I'm a director, writer, photographer, aspiring explorer and retired magician living in Cape Town, South Africa
Jenna Bass
by Jenna Bass | 2009-10-29 15:37:27
mika, so I've been doing a lot of thinking on a subject i know you must have an opinion on. When you get down to cape town i look forward to having this discussion. But, namely: women in cinema. Let's start on women's film festivals. I've quite constantly not had much time for these - being semi-outraged at the need for them, considering them as further secluding women from the competitive stage and highlighting the differences surrounding women filmmakers when, really, we all just make movies. I would want my films out there, accepted for what they are, not at all who i am. However, of late I've been wondering if I'm at all right. This debate was begun when The Tunnel was invited to screen at a woman's film festival in India. At first, Grade A Skepticism kicked in, and then I read the curator's note. To cut a long story short, I started to wonder whether the term "women's films" cannot rather more constructively refer to (and excuse me if this is no revelation to some) the portrayal, or the responsibility to portray, of women within films. Hold on a second though, I thought. How backward is society then, that even that should still be important? And then I remembered that last weekend I saw Inglorious Basterds.
OK, let's hang back, one moment, to address all those who don't take anything I say about film seriously because of my so-called analytical perspective (which is a whole 'nother ball game and way too narcissistic to discuss here... not that blogging has much to do with anything besides narcissism. or at least, great platters of ego. with ego gravy. ANYWAY). The film has great, great scenes. It plays to Tarantino's many strengths. Unfortunately, it also shows up the cracks, and one of these cracks appears about two hours in, accompanied by an edgy soundtrack and even edgier shade of lipstick. Here I'm talking about how women are portrayed in the director's films - up until now, this hasn't particularly bothered me. I've vaguely admired the frequency with which Tarantino writes powerful female characters. Who get to kick ass. Or... do drugs. But on watching IB, it occurred to me how completely and inextricably linked feminine heroism and sexual allure are. Women cannot be powerful without it. And without it they may kick ass, but ultimately they will get their just deserts, along with appropriate amounts of suffering and humiliation, depending on the director and the film. And the fact that this doesn't bother anyone, men or women, really gets to me. I know not everyone is watching a film like IB looking out for such points, but the information is going in somewhere. And it makes me very uncomfortable.
But look. I'll think about this some more - at the least I'll re-watch some Tarantino. So, I'll say this - just got home from watching Fargo (for the, let's see, billionth time) at Jacques house (we are so playing "Frances McDormand, Frances McDormand" when you get here! Or at least refurbishing the shrine) and there I see a great female character. Pure genius. Wonderful. And I compare the part to other films and say, here-is-a-great-example-of-what-female-characters-can-be-like. BUT, on the other hand, it's also a portrayal of the great traditional balance - Yes, ladies can have a career, but not without forgetting their god-given maternal responsibility, no sir. Argh! I can't believe I am even dreaming of critting such a perfect film. I must be staying indoors too much.
Oh no, one more thing - a line from Preminger's "Fallen Angel" which I saw last night - (Anti)Hero asks love-interest (who has since displayed both musical and intellectual prowess. Or at least, she admits to 'reading') if she's considered a career. To which she replies: "Oh no! I know my limitations!" So, I suppose we have come some way since then.
Oh - and one last last thing, completely off the topic: If you know anyone who would like to sponsor my ticket to this (click here) well, I may possible go INSANE and then graciously and humbly accept. I'm sorry, but for me this has just got to be the cinema event of the year. 70mmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!! Nothing this big has happened to me since I say the redux 35mm print off Ashes of Time. OK, so you must know what it is now....
over and out.
FEEDBACK
What do YOU think?
Mika's Reply: the topic of your blog is definitely something which bears/bares....no bears discussing in more detail and is a hard issue to come to terms with and resolve. i have had similar difficulties with that issue, especially in the realm of politics i.e. the clinton/ palin double standard. so my immediate thoughts: firstly, about the film festival- definately show your film. exposure is exposure, principles be damned!:P i have an issue with the kind of sequestering of women as something to be studied or celebrated or whatever because to me it just serves to reinforce male dominance. you would never ever catch me in a women's studies class, unless there was a men's studies. (although in societies where women are basiclly chattel, it's very necessary) having said that, there are markets for films, and there are stories to tell about people,and some of those people are women. and it bothers me too that most (american) films ( which saturate the market) directed towards women seem to be of the sex and the city variety- it's insulting to our intelligence, as if all we care about is shopping and finding men. so a women's film festival which deals with a whole spectrum of the lives of women can't be a bad thing. quentin tarantino's films are cartoony. they are all kind of a 12 year old boy's fantasies writ large and so i think his portrayal of women is in keeping with this cartoon-y, immature world view. just like truffaut's women were always these beautiful, mysterious, perfect creatures ( who he always ended up having a scene with). i think we need to trust that audiences are smart enough ( which is difficult enough in itself haha) to see that individual directors have individual characteristics and visions. some portray women one- dimensionally, others- like francois ozon- are able to portray women as full human beings rather than just a verison of a fantasy. it's art. the issue is- how much credence do we give films, or do they have, to influence the way society thinks about certain groups ( including women)- and then recognising this influence- do we have a duty to watch for this curb their portrayals, or do we have a duty to let it rest and hope society is smart enough to differentiate from cinema and real life. the other issue is whether society mirrors film or film mirrors society- i notice, for instance, that american films of the 30s portray strong, interesting, independent ( to a point) women- this is during war-time where women had to fend for themselves while the men were away, and it was also propaganda to show which society was the best, most democratic, to live in...while american films of the 50s showed women as wanting the family and the home, and they weren't really the heroes of the stories- after war, the men had returned, wanting their jobs back, so women had to go back to the home and be the housewives...i think film was just mirroring or perpetuating an existing situation. so i think i've gone off on a million tangents, and probably haven't made much sense. but this issue is labyrinthine to me. definately needs more though and discussion. looking forward to it!!