All posts by mckennadale

T.E. Lawrence; War Hero or White Savior Culture Vulture? The White Savior Complex in Lawrence of Arabia

Awarded 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture, (IMDB) and boasting a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Lawrence of Arabia is regarded as one of the greatest and most important films in cinematic history. Released in 1962, Lawrence of Arabia has since endured ever-changing social and political landscapes, which inevitably impact the ways in which the film is interpreted. More recently, the film has been dubbed an “Anti-imperialist, Orientalist Epic,” (Caton) recognizing it’s temporally progressive critique on colonialism while also indulging in Orientalist ways of knowing. The protagonist, a WWI era British officer T.E. Lawrence is chosen to oversee the Arabs’ revolt against the Ottoman Empire, as he is well educated in the region and the Arabic language. The zealous T.E Lawrence soon becomes consumed by Arab culture, abandoning parts of his English identity while retaining his sense of western, white superiority over his Arab peers.Image result for lawrence of arabia

The white savior complex in film is the narrative of a white person rescuing people of color (POC) from their experienced oppression. This narrative is commonly coupled with the stereotyping and flattening of POC characters, suggesting that the white character gives breadth and totality to the POC characters. These themes are alluded to in the articles written by Gignac and McMahon about The Revenant, as they comment on the POC presence in the film being defined by “tired tropes,” (McMahon) and how the “indigeneity seems ultimately subservient to the white protagonist.” (Gignac) The similar use of stereotypes and tropes is explicit in Lawrence of Arabia’s portrayal of Arabs. The film reduces their characters by situating them in a subordinate, auxiliary role within Lawrence’s life and the movie. It is understood that without Lawrence’s aryan leadership, the Arabs wouldn’t stand a chance against the Turks. Lawrence becomes responsible for the critical thinking and leadership necessary to lead an army, as the Arabs could not handle this themselves.

Like a buffet, Lawrence chooses the things he wants from Arab culture, while still retaining his sense of superiority and preeminence over the “cruel and barbarous” Arabs. There is internal dissonance in the fact that Lawrence so desperately wants to belong to a culture he feels is below him in many ways. In the end, Lawrence realizes the fault in his role-playing, feels shameful in his empty acculturation, adding a dimension that is not always seen in the white savior narrative. Although he comes to some sort of revelation, the white savior narrative is still prevalent and important in understanding the impact of this international epic.

The othering of POC, especially those from the Eastern and Middle Eastern parts of the world is a systemic process of knowledge and power that has been embedded in global society for decades. Although it is more critical of imperialism and colonialism than other media of its time, it still contains orientalist coding through the portrayal of Arab and other middle eastern people’s as uncivilized and backward through their depicted inadequate strategic thinking and problem-solving. Because of its high stature and characterization as one of the first International Films (in regards to international production, filming, actors, etc), it should be scrutinized for is impact on international implications of knowledge and power. Greg Smith discusses the deliberate intention behind film production and states, “all cultural products carry cultural meaning.” (Smith, 132) Lawrence of Arabia was purposefully created and edited this way and therefore gives license to its critics. It is important to revisit Lawrence of Arabia and similar movies with each decade to further understand its role in the early and modern postcolonial world

Image result for lawrence of arabia

 

Works Cited

Caton, Steven. “Lawrence of Arabia.” Oxford Index, 1999, doi:10.1525/california/9780520210820.001.0001.

Gignac, Julien. “The Revenant’s White-Saviour Complex.” The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, 16 May 2018, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/the-revenants-white-saviour-complex/article28320619/.

“Lawrence of Arabia.” IMDb, IMDb.com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl.

McMahon, Ryan. “Indigenous People’s Stories Need More than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech.” Vice, Vice, 11 Jan. 2016, http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwx53z/indigenous-peoples-stories-need-more-than-just-leonardo-dicaprios-speech.

Smith, Greg M. “‘It’s Just a Movie’: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes.” Cinema Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, pp. 127–134., doi:10.1353/cj.2001.0025.

My rejection of the male gaze in Scorsese’s Casino

The first time I ever recognized myself using Hooks’ oppositional gaze was a few months before I knew about the term and its theory, before I had the vernacular to detail my displeasure with male-dominated, phallocentric representations of women and other minorities. This past summer, some friends and I sat down to the 3 hour Scorsese epic, Casino. As the movie progressed, I became more and more upset about the role of Ginger, the single significant female character in the movie; I experienced what Diawara calls a “rupture,” and began to resist identification with Casino’s discourse. (qtd. in Hooks 249) As I became aware of the simultaneous objectification, idealization, and mistreatment of Ginger, I became bothered by and began to reject the film’s male structure and gaze; I assumed the oppositional gaze by scrutinizing the represented truth and viewing the film critically, realizing the power imbalance in the patriarchal gender and looking relations within the film.

The male gaze is understood by Mulvey as a societal looking relationship that sets men as the observers and spectators, and women as objects and recipients of the look, “pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female.” (Mulvey, 62) Media and Hollywood’s representations of gender in film are founded in their patriarchal economic and political structures. Since its birth, Hollywood has been male-dominated and as a consequence, the male gaze has prevailed, and male scopophilia has become normalized. The exclusive use of male protagonists in film has left women, historically, playing supporting roles, almost always as the protagonist’s lover. Mulvey explains that women are perpetually represented as an object of the man’s sexual desire, becoming nothing more or less than an erotic spectacle. (Mulvey 62) Outside of her role as a sex object, female characters rarely ad to the plot, simply operating as an accessory to the male character(s). This minimization of women is extremely problematic has it has bolstered internalized, societal misogyny.

