Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I'm getting the impression that I talk way too much during Film Studies tutorials, and that my rhetoric is getting increasingly ideologically-inflected. But I can't help it! Once I get started on anything related to feminism and feminist theory (and that basically covers everything under the sun since I'm at the stage where I'm doing feminist readings of almost everything), I can go on and on and on. Like a woman's body and a woman's writing, so say Cixous and Irigaray.
Anyway, I don't think it's possible to return to a prior stage of existence, the 'pure', 'originary' state of "before theory". I've been irredeemably 'corrupted' by theory, so I guess people just have to get used to it. At least I use the theories without necessarily sounding like the theorists... =P
So to get back to the point (or is the feminine epistemology one that is never capable of getting to the "point"? - we deal in "lines of escape", not "points"), I had plenty of fun talking about the complexities of the "male" and "female" gaze in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes during the tutorial on Tuesday. Ok, I'm sorry I talked like 80% of the time, but hey, I don't diss other people's views in a mean way and you can always build on or refute my views...
Then the class got to watch the famous Breakfast at Tiffany's during the screening later in the afternoon. I've heard a lot about it and the LBD it popularized, but now that I've actually watched the film, I'm beginning to think that the film (and the LBD) became famous only because Audrey Hepburn was in it. There you have it, the power of the star to make otherwise rather insipid movies famous.
Obviously, I don't think much of the film as a work of art. Perhaps because I watched the film with Jean Rhys' After Leaving Mr Mackenzie at the back of my mind, I scoffed at the sunny Hollywood feel-goodyness in the film's portrayal of Holly Golightly, not exactly a kept woman but coming close to that with her acceptance of $50 from men for each visit to the powder room (is that a euphemism for sex or am I reading '60s sexual innocence with 21st century cynicism? - and wait, did I just say "'60s sexual innocence"?!). It's the Pretty Woman myth again.
I hated Paul when he told Holly, "I'm in love with you. You belong to me." (notice, he said "to" and not "with"), and I actually identified very strongly with Holly when she retorted, "NO! PEOPLE DON'T BELONG TO ONE ANOTHER! I DON'T WANT TO BE PUT IN A CAGE!" I was like, YES, YES, DON'T LET HIM POSSESS YOU and I was really angry at Paul for calling her a coward basically for not wanting to become his girlfriend. Yes, the cage will always be around Holly, wherever she goes, but that cage is the cage of patriarchy, not that of the inability to acknowledge one is in love with a man. And I felt inexpressibly sorrowful for her when she gave in to Paul in the end. I know the ending is supposed to be "romantic" and all the girls in the audience are supposed to swoon and all the guys are supposed to vicariously experience the possession of Audrey Hepburn, "the one you always dreamt of doing it with!" (so goes the trailer), but I felt it was extremely painful to watch Holly struggle to put the cracker jack ring on her fourth finger; it was as if a part of me died for her. It was like a Jude the Obscure moment.
This is one of the main reasons why I dislike Hollywood films (another reason is Hollywood's racism, which is present in Tiffany's as well). All this romanticizing of women's objectification and subjugation sickens me to the core. You are free to disagree with me, just don't ask me out to any Hollywood romance =P
kaoru said at 11:40 PM
|