Feminist Film Review
Cierra Olivia Thomas
term I took Women Filmmakers, which is a subject totally out of my realm of
study, but I wrote an essay that is interesting, and (I think) rather good.
I am posting it here to (hopefully) get some feedback on the essay from
collegues and like-minded folks. I take classes through distance learning
and do not have the benefit of discourse with my peers. I would very much
like to know what you think about this essay, and indeed the film
"Smithereens" if you have seen it. The film was a complete failure in my
eyes.
[Moderator's Note: The followed text was extracted from an attachment and
rewrapped to a 72-character margin. In general, we ask anyone posting essays
and the like to send them in the form of plain text in the body of a message
--pw]
Don't "Bank" on Susan Seidelman:
One Woman's Review of the Film
(that should be blown to)
Smithereens
Cierra Olivia Thomas
English 310 Women Filmmakers
Project Essay
December 3, 2003
The "bankable" Susan Seidelman
Susan Seidelman has an impressive background in film, and has been
dubbed "one of Hollywood's few 'bankable' female directors"
(Blockbuster.com Biography). A "self professed feminist"
(Channel4.com), Susan Seidelman stands on her own feet in an industry
that is predominately male. Seidelman, who seemingly has always been
interested in film, has directed upwards of 14 motion pictures; the
most famous of the many films Seidelman is known for is her second
feature "Desperately Seeking Susan"1 and the pilot episode of "Sex in
the City"2. Born a Philadelphia suburbanite, Seidelman studied design
and art at Drexel University and film at New York University
(Hollywood.com). With her family inheritance, supplemented by money
earned from her many short films, Susan Seidelman produced, directed,
and edited her first feature film in 1982: Smithereens (Channel4.com).
Film critics' opinions differ greatly about Seidelman's breakout film
Smithereens; although, mainstream America did not support her
feature,3 it was a hit within the independent film circuit and was
nominated for an award at the Cannes Film Festival (Yahoo.com).
"Smithereens," shot in typical Hollywood Continuity style4, is an
eighties movie to the core; from youth with bad hair, cigarette
smoking, and hard core punk music to the dirty punk fashions so
typical of that era, Smithereens drags its viewers through several
weeks in the protagonist's life in New York City.
Film Synopsis
Wren-played by actor Susan Berman5-is a teenage runaway who is trying
to break into the music business any way she can. When she becomes
homeless she uses Paul6, the "good guy" from Montana, to squat in his
van. Wren then meets Eric7-the tall blonde full-lipped singer for the
NYC punk band "Smithereens"-and immediately attaches to him like a
leach, or at least a groupie. Wren is desperate to make her musical
dreams a reality through any means necessary, even by using Paul for
his van or by bulldozing her way into Eric's life (and marriage). It
is clear that Wren-who ceaselessly endeavors to fit somewhere-will
never fit in, because she is unlikable and her character shallow. The
closing line in the film is a random man asking Wren to get in his
car: "do you have any place better to spend your time?" (Smithereens).
It is very likely that Seidelman's viewers scream, "yes!" as they run
from the theatre.
Reviewers claim Wren is "uninflected"
Dave Kehr of the Chicago Reader claims Wren is "one of the most
obnoxious characters in film history," while a Channel4.com film
reviewer argues the protagonist is "sympathetic" and Seidelman "brave"
(Chicago Reader and Channel4.com). The two differing opinions
indicate a clear gender divide. Women directors are almost invisible
in the patriarchal world of film, and therefore, so are their personal
visions of the world. Film is "mediated reality"; directors construct
film to manipulate viewers into thinking they are watching snippets
from some person's real life (Ellston Class Lecture). Though, the
reality is that the effect of such a male dominated mode of
entertainment is an industry whose gaze8 is exclusively male; in fact,
"the gaze is built [entirely] upon culturally defined notions of
sexual difference" (Definitions in Info. Packet). It is likely, then,
the difference in opinion between the film reviews is due to the
reviewers' gender.
Dave Kehr is (obviously) a man, and his negative review is
understandable in light of the fact that Wren-the film's female
protagonist-is incredibly masculine in many ways. Wren is loud,
obnoxious, pushy, arrogant, manipulative, annoying, sexually
promiscuous and downright exploitative-just as are male protagonists
in any weekly box office hit; yet, Wren is a teenage girl, not a man,
which may be what "turned off" Dave Kehr, the Chicago Reader film
reviewer. Due to the conservative time, most movies in the early
eighties were about men with super abilities, and Smithereens did not
fit the bill.
