Feminist Film Theory by Anneke Smelik Introduction Feminism is a social movement which has had an enormous impact on film

theory and criticism. Cinema is taken by feminists to be a cultural practice representing myths about women and femininity, as well as about men and masculinity. Issues of representation and spectatorship are central to feminist film theory and criticism. Early feminist criticism was directed at stereotypes of women, mostly in Hollywood films (Haskell 1973/1987, Rosen 1973). Such fixed and endlessly repeated images of women were considered to be objectionable distortions which would have a negative impact on the female spectator. Hence, the call for positive images of women in cinema. Soon, however, the insight dawned that positive images were not enough to change underlying structures in film. Feminist critics tried to understand the allpervasive power of patriarchal imagery with the help of structuralist theoretical frameworks such as semiotics and psychoanalysis. These theoretical discourses have proved very productive in analysing the ways in which sexual difference is encoded in classical narrative. For over a decade psychoanalysis was to be the dominant paradigm in feminist film theory. More recenty there has been a move away from a binary understanding of sexual difference to multiple perspectives, identities and possible spectatorships. This opening up has resulted in an increasing concern with questions of ethnicity, masculinity and hybrid sexualities. Classical Film Narrative Claire Johnston was among the first feminist critics to offer a sustained critique of stereotypes from a semiotic point of view (1973/1991). She put forward how classical cinema constructs the ideological image of woman. Drawing on Roland Barthes' notion of 'myth', Johnston investigated the myth of 'Woman' in classical cinema. The sign 'woman' can be analyzed as a structure, a code or convention. It represents the ideological meaning that 'woman' has for men. In relation to herself she means no-thing (1991: 25): women are negatively represented as 'not-man'. The 'woman-as woman' is absent from the text of the film (26). The important theoretical shift here is from an understanding of cinema as reflecting reality, to a view of cinema as constructing a particular, ideological, view of reality. Classical cinema never shows its means of production and is hence characterized by veiling over its ideological construction. Thus, classical film narrative can present the constructed images of 'woman' as natural, realistic and attractive. This is the illusionism of classical cinema. In her groundbreaking article 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' (1975/1989), Laura Mulvey uses psychoanalysis to understand the fascination of Hollywood cinema. This fascination can be explained through the notion of scopophilia, the desire to see, which is a fundamental drive according to Freud. Sexual in origin, like all drives, der Schautrieb is what keeps the spectator glued to the silver screen. Classical cinema, adds Mulvey, stimulates the desire to look by integrating structures of voyeurism and narcissism into the story and the image. Voyeuristic visual pleasure is produced by looking at another (character, figure, situation) as our object, whereas narcissistic visual pleasure can be derived from self-identification with the (figure in the) image.

Mulvey has analyzed scopophilia in classical cinema as a structure that functions on the axis of activity and passivity. This binary opposition is gendered. The narrative structure of traditional cinema establishes the male character as active and powerful: he is the agent around whom the dramatic action unfolds and the look gets organized. The female character is passive and powerless: she is the object of desire for the male character(s). In this respect, cinema has perfected a visual machinery suitable for male desire such as already structured and canonized in the tradition of Western art and aesthetics. Mulvey has disentangled the ways in which narrative and visual techniques in cinema make voyeurism into an exclusively male prerogative. Within the narrative of the film male characters direct their gaze towards female characters. The spectator in the theatre is made to identify with the male look, because the camera films from the optical, as well as libidinal, point of view of the male character. There are thus three levels of the cinematic gaze (camera, character and spectator) that objectify the female character and make her into a spectacle. In classical cinema, voyeurism connotes women as 'to-be-looked-at-ness' (1989: 19). Mulvey tackles narcissistic visual pleasure with Lacan's concepts of ego formation and the mirror stage. The way in which the child derives pleasure from the identification with a perfect mirror image and forms its ego ideal on the basis of this idealized image, is analogous to the way in which the film spectator derives narcissistic pleasure from identifying with the perfected image of a human figure on the screen. In both cases, however, during the mirror stage and in cinema, identifications are not a lucid form of selfknowledge or awareness. They are rather based on what Lacan calls 'méconnaissance' (a 'mis-recognition'), that is to say they are blinded by the very narcissistic forces that structure them in the first place. Ego formation is structurally characterized by imaginary functions. And so is cinema. At about the same time as Christian Metz worked on this analogy in his essays on psychoanalysis and cinema, Mulvey argued that cinematic identifications were structured along the lines of sexual difference. Representation of 'the more perfect, more complete, more powerful ideal ego' (20) of the male hero stands in stark opposition to the distorted image of the passive and powerless female character. Hence the spectator is actively made to identify with the male rather than with the female character in film. There are then two aspects to visual pleasure which are negotiated through sexual difference: the voyeuristic-scopophilic gaze and narcissistic identification. Both these formative structures depend for their meaning upon the controlling power of the male character as well as on the objectified representation of the female character. Moreover, according to Mulvey, in psychoanalytic terms the image of 'woman' is fundamentally ambiguous in that it combines attraction and seduction with an evocation of castration anxiety. Because her appearance also reminds the male subject of the lack of a penis, the female character is a source of much deeper fears. Classical cinema solves the threat of castration in one of two ways: in the narrative structure or through fetishism. To allay the threat of castration on the level of narrative, the female character has to be found guilty. The films of Alfred Hitchcock are a good example of this kind of narrative plot (see Modleski 1988). The woman's 'guilt' will be sealed by either punishment or

On the psychoanalytic level Mimi I learns how the female subject . Puccini's opera La Bohème (1895). McCall. Mimi II.. In this respect. These concepts help to understand how Hollywood cinema is tailor-made for male desire. As such it was very much part of the 1970s political filmmaking. the notion of 'Verfremdung' (distantiation) of Bertolt Brecht and the modernist aesthetic of Jean Luc Godard. Feminist counter cinema took its inspiration from the avant-garde in cinema and theater.g.salvation and the film story is then resolved through the two traditional endings which are made available to women: she must either die (as in e. Laura Mulvey and Peter Wollen's Riddles of the Sphinx (GB 1977) and Sally Potter's Thriller (GB 1979). for example. Marilyn Monroe is another example of a fetishised female star. Mulvey provocatively says that a story demands sadism.g. (USA 1972 and 1974) and Sigmund Freud's Dora (made by Tyndall. The film splits the female character into two: Mimi I. the investigation is both psychoanalytic and Marxistmaterialist. such as the montage techniques of Sergei Eisenstein. a hyper-polished object. Important American experimental films are Yvonne Rainer's Lives of Performers and Film About a Woman Who. Fetishism in cinema confirms the reification of the female figure and thus fails to represent 'Woman' outside the phallic norm.. who is placed outside of the narrative in which she is the heroine. early feminists declared that a woman's film should shun traditional narrative and cinematic techniques and engage in experimental practice: thus. According to Ann Kaplan (1983). Because the structures of Hollywood cinema are analyzed as fundamentally patriarchal. Pajaczkowska and Weinstock. Marnie (1964)). according to Mulvey they would view the decline of classical film narrative with nothing more than 'sentimental regret' (1989: 26). The notion of 'the male gaze' has become a shorthand term for the analysis of complex mechanisms in cinema that involve structures like voyeurism. That such a counter cinema would destroy the visual pleasure of the spectator was no problem for women. A Feminist Counter Cinema What should a feminist counter cinema look like? For Mulvey. The privileged examples of feminist counter cinema are Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman. In the case of fetishism. narcissism and fetishism. The first Mimi investigates how she is constructed as an object in the melodramatic narrative. Mulvey refers here to Josef Sternberg's fetishisation of Marlene Dietrich. Psycho (1960)) or marry (as in e. Fetishizing the woman deflects attention from female 'lack' and changes her from a dangerous figure into a reassuring object of flawless beauty. It is interesting to note that the radical films of Marguërite Duras have drawn much less attention from Anglophone feminist film critics. USA 1979). 23 Quai du Commerce. classical cinema reinstates and displaces the lacking penis in the form of a fetish. feminist cinema was to be an avant-garde film practice which would 'free the look of the camera into its materiality in time and space and the look of the audience into dialectics and passionate detachment' (Mulvey 1989: 26). How does feminist counter cinema avoid the conventions of classical cinema and how does it accomodate a female point of view? In the short experimental film Thriller. women's cinema should be a counter cinema. this is achieved by deconstructing a classical melodrama. that is. 1080 Bruxelles (Belgium 1975).

