Search Results

Yuka Kanno uses the final chapter of the book to examine Girls of Dark (Onna bakari no yoru, 1961), a film which follows the lives of ex-prostitutes in a rehabilitation facility. Within an exclusively female community as diverse in age as personality, Japan’s first lesbian film character emerges, defying traditional representations of lesbianism in Japanese popular culture. Kanno argues that this unusual character is pivotal to understanding of the desire, solidarity and conflict which characterises the female community in the film. The female continuum is presented as both diegetic and relational by including the narrative space of the film and that embodied by the three women who collaborated to produce it: Tanaka Kinuyo (director), Yana Masako (novelist), and Tanaka Sumie (scriptwriter). Using queer and feminist theory, Kanno’s fascinating and innovative discussion seeks to relocate the concept of women’s cinema within Japanese film history and film theory.

This chapter traces how, traditionally, feminist analyses of films authored by women tended to centre on experimental or art-house cinema and, subsequently, on genres culturally codified as ‘female’. It then goes on to engage with the most important debates around the concept of ‘women’s cinema’ and their significance in relation to genre theory. In particular, Alison Butler’s insights into women’s cinema as ‘minor cinema’, adapted from Deleuze and Guattari’s (1975) concept of the minor – as an alternative to the negative aesthetics of counter-cinema – is particularly apt here, as it allows for a reconsideration of women’s film authorship in mainstream productions and the ‘major’ language of film genres. Following and expanding this concept, it is argued that genres can be particularly productive spaces from which to think about female filmmakers, film authorship and the cultural politics of gender (especially in terms of the status of the woman author or her lack of status), as will be explored in the following chapters. Finally, instead of locking women filmmakers into a segregated gender sphere defined by ‘women’s culture’, the chapter argues for the mutability of gendered identities and questions the oversimplified notion of gender-to-gender cinematic identification – a typical assumption underpinning the categorisation of genres by gender – and suggests that ‘opportunities for resistance are more available than the opposition between “dominant cinema” and “counter-cinema” allows’ (Cook 2012: 33).

Chapter 11 employs a feminist lens to situate women filmmakers within a wider global context in which all women’s cinema can be considered to be “world cinema,” set apart from local contexts that fail to encompass women’s film practices in terms of resources, space, and mobility. Advocating a perspective advanced by Patricia White in Women’s Cinema, World Cinema, Belinda Smaill proposes that women filmmakers should be viewed within “whole world approaches” that comprehensively address the context of production, circulation, representation, and image of each director. While tracking the mobility of female directors, Smaill points out that while it is difficult for women to achieve employment as feature directors in the U.S., it is even more difficult to gain access to the industry from outside the U.S. Hollywood is an exclusive domain, making Bier’s transnational American work a critical site for investigation. With Serena, Smaill contends, Bier cements her place as a director who takes on the world by lending her authorial signature to a complex manifestation of world cinema.

This chapter examines the centrality of the work of artistic duo Maria Klonaris and Katerina Thomadaki to the project of writing a feminist women's film history by focusing on the aesthetic and conceptual choices they made and on their thought-provoking contributions to feminist film practice. In particular, it considers Klonaris and Thomadaki's Cinéma corporel (Cinema of the Body). The chapter suggests that the female avant-garde film has, paradoxically, been marginalized by feminist film theory's focus on mainstream cinema as a site of patriarchal representation and spectatorship. It shows that Klonaris and Thomadaki's Cinéma corporel represents, for women's cinema, a strategy of dissidence. In form, content, concept, and approach, it calls for a revisitation of “film” outside the canon established in traditional film history. The chapter underscores the need to “heighten the visibility of women's contributions to traditions of formal innovation and explore how formal innovation enables women to enlarge discourses about women's subjectivity” and art.

This chapter investigates the historical imagination of 1980s Indian women filmmakers seeking “companionship” with generations of women enduring or resisting convention in India's colonial past. Leveraging the emergence in the 1980s of an Indian women's cinema—and reflecting on the cinematic construction of gender debates in colonial India through its films, the chapter highlights the challenges they pose to establishing “national” narratives of gender or film history. Three films about gender and reform in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century colonial India are discussed: Phaniyamma (Prema Karanth, 1983), Rao Saheb (Vijaya Mehta, 1986), and Sati (Aparna Sen, 1989). Together these films present a constellation that supports the development of a feminist historiography of Indian cinema. The chapter also considers how literature on Indian regional cinemas, published in regional languages with little translation, has contributed to the marginalization of such cinemas in the construction of Indian film history.

This chapter offers a theoretical revision of auteur theory as a gendered concept, as well as reconceptualisation of women’s cinema and film authorship in relation to genre theory. It starts by raising several questions: is the much-debated concept of auteur equally applicable to female filmmakers, and if so, how, and in what cultural and industrial contexts? Does the female director working in genre film ‘transcend’ the industrial form in the way that the male auteur is said to ‘transcend’ genre? The first section of this chapter briefly explores the gendering of the politique des auteurs and discusses the implications of the ‘death of the author’ for feminist criticism. It then goes on to consider new approaches to film authorship, which offer a more dialogical, ‘interactive’ relationship to wider film cultures than the previously discussed perspectives. The remainder of the chapter builds on Jane Gaines’s (2012) argument on the interchangeability of the critical categories ‘women’ and ‘genre’, and the problematic question of feminist/authorial subversion of mainstream forms. The chapter’s central argument is that rather than subverting genres, some women directors explore their aesthetic and imaginative power.

The introduction to the book identifies the female pioneers of documentary in the Arab area. It paints the historical context in which these women have been making documentaries, looking across borders within the Arab World and across transnational regions, within the form, in the seventies and eighties, nineties and two thousands. The theoretical approach is rooted in feminist film studies and Third Cinema theory. Using Ella Shohat’s writings on women making films in a post-Third Worldist and feminist reality, the chapter specifies those aspects of Third Cinema that have been neglected. Painting a socio-political and historical context for the films under discussion, it looks at the cultural history of documentary as well as thematic and stylistic tendencies in the Arab world. From an examination of Third Cinema and its focus on documentary the chapter moves on to New Arab Cinema (or ‘Cinema Chabab’) and its attitude towards melodrama and realism. This ‘new’ approach to the transnational documentary includes a clearer, perhaps more practical look at developing ideas of production, distribution and spectatorship.

“Gender Equity in Screen Culture: On Susanne Bier, the Celluloid Ceiling, and the Growing Appeal of TV Production” reflects on Bier’s career in light of the “unprecedented attention” recently directed at gender inequality in the film industry. Mette Hjort foregrounds, in particular, the fact that Bier’s success involved her overcoming challenges posed by both her gender and her nationality. The chapter stresses that Bier’s shifting perception of such challenges is provocative, specifically Bier’s increasingly vocal support of gender equity in screen industries. Hjort concludes by predicting the likely effects of “a broader involvement of women in the film industry,” which Bier’s career harbingers.

“Susanne Bier’s Hollywood Experiments: Things We Lost in the Fire and Serena” explores the lackluster responses to Bier’s first English-language productions, often referred to as her ‘Hollywood films’. Author Missy Molloy surveys a variety of sources related to the films’ productions and receptions to reveal the challenges Bier faced transitioning to new production contexts. Moreover, while the films demonstrate Bier’s willingness to experiment with unfamiliar genres and production conditions, they also reaffirm her attractions to specific cinematic subjects, images, and narrative scenarios. Thus, these less successful films provide information relevant to the project of tracing Bier’s authorial influence across a body of extremely varied works. Furthermore, the fact that her authorial influence was somewhat muted in her first ‘Hollywood’ films—due to her signing on late in pre-production as well as complications that arose during post-production— indicates that in Bier’s case, early involvement allows her to affect the characters and narratives to the extent that they reflect career-long preoccupations, which manifested in Things We Lost in the Fire and Serena to a degree that didn’t significantly appeal to either her domestic or international audience. The chapter complements Langkjær’s and Agger’s attentions to more successful films by highlighting that Bier’s approach to genre is expansive, even when it does not produce desirable results. Molloy concludes that less effective elements of Bier’s cinematic strategies are results, at least partly, of bad timing. She further argues that reception prejudices played a role in Things We Lost in the Fire and Serena’s failures to land with audiences.

“Beginning with Jewish Survival: Freud’s Leaving Home” is a close reading of the complex references to Jewish heritage in Bier’s first feature-length film. Maureen Turim employs a psychological lens to assess the film’s distinct blend of comedy and tragedy, most particularly in its evocations of Freud’s delayed maturation, Rosha’s impending death, and their intense, ambivalent mother-daughter bond. The chapter further situates Freud’s Leaving Home in the context of contemporaneous films by Jewish directors that represent diasporic Jewish families in cultural transition.