Discuss the dominant, alternative and absent discourses of femininity in a film of your choice.

Cinema as a genre has always been a man’s world. From the early breakthrough auteur to the most celebrated directors of all time, movies as an industry and as a discourse have long been male orientated. Because of this, McCabe argues that for the female image, cinema has done nothing but “reduced women to a limited range of stereotypes.” (2004: 10) In other words, in the most dominant discourse of women on screen – how they are portrayed – “Hollywood produced female myths of subjection and sacrifice.” (2004: 9: McCabe) In general, these myths can be broken down into three specific areas of discourse: the dominant, the alternative and the absent. The dominant is the standard stereotype, the alternative displays an unusual form of the accepted discourse but is still important in the narrative, and the absent, which creates a discourse from the image of what the viewer already knows about the character, their culture and identity. Rose argues this discourse portrays itself through the work of American male directors, claiming they have “a skewed angle on what women are like and not like. And thus we have a fair share of stereotypes based on over-simplified ideas about womanhood like the domestic goddess, the success and the screw-up,” (www.greencine.com). This study attempts to discuss how these stereotypes are addressed throughout Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather Part II. (1974) McCarty claims that the gangster movie “has been male-dominated for most of its existence,” (2004: 76) and is a true example of what McCabe would term as a “patriarchal film.” It is for this reason that this study will highlight the film, as it is often referred to as one of the most compelling and true to life films of the genre (McCarty: 2004: 115). It will discuss how the cultural views of the director, along with set stereotypes surrounding femininity and family, affect the portrayal of the women involved within the Corleone family.
Rather than examining the dominant discourse first, this study will instead examine the role of Mama Corleone. Leitch suggests that “patriarchal films neutralize the potential power of women’s images by fetishizing them or displacing their bodies to make them non-threatening.” (2002: 70) It could be argued that this is the case with Mama Corleone. Constantly portrayed in an apron, slightly overweight and with graying hair, she is not the image of the femme fatale, but the image of a non-threatening, caring, mother, supporting Reith’s claim that “women in The Godfather are symbolic of the family that is the centre of the Corleone universe.” (2004:6) Despite the fact Mama’s character forms an absent discourse, (she appears in very few scenes throughout the film and is often only referred to in the third person) she is a pivotal characters within the film through her portrayal of motherhood. McCabe claims that this is possible, by suggesting absent discourse “is the very mechanism by which a cinematic narrative both reflects and sustains social forms of oppression against women.” (2004: 35) Therefore it is Mamas lack of character in personality form that is adding to the stereotype. She is the typical Italian mother, fussing about her children, always cooking and making everyone eat, and through her marriage to Vito, she emphasizes the importance of family and enforces morals through her dedication to religion in everyday life. Indeed, in flashbacks throughout the film she is portrayed doing little else but cooking, sewing, and nursing her children.
It is also worth noting that of all the women in the piece, it is Mama that is talked about with the most respect. This is shown later in the film, when Michael has stooped to killing his own brother, he makes sure it does not take place until his mother dies. McCabe suggests that discourse where Mama is portrayed as an obedient wife and -turning a blind eye to her husband making deals and discussing the death of a known local gangster (Don Fanucci) at the dinner table – is due to the ethnic background of the director. Although this study does not assume that all Italian women have the same personality traits, it is possible that this is the image Francis Ford Coppola, a second-generation Italian immigrant, wanted to portray. McCabe argues it is due to his heritage, as often “unconscious drives and cultural repression, working at a much deeper level, determine how women are represented on screen.” (2004: 9) It is likely that through a lack of prominent discourse throughout the film, Mama is idolized both by the characters and the director, as there is no real rounded character to criticize.
Although the character forms an absent discourse, it is Mama as an image to be aspired to that affects the dominant discourse portrayed by Kay as a key and rounded character in the film. Although not a typical “mob wife”, Kay is a dutiful wife who gets pregnant as soon as possible, and fulfills Michael and the rest of the family’s wish when the first child is a boy. A typical WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), Leitch argues that “even after her wedding to Michael, it is clear that Kay is not a Corleone.” (2002: 118) It becomes clear therefore that the dominant discourse formed by Kay is the image of a young woman attempting to please the men within the family. Unable to measure up to the respect commanded by Mama, she spends the majority of the film attempting to meet the standards of a stereotype that may not truly exist, all the while ignored by her husband to the point where she is excluded entirely, supported by Michael’s refusal to tell her anything about his business, and whether he had anything to do with his brother-in-law’s death. It is to this end that despite fulfilling the dominant discourse of the eager-to-please young wife, Kay is not permitted to enter the world of the man in her life. This ultimately backfired on Michael when Kay aborts their third child (she tells him it would have been a boy) and the pair divorce. As Reith suggests, in this she has “committed the ultimate sin against the family” (2004: 6) It is worth noting that at this point Coppola shuns Kay as a character, Michael is given custody of the children (it is alluded that Michael may have used his power and influence to cement this arrangement) and she is left to lead her own life alone as a punishment for going against the established and dominant discourse. At this point Clarens claims “Kay has no place in the cinematic saga of the Corleones,” (1980: 287) and it would appear that in terms of dominant discourse, the director is not prepared to have a strong, independent female character who is both a single mother and an alternative to the dominant “mob wife” discourse.
But Coppola does address an alternative discourse, in this case formed by Deanna Dunn, the wife of middle Corleone son Fredo. Unlike Mama, she does not attempt to mother any of the characters, least of all her husband, and unlike Kay she does not attempt to cover-up for her man’s failings. Instead Deanna is a drunk, and when under the influence she is happy to announce to anyone who will listen about Fredo’s failings as a husband (both in bed and in business – it is strongly alluded to as the trilogy forms that Fredo may have homosexual tendencies), particularly in a public setting. She demonstrates this spectacularly at Anthony Corleone’s christening, when she announces to anyone who will listen that Fredo is a failure and that he does his brother’s dirty work for a living. It is noted that Deanna is portrayed as a movie star, not a career the family appear to deem worthy (Johnny Fontane was criticized in the first film for being involved in the industry) and that she is treated with only vague disdain. Indeed, when she is dancing and flirting with another man at the christening, she is removed from the party not by any member of the family, but by the family staff or “strong-arms,” who are not even dispatched by Fredo himself but by Michael. In this case Deanna is more appropriated to the “moll” character often portrayed in gangster or crime films. The moll will often fit into the femme fatale stereotype, someone highly sexualized and to be treated as an object. Although it is worth noting here that Coppola does not portray Deanna’s sexuality as a weapon, but a weakness – something she cannot handle and to be pitied, and while this alternative discourse is spectacularly formed by Deanna, it is not she who is criticized for it but Fredo who, although he is consoled by the family for essentially having made a bad choice of wife, it is still seen as his choice. Deanna is not viewed by Coppola as a fully-formed character herself, merely as a product of Fredo’s weakness.
As a film The Godfather Part II displays elements of the dominant, the alternative and the absent discourse surrounding women, but appears to focus either on the stereotypical matriarchal aspect of the characters, or on their weakness for lack of it. It is highly likely that this is due to Coppola’s repressed feelings of culture and identity. Although he wants to portray the American, Anglo-Saxon mentality of Kay, he cannot resist reverting to the concrete, idealized stereotype of Mama. And although Deanna is viewed as a sex symbol, someone beautiful and famous, she is not envied but pitied by both the characters and the director for being unable to measure up to the conceived, strong stereotype portrayed by the discourse surrounding Mama. This may be, as McCabe writes, because “Hollywood as an institution producing dominant representation endlessly produces patriarchal distortions.” (2004: 9) In other words, it is a part of Coppola’s history and heritage that he appears to have reverted to this stereotype. But it must be asked if women really needed as part of the discourse within this male-orientated world. As Leitch writes, “the women are merely catalysts, it is the men who destructive to themselves.” (2002: 71) As they conform to such strict stereotypes, it could be argued that the female characters are unnecessary in terms of constructing a narrative, especially as the main feminine discourse is centered on a character that is largely absent.
However, it is through the female characters within The Godfather Part II, and within The Godfather trilogy as a whole that the discourse becomes not only important but crucial. For it is they who, above all, function within the framework of family and within the specific boundaries provided by men. Despite the fact the women are constrained and suppressed by the patriarchal attitudes throughout the film, it is they who support the discourse by performing as the glue that keep the family together. Even the divorced Kay continues to ensure she sees her children, against Michael’s wishes continuing the bonds of family, and it is not till much later that Fredo and Deanna agree to divorce (she may continue to sleep with other men but extra-marital affairs are not uncommon within the set boundaries of “the family”). It is the feminine discourse that supports the family and holds it together. As Reith concludes: “The Corelones come as a package. Everything is done in the name of family.” (2004: 5)