![]() ![]() The concept of “minor cinema” derives from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s concept of “minor literature.” (1) According to Butler, a minor literature “is not like a literary genre or period, nor is classification as minor an artistic evaluation. Butler contextualizes the writing of theorists such as Lucy Fischer, Judith Mayne, Patricia Mellencamp and Tania Modleski in terms of Johnston’s early framing of women’s cinema as a “counter-cinema” which strategically re-writes and revises mainstream cinema.īutler builds upon the revisionist tradition founded by Johnston in promoting the idea that women’s cinema is a “minor cinema” which exists within other cinemas. ![]() Butler traces this problem through the work of Claire Johnston and Teresa de Lauretis among others, identifying a critical tradition which defines women’s cinema in terms of its revision of patriarchal film. She does not attempt a complete overview of feminist film theory but rather pursues a specific line of inquiry, namely, the project of defining the relationship between women’s cinema and other cinematic traditions. In her introduction, Butler reviews the “founding debates” of feminist film theory and explores the way key issues such as spectatorship and representation have been developed. Women’s Cinema is theoretical in its orientation. Therefore, studies on ‘women and film’ shouldn’t be the only scholarly context for films made by women and women-centred studies must acknowledge the many different frameworks and discourses which enrich and inflect women’s experience. Films by women cross generic, aesthetic and social boundaries. While other studies which take a gyno-critical approach might essentialize women’s experience, Butler stresses the discontinuities in women’s cinema, promoting it as “a hybrid concept, arising from a number of overlapping practices and discourses” (2). One of the strengths of Butler’s study is its refusal to promote women’s cinema as a homogeneous or sealed category. It is neither a genre nor a movement in film history, it has no single lineage of its own, no national boundaries, no filmic or aesthetic specificity, but traverses and negotiates cinematic and cultural traditions and critical and political debates. It suggests, without clarity, films that might be made by, addressed to, or concerned with women, or all three. Women’s cinema is a notoriously difficult concept to define. Teachers, and others with a background in women’s cinema, will appreciate Butler’s fresh insights and her articulate synthesis of the critical material.īutler’s book begins with an acknowledgement of the difficulties that attend the task of defining women’s cinema. However, Women’s Cinema: The Contested Screen offers a smart and challenging introduction to readers unfamiliar with the field. Butler’s discussion necessarily focuses upon certain filmmakers and theorists to the exclusion of others. It is not within the scope of a short, critical study such as Alison Butler’s to either provide a comprehensive overview of the history of women’s filmmaking or exhaustively rehearse the range of critical debates in feminist film theory. And, it is the nature of a circle that some things will be included and others left out. In approaching a subject matter as protean as ‘women’s cinema,’ a writer first has to draw a circle around the area under discussion. Other recent titles in the series include Mise-en-scéne: Film Style and Interpretation, New Chinese Cinema: Challenging Representations, and Animation: Genre and Authorship. Aimed primarily at students, Short Cuts offers introductions to various film genres, movements and aspects of film studies. Published in June 2002, Women’s Cinema is one of the most recent books in the Short Cuts series by Wallflower Press. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |