TEXTI-]AL POLITICSAnnette Kuhn

In previous writings I have discussed film practices as examples of realisrn:as representations, that is, which present an appearance of transparencr.by effacing the processes of meaning production in their own textual oo-erations. Realism is a feature of dominant cinema, but non-dominant filmpractices like socialist realism and feminist documentary draw on thistransparency both in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.and also with the assumption that a politically oppositional message rvillcome across the more clearly to the extent that it is not complicated bl"noise" from foregrounded textual operations. Such a cuitural politics isgrounded in an assumption that meanings-even politically opposition-al meanings-exist already in society, that human subjects are alreadrformed for such meanings, and that representations can operate as neutralvehicles for conveying those meanings from source to recipient.

Other approaches to cultural politics may, however, take different po-sitions as to the nature of meaning. The construction of meanings mat"for example, be regarded as an ongoing process of texts and reader-terlrelations which

-uy *otk in some respects independently of the opera'tions of other social formations. Such a stance on signifiiation suBqest;that in the moment of reading, recipients of texts are tf,emselves involverlin producing meanings, even if-as in the

""r.-J.*ti,--thtY.:::r":laware of the fact. To the extent that the signification process is eftacett,''realist representations, it is argued, realism perpetuates illusiontsllr' '^"'notion that, in the case of cinema, what is on t^h, ,.r"un is an uncodeoreflection of the "real world." Illusionism may then be regardtl,lslilliideological operation, on at least two grounds: first that the tollli.'fro'f'of processes of signification through codes of transparency mY-ltj];',"01 t5,'the spectator and the signification process by setting up- a l?rr, ,t,."world as monolithically preconstructed "out there," and seccttlidr",l-spectator-text relations characteristic of realist represent"tlgl:;;1,,"i-fication and closure, for example-position their reading subiect> "" ' ''ttary and non-contradictory, and thus as neither active, ,to' u' capable'"

't Politics 2s1,ro/.t[U''tvn'

.^-rior, in the signification process. These critiques of illusionismrirctvo"--orpin a cultural politics which takes textual signifiers to be arrr,rl'.u'*- ireu of intervention. If illusionism is a feature of certain textualfrgitti'jl-- then it may be challenged on the level of the text by means oflttdcttu"- or antirealist strategies and modes of address.Nl!"l"i"rent essay is devoted to a consideration of what might be termed

tll",il,rrionism" in cinema, and to anti-illusionist film practices as they'"i;;; feminism. From this point of view, then, I will address the ques-

'i'u^" ^iirrinist counter-cinema. Counter-cinema may be defined as film,'1"^i,"o which works against and challenges dominant cinema, usuallypiil"lr"rfs of both signifiers and signifieds. Although it may challenge]ir'inrtitutional- practices of dominant cinema too, my concern here is,,,itrtitY with the text'r

rq textual practice, counter-cinemas attempt to challenge and subvert thennerations of dominant cinema. Before proceeding to an examination of,i* upproaches to and examples of counter-cinema, therefore, I willLriefly look at features of dominant cinema which counter-cinemas (femi-nist or otherwise), may set out to challenge. I have already touched on theargument-and the reasoning behind it-that the effacement of processesof signification in dominant cinema is an ideological operation. The ques-iion of how this ideological operation works in cinema may be dealt withbv considering how codes in dominant cinema work to construct certainkinds of spectator-text relations. For example, classic narrative codesstructure relations of spectator identification with fictional characters andalso with the progress of the narrative itself. By means of these identifi-iations, the spectator is drawn into the film, so that when the questionsposed by the narrative are resolved by its closure, the spectator is alsocl0sed," completed or satisfied: in cinema, this partly operates through

llu "binding-in" process of suture. In documentary forms of film realism,!'l:u,.t,completion, and unity are brought about through identificationtvtth the coded self-presentation of the "truthfulness" of the representa-'^'on, .t well as through identification with, or recognition of, real-lifePtotagonists on the screen..^but what kind of relationship might there be between the practices ofLounter-cinema

and those of feminism? It could be argued, for example,

',illll:.t is nothing specifically feminist about challenging the modes of

,-'uttllcation and subjectivity set up by dominant cinema. If this is the.l,tu'wh*.u does feminism enter into counter-cinema? In answer to thislllltltn' I will point to two interrelated arguments on behalf of feministfu-]l!1t-.inema. The first is premised on the notion that all forms of il-'tl.ltljt* are ideologically implicated, while the second focuses more,(if"cattY on the forms of pleasure generated in the relations of spec-tr,,,i^r set up by dominant cinema, classic Hollywood narrative in par-

",{tQt

ZSZ Critical Methodology: Feminist Filtnr,..,, .

In her rgl3pamphlet Notes on Women's Cinemo, Claire )ol-lnston :"::"'tthat "It has been at the level of the_image that the violence of rorl"l,tsu"tcapitalism has been experienced."l In other words, the imag. .nn""il,in'la specific set of signifiers (as distinct from those, say, of the rn,ritten".^,ll",tfor constructing the worldviews of a society which is both patriarct

^i].'-01bourgeois. The ideological discourse of dominant cinema, certainlvl,i']"level of the film image, is therefore seen as sexist as well as capitaliri'.il!,specificity of the "patriarchal" nature of the film image ir ut ttrl, p.in'ranalysed in terms of L6vi-Strauss's anthropological argument about *o*-an's status as "sign" in relations of exchange between males,' *hilu tiubourgeois character of dominant cinema is associated with the mystifi-cation involved in the naturalization of operations of signification by thesurface appearance of transparency of meaning. The task of constructinsa feminist counter-cinema, according to this argument, involves first oiall "an analysis of the functioning of signs within the cliscourse"3 anclthen a subversion of this discourse by means of antirealist or anti-illu-sionist textual strategies. What is at stake here, then, is a deconstructivecounter-cinema whose project is to analyze and break down dominantforms as they are embedded in bourgeois and patriarchal ideology.

