Susan's Place Logo

News:

Based on internal web log processing I show 3,417,511 Users made 5,324,115 Visits Accounting for 199,729,420 pageviews and 8.954.49 TB of data transfer for 2017, all on a little over $2,000 per month.

Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! (Updated)

Main Menu

Christopher Strong Through the Lens of John Berger's Way of Seeing

Started by UCBerkeleyPostop, September 18, 2012, 08:24:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

UCBerkeleyPostop

First complete draft:


The purpose of this paper is to analyze a scene from Christopher Strong to determine whether or not the scene fits the "male gaze" rubric established in John Berger's Way of Seeing.  I will demonstrate that the scene I have chosen (technically a segment of a scene) not only does not conform but, in many ways, is the anti-thesis of the male gaze at least as defined by Berger. Although I will give an overview of the entire segment, the portion of the scene that I have chosen for deep analysis occurs at the end of the scene : a tender, supportive repartee between  two women  that reveals a deep , supportive, caring intimacy, that is intensively intimate yet not homo-erotic.

The segment of the scene I will analyze begins with a close-up shot of a hand knocking on the door of Lady Cynthia's apartment...cut to a shot of the Lady opening the door and Monica entering.  As the camera follows Monica walking into the apartment, Monica, obviously distressed about something, throws her hat, purse and gloves on the couch and reaches for a cigarette and lights it as Cynthia enters the shot from the left and puts her arms around Monica's shoulder, "Something has happened... what?" Monica walks a couple steps to her left and turns her back to Cynthia, and explains that Harry, the married man she is in love with, is getting a divorce, as Cynthia walks around to face her and then sits down, she says that Monica must be happy now as the two can now marry but Monica retorts that she had an affair with Carlos and now Harry "won't have anything to do" with her.  What follows is a series of shot reverse shots, first cutting to Monica in a medium close-up explaining to the Lady that she wouldn't understand affairs of the heart, having never been involved in one. Cut to a medium close-up of Cynthia sitting in front of the fireplace agreeing then cut to Monica sitting down and announcing that she will commit suicide and asking the Lady to explain to Harry that she loved him, cut to Cynthia listening intently, cut back to Monica, Cynthia enters the shot, sits to Monica's left, placing her right hand on her shoulder and her left hand clutching her knee. Monica convinces Cynthia that her suicide threats are real so the older woman says she will fix it all by going to Harry to explain. Not convinced, Monica dejectedly buries her head on the Lady's shoulder, Cynthia embraces her and comforts her  by pointing out that if Harry loves her—and he does, all will be well. Buoyed, Monica lifts her head and says she will wait but there is an issue with a letter that needs to be explained, the Lady breaks free and leaves the shot saying confidently, OK I will ring him up! Dissolve to the next scene depicting suitcases and trunks. Before we look at how this scene undermines Berger's gendered notion of woman as object of the male gaze, let us explain exactly what that is.

In Ways of Seeing, John Berger, writing in Ways of Seeing, proposes that the "social presence of a man" differs from that of a woman. (Berger 41)  Even if fabricated, the male presence connotes power, "the pretense is always towards a power he exercises over others" the author theorizes, whereas a women's presence "expresses her own attitude toward herself. A woman must "survey herself continually." Berger claims that men look at women and women look at themselves being looked at. "Men act and women appear." Thus the woman "turns herself into an object."  (42)
When I first read Berger, I was actually offended at first as I failed to understand he is only explaining things as he observes them to be not as they should be. On the other hand, Berger is a man and, as such, he can never experience interactions between women as  we are outside of the presence of men and that brings me to Dorothy Arzner's incredible truthful scene--save some necessary thirties stereotypical melodrama we can blame on the writer—of two women interacting alone while trying to resolve a life-threatening crisis. First, let's dispense with the melodrama.

When the scene begins, the younger Monica comes to Cynthia as a damsel-in-distress wanting to kill herself because her married romantic interest no longer wants anything to do with her. (Are you kidding, a woman wanting to kill herself over a man? On the other hand it worked for Bill Shakespeare) Be that as it may, it is a tired cliché but Arzner did not write the script and it is what she does after Monica convinces Cynthia that her suicide wish is credible is what makes the scene a memorable one.

As described above, after a series of shot-reverse shots, as Monica explains her dilemma, Cynthia enters the frame and clutches Monica in support (making it a two-shot) "There is nothing that will stop me from killing myself tonight," Monica exclaims. The older woman tells her she's wrong and offers to go to Harry and explain that it "wasn't your fault you were with Carlos that night..." Monica agrees and decides she won't kill herself but is still distraught and buries he head into Cynthia's shoulder as Arzner cuts to an amazing closeup of the two women while Hepburn as Cynthia tells Monica that if Harry really loves her and he does, he will forgive her. The camera stays centered on the two women as Monica lifts her head—the two women are now face-to face, in an extreme close-up—their lips no more than a couple inches apart-as Arzner captures the essence of feminine tenderness while Cynthia convinces Monica to wait.  Convinced, Monica lifts her head and Arzner cuts to a two shot. Hepburn's arm remains on Monica's shoulder while the damsel in distress positions her hand on top of Cynthia's arm while trying to dispatch the final fly in the ointment: the matter of a letter she sent he father. While Monica explains why she can't explain the letter herself, she lovingly and playfully runs her fingers on the Lady's arm in such a way as to say, "Oh I know I screwed up, I am just a crazy little girl but you are my friend and a woman and I trust you to help me out of this last hurdle." If I did not know anything about the director of the film, I would guess that the actor ad-libbed the little finger choreography but knowing Azner directed the scene, I am sure that the director carefully orchestrated this digital repartee. Finally, responding to the request to call Monica's father, Hepburn rises while grabbing and clutching Monica's risk, Cynthia announces, in a firm, assertive and rather masculine way, "All right, I'll ring him up!" The scene contains dozens of little intricacies that I might address but now I must argue why the scene undermines the Berger rubric.

In this scene, Monica and Cynthia are not objectified in any way. Arzner's camera captures two women in possibly the most intimate type of exchange that is possible short of sexual intimacy: in the act of supporting one another in diffusing a potentially deadly (although clichéd) situation. Arzner's camera work in no way communicates to the viewer that the women are watching or surveying themselves. Not only is there no sense of a male gaze, the viewer---certainly this viewer—gets a sense of being allowed into an intimate exchange in the private lives of two women. (To be continued...)

   
  •  

tekla

Honey, I love you, I respect you and all that, but really... the reason I stopped teaching college and went into production work was that after 10 years I just couldn't stand reading one more essay like that.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

UCBerkeleyPostop

Quote from: tekla on September 18, 2012, 08:48:44 PM
Honey, I love you, I respect you and all that, but really... the reason I stopped teaching college and went into production work was that after 10 years I just couldn't stand reading one more essay like that.

It's a FIRST F***ingDRAFT!!!  By the way, what are your thoughts on Arzner and the film Christopher Strong?

We just saw the film on Thursday and I am supposed to be able to write a prize winning essay on it in a couple days?
  •  

tekla

I would have hung you out to dry on this sentence alone:

I would guess that the actor ad-libbed the little finger choreography but knowing Azner directed the scene, I am sure (based on what evidence exactly?) that the director carefully orchestrated this digital repartee.


So...basically... you don't know crap about it, but here is some totally pie-in-the-sky rampant speculation.

I mean it just might have been some business that the second camera caught and the editor tossed in for pacing proposes.   Just as valid.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

UCBerkeleyPostop

Quote from: tekla on September 18, 2012, 11:20:50 PM
I would have hung you out to dry on this sentence alone:

I would guess that the actor ad-libbed the little finger choreography but knowing Azner directed the scene, I am sure (based on what evidence exactly?) that the director carefully orchestrated this digital repartee.


So...basically... you don't know crap about it, but here is some totally pie-in-the-sky rampant speculation.

I mean it just might have been some business that the second camera caught and the editor tossed in for pacing proposes.   Just as valid.

You would never get to see it because it is my first draft and I do not turn in first drafts. Ever. That said, I am really amazed that I wrote "I am sure" I never do that unless it is fact. I should have said I suspect. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I don't think I would have missed that in the paper I turn in but no one is perfect. If you think you had to read bad essays, you ain't seen nothing unless you have tutored City College of SF students.

And I would give you an F for failing to respond to a simple prompt.

QuoteBy the way, what are your thoughts on Arzner and the film Christopher Strong?
So, what are your thoughts on what are your thoughts on Arzner and the film Christopher Strong? And does the film support or negate Berger's Way of Seeing?
  •  

tekla

You would never get to see it because it is my first draft and I do not turn in first drafts. Ever.

Of course not.  That's how you got into Berkeley and are not at Pot Smoker Community College.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Cindy

 :police:

Before either of you get wound up remember ToS.
I am placing a clear warning in this thread and I will not allow it to get out of hand. Expect Moderation if you decide to disregard this remark.

With two individuals of your intellect I can assume that I can read an interesting, honest and forthright debate.

Thank You

Cindy James
Global Moderator
  •  

Jamie D

The John Berger essay is entitled "WayS Of Seeing." (First paragraph)

I believe, as Christopher Strong is a 1930's film title, rather than a person, in your essay it should be denoted in italics.

Of course, things may have changed since I was a graduate student.

... and just as a matter of style, I do not believe your parenthetical statement, "Are you kidding, a woman wanting to kill herself over a man? On the other hand it worked for Bill Shakespeare," is the type of jocularity that adds to your observations.
  •  

AbraCadabra

Why do I get this warning sign flicking, it says: "Mind F*cking In Progress"

...
Axélle
Some say: "Free sex ruins everything..."
  •  

ZoeNicole



  •  

AbraCadabra

Some say: "Free sex ruins everything..."
  •  

UCBerkeleyPostop

Quote from: Jamie D on September 20, 2012, 12:06:58 AM
The John Berger essay is entitled "WayS Of Seeing." (First paragraph)

I believe, as Christopher Strong is a 1930's film title, rather than a person, in your essay it should be denoted in italics.

Of course, things may have changed since I was a graduate student.

... and just as a matter of style, I do not believe your parenthetical statement, "Are you kidding, a woman wanting to kill herself over a man? On the other hand it worked for Bill Shakespeare," is the type of jocularity that adds to your observations.

The prof and GSI are both dykes. The GSI has a crush on me thanks in part to my writing style...I think...anyway...it could not be my looks...or maybe it could... :-* :-* :-* :-X 8)

LOL like I am going to italicize a first draft posted at Susan's. And as to my jocularity, don't you recall, I am polemicist and a damned good one...and a published one at that. And I haven't even been to grad school yet.

I got an -A which pissed me off I usually get As or A+'s.
  •