WEEK SEVEN: Documentary Truth

This week's theme is "Documentary Truth" in which will examine, among other things, to what extent film can document truth.  On Sunday at 5pm, we will screen the 1997 film Hands on a Hard Body, which documents an endurance competition that took place in Longview, Texas. The yearly competition pits twenty-four contestants against each other to see who can keep their hand on a pickup truck for the longest amount of time. Whoever endures the longest without leaning on the truck or squatting wins the truck. Five minute breaks are issued every hour and fifteen minute breaks every six hours.  The documentary follows the 1995 competition which lasted for seventy-seven continuous hours.  (The Facebook page for the film screening is here.)

In class next Tuesday, we will screen the 2010 film Catfish (recently adapted into a television series for MTV), which follows a young man being filmed by his brother and friend as he builds a romantic relationship with a young woman on Facebook.

The readings for this week are Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" (from the Republic) and the short essay by documentary filmmaker Werner Herzog,"On the Absolute, the Sublime, and Ecstatic Truth."  It is strongly recommended that you re-read Descartes' Second Meditation from earlier in the semester as well.

Below are the trailers for the two documentary films we will be screening together this week.

Paris is Burning

This week I watched the 1990 documentary Paris is Burning. The movie explores the New York City ball scene in the 1980s. It focuses on African American gay, transgender, and drag culture involved in the balls and the outsiders’ society the have built for themselves.

            Balls function sort of like pageants. Contestants compete in different categories and walk like runway models, they are scored by a panel of judges and the winners receive trophies. Categories include butch queen, societal tropes like schoolgirl and business executive which are both realness categories. To me, the realness competitions were most compelling. In these categories contestants were graded on their ability to blend in with heterosexual male culture or heterosexual female culture. This category shows the walker’s ability to appear as what society wants them to be, and is just a heightening of the gender roles convention demands they perform. So, in a way this category can be the complete commitment to the gendered demands of our culture.

            But this category can also be among the most fantastical. Contestants dress relatively conservatively, they become the people that lack of social standing and opportunity have barred them from becoming. Although throughout the movie we hear repeatedly of a desire for wealth and luxury to the point of excess, in the end we realize almost everyone encountered in this film is really striving for some form of normality. Those members of gay and transsexual culture rejected by their families grouped themselves into houses that function as families that love and care for one another. Near the end of the film, several of the main subjects express a deep-seated wish to get married to live a normal and content lives. This longing for normalcy really seems to stem from a need for acceptance and understanding. Wealth and fame, the two most commonly stated aspirations, are really just tangible manifestations of societal acceptance.

            The Butler essay we all read for this week outlines gender as a historical construction reinforced by the repetition of a societal performance. Within Paris is Burning and the larger transsexual and drag culture, gender is quite literally a performance. Those in the movie are painfully aware of the repercussions of displaying a gender identity that falls outside of the heteronormative. That the realness ball contest category is so broad and so popular makes it clear that society has taught and encouraged the performance of gender identity as separate from one’s true gender. Butler says that gender cannot really be apparent, true, or false. But the fact “that culture so readily punishes or marginalizes those who fail to perform the illusion of gender essentialism should be sign enough that on some level there is social knowledge that the truth or falsity of gender is only socially compelled and in no sense ontologically necessitated.” Despite its seeming triviality, the fulfilling of gender roles is key to societal acceptance. Interestingly, ball culture defies the notion of gendering by exaggerating and perfecting gender performance.

            Even though ball culture is arguably the class most negatively by today’s ideas of gender, they are also the most free from the trappings of gender roles. Those content within their socially acceptable gendering are unable to see that gender is a false construction. And because they cannot see that gender essentialism has ontological truth, they are the most trapped within its conventions. They will continue to believe that the outward performance of their gender is essential to their self.

            The people in this film do not identify as traditionally male and female, and as such, there is no way for them to truly perform their gender. The absence of a language, spoken or visual, to explain their gender has resulted in the creation of unique forms of expression, all of which are on show at the balls. The most prominent example is a form of dancing called voguing.           

            This documentary was very interesting because it took place within a culture that is part of our culture and completely alienated from it. They have both an insider’s and outsider’s perspective. This perspective provides an understanding of how ingrained gendering is in our society and the kind of crises it creates.

Performers Performing Performances

“There are no other women like you, Michael. You're a man.”

Tootsie (1982) is a film that explores performance on several levels, opening with the struggles facing our performing-protagonist, Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman). Michael is shown attending various auditions and donning various ensembles in an attempt to fit the director's artistic vision, but to no avail. He glues on facial hair in an attempt to look aged, but the director needs someone older. He dresses in child-like clothing and raises his voice an octave or so, but that director needs someone younger. The unseen director calling orders from the darkened theater assumes the role of societal censures, dictating what is ideal and not ideal for the role that a character, or an individual, is required to adopt. This manner of communication continues for a bit (taller, shorter, etc.) until we are given the following exchange:

Director: “We're looking for someone different.” 

Michael: “I can be different.”

Thus, ladies and gentleman (and everyone who identifies as something in between), we have a premise. Michael can be different. I was immediately reminded of Sartre's essay that we read earlier in the semester, in which he claims that humans are oftentimes able to transcend their facticity. Michael can be taller. Michael can be shorter. Michael can be different. Michael can be woman. He is unable to get work as a male actor, so he dons a disguise – by the name of Dorothy Michaels (he really worked hard for that alias) – and is cast in a Soap Opera. As he later says, it is “one of the greatest acting challenges an actor can have,” referring of course to the transformation of his perceived gender.

This notion of perception brings me to an important distinction that must be made. At no point during the film does Michael self-identify as “woman” outside the context of his performance as Dorothy. His gendered performance as a woman is not the same as his ongoing performance of gender as Michael. One is a performance in the theatrical sense, and the other in the societal sense, as Judith Butler describes in her essay. Butler notes that in theatre, and presumably also in film, “one can say, 'this is just an act,' and de-realize the act, make acting into something quite distinct from what is real.” Michael asserts, at least initially, that Dorothy is separate from himself. Dorothy is a character he plays, apart from the performance of his gender which he unwittingly repeats on a daily basis.

But as in any good cross-dressing story, the line between performance and reality gets blurred. Michael begins to portray Dorothy outside the television show studio, carrying some of her worries around with him. Butler accounts for this, saying that when a subversive gender performance is placed into the context of reality, “there are no theatrical conventions to delimit the purely imaginary character of the act, indeed, on the street or in the bus, there is no presumption that the act is distinct from a reality.” The passage is particularly relevant to the scene in which Michael is attempting to decide what to wear to Julie's (Jessica Lange) house. He is genuinely concerned with his appearance, with the way a striped outfit pulls unnaturally across his (unnatural) bust. He is himself; his concerns are genuine and without “theatrical conventions.” Of course, to play the devil's advocate to my own argument, the scene itself is contained within a film, which draws a very clear line between our reality and the actors' performances. Dustin Hoffman is playing Michael Dorsey whose role as Dorothy Michaels is bleeding into his own life, which is itself just a result of Hoffman's performance. A male actor is performing as a male performer performing as a woman, who in turn performs on a television show. Are we meta enough yet?

While Tootsie may seem to be predominately a portrait of Michael's journey through womanhood, of him putting Butler's assertion that “One does one's body” to practice, his love interest Julie bears some consideration – especially with respect to her discovery of Michael's true biological sex. To reference last week's discussion, Julie experiences “the uncanny” when Michael pulls off his wig, at once knowing the person before her and finding that she-turned-he is a complete stranger. But why is Michael a stranger? I would say that he is the same person, minus the stuffed bra and the heavy make-up. In the end, she seems to humor him, agreeing to give their relationship a shot. I understand her wariness, but I don't understand why I understand it, if that makes any sense at all. Perhaps his lie was so significant that it makes him difficult to trust? Or is gender something that so shapes our perception of another individual that any drastic alteration in gender performance forces us to redefine the terms of a relationship?