Following the early work of fohnston and Cook, feminist film theorvbegan to turn its attention away from a concern with the film text as anautonomous set of formal operations and towards the question of spectator-text relations in cinema. Here, particular regard was given to relationsof looking and their psychic inscription. Laura Mulvey's rn'ork on the lookand cinematic t"p.ri"rrtations of women was an important developmentin this area, and in it Mulvey also argues for the creation of new forms ofpleasure in cinema. Given h". urgum-ent that the codes of dominant cine-ma "and their relationship to formative external structures must be bro-ken down before mainstream film and the pf"u*t" it provides can be

"fr"ff."g;ai 'tM"lvev is cleariy also advocating a deconstluctive 1:::ltJ-

cinema. Her suggestion is that in such a counter-cinema the "voye:J:::;;scopophilic look" can be broken down in certain ways. Howeverf,itj'i;;?,M,riuuy's analysis appears to arrive at a prescription for film pt"t:t:l;;;;,similar to Johnstonis-deconstruction-her concern with tl_1r:#t;structures of subjectivity opens up possible new areas of work f",il:"ii'il.counter-cinema.'As well ai shifting the debate from a cousiderattotf ,in offilm text as an autonomous set of forrnul strategi"t, 1:.1:1t1,T;?;;;in'interactiOn between spectator and text, MulveV's analysts u"r"-"""',ontt-questions of specularity and gendered subiectivity' t1t1:''19:'rl'l""rrrd i']qr*.r.", of thii for feminist film practice are not explic'itly' u-|",';;;r, olher article, crucial questions are implicitly raised, in that t',ini;r tttntgendered subjectivity poses in turn i6ut oi a specificallv femlanguage and its pot"niiut for feminist counter-cinema' ,.rnt thll

The discussion which follows is structured around tire at9ur')'16 as 0loppositional textual practices in cinema which may be rega

'r Poljtics 253felttlu' . rr r t . mrtot'

,^"c lo feminism fall roughly into two categories. The premisesftleva""-o each correspond more or less with those underlying the re-,;N?,i,'r'inalyses of )ohnston/Cook and Mulvey. I say more or less, becausetP",',\',loractices I shall be examining have not for the most part arisen,h''ji,'jrrediate or determined sense from the theories with which Iin l')l^r.them. Although I would maintain that certain types of theorizingfil^"'i"r" important in shaping feminist film practice, the influence isn1"^!.,

"itner one way or direct. In any case, any identifiable influences

'u:"::,; as much from the ways in which films may be read as from the'_,I?ilnr of their makers. Thus although in this case theory and practicefj",,., in,oortant respects interrelated, it is neither possible nor desirablell ,*o the one immediately and unproblematically onto the other. The;;;;*r of textual plactice discussed here, then, are constituted on the^",

f,una by a counter-cinema grounded in the deconstruction of dominant,inr*u, and on the other by a form of cinema marked as more "other" todominant cinema, as "feminine writing." Although it will be clear thatthese two areas of practice do have certain things in common, I believetheir differences permit a consideration of some crucial developments andprospects for feminist counter-cinema. I shall therefore deal with themseparatelv.

Deconstruction

As the term suggests, deconstructive cinema works by a process of break-ing down. On one level, the object of the deconstruction process is thetextual operations and modes of address characteristic of dominant cin-ema, the aim being to provoke spectators into awareness of the actualexistence and effectlvity of dominant codes, and consequently to engendera critical attitude toward these codes. Provocation. awareness, and a crit-tcal attitude suggest in turn a transformation in spectator-text relationsttorn the passive receptivity or unthinking suspension of disbelief fostereduJ aorninsnt modes of address to a more active and questioning position.ueconstructive

cinema aims therefore to unsettle the spectator. Snt therei*:t: at stake in deconstructive cinema than simply a challenge to the;;::"t' operations of dominant cinema. After all, many forms of avant-illi::y experimental cinema may be read as doing i,rst this, without-;i"T!t in the very broadest sense-being defined as deconstructive. The*'otloguishing

mark of deconstructive cinema, as against other non-domi-,uf^},^ot anti-dominant forms, is its recruitment oithe spectator's active,illi:: to the signification process for certain signifiedr, o, u.*us of sub-cla,ii,..", concern. The distinction between form and content may help,i,nni.tt" point: deconstructive cinema, it can be argued, is not definabledor,it,]^oy its formal strategies. Departure from the formal conventions of

-'ttctrlt cinema may be a necessary condition of deconstructive cinema,

254 Critical Methodology: F'eminist Filrnrnak;._but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Deconstructive cinema de

'"trt

dominant cinema in its content as well as in its form: it ,p:"u;t"'ltohpolitically oppositional positions or concerns itself with subyg.t'1.'rorncommonly ignored or repressed in dominant cinema. But ultho,,"lt*rtpositional content is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition of-i.^lp-structive cinema, either. Deconstructive cinema then may be O.ti"^r"'l-its articulation of oppositional forms with oppositional conte -"q u\'constructive cinema thus defines itself in relation to dominant

nts' If clu'is not a static entity, because its character at any moment is alwa

ctnerna' il

in an inverse manner, by dominant cinema. Deconstructive .i.yt shapecl'

ways, so to speak, casting a sideways look at dominant cinem":tftXL'l"counter-cinema"-which is in fact often understood to be synonVrnouswith deconstruction-conveys this sense of conscious opposition

".r,well.It can be helpful to compare the operations and political objectives

of deconstructive cinema with those of the "epic" theater associated withBerthold Brecht. Epic theater departs from more conventional theatricalforms in that, for example, narratives may be fragmented and subiect tointerruptions, characters may not be presented as psychologically rounded,narrative time may not be linear, and so on. The effect of these epic devicesis to render impossible the kinds of spectator identification typically setup by "realist" theater. The analogy between epic theater and deconstruc-tive cinema is grounded, in fact, in the anti-illusionist stance and strategiesof distanciation common to both. As Walter Benjamin says of epic theater,it

advances by fits and starts, like the images on a film strip. Its basic formis that of the forceful impact on one another of separate, distinct situationsin the play. The songs, the captions included in the stage decor. the gesturatconventions of the actors, serve to separate each situation. Thus distancesare created everywhere which are, on the whole, detrimental to illusionamong the audience. These distances are meant to make the audience adopta critical attitude.5

It is clear from this that the effect of this epic form derives from thespectator-text relations it constructs. Formal devices are justified "lli::the extent that they evoke distanciation rather than involvement' a crlttt""attitude rather than passive receptivity.

-^ ctpTherefore although bottr epic theater and deconstructiv" cinena," tr

often discussed in terms of their formal strategies-sometimes, lll ro"' r'the extent that forms are fetishized-these strategies are importanj,fi)in relation to their consequences for the address of the represen'I|r*'the film or play-as a whole. The impact of epic or deconstruct'rrl, thcresentations thus arises in direct relation to the challenge they otL"' ''i'operations of dominant strategies. The importance of the conte x'Ital

sPa''

^r Politics 255fPlluu' 'tr'' -r rlccolstructive strategies is emphasized here mainly because my

ficitv u' "-s

of particular films will focus on their formal attributes, which,Jittu:'"';;;rettable, but perhaps unavoidable, consequence of singling out,t:f.:;,^itexts for attention. It is important to stress, therefore, that thei'lotl'i aircuss as examples of deconstructive cinema acquire their de-filnt-t,.,,"tiue force in the final instance only from their context: only initl,i'irfriion, that is, to the contemporary state of dominant cinema and'nt-;;; olace in the history and institutions of non-dominant cinematicl:":"- Thr films I shall look at here are One Woy Or Another (De Cierto',"1^,r,rl (Gomez, ICAIC, 1'974) and Whose Choice? (London Women's;li;"d";p, BFI, 1.s76). Both of them deal with fairly well-defined andl,rru,nr.rrued topics, and draw upon and articulate, while at the sameii'r", ulro challenging, certain conventions of narrative and documentaryrealism''--OneWay Or Another deals with the problem of "marginalism" in post-revolution Cuba. Marginalism is the culture of poverty associated withthe urban slums and shanty towns of pre-revolution days, areas markedbv high levels of unemployment and delinquency, poor educational pro-vision, violence, and economic poverty. The integration of "marginal"populations into the wider society is regarded as a priority and a problemfor the revolution. The film investigates the contradictions-both personaland social-involved in the integration process by examining some of theeffects of, and causal links between, certain cultural features of margin-alism. It is because of its concern with tracing the relationship betweenthe personal and familial and other social structures that One Way or.{nother may be regarded as a film which prioritizes feminist issues andpolitical perspectives: although it does this, of course, within the termsot a broader concern with the effects of a socialist revolution. The problemo.t contradictions between marginal culture and the revolution present therrlrn not only with its analytical project, but also with the problem ofaccessible cinematic forms for thai project. The project and the problemate dealt with by the film's mobilization of two discourses: a story whichl1l,*unu of the iualities of a socialist realist narrative, and a documentary";1 voice-over.,",llu narrative discourse is focused primarily on the progress of a loving"q^tronship between Mario, a worker living in a marginal district, and

,."',lnou'a teacher of middle-class origins drafted into a ichool in the area.

'n,jLt^:":ialist realist manner, the narrative discourse "traces how the

to tr^'i' oynamics of a single personality, family, or love affair are related,t0"""^'u.tger social processes of the revolution."6 But at the same time, ita.j":"^t" construct the kinds of identification typical of socialist realistotho." " address, primarily because the narrative is articulated with an-il":nq very different, discourse, that of documentary realism.

oyui"wghout the film, there are sequences of documentary with voice-- Lurnrnentary,

whiclt address the problem of marginalism from the

2SO Critical Methodology: Feminis[ p;r'-point-of-view of a distanced, if sympathetic, social observer.'llktol("'"instance, following immediately on the pre-credit and credit ruo,,^11* f,,,a documentary sequence showing the demolition of some cit5, ,flfrtes isthe reconstruction of the area, with a voice-over which explainrli^l'l,1n,lination of the slum conditions has not resulted in the disappuu.."l']4.certain features of marginal culture. In this way, the notion of -"ue 0ltory relations between social formations and an analyll:.t

"oi".l::T';such contradictions are established within both the signifiers and rh^':,'unifieds of the text. The film takes up two different conventions of -"" rr8'realism, but in combining them in certain ways undercuts the

ctnernatic

text relations which would be set up by each one on its own. Tnttltil,l:of deconstruction works by means of its direct reference tu dorinuiicinematic codes, setting up, through familiarity with such codes, certainexpectations in the spectator. These expectations are then cut off b*.uu*the film offers no single internally consistent discourse.

Examples of distanciation in the discourses of One Woy Or Anothermay be cited with reference to some of the formal strategies associatedwith epic theater. For example, the interaction of narrative and docu-mentary discourses in the film works in a similar way to the separationsand "fits and starts" of epic theater. During a sequence in which Marioand Yolanda exchange confidences about their past lives Mario confessesthat he once seriously considered becoming a nonigo, a member of a malesecret society. At this point, the narrative is cut off by an intertitle: "Aba-cua society-documentary analysis"-followed by an account, with docu-mentary footage and voice-over, of the history of these secret societies andtheir roots in and connections with marginalism. The first concern at thispoint is with a description and analysis of one of the wavs in whichmarginal culture still persists after the revolution. At the sarne time, hott'-ur,u., this documentary interlude is marked as functioning analogousll'toa flashback (Mario's), for afterwards the narrative discourse resumes whereit left off, with Yolanda telling Mario the story of her own backgrounO-her marriage, divorce, and current independence.

Epic theater is characterized also by an undercutting of identificatiottwith fictional characters, in that psychologically.ounded representiltt":iare refused. While epic interruptions will in themselves function '' :'^'off spectator identification with characters, there is another Brechtian de-vice associated specifically with this form of distanciation-"acting

ds

quotation." Instead of inhabiting and "becoming" their charactert:::ir'J:will, as it were, stand in for them in the distanced mode of "q'o",,i.characters' words. Although in One Way Or Another much of the i,"";;;.is in fact quite naturalistic, it does take on some of the features'1" }trt'tation" but usually through cinematic, rather than dramatic ,*?u!^t^r,rtufirst documentary ,"q,t"nl", fot example, which ends with arelet^et',"rio[education in the marginal areas, is immediately followed by a close'"'1o'a woman talking directly to the camera in lip-syn*c^fr. ti"e- ct verirc sI\'"

^r Politics 257feftUu' ''

., her work as a teacher. It subsequently transpires that the woman is,b9u].," who actually belongs to the fictional part of the film, but at thist'rlutl;; discourse is marked as "documentary" by its codes and context.tli:';;;the effect of cutting off identification and relativizing the acting,f iu"t sequences'tr';:;; do these distanciation devices serve the analytical project of One,j^',i'o, Another? In the first place, the distanciation itself tends to forcel|l'"*rtutor into an active relation with the text, opening up the potentialll.

^l,rrtioning and analysis. The different discourses, moreover, are put

i:;h* in such a way as to integrate analysis at the levels of signifierl'"oJsienified. Halting Mario's talk about being a nonigo with a descriptivel,iar;'about Abacua society serves both to complete the reference andulo ,o unpack the wealth of social, cultural, and historical meaning en-.rpsuluted by it. The interaction of narrative and documentary codes, then,undr6.ot"s the substantive sociological analysis. The enunciating dis-c'urse of the film as a whole thereby privileges an analytical approach toits signifieds.

Whose Choice? constructs similar modes of address in its treatment ofthe issues of contraception and abortion. The film operates in a relativelycomplex manner, by presenting its material as three discourses-infor-mation, interviews, and narrative. In the interviews, two women detailthe current situation in Britain as regards abortion and present a numberof arguments in favor of "a woman's right to choose." The film also in-cludes documentary footage of the June 1975 National Abortion Campaigndemonstration in London. Added to-and transformed by-the documen-taty/informational aspects of these two discourses is a fictional narrativeabout a young woman's attempt to obtain an abortion. This third discoursets marked also by some of the distanciation devices characteristic of epictneater, in particular lack of characterization and narrative interruptions.t he address of the film is constructed not only severally by its threedlscourses, but also as a whole bv the wavs in which the discourses arearticulated together. There is little rigid separation in terms of the overallotganization

of th" film between elements of narration, information, andill*.*i:*' for example. Throughout, one discourse leads into, or is inter-'uPl:d by, another-once more in the Brechtian manner.i".11u One Woy Or Another, Whose Choice? takes up familiar realistn,;^1'and then deconstructs them by means of fragmentation and inter-;;i,:f"'thereby transforming the spectator-text relaiions which would bea;;"tte^Sed by each discourse on its own. This transformation marks a move,o*ll".]tot identification, involvement, and suspension of disbelief andficaii^iu P?." active and questioning attitude to the processes of signi-du."^"ll oI the film and to its areas of concern. If One Way Or Anotherun;"i:tt}tts the conventions of Hollywood and socialist realist narrativeki.llt:lilional documentary, Whose Choice? offers a challenge to the

- wr qocumentary address commonly associated with the agitational/

258 (lritical Methodology: Feminist Filmmakinppolitical film. The intended consequence of these deconstructive strateoi^is to open up space for active intervention on the part of spectatu., ino*"^'meaning production process, to subvert the completion and closure"llmeaning proposed by dominant cinema, and thus to offer spectators-tl"lopportunity to consider their positions on the issues at hand throrrSh th^tlown processes of active reading, questioning, and discussion. The oppo-sitional character of the forms of expression of deconstructive ciideally works in conjunction with its matters of expressio" nJrtil:;n|:Another presents itself as oppositional on a fairly general level-as

anexample of Third World cinema and as dealing with problems arising ina developing and revolutionary society. Its treatment of the personU inJthe familial underscores this oppositionality, for these concerns have fre-quently been repressed even in revolutionary cinema. Whose Choice?deals with a topic which is either repressed in dominant discourses or, ifnot actually repressed, treated from different political perspectives: thefilm may be regarded as oppositional by virtue of its treatment of contra-ception and abortion from a feminist standpoint.

Feminine Voices

A concern shared by feminist representations of many kinds and acrossall media is an intent to challenge dominant modes of representation. Thisconcern is premised on the notion that in a sexist society, women haveno language of their own and are therefore alienated from culturally domi-nant forms of expression. This permits a feminist politics of interventionat the levels of language and meaning, which may be regarded as equallvapplicable to the "language" of cinema as it is to the written and spokenword. A politics of this kind can have two aspects: it may on the one handchalleng" ttr" dominance of certain forms of signification, and on the othermove toward the construction of new, non-dominant, forms. The latter'of course, includes the former, but also goes further by posing the pos-sibility of a specifically feminist or feminine language. -Deconstructivecinema, in taking up and breaking down dominant forms and matters u'expression, operates predominantly as a challenge to dominant cineila'twant now to look at ,o-" signifying practicr, *"hi.h may be reea1d.ef.,1lmoving beyond the modes of e*prettlott privileged within patriarchAid2'tology. The distinction between the deconstruction of existing forrns-"'representation and the creation of new ones is to some extent one of 7"1'"^o,.uih". than of kind. In the first place, deconstruction may be regarded a'an important-and perhaps even a necessary-step toward more

'ul'^":;forms of rupture. And in any case, in a situation where certain torrrr),1representation are culturally dominant, alternative forms-howe v"r radt

-

cal and regardless of their actual textual operations and modes of addres.s'will always tend to be construed as a challenge to dominant forfls' -

Textuol Politics

, ^,,1d be emphasized, then, that the films discussed in this context mayt"i:;'b, read (and indeed most .of them have been readJ as examples of1 L.,nstructive clnema'*i;:.issue of a non-patriarchal language immediately raises the question,1i". ,rlutionship between such a language and feminism. Although it is

?i"^, ttrut the question of women and language could not be raised in the'11.^ it has been without the impetus of feminist politics, the nature and]#*nrnre of such a language remains rather more problematic. Posingl'i"''nuestion of a women's language may be a feminist act, but are wei"iif"* here about a feminist language or a feminine language? If the",,rrtii" is of a feminine language, where does such a language comeIrrrf I have discussed elsewhere certain theories of femininity and lan-'r,u'n,

which are being developed by feminist writers and theorists andiritinot repeat the arguments here, save to reiterate that they are groundedin theories of female subjectivity as constructed in and by language. Tothis extent, then, the concern is with feminine language rather than femi-nist language. And although the possibility of feminine language couldnot even begin to be raised were it not for the existence of feminist politics,the converse is not necessarily true. This point has to be borne in mindin any consideration of the possibility of "authentic" forms of expressionfor women, and it is certainly at issue in "feminine writing" in the cinema.

Arguments on the question of feminine writing suggest first of all thatcertain texts privilege relations of subjectivity which are radically "other"to the fixity of subject relations set up by dominant forms of signification,and secondly, that the "otherness" of such texts is related to, or emergesfrom, their articulation of feminine relations of subjectivity. This is per-haps the crucial point of distinction between deconstructive texts andfeminine texts. Whereas the former tend to break down and challenge theforms of pleasure privileged by dominant texts, the latter set up radically'other" forms of pleasure (in Roland Barthes's term, jouissonce, or bliss).The possibility oi such "other" forms of pleasure in cinematic represen-tations is raised in Laura Mulvey's theoretical work (as well as in her filmpractice, as co-director of Riddles of the Sphinx in particular). If the plea-sure of dominant cinema draws on narcissistic and fetishistic scopophilia,Mulvey argues, any alternative approach needs to construct forms of plea-o.ure based in different psychic relations.T A suggestion by Claire fohnstonl'lut l feminist film practice should aim at "putting . . . the subject in pro-lu"tt bV textual oru.ti.""B indicates moreover that what is at stake here iso lerninine cinematic writing, a cinema of jouissonce.,*uertain recent film practices may in fact be read as developments in"tts.direction, and in this context, I shall look at four specific examples:tnriller (Potter, Arts Council of Great Britain, 19Zg), Liies of PerformersO')"tlu.' Ig72), Doughter Rite (Citron, 1978) and /eonne Dielmon , 23 Quoir;":.ornmerce, L080 Bruxelles (Akerman, Paradise Films/Unit6 Trois,-"'cJ.My

argument is that these films share a discourse which sets up

260 Critical Methodology: Fern'rilist I..the possibility of sexual difference in spectator-text relations b\ilrxrnakirrring a "feminine voice." They pose the possibility of a fenrir,tj.olll]]:*which would construct new forms of pleasure in cinema. fn-"'lllngthrough which the "feminine voice" speaks in these films inc - qttiir(tions of looking, narrativity and narrative discourse, subjecti,,i,lldu lutu-tobiography, ficlion as against non-fiction, and openness as ugoinrlJilri,irl.

Thriller is structured around a rearrangement of narrative clirdominant cinema by the instatement of a woman's questio"t"*T:i::

,:the film's organizing principle. The film is a reworking of the opera LoBohdme, which is about a doomed love affair between a poet and i un,,.,seamstress: the woman finally dies of consumption. Thriller Ir tolO trorlthe narrative point-of-view of Mimi, the tragic heroine, whose inte*ogu-tory voice-over pervades the film. The enigma set up by the film's naryati'eis the question of how and why Mimi died, the investigator ("1") beinuMimi herself. By its recruitment of investigatory narrative structure anjfirst-person voice-over, Thriller at once draws upon, parodies. challenges,and transforms the narrative and cinematic codes of the Hollvwood filmnoir. The female victim adds a twist to the reconstruction of her o',t'n deathnot only by telling the story herself, but also by considering causes forthe unhappy romance and death of a young French working woman of akind-social and historical conditions, for instance-that could not pos-sibly enter the universe either of operatic tragedy or of the private inves-tigator of film noir.

Lives of Performers is also, on one level, a reworking of the conventiottsof popular narrative genres. The film is subtitled "a melodrama," and thenarrative conventions it draws on are those of the "backstage romance'In thirteen long sequences, it tells the story of the relationships betweena man and two women, a triangle. The characters, however, are "playing'themselves-they are real-life performers in the group of dancers workingwith the filmmaker, Yvonne Rainer. The film d"ia.ts quite radically fromdominant conventions of film narrative in its ordrring and structure' anoin the freedom with which it articulates elements of fiction ond notrfiction. The plot, for instance, proceeds by leaps and bounds punctuate0by runnings on the spot-by ellipsis and accretion, in other words' Rainersays of her films: "For me the story is an

"*ptiTr;;; ;" which,to}angimages and thoughts which need support. I feel no obligatigto ttl"^"r, oithis armature with credible details of location and time."v'lhe "'I^"ortLives of Performers is told with so manv asides that we never.1l,:: ;tto the end or the bottom of it. There is no resolution. The "otid?,tr.,ihthe accretions, and the accretions are so many that they seem Io "?'^),,rot,gaps elsewhere in the story, as if to make up foi lost time. The first t-?ii^r*lrtrb*t the performers, *-hor" lives the melodrama is about, in-rel*. "allfor what turns out to be a real-life Rainer performance' An intertili.fr ttt:at once our tension vanished" leads into the next sequence' in wlr"[ r1iltthree star perfolmels "Iecall," aS voice-over, their first meetin8

roxtualYottt'"" rr 'r 't('' -.anhs of Rainer's dance piece "Grand lJnion Dreams" on the image

photob'i[ore recollections are punctuated at points by the filmmaker'srftcK' 1;r:." of what is eoins on in the photographs. Where does the "real",rt*-"'" s of what is going on in the photographs. Where does the "real".'t|'i]]'the "fiction" begin? The subsequent cinematic rendering of thepltO::'.; is interrupted wherever "other concerns" seelrl more important-tono'ri*risition on acting, for example ["The face of this character is a!!'i";;k"), or a direct question to the spectator about the problem ofiilil","" iaentification ("Which woman is the director most sympathetic'nji::;; one of the women in the triangle, Iooking directly into camera)'l,?i",^rrrtive of Lives of Performers has its own logic, then, but it is not]Jll

"i tt r enigma-resolution structure of classic narrative. Nor does it

""*trurt a closed and internally coherent fictional world: on the contrary,

:;; itself up at numerous points to intrusions from the "real world."" iilt u, does this heterogeneous narrative voice imply for spectator-textrelations? It is clear that none of the subject relations posed by classic,.,urratiu. is at work here: identification with characters is impossible, andthere is no narrative closure. The narrative processes of ellipsis and ac-cretion offer, on the contrary, the possibility of pleasures other than thoseof completion. Firstly, in moments of accretion (for example, during along single-take sequence with virtually static camera, in which one oftheperformers dances a solo), the spectator has the option of pleasurableand open-ended contemplation of an image which constructs no particu-larly privileged viewpoint. The ellipses offer the possibility of a ratherdifferent pleasure, that of piecing together fragments of the story-theactive pleasure, that is, of working on a puzzle. The interpenetration oftictional and non-fictional worlds and the lack of narrative closure set upa radical heterogeneity in spectator-text relations, and finally refuse anyspace of unitary subjectivity for the spectator. The textual practice of Lives0lPerformers may then be regarded as a "putting in process of the viewingsubiect.,' J

As part of its articulation of fiction and non-fiction, Lives of Performerstncludes, at times, discourses readable as autobiographical. The secondlllu,ul.u of the film, mentioned above, exemplifieJthis, and the autobio-s'raPhical concern becomes more apparent in Rainer's next film, Film^*t^:l'

A womon who . . . (1974). Doughter Rite, Michelle citron's film""u'rt.'no,her-daughter

and sister-sister ielations, is even more pervasively;"t::tographical, but whereas in Rainer's films, the would-be autobio-;:l|:ical rnaterial is somewhat distanced-it may be told in the third;;":lt"'she" instead of "I," or characters may be substituted for oneti""llut

---the discourse of Doughter Rite seems more immediate and in-t,*Tl-tl".autobiographical voice of the film, for example, is always theari;lltl always speaks in the first person. Splitting in the film's discourseund-i^"1:uwhere, however, in the relationships between sound and imagewhoi^''-'tu juxtaposition of the film's different sequences. The film as a

'" utoceeds by alternations between sequences of "journal discourse"

261.

262 Critical Methodology: Feminist FilrnrnaL;..in which a woman (the filmmaker?) talks about her relationsh. -^'ttlmother, and sequences-marked cinematically as,,direct,,'1I1,n l.u,.tary-in which two sisters act out their relationships with on"'^l""lhun.with their absent mother. In the "journal discourse," the irnunl'it^ut un,tposed of Bmm home movies, presumably of the speaker's chilrlT")_,tot-tically printed on 16mm, and slowed down, looped, u"a .rptuvul]t'oo-

Previously, I discussed the autobiographical structure which .to many feminist documentary films, and argued that the .orill"tl-T*onautobiographical material with documentary codes permitt"dlilii,?.:1tion on the part of female spectators with the women in the films. Dnr,^1,Rite may be read as both drawing on and critiquing the autobio;;;i','j:istructures of these earlier examples of feminist

.filmmaking.rdiil;';llrectness and universality of the experience remains, particularly t; ti;daughter's voice-over. But the film nevertheless adopfs a quite complexand critical stance on the question of the "truthful.r"rrl' of autoiilgraphical and documentary discourses. This is evident first of all * il,sound/image relationship of the "journal" sequences. The auught., tuik,about her relationship with her mother by referring to events in ihe auug'1,-ter's childhood, At the same time, the home movie footage, in depictingchildhood scenes, may be read as "illustrating" the voice-over. The mae-nification and graininess of the image and its slow movement and repJ-titiousness suggest also a close scrutiny of the past for clues about thepresent. The irony is that however hard the image is examined for clues,it cannot in the end deliver the goods. The assumption ttrat sound andimage support one another is a trap. The spectator has to draw her orrttconclusions about, for instance, the laughing and smiling mother of thefamily world of the home movies-a world where the sun constantlrshines and whose inhabitants are always on holiday-and the pitifulmother talked about on the soundtrack who "works so harcl to fill herempty hours." The film's critical position in relation to autobiographv'too, works in the articulation, the one interrupting the other, of the "jour'nal" with the "sisters" sequences. The latte. i.r.rlr, despite their "docu-mentary" appearance, actually tread a borderline between fiction ant'non-fictio.r,-u, becomes apparlnt in the increasing unlikeliness of sonteof the situations acted o.ri i.r them. The uncet;i;?y;voked by this pla-vof fiction and non-fiction may remain until the eni of the film, when "is revealed in the credits that the "sisters" are in fact actresses. ..r

Although at one level the articulation of the different discourses,''Doughter Rite works to produce distance in the relation betr,ven sPecto'.',,and text, the film is difficult to read purely as an example of deco.nstlli,iotcinema. The distanciation, if such ii is, is not that of tn" critical tpttjlri,of the Brechtian film. The subject matter and the intimacy of 1le 3u'' 1rof Doughter Rite draw the spectator closely into the representu.')i'i'rrleffect replicating the pain and ambivalence of our hostile and lovlr'!"r. l,ings towards those to whom we are closest, our mothers in parttcu'"-

Textuol Politics

^^t',,p, time, its discourses open'up space for an involved but criticalthe t"" t +^ f hnse fcelinos a kind nf dptachorl nrqcinn l\.ufn.o^.,on if ^-1,,tno^i]^"h to those feelings, a kind of detached passion. Moreover, if onlyapP'::

-^ ^f fhe kind.s of issttes it deals rnrifh the filrn r-nncfrrrnrc qn o.lJ.ooo?Pu,',irru" of the kinds of issues it deals with, the film constructs an addressDl'"':- -^l,nnrnrlpdges sexttal differennp Aq.-rrrniel in fho cicnifi-ofi^- ^-^ot,^;;-; acknowledges sexual difference as crucial in the signification pro-

