-
TEXTI-]AL POLITICSAnnette Kuhn
In previous writings I have discussed film practices as examples
of realisrn:as representations, that is, which present an
appearance of transparencr.by effacing the processes of meaning
production in their own textual oo-erations. Realism is a feature
of dominant cinema, but non-dominant filmpractices like socialist
realism and feminist documentary draw on thistransparency both in
order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.and also with
the assumption that a politically oppositional message rvillcome
across the more clearly to the extent that it is not complicated
bl"noise" from foregrounded textual operations. Such a cuitural
politics isgrounded in an assumption that meanings-even politically
opposition-al meanings-exist already in society, that human
subjects are alreadrformed for such meanings, and that
representations can operate as neutralvehicles for conveying those
meanings from source to recipient.
Other approaches to cultural politics may, however, take
different po-sitions as to the nature of meaning. The construction
of meanings mat"for example, be regarded as an ongoing process of
texts and reader-terlrelations which
-uy *otk in some respects independently of the opera'tions of
other social formations. Such a stance on signifiiation
suBqest;that in the moment of reading, recipients of texts are
tf,emselves involverlin producing meanings, even if-as in the
""r.-J.*ti,--thtY.:::r":laware of the fact. To the extent that
the signification process is eftacett,''realist representations, it
is argued, realism perpetuates illusiontsllr' '^"'notion that, in
the case of cinema, what is on t^h, ,.r"un is an uncodeoreflection
of the "real world." Illusionism may then be
regardtl,lslilliideological operation, on at least two grounds:
first that the tollli.'fro'f'of processes of signification through
codes of transparency mY-ltj];',"01 t5,'the spectator and the
signification process by setting up- a l?rr, ,t,."world as
monolithically preconstructed "out there," and
seccttlidr",l-spectator-text relations characteristic of realist
represent"tlgl:;;1,,"i-fication and closure, for example-position
their reading subiect> "" ' ''ttary and non-contradictory, and
thus as neither active, ,to' u' capable'"
't Politics 2s1,ro/.t[U''tvn'
.^-rior, in the signification process. These critiques of
illusionismrirctvo"--orpin a cultural politics which takes textual
signifiers to be arrr,rl'.u'*- ireu of intervention. If illusionism
is a feature of certain textualfrgitti'jl-- then it may be
challenged on the level of the text by means oflttdcttu"- or
antirealist strategies and modes of address.Nl!"l"i"rent essay is
devoted to a consideration of what might be termed
tll",il,rrionism" in cinema, and to anti-illusionist film
practices as they'"i;;; feminism. From this point of view, then, I
will address the ques-
'i'u^" ^iirrinist counter-cinema. Counter-cinema may be defined
as film,'1"^i,"o which works against and challenges dominant
cinema, usuallypiil"lr"rfs of both signifiers and signifieds.
Although it may challenge]ir'inrtitutional- practices of dominant
cinema too, my concern here is,,,itrtitY with the text'r
rq textual practice, counter-cinemas attempt to challenge and
subvert thennerations of dominant cinema. Before proceeding to an
examination of,i* upproaches to and examples of counter-cinema,
therefore, I willLriefly look at features of dominant cinema which
counter-cinemas (femi-nist or otherwise), may set out to challenge.
I have already touched on theargument-and the reasoning behind
it-that the effacement of processesof signification in dominant
cinema is an ideological operation. The ques-iion of how this
ideological operation works in cinema may be dealt withbv
considering how codes in dominant cinema work to construct
certainkinds of spectator-text relations. For example, classic
narrative codesstructure relations of spectator identification with
fictional characters andalso with the progress of the narrative
itself. By means of these identifi-iations, the spectator is drawn
into the film, so that when the questionsposed by the narrative are
resolved by its closure, the spectator is alsocl0sed," completed or
satisfied: in cinema, this partly operates through
llu "binding-in" process of suture. In documentary forms of film
realism,!'l:u,.t,completion, and unity are brought about through
identificationtvtth the coded self-presentation of the
"truthfulness" of the representa-'^'on, .t well as through
identification with, or recognition of, real-lifePtotagonists on
the screen..^but what kind of relationship might there be between
the practices ofLounter-cinema
and those of feminism? It could be argued, for example,
',illll:.t is nothing specifically feminist about challenging
the modes of
,-'uttllcation and subjectivity set up by dominant cinema. If
this is the.l,tu'wh*.u does feminism enter into counter-cinema? In
answer to thislllltltn' I will point to two interrelated arguments
on behalf of feministfu-]l!1t-.inema. The first is premised on the
notion that all forms of il-'tl.ltljt* are ideologically
implicated, while the second focuses more,(if"cattY on the forms of
pleasure generated in the relations of spec-tr,,,i^r set up by
dominant cinema, classic Hollywood narrative in par-
",{tQt
-
ZSZ Critical Methodology: Feminist Filtnr,..,, .
In her rgl3pamphlet Notes on Women's Cinemo, Claire )ol-lnston
:"::"'tthat "It has been at the level of the_image that the
violence of rorl"l,tsu"tcapitalism has been experienced."l In other
words, the imag. .nn""il,in'la specific set of signifiers (as
distinct from those, say, of the rn,ritten".^,ll",tfor constructing
the worldviews of a society which is both patriarct
^i].'-01bourgeois. The ideological discourse of dominant cinema,
certainlvl,i']"level of the film image, is therefore seen as sexist
as well as capitaliri'.il!,specificity of the "patriarchal" nature
of the film image ir ut ttrl, p.in'ranalysed in terms of
L6vi-Strauss's anthropological argument about *o*-an's status as
"sign" in relations of exchange between males,' *hilu tiubourgeois
character of dominant cinema is associated with the mystifi-cation
involved in the naturalization of operations of signification by
thesurface appearance of transparency of meaning. The task of
constructinsa feminist counter-cinema, according to this argument,
involves first oiall "an analysis of the functioning of signs
within the cliscourse"3 anclthen a subversion of this discourse by
means of antirealist or anti-illu-sionist textual strategies. What
is at stake here, then, is a deconstructivecounter-cinema whose
project is to analyze and break down dominantforms as they are
embedded in bourgeois and patriarchal ideology.
Following the early work of fohnston and Cook, feminist film
theorvbegan to turn its attention away from a concern with the film
text as anautonomous set of formal operations and towards the
question of spectator-text relations in cinema. Here, particular
regard was given to relationsof looking and their psychic
inscription. Laura Mulvey's rn'ork on the lookand cinematic
t"p.ri"rrtations of women was an important developmentin this area,
and in it Mulvey also argues for the creation of new forms
ofpleasure in cinema. Given h". urgum-ent that the codes of
dominant cine-ma "and their relationship to formative external
structures must be bro-ken down before mainstream film and the
pf"u*t" it provides can be
"fr"ff."g;ai 'tM"lvev is cleariy also advocating a
deconstluctive 1:::ltJ-
cinema. Her suggestion is that in such a counter-cinema the
"voye:J:::;;scopophilic look" can be broken down in certain ways.
Howeverf,itj'i;;?,M,riuuy's analysis appears to arrive at a
prescription for film pt"t:t:l;;;;,similar to
Johnstonis-deconstruction-her concern with tl_1r:#t;structures of
subjectivity opens up possible new areas of work
f",il:"ii'il.counter-cinema.'As well ai shifting the debate from a
cousiderattotf ,in offilm text as an autonomous set of forrnul
strategi"t, 1:.1:1t1,T;?;;;in'interactiOn between spectator and
text, MulveV's analysts u"r"-"""',ontt-questions of specularity and
gendered subiectivity' t1t1:''19:'rl'l""rrrd i']qr*.r.", of thii
for feminist film practice are not explic'itly' u-|",';;;r, olher
article, crucial questions are implicitly raised, in that t',ini;r
tttntgendered subjectivity poses in turn i6ut oi a specificallv
femlanguage and its pot"niiut for feminist counter-cinema' ,.rnt
thll
The discussion which follows is structured around tire
at9ur')'16 as 0loppositional textual practices in cinema which may
be rega
'r Poljtics 253felttlu' . rr r t . mrtot'
,^"c lo feminism fall roughly into two categories. The
premisesftleva""-o each correspond more or less with those
underlying the re-,;N?,i,'r'inalyses of )ohnston/Cook and Mulvey. I
say more or less, becausetP",',\',loractices I shall be examining
have not for the most part arisen,h''ji,'jrrediate or determined
sense from the theories with which Iin l')l^r.them. Although I
would maintain that certain types of theorizingfil^"'i"r" important
in shaping feminist film practice, the influence isn1"^!.,
"itner one way or direct. In any case, any identifiable
influences
'u:"::,; as much from the ways in which films may be read as
from the'_,I?ilnr of their makers. Thus although in this case
theory and practicefj",,., in,oortant respects interrelated, it is
neither possible nor desirablell ,*o the one immediately and
unproblematically onto the other. The;;;;*r of textual plactice
discussed here, then, are constituted on the^",
f,una by a counter-cinema grounded in the deconstruction of
dominant,inr*u, and on the other by a form of cinema marked as more
"other" todominant cinema, as "feminine writing." Although it will
be clear thatthese two areas of practice do have certain things in
common, I believetheir differences permit a consideration of some
crucial developments andprospects for feminist counter-cinema. I
shall therefore deal with themseparatelv.
Deconstruction
As the term suggests, deconstructive cinema works by a process
of break-ing down. On one level, the object of the deconstruction
process is thetextual operations and modes of address
characteristic of dominant cin-ema, the aim being to provoke
spectators into awareness of the actualexistence and effectlvity of
dominant codes, and consequently to engendera critical attitude
toward these codes. Provocation. awareness, and a crit-tcal
attitude suggest in turn a transformation in spectator-text
relationsttorn the passive receptivity or unthinking suspension of
disbelief fostereduJ aorninsnt modes of address to a more active
and questioning position.ueconstructive
cinema aims therefore to unsettle the spectator. Snt therei*:t:
at stake in deconstructive cinema than simply a challenge to
the;;::"t' operations of dominant cinema. After all, many forms of
avant-illi::y experimental cinema may be read as doing i,rst this,
without-;i"T!t in the very broadest sense-being defined as
deconstructive. The*'otloguishing
mark of deconstructive cinema, as against other
non-domi-,uf^},^ot anti-dominant forms, is its recruitment oithe
spectator's active,illi:: to the signification process for certain
signifiedr, o, u.*us of sub-cla,ii,..", concern. The distinction
between form and content may help,i,nni.tt" point: deconstructive
cinema, it can be argued, is not definabledor,it,]^oy its formal
strategies. Departure from the formal conventions of
-'ttctrlt cinema may be a necessary condition of deconstructive
cinema,
-
254 Critical Methodology: F'eminist Filrnrnak;._but it is
certainly not a sufficient one. Deconstructive cinema de
'"trt
dominant cinema in its content as well as in its form: it
,p:"u;t"'ltohpolitically oppositional positions or concerns itself
with subyg.t'1.'rorncommonly ignored or repressed in dominant
cinema. But ultho,,"lt*rtpositional content is necessary, it is not
a sufficient condition of-i.^lp-structive cinema, either.
Deconstructive cinema then may be O.ti"^r"'l-its articulation of
oppositional forms with oppositional conte -"q u\'constructive
cinema thus defines itself in relation to dominant
nts' If clu'is not a static entity, because its character at any
moment is alwa
ctnerna' il
in an inverse manner, by dominant cinema. Deconstructive .i.yt
shapecl'
ways, so to speak, casting a sideways look at dominant
cinem":tftXL'l"counter-cinema"-which is in fact often understood to
be synonVrnouswith deconstruction-conveys this sense of conscious
opposition
".r,well.It can be helpful to compare the operations and
political objectives
of deconstructive cinema with those of the "epic" theater
associated withBerthold Brecht. Epic theater departs from more
conventional theatricalforms in that, for example, narratives may
be fragmented and subiect tointerruptions, characters may not be
presented as psychologically rounded,narrative time may not be
linear, and so on. The effect of these epic devicesis to render
impossible the kinds of spectator identification typically setup by
"realist" theater. The analogy between epic theater and
deconstruc-tive cinema is grounded, in fact, in the
anti-illusionist stance and strategiesof distanciation common to
both. As Walter Benjamin says of epic theater,it
advances by fits and starts, like the images on a film strip.