Sex like Tennis

Friends with Benefits, starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, is an amusing movie that examines how discourse on sex in changing in society. Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis) meet each other as Jamie is the headhunter who is trying to convince Dylan to take a new job opportunity. They quickly hit it off, but they have both met soon after breaking up with their own significant other. As the title suggests, these break-ups make them reluctant to get in a relationship soon after, so they decide to have sex as friends. They may an agreement that it is nothing more, and that they will stay friends afterwards. Soon Jamie wants to date again, so they stop hooking up but remain friends. However, her foray into the dating world goes poorly and as a friend Dylan invited her to his house. There, they hook up again but the relationship between them quickly gets rocky. Soon, in classic rom-com fashion, aided with advice of his sick father, Dylan reaches back out to Jamie and they get back together, this time romantically. The reason this film was chosen for this week and what separates it from a typical rom-com is the insight into a new “discourse”, as Foucault would say, that is emerging about sex. This comes through perhaps most clearly the first time when Dylan and Jamie decide to have sex without the stress of a relationship, merely as friends. Their business-like approach to it is amusing, but that is because it breaks many of our norms about sex. They say it will just be like playing tennis, a fun physical activity with two people. They can be perfectly honest about how they want each other to act in bed, as Jamie tells Dylan when he is doing something wrong. They don’t worry about hurting each other’s feelings and in the end they both have a better time because of it. This point gets reinforced when Dylan tries to hook up with another girl who just acts extremely odd, growling at him and smelling his armpit. Another person who helps emphasize this point is Tommy Bollinger (Woody Harrelson). Dylan’s openly gay co-worker, Tommy does not beat around the bush when asking if anyone is gay and informing Dylan where the best places to pick up men are. Again, his blunt and straightforward approach is funny because we are not used to that kind of open discussion and joking mannerisms about sexual orientation. In the first two parts of his The History of Sexuality, Foucault examines how discourse on sex has changed over the years. Foucault argues that sex used to not be such a subject of intense analysis. But in an attempt to repress sexuality, the bourgeoisie have intensified the discussion of sex but directed that discourse in ways that they wished it to be directed. Now sex is a matter of public knowledge and thought. Sex can no longer be something we could approach with amusement and genuine passion, but now had to be analyzed and controlled. Thus boys and girls are closely monitored in schools, and sexual deviants are studied. This is partially why the casual approach to sex in the movie breaks norms, getting translated into humor. Dylan and Jamie try to think of sex as just an object of pleasure, like playing tennis, and as Foucault would argue this was the view of sex in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. They can talk freely about sexual preferences, without feeling that taboo on sex that Foucault identifies. When Dylan and Jamie are merely friends with benefits they have to constantly struggle against society’s view of them, as society does not believe that to really be the case or views them as immature, referencing that they were acting they would be in college. Indeed the thesis of the film comes back around to the fact that Dylan and Jamie always should have been a relationship, since they get along so well. However, it does nothing to deny it’s earlier points of how their sexual openness was a benefit for them and strengthened their relationship. Part of what makes their relationship seems so emotionally stable is the fact that they are almost always bluntly honest with each other in situations where we do not always see such honesty. But obviously the film comes to the conclusion that such sex without a relationship does not really work, that emotional ties do come even to two people who try to prevent such ties from occurring. Dylan and Jamie cannot remain just friends with benefits, they do get in a relationship. Perhaps, however, they can still approach sex like two people in a relationship playing a game of tennis.

Sex, Class, and Power

          Pretty Woman (1990) is widely considered one of the most successful romantic-comedy films of all time, and helped set many of the standards for the genre.  The film tells the story of Edward Lewis (Richard Gere), an outrageously wealthy businessman whose job is to buy down-and-out companies, break them into pieces, and sell them off for a profit.  While on a business trip to LA, Edward’s girlfriend leaves him over the phone leading him to borrow his lawyer’s car and drive around to clear his head.  While on Hollywood Boulevard, Edward asks a young prostitute named Vivian (Julia Roberts) for directions to Beverly Hills.  Edward then hires Vivian to stay with him for the week as an escort to accompany him to social engagements.  The rest of the film follows the romance that develops from what was initially a simple business agreement between the two protagonists.  Pretty Woman explores the striking differences between social classes and the difficulty in bridging those gaps.  The film also discusses the degree to which portrayals of sex and sexuality are acceptable in social hierarchy.  For example, Edward sends Vivian out shopping in Beverly Hills for new clothes with his credit card, but the women in the posh clothing store refuse to help her due to her unsophisticated attire.  Vivian’s transformation from a down-on-her-luck prostitute to a confident member of high society provides an interesting and uplifting spin on the common “rags to riches” situation that is present in so many stories.

            The first sign of Vivian’s empowerment comes very early in the film, when she first gets into the car with Edward.  Edward is uncomfortable with driving a stick shift and admits that growing up in luxury has left him with zero knowledge of cars, as he tells Vivian “his first car was a limo.”  On the other hand, Vivian grew up around autoworkers and knows much more about the subject, leading Edward to stop the car and ask her to drive.  Driving is stereotypically considered a masculine activity, so this scene presents an interesting common gender role reversal from the beginning of the film.  Vivian’s competence surprises Edward, and he begins to notice her confidence and independence, traits not stereotypically associated with prostitutes.  When they reach the hotel that Edward is staying at, Vivian does not change her fiery attitude despite the judgment of the hotel patrons.  For example, while waiting on the elevator with Edward, Vivian notes that she is not wearing any pantyhose, making the conservative, elderly couple standing next to them very uncomfortable.