11'lr'"- -

' --l {^-^.1 ^ -^^^+^+^-^ ..,.:ll ^,,-^l -] +L:^ f:l-- r:rr---- rr a rtt'j""rrrfutr and female spectators will surely read this film differently. AtCeJJ''._..-^rL-+^+:^-^l^^_l--^^_^a_..^t-----inZ"**"1i.'' ,"h_:,Tll:::1,:]t31:t_",1av:31','ucts n3 unitary subjectivitylf,,prr,r.ors of_,e111.:..9""1-"..:,?o,Ythrur.Rite appears to.offer a relationshipLl'.oectator and text in which distanciation does not necessarily ensuefrr gupr between discourses, although an actively critical perspectivemight."'

ironn, Dielman. . . also invites a distanced involvement, but of a ratherdliferent kind. This 372-hour long narrative film is a document of threedays in the life of a Belgian petit-bourgeois widow, housewife and mother.Hei movements around her flat, her performance of everyday chores, aredocumented with great precision: many of her tasks are filmed in realtime. |eanne's rigid routine includes a daily r-isit from a man-a differentone each day-whose fees for her sexual services help maintain her andher son. The man's visit is slotted neatly between Jeanne's preparationsfor dinner and her son's arrival home. Every shot in the film is photo-graphed at medium distance from its sublect, with static camera mountedat about five feet from the ground. Many shots also work as autonomoussequences-a whole scene unfolds in a single take. There is thus none ofthe cutting back and forth characteristic of classic narrative. There are noreverse shots, match cuts, or cut-ins, for example, and camera point-of-l'iew maintains a relentless distance from the action. These cinematicelements of /eonne Dielmon . . . function to establish the rhythm and orderot.Jeanne's repetitive household routines. the woman's means of main-tatning coutrol over her life. By the afternoon of the second day, the nar-:it]"t has set up a series of clear expectations as to what |eanne will dodnd when' At this point something (an orgasm with her second client?)provokes disorder in Jeanne's highly-strultured world, and a series ofparapraxes

ensues. leanne forgets to comb her hair when the client leaves,ijl lIt: the potatoes, she leaves the lid off the tureen where she keeps;;:"-^ilii.gs. Erupting into |eanne's ordered routine, and disrupting the,lri,-"t^t-i1i"ns set up for the spectator by the cinematic representation of/r;;;'""tiTe, these tiny slips assume enormous and distressing proportions.rn"r;^." r-,relrnon . . . can in some respects be read as a structural/mini-.;il:: tttm (like Michael snow's wivelength, for example), in that the.;i ,;"^ild duration of the representation call on the speciator to workt. o;::,t^'ituctures governing the film's organization, and thus eventually.un i;::' what will happen next. Any disruption of these expectations.'utrro.i.tl,

seem quite violent. It is established, for instance, that leannebrrttni'-",,Suat up in the morning before her son, puts on a blue robe, and,h..nil^'^t meticulously from top to bottom. on the third day, however,

"rtssS a button, a slip which is immediately noticeable and assumes

263

264 Critical Methodology: Fem in ist l,,r lrnnrak;,.of the film nevertheless o^^ "u|eanne's final "st ip... I treiliJl,:

great significance-but the enunciationthat it is no more nor less significant thanof her third client.

leanne Dielmon . . . may be regarded as important in severAr .,^,^-the question of feminine writing in cinema. Oi particula. rig"iii."'"ol: tu,the qualities of the cinematic image and the relations of l;'ki;;; :rrce,arrisets up. In the first place, the very fact that the film shows . *;;;:'fitl i,housework sets /eonne Dielmon . . . apart from virtualiy

"ll "til:;l?]n*films. Domestic labor has probably never been document",l i;'-,;"i'll':nstaking detail in a fiction film: for example, one sequence-shot"^I"^:,1:]n-minutes in length shows Jeanne preparing a meat loaf for dir -""u1rr\'Cthird day. The positioning of the camera in relation to the or"tiffi1."l:1:at the same time constructs the representations of the

-L-on,, routinework as "a discourse of women's looks, through a woman,s viewpoint.,,jlChantal Akerman, the film's director, has said that the relatively lo*.mounting of the camera corresponds with her own height and thus con_structs a "woman's-eye-view" on the action. More important, perhaps, isthe refusal to set up privileged points-of-view on the action bu .lorr-rpr.cut-ins, and point-of-view shots. The relentless distance of tire camera's(and the spectator's) look and the duration involved in representations of]eanne's activities mean that "the fact of prostitution, the visualization ofthe murder, in some respects evens out into equal significance with themany conventionaliy less important images: Jeanne peeling potatoes;Jeanne kneading raw hamburger into a meat loaf."12 Finally,lhe refusalof reverse shots in the film entails a denial of the "binding-in" effect ofthe suture of classic cinema: the spectator is forced to maintain a distancein relation to both narrative and image, constructing the story and buildingup narrative expectations for herself. The familiarity of jeanne's tasks andthe precision with which they are represented, combined with the refusalof suture, serve to free the look of the spectator while also, perhaps, shift-ing it toward the attitude of "passionate detachment" that Laura Mulvevspeaks of.

These four films-Thriller, Lives of perfor:mers, Daughter Rite, uutJleanne Dielmon . . .

-hold out the possibility of a "feminine latrlua1e ^for cinema, by offering unaccustomed forms of pleasure construc.tet'

around discouises governed either-quite literally-by a wonan's u?.i'i.'or by a feminine discourse that works through other cinematic si8niflg;s;What I am suggesting is that although pari of the project of ftry:j';iwriting in cinema is obviously to offer a challenge to dominant t]-lt.rt,'"cinematic representation, its procedures for cloing so go beyond O::ii,struction, in that their references to dominant cinema are oblique'"-;n.than direct. There are other differences, too, between deconstruqtiv?:ti;ema and feminine cinematic writing. First, if it is accepted tnx lr"rl[itwriting privileges heterogeneity and multiplicity of meanings in

; Politics 265fe(tuu' ' -. .rrlress, then it will have a tendency towards openness. The decon-

ol o."iu, text seems to work rather differently, however, in that although,t1"^"