The naturalized order of women being “the bearer of meaning not the maker of meaning” (Mulvey, 58) strips women of their agency. The constant representation of women as male accessories in film has lasting effects on people’s understanding of their positionality in our society. Media representation is cyclical in its support for the white patriarchy, as certain populations like white women and men of color are relegated to stereotypical, flattened roles, while other populations, specifically black women, are erased completely. This has produced what Bell Hooks’ calls the Oppositional Gaze, an inherently political looking relationship assumed by black women, and other excluded demographics, whose removal/exclusion makes them able to criticize and reject the film’s messaging. Hooks understands the act of looking and gazing as an apparatus, mechanism, and strategy of control, (Hooks, 247) she says that “there is power in looking.” (Hooks, 247) Hooks says that the oppositional gaze manifests from a rebellious desire to look critically at things we’ve been removed from. Although the oppositional gaze is rooted in Hooks’ identity as a black woman, it can be employed by all underrepresented and misrepresented groups. The principal function of the oppositional gaze is acknowledging and working against the represented truth of patriarchal superiority and the diminished role of women, people of color, LGBTQ, etc, thus, it can be used by any of these groups.

I use the oppositional gaze with a gendered lens, as it is the primary way in which my demographic is misrepresented in film and media. The male gaze, in its monolithic sense, is the system that distorts my female identity and is therefore the system that I resist. My understanding and rejection of the male gaze is a new process in my life, and one of the earliest memories I have of using it was while watching the movie Casino. Set 1970s Las Vegas, Casino was released in 1995 and while it is important to acknowledge the culture of these times in regards to gender relations the portrayal of the lone female character Ginger, fits the timeless mold of white women under the male gaze. Ginger’s character is objectified and abused at the same time, used as an accessory to bolster and define her male protagonist counterpart, Sam or “Ace”. Ginger was introduced when Sam watches her through a security camera as she walks around his casino.

Directly connecting with the concept of surveillance, Ginger is introduced into the film as an object that is being looked at and inspected. From that moment on Sam is infatuated with Ginger. Ginger and Sam quickly start a life together, they get married and have a daughter, but their relationship is tainted by Ginger’s alcoholism and her continued love for her abusive ex-boyfriend Lester. Sam and Ginger’s marriage helps set the precedent that Sam is a straight arrow, somebody who is honorable, trustworthy, and can ‘tame’ a woman like Ginger, a former hustler. Pulling her away from her clothes and jewelry, he tells her that none of the material wealth matters without trust.

Image result for clips of ginger from casino

https://www.wingclips.com/movie-clips/casino/without-trust

After a number of years, tired of her alcohol abuse, Sam seeks to divorce Ginger; a part of the movie’s climax, which also includes an FBI investigation and his gang dissolving. In response to the divorce, Ginger takes their daughter, plans to run away with her and Lester, threatens to kill Sam, and begins an affair with Sam’s best friend Nicky. When Ginger is unable to get her share of money from the divorce she drunkenly crashes her car into Sam’s house, steals the key to his safety deposit box, and is arrested by the FBI. This scene is noteworthy in its vilifying of Ginger and victimizing of Sam. She’s portrayed as a drunken wreck disturbing and escalating Sam’s calm yet troubled disposition.

This scene is the apex of Ginger’s entire character arc as an accessory to Sam, a gauge to help the viewer understand and empathize with his existence and character. She is othered, portrayed as weak, disloyal, and unhinged; a representation, that in the end, is used to define Sam as everything she is not. I used my oppositional gaze to dissect and reject this. I saw what its purpose was and the damaging effects of portraying and using the lone female character in this way. Through the oppositional gaze, I could step outside of passively watching the film and accepting this represented truth, and into a position of resistance and criticism. I saw that the initial idealization of Ginger, through Sam’s desire to look at her, in all her physical and social stature, was used to amplify a character whose definitive role was of treachery and deceit against him. Scorsese abused the female role to strengthen Sam’s role, something that he and other directors are no stranger to. Casino ends in the way most other movies end, with the white male protagonist winning, against all the odds and in the face of adversity. This movie’s positioning the female character as the adversity a man must overcome depreciates the role of women everywhere, characterizing them not as a human, but as a role in a man’s life. Women are understood in a majority of film and media only through the eyes of men; we are collected, arranged to their liking, and displayed under their control- this is the male gaze.

My new knowledge of the male gaze and oppositional gaze allows me to explain my response to the movie Casino. Ginger’s character opened my eyes to a world of represented reality that is created to push a phallocentric narrative. Scorsese’s adoption of the male gaze in Casino is clear in his positioning of the female character to be looked at, idealized, and dominated by the male protagonist; she is positioned under the male protagonist, rather than side by side, literally becoming a supporting, accessory role. My discomfort with this caused me to see the movie differently, step out of it and use the oppositional gaze. As I became an active viewer of the film I could see it more objectively and was empowered to criticize it. The oppositional gaze is the response to the male gaze, it creates agency and presence in a world where women and other misrepresented populations are flattened and removed.

 

Introduction

Hi all! My name is McKenna (she/her), I’m a sophomore majoring in Global Studies and Human Rights in the Middle East. This is my first film studies and GWSS class but over the past couple of years, I’ve become hyper-aware of conscious and subconscious messaging around gender, sexuality, and race in media. I’m super excited to watch new movies and discuss them in this environment! My favorite shows are Game of Thrones and The Wire but when I’m not in the mood to watch something super intense, I’ll turn to High Maintenance, The Office, and The O.C. 🙂

Twitter: McKennaDale3