Here you can post all of the research you find that relates to the critical framework option:
Gender Issues
Showing posts with label Gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gender. Show all posts
Women in the Action Genre
Normalising Male Dominance: Gender Representation in 2012 films
How are Women represented in the Action Genre?
How are Women represented in the Action Genre?
Women in Action - Prezi
Issues of Representation
Stuart Hall - Cultural Identity & Cinematic Representation
Stuart Hall - The Work of Representation
Stuart Hall - Representation
Domestic Violence in film
On this page you will find resources that address VIOLENCE in Film, specficially Gender based violence
Good until it's not
The Real Abuse at the Heart of 'Fifty Shades of Grey'
colin stocked how movies teach manhood
Tuesday 31st June 2014
Colin Stokes talks about 'how movies teach manhood?' on TEDx Beacon street.
In this show he talks about the 'Bechdel test' which is three questions.
Colin Stokes talks about 'how movies teach manhood?' on TEDx Beacon street.
In this show he talks about the 'Bechdel test' which is three questions.
- Are there at least two women?
- Do they talk to eachother?
- About something other than a man?
He says that we should really be looking for movies that fit in with the Bechdel test, as well as this he states, "Of the top 100 movies of 2011 how many of them had female protagonists?" the answer was 11.
this is very low and should be higher, we see these films as different as original films have male protagonists. recently disney films such as Brave have shown this having a strong female role model. However in most Disney films there are female role models however they are shown differently.
brave archery scene
Friday 27th June 2014
archery scene, Brave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWbxhKTbTkA
In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema Laura Mulvey states that,
"The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a storyline, to freeze the flow of action"
This is challenged in Disneys Brave in which Merida's hand in marriage is the prize in an archery competition, at the start of this scene she is there as the prize to be won, to be looked at however she is pushing the narrative forward as the men are competing for Merida.
She completely changes this as she puts herself forward showing all the men up and winning the competition. This goes against Laura Mulvey's theory as she is not 'freezing the flow of action ' she is pushing the narrative forward causing the storyline forward.
"giving girls and female viewers heroes that they can relate to (symbolically if not physically) and for showing girls that they don’t need a strong male hero to lean on, that it’s possible to stand strong on their own."
In the scene where Kick-ass kills 95% of the henchmen Hit-girl does not have someone to lean onto to help her kill them she has killed of the henchmen because of her skill. When she is fighting the henchmen she is usually shot above the bad guys and the framing of her is open for most of the scene. Also in this scene there is about 20 henchmen and there is one girl and this shows that the girl in the film does not to rely on anyone but herself because she can take down about 20 older and bigger men.
Yes in this scene Kick-Ass does save Hit-Girl from Stu but the thing is Kick-Ass has been trained by Hit-Girl so without Hit-Girl's mentoring if Kick-Ass in the film Kick-Ass would never of been able to even attempt to save Hit-Girl. Also to show Hit-Girl's independence in this scene the camera is always focusing on her or her actions there is not one shot in this scene that Hit-Girl does not influence one way or another that shows her as strong. Also she has a determined loo
"In a World ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female."
In the scene where Hit-Girl is taking down all of the henchmen she is usually shot at a medium close-up from her upwards this shows that not all women are have to rely on other things apart form their brains and their brawn. This is shown by all of the medium close-ups from her chest upwards if this was a Michael Bay film good-luck trying to find a woman represented this way. Also in this scene the males are passive and the girl is active because the men are trying to slow the narrative down they are trying to stop Hit-Girl from achieving her objective of defeating Frank D'Amico. But ultimately this fails meaning that Laura Mulvey's theory of Men being active and no sexualised and women being passive and Sexualised is dis-proven in this one scene alone.
Detailed Analysis Of the Micro Elements
Thursday 26th June 2014
Scene from Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs The Apple
In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Laura Mulvey states that,
"The Image if woman as (passive) raw materials from the (active)gaze of man"
We can see very clearly in Disney's Snow white and the seven dwarfs, in the scene where Snow white is manipulated into eating a poison apple off the evil witch posing as an old lady, this shows Snow white as a very passive character seeming very defenceless, sympathetic and weak minded. as she lets this creepy old lady into the dwarfs home when no one is there, when she is meant to be hidden deep in the woods. The designers of Snow White designed her to be perfect in their eyes however she was meant to be 14 years of age? so to them Laura Mulvey's theory states as true they 'gaze' at her.
In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Laura Mulvey states that,
"In their traditional exhibitionist role of women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness"
Snow white is displayed again in the same scene as being displayed as 'passive' she is making a cherry pie in the kitchen when the evil witch arrives she is fulfilling her domestic role as displayed, she is shown as to be looked at, she is the complete opposite than the old woman, the old woman is wrinkled, old, big nose, fairly ugly but snow white has a perfect complexion, rosy cheeks, she looks like she has been designed to look perfect, which she has this links with Laura Mulvey's theory in which she has been designed to looked at to be seen as perfect, "to-be-looked-at-ness".
quotes from article and arguement brave and snow white
Tuesday 24th September 2014
'The image of woman as (passive) raw material for the (active) gaze of man.'
