Posted by: Badalamenti Fan
1) The paradox OP pointed out makes an awful lot of sense to me, raising the question: Can a male filmmaker successfully depict misogyny/violence against women and trauma/survival/resistance in a manner that takes a critical stance toward the former?
That is the quote 🙂
Posted by: Badalamenti Fan
Issues of race/ethnicity and representation are also not new for Lynch. Dorothy Valens
What has Dorothy Valens (Isabella Rossellini) to do with "race issues"? She looks pretty white to me: (central) Italian, German and Swedish origins. No one here in Italy would consider her other than a white woman, just like Sherilyn Fenn and Lara Flynn Boyle. Anyway this "ethnic" issue must be something very yrev 😉 American since here an Italian is not considered anything else than a "white person", though, of course we're (like all humans) of mixed ancestry. And yes, racism and all race issues are definitely BS.
Interesting question/observation, Kyle Anderson. Although they are all often taken to be natural and self-evident, race and ethnicity are neither. I appreciate your pointing out as much by contrasting how Dorothy was/would have been perceived in Italy with how American scholars and critics have interpreted her (presuming a "mainstream" or native English-speaking, presumably "white" viewer...)
You might be interested to know that many U.S. historians (notably, Noel Ignatiev) have argued that poor, Italian- and Irish-American immigrants were racialized as "non-white" by more established, city-dwelling populations of the late 19th-c. (ahem...e.g., the English and their ancestors)
In the twentieth century, actresses with both European and non-European "foreign" accents were frequently cast to add "exotic" intrigue sex appeal to their roles... Such characters/actresses are, for instance, ubiquitous in the "femme fatale" role of detective noir,... which is what, I think, Lynch was evoking with the character of Dorothy Valens.
So, yes, I think one can recognize Dorothy and Josie share more than a little in common in terms of how their accents contribute to their perceived sex appeal and "danger."
"You might be interested to know that many U.S. historians (notably, Noel Ignatiev) have argued that poor, Italian- and Irish-American immigrants were racialized as "non-white" by more established, city-dwelling immigrant populations of the late 19th-c. (ahem...e.g., the English and their ancestors)"
I ignorantly brought this up to a fellow Afro-American student in one of my seminars, as she was telling me that white female scholars should not be allowed to theorize on Afro-American literature. I was angry about her comment. And she half-shouted, "But we are always the comparison!" I didn't realize until years later how deaf I was to her correct assessment. I apologized profusely years later.
Thanks for this anecdote, Shrrk. To clarify, I certainly wasn't endorsing uncritical adoption of Ignatiev's argument (as I understand it, of course). Rather, I thought it might be pertinent to a conversation I sensed was moving toward a consensus that constructions of race are contingent on cultural and historical contexts...
Not a reflection/criticism of what you wrote - just my own personal experience and regret.
Posted by: Badalamenti Fan
1) The paradox OP pointed out makes an awful lot of sense to me, raising the question: Can a male filmmaker successfully depict misogyny/violence against women and trauma/survival/resistance in a manner that takes a critical stance toward the former?
That is the quote 🙂
Ah, I intended the word "successfully" to be the key here. From your post, I understand your answer to this question is an emphatic "YES."
I'm less certain.
"Not a reflection/criticism of what you wrote - just my own personal experience and regret. "
I see now--- thanks. Yeah, these discussions are difficult in person, let alone on a web forum. I have the darnedest time reading/writing "tone" into my posts and recognizing others' cues...
Definitely have plenty of facepalm-level regret moments from such discussions at school myself...
If someone has not lived an experience, does that mean they can never write about it? Goodbye sci-fi and fantasy as it is all made up.
Respectfully, I think we're discussing two different things. Nobody here made the claim your reply refuted. What 's up for discussion , if I understood everyone correctly, is the would-be paradox of a text of social criticism/commentary that quite spectacularly "reinscribes" some of the structural/social inequalities it otherwise critiques.... pardon the jargony sentence there.
OP, et al., please correct me if I've misrepresented what's under discussion...
Stated otherwise: "Can two white male artists convincingly say what (it seems) they have set out to 'say' about stereotypes/structural violence/inequality with respect to gender and race via artistic conventions that rely on representations of stereotypes, structural violence, etc.." thoughts?
EDIT: in other words, it's not about verisimilitude or realism with respect to geographic or demographic diversity, per se. Rather: if (and this is a big "if") their goal is to say something critical about X, does it work to use X to this end?"
"the would-be paradox of a text of social criticism/commentary that quite spectacularly 'reinscribes' some of the structural/social inequalities it otherwise critiques.... pardon the jargony sentence there."
See, that's fascinating. My original post did not reflect that angle, and it's allowe me see things from a different angle/lens. That's fruitful
It's very paradoxical and probably very important. Important enough for several highly thoughtful critiques from a variety of critical approaches. If you're a white male artist like Lynch, culture today puts you in an interesting position--especially "straight CIS white male" which he appears to be. How do you make art that is relevant but still expressive of your voice? How do you address issues like these or do you ignore them and do what you've always done?
