Subjects act while objects are acted upon, and, in the case of “sexual subjects” and “sex objects”, most people living in the 21st century and under the scope of modern feminism would define themselves as, or at least hope to become, the former rather than the latter. However, the film Lila dit ça actually narrates a reverse trajectory from sexual subject to sex object in the case of Lila.
In order to understand the matter of “sex object” vs. “sexual subject”, it is important to comprehend the system in which this issue exists. Within Lacan theory, there exists the concept of “symbolic order”, where, within the social world of linguistic communication, inter-subjective relations, knowledge of ideological conventions and the acceptance of the law, only once a person enters into language and accepts the rules that dictate society, are they able to interact and connect with others. As a result, that person becomes a “subject”. Working within the scheme of Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory of the symbolic order,American art historian and critical theorist, Kaja Silverman, claims, “while human bodies exist prior to discourse, it is only through discourse that they arrive at the condition of being ‘male’ or ‘female’” (324). What Silverman means by this is that we remain “objects” until we enter the symbolic order and ourselves become the subject of discourse (or, in other words, become the subject of the language we engage in within the symbolic order); in other words, only when we engage in conversation about ourselves can we attain the status of a “subject” – and this makes sense, especially in light of the term “subjectivity”, which is defined as“the quality of existing in someone’s mind rather than the external world”. It is also important to note that discourse requires a “speaking position” and a “spoken subject” – a person to speak and a person to be spoken about. In a world where language, discourse, discussion – other people– dictates how we shape our identity and what we become, how can we expect anyone to consider us and for us to consider ourselves as subjects, especially sexual subjects, without becoming the subject of a conversation first? And so, if it is only through discourse that a person can arrive at the condition of being “male” or “female”, then the female body cannot be seen as existing outside discourse since it is precisely with that body that discourse, and thus that subjectivity, begins.
In the film, Lila is a beautiful blonde 16-year-old who moves in with her superstitious aunt in a rundown, mostly Arab neighborhood in Marseille. Throughout the film, however, her life is filtered through the eyes and narrated by the voice of Chimo, a 19-year-old dark-haired and what Lila will call “olive oil” skinned Muslimwho lives with his mother and spends his time hanging out with his trouble-making friends. Their relationship begins almost immediately, with Lila asking Chimo to admire her blue eyes and blonde hair, and inviting him to look up her skirt as she rides a playground swing – this marks the beginning of Lila’s subjectivity. According to Silverman, due to his gender, the Chimo naturally has the privilege of engaging in any discourse, and is thus able to define himself according to a particular discourse – allowing him to become both the speaking and the spoken subject. Due to her gender, Lila, on the other hand, is naturally excluded from all forms of discourse. And so,“ the structuration of the female subject beings not with her entry into language, but with the organization of her body.” (325). Therefore, Lila becomes less of sex object as she maps out and territorializes her body by becoming increasingly explicit in her sexual desires; however, her subjectivity is only legitimized because her body is made to bear meaning through Chimo’s discourse, even if this meaning is apprehended by both Lila and Chimo as an internal condition (or a product of her own essence). Thus, the moment that Lila becomes a subject of Chimo’s discourse is also the moment that she becomes a sexual subject, and since she is a subject of his discourse from the very beginning of the film, it is possible to consider that Lila starts the film as a sexual subject.
Throughout the film, Chimo and Lila’s physical contact is minimal and considerably innocent, partly because Lila seems to flaunt her sexuality with intense confidence, and that spirit stuns Chimo – or at least that is how it appears at first.Much of the drama in the film actually comes from ambiguities in Lila’s character, which ultimately makes Chimo question her character, and thus makes the audience question her character as well (as her character is subjectified through Chimo’s eyes). As the story progresses, and we are further engrossed in Lila’s character, Chimo’s uncertainty brings up questions concerning her true nature: Is she really in control of herself? Does she mean what she says? Does she understand the effect she has on the people around her? Has she thought about the possible consequences of her actions?
What we learn by the end of the film is that, ultimately, Lila does not have the agency to remaina sexual subject throughout the story, even though she gave the impression that she does. She is not really in control of herself– of her sexuality–, she does not mean what she says, she does not understand the effect she has on the people around her, and she does not think about the consequences of her actions. The fact that she was a virgin (due to the bloodstains left on the bed sheets after she was raped) reveals that Chimo’s discourse reflected his subjective fantasies, not Lila’s true character. And though this does not revoke her ability to be asexual subject, it does undermine whatever sexual subjectivity she gained throughout the film, and thus her ability to be her own sexual subject, or a sexual subject true to her character, is lost in the Chimo’s projections onto her.
