Debates In Feminist Research Weblog

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]