SCREEN-L Archives

April 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"James D. Peterson" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 2 Apr 1993 14:37:32 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Curious. All during the presidential campaign we heard about how liberal
Hollywood was. Now after the Oscars, we are hearing about how the tribute to
women was superficially pc, and how it goes against the "dominant ideology"
of Hollywood. It strikes me that both positions are rather simplistic, and
that Hollywood (both Hollywood people and Hollywood films) embraces quite a
range of ideological positions and always has. What's remarkable about the
tribute to women is not that it isn't cutting edge progressivism (what do
expect?) but that feminism found such a forum for popular expression.
 
Of course, we can see this in several ways. It might just be a bit of
ideological innoculation--a bit of modest dissent that ensures the
maintenance of the dominant ideology by demonstrating how open and free it
is. Or, we can see it as an example of an ascendent ideological viewpoint.
In the post-Reagan/Bush period, I expect that such popular expressions of
feminism (among other things) will be more common.
 
So, I don't expect Oscar's tribute to women to be any more historically
accurate than your average Hollywood historical epic. If you want history,
read books. But as a sign of the times, it seems to me that the tribute to
women is a favorable omen.
 
 
___________________________________________________________
James Peterson
University of Notre Dame
[log in to unmask]
(219)631-7160

ATOM RSS1 RSS2