[WARNING: SHITTY CODING REMOVED ALL MY FOOTNOTES FROM THE BODY COPY, BOO!]
girls on film
“Psychoanalysis is like the Russian Revolution; we don’t know when it started going bad.”
.
The theory of Freud, Lacan and their successors inspired the psychoanalytic direction of feminist film theory that initiated in the 1970s with Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Employing Freudian and Lacanian theory as a means for creating feminist analyses of film has become a fairly unquestionable principal method within film theory and criticism. A feminist study of film often finds itself synonymous with spectatorship and Freudian theory; such issues as otherness, scopic drive, ‘masculine’ aggression, voyeurism, fetishism, castration anxiety, the gaze, etc. have found their way into feminist film language. These sexual difference-based analytical concepts are ineffective in that they are counterproductive to the feminist mission of deconstructing and reconstructing film and film theory for the purpose of gender equality.
Psychoanalytic feminist film theory initiates with Laura Mulvey in a paper written for the French Department at the University of Wisconsin in spring 1973 that would later become her seminal “Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema” article in the autumn 1975 issue of Screen. According to Mulvey, phallocentrism has shaped who derives pleasure in film and how pleasure is derived. In the article, she outlines the two key psychoanalytic characteristics of visual pleasure in cinema: voyeuristic-scopophilic gaze and narcissistic identification. Mulvey uses Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory to describe how the castration complex becomes of the backbone of film spectatorship and the representation of women in film. “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer, not maker, of meaning.”
Throughout the 1970s one could not perform a feminist film analysis with out employing some form of Freudian or Lacanian psychoanalytic theory or at least mentioning the gaze and the dynamic between the woman / screen and the male protagonist / viewer. This sort of critical thinking is a fascinating and compelling theory, but it should be received as just that: a interesting theory, not the interesting theory. Despite this, academic film theory seems to demand that spectator activity be “read in relation to unconscious process,” and caution that a failure to seriously acknowledge psychoanalysis can result in “limited and flawed assessments.” Psychodynamic film analyses are excellent at outlining the many ways which the patriarchal order perverts mass culture, but if defining gender-inspired nuances of film culture is to be the primary objective of feminist film critique then how should feminists — and women in general —ever move forward toward equality? How can a functional equilibrium between genders ever be achieved if every argument involves outlining sexual differences that depict women in a negative light? Psychoanalysis’ place as the primary model for feminist film criticism needs to be rethought. The following paragraphs aim to outline the counterproductive nature of psychodynamic critical practices in their application to feminist film theory. Specifically, by defining the flawed nature of psychoanalysis in general, the negative effect of employing a sexual difference-based analytical theory for feminist intent, and then by demonstrating how a psychoanalytic reading of a film can actually pervert the potential for a film deconstruction that could result in productive conclusions for feminist film and gender theory.
Firstly, psychoanalysis — even isolated from its relation to film — is a flawed practice: it is a therapy method that never achieved 100% acceptance as firm scientific theory. Upon its creation psychoanalysis was founded on the constructs of subjectivity; “Much of what Freud describes as characteristic of universal human nature was merely characteristic of certain middle-class European men and women at the turn of he nineteenth century.” Freud’s patients were a small sample within a vast spectrum of different cultural, social, and historic contexts. In addition to Freud’s lack of diversity amongst his subjects, it has been noted that inconsistencies and controversies appear throughout his work. For example, “Freud ‘discovers’ the Oedipus complex in 1897 in the course of his self-analysis, but he doesn’t give a generalized theoretical form to it until 1923, in The Ego and the Id.” Speculation exists that the Oedipus complex was actually a backup theory used to hide Freud’s true finding: the Seduction Theory, which he had found too controversial. According to this observation, after his decision to subvert the seduction theory, all of Freud’s findings became biased in that they were tailored to avoid the presence of his taboo theory. If Freud willingly sacrificed his true findings to compose his seminal theories, and if these theories were to become the foundation of Jacques Lacan’s thinking, one is left to wonder how accurate their psychoanalytic techniques could possibly be.
