THE PROGRESS OF NATIONS: WOMEN IN FILM

“Besides over-regulation of the filmmaking practices, apparent limitations of female

casting, and unnatural opposition to subject matters such as love, […], the real problem
perhaps resulted from the filmmakers of that era who were more political than cinematic.
[…] The film makers of the war era were either the directors of pre-revolution film-farsi’s
[film-farsi is a pejorative term used to describe low-quality B movies], or those who,
because of prejudice, ideology or opportunism, treated film as a propagandist medium.”

(In an analysis of the wartime cinema industry, Homa Tavassoli, IRAN criticizes the
complete absence of women (nurses, mothers, widows, victims) from the battlefield
films)

CINEMA IS INCOMPLETE WITHOUT WOMEN!

Among the millions of movies that have ever been made, there have been millions of
actresses that have been a part of them. AUDREY HEPBURN was not only a brilliant
actress; she could have been the cynosure of all eyes. Anyone that has ever seen “MY
FAIR LADY” would attest to this statement. And I’m sure co-starring with the likes of
Humphrey Bogart and Gregory Peck didn’t have many drawbacks for her!

You remember “GONE WITH THE WIND”…The indomitable pair of VIVIEN LEIGH
as Scarlet O’Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. That was one Mills & Boon portrayal
of Romance…and what I would personally consider the beginning of a trend in
HOLLYWOOD. Then there was the famous (or rather infamous) THE BLUE LAGOON,
with highly erotic nee sexual IMAGERY, especially the scene in which the child suckles
on the mammary glands of the actress played by BROOKE SHIELDS. In another famous
scene, the actress starts menstruating and the lagoon water turns red.

“AND GOD CREATED WOMAN” (1956 FILM), a French drama film directed by
Roger Vadim and starring BRIGITTE BARDOT, caused much of a stir when released in
the United States in 1957 pushing the boundaries of the representation of sexuality in
American cinema, making Bardot an overnight sensation. It was condemned by the
Catholic League of Decency. To this day, the scene of Bardot dancing barefoot on a table
is considered by some to be one of the most erotic scenes in the history of cinema.

Film critic Dennis Schwartz wrote, "The breezy erotic drama was laced with some thinly
textured sad moments that hardly resonated as serious drama. But as slight as the story
was it was always lively and easy to take on the eyes, adding up to hardly anything more
than a bunch of snapshots of Bardot posturing as a sex kitten in various stages of undress.
The public loved it and it became a big box-office smash, and paved the wave for a spate
of sexy films to follow. What was more disturbing than its dullish dialogue and flaunting
of Bardot as a sex object, was that underneath its call for liberation was a reactionary and
sexist view of sex."

1
“EYES WIDE SHUT” a 1999 drama-mystery-thriller film directed, produced, and co-
written by Stanley Kubrick is infamous for similar reasons. The story, set in and around
New York City, follows the surreal, sexually charged adventures of Dr. William "Bill"
Harford (Tom Cruise), who is shocked after his wife, Alice (NICOLE KIDMAN), reveals
that she had contemplated having an affair a year earlier. The scene in which Kidman
dances naked in front of a mirror has been zoomed in on DVD copies after Tom Cruise
enters the room.

But there have been moments when FILM HAS NOT BEEN ENTIRELY UNFAIR TO
THE FAIRER GENDER! There have been actresses that have carried their cinema with
them, like JULIE ANDREWS in “THE SOUND OF MUSIC”, MERYL STREEP in
“OUT OF AFRICA”, KIM BASINGER in “NADINE” (1987) & “BATMAN” (1989) and
in more recent times & JODIE FOSTER in “THE ACCUSED” (1988).

What are the limits of justice? Of social responsibility? The Accused takes a powerful
and thought-provoking look at human nature and individual failings. Directed by
Jonathan Kaplan, Foster was awarded the 1988 Academy Award for Best Actress and
Golden Globe Award for her performance.

• Based on the real-life gang rape of Cheryl Araujo that occurred at Big Dan's Bar
in New Bedford, Massachusetts on March 6, 1983, this film was one of the first
Hollywood films to deal with rape in a direct manner. THE QUESTION IS OF
Aestheticization of violence, and this question has been raised while discussing
Kaplan's use of a violent rape scene in The Accused.

To be honest with you, the portrayal of Women as RAPE OBJECTS IN FILM disgusts
me. I find such representation unobtrusive at the least and revolting at the minimum. How
can we AESTHETICIZE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN? Such RAPE-FOR-PROFIT
FILMS CANNOT BE HEALTHY ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE FAMILY!

I will not comment on CENSORSHIP? But the meaning and concept of Censorship needs
some rethinking? Increasing portrayals of sex and violence in cinema may not add to an
already-soaring crime graph in the country, but it doesn’t help things either, or does it?

I have nothing much to say on films such as “THE BANDIT QUEEN” or

“BAWANDAR”…Perhaps ARUNDHATI ROY had something better to say:

The Great Indian Rape-Trick I

“At the premiere screening of Bandit Queen in Delhi, Shekhar Kapur introduced
the film with these words: "I had a choice between Truth and Aesthetics. I chose
Truth, because Truth is Pure."

To insist that the film tells the Truth is of the utmost commercial (and critical)
importance to him. Again and again, we are assured, in interviews, in reviews, and
eventually in writing on the screen before the film begins. "This is a True Story."

2
If it weren't the "Truth", what would redeem it from being just a classy version of
your run-of-the-mill Rape n' Retribution theme that our film industry churns out
every now and then? What would save it from the familiar accusation that it
doesn't show India in a Proper Light? Exactly Nothing.
It's the "Truth" that saves it. Every time. It dives about like Superman with a swiss
knife - and snatches the film straight from the jaws of unsavoury ignominy. It has
bought headlines. Blunted argument. Drowned criticism.

Whether or not it is the Truth is no longer relevant. The point is that it will, ( if it
hasn't already) - become the Truth.

Phoolan Devi the woman has ceased to be important. (Yes of course she exists.
She has eyes, ears, limbs hair etc. Even an address now) But she is suffering from
a case of Legenditis. She's only a version of herself. There are other versions of
her that are jostling for attention. Particularly Shekhar Kapur's "Truthful" one,
which we are currently being bludgeoned into believing.

"... it has the kind of story, which, if it were a piece of fiction, would be difficult to
credit. In fact, it is the true story of Phoolan Devi, the Indian child bride..."
Derek Malcolm writes in The Guardian.

But is it? The True Story? How does one decide? Who decides...?”

MOTHER INDIA DOES!

As a grown-up adult, when I was in my mid-twenties, I had watched “MOTHER

INDIA” (STARRING NARGIS) with my parents. Mother India is truly an epic in
the annals of BOLLYWOOD CINEMA. Why? Because the ethos and the Indian
societal conditions projected in the film almost 50 years ago (the movie was
released in 1957) have not changed much. Some of the key issues that Mother
India touched are overindulgence in celebrating marriage; illiteracy and ignorance
and accidents and helplessness but the pivotal part of the film was the
DEPICTION OF THE STRENGTH OF WOMAN. Unlike normal Indian movies
where the film ends with reunion of the hero and heroine, Shamu's departure early
on in the movie is the end of his role. Yet, Radha gains strength from the faith that
he might come back. It is not merely a melodramatic presentation by Director
Mehboob but an almost factual rendition when he shows problems after problems
including floods and destruction to the harvest. The rural India even today is at the
mercy of nature's bounties and fury. In the course of the floods Radha's two
children die. Hunger of her children is unbearable and it is at this juncture that
Radha the mother overcomes the ideal Radha the woman and agrees to trade her
body with Lala for few morsels of food. Eventually, however, the honor, strength,
character and womanhood of Radha the woman prevails and she returns back to
her hungry children with honor and dignity. The rural backdrop, the songs based
on folklore and an overall directorial effort by Mehboob make Mother India the

3
 epic movie. While the movie touches upon the various social prevalent ethos, the
core idea revolves on the honor and integrity of womanhood.

