Exploring ‘Women’s Voices’: Feminist Film Studies and Cultural Studies. Week 7.
Before this session, we were invited to a screening of Charming Augustine by Zoe Beloff – website here.
Reading:
Citron, M (1978) ‘Women and Film: A Discussion of Feminist Aesthetics‘. New German Critique, 13, Winter 1978, pp. 82-107.
Stacey, J (1994) ‘Feminine Fascinations: A question of identification?‘. In Stacey, J (1994) Stargazing. London: Routledge.
Thornham, S (1998 ) ‘Feminist Media and Film Theory‘. In Jackson and Jones (eds) (1998 ) Contemporary Feminist Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Charmed and ‘Negotiation of Identities’ (Thornham) and Identification (Stacey)
Thornham (1998 ) discusses at the end of her article, the possibility of multiple identities and the effect this can have on our reading of a particular programme or film; films and television programmes ask us to be many things at any one time. For example, ‘woman’ is only one aspect of our identities – it is important to look at the interplay that can exist between other aspects of our identities, on the grounds of where we are from (race/ethnicity), whether we are considered ‘disabled’ (such as my being deaf), our vocation, class, age and many other things besides. As we seem to live in a world that puts a premium on consumption and conspicuous consumption, a reading of film and TV that also takes into account how we identify with certain films and television programmes (or ‘stars’) and make them part of our ‘identities’ is also important (as Stacey points out).
As a case in point, I will look at ‘Charmed‘: a popular television programme about three sister witches living in San Francisco. Within the programme, there are various references made to other television programmes and films, thus locating the viewer as a consumer of other science fiction and fantasy programmes or films (such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer); thus implying that the audience of Charmed must also be a consumer of other such programmes.
Charmed is a drama that is aimed at everywoman – it seeks to find factors that we, as women, are meant to identify with (such as family life, juggling a career and family life, and so on). As a woman, I found that I identified or connected with particular aspects of each character – such as the feistiness of Piper, the romantic idealism of Phoebe and the creativity of Paige. The independence of these characters is another aspect that women may identify with, along with the particular struggles of each character – for instance, Piper’s trials as a mother or Phoebe’s difficulties with meeting the wrong men (although this is often extreme as they turn out to be different ‘evil’ or mystical creatures!). I would also hazard a guess that practitioners of Wicca or witchcraft may also find the programme inspiring or interesting.
I would also like to point out that although the characters are seen as independent and strong, the publicity for the series has involved a construction of ‘sexiness’. If we were to use a theory that critiques representations of women in film and television, it would most likely emerge that sexuality is a strong theme throughout the series; and whilst I see no problem with this in terms of expressing sexuality, it does present a dominant theme of heterosexuality and a representation of women as being objectified or overly sexualised.
This also happens in programmes such as Buffy (and science fiction and fantasy in general). The idea of the ‘male gaze’ also has ramifications for thinking about the series: do men and women watch the series differently? Is there a ‘female gaze’? I feel that there is a definite possibility that there is a ‘female’ gaze when it comes to film and television, even though I can see the ways in which a ‘male gaze’ works upon media. The ways that supposedly “strong” female characters are presented as ’sexy’ is problematic as it implies that you cannot be strong and powerful without being accessible for men.
Charmed is also an interesting text for feminists to investigate as it involves such strong and independent characters, for whom juggling lives with their ‘other’ calling, is both difficult and exciting. I do not mean to imply that other programmes that women watch are any less “worthy”, just that I have not noticed any studies or research into Charmed, Wiccanism and Women – perhaps research could be done into Charmed and how women ‘watch’ the series. There is an emphasis on ‘finding love’ but these storylines are not necessarily the ‘main’ storylines: however, there is an emphasis on using these storylines to develop characters and ‘pad them out’.
The positivity of Charmed as a representation of women is worth investigating. Film analysis opens up possibilities for investigating programmes and films where there may be strong female characters such as in Ugly Betty, Heroes, Charmed, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and so on.
