History Of Gender Inequality In Movies Film Studies Essay

The classic Hitchcockian woman remains a staple image of glamorous femininity within Western culture – a depiction of femininity which has survived various waves of feminism, Betty Friedan’s condemnation of The Feminine Mystique (1963) and Naomi Wolf’s revelation of The Beauty Myth (1991). Despite these attempts to eradicate such depictions of constructed womanhood, the Hitchcock blonde seems to remain forever in vogue, consistently seeing a resurgence within visual media, both in the cinema and within fashion editorials and advertising. The fact remains that this version of Woman remains steadfast within the culture conscious, upheld as the pinnacle of class, elegance and demure femininity.

The dominating and controlling powers of the existing patriarchal culture system has created, promoted and perpetuated the idea of this previously discussed idyllic femininity. Despite the suggested modern progressions in gender equality, inevitably, it must be understood that this version of passive femininity is glamorised simply as it promotes a more manageable version of woman for masculinity. It seems ludicrous; however, that passive femininity is so thoroughly promoted within modern visual culture, openly focusing upon aesthetics which characterise the Hitchcock Blonde, while seemingly choosing to forgo the consideration of what these iconic representations actually communicate. There is a consistent re-emergence of this sort of glamorisation within fashion and advertising (Fig. 1 – 4), serving only as a constant re-communication of its desirability, seemingly ignoring the fact that this also glamorises “the kind of ideology expressed in these films as well as the style”. In essence, these images of woman, promoted in contemporary times, seems extremely regressive, as all they can inevitably communicate is an era of woman that is constantly depicted as dominated by man while plagued by “the feminine mystique”, ultimately demoralised and trapped within their domesticity. A time when, as Friedan discusses, “women were defined only in sexual relation to men – man’s wife, sex object, mother, housewife – and never as persons defining themselves by their own actions in society”.

In the twenty first century, however, there exists a general consensus that this kind of gender inequality is a thing of the past, truly a problem for a long forgotten era. Yet, the reality remains that while progress has certainly been made towards a more positive outlook for femininity under patriarchy, progress has been severely overestimated by the media, allowing the facade of equality and demonstrative exhibitions of gender equality in the work place to permit this belief in substantial developments. For example, while women may now have a more substantial position within the workforce, the fact remains that “…behind the headline figures of near ‘equality of participation’, there remain major differences in the employment conditions and pay of women and men”, ultimately highlighting the remnants of this deep seated belief in a gender hierarchy, of passivity and dominance.

While there may exist this facade of equality, seemingly functioning in order to placate society, the ideology which creates this unequal environment remains in action. This lack of evident progression within media representation seems to highlight what many “third wave feminists” or “post feminism” movements have expressed – that this lack of significant results is the cause for a decrease in the optimism and idealism which seemed to characterise the feminist movements of the 1970s. Far from seeing this as perhaps position for the current state of feminism, it could be argued to, instead, be a positive progression. Judith Stacey, interviewing the second-wave feminists and their daughters, found that this new generation of feminism did not want to continue the trend of anger and political protests. An opinion which seems to be the current assessment, as the observations of Alice Rossi, through her studies of the feminist movement over the past hundred years, reveals the desire to see a change in how feminist “values are acted out”.

This seems to suggest that movement towards a more post feminist approach to equality, combined with a more “postmodern” approach to media representations seems to be the way in which progression can be made. A dramatic reorganisation of a representational system would certainly be both too radical and inconceivable, but adhering to more postmodern ideas surrounding complicity would perhaps provide more progressive results. Linda Hutcheon, literary theorist and postmodernist, believes that “the combination of both complicity with dominant representational strategies and critique” is what characteristically defines a work as postmodern. Essentially suggesting that the process of working within the cinema system, utilising the existing codes and conventions which have been responsible for publicising and perpetuating this image of passive femininity, yet producing work which suggests the possibility for a re-evaluation of the ruling ideology.

The use of a more “postmodern” approach to progression is certainly more appealing, reinforced by the ways in which Hutcheon discusses how:

“contemporary artists engage with the systems of the media and the market with strategies of ‘subversive complicity’, by which she means the ability to operate within dominate codes of representation while at the same time questioning them”.

