Talk:Feminist film theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

reverse shot[edit]

Is it the case that feminisit film critics often argue that shot reverse shot forces the viewer to align him- or herself with the point of view of the protagonist? If so, I would argue that the critics making that charge are definitely overstating the case. I think anyone who's had more than a few discussions about any controversial topic should know that you can not force anyone to understand anything; people are too much like horses before the proverbial stream. So I'd have to argue that this technique encourages identification with the protagonist, but that the viewer can always balk at such identification, as do these feminist critics. I believe the difference is significant, because a feminist criticism of being forced to think anything would belie the notion of self-empowerment through consciousness-raising, which is certainly one of the main tenets of feminist philosophy. Koyaanis Qatsi

I think part of the part of the point of this criticism is that feminist critics, and those who think like them, are the only ones who balk at such identification. Others don't realise that such a subtle guidance is being made. The heavy issue is that it is the norm, the default situation, for films to contain the male gaze, and no one realises it. Feminist film criticism seeks to point out that there is a very definate subversion going on in the majority of film. (Think of that). A 'female gaze' is virtually non-existent.
Unfortunately, I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think that's the gist of what's going on. -Tubby

Stumbled onto this page, I'm a film theory professor. You're both right. The problem is that there is not one feminist film theory, it is a body of theories that have continued to develop since the early 1970s, and could even be traced back to the early 1920s. Within that body of theory, there are particular individuals who did seem to contend, contra qatsi, that the spectator was forced into a particular alignment. Forced is not quite the right word, because the spectator didn't even know it was happening, it was the natural attitude. Nevertheless, other theorists came to a greater appreciate the diversity of ways of looking, and increasingly questioned the possibility of coming up with a monolithic account of the gaze. Now there's a tension, because while you want to acknowledge individual agency and difference, you're still left with some substantive differences in the way gender is portrayed and seen that need to be conceptualized (the old question of freedom vs determinism). - (sorry, don't know how to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.111 (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Women screenwriters category up for discussion[edit]

Thought people interested in this article might like to know that Category:Women screenwriters is being considered for deletion. — scribblingwoman 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an article[edit]

can anybody tell me --86.138.127.211 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you genuinely suggesting this should be merged with another article, or just trolling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PansiesForThoughts (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a crucial component of academic film theory since its origin in the early 1970s and, even if it has been proven wrong in some aspects, is absolutely foundational to the discipline.

The gaze and the female spectator[edit]

In order for women to be equally represented in the workplace, women must be portrayed as men are: as lacking sexual objectification. This section pushes way too much POV. Arguing that men are not sexually objectified in film is ludicrous. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote the whole sentence: "She argues that in order for women to be equally represented in the workplace, women must be portrayed as men are: as lacking sexual objectification." It's irrelevant whether she's right or wrong; the important thing is whether that is a correct paraphrase of her argument. If there are no specific examples of POV that are not contained within a report on the opinion of a source, the tag should be removed. --Anarchangel23 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless anyone raises any objections in the next few days, I'm going to remove the POV tag on this section. --Anarchangel23 (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag is misguided. You should only be paraphrasing the major early proponents - frankly, Mulvey is enough, since she's the central figure, although Kaja Silverman's elaboration of "suture" was also very important. More recent reforumations can be found in Clover's Men, Women and Chainsaws and Linda William's work on pornography and spectatorship.

Contradiction[edit]

"Mulvey identifies three "looks" or perspectives that occur in film to sexually objectify women. The first is the perspective of the male character on screen and how he perceives the female character. The second is the perspective of the audience as they see the female character on screen. The third "look" joins the first two looks together: it is the male audience member's perspective of the male character in the film." The previous statement is from this article...and then we have this statement from Laura Mulvey's article (the author of "visual pleasure and narrative cinema"): "The first "look" refers to the camera as it records the actual events of the film. The second "look" describes the nearly voyeuristic act of the audience as one engages in watching the film itself. Lastly, the third "look" refers to the characters that interact with one another throughout the film." Now this second statement is backed by this reference: ^ a b c Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema". Screen 16(3): 6–18. Online version. So i assume it to be the correct, but in any case this article needs some revision. rayhole45 —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Then make the change and add the source. --Anarchangel23 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard to understand[edit]

I'm having some serious difficulty understanding the content of this article. I think it should perhaps be rewritten so it can be in a manner easier for a layperson to understand. --OGoncho (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The original article is hard to understand unless you're a feminist theorist :( SarahStierch (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Then it should be changed. This article makes no sense to me. I have no idea what the feminists are proposing. Eliminating women from film to remove male superiority? --Youngdrake (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Metz Quote[edit]

What is the purpose of the Christian Metz quote? Seems unrelated to the rest of the article or the subject matter. Epeeist smudge (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

One subject under key themes header[edit]

The Key Themes header feels loaded without any further subdivision beyond "the gave and the female spectator". This subject also includes influential essays, people, and ideas but they are all presented together without further organization.

Also, should some of the readings mentioned also be cited under "further readings"?

Kathryn Wohlpart (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

General Editing Needed[edit]

This article contains a lot of really good points that are important to both the feminism and film critic community, but does anyone else feel that the current format and style could benefit from some editing? Just from a quick read over, I felt that the flow sounded more like a student's research paper than a Wikipedia article. Before I make any major changes I wanted to run it past the talk page in case anybody has some input. I think this article could benefit from some sentence-level editing of the current content to increase clarity. I also think the content should be divided into more user-friendly subheadings so that readers can quickly get the information they need. Most of these things have been mentioned in previous talk-page posts, but since I haven't seen any changes made I thought I'd go ahead and take on the challenge over the next couple of weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadelineGrace17 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Is matrixial theory truly revolutionary?[edit]

I haven't read feminist film theory in many, many years, but I have to wonder if Bracha L. Ettinger matrixial theory truly "revolutionized feminist film theory." Is this an overstatement? Does this claim need to be rewritten to reflect a NPOV? I'm not trolling, I'm just asking. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminist_film_theory&oldid=920164039"