For a long time the only voice or lens was controlled by a white male heterosexual perspective. Women and minorities do attempt to tell stories in their own way, but the public does not want to allow them to do so, instead they want the same formula of storytelling they have been conditioned to digest and understand since the inception of cinema and journalism. As a result, these groups and their perceptions are marginalized and unfortunately lost.
In the article “Women Make Movies” Debra Zimmerman mentions that “many experimental and cutting-edge filmmakers are dismissed by the film critics, who don’t seem to understand what the filmmakers are trying to do (Zimmerman 263). A major problem is convincing men that films by and about women are important. Zimmerman remembers the moment a man in the audience of a film screening asked the presenting female filmmaker, “Why did you make a film about women?” (Zimmerman 265). It is important to focus on women and minority fiction because their thought, feelings and stories are seen as lesser. Why is the popular white hetero male perception not questioned?
Despite there being more black filmmakers making films, both Hollywood and independent films, than ever before there has not been an equal increase in visual black representation. The types of films that are being made do not reflect the progressive cinematic representation of the visibly larger presence of black filmmakers (Hooks 6). Black filmmakers, in order to be successful within a powerful and influential industry, must adopt white heterosexual male forms of storytelling. Hooks argues that watching a film without analyzing it is doing it a disservice. Perception affects how each individual views a work; there are endless angles from which to analyze from. Spike Lee chooses to dismiss his homophobic and misogynistic filmmaking because he claims to present stories as they are in real life. Feminists critique the idea that just because they do not agree with seeing things simply portrayed “as is” does not mean their view is any less valid. There is the argument that feminists imagine things that are not there. If they identify material that is psychologically harmful are those things not there?
I have found 3 different media sources which are in the forms of blogs that are outside the mainstream message we have critiqued. In each example the female perspective and their interactions are focused on feminist ideas:
(1) Feminist Frequency: Anita Sarkeesian describes herself as a feminist pop culture media critic who produces an ongoing web series of video commentaries from a feminist/fangirl perspective. She created her site, Feminist Frequency, to look at, critique, and occasionally celebrate representations in popular culture specifically focusing on gender, sexuality, race, class and ability in the mass media (Sarkeesian).
a. In her most recent video entitled “The Hunger Games Movie vs. The Book” she says “the film broke records at the box office, proving yet again that women can lead successful blockbuster films.” This gives you an idea of how she approaches and critiques media. She emphasizes what she has learned from feminists she may have been introduced to in college reading assignments and shows how we can apply feminist theory we are learning in the classroom to today’s popular culture effectively. She also aggregates great links which is a perfect way to inform and guide others to more information on the issues she touched upon. These are why sites like these are necessary and should be part of the conversation in the media realm. Her site is successful because she takes ideas and theories and breaks it down while presenting in a digestible way that the average person can understand.
(2) FeministDisney.tumblr.com: The feminist running the feminist Disney blog claims in her blog description that she was always asked if she knew the issues Disney movies possessed. She created this space to discuss Disney’s problematic use of storytelling and images. She offers a fun “what if” that makes you wonder - “Imagine if the Disney characters could speak again. What would they tell us? “- just as each entry on her blog does on any topic. She critiques socially through Disney and popular media’s perspective. This is necessary because it is an angle that is too often ignored or treated as an insignificant and harmless issue (“Feminist Disney”).
(3) Fuckyeahfeminists.com: This is a great blog that totals anything and everything concerning feminists today. They collect important issues and have created a platform from which to raise a discussion and to bring these issues to the forefront of their follower’s attention. These issues directly affect everyone’s life from raising awareness on which state is allowed to fire someone because they are “trans” to internship opportunities. It was founded and continues to be run by two feminists who choose to celebrate anything anti-oppression, anti-kyriarchy, anti-hate and pro-equality. Their contribution is a positive one. (“Fuck Yeah, Feminists”)
WORK CITED
Feminist Disney. N.p., 13 Apr 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://feministdisney.tumblr.com/>.
Fuck Yeah, Feminists!. Wagatwe and Jacquie, 13 Apr 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.
<http://fuckyeahfeminists.com/>.
Hooks, Bell. Reel To Real: Making Movie Magic. 6. Print.
Humm, Maggie. Author/Autor: Feminist Literary Theory and Feminist Film. 90-110. Print.
Redding, Judith, and Victoria Brownworth. Debra Zimmerman and Women Make Movies. 263-265. Print.
Sarkeesian , Anita. "The Hunger Games Movie vs. the Book." Feminist Frequency. Anita Sarkeesian , 12
Apr 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://www.feministfrequency.com/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment