这部电影是在等《叛徒》的时候看的，因为非常喜欢导演的第一部。考虑到《叛徒》的情节，我决定用这部电影先打打牙祭，中和一下。但看过之后，是现在我愿意给5分。因为这部电影让我觉得细水长流的剧情也不一定是无味的，只有两个人的聊天也不一定是繁冗的。我不是专业影评，萝卜青菜各有所爱。所以就我一个普通观众的视角来看，这部电影可看性还是很高的。有很多片段值得你回味，因为会有很多第一部的影子。所以希望能更加了解这部电影的话，推荐你看看第一部再来看这部。感觉会更好。而且静下来看一下，会很舒服。

首先，这部电影一开始我没有静下心来看，所以我很难进入剧情。不过后来剧院里面很安静，我也就静下心来。含着一颗糖，很快进入状态。这部电影主演功不可没。他们的眼睛有戏，面部表情有年华逝去的味道。女主角真优雅，虽然年纪很大了。但让我想到了旧上海穿旗袍的名媛的风情，简直分分钟都让人心碎和心醉。故地重游，再加上两人之间的对话，分分钟都有自己是主角的感觉。虽然有点炒冷饭的嫌疑，不过能看到教堂，小巷，酒店，广场，歌剧院，感觉像是穿越了大半辈子的情感，依然依附在这些建筑物上面。每一个场景都让我觉得熟悉。当时看完第一部，我特意去参观过这些场景。现在再次看这些地方，有点故地重游的感觉。上一次让我有这种感觉的电影，还是罗马假日。全片没有什么高潮和冲突，就像是乘着小船在平静的湖面飘远的感觉。推荐大家在心里平静的时候来看这部电影，你会在不知不觉中观看完整部电影。

当声音整合时间，影像则用于时间的错乱和倒置。

【错乱】和【倒置】是导演这次内容创作上的精华所在，从她自己的采访可以看出她的大量思考。我这里列举一些所看到的影像制造的错乱和倒置：

1.殖民地域：导演所选择的故事发生地，有着前线和内地两个矛盾却共存的性质。

对殖民者来说，它是他们领土的【前线】，是可以制造新次序新规则的【新】世界

但对于土著来说，这片土地则是他们的【内地】，是【最本地，最居家】的地方，也是最【旧】的地方。

在这样一个矛盾的地方，尤其是对居于殖民者底层和被殖民者顶层的Zama来说，他所面对的影像其实会给他更多自我身份的错置和偏离体验。【disorientation】。而这一切都是靠影像完成的。

2.欧洲和美洲地域：

这样无中生有的地域，相当于一个高不上低不就的世界，其中还存在着对自己美洲身份的游离，和对遥远的欧洲身份的渴望。

我们曾经在《密阳》讨论里提的：在一个亚洲的闭塞村落里制造一个基督教。这个语境和情节其实和《zama》中的美洲殖民者在美洲原始地企图制造一个欧洲文明地的语境和情节很像。

也是我特别喜欢电影的一点；就是一群人跑去一个环境错误的地方强行而蛮横的模拟心目中的乌托邦世界。

为了制造一个理想的欧洲文明社区，殖民者本身也时刻在抵抗自然和原始文明对他们的强大洗刷。他们的家具和衣服精致却快速破败，假发也不断掉落被扶起来，他们躲在小屋子里靠黑奴来维持某种贵族感的生活，时刻得抵抗着，不要风尘仆仆沦为动物。在这种情况下，他们制造的世界其实从影像上就是一个全新幻想的世界，一个时间倒错和交混（很努力地开拓这片原始土地，使之“进步”一百年，但同时，其实也是很努力在“追赶”10年前的欧洲生活）的世界。所以，这种错乱也造成了这群殖民者成功与失败的双重心理处境。

