In response to Keith Henning's post, I would like to say that I find Jungian
reading worth considering, which leaves us with the Bride having integrated
both her masculine and feminine sides. Philosophically, this puts us in the
realm of Hegelian dialectics, as it is a form of synthesis. What is
disturbing here, is that after killing Bill, the Bride is on her own -- a
single mother who has achieved independence. Yet, we are even privy to her
grief in the bathroom scene. So, while the Bride may have integrated her two
sides, where does this leave the traditional male in the end? Dead? Is this
not a crisis? Does it not suggest the need for a new male archetype?
Elaine Pigeon
----- 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.
**
|