The cinematic apparatus9 of the 1980s was an exploration into the
realm of the science fiction genre; ET, Return of the Jedi, The Empire
Strikes Back, and Batman were the top movies of that decade
(Eighty-Eightynine.com). It is no coincidence that each top movie of
the 80s has heroic male protagonists-even ET is masculinized with his
ultra-long neck and huge mushroom-like head. In an industry teeming
with male directors and viewers, Seidelman gave her female protagonist
the personality of a "typical" man, perhaps in hopes that the
"typical" man would like her film: Seidelman's plan backfired.
Following the standard in film, Wren (a woman) is objectified-and
often through her own actions-but she is also seemingly a strong
character who men can relate to. This is important to the success of
a film, because viewers "identify" with the characters, and movies are
almost always filmed as if through the eyes of a man. Therefore, if
the protagonist is masculine, then the film should be moderately
successful, although this is not so in the case of Smithereens.
Kehr's review of the film was not supportive of Seidelman or her
caricature of a teenage girl trying to make it big in the big city.
Kehr claims Seidelman's protagonist is so "uninflected" that he
wonders "why she wanted to make that film at all" (Chicago Reader).
Kehr is correct in that Wren never wavers from her vision of fame, but
her moods vary from mildly pushy to downright nasty. Kehr cannot
identify with the female protagonist simply because she is female.
This film could have easily been written with a male protagonist, and
Wren's character would have fit perfectly. Although, if Wren had been
a man that might also leave male viewers uncomfortable: the
protagonist's dream is to travel to Los Angeles to manage Eric's band.
If Wren had been male, then his dreams would have been shattered by
the "bad boy" Eric, which is clearly not acceptable in heterosexist
cinema.
Suzanne Moore argues that homosexual images in film are problematic
due to the masculine gaze; therefore, images of men are "not desirable
to [other] men because [they are] definitely not soft and feminine"
(46). Wren's character does not work as a woman, but neither would
she as a man. The very nature of the protagonist makes men
uncomfortable despite the fact that she is a woman, yet also because
of the fact that she is a woman. Clearly, Seidelman created an
unbelievable character who no person can relate to. It is
understandable that Kehr, a man, would think Wren "superficial" and
"self-delusional," because she is (Chicago Reader).
Reviewers claim Wren is "sympathetic"
Kehr's film review is marked by his gender, and although the
Channel4.com reviewer's name remains anonymous, it can be inferred
that the reviewer was a woman. As I argue above, it is unlikely that
a man could sympathize with the strong female protagonist in
Smithereens. Wren uses and abuses men throughout the film, and
behaves in such a way that is not "soft and feminine" (as Moore argues
is a requisite of females in film). Because Wren behaves like a man,
it makes her undesirable to a male audience, although not to the
Channel4.com film reviewer.
The presumably woman reviewer wrote, "Seidelman was brave enough not
to glamorize the 19-year-old or the problems facing her"
(Channel4.com). Though, throughout the film Wren had many
opportunities to "improve" upon her situation: the only problem was
Wren her superficial self. Seidelman was not brave in her portrayal
of a feisty teenage girl loose in New York City; although, she was
daring in her many underplayed sarcastic stabs at the reality of
hegemonic patriarchy that everyone faces each day.
Cornflakes and Ejaculation
Within the first ten minutes of Smithereens Seidelman begins toying
with the sexual irony inherent in the problems women filmmakers face
when creating movies for a (default) male audience. Wren opens the
door of her apartment, which is very dark, dingy, and squat-like: very
punk rock. Framed in the doorway is a box of Kellogg's Cornflakes,
and next to it on the filthy floor is a sleeping young girl wearing
only a bra. This single frame is worth a thousand words: Seidelman
seems to be daring her male viewers to go ahead and unleash their
sexual desire, although to what end? The irony of this single frame
is easily lost to an audience unaware of the supposed anti-sexual side
effects of eating Kellogg's Cornflakes.10
Dr. Kellogg, the inventor of anti-masturbation food (Cornflakes),
performed clitorectomies and circumcisions on little boys and girls
who could not curb their wanton sexual ways with food. Kellogg argued
that such operations should be performed without anesthesia, because
the pain would serve as a punishing reminder to discourage children
from masturbation (Rotton.com). The ironic placement of Cornflakes
next to a "virginal" girl sends a message delivered in a roughly
two-second frame: play with yourself because of this girl and you will
go to hell. The connotations of this message-whatever they are-reach
far beyond the minute glimpse Seidelman offers, but only if her
viewers catch it.
In another less obscure reference to sexual irony, is the
voyeuristic11 clip of a horror film within Smithereens itself.
