Film Reviews: Algie, the Miner & The Consequences of Feminism

 "Algie, the Miner"

 *** (out of ****)

I first became aware of the French-born female filmmaker  Alice Guy-Blache when I saw the documentary on her career, "Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blache" (2019). She is a forgotten figure in the history of cinema, and someone that holds great social significance as she is widely considered by historians to be the first female director; although one wonders how many other "Alice Guy-Blache's" were out there, yet to be discovered.

In Elizabeth Weitzman's book Renegade Women in Film & TV  the noted critic explains how Guy-Blache's "The Cabbage Fairy" (1896) is believed to be the first fictional film and goes on to inform readers of the vastness of her work, directing nearly one thousand films that expanded across multiple genres. Weitzman also pointed out Guy-Blache founded and ran Solax Studios, one of the earliest American movie production companies.

As we enter the final months of this year's Life is Short theme, my year long look at short movies, I wanted to discuss a couple of films from this pioneer filmmaker. The two films; "Algie, the Miner" (1912) and "The Consequences of Feminism" (1906) are prime examples of the kind of social commentary Guy-Blache was making. These films hit on themes of gender, identity, and equality. All ideas that are relevant today, demonstrating not only how far back these issues go but also challenging preconceived notions modern audiences may have regarding the social awareness, sensitivity, and intelligence of people from the time period. There is a tendency today to look down at past generations and label them unsophisticated and not as enlightened as we are today. Bear in mind they didn't even have Twitter back then. All these prior generations did was invent the radio, TV, the airplane, and the automobile. Today however we can never leave our homes and shop online by using our phones. Clearly we are the truly advanced generation.

"Algie, the Miner" and "Consequences" will be described by some modern viewers as "ahead of their time" but I'd argue they are of their time. They are grappling with societal topics prevalent to their time period. By 1906, when "The Consequences of Feminism" was released for example, there was already an active feminist social movement. Historians refer to this as "first-wave feminism", which largely centered around the right to vote. This is also pointed out in the book The Female Gaze written by Alicia Malone, perhaps best known as a television personality on Turner Classic Movies. In her book she comments on how the term feminism was somewhat new, having been coined in the late 1800s in France. By 1860 it had became a more formal movement.

Those that study queer cinema often refer to "Algie, the Miner" as an early example of coded gay subtext. I've even read some interpret it as one of the first films to endorse "gay conversion". The film is subtle enough to invoke several different readings. How we interpret the film however depends on our understanding of what mainstream society in 1912 knew about homosexuality. On it's surface "Algie" is the story of an upper class effeminate male (Billy Quirk) who wants to marry his sweetheart (Claire Jackson). Her father objects to the marriage, seemingly because of Algie's behavior. Algie is given one year to prove himself a man. If he can do so, the father will approve of the marriage. In order to become a man Algie heads out west.

No matter how you interpret the Algie character one of the themes at play in the film is masculinity. While the treatment of female characters throughout film history may be seen as cruel to modern audiences, depictions of male characters and defining masculinity have been equally troubling in creating expectations for how men should act. We see it as far back as "Algie" going through to the heroism of Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood to the suaveness of Cary Grant to George Clooney.

This positions "Algie" in a unique situation where a surface-level read of the film is just as insightful as a deeper analysis because there is so much to unpack right before our eyes. Lets start with Algie's decision to head out west to become a man. The western frontier was already identified with rugged masculinity and by simply juxtaposing a "weak" man against tough cowboys you've created a comedic situation that would be repeated in comedy westerns that followed from Laurel and Hardy in "Way Out West" (1937), to Bob Hope in "Alias Jesse James" (1959), to Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" (1974) to "Three Amigos" (1986). I'm not suggesting Guy-Blache invented this concept but she was firmly aware of the contrast in such a depiction. It was no accident she places her film out west.

"Algie" even touches on our view of class and how wealth often characterizes our interpretation of masculinity. When we first see Algie he is dressed in a tuxedo at a party being thrown by his sweetheart's family, presumably a rich man that never has to get his hands dirty (and therefore isn't manly). The men aren't protectors. Because of their wealth, the rich could avoid physical confrontation such as getting deferments to avoid enlisting in wars. What was the dichotomy that made a character like Zorro so interesting? By day he is Don Diego Vega; a foppish, lazy, wealthy man opposed to violence. By night he becomes Zorro, a swashbuckler fighting against injustice. 

