Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“When We Do Not See Something, We Imagine It to Be Much Worse”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Maternal Imagination of Film and Film Theory

  • 257 Accesses

Abstract

The French documentary Histoires d’A (Histories of Abortion 1973) successfully led to increased public exposure and discussion of abortion in the French public sphere, and its distribution was key in enabling discourse that contributed to its legalisation (Pavard, The Right to Know? The Politics of Information About Contraception in France (1950s–80s). Medical History 63 (2): 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2019.4, 2019). This chapter will contrast the success of this film with how feminist theories of cinema often perceive bodily autonomy as lost or alienated as a result of cinematic technology. Ironically, this loss is often conceptualised through fixed metaphors of the maternal and the pregnant body. Moving against assumptions of the false or alienating effects of cinema, this chapter will consider the writings of French film scholar Nicole Brenez (De la figure en général et du corps en particulier: l’invention figurative au cinéma. Paris: De Bœck Universite, 1998), who argues against ideas that cinema induces unconscious effects or merely reflects external power relations. Brenez offers an affirmation of the living and inventive capacity of cinema and rejects the idea of objectification (Incomparable Bodies. Trans. Adrian Martin. Screening the Past. http://www.screeningthepast.com/2011/08/incomparable-bodies/). What it means to figure has been renovated within her work, and the distinction between spectator and cinema screen is understood as “incomparable”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We find a similar argument in the later work of Jürgen Habermas, whose idea of the “lifeworld”, developed from Husserl and other phenomenologists, aimed make meaningful the subjective aspect of human life for political and social theory.

  2. 2.

    Unless otherwise referenced, translations from Brenez’s work are my own, with assistance from Adrian Martin and Justin Clemens.

  3. 3.

    Deleuze’s co-authored text with Félix Guattari Anti-Oedipus is instrumental to understanding his theories. While he does not refer to the unconscious as such in his book on the figural, I would follow Conley in suggesting that Deleuze’s work must be understood as a whole. Tom Conley, Film Theory ‘After’ Deleuze, Film Philosophy 5, no. 31 (2001). http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n31conley

  4. 4.

    Benjamin suggests that the cinema is the most powerful agent for the liquidation of cultural value, although this has been differently interpreted by Hansen (2008).

References

  • Histoires d’A. Directed by Marielle Issartel and Charles Belmont. 1973. France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Body Snatchers. Directed by Abel Ferrara. 1993. United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abel, Richard, ed. 1993. French Film Theory and Criticism 1909–1939. Vol. 1, 1907–1929. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach, Erich. 1959. Figura, Scenes from the Drama of European Literature. New York: Meridian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudry, Jean-Louis. 1986. Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus and, The Apparatus: Meta-psychological Approaches to the Impression of Reality in the Cinema. In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Reader, ed. Philip Rosen, 286–318. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belmont, Charles, and Marielle Issartel. 1974. Entretien avec Marielle Issartell et Charles Belmont. Cahiers du cinéma: 251–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, Walter. 1972. A Short History of Photography. Trans. Stanley Mitchell. Screen 13 (1): 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/13.1.5.

  • ———. 1999. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt. Trans. Harry Zohn. London: Pimlico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenez, Nicole. 1998. De la figure en général et du corps en particulier: l’invention figurative au cinéma. Paris: De Bœck Universite.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005a. Abel Ferrara. Trans. Adrian Martin. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005b. Come into My Sleep. Trans. Adrian Martin. Rouge (6). http://www.rouge.com.au/rougerouge/sleep.html

  • ———. 2007. T.W. Adorno: Cinema in Spite of Itself – But Cinema All the Same. Trans. Olivier Delers and Ross Chambers. Cultural Studies Review 13 (1): 70–88. https://doi.org/10.5130/csr.v13i1.2155.

  • ———. 2009. Harun Farocki and the Romantic Genesis of the Principle of Visual Critique. Trans. Benjamin Carter. In Harun Farocki: Against What Against Whom, ed. Kodwo Eshun and Antje Ehmann, 128–142. London: Koenig Books and Raven Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Incomparable Bodies. Trans. Adrian Martin. Screening the Past. http://www.screeningthepast.com/2011/08/incomparable-bodies/

  • ———. 2012. Jean Epstein: Cinema Serving the Forces of Transgression and Revolt. Trans. Mireille Dobrzynski. In Jean Epstein: Critical Essays and New Translations, ed. Sarah Keller and Jason S. Paul, 227–244. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Beverly, and Parveen Adams. 1979. The Feminine Body and Feminist Politics. m/f 3: 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck-Morss, Susan. 1992. Aesthetics and Anaesthetics: Walter Benjamin’s Artwork Essay Reconsidered. October (62): 3–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/778700.