On one of the other threads I defended his use of the Mitchums and their treatment of Candie although there's an easy feminist criticism of that whole subplot without forcing Candie to be a secret Laura or anything supernatural. But if Lynch goes around saying things like "I like naked woman" maybe I'm reading depth that isn't there. I like the scenes with Candie better than the one with the French girl (unless we find out that was a code...and I did like her shoes). I like the scenes with Candie because her voice is trying to emerge. She has a strong personality that is trying to come out.
I guess it's also possible to see the French gal as a strong personality trying to come out--but it would be more interesting if we saw her again or knew she was trying to say more than one thing.
How am I supposed to get a funny meme in this sort of thing? Dammit I have to use an old classic that has no bearing on the subject
As an erstwhile academic, I understand the arguments about the constructed nature of "whiteness." And by saying I don't think much of the demographic argument, I also am trying to say, this isn't about quotas or counting people. And please, let it also be noted that I love this show and there's nothing like it and so on etc etc.
But it is just kind of weird that in a show that is kind of explicitly about various American pop culture stereotypes (the loner on the bike, the FBI agent, etc.) - and a show, let's be clear, that has an ever-expanding cast of dozens and dozens of characters - race has less to do with the assorted goings-on than, say, an anthropomorphic teapot. 🙂 Again, it's Lynch's right to show us whatever he wants to, but I do think it's one of those things that, once you see it, is hard to un-see and wonder about.
"I find it easier to accept that as a very isolated, interior-focused artist, Lynch's vision is really about taking apart and rearranging the myths of the traditional nuclear family. In some ways, the show has a devastating critique of masculinity and violence. In others, it holds up a notion of "decency" even at the same time that it shows how little valued that notion really is in our society. "
I would agree with this completely. It's brilliant. He (and his team, including his actors) have created a perfect engine to evoke emotional response to this issue. This is one of the reasons why, as a feminist, I can't write the program off because of representation issues as I might a less powerful project.
Are we at a point where we run into this paradox:
a "cis"_gendered white male is not allowed to express himself from his own experiences BUT, at the same time, is not allowed to write or draw from experiences he, his "cis"-gendered self, has not experienced (i.e. being a woman, black, latino, lesbian, gay, eskimo, non-conforming gender identity, trans...etc.)?
Can a male filmmaker successfully depict misogyny/violence against women and trauma/survival/resistance in a manner that takes a critical stance toward the former?
I don't believe Twin Peaks is intending to do that; it shows events without any moral commentary, beyond "Look what we did by inventing nukes". In a sense, everyone in Twin Peaks is a victim of circumstance.
Not every story has to be a morality play, or take a particular stance. Sometimes the bad guys win and evil goes unpunished. Doesn't mean the writers share that particular viewpoint.
Are we at a point where we run into this paradox:
a "cis"_gendered white male is not allowed to express himself from his own experiences BUT, at the same time, is not allowed to write or draw from experiences he, his "cis"-gendered self, has not experienced (i.e. being a woman, black, latino, lesbian, gay, eskimo, non-conforming gender identity, trans...etc.)?
It doesn't work. People need to express themselves from their own experiences.
It's the scope of TPTR that raises some questions about representation--there is more going on there than what would emerge the personal life experiences of one man or two men. The Secret History is a mix of research, speculation, and fiction, and a lot of it is about Native Americans. It's the greatness of the project that makes it subject to this level of discourse. If it were something trivial like Baywatch, most people wouldn't care as much to notice.
But I'm going to pull away from the topic because I think we're getting off track from the show and maybe it should not be in the episode 16 forum. If you want to talk more, maybe we can start an off-episode forum. I also fear for getting boring and lectur-y.
Are we at a point where we run into this paradox:
a "cis"_gendered white male is not allowed to express himself from his own experiences BUT, at the same time, is not allowed to write or draw from experiences he, his "cis"-gendered self, has not experienced (i.e. being a woman, black, latino, lesbian, gay, eskimo, non-conforming gender identity, trans...etc.)?
It doesn't work. People need to express themselves from their own experiences.
It's the scope of TPTR that raises some questions about representation--there is more going on there than what would emerge the personal life experiences of one man or two men. The Secret History is a mix of research, speculation, and fiction, and a lot of it is about Native Americans. It's the greatness of the project that makes it subject to this level of discourse. If it were something trivial like Baywatch, most people wouldn't care as much to notice.
But I'm going to pull away from the topic because I think we're getting off track from the show and maybe it should not be in the episode 16 forum. If you want to talk more, maybe we can start an off-episode forum. I also fear for getting boring and lectur-y.
Agreed - I come here to relax and as a respite from the day-to-day political arguments of our beloved nation.