            With the integration of two strikingly different social classes, Pretty Woman questions the tolerance of modern society to displays of sex and sexuality.  As Michel Foucault discusses in “We Other Victorians”, the brothel and the mental institution seemed to be the only places where expressions of sexuality, whether it be through words or gestures, would be tolerable. (4).  Foucault mentions this in reference to the Victorian bourgeoisie, but he also questions whether or not we have liberated ourselves from the repression of sexuality.  Based on the harsh judgment Vivian receives from the hotel patrons and residents of Beverly Hills based on her provocative appearance, Pretty Woman argues that we have not.  However, Foucault continues on in his argument by drawing parallels between sex and power.  One of the reasons the audience views Vivian as such a strong character is because she acts like herself and has no problem discussing sex out in the open.  Foucault says, “If sex is repressed, that is, condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression.  A person who holds forth in such language places himself to a certain extent outside the reach of power; he upsets established law; he somehow anticipates the coming freedom.” (6).  Vivian more or less personifies this transgression – while working as a prostitute, she refuses to work for a pimp and is very set in her ways about doing only what she wants with the customers she wants.

            This connection between sex and power also applies itself to the work that Edward does in the business world.  Throughout the film, many parallels are drawn between Edward’s work and Vivian’s work, despite the fact that they are from polar opposite social classes.  In a way, Edward acts a pimp for broken companies – buying them at their low points only to break them down for a profit.  By the end of the film, witnessing Vivian’s transgression of social classes and restraints on sexuality has changed him, and he decides not to go through with a deal to take over another company.  Vivian’s impact on Edward ultimately prevents him from following a path of corporate greed, and the film ends happily.  Pretty Woman has an extremely uplifting story while posing intriguing questions about social class and sexuality, and is one of the few romantic-comedy films I legitimately enjoy.  I would definitely recommend it if you have not seen it.

             

Self-Identity in Gender

Paris is Burning (1990) is a documentary capturing the lives of many drag queens, mostly through their “balls” which are, in a way, celebrations of their sexuality. Butler states that “gender is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts proceed; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in time—an identity, instituted through a stylized repetition of acts. Further, gender is instituted through the stylization of the body and, hence, must be understood as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self.” This of course separates gender from sex. Whereas gender would simply be fitting to a mold of expectation, sex is the physical aspect to being a male or female. Because I believe Butler would refer to the drag queens as women, I will refer to them as such. For most of the “girls” in the film, the performance of being a woman makes them a woman, and only a few of them take the step to actually have a sex change. For the rest, gender is an experience, just the same as race and class. Throughout the balls, they don’t only play the part of women; they play straight men and often white businessmen.

This all comes down to being accepted in society. While they are drag queens, most of them are black and of a lower socioeconomic status. While race is much harder to hide, which many of them still do, they play this life of riches and glamour, but really they are stealing their food and clothes because they can hardly afford to get by. This leads them to want the life they are acting. All of them want fame and money and many want a sex change. They want all of these things because they want to be looked up at instead of down, which is how they have lived their lives thus far. They are accustomed to scraping by and verbally arguing with those who don’t understand their way of life. The families that they create give them a sense of true family since many of them have been disowned.

While many strive to become a true female, one of the drag mothers, Pepper, points out how she believes getting a sex change is too far. She argues that the girls believe if they get a sex change they will be treated so much better, but women aren’t really treated great to begin with. This really shows when we first hear that Venus was murdered. She was working as an escort of sorts and was strangled. The act of the gender role has consequences either way, in this case the consequence being death. This is of course an exaggerated case, but women do face social and political consequences on a daily basis. Because the drag queens are either gay or transsexual, black, and likely poor, they must figure that no consequences can be worse than the ones they have faced. One of the queens that did get a sex change feels very free, yet her friend points out that the voice is still there, implying she still sounds like a man. This will likely lead to discrimination in her future seeing as transsexual men who undergo sex changes are treated very much differently than women are.

While identity is obviously a question of gender, the becoming of a woman is more of the experience than being a woman. This may be why Pepper will never have a sex change. She claims to have lived a wonderful life; this includes her previous life as a man and the self-realization that the role in life she wants to play is of a woman. To her, getting a sex change is taking that role too far, and in a way wipes that part of one’s identity from them. Many of the queens only go as far as getting breast implants and plastic surgery, adding to their identity and their personal process of becoming a woman, but taking away a part of your body is different. While the woman who underwent the sex change mentioned above literally gave up her penis for the act of gender, she still has the same body, and voice, as she did when she was still a male. Basically Pepper may be arguing that the penis is just one of the parts of the identity that will always remind one of their past as a man, so why cut it off unless you can literally get a new body… a female body.