'The argument returns again to the psychoanalytic background in that woman as representation signifies castration, inducing voyeuristic or fetishistic mechanism to circumvent her threat'.
'It is the place of the look that defines cinema, the possibility of varying it and exposing it'.
'This is what makes cinema quite different in its voyeuristic potential from say, strip-tease, theatre, shows etc. going far beyond highlighting a woman's to-be-looked-at-ness, cinema builds the was she is to be looked at into the spectacle itself. playing on the tension between film as controlling the dimension of time (editing, narrative) and film as controlling the dimension of space ( changes in distance, editing), cinematic codes create a gaze, a word, and an object, thereby producing an illusion cut to the measure of desire.'
in my opinion disney films used to display woman as more objects, but still playing an important roll in the film taking snow white for example she was a passive character, however she pushed the narrative forward making the male characters continue with the narrative. they move forward because they are chasing her... However she is shown as domestic. she does the cleaning for the dwarfs, cooks their food etc and she's looking for her one true love, she is a raw material for the male characters she may be the active character but she is supporting and helping the male characters within the film. she is also saved by the dwarfs. creating the fact that she needs men to support her.
however the recent disney films such as brave, Merida is the main character however she isn't a dometic character she is displayed as very manly, and doesn't need men in her life. she is the daughter of the king and doesn't act like it she is expected to act womanly like her mother. she is nothing like snow white she is non- traditional,
however this could link with a more recent "male gaze" theory. how i see it is that during the time snow white was made the views of woman was very domestic. and they were meant to act a certain way which in film displayed them as passive characters, and most disney films had a love story behind them so the story line linked in. damsel in distress, needs saving, fight of evil character, find true love, live happily ever after etc. but now, in modern day some people still see woman as very domestic and passive, but the majority, see woman as strong and equal and this is reflected within disney films as more equal
'The image of woman as (passive) raw material for the (active) gaze of man.'
'The argument returns again to the psychoanalytic background in that woman as representation signifies castration, inducing voyeuristic or fetishistic mechanism to circumvent her threat'.
'It is the place of the look that defines cinema, the possibility of varying it and exposing it'.
'This is what makes cinema quite different in its voyeuristic potential from say, strip-tease, theatre, shows etc. going far beyond highlighting a woman's to-be-looked-at-ness, cinema builds the was she is to be looked at into the spectacle itself. playing on the tension between film as controlling the dimension of time (editing, narrative) and film as controlling the dimension of space ( changes in distance, editing), cinematic codes create a gaze, a word, and an object, thereby producing an illusion cut to the measure of desire.'
in my opinion disney films used to display woman as more objects, but still playing an important roll in the film taking snow white for example she was a passive character, however she pushed the narrative forward making the male characters continue with the narrative. they move forward because they are chasing her... However she is shown as domestic. she does the cleaning for the dwarfs, cooks their food etc and she's looking for her one true love, she is a raw material for the male characters she may be the active character but she is supporting and helping the male characters within the film. she is also saved by the dwarfs. creating the fact that she needs men to support her.
however the recent disney films such as brave, Merida is the main character however she isn't a dometic character she is displayed as very manly, and doesn't need men in her life. she is the daughter of the king and doesn't act like it she is expected to act womanly like her mother. she is nothing like snow white she is non- traditional,
however this could link with a more recent "male gaze" theory. how i see it is that during the time snow white was made the views of woman was very domestic. and they were meant to act a certain way which in film displayed them as passive characters, and most disney films had a love story behind them so the story line linked in. damsel in distress, needs saving, fight of evil character, find true love, live happily ever after etc. but now, in modern day some people still see woman as very domestic and passive, but the majority, see woman as strong and equal and this is reflected within disney films as more equal
Gender (incl. Sexuality)
Sex Positive, Feminism, Queer Theory and the Politics of Transgression
Stuart Hall - Representation
Gays in film - Richard Dyer
Research 5 - Philadelphia pharmacy scene
Homosexuality in film
Article; Gays in Film, by Richard Dyer
Through researching this article, I have found that there are certain ‘stumbling blocks’ that must be overcome to gain an accurate representation of homosexuality in film. Dyer makes good points regarding what gay people would like to see, simply stating “gays as ordinary human beings”, but also acknowledges that “physically, emotionally and socially” gays are different from heterosexuals. This, to me, feels like an excuse, as the first point of being represented as “ordinary human beings” would suggest that they would want a film that, for once, does not focus on the physical or even emotional side of a homosexual relationship, it merely sees two gay protagonists within the film in a story not driven by their sexuality. This is much more in line with one of Dyer’s later quotes “in terms of aspects of our lives not directly involving relationships, we are, clearly, the same as heterosexuals”
Therefore, it appears that the ability to represent homosexuals within cinema is not too difficult; it is actually the audience that make it difficult. Filmmakers would want to appeal to a dominant audience, and sadly it is unlikely that a film featuring two gay protagonists will attract more of an audience than a film featuring a man and a woman, even if both films did not centre around their relationships.
