These are all interesting points, but the phalicization of the woman is in
itself ascribing a dominance to the masculine, as you said. A character who
is of interest in KB2 is the michael madsen character who suffers terrible
abuse at the hands of his boss and yet doesn't do anything. I had
anticipated much reaction and violence of the character, having himself been
an assassin, but he walks away acquiescently and this to me seems to
represent a resignation to passivity, a turning away from the violent
reactions which dominant the mythos of these films. Madsen's acceptance of
the abuse is in sharp contrast to the role he played in Reservoir Dogs, a
sadistic exponent of masculine reraction to betrayal and authority. Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Keith Henning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tarantino & the Crisis of Masculinity
> it comes somewhat surprising that the kill bill films et al are referred
to as the
>
> " "crisis in masculinity," I mean exactly what Ron suggests, that
> "masculine values or masculine mythologies are being challenged." I am
> referring to a direct engagement, interrogation or deconstruction of
> traditional notions of masculinity, especially masculinity as constructed
in
> opposition to its feminine other, a binary opposition that privileges the
> masculine and
> reinscribes it as dominant." from elaine pigeon
>
> my take on the films is that it is an assertion of feminine power, not a
crisis in
> masculinity. uma does not confront bill et al with some paradigmatic
feminine approach to
> power, but with paradigmatic masculine power. so masculinity remains the
way of the world -
> hence no crisis in masulinity. but it is a woman (biologically) doing the
"deconstructing"
> or killing. yet she too is trained in the paradigmatically masculine way.
so again no
> crisis in masculinity. it maybe hard to assert that uma is feminine
(gender), and so again
> there is an argument there is no crisis in masculinity. what is being
asserted is that a
> woman can kick butt just like a man. so it is a softening of the masculine
at most, and an
> attempt to indicate that women are just as "masculine" as are men. so
rather than engage in
> the binary thinking that suggests the masculine is better (crisis in
masculinity suggests
> that it is dominant), how about seeing the films as a leveling of the
ground through the
> elevation of feminine rather than the tearing down of masculine. it may
now be clear that
> the film is about raising up the feminine or indicating that it is as good
as the masculine
> or female is as wholly masculine as men are.
>
> this raises more the spectre of jung than lacan. we are wholly masculine
and feminine.
>
> regards keith
>
> --
> G. Keith Henning LLB MBA
> Tourism Management
> Haskayne School of Business
> University of Calgary
> 2500 University Dr. N.W.
> Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
> 403.220.3997
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
[log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|