Your first round of reading questions (one for each reading) is due by 12AM September 9th (though I don’t recommend waiting until late that night to write them!) Write up your questions for the following readings (also listed on the syllabus/week by week breakdown page, of course), and post them in the comments section here.
27 thoughts on “Reading Questions Set 1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
READING RESPONSES:
Nigro, Regina. “Women’s Work: ‘Damages’ and ‘The Good Wife’ Look at Female Ambition.”
Question: After doing a little research, I discovered that “Damages” was created by three men— the writing and production team of Daniel Zelman and brothers Glenn and Todd Kessler, whereas “The Good Wife” was created by a husband and wife duo, Michelle King and Robert King. Does the fact that a woman has such control over the creative direction of “The Good Wife” have something to do with the show’s protagonist successfully balancing a life of work and family? Does an all male team of creators effect “Damages’” portrayal of successful women as “ruthless” and “cruel?” Also, one must consider the networks that these shows are on. CBS is a channel that promotes family values, whereas FX (home of “The Shield” and “Sons of Anarchy”) typically has a different (generally male) audience. Should we consider the networks’ sense of “branding” and their intended audiences when we consider these shows’ leading women?
Vesey and K. Lambert, “I Can Have It All”: Liz Lemon Negotiates Power, One Sandwich at a Time.”
Question: Because “30 Rock” almost exclusively takes place at the office, if Liz Lemon’s home life was different (i.e. she had a husband), how would this effect the show? Does the fact that Liz Lemon’s personal life is constantly blown up for the sake of entertainment hint at the fact that ‘feminist’/ successful women are undesirable or ‘unsexed’? Or, rather, does Liz Lemon as a SINGLE successful woman enhance her appeal?
Laura Mulvey writes references a quote by Budd Boetticher, “”What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the
one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance,” and goes on to discuss the ‘buddy movie’ as a way to skirt this problem. Does Boetticher’s opinion hold up today? Do movies like “Thelma and Louise” challenge either authors’ assumptions? How about in the past? Can It really be said that Katharine Hepburn’s character in “The Philadelphia Story” or even Clara Bow’s character in “It” have “not the slightest importance” when they seem to have both sexual and narrative agency?
Feminism for feminism’s sake. Is feminism as a concept as repressive and limiting as the former? Does Lemon’s over achieving purposeful feminist stances in fact alienate her from both those around her and the program that she in turn scripts and as a result is the Girlie Show itself a mockery of the sensibilities that she aims to actively promote? (I.e. is the word girlie a negative connotation). Is the way in which she categorizes the demographic of her audience to women and queers actually hindering to her own goals, and does this instead entrench the idea that placing people within categories is not wrong? Is the way in which Lemon discredits the heterosexual male audience of Milf Island no better than those who criticize her own show, and so is her feminism just a tool of segregation that allows her criticize from a platform of superiority?
What strikes me is how absurdly negative connotations are associated with Patty Hughes and how her character is scape goated for being unfeminine. In turn this method of analysis is largely limiting and although this is deemed as a masculine demeanour I feel that Hughes has many qualities that should be aspired toward, excluding the macabre killings. Therefore why do we feel the need to attack a woman who is able to manipulate and think outside of the box and attack this form of drive as alien and continually assume that women who are unmaternal are devoid of humanity?
Despite the re-shifting of gender roles within the home, is it equally wrong to feel happy within a gender specific role, and how far can feminists argue that the notion of a happy housewife is just a propaganda myth? Do feminists point to complacency as a reason for lack of feminist action, how far is this wrong? Are feminists in fact alienating women?
Has the interest in scopophilia in cinema has transformed the industry into pornography? Women are seen as exotic objects in cinema to satisfy scopophilia: is that the only way women can succeed in cinema?
When women assume more masculine qualities or “unsexed” themselves, do they lose their maternal capabilities?
-This article seems to be somewhat incomplete (or perhaps just dates itself) because it only analyzes the experiences of men as potential active viewers of a film. How can these theories (of castration anxiety/penis envy, voyeurism, activeness/passiveness) be considered in terms of a female film viewer? What is different, what is the same?