Scene; The pharmacy scene from Philadelphia
In the pharmacy scene from Philadelphia, we see Joe engage in a short conversation with a college student in the drug store. Joe seems to have a lot in common with the man, and is perfectly comfortable having a conversation with him. The student, however, then asks Joe out for a drink, and that is when we realise he is gay. Joe’s whole demeanour changes, he steps back, very aware of the woman next to him. He essentially has his back to the man when he asks “Do I look gay to you?”, to which the student replies with a shrug “Do I look gay to you?”. The scene is framed in quite a tight way, the two-shots and over the shoulder shots keep both characters in the frame, connoting how close the two characters are. This could suggest that despite Joe’s later uncomfortable demeanour around the gay man, he is perfectly fine with being close to someone who ‘doesn’t look gay’. Furthermore, this could connote that everyday he is that close to homosexuals, he just doesn’t know it. This supports Dyer’s quote that gays are “the same as heterosexuals” as clearly in this scene, there is nothing that stands out to show that the college student is gay or straight until he asks Joe to go for a drink. Therefore, Dyer’s theory that the differences are “physically and emotionally” (in a relationship sense) are supported, but the idea of a difference “socially” is only established when we get to see Joe’s reaction, suggesting that there is only a social difference when people are fully aware that someone is gay, if it is not known, then there is no difference, as seen with Joe’s encounter with the college student. This has clearly been done as a reflection of the audience, who at the time fully expected gay people to be different to them in every sense, the fact Philadelphia uses three gay characters who ‘don’t look gay’ to the ordinary passer-by, or who ‘don’t act gay’ challenges expectations in a way Hollywood hadn’t done before. Since Hollywood’s first gay stock character ‘the sissy’, gay men had been seen as flamboyant, camp, womanly and hugely different to ‘normal men’. This had grown to become the expectation for homosexuals in film, so to portray them as something different, something so similar to heterosexuals, was a risk. However, it is a risk that pays off effectively in Philadelphia.
As the scene progresses, Joe’s reaction to the man telling him to “take it as a compliment” shows just how uncomfortable homosexuality makes him. In Joe’s head, he is being told to take being confused for a homosexual as a compliment, but in reality, the thing he should take as a compliment is ‘getting hit on’. It is highly likely that, married or not, Joe would have no issue with a female flirting with him in the drug store and offering to buy him a drink, he simply has an issue with the fact that the man is gay, and made an honest mistake.
Twice in the scene, Joe uses the same derogatory term to describe the man, and is speaking quite loud. In a busy drug store, no one even cares. The only time we see recognition of Joe’s exchange with the man is when the woman looks on with disgust when Joe is asked out, and then when the other shoppers are shocked about the gay man calling Joe an “asshole”. This connotes just how second class homosexuals were seen; the shoppers have no issue with Joe physically grabbing the man by the neck, essentially threatening him and using derogatory language, but when the gay man calls Joe an ‘asshole’ all eyes are immediately on him as if he were in the wrong the whole time. This connotes the idea that Joe grabbing the man by the neck is a response to the ‘threat’ that the man poses; the fact he is gay is threat to Joe enough. As the audience we are in a privileged position to be watching this in a time period that has moved on, and we can now highlight Joe’s prejudice towards the man. However, to give the balanced view we can also consider that the homosexual man may have crossed the line. He was rather forward in what he did; he merely assumes Joe is gay due to him representing a gay man in a case, he jumps to conclusions when Joe gives him his card, and then asks Joe out anyway even though we hear Joe utter the words ‘my wife..’. Despite it being an honest mistake, I feel the filmmakers have done this deliberately to provoke debate. The film was made in 1993 and homophobia was (it actually still is 20 years later) very much existing, but there were also those who were very accepting of homosexuality. This scene is one that can have two points of view depending on the opinion of the person watching, and it comes back to Dyer’s quote about being “the same as heterosexuals”; what separates Joe and the college student in this scene (before the student asks him out)? How are they different when they talk about the case? They are not, as the student isn’t the flamboyant, overly camp gay man that we normally see in mainstream cinema, he almost defies logic and certainly defies expectations. He can make the audience think twice about the differences between straight people and gay people, because on the surface, as Dyer states, there are none.