When you think of cowboys and the old west, you naturally think of guns. Americans (and Freud) have mythologized guns to represent power and control which is often associated with masculinity. It is through this phallic shaped object that Guy-Blache creates her greatest visual presentation and commentary on masculinity. Algie has a tiny pistol that is later mocked by the cowboys who compare it to their bigger guns. There is little room to doubt this was meant to symbolize "manhood". But Guy-Blache doesn't leave it at that. She throws in a subtle touch that either reinforces interpretations that Algie is a homosexual or parodies Freud's penis envy theory (feminists have been very critical of Freud's theories believing they were sexist). When Algie is shown a bigger gun he smiles at the sight of it while also finding it so physically imposing he can't even hold it. 

The gun eventually becomes the link between Algie and his quest to become a man. In a later scene, when the transition becomes fully transparent, it is Algie's use of the gun that solidifies he is now a man, after he protects his friend by holding two other men up at gunpoint. Algie has now become "one" with this phallic object and has learned how to both use it and control it. It is no longer physically imposing. He has conquered his masculinity.

Guy-Blache encapsulates this further in the film's final sequence; Algie going back home for his sweetheart's hand in marriage. Algie brings along his friend Jim as they storm into the home looking for the father. Pay attention to how the wealthy men almost seems to cower behind the female characters, reinforcing the stereotype of the cowardly wealthy men. Now it is Algie and Jim in control of the situation as Jim flashes around his gun. And pay attention to the sweetheart's reaction, which can go unnoticed in the corner of the frame. She smiles and giggles as she watches her father being intimidated. It is a very different facial expression to the one she had at the beginning of the film, when Algie first asked for her hand. Algie was being laughed at in that situation but now he is forceful. It is as if the "masculine power" he is exhibiting is attractive to the young woman. It creates a gender dynamic modern viewers may be uncomfortable with suggesting women find the brute force of men appealing. However it is a dynamic that has been well noted by previous critics such as Molly Haskell, who writes in her book From Reverence to Rape "it is not just men who thrill to the violent, male-chauvinist world of The Godfather, but women who, wishing women's lib would go away like a bad dream, secretly enjoy the Sicilian gangster denigration of women, of "putting them in their place.""

While New York Times critic Manohla Dargis wrote of Guy-Blache's films, "she expressed female drives, desires and self-determination." I can still see how "Algie, the Miner" fits into the cannon of her work simply because of how it challenges societal conventions. The lead character here may not be a female but this is still a story about how gender is interpreted in society and the expectations that come along with it. On some level that is appealing to Guy-Blache.

"The Consequences of Feminism"

 *** (out of ****)

Continuing on the theme of Guy-Blache tackling societal gender norms, we come to "The Consequences of Feminism"; a film that imagines what the world would look like if the gender power dynamics were switched.

Depending upon how we interpret the film's title; particularly the use of the word "consequences", this is either a comedy showing the rise of feminism is not something to fear or a warning to men (and women) foreshadowing what life will look like if the feminist take control and the inevitable backlash.

While it is true that the intentions of feminism have always stirred fear in men who perceive the true motive of the movement as anti-men; I could not find a direct quote from Guy-Blache stating she identified herself as a feminist and / or find any quotes supporting the women's vote movement. This is after reading articles about her, watching a documentary on her career, and reading various feminist film theory books. All that can be said is her work implies she was a feminist due to the themes that reoccur in her films. I bring this up because it would be nice to know Guy-Blache's intentions with a film such as "The Consequences of Feminism". Most people describe the film it is as a story where gender roles are reversed. That is true but what it is left out is that the men fight back to establish themselves as the dominate sex. Knowing Guy-Blache's intentions and thoughts on feminism would help viewers interpret the film, which is why I find the choice of the word "consequences" an interesting one. The film's not called "The Benefits of Feminism" or "A Celebration of Feminism" but instead "The Consequences of Feminism".

Much like in "Algie, the Miner", Guy-Blache is using humor to make a social commentary and uses men as stand-ins for her feminist ideas. Is this meant as a way to make men empathize with the feminist movement? The film begins with several men working in a hat shop. Some of the men have flowers in their hair and walk with what can be described as exaggerated feminine movements. On a side note, notice how the men acting as women here aren't as flamboyant as Billy Quirks mannerisms playing Algie six years later. A woman walks into the store and begins to flirt with one of the men in a rather aggressive manner, by holding his chin, to which the man, seemingly overpowered, can only attempt to coyishly turn his head. Actions such as these will be repeated for the remainder of the seven minute film.

