Representation of the Feminine in American Feminist Cinema - Essay Example

August 10, 2007 Representation of the Feminine in American Feminist Cinema This thesis explores the development of feminism in American cinema as a way to encourage greater equality between the sexes by focusing on the evolving representation of femininity and why such is a significant achievement against the opposing efforts of a predominantly masculine establishment. Though a combination of analytical viewing of landmark cinematic works - Rebecca (1940), Desperately Seeking Susan (1981), Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966), and Bridget Jones' Diary (2001) - interspersed with a critical analysis of related literature on the topic from Judith Mayne (1981), Teresa de Lauretis (1985), Jennifer Hammett (1997), and Anneke Smelik (1999), the author determines where and why and how feminism has been portrayed through American cinema, how it has changed over time, and why pushing for change and equality continues to be a work in progress. Rebecca (1940), a film adaptation of a novel written by British writer Dame Daphne du Maurier, demonstrated the power that a male character had over not only one or two but three women in a household - a deceased first wife who rebelled against the stifling pressure of her husband, a second wife (Rebecca) crushed helplessly by the pressure of gender expectations, and the hostile housekeeper. The film shows how women who strayed outside the lines of pre-defined social roles were generally demonized by society, which includes opposition from other women who are comfortable in fulfilling their traditional roles, but occasionally worshipped by other women who longed for freedom of being. The film captured Rebecca's loss of identity as a woman who is expected to live according to traditional norms of behavior, handing down this mindset to succeeding generations as a continuation of the old ways and old ideals, despite their personal desire for the freedom to express their individuality. In a sense, the film showed that in their uphill quest for freedom, women had to go through several barriers imposed by gender and social tradition. This landmark film established the base for similar Hollywood films against which subsequent cinematic outputs would be compared. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966) demonstrated in a clearer manner the feminist stirrings of American cinema. The depiction of women in Martha combined the traditional - stay-at-home and career-less daughter of a well-known university professor who married a loser - and the modern - childless but with an imaginary child, aware of her sexuality, cursing and nagging her husband in public, and flirting openly with a young married guest in front of her husband and the guest's wife. In contrast to other portrayals of women in the past, the film signified a certain degree of equalization between the sexes. Elizabeth Taylor's Academy Award as Best Actress for her portrayal as Martha in a film laced with profanity and feminine sensuality that shocked audiences at the time may have marked a turning point as it showed that a woman could be the mistress of her destiny. Some two decades later, Desperately Seeking Susan (1981) seemed to move towards closing the loop as it directly addressed the concepts of female voyeurism and female desire. It starred the 1980's icon of the fun-loving material girl (pop star Madonna) and featured a young woman obsessed with another young woman whom she had never met, and although there is a strong element of lesbian criticism involved, there is little indication that the women are true lesbians. A psychoanalytic approach to the film necessarily excluded the possibility that the desire inherent in the film is not for the female body but is instead a desire for the 'other', an idealized fantasy life believed to be lived by this other. This film introduced different viewpoints raised regarding its message that addressed the concept of the feminine directly, making it an ideal framework for studying how femininity is reflected in modern cinema. By the 1980s, the portrayal of femininity in American cinema had evidently undergone radical change, as could be seen from these three films made for three generations of women that fits one of two definitions of women's cinema proposed by Mayne (1981) who clearly distinguished two meanings of women's cinema, as "films made by women," and "films made for women" (p. 27). Mayne explained how films within each of these traditional definitions had been transformed by feminists over time, why women love different films in different ways, and why some films made by and for women reach their audiences in unique ways. Although none of these three films was produced or directed by women, although Rebecca was based on a novel written by a woman and the titles all contained women's names, the strong characters they contained supported the feminist trend and helped redefine femininity. These developments certainly shaped the way actors acted and filmmakers did films, making the human experience richer and more sophisticated. Blending the use of beautiful female actors with strong on-screen character personalities allowed film makers to tackle ground-breaking issues such as the sexual liberation evident in Woolf and the voyeurism and female desire in Susan. The title of Mayne's article captured this shift in the characterization of femininity, from that of women who could be transformed into subservient creatures by female servants (in Rebecca), to newly-independent wives who had the power to frontally seduce others using her feminine charms (in Woolf), and on to women who could stalk other women and feel good about it (Susan). Mayne, however, wrote (p. 40-42) of the dialectic conflict that movies in the feminist genre could generate, between feminists and the men who do not want their power in the cinema industry and the arts to be undermined, between traditional women who are comfortable and secure with their status and those of the modern feminist world who see greater security in redefining femininity, and between the women in the films and their male and female audiences whose consciousness would be jolted. This dialectic framework, which reflects the Marx-Hegelian influence on feminist cinema critique, is what leads to a synthesis in the film industry, in society, and in world culture. For women themselves to be on both sides of the keyhole, and wanting it, is according to Mayne (p. 34) a part of the march towards progress and equality that enriches and perfects the understanding of the feminine as capable of strength and heroism, freedom, obsession, and desire. De Lauretis (1985) equally supported the thesis of man-woman differences that lie at the heart of the argument, which is a difference that should be highlighted without calling one as inferior to the other, but as a form of celebrating the complex diversity found in our world. Cinema is a medium that provides a perfect vehicle for this message to reach the world, more so because American cinema is an effective form of cultural "imperialism." She argued against the feminist notions of 'masculatizing' themselves and for an appreciation of the equal validity of femininity as a viable and valuable perspective. In the process, she put into focus the various ways that the masculine and feminine are portrayed to determine whether a 'feminist' voice actually constitutes true progress for women or is simply a reassignment of masculine values onto the female form. The first three films - Rebecca, Woolf, and Susan - show a gradual transformation of the feminine characters into acquiring masculine characteristics, a search for identity that is characterized by equality in everything human - self-assertion, sexual freedom, possession and ownership, status and recognition, and power. However, all these are developed within a feminine context, which meansexactly what This is the central theme of De Lauretis' arguments: that men and women are different, neither is superior or inferior, but gender equality does not mean one becoming a mirror or identical image of the other. She cited (p. 154-155) instances of women in cinema, whether in production or in characterization, wrongly proposing that equality means sameness, and hinted that this could be the reason why instead of the world improving its understanding of women by seeing women portrayed as women, what is happening is that women are being understood as just like men except for some important biological differences (and what differences these are!). This brings the discussion to consider some questions that can be asked. Is feminism in cinema a trap laid out by males to lure future generations of women to liberate themselves sexually so that men could exploit them even more Or is feminism in cinema just a commercial strategy to target a huge and growing market that cuts across genders, because these not only target females but an increasing number of males who enjoy living their voyeuristic fantasies Are feminists playing into male hands in the process, making it easier for the males to get what they really, really want (as if the answer is not obvious) De Lauretis used the word "tricked" to signify what she observed to be a phenomenon of women wanting to redefine femininity ending up degrading themselves by competing with males for animal supremacy and domination, in the process discovering masculine answers to feminine questions about identity, self-definition, and subjective conformism (p. 157-158). She also pointed out that male and female film critics used analytic frameworks defined by men, or by women who wanted to equate femininity with masculinity, to put feminist works into categories that smudged out inherent gender differences that signified uniqueness, individuality, and identity. The result, as perhaps expected, was the unintended consequence that the search for identity led to a loss of it, the feminine mystique becoming a carbon copy of the masculine one, as feminist cinema showed women engaged in power-grabbing and abuses, acts of domination, voyeurism, exploitation, and loss of all mental inhibition. Films made by and for women, if these were to be accepted by critics and commercially successful, was moving towards self-destruction, loss of identity, and merely a competitive match where women started showing that they too could do, maybe even better, what men did (p. 174-175). Such confusion could only go so far, because it turned out that women knew something they already knew all along: they were equal, but they were uniquely different. A clear appreciation of the problem confronting feminist cinema and the representation of the feminine was provided by Hammett (1997), who argued that feminist film theory had been battered by Althusser's Marxism and Lacan's psychoanalysis that brought it down to the level of semiotics and questions of the study of experience (p. 85). By characterizing gender differences as social constructions and therefore subject to change, feminist cinema