-To what extent is Liz Lemon’s (/Tina Fey’s) feminism undermined by the “deterioration” of “idealized” feminism in 30 Rock? Who is the target audience? What is appealing about this portrayal of feminism to different possible audiences? Is Liz Lemon a role model? For whom?
-Why is there conflict between femaleness and success? Would Ellen Parsons (must choose between her personal life, especially that related to being a woman, and success at her job) and Alicia Florrick (strikes a balance between the two) each be considered feminists?
Laura Mulvey states that the passivity of women as uncensored material for the active men to ogle at is something that traditional film exemplifies. However, does the anxiety that is created in men from viewing women in a pleasurable actually leave them in control?
Throughout Damages, we witness the problems that being a strong feminist present–i.e. distancing of family, treachery, and the corruption of certain morals. Does the fact that Patty Hewes uses a machiavellian approach to getting what she needs (the hiring of Ellen and firing of her 10 year employee) really unsex her in a similar fashion to Lady Macbeth? It can be argued that many men in the professional world–CEOs of big companies, etc.– go through this similar dilemma. Does this quality make her associate more with men of this field, or is the primal need for power her attempt at proving she is just as great as the men?
Liz Lemon proves throughout the series 30 Rock that she can can live a somewhat powerful professional career without losing much of the comforts in her life. Unlike Damages, Liz settles for being with her writers at a comfortable life. Jack Donaghy, the shows leading man, won’t stop until he’s at the top. Is there some commentary that is being made by the fact that Liz continuously follows Jack’s advice, but ends up giving him polar opposite advice that functions for him? Does this relationship represent anything in terms of gender relations? What about the relation between well-payed Liz Lemon and the poorly paid Harvard student and other writers?
In the views of a scientist, complicated syntax and large unnecessary phrases only serve to mask a conclusion in a shroud of pomposity and confusion. Why does Laura Mulvey make media studies and film into a subject of lofty words, rather than a clear and respectable topic? SHOULD film be psychoanalyzed in this way or are we loosing sight of the direction in which we originated?
In damages, Patty is arguably one of the most powerful women in New York. She has money, respect and prestige, but is she a shining example for women? In her quest to reach this level, she has given up her family, friends and relationships: classically (in the media) the things a woman will always have. Was Patty’s quest for greener grass in vain finding that what she could of had was also extremely valuable?
Finally, some questions on Laura Mulvey’s essay.
I would like to know more about the castration complex through a better understanding of the two mechanisms of fetishistic scopophilia and voyeurism and how they are used in the cinema.
Moreover, what is the effect of having on one side the audience seeing precisely what the male hero sees, or on the other, having the audience see more than the male protagonist?
I think it would also be interesting to discuss the intermingling/interaction of the different looks in cinematography and its effects?
“Much has been said about the gender politics of the show and its (liberal) feminist underpinnings, but another key aspect of 30 Rock is its constant foregrounding of class and capitalism.” For all shows, including 30 Rock, is it the notion of wealthiness and high authority a more important distinction than gender? How can the media portray a powerful woman who does not possess a large wallet or a corner office to suit?
-In Laura Mulvey’s essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, Mulvey argues that in cinematic roles, women are portrayed as ‘exhibitionists’ towards men, the spectators. As Mulvey was writing during 1975, have these stereotypical gender roles changed so that today, men can become the exhibitionists, and women the observers? Or are the roles still the same?
-In A. Vesey and K. Lambert’s “I Can Have It All: Liz Lemon Negotiates Power, One Sandwich at a Time”, Vesey and Lambert note that “Lemon is certainly not without privilege. Her spacious apartment…” and that Lemon is “the creator and head writer of The Girlie Show”, therefore we can assume that Lemon is paid well, and has the attributes of being the boss. So what is stopping her from being the top boss? What skills is she missing? What does Donaghy have that Lemon does not?