Continually, another key factor that has inspired scathing criticisms of psychoanalysis is its unfalsifiable nature. Film theorists should view psychoanalysis as scientific theorists view it: series of theories void of concrete fact, a science without reliable data. “Psychoanalytic evidence is hearsay, first when the patient reports his or her version of an experience and second when the analyst reports it to an audience … Reports of clinical findings are mixtures of facts, fabulations, and fictives so intermingled that one cannot tell where one begins and the other leaves off.” In a therapeutic context the nonfactual psychoanalytic model can actually be helpful and curative, but it is not appropriate to be applied — in a clinical data fashion — as a primary model for analyzing film. When functioning as a therapeutic, psychiatric method, psychoanalysis can make up for its lack of solid fact by probing an individual in a direct and personal manner.
Although, when applied to film analysis, the psychoanalyst obviously cannot personally analyze each audience member so it becomes required to assume homogeny amongst an audience in order to employ psychodynamic theories. Such compromises highlight the fact that psychoanalysis was never intended or designed to be applied to film analysis — feminist or not. Psychoanalytic film analysis demands that the analyst look at viewers as subjects; ideal spectators must be fabricated based on the constructs of psychoanalysis. This phenomenon is justified by Judith Mayne in the following, “One can understand the need for bracketing ‘real people’ when the only available way to talk about such viewers was in the language of sociological or mass communications research.” This compromise of concepts could be avoided by abandoning the ‘sociological language’ and finding — or creating — a more suitable means for dissecting film (for feminist or general analyses).
Mayne continues in her discussion of the appropriation of psychoanalysis into film theory by noting that the sociological language film theorists appropriate from is, “a language, that is, totally drenched in the assumptions of the heterosexual male.” The greatest issue with the application of psychoanalytic theory, particularly, for feminist film analysis is that the foundation of psychoanalysis lies within the discoveries of a (openly misogynist) heterosexual male. Psychoanalysis is structured upon sexuality, sexual difference and biased by a primarily male perspective.
Particularly, all Freud’s theory and findings relied on his thorough investigation of self. Therefore, his biased opinions on female sexuality and the ‘other’ gender would manage to pollute his thinking and conclusions, and subsequently, manipulate the thinking of his successors and that opted to further develop and refine his ideas. “[Freud’s] attempt to translate all psychological phenomena into sexual terms, and to see all problems of adult personality as the effect of childhood sexual fixations also stemmed, in part, from his own background in medicine and from the approach to causation implicit in the scientific thought of his time.” In addition to a subjective fixation on things of a sexual nature, Freud was an open misogynist and viewed feminism as a sexual sickness stemming from penis envy: “Feminism, despite the external validity of its political program and most (not all) of its social program was at its core a deep illness.” Freud’s sexually biased theories, “Helped to free man of the tyranny of the ‘shoulds,’ the tyranny of the past, which prevents the child from becoming an adult. Yet Freudian thought helped create a new superego that paralyzes [women] — a new tyranny of ‘shoulds’ which chains women to an old image, prohibits choice and growth, and denies them individual identity.” It seems ironic and counterproductive to employ the language and thinking model of a sociological ‘science’ that relies upon problematic notions of gender as a means to produce a valuable conclusion when used to question gender issues. With psychoanalysis as a primary analytic tool, all feminist film critiques can ever be is a means to point out the patriarchy’s perversion of culture — but feminist film theory should be more than that. Feminist film theory’s primary aims should lie within reestablishing film form with the goal of gender equality in mind.
Psychoanalytic theorists within the feminist film canon should take note from feminism in general. If one consults broad feminist theory, not specifically relative to film, one would find that while psychoanalytic theory exists, its presence is completely disproportionate to the predominance that it assumes in feminist film theory. Universal feminist theory possesses an ideological variety that feminist film studies do not:
“British, American, and French feminists differ from one another and among themselves … They range from a rather vague and standard liberalism grounded in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, to more radical forms of Marxist socialism; and from Foucauldian emphases on disciplinary techniques of knowledge and bodily control to new, visionary feminist work on ecosystems and the possibly liberating role of technology.”
