Sunday, October 15, 2006

To Veronique Whom I owe an explanation.

I have recently taken to using a term " Sofia Coppola feminism" and I intended to define it and then had a AWESOME/INTERESTINg time for the past couple of daysbut with the rising of the ugly head of this ,felt it was appropos.

In short SCF or "hipster feminism" is a parasitic feminism that not only ignores but is dependent on class ,race,and cultural appropriation and subjugation. It is a feminism that demands an emptiness ( real or invented) of reflection , instead replacing it with self involvement. It requires that culture and emotion be reduced to tropes and materials so that possesion of thes trinkets is possesion of the cultural significance. Removing it from actual experience and grounding it in blank slate whiteness and upper class ( eductaionally or monetarily) wrenches it from the hands of those who experience it AND tries to force them into a position of subjugation if they reject the positioning.

I came up with the term in my head when I was reading coverage of Marie Antoinette Coppola's most recent film. The article was in GQ and there was this kind of flip dismissal of the French booing

with words like

" It's booing they do it more in Europe"

or

Well it's art?

or

THEYRE JSUT JELLUS

or


It's what the french do....

Please understand I have not seen this film yet but my first reaction is that being familiar with the director , the subject , and the directors previous work is

VIVA LA FRANCE!

SCF ( the acronym) is a feminism that takes the idea " the personal is political" and run AWAY with it in an awful self absorbed , culturally decentering, yet culturally parasiting way.

SC three films have the proud distinction of being movies that I can't sit through.

And I mean I can't as in I watcheed virgin suicides in bits and pieces over seven years before my roll my eyes at the dumbshit kicks in.

Her talent is very visual and has an amazing facility for capturing ephemera .

Except she constantly tries to force this ephemera this barely thereness into some heavy social context.

Virgin Suicides focuses on whiteness and pureness as the holy grail , meanwhile almost unmoors it entirely from the specificity of time frame , and the graveness of the matter.

The fact that all the girls died was less impoirtant than they were these ephemeral creatures of light, the fact they were abandoned by the community is less important than all the boys wanted them.

The movie is complicit in making emptiness and the ability to be absorbtive and almost formless desireable in a way I don't think happens in the novel.

Lost IN translation makes me violent.

It's a racist bullshit piece of crap that had the added bonus of giving me Scarlett Johannson ( whom according to that thing on my heritage I look reasonably like) .

It is a movie about the shock of realizing that the world isn't all white and that life takes work. A woman who gives up her life to follow her husband WHILE HE IS WORKING is shocked when he WORKS

The Japanese are presented as these odd people who are so strange and why won't they be more understandable, IN THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY.

One montage that sticks out is the commercial filming which turns absolutely HILARIOUS that the translator TRANSLATES. The director is a pretentious milksop who gives way to much words to shit that ain't that deep?

SO this is different form everyother self involved milksop how....

He's japanese ! The isolation is not the punchline, the director isn't , his culture in his own country is the puncline.

It suceeds by venerating whiteness as a uniter rather than commonality. Being broing self involved and generally distasteful is okay as long as your wry.

College classmates justified thatI was being harsh because Tokyo was so foreign. Except

MOTHERFUCKING DUH

It's this subtle shift from you life being the comfortable to being the new standard that is so prevelant.

SC prides herself on women as empty vessels thrust into odd situations where in the supposedly have no control. Its helplesness as a feminist standpoint.

It prides the making of social contacts whose only purpose is to affirm your specialness .

Marie Antoinette was of course the nex t logical step , SHe's so misunderstood. SHe' slike a woman during bad tabloids! It's so WRONG. The peasants revolted not because they WERE STARVING and being lied to and ignored but becaus ethey had it in for the lady with the pretty shoes.

Except she was QUEEN, she wasn't some one completely powerless , but presenting her as powerless allows her excess to be candy coated confection rather than direct conscious depravation of her people.

SC cuts connections, blurs lines and tries to wrest control of various cultural significators so that her characters which aren't full formed but merely ciphers passing through can be affirmed.

Whats more she does it AT THE EXPENSE of their humanity ,depth and frailiity. Rather than construct or truly examine ways that they re molded or mold themselves or interact with things to acheive this uselessness or this featherweightness , she establishes it as the center of the narrative and leaves it as if anyone who objected is simply gauche and uncultured or odd for not reveling in it's beauty.

SCF does the same whatever the topic whatever the concern it makes a CONSCIOUS effort to severe it from interaction with the world or others. It is as if any weight or concern to it would PREVENT the ability to have adornment while purposelly lightening others ocncerns to market the self ( or central female) as the only thing that matters. While purposely leaching and using anything to affirm it's existance.

Whats more is that both the film style and the feminism style has a very nasty undercurrent of if you can't use pretty shiny,smart things to justify you placement at the center, your wasting away,psychic damage, or literal starvation is unfortunate but not paramount.

Life should come easy and it is only until you're made to live it ( which is so mean and so teh fault of patriarchy/foreignersor meanies/POC/peasants) andwhen you are it isn't because a world exists OUTSIDE OF YOU but simply the world is intruding on you as you ( special white women ) are the center of the universe.

It's a feminism taht ultimately has such little confidence in itself that it msut be made pretty by the starvation of innocents, the ignorance of culture, and seelf immolation to survive.

35 comments:

ChasingMoksha said...

This is too good. I am all for sharing but I am afraid if I had these thoughts I would have to hog them for an article. Some woman, probably white is going to steal this from you and publish it. I have only seen the Virgin Suicides and did not know what all the fuss was about. Wasn't Bill Murray in Lost in Translation? I do not like him, so I did not see it, I do take your word for it. Perhaps I should see it. I saw a similar movie that seems like it would be in with these three, but had a male at the center, it was another Bill Murray, I think it was wallflowers, or wild flowers or something like that. It was a horrible movie.

Spot on. Excellent read here. I'm am going to wiki to look up SOphia Coppola or however you spell it.

V?ronique said...

"It's a feminism taht ultimately has such little confidence in itself that it msut be made pretty by the starvation of innocents, the ignorance of culture, and seelf immolation to survive."

Wow. That's brilliant. The entire post is, and that last line sums it all.

One question though: Why the title? (I'm assuming i'm the Veronique you're refering to) Am I missing something here? A reference or a joke I'm not getting?

Sly Civilian said...

hmm. i have to say, i read both virgin suicides and Lost in Translation much differently..

Basically, i don't know that she likes her (ostensible) protagionists. in VS, the boys weren't presented sympathetically at all, and it was odder than hell watching a movie that wasn't about them through their eyes. the question is if the oddity is intentional, and is distruptive of the assumed male gaze, of if it's an accidental by product that shows why the movie is crap.

maybe i give her too much credit...but that's how those films struck me.

Veronica said...

Um. Veronica asked you. Hi.

Donna Darko said...

The problem with Virgin Suicides was it's blinding whiteness not the misogyny that lead to five suicides. Lost in Translation made Japan the punchline. Sofia Coppola is as Blackamazon puts it a Sofia Coppola feminist.

Blackamazon said...

Moksha) prortected by Creative OCmmons - HACHACHA

Sorry Veronica and Veronique. Told you I was dyslexic.

Sly,The thing that annoyed me ab out the VS which I admit not being able to get through was the fact that the boys WERE so unsympathetic . IT was almost an unecessary they didnt SAVE THOSE GIRLS!

IT's as if they're mad e so to emphasize the awesome of the girls .

Le Colonel Chabert said...

well that nailed it. I have nothing to add.

except...re sly civ's remarks:, (I only saw ten minutes of VS); the significance of trope of the white girl in all this is she is the pearl in the civilisation unworthy of her: her superiority goes unrecognised by the unworthy audience (all humanity is her unworthy audience) and this is a great injustice. It is a great injustice to Marie Antoinette that she was not simultaneously worshipped for her white beauty and in spite of it; adored for her core superiority, of which the white beauty is the sign.

the films descry dehumanisation and enact it, marshalling as you say blackamazon all the hierarchies and assumptions, monopolising unrewarded, unrecognised humanity for the white pearl and her ironic protector...The world is bad because the scenery-people aren't doing their duty to supply the hungry white pearl with nourishment and affirmation. Wierdly cannibalistic logic. And there is the Nabokovian resentment there, the fury of the proprietor whose property is stripped, the master whose slave has revolted and run, the artist whose audience is bored, the unappreciated genius, the Queen whose ungrateful rabble fails to revere her.

marie antoinette, the surface design elements were stretching faintly for this now retro 80s...SC is resolving the 80s through its one hyperactive enclosure process, privatisation as imperial digestion: the reference is Kathy Acker I think, trying to eat Kathy Acker and shit Camille Paglia.

Le Colonel Chabert said...

one hyperactive=own hyperactive

Mamitamala said...

Wow, what a great look at the films. I never saw Virgin Suicides but struggled through Lost in Translation.

ChasingMoksha said...

I remember the title now, It Was Broken Flowers.

Veronica said...

You must have paid way more attention to The Virgin Suicides than I did. I got done with it, and felt ripped off, because it appeared to be a movie about nothing, like they were so freaking "ethereal" that they may as well not have existed to begin with.

So, yeah. Prettily bland white girls and tinkly music. Meh. Supposedly with the new one, Ms. Dunst made a fool of herself last week, claiming she had a huge gay following that would support the film, even if test audiences hated it. Riiiiiight.

Blackamazon said...

Veronica that s the thing that was the framework of teh movie the girls werent there until they had to die or fuck someone.

And kirsten Dunst YECH

sunrunner said...

This is too funny not to steal! I think I am going to be laughing for days.

In reading the reviews of this Marie Antoinette movie, all I could think of was that other "pearl of civilization" Lady Di (ugh). Same girl, different centuries. One could have a blast with the starvation part: one starving the "others" and the other "immitating" the starvation of the massses. And in the end, why the fuck should anyone care about either one of them? Because both of them are a HUGE distraction from what really matters.

petitpoussin said...

I am so linking to this. Hipster 'Sofia Coppola' feminism. Fucking... exactly! Welcome to my shiny white universe! I went to a Buddhist monastery and cried for no reason because I'm deeeeeeeep... then came back to my hotel and lounged around in my see-through panties.

I remember reading some anecdote about how crucial those goddam panties were to Sofia Coppola's vision of the film. It's like the hipster's perfectly crafted vacant stare. And it makes me wanna vom.

Donna said...

"I can take anything I want, from anyone I want, and make it mean what I want. It doesn't matter who I hurt, because I don't mean to hurt them. I mean well!"

Is that Sofia Coppola feminism in a nutshell? LOL

Makes me think of the nuts who appropriate native american culture to sell their version of NA spirituality. They completely distort the meaning of anything they learned so that the dumbasses who buy their books or go to their sweat lodges/ceremonies/gatherings think it is authentic and what NA people really think and do. But hey, they mean well!

By the way, it's ok to drive us off our land and take everything from us including our culture, because were stoic and spiritual (not of this world, so worldly possessions and life even are meaningless to us) donchano? That's the backdrop to the white version of us injuns anyway.

ChasingMoksha said...

It requires that culture and emotion be reduced to tropes and materials so that possesion of thes trinkets is possesion of the cultural significance..

Could this be like Madonna picking her up an African boy...like picking out a pair of shoes.

Murr said...

"The Japanese are presented as these odd people who are so strange and why won't they be more understandable..."

I think it's worse, the Japanese are not even odd people in Lost in Translation; most of the jokes in that film are a variation on the Asians-are-robots theme. Cleverly designed dolls who mimick (karaoke) the speech and motions of real western human beings, but lack that wonderful individuality deep down inside.

Le Colonel Chabert said...

murr, yeah; and then this is the extreme contempt that is played out everywhere, monopolised by the protagonists who are in league with the filmmaker to humiliate everyone around them by their superior stare which says: 'no, that doesn't excite me' 'nope, you bore me' 'nice try but you don't interest me' 'nope, I can't understand you', 'nope, you're not real, I master and destroy you with my glance and erase you when I turn away.'

Professor Zero said...