Article; Gays in Film, by Richard Dyer
Through researching this article, I have found that there are certain ‘stumbling blocks’ that must be overcome to gain an accurate representation of homosexuality in film. Dyer makes good points regarding what gay people would like to see, simply stating “gays as ordinary human beings”, but also acknowledges that “physically, emotionally and socially” gays are different from heterosexuals. This, to me, feels like an excuse, as the first point of being represented as “ordinary human beings” would suggest that they would want a film that, for once, does not focus on the physical or even emotional side of a homosexual relationship, it merely sees two gay protagonists within the film in a story not driven by their sexuality. This is much more in line with one of Dyer’s later quotes “in terms of aspects of our lives not directly involving relationships, we are, clearly, the same as heterosexuals”
Therefore, it appears that the ability to represent homosexuals within cinema is not too difficult; it is actually the audience that make it difficult. Filmmakers would want to appeal to a dominant audience, and sadly it is unlikely that a film featuring two gay protagonists will attract more of an audience than a film featuring a man and a woman, even if both films did not centre around their relationships.
Scene; The pharmacy scene from Philadelphia
In the pharmacy scene from Philadelphia, we see Joe engage in a short conversation with a college student in the drug store. Joe seems to have a lot in common with the man, and is perfectly comfortable having a conversation with him. The student, however, then asks Joe out for a drink, and that is when we realise he is gay. Joe’s whole demeanour changes, he steps back, very aware of the woman next to him. He essentially has his back to the man when he asks “Do I look gay to you?”, to which the student replies with a shrug “Do I look gay to you?”. The scene is framed in quite a tight way, the two-shots and over the shoulder shots keep both characters in the frame, connoting how close the two characters are. This could suggest that despite Joe’s later uncomfortable demeanour around the gay man, he is perfectly fine with being close to someone who ‘doesn’t look gay’. Furthermore, this could connote that everyday he is that close to homosexuals, he just doesn’t know it. This supports Dyer’s quote that gays are “the same as heterosexuals” as clearly in this scene, there is nothing that stands out to show that the college student is gay or straight until he asks Joe to go for a drink. Therefore, Dyer’s theory that the differences are “physically and emotionally” (in a relationship sense) are supported, but the idea of a difference “socially” is only established when we get to see Joe’s reaction, suggesting that there is only a social difference when people are fully aware that someone is gay, if it is not known, then there is no difference, as seen with Joe’s encounter with the college student. This has clearly been done as a reflection of the audience, who at the time fully expected gay people to be different to them in every sense, the fact Philadelphia uses three gay characters who ‘don’t look gay’ to the ordinary passer-by, or who ‘don’t act gay’ challenges expectations in a way Hollywood hadn’t done before. Since Hollywood’s first gay stock character ‘the sissy’, gay men had been seen as flamboyant, camp, womanly and hugely different to ‘normal men’. This had grown to become the expectation for homosexuals in film, so to portray them as something different, something so similar to heterosexuals, was a risk. However, it is a risk that pays off effectively in Philadelphia.
As the scene progresses, Joe’s reaction to the man telling him to “take it as a compliment” shows just how uncomfortable homosexuality makes him. In Joe’s head, he is being told to take being confused for a homosexual as a compliment, but in reality, the thing he should take as a compliment is ‘getting hit on’. It is highly likely that, married or not, Joe would have no issue with a female flirting with him in the drug store and offering to buy him a drink, he simply has an issue with the fact that the man is gay, and made an honest mistake.
Twice in the scene, Joe uses the same derogatory term to describe the man, and is speaking quite loud. In a busy drug store, no one even cares. The only time we see recognition of Joe’s exchange with the man is when the woman looks on with disgust when Joe is asked out, and then when the other shoppers are shocked about the gay man calling Joe an “asshole”. This connotes just how second class homosexuals were seen; the shoppers have no issue with Joe physically grabbing the man by the neck, essentially threatening him and using derogatory language, but when the gay man calls Joe an ‘asshole’ all eyes are immediately on him as if he were in the wrong the whole time. This connotes the idea that Joe grabbing the man by the neck is a response to the ‘threat’ that the man poses; the fact he is gay is threat to Joe enough. As the audience we are in a privileged position to be watching this in a time period that has moved on, and we can now highlight Joe’s prejudice towards the man. However, to give the balanced view we can also consider that the homosexual man may have crossed the line. He was rather forward in what he did; he merely assumes Joe is gay due to him representing a gay man in a case, he jumps to conclusions when Joe gives him his card, and then asks Joe out anyway even though we hear Joe utter the words ‘my wife..’. Despite it being an honest mistake, I feel the filmmakers have done this deliberately to provoke debate. The film was made in 1993 and homophobia was (it actually still is 20 years later) very much existing, but there were also those who were very accepting of homosexuality. This scene is one that can have two points of view depending on the opinion of the person watching, and it comes back to Dyer’s quote about being “the same as heterosexuals”; what separates Joe and the college student in this scene (before the student asks him out)? How are they different when they talk about the case? They are not, as the student isn’t the flamboyant, overly camp gay man that we normally see in mainstream cinema, he almost defies logic and certainly defies expectations. He can make the audience think twice about the differences between straight people and gay people, because on the surface, as Dyer states, there are none.