A consequence of Lila’s subjective expression of Chimo’s fantasies, however, is the development of severe discomfort for her male counterparts, which ultimately manifests into sexual violence. Chimo’s friends, in particular Mouloud, the leader of their pack, interpret Lila’s every gesture, including giving them the cold shoulder, as a teasing come-on. Given Lila’s subjective expression of Chimo’s fantasies and her paradoxical true nature, the moment Lila becomes the victim of sexual violence she becomes a “sex object”; and the fact that this occurred towards the very end of the film illustrates Lila’s reverse trajectory towards disempowerment.
In the film Lila dit ça, the Lila’s subjective expression of Chimo’s fantasies and her becoming a victim of sexual violence contribute to Lila’s devolution from “sexual subject” to “sexual object”. Perhaps the point of her reverse trajectory was to illustrate that women are not capable of having any sense of (sexual) agency – that they have no say in whether they are sexual subjects or sex objects –, that a women’s identity is created by the language of men and by a level of discourse that they are not allowed in. So, like Lila, perhaps no women can actually possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires, that are not a projection or reflection of thee male gaze.
References
Lila dit ça. Dir. Ziad Doueiri. Prefs. Vahina Giocante, Moa Khouas, Karim Ben Haddou, Lotfi Chakri, Hamid Dkhissi, Edmonde Franchi, Carmen Lebbos & Ghandi Assad. Pyramide Distribution, 2004.
Silverman, Kaja. “Histoire d’O: The Construction of a Female Subject”. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Ed. Carole Vance. London:Pandora Press, 1989. PDF.
“subjectivity”. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 5 Apr. 2017. <Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjectivity>.
11/22/2016
From black to blue, deadpan to cringe. From improvisation to sketch, and screwball to satire. While it is true that comedy has forever used humor as the driving force of a film, it has also delivered this humor though such a wide range and variety of stylistic conventions that it has thus divided the genre into multiple subgenres. Films such as His Girl Friday and The Producers exemplify the popular sub-genres of their times, Screwball and Satire respectively, and in turn reflect the larger social-political world that existed during Classical and Modernist phase. The transition from Screwball to Parody not only solidified the stylistic conventions of the comedy, but also reflected a change in the thematic conventions of comedies from the Classical to the Modernist phase.
Historically, the Great Depression, which lasted from 1929-1939, created what came to be the dominant comedic subgenre of the Classical phase: the Screwball. Screwballs were defined by the reversal of the typical male-female power dynamic set forth by traditional gender roles and depicted this eternal battle of the sexes in an almost slapstick fashion. They were movies made in an era where the Hay’s Code, aset of industry guidelines that introduced American film to formal censorship, regulated the popular content of the day and women’s liberation was at its height, so portraying female characters with power over their male counterparts was both a new and difficult theme for Hollywood (Gehring 178). As a result of major film studios’ eagerness to bypass restrictions enforced upon production studios by the Hays code, the Screwball bloomed, and as a result of popular demand for films with social commentary as well as escapist themes, the Screwball flourished.
An entertaining script, laced with sharp and witty dialog; an overlapping style of execution, with lines delivered in rapid cross-fire; highly exaggerated, and thus realistically impossible, situations; a hero living by his or her wits alone, who is often balanced by a reliable, albeit equally stubborn, love interest – together these stylistic and thematic conventions create the essence of the Screwball (Milberg 6). His Girl Fridayis a classic example of a Screwball: an entertaining game of who-knows-best between a pair of ex-lovers exacerbated by fast-paced repartee and farcical situations galore –what could get any screwier? In an attempt to include the desired, yet prohibited, risqué elements found within a typical romance film, filmmakers utilized more covert stylistic conventions to relay the raciness of a scene or situation. In the case of His Girl Friday, verbal sparring between Walter Burns (Cary Grant) and Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) serves as the stand-in for physical sexual tension between the protagonists and is exemplified whenthe ex-partners – in business and marriage – meet and squabble in Walter’s office for the first time since their divorce. Farcical situations arise when Hildy jumps on Sheriff Hartwell (Gene Lockhart) in order to get her story and when Walter and Hildy attempt to attempt to sneak out accused murderer Earl Williams (John Qualen) who is hiding in a desk - both non-conventional things for a realwoman to be doing during the late 1930s, which ultimately makes for hilariously “unrealistic” situations that are further satirized with the use of slapstick conventions (i.e. Slipping on a banana peel, accidentally walking into one unseen objects or banging heads together).