Its basic formis that of the forceful impact on one another of
separate, distinct situationsin the play. The songs, the captions
included in the stage decor. the gesturatconventions of the actors,
serve to separate each situation. Thus distancesare created
everywhere which are, on the whole, detrimental to illusionamong
the audience. These distances are meant to make the audience adopta
critical attitude.5
It is clear from this that the effect of this epic form derives
from thespectator-text relations it constructs. Formal devices are
justified "lli::the extent that they evoke distanciation rather
than involvement' a crlttt""attitude rather than passive
receptivity.
-^ ctpTherefore although bottr epic theater and deconstructiv"
cinena," tr
often discussed in terms of their formal strategies-sometimes,
lll ro"' r'the extent that forms are fetishized-these strategies
are importanj,fi)in relation to their consequences for the address
of the represen'I|r*'the film or play-as a whole. The impact of
epic or deconstruct'rrl, thcresentations thus arises in direct
relation to the challenge they otL"' ''i'operations of dominant
strategies. The importance of the conte x'Ital
sPa''
^r Politics 255fPlluu' 'tr'' -r rlccolstructive strategies is
emphasized here mainly because my
ficitv u' "-s
of particular films will focus on their formal attributes,
which,Jittu:'"';;;rettable, but perhaps unavoidable, consequence of
singling out,t:f.:;,^itexts for attention. It is important to
stress, therefore, that thei'lotl'i aircuss as examples of
deconstructive cinema acquire their de-filnt-t,.,,"tiue force in
the final instance only from their context: only initl,i'irfriion,
that is, to the contemporary state of dominant cinema and'nt-;;;
olace in the history and institutions of non-dominant
cinematicl:":"- Thr films I shall look at here are One Woy Or
Another (De Cierto',"1^,r,rl (Gomez, ICAIC, 1'974) and Whose
Choice? (London Women's;li;"d";p, BFI, 1.s76). Both of them deal
with fairly well-defined andl,rru,nr.rrued topics, and draw upon
and articulate, while at the sameii'r", ulro challenging, certain
conventions of narrative and documentaryrealism''--OneWay Or
Another deals with the problem of "marginalism" in post-revolution
Cuba. Marginalism is the culture of poverty associated withthe
urban slums and shanty towns of pre-revolution days, areas markedbv
high levels of unemployment and delinquency, poor educational
pro-vision, violence, and economic poverty. The integration of
"marginal"populations into the wider society is regarded as a
priority and a problemfor the revolution. The film investigates the
contradictions-both personaland social-involved in the integration
process by examining some of theeffects of, and causal links
between, certain cultural features of margin-alism. It is because
of its concern with tracing the relationship betweenthe personal
and familial and other social structures that One Way or.{nother
may be regarded as a film which prioritizes feminist issues
andpolitical perspectives: although it does this, of course, within
the termsot a broader concern with the effects of a socialist
revolution. The problemo.t contradictions between marginal culture
and the revolution present therrlrn not only with its analytical
project, but also with the problem ofaccessible cinematic forms for
thai project. The project and the problemate dealt with by the
film's mobilization of two discourses: a story whichl1l,*unu of the
iualities of a socialist realist narrative, and a documentary";1
voice-over.,",llu narrative discourse is focused primarily on the
progress of a loving"q^tronship between Mario, a worker living in a
marginal district, and
,."',lnou'a teacher of middle-class origins drafted into a
ichool in the area.
'n,jLt^:":ialist realist manner, the narrative discourse "traces
how the
to tr^'i' oynamics of a single personality, family, or love
affair are related,t0"""^'u.tger social processes of the
revolution."6 But at the same time, ita.j":"^t" construct the kinds
of identification typical of socialist realistotho." " address,
primarily because the narrative is articulated with an-il":nq very
different, discourse, that of documentary realism.
oyui"wghout the film, there are sequences of documentary with
voice-- Lurnrnentary,
whiclt address the problem of marginalism from the
-
2SO Critical Methodology: Feminis[ p;r'-point-of-view of a
distanced, if sympathetic, social observer.'llktol("'"instance,
following immediately on the pre-credit and credit ruo,,^11* f,,,a
documentary sequence showing the demolition of some cit5, ,flfrtes
isthe reconstruction of the area, with a voice-over which
explainrli^l'l,1n,lination of the slum conditions has not resulted
in the disappuu.."l']4.certain features of marginal culture. In
this way, the notion of -"ue 0ltory relations between social
formations and an analyll:.t
"oi".l::T';such contradictions are established within both the
signifiers and rh^':,'unifieds of the text. The film takes up two
different conventions of -"" rr8'realism, but in combining them in
certain ways undercuts the
ctnernatic
text relations which would be set up by each one on its own.
Tnttltil,l:of deconstruction works by means of its direct reference
tu dorinuiicinematic codes, setting up, through familiarity with
such codes, certainexpectations in the spectator. These
expectations are then cut off b*.uu*the film offers no single
internally consistent discourse.
Examples of distanciation in the discourses of One Woy Or
Anothermay be cited with reference to some of the formal strategies
associatedwith epic theater. For example, the interaction of
narrative and docu-mentary discourses in the film works in a
similar way to the separationsand "fits and starts" of epic
theater. During a sequence in which Marioand Yolanda exchange
confidences about their past lives Mario confessesthat he once
seriously considered becoming a nonigo, a member of a malesecret
society. At this point, the narrative is cut off by an intertitle:
"Aba-cua society-documentary analysis"-followed by an account, with
docu-mentary footage and voice-over, of the history of these secret
societies andtheir roots in and connections with marginalism. The
first concern at thispoint is with a description and analysis of
one of the wavs in whichmarginal culture still persists after the
revolution. At the sarne time, hott'-ur,u., this documentary
interlude is marked as functioning analogousll'toa flashback
(Mario's), for afterwards the narrative discourse resumes whereit
left off, with Yolanda telling Mario the story of her own
backgrounO-her marriage, divorce, and current independence.