Research
Key Points from Research
I have found that from the review from The Departed, is that
the characters are different and each provides a specific purpose of how they
come across to the audience. This refers to the types of masculinity in the
film, and relationships with women also appear here too. For a film that was
only released in 2006, the nature of masculinity is old and modern. The old
nature of masculinity comes from the more experienced actors in this film, such
as Jack Nicholson or Alec Baldwin. These characters come across as dangerous,
and use fear to get what they want. Other actors, such as Leonardo DiCaprio,
come across as being in the category of a modern masculine character type. He
shows fear instead of using it. He panics and is desperate in most of the film.
This signifies a modern type as he can be vulnerable and still be considered as
masculine.
Scene 1: The Departed, DiCaprio scene
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRbsSc1Kwk
DiCaprio’s character, Costigan, talks about his feelings to
a psychiatrist. His character can be considered as both a cop and a criminal.
The question is raised that he is even having therapy, almost confessing his
sins to this woman. This wouldn’t be heard of if another character, such as
Jack Nicholson carried out this act. Also, the changing nature of masculinity
appears here as a male character is talking about his feelings, showing
vulnerability, and at some stages in this scene it seems like the female
character shows control and even guides the narrative. All the while this
therapy session is taking place, we see Costigan as a criminal, witnessing acts
of brutal violence, were he doesn’t speak but the voice over makes up for it.
And then the audience witnesses a talk between himself as an undercover cop,
with other investigators who are attempting to bring Nicholson’s character
down. In these parts, he shows fear and desperation, and takes up most of the
speaking role. The contrast is huge between these two segments as the character
almost has a split personality. Whatever happened to the strong silent type?
DiCaprio’s character is complex and is vulnerable, which probably leads to his
downfall and death. Not the character type audiences are used to in
crime/action films, feelings shown, and consequences to actions. This all ties
in to the evidence of changing masculine character types. Perhaps, the strong
silent type has been replaced with the vulnerable, desperate type.
Scene 2: The Departed, Nicholson scene
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjRM-Pdr8Qg
Research 4 - Textual analysis
The 'horrific incident' scene in Brokeback Mountain
This scene from Brokeback Mountain combines close-up shots with low-key lighting to connote an overwhelming sense of emotion and inner conflict between the characters.
The secluded setting tells us just how much of a secret this 'thing' between Jack and Ennis must be, whilst the low-key lighting portrays them as literally in the dark. This suggests that it is common knowledge to them and everything else that being gay is frowned upon and it must not be shown in the light of day.
The close-up shots within the scene perfectly exemplify the inner conflicts of both characters. Both Jack and Ennis are framed in very tight shots, connoting that they are trapped, but at the same time isolated; They are trapped within this secret, but completely isolated not only in the setting of the scene, but also within society. Furthermore, the close-ups show great emotion, but it is possible to find differences in the emotions shown. Jack's face is tired, etched with worry and sadness; he can't bare to keep up the charade and wants to be with Ennis. Meanwhile, Ennis' close-up shots are emotional in a different way, as he recounts the 'horrific incident' it is clearly painful for him, but there is also a flicker of recognition that he and Jack would likely have the same fate, thus making him realise that he will have to disappoint Jack during the talk of moving to a ranch, which he does, purely to protect the both of them.
The flashback sequence is in slow motion, suggesting it is difficult for Ennis to recall. The non-diegetic sound used in the sequence is slow, sad and consistent; it is almost haunting to the viewer. Combine this with the diegetic sound of Ennis' father, as well as Ennis' monologue, and the haunting atmosphere in the scene is doubled. Thanks to this sequence, we discover out just how wrong it is seen to be gay. We essentially find out the ideologies of the time period in one sequence. This sequence could be seen as foreshadowing, in a way, as we know that Jack and Ennis could have the same end as the two gay men who were beaten to death.
An article about Brokeback Mountain on the 'Catholic Culture' website supports this suggestion of foreshadowing and the 'inevitability' of a certain outcome, with one paragraph summarising;
"Jack harbors a secret wish for a different life with the two of them together on a ranch somewhere, but Ennis is convinced that two men living together can only end badly. Indeed, he knows of such a case from his childhood, since his father made a point of showing him the mutilated bodies of two local men killed in a gay-bashing attack. "For all I know, he did the job," Ennis adds."
This scene from Brokeback Mountain combines close-up shots with low-key lighting to connote an overwhelming sense of emotion and inner conflict between the characters.
The secluded setting tells us just how much of a secret this 'thing' between Jack and Ennis must be, whilst the low-key lighting portrays them as literally in the dark. This suggests that it is common knowledge to them and everything else that being gay is frowned upon and it must not be shown in the light of day.
The close-up shots within the scene perfectly exemplify the inner conflicts of both characters. Both Jack and Ennis are framed in very tight shots, connoting that they are trapped, but at the same time isolated; They are trapped within this secret, but completely isolated not only in the setting of the scene, but also within society. Furthermore, the close-ups show great emotion, but it is possible to find differences in the emotions shown. Jack's face is tired, etched with worry and sadness; he can't bare to keep up the charade and wants to be with Ennis. Meanwhile, Ennis' close-up shots are emotional in a different way, as he recounts the 'horrific incident' it is clearly painful for him, but there is also a flicker of recognition that he and Jack would likely have the same fate, thus making him realise that he will have to disappoint Jack during the talk of moving to a ranch, which he does, purely to protect the both of them.
