Johnston argues that the image of woman is a representation of woman, and that representation is a product to be consumed. Johnston describes how a woman dressed as a man (like Dietrich), can be a sign for the "repression of women"(211). By enveloping the women in man's clothing the woman becomes the lack of man through the absence of him in this masquerade. The sign is woman, but she does not represent herself. She represents by a "process of displacement, the male phallus"(211). By becoming a metaphoric male phallus, the woman is now a product geared towards the male, and not a product benefiting her own sex. In cinema, woman is represented for the male. What Johnston now calls for is a change in form. A change that would promote films created by women for the female audience in order to balance out the male dominated industry.
Feminist theory includes this idea of the female as the object, and the male as spectator. By creating this object of the male gaze, the female becomes the sign and the signifier, and in turn, a product. Claire Johnston says "the sign is always a product" (214). By demonstrating the simplicity and bluntness of this idea in such a succinct sentence, Johnston tells the reader how important this idea is to understand. This phrase is indicative of her entire essay on woman's counter-cinema, but beyond that, it gives us some things to think about. Some things to consider are how a female figure can be a sign, a product, and what to do about it as well as how what we capture on film is a product.
To capture nature is to represent it and distribute it to the public like any other product the general public consumes. To capture women on film is slightly different when referencing Johnston's ideals. Film grasps women, and distributes a particular idea about them to the public. Johnston describes the “fetishisation of the star [to] indicate phallocentrism” (211). Fetishizing actors establishes the male as in control, superior. This public castration of actresses demonstrates how the film industry continues to favor the male. What Johnston proposes is that women’s cinema revolutionize this in film and better the female position. The way Johnston describes how women are repressed on screen also shows how she’s extremely passionate about it through her eloquent language.
Johnston describes concepts that make the female a product and how phallocentrism is present in film. The denotative aspects of these concepts are just their plain definition. The connotative on the other hand, is that in general, our society is very male oriented and we must recognize its existence of it before trying to change it.
The set of ideals that already exist in the male dominated society of the seventies inhibited the growth of women's cinema. This barrier that must be breeched is difficult to punch through because of how long it has been intact. Feminist movements have tried and largely failed in this respect. Although, in contemporary cinema, both men and women have created film, the industry is still largely dominated. Johnston's call to arms is still relevant today if the issue is regarded in this way. The cinema is still in line for a change in form.
Works Cited
Johnston, Claire. "Women's Cinema as Counter-Cinema." Feminist Criticism. 208-217.
No comments:
Post a Comment