they have to find out and redefine what it means to be a woman. Alex Juhasz criticised this kind of orthodoxy. A relentless formalism may be too much of a onesided approach to the complex enterprise of (re)constructing the female subject. Thus. which proscribed anti-illusionist techniques undermining identification. when Mimi I recognises herself as object her shadow is thrown up on the screen. nor should they be split narratively. For Kaplan. it refocuses the attention of the spectator on the enigmas surrounding the female subject in classical discourse. Instead. who does the critical questioning of the patriarchal image of white womanhood. That is to say. but also to documentary. We witness a theoretical contradiction of feminism here: while feminists need to deconstruct the patriarchal images and representations of 'Woman'. Because many stylistically traditional documentaries have been important historical documents for the women's movement. These are typical components of the classical thriller and horror genres. new and politicized reinterpretation of that female subjectivity. as well as a repeated laugh. Another visual device is the use of mirrors.is excluded from male language and classical narrative. they historically need to establish their female subjectivity at the same time. The problems of finding an appropriate form and style were maybe even more acute for documentary film. a repeated shriek and the sound of a heartbeat. For many feminist filmmakers in the 1970s. She points to the paradox that the unified subject which was represented in early feminist documentaries . other voices were also heard. this complex shot signals Mimi I's recognition of her split subjectivity. The melodramatic story is partly told in shots which are pictures of phographs of a stage performance. Thriller communicates these theoretical discourses both visually and acoustically. The investigation leads the women to understand they are not split in themselves. in both films it is the 'foreign' female voice that speaks the discourse of theory and criticism. As in Potter's second film. and partly in reconstructed scenes in which the actors move in highly stylized movements. The only position she can occupy is that of asking questions: 'Did I die? Was I murdered? What does it mean?' On the Marxist-materialist level Mimi I learns to investigate Mimi II's role as a seamstress and as a mother. one which mobilized vast numbers of women into action for the first time' (1994: 174). not merely reflect it (Johnston 1983). Feminist documentary should manufacture and construct the 'truth' of women's oppression. . this idealism was unacceptable. Feminist counter cinema did not only pertain to fictional film. this kind of feminist formalism was questioned. For Kaplan. one of the starting points of feminist film practice. The sound track includes the dominant female voice. because traditional documentary uses illusionism and realism to capture the 'truth' or 'reality'. facing the camera. while the film narrative does not give rise to any such suspense. However. The film ends symbolically with both Mimi's embracing. Mimi I is then shown with her back to the mirror. It could not include self-reflexivity. Thriller deliberately violates conventional realist codes. presented the feminist viewer in fact with a 'radical. The Golddiggers (GB 1980) it is a woman of colour with a deep Frenchaccented English voice (Colette Lafont). This image is repeated in a series of mirrors behind her (instead of 'correctly' reflecting the back of her head). the play with repeated and jarring mirror shots illustrate the mental processes that Lacan's mirror phase involves psychoanalytically. For example.

image. camera) as female. This spectatorial transvestism of the woman viewer points to a female masquerade. Mulvey elaborates on the notion of transsexual identification and spectatorship by pointing to the pre-oedipal and phallic fantasy of omnipotence which for girls is equally active as for boys. in a Freudian perspective. Yet. feminist cinema in the 1980s should define 'all points of identification (with character. Even so. she addressed the vicissitudes of female spectatorship in her analysis of the western Duel in the Sun (King Vidor. a lack of academic attention which continued long into the 1980s and even 1990s (see for a reappraisal of narrative feminist cinema Humm 1997 and Smelik 1998). feminine. The suspicion of collusion cast on realist or narrative film has resulted in either a concentration of critical efforts on classical Hollywood cinema or in a largely unjustified acclaim of experimental women's cinema among the elected few who get to see it. and hence. For example. but rather should be 'narrative and Oedipal with a vengeance' (1987: 108). Teresa de Lauretis (1984. The masquerade It has become a general assumption of feminist film theory that female spectators are more fluid in their capacity to identify with the other gender. but is also likely to enjoy adopting the masculine point of view. Mulvey suggests that the female spectator may not only identify with the slot of passive femininity which has been programmed for her. Yet. 1987) was among the first to claim that feminist cinema should not destroy narrative and visual pleasure. entitled 'The Spectatrix' (1989: nos 20-21). the female spectator remains 'restless in [her] transvestite clothes' (37) .Counter cinema represents only a small fraction of the many films produced by women since the mid 1970s. in her study of the fan phenomenon. The editors Janet Bergstrom and Mary Ann Doane chose to give a comprehensive survey of international research on and theories of the female spectator in film and television studies. According to her. It was not until the end of the decade before female spectatorship was theorized outside the dichotomous categories of psychoanalytic theory. Mulvey was much criticized for omitting the question of female spectatorship. these experimental films have been overpraised for their subversive powers while realist women's films were overcriticised for their illusionism (see Kuhn 1982 and Kaplan 1983). 1946). Miriam Hansen (1991) has used the idea of spectatorial flexibility to explain why women in the 1920s were drawn to the feminine positioning of Rudolph Valentino. as it made no room for the female spectator nor for a female gaze. In a later essay (1981/1989). In order to acquire 'proper' femininity. women will have to shed that active aspect of their early sexuality. women did and do go to the movies. The Female Spectator The account of 'the male gaze' as a structuring logic in Western visual culture became controversial in the early 1980s. Mulvey speculates that female spectators may negotiate the masculinisation of the spectatorial position in Hollywood cinema. or feminist' (1987: 133). essentially 'masculine'. The concept of masquerade was first introduced into feminist . An account of female spectatorship in all its cultural contexts and multiple differences was then undertaken in a special issue of Camera Obscura. because it signifies for them a pleasurable rediscovery of a lost aspect of their sexual identity. This has resulted in a paradoxical neglect of contemporary popular films made by women for a wider audience.

Mere 'desire to desire' seems to be. perpetuates these processes and thus confirm stereotypes about the female psyche. but on the contrary as a mask of femininity. as 'an overwhelming presence-to-itself of the female body' (22). in spite of its focus on a female main character. The gaze is not essentially male. In her analysis of Hollywood woman's films of the 1970's and 1980's. Ann Kaplan (1983) argues that female characters can possess the look and even make the male character the object of her gaze. given our language and the structure of the unconscious. The notion of masquerade was inspired by the role of the female character who cross-dressed as a male pirate. 'but to own and activate the gaze. narcissism and hysteria. Doane argues that the female spectator lacks this necessary distance because she is the image. not as cross-dressing. Drawing on the psychoanalytic work of Joan Rivière. The emotional investments of the viewer lead to overidentification. The female spectator can adopt 'the masochism of overidentification' or 'the narcissism entailed in becoming one's own object of desire' (31-32). then. The Woman's film. the female spectator of those melodramas is involved in emotional processes like masochism. In a study of the Woman's film of the forties. Doane understands the masquerade. This position can be avoided not only through a transsexual identification. The female look Do these rather dire interpretations of female spectatorship imply that the female look is impossible and that the look or gaze is necessarily male? In the early 1980s this seemed the case in feminist theory. The masquerade is effective in that it manufactures a distance from the image. Femininity is constructed as closeness. For Doane. the only option for women. How does this concept of the masquerade relate to issues of identification and spectatorship? As we have seen. Doane (1987) returns to the rather negative ways in which Hollywood constructs female identification and subjectivity. the male gaze involves voyeurism. but also through the masquerade. The difficulties of theorizing the female spectator made Jackie Stacey (1987) exclaim that feminist film critics have written the darkest scenario possible for . Doane argues that the female spectator is consumed by the image rather than consuming it. destroying the distance to the object of desire and turning the active desire of both the female character and the female spectator into the passive desire to be the desired object. Rivière had noticed in her clinical observations that women who find themselves in a male position of authority put on a mask of femininity that functions as compensation for their masculine position. Mary Ann Doane (1982/1991) explored the notion of masquerade further to understand woman's relation to the image on the screen. By wearing femininity as a mask. is to be in the "masculine" position' (30).film theory by Johnston (1975) in her analysis of Jacques Tourneur's Anne of the Indies (1951). paranoia. but being a woman her desire has no power. The neo-feminist Hollywood movies involve a mere reversal of roles in which the underlying structures of dominance and submission are still intact. the female spectator can create the necessary difference between herself and the represented femininity on the screen. Voyeurism presupposes distance. For Johnston the female masquerade signified not only a masking but also an 'unmasking' in the deconstructionist sense of exposing and criticising.

Bisexual identification has also submerged in studies of very different film genres. These ritualizations of fantasy keep desire under control. In her study of the modern horror film. of for example Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich. Gertrud Koch (1980) is one of the few feminists who early on recognized that women could also enjoy the image of female beauty on the screen. means a great loss of possible identifications and visual pleasure for the female audience. The condition of this active masochistic desire is that it be suspended. therefore. Whereas in classic horror (e. masochist or marginal. A similar focus on the pre-oedipal phase and on the mother as love object and potential source of visual pleasure has been developed by Gaylyn Studlar (1988). like Halloween (1978). This is a sort of re-enactment of the symbiosis through which the spectator wishes to subject her. albeit the pleasurable pain of desire. resists and survives the killer-monster. Clover argues that it is this 'theatricalization of gender' which feminises the audience. The Final Girl acquires the gaze. Sadism is negates difference of the mother and exults in the power of the father. The disappearance of the vamp in cinema. though from a very different angle. For Studlar the masquerade serves as a defensive strategy for women.g. and is thus masculinised.or himself to the powerful mother image. openly plays on a difference between apperance (sex) and behaviour (gender). The slasher film. provides the female spectator with a positive image of autonomous femininity. she investigates the Deleuzian notion of masochism. Moreover. In Koch's view the vamp is a phallic woman rather than a fetishized woman. Its violence is contractual and consensual. an image exported from Europe and integrated into Hollywood cinema. Especially the vamp. Friday the Thirteenth (1980) and Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) (and their sequels). and of bisexuality.the female look as being male. The female spectator can thus identify with and draw pleasure from the powerful femme fatale in cinema. and dominates the action. by which they deflect and confuse the male gaze. allows for a female homo-erotic pleasure which is not exclusively negotiated through the eyes of men. which is achieved by means of performance and masquerade on the part of the female character. films by Hitchcock and De Palma) the feminisation of the audience is intermittent and ceases when the Final Girl becomes the designated victim (Marion in Psycho). as she offers contradictory images of femininity which go beyond the reifying gaze. Koch argues that the image of the vamp revives for the female spectator the pleasurable experience of the mother as the love object in early childhood. The vamp's ambiguity can be a source of visual pleasure for the female spectator. in the modern horror film the Final Girl becomes her own . Studlar argues that visual pleasure in cinema resembles more the psychic processes of masochism than of sadism. Analyzing films made by Josef von Sternberg starring Marlene Dietrich. however. She thus creates a place for the pleasure and desire of the female subject-spectator. Carol Clover (1992) argues that both female and male spectators identify bisexually. Deleuze views masochism as the desire of the male to merge with the mother and subvert the father's phallic law. Cinema evokes the desire of the spectator to return to the pre-oedipal phase of unity with the mother. in a way that sadism is not. the sexual ambivalence of the vamp. There have been some different voices. She rests her case on the narrative role of the 'Final Girl': the one girl in the film who fights.

Sexual desire is bound up with the desire for knowledge. Female subjectivity The question of female spectatorship and the female look circle around the issue of subjectivity. because the female subject is herself the mystery. which should be understood as both a sociopolitical economy dominated by men's control of women and as a way of emphasizing the sexual origin of subjectivity. Narration is one of the ways of reproducing subjectivity. 1940). Although Clover is aware of the misogyny of the genre of the slasher film. The function of portraits of female ancestors in both films is highly significant in this respect: they represent the dead Mother. femininity and masculinity are identifications that the subject takes up in a changing relation to desire. Narrative structures are defined by oedipal desire. Here de Lauretis turns Mulvey's famous phrase around: not only does a story demand sadism.saviour. Narrative is not oedipal in content but in structure. by distributing roles and differences. De Lauretis is hardly more optimistic than Mulvey about the female spectator. This is a cruel and often coercive form of seduction. Female subjectivity has been explored not only in relation to spectatorship. The female subject is made to desire femininity. The first set is an oscillating either/or identification. but also with respect to the narrative structure of film. who examined the structural representations of 'woman' in cinema (1984. are made to conform to the ideal image that the man has of them. that is. for example. she claims a subversive edge in that it adjusts gender representations and identifications. Desire in narrative is intimately bound up with violence against women and the techniques of cinematic narration both reflect and sustain social forms of oppression of women. active identification with the gaze (Scottie) and a passive. feminine identification with the image (Judy/Madeleine). the ideal that the male hero desires to have and forces upon the female heroine. De Lauretis (1984) emphasizes that subjectivity is not a fixed entity but a constant process of self-production. It consists of a masculine. each story derives its structure from the subject's desire and from its inscription in social and cultural codes. Scottie's desire for the enigmatic Judy/Madeleine structures the narrative of the film. `Woman' is the question and can hence not ask the question nor make her desire intelligible. The desire to solve riddles is a male desire par excellence. points to masochism. and thus power and positions. One of the functions of narrative. She refers to the ways in which the female characters in Vertigo. Her self-rescue turns her into the hero and it is at that moment that the male viewer 'gives up the last pretense of male identification'. In Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958). One of the key figures in this field is Teresa de Lauretis. 1987). but also in a 'woman's film' like Rebecca (also by Hitchcock. It consists of the double identification . de Lauretis argues. De Lauretis distinguishes two different processes of identification in cinema. is to 'seduce' women into femininity with or without their consent. The second set is a simultaneous both/and identification. For Clover the willingness of the male spectator to throw in his emotional lot with a woman in fear and pain. the quest for truth. sadism demands a story. For de Lauretis the desire of the female character is impossible and the narrative tension is resolved by the destruction (Judy/Madeleine) or territorialization of women (the new Mrs. de Winter). Not that she assumes identification to be single or simple.

This set of figural identifications enables the female spectator to take up both the active and passive positions of desire: 'Desire for the other. Reinterpreting Freud's account of the psychological development of the little girl. meaning or power and is hence all too easily reduced to screams. Drawing on Lacanian psychoanalysis. This can only happen after the pre-oedipal stage. she can only be represented as representation (1987: 20). The girl redirects her desire to the mother in what is called the negative Oedipus complex. the female voice is restricted to the realm of the body. Silverman thus recuperates female desire for . Silverman suggests that in cinema this displacement is enacted not only through the gaze and the image but also through the auditory register. seems to be a contradiction in terms. because distance from the mother is necessary for her to be constructed as an erotic object for the daughter. are her privileged examples of films which explore and explode that very contradiction. Female desire A feminist critic who has also approached the question of female desire within psychoanalytic discourse is Kaja Silverman (1988). the new Mrs. Silverman argues that each subject is structured by lack or symbolic castration. McCall. but it is also the very operation by which a narrative solicits the spectators' consent and seduces women into femininity. In Western culture it is. so much so that de Lauretis sometimes refers to the female subject as a 'nonsubject' (1985: 36). The female voice can hardly reach a signifying position in language. The loss and separation entailed by the acquisition of language lead the child to desire the mother. 'Woman' is fundamentally unrepresentable as subject of desire. the self-conscious experience of being both 'woman' and 'women' is the productive contradiction of feminism. Contrary to the more frequent disembodiment of the male voice in cinema. babble or silence in dominant cinema. and historical women who know themselves to be subjects. This double identification may yield a surplus of pleasure. Silverman puts great emphasis on the signifying role of the mother in early childhood. Silverman discusses the cultural fantasy of the maternal voice that surrounds the infant like an acoustic blanket. The entry into language means the end of the unity between mother and child as well as of an unmediated access to reality.with the figure of narrative movement (the protagonist. or Sigmund Freud's Dora: A Case of Mistaken Identity by Tyndall. For de Lauretis. whereas it positively signifies a regression to the state of harmony and abundance when mother and child are still one. Feminist theory is built on the very paradox of the unrepresentability of woman as subject of desire. de Winter in Rebecca) and with the figure of narrative image (here the image of Rebecca). Silverman argues that both these fantasies equate the maternal voice to pure sound and deny the mother any cultural role as a discursive agent. Thriller by Sally Potter. then. This amounts to keeping it outside discourse. Women's films like Les Rendez-vous d'Anna or Jeanne Dielman by Chantal Akerman. In her rereading of psychoanalysis Silverman attempts to make room for the mother and for female desire within discourse and the symbolic order. however. The notion of the female subject. This fantasy for the maternal enclosure negatively signifies the fear of being swallowed up by the mother. and desire to be desired by the other' (143). Pajaczkowska and Weinstock. the female subject who is made to bear the burden of that lack in order to provide the male subject with the illusion of wholeness and unity.

she both wishes to possess and to be the mother. The maternal fantasy can be found not only in the pre-Oedipal dyad. In the negative Oedipus complex the girl both identifies with and desires the mother. the daughter's erotic investment in the mother can be a subversive force for a 'libidinal politics' because it is a form of desire which is opposed to the normative desire for the father. In this experimental film. She argues that it is paramount for feminism to draw on the libidinal resources of the 'homosexualmaternal fantasmatic' (125). This disembodied voice speaks a wide variety of discourses about motherhood. The film opens this maternal enclosure up to a feminist community of women. and the voice and work of artist Mary Kelly. the figure of the Sphinx occupies the position of an 'imaginary narrator'. The film is centered upon the female desire to recover the Oedipal or symbolic mother. male/female. a distinctly fictionalised voice-over. Especially within Amerian feminism the term sexual difference was therefore replaced by a renewed interest in the sex/gender distinction that Gayle Rubin had introduced in 1975. There is then a conjunction of identification and eroticism. Silverman emphasizes the negativity of the female negative Oedipus complex as a political potential. The two desires are the site of a constitutive contradiction and are consequently irreconcilable. In her view these two psychic paradigms are not always mutually exclusive and can actually coalesce. Riddles springs off from the mother/daughter relationship. a fantasy for the maternal enclosure is the organizing principle ofRiddles of the Sphinx (Laura Mulvey and Peter Wollen. including Louise's friend Maxine. there has been general agreement about the limitations of an exclusive focus on sexual difference. Sexual Difference and Its Discontents Although feminists have not always agreed about the usefulness of pyschoanalysis. thus firmly establishing the maternal voice within the symbolic order. that the girl leaves the negative Oedipus complex and enters the positive Oedipal phase. Silverman also revises the traditional view on the divergence of identification and desire. One such limitation is the reproduction of a dichotomy. but also in the homosexual-maternal mÉnage ˆ trois of mother. within language and signification. while the father figures neither as an object of desire nor of identification: for the girl he is merely 'a troublesome rival' (Freud quoted in Silverman: 153). feminism's libidinal struggle against the phallus lies in the intersection of desire for and identification with the mother. that is to say within the symbolic order. In this stage of development the girl forms her identity through the incorporation of the mother's imago. The fear was that this binary opposition would somehow tie questions of pleasure and identification to anatomical difference. represented by the Sphinx. It is after the event of the castration crisis.the mother as fully oedipal. like female subjectivity is based upon the passionate desire for the mother. of Louise and her child Anna. The term gender generally seemed to indicate a clearer distinction between anatomy . the dramatic onset of sexual difference. For the rest of her life the female subject remains split between the desire for the mother and for the father. learning to redirect her desire to the father. For Silverman. This female collectivity. that needs to be deconstructed. 1977). which Silverman believes to have a vital relation to female narcissism. In Silverman's reading. For her. grandmother and child. from psychoanalysis to feminist politics.

She here follows Luce Irigaray's notion of the symbolic law representing only one and not two sexes: patriarchy is deeply 'hommosexual' as it erects the masculine as the one and only norm. an active desire is produced by the difference between the two women. This question arose as early as Julie Lesage's (1980) pioneering analysis of the improvisational interplay of the two female characters in Jacques Rivette's Celine and Julie Go Boating (France 1974). 1994) complains that the denial of the lesbian identity of Hollywood director Dorothy Arzner points to a curious gap in feminist film theory. Yet. In spite of the increasing focus on female spectatorship in feminist scholarship. prompting Stacey to argue that the rigid psychoanalytic distinction between desire and identification fails to address different constructions of desire. The journal Jump Cut wrote in its special issue on Lesbians and Film (1981. indeed to the 'structuring absence' of lesbianism (1994: 107). These stories are about women wanting to become the idealized other. de Lauretis (1991) observes that the institution of heterosexuality defines all sexuality to such an extent that is difficult to represent homosexual-lesbian desire. race.not unlike the Hollywood cinema it criticised so fiercely . the 'ghostly presence of lesbianism' does not only haunt Hollywood gothics but also feminist film theory. Indeed. and equally between sexual practice and gender identity. feminist film theory . and more extensively in her later book The Practice of Love (1994). like All About Eve (USA 1950) or Desperately Seeking Susan (USA 1984). the homosexual pleasures of the female spectator were indeed largely ignored. She criticizes both Stacey and Silverman for conceiving of desire between women as woman-identified female bonding and failing to see it as sexual. 17).(sex) and social construction (gender). as Judith Mayne (1990. As Patricia White (1991) observes. de Lauretis returns to Freudian theory to account for the specificity of lesbian desire in terms of fetishism. Another limitation of the exclusive focus on sexual difference within psychoanalytic film theory is its failure to focus on other differences such as class. Lesbian feminists were among the first to raise objections to the heterosexual bias of psychoanalytic feminist film theory. Here. it is interesting to know what happens for the female specator when a classical narrative features two female characters. In answer to de Lauretis' criticism Stacey (1994) argues in her study of female spectatorship that she is not concerned with a specifically lesbian audience . She suggests that a more flexible model of cinematic spectatorship is needed so as to avoid a facile binarism that maps homosexuality onto an opposition of masculinity and femininity. She shows that the abandonment of the classical story based on male/female distinctions produces new and previously unimaginable narrative permutations. age and sexual preference.seemed unable to conceive of representation outside heterosexuality. De Lauretis (1988) has drawn attention to the difficulties of imagining lesbian desire within a psychoanalytic discourse that predicates sexual difference on sexual indifference. An interplay of difference and otherness prevents the collapse of that desire into identification. Stacey (1987) argues that in Hollywoodfilms with two female protagonists. Discussing the same problematic in a later essay. Apparently. no 24/25): 'It sometimes seems to us that lesbianism is the hole in the heart of feminist film criticism' (p. almost ten years later matters had improved very little.