-In Regina Nigro’s “Women’s work ‘Damages’ and ‘The Good Wife’ look at female ambition”, Nigro examines the way in which Ellen’s intertwinement of her professional and personal lives ultimately causes severe problems for Ellen. Arguably she is an ideal employee, with intelligence and integrity, and yet she still fails. So what is expected of women? Is the only way a woman can get to the top by ‘unsexing’ herself? Why is it that men do not have to unsex themselves in order to be at the top?
The series Damages and Good Wife arise questions on feminity.
In Damages, does the masculinised female figure of Patty Hewes reflect the necessity for an ambitious woman to ‘unsex’ to adapt to her work environment? Patty has lost all feminity, abandoned her personal life to ‘succeed’. Does a woman have to do all of this to become as successful as a man? If so, what are exactly feminists ambitions: women’s struggle to become equal to men, even if it means going through a masculinization process or women’s claims of their specific female strengths? I think it would be interesting to question the word ‘feminism’, are the female protagonists in these series really feminists?
Are we not, as spectators, watching these series through our unconscious structures of a male-dominated society?
In 30 Rock, Lemon represents a strong female character, Liz Lemon as it can be seen in her acting, her personality, her ambitions to ‘have it all’. However, the article explains that her duo with her boss, Donaghy, shows her struggle in a male-dominated work environment. The unwinding of the series also seems to lead to Lemon’s disenchantment over her own feminist ideas. What does the producer intend to show exactly, especially through the uneasy relationship between Lemon and her boss?
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema:
What is effect is Mulvey trying to create by only using the third person singular when referring to men? Is it simply a style choice, or is she attempting to demasculinize the male by using one, common pronoun?
I Can Have It All:
How does one draw the line when it comes to how much has to be given up for the sake of feminism? Did Howard go too far? Are there certain allowances that women have that should be unalienable?
‘Damages’ and ‘The Good Wife’:
Are women “biologically hardwired to nurture and care for life?” If this is true, can men not be similarly biologically hardwired (Mr. Mom)? Is it possible for women to have both this biological hardwiring and be ruthless, successful professionals? And do women need to be more ruthless to prove their worth than a man would need to be in a similar situation?
In Mulvoy’s article she addresses how women in cinema are often objectified, being continuously watched primarily by a male audience. She even states at one point how women can be indirectly possessed by their spectators, as though they are objects. Though this article was written in the 1970s, why is it that today, through media such as journalism and advertising, women are still treated unequally and viewed in their relation to men? How can our perspective towards women change when all the images we see show us that they are inferior to men?
The male spectators and the lead male actor form a bond over their enjoyment of viewing the woman actor. Their connection is also fueled by the feeling that the spectators are living vicariously through the actor. Why would the case not be the same for women spectators? They too are watching a character they relate to and whose life they desire. While it could be argued that women would not want to live the life of an inactive character, the film starlet is receiving the attentions of the lead male and audience, which is desirable.
Vesey and Lambert did a great job explaining the show ’30 Rock’ from a feminist standpoint, and I learned so much more about Tina Fey, as I had no idea that she was the writer and producer in addition to being a part of the cast. It is truly admirable how Fey has used her foundation on SNL to progress even further and make a greater name for herself. However, I could not help but stop at the last image, which is of her on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine along with two other comediennes. After reading this article, I looked online for other covers she has been on, and a few are at:http://allwomenstalk.com/10-lovely-tina-fey-magazine-covers/. One caption states: “Tina Gone Wild” and on several of the covers, she is wearing makeup and tight fitted outfits. Do you think she feels it is necessary to convince others that though she is a brilliant and powerful career-oriented person, that she is still “feminine”? Or is she just poking fun at herself? I do not see Alec Baldwin in skimpy clothing on any magazine covers..
‘Damages’ and ‘The Good Wife,’ based on Nigro’s article, really focus on the successful career woman. While ‘The Good Wife’ shows that you can find a balance between love and work, and that in order to reach the top you do not have to be conniving or mean-spirited, ‘Damages’ portrays the very opposite. However, though I personally do not like Glenn Close’s character, I do respect her drive. Why is she being criticized for being aggressive and ruthless? If she were a man, I highly doubt ‘Damages’ would be as successful as it currently is. Why is that as women, we are expected to speak softly and follow under the leadership of men? Why are these gender expectations are so ingrained in our society, that we are shocked to see a woman who will do anything to remain at the top, even if that means sacrificing love?