Dr. Arup Ratan Ghosh reveals how Satyajit Ray had portrayed Indian
women in the milieu of sensitive time and space in his films. “The Bengali
Renaissance in the 19th Century, acquiring knowledge and progressive culture,
the helping hand to set up the identity of woman in stead of the male dominance,
dissolving the barrier of someone's inner and outer life due to the strong feeling of
love and many other elements are integregrated beautifully in “CHARULATA”
(1964). To Satyajit Ray the village women are also very nice. The various
women-centric dimensions like poverty, teenage, Indian womanhood, social
changes are reflected in his films. Sarbajoya or Durga (in “PATHER PANCHALI”
or The song of the road, 1955 and “APARAJITA” or The Unvanquished, 1956)
are brilliant examples of all these.

A real downtrodden woman actually comes in “SADGATI” (Deliverance, 1982). She is

Jhuria in the film acted brilliantly by SMITA PATIL. Khurshid (SHABANA AZMI),
Nafeesa (Farida Jalal ), Aulea Begum (Veena) are artistically presented to create the
historical background and the filmic documentation and perspectives of the transit
moments of the film when the British were usurping India's independance in
“SHATARANJ KE KHILARI” (The Chess Players, 1977). Showing different facets of
woman in separate films in a disentangled way Satyajit Ray turns towards the
maunstream of human life. Actually Ray traces the flow of life from the primitive age to
our time. Today's modern woman is also it's out put or consequences.

Ray's women suffers from their inner and outer agoney but most of them go forward for a
betterment or for a change. To keep them cinematically moving many women figures
surround them creating Satyajit Ray's world of woman. He has looked upon the women
from the 19 century to the eighties of the 20 century with his deep isight behind the
camrea. We also have looked upon these celluloid-lit women figures. This is a kind of
male gaze too. But it is not similar as Laura Mulvey reflected in her paper Vsual pleasure
and narrative cinema in the middle of the 70s attacking the habit of looking at the female
figures in the screen in visual pleasure by the male spectators .Still if we see with the
vision of Satyajit Ray towards the women of today or even the image of women in the
good movies we find the second generation ladies exist in an excellent hierarchy or are
present in the cinematic milieu. And they all are very much egar for changing
themselves.”

One generally would not expect women in our films to be represented the same way that
they might be in a modern European or American film; I think the major challenge before
the filmmaker is to take into account those features that are now recognized as universal
in women and apply them in a manner that ACKNOWLEDGES & RESPECTS THE
CULTURAL CONTEXT, THE PLACE where the film is set and the TIME PERIOD in
which the film is set. What I mean by that is that we do not blow issues such as
FEMINISM out of proportion! Where both women and men are treated or represented the

4
way they should ordinarily be WITH DIGNITY & RESPECT, rather than simply
conforming to norms/standards that may be otherwise out of place…

I think the contrast between the two heroines in “CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN
DRAGON” is interesting. Yu Shu Lien is very much what I think of as a modern woman
- she's straightforward, she's confident, and she interacts with men as equals. Jen Yu, on
the other hand, is like a late nineteenth century romance heroine - she seems realistic only
if one put her hyperemotionality and whimsicality down to her youth. She seems more of
an archetype or cypher and less of a person. She makes her choices for emotional reasons
rather than, as Shu Lien does, for rational ones. Of course, that's not to say that emotion
either does or should have no place in women's thinking. There's an implication in the
film's resolution that Shu Lien has missed out on what is most important to her because
she's refused to yield to her emotions, but the same criticism might be made of Li Mu
Bai, so I don't think it's a comment on her as a woman, just on her as a person. (Jennie
Kermode, Sept 2007, Glasgow, SCOTLAND)

A woman ought not to be treated with disdain for a failure to conform to general social
expectations. So far as the representation of Women in Cinema were concerned!