Some woman, probably white is going to steal this from you and publish it.


I am going to go to this post this afternoon in a presentation I have to give in someone else's class.

It's this paragraph:

In short SCF or "hipster feminism" is a parasitic feminism that not only ignores but is dependent on class ,race,and cultural appropriation and subjugation. It is a feminism that demands an emptiness ( real or invented) of reflection , instead replacing it with self involvement. It requires that culture and emotion be reduced to tropes and materials so that possesion of thes trinkets is possesion of the cultural significance. Removing it from actual experience and grounding it in blank slate whiteness and upper class ( eductaionally or monetarily) wrenches it from the hands of those who experience it AND tries to force them into a position of subjugation if they reject the positioning.

And the presentation isn't on feminism or race, but about modern poetry, colonialism, and poststructuralist theory. I am working on some sort of phrasing like:

Blackamazon says [this] in [this context], but if we shift a couple of references we can see that this analysis also applies in [this other context].

The poet is Cesar Vallejo, a colonial subject. The root problem is, he writes about being caught in multiple, often conflicting systems of representation - a problem which is connected with the problem of emptiness at the center. It is somehow parallel to what you are talking about. I have not figured it out and I realized at lunch that what I need to do is write a series of blog posts so as to comb out my thoughts in a semi-formal atmosphere.

Anyway, back to the feminism debate topic: good post! Moksha sent me here, before that Changeseeker had sent me here, I was glad both times, so I guess I should visit more often of my own accord!!!

P.S. to self: "the personal is political meant", personal oppression, e.g. oppression of women, has political roots, and personal decisions can also be political ones. It is easy enough to understand at the first level, but I keep discovering that it is something I have still not fully understood (because I am still blind in some instances to ways in which I suffer gender oppression, I'm just so used to them, I can sometimes feel the oppression but not see it).

Anyway, to me it's a serious and pretty deep insight, connections between the personal and the political, and I notice that there is a lot of societal pressure these days to perceive the political as 'merely' personal.

This is one reason why I find the perversion of that idea: running hog wild with it "in an awful self absorbed, culturally decentering, yet culturally parasiting way" as you say, so disturbing.

Oooh Lord, this is long, sorry: I need to get more concise for this lecture I have to give in an hour.

Blackamazon said...

I made a college lecture SWEEET! I should be going back to school

BUt I think what grates my girdle is taht unless women are more adamant about their choices being choices adnd stop falling back on the

I am bright and shiny and snowflakey and SPECIAL

it prevent actual analysis and it actually circumvents the ability to analyse the world and themselves as amazing special human beings

belledame222 said...

>Anyway, to me it's a serious and pretty deep insight, connections between the personal and the political, and I notice that there is a lot of societal pressure these days to perceive the political as 'merely' personal.

This is one reason why I find the perversion of that idea: running hog wild with it "in an awful self absorbed, culturally decentering, yet culturally parasiting way" as you say, so disturbing.>

*nod*

It's like, okay, examine; but for one thing, you start at home, and you do NOT automatically assume that your "sister" (or whomever) IS you; maybe there are parallels and maybe there aren't. and if she says "no," then you -back off.-

Besides that, you don't STOP there, with the examining, with the "today I will eschew razors; tomorrow, I will think very seriously about why i like blowjobs so much; possibly the day after i may quit giving blowjobs; or perhaps not. but enough of these small changes and my work will be done. now it's just a question of preaching to others to go and do likewise."

Bollocks.

Professor Zero said...

Postmortem on the lecture: they actually understood that part
...I think better than they did the main part... but that is probably because the issues in this post were what I was secretly thinking about the hardest, so that turned out to be where I was the most articulate.

Onward:

"today I will eschew razors; tomorrow, I will think very seriously about why i like blowjobs so much; possibly the day after i may quit giving blowjobs; or perhaps not. but enough of these small changes and my work will be done. now it's just a question of preaching to others to go and do likewise."