“I Can Have It All”
In “30 Rock”, Jack dresses very professionally while Lemon dresses much more unpolished, bordering frumpy. What do Lemon’s clothing choices say in terms of feminism? Is it more feminist that she chooses to dress this way, or does it make her seem inferior?
“Women’s Work”
In “Damages”, Ellen struggles to “have it all” (much like Liz Lemon) while Hewes sacrifices her personal/emotional life to dominate her career. Ellen is manipulated, and Patty is mercilessly powerful. Which character is more feminist, Ellen Parsons or Patty Hewes?
“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”
Mulvey talks a lot about cinema as form of erotic escape “phantasy”. The audience gets the feeling of “looking into a private world”. Is this theory, (1975), still relevant today in modern society where the media is hyper-sexualized and it seems nothing is left to the imagination?
Damages and The Good Wife show women in the legal profession with opposing methods towards their work. But in reality these are not solely questions for women. Ultimately, when compared, the shows ask: which is a better tool, ruthlessness or compassion? Is fact that female characters are demonstrating these traits simply a carrier to make the audience’s reaction stronger? Based on the traditional view of women being the more sensitive gender, does Patty’s cruelty make audiences not like her because she is not acting as a woman “should” act? Or is it simply her harsh mannerisms that make her unpleasant?
This idea of the female castration complex…is this author trying to argue that men feel sexual anxiety about women because they lack a penis and remind men of castration? Or that men are anxious because female sexuality is something they don’t understand? Even if I am missing her point, don’t you think the idea of female castration would give men less anxiety, as she is then less sexually threatening, rather than more?
The author focuses primarily on the idea of women being portrayed as “unsexed” when they are ambitious, and that they lose their femininity. However, why does this author never delve into the underlying, and ultimately fundamental, issues of whether or not it is masculinity these women are embracing, or just a constructed and sexist view of what it means to be feminine?
Tina Fey is openly feminist, but is Liz Lemon? I’m not sure because I haven’t seen the show…But does Liz actually talk about feminism OTHER than “Rosemary’s Baby”, where feminism is portaryed negatively? I often feel it is the word “feminism” that is stigmatized more than the idea of strong women. These days, we see lots of movies/tv shows about strong women, but do we ever see these strong women admit to being feminist? Why is it the word that is bad, when people agree with the idea?
I don’t fully understand the different ways men escape the castration anxiety women represent. However, can it be argued that seeing and turning women into an object which only function is to give pleassure and make men feel in control, is a mechanism of defense against this anxiety?
The extreme feminist Rosemary Howard, among other characters, predicts that Liz Lennon’s future will be unsuccessful and mundane, and even Liz says she imagines herself teaching improv on a cruise ship; taking this into consideration, it is interesting that Jack, the supposed anti-feminist, is the character to suggest that Liz has more potential. As a feminist herself, why is Tina Fey enlisting the key patriarch to suggest that Liz could do better? By doing so, Fey portrays the idea that Liz cannot “dream big” unless that dream is initiated by a powerful man. Is this the message she intends to send?
Instead of being contradicting and disappointing, doesn’t the fact that Liz Lemon is sometimes overpowered by men (when Jack gives her a raise for example) add to the show’s feminism? Since it’s highlighting men’s dominance in the work place when even Liz, a very radical and feminist woman, sucumbs? Or does this undermine the show’s purpose?
The struggle between achieving both, being a good wife and mother and having a succesful career, is a real problem that many women face today. Is The Good Wife realistic? Is it true that a women can do both and be beneffited in both areas? Theorically, it makes sense, but what about practicly?
Is it considered comedy when feminists like Liz Lemon and Rosemary Howard are stereotyped to lead devastating,pitiful lives?