3.身份错置：奴役人与被奴役。

表面上奴役与被奴役的双重职业，即殖民者与被殖民，限制者与被限制者的双重身份，自不必多说。

我这里想额外强调一下：身份错置还包含着更巨大的生命权利和地位的错置，这点尤其在影片里无数次出现的动物镜头里可见一斑。

在影片里，动物的出现总是处理得特别平淡，但其实细细想来，其实也很神奇。

在【动物-土著奴隶-土著贴身侍从-底层管理者-上层殖民者-遥远从未出现的国王】的权利链条中，动物显然是最底层，但当它们共存在画面中时，它们总是最自然，最淡定，有时候，它们会直接篡夺电影的主体目光，仿佛它们才是整个故事的全知扮演者，静静看着人类盲目持续他们的故事。比如电影好几次聚焦在动物的眼睛上，动物有时候直视灾难，也直视电影外的观众。

我特别喜欢电影后面，土著人打劫殖民者的时候，只说了句，要带走动物。那匹马从一群人过渡到另一群人，有意思的是，他们也许会引发血腥事件，会两败俱伤，但这匹马却是这次事件中最会幸免于难的存在。到后来，土著人又归还了这匹马。看到这里我产生一个疑问：人们都自以为控制了土地，控制了另一群人，也控制了动物，但其实，是最温顺的动物，最无声的土地，偷偷的操控着人。以前在人类简史里看到一个观点说，麦子会让自己进化的更容易播种收割，味道更好吃，看似被人大量食用，看似是牺牲，其实是它们在利用人帮助延续它们的基因和繁衍。

这个看法在zama中我再次体会到了。在动物/自然/人类文化的混合图像中，生命力量在不停地暗自转换，生物的身份和地位在偷偷交替。影片中的人们身处其中，他们不知道，也许动物和土地才是暗自控制他们的人，而这种错置通过影像才得以明确建立。

18年7月24日

邵氏出品 必属佳片 哈哈哈好像邵氏集团早期的片子没有看过 在那个时代应该很先进 但是 拿到现在看我就觉得是在看搞笑武打片 因为真的很好玩 弹幕有人说 小霸王游戏机即视感 [允悲]

金庸原著 倪匡编剧 大概倪匡对金庸有点小意见 剧情改动略多 武打 特技较多 感情线略少 特技真的可以一看 因为很好玩 [太开心][太开心]

曾凭借瑞典电影《更好的世界》斩获奥斯卡最佳外语片、电视剧《夜班经理》获得艾美奖迷你剧集最佳导演的苏珊娜·比尔这次和开发了许多经典律政题材电视剧的大卫·凯利合作，带来了本该在2020年5月上映的HBO迷你剧《无所作为》。苏珊娜导演的电影和剧集往往都非常注重风景和色彩的运用，如同舞台剧的布景一样，为她要讲述的故事设定一个基本阀值。这回她带领我们领略了冬季日里泛白和夜晚泛黄而又暧昧的纽约，似乎在提醒我们，这繁华如出城市背后的种种，大概都只能一笑而过。

这部剧讲述的是弗雷舍一家的故事，格蕾丝是一名时薪不菲在纽约上东区执业的心理治疗师和身为肿瘤医生的丈夫及一个喜欢拉小提琴的儿子生活在纽约市区的一幢大房子里。佛雷舍一家的生活看上去如同冬季白天的纽约一样，简单、幸福、纯粹、不时有意无意地向外人展示其无懈可击。然而，这脆弱却又略显乏味的表象之下，就如同华灯初上的纽约一样显得暧昧又充满骚动。儿子学校四年级转来的新生母亲艾莲娜如同夜里向上飞升的烟火一样，冀望以其短暂却明亮的一瞬揭开这暧昧的假象。她就向一个炸弹一样，袭向了格蕾丝的上层生活圈。她在这所学费50000美元一个学年的贵族学校，如同一个入侵者，给了那些名门贵族们一瞥下层人民生活的机会，如同格蕾丝的名媛朋友所说：“谁会在送完孩子上学后，有空在校门前瞎坐呢？这操蛋的可是在纽约！”

