So where to begin? As a preface I really hope to clear up what I was talking about in class. After some reflection, I don’t regret saying anything, but I don’t want what I said about feminism to come off the wrong way. Firstly, I wanted to address the point of view I am seeing the movie and furthermore reading in. I am essentially a white, middle class male. This, as our classroom discussion tells, make my opinion relevant in a certain light. I saw the movie as two things: on a surface level I saw the movie as a poorly executed action movie featuring undeveloped characters and ridiculous outfits, but secondly, I did see the movie as a definition of a strong black woman in a power struggle. I liked how we in class talked about the idea of our personal backgrounds influencing the way we saw the movie. I of course am going to relate to the plot and main characters in such a way that I can make a connection to my history. I don’t immediately think of the movie as the “struggle of an urban city black woman,” that’s just the fact. Unfortunately, I do go into the movie with a certain bias. Perhaps I cannot properly appreciate ever the dimension of an ethnic struggle because I don’t understand it. I am a white, middle class kid and that’s the truth of the matter. It does not discount an ethnic groups struggle through history (which I do completely respect) it just does not allow me to fully understand that said struggle. I am not racist, I am not homophobic, and I am not anit-feminist. But, we as a whole are so accustomed to being politically correct that sometimes we’re so afraid to make arguments, there is no point in even discussion what someone has to say, so for shits and giggles lets face the facts here. Agree or disagree with me but I feel like something needs to be said about the discussion that we had in class. I mentioned a Victoria secret commercial and said that I have heard some girls saying that that is an act of feminism. I brought it up because I thought it was crazy. (Just as people in our class was to quick to disagree that anyone would even offer that idea) The point that I was trying to make was the although I feel a woman should feel sexy and beautiful, there is a line between “self-representation, and sexual representation.” I think its so important for a girl to feel beautiful, but when it jeopardizes her dignity and she just becomes a figure of lust, I don’t in any way feel that is a powerful tool of advocating femininity. I think that men sometimes loose respect for women when the women don’t necessarily respect themselves, and to be so revealing in my opinion is not respect for ones body. I know this is a controversial point and some may disagree with me, but I believe that the feminist idea should be based around respect and the respect all should have for women. I don’t think it should be based on a woman exposing herself. The same actions could have happened in the movie, and the same message of femininity could have been made if the women wore jeans and a t-shirt. Yes, I do believe a woman should express herself sexually but there is a fine line. I am not trying to shut down the idea of the feminist, I just think that sometimes we, just like our reading does, make such assumptions and try to make sense of everything. We as modern audiences, have a tendency to immediately place a work on a time line. I have talked about this before. We place a movie like this smack dab in the 70s and only look to the societal factors of the time period to look for every grueling connection. We sometimes don’t even make a simple evaluation of what the movie means. I understand it blaxploitaion, but maybe it can simply be that; an urban celebration of culture. I think because most of our class is white middle class, educated peoples; we have to make some metaphorical connection between the societal times and the movie. We basically become what we hate most about the readings. I do though like how the movie did depict an identity. Thinking about the formation of identity is such an important idea, and I really like the idea of an identity being born like people saw in the 70’s. I can see the celebration of urban culture in the movie, but I can also see how blacks would frown at the way the movie projects it. It really is a ridiculous movie. Poor acting, story line, and dialogue. It can in some instances be kind of insulting and child like, portraying the black characters as almost silly. But, never the less, as everything else we do in this class, the artist in my opinion, is simply giving the audience a snapshot of the times. Movies don’t depict reality but simply a fantasy. I don’t really know how to address the queer aspect that the reading mentions though. I of course have not seen the sequel it speaks about so I am not going to make an opinion about anything, but according to what it says I suppose I can see some relevance. I do though feel that reading did go on a tangent (like my blog) when it got to that part. I did like what the reading said in the beginning though, “to show us a woman who is independent, resourceful, self-confident, strong, and courageous.” Looking at this alone I suppose the avocation of feminism is implied, but when added to boob revealing dresses, high heels, fast cars, and Afros, the whole idea must be reevaluated. I didn’t like the movie, I didn’t like the reading, and I left the class discussion a bit uneasy. I guess the big point I want to leaves readers with is the message to understand that this work is indeed influence by societal ideas, but lets not be so quick to make assumptions about some things. Lets evaluate who we are as a modern audience and see where our biasness comes from. I appreciate everyone bearing with my rant, and I am very open to other ideas on all the matters, thank you for your time.
After leaving class I went home and thought about the sort of debate we had in class over the different aspects of the movie. In my opinion, I really don't think with this movie there were a lot of underlying themes. I think that it was basically a typical blaxploitation movie with the crazy outfits and all. I thought it was interesting how the reading talked about the different time periods and the different people who watch the movie. This all impacts how someone sees the movie. It's going to be different if i'm watching it in the 70's as a black woman or now, as a white woman. As myself watching the movie, i'm obviously going to bring expectations before even seeing the movie. I imagine sterotypical crazy clothes, big hair, very stylish, and the sort of slang language they use. In the 70's a lot of this was normal everyday things but now, it seems very crazy and cartoonish.
ReplyDeleteSome of the main things that stood out to me from the main character was obviously things like her sence of style and her 'cool' calm attitude. She was always dressed perfectly no matter if she was about to get in a fight or not. Her mannerisms were very calm. At the end of the movie when she looks like shes outnumbered she still is completely calm and asks cool. Her language as well as others was interesting because of some of the clang they used in the seventies.
I think this movie was very different from anything we have seen so far. Not only is the main character a black female, but all the men want her. They look at her throughout the whole movie very lustfully. On top of this, her evil lesbian enemy is also female. I can't remember the last time something like this has happened. Also, it's interesting that she has developed good working relationships with the police officer and they help each other out through the movie. I couldn't help but think though, that she has way more power then any one or police officer in the movie. Yes, the police obviously have power but their's is established. They have a certain area they patrol and may or may not catch the 'bad guys'. Her's however, isn't established but it seems that most people know who she is. They know her around town and know she means business and she seriously can kick ass. Everyone from the poor, the drug dealers, and the white cops know of her in some way.
Most of the movies so far we have seen the female character(s) have a male counterpart who is holding them back in some way. Whether it is their husband, doctor, or even their household duties these woman have been held back. In this movie, Cleopatra has nothing holding her back - no man, no household, no children, nothing. She comes and goes as she pleases and does what she wants.
A few random other things that I noticed and were worth mentioning - first the drug dealers shoes. I died when she was ripping them apart and he legitimately looked like he was going to cry. The style back then was ridiculous. Also, we didn't mention anything in class about it but I thought her car was in almost as much of the movie as she was. Her car was awesome, and obviously a lot better car then most other people had at the time. She also drove like a crazy person. She was constantly doing burn outs and whatnot to get away from the bad guys. I feel like this car almost gave her some power in a way, and definitely showed how stylish her and her car really were.
Overall I liked the movie. I didn't think about it too hard though. I just thought of it as a typical blaxploitation movie that was overly crazy about being stylish. I think there could have been a few arguments about feminism in the movie, but overall just thought they were going more for the crazyness of the sterotypical blaxploitation.
I agree with what your saying and that was kind of the point that i was trying to make. I just think that sometimes we need to look at the movie for exactly what it is. I did of course go into watching the movie with a bias, but it is interesting to think of how that bias shapes our interpretation of that movie. I feel like sometimes we as a modern audience really do over think what were watching and are always searching to make some logical meaning and not taking the movie for simply what it is. Thank you very much for your input
ReplyDeleteSo I have to say that first i loved this movie. The cheesy dialog ridiculous characters and over the top plot are a staple of the black action movies of the 1970's. I agree the production values weren't that great but neither where a lot of the movies that where dominated by white actors. I think the idea of blacksplottion is pretty funny. At this time African Americans where trying all they could to better themselves so why not act in a Hollywood film that shows powerful African Americans. At this same time feminism was starting to really become popular social movement. I do agree that there is a fine line between being empowered and sexy and free and going to far and just having there bodies used for entertainment. I think that all major films where made by males. And they where coming out of a time where women where kept in the home and otherwise just used as eye candy.
