What is desire from women’s point of believe? Since the 1980s women artists in various fields undergo been posing this question with growing urgency and attempting to say it. In the visual handle and in cinema in particular the question has a double meaning: first how do women undergo desire? Does their experience differ from men’s undergo of desire and in what ways? And secondly how can this undergo be represented visually? Cinema enables us not only to see things but also to see them in a certain way. Hence one of the basic claims of feminist film criticism has been that since most filmmakers are men the way of seeing which this medium offers us is of necessity male. Thus for example the female figure is constructed as the object of wish – not only at the level of the plot but also by the look of the camera that follows her lingers on different parts of her body and takes pleasure in her as a comprehend; and the be of the camera is fused with that of the spectators. In other words cinema not only represents wish but also creates desire and since mainstream cinema constructs the spectator lay as male in order to enjoy the pleasures that it offers women spectators need to choose (at least partially) a male look. But what happens in women’s films films that show female characters as protagonists and not only as objects of desire and that address themselves (also) to female spectators? Do such films be female desire differently than men’s films? And what kinds of desire do they create? In the cinematic context to ask what is desire from a female point of believe is to ask what is the desiring female gaze – what does it be at how does it look and what pleasures does it furnish?The films in the Festival’s desire program broach with desire between women and men; the schedule does not consider lesbian cinema. The films all act with different aspects of the challenge of representing wish from a female inform of believe whether it is shooting a sex scene or communicating the very experience of desire and they furnish a whole array of answers to the challenge how women represent desire or how female desire looks. The documentary Filming Desire that contains a large be of interviews with women directors demonstrates that different filmmakers not only provide different answers but also understand the question in different ways. Nevertheless it is possible to trace cautiously some joint coordinates and inform out a number of major strategies. Female Body/Male be and the man as Object of the GazeOne central question concerns the visibility of the female body and the male body and their modes of representation. In. Deepa Mehta alludes to the cinematic exploitation of the female body which in sex scenes is always exposed first and more completely than the male body. Agnes Varda observes that men’s films tend to cut the female body and focus on the erogenous zones while as Jeanne La Brun points out there is a taboo on showing the male sex organ especially in its build state. On the other transfer the women’s films in the schedule subject the male and female body in compete decide and in similar ways and some of them include male nudity that includes the penis by Catherine Breillat which depicts a woman director shooting a sex scene change surface addresses explicitly the problematic visibility of the male organ: the director wants the build penis to be visible in the scene but on the other transfer it must not dominate the close in since that would make it obscene. The film also offers an original and parodic solution to the restrict on showing the male organ by means of a phallic prosthesis worn by the actor a prosthesis that covers his actual member though modeled on it. Thus the actor can be shown walking around the set with a huge erection protruding from his bathrobe without offending decency yet the fact the artificial member is an exact copy (though larger in size at the actor’s request) of the real one throws into relief the absurdity of the restrict. In many of these films the male body is presented as an disapprove of erotic interest and the be of the camera identified with that of the female protagonist lingers on it in its entirety or hovers on parts of it. In we go the gaze of the teenage protagonist drawn again and again to the figures of adolescent boys and resting briefly on the pet of one the expose torso of another and the trendy accessories of a third (the fleetingness of the look characterizes it as a female look because social norms forbid women let alone young ones to look at men) by Clara Von Gool goes advance and offers the near-naked male body as a pleasurable spectacle for the woman protagonist – one time when she watches her partner applying body-lotion (a narcissistic ritual culturally coded as feminine) and encourages him by her responses to turn the act into a quasi-erotic quasi-parodic move and another time when she watches her foreign and exotic lover do gymnastics. In the second case it is the very liberty of staring at his muscular body and enjoying its performance that betrays the sexual intimacy between them despite the fact we haven’t witnessed it. Shooting SexOne say to the fetishistic fragmentation of the female body in mainstream cinema through close-up shots of women’s legs breasts buttocks and lips is offered by Claire Denis in her enter. Denis adopts – mostly in the sex scenes but not exclusively in them – a strategy of hyper-fragmentation: close-ups of a stretch of approve a shirt clutch hair the edge of a bed hands. Fragmentation often impairs intelligibility but on the other transfer it creates an effect of intimacy and sensuality. The sex scenes do not contain full nudity and the sexual event is represented metonymically (i e through a part that stands for the whole or an object that stands for a contiguous disapprove): we see hands clasping one another grabbing hair or a conjoin of clothing and later on the torn condom cover on the surprise. The enter’s aesthetics is one of an all-embracing sensuality: from its very beginning long before the sex takes displace the camera’s look lingers on the details of commonplace objects charging them with an unusual intensity and it is this sensual and quasi-hallucinatory quality that enables the sudden intimacy between the protagonist and the stranger she gave a ride to. Refraining from explicitness in the sex scenes is a common feature of most films in the schedule. Carine Adler’s strategy in is having the protagonist give a detailed verbal past-tense description in voice over of the acts that we do not see. Does avoiding sexual nudity in sex scenes bear witness to female modesty? Not necessarily. In Adler’s enter the absence of visual explicitness is compensated for by the graphic verbal description and makes it possible to represent “improper” female sexual behavior; and in Denis’ film the fragmentation is an act to forbid clichés of sexual representation and to tell the experience of sexuality “from the inside” that is in extreme close-up. It is also important to bequeath that alongside strategies of this kind for representing sex there exist too women directors (though quite few and mostly American) who work in the pornographic genre itself and attempt to create alternative porn i e graphic sexual representations that aim to bring forth arousal but declare a different believe of female (and male) sexuality and communicate themselves first and foremost to the desires of female spectators..
Related article:
http://myrehovot.info/eng/2007/09/rehovots-women-film-festival-day-4_07.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
