Reflections on Feminist Film Studies, Early and Late
Reflections on Feminist Film Studies, Early and Late
复制标题
对早期和晚期女性主义电影研究的反思
DOI：
10.1086/421881
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Petro
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Petro
在这篇关于女性主义电影研究的简短反思中，我想讨论很多问题。作为一名女权主义电影学者和二十年的高等教育资深人士，现在作为一个大型国际教育中心的主任，我发现确实有很多话要说。女权主义理论是否已被更广泛的性别、历史或全球化理论吸收或扩散？女性主义电影理论在理解当今媒体和世界方面发挥什么作用？女权主义电影研究仍然与我们对二十一世纪生活的理解相关吗？怎么会这样，以什么方式呢？最近，我试图在 2003 年电影与媒体研究协会会议研讨会上的一次演讲中回答这些问题，该研讨会专门讨论“历史电影女权主义”。本届会议的标题在某些方面令人遗憾，但也富有成效且具有启发性。虽然它的目的是表明女权主义学者对早期电影越来越感兴趣，但它也暗示，无论多么无意，电影女权主义在某种程度上是历史的、过去的或现在已经结束了。然而，在演讲过程中，人们逐渐清楚地看到，女权主义电影理论已经成为过去，现在被一些人斥为一维的正统观念（通过简写的“七十年代电影理论”或“凝视理论”，或者通过参考精神分析、符号学和源自这些思想流派的意识形态分析）。我和小组中的其他学者都不相信拒绝女权主义电影理论符合女权主义学术的利益，或者除了女权主义之外，它有利于对过去的复杂或细致的理解。毕竟，考虑到最近人们对重新发现早期电影工业中的“女性电影先驱”感到兴奋，为什么今天的女权主义学者想要埋葬或拒绝最近理论过去的先驱呢？那些描写差异、欲望、凝视和匮乏的女权主义电影理论家又如何——她们使电影成为可能？
T here are many issues that I would like to discuss in this brief reflection on feminist film studies. As a feminist film scholar and twenty-year veteran of higher education, and now as director of a large and expansive Center for International Education, I have found that there is indeed much to say. Has feminist theory been absorbed into or diffused by broader theories of gender or history or globalization? What is the role of feminist film theory in understanding our media and world today? Are feminist film studies still relevant to our understanding of twentyfirst-century life? How so and in what way? I recently attempted to address these questions in a presentation at the 2003 Society for Cinema and Media Studies conference workshop dedicated to “Historical Film Feminism.” The title of this session was in some respects unfortunate but also productive and revealing. While it was meant to signal a growing interest in early cinema among feminist scholars, it also implied, however unwittingly, that film feminism was somehow historical or of the past or now over. In the course of the presentations, however, it became clear that what had been relegated to the past was feminist film theory, now dismissed by some as a one-dimensional orthodoxy (by way of the shorthand “seventies film theory” or “gaze theory” or by referring to psychoanalysis, semiotics, and the ideological analyses that derived from these schools of thought). Neither I nor other scholars on the panel were convinced that the rejection of feminist film theory was in the interest of feminist scholarship or that, feminism aside, it was in the interest of a complex or nuanced understanding of the past. After all, given all the recent excitement about rediscovering “women film pioneers” in the early film industry, why would feminist scholars today want to bury or reject the pioneers of the recent theoretical past? What of those feminist film theorists who wrote about difference and desire and the gaze and lack—and who made possible the