ReplyDeleteas for the idea that she was lesbian; I just don't see it. I think we mistake corny and exaggerated characters into possible "gay" tendency's today. But t know point did i think she was a lesbian. In fact i thought she was made to look sexy and attractive to men., and all the sexual comments where made to or from men. I don't know i my have just missed it but i just didn't get this vibe.
Thank you for your input. I agree with you i don't really see the lesbian tendencies either. And i made that point in class. She was made to look very sexy which was only exemplified by male characters saying things like, "i would like a piece of that." But, like the reading mentions the squeal seems to have more things that would indicate the queer idea. You make a good point though when you talk about how the films were predominately made by men. Just like we have a biased view, i am sure the movie makers did as well. Thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with a lot of what you were saying just as most people who have already commented have. This movie definitely was different than any other movie that we have watched thus far. To be honest....obviously not a great movie but definitely worth the good laughs. Some of the dialogue used within the film had to be cheesy even for that time. Just because a film was made in the 70’s doesn’t mean it’s old and corny. Plenty of awesome movies came out around that time that didn’t have ridiculous slang terms and over the top costumes.
ReplyDeleteThe reading was pretty interesting. I’ve had a hard time with the past few readings. Frankly they were incredibly long and boring, but the overall point to this reading was an interesting one. I think that it definitely does affect our experience as readers to see a movie in a historical context. However I think that some movies are tempered with differently when seen out of the time period. This movie was definitely one that should have been seen in the 70’s under the right circumstances. Watching it now was a difficult experience because I could hardly take it seriously.
Thank you for your comment. I just had a question for you. I too have thought that the readings were boring and a bit long. But, i was wondering why they were boring for you? For me, i keep starting the reading with an optimistic mindset but loose it about five pages in, i believe this is due to the assumptions the authors make. After a while its those assumptions and connections the author tries to make which makes the reading boring and a bit ridiculous at times. What do you think the author could do to make the readings more engaging? what could the readings focus on more to add an element to the text and ideas the reading presents? thank you for your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely an interesting discussion. I agree with you all, incidentally, that the readings can be dense and seemingly orthogonal. A lot of what I'm showing in class hasn't been written about in an academic context all that much, and when it has, it tends to assume an academic audience already familiar with the terms and concepts. I'm always happy to walk you through what's important (and to look for more accessible texts when I teach this again). But it is also very important for you to take in the historical context and the larger concepts the reading offers.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that this struck such a nerve for you Frank. It really was an interesting class discussion, one of our intenser ones. You explain yourself here, and also some of your frustration/discomfort, which I appreciate. What I'm not sure about is why a movie that is _supposed_ to be silly, cartoonish, stereotypical and over the top, bothers you so much, what it is about this particular kind of somewhat absurd fantasy woman that you're taking so seriously. In your post, you seem to be saying both that you're frustrated at being asked to take a bad '70s movie seriously instead of taking it for what it is, but also almost as if you're also frustrated because the discussion didn't take things like images of women seriously enough.
I'm really glad that you're accounting for your own viewing subjectivity, how you as a white middle-class male might feel a certain distance from identity politics. That's important. It's still not entirely clear though, why this particular perspective gives you the apparently strong reaction you had to a specific and deliberately cartoonish representation of a female hero.
There's a paradox here, some thinking pattern that's being tweaked and challenged. I think your discomfort is actually a good thing, and I like the way the peer discussion works out and reflects your mutual perspectives and concerns.