The flashback sequence is in slow motion, suggesting it is difficult for Ennis to recall. The non-diegetic sound used in the sequence is slow, sad and consistent; it is almost haunting to the viewer. Combine this with the diegetic sound of Ennis' father, as well as Ennis' monologue, and the haunting atmosphere in the scene is doubled. Thanks to this sequence, we discover out just how wrong it is seen to be gay. We essentially find out the ideologies of the time period in one sequence. This sequence could be seen as foreshadowing, in a way, as we know that Jack and Ennis could have the same end as the two gay men who were beaten to death.
An article about Brokeback Mountain on the 'Catholic Culture' website supports this suggestion of foreshadowing and the 'inevitability' of a certain outcome, with one paragraph summarising;
"Jack harbors a secret wish for a different life with the two of them together on a ranch somewhere, but Ennis is convinced that two men living together can only end badly. Indeed, he knows of such a case from his childhood, since his father made a point of showing him the mutilated bodies of two local men killed in a gay-bashing attack. "For all I know, he did the job," Ennis adds."
Research 3
The Celluloid Closet
"A documentary surveying the various Hollywood screen depictions of Homosexuals and the attitudes behind them throughout the history of North American film."
"Join the club! There's a whole group that is not represented" - Whoopi Goldberg, actress
"From the very beginning, movies could rely on homosexuality as a sure fire source of humour"
- The Florida enchantment (1914)
- Algie, The Miner (1912)
- The Soilers (1923)
"In this case, we learn from the movies what it is like to be a man or a woman, what it means to have sexuality" - Richard Dyer, film historian
Wanderer of the West (1927) sees the character 'Clarence the Clerk' quoted as "One of nature's mistakes in a country where men were men"
"The sissy; Hollywood's first gay stock character"
- Our Betters (1933)
- The Gay Divorcee (1934)
"The sissy made everyone feel more manly - or more womanly - by occupying the space in between"
"He didn't seem to have a sexuality, therefore Hollywood allowed him to thrive"
- The Broadway Melody (1929)
- Myrt and Marge (1934)
"They were a cliche, I don't care if there were a gay cliche or what, I thought they were disgusting, unfunny, had no business being in it, and I never understood why people laughed" - Andrew Laurents, Screenwriter
"I liked the sissy. Is it used in negative ways? Yes, but my view has always been 'visibility at any cost'. I'd rather have negative than nothing - that's just my particular view, and also because I am a sissy" - Harvey Fierstein, Actor/Screenwriter
Call Her Savage (1932) - "Hollywood's first peek at a gay bar"
"Sissy characters in movies were always a joke.... When a man dresses as a woman, the audience laugh - when a woman dresses as a man, nobody laughs" - Jay Presson Allen, Screenwriter
Stand-out quotes -
"When it (homosexuality) did appear, it was there as something to laugh at, or to pity, or even something to fear"
"Hollywood, that great maker of myths, taught straight people what to think of gay people, and gay people what to think about themselves"
"That hunger I felt as a kid looking for gay images was to not be alone" - Harvey Fierstein, Actor/Screenwriter
"That hunger I felt as a kid looking for gay images was to not be alone" - Harvey Fierstein, Actor/Screenwriter
Susie Bright (writer) on the lack of proper representations of homosexuality in film -
"You feel invisible, you feel like a ghost, a ghost that nobody believes in - there's this sense of isolation"
"Join the club! There's a whole group that is not represented" - Whoopi Goldberg, actress
"From the very beginning, movies could rely on homosexuality as a sure fire source of humour"
- The Florida enchantment (1914)
- Algie, The Miner (1912)
- The Soilers (1923)
"In this case, we learn from the movies what it is like to be a man or a woman, what it means to have sexuality" - Richard Dyer, film historian
Wanderer of the West (1927) sees the character 'Clarence the Clerk' quoted as "One of nature's mistakes in a country where men were men"
"The sissy; Hollywood's first gay stock character"
- Our Betters (1933)
- The Gay Divorcee (1934)
"The sissy made everyone feel more manly - or more womanly - by occupying the space in between"
"He didn't seem to have a sexuality, therefore Hollywood allowed him to thrive"
- The Broadway Melody (1929)
- Myrt and Marge (1934)
"They were a cliche, I don't care if there were a gay cliche or what, I thought they were disgusting, unfunny, had no business being in it, and I never understood why people laughed" - Andrew Laurents, Screenwriter
"I liked the sissy. Is it used in negative ways? Yes, but my view has always been 'visibility at any cost'. I'd rather have negative than nothing - that's just my particular view, and also because I am a sissy" - Harvey Fierstein, Actor/Screenwriter
Call Her Savage (1932) - "Hollywood's first peek at a gay bar"
"Sissy characters in movies were always a joke.... When a man dresses as a woman, the audience laugh - when a woman dresses as a man, nobody laughs" - Jay Presson Allen, Screenwriter
Research
The Little Mermaid
Stereotypical as Ariel is spending ages
getting ready and has “been in there all morning.” This is showing how Ariel
cares a lot about her looks and this has a negative influence on younger girls
who watch this and this is very stereotypical that women spend a long time
getting ready to look attractive. This suggests that all girls need to do is
look attractive
Ursula (the villain) is bigger, not as
skinny and is of a darker complexion as for Ariel being very thin, white with
long hair.
