Bridget Jones Diary as the New Feminism - Essay Example

Bridget Jones’ Diary as the New Feminism In literature and cinema, women are often placed on a subservient level to men, reinforcing the traditional values of women as the lesser of the two sexes. Even in films where the female character is the main character, such as in Bridget Jones’ Diary, she is often portrayed as somewhat neurotic, a little crazy or unbalanced until she achieves the primary goal of bringing a man into her life. In this story, Bridget Jones is on a quest to feel fulfilled in life which can only be accomplished through one means. Despite a career, a decent apartment and some good friends, her life is not seen as complete because she does not have a male counterpart. Her lack of a love interest is the primary concern of her mother and the dominant thought in her mind. She spends the entire movie trying to work out her life in an acceptable fashion, working to try to choose between two men that continue to enter her social sphere. However, it is only when she is under the right male influence that she is able to achieve any kind of the stability and direction necessary to move forward in her life. Her greatest challenge, then, is to determine which man is the right one to help her move forward. All of her other accomplishments to that point have amounted to virtually nothing as a result of her flighty, feminine ways. Although one of the men in the story turns out to be just as flighty and directionless, this fact doesn’t emerge until near the end of the story, allowing both men throughout much of the movie to appear as though they are the quintessential man, strong and sturdy in their differing beliefs and goals and equally capable of providing Bridget with her needed stabilizing influence. Seen in this light, it is difficult to understand why the book and subsequent film became so popular with a contemporary audience. This paper is an attempt to explain this popularity and examine its significance in context of the ‘second wave feminism.’ Joanne Hollows characterizes the ‘second wave feminism’ as referring to those aspects of feminism that emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s that were essentially a rejection of all things feminine. In the first chapter of her book Feminism, Femininity and Popular Culture, Hollows suggests that most of what our contemporary understandings of various representations of the female in society are based upon this aggressive stance toward the feminine as necessarily degrading, subservient or second-class. The stance taken in the introductory paragraph is a strong example of this type of approach, particularly in its assessment of the family role in reinforcing key elements of traditional female life through its focus on finding a man. Hollows says, “Central to second-wave feminism in general … was the idea that the personal is political: what appeared to be individual, private problems that women endured in isolation were … common problems experienced by all women in the groups. Whereas other forms of politics had often distinguished between the public realm of politics and the private realm of the family, feminists came to see the family as a key source of their oppression and, therefore, political” (4). Another key element was the concept of the patriarchal system, from which most feminine oppression was seen to stem and in which female oppression was a foundational element. However, at least in the UK, capitalism was seen to contribute to the process as well. In relating these concepts to film, numerous studies were conducted to determine the various concepts of women that were presented in mainstream films during a 50-year period spanning from the 1920s to the 1970s. Rosen and Haskell each adopted an approach to film as a reflection of current trends in society rather than shapers of it. Although they acknowledged discrepancies in their theories, moments when images presented did not match conceptions held in the popular worldview, they referred to these anomalies as “the industry held a warped mirror up to life” (cited in Hollows & Jancovich, 1995: 156). Rather than being seen as an attempt to change the status quo or a means of shaping society toward a particular ideology, these aberrations were attributed to a skewed perspective on the part of the writer/director/producer on the way life really was. “For example, in the 1920s, Rosen argues, Hollywood focused on women who worked in blue-collar occupations, thereby creating the impression that women were non-achievers, yet Rosen cites examples of women who did hold important societal positions, women such as the female zoologist Delia Akeley” (Hollows & Jancovich, 1995: 157). While the importance of the theories of Rosen and Haskell are debated, one thing that was illustrated quite plainly in their analysis was the need to consider texts themselves, but also how they relate to the context in which they are presented. Experience, the context through which the text is produced and interpreted, necessarily informs each individual involved in the communication process even as the text influences the way in which the context is experienced and interpreted. “Experience is at once already an interpretation and in need of an interpretation” (Scott, 1992: 37 cited in Hollows, 1995: 9). This experience is often considered in terms of the binary oppositions we have all been raised with. It is through the philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure that we have the term ‘binary oppositions,’ which became a major component of the Structuralist movement. According to Saussure, we define each unit or idea not necessarily by what it is, but instead in terms of what it is not. “Essentially, the concept of the binary opposition is engendered by the Western propensity to organize everything into a hierarchical structure; terms and concepts are related to positives or negatives, with no apparent latitude for deviation” (Fogarty, 2005). In addition to allowing no middle ground between terms, binary oppositions tend to elevate one term over the other, such that one becomes the desirable while the other becomes the opposite and undesirable. However, it is largely through these binary oppositions that the viewer/reader is ‘positioned’ in the text to take a specific perspective and that serves to reinforce or break down existing stereotypes. Although sometimes these binary opposites are presented plainly, such as in the simple slogan ‘rich or poor’, they can also be presented in very subtle ways within our entertainment programming. “What will not be so immediately obvious at this stage is what this understanding means at a deeper level, for not just meaning but feeling – emotion – that becomes involved in the generation of meaning. In the case of poverty and wealth, you will recognize that we tend to judge a poor person negatively simply because they are not wealthy; we might well feel sympathy for that person, but in very real ways, we will hold to our deeply conditioned negative response to the idea of poverty and transfer this negativity to the poor person” (Campsell, 2006). There are several examples of binary oppositions within our contemporary text. In fact, in most cases, one would be hard-pressed to avoid them. These include the ideas of white/black, man/woman, rich/poor, old/young, life/death and inside/outside. Each opposition automatically excludes any elements of its opposite, immediately setting up antagonism because black excludes white, man excludes woman and rich excludes poor. Because they are understood to be opposites, the translation then becomes black equals darkness, danger, evil while white indicates purity, goodness and light. “Another example of a contested binary opposition is rational vs. emotional, in which the rational term is usually privileged and associated with men, while emotional is inferior and associated with women” (Campsell, 2006). Not limited to words alone, these oppositions are so culturally ingrained that they can be presented in terms of imagery, color associations, forms and shapes or simply through the particular flow of a font type used in an advertisement. If a characteristic of one of these categories applies, that element cannot ever enter into the realm of the other. Part of the reason for this is because the only way in which the system can remain in place is if these strict separations remain in place. In terms of the male/female binary opposition, the moment we come across a masculine woman who is successful and happy, the entire idealogy is blown. “We may not all agree on what constitutes a violation of gender roles but most people have a concept of gender roles and their violation. We don’t all agree on what unjustified killing is, but all cultures oppose killings they consider unjustified” (Sanes, 2000). By exploring and challenging the definitions involved or attempting to disguise and reinforce these definitions, films can have a profound effect upon how we view the world around us. That film can touch and change an individual life has been studied to some extent (Wolz 2005). Its power to affect both interpretation and the perspective one adopts in making this interpretation are perhaps best explored in the field of what has come to be called cinema-therapy. The benefits that can be gained from watching films with a focused awareness has been shown to be beneficial in ways that are not rivaled in other forms (Wolz 2003). This is because “watching a movie or a scene unfold is a participatory process for a client. The client is, at some level, emotionally, physically, and cognitively involved in what is being viewed and heard” (Tyson Foster & Jones 2000). By showing film clips to clients in a controlled setting, therapists are able to encourage people to explore issues that are uncomfortable in other settings (Selman 1999). In addition, more and more therapists are starting to recognize the advantages film therapy has to offer (Hesley 2001) in terms of helping clients adjust their perspectives to achieve a more harmonious connection with their social world. Films and books such as Bridget Jones’ Diary have been shown capable of bringing about significant cultural changes in attitudes regarding women (Riley 1986). Female roles of the 1960s presented three basic character types: the dumb blonde, the sex object and the whimpering victim (Seger 1990). However, these depictions have been changing, slowly moving away from the depiction of the buxom yet wasp-waisted blonde toward more naturalistic portrayals of average women struggling to achieve average goals in life. While these remain focused primarily upon the experience of the middle-class white woman, actress Renee Zellweger’s choice to gain 20 pounds for her role in Bridget Jones’ Diary is a single bold attempt to portray the modern, ‘normal’ working girl. Speaking of women who recognize these trends and causes, writer Susan Douglas (1994) said “one of the things we are angriest about, because the strategy has been so successful, is the way we have become alienated from our own bodies.” In making the conscious decision to portray a girl struggling with her weight, characteristically neurotic about her looks, particularly when about to meet with the family, and not the dainty, graceful figure of the traditional ideal, Zellweger and Helen Fielding, the story’s author, seize control of the body back into the hands of the feminine. If this seems a contradictory claim, this is because one is approaching the film from the perspective of the second-wave feminists rather than the newly emerging concepts of female as feminist and feminine. Bridget Jones is the typical white British girl seeking a happy life in the middle class. What she wants out of life is not always perfectly clear, but that she dreams of one day having a good husband, a happy family and a fulfilling career are all brought forward at one time or another. While these are her dreams, she doesn’t go well out of her way to make them come true. She is overweight and knows it, accepts it, makes the best of it and doesn’t worry too much about doing anything about it. Neither is she graceful, consistently tripping over things, destroying things, knocking over things and generally embarrassing herself in as many ways it is possible for a human being to embarrass herself. Rather than allowing this to interfere with her enjoyment of life, Bridget simply takes these foibles in stride as well, always attempting to put a smile on things and make the best of every situation that presents itself to her. It is this endearing aspect of her personality that attracts people to her, eventually giving her the boost in career she’s been looking for as she gains her own television segment despite not conforming to the patriarchal or capitalistic ‘norm’. It is only after she has come to grips with herself and established herself in her career that she finally decides on one man, indicating that neither man was actually necessary for her to get where she is now. While he is able to enhance her life and make it more enjoyable, he is not essential for her ability to live a happy and successful life. In addition to this refutation of the oppressed female in this story, there are several elements in which it is demonstrated that the female is as required by the male to be a stabilizing or balancing influence as the male is to the female. In Bridget Jones’ Diary, neither of the two men involved with Bridget were able to confront their own internal issues without the catalyst of Bridget herself. Daniel Cleaver understood that he was a womanizing cad, but was never able to determine why he behaved the way he did until he was forced to examine his continuing attraction toward Bridget, who didn’t fit his concept of the ideal woman at all. Mark Darcy, on the other hand, is unable to loosen up his aristocratic bearing long enough to enjoy life without Bridget around to lighten the air a little. For each man, it was through his relationship with Bridget that they each learned about their insecurities, strengths and weaknesses and therefore matured as characters. Likewise, it was through her that they were each able to become stronger, healthier men who were more confident in their abilities to make decisions. This perspective demonstrates the emerging concept of feminist as a feminine and individual human being. No longer is she defined as a single concept of middle class white person struggling against the oppressive powers of the patriarchal system and the capitalist order. Instead, she is seen as a valiant survivor, capable of combining masculine and feminine traits without worrying about which were more valuable or desirable than others. Rather than allowing herself to be defined by others, Bridget is clearly and undeniably and not always completely assuredly herself. The new feminism of the contemporary age attempts to remove the element of binary oppositions from the discussion, decreasing the emphasis upon the tendency to measure one element as necessarily less than, weaker then or more negative than the other. Instead, the new woman is able to express herself as a complete human being with strengths and weaknesses, hopes and dreams, traditional and new ideals and no pressure to fit within a constrained definition, regardless of which camp, patriarchs or feminists, is offering it. References Bridget Jones’ Diary. (2001). Dir. Sharon Maguire. Perf. Renee Zellweger, Gemma Jones, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant and Felicity Montagu. Miramax. Campsell, Steve. (2006). “Binary Opposition.” English Biz. Retrieved 17 May, 2009 from Douglas, Susan. (1994). “Media: A Girl’s Friend and Foe.” Where the Girls Are. Center for Media Literacy. Retrieved 17 May, 2009 from Fogarty, Sorcha. (15 February 2005). “Binary Oppositions.” Literary Encyclopedia. France: University College Cork. Hollows, Joanne & Jancovich, Mark. (1995). Approaches to Popular Film. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hollows, Joanne. (2000). Feminism, Femininity and Popular Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sanes, Ken. (2000). “Elements of the Orders of Values.” Image and Action. Transparency. Seger, Linda. (Winter 1990). “How to Evaluate Media Images of Women.” Media and Values. Vol. 49. Center for Media Literacy. Retrieved 17 May, 2009 from Read More