Yes, this is the problem. I have, and have had, various colleagues who are 100% politically correct in the personal realm, at least ostensibly so, as far as feminism of a certain stripe goes: they dress radfem, are vegan and eco-friendly, bisexual, everything, and are always nice and vote on the side of reason. BUT everything they do is always prechecked for safety, as in, they'll stand on a picket line against the war but not on anything local, because they will never do anything to anger the BIG BOYS who could damage their careers or incomes.

I watch this and end up thinking: they ultimately support the patriarchy and so on, looking all the while as though they would not. I feel catty to even think this, but
belledame222's comment nails it: it's all in the personal realm and ultimately it is self-serving.

(I almost prefer the guy who comes out and says directly: yeah, there are certain risks I do not want to take, over those who find a way to say it is 'more feminist' or 'more radical' to feed back into the system.)

Enough ranting. But: gracias.

midwesterntransport said...

really fascinating post, blackamazon.

re: the virgin suicides, part of what galled me about that movie was the way it skipped right over the most disturbing parts of the book. the book was no great work of art, but those girls were acting out in all sorts of intense ways that they just weren't in the movie.

kirsten dunst's character, for example? in the book she was repeatedly seen having sex on the roof of her home after she had been grounded, then spraying her gentitals with coke so that she wouldn't get pregnant.

for me, the only thing interesting about the book was that it took a sort of boring archetype - young white male coming of age and loving young white goddess - and twisted it. here were these young women being objectified and worshipped from afar by young men, who were ignoring the signs of misery and despair that the young women were displaying.

so the movie was sort of like making a film version of lolita and missing that humbert humbert is unreliable. sophia coppola got the sunraygoldshine goddess aspect but completely missed the desperation.

marinkel said...

loved your post. just as a sidenote, kirsten dunst must have been born for sc movies, since "dunst" means "haze" or "fog" in german... one really can't make her out through it all.

Carmen Van Kerckhove said...

Hey blackamazon, this is Carmen from the Racialicious blog, about the intersection of race and pop culture: www.racialicious.com

I wanted to see if it might be possible for us to cross-post this AWESOME post on our blog with a link back to yours? It would look like this:

"by guest contributor blackamazon, originally published at Having Read the Fine Print..."

Sorry for doing this publicly, but I couldn't find an email address for you and you weren't on IM just now. Please feel free to hit me up on AIM at cvkerckhove or email me at carmen@newdemographic.com.

Thanks! :)

Anonymous said...

For a different reading on 'Lost in Translation':

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Matsui0315.htm

Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Leilla said...

For another perspective of 'Lost in Translation':

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Matsui0315.htm

FoolishOwl said...

I had to find this post again, as I just read another review of that movie:

The celebrity view of history

R. Mildred said...

Awesome post, I kinda went somewhere similar, but you did it better.

Anonymous said...

Thank you! I hated Lost In Translation and the Virgin Suicides, but couldn't put my finger on the reason. They just made me really uncomfortable. Had a huge lightbulb moment when I read this, heh.

mildred pierce said...

Blackamazon,
I edit the zine Mildred Pierce. I was psyched to stumble on your post (through a link at another site) -- instead of stealing it, do you mind if I reference it? Another writer and I have been developing the idea for an article dialoguing about indie-mainstream female filmmakers using Sofia Coppola as an entry point. We were thinking of calling it "The Problem with Sofia Coppola", or something like that, as we also have problems with her films and the way she has been positioned as the token female filmmaker in Hollywood. Anyway, having come upon your post, we were like, "YES. well, what else can we say?" We don't have anything much to add to your critique of Coppola, BUT we would still like to extend the critique to other filmmakers. So: We were wondering if you'd give us permission to quote/cite you and use your post as a jumping-off point, from which we'd look at other women filmmakers (Mary Harron, Nicole Holofcener, Miranda July) and see how they compare with Coppola's brand of feminism. Or: Would you be interested in joining the dialogue, which would take place over email?
Thanks,
Megan
mildredpiercezine@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

who said sofia coppola was a feminist in the first place? or that any of her work was making a statement? they just all happen to be from a female point of view. does that make them feminist?

Anonymous said...

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt040225sofia_coppola/

Blackamazon said...

Comments to this are closed please respond to the post BUt iT's just........... so I can keep track thank you for your interest.