艾莲娜短暂的出场时间，将情节推进的急转直下。先是在学校慈善晚宴的筹备会上当众喂乳，虽然格蕾丝感到不舒服却说不过是一个母亲在喂小孩罢了。接着在运动馆的第二次相遇，艾莲娜一丝不挂、落落大方却又略带挑衅的站在格蕾丝面前，让她显得局促又不安。然而第一集的最后，艾莲娜死亡的消息瞬间将一切带进到一场漩涡之中。格蕾丝被逼不得不直视这个生活入侵者和其可能给她生活带来的影响，她开始焦虑的寻找她那个声称去外地参加研讨会的丈夫。

格蕾丝身为心理咨询师在谈及两性关系时，认为人们对于他们卷入的情感牢笼是自投罗网。因为他们在交往的过程中，有意识的忽略或者逃避了伴侣身上的某些特征，换句话说，对于伴侣是个什么样的人，其实大家心知肚明却又无所作为。你从一开始就知道，他是花花公子、他手脚大方、他自满自大、从你们的第一次交谈、第二次约会时，你心里就明白了。但是，随后你却会下意识地说服自己，忘却那些你对他的评判并以经过更长时间的相处，你比之前更全面地了解他而作为有力的论据。

现实生活中的，我们是不是也时常这样。你第一次和房东聊天，就明白他其实是个难搞的人，却因为找房的压力和随后几次的见面而说服自己，他大概也没那么糟糕？你第一次和雇主聊天，就明白这家公司并不适合你，却因为担心再也找不到更合适的而鼓励自己这家公司还不错？你第一次和那个人约会，就明白你对他其实并没有什么兴趣，却因为年纪和条件而告诫自己不能眼光太高？

随着丈夫的失踪，他和艾莲娜死亡之间的关系以及他那不为人知的一面开始慢慢示人的时候，格蕾丝也不得不问自己这个问题：“是不是，我自己一早就知道他是个彻头彻尾的伪君子，而我却有意识地忽略了他的这些特质呢？”格蕾丝在纽约长大，家庭条件优越，孩子的贵族学校费用由其父亲承担，她的生活经历就建立在这些稳固而又坚硬的金钱关系中，她一生都在享有特权的状态下生活，然而关键的是这种享有特权的状态让她很难意识到自己真的在享有特权。在这种稳定而又积极的世界观中，她们会倾向于将自己目前的生活状态归因于是其自己努力而来，而其他人要么是不努力、要么是不聪明、要么是没眼界、所以他们没办法过上富足的生活。吊诡的是，格蕾丝似乎从接触到艾莲娜时就明白，这个女人会给自己的生活带来翻天覆地的破坏、这个女人所处的生活状态并非一个她不够努力就能解释，然而她却选择一再地忽视这些细节，从而劝慰自己。

导演在接受采访时说，对一本好书进行电视改编最为重要的是得在原作基础之上进行适当戏剧化改编。这样可以在保持原著精华之上但是却又有独立的意识表达。所以这部剧虽然是对《You Should Have Known》的改编，但是在其人物设置和核心表达上都有所变化。苏珊娜想通过格蕾丝的故事来探索，如何讲述一个混乱不堪的故事。如何讲述一个充满困惑的故事。如何讲述一个噪杂喧嚣的故事。如何讲述一个即使你一直以为生活在其中的世界崩塌了，而你却要继续正常或假装可以正常生活的故事。讽刺的是，这些故事并不只是故事，而是你我生活在其中的现实。

如何讲述好一个混论不堪、噪杂喧嚣、乐此不疲的故事？环顾一下四周、偶尔看下新闻、不时刷刷网路？比戏剧更为荒诞的现实不会让你失望。美国作家乔纳森在他的作品《纠正》里最后如此写道：“然而在他咽气之后，她对着他额头轻轻一吻，随即与丹尼斯和加里出门，走入温暖的春夜。现在她觉得什么也不能扼杀她的希望，无论什么。她已经七十五岁了，她将开始改变自己的生活。”

大卫·凯利几年前就买下来原著的改编权，但是因为原著缺乏影集所需要的情绪冲突而先改编了两季的《大小谎言》，然而原著里对曼哈顿上层1%人群的锋利笔触让其久久不能忘怀。当他向导演交出第一集剧本时，剧情的走向可以偏剧情也可以偏悬疑。而导演青睐对“我到底能相信谁”的追问，于是剧情走向了悬疑风格。然而，太阳底下无新事，大多数人看完首集后即使猜不到结局，大概也都有其内心笃定的剧情走向。虽然导演极其老道地用蒙太奇及手持镜头极力想增加剧情的悬疑性，而这种过度地细节镜头运用也时常会让人略感厌倦和丧失耐心。重要的并不是在于他值不值得你相信，或者说不是在于他做没做。说实话，重要的是你自己。而更为重要的大概是希望在不久的一天，你能走入温暖的春夜，而不是在七十五岁时。

更新（以下有结局轻微剧透）：

上面的影评是基于第一集及原著的情节基础之上而写的。HBO虽改编较大但核心未变，也印证了导演接受采访时所说的既保持了原著的精华同时也有了不同的表达方式。最后亨利和格蕾丝背对乔纳森的呼喊，头也不回时，算是点题。评论区蒂娜的评论视角独特，观点深刻，谢谢大家！

看完电影就跑来豆瓣读评论，是我多年来养成的习惯，看到很多豆友评价这电影“笑贫不笑娼”的观点属三观不正引起了我的思考。思考有三：“笑贫不笑娼”这句话究竟是褒义还是贬义？其二，这是句鼓励的话呢还是句无奈的丧气话？其三，是走投无路后的下下之策呢，还是旧社会留下的玩世不恭的俏皮话儿？

那现今的社会笑什么？还笑不笑了？在电影《下海》中，从法国回来的张丽娜靠那个事儿赚了不少，等他们小两口儿的店一开张，两人也就体体面面地当上老板再也不担心温饱问题了，那些不光彩的事情就让它留在法兰西吧，随着塞纳河一同西去了。当然影视作品中需要戏剧冲突，若不是突然杀出来的老乡非要跟着一起回来，现实中也许张丽娜并没有打算这么早回去。

作为土生土长的辽宁人，在上世纪九十年代，沈阳、丹东、大连有很多人去了国外，他们当然不是什么留学深造，大部分人是对下岗自由择业的政策手足无措，又不愿意在家呆着游手好闲或去打麻将，一咬牙一跺脚，跟家里的亲戚朋友凑了钱就去了日本和韩国，也有很多人去了英国、美国和法国，那个时候我读初中，不少同学的哥哥姐姐们都是在那个时候走的，没走之前他们都是子承父业在厂里上班儿。现如今，她们不少人有的留在了国外开枝散叶，买了房产在异乡安居乐业，不过每次回国可都是轰轰烈烈、衣锦还乡的。看的我们这些四线城市的小青年们对外面的世界充满着幻想。

跟电影《下海》中描绘的一模一样，我同学的姐姐出国一段时间后就开始往回寄钱了，她们一家人先是离开了老城区的那间小平房，大大方方地搬进了临江区的高楼大厦，后来他家又开饭店、办公司，千禧年后的二零零九年，我同学结婚的时候她姐姐专程从国外赶回来给他办的婚礼，当时特别有排场还送车送房呢。就在前几年，听人说我同学在我们市的开发区那边儿买了两块儿地准备搞房地产开发了。现在除了我们这些一起长大的老同学，大概没人记得她的姐姐曾是卖菜的小贩了，也没有人笑她姐姐当时在出入境办护照的时候连填表都不会，里面的字儿都是我们帮她写的了。

