JCM312/Godard and Contemporary Feminism (Discussion)
MacCabe & Mulvey
- MacCabe and Mulvey present a complicated argument about the film, Numero Deux, contending that it is primarily about "the effects of capitalism on sexual relations and the oppression of the working class..."They also link "the oppression of capitalism and the alienation of sexuality."
- One needn't get too deeply into their argument to see that prostitution is a clear linkage of
economics and sex. Godard's films frequently have prostitutes in them, as is the case in Vivre sa Vie. How would you characterize his representation of Nana as a prostitute? That is, how does Godard represent the economics of prostitution? How does he represent the sexuality of _? ^ prostitution? How are the two inextricably linked? • You may find it useful to compare Godard's prostitute with prostitutes from other films, such as Pretty Woman. 2. MacCabe and Mulvey contend, "Female nakedness carries associations of the exploitation of women that almost no degree of formal subversion can displace." /O / • What do they mean by "formal subversion"? / 2-• • They focus on Godard's British Sounds and the scene of a woman walking up/down stairs (see frame grabs (http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/BritishSounds.htm) ). How might the X j woman's image be formally subverted? Is it "demystified," as MacCabe and Mulvey discuss? Consider the instances of "female nakedness" there are in Vivre sa vie — especially the one of the nude woman looking at the camera (see frame grabs (http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T577/BrechtIllustrations.htm)). Is there formal subversion occurring there? Do you think it is possible to use a naked female body in a film in such a way that it is not exploitative? Explain, and provide an example (either from a film or hypothetical).