for example of the implicit lesbianism of the female buddy film. What else is new? Angela Galvin (1994) suggests that the novelty may well lie in the heroine's absence of a mustache. Her point is not to de-eroticise desire. most discussions of spectatorship have been about white audiences. Basic Instinct (USA 1991) features lesbian and bisexual characters as pathological killers. The collection Queer Looks (Gever et al. Weiss (1992). The theme of lesbianism still runs strong in more recent female buddy films. Fried Green Tomatoes(USA 1991) is one of those films about female friendship in which lesbianism remains unspoken. however. In some films the female buddies. This involved rereadings of Hollywood cinema. De Lauretis was criticized for not taking into account racial dynamics in the lesbian film She Must Be Seeing Things (USA 1987) (see the discussion following de Lauretis' 1991 article). as in Lianna (USA 1982) and Personal Best (USA 1982). Ellsworth (1990) investigated lesbian responses to the film and found that many lesbian spectators actively rewrote the film by imagining a different ending. While these discussions of lesbian spectatorship are part of a wider movement in film studies to include the heterogeneity of the spectatorial situation. Other films put a 'real' lesbian in the story as a way of showing that the female friendship of the two heroines is not 'that way' (Girlfriends. In order to avoid that 'danger' Hollywoodfilms often include explicit scenes of denying any lesbian intent. Mandy Merck 1993). The homo-erotic appeal of female Hollywood stars has indeed been widely recognised. harping back on the time-old association in Hollywood films of lesbianism with death and pathology. In Julia (USA 1977) Jane Fonda slaps a man in the face who suggests that her friendship with Julia (Vanessa Redgrave) was sexual. although it is a source of strength and inspiration. because its eroticism feeds into traditional male voyeurism (Linda Williams 1986. The controversy . has resulted in a more historical and cultural criticism of cinema by gay and lesbian critics. become lovers. while at the same time identifying with the woman-as-spectacle. Her research shows that lesbian spectators use interpretive strategies to challenge the dominant reading of a film. Especially the androynous appearances of Marlene Dietrich in Morocco (USA 1930). but it focuses more on gay and lesbian filmmaking than on spectatorship as such. Gay and lesbian criticism The shift away from the restrictive dichomomies of psychoanalytic feminist film theory. but to look for ways in which a film may eroticise identification. The female spectator is quite likely to encompass erotic components in her desiring look. Greta Garbo in Queen Christina (USA 1933) and Katherine Hepburn in Sylvia Scarlett ( USA 1935) were embraced as an image of a gender-in-between and of sexual ambiguity. USA 1978). Several critics have pointed out that the lesbian subject matter of these films is acceptable to all kinds of audiences. 1993) addresses the combination of racial difference and homosexuality.but with a possible homo-eroticism for all women in the audience. In Thelma and Louise (USA 1991) the lesbian attraction between the women can only be expressed in a kiss on the mouth just before the leap to their death into the Grand Canyon. for example. discusses the attraction of Hollywood stars for lesbian spectators in the thirties. The issue of black lesbian spectatorship has so far hardly been raised. The star image of sexual androgyny served as point of identification outside conventional gender positions.

an Absolute Ruler. like the surrealist shorts of Germaine Dulac. Jean Genet's prison film Un Chant d'Amour (A Song of Love. France 1927) exposes Oedipal male fantasies about the mystery of 'Woman'. Alongside rereadings of Hollywood films gay and lesbian criticism turned to films made by lesbians and gay men. Her films have been read as critiques of heterosexuality (Flitterman-Lewis. Fantasy plays an important role in these experimental films. A ritualization of power and desire can for example be found in the sadean theatre of Verführung: die grausame Frau (Seduction: the Cruel Woman. While the films have been criticised for their reactionary representation of strong women and for their exploitation of voyeuristic themes. which Dyer calls a 'Genetesque' tradition. France 1950) is a classic which has become enormously popular with gay audiences until today and which also has influenced gay filmmakers. Germany 1985) by Elfi Mikesch and Monika Treut. Dyer (1990) discusses the film's eroticism in terms of the tension between politics and pleasure. Graham 1995). The play of power and desire has become the theme of some gay and lesbian films in the eighties. In La Souriante Madame Beudet (The Smiling Mme Beudet. quite surprisingly. Early films of European art cinema were rediscovered. especially in Berlin. Desert Hearts (USA 1985). Mädchen in Uniform does not stand alone but is part of a tradition of gay and lesbian filmmaking within early cinema (see Dyer 1990. While some gay critics have reprimanded the film for its 'oppression' of gay men or were disturbed by its 'homophobic' representation of erotic pleasures. and La Coquille et le Clergyman (The Seashell and the Clergyman. others took a more permissive or even celebratory attitude to the sadomasochism of the film. such as Mädchen in Uniform (Girls in Uniform. Rich (1984) argues that the anti-fascist politics of Mädchen in Uniform is interconnected with its lesbian theme and its struggle against authoritarian structures and sexual repression. Longfellow 1993). Germany 1977) to Johanna D'Arc of Mongolia (Germany 1989) humorously deconstruct traditional femininity and perversely celebrate nomadic lesbian subjectivities (White 1987. Germany 1931). Rich places the film in the historical context of Weimar with its vibrant lesbian subculture. Dyer argues that the renewed political interest in perverse sexualities opened a Foucauldian reading of the film's eroticism in terms of the social and historical relation between sexuality and power. was not followed by other . France 1923) a woman fantasizes murdering her bully of a husband and escaping from her bourgeois marriage. whose fantasmatic films from Madame X . Other films were made by gay or lesbian filmmakers. These films are very different from the lesbian romance. Weiss 1992).eine absolute Herrscherin (Madame X . some spectators have appropriated them as 'lesbian films'. As Jackie Stacey (1995) points out. the film. which is to date still the only lesbian independent feature which made use of Hollywood conventions and was a box office success. 1990).over Thelma and Louise and Basic Instinct shows some of the various responses of feminist and lesbian criticism. This highly formalised and estheticised exploration of sadomasochism was one of the first films to bring female desire and lesbian sexuality within the domain of power and violence. enjoying images of empowered women who escape the Law (Tasker 1993. Another filmmaker that must be mentioned in this context is Ulrike Ottinger.

and Visual Culture'. Racial hierarchies in ways of looking have created visual taboos. who criticised its exclusive focus on sexual difference and its failure to deal with racial difference. that which is 'unfathomed and uncodified' and yet 'worked over again and again in mainstream culture because of its apparent elusiveness' (Gaines 1988: 26). which focused on 'Black Women. For Gaines this scenario of sexual violence. Lola Young (1996) examines the representation of black female sexuality by situating British films in their historical and social context. while black women have been excluded from those very forms of representation. Deborah Grayson examines . however. The signification of the black female as non-human makes black female sexuality the great unknown in white patriarchy. Interventions such as Gaines' show that the category of race reveals the untenability of many one-sided beliefs within feminist film theory. along with ethnicity and class. Jane Gaines (1988) is one of the first feminist critics to point to the erasure of race in film theories that are based on the psychoanalytic concept of sexual difference. In her reading of Neil Jordan's films Mona Lisa and The Crying Game Joy James comes to a very similar critique as Young: these films fail to fulfill the promise of transgressive relationships and ultimately reproduce stereotypes of black female sexuality. which fails to account for the ways in which some social groups have the licence to look openly. although Young argues convincingly that white and black filmmakers find it hard to challenge stereotypical images of black women. White film critics have universalised their theories of representations of women. Spectatorship. it was the white man who raped black women. Feminist Theory and Race Persistent critique of psychoanalytic film theory has also come from black feminism. will eventually make other forms of representation thinkable. who was actually (rather than symbolically) castrated or lynched by white men. She suggests that this may have to do with the popluar lesbian romance film being 'a virtual contradiction in terms' (112). She pleads for an inclusion of black feminist theory and of a historical approach into feminist film theory in order to understand how in cinema gender intersects with race and class. The eruptive point of resistance present black women's sexuality as an even greater threat to the male unconscious than the fear of white female sexuality. the neglect of which reflects back on film theory. Gaines discusses the construction of the black man as rapist. Thus. Intersecting theories of sexual difference with those of differences of race and sexual preference. The racial structures of looking also have repercussions for structures of narrative. Almost simultaneously with Young's book a special issue of Camera Obscura (nr. while in times of slavery and long after.successful lesbian romances nor did it receive much academic attention. repression and displacements rivals the oedipal myth. remained popular with lesbian audiences. The historical scenario of interracial rape explains much of the penalty of sexual looking by the black man. and points to the necessity of contextualising and historicising sexual difference. while others can only `look' illicitly. The category of race also problematises the paradigm of the male gaze possessing the female image. The film has. 36) was published. The male gaze is not a universal given but it is rather negotiated via whiteness: the black man's sexual gaze is socially prohibited.

