Genre and Excess

The Williams reading focuses on how gender's are represented in three "gross" film genres: pornography, horror, and the weepie. I was particularly fond of her choices because they seem underrepresented in our previous classes. Indeed, I was an avid horror movie fan at a very, very young age (I had a stuffed bunny named Freddy), so I could easily relate to her references about horror specifically. She said she chose them because they are arguably "low culture" films that are often attacked for their lack of contribution to filmic society. Nonsense, I say!

Her piece seeks to suggest that three types of excess (sex, violence and emotion) are valuable and fundamental to why we like these films in the first place. And perhaps that they are not excessive at all, but rather an essential "spectacle of a body caught in the grip of intense sensation or emotion" (604). Thinking to myself, I'd agree that all three do invite a certain type of reaction that could be compared to an almost involuntary spasm that we voluntarily subject ourselves to. I would argue that laughter - that sort of gut-busting, belly laughter - is also of this kind, but she is quick to point out that she chose not to include this because it is too easy to see why we like comedy. It has a naturally jovial aura that lifts our spirits, and who wouldn't want that? Good point.

She also points out that in all three of these genres it is traditionally women who are subject to these conditions. Indeed, in most of the films we've seen it is usually the woman who sobs, or wants, or gets angry. She seems to be the subject of the most extreme emotions. One might posit that this is because the viewer is typically male and the subject of his gaze is female, so naturally he would be wanting to watch her in the throes of this kind of dramatic experience. I think she does an incredible job at finding a common thread between this three genres in many different, interesting ways (see "jerk" paragraph on 606).

She asks:
"Is it simply the unseemly, 'gratuitous' presence of the sexually ecstatic woman, the tortured woman, the weeping woman - and the accompanying presence of the sexual fluids, the blood and the tears that flow from her body and which are presumably mimicked by spectators - that mark the excess of each type of film?"

If she used the word "simply," my guess is that she doesn't think so. Anyone?

She also posits that these genres are all present on the scale of perversions (masochism, sadism, and sadomasochism): weepies, pornography, and horror films respectively. This is assuming the viewer is not strictly male.

For example, she describes the weepie as being masochistic because women seem to love to cry at a good love story, heartbreak, death, etc... For some reason, we actively seek out movies where the girl loses everything she has, or someone dies, or some other traumatic experience that ultimately makes us break down in sobs in the audience. Is not subjecting ourselves to such painfully raw emotions a bit masochistic? When you think about it, yes.

She says that porn is sadistic because it deals strictly with the receiving of pleasure in a "punishment" sort of way. "The passive 'good girl' can prove to her witness that she does not will the pleasure that she receives. Yet the sexually active 'bad' girl enjoys this pleasure and has knowingly arranged to endure that pain that earns it" (610). Anyone else feel dumbfounded that we are examining the "roles" in porn for our grad degrees? Wow.

Finally, she positions horror movies in the middle of both extremes. "In slasher films, identification with victimization is a roller-coaster ride of sadomasochistic thrills" (609). She says the audience is usually adolescent males who learn from the "castration" of the killer, the gruesome violence towards the sexually active females, and the power struggle that continues between them.

In the end, though, she says none of the rules really matter much now as gender roles start to break down. Indeed, porn has become more acceptable and enjoyable for women (and openly features gay schemes, including those with man-on-man scenarios). "This new fluidity and oscillation permits in the construction of feminine viewing pleasures once thought not to exist at all" (611). Are we finally making strides against a strictly male gaze?

She also talks a bit about fantasy...how they relate to the timing of certain imaginary events. Porn addresses the need for "now" or "on time" in that it's all about the perfect setting, the perfect timing of a meeting between two (or more!) people. Horror movies are about "too early" as the female victim always meets the killer when she is not ready. Finally, weepies follow the rule of "too late" in that somehow we've missed our chance at love, happiness, life, etc...

To Williams, ultimately, these genres are about readdressing the changing notions of gender, sexuality, and identity.

(Author's Note: I think this reading may lead to some interesting blog and ::gasp:: video posts!)