Our first task was to all name a film. We were then asked 2 questions about our film. 3 words to describe a significant male character and 3 to describe a significant female character. I had chosen Shutter island and used; confident, deductive and handsome to describe Teddy Daniels. For the female character I chose the memory of Teddy Daniel' wife, Dolores, because she was the most recurring female character. The 3 words I used were Sinister, innocent-faced and untrusting. We put all of our words together to see the different between male and female characters. We had a similar amount of negative and positive words which was odd considering the amount of different film choices.
We then looked at 2 clips. 1 was a scene of Jessica Rabbit performing in Who framed Roger Rabbit. We were then asked 2 questions - Who is Jessica performing for? and Would this scene work with gender-reversal? (Camerawork, lighting etc) We split into groups of 3 a discussed answers. In our group we came up with a few ideas about the first question. She is likely performing for the men in the club, but we also thought that she could have been performing for herself. We thought that putting this scene in gender-reversal may be a strange thing to see in a film because it is so uncommon.
The second clip was Cameron Diaz' entrance in the Mask. The 2 questions were - Who is looking at Cameron Diaz? and Would this scene work in gender-reversal (slow-mo, sweeping hair)? In our groups we decided that it's the way that the characters are dressed that really draw an audience to a female's body - such as a little black dress or, like Jessica and Diaz, a long red dress. The people looking at Cameron Diaz were both males and they were both gawping. We wondered if these would be seen as normal in gender-reverasal. For this scene we said yes because there are some films with this kind of scene of males.
We then discussed the theory that films use the male gaze. Which is where the camerawork/scenes are seen through a straight male's gaze. What would he focus on? This means that when this is not used in a film, we notice it more. For example, many female characters are filmed in slow motion and flicking their hair. You see a male do it in a film it seems to be seen as comedy. We said that most films, excluding some rom-coms and most chick-flicks, are seen through a straight male's gaze. Even if it's something you haven't noticed before. We may not have noticed it before because we are so used to films being structured this way.
I looked at 3 feminist theories from papers and books.
First was Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure & Narrative Cinema". This 10 page essay explains how social conventions and ideals are portrayed in cinema. She talks about how different genders are interpreted and how a woman is symbolised in film. She also talks about how the images are being controlled to alter the way in which scenes are viewed using sexual, erotic techniques.
The second I researched was Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth. This book goes into great depth into how beauty is perceived and how she believes that the socially expected vision of beauty is used to control women. It is seen that if a beautiful woman, who is known for being beautiful and following the social expectations, talks about beauty she is rejected because she is already beautiful, she doesn't get a say. If someone who doesn't follow the social conventions of beauty they are also rejected when they talk about beauty because audience would simply ask "what do you know?". They would say that they would not know anything on the subject if they were not to the social 'standard' that seems to have developed. Wolf basically explains that there are traps set and that it is difficult to 'win' in many situations because whatever you say or do can be analysed.
Lastly, I looked into Ann Oakley's Gender Socialisation, which is about the upbringing of different genders and how they are split using different materialistic and emotional paths. She lists 4 primary ways that children could be pushed towards acting how their gender supposedly should. The first is manipulation where parent encourage or discourage certain behaviours dependant on whether this behaviour is seen as normal for their gender or not. The next is Canalization which is basically parents directing a child's interest of materialistic objects, such as toys. This is seen when young boys want a doll and parents are reluctant to give him one because they think it's a female toy. Next, she talks about Verbal appellations. This means using particular language to label their children. She uses the example of pet names. Children can be given different pet names depending on their gender. The last is the different activities that may encourage their children to do or not do. For example, girls being expected to do domestic activities and play with toy kitchens. Whereas boys are encouraged to participate in outdoor activities such as sports.
These theories can relate back to that first Jessica Rabbit clip. This clip really does give a clear example of how Mulvey explained female's portrayal in cinema. Jessica Rabbit is an unrealistic portrayal of beauty which I think would make the female audience feel unsatisfying with how they look; even though if a real human has Jessica Rabbit's body there is no way they could live. I think this illustrates some of Naomi Wolf's points well because of how unrealistic the beauty and body shape is, also, why is this animated character seen as beautiful? I also think that Oakley's Gender Socialisation can be linked back to Jessica Rabbit. I think that this character is very much like a Barbie (or other brand) doll. She has a similar shape to these dolls but she is exaggerated a lot more. I think using the pink sparkly dress also tries to pull in a young female audience because it's the colour that is associated with pretty girls.
No comments:
Post a Comment