Overall, the film raises some interesting questions about identity, of course relating to gender and sexuality. Gender in many ways is like playing a part in a movie. Often actors do play characters of opposite genders and are criticized. While it is an act, what is most true and often unclassifiable as far as gender is concerned, is the self-identity and the physical body. The rest is playing a role, molded by history and praised in a society where heterosexual reproduction is necessary. 

Victimization in Lolita (1962 & 1997)

Lolita is known throughout the Western world as being a tale of nefarious activities and depravities. In the films Lolita, directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1962, and the second film directed by Adrian Lyne in 1997, Nabokov’s nymphet is introduced as being a highly flirtatious girl who has just developed an interest in boys, as well as her stepfather Humbert Humbert. Humbert reciprocates the sexual tension felt by Lolita, for he spends the majority of the beginning of the film discussing his passion and interest. While both films feature similar incidents, both films are entirely their own. The sexual subject matter of Kubrick’s film is toned down to appease the censors of the 60’s (such as Lolita’s age being augmented from 12 to 14), while the later rendition of Lolita was able to include a more faithful rendition to Nabokov’s novel.

            While I have seen both films, my reactions to each film were quite different. While Kubrick mixes the element of dark humor throughout his film and merely alludes to the sexual relationship shared between Lolita and Humbert, Lyne’s adaptation includes more sexual tension and creates a mood similar to Romanticism. Due to the display of sexual acts occurring in Lyne’s film, I found myself to be increasingly agitated and uncomfortable watching a younger girl seducing, and being seduced, by a much older man. After leaving the screening last Sunday, I had a discussion with a classmate about our reactions to the film. As we found out, our reactions to watching a twelve year-old girl having sex were different degrees of tension. We later concluded that this may have been due to the fact that, me being a male and remembering my awkwardness of being 12, found it incredibly disturbing to watch a young girl moan and gyrate on top of an older man. Our classmate, being female, made the point that at the stage of female puberty, development of the body, and its sexual attraction, either reach their climax or are close to finishing development. She felt that, while the viewing of a young girl having sex with a much older man is not necessarily normal, she did not find it as uncomfortable as her male peers (one chap sitting next to her couldn’t stop squirming at the sexual scenes).

            After reading the articles for this week, I am curious to find out how and why there is a separation of anxiety between males and females in regards to the pedophilia displayed in Lolita. In Butler’s article we are introduced to the notion that gender is a kind of performance that all citizens participate in in our society. Is it due to the awkward situation of viewing pedophilia that makes most men uncomfortable? Is it due to the fact that in our society, we learn from a young age that having consensual sex with a minor, much less a young girl is inherently wrong? I would like to think so, but as it has been pointed out, if I were to watch a young boy, say 12-15 having sexual relations with a much older woman (films like Notes On A Scandal, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and The Reader come to mind) I would find it much more comfortable to watch.

            What is interesting is to say that, while the older woman would be known as a cradle-robber, the male has a kind of badge, a token of sorts. They are rewarded for being “man enough” to attract an older female, or a cougar, as they are known. However, when the roles are reversed, and it is a young girl being seduced by an older man, the scenes seem uncomfortable, awkward, and just morally wrong. I know that MacKinnon would associate this with me (us?) being a product of an almost universal patriarchal society in which male dominance suppresses the female dominance. For a young boy to sleep with an older woman is an “accomplishment” of sorts, like it is a way of conquering. For a girl to initiate sex with an older man, she is criticized as naïve, a victim who was corrupted by the male.

            Bringing this back to Lolita, is the relationship between Lolita and Humbert one of exploitation? Is Lolita a victim? Or does she reverse the role and turn Humbert into the victim? In Kubrick’s version the latter appears to be the case, for the audience is led to sympathize with Humbert rather than the mischievous and unpredictable girl. However, in Lyne’s version of the film, I am not so certain. Knowing Humbert’s past and his current fascination with nymphets, is he being the one who we should abhor? Or should we abhor Lolita herself? 

Butler and Paris is Burning

Paris is Burning is a documentary that follows the circle of “balls” or the gay community in New York. These “balls” are events where the members of the gay community will dress up in various outfits and costumes in what they consider their identity and express their “fantasy of being a superstar” or “being a runway on a model.” The ball is a way for the participants to express themselves in any way, and as one of the drag queens says, “In a ball, you can be anything you want” in any way shape or form you want, within the various different categories that are offered to compete in. It provides a total freedom of expression for the participants and a way for them to not just put on a show, but express their self-proclaimed identity. Although the contestants do have a desire to win the prizes and relative fame from being selected as a winner at the ball, but all of the contestants express their interest in the ball not in a competitive spirit but in the simple joy it brings them.