,rtrres the fixed subjectivity characteristic of classic spectator-text"

l,linnr, meanings are limited by the fact that the various discourses of'.ltl','*t tend to work in concert with one another to "anchor" meaning.l'u,,. although the spectator may be unsettled or distanced by epic inter-j,,*ionr, "acting as quotation," and so on, each of the fragmented dis-|"i,16 will tend to work in a comlnon direction-in terrns, certainly, ofiioir matters of expression. It is perhaps no coincidence that both the"*urptrr

of deconstructive cinema discussed here have highly circum-,rriUed and predefined subject matters. The different discourses of theirxt may address these topics in different ways, but in the end there is adegree of overdetermination in the signification process. The space foractive participation in the viewing process is opened up by the differentmodes of address of the discourses structuring the text, as well as by theways in which they are articulated together. If, for example, WhoseChoice? presents different discourses around its central concerns, thosediscourses when taken together constitute the film's subject matter in aparticular way, so that the act of reading tends to be directed at differencesof position and point of view on contraception and abortion between, say,the medical profession, the ordinary woman who requires an abortion,and feminists. It may therefore be concluded that deconstructive cinemacan be tendentious, while at the same time allowing the spectator the spaceto negotiate her or his own position, but always in relation to a specificset of issues. If this is indeed the case, then a feminist deconstructivecinema is possible: feminist, that is, in its textual operations and matters0I expression, and also feminist in intent..I would argue, on the other hand, that tendentiousness and feminine

ctnematic writing do not necessarily go together. If the "femininity" of atttth,ellrr8es in the moment of reading, then clearly the intentions of itsptoducers are not necessarily either here or there. This is well illustrated

ll lF case of Lives of Performers: although there is some uncertainty as,^]J.ntllt.r or not Rainer is actually a fe.iinist,13 it does seem clear that,'"'llL.tttu. made Lives of Performers she did not consciously intend anyttfltfit.]ty feminist input, either as "form" or as "content." And yet thlth;;:'it been widely taken up by feminists. This suggest two things: first,Ou"rl^l-u*t may be feminist, or of interest to feminists, without being ten-i;;;:lt'and second, that non-tendentious texts may be seized as feministN.,::".,*9-ent of reading. Rainer's films were made in the milieu of thehuo",,l?lk ovont-gorde art scene, whose practices at the time generallysrrb-;^:|" connection with feminist politics. Rainer's films have, however,f-o,i^rtjlttly.been taken up within other cultural milieux, notably among,,,.i"i,ttt'and read as being of feminist interest. The context within whicht\uu

^'lrrns are received is therefore obviously crucial for the meanings-v cert generate.

266 Critical Methodology: Feminist Filrnrnslin*

But this is not the whole story. It would surely be wrong to suggest tharsignifiers, even in "feminine" film texts, are completely free-floating:theiourl li-itations to openness. Certain feminine film texts are not tugu.Oujas feminist simply because, by pure chance, they have been interpreteias such by certain audiences. Each of the films discussed here draws oncertain matters of expression which, although not necessarily speakinpfeminist issues directly, may be regarded as doing so tangentially, Aeain]yvonne Rainer's films usefully illustrate the point, precisely because Rai-ner's stance on feminism might problemaltze her films for those who wantto claim them as feminist in intent. B. Ruby Rich, for example, argues thatRainer's work is central to feminism, not because of any intentionality onthe part of the filmmaker, but because of the narrative conventions theytake up and the modes of address they construct.l4 The "backstagu ,o-mance" of Lives of Performers refers to a film genre that, in classic cinema,has been both attractive to and manipulative of women-the melodrama,The film offers both a pleasurable reworking and an ironic undercuttingof this genre. The other three films I have discussed here similarly drawon. criticize, and transform the conventions of cultural expressions tra-ditionally associated with women: Thriller, the melodramatic story ofdoomed love, Doughter Rite, autobiography and the "family romance,"and /eonne Dielmon . . . , the family melodrama.

If deconstructive cinema sets up the possibility of an active spectator-text relation around a specific set of signifieds, and if feminine cinematicwriting offers an openness of address in combination with matters ofexpression in relation to which spectators may situate themselves aswomen and/or as feminists, then clearly a feminist counter-cinema is notsimply a matter of texts or "form plus content." In different ways and-inu"rying degrees, the moment and conditions of reception of films are also

".,rtiul. The question of feminist counter-cinema is by no means exhausted

by "

discussion of feminist or feminine film texti: it has, in the finalinstance. to be considered also in terms of its institutional conditions olproduction and reception.

NOTES

1. Claire Iohnston, "Introduction," in Notes on Women's Cinemo, ed. ClaireJohnston, London: Society for Education in Film and Television (1973), P.2' nI

2. Pam Cook and Claire Johnston, "The Place of Women in the Cin_et11.,;1Raoul Walsh," in Rooul Wolsh, ed. Phil Hardy, Edinburgh:Edinburgh Film Festtt'o'(1s74).

3. fohnston, "Introduction," p. 3. ^ J4. Laura Mulvev, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Screen 16, nu'(1975), p. 17.

Textual Politics

b. Walter Benjamin,P 2/.' plialesage, "oner,,rnp Cut.no. 20 (1979).t"' ). NlulveY'

267

UnderstondingBrecht, London: New Left Books (1923),Way Or Another: Diaiectical, Revolutionary, Feminist,"p.21.

g. Claire Johnston, "Towards a Feminist Film Practice: Some Theses," Edin-hrrreh Magazine, no. 1 (1976). p. 58.""'"g. Co^ero Obscuro, "Yvonne Rainer: An Introduction," Comero Obscuro, no.t 1976), P' 89'

10. iane Feuer, "Daughter Rite: Living with Our Pain and Love," /ump Cut, no.tt ,19BO)'--11.

Janet Bergstrom, "/eonne Dielmon,23 Quoi du Commerce, 1080 Bruxel,lesbv Chantal Akerman," Comero Obscura, no. Z ('1.977), p. 118.'n. lbid., P. 116'13. Lucy Lippard, "Yvonne Rainer on Feminism and Her Film," in From the

Center: Feminist Essoys on Women's Art, New York: Dutton (1976); B. Ruby Rich,,'The Films of Yvonne Rainer," Chrysolis, no. 2 (1977).

14. Ibid.