Feminist Approaches -- Karen Ritzenhoff (Monday 15 July 2019)

Karen Ritzenhoff is a professor in the Department of Communication ofCentral Connecticut State University. Her research interests include war studies, gender and sexuality and Kubrick. She has recently co-edited The Handmaid's Tale: Teaching Dystopia, Feminism and Resistance Across Disciplines and Borders with Janis L. Goldie (Rowman and Littlefield 2019) and New Perspectives on the War Film, with Clementine Tholas and Janis L. Goldie. [1]

Karen Rizenhoff can be contacted via email: Ritzenhoffk@CCSU.edu

Photo of Karen Ritzenhoff presenting. Photo by Simone Odino.

Presentation: 

Karen Ritzenhoff  presented on Feminist approaches. Karen noted that Kubrick is often viewed as a misogynist. He repeatedly depicts male violence against women in his films. Feminism remains a guarded topic in Kubrick Studies. Research has generally taken a masculine focus: male violence against and objectification of women has received far more attention than the plight of the women themselves.

The perspectives of Kubrick’s female characters is therefore a fruitful topic for further research. As Karen argues with Catriona McAvoy, “By focusing on the important female characters we can discuss the ways in which these films that may appear to be about male sexuality are perhaps more about male vulnerability and the fear of female sexual power” (154).

Karen suggested other future directions for feminism and Kubrick Studies:

The theme of sex with minors consistently recurs in Kubrick’s films. We see it not only in Lolita but also with the schoolgirls in A Clockwork Orange, the costume shop owner’s daughter in Eyes Wide Shut and the female sniper in Full Metal Jacket, whose execution evokes a gang rape. Kubrick plays many of these moments for comic effect, and they warrant further investigation.

Whose perspectives are missing from the reception of Kubrick’s films? Karen identified black feminist and queer receptions as particularly glaring absences. We need these new perspectives on Kubrick, whether they are favourable or critical. Inviting diverse scholars from other disciplines to share their perspectives might be one way forward in this respect.

We could also look at women in the production of Kubrick’s films. Their work has been marginalized by the perception of Kubrick as sole genius and auteur. Similarly, the responses of women in the audience at Kubrick screenings could provide real-life perspectives missing from Kubrick Studies. [2]

Panel:

The panel discussion reiterated many of the points from Karen’s presentation. Gender in Kubrick’s films remains a difficult topic for women scholars to approach. The group identified Kubrick fannishness as a potential reason for this. The standard defence given against accusations of Kubrick’s misogyny is that he surrounded himself with women – how valid is this?

In addition, established feminist and LGBTQI+ scholars are generally resistant to writing about Kubrick. We might, as Karen suggested, consider reaching out beyond the pool of Kubrick scholars to other disciplines. But what is it that makes Kubrick Studies seem inherently conservative? Is Kubrick studies capable of feminist approaches, or diversity?

Kubrick studies needs to move beyond the polarizing debate of whether Kubrick was a feminist or a misogynist. Joy pointed out that Kubrick’s films both depict a misogynistic world and show sympathy for the women who navigate it. On this reading, Kubrick’s misogyny and sympathy entail each other.

Moreover, Kubrick’s misogyny does not necessarily mean the end of Kubrick studies. We need not like Kubrick to engage with him. Furthermore, examining misogynistic logic in his films might help us think critically about sexism in other media representations: as such his films could be a useful tool for feminist teaching.

Other topics of discussion included:

·         breast fetishism and film censorship

·         Lolita and Bert Stern’s photoshoot with Sue Lyons

·         women and Jewish stereotypes

·         toxic masculinity and the stigmatization of homosexuality

·         Christiane Kubrick’s role as collaborator, confidante and litmus test.

These future directions in Kubrick feminist research span a range of different methodologies, and we should navigate the tensions between them. This means that textual interpretations of Kubrick’s films should be considered in relation to empirical evidence and historical approaches.

Photo of Karen Ritzenhoff taking questions after her presentation. Photo by Simone Odino.

Bibliography:

1. McAvoy, Catriona and Karen Ritzenhoff. "Machines, Mirrors, Martyrs and Money: Prostitutes and Promiscuity in Steve McQueen's Shame and Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut." Selling Sex on Screen: From Weimar Cinema to Zombie Porn, edited by McAvoy and Ritzenhoff, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015, pp. 153-172.

2. Ritzenhoff, Karen. "Feminist Approaches." Life and Legacy: Studying the Work of Stanley Kubrick, 15 July 2019.

Blog Post by: Daisy Baxter.

Thank you to Joy McEntree for her panel discussion notes.

Images, Captions, Bio & Bibliography: Miguel Mira