Cinderella
Stereotypical as Cinderella is washing the
floors and does not seem to care much about the fact she is doing it as she is
singing along as if she enjoys cleaning the floors. Very stereotypical – implying women enjoy doing domestic work and
should expect themselves to be the one who does it.
Snow White
Stereotypical as she is the damsel in
distress when she is walking through the forest and is scared and trying to run
away. Implying that women need to be saved by a prince (man) and need a man to
feel safe. Implying that women are weaker and less fearless than men.
Research
Empire Magazine, Leonardo DiCaprio Interview (Inception) (July 2010)
Quote: "There's an unrelenting feeling of suspense and possibility. You never know what's going to happen next."
This signifies the feelings that he feels while making this film, among others regarding similar themes and similar time release. Suspense wouldn't fit with an actor featuring in an action films during the 80's, the general feelings would be adrenaline-fuelled and action-packed.
Quote: "I actually like all the secrecy. I love not to talk about movies I've done in great detail before they're seen. It's great not to have to put a label on something. Much of the appeal of this movie is going to be experiencing the journey with the characters and not knowing what to expect. What Chris accomplishes here, besides the emotional journey, is this constant, unrelenting feeling of suspense and infinite possibility."
Research 2
Gays in film
An article from Jump Cut, no. 18, August 1978, by Richard Dyer
View: Gays in film
Stand-out quotes -
"Since the gay movement began we have insisted on the centrality of the media (understood in its widest sense) as a carrier, reinforcer or shaper of our oppression"
"Gayness should express itself on film"
"He (Jack Babuscio in Gay News) defines gay sensibility as a creative energy reflecting a consciousness different from the mainstream, a heightened awareness of certain human complications of feeling that spring from the fact of social oppression"
A second problem is that it is in fact rather hard for an individual sensibility to surface in a film..
.... This is partly because of the sheer numbers of people who work on a film, in an often fragmented and long drawn-out organization of production. Even the director has limited room for manoeuvre. But it is more importantly because any artist in any medium whatsoever is working with a tradition, a set of conventions, which are imbued with meanings that she or he cannot change, and indeed of which she or he is most likely not aware. Even if films did have individual authors, as most "underground" films do, it would still not alter the problem. The author may have any qualities you like; but the cinematic language has connotations and conventions that escape the author."
"THE DETECTIVE (Douglas, 1968). It sets out to be sympathetic, puts a major star (Frank Sinatra) as a liberal defender of gays (in what he says, if not altogether in what he does), and details some of the forms our oppression (and self-oppression) takes. But all the same, it cannot help but reproduce the dominant image of gays"
"the star's unassailable heterosexuality and centrality to the action enforce a narrative function of gay passivity, requiring a straight to act for us"
"in contemporary French cinema there is really little to choose between the lesbian in EMMANUELLE (Jaechlin, l974), an obvious exploitation film"
"women seen only in relation to men, and the lesbianism is there as a facet of the heterosexual worldview. In the case of the first two, the attraction of lesbianism is evoked the better to assert the superiority of heterosexuality"
"The critic (Jack Babuscio) suggests that Dean's gayness informs his three screen roles, giving them "depth," "warmth" and "sensitivity.""
"Dean, quite possibly through his gayness, did help launch a way of being human and male without being particularly "masculine""
"Dean of course had a following, and it was undoubtedly linked to the kind of non-butch image of being a man that he incarnated. It is an image that gay men have been in a particularly good position to imagine and define"
""Gays as ordinary human beings": A very common stance of straight critics, and alas of many within the gay movement.....is that films should show that gay people are just ordinary human beings"
"such assumptions assume that there is no real difference between being gay and being straight. Yet, from a materialist standpoint, gayness is different physically, emotionally and socially from heterosexuality." It is physically different not in the sense of involving different genetic factors (the equivalent sexist argument for the fascist arguments of behavioral psychology) but in the sense of being a different physical activity—two women in bed together is not the same as a man and a woman together or two men. It is different emotionally because it involves two people who have received broadly the same socialization (being both the same gender) and have thus formed their personalities in relation to the same pressures and experiences. It is socially different because it is oppressed."
