Throughout the 1960s the significance of the media was emphasised more strongly than any other period in history. The world of film was no exception, and thus emerged as a major concentration for the second wave of feminism. As with other systems and processes, feminists recognised a subordination and oppression in the predominately patriarchal film world. The late 1960s and early 1970s therefore witnessed an influx of feminist film production and circulation. In combating the problems of ‘classic’ cinema, feminists established both a new kind of film, the ‘counter cinema’, which in conjunction with feminist film theory produced the wider feminist film movement. The role of feminist film groups and film festivals popularised these productions, and established feminist cinema as both a recognisable and political force.
| Women were increasingly aware of the importance of film in both their political and social struggle. There is consequently a necessity to determine the offensiveness of ‘classic’ cinema. Throughout the 1950s film reflected a world in which women lived in the masculine shadow. Hollywood cinema reinforced what was considered to be the only acceptable image of women. Marriage was an overriding concern, for example How To Marry A Millionaire (1953), and films such as Annie Get Your Gun (1950) and Calamity Jane (1953) emphasising the necessity of femininity and a tamed independence in order to ‘get’ a man. Female identity was dictated by male film directors, and women were little more than a spectacle and object of sexual desire. Female presence was only necessary as a means of reflecting the sexual hierarchy. As S. Smith notes “From its beginning they [women] were present but not in characterisations any self-respecting person could identify with”[1]. Thus women were increasingly self-conscious of both their image and femininity. The standardisation of the desirable female as result of the Sex Goddess, namely Marilyn Monroe, determined women as a group “particularly susceptible to the media”[2]. |
| With the power and potential of film having been recognised, it is of little surprise that feminist enterprise ventured into this field. Women’s struggle against the current system of representation took a threefold form. Women either entered the existing system with ambitions of breaking it, proceeded to make films outside of the commercial system, and women developed a feminist film theory - the overlap and interrelatedness of all three measures being obvious. Their challenge was to the traditional representation of women in cinema, and the aim was the displacement of patriarchal dominance in the cinematic world. Women such as Kate Millett, author of Sexual Politics (1970) criticised the power relationships and traditional sex roles inherent in film, and called for a more positive representation of women and attention to women’s issues. Here was an obvious way to extend women’s conjoined interest in art and politics, acting as particularly visual communicators of feminist thought. |
| Consequently, it would perhaps prove interesting to briefly assess the role of the Sex Goddess actress, attempting to understand her hindering, or perhaps contribution, to feminism and women’s film. Veronica-Jane Birley considers the life of Marilyn Monroe, questioning “What did she do for the insecurity of Mrs Ordinary Housewife?”[3]. From both contemporary and recent feminist writings, Monroe is something of a contradiction. On screen she exemplifies all that feminism protests. In her earliest films she was nothing more than a spectacle, frequently having no biography or even no name, being taken advantage of and humiliated, for example in Some Like It Hot (1959). She was nothing more than a gender, the object of sexual gaze and consequently the household word for sex. Similarly her continued appearances in Playboy since 1953 further exemplified the contemporary feminists opinion of her as the ultimate victim. Women are not, however, capable of detaching themselves from her. Monroe made people, if only fractionally, believe in themselves. She was a self made - though with male direction and discretion - Cinderella proving the extent of possibilities for any and every woman. Fundamentally she was just a woman, and it was with this that feminists empathised. “She paid a higher and higher price for being Marilyn”[4], it was Norma Jeane Mortenson and her troublesome private life that feminists identified with admired. Her death was a feminine, not a cinematic, tragedy. |
| Feminist filmmakers were not attempting to deny the past glories of such Hollywood stars. Theirs was a new orientation. Feminism became a movement of liberation rather than reform, a movement of breaking away and creating the new. The media was a resourceful tool for consciousness-raising, and feminism was now preparing to utilise this to the full. Similarly, film was a forum for bringing female issues to the forefront. Feminist films strongly and seriously approached matters of women’s social and economic status, gender characterisation and the struggle of juggling both family and career roles. Matters of abortion, divorce and marriage were simultaneously considered from a specifically feminist point of view. The sheer anger The early 1970s therefore saw a massive increase in the production of feminist films, and by 1976 it is estimated that there were well over 200 feminist filmmakers[5], due in part to the increased teaching of film and filmmaking skills in colleges and universities. The birth of feminist filmmaking was not, however, restricted to - though it may be dominated by - America. European feminists made equal, and at times anticipatory, contributions to the women’s film movement. Britain’s filmmakers produced Darling, Georgy Girl, and A Woman’s Place between 1965-9 and similarly Swedish filmmaker Mai Zetterling had great success with The Girls (1969), all being films that served to raise consciousness amongst their audience. |
| Whilst independent women filmmakers were at work, perhaps the most outstanding contribution came from the specifically feminist production and distribution groups that were established. Finding little support from commercial companies, patronised and insulted by men of the business, the establishment of specifically feminist production and distribution companies was in every sense beneficial to the women’s film movement. Women In Media and the Women’s Film Project, together with the newly established film co operations, for example New Day Films and the Women’s Film Coop, allowed specifically feminist films to be produced both efficiently and professionally, whilst having the added advantage of interpersonal dynamics. Group activity and collaboration generated discussion and new political ideas, emphasising the notion of struggle within the movement. For artists of any medium, production is not nearly as trying as successful promotion and popularity. Without the efforts and published guidebooks of the distribution groups, feminist film would have reached only a marginal success of that it actually achieved. |
| In accommodating the massive upsurge in women’s film production came the birth of the feminist film festival. Hugely overshadowed by commercial Hollywood cinema, these occasions were invaluable to women’s film, as B. Ruby Rich comments, “They were the only chance, like those signs for gas before crossing the desert - in this case, emerging from a century long desert”[6]. Held in New York in June 1972, the first International Festival of Women’s Film may be termed as the ‘debut’ of the feminist film movement. Here was the most visible form of publicity available. For not only feminist films but the entire movement was brought into the spotlight, the efforts of communicating information were matched by the emphasis on solidarity amongst all present. Over 100 films from America, Canada and Europe were screened, and occasions for panel discussion were utilised. Between the first and second International Festival, 1976, it is estimated that between 40 and 50 further festivals took place in America alone[7]. However, the festival was by no means a strictly American phenomenon. Organisation of feminist screenings by Laura Mulvey at the Edinburgh Film Festival in 1972, and the 1974 International Women’s Film Seminar in Berlin created further opportunities for consciousness-raising and the possibility for filmmakers to meet and discuss. The instant success of the festivals made for their immediate trend throughout the feminist world. They were something of a mission, and their participants possessed a missionary zeal. These were not simply recreational pastimes, but rather the events of a political calendar. Every step in the planning and completion of a festival was a political step. The event provided a historical perspective to the issues raised within feminist film, and opened up the occasion for the serious study of this area of cinema that was previously ignored. Evidence of this comes in the 1973 critical publications of women in film by M. Haskell, M. Rosen, and J. Mellen. The most valid criticism of the festivals comes, however, in the observation that the nature of one-off showings was unlikely to produce substantial bodies of support for either female directors or individual films. True this may be, however the value of the festivals as an outreach effort can not be replaced nor easily substituted. The fact remains that the festivals and the films that they screened were both popular and influential. |
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/History/Sixties/Feminism/film.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment