Over the past few decades, classical Hollywood cinema has been criticized for the way women are portrayed through the screen. The majority gaze throughout mainstream cinema is quite masculine. One of the easiest ways to prove this is by examining how men and women direct their gazes through film. “Men tend to look at women, and women tend to look not at men, but at men looking at them.” (Horton) In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active male and passive female observation. One of the primary ways that this is conveyed, is through shot size.
Instead of breaking the notion of patriarchy, Eliot becomes a torch-bearer of patriarchy and contributes to perpetuate the process subjugation of women by strengthening the mechanisms of women subordination. The study tries to show how Eliot becomes a misogynist by his constant tirade against woman. Key Words: Patriarchy, misogynist, subjugation, mechanism, tirade. Introduction: Since its inception both the Eastern and the Western civilization are pervasively patriarchal. It is male-centered and male-controlled.
Feminist film theory Feminist scholars point out that there is misogyny in the mainstream media that treat women as inferior and objects. They expressed that there is a need to explore representations and images of women. Feminist film theory makes gender its exploratory focus and it has emerged to find a place for women in films; they were frustrated with how feminist studies ignore critiques and works of media, particularly films. Conventionally, the representations of media are counter to the ideas of feminism. The study of women’s representation in the media is not new When feminist film theory emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s and parallels with the development of film theory.
Faludi states, “Unfortunately, our social investigators have not tackled ‘the man question’ with one-tenth the enterprise that they have always applied to ‘the woman problem’” (344). It is an emotional appeal by virtue of Faludi’s suggestion that this is “unfortunate.” She is, by extension, urging her audience to agree. This claim could also function as a logical appeal, as it clearly implies unfair treatment of the issue at hand. Faludi will later give accounts of mail brutality inflicted upon women, examples of sexual battery, assault and murder, all appeals to pathos
A. The articles of Laura Mulvey and John Berger illustrate the idea of both male and female gazing. In Laura Mulvey’s theory, it shows how media especially in the film industry depicts the female body as a subject to male gazing. It identifies how men (and even women at times) sees female in their own perspective as something that exposes their masculinisation. As being the subject of male gaze, women are submissive; prone to sexualization, etc.
The women of Maugham are hunting men, while men are victims because of their passion. Anna Makolkin studied Maugham’s misogyny through semiotics where women are merely signs of traditional set up. The purpose behind the symbols study is to view the cultural stature of women and culture’s changing requirements for women. She did not explore Maugham’s short stories through feminism lens but counted on the traditional role of women. Maugham’s world of fiction projected the signs which presented women in negative sense.
In addition, it is in the imaginary stage that this subject is handed down the necessary knowledge, sexual knowledge. Bertha holds this sexual knowledge, but she alienated due to the influence of the phallus presented as Mr. Rochester the head of Thornfield. Jane adds to this alienation through her rejection of this knowledge as deviant. Thus, Jane’s psychosexual development appears to be fissured generating a clash between her conventionality and bald defiance that run through the narrative. Unlike Jane, the narrator identifies with the late lady much to Maxim’s discomfort and disapproval welcoming her female sexual knowledge necessary for her sexual maturity and entry to the symbolic order.
The diversity of the theoretical framework, on which feminist film theory lies, propels many different ideas and questions, which feminist film theorists and critics seek to explore and answer. Among those ideas are the notion of the “male gaze” that dominates the classical Hollywood and cinema spectatorship, on which Laura Mulvey’s pivotal essay expands; B. Ruby Rich’s idea that the relationship between women and film is dialectical, meaning that women consciously filter the messages and images on screen to create their own meaning; and from the works of Haskell and Rosen – the realistic depiction of women both in documentary and narrative cinema and Claire Johnston’s women’s cinema as “counter cinema”, which offers an alternative to the classical Hollywood cinema and its sexist ideologies. At the same time as feminist film theory developed there was a rise of feminist film criticism, as a natural outgrowth of the women’s movement in the 1960s and 70s (cite – issues with). In addition, the rumbling political activism at that time and the innovation that was occurring in women’s studies inside academia had, without a doubt, an impact on feminist film criticism, which signified the changing image of
Van Dijk (1993b) affirms that Critical-Political Discourse Analysis clarifies “the reproduction of political power, power abuse or domination through political discourse, including the various forms of resistance or counter-power against such forms of discursive dominance (p.11). Consequently, social and political bias results from this domination. Van Dijk (1997) points out that political discourse is the discourse of politicians and it is about such politics. He also outlines his definition of political discourse and its many sub-genres as follows: 1) It is a class of genres defined by a social domain, namely politics. He delimits the political properties that differentiate political discourse from other forms of discourse, such as political field, political system, political ideologies, political institutions, political organizations, political groups, political actors, and political process.
Yes, they sell, but at what cost? Because the women are showed being submissive and often dressed provocatively, this image is being idealized. The effects can be harmful, resulting into young girls having a negative self-image. Women don’t dare to take the leading role, since this is not the norm in our ‘western’ world. Is this really how we want advertisements to make us feel?