This week's readings were notable mostly because they articulated an idea that we all probably knew but had to be still and conscious to actually acknowledge: that a simple infusion of underrepresented filmmakers and writers does not necessarily correspond to more varied representation of said underrepresented groups, and that it is the way stories employ a “persuasive strategy” (3) that imposes a vision and the political implications of said vision that actually create progressive dialouge and response.Bell Hooks says this explicitly in her Reel to Reel piece when she states that black filmmakers are highlighted in her critical collection because they have “revitalize[d] contemporary critical discussions of the way blackness is represented and seen in this society...the essentialist belief that merely the presence of larger numbers of visible black filmmakers would lead to a more progressive and/or revolutionary cinematic representation of blackness has been utterly challenged by the types of films that are being made” (6), and that “the subversive standpoint [is] one that refuses to see everything via the logic of binary opposition.
The spotlight on Debra Zimmerman in “Women Make Movies” also touches on this idea to concentrate on diversity beyond the binary structures of gender , race, and sexuality. She mentions the fear of some filmmakers to become “ghettoized” by their inclusion in women-centric film festivals , as if identifying yourself as a female filmmaker somehow detracts from the way the work is reviewed and received, and says “the real problem is not how do we get more women working in Hollywood, but how do we get films that represent women's visions out.”
Reflecting on the readings,my initial response is mixed. A small part of me wants to hold on the the “essentialist” belief Hooks shoots down as fantasy. Injecting women, LGBT voices, minorities, disabled voices, older voices, voices from different class backgrounds, and younger voices can do nothing but offer alternative perspectives and points of view on the whole, right? Even if a sizable percentage of those artists do nothing but support the politics of difference, or even disavow that they have any political perspective at all, it still increases the visibility of artists that may inspire the next generation. The Women Make Movies foundation addresses this by offering workshops in camera operation. Surely at least some of us believe that increased numbers in the game can only help. You can't dream what you can't see---we've talked about this point in several classes.
Further, I am uncomfortable telling a minority artist that they have some ethical obligation to shape a dialouge about said minority group. I think most artists feel a call to offer a perspective that is uniquely theirs (and is, therefore, informed by the various intersections of imposed identity), but if they don't?
If they hold on to a philosophy that is purely aesthetic, or purely escapist? Is it a betrayal to seek to erase identity and, by doing, mimic the position of male privilege that exists on a reductive scale of “other” and “default”?
Our assignment called for the introduction of something that the class may not know about. I originally wanted to find some activist cinema for you guys, particularly some documentaries, because that's what I would gravitate toward if I were a filmmaker. But the readings seemed to call for a film not just created by women, but also representing women in a way that seemed set apart from the status quo. Finally, I wanted a film that didn't shy away from the female perspective, that didn't seek to erase its “femaleness” on the narrative. We can get into a bit of trouble defining what it means to bring a “female” sensibility to ones work, as “female sensibility” is so often used as a pejorative term. But, for me, and for this blog, a female sensibility is one that is self conscious of itself as an alternative and does not shy away from this acknowledgment for the empowerment of others.
Kakera: A Piece of Our Life is a film made in 2009 by Momoko Ando, based on a manga by Erica Sakurazawa, which makes it both written by and directed by a female. It was also initially produced by a female, who was specifically looking for a female director to take the project on. The actual movie is a very sweet story of two young girls, Haru and Riko, who fall in love, and how they come to terms with that in light of their own dysfunctional relationships with men and the society they live in. It won't alter your life, perhaps (though you never know), but I like it because the relationship is not viewed through an exploitative gaze---there is nothing exhibitionist about these two young women and one never gets the sense that they are playing to a male fetishization of queer identity. The film is visually “pretty” and somewhat stylized, which I enjoy. And the movie is gutsy, not only because of the subject matter but because one of the main cast members was a pop star in Japan, and the realistic(read:unglamourous) styling was a big risk in a culture that holds “idols” to standards so explicitly sadistic and intimidating that America looks like a buffet of body tolerance in comparison. Director Momoko Ando responded to criticism this way in an interview with a blogger and freelance journalist, Jasper Sharp:
“ a lot of Hikari's fans came up to me after the screening in disgust and were like, "Ugh! She's got hairy armpits and you showed her changing her tampons - I didn't know that she even has periods. What's going on! You can't show this, it really shocked me! How am I going to ever get over this!" I thought they were going to hang me...Knickers are all right to see, but probably not armpits. This is why I really wanted to show these kind of scenes, because so many of these crazy men have this idealistic image of women, and all these weird lesbian fantasies and so on. A lot of men also asked me why didn't I shoot any lesbian bed scenes, but I just didn't really want to show it. I think it's interesting how a lot of men get these sort of ideas about women.”
Finally, the trailer is worth checking out because the community of female directors in Japan is a fascinating subject. Japan's movie audience is overwhelmingly female---nearly 75%, in fact, according to the Japan Times---and the cinema is not thought of as either a “date” outing or a family outing in many areas because tickets are much more expensive than they are in the U.S. Japan has catered to their female audiences by making movies specifically geared toward women, by male filmmakers, of course. These movies made for female audiences were, just like in America, love stories. Pretty horrific love stories, actually---I'm no snob and I love sappy films as much as anyone, but these are more like soap operas than anything else I've seen, and the representation of women is so insultingly insipid that you may think it is parody if you didn't know better,
The problem is that Japan's economic structure, and family structure, is set up so that females tend to live at home well into their 20's, even as they work full time. This disposable income leads to more travel, more independence, and more exposure to alternative ideas. Therefore, it is a bit reductive but not off base to suggest that the female audience is surpassing pop culture's offerings in a way that is almost revolutionary. These women are much more wordly than the industry is giving them credit for. And the change has felt like a bit of a revolution, because it came so quickly from the bubble era of the 90's until today. So the rise of the female director is not a surprising trend, but one to watch, as these artists strive to “catch up” and truly reflect and inform a discussion. Ando reinforces the point made by Bell Hooks about being overtly political versus engaging with identity in film in a conscious way (“black filmmakers...are consistently made to feel that their work can have a profound meaning only if it is overtly political (8)) when she says that carrying an awareness of her identity is sometimes enough to shake the system, even when the subject matter is not an explicit call to activism:
“As a female director, what's the point in trying to copy exactly what men do, or trying to masquerade as a male director? We should try and make the type of films that men can't make. So this might have come across quite strongly in my film, perhaps. It's not like a feminist thing or anything, but I am able to make this sort of film because I am female.”
Kagera: a piece of our life can be rented, or you can find the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlUH5O3nxRE
References apart from our readings:
http://www.midnighteye.com/interviews/momoko_ando.shtml
http://nishikataeiga.blogspot.com/2011/06/kakera-piece-of-our-life-2009.html
http://www.love-kakera.jp/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment