Transcending Gender and Its Conflicts - Essay Example

10 December Films: Transcending Gender and Its Conflicts In “an excessively obvious cinema,” Bordwell argues that the typical Hollywood film “possesses a fundamental emotional appeal that transcends class and nation.” This essay assesses the validity of Bordwells contention by analyzing the representation of gender in Orson Welles Citizen Kane (1941) and George Stevens Shane (1953). Citizen Kane (1941) investigates the life of newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane, while Shane (1953) depicts the struggles of homesteaders and a former hired gunman, Shane (Alan Ladd). The analysis focuses on these films characterization, settings, relationships between male and female characters, and camera shots and angles. This essay prompts readers to revise Bordwells contention in a certain way. Movies have an emotional appeal that transcend gender, because these movies both demonstrate the second-class status of women in society, although Citizen Kane (1941) has shown womens subtle struggles in fighting their patriarchal society. In Citizen Kane (1941) and Shane (1953), men are the more powerful and stronger gender than women. Through a subjective camera, Welles makes the audience feel that they are breaking and entering a mans innermost property, with the “No Trespassing” sign framing the psychological intrusion into Kanes most-prized property, the Xanadu estate. Welles combines camera tilt with lap dissolves to shoot the high gate and focus on the large steel “K” sign on top of the gate. This sign stands for Kanes perception of himself as a human being and a “man,” where he is superior to his women and the people around him. In Shane, Joe (Van Heflin) and Shane work together on the ranch. They swing their axes together, as if in the harmony of brotherhood and masculinity. Their control over their environment also indicates their control over society. Through alternating shots, Stevens depicts the strength of men in the physical and psychological sense. Shane further demonstrates the patriarchal culture of the setting through the rough-and-tumble way that men resolve their conflicts. During this time, law and order do not concretely exist yet, because America is in its “becoming” stage. The West is divided, where ranchers and homesteaders, or “squatters” as ranchers call them, are in conflict over property rights. They cannot resolve their land dispute over rational discussion, since they hate to give concessions to each other. They desire a zero-sum game, where one wins and other loses. This kind of thinking is a facet of realism, where anarchy drives human nature and international relations. This essay will also discuss male egos and machismo. These movies illustrate male egos and its resulting behavior of machismo that help them establish and reinforce their manliness. The setting of Shane sees drinking soda as a weakness, or a feminine weakness in particular. Shane enters the saloon to buy soda pop for Joey. Several men laugh at him, because he is buying a childs/womans drink and not the whiskey shots that they are drinking. Calloway yells to the bartender: “Will, lets keep the smell of pigs out from where were drinkin.” He mocks Shane as part of the homesteaders, because for him, they are cowards for not responding in a more physical manner to the formers taunting. Someone asks: “Well, whatll it be - lemon, strawberry, or lilac, sodbuster?” Shane fights his inner self that wants to teach these men a lesson. He also gets splashed with whiskey, so that he can “smell like a man.” These actions demonstrate machismo attitudes that films often teach, where the archetype of the strong male manifests in how men interrelate with each other. Another incident is when Joe decides to use violence to fight violence. After several clashes with Ryker and Torreys death, Joe prepares his horse to confront Ryker. Marion pleads for her husband to think rationally: “Joe, you cant do it...Go in town to kill Ryker - hell kill you.” Whatever Marion says does not change Joes mind, for she is only a woman after all. Kanes enormous male ego can also be seen from Welles camera angles and framing. While Susan is singing, she is framed with Kane looking down on her. This shot demonstrates the stature of Susan in Kanes world; she is merely a trophy for Kane, something that stands for all that he can control. With his grim and determined look, Kane asserts his power over Susan. Another scene is when Susan decides to leave Kane. Kane: Dont you know that our guests, everyone here, will know about this? Youve packed your bags. Youve sent for the car. Susan: And left you? Of course theyll hear. Im not saying goodbye, except to you, but I never imagined that people wouldnt know. Kane: I wont let you go. Susan: Goodbye Charlie. Kane: (pleading) Susan. Please dont go. No. Please, Susan. From now on, everything will be exactly the way you want it to be, not the way I think you want it, but - your way. You mustnt go. You cant do this to me! Susan: I see. Its you that this is being done to! Its not me at all. Not what it means to me. I cant do this to you? (smiling oddly) Oh, yes I can. This scene demonstrates that Kane only loves Susan, because of what he needs, without considering also what Susan needs as an individual and as his partner. Another point that this essay wants to focus on is how men see women and other men. Men, furthermore, see women as weak and men with women as weaklings. The homesteaders are entering the store with their wives, and one of Rykers posse scorns them: “They brought all their women with them to protect em.” This scene shows that women are perceived as weak and that men should never depend on women for strength. Kane also perpetually treats women as objects. Through an innovative breakfast montage, Welles illustrates how Kane dissolves his marriage, because of the way he treats his wife and how he prioritizes power and wealth over his family. The music being played is waltz at first, and Kane and his wife are evidently flirting. The table is small enough for them to watch each other closely and they act with sexual innuendos. The next scenes show the table expanding and the things on it increasing. The psychological effect of these scenes is that as a couple, they are becoming detached from each other, which impacts their marriage. The music declines to an inharmonious rhythm, and soon these lovers are arguing. The lighting also increases every year, which means that Kanes real identity is becoming increasingly evident to his wife and the audience. He is a power-lust individual who will not stop until he has the whole world at the palm of his hand. To further stress Kanes high view of himself, one of the scenes in the breakfast montage can be used. In one scene, Kane criticizes the Presidential office in public. Emily sees the Presidential office as an honorable institution and she is offended by how Kane disregards this office. Emily: Sometimes, I think Id prefer a rival of flesh-and-blood. Charles: Oh Emily, I dont spend that much time on the newspaper. Emily: It isnt just the time. Its what you print - attacking the President. Charles: You mean Uncle John. Emily: I mean the President of the United States. Charles: Hes still Uncle John, and hes still a well-meaning fathead whos letting a pack of high-pressure crooks run his administration. This whole oil scandal... Emily: He happens to be the President, Charles, not you. Charles: Thats a mistake that will be corrected one of these days. Kane has such a bloated ego that he thinks that he should be President himself. The way he disregards Emilys opinion further stresses that she is not important to him as a human being. Kane only values his opinion and nothing else. This essay also seeks to examine power and gender. The films further portray that women do not have the power and resources to change their conditions. Marion hints her love for Shane as she warns Joey to not be attached to Shane too much: “Dont get to liking Shane too much...I dont want you to...Hell be moving on one day, Joey. Youll be upset if you get to liking him too much.” After that, she blows the candle and the room darkens. The darkness suggests the futility of loving each other. Susan does not also have the resources to be a successful person. She becomes popular as a singer, only because Kane invests on her. He builds an expensive opera house, so that Susan can sing there. This investment, nevertheless, is for Kanes self-interest only. He loses the election and needs a new “project,” and Susan, being his object of desire, is the perfect candidate. This essay wants to examine femininity and sexuality too as its next point. These films also use sexual characteristics and weak feminine attitudes to define female characters, which represent patriarchal attitudes toward women. Marion is sexualized as the object of desire. She reinforces this sexualization by focusing on her looks, as she makes herself desirable to Shane. Inside their house, Marion opens an old trunk in her bedroom to look for a nice dress for the celebratory party. She finds her wedding dress and decides to use it. Before that, she also dresses to make herself more attractive to Shane. Joe also “sees” his wife more when she beautifies herself. He positively commends her when she looks beautiful, but not when she expresses herself vocally. It is as if without this physical component, he cannot “see” his wife at all. These films further stereotype women as passive and non-violent human beings. Marion is angry that Shane is teaching her son to shoot a gun. She says: “Guns arent going to be my boys life.” Shane retorts: “A gun is a tool, Marion. No better and no worse than any other tool - an ax, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it.” Marion stresses that the world will be better off without violence: “Wed all be much better off if there wasnt a single gun left in this valley - including yours.” She is saying that she resists mens necessity to use violence to have power over each other and women. Susan and Emily Monroe Norton Kane are also seen from a physical and sexual perspective. Emily contrasts with Susan in terms of attire, language, and behavior. Emily is educated and rich, so she talks and dresses formally. She is dressed as part of her upper class through rich furs and jewelry. She also behaves “properly,” unlike Susan who is emotional and dresses like a bar girl. Nevertheless, they are both dressed for the male gaze, with emphasis on their physical features. Susan is more sexualized, with her breasts and legs more visible than Emily. Her actions also turn her to a sex doll, one that is fit for looking and physical pleasure. The visibility of her sexuality ironically renders her identity more invisible. She wants Kane to treat her better, but he does not do it, because his bitterness and ego have consumed him. This will be the next topic of the essay: the invisibility of womens voices and identities in movies that transcend gender issues. Women are invisible in movies and have minor roles to play in their homes and society. In one scene, Marion admonishes her son for pointing guns. She is shown at the window, almost fully concealed. This concealment symbolizes womens minority and second-class status in society. As Marion peers from the window, this also stands for a womans peering from the social periphery. Her voice is also soft-spoken, as if she does not dare to speak so loud. This softness in voice alludes to womens lost and suppressed voice in society. Moreover, society pushes women to domestic duties. Starrett treats his wife as a domestic helper. He persuades his “little woman” to ask Shane to join them for dinner. Marion, however, is only a “housewife.” Women do not take active roles in society and are relegated to the sidelines. Her husband does not listen to her opinions. Marion asks her husband to no longer go to Ryker: “Joe, hell kill you.” Joe does not follow her, so she pleads to Shane to help her stop Joe. Shane says: “I cant tell Joe whats right, Marion.” Women cannot tell men what is right, and yet the latter can tell the former what is right. When Joe asks Marion, it is for approval, not for her own opinion. In one scene, Joe turns to Marion for her response. A pause follows and Marion answers: “Of course.” This is an automatic response for women who are subjugated in society. Even in domestic responsibilities, Marion has no say. Joe shows his stinginess when he comments on Marions hearty meal: “Say, were kinda fancy, arent we?...good plates, an extra fork?” But she serves what she wants and says that “nothing” is out of place in what she is doing. Welles uses up-angle shots to demonstrate womens subservience. Mrs. Kane is also seen from the window, when she is introduced in Citizen Kane. She too is a peripheral character in the film. Another example is the up-angle shot of Susan Alexander at the El Rancho. The framing shows Susan in state of mess, which contrasts with the two men at the background, who are in formal attire and look in control of their lives. The frame depicts the life of subservience of Susan to Kane and to men, in general. Welles also employs the up-angle shot when showing some of the arguments between Kane and Susan. The main effect is that for Kane, Susan is not his equal; she is a subordinate as a woman and as a human being. Kane loses the election, and he wants to pursue Susan’s singing career, because her fame would be his fame too. Susan knows that she does not have a good voice, and she is angered when Kane pushes her to continue singing: “You dont propose to have yourself made ridiculous! What about me? Im the one whos got to do the singin. Im the one who gets the razzberries. Why dont you let me alone?” Kane demands her to sing and he does not care about her emotions. Not all scenes in Citizen Kane stress male power over women though. Citizen Kane subtly shows womens struggles against male domination. Susan has also opposed Kanes dominance, though with little success. The camera closes up to a black musician singing a jazzy song, “It Cant Be Love,” which signifies that true love is among equals, not between a master and a slave, a depiction of Kanes relationship with Susan. Susan complains to Kane that he does not know how to love: Susan: Oh sure, you give me things. But that dont mean anything to you. Kane: Youre in a tent, darling. You arent at home. I can hear you very well if you speak in a normal tone of voice. Susan: Whats the difference between giving me a bracelet or giving somebody else a hundred thousand dollars for a statue youre gonna keep crated up and never even look at? Its just money, it doesnt mean anything! You never really give me anything that belongs to you, that you care about! Kane: Susan, I want you to stop this. Susan: Im not gonna stop it. Kane: Right now! Susan: You never gave me anything in your whole life. You just tried to bribe me into giving you something. This scene asserts the power of Susan over Kane. She might not be able to dominate him, but at least, she shows resistance to his treatment of her as a “means” to his “ends.” He denies using Susan in one scene: Kane: ...Whatever I do, I do because I love you. Susan: You dont love me. You want me to love you. (She mimicks him) Sure, Im Charles Foster Kane. Whatever you want, just name it and its yours. But youve gotta love me! (Kane slaps her.) Dont tell me youre sorry. Kane: (coldly) Im not sorry. Kane is not sorry, because he remains a bigot. He only thinks of his needs and wants; he is above women and society. Mrs. Kane is also a budding feminist. Mrs. Kane fights back the mans world. Thatchers words are shown in large script writing: “I first encountered Mr. Kane in 1871.” The scene flashes back to eight-year-old Charles (Buddy Swan) and his hometown, a farm in Little Salem, Colorado. Through a long shot, Charles is sledding on a hillside, enjoying the snow. His mother Mary (Agnes Moorehead), has become suddenly rich after a boarder leaves her some stocks as payment, and these stocks soon turn her into the sole owner of a successful oil company. The camera moves back to the setting and into the house, where Mary says: “Be careful, Charles, pull your muffler round your neck, Charles.” Her husband does not want to sign off his son, but she makes her final decision. She controls her emotions and signs the papers. She does not listen to her husband in the background. This scene shows that she is the one in control, because she will do what is best for her son. Her son does not know what is happening though. This scene demonstrates how a woman manages her household. She is the “boss,” though her husband wants to think differently. Hence, Citizen Kane shows the subtle oppositions that women make against men through expressing their opinions and making decisions on their own. Bordwell is right to say that the typical Hollywood film “possesses a fundamental emotional appeal that transcends class and nation.” Movies have an emotional appeal that transcend gender, because these movies both depict the second-class status of women in society. The patriarchal culture suppresses their voices and forces them to live through their reproductive roles alone. Citizen Kane (1941), however, has shown womens subtle struggles in fighting this social order. These female characters are willing to go through great lengths, at the point of self sacrifice, to impose their power and to faintly dismantle the processes and outcomes of a mans world. Hence, this essay shows that films can transcend gender issues, as well as introduce the conflicts between the norm and what women want the new norm to be. Works Cited Citizen Kane. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten and Dorothy Comingore. Mercury Productions, 1941. DVD. Shane. Dir. George Stevens. Perf. Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur and Van Heflin. Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1953. DVD. Read More