Unfortunately, with the 1960s came the sexual revolution, birth control, the Vietnam War and the replacement of the Hays Code with the Ratings System of 1968, under which, with the proper rating, practically nothing was off-limits – and with that, the Screwball subgenre died. Although the 1960s brought about the death of the Screwball, many of its stylistic conventions found their way into popular comedies of the 1960s, particularly those that fell within the dominant comedic subgenre of the Modernist phase: the Parody. (Milberg 156). The modernist period, which lasted from 1963-1976, witnessed an explosion of genre. This worked one of two ways: films either referred back to old conventions of a classic genre or experimented with classical and post-classical genre conventions (Casper & Edwards 330). The explosion of genre during this phase was rooted in the social frustrations of the time - frustration with the depleting economic status and rapidly changing business model of the Film Industry was only perpetuated by frustrations with the larger social movements of the decade, and together these collective frustrations called for wave of nostalgia for the “Golden Age” of American cinema. (King 94). Therefore it is justifiable to assume that elements of past popular subgenres of comedy, such as the Screwball, are evident in Parodies – and upon closer analysis, this assumption can be proven correct.
In a Parody, the abuses and/or shortcomings of the subject of a film are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent to reveal its inherent ridiculousness, and exemplified through clever, fast-paced dialogue and farcical romp. Although films like The Producers exhibit both the thematic and stylistic conventions needed to be considered a Parody, critics tend to brand the film as a Satire. Within the world of comedy, there exists a line between Satire and Parody, but it is a very fine line indeed. A satire exists to criticize vice, folly and abuse, especially of individual or groups in positions of [political] power, through humorous verbal attacks and with the purpose to inspire change (King 93), while a parody exists only to make fun of a subject in hopes to reveal its fundamental ridiculousness by adopting the mannerisms, style or appearance of said subject. Parodies are generally less venomous than satires as they only criticize fictional works, and can even be seen as a sign of affection for the subject that which it is imitating (Gehring & Olson 4). That being said, it seems that many film critics seeThe Producersas a product of the satiric comedy, perhaps as the film does not seem to imitate a piece of fictional work, but seems to criticize corruption in show business. However, before parodies of other film genres became a dominant subgenre of the Modernist comedy, early parodies based themselves in reality as they would impersonate serious situations and genuine people (Gehring & Olson 132). Accordingly, upon closer investigation of The Producers, it is evident that there are in fact multiple sources imitations of subjects that rooted in reality throughout the film. Two of the most important being, obviously, the parody of Hitler and the Nazi Regime and, less obviously, the parody of someone that director Mel Brooks had worked under years before, the latter of which describes during an interview with Vanity Fair Magazine:
I did. I worked for that guy. He was a producer; he put on shows. I can’t tell you his name because he has grandchildren, and I don’t want them to know he screwed a lot of little old ladies. But that character was based on a real person. There’s a line in the movie that comes from real life. It’s absolutely true; I heard this guy say it. In the movie, Zero Mostel says to a little old woman, “Make out the check to Cash.” And she says, “Cash? That’s a funny name for a play.” And he says, “Well, so is TheIceman Cometh.” That comes from real life. (Sacks)
Ultimately, the transition from the Screwball to the Parody reflected a change in the publics’ need for films based in escapist plot with elements of social commentary to films based in social criticism with elements of escapism. This change in popular demand is, in turn, not only a reflection of the ever-changing culture in which these films were produced, but also, and more importantly, the result of a change in Classical texts to the Modernist texts. Accordingly, the changes from the Classical to the Modernist phase include the shift from pleasure to confrontation, identification to distance and transitivity to non-transitivity (Casper & Edwards 330).