说这些不是要映射什么，也不是说所有出国的人最后都走了张丽娜这条路，但是国外的月亮没比较圆，那里是更加残酷和竞争的社会，钻石山上不是真的有钻石，旧金山上不是真能挖出金子，你想的国外和真正到了那儿之后的生活很可能是天差地别的。人有时候往往只看好的一面，他们羡慕、会交口称赞，可在不好的时候，有人会远离也有人会偷笑，那些在国外的人都吃了什么样的苦，也许并没有人感兴趣，也没人想知道。

电影《天长地久》里描述关于下岗时期的场面很真实，当中有批判的视角也有人文关怀，可不论怎样，有些事回头想想并不算是什么坏事。我们身边那些越来越多的财富故事，越来越多的富人都是从什么时候如雨后春笋般一茬又一茬冒出来的呢？正是那看似茫然的九十年代！温水中的青蛙易死，跳出舒适区的人们突然被命运撞了一下腰，他们并没掉下贫困的泥沼，而是在布满荣誉和财富的福堆儿里无法自拔。衣锦还乡的姐妹们成了家族的骄傲，宝马X5的轰鸣声淹没了那些晦涩和无法言说的东西，国外的世界经由这些人的现身说法变成了劳动人民的巧克力工厂，据说那里的贫民窟都能跑出百万富翁。

二十一世纪来临了，科技发达到生活方式都被改编了，可留在人们内心中古老的传统观念并没有消失，笑贫还是不笑贫？笑娼还是成为娼？笑还是不笑？To be or not to be这也许不再是个问题了，不然哪儿来的那么多鼓着脑门儿，削尖了脸，撑大了胸脯，天天用手机不拍脸猛拍屁股的女人们呢？她们做的事情到底是为了美呢还是娱乐大众呢？

不劳动还不爱动脑子，那就活该你贫穷。也许这句话的本意也一直被实践着，只要你肯努力，你能放得下，那么你的梦想就会实现。可你的梦想是什么呢？是精神上的富足还是物质上的满足？可谁的梦想会是做一个清贫的诗人呢？

女主不是傻白甜 是纯sb

恋爱脑+自我感动?国产青春片经典女主

男主人设也很模糊

演技也就是一二三木头人的水平

所谓双向奔赴也是大部分时候女主奔

恋爱脑起来吧又能放弃出国

没有自我的恋爱脑能感动谁？

整部片子到底是想塑造成人童话温暖异地恋群体 或者是现实主义反思之类的 路线根本是模糊的 编剧都没搞清楚自己要写什么吧？

女二那一对值一星 我个人很喜欢那一对呢状态

女主的哭戏半颗星

好了 没了

豆瓣不能评1.5

所以 一颗星

个人意见 不喜勿入

总体评价：作为大年初一上映的网络电影，我想说，《抬头见喜》真的值得电影票！??故事题材：预打算献礼二十大的单元片，从老年怀旧，中年危机，三胎二娃和财富价值的四个维度，以小人物为切口，深刻展现当代中国社会存在的主要风貌。??主题主旨：最让我印象深刻的是第一个单元。以当下热门话题元宇宙为背景，郭文翰郭仔，帮助姥爷在另一个世界见到了已逝的老伴。从现实与回忆的场景布置来看，我们见证了中国近几十年来的快速发展，从钢铁厂房到独立起居室，居民的生活质量在不断提高。当然，影片的中心围绕一家人的温情展开，为了让姥爷能够从疫情中走出，一家人齐上阵，帮助姥爷重拾对生活的热爱，而啃老的郭仔，也重新拾起自己互联网的能力，走出自我。??演员表现：演员王鹤棣的演绎最让我惊喜。褪去东方青苍和肖铎的外壳，一头松松垮垮的黄发，一句句略显撇脚的川普就塑造了一个大男孩形象。尤其是他的眼睛，总能很精确地向观众传递他当下的心静，来日方长，期待他的更多电影作品！??总体评价：“有些人留在了过去，却成为了你未来的每个黎明。”感谢《抬头见喜》，在大年初一，让我感受到了不一样的温情！2023年，祝大家都能抬头就见喜！！！