Epic theater is characterized also by an undercutting of
identificatiottwith fictional characters, in that
psychologically.ounded representiltt":iare refused. While epic
interruptions will in themselves function '' :'^'off spectator
identification with characters, there is another Brechtian de-vice
associated specifically with this form of distanciation-"acting
ds
quotation." Instead of inhabiting and "becoming" their
charactert:::ir'J:will, as it were, stand in for them in the
distanced mode of "q'o",,i.characters' words. Although in One Way
Or Another much of the i,"";;;.is in fact quite naturalistic, it
does take on some of the features'1" }trt'tation" but usually
through cinematic, rather than dramatic ,*?u!^t^r,rtufirst
documentary ,"q,t"nl", fot example, which ends with
arelet^et',"rio[education in the marginal areas, is immediately
followed by a close'"'1o'a woman talking directly to the camera in
lip-syn*c^fr. ti"e- ct verirc sI\'"
^r Politics 257feftUu' ''
., her work as a teacher. It subsequently transpires that the
woman is,b9u].," who actually belongs to the fictional part of the
film, but at thist'rlutl;; discourse is marked as "documentary" by
its codes and context.tli:';;;the effect of cutting off
identification and relativizing the acting,f iu"t sequences'tr';:;;
do these distanciation devices serve the analytical project of
One,j^',i'o, Another? In the first place, the distanciation itself
tends to forcel|l'"*rtutor into an active relation with the text,
opening up the potentialll.
^l,rrtioning and analysis. The different discourses, moreover,
are put
i:;h* in such a way as to integrate analysis at the levels of
signifierl'"oJsienified. Halting Mario's talk about being a nonigo
with a descriptivel,iar;'about Abacua society serves both to
complete the reference andulo ,o unpack the wealth of social,
cultural, and historical meaning en-.rpsuluted by it. The
interaction of narrative and documentary codes, then,undr6.ot"s the
substantive sociological analysis. The enunciating dis-c'urse of
the film as a whole thereby privileges an analytical approach toits
signifieds.
Whose Choice? constructs similar modes of address in its
treatment ofthe issues of contraception and abortion. The film
operates in a relativelycomplex manner, by presenting its material
as three discourses-infor-mation, interviews, and narrative. In the
interviews, two women detailthe current situation in Britain as
regards abortion and present a numberof arguments in favor of "a
woman's right to choose." The film also in-cludes documentary
footage of the June 1975 National Abortion Campaigndemonstration in
London. Added to-and transformed by-the documen-taty/informational
aspects of these two discourses is a fictional narrativeabout a
young woman's attempt to obtain an abortion. This third discoursets
marked also by some of the distanciation devices characteristic of
epictneater, in particular lack of characterization and narrative
interruptions.t he address of the film is constructed not only
severally by its threedlscourses, but also as a whole bv the wavs
in which the discourses arearticulated together. There is little
rigid separation in terms of the overallotganization
of th" film between elements of narration, information,
andill*.*i:*' for example. Throughout, one discourse leads into, or
is inter-'uPl:d by, another-once more in the Brechtian
manner.i".11u One Woy Or Another, Whose Choice? takes up familiar
realistn,;^1'and then deconstructs them by means of fragmentation
and inter-;;i,:f"'thereby transforming the spectator-text relaiions
which would bea;;"tte^Sed by each discourse on its own. This
transformation marks a move,o*ll".]tot identification, involvement,
and suspension of disbelief andficaii^iu P?." active and
questioning attitude to the processes of signi-du."^"ll oI the film
and to its areas of concern. If One Way Or Anotherun;"i:tt}tts the
conventions of Hollywood and socialist realist
narrativeki.llt:lilional documentary, Whose Choice? offers a
challenge to the
- wr qocumentary address commonly associated with the
agitational/
-
258 (lritical Methodology: Feminist Filmmakinppolitical film.
The intended consequence of these deconstructive strateoi^is to
open up space for active intervention on the part of spectatu.,
ino*"^'meaning production process, to subvert the completion and
closure"llmeaning proposed by dominant cinema, and thus to offer
spectators-tl"lopportunity to consider their positions on the
issues at hand throrrSh th^tlown processes of active reading,
questioning, and discussion. The oppo-sitional character of the
forms of expression of deconstructive ciideally works in
conjunction with its matters of expressio" nJrtil:;n|:Another
presents itself as oppositional on a fairly general level-as
anexample of Third World cinema and as dealing with problems
arising ina developing and revolutionary society. Its treatment of
the personU inJthe familial underscores this oppositionality, for
these concerns have fre-quently been repressed even in
revolutionary cinema. Whose Choice?deals with a topic which is
either repressed in dominant discourses or, ifnot actually
repressed, treated from different political perspectives: thefilm
may be regarded as oppositional by virtue of its treatment of
contra-ception and abortion from a feminist standpoint.
Feminine Voices
A concern shared by feminist representations of many kinds and
acrossall media is an intent to challenge dominant modes of
representation. Thisconcern is premised on the notion that in a
sexist society, women haveno language of their own and are
therefore alienated from culturally domi-nant forms of expression.
This permits a feminist politics of interventionat the levels of
language and meaning, which may be regarded as equallvapplicable to
the "language" of cinema as it is to the written and spokenword. A
politics of this kind can have two aspects: it may on the one
handchalleng" ttr" dominance of certain forms of signification, and
on the othermove toward the construction of new, non-dominant,
forms. The latter'of course, includes the former, but also goes
further by posing the pos-sibility of a specifically feminist or
feminine language. -Deconstructivecinema, in taking up and breaking
down dominant forms and matters u'expression, operates
predominantly as a challenge to dominant cineila'twant now to look
at ,o-" signifying practicr, *"hi.h may be reea1d.ef.,1lmoving
beyond the modes of e*prettlott privileged within
patriarchAid2'tology. The distinction between the deconstruction of
existing forrns-"'representation and the creation of new ones is to
some extent one of 7"1'"^o,.uih". than of kind. In the first place,
deconstruction may be regarded a'an important-and perhaps even a
necessary-step toward more
'ul'^":;forms of rupture. And in any case, in a situation where
certain torrrr),1representation are culturally dominant,
alternative forms-howe v"r radt
-
cal and regardless of their actual textual operations and modes
of addres.s'will always tend to be construed as a challenge to
dominant forfls' -
Textuol Politics
, ^,,1d be emphasized, then, that the films discussed in this
context mayt"i:;'b, read (and indeed most .of them have been readJ
as examples of1 L.,nstructive clnema'*i;:.issue of a
non-patriarchal language immediately raises the question,1i".
