Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof: The Feminist Approach
Using Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof, produce a reading using the feminist approach.
Feminist theory looks particularly at mainstream Hollywood cinema. To most feminist theorists, they are structured accordingly to the patriarchal point of view, making narrative, meaning and pleasure appealing to male audiences, and in turn disavowing women’s voice, representation and cinematic enjoyment. Feminists initially wanted to reassert women’s right to be political and social subjects. Since second-wave feminism, the Women’s movement has become more than just a rebalancing of gender hierarchy but an attempt at legitimizing women’s representation as they truly see themselves: thinking, moving, living subjects and not men’s objects. Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof [1]is a thriller inspired by American independent ‘grind house’ exploitation and B movies of the sixties and seventies.[2] Is the audience’s gaze throughout male or female? Is the gender representation patriarchal or feminist? Will both or either feel pleasure in watching it? Can this film be considered a feminist film?
At first glance, Death Proof is a patriarchal narrative, supported to a large extent by psychoanalytic evidence[3]. Laura Mulvey argues that mainstream Hollywood cinema is a representation of conventions as seen in the patriarchal culture, using mise-en-scène to represent cinematic ideologies and visual manipulation to create spectators’ pleasure[4]. Cinema’s pleasures are multiple. The first she explains is scopophilia, described to great lengths in Freudian terms. One’s own scopophilia or the voyeuristic pleasure of looking for sexual stimulation, developed during the pre-genital phase, is satisfied whilst watching Hollywood cinema.[5] She draws irrefutable parallels with the audience watching a film, like the repressed exhibitionism of the spectator watching on one hand and the projection on the other hand of repressed desires projected on screen.[6] Like the
Feminist theory looks particularly at mainstream Hollywood cinema. To most feminist theorists, they are structured accordingly to the patriarchal point of view, making narrative, meaning and pleasure appealing to male audiences, and in turn disavowing women’s voice, representation and cinematic enjoyment. Feminists initially wanted to reassert women’s right to be political and social subjects. Since second-wave feminism, the Women’s movement has become more than just a rebalancing of gender hierarchy but an attempt at legitimizing women’s representation as they truly see themselves: thinking, moving, living subjects and not men’s objects. Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof [1]is a thriller inspired by American independent ‘grind house’ exploitation and B movies of the sixties and seventies.[2] Is the audience’s gaze throughout male or female? Is the gender representation patriarchal or feminist? Will both or either feel pleasure in watching it? Can this film be considered a feminist film?
At first glance, Death Proof is a patriarchal narrative, supported to a large extent by psychoanalytic evidence[3]. Laura Mulvey argues that mainstream Hollywood cinema is a representation of conventions as seen in the patriarchal culture, using mise-en-scène to represent cinematic ideologies and visual manipulation to create spectators’ pleasure[4]. Cinema’s pleasures are multiple. The first she explains is scopophilia, described to great lengths in Freudian terms. One’s own scopophilia or the voyeuristic pleasure of looking for sexual stimulation, developed during the pre-genital phase, is satisfied whilst watching Hollywood cinema.[5] She draws irrefutable parallels with the audience watching a film, like the repressed exhibitionism of the spectator watching on one hand and the projection on the other hand of repressed desires projected on screen.[6] Like the
Bibliography: Bordwell, ‘The Art Cinema as Mode of Film Practice’, in Fowler, ed., The European Cinema Reader, pp.94-102 Barbara Creed, ‘Feminism and Film since the 1990s’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, pp.487-490 Elizabeth Ezra, ‘National Cinemas in the Global Era’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, pp.168-170 Nöel King, ‘Pulp Fiction’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, p.68 Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ in The Sexual Subject: a Screen Reader in Sexuality, London: Routledge, pp.22-34 Anneke Smelik, ‘Feminist Film Theory’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, pp.491-501 Jackie Brown. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax Films. USA. 1997. Kill Bill: Vol. 1. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax Films. USA. 2003. Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax Films. USA. 2004. Pulp Fiction. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax Films. USA. 1994. Thelma and Louise. Ridley Scott. Metro-Goldywn-Mayer. USA. 1991 ----------------------- [1] Death Proof. Quentin Tarantino. Dimension Films. USA. 2007. [10] Jackie Brown. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax Films. USA. 1997. [11] Pulp Fiction. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax Films. USA. 1994. [18] Death Proof [19] Barbara Creed, ‘Feminism and Film since the 1990s’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, p.489 [20] Anneke Smelik, ‘Feminist Film Theory’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, p.495 [21] Kill Bill [36] Thelma and Louise. Ridley Scott. Metro-Goldywn-Mayer. USA. 1991 [37] Bordwell, ‘The Art Cinema as Mode of Film Practice’, in Fowler, ed., The European Cinema Reader, pp.94-102 [38] Tommy L. Lott, ‘Blaxploitation’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, p.304 [39] Nöel King, ‘Pulp Fiction’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, p.68 [40] Elizabeth Ezra, ‘National Cinemas in the Global Era’ in Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 3rd edn, British Film Institute, 2007, p.169 [41] Mulvey, p.22,23