【详细】

149480

clit2014, jan 2, 晚交了20天，我再也不想上gender studies了我要吐了，写这篇paper不知道经历了多少mental breakdown

Women’s Experience Matters: Redefining Feminist Cinema through Claire’s Camera

As Laura Mulvey points out in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, traditional narrative cinema largely relies upon the practice of a gendered “gaze”, specifically, male’s unconscious objectification of female as erotic spectacle from which visual pleasure is derived. Her account draws attention to the prevailing feminist-unfriendly phenomena in contemporary cinema, one that resides in the language of patriarchy, privileging man’s experience while making woman the passive object deprived of autonomy. Many feminist filmmakers and theorists including Mulvey herself urge a radical strategy that dismantles patriarchal practice and frees woman from the state of being suppressed by the male-centered cinematic language.To conceptualize a mode of cinema that speakswoman’s language, or authentic feminist cinema, this essay interrogates the validity of Mulvey’s destruction approach in pursuing a feminist aesthetic. By making reference to Hong Sang-soo’s film, Claire’s Camera, I argue that feminist cinema needs to be redefined by neither the immediate rejection of gender hierarchy nor the postmodern notion of fluidity, but by perspectives that transcend the gendered metanarrative of subject vs. object, and that primarily represent and serve woman’s experience on both sides of the Camera.

Earlier waves of feminism strived to call attention to, if not, eliminate the unbalanced power relation between men and women in the society, namely the dichotomy between domination and submission, superiority and inferiority, and self and other (Lauretis 115). Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir radically interrogated women’s rights in the political arena as well as women’s relative position to men in the society at large. However, the approaches of the earlier waves cannot prove themselves sufficient in pursuit of a female autonomy, owing to the fact that they are constantly caught in the power-oriented metalanguage which inherently privileges one over another. While it is argued that the objectification of the “second sex” is oppressive in nature, for example, the assertion already marks the subject-object dynamics between men and women by default. It fails to propose non-power based gender narratives, while obliquely acknowledging that the language spoken in this context is inevitably characterized by phallocentric symbols, ones that prioritize self over other, subject over object, male over female. In thisregard, rather than rendering a perspective that exposes and dismantles patriarchy, the outcome of earlier feminist approaches inclines towards “replicating male ideology” (Mackinnon 59), reifying the omnipresence of the patriarchal language and reproducing the effects of patriarchy.

A similar notion applies to defining feminist cinema. In terms of visual representation, feminist idealists encourage women to present their bodily spectacles, inviting interpretations free of erotic objectification. Despite the favorable receptions from the sex-positive side of the discourse, it is indiscernible as to whether these attempts truly free women from the dome of sex-negativism or reinforce the effect of the patriarchal language even more. This polarized debate, I believe, is due to the fact that the discourse is held captive by the language of patriarchy too powerful for one to extricate from, and that any rebellious gesture would appear to be an insufficient, passive rejection of the predominant ideology. To illustrate this point, Lauretis notes that Mulvey’s and other avant-garde filmmakers’ conceptualization of women’s cinema often associates with the prefix of “de-” with regards to “the destruction… of the very thing to be represented, …the deaestheticization of the female body, the desexualization of violence, the deoedipalization of narrative, and so forth” (175). The “de-” act does not necessarily configure a new set of attributes for feminist representation, but merely displays a negative reaction to a preexisting entity. It is important to be skeptical of its effectiveness in defining feminist cinema, as it implies certain extent of negotiation instead of spot-on confrontation with the previous value. A destructive feminist cinema can never provide a distinctive set of aesthetic attributes without having to seek to problematize and obscure the reality of a patriarchal cinema. In that regard, it is passive, dependent and depressed. More importantly, the question – how the destruction of visual and narrative pleasure immediately benefits women within the narrative and directly addresses female spectators – remains unanswered.