,rlutionship between such a language and feminism. Although it
is
?i"^, ttrut the question of women and language could not be
raised in the'11.^ it has been without the impetus of feminist
politics, the nature and]#*nrnre of such a language remains rather
more problematic. Posingl'i"''nuestion of a women's language may be
a feminist act, but are wei"iif"* here about a feminist language or
a feminine language? If the",,rrtii" is of a feminine language,
where does such a language comeIrrrf I have discussed elsewhere
certain theories of femininity and lan-'r,u'n,
which are being developed by feminist writers and theorists
andiritinot repeat the arguments here, save to reiterate that they
are groundedin theories of female subjectivity as constructed in
and by language. Tothis extent, then, the concern is with feminine
language rather than femi-nist language. And although the
possibility of feminine language couldnot even begin to be raised
were it not for the existence of feminist politics,the converse is
not necessarily true. This point has to be borne in mindin any
consideration of the possibility of "authentic" forms of
expressionfor women, and it is certainly at issue in "feminine
writing" in the cinema.
Arguments on the question of feminine writing suggest first of
all thatcertain texts privilege relations of subjectivity which are
radically "other"to the fixity of subject relations set up by
dominant forms of signification,and secondly, that the "otherness"
of such texts is related to, or emergesfrom, their articulation of
feminine relations of subjectivity. This is per-haps the crucial
point of distinction between deconstructive texts andfeminine
texts. Whereas the former tend to break down and challenge theforms
of pleasure privileged by dominant texts, the latter set up
radically'other" forms of pleasure (in Roland Barthes's term,
jouissonce, or bliss).The possibility oi such "other" forms of
pleasure in cinematic represen-tations is raised in Laura Mulvey's
theoretical work (as well as in her filmpractice, as co-director of
Riddles of the Sphinx in particular). If the plea-sure of dominant
cinema draws on narcissistic and fetishistic scopophilia,Mulvey
argues, any alternative approach needs to construct forms of
plea-o.ure based in different psychic relations.T A suggestion by
Claire fohnstonl'lut l feminist film practice should aim at
"putting . . . the subject in pro-lu"tt bV textual oru.ti.""B
indicates moreover that what is at stake here iso lerninine
cinematic writing, a cinema of jouissonce.,*uertain recent film
practices may in fact be read as developments in"tts.direction, and
in this context, I shall look at four specific examples:tnriller
(Potter, Arts Council of Great Britain, 19Zg), Liies of
PerformersO')"tlu.' Ig72), Doughter Rite (Citron, 1978) and /eonne
Dielmon , 23 Quoir;":.ornmerce, L080 Bruxelles (Akerman, Paradise
Films/Unit6 Trois,-"'cJ.My
argument is that these films share a discourse which sets up
-
260 Critical Methodology: Fern'rilist I..the possibility of
sexual difference in spectator-text relations b\ilrxrnakirrring a
"feminine voice." They pose the possibility of a
fenrir,tj.olll]]:*which would construct new forms of pleasure in
cinema. fn-"'lllngthrough which the "feminine voice" speaks in
these films inc - qttiir(tions of looking, narrativity and
narrative discourse, subjecti,,i,lldu lutu-tobiography, ficlion as
against non-fiction, and openness as ugoinrlJilri,irl.
Thriller is structured around a rearrangement of narrative
clirdominant cinema by the instatement of a woman's
questio"t"*T:i::
,:the film's organizing principle. The film is a reworking of
the opera LoBohdme, which is about a doomed love affair between a
poet and i un,,.,seamstress: the woman finally dies of consumption.
Thriller Ir tolO trorlthe narrative point-of-view of Mimi, the
tragic heroine, whose inte*ogu-tory voice-over pervades the film.
The enigma set up by the film's naryati'eis the question of how and
why Mimi died, the investigator ("1") beinuMimi herself. By its
recruitment of investigatory narrative structure anjfirst-person
voice-over, Thriller at once draws upon, parodies. challenges,and
transforms the narrative and cinematic codes of the Hollvwood
filmnoir. The female victim adds a twist to the reconstruction of
her o',t'n deathnot only by telling the story herself, but also by
considering causes forthe unhappy romance and death of a young
French working woman of akind-social and historical conditions, for
instance-that could not pos-sibly enter the universe either of
operatic tragedy or of the private inves-tigator of film noir.
Lives of Performers is also, on one level, a reworking of the
conventiottsof popular narrative genres. The film is subtitled "a
melodrama," and thenarrative conventions it draws on are those of
the "backstage romance'In thirteen long sequences, it tells the
story of the relationships betweena man and two women, a triangle.
The characters, however, are "playing'themselves-they are real-life
performers in the group of dancers workingwith the filmmaker,
Yvonne Rainer. The film d"ia.ts quite radically fromdominant
conventions of film narrative in its ordrring and structure' anoin
the freedom with which it articulates elements of fiction ond
notrfiction. The plot, for instance, proceeds by leaps and bounds
punctuate0by runnings on the spot-by ellipsis and accretion, in
other words' Rainersays of her films: "For me the story is an
"*ptiTr;;; ;" which,to}angimages and thoughts which need
support. I feel no obligatigto ttl"^"r, oithis armature with
credible details of location and time."v'lhe "'I^"ortLives of
Performers is told with so manv asides that we never.1l,:: ;tto the
end or the bottom of it. There is no resolution. The
"otid?,tr.,ihthe accretions, and the accretions are so many that
they seem Io "?'^),,rot,gaps elsewhere in the story, as if to make
up foi lost time. The first t-?ii^r*lrtrb*t the performers, *-hor"
lives the melodrama is about, in-rel*. "allfor what turns out to be
a real-life Rainer performance' An intertili.fr ttt:at once our
tension vanished" leads into the next sequence' in wlr"[ r1iltthree
star perfolmels "Iecall," aS voice-over, their first meetin8
roxtualYottt'"" rr 'r 't('' -.anhs of Rainer's dance piece
"Grand lJnion Dreams" on the image
photob'i[ore recollections are punctuated at points by the
filmmaker'srftcK' 1;r:." of what is eoins on in the photographs.