For hooks this is a radical departure from the 'totalizing agenda' of feminist film criticism. In a similar vein. the women are by sheer necessity used to filtering out offensive racist images from what they see in cinema. for example. Combining documentary with fictional elements. For example. While Shelton celebrates Houstons' successful construction of her own image and formation of different audiences. . The women negotiated their appreciation of the film through their personal history and past viewing experience. Spielberg's interpretation of Sofia and Harpo is not considered to be successful. In a rewriting of the Freudian primal scene . They thought the criticism of the film (and also of Alice Walker's novel). The women do recognise that the film continues the tradition of racist representations of blacks. and the beginning of an oppositional spectatorship for black women. A search for an oppositional subjectivity can also be found in the practice of filmmaking. Moreover.'Finally. she points to the inherent conflicts that converge around this 'rainbow icon'. One of the exceptions is the work of Jacqueline Bobo (1995) on Steven Spielberg's The Color Purple (1985). This photographic technique made black people appear more distinctly on the screen than in the cinematic tradition of Hollywood.the iconic representation of black women's hair in visual culture. little research has been available about black audiences. in more recent years Houston had to embrace and express her blackness in order to maintain a large audience. The film was attacked in the black press for its racism. Bobo set out to research this apparent contradiction and interviewed a group of black women. However. inscribes new subject positions for the diasporan daughter of a British mother and a Nigerian father.the film takes on the ethnographic gaze at the 'Other'. radically subverting traditional psychoanalytic discourse. Bobo argues that. Houston has found it hard to escape negative interpretations of her sexuality and of her role as a wife and mother.g. dolls). Ngozi Onwurah's film The Body Beautiful (1991). The black female spectators were quite unanimously impressed by the film . Marla Shelton analyzes the cross-over stardom of Whitney Houston. Looking at diverse media and popular practices (e. as black spectators. this critical view is mixed with reports of black spectators who found the film empowering. they 'construct a theory of looking relations where cinematic visual delight is the pleasure of interrogation' (1992: 126). Yet. Bobo found that certain technical aspects of the film contributed to spectatorial pleasure: The Color Purple introduced an innovative way of photographing black people so that they stood out agaist the background. particularly on the part of black men. Generally. this hybrid film centres on the relation between the body of the mother and that of her daughter by foregrounding questions of authenticity and authority.the daughter watching the lovemaking of her mature white mother with a young black man . according to Shelton. And while she has always had enormous cross-over appeal. 1992 and 1994) confirms that black viewers have always critically responded to Hollywood. quite unjustified. Rather.and felt strengthened by the triumph of the female protragonist Celie. she identifies the racialized signification of hair within American health and beauty culture. The influential feminist critic bell hooks (1990. somebody says something about us' . Black female spectators do not necessarily identify with either the male gaze or with white womanhood as lack.

repressions and denials. because it is often revealed as emptiness and absence. this has not automatically produced a feminist theory of male subjectivity and sexuality. Much as the dominant paradigm of feminist film theory raised questions about the male look and the female spectacle. no man can fully symbolize it. it also raised questions about the eroticisation of the male body as erotic object. Such films conventionally oppose the chastity and virginity of white womanhood to the vitality and sexuality of the black woman. Like the masquerade. and how eactly does the male body become the signifier of the phallus? (Screen 1992). He argues that it is difficult to think about whiteness. Hence. While for Dyer this means that images of men do not automatically 'work' for women. entails to be put in a feminine position. On Masculinity While feminists have convincingly exposed Western culture as maledominated. This eerie property of whitenes. scenes and fantasies. Pam Cook's essay 'Masculinity in Crisis' (1982) in a special issue of Screen opened up a new area of investigation: the riddled question of masculinity in the age of feminism.Richard Dyer (1988/1993) is one of the few film critics who has written about whiteness in cinema. Yet. Its closure is the acquired ideal of white womanhood. Most critics agree that the spectatorial look in mainstream cinema is implicitly male. Yet. then. Although the patriarchal male subject has a privileged relation to the phallus. usually the white woman's servant. Because whiteness is constructed as the norm. as such.. and within a heterosexist culture accusations of homosexuality can be launched against him (Neale 1983. In the discussion of masculinity in cinema the issue of homosexual desire was raised (Dyer 1982. the notion of spectacle has such strong feminine connotations that for a male performer to be put on display or to don a mask threatens his very masculinity. where the white. In his reading of Jezebel (1938). he will always fall short of the phallic ideal. Lacan notices this effect in his essay on the meaning of the phallus '. Because the phallus is a symbol and a signifier. it is Hollywood's symptom. it can represent everything. according to Neale the erotic element in looking at the male body has to be repressed and disavowed so as to avoid any implications of male homosexuality. is the source of its representational power. or rather. male homosexuality is always present as an undercurrent. although much of the pleasure of the film lies in the transgression of Jezebel (Bette Davis). The immanent feminization of male spectacle brings about two possible dangers for the posing or performing male: functioning as an object of desire he can easily become the object of ridicule. sexually repressed heroine lives her emotions through the black servant. to be nothing and everything at the same time. the highly ritualized scenes of male struggle which deflect the look away from the male body to the scene of the spectacular fight. Dyer points to the narrative technique of Hollywood colonial movies. Male spectacle. The image of the male body as object of a look is fraught with ambivalences. Neale 1983).. it is unmarked. What if the male body is the object of the female gaze or of another male gaze. Tasker 1993). exposing that ideal to be quite an ordeal. . The denial of the homoeroticism of looking at images of men constantly involves sadomasochistic themes. the curious consequence of making virile display in the human being itself seem feminine' (1977: 291).

Just as Babuscio claims that the emphasis on style. a crisis in which his masculinity is fragmented and denaturalized (Easthope 1986. it also became an available notion for lesbians (see Graham 1995). the terms that have so far been used in feminist film theory to describe male subjectivity and spectatorship. natural. Hysteria was seen as a quintessential female condition. play and parody. camp can be subversive for bringing out the cultural ambiguities and contradictions that usually remain sealed over by dominant ideology. As an oppositional reading. As they point out. for artificiality and performance. In a special issue on 'Male Trouble' of Camera Obscura (1988) the editors Constance Penley and Sharon Willis argue that the great variety of images of contemporary masculinity are organized around hysteria and masochism.Masculinity studies became established in feminist film theory in the 1990s. these two symptomatic formations are a telling displacement of voyeurism and fetishism. Queer Theory Gay studies of masculinity often border on camp readings of the male spectacle (Medhurst 1991b. This characteristic brings camp into the realm of postmodernism which also celebrates ambivalence and heterogeneity. It is significant that in the 1990s the notion of 'camp' is often replaced by the term 'queer'. for example. The signifiers of 'man' and 'manly' seem to have lost all of their meaning. surface and the spectacle results in incongruities between 'what a thing or person is to what it looks like' (1984: 44) . in the words of Susan Jeffords. Yet. Subcultural camp and postmodern theory share a penchant for irony. Both camp and postmodernism denaturalise feminity and masculinity. Jeffords 1994). coherent and dominant (1994). Camp can be seen as an oppositional reading of popular culture which offers identifications and pleasures that dominant culture denies to homosexuals. to Judith Butler's notion of gender signifying performance rather than identity. Butler (1990) asserts that the stress on performativity allows us to see gender as enacting a set of discontinuous if not parodic performances. which makes Hollywood desperate to find a 'few good white men'. Kirkham & Thumin 1993. but with modern technology men were equally subjected to shock and trauma and hence. Tasker 1993. responded with hysteria. Medhurst even provokingly states that 'postmodernism is only heterosexuals catching up with camp' (1991a: 206). Male hysteria and masochism are further explored in books on male subjectivity by Tania Modleski (1991) and Kaja Silverman (1992). This queer alliance between camp and postmodernism has often been noted. the crisis in masculinity is welcomed by gay critics as a liberatory moment. She argues that the disturbing shock effects of early cinema (the roller coaster ride. the speeding train shots) construct a hystericized spectator. In his book on male impersonators Mark Simpson takes great pleasure in celebrating the deconstruction of masculinity as authentic. Lynne Kirby. Thus. It is indeed an easy leap from Babuscio's understanding of camp as signifying performance rather than existence. Simpson 1994). describes male hysteria in early cinema. Most studies of masculinity point to the crisis in which the white male heterosexual subject finds himself. as well as for transgressing conventional meanings of gender. Camp is historically more associated with the closeted homosexuality of the fifties and only came to the surface in the sixties and .