TakingClaire’s Cameraas an example, the film destructs the notion of a gendered visual pleasure by presenting the camera as a reinvented gazing apparatus, one that differs from the gendered gaze, and instead brings novel perception into being. Normally, when characters are being photographed, mainstream filmmakers tend to introduce a viewpoint in alignment with the photographer’s position, enabling spectator’s identification; that is, the shot usually shifts to a first-person perspective so that spectators identify with the photographer gazing at the object who is in front of the camera. Claire’s Camera, however, abandons this first-person perspective while generating new meanings of the gaze. Claire ambiguously explains to So and Yanghye the abstract idea that taking photographs of people changes the photographer’s perception of the photographed object, and that the object is not the same person before their photograph was taken. The spectacle, although objectifiable in nature, is not so passive as being the object constructed upon, but rather constructs new signification upon the subject. The notion of the gaze is therefore re-presented with alternative insights.

That being said, as I argued earlier, the destructive approach is not so sufficient an attempt at defining feminist cinema, because the way it functions nevertheless indulges feminist ideology in the role of passivity, deprived of autonomy and always a discourse dependent on and relative to the prepotency of patriarchy. In the conversation scene between So and Manhee, So, who is almost the age of Manhee’s father, criticizes her for wearing revealing shorts and heavy makeup. In a typically phallocentric manner, he insists that she has insulted her beautiful face and soul by self-sexualizing and turning into men’s erotic object. Despite the fact that the preceding scenes have no intention to eroticize the female body or sexualize her acts such that the visual pleasure is deliberately unfulfilled and almost completely excluded from the diegesis, So inevitably finds Manhee’s physical features provocative and without a second thought, naturally assumes that her bodily spectacle primarily serves man’s interest. This scene demonstrates that regardless of feminists’ radical destruction of visual pleasure, practitioners of patriarchal beliefs will not be affected at all; if any, the femininity enunciation only intensifies the social effects of patriarchy. The conversation between the two characters embodies the self-reflexive style of Hong Sang-soo’s filmmaking, in a sense that it fosters debates within the theoretical framework upon which it is constructed, and constantly counters itself in search of a deeper meaning, contemplating questions such as do we believe in what we practice, whether it is patriarchy or its opposite? And is anti-patriarchy feminism determined enough to prove itself a destructive force against patriarchy rather than a sub-deviant of a predominant ideology? The scene proves the drawback of a destructive strategy, that the way it operates nonetheless subscribes to a patriarchal manner, and that in order to escape the secondary position with respect to the phallocentric subject, more needs to be done other than problematizing the subject.

To supplement the insufficiency of destruction, postmodern feminists such as Judith Butler proposes theoretical alternative to approach the discourse. Butler argues that gender is performative and fluid instead of a set of essential attributes. The notion of performativity indeed precludes the social effects of essentialism by introducing the idea of an identity continuum into gender politics, in ways that empower the socially perceived non-normative. On top of that, Butler believes that the categorization of sex “maintain[s] reproductive sexuality as a compulsory order”, and that the category of woman is an exclusive and oppressive “material violence” (17). Acknowledging the harms that essentialist perception of gender and sexuality entails, Butler bluntly negates the very categorization of woman. This radical negation, however, evades the reality that our whole understanding of the human race is based on gender categories, despite the corresponding inequalities generated from the instinctual categorization. In fact, it is when women as a collective community have come to the realization that the female gender is socially suppressed, that they start to strive for equality through the apparatus of feminism. Butler’s rejection of the gender categorization withdraws the sense of collectivism in the feminist community, which is “an important source of unity” for the marginalized (Digeser 668). Moreover, it deprives the feminist cinema of the necessity of delineating an authentic female representation, because within the notion of performativity there is no such thing as a fixed set of female representations but only distinctive individuals that conform to gender fluidity. Since identifying with a certain form of representation means to live up to a socially perceived norm from which one deviates, a performative cinema does not encourage spectator’s identification. The failed identification will not only drastically shift the spectator’s self-understanding but also cause more identity crises. Therefore, performativity is too ideal a theoretical concept to have actual real-life applications.