It is interesting what Guy-Blache is doing here. Yes there is a gender reversal here but it is limited to the interactions between men and women. In other words we don't see women as strong business leaders or in predominate male roles of authority - policemen for example. The world that Guy-Blache is presenting only shows women as sexually aggressive. Can that imply a relationship between sex and power (or dominance)? That then becomes the ultimate struggle to overcome. It actually hints at one of the tenants of  "second wave feminism" of the 1960s, which is connected to the publication of Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique. 

Alicia Malone kind of hints at this point as well in her book observing the male characters still dress like men and the female characters as women. It is only their behavior that has changed; while finally noting "the film does not imagine what exactly might happen if we lived in a matriarchal society - but it shows quite plainly what it is like to live in a patriarchal one."

Guy-Blache has a lot of fun with this setup; embellishing various scenarios women may have found themselves in while also parodying melodramas, as when one of the men, along with his children, enter a bar where the wife is drinking. The man pleads with her to come home with him and to their children, while she tosses him away. In another scene a seemingly kind and gentle woman "rescues" a man from the advances of another woman only to then paw at the man herself. This is meant to expose the "wolf in sheep's clothing" man who appears sympathetic to a woman but only uses that sympathy as a technique to get close to a woman. Maybe the most damning commentary of all is when two men witness a woman forcefully kissing a man and do nothing but pretend they don't see anything and walk away. In other words we (men) see vile treatment and injustice in the world but chose to look away.

And according to Guy-Blache and her film, this injustice can only go on for so long until the oppressed fight back and demand equality. What happens in this new world though? Unfortunately that's when the film ends. Are we to assume men will now treat women as they were treated, which was the actual reality some women faced during the time period? That feeds into men's fear about feminism; if the women take control they will treat us as badly as we treat them. Men must face that harsh reality at the beginning of the film before it abruptly ends, like a bad dream. It is like saying, now that you have awaken; change your ways, you have seen what the future holds. It reminds me of something Haskell refers to as "the big lie" in her previously mention esteemed book, "the idea of women's inferiority, a lie so deeply ingrained in our social behavior that merely to recognize it is to risk unraveling the entire fabric of civilization."

I have primarily talked about Guy-Blache in terms of the themes presented in her work; which I find to be her best quality however she was a good filmmaker for the time period. I must confess her films aren't as visually exciting as Georges Melies; though her narratives exceed his, or demonstrate the same level of filmmaking craft as D.W. Griffith (the gold standard for me); her films have a stagey quality common for the era; but this has nothing to do with her being a woman. In fact I'd argue her work was as good or better than filmmakers such as Allan Dwan or Edwin S. Porter.

What Guy-Blache and her films illustrate is a humorous point made in the 1958 film "Indiscreet" directed by Stanley Donen and starring Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant. In the film Grant's character says, "Women are not the sensitive sex. That's one of the grand delusions of literature. Men are the true romantics." Time and time again when women have been given the microphone they have not used it as an opportunity to validate romanticized love; they have taken the opportunity to comment on equality between the genders. This goes back to Jane Austen - Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, the films of Guy-Blache, the poetry of Dorothy Parker, Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, or Gloria Gaynor singing I Will Survive. It's not that one can't describe Austen's writings for example as romantic but it is the idea that all of these women challenged the notions of romance of their eras. Much like how "The Consequences of Feminism" is drawing a relationship between sex and power, there is a long tradition of women trying to recalibrate these dynamics to include equality. That is what the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy is about in Prejudice. When you live in a society that makes you feel like a second-class citizen and you have to fight for the right to vote, to own a business, or go into the workforce, your first priority is not to champion the idea of getting married, having children, and making sure dinner is prepared by the time your husband gets home. And yet the media, through all of its forms, have pressured women into accepting this fate; continuing the myth of their romanticism (i.e. modern trashy romance novels). Naturally I am generalizing. Don't take my words so literal. One of my all-time favorite novels is Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights but there are those that consider it a brutal revenge story and not only a straight piece of romantic fiction. Instead of using all of your energy to disprove my point, sit with what I have written for a while and think about what I am truly saying. 

The importance of female filmmakers like Guy-Blache, Lois Weber, and Helen Holmes is immeasurable. I'd love to say their success led the way for all future female directors that followed but that wouldn't be exactly true. Theirs's is a great injustice and void in the history of cinema that these women have been largely forgotten and ignored. Guy-Blache had been written out of the history books; not even mentioned among the early film pioneers. It was thanks primarily to female critics and historians that her work has been rediscovered. 