Considering this in the context of a more progressive cinema system, postmodernism would function by utilising the position as an “insider”, operating many usual codes and conventions, yet ultimately working to “de-toxify” existing cultural conventions, “the ‘givens’ that ‘go without saying'” within narrative, mainstream cinema. Presenting the possibility of providing the feminist cause with a way in which to resist or alter oppressive ideologies from within the system which has been responsible for creating them. While not all postmodern work may utilise this process of subversion through complicity, there is certainly an argument for its use in the cause of progressing equality within cinema narratives for women.

Perhaps the best example of such subversion within cinema lays with the work of director David Lynch. Fittingly, his Hitchcockian influence is obvious with his obvious addressal of of film noir aesthetics as well as with his implimation of HITCHOCKIAN THEMES SUCH AS VOEYIRSM, PSYCHOLOGY HIS INTENTIONS ARE OBVIOUSLT ALWAYS TO SUBVERT THE DOMINANT ORDER OF CINEMA

 While he may not specifically have such aims, the work of Lynch can be argued to showcase a possible development towards a more agreeable cinematic depictions or messages which differ from the dominant order. While Lynch may adhere to many typical conventions of cinema (often passive women, voyeurism, dominance, violence etc) women are not alone in their degradation within Lynch’s narratives.

Postmodernism? – while not all postmodern work may utilise this theory or complicity in order to create change, there is certainly an argument for the success of such an approach.

Such an approach seems useful for the cause of feminism, allowing cinema, to not be utterly deconstructed and reconstructed, but instead, merely subverted.

Perhaps one of the most notable examples of this kind of subversion is the work of David Lynch. His work complies to the general rules of cinema, presenting

Typical cinematic depictions? Women and men? Narrative?

But at the same time, causing spectators to witness a narrative which subverts what mainstream cinema has caused them to expect.

Considering this idea of postmodernism within cinema, the discussion of director David Lynch is extremely useful. Primarily considered a surrealist and significantly influenced by Hitchcockian film noir motifs and visual styles, Lynch’s narratives adhere to many cinematic conventions, yet subverts the usual message which audiences have come to expect through constant exposure to mainstream cinema. There, for instance, exists a notable lack of the ‘blot’ which characterises Hitchcock’s work, as Lynch instead practices what Zizek refers to a as “‘extraneation’: the decomposition of ‘reality’ in such a way as to expose the fantasy and real elements that constitute it”.

Essentially, lynch utlisies cinema’s abibilty for creating fantasies and entertainment, yet seems to utilise it in a way which creates an unnerving effect.

This extraneation – presenting fiction, while causing us to consider the reality that formed it.

However, it is precisely in this way, Zizek argues, that Lynch achieves what he calls the ‘ridiculous sublime’. On the one hand we have the flimsy, absurd symbolic; and next to it we find the real, abominable Thing. In a way quite different from Hitchcock, yet with a certain kinship with him, Lynch has exposed the mechanism of sublimation without altogether dispensing with it.”

“Against the ideology of “psychologically convincing” characters, Zizek favors Lynch’s “extraneation” of the characters, the effects of which are strangely de-realized or de-psychologised persons. There is a method to Lynch’s madness, so to speak. The psychological unity of the characters disintegrates into a “spiritual transubstantiation of common cliche’s,” as Zizek calls it here, and into outbursts of the brutal Real, with reality and its fantasmatic supplement acting side by side, as though existing on the same surface. Ultimately, Zizek’s reading of Lynch, and by extension Lynch’s fim itself, is profoundly political. Their common method is the opposite of obscurantism or pastiche of arcane topics. Both in their own way provide proof that our fantasies support our sense of reality, and that this is in turn a defence against the Real. Together with their sublime thought, both Lynch and Zizek are profoundly entertaining through their ridiculous art.”Pg.6

“Firstly, Zizek’s observation that extraneation in Lynch’s work has a “magic redemptive quality” is ecvhoed in Jung’s theory of consciousness and unconscious: “Only in an interplay of consciousness and the unconscious can the unconscious prove it’s value, and perhaps even show a way to overcome the melancholy of the void. If the unconscious, once in action, is left to itself, there is a risk that its contents will become overpowering or will manifest their negative, destructive side” (Jaffe. Pg.297) This interplay can be directly observed in the style of all three films, especially where the distinction between dreamlike but ‘real’ images and dreams as fantasy images are blurred”. Pg22 We Live Inside a Dream: The Function and Origins of Dreams in David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me and Lost Highway