Class! (assuming my teacher voice) I've read through what might have been a disastrous free-for-all and come out smiling. One more reason I avoid reddit.
Your thoughtful and civil discussion of complex and controversial themes makes me proud to be a member of this forum.
Thanks for having hearts of gold!
Class! (assuming my teacher voice) I've read through what might have been a disastrous free-for-all and come out smiling. One more reason I avoid reddit.
Your thoughtful and civil discussion of complex and controversial themes makes me proud to be a member of this forum.
Thanks for having hearts of gold!
It's great when adults with different perspectives on issues actually behave like adults, debate and discuss complex issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks - that is how debate should be - both sides presenting their thoughts sans personal attacks
Can a male filmmaker successfully depict misogyny/violence against women and trauma/survival/resistance in a manner that takes a critical stance toward the former?
I don't believe Twin Peaks is intending to do that; it shows events without any moral commentary, beyond "Look what we did by inventing nukes". In a sense, everyone in Twin Peaks is a victim of circumstance.
Not every story has to be a morality play, or take a particular stance. Sometimes the bad guys win and evil goes unpunished. Doesn't mean the writers share that particular viewpoint.
Interesting point, Sam. And, thanks, Cyndeewillow, for the reminder of the risk of the conversation growing boring or lecture-y. I'm often guilty on both counts (and not as readily able as others to distinguish the two!) so I'll try to tread lightly here. That said, I'm reluctant to quit this discussion for the very reason that the topic Shrrrk opened has already has proven, for me, to be one of the most interesting and-- dare I say-- potentially valuable conversations I've encountered on this forum. [FWIW, it's clear to me by now that a fan forum is not necessarily an appropriate/ good habitat for these kinds of discussions and I've already rather clumsily stunk up some entirely legitimate apolitical threads ]; I share everyone's outspoken and heartfelt appraisals that when something like this organically "takes root" and blooms after weathering an initial withering backlash... while remaining civil and... er, "democratic," -- this is something special/valuable].
So, with that proviso.... I'll formally issue my plea for more discussions like this elsewhere on the forum. [Look for a new topic entitled "Race, Gender, and The Return" or some such in the "Double R/Off-Topic" shortly]
_____________________________________________
Sam, I think conversations about the political implications of cultural texts have long been haunted by widely differing ideas about the relevance of "authorial intentions." In no way did I intend to suggest that "every story has to be a morality play, or take a particular stance." A morality play--or allegory, more broadly-- strikes me as an easy example of a type of text where authorial intentions and allegorical meaning map onto each other precisely, leaving no remainder, as it were, or very little latent potential to be understood differently. [e.g., It's hard to read The Pilgrim's Progress as taking a critical stance toward Christianity... although I'd be interested to see someone attempt to do so!]
It would appear that we agree The Return is something else entirely-- likewise, that any film or text as overdetermined or pregnant with possible meanings as its manifold signs would seem to suggest, inevitably resists a singular interpretation. But this is not the same, IMO, as a text that is "value neutral," so to speak, however dispassionate Lynch's camera or however aleatory the seemingly unrelated events in Lynch's and Frost's narrative would appear to be...
As such, I'm not trying to shoe-horn The Return into a preconceived frame of "political" meanings that suit my ideological commitments. Rather, I think there's an important conversation to be had about what, candidly, its social "affordances and constraints" might be.
For instance, one big affordance:
There would appear to be near-consensus here on Pieter's forum that The Return is both entertaining and worthy of fascination and discussion.
Many here seem willing to go further, recognizing it as something thematically concerned with (but not limited to):
- misogyny, sexual violence, trauma and recovery within the "family of origin," and spanning cyclical, generational patterns
- Americana (and, more generally, mythologies of American identity and self-perception)... and, by direct association (yet also by explicit exception)-- race /ethnicity and U.S. history.
- intangibles, themes altogether more "universal" than those directly pertaining to U.S. history: family/kinship groups, nature, culture, agriculture, technology, modernity, anthropocentrism and ecology...
- and, as others have observed: "the psyche," via the family... wherein one finds the most elusive implications of what all of the above has to do with "the subject," ranging from fears about the boundaries of selfhood, threats that violate the bodily/psychic integrity of the self... etc.
As others have said, I think the overwhelming challenge is that Lynch's style presents us with these intersecting themes but departs only from the last category... Lynch's surrealist and expressionist orientation means we access any of the above only as already refracted through Lynch's (and Frost's) subjectivities...
... which is why I find the very insightful commentary here thus far about the contemporary position of the white, heterosexual, cis-gendered male author vis-a-vis a mass audience is--to me, at least-- extraordinarily relevant to how The Return is received, whether it ends up critically acclaimed and commercially viable or merely retains a "cult audience."
[ Now, as I read this post back to myself it strikes me as perhaps simply restating what others have already said and understood. If so, perhaps the summary is worthwhile-- if not, my apologies after the fact! ]
Fire walk with