queer readings are fully inflected with irony. stranded in Morocco. Now. signify women's successful struggle for self-representation on the silver screen. the plot illustrates a repeated pattern in which the woman is caught between the desire of two males. This has also been the case for several women filmmakers in Europe. a costume drama by Jane Campion (New Zealand 1994) and Antonia's Line . a fetish. Julie Dash and Ngozi Onwurah. but more self-assertive.seventies. Postmodernism of the eighties and nineties brought campy strategies into the mainstream. That fetish image follows all of the classical definitions of the fetish: anthropological. and cinematic styles and genres. In order to . Women filmmakers have increasingly conquered Hollywood. transgressive gender parody and deconstructed subjectivities. Morocco features Dietrich as the cabaret singer Amy Jolly. black and post-colonial directors: filmmakers as diverse as Monika Treut and Patricia Rozema. Here. and action movies (Kathryn Bigelow). This is illustrated by Dietrich's famous cross-dressing in the beginning of the film. The masquerade signals the absence of man. For Laura Mulvey (1975/1989) too. the fetishised image merely indicates the exclusion and repression of women (1973/1991: 26). like Orlando by Sally Potter (1992) and the Oscar-winning films The Piano . The polyphony of voices. This decade has witnessed the popular success of feminist art films. Claire Johston reads the fetishised image of Amy Jolly as an illustration of the absence of woman as woman in classical cinema. a matriarchal epic by Marleen Gorris (Netherlands 1995). there has been a significant increase in films made by lesbian. Marxist and Freudian. It merely indicates a prolific diversity which resonates with film audiences in this decade of hybridity. such as Margarethe von Trotta (Germany). Conclusion The diversity of contemporary feminist film theory reflects the variegated production of women's cinema of the 1990s. Josef von Sternberg) For many feminist film critics Josef von Sternberg's star vehicle for Marlene Dietrich has been the privileged example of the fetish image of woman in classical cinema. Ann Hui and Clara Law. In a more non-commercial pocket of the market. multiple points of view. the real opposition is male/nonmale. Marlene Dietrich is the ultimate (Freudian) fetish in the cycle of von Sternberg's films. to name just a few. For Johnston the image of woman as a semiotic sign denies the opposition man/woman altogether. Claire Denis (France) and Marion Hensel (Belgium). Not unlike camp. romantic drama (Nora Ephron). Dropping a few names and titles does in no way do justice to the scale of women's cinema of this decade. a spectacle. Dietrich is the image of glamourous eroticism and perfectly chiseled beauty. queerness is associated with the playful self-definition of a homosexuality in nonessentialist terms. and in the many that would follow. lesbians and gay men identify their oppositional reading strategies as 'queer'. Several of them have been able to maintain a consistent production in diverse genres: comedy (Penny Marshal). Morocco (USA 1930. she must choose between wealthy European aristocrat La Bessire (Adolphe Menjou) and Foreign Legionnaire Tom Brown (Gary Cooper). In her first American movie. As usual. Away from the notions of oppression and liberation of earlier gay and lesbian criticism. Woman is a sign.

Dietrich's cross-dressing is counterpointed by the effeminised masculine beauty of Tom Brown. According to Kaplan. in defamiliarising female iconography. A different reading of Morocco is offered by Gaylyn Studlar (1988). The male hero. makes the (female) spectator aware of her construction as fetish (51). does not know or see (22-3). It is in this possible subversion of the male gaze that the female star can manipulate her image. The pleasurable humiliation is increased by the entry of the rival and it is no surprise that he helps Amy to find the man she loves. tuxedoed suitor to Brown. a perfected object of beauty which is satisfying rather than threatening. richer and higher class man by the femme fatale (either a prostitute or a promiscuous woman). says Mulvey.To her the film expresses a masochistic mode of desire. the masquerade subverts the masculine structure of the look. In this respect. Studlar argues that in the masochistic scenarios of von Sternberg's films sex roles and gender identities are confused. Marlene Dietrich's tantalising masculinisation added to her androgynous . at the end of Morocco. La Bessière is the top-hatted. Amy Jolly's repeated rejection and public humiliation of La Bessière points to his masochistic selfabnegation. For Mary Ann Doane (1982/1991: 26) this use of the woman's own body as a disguise points to the masquerade. The erotic image of the fetishised woman is established in direct rapport with the spectator. Masochistic desire thrives on pain and La Bessière is indeed shown to relish the public moments of humiliation. While Amy undermines his symbolic masculinity and social status. this creates a tension in the image which together with Dietrich's slightly ironic stance. For Doane. This excess of femininity is typical of the femme fatale. It is Dietrich who singles Brown out in the night club where she sings and who looks him over with an appraising gaze. which he wears behind his ear. she in turn becomes the top-hatted.disavow the castration anxiety that the female figure evokes. Tom Brown has already disappeared into the desert when Amy Jolly kicks off her gold sandals and walks after him into the Sahara. as a sustained attack on the symbolic father and phallic sexuality. Her awareness of von Sternberg's fascination with her image accounts for a displayed self-consciousness in her performance before the camera. The feminisation of the femme fatale's object of desire is further emphasized by the active female gaze. Studlar reads the exquisite torture of the older. manipulating the men within the film narrative for her own ends. In this kind of 'fetishistic scopophilia' the flawless icon of female beauty stops the flow of action and breaks down the controlling look of the male protagonist. In von Sternberg's films the masochistic subject is represented by a male character. She throws him a flower. too. the self-conscious hyperbolisation of femininity. it is significant that von Sternberg produces the perfect fetish by playing down the illusion of screen depth. Legionnaire Brown. the image of the fetishised woman and the screen space coalesce. tuxedoed suitor to Amy. For example. Studlar argues that Dietrich's active look undermines the notion that the male gaze is always one of control. In the end of the film La Bessière is reduced to the position of a helpless and abandoned child. Kaplan (1983) argues that Marlene Dietrich deliberately uses her body as spectacle. she is turned into a fetish. The fetish object is displayed for the immediate gaze and enjoyment of the male spectator without mediation of the male screen character.