Where does the "real",rt*-"'" s of what is going on in the
photographs. Where does the "real".'t|'i]]'the "fiction" begin? The
subsequent cinematic rendering of thepltO::'.; is interrupted
wherever "other concerns" seelrl more important-tono'ri*risition on
acting, for example ["The face of this character is a!!'i";;k"), or
a direct question to the spectator about the problem ofiilil",""
iaentification ("Which woman is the director most
sympathetic'nji::;; one of the women in the triangle, Iooking
directly into camera)'l,?i",^rrrtive of Lives of Performers has its
own logic, then, but it is not]Jll
"i tt r enigma-resolution structure of classic narrative. Nor
does it
""*trurt a closed and internally coherent fictional world: on
the contrary,
:;; itself up at numerous points to intrusions from the "real
world."" iilt u, does this heterogeneous narrative voice imply for
spectator-textrelations? It is clear that none of the subject
relations posed by classic,.,urratiu. is at work here:
identification with characters is impossible, andthere is no
narrative closure. The narrative processes of ellipsis and
ac-cretion offer, on the contrary, the possibility of pleasures
other than thoseof completion. Firstly, in moments of accretion
(for example, during along single-take sequence with virtually
static camera, in which one oftheperformers dances a solo), the
spectator has the option of pleasurableand open-ended contemplation
of an image which constructs no particu-larly privileged viewpoint.
The ellipses offer the possibility of a ratherdifferent pleasure,
that of piecing together fragments of the story-theactive pleasure,
that is, of working on a puzzle. The interpenetration oftictional
and non-fictional worlds and the lack of narrative closure set upa
radical heterogeneity in spectator-text relations, and finally
refuse anyspace of unitary subjectivity for the spectator. The
textual practice of Lives0lPerformers may then be regarded as a
"putting in process of the viewingsubiect.,' J
As part of its articulation of fiction and non-fiction, Lives of
Performerstncludes, at times, discourses readable as
autobiographical. The secondlllu,ul.u of the film, mentioned above,
exemplifieJthis, and the autobio-s'raPhical concern becomes more
apparent in Rainer's next film, Film^*t^:l'
A womon who . . . (1974). Doughter Rite, Michelle citron's
film""u'rt.'no,her-daughter
and sister-sister ielations, is even more
pervasively;"t::tographical, but whereas in Rainer's films, the
would-be autobio-;:l|:ical rnaterial is somewhat distanced-it may
be told in the third;;":lt"'she" instead of "I," or characters may
be substituted for oneti""llut
---the discourse of Doughter Rite seems more immediate and
in-t,*Tl-tl".autobiographical voice of the film, for example, is
always theari;lltl always speaks in the first person. Splitting in
the film's discourseund-i^"1:uwhere, however, in the relationships
between sound and imagewhoi^''-'tu juxtaposition of the film's
different sequences. The film as a
'" utoceeds by alternations between sequences of "journal
discourse"
261.
-
262 Critical Methodology: Feminist FilrnrnaL;..in which a woman
(the filmmaker?) talks about her relationsh. -^'ttlmother, and
sequences-marked cinematically as,,direct,,'1I1,n l.u,.tary-in
which two sisters act out their relationships with
on"'^l""lhun.with their absent mother. In the "journal discourse,"
the irnunl'it^ut un,tposed of Bmm home movies, presumably of the
speaker's chilrlT")_,tot-tically printed on 16mm, and slowed down,
looped, u"a .rptuvul]t'oo-
Previously, I discussed the autobiographical structure which .to
many feminist documentary films, and argued that the
.orill"tl-T*onautobiographical material with documentary codes
permitt"dlilii,?.:1tion on the part of female spectators with the
women in the films. Dnr,^1,Rite may be read as both drawing on and
critiquing the autobio;;;i','j:istructures of these earlier
examples of feminist
.filmmaking.rdiil;';llrectness and universality of the
experience remains, particularly t; ti;daughter's voice-over. But
the film nevertheless adopfs a quite complexand critical stance on
the question of the "truthful.r"rrl' of autoiilgraphical and
documentary discourses. This is evident first of all *
il,sound/image relationship of the "journal" sequences. The
auught., tuik,about her relationship with her mother by referring
to events in ihe auug'1,-ter's childhood, At the same time, the
home movie footage, in depictingchildhood scenes, may be read as
"illustrating" the voice-over. The mae-nification and graininess of
the image and its slow movement and repJ-titiousness suggest also a
close scrutiny of the past for clues about thepresent. The irony is
that however hard the image is examined for clues,it cannot in the
end deliver the goods. The assumption ttrat sound andimage support
one another is a trap. The spectator has to draw her
orrttconclusions about, for instance, the laughing and smiling
mother of thefamily world of the home movies-a world where the sun
constantlrshines and whose inhabitants are always on holiday-and
the pitifulmother talked about on the soundtrack who "works so
harcl to fill herempty hours." The film's critical position in
relation to autobiographv'too, works in the articulation, the one
interrupting the other, of the "jour'nal" with the "sisters"
sequences. The latte. i.r.rlr, despite their "docu-mentary"
appearance, actually tread a borderline between fiction
ant'non-fictio.r,-u, becomes apparlnt in the increasing
unlikeliness of sonteof the situations acted o.ri i.r them. The
uncet;i;?y;voked by this pla-vof fiction and non-fiction may remain
until the eni of the film, when "is revealed in the credits that
the "sisters" are in fact actresses. ..r
Although at one level the articulation of the different
discourses,''Doughter Rite works to produce distance in the
relation betr,ven sPecto'.',,and text, the film is difficult to
read purely as an example of deco.nstlli,iotcinema. The
distanciation, if such ii is, is not that of tn" critical
tpttjlri,of the Brechtian film. The subject matter and the intimacy
of 1le 3u'' 1rof Doughter Rite draw the spectator closely into the
representu.')i'i'rrleffect replicating the pain and ambivalence of
our hostile and lovlr'!"r. l,ings towards those to whom we are
closest, our mothers in parttcu'"-
Textuol Politics
^^t',,p, time, its discourses open'up space for an involved but
criticalthe t"" t +^ f hnse fcelinos a kind nf dptachorl nrqcinn
l\.ufn.o^.,on if ^-1,,tno^i]^"h to those feelings, a kind of
detached passion. Moreover, if onlyapP'::
-^ ^f fhe kind.s of issttes it deals rnrifh the filrn
r-nncfrrrnrc qn o.lJ.ooo?Pu,',irru" of the kinds of issues it deals
with, the film constructs an addressDl'"':- -^l,nnrnrlpdges sexttal
differennp Aq.-rrrniel in fho cicnifi-ofi^- ^-^ot,^;;-;
acknowledges sexual difference as crucial in the signification
pro-
11'lr'"- -
' --l {^-^.1 ^ -^^^+^+^-^ ..,.:ll ^,,-^l -] +L:^ f:l-- r:rr----
rr a rtt'j""rrrfutr and female spectators will surely read this
film differently.