That hits on the importance of film criticism. When I started writing about films more than twenty years ago, it was a different world. There weren't many women movie critics back than and they struggled finding jobs as directors.  But as seen in the example of Guy-Blache there is a correlation between the two professions. Critics are often gatekeepers, setting the trends for which names should live on. When they fail at that tasks, important names are forgotten. It took women to correct a wrong. In an attempt to reverse the trend, women are now a significant part of the film criticism community. The New York Times named Manhola Dargis as its chief critic after A.O. Scott stepped down. In addition to which Alissa Wilkinson, Lisa Kennedy, Natalia Winkelman, and Beatrice Loayza also write for the paper. That is a notable amount of female voices at a single newspaper. While there are male writers as well at the Times, it was an obvious conscious choice to diversify their critics. Also, what an embarrassment of riches to have so many critics at a single newspaper; at a time when other newspapers - the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune  - have eliminated the position. And there are other noteworthy female critics such as Elizabeth Weitzman, Amy Nicholson, and Christy Lemire. The best critic, working at a mainstream publication, is probably Stephanie Zacharek, over at Time.

I'll regale you with a personal story (it's what I do) about my own experience with trying to correct a false narrative being pushed in film studies. I was going to Columbia College of Chicago at the time, studying film and journalism. It was in my last year, which would have been around 2007. One of the classes I was required to take as part of my film curriculum was on gender studies; where we explored topics such as feminist film theory and queer cinema. I had two classes that day with hours in-between them. To pass the time I asked a friend if they wanted to meet up nearby for some drinks. As I entered the class that evening I was "feeling good". The topic for that day's class was going to be on how heterosexual filmmakers have portrayed gay and lesbian characters throughout cinema. One of the examples the instructor was going to use was Luchino Visconti's "Death in Venice" (1971). As my buzz was starting to wear off, it was suddenly occurring to me the instructor was stating Visconti was a heterosexual filmmaker. Because I had no life as a kid, I not only knew who Visconti was, I had actually seen "Death in Venice" years prior to taking this class. It was well known Visconti was a homosexual. He was very open about it and had a relationship with the actor Helmut Berger, who had appeared in his films. This instructor, who was admittedly gay, as were my fellow students, was giving us bad information which no one was correcting. These students were going to leave this class thinking Visconti's film was a depiction of a heterosexual filmmaker exploring gay and lesbian issues. Should I say something? Here I am this twenty-something year old straight kid, slightly buzzed, in a class where I am going to undermine the instructor's authority in front of everyone. Would he get mad and retaliate against me? I raised my hand and explained who Visconti was as all eyes in the class stared back at me. The instructor did approach me during the class break but was nice to me; still I made a vow to never drink before that class ever again and to keep my mouth shut. 

What I learned in that class however has remained with me. There are various theories film writers may apply to their work. In my own case I have always tried to blend the auteur theory and feminist film theory together. Though I am not a strict feminist film theorist because I never wanted to box myself in to any single theory. My writing would always be judge by how well I apply those theories. I believe you allow the film itself to dictate which style to use by addressing what themes are present in the work. Sometimes a particular theory isn't the most apt to judge a movie by. You have to be flexible. And as a man I feel uncomfortable calling myself a feminist film theorist. There is a certain section of the population that has a "stay in your lane" mentality and we should only comment on things related to our lived experiences; therefore as a white male I should not discuss female issues, black issues, or homosexual issues. Some may take offense to what I have written here. I should leave a topic like Guy-Blache to women. In feminist film theory this is referred to as reclaiming - reinterpreting what has been erased in the representation of female characters. So then I use a kind of hodgepodge method of gender studies. I do firmly believe movies - and all media - strongly dictate how we interpret the world and gender dynamics, which is why it is important to examine these issues. I'd recommend reading Haskell's From Reverence to Rape. It is a seminal piece of feminist film theory; as are writings by Laura Mulvey. 

A figure like Alice Guy-Blache is a reminder of who gets to write the history books, who is left out and why, and how false narratives are perpetuated by figures of authority. She was a very talented filmmaker who deserved better. If you are interested in watching her films or those made by other female directors, the DVD distributor KINO put out a collection a few years ago called "Pioneers: First Women Filmmakers" it is a terrific six-disc set bringing to the fore this neglected chapter of film history.