For me, what I've read here could not be a more glaring reminder of what was discussed in class: that our perception towards things really depends on our culture, personal characteristics and interests. For example, I was completely unable to understand the metaphor in the first paragraph until I ran a Google search on John Wayne and found him not only to be a critically-acclaimed film director but also an enduring American icon that epitomized rugged masculinity.
Going deeper into the article, the issue of gender discrimination and defining sexuality is one that continuously comes to mind. Be it in the choice of language used to describe Bigelow such as drag and transvestite and the specific aspects of the film brought up like family and relationships, readers are drawn into questioning the assumptions and even the very definitions of contestable terms, in particular, feminism and masculinity.
This a succinct and eloquent post. You have drawn attention to the significance of audience and cultural context. Furthermore, your recognition of the littering of words referring to issues of identity hints at the essential contradiction in the article. Nochimson uses language that reinforces assumptions of stereotyped behavior, while accusing Hollywood of something similar. She seems to have more appropriate female directors in mind for their engaging with a more female vision of the world. As such, her argument does not transcend the binary oppositions of gender. Pity.
ReplyDelete