opened up the definition of the feminine into potentially equating it with masculinity. Rather than communicate to the audience what makes the feminine unique, different, and special, feminist cinema focused on showing how it is equal to masculinity, a conceptual blunder that lies at the root of its current state that reflects strategic limitations for expression (p. 86). Rather than searching for what could be called a feminist response to the reign of representation, which Hammett called futile and pointless (p. 96), feminist cinema should instead resort to the artistic representation of the feminine, to show how women view and understand reality according to their unique perspectives. This is what its goal should be, to present a different view of reality that enhances the way the feminine and the world itself is to be understood. Rather than adjust to rules made by men, true feminist cinema must be able to set and follow their own rules. This is easier said than done, however, because for true feminist cinema to prosper, and for it to achieve its goals, it must learn to define its own artistic, technical, and commercial rules and attract a market, grab its attention, and gradually (or radically) influence it. The answer is not to come up with films that make women feel vicious in the end, or mad and angry at so much abuse and cruelty they have been going through, but rather to make films that uplift the feminine mind and spirit and make women secure and proud in the awareness of their unique identity. Smelik (1999) provided a well-balanced summary of the different issues confronted by feminist cinema in the last sixty years. She showed how the cinematic industry was influenced by a feminist theory that in turn was affected by psychoanalysis and Marxist principles. Another heavy influence was the discussion in cinema circles of sexual preference and the idea of gay or lesbian critique as these relate to feminist theory and the ideas of masculinity. Her insights into feminist counter cinema, the concept of the female spectator, the idea of the masquerade, the issues involved within the concept of the female look and the questions this raises regarding female subjectivity and female desire all summarize and put into the proper context similar insights generated by the three films and the viewpoints presented by Mayne, De Lauretis, and Hammett. The fourth movie in the analysis, Bridget (2001), is one such output. In the movie Bridget, the central character is a single modern woman in search of love and respect. The film chronicles her struggles that reflect the normal conflicts almost all women face: losing weight, overcoming clumsiness, growing up, catching attention, falling in love, and gaining respect. With good acting and a good script, the film is a subtle projection of a more positive, brighter, and humorous feminist film genre as Bridget Jones goes through each day. Although she does not get the boy of her dreams in the end, the massive transformation she undergoes reflected a deep discovery of her identity, individuality, and femininity that imbued her with a sense of security that signified her aspirations for greater dreams that are slightly similar and yet different from the traditional feminine ones. In the end, the character evolved into one who was truly equal to the man she wanted, and by her personal decision not to continue with the relationship, she showed a dominion of her self and her feminine nature that reflected a profound maturity, a greater self-esteem and appreciation for her self-worth, and a newfound respect for the viewpoints of others. This film, based on a best-selling novel, became a box office hit because it had good actors and a good story, making it an effective vehicle for transmitting feminine values and making those who see it feel good, hopeful, and optimistic. Feminism is a good message, and cinema is a good vehicle for getting the feminist message across to the rest of society. Much has been achieved, but much still remains to be done. The reflection of feminist ideals in the four films analyzed show a four-stage evolution: infantile dependence and subservience in Rebecca, the juvenile brashness of Martha in Woolf, the adolescent aggression of Susan, and the elegantly maturing Bridget. Each stage of feminist cinema's life history has lessons that it would be best for us to learn. Works Cited Primary Sources: Bridget Jones' Diary. Dir. Sharon Maguire. Perf. Renee Zellweger, Gemma Jones, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant and Felicity Montagu. Miramax, 2001. Desperately Seeking Susan. Dir. Susan Seidelman. Perf. Rosanna Arquette, Madonna, Aidan Quinn. Orion Picture, 1985. Rebecca. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, George Sanders and Judith Anderson. Selznick International Pictures, 1940. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf Dir. Mike Nichols. Perf. Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, and Sandy Dennis. Warner Bros., 1966. Secondary Sources: De Lauretis, Teresa. "Aesthetic and Feminist Theory: Rethinking Women's Cinema." New German Critique 34 (Winter 1985): 154-175. Hammett, Jennifer. "The Ideological Impediment: Feminism and Film Theory". Cinema Journal 36.2 (1997): 85-99. Mayne, Judith. "The Woman at the Keyhole: Women's Cinema and Feminist Criticism". New German Critique 23 (Spring-Summer 1981): 27-43. Smelik, Anneke. "Feminist Film Theory." The Cinema Book. 2nd Ed. Pam Cook & Mieke Bernink (Eds.). London: British Film Institute, 1999. 353-365. Read More