"I don't wish to imply that we are different in every way from heterosexuals—in terms of aspects of our lives not directly involving relationships, we are, clearly, the same as heterosexuals." Our bodily functions, how we do our work, our intellectual and creative abilities, all these are in no way different from straights … except insofar as they involve relationships. The trouble is of course that they do—so much of life is relationships and even where no physical sexual expression is given to them, the sexual reality of our lives necessarily informs them."
"What this boils down to in terms of films is that if you are representing sexual and emotional relationships on screen, it does make a difference whether they are gay or straight."
"In this way, such domestic dramas of "gay" life are doubly reassuring for the straight audience. They allow this audience to view problems of heterosexuality (which psychologically the audience no doubt needs to) without being shown these problems as rooted in the present structure of heterosexual relationships." The ideal of heterosexuality is preserved when we see how its problems work out so tragically for gays. All this is confirmed by the way straight critics, presented with a similar drama involving heterosexual people "
"Lingering behind much of the criticism of the representation of gays in films is the feeling that it is not real, that it does not show gay people as they really are."
-----------------------------------------------
An article from Jump Cut, no. 18, August 1978, by Richard Dyer
View: Gays in film
Stand-out quotes -
"Since the gay movement began we have insisted on the centrality of the media (understood in its widest sense) as a carrier, reinforcer or shaper of our oppression"
"Gayness should express itself on film"
"He (Jack Babuscio in Gay News) defines gay sensibility as a creative energy reflecting a consciousness different from the mainstream, a heightened awareness of certain human complications of feeling that spring from the fact of social oppression"
A second problem is that it is in fact rather hard for an individual sensibility to surface in a film..
.... This is partly because of the sheer numbers of people who work on a film, in an often fragmented and long drawn-out organization of production. Even the director has limited room for manoeuvre. But it is more importantly because any artist in any medium whatsoever is working with a tradition, a set of conventions, which are imbued with meanings that she or he cannot change, and indeed of which she or he is most likely not aware. Even if films did have individual authors, as most "underground" films do, it would still not alter the problem. The author may have any qualities you like; but the cinematic language has connotations and conventions that escape the author."
"THE DETECTIVE (Douglas, 1968). It sets out to be sympathetic, puts a major star (Frank Sinatra) as a liberal defender of gays (in what he says, if not altogether in what he does), and details some of the forms our oppression (and self-oppression) takes. But all the same, it cannot help but reproduce the dominant image of gays"
"the star's unassailable heterosexuality and centrality to the action enforce a narrative function of gay passivity, requiring a straight to act for us"
"in contemporary French cinema there is really little to choose between the lesbian in EMMANUELLE (Jaechlin, l974), an obvious exploitation film"
"women seen only in relation to men, and the lesbianism is there as a facet of the heterosexual worldview. In the case of the first two, the attraction of lesbianism is evoked the better to assert the superiority of heterosexuality"
"The critic (Jack Babuscio) suggests that Dean's gayness informs his three screen roles, giving them "depth," "warmth" and "sensitivity.""
"Dean, quite possibly through his gayness, did help launch a way of being human and male without being particularly "masculine""
"Dean of course had a following, and it was undoubtedly linked to the kind of non-butch image of being a man that he incarnated. It is an image that gay men have been in a particularly good position to imagine and define"
""Gays as ordinary human beings": A very common stance of straight critics, and alas of many within the gay movement.....is that films should show that gay people are just ordinary human beings"
"such assumptions assume that there is no real difference between being gay and being straight. Yet, from a materialist standpoint, gayness is different physically, emotionally and socially from heterosexuality." It is physically different not in the sense of involving different genetic factors (the equivalent sexist argument for the fascist arguments of behavioral psychology) but in the sense of being a different physical activity—two women in bed together is not the same as a man and a woman together or two men. It is different emotionally because it involves two people who have received broadly the same socialization (being both the same gender) and have thus formed their personalities in relation to the same pressures and experiences. It is socially different because it is oppressed."
"I don't wish to imply that we are different in every way from heterosexuals—in terms of aspects of our lives not directly involving relationships, we are, clearly, the same as heterosexuals." Our bodily functions, how we do our work, our intellectual and creative abilities, all these are in no way different from straights … except insofar as they involve relationships. The trouble is of course that they do—so much of life is relationships and even where no physical sexual expression is given to them, the sexual reality of our lives necessarily informs them."
"What this boils down to in terms of films is that if you are representing sexual and emotional relationships on screen, it does make a difference whether they are gay or straight."
"In this way, such domestic dramas of "gay" life are doubly reassuring for the straight audience. They allow this audience to view problems of heterosexuality (which psychologically the audience no doubt needs to) without being shown these problems as rooted in the present structure of heterosexual relationships." The ideal of heterosexuality is preserved when we see how its problems work out so tragically for gays. All this is confirmed by the way straight critics, presented with a similar drama involving heterosexual people "
"Lingering behind much of the criticism of the representation of gays in films is the feeling that it is not real, that it does not show gay people as they really are."
-----------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)