            The most interesting aspect for me was not the balls themselves, but rather the subcategories the participants divided themselves into, called “houses,” and particularly, the “mother” concept of each house. I feel like this is a direct application of the performative nature of gender, as described by Judith Butler.  Butler differentiates between sex and gender, where sex is the biological facts of one’s existence, and gender identity is “is a performative accomplishment compelled by social sanction and taboo.” When gender is performative, we mean that it is not something given at birth, but something institutionally committed to a person not just be society, but by one’s acts within it. One performs their gender through “the stylization of the body… as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self.”

In Paris is Burning, we are shown the lives of various individuals who in many different ways perform different gender identities. In the balls, the contestants are eventually split up into “houses” with each house having its own “mother.”  Interestingly, the crossdressers not only switch their gender-identity by simply dressing, acting, and behaving like they believe a woman to act, but also perform the gender identity of a mother. Not only do they act as society perceives a woman to act, but as society perceives the way a women in a certain, specialized situation, that they normally would have no access to, would act and be considered as “mothers.” Also, how even though each individual was performing a gender that was not their biological sex, they each took the role of a socially accepted family member within the houses. In each house, they were performing completely what society says the family should be. Another scene that was particularly interesting to me in this regard was the scene where the man in the dance studio was teaching the girls how to walk on the runway and “inject more femininity back in them.” It seemed very peculiar to me that this man would have to act in a way to re-established the performative nature of one’s gender identity to one that is not his own, in order form them to use this femininity as a tool for their own advantage against men.

Overall, Paris is Burning was a very opening experience for me to experience a culture I knew existed, but never knew to what degree. In conjunction with the Butler reading, however, it raised one for me. Just because their biology sex and gender didn’t match, if gender is just performative, do they necessarily have to switch completely to the other gender in a way that seems hyperbolic? It seems like if gender is dictated by societal norms, but at the same time performative, they could act in a way that is not so stereotypical of the gender but rather in a way that seems to be more personal to each individual, while still expressing their gender.

Breaking the Backbone of Gender Bias

Gender is something that most people would consider a purely physical distinction.  It is "normal" to base whether someone is either male or female purely on their body.  While this has been made to work in the past, as society continues to move with a liberal trend, this can no longer be used as the only distinction.

Judith Butler holds that conception does not determine whether a person is male or female, but instead the act of learning how to act in either role that determines it.  The roles that are attributed to each gender are not ones that naturally fall to them, but rather what society has decided through years of repetition, and has now become as ingrained in society just as much as the physical sex of an individual has.  From a young age every person comes to learn the differences between genders and thus how they should act to fill their role, and in this way "one is not born, but, rather, becomes a [man or] woman" (Butler).

Brokeback Mountain is a 2005 film, directed by Ang Lee, that focuses on a homosexual relationship between two cowboys, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist.  Soon after they meet on a job up in the mountains that requires them spend months at a time camping to watch a herd a sheep, the two of them realize that they are gay, and start having intimate relations.  However, their client discovers that the two are doing so, and so they get fired.  After this, they are both thrown back into their lives- and marriages, only able to be their true selves whenever they go on "fishing trips" together back in the mountains.  This film is a good example of what Butler is arguing, because the society Ennis and Jack are in does not tolerate gays, and so they are forced to hide their relationship or else face brutal deaths at the hands of their peers.  Despite their sexual identities, both men take wives for themselves since their sexual identity requires them to do so, and even have sexual relations with them because of the pressures.  In their society, playing the role of a "man" or a "woman" is so important that it is necessary to survive.  Should any individual stray from what their gender "should do," it is accepted by the society that they effectively give up their human rights and deserve to be killed.

Though not everywhere is so severe with their dealings with those who has strayed from the societal gender path, the heavy influence of peers on sexual identity can be seen all around the world.  Even children will discriminate on other children if they are seen to be outside of the norms, in cases like a group of young boys bullying another for wearing pink or liking flowers.  Fortunately, this bias is weakening, as society has begun to accept previously unheard of things such as gay marriage or women working "men's jobs."  Because the original factors that led to a heterosexual bias are no longer an issue in modern society, namely reproduction and kinship, as asserted by Butler and others, we can hope to see society continue to move in a more accepting direction and eventually open the restrictions placed on gender completely.