  • ———. 1994. Cinema Screen as Prosthesis of Perception: A Historical Account. In The Senses Still: Perception and Memory as Material Culture in Modernity, ed. C. Nadia Seremetakis, 45–62. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Lisa, Constance Penley, and Paula Treichler, eds. 1998. The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender and Science. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beauvoir, Simone. 2010. The Second Sex. Trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2010. First published 1953. Trans. H.M. Parshley. London: Cape. Citations refer to the newer translation.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lauretis, Teresa. 1984. Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1981. Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. Trans. Daniel W. Smith. 2nd edn. 2005. London: Continuum Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Didi-Huberman, Georges. 2005. Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art. Trans. John Goodman. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duden, Barbara. 1993. Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn. Trans. Lee Hoinacki. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Jean. 1988a. The Senses 1b. Trans. Tom Milne. In French Film Theory and Criticism, ed. Richard Abel, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988b. Grossissement (Magnification). Trans. Stuart Liebman. In French Film Theory and Criticism, ed. Richard Abel, vol. 1, 235–240. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012a. Indictment. Trans. Franck le Gac. In Jean Epstein: Critical Essays and New Translations. Sarah Keller, and Jason S. Paul, 311-316. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. The Cinema Seen from Etna. In Jean Epstein: Critical Essays and New Translations, ed. Sarah Keller and Jason S. Paul, 284–310. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———.2012c. The Delirium of a Machine. Trans. Christophe Wall Romana. In Keller and Paul, Jean Epstein: Critical Essays and New Translations, ed. Sarah Keller and Jason S. Paul, 373–379. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Lucy. 1979. The Lady Vanishes: Women, Magic and the Movies. Film Quarterly 33 (1): 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.1979.33.1.04a00060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Birth Traumas: Parturition and Horror in Rosemary’s Baby. Cinema Journal 31 (3): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1225505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. Cinematernity: Film, Motherhood, Genre. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fredholm, Tilde. 2016. Digital Figurations: The Human Figure as Cinematic Concept. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galt, Rosalind. 2012. Pretty: Film and the Decorative Image. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenza, Jessica. 2019. Ohio Bill Orders Doctors to ‘Re-Implant Ectopic Pregnancy’ or Face ‘Abortion Murder’ Charges. The Guardian, November 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Miriam. 2008. Benjamin’s Aura. Critical Inquiry 34 (2): 336–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/529060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Cinema and Experience: Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor W. Adorno. Berkely: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson-Storm, Jason A. 2017. The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman-McCall, Dorothy. 1983. The Politics of Difference: The Women’s Movement in France from May 1968 to Mitterand. Signs 9 (2): 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/494048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecler, R. 2007. Le succès d’Histoires d’A,«film sur l’avortement». Terrains travaux, (2), 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundemo, Trond. 2012. A Temporal Perspective: Jean Epstein’s Writings on Technology and Subjectivity. In Jean Epstein: Critical Essays and New Translations, ed. Sarah Keller and Jason S. Paul, 207–226. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J.F. 2011. Discourse, Figure. Trans. Mary Lyndon and Antony Hudek. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormack, Patricia. 2012. Cinesexuality. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, Laura U. 1999. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment and the Senses. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Haptic Visuality: Touching with the Eyes. Finnish Art Review 2: 79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Adrian. 2012. Last Day Every Day: Figural Thinking from Auerbach and Kracauer to Agamben and Brenez. New York: Punctum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, Lynne Marie, and Meredith W. Morgan, eds. 1999. Fetal Subjects, Feminist Positions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Theresa, and Katherine McInerney. 2010. Media Representations of Pregnancy and Childbirth: An Analysis of Reality Television Programs in the United States. Birth 37 (2): 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536x.2010.00393.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mules, Warwick. 2007. Aura as Productive Loss. Transformations. http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_15/article_05.shtml

  • Narboni, Jean, with Pascal Bonitzer, Serge Daney, Dominque Villain, et al. 2000. Milestones and Us: Round Table Discussion. In Cahiers du Cinema Vol 4: History, Ideology, Cultural Struggle, ed. Bérénice Reynaud and David Wilson. London/New York: Routledge with the British Film Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Karen. 1996. Fetal Positions: Individualism, Science, Visuality. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavard, Bibia. 2019. The Right to Know? The Politics of Information About Contraception in France (1950s–80s). Medical History 63 (2): 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2019.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patricia MacCormack. 2008. Cinesexuality. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petchesky, Rosalind. 1987. Fetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction. Feminist Studies 13 (2): 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynaud, Bérénice. 2000. Introduction. In Cahiers du Cinéma Vol 4: History, Ideology, Cultural Struggle, ed. Bérénice Reynaud and David Wilson. London/New York: Routledge with the British Film Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodowick, D.N. 2001. Reading the Figural: Philosophy After the New Media. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Routt, William. 2000. For Criticism: Part 1 and 2. Screening the Past. http://tlweb.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/screeningthepast/reviews/rev0300/wr1br9a.ht

  • Silverman, Kaja. 1988. The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Don. 1995. Photography and Modern Vision: The Spectacle of Natural Magic. In Visual Culture, ed. Chris Jenks. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolentino, Jia. 2019. The Messiness of Reproduction and the Dishonesty of Anti-Abortion Propaganda. New Yorker, May 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Imogen. 2000. Reframing Pregnant Embodiment. In Transformations: Thinking Through Feminism, ed. Sara Ahmed, Celia Lury, Jane Kilby, Maureen McNeil, and Beverly Skeggs, 288–301. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, Elaine. 2008. Harvey Karman: Creator of Device for Safer Abortions. Los Angeles Times, May 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Iris Marion. 1984. Pregnant Embodiment: Subjectivity and Alienation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (1): 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/9.1.45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerilli, Linda M.G. 1992. A Process without a Subject: Simone De Beauvoir and Julia Kristeva on Maternity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 18 (1): 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1086/494781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Lauren Bliss

Authors
  1. Lauren Bliss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Bliss .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bliss, L. (2020). “When We Do Not See Something, We Imagine It to Be Much Worse”. In: The Maternal Imagination of Film and Film Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45897-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation