrated (but I think more so in What Women Want)

In maintaining the spirit of our most recent discussing, I personally think that both of these directors are feminist filmmakers (in regards to the majority of their films). Tootsie and What Women Want both involve a variety of women (age, ethnicity, size, class, etc) and deal with the “woman experience� (what it means to be a woman, “what women want,� what they go through, etc.) I think they also seem to generally empower women by exposing both strengths and weaknesses, and bring a sense of gender equality (the male sex trying/willing to understand a woman, while sympathizing and relating to the same strengths and weaknesses.)

Also, here's an interview with Nancy Meyers on What women Want
"Nancy Meyers Talks About What Women Want"
J. Sperling Reich
http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=features/interviews/meyers

here's one of the interesting questions in the interview:
" Q: Would What Women Want be a different film if a man had directed it?"

"NM: I think it would be quite different. The inner thoughts of the women … There are no women in this film who talk about, "My thighs, or my hair." There is none of that. It's not clichéd thoughts that you think a woman might have. More about having someone understand or appreciate them. Recognize them or listen to them. I'm not sure a male director would have gone for those things. I think they may have gone for sexier things. I find some of the thoughts are unexpected in the movie, and I think that's because a woman was behind the movie."

Posted by Elizabeth Bodnia at 12:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

This may seem like a random thing, but I just thought it was funny how I unintentionally ended up seeing the films Yentl and Tootsie over the past few weeks. They are both about the necessity of changing one’s sex in order to achieve or to get some desirable thing—of course the moral of the story is not to do it, because discrimination is wrong…so, there should be no need to change yourself in order to conform to some ideal (very simply stated). For instance, in Yentl, a young woman desires education but must dress up as a man in order to get it. Similarly, Tootsie involves a young struggling male actor who must dress up as a woman in order to get a particular acting role that will help him out financially. Essentially, both the female and male characters are being themselves, but are basically forced to wear a mask (change their outer appearance) in order to get “accepted�—which makes it quite ironic. I really love these kinds of stories, because they truly reveal how ridiculous society can be. We are told to believe that a certain type of individual (mostly white male, middle/upper class, straight…) has a certain power or superiority over another. But, it’s all façade. I know it’s very elementary and what mom always used to say, but it’s very important to know that “it’s what inside that counts the most.� So, we can be the most masculine, white, rich, heterosexual in the world and still be the most selfish, cruel, and heartless individual. Sometimes using the most simple/common sense can be the most effective tool in fighting the most complicated and abusive issue like sexual discrimination.
And, as a side note:
I really recommend seeing Tootsie—very, very funny, and quite the cast!
Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084805/
But Yentl—was “o.k,� my friend’s a huge fan of hers so that’s mostly why I decided to give in and check it out.

Posted by Elizabeth Bodnia at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently watch a documentary that followed homosexuality through early cinema all the way to today. I found a lot of the stereotypes that are here now were there then. Many homosexuals would play blown out of proportion caricatures as comic relief. And if there was a “good gay� that had normal feelings and emotions they would ultimately have to die in the end like in Boys Don’t Cry. I found an interesting connection, I am also taking a Native Americans in the cinema course and they same thing happened in early films and now with the representation of Indians. They would have two basic types of Indians the “savage� and the “helper�; one was bloodthirsty and fought without cause. The other was a one of kind/the last of a dieing breed that helped the settlers as they expanded across the frontier. The thing about the good helper was that no matter what, the good Indian was the last of his people. So even if there were good Indians ultimately they were destine all to die off. They called this idea the vanishing Indian, so we could come to accept this good Indian but it was out of our hands that one-day they would all be gone. I felt that in many ways gays were looked at the same way for a long time. Either they were comic relief or if they had good qualities and played multi dimensional characters they would end up being killed too, in order to keep the audience comfortable. In many movies they have to die like this, Boys Don’t Cry, Set It Off, Philadelphia, Broke back Mountain, and many others. I thought that it was an interesting connection and I’m sorry but I forgot the name of the Documentary, but if you really wanted to know I could e-mail my professor for you.

Posted by Alexander Brown at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently watched Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, this movie is said to be one of his best. But it is a perfect example of male gaze and voyeurism but can also be seen as a new one as well. The main character of this film literally stalks a girl for days on end as his detective “job�. Throughout the whole film no one sees anything really wrong with it either. But the film itself plays on this idea of male gaze by switches sides and showing how everyone desires to watch others and be watched in some kind of way. They show this through a unique love triangle where one girl isn’t being noticed and wants to be the object of his lust or “watched�. The other woman knows she is being watched and ends up falling in love with her watcher/stalker. The whole movie leads us to see the main stalker as he focuses all his energy to recreate his love for another women onto his new girlfriend by dressing her in all the same clothes and forcing her to do the same things. Giving us new view of the gaze and voyeurism as human nature and only natural to some extent. The movie doesn’t agree with the objectification of women it shows how it is human nature to want to be desired in one way or another. So the movie puts names and non-cliché characters to the people being watched to create more then just lustfull feelings towards them. All around this movie is pretty good, even it if does have its stalker/misogynistic moments.