Trinh Minh-ha is a writer and filmmaker whose work challenges First World feminism. the rotting carcasses of animals. difference means essentially division. Her focal point is the postcolonial female subject. For the post-colonial female subject. In the cross-dressing scene. Minh-ha) Reassemblage is the first film by Vietnamese-American filmmaker Trinh Minhha. So how does the film critique the anthropological film. Trinh T. It is a documentary on Senegalese women. The film is definitely an excercise in finding a new language to film the 'Other'. The focus of feminist film theory upon a psychoanalytic understanding of difference as sexual difference has produced a dichotomy that does not allow for any understanding of the complexities of the many differences in which women live. Then she kisses the woman on her lips. elimination. The sound is a-synchronous with . given its subject matter and the traditional way of filming the women with an unobtrusive camera and from a calculated distance? Trinh Minh-ha breaks with tradition by experimenting with sound. She walks down into the audience looking at a woman at a table. Dietrich's star persona allows the lesbian spectator a glimpse of homoerotic enjoyment. dismission or even worse. notably Deleuze's nomadology. However fleeting and transitory such moments may be in classical cinema. singling out the women for close-up attention and concentrating on the rhythms of their daily activities . turns away and hesitates before looking at the woman again. now green. Reassemblage provides the spectator with images of village life. so as to be able to 'live fearlessly with and within difference(s)' (84). then cracked. Within a racialised context. she has used music to create a contest between the image and the sound. Or that the film is a self-reflexive study of the position of the documentary filmmaker. She also relies on post-structuralist philosophies of difference. while her lesbian flirtation and her butch image make the scene even more subversive.shucking corn. In her writing and films. Andrea Weiss (1992) argues that her sexual ambiguity was embraced as a liberating image by lesbian spectators. Repetition of certain shots add to the rhythm of the montage: the albino child clinging to his black mother. Or is it? It may be more correct to say that the film is a poetic impression of the daily life of women living and working in a village in Senegal. Amy Jolly inverts the heterosexual order of seducer and seduced. The film suggests the seasonal cycle in shots of the African earth. It is this kind of cinema that the film defies. takes her flower and gives it to Tom Brown in the audience. washing babies.the woman all women want to see'. Reassemblage is a film that is fully aware of the anthropological tradition in filming difference and its appropriative gaze of the radical Other. She thus combines creative experimentation with theoretical sophistication. Trinh Minh-ha dedicates her words and images to understanding difference. Originally an ethno-musicologist (and still a composer). in order to explore the possibility of positive representations of difference. difference is 'a special Third World women issue' (1989: 80). Amy Jolly performs a French song in a night club. Both in her writing and films she explores questions of identity.appeal. Dietrich's rumoured lesbianism has even been exploited by Paramounts' publicity slogan for the release of Morocco: 'Dietrich . Rumour and gossip had already been shared in the gay subculture as early as in the 1930s. authenticity and difference. She looks over her entire body. as something else than merely 'different-from'. grinding grain.Reassemblage (USA 1982.

Gorris' particular style can still be recognized in many of her 'authorial signatures'. Broken Mirrors (1984). However. Difference is fundamentally incommensurable and that is the source of its strength and fascination. The Last Island (1990) finishes off Gorris' trilogy about male violence at the heart of patriarchy. Antonia's Line breaks away from Gorris' focus on women's oppression and male violence of her earlier films. There is no direct translation possible that makes the radical other accessible or available. In this way the prison. or jarringly edited. She refuses to speak for the other women. about three women who murder the owner of a boutique shop. won many prices on festivals and became a classic feminist hit. Broken Mirrors shows this world as a brothel and in The Last Island a potential paradise turns into a worldly hell because of male violence. and therefore it deals with issues of the gaze in an altogether different context. the film deconstructs mainstream documentary rather than classical Hollywood. abruptly shifting from music. the brothel and the desert island become metaphors for a maledominated society in which women are subjected (see Smelik 1998). This gaze is an 'othering' look: it bestows difference upon the Other. The reception was. Each film is situated in a separate world set apart from normal society. Reassemblage can be seen as an example of the counter-cinema that Claire Johnston and Laura Mulvey advocated. Humm . Marleen Gorris) Marleen Gorris was the first woman director ever to win an Oscar for a feature film: the Academy Award for the best foreign film for Antonia's Line in 1996. Her third film was much less successful. giving different views from different angles'). Trinh Minh-Ha herself speaks the commentary and critically reflects upon her position as filmmaker and upon the anthropological recording method. within the microcosmos of these enclaves power relations between the sexes explode into violence.the images. quite mixed and many established male critics trashed it for its radical feminism. the voice-over is in no way 'the Voice of God' of traditional documentary. She challenges the objectivity of the camera ('The best way to be neutral and objective is to copy reality in detail. but upon conventions of seeing the Other. but the Western gaze that tries to objectify the racial Other. It is through metaphors that Gorris conveys her political message: A Question of Silence presents the Western world as a prison for women. It features the almost utopian history of a matriarchal family within a European country village. however. The images. to silence in the same scene. Moreover. Her first film. Antonia's Line (Netherlands 1995. Trinh Minh-ha suggests in Reassemblage that one can never really 'see' the Other. Yet. In Reassemblage Trinh Minh-ha struggles to find a way of approaching the subject. rather. to voice-over. Her self-reflexively critical voice unsettles not only the subject filmed. she wants to speak nearby the Senegalese. The film challenges the illusionism and the conventions that deliver the impression of reality. an intricate story about a serial killer and prostitution. A Question of Silence (1982). The issues are thus not centered upon visual pleasure and voyeurism. flatly contradicting her ironical commentary in the images that are shown on the screen. This was even more the case with her second film. This is all the more remarkable because she is known as an outspoken feminist filmmaker. the African other. The gaze here is not the male gaze that objectifies the woman. but also the filming subject. which are often strangely framed. also suggest that there is no immediate gaze to the Other.

Antonia takes her to town and mother and daughter choose a good-looking stud for impregnation. It is narrative. Female desire is represented in all of its diverse manifestations: Antonia's wish for independence. where the lesbian. Therèse's pursuit of knowledge. When Antonia is already a respected grandmother she tells the farmer Bas that she will not give him her hand. the film establishes a line of mothers and daughters. and even men. Antonia's Line is a film which reflects de Lauretis' call for a feminist cinema that is 'narrative and Oedipal with a vengeance'. It is Oedipal in the sense that it is about a family. Antonia returns with her daughter Danielle to the village where she was born to take over the family farm. and hence without the voyeurist pleasures of the male gaze. for that matter) is remarkable enough. Her authorship can be situated for example in the genre subversion. They are confronted with sadistic incest and brutal rape. the camera direction. Antonia's Line certainly idealises the productive and reproductive power of the homosexual-maternal community. the unmarried mother. When Danielle expresses her wish for a child without a husband. Therse's female teacher Lara. Upon her mother's death after the war. The most moving moments of the film are. It is Antonia's wilful strength that enables women's autonomy for generations to come. on her conditions. mother and child. the lonely and the weak. As their desires are at odds with patriarchy. However. The establishment of a female geneaology without fathers (or sons. In its exploration of the epic genre. the scenes in which the women explore sexual desire. The film's politics lies furthermore in the representation of what Silverman would call the homosexual-maternal fantasmatic. the mentally handicapped.mathematics. but without a male hero. but instead of featuring the triangle of father. This is matched by different kind of female desires. It is an inclusive community of family and friends that transcends class. But together they find the strength to . It is within the embrace of mutual love between mothers and daughters that the women can ruthlessly pursue their own desires. subtle lesbian inflections in the story and biblical references. who turns out to be a prodigy and a genius. age and religion. becomes mother of the red-haired Sarah.is eroticised in the film. Therèse. she sees the object of her desire in her mind's eye as the Venus of Botticelli. in her turn. the representation of silence as woman's voice.(1997) therefore argues that Gorris should be viewed as a feminist auteur. The film opens with the old Antonia telling her great-granddaughter Sarah that today she will die. because her life has been long and good and it is time to go. the importance of female friendships. the film cuts to branches of cherry blossom blowing in the wind. like their friend Letta who wishes to procreate and produces thirteen children. The life of the mind . the film tells the story of Antonia's line. this idealisation does not mean that the women are immune to the violence of the world outside. however. they have to fight the bigotry of the village people and especially of the church. philosophy . but that she is willing to give him her body. In that sense Antonia's family is truly matriarchal. Danielle gives birth to daughter Therèse. can find refuge