AtCeJJ''._..-^rL-+^+:^-^l^^_l--^^_^a_..^t-----inZ"**"1i.''
,"h_:,Tll:::1,:]t31:t_",1av:31','ucts n3 unitary
subjectivitylf,,prr,r.ors of_,e111.:..9""1-"..:,?o,Ythrur.Rite
appears to.offer a relationshipLl'.oectator and text in which
distanciation does not necessarily ensuefrr gupr between
discourses, although an actively critical perspectivemight."'
ironn, Dielman. . . also invites a distanced involvement, but of
a ratherdliferent kind. This 372-hour long narrative film is a
document of threedays in the life of a Belgian petit-bourgeois
widow, housewife and mother.Hei movements around her flat, her
performance of everyday chores, aredocumented with great precision:
many of her tasks are filmed in realtime. |eanne's rigid routine
includes a daily r-isit from a man-a differentone each day-whose
fees for her sexual services help maintain her andher son. The
man's visit is slotted neatly between Jeanne's preparationsfor
dinner and her son's arrival home. Every shot in the film is
photo-graphed at medium distance from its sublect, with static
camera mountedat about five feet from the ground. Many shots also
work as autonomoussequences-a whole scene unfolds in a single take.
There is thus none ofthe cutting back and forth characteristic of
classic narrative. There are noreverse shots, match cuts, or
cut-ins, for example, and camera point-of-l'iew maintains a
relentless distance from the action. These cinematicelements of
/eonne Dielmon . . . function to establish the rhythm and
orderot.Jeanne's repetitive household routines. the woman's means
of main-tatning coutrol over her life. By the afternoon of the
second day, the nar-:it]"t has set up a series of clear
expectations as to what |eanne will dodnd when' At this point
something (an orgasm with her second client?)provokes disorder in
Jeanne's highly-strultured world, and a series ofparapraxes
ensues. leanne forgets to comb her hair when the client
leaves,ijl lIt: the potatoes, she leaves the lid off the tureen
where she keeps;;:"-^ilii.gs. Erupting into |eanne's ordered
routine, and disrupting the,lri,-"t^t-i1i"ns set up for the
spectator by the cinematic representation of/r;;;'""tiTe, these
tiny slips assume enormous and distressing proportions.rn"r;^."
r-,relrnon . . . can in some respects be read as a
structural/mini-.;il:: tttm (like Michael snow's wivelength, for
example), in that the.;i ,;"^ild duration of the representation
call on the speciator to workt. o;::,t^'ituctures governing the
film's organization, and thus eventually.un i;::' what will happen
next. Any disruption of these expectations.'utrro.i.tl,
seem quite violent. It is established, for instance, that
leannebrrttni'-",,Suat up in the morning before her son, puts on a
blue robe, and,h..nil^'^t meticulously from top to bottom. on the
third day, however,
"rtssS a button, a slip which is immediately noticeable and
assumes
263
-
264 Critical Methodology: Fem in ist l,,r lrnnrak;,.of the film
nevertheless o^^ "u|eanne's final "st ip... I treiliJl,:
great significance-but the enunciationthat it is no more nor
less significant thanof her third client.
leanne Dielmon . . . may be regarded as important in severAr
.,^,^-the question of feminine writing in cinema. Oi particula.
rig"iii."'"ol: tu,the qualities of the cinematic image and the
relations of l;'ki;;; :rrce,arrisets up. In the first place, the
very fact that the film shows . *;;;:'fitl i,housework sets /eonne
Dielmon . . . apart from virtualiy
"ll "til:;l?]n*films. Domestic labor has probably never been
document",l i;'-,;"i'll':nstaking detail in a fiction film: for
example, one sequence-shot"^I"^:,1:]n-minutes in length shows
Jeanne preparing a meat loaf for dir -""u1rr\'Cthird day. The
positioning of the camera in relation to the or"tiffi1."l:1:at the
same time constructs the representations of the
-L-on,, routinework as "a discourse of women's looks, through a
woman,s viewpoint.,,jlChantal Akerman, the film's director, has
said that the relatively lo*.mounting of the camera corresponds
with her own height and thus con_structs a "woman's-eye-view" on
the action. More important, perhaps, isthe refusal to set up
privileged points-of-view on the action bu .lorr-rpr.cut-ins, and
point-of-view shots. The relentless distance of tire camera's(and
the spectator's) look and the duration involved in representations
of]eanne's activities mean that "the fact of prostitution, the
visualization ofthe murder, in some respects evens out into equal
significance with themany conventionaliy less important images:
Jeanne peeling potatoes;Jeanne kneading raw hamburger into a meat
loaf."12 Finally,lhe refusalof reverse shots in the film entails a
denial of the "binding-in" effect ofthe suture of classic cinema:
the spectator is forced to maintain a distancein relation to both
narrative and image, constructing the story and buildingup
narrative expectations for herself. The familiarity of jeanne's
tasks andthe precision with which they are represented, combined
with the refusalof suture, serve to free the look of the spectator
while also, perhaps, shift-ing it toward the attitude of
"passionate detachment" that Laura Mulvevspeaks of.
These four films-Thriller, Lives of perfor:mers, Daughter Rite,
uutJleanne Dielmon . . .
-hold out the possibility of a "feminine latrlua1e ^for cinema,
by offering unaccustomed forms of pleasure construc.tet'
around discouises governed either-quite literally-by a wonan's
u?.i'i.'or by a feminine discourse that works through other
cinematic si8niflg;s;What I am suggesting is that although pari of
the project of ftry:j';iwriting in cinema is obviously to offer a
challenge to dominant t]-lt.rt,'"cinematic representation, its
procedures for cloing so go beyond O::ii,struction, in that their
references to dominant cinema are oblique'"-;n.than direct. There
are other differences, too, between deconstruqtiv?:ti;ema and
feminine cinematic writing. First, if it is accepted tnx
lr"rl[itwriting privileges heterogeneity and multiplicity of
meanings in
; Politics 265fe(tuu' ' -. .rrlress, then it will have a
tendency towards openness. The decon-
ol o."iu, text seems to work rather differently, however, in
that although,t1"^"
,rtrres the fixed subjectivity characteristic of classic
spectator-text"
l,linnr, meanings are limited by the fact that the various
discourses of'.ltl','*t tend to work in concert with one another to
"anchor" meaning.l'u,,. although the spectator may be unsettled or
distanced by epic inter-j,,*ionr, "acting as quotation," and so on,
each of the fragmented dis-|"i,16 will tend to work in a comlnon
direction-in terrns, certainly, ofiioir matters of expression. It
is perhaps no coincidence that both the"*urptrr
of deconstructive cinema discussed here have highly
circum-,rriUed and predefined subject matters. The different
discourses of theirxt may address these topics in different ways,
but in the end there is adegree of overdetermination in the
signification process. The space foractive participation in the
viewing process is opened up by the differentmodes of address of
the discourses structuring the text, as well as by theways in which
they are articulated together. If, for example, WhoseChoice?
