‘In other words, the issue is not one of elaborating a new theory of which woman would be
the subject or the object, but of jamming the theoretical machinery itself.’
- Luce Irigaray. ‘The Power of Discourse and the Subordination of the Feminine’
Discuss how two films set out to disrupt and think beyond patriarchal film practices.
Consider form, content and intended audience when answering.
Films Chosen: Atlantics (Mati Diop, 2019) & Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold, 2009)
Throughout both films Atlantics (Mati Diop, 2019) and Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold,
2009), it is evident that both narratives hold great compatibility with feminist film theory.
Though it is more apparent when watching Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank, one can see the ways
in which both films set out to transcend patriarchal film practices. Whilst women in Atlantics
are possessed by the ghosts of the men that abandoned them, Fish Tank offers an alternative
viewpoint in regard to patriarchal film practices as the protagonist Mia is made to oppose
Hollywood custom as she undoubtedly possesses the male gaze. Comparatively, Mati Diop
draws specific attention between the differences to how men and women are treated by
skillfully using technological effects throughout the action. These effects are specifically
utilised through Diop’s inclusion of the supernatural, in which the women are possessed by
the men that have died at sea. This can be seen to further highlight the inequality in their
society as even in the afterlife, the men still have control and power over the women. In their
respective plots, both films main similarity is the inclusion of this idea of role reversal. As
well as the women being possessed by the dead men in Atlantics, Fish Tank’s narrative relies
on the reversal of gender roles when it comes to desire, in order to make a defiant statement
against the patriarchy. By doing this, both directors purposefully go against predictable film
portrayals of patriarchy and instead enable the viewer to rethink the impact of gender roles
within society through seeing it from a different viewpoint.
, Andrea Arnold in Fish Tank specifically executes thinking beyond patriarchal film
practices by presenting the dysfunctional relationship between the protagonist Mia and her
mother’s new boyfriend, Connor. From the introduction of Connor’s character early in the
film, it is clear that Mia holds interest in his appearance, and this is emphasised through
Arnolds skillful decision to use handheld camera work, which is employed throughout to
mirror Mia’s eyeline as she stares at Connor. This interest is witnessed first-hand in the scene
where Connor and Mia initially meet. In this scene, Mia is provocatively practicing her dance
moves in the kitchen until Connor walks in topless after staying the night with her mother. It
immediately becomes apparent here that Mia is the controller of the gaze, as the camera,
positioned at Mia’s eye level, slowly pans down Connor’s naked torso as he makes tea and
again as he walks up the stairs. In this scene and through this specific use of camera work
throughout the film, Arnold not only instantly shows the viewer that Mia is sexually attracted
to Connor by using the camera to mimic Mia’s gaze, but also highlights that this is not going
to be a conventional feminist film. Within feminist theory, the male gaze is conventionally
seen as the act of seeing women to be sexualised and passive from a masculine heterosexual
perspective. Films that embody similar themes in Fish Tank such as desire, traditionally
present female characters to embody the image of an object in which a woman’s purpose is
understood to pleasure and satisfy a heterosexual male. In traditional patriarchal film
practices, the character who is the active controller of the gaze is usually male and the female
is presented as the passive image. Laura Mulvey states that “In a world ordered by sexual
imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The
determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female form which is styled
accordingly.” (19). As recently stated, this is conventionally true in films of this nature,
however, Arnold thinks beyond, does the opposite and reverses the traditional roles of the