‘Exploring Women’s Voices’: Preferred Methods/Possible Methods
If I was going to use film/tv as a basis for a project on ‘exploring women’s voices’ I think I would use a combination of methods. Stacey’s (1994) method has a lot of relevance as it documents the different identifications that women can have with film and TV, not just with particular stars. Her theory could be used to find out why women identify with certain female characters in films and on television programmes: what keeps them watching and why do they pursue information or gossip about the ‘stars’ or characters of the film or programme? Why do they identify so strongly with particular stars, that may or may not be still alive (such as Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich, and Audrey Hepburn).
As Stacey (1994) posits, it is not just identification whilst watching the film or programme, it is also identification that filters into someone’s everyday life. It can be something as small as having a poster or saying that you ‘admire’ or ‘like’ the work of somebody; or it can be more of an obsession, dedicating some of your time to watching films with that person a lot or joining a fan club, or reading their autobiographies and so on. However, as the women in the roundtable session suggest, it may also be interesting to look at how narrative films pick up on codes that everyone may know about women or events surrounding women, as suggested by Lesage.
Interviews, questionnaires and focus groups could work well with this kind of research. It would be interesting to perhaps screen a film and invite the participants to come along and watch it, then have a discussion about the film, the way they watched it, what they found/did not find interesting about it, and so on.
Research Questions
Perhaps research questions could ask about whether what women enjoy watching is related to their identity in some way? Whether their viewing choices are tied to how they see themselves or tied to some aspect of their identity (doesn’t need to be whether they are a woman).
1. What kind of films do you enjoy watching? List some of your favourites.
2. Why do you feel that these films are important to you? OR In what ways are these films important to you?
3. Do you identify with some of the characters in these films? In what ways?
4. Do you seek out information about these films/programmes/characters/stars outside of the time you are viewing them? What information do you look for and why?
5. Do you think that women are positively portrayed in the films you watch? Why/Why not?
Reflections on Session
I came away from the session thinking about the different ways we can research film as we discussed how to get hold of participants (through fan sites, newsgroups, fan clubs, advertisements and so on) and the best ways to think about film. There did seem to be a consensus that audience research was the way to go. As researchers, we bring our own assumptions to analysis of film (and texts) so it would be far more beneficial to interview the actual women that view the films and analyse their responses. I began to think about how there is an assumption that there is always a ‘male gaze’ in film.
My thought is that it is all too easy to ‘claim’ a film or series as feminist, and make it our ‘own’, just as we make subjective claims on books and music, because it means something to us. The session also brought to light that we bring our extra textual knowledge to a film.
We were asked if we thought Charming Augustine was a feminist film – I thought that perhaps the issues raised in it and the ending (open ended, which can be a characteristic of feminist texts, such as The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood) which hinted at a kind of hope. Augustine broke out of the asylum, she ‘escaped’ from being controlled and taught to control herself. Hysteria is also something that is no longer recognised because it described a collection of disparate ”symptoms” that were considered ‘unbecoming’ behaviour from women: see wikipedia. However, the author herself did not set out to make the film ‘feminist’ or made it with feminism in mind. This raises questions about multiple meanings of a text and about who decides what something means.
I feel that it is important to acknowledge that our interactions with film and media is more complex than popular theories make out. There is a male gaze but perhaps there is also a ‘female’ gaze – it would be interesting to try and quantify what this is, and how women interact with film and television. Women may very well be aware that the film they watch is not ‘empowering’ but enjoy it anyway. My enjoyment of ‘Kill Bill‘ does not mean that I have the wool pulled over my eyes about the sexism within the film, nor does it mean that I think it ‘empowering’ to go on a revenge fuelled bloodbath! I therefore think that audience focused research is the way to go, perhaps after having an attempt at analysing the film ourselves and using both methods.
[**Charmed image sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmed#Main]
Interpreting Visual Cultures. Week 5.
The task that we had to do for this week involved interpreting the pictures below after reading three items to do with content analysis, semiotics and interpreting images. We were given two images to interpret with questions that would help us think about the ways the images draw on extra textual knowledge as well as semiotics (the interpretation of ’signs’).
Image 1: Golfing Holiday Ad.
Look at the landscape and the buildings. What messages is the ad trying to convey about the advantages of golfing in Kenya?
To me, it looks as if the buildings and the landscape are not in Kenya at all: they appear to be emulating stately edwardian style homes that are often found in the UK. Taking this into account, we could assume that the ad is offering a stay in ’stately home’ that just happens to be in another country - like taking a vacation in the UK with warmer weather and the added “bonus” of a golf course. The only images that seem out of place in this picture is the border at the side of the page and the Kenyan man in the image, because they do not ‘fit’ the cultural scene.
There is also something quite ‘theme park’ about the architecture as it seems to be a parody of westernised living. To me it does not seem particularly comfortable – perhaps this is to do with the type of lifestyle that someone needs to have in order to feel in their element on a golfing ‘home away from home’ holiday.
What is the ad trying to tell us about the two men in the foreground? What is significant about their dress?
Both the men seem to be a certain stereotype of western and kenyan cultures. The western man is wearing trousers, he is fully clothed; whilst the Kenyan man is wearing (supposedly) his tribal dress, which is a skirt/wrap, sandals and beads. This seems to denote an ‘otherizing’ or denotion of the ‘exotic’. The western man is “helping” the kenyan man to play golf, which is supposedly meant to signify that perhaps they can ‘learn’ from each other about certain aspects of their different cultures. However, it comes across as patronising in some way, because it is a stereotype, and appears to be a blatantly westernised ‘ideal’ of tribal culture.
It is also significant that there do not appear to be any women in the picture and that both men are a certain ‘type’ of man. It locates golf as a masculinised pursuit.
Why is the white man holding a spear and the kenyan man holding a golf club?
Apart from the simple idea that the white man may just be ‘holding’ the the spear for the kenyan man whilst the white man teaches him how to play golf, I would hazard a guess that it is supposed to denote an exchange of culture. However, it could also be seen as a “civilising” of the tribal culture – those tired old stereotypes about tribal culture somehow being ‘less’ developed and inferior. It also seems very much out of place – the juxtaposition of tribal dress and a spear with colonial stately surroundings – in many ways, this could be seen as racist and a denial of western history of colonialisation (or an affirmation – that it was, or is, somehow positive).
Both the golf club and the spear seem to be particularly masculinised because they could be seen as representing the phallus, and an exchange of two different types of masculinity.
How can we decode the masculinities of the two men? Is one more masculine than the other? How can we tell?
The white man seems to have a certain patriarchal and benvolent type of masculinity. He appears well fed and perhaps wealthy, someone who enjoys ‘masculine’ pursuits, like golf! On the other hand, the kenyan man could be seen as masculine also, out of this context – in the stereotyped westernised idea of his culture, perhaps he hunts with the spear, and is seen as quite ‘tough’. The western man seems ’soft’ whilst the kenyan man seems ‘hard’. However, in this context, the kenyan man also seems more feminine than the western man because of his attire – exposing his upper body and wearing a skirt/kaftan. I believe that it depends from what point of view you are coming from and what assumptions you make about the two cultures. In the context of the advert, however, the kenyan man seems somehow ‘otherized’ like western culture ‘otherizes’ women as feminine.
The ad is also trying to convey something about cultural exchange. Is it an equal exchange?
I would argue that no, this is not an equal exchange. The kenyan man is surrounded by westernised culture, he is being taught golf by the western man and he is not giving the western man any lessons from his own culture. The western man holding the spear is not doing anything with it, he does not seem to be particularly impressed by it. It does not mean anything to him because he does not actually know what it means to the kenyan man.
How can we use post-colonial theory to shed a critical light on the central messages and values of this ad?
I felt I did not know enough about post-colonial theory to answer this question. However, the other students’ answers were interesting – it was suggested that the idea of the native ‘other’ represents everything that the western man is not. The western man, the western culture, is seen as affluent and more developed. There was also discussion of how western and native ideologies and constructions of power collude to exclude women.
Image 2: Jean-Paul Gaultier Mermaid Perfume advert.
Again, begin by considering the landscape. Where is the ad set (identify by landmarks) and what has happened?
The ad is set in what appears to be Paris, which is flooded. The mermaid is sat on the top of the Arc de Triomphe. The men are in the flooded Seine, with life rafts around them. However, the scene appears to give the deliberate illusion that it is staged: the scene looks like it is on a stage and that the environment has been painted as part of the stage scene. The fact that the arc de triomphe is crooked also supports this because even if Paris were flooded, the arc would be solid in the ground. So perhaps this hints at a kind of ‘playing’ within a theatre on a stage.
Why is the woman in the centre of the ad a mermaid? And what is she doing?
This could be an attempt at implying that the mermaid now has the power over men, that their roles are now reversed – she has a tail and the sea is her environment. She seems to be calling through the megaphone – although to me, it is not clear why! Perhaps it is to do with the idea that a mermaid’s song drowns men or ships. It could be interpreted as misogynistic though – to me she seems a bit helpless with her tail, particularly as she is out of water on the arc. She does not seem very empowering to be a mermaid and lure men to their deaths.
What can we infer about the men in the water? What has happened to them? What are they doing and where are they looking? Can we tell anything about their identities?
I pointed out that it seems that they are ‘performing’ a camp/queer musical, as indicated by their mouths open and the mermaid’s microphone (also, the ’set’).The men do not look particularly desperate, they appear to be enjoying themselves and singing. This could tie to the idea that it is possible to ‘perform’ gender (if we consider the idea that Jean Paul Gaultier likes playing around with gender and subversion of gender, this idea would have some currency). However, I do not think that this means that the woman in the advert is ‘powerful’ as seeing that it is perhaps trying to subvert gender, it points to women being normally in the submissive position. Her lack of legs could be construed as a weakness – yes she is powerful in the water, but is she powerful on land?
What about the bottle of perfume? Why is it dressed in a metal-looking corset? What do we know about the history of corsets? Who is well known for wearing a corset like this one and how does that effect our interpretation of it?
The bottle of perfume is a disembodied corset. Madonna is most famous for wearing a pointed breasted corset – which points further to the idea that the advert is trying to associate itself with powerful femininity and playing with fashion/queer/gender. Madonna has constantly re-invented herself over the years, so the ad message is that you, too, can play with fashion. However, for me, a corset does not have any playful connotations as I associate it with constricting the female body, controlling women’s bodies in order to look a certain way. This is why I am reluctant to see the advert as ‘empowering’.
What is the overall message of the ad? Could this ad be described as ‘feminist’?
I do not see what could be ‘feminist’ about this advert. As I pointed out before, the lack of the woman’s legs, although a reference to a mermaid, could be read as the woman being powerful now because Paris is underwater, but what happens when they are on dry ground again? She will become like a flailing fish out of water. She is attractive in fashionable, cosmopolitan westernised terms – make-up, long hair, corset and ’sparkle’. Women can play with their images (make-up, fashion, etc), yes, but then again, if read in terms of feminist discourse within a patriarchal society: how far are those choices to wear make-up and play with fashion choices free of patriarchal norms of what it means to be ‘attractive’? I have found it interesting to read the queer culture contributions (on the York VLE wiki) as they do put context behind the advert.
Reflections on Session
This session was useful as it reminded me that interpreting things (artefacts) visually is something that involves knowledge of being in a particular culture or of knowing information that enables you to read further into just a collection of images on a page. For example, I felt that I did not know enough about queer theory to be able to interpret the Jean Paul Gaultier advert even though I am a consumer and have knowledge of particular ‘identities’ and symbols within fashion, music and popular culture.
If I were not a feminist, however, I may not have felt that there was anything ‘wrong’ with the idea of a corset or of a mermaid being seen as ‘empowering’. This reminds me that as a feminist researcher and as a women’s studies student, I subjectively interpret things according to my own viewpoint as a feminist, with the knowledge of the history of corsets (as constricting for women) and of women as ‘other’ (the mermaid is not human and only exists to ‘lure’ men to their deaths).
My interpretation of the adverts is not the only possible interpretation. However, from using the wiki on the VLE system, it occurred to me that even though there may be different interpretations of something, all our ideas about the adverts built upon each other to create a whole. It may be interesting to think about all the possible interpretations of something in order to be critical with our own ideas. For example, my idea that the corset is not empowering, given its history, other people may not agree with me and may find that modern corsets are not as restrictive as they were previously.
Madonna’s image may take time, effort and constant maintenance (as she is seen as very dedicated to her image, and has personal trainers, beauty and fashion stylists and so on), but maybe women find her dedication and determination powerful, as she is seen as a woman that has taken control of her life.
The session made me think more critically about how I interpret things, why I interpret them that way, and what other interpretations there may be.