WEEK SIX: Sex, Gender and Sexuality

The theme for this week is "Sex, Gender and Sexuality."  We will be considering two primary films this week, Lolita (screened last Sunday) and But I'm A Cheerleader.  The readings for this week are not in your textbook, so I have provided links to all three essays below:

• Michel Foucault, "We Other Victorians" and "The Repressive Hypothesis" (pp 1-36 of The History of Sexuality, Volume 1 here)

• Catherine MacKinnon, "Sexuality, Pornography and Method: Pleasure Under Patriarchy" 

• Judith Butler, "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution"

Please be reminded that we will screen the 1999 parody But I'm A Cheerleader on Sunday, February 24 at 5:00pm in Buckman 108. The trailer for the film follows:


 

Horror and Belief: Shaping our Perceptions

In the previous class we discussed the aspects of horror movies. We talked about some of the key features that make horror movies what they are, and one of the common ideas that we all presented was the idea that a fictional monster was not the qualifying thing about horror movies. Contrary to what Carroll believes, there are other aspects besides the presence of a monster that can be the focus of a horror movie. This being said, I would like to jump into the idea of realist horror. Cynthia Freeland writes about the topic of realist horror and highlights its relation to Aristotle’s Poetics as well as Plato’s critiques on tragedies. She touches on what I believe Carroll misunderstood, “First, in realist horror like Henry, the monster is a true-to-life rather than supernatural being” (Wartenberg & Curran 262). In the article by Carroll, he seems to disbelieve that a human can be qualified as a monster by definition, and limited the category to only supernatural entities that possess some sort of power. Freeland further defines the term “monster” as a malevolent being with unique but dangerous features. This certainly seems to be a better fit because not every supernatural being is considered a monster (i.e. God, Santa Claus, etc.). A monster seems to be more universally defined as a being which chooses not to be morally righteous. A monster can indeed be supernatural and is often portrayed as such, but in the case of realist horror the monster can just be an average human.

A curious aspect of realist horror is the issue of whether the “monster” is actually choosing his/her/its actions. In movies about psycho slashers or charming murderers, a lot of people like to suggest that the person has some sort of mental illness. Maybe they are schizophrenic, or suffer from some intense and unbearable trauma. This is a defense so that people who watch these films, or hear about similar events in real life, will not be led to believe that such a thing could happen to them, or to anyone for that matter. In this sense, realist horror can be even more terrifying than the classic horror genre in that even if mentally ill, these sorts of humans do exist.

Within the story of The Exorcist you see a little of what I mentioned above. For those who have not seen or heard of the movie, the plot of the movie centers on a single mother, her daughter, and a local priest. The mother is an actress and so she and her adolescent daughter live a relaxed life. It is not explained how, but the daughter eventually becomes possessed by an evil entity (Or maybe multiple ones). The mother eventually seeks the help of the priest after modern medicine has no effect on the girl’s condition. The audience is led to believe with very little doubt that the daughter is possessed, but the doctors in the movie are not quite convinced at first (even after the mother reports the entire bed shaking). This issue of belief seems to play a big part in many horror movies, both within the context of the movie and also in the viewpoint of the audience. The way in which people perceive certain situations affects the classifications that are placed on them. For example, in the movie the doctors firmly believe that the daughter’s symptoms are simply due to physiological and psychological anomalies. Their lack of evidence for her drastic behavioral changes only leads them to believe that there is nothing wrong with the daughter. The mother is not religious, but the overwhelming number of impossible events led her to believe that there is a supernatural presence. If one who does not believe in exorcisms watches this movie, does the movie cease to be a horror film? Or is it through suspension of belief that such people can watch movies like this even though they don’t believe that the certain phenomena can occur? Actually I think the obvious answer is that people suspend their beliefs when watching films so that the movie remains what it is. What about in the case of movies that don’t clearly allude to a certain explanation? For example, Donnie Darko is one such film that the audience can explain in two different ways. There is the psychological explanation and there is also the parallel world explanation. In a nutshell, some people think that because of Donnie Darko’s psychological instability, the entire movie is just his imagination going wild. Others, however, believe that the events in the movie are “real” and that Donnie Darko travels through time at the end of the movie. The explanation that a person chooses affects the way the movie is perceived, either being a movie about time travel or a psychological thriller of sorts. Horror movies have this belief aspect within them as well. Realist horror, even though lacking supernatural beings, contain this too in the way that one perceives the human “monster” and whether we classify the person as crazy or if we see the person as normal but morally corrupt. 