.
All of these ideologies, which are primarily not psychoanalytic in nature, have potential for application within feminist film theory. Many of these theories touch on concepts of subjectivity, objectification, desire, equality politics, etc. — notions that are relative and highly applicable to feminist film reading (and film reading in general) without carrying a history of gender bias.
Feminist film theorists must begin to look to alternative sources to replace the current psychodynamic model, as the Freud/Lacan/Mulvey-inspired psychodynamic reading has the capability to sexually corrupt any text. Psychoanalytic feminist film readings are useful simply as a tool for identifying the pervasive effect that phallocentricism can have on mass culture. But by using psychoanalysis as a strong and continuing exclusive means to analyze film structure and spectatorship, we are only fortifying the strength of the patriarchal model.
As a demonstration, the film Hard Candy will be offered up for psychoanalytic discussion following the Lacan-inspired ideology laid out in the early 1970s. The purpose of this demonstration is to serve as evidence that exclusively employing psychodynamic analysis can undermine the reading of female characters as strong, dominant characters. When a film analysis primarily aims to depict a woman’s role as spectacle and ‘other’ in relation a male protagonist or viewer it becomes difficult to identify strong female characters — as that identification would flaw the psychoanalytic reading — and thus build any constructive extensions into gender equality. The analysis of Hard Candy aims to depict the ways by which Ellen Page’s fierce and assertive character, Hayley Stark, can be misinterpreted through psychoanalysis as a subordinate character depicted only to stimulate plot movement within Jeff’s sequence of events.
Hardy Candy (2005), directed by David Slade and written by Brian Nelson, tells the story of Hayley Stark, a precocious 14 year old, and her controversial online and offline relationship with a 32-year old fashion photographer, Jeff Kohlver. After the two opt to meet at a coffee shop, flirtatious conversation ensues and the couple head to Jeff’s house — a swanky California ‘bachelor pad’. At Jeff’s house the two have a sexual innuendo-filled chat about music, life and Jeff’s career until, quite suddenly, Jeff wakes up tied to a chair (Image 1). Hayley then aggressively accuses him of pedophilia and eventually drugs him again so that she can tie him to a table and castrate him for his supposed pedophilia. Hayley uses the castration threat bring him to his lowest desperation point, reveals that the castration is staged, and eventually finds his pedophilia porn stash and enough documents and photos to accuse him, with great conviction, of raping and murdering her young friend. Upon the film conclusion, Hayley convinces Jeff that the only way to absolve him of his sins is to hang himself; she assures him that she will hide all of the proof of his pedophilia after his death, so that none of his family or friends will learn his true nature. Jeff then takes his own life and Hayley happily marches off, leaving all of Jeff’s pedophilia torture porn splattered across his bungalow floor for the authorities to find.
.Under the constructs of a psychoanalytic feminist film reading Page’s character, Hayley, becomes a supporting character. She is presented as the mysterious ‘other’ — the audience never really finds out whether or not ‘Hayley Stark’ is her real name or if her father really is a medical professor — she exists primarily as an opposition to male protagonist, Jeff. If within the psychodynamic profile, women exist to merely inspire action and never act, Hayley can be argued to fit the role; all of her highly antagonistic, assertive action can be argued to only exist as an engine to accelerate Jeff’s fate. The plot is then defined as man vs. woman and with Jeff as a protagonist (whom the audience is to experience narcissistic identification with) and his victimization is highlighted for audience sympathy. It is no shock that Hayley must manipulate Jeff into suicide because, according to Freudian masculine aggression theory, Jeff would not believe his actions to be fundamentally wrong. Psychoanalytic theory states that the vagina needs force and aggression into order to be erotically awakened; women not only tolerate but also enjoy sexual pain.
While Hayley is physically quite active and Jeff is primarily inactive (often tied to a chair or table), under a Mulvey-style critique this dynamic only amplifies Hayley’s role as a spectacle. As Jeff is tied to a chair — comparable to a cinema spectator in a theatre seat — he, and the audience, watch Hayley’s every move with a hungry, curious gaze. The viewer and Jeff never really know what the enigmatically beautiful and tank-top clad Hayley is concocting as she frantically and mysteriously runs around Jeff’s house; supporting her role as the ‘other’. Hayley’s character embodies nearly all of the threatening characteristics of the female form outlined by psychoanalytic theory. She is not submissive or uncontrollable by any means, she is mysterious, and most importantly (a literal) threat of castration, additionally, to objectify her with the gaze would be a very difficult task.
Under psychoanalytic theory the potential title of feminist role model is essentially robed from Hayley as she assumes the role castration threat and ‘other.’ From a non-psychoanalytic standpoint, Hayley’s character is an inspiration to gender roles; she is strong, assertive, motivated, and intelligent. Contrastingly, from a psychoanalytic standpoint, her character is a menace. This serves as a prime example at detailing why utilizing theory dependent on sexuality and sexual difference as a language for arguing gender equality can only result in a corrupted reading. The Mulvey model for analysis creates a product that is not only dependent on sexual difference and inequality, but is also counterproductive in highlighting the positive female qualities that could be utilized to restructure film form and theory for gender equality. The popular model of psychoanalytic feminist film critique is just not an adequate engine for stimulating gender equality.
This is the importance of questioning and doubting popular theory before immediately approaching it as though it were set in stone. Subject matter becomes exhausted, outdated and irrelevant if not subject to evolution of ideas. Psychoanalysis in feminist film (and film in general) is tired; it has existed as a dominant model for decades with a disproportionate amount of question. All theory and practice, psychoanalytic or not, should always be applied with question and doubt pertaining to appropriateness and credibility. Rather than instant, unquestioned submission to this ideology, psychoanalysis — which has some interesting facets and ideas — should be digested by a film theorist, consumed and then appropriated in portions and elements. Psychoanalysis was never designed to be directly translated into film theory applications; it must be better appropriated or eradicated.
NOTES
1 Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983) p.55.
2 Kate Linker, “Engaging Perspectives: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and the Problem of Vision,” in Hall of Mirrors: Art and Film Since 1945, eds. Russell Ferguson (Los Angeles: Monacelli Press, 1996) p.217-218.
3 Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema” in Visual and Other Pleasures (Bloomington: Indiana Universiy Press, 1989) p.15.
4 Judith Mayne, Cinema and Spectatorship (New York: Routledge, 1993) p.59.
5 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001) p.170.
6 Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, op. cit., p.53.
7 Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory (New York: Ballantine Books, 2003) p.274.
8 Kenneth Mark Colby and Robert J. Stroller, Cognitive Science and Psychoanalysis (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988) p.3, 29.
9 Judith Mayne, op. cit., p.37.
10 Ibid.
11 Betty Friedan, op. cit., p.170.
12 Sigmund Freud is paraphrased in Marynia Farnham and Ferdinand Lundberg’s Modern Women: The Lost Sex (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers ,1947) p.142.
13 Ibid., p.167-168.
14 Cynthia A. Freeland, “Feminist Frameworks for Horror Films” in Post Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996) p.201.
15 Ibid.
dark eyed beauty, pino’s cottage on may 24
the beach near pino’s cottage, may 24 weekend
messages to lucy
sunsets on the beach near pino’s cottage, may 24 weekend
trying out the lenses of others at the graphic design grad party, at the rivoli
inside pino’s eyes, outside davids tea
gta, mon amour
or just drop it …
concert for the deaf, yesterday at clinton’s
concert for the deaf, yesterday at clinton’s
electric fun in my backyard, january 08
crystal castles live @ circa, last friday