presents different discourses around its central concerns,
thosediscourses when taken together constitute the film's subject
matter in aparticular way, so that the act of reading tends to be
directed at differencesof position and point of view on
contraception and abortion between, say,the medical profession, the
ordinary woman who requires an abortion,and feminists. It may
therefore be concluded that deconstructive cinemacan be
tendentious, while at the same time allowing the spectator the
spaceto negotiate her or his own position, but always in relation
to a specificset of issues. If this is indeed the case, then a
feminist deconstructivecinema is possible: feminist, that is, in
its textual operations and matters0I expression, and also feminist
in intent..I would argue, on the other hand, that tendentiousness
and feminine
ctnematic writing do not necessarily go together. If the
"femininity" of atttth,ellrr8es in the moment of reading, then
clearly the intentions of itsptoducers are not necessarily either
here or there. This is well illustrated
ll lF case of Lives of Performers: although there is some
uncertainty as,^]J.ntllt.r or not Rainer is actually a fe.iinist,13
it does seem clear that,'"'llL.tttu. made Lives of Performers she
did not consciously intend anyttfltfit.]ty feminist input, either
as "form" or as "content." And yet thlth;;:'it been widely taken up
by feminists. This suggest two things: first,Ou"rl^l-u*t may be
feminist, or of interest to feminists, without being
ten-i;;;:lt'and second, that non-tendentious texts may be seized as
feministN.,::".,*9-ent of reading. Rainer's films were made in the
milieu of thehuo",,l?lk ovont-gorde art scene, whose practices at
the time generallysrrb-;^:|" connection with feminist politics.
Rainer's films have, however,f-o,i^rtjlttly.been taken up within
other cultural milieux, notably among,,,.i"i,ttt'and read as being
of feminist interest. The context within whicht\uu
^'lrrns are received is therefore obviously crucial for the
meanings-v cert generate.
-
266 Critical Methodology: Feminist Filrnrnslin*
But this is not the whole story. It would surely be wrong to
suggest tharsignifiers, even in "feminine" film texts, are
completely free-floating:theiourl li-itations to openness. Certain
feminine film texts are not tugu.Oujas feminist simply because, by
pure chance, they have been interpreteias such by certain
audiences. Each of the films discussed here draws oncertain matters
of expression which, although not necessarily speakinpfeminist
issues directly, may be regarded as doing so tangentially,
Aeain]yvonne Rainer's films usefully illustrate the point,
precisely because Rai-ner's stance on feminism might problemaltze
her films for those who wantto claim them as feminist in intent. B.
Ruby Rich, for example, argues thatRainer's work is central to
feminism, not because of any intentionality onthe part of the
filmmaker, but because of the narrative conventions theytake up and
the modes of address they construct.l4 The "backstagu ,o-mance" of
Lives of Performers refers to a film genre that, in classic
cinema,has been both attractive to and manipulative of women-the
melodrama,The film offers both a pleasurable reworking and an
ironic undercuttingof this genre. The other three films I have
discussed here similarly drawon. criticize, and transform the
conventions of cultural expressions tra-ditionally associated with
women: Thriller, the melodramatic story ofdoomed love, Doughter
Rite, autobiography and the "family romance,"and /eonne Dielmon . .
. , the family melodrama.
If deconstructive cinema sets up the possibility of an active
spectator-text relation around a specific set of signifieds, and if
feminine cinematicwriting offers an openness of address in
combination with matters ofexpression in relation to which
spectators may situate themselves aswomen and/or as feminists, then
clearly a feminist counter-cinema is notsimply a matter of texts or
"form plus content." In different ways and-inu"rying degrees, the
moment and conditions of reception of films are also
".,rtiul. The question of feminist counter-cinema is by no means
exhausted
by "
discussion of feminist or feminine film texti: it has, in the
finalinstance. to be considered also in terms of its institutional
conditions olproduction and reception.
NOTES
1. Claire Iohnston, "Introduction," in Notes on Women's Cinemo,
ed. ClaireJohnston, London: Society for Education in Film and
Television (1973), P.2' nI
2. Pam Cook and Claire Johnston, "The Place of Women in the
Cin_et11.,;1Raoul Walsh," in Rooul Wolsh, ed. Phil Hardy,
Edinburgh:Edinburgh Film Festtt'o'(1s74).
3. fohnston, "Introduction," p. 3. ^ J4. Laura Mulvev, "Visual
Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Screen 16, nu'(1975), p. 17.
Textual Politics
b. Walter Benjamin,P 2/.' plialesage, "oner,,rnp Cut.no. 20
(1979).t"' ). NlulveY'
267
UnderstondingBrecht, London: New Left Books (1923),Way Or
Another: Diaiectical, Revolutionary, Feminist,"p.21.
g. Claire Johnston, "Towards a Feminist Film Practice: Some
Theses," Edin-hrrreh Magazine, no. 1 (1976). p. 58.""'"g. Co^ero
Obscuro, "Yvonne Rainer: An Introduction," Comero Obscuro, no.t
1976), P' 89'
10. iane Feuer, "Daughter Rite: Living with Our Pain and Love,"
/ump Cut, no.tt ,19BO)'--11.
Janet Bergstrom, "/eonne Dielmon,23 Quoi du Commerce, 1080
Bruxel,lesbv Chantal Akerman," Comero Obscura, no. Z ('1.977), p.
118.'n. lbid., P. 116'13. Lucy Lippard, "Yvonne Rainer on Feminism
and Her Film," in From the
Center: Feminist Essoys on Women's Art, New York: Dutton (1976);
B. Ruby Rich,,'The Films of Yvonne Rainer," Chrysolis, no. 2
(1977).
14. Ibid.