I've been reading about gender in film, and having to deal with the fact that a great deal of what is talked about is the alienating effect of the male gaze. The objectification of women through the camera lens, and the resulting lack of supposed connection of the female to the narrative quality of the camera-eye (if you want to impress a cinéaste, say "kino-eye"). I hoped to find a film where we have the camera completely focusing on the female desire, and how would a male character look from such a narrative standpoint? Well, I found my movie. And that movie is "Family Blessings," a film where Lynda Carter plays a widow who ultimately finds love in her dead son's best-friend.
The moment that cinched the deal for me is during the lovemaking scene - the camera, lying underneath, tracks slightly to the right, and his face hangs over the camera, his eyes staring into the audience's. Here we have a camera-shot which is entirely centered on feminine desire, and completely unnerving to a heterosexual male viewer. Ah, I say! So that is what it's like to be confronted with a totally alienating camera presence! And in what setting does the lovemaking take place? In a bedroom with beautiful linens, and enough candles glowing to... well, make the place look really 'romantic' I guess. Sorry, no punchline there.
Now, why doesn't this film work? Well, part of it is that it's a WE-film. Meaning, it's a message movie, and any message movie automatically has strikes against it. Stuff like "you know, I really learned a lot this year, about the importance of family" and so on and so forth. But I think there's a deeper problem - I could've enjoyed the film simply based on the novelty value of having a young cop falling in love with Wonder Woman. To be honest, I liked the story, in a I-know-this-is-terrible but I like it anyway sort of fashion. I was interested to see how the filmmakers would conspire to put the two lovers together, so that they could love. How does that work, exactly? I think that the real, fundamental problem of this film is that it doesn't choose a central character around which it can revolve. Lee, the widow, is the avatar for the obvious demographic of the film, but so many scenes are all about Chris' life, and his angst. It's as though the film wants to tell Lee's story from Chris' point of view, and then switch over to Lee's point of view whenever necessary. It becomes awkward. The problem is, we can't have too much Lee because Lynda Carter is an absolutely terrible actress. This Steven Eckholdt guy isn't exactly hot stuff either, but at least he's trying, and his voice doesn't sound the same, line after line after line. Is anyone still reading this? I suppose through this film we can still see the dominance of the male-centric narrative. Even in a WE film, the influence is unavoidable.
But I'd like to talk a bit more about feminine desire. Let's look at the construction of Chris as a character. He's strong, but sensitive. When Lee tells him that she's scared of what the others would think, he tells her that he's scared too, but he's man enough to face up to that fear. From a broken home, he loves his parents like a sensitive man ought to but he's an independent man, who is constantly trying to help his mother break away from his borderline-abusive, alcoholic father. He's a cop, and we often see him looking very trim indeed in his uniform. But not just a cop, he's also in one of those big brother programs, helping a young black kid who just can't catch a break at home. He revels in the role of being a father, loves those kids, but at the same time is a young, impassioned and rebellious lover who'll be damned if he cares what society thinks! Nobody is reading this anymore, are they? It's too damned long for a plan entry. As a character he treads the fine line between too mature to land him permanently in "just friends" territory and too forward with sexuality to make Lee freak out. By the time Lee's family finds out about their relationship, when they suspect him of "taking her for a ride" financially (see: William Wyler's "The Heiress") we as an audience have been programmed to say "No! Not our Chris! He's that one guy who really does love her for who she is!" In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the lines is "I love you for who you are!" Or something like that.
This is not a good film. Not at all, really. But it IS interesting to look at if you're going to talk about gendered camera in film. There's only one really interesting shot - Lee takes her son to an art museum to give him a sex talk. They sit down opposite each other on a bench in the middle of a gallery, and the camera rotates around them as they talk. But Lynda Carter kind of messes it up with her monotone voice.
One interesting point: the character's birth-year is 1951, which is the same as Lynda Carter's, so there's at least absolutely no deceit as far as her age is concerned.
Oh, and one LAST interesting fact! This is the second film I've seen where we have a competition between mother and daughter over a male lover! And in both of these stories, we have the mother as successful in having the male's affection - in both the dichotomy is daughter irrational, mother rational. The other film I'm talking about is of course the 1917 Russian melodrama Za schastem (For Happiness). Why do I watch movies like this? INSANITY, that's why.