Without introduction or reference, Seidelman cuts to a grainy horror
film that reads more like a porno than anything else. As the vampiric
figure lures a beautiful blond to the ground in a dark alley, he
places his invading phallus-like member on her neck. It seems the
alien wants to impregnate the beautiful woman, and she lies there
moaning like she is having great sex rather than being eaten alive by
a life-sucking vampire. The creature exclaims, "Yes, specimen, Yes!"
as the victim pulls at the invading phallus trying to free herself.
The scene ends with a close up of the victim's face; she successfully
detaches her invader from her neck, only to be ejaculated on
(although, the white creamy fluid splashing her face and neck is
really alien blood and not ejaculate).
Seidelman's Messages Fail to Come Across
This voyeuristic moment with the horror film can only be categorized
as insignificant to the film as a whole: if it were removed the viewer
would never notice. Seidelman, directing for a (default) male
audience, may have been sending covert messages to her feminist
(female) viewers. However, why does Seidelman need to hide important
references to sex and desire in such objectifying and dehumanizing (to
women) ways? Both in the keyhole moment at the apartment doorway, and
the voyeuristic view of the sadistic "rape" of a blonde woman,
Seidelman explores desire and the inherent fulfillment of desire
(sex), but she does this in such a way that is not apparent to most
viewers. It is only through close examination that a viewer might
catch the irony embedded in such shallow attempts at feminist
theorizing.
Sandra Ellston argues that women filmmakers approach the "idea of
woman as a sexual figure" differently than their male counterparts
(Class Lecture). If this is true, then Seidelman must have missed
class the day NYU taught feminist filmmaking. Seidelman not only
indulges male viewers in pedophilia during a keyhole moment, but she
also subjects her viewers to a seedy porno-style rape scene for no
apparent reason. If Seidelman's only reason is irony, then it is lost
on me.
Smithereens is Susan Seidelman's directorial debut in the feature film
arena, and is a box-office bomb. The film is very much a product of
its time in that the protagonist is very masculine, and the film lacks
a feminine touch. Women filmmakers have a very difficult job, because
they must always create movies for the default male viewer-or must
they? Germaine Dulac, a feminist filmmaker, claims the film all women
"dream of making is a visual symphony, composed of rhythmic images
which the artist's feelings alone organize and project on the screen"
(Lecture Notes). If Seidelman's film were a symphony, it would be a
montage of sounds like ragged fingernails to a blackboard or even
bones breaking. There were several deeply embedded images (Cornflakes
versus the virgin and the horror porno) that seem disconnected from
the film itself, as if Seidelman were timidly feminist.
Conclusion
Seidelman failed to make a film different from the (default masculine)
norm, and she failed to demonstrate that women have a gaze too. In
her voyeuristic moments, Seidelman's two women (the virgin and the
victim) are "constructed as the site[s] of an excessive and dangerous
desire" as only women can be (Doane 51). Maryanne Doane goes on to
argue that "[t]his desire mobilizes extreme efforts of containment and
unveils the sadistic aspect of narrative" (51). If such an
unveiling-or call to consideration-was Seidelman's intention, then she
could (and should) have made it more clear. As it stands, Smithereens
is about a shallow young woman who is so selfish that she drives away
all who come near her, even movie goers.
If Seidelman really is feminist, as film reviewers indicate, then
perhaps she should have made her gaze more female and her feminist
ideals understandable to even the un-analytical minds in the audience.
Moore argues, "If a female gaze exists it does not simply replicate a
monolithic and masculinized stare, but instead involves a whole
variety of looks and glances-an interplay of possibilities" (59).
Seidelman fails to even attempt a female gaze, and makes a poor movie
to boot.
Works Cited:
80-89.com. Top 100 box office movies from the 80s. Eighty-Eightnine.
2 December 2003.
<http://www.eightyeightynine.com/film/top100_boxoffice.html>
Blockbuster.com. Artist Biography: Susan Seidelman. 2003
Blockbuster, Inc. 2 December 2003.
<http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/person/details/0,7621,BIO-P110695,00.html>
---. Awards: Smithereens. 2003 Blockbuster, Inc. 2 December 2003.
<http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/movie/details/awards/0,7818,VID-V+++162687,00.html?>
Channel4.com. Channel 4 Film - Smithereens film review, interviews,
filmographies and more. 2 December 2003.
<http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=108451>
Chicago Reader. Chicago Reader Guide to Movies: Smithereens. 2003
Chicago Reader, Inc. 2 December 2003.
<http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/11228_SMITHEREENS>
Doane, Mary Ann. "Film and the Masquerade: Theorizing the Female
Spectator." Ed. Patricia Erens in Issues in Feminist Film Criticism.
Indiana University Press: Bloomington, Indiana, 1990.
Ellston, Sandra. "Lecture Notes on Packet Reading." ENGL 310: Women
Filmmakers. Blackboard. Eastern Oregon Univ., La Grande, OR. October
14, 2003.
---. "Women Filmmakers, Weekend College, DDE Class Information
Packet." Eastern Oregon Univ., La Grande, Oregon. November 7,
2003.
---. "Women Filmmakers, Weekend College, Class Lecture." Eastern
Oregon Univ., La Grande, Oregon. November 7, 2003.
Hollywood.com. Hollywood.com Celebrity Biography: Susan Seidelman.
1999-2003 Hollywood.com, Inc. 2 December 2003.
<http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/bio/celeb/1676196>
Moore, Suzanne. ""Here's Looking at You, Kid!" Eds. Lorraine Gamman
and Margaret Marshment in The Female Gaze: Women as Viewers of Popular
Culture. The Real Comet Press: Seattle.
Movies.com. Movies.com Box Office Results for Top 50 Movies of 1985.
2003 Buena Vista. 2 December 2003.
<http://movies.go.com/boxoffice/1985.html>
MSN.com. MSN Entertainment - Celebs: Susan Berman. 2003 Microsoft
Corporation. 2 December 2003.
<http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/celeb.aspx?c=239406>
Rotton.com. Kellogg's Cornflakes. 2 December 2003.
<http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/>
Smithereens. Dir. Susan Seidelman. Perf. Susan Bergman, Brad Rinn,
Nada Despovitch, Roger Jet, and Kitty Summerall. Newline Cinema 1982.
Yahoo.com. Movie Awards. 2003 Yahoo! Inc. 2 December 2003.
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=1800050463&cf=awards&intl=us
1 The 1985 Film "Desperately Seeking Susan" was Madonna's first of
many movies; it was Seidelman who transitioned the singer from music
videos to the silver screen. Madonna is a mainstream pop icon and may
be the singular reason behind the public support of Seidelman's second
feature film. Blockbuster.com writers suggest that "Desperately
Seeking Susan" is the film that put her on the Hollywood map with the
more famous (male) directors, earning her the title of "bankable"
(Blockbuster.com Biography). In 1985, "Desperately Seeking Susan" was
number 31 at the box office and earned $27,398,584 (Movies.com).
2 In 1998, Susan Seidelman directed the pilot episode of HBO's hit
comedy series "Sex in the City," which won numerous awards including a
Golden Globe for "best TV series" (Blockbuster.com Awards).
3 Smithereens did not make it into the top 100 box office movies in
1982. Therefore, box office results are not readily available online,
which indicates the American public did not support this film.
4 There are three cinematic styles that include: Hollywood Continuity
style, where the meaning of the film unfolds through the plot; Montage
style, where film is edited to juxtapose two unrelated images to
illicit meaning from viewer; and Mise-en scene style, where the
setting, and everything in it brings meaning to the film (Ellston,
Info. Packet). Smithereens was filmed in chronological order, but
Seidelman did does use numerous cutting techniques; nevertheless, the
film is mainly Hollywood Continuity.
5 Susan Berman did not act in many other films. Instead of acting,
Berman became a producer and lauded screenwriter of more than five
films; she died on Christmas Eve in 2000 (MSN.com).
6 Paul is played by actor Brad Rinn.
7 Eric is played by actor Richard Hell.
8 Gaze is a cinematic term used to describe the power relations
involved in the act of looking (Ellston Class Lecture).
9 The cinematic apparatus encompasses all psychological, social, and
economical aspects of film (Ellston Definitions in Info. Packet); it
is the thing that cannot separate film from its place and time in
history. The cinematic apparatus dictates, "what is said cannot be
separated from how it is said" (Ellston Class Lecture).
10 Preaching a lifestyle of exercise, fresh air, and enemas,
Dr. Kellogg pioneered many good ideas utilized in modern health
(including the "health club"). Dr. John Kelly Kellogg had many
theories on healthy living, perhaps the most famous of which is that
"bland foods would eradicate at least one source of stimulation that
led Americans to" masturbate (Rotton.com). American history in the
19th century was fraught with Victorian ideals; sex and sexual contact
were considered unnatural and sinful, therefore, many "cures" for
sexuality were invented. Cornflakes, Graham Crackers, Shredded Wheat,
and female genital mutilation were but three ways to battle the human
sex drive (Rotton.com).
11 A voyeuristic moment in film makes a viewer feel as if she or he is
participating in a "secret moment" (Ellston Class Lecture). Desire is
an element in each act of voyeurism, and film fulfills the desires of
the viewer; these moments are also called "keyhole moments" (Ellston
Class Lecture). In these moments in film there is a feeling that the
viewer is spying and participating in something "naughty" (Ellston
Class Lecture).
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Dan Holzman
Cierra Olivia Thomas <thom...@eou.edu> wrote:
>
>It is likely, then, the difference in opinion between the film
>reviews is due to the reviewers' gender.
The first major difficulty your review has, I think, is that this is
an unsupportable assertion. If it were a conclusion based on an
examination of a sizable number of movie reviewers, the statistics
might be there to support it. As things stand, though, one male and
one female (let alone one gender-unspecified) reviewer is far too
small a sample.
Looking on amazon.com, I see two positive reviews of the movie, one
from "Lisa Marie Kern" and another from "Thomas Angelo Zunich."
>In an industry teeming
>with male directors and viewers, Seidelman gave her female protagonist
>the personality of a "typical" man, perhaps in hopes that the
>"typical" man would like her film: Seidelman's plan backfired.
The second difficulty I see is this tendency to jump from speculating
about Seidelman's intentions to treating those speculations as fact.
>Kehr's film review is marked by his gender, and although the
>Channel4.com reviewer's name remains anonymous, it can be inferred
>that the reviewer was a woman.
If you are inferring that the reviewer is a woman because they gave
the movie a positive review, then your reasoning is circular (since
you speculated above that the reviewer liked the movie because s/he
was a woman.)
>As I argue above, it is unlikely that
>a man could sympathize with the strong female protagonist in
>Smithereens.
I would suggest you examine the sexism of this assertion.
>The presumably woman reviewer wrote, "Seidelman was brave enough not
>to glamorize the 19-year-old or the problems facing her"
>(Channel4.com). Though, throughout the film Wren had many
>opportunities to "improve" upon her situation: the only problem was
>Wren her superficial self. Seidelman was not brave in her portrayal
>of a feisty teenage girl loose in New York City; although, she was
>daring in her many underplayed sarcastic stabs at the reality of
>hegemonic patriarchy that everyone faces each day.
I haven't seen the movie myself, but from what you and the other
reviewers describe, Seidelman's bravery is in presenting an accurate
portrayal of what lots of people on the streets do to survive or
succeed, rather than casting Wren in some idealized "feminine"
manner that would have made a sexist viewer more comfortable with
her. (See Julia Roberts' performance in "Pretty Girl" for an example
of just that.)
>Seidelman failed to make a film different from the (default masculine)
>norm, and she failed to demonstrate that women have a gaze too.
Is this what Seidelman set out to do? If not, then I'm not sure why
it's relevant whether the did it or not.
>If such an
>unveiling-or call to consideration-was Seidelman's intention, then she
>could (and should) have made it more clear. As it stands, Smithereens
>is about a shallow young woman who is so selfish that she drives away
>all who come near her, even movie goers.
If Seidelman set out to tell that story, then she succeeded.
>If Seidelman really is feminist, as film reviewers indicate, then
>perhaps she should have made her gaze more female and her feminist
>ideals understandable to even the un-analytical minds in the audience.
>Moore argues, "If a female gaze exists it does not simply replicate a
>monolithic and masculinized stare, but instead involves a whole
>variety of looks and glances-an interplay of possibilities" (59).
>Seidelman fails to even attempt a female gaze, and makes a poor movie
>to boot.
Does a director have to make a movie with a "female gaze" to be
feminist? Does a director have to make a movie with a gendered gaze
at all? Can a director make a movie with a "male gaze" because they
want to discuss that gaze and still be feminist?
Does a movie have to be a success at the box office to be a success
artisticly? An affirmative answer has all sorts of implications
regarding consumerism.
Pierce Dash
Smithereens was a real rock band from New Jersey so I wonder if they were in
the movie. They had a few regional hits and even got airplay on some local
radio stations. I didn't see the movie, though
Cierra Olivia Thomas
"Pierce Dash" <pierceda...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:PEOAb.2859$Ji....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
T. A. Lane
I am interested in women and film also. I loved the movie "Monster" and was
hoping to find a good discussion group to talk about it. Did you see it?
What did you think of it?
Terry L (short for Teresa)
"Cierra Olivia Thomas" <thom...@eou.edu> wrote in message
news:bqr557$ago$1...@news.oregonstate.edu...
> Hey there folks. I am an undergraduate at Eastern Oregon University.
This
> term I took Women Filmmakers, which is a subject totally out of my realm
of
> study, but I wrote an essay that is interesting, and (I think) rather
good.
[Moderator's Note: 400 lines of excess quoted text snipped -- pw]