The Orphanage

The Orphanage, created by Guillermo del Toro, is a Spanish film about a family who has moved into an old orphanage. The mother, Laura, grew up at the orphanage until she was adopted, and now she's planning on making it a home for children who have special needs. Her son, Simon, is a young imaginative boy. He often plays with imaginary friend, which becomes important throughout the movie, but seems relatively harmless at the beginning.

Simon eventually meets 6 new friends who play with him in the house. They have a particular game they play, where they each have a treasure. The others steal one child's treasure and leave clues for that child, like a treasure hunt. If you find your treasure, you get a wish. Laura and Simon look for Simon's treasure, and when they find it Laura realizes that Simon has discovered that he is adopted and ill, and this creates tension between the two characters. There is still tension when the children who will be moving in come over for a welcome party. This is the turning point of the movie. Simon and Laura have a fight, because Simon wants to show her "Tomas's little house", and Laura doesn't have time. Laura refuses and leaves Simon in his room to go tend to the party. This is the last time we see Simon alive. Later on during the party, Laura goes to look for Simon. A young boy with a burlap sack over his face pushes her into the bathroom and locks the door.

When Carlos, the father, breaks Laura out of the bathroom, they discover that Simon is missing. The rest of the movie is Laura desperately searching for her son. As the movie progresses, the viewer and Laura discover more and more about the house and the events that occurred after Laura was adopted. 9 months after Simon's disappearance, Laura plays the treasure hunt game...

This movie plays around a lot with the line between what is reality and what is supernatural. Everything that happens in this movie can be explained without the supernatural. That may not be what we are led to believe by the end of the movie, but nothing occurs that would necessitate the supernatural, as long as we allow for the hallucinogenic qualities of desperation and drug overdoses. I find this to be very interesting when considering both Carrol and Freeland's writings on horror. Carrol describes the primary reason that we are attracted to horror is primarily curiosity about the monster. Tomas, the young boy in the burlap sack, is the closest thing this movie has to a monster. The viewer gets engrossed in discovering more about the circumstances behind Tomas' life and death. The image of a child in a burlap sack mask is very disturbing, and at first it seems clear that this is a negative character, and that Tomas can be considered a monster. However, as we learn more about the child, and as we discover the truth behind what's going on, Tomas is humanized. He's just a young boy who had a disfigurement and died early. He commits no crime and the viewer is left just pitying the poor boy. This is where the story blends into realist horror. The film has moments of gruesome spectacle (Tomas' appearance, Benigna's horrific death) that are realistic and disturbing. The music and setting make us worried that there is going to be more of these spectacles, but they remain few and far between. What is really horrific is what we discover at the end. There is a moment where Laura stops hallucinating and she fully understands what has happened (I'll avoid telling you this part, as it would ruin the movie), and that is the most horrific scene in the entire movie. There is no violence or spectacle, just understanding. All the monsters disappear and the viewer is just left with the truth. 

The movie goes on after this revelation, and stops really being a horror film. It's probably the happiest ending for a horror film I've ever seen. The last sequences of the movie vacillate between the supernatural and real life, and we are left with all the pieces tied together. Laura has finished her treasure hunt, and received her wish. 

Freud's discussion of the uncanny is also fairly interesting to consider in this movie, as well as with other horror tropes. What makes something horrific? We discussed in class how making the familiar unfamiliar is an important part of horror films. Freud's essay also delves into the concept. This is very apparent in Tomas' character in this film. He's just a young boy, nothing anyone is afraid of. But when his face is obscured with the burlap sack, suddenly we are horrified by him. I was discussing this quality while talking about this movie with a friend. I feel that the young child with a burlap sack over his face is something I felt horror about before this movie, but I have no recollection of ever seeing it before. I mentioned that I felt the same way about slender man (who is depicted as a tall man in a suit with no face), and she talked about another character that stole people's faces. In the midst of describing these characters for which we feel an absurd amount of fear and recognition, I noticed that all three of these examples have no face, or their face is obscured in some format. My theory is that this is related to Freud's belief that the unfamiliar creates such a strong feeling of repulsion in us because of its nearness to the familiar. We receive many of our emotional cues from other people's faces. The face can arguably be said to be a visual representation of our humanity. When we take just the face away from a character, this is deeply unsettling. I believe this is because we can recognize that character as human, until we get the face in which we no longer recognize or empathize with the character. Whether or not the character is a monster, we place all our preconceived notion of the inhuman on that character. Tomas is just a normal little boy, and yet we see him as a monster because of this.