Whether it is her body or her social function, woman has become the commodity of patriarchy. As Lauretis puts it, “she is the economic machine that reproduces the human species, and she is the Mother, an equivalent more universal than money, the most abstract measure ever invented by patriarchal ideology” (158). Woman’s experience has been portrayed in the cinematic realm nothing more than being the (m)other and the provocative body. Historical debates have proved that articulating the problematic tendencies within gender differences only results in skepticism rather than new solutions. Thus, in order to negotiate a feminist cinema, filmmakers need to abandon the patriarchal meta-language completely, and reconstruct new texts that represent and treasure woman’s experience more than just being the other, that “[address] its spectator as a woman, regardless of the gender of the viewers” (Lauretis 161).

Similarly, what needs to be done in feminist cinema is more than just interrogating the gender difference between woman and man, but interpreting such difference in unconventional ways that liberate women from being compared to men and invite them to possibilities of having narratives dedicated to themselves. One of the ways, Lauretis suggests, is to regard woman as the site of differences (168). This signifies that the cinema needs to stop generalizing woman’s role based on her universal functions; rather, it needs to articulate her unique features, what makes her herself but not other women, from the way she looks to the trivial details of her daily life. In Claire’s Camera, the function of the camera conveniently transcends the diegetic space. In the narrative, it demarcatesthe “site of differences”, that is, how someone changes right after their photograph is taken, as well as how Manhee is presented differently each of the three times being photographed. The camera also magnifies her experience as a woman for spectator’s identification, mundane as it could be. In the last scene, the camera smoothly tracks Manhee organizing her belongings, packing box after box, casually talking to a colleague passing by, and so forth. Long takes like this fulfill what Lauretis would call “the ‘pre-aesthetic’ [that] isaestheticrather than aestheticized” in feminist cinema (159). Without commodifying or fetishizing woman and her acts, the film authentically represents a woman’s vision, her perception, her routines, and all the insignificant daily events which female spectators can immediately relate to. When a film no longer solely portrays woman as the “economic machine” that labors, entices men, and commits to social roles, it has confidently overwritten the patriarchal narrative with a female language. It fully addresses its spectator as a woman, appreciating and celebrating the female sex, not for what she does as a woman but for what she experiences.

In conclusion, the essay first challenges the destructive approach in feminist cinema regarding its sufficiency in pursuit of woman’s autonomy and its indestructible destiny to fall back into patriarchy. The essay then argues that the rejection of gender categorization in performativity theory frustrates the mission of defining a female representation. Hong Sang-soo’s self-reflexive film, Claire’s Camera, offers an apparatus to delve into the drawbacks of destructive feminist cinema and simultaneously renders a new feminist code, abandoning the patriarchal metanarrative and constructing a new narrative that truly prioritizes woman’s experience.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. “Contingent Foundations: Feminist and the Questions of ‘Postmodernism.’”Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, Routledge, 1992, pp. 3–21.

Digeser, Peter. “Performativity Trouble: Postmodern Feminism and Essential Subjects.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, 1994, pp. 655-673.

Lauretis, Teresa de. “Aesthetic and Feminist Theory: Rethinking Women's Cinema.”New German Critique, no. 34, 1985, pp. 154–175.

Lauretis, Teresa de. “Eccentric Subjects: Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness.”Feminist Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, 1990, pp. 115–150.

Mackinnon, Catherine A. “Desire and Power.”Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 46–62.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.”The Norton Anthology and Theory and Criticism, edited by Vincent B Leitch, W. W. Norton, 2001, pp. 2181–2192.