Whitechappel Cinenova: Feminism and film

A teacher of mine once said that a feminist was anybody who believed in the advancement of civil rights for women, so for most of my life I believed I was a feminist. Until I watched a documentary on feminism in which an esteemed professor explained that women should be allowed into the fire department based on lowered physical standards. Her argument being she would rather be dragged by a woman out of a burning house, than carried over some man’s shoulder because there is less smoke lower to the ground since smoke rises. The opposition brought up the all too valid point that, should this woman fire fighter encounter a flight of stairs, it would be your head bouncing on every step on the way down. From that point on I considered myself an egalitarian, if a woman can pass the same physical requirements that all of the men have to pass, all the more power to her! But my safety should not be compromised in the name of unequal advancements for women. Let this be a preface for my reaction to the “women-made motion pictures” we saw at Whitechappel.

The first film was “An Epic Poem” by Lezli Ann Barret. While the film had its good qualities, I thought it was altogether a narcissistic self explanatory experimental film. Lezli obviously thinks too highly of herself as is evidenced by her title, “an epic poem” which this film was not, and compares herself, or her heroin to goddess of love Venus, which she is not. But the overall feminist themes of male dominance and women’s fight for liberation struck a bitter note for me. While I appreciate women’s civil liberties and the suffragettes, and I acknowledge that women have lived equal lives for only a short period, I think that some arguments coming from the feminist camp go too far. The film explains that women have been subordinated into subduing their libidos and loving from the perception of a man, it is the all too familiar argument that women are supposed to be good and chaste for our husbands while we are made into carnal objects of lust by men in general. Feminists these days fight for our right to be free and sleep with whomever we choose, whenever we choose as they flip the metaphorical bird to settling down and becoming the house bound, married, baby maker. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with conceding to the domestic life. I want to, look forward to getting married, having kids, and settling down. I see nothing wrong with virtue and morality, that is not to say that women who do not save themselves for marriage are not virtuous, but if a girl does not want to explore her newly liberated sexual rights, so be it. Does that make me an enemy of the feminist objective? I must say though, there still exists a sexual double standard, women who do sleep around are looked down upon more so than men. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Do not get me wrong I am all for having fun, but shouldn’t there be a limit, it is very dangerous these days to have “too much fun” so why not be safe about it and have fun while being monogamous, or practice a little bit of self restraint. This sentiment is targeted towards men as well, more so even than women.

This film sparked many questions in my mind, have I been so indoctrinated that I subscribe to the WASP dictation of happiness for women? Are women still subordinated? I do not feel that I have suffered any grave injustices simply because I am a woman. But I am an exception, I live in a place where women are not looked down upon, my family has made it very clear that I should never let my being female make a difference and to never let anyone tell me otherwise. But I know that there are places where women are expected to get married and have kids, and that is all that is expected from them. While I plan on getting married and having kids, I also plan on graduating college, having a career, making my own money, living my own life while sharing my life with my husband, not relying upon him for subsistence.

Lindsay Butcher


This bears no relevance to what I was saying before but I just have to admit that I was offended by the third installment. “Living the Sacrifice” by Emily Roysdon was just an ammeture piece of horrible “art”. If a woman can make a good piece of cinematic art, good, she deserves all the praise in the world for getting more women artist recognized. However do not publish or produce a piece of useless “self expression” like that and say it is art. The Whitechappel should have recognized that this piece of “art” only defaced the reputation that women artists have been trying to build. Do not play a film that has been made by a woman simply because it has been made by a woman, play significant contributory pieces instead. If she can work with the best of them, let her play with the big boys, but obviously Emily Roysdon cannot even play in the same field as the big boys.