Summary & Implications: What is the author’s project and why is it important now? What’s the narrative about the field that’s emerging from the reading? What narratives are silent? Whose voices are silent?
In this book, Janet McCabe uses some broad themes and modes of thinking as ways of temporalizing the history of feminist film theory. Since, as she notes in her conclusion, each new way of practicing feminist film theory tended to criticize the way that came before it for its biggest failures, there is little (that I know of) left out, except for developments that have happened since the book’s publication in 2004 (one area that I know of being the further expansion of theorization surrounding gender with trans and non-binary identities becoming an increasingly popular area of study recently).
Context: Who is this author debating with and why? What is the context of the text’s production and distribution? What historical, cultural, etc. factors affect the way it makes meaning? Does the author seem to be in conversation with other scholars and/or paradigms? Where is this piece of writing centered in the field? What is their intervention in the literature/field? What text is this text in conversation with?
McCabe proposes very little in way of new theory or even a point of view on the scholars and ideas she writes about here. Only her conclusion has a real thesis to it, one which emphasizes the need to study feminist film theory as a discourse to fully understand what is going on with it both in its past and present configurations. This fits with how she structures the book, putting different authors in conversation with each other via either explicit or thematic connections between their works, with a roughly continuous temporal development.
Methodology: What is the methodological framework of this text? What methodological moves or questions does the author engage? What is their object of analysis?
As McCabe moves from one method of performing feminist film theory to the next, she begins each chapter with a brief summary of what will be covered and how changing analytical and cultural trends influenced the direction of the writing done in that time period. Sometimes that change might be the introduction of a new kind of criticism (the introduction of cultural studies, for example) or a group of writers insisting that attention must also be paid to them and their representation/ways of seeing (black women, lesbians). This grounds McCabe’s historical project in material realities and creates a context for what will come in the chapter. Then each chapter proceeds by laying out the ground level theory (often originally written by men like Metz or, god help us, Freud) before showing how feminist film theorists used that theory to write about women, who were often ignored by the men who wrote the high theory. Finally, she concludes each chapter by recapping what major changes happened during the time period covered and looking a little bit at what was missing, to be filled in by scholars in the next chapter.
Rhetorical Moves: What are the major rhetorical moves of the author’s arguments?
Here I’ll just list out the large thematic shifts and some representative scholars that McCabe capsulizes in each chapter.
1973-79 – Structuring a language of theory: In this period, feminist film theorists adopted theoretical approaches (psychoanalysis and semiotics, mostly) to talk about how women were conceived of as a symbol, specifically a symbol of lack such that they really only existed to be looked at on film. Prominent scholars: Laura Mulvey, Claire Johnston
1985-1997 – Textual Negotiations: Female Spectatorship and Cultural Studies: In this period, feminist film theorists looked to cultural studies to see how real audiences engaged film in specific times and places. This allowed for a greater understanding of the various negotiations that happened between author, text, and audience as well as a pathway towards understanding how the makeup of an audience will influence how that audience responds to different texts. Feminist film theory here becomes more focused on context, history, and lived experience rather than the generalizing tendency of psychoanalysis. Prominent scholars: Christine Gledhill, Tania Modleski, Annette Kuhn, Jackie Stacey, bell hooks
1991-2000 – Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonialism/Modernism. In this period, which overlaps significantly with the previous period, scholars began to correct feminist film theory away from its singular focus on white female existence towards trying to understand what happens when gender isn’t the only way a character, creator, or audience member is othered from the dominant cis-white-het norm. Using Frantz Fanon’s psychoanalytic theory of race as a jumping off point, scholars of this era theorized that black women were doubly absent, doubly sexualized, doubly lacking on film. Some scholars also looked at the way colonialism created a gaze towards black and brown women that was wrapped up in an imperialist (as well as misogynist and racist) mindset. Finally, scholars and creators of this era also used ways of creating and documenting the previously overlooked history of people like them. Daughters of the Dust is the primary example here. Prominent scholars: Jane Gaines, Mary Anne Doane, Lola Young, Trinh T. Minh-ha, Tania Modleski
1987 – 2000 – Conceiving Subjectivity, Sexual Difference and Fantasy Differently: Psychoanalysis Revisited and Queering Theory: In this period, scholars returned to psychoanalysis to rethink female sexuality and how women might desire differently through film. Taking as their primary concern the ideas of desire and fantasy, scholars of this era tried to dig deeper into pscyhoanalysis through Freud’s ideas on female sexuality and masturbatory practices to understand what connection spectators had to the spectacle of women on film. Additionally, lesbian/gay and queer theorists questioned why we were even paying attention to Freud in the first place, positing instead an attention to how queer audiences opened a doorway to alternative spectator positions not theorizable in a film theory dominated by heterosexual norms. Prominent scholars: Mary Anne Doane, Elizabeth Cowie, Linda Williams, Carol Clover, Kaja Silverman, Judith Mayne, Judith Butler
Engagement & Application: How do I engage this text? How does this apply to my work? Does it support or provide a counterargument or model for strong intro or lit review? In other words, why is this piece of writing useful to me and/or how is it limited (bad writing style, problematic, didn’t consider x, y, and z)? Does it intersect with other items on the list?
This is most useful in to me in the above form, as a kind of overview of the different methodologies and conversations that have happened with regards to feminist film theory. I’m not sure much of the theorists individual ideas will stick with me for very long after reading them in this format, as there’s not enough to really grasp here. But it is useful as something to go back to when I need a refresher or a quick recap before diving into some related readings.
Key Terms: What terms are key to the author’s argument, and are they operationalized explicitly or implicitly?
psychoanalysis, spectator, desire, fantasy, race, ethnicity, cultural studies, historical materialism, queer theory, feminist film theory, discourse, postcolonialism, postmodernism
Significant Quotations: What key quotations from this work would I want to have quick access to?
Studying the field of knowledge known as feminist film studies allows us to read it as a set of statements about the institution of cinema and cultural production, about representational categories and gendered subjectivity, about identification and spectatorship practices, about cultural authority and historical (in)visibility, about desire and fantasy, and about the interaction between these areas. (1-2)
I suggest we may in fact have reached a point when it might be more important to gain knowledge about the features of feminist writings on film and cinema; for in understanding what feminist film theory wants us to know exposes the workings of a discourse as well as the difficulties that still remain in articulating it. (113)
I identify feminist film theory as a discourse; that is, a discursive formation made up from a series of statements within which, and by which, debates related to gendered representation, female subjectivity and spectatorship can be known. […] By analyzing the statements that constitute the making of a field of knowledge, we can see how the speakers and listeners, writers and readers come to know who they are within the social world. (118)
The more feminist film theory gains respectability within the academy, the more its methodological differences/difficulties are revealed as problems of legitimacy and credibility and speaking from inside the discipline. It is discourse about (rather than in) crisis, in which the female subject – as film protagonist, cinema spectator and academic scholar – continues to trouble. (120)