Judge Less & Honest Truth In The Auteur

I want to take a moment to talk/rant about the events surrounding Ashley Judd in short shrift. The scrutiny of a celebrity and the dogma of "getting work done," along with the perpetual nitpicking of the female body is, quite frankly, a disease. This cancerous outgrowth of the supremely influential mediasphere is an unfortunate cycle of competition, self-validation, disrespect, distorted image, and misunderstanding. The objectification of the human body; the judgmental and broad assumptions rooted in an inherent need to place oneself in context to others is a terrible practice that is not only commonplace, but routinely accepted as the norm.

This old tree is probably younger than patriarchy.

It is interesting to me, in her essay, that Ashley mentions the spiritual practice which she is learning from. She mentions the notion of "letting go of otheration” and removing that veil of distinction to bring her closer to her Creator. Because of how volatile the attacks on her image, the jackal-esque feast upon her temporal being at one moment in time, she felt compelled to not only respond, but penetrate the outer teaching and provide an acute lesson. It is one thing to respond and defend oneself, but to do so and point out the flaws and reasons behind the original attacks demands a deep understanding of the media and how the "wealth" of knowledge trickles into the mainstream. The most important message that she drives home is that patriarchy is a system in which women and men participate. Unfortunately, some responses to the essay were "this was probably the first time someone said anything bad about her image" or "I'd still do her" amongst other off point and cancerous responses litter the comments section under her essay. There is much work to be done in creating valuable stitches of information, yet the audience unravels the effort and pulls at the wire with such persistence that it seems futile to suture the wound any further. This proves her point.

Perhaps the audience should practice the same spirituality as Ashley Judd and view others as the self. To look at another as if looking through a mirror is a more practical approach than tearing down the image of brothers and sisters. Ashley also mentions very briefly the notion of her "Creator." I believe I am familiar with her current spiritual work, and it is safe to say that her beliefs go a long way in shedding the scrutiny of the media and the detrimental effects that come along with it.

It is important to note that Ashley Judd’s response to media is above average in its candor and will hopefully go a long way in fixing the problems brought about through media norms. It’s inspired, insightful, intelligent and should be absorbed by many. It reflects probably everything we've learned thus far in class and is a succinct analysis of why the media is flawed, and how patriarchy is at the heart of the problem.

Referencing the readings, Bell Hooks talks about the movie experience as a whole. She says that a large reason that she goes to the movies is to learn, and “often what we learn is life transforming in some way.” I find this relevant to elaborate because personally, due to of my upbringing, a lot of what I learned was through film, television, and literature. While not delving too deeply into my personal life, I learned the concept of right and wrong and saw wrong in my family in context to film. I developed biases that are carried with me to this day. Hooks also goes on to say that “…most of us, no matter how sophisticated our strategies of critique and intervention, are usually seduced, at last for a time, by the images we see on the screen. They have power over us and we have no power over them.” This is true, and it is this seduction that allows for an audience to see a puffy face in the media and attribute it to plastic surgery.

Pablo Dominguez, Post 4.

Post 5: Honest Truth In The Auteur

There is a clear lack of female representation in the film industry at large. “In 2011, women comprised 18% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films….Women accounted for 5% of directors, a decrease of 2 percentage points from 2010 and approximately half the percentage of women directors working in 1998.” This is a trend, as deliberate as it seems, that not only proves to have patriarchal ties, but adds to the frustration of those in search of the rare equal opportunity. There are successful female directors and screenwriters, but from my research, a large majority conform to tried and true formulas, most likely out of necessity. The Hurt Locker is one that comes to mind, although I feel it can be interpreted as a statement that says “yes, we can do this too, you know.”

The notion of the auteur is interesting, because to be able to point out stamps that are impressed by the author demands that one knows the nature of the author, which is not always apparent. A film I enjoyed last year that I missed in theatres, The Kids Are All Right, is one of these films that show the auteur at work. Directed and co-written Lisa Cholodenko, it moved me to the point of frustration wrought through an attachment to the characters and performances. When I first heard about the reviews of the film, I was drawn to it. I had no knowledge of the director or pedigree behind it, although I remember hearing about a female director, which I shrugged off then due to being unaware of how few there are.

It’s no surprise that Lisa Cholodenko had problems getting the film funded due to its subject matter; the mix of homosexuality, comedy, and the foreboding presence of a sperm donor . “It's a fact of my life,” she told interviewer Rachel Cooke. “I wanted to have a kid. We thought about all our options, different guys we knew. But we felt there wasn't anybody we wanted to build a family with. In any case, a friend, another person in the mix – that's really complicated.” She had a child in 2006, which she says had a transformative effect. The subject of The Kids Are All Right reflects the auteur distinctly. Additionally, she shot the film without the pomp and frills of make-up, or actors who have had plastic surgery or anything that would add to the film to make it unbelievable. Her goal was to make a film that was “not sentimental, sanctimonious or apologetic…it is a political film, in the sense that it's saying: this marriage is as messy and flawed and complicated as any other marriage.” As a result of the collaborative effort, the film went on to receive four Academy Award nominations and was awarded a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy.

Linda Nochlin hits the nail on the head in reference to women in the field of art: “every time I go to a show of a woman artist who is interested in gender issues, or who doesn’t even know she’s interested in them, I see a new, more open, more critical, more inventive kind of feminism. It often works unconsciously, against the grain.” This is the case with Lisa Cholodenko, whether entirely intentional or unconscious, as she shaped the film using her personal life and without a doubt, went against the grain.

Recalling the guerrilla graffiti artist Princess Hijab, I feel that her work is important to mention. What she does is provide a discussion around wearing a hijab, veiled in comedic undertones, inviting one to think critically about the issue. She says her work is symbolic, and serves to disrupt what she calls “visual terrorism” of the media and advertising. The approach is very much in your face and is difficult to write off as mere vandalism, which is why it works so well. This goes back to the Linda Nochlin quote above, and relates to Lisa Chlodenko’s vision that attempts to create a real, thought provoking, and honest means of delivering a message.

Sources:

http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/oct/03/lisa-cholodenko-independent-women-directors

http://www.artnews.com/2007/02/01/where-the-great-women-artists-are-now/

http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat

-Pablo Dominguez