Posted by Alexander Brown at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This weekend when I went to Blockbuster, I unfortunately stumbled upon a film by Kevin James Dobson that was based on the same subject matter of the documentary we viewed. I should have seen the title "Virgen of Juarez" as a red flag but instead recognized that it was most likely a dramatic representation of the Juarez murders, similar to what both Jennifer Lopez and Selma Hayek plan to make. What I had expected from the film was a personal account of what happened to a specific family or group of people, being able to internalize the tragic accounts on a more personal level as we could in "Boys Don't Cry". Instead, the film focused on a relgious phenomenon and icon that developed from the events and on an almost foolishly fearless American reporter who is not only an outsider (which is just what we are as an audience member not living in Juarez) but also completely detatched from the culture, not even attempting to speak Spanish and completely in disbelief of their religious superstitions. The views of the reporter only reinforced the way that I already felt about the situation rather than introducing any new perspectives that I wouldn't already gain from a documentary. The horrible part about the film, however, was the religious spin that it took that reinforced the idea of blaming the victim. The story focuses on Mariela, a miraculous survivor of one of the attacks who becomes a religious icon to the community, being considered for sainthood and nearly becoming synonymous with the Virgin Mary, whom she supposedly witnessed while being attacked in the desert. Throughout the film, despite the loss of her memory, she has flashbacks that are triggered by men that were involved in the attack and each time begins to bleed from her palms as Christ was pierced through the hands when crucified signifiying the Catholic phenomenon of stigmata. She begins to crusade for justice, passing out pictures of the men she believes to have been involved, eventually causing their murders one by one, and also speaking to the public on the radio from a hidden location. Although vengeance might be the only way to solve the situation on a smaller level without the cooperation of the authorities, but it glamorized the idea of capital punishment in my eyes which does nothing to end violence (another example would be "Boondock Saints" which valorizes the killing of those who are corrupt or immoral). In a way it reinforces the idea that the immoral should be killed and that the good will survive. Overall, the film seemed to be somewhat without a well-defined plot. Even with the knowledge of the situation, the film was difficult to follow and accurately understand what was going on and what the purpose of any of the extra subplots were. On a more positive note however, the film seemed to have attempted to speak out the extent of the injustice and violence against women in general. When the reporter first arrived in Juarez, in her first night while visiting the family of a victim, another woman is killed and to the dismay of the police department, it is the reporter who discovers the body during a search the next day (which i thought to be somewhat unrealistic that they would even be searching so quickly). The woman, who was an older and presumably less naive and vulnerable of the women attacked, was overly cautious and carried a horn in attempt to attract attention and call for help if she became a victim. When her body was found, the horn was still in her hand, apparently not very successful of a prevention tool. So much focus on rape is always on what women can do to protect themselves rather than what should be done to stop the attempts in the first place and this pointed out how inaffective modes of protection are in preventing an attack. But then, the focus instead went to the character of the victims, as Mariela is a deeply religious woman who carried a pendant of the Virgin Mary and her followers are young women who realize that it is her moral perfection that saved her. This same idea is played out in every typical horror or slasher film in which there are several dispensible immoral female characters who are killed off one by one while the intelligent and virginal one escapes alive. As seen in the beginning of the documentary, this was the general view of the authorities in Juarez with their claim that all of these women were really strippers and prostitutes, in a secret night life of which their families were ignorant and that a simple curfew should solve the problem. This may have been the goal of the director, pointing out the deeply religious values of the people which caused some of the skew on prosecution, but it was certainly not clearly defined. Instead, the film got into a debate of religion and supersticion towards the end with confusion of who the good guys and bad guys were. It was also not very clear who exactly all of the characters even were as none seemed to be clearly developed with the exception of the neutral and emotionless reporter who was overly logical and disconnected from the situation at hand.

Posted by Lisa Peplinski at 2:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched Tahmineh Milani’s The Hidden Half. She is an Iranian director and was actually arrested for a time following the release of this film. The Hidden Half was the first Iranian film to show actions leading up to and following the Islamic Revolution.

I can’t say that this film was very enjoyable but it was definitely interesting to watch. The lead character Fereshteh may not be seen as very feminist by our standards, but in post-revolution Iran her actions would definitely be seen as feminist and rebellious. Fereshteh is the wife of a judge who is being sent to investigate the appeal of a female political prisoner. Fereshteh believes that this prisoner could very likely have been her or one of her friends. She writes a letter to her husband revealing her own political affiliations with a communist group during the revolution and a relationship she had with an older man. She reveals her story in the hopes that her husband will listen to the prisoner’s whole story and not judge her too harshly. It is dangerous for her to reveal her past, not only could it harm her relationship with her husband, but it could also lead to her arrest if her husband were to reveal her past to the authorities. The film also shows the brave actions of women in the communist party, prior to the revolution. These women risked their lives to voice their opinions and concerns. I think the film is evidence that women around the world are working in their own ways and within their own means to create change. Merely telling this story placed Milani’s life at risk, yet she continues to persevere and attempt to tell stories that are meaningful instead of conformist. I think it is important to support films like The Hidden Half so that filmmakers are encouraged to create films that portray strong women working for change.

Posted by Tegan Conway at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hard Candy is a film I watched this weekend. The film was directed by David Slade and written by Brian Nelson.

This film definitely falls under the "Feminist Film" category. It's a film about a 14 year old girl and a 32 year old man. They meet on-line, and their relationship unravels from there. At first, I felt that she was going to fall victim to this older man, but then she drugs him and takes charge. I would love to reveal more, however, I don't want to give away the good parts because I hope you will all watch this film.

I thought this was significant in studying feminist film due to the age of the lead character. It brings feminism into the realm of teenage girls. Feminism and feminist film doesn't need to be about adults, it can also be about girls. I thought this movie inspired and empowered girls to stand up for themselves, and it served as warning to men who seek to take advantage of them.

Another reason why I thought this film is significant in studying "Feminist Film" is that it was directed and written by two men. I spaced out during the title credits, so I missed the gender of the director and writer. I was absolutely shocked to discover they were both men, and not women. I think it's great that men can also produce feminist film. And, since the film industry has been accused of following a patriarchal system, it helps to have male advocates of feminism on the inside.

Posted by Matthew Shapiro at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)