From the late 1970s to the 1980s, there was a feminist film style in the American film industry. The main reason for this trend was the feminist thought and the women's liberation movement that began to prevail in the United States in the 1970s. Many outstanding actresses also left many well-known works during this period: these women themselves are also influenced by feminism. They are unwilling to be satisfied with being screen vases, and are willing to challenge complex and deep female roles.
Because female films are still in the developing stage, it is difficult to define an accurate definition. The commonly accepted definition of feminist films is: films that discuss women's activities and female themes. In some female films, the director is good at portraying female eroticism, which will cause some audiences to misunderstand it as an erotic film that serves men. In fact, this is different from the eroticism expressed by men. Feminist films explore the soul, about eroticism. The description of is not the camera's depiction of the female body but the female's search and identification of her own identity. Feminist movies usually take women as their protagonists, and describe the stories of these women struggling to survive under the patriarchy and the dignity of the times.
There are many films about feminism, such as "The Strange Flower" and "Never Compromise". The heroines in these films have finally gained the respect of the society and the freedom of the soul in a more radical way. It is a typical feminist movie, but what I want to analyze is another movie "The Cramers". Although in terms of film analysis, the movie "The Cramers" pays more attention to family ethics and family member relationships. Only one-third of the entire film involves the heroine. The film does not specifically reflect the heroine’s marital life before leaving home, nor does it directly focus on the arduous process of her self-struggle and self-confidence regaining self-confidence after leaving home. It is not a feminist film that focuses on self-realization and the awakening of independent consciousness, but I think this film can be interpreted from the perspective of feminism, because the most basic manifestation of feminism today should be in family relationships. Feminism is meaningful in comparison with male rights in family relations.
"The Cramers" is a classic American family ethics film shot in 1979. At that time, the divorce rate in the United States was getting higher and higher. The appearance of "The Cramers" was a reflection on the family relationship in the United States at that time. The English title of the film literally translated into Chinese is "Kramer vs. Kramer". This title directly reflects the contradiction of the problem, that is, the confrontation between the male and female protagonists in the marriage and family. Joanna in the film is a woman with a strong sense of independence. After marriage, she obeyed her husband's advice and gave up her career to take care of the family and children. However, she gradually became confused and could not communicate with her husband. After 8 years of marriage, she decided to go out of the family and find her own value. Finally, she found a job and found self-confidence and self-esteem again.
Joanna is a representative of women with independent consciousness. Her departure also represents the resistance and dissatisfaction of such women with traditional family roles. She refuses to continue to be a traditional woman who is a good wife and mother, and insists that she has the same pursuit as a woman. The right to self-worth and personal development space. At the beginning of the film, Joanna has a melancholy face, and the lights are gloomy and dim. At this time, Joanna is in a dilemma between pursuing self-worth and the role of mother, but in the end she chose to pursue her self-worth. After Joanna left home, her husband Ted resentfully asked "What courage is needed to leave a 7-year-old child?" At this time, many viewers will also have the same questioning. Abandoning the family in order to realize their own value is also one thing. This kind of irresponsible performance. In fact, this is also the real dilemma of women. "For the sake of children, return to the family" may be the final choice of most women after hesitating between themselves and their families. It is also the expectation of "ideal women" in the patriarchal society. The reason why the audience has this kind of blame is because the audience has a deep-rooted concept in their hearts: women should be the role of caring for the children at home, and should not abandon their children for their own value. But in fact, there is no legal or moral regulation, and it should not be the husband who takes care of the family. So in the film, Joanna left resolutely and took the initiative to strive for the realization of her complete self. When Joanna came back, it was not just to get the custody of her son, but more to symbolize that her own value had been realized. She is now an independent woman rather than a housewife who depends on her husband to support her family.
Because there is very little space in the film involving the heroine, the lack of women makes it easy for the audience to misunderstand that the film sympathizes with the heroine to a greater extent and criticizes the heroine's departure. But I don’t think so. The lack of a heroine is a unique arrangement of the creator. Because of the lack of women, audiences, especially male audiences, can realize that the responsibility of wives who once believed to be superior at home is no more responsible than that of men outside. The responsibility is small. Avery Coleman, the creator of the film novel of the same name, said when talking about his creative ideas: The feminist movement was at its peak at that time, and the view of men was a bit extreme. The purpose of writing was to correct these extreme mistakes and create a The image of an ideal father. The main intention of the creators is not to promote patriarchy, but in the period of fierce confrontation between feminism and patriarchy, hoping that people can step out of the confrontation between the sexes rather than blindly agree with a certain concept.
Two-thirds of the film's shots focused on the male character Ted, spreading the idea of men returning to the family and sharing family responsibilities. Before his wife left home, Ted was a typical "competent" family supporter, confident in his family role, and confident that his wife could be satisfied and happy in the role of "good wife and mother". The departure of his wife forced Ted to take on the responsibility of taking care of the children: preparing breakfast hurriedly, sending the children to school but not knowing how many grades the children were, and other details reflect Ted’s previous lack of responsibilities in family life. Ted defines his family responsibilities only in the field of work, which is the same as many male members of the family in reality, but simply positions himself in a material position and ignores emotions. In the process of fully assuming his father's responsibilities, Ted actually gradually reflected on the relationship between family and work, and reflected on the incompleteness of his previous husband's responsibilities. He realized that it was because he did not take into account his wife's feelings, and did not respect his wife's choice and personality that led to the separation of each other and the disintegration of the family. Therefore, in a sense, the lack of women forces men to change their previous single family roles, gain feelings and trust, and complete the reconstruction of the image of male fathers.
In the film, the judge finally sentenced the child to the mother. Many people interpret it as a victory for feminism. I think Joanna’s choice reflects the victory of feminism. Her final choice actually embodies women and men. Because Joanna’s choice at the end of the film is entirely out of her own heart instead of following anyone’s advice. The end of the film seems to tell us: the confrontation between the sexes is not conducive to the solution of family problems, and there is no real winner in the confrontation. Professor Ma Yinan from the Law School of Peking University said when talking about the Kramers’ problems: “The stereotypes of fathers and mothers in society make husbands work hard to earn money to support the family, while wives become housewives and do housework. , Taking care of children and husband. Being confined to a small family and losing oneself. This is actually a common harm to both sexes, and it is also the source of various family and social problems. "The two sexes are fundamental to the transition from confrontation to harmony. The true establishment of an equal relationship and the resolution of family issues require that both men and women understand each other, meet the needs of each other's independent personalities, and jointly assume the responsibilities of the family. The realization of gender equality requires women’s own awareness of independence, as well as the establishment and simultaneous development of male mainstream social freedom and equality. Maintaining a balance between family and career is not a unilateral responsibility of women, but a common responsibility of men and women in marriage. I think "Kramers" reflects feminism from this level. When the two sexes can respect each other’s choices, By sharing responsibilities, the equality between men and women pursued by feminism can be fully realized.
[References]
[1] [United States] Friedan. The Mystery of Women Guangdong Economic Publishing House 2005
[2] Professor Ma Yinan's interpretation of "The Kramers": Family life should avoid stereotypes
[3] Baidu Baike Feminism and Feminist Movies
[4] The Feminist Name-Li Yinhe Sina Blog
View more about Kramer vs. Kramer reviews
