> Some questions on a response.
>
> >If feminist film form therefore in your mentioned
> >texts has raised discourse (specifically reception)
> >around aesthetic disruption of the norm
RE: the norm in the context that i stated is that of
the majority -- the post-classical hollywood
institution. Anything contrary to this institution can
be said to disrupt the 'norm'. I defined it as the
'dominant order'.
> Is a more static camera really an "aesthetic
> disruption of the norm"?
> What exactly is the norm or was the norm.
RE: Camera movement and intervention has been
historically defined by writers and theorists
interrogating the apparatus as inherently 'male'. This
is due on the whole with its association to
scopophilia -- the pleasure of looking, a tangent of
desire and the male sexual construct. Susan Sontag
wrote on this as did Laura Mulvey in 'Visual Pleasure
and Narrative Cinema'.
> >--the
> >patriarchal grammar
RE: Patriarchal grammar is any associative use of the
apparatus to assert the norm or the dominant order as
I have respectively defined them. Where the focus
lies, the movement in context, the montage are all
contingent in the role of the lens and thus the
process of looking -- i.e. scopophilia--The
construction of the language of the (male) gaze.
> What's this, especially in relation to cinema?
RE: See above.
> > as set by the dominant order
RE: See above.
> What's this?
> >--then
> >one must go on beyond gendered apparatus and
> confront
> >gendered audience as it stands.
>
> And how is that done? How does it stand?
RE: If the apparatus in feminist cinema stands to be
reacted against in that it is inherently male, then
one is dealing with a gendered/ sexed apparatus. If
gender becomes central to the construction of the
text, and that the text is there to form associative
meaning in the audience (see mulvey) then one is
dealing the audience not as a passive entity but
rather as a differential. I.e. for every gendered
aspect of the screen the audience defines and
understands it by comparing it to themselves (again
read mulvey).
> >Perhaps, is a disruptive feminist cinema therefore
> >most effective in addressing those other than a
> >sympathetic audience
>
> What's a "sympathetic audience"?
RE: A sympathetic audience is one that associates to
the key ideology of the film text, through a ratio of
similarity i.e. womens films as seen by women.
> --a heterogenous subject?
RE: A heterogenous ubject is one that is essentially
different than the key element in the text, also
perhaps essentially different to other audience
participants.
> And, exactly what is the distinction between a
> "sympathetic audience"
> and a "heterogenous subject"?
RE: See above.
> Aaron
Hope that that is of some help :)
David
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
|