In terms of pleasure and confrontation, the Classical phase immersed audiences in the characters and their situations, which in effect rendered them (the audience) passive and thus provided them with a sense of comfort. By introducing the audience to Heldy’s resilient feelings for career in journalism and Walter’s resilient feelings for her, conflict is created conflict; however, Heldy’s ultimate choice to stick with her career and Walter indicates a comforting conflict-resolution. In contrast, the Modernist phase purposefully created tension that would not be resolved in order to force the audience to not only actively engage in the story, but also to confuse the audience in an effort to make them think of the world differently. The plot-twist in the last leg of The Producers, in which Leo and Max’s expected flop turns into a major hit, results in unresolved tension in the form of an unconventionally happy ending in which Leo and Max are sent to the state penitentiary, but are able to continue with their schemes and much their own delight. In terms of identification and distance, the Classical phase allowed the audience to identify with the characters, which created sympathy for the characters. The repetitive use iconic actors of the Screwball subgenre, such as Cary Grant who played the role of Walter Burns allowed audiences to feel comfort in and therefore sympathize with the protagonists of the film. Contrastingly, the Modernist phase forced the audience to keep at a distance from the character by utilizing ambivalent and archetypal characters. The use of new actors, such as Gene Wilder, who played ambivalent characters, as exemplified in the portrayals of and dynamic between Leo Bloom and Max Bialystock, made it harder for audiences to sympathize with the protagonists of the film. And finally, in terms of transitivity and non-transitivity, the films made during the Classical phase had a beginning, middle and end, where in which the end answers the beginning and everything was followed-through. In contrast, films made during the Modernist phase had plot intransitivity, in which there was no ending or follow through and there existed some type of fragmentation, or breaking of space and time. This difference is exemplified in the fact that the plot time in His Girl Friday narrowed in on about half a day, which allowed the entire story to unfold without any major fragmentation of time, while the plot time in The Producers narrowed in a couple of weeks, which gave opportunity for major fragmentation of space and time.
The ability to feel comfort in conflict-resolution, identify and sympathize with the protagonists and follow a story with a linear structure where characteristic of the Classic comedy. Consequently, these characteristics are what gave the Screwball the ability to provide what was demanded of from the culture that it was produced in. Similarly, the inability to feel comfort in unresolved tension or to sympathize with and relate to the protagonists, and the imposition to follow a story with an episodic structure where characteristics of the Modernist comedy. Just as the characteristics of the Classic comedy lent its success to the Screwball, the characteristics of Modernist comedy allowed subgenres like the Parody to flourish as they created conditions in which such subgenres could fulfill the popular demands of the American majority, which was a reflection on the culture of the time. The difference between the Classical and Modernist phase lies in idea of relevance and that what is relevant to people changes over time. And so, the as culture changes, relevance changes and thus the demands of the people, which simultaneously perpetuates a change in the thematic conventions of the comedy and a shift to a new popular subgenre that is befitting of such demands.
The ultimate purpose of the Screwball and Parody subgenres is to provide a safe platform on which to explore serious issues such as gender relations and political and economical corruption under a comedic, and inherently non-threatening, framework. The films His Girl Friday and The Producers offered a cultural escape from the realities of their respective time periods while still commenting on and criticizing the happenings of those periods. Although common stylistic conventions have embedded themselves throughout the history of comedy and within various comedic sub-genres, the aforementioned factors perpetuated a change in the thematic conventions of comedy from 1930s to the 1960s.
References
Casper, Drew, & Edwards, Richard L. Introduction to Film Reader.4thed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2007.
Gehring, Wes D. “Screwball Comedy: An Overview.” Journal of Popular Film and Television, vol. 13, no. 4, 1986, http://media.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu /media/ch/pao/doc/c432-1986-013-04000004/doc.pdf?cit%3Aauth=Gehring% 2C+Wes+D&cit%3Atitle=Screwball+Comedy%3A+A. Accessed 14 November 2016.
Gehring, Wes D. & Olsen, Scott Robert. Parody as Film Genre: “Never Give a Saga an Even Break”. Greenwood Press, 1999. https://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url= http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/Doc?id=10020823 An electronic book accessible through the World Wide Web; click to view
King, Geoff. FilmComedy. Wallflower Press, 2002.
Milberg, Doris. The Art of the Screwball Comedy: Madcap Entertainment from the 1930s to Today. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2013.
Sacks, Mike. “The Founding Farter.” Vanity Fair, 8 Feb. 2013. http://www.vanityfair. com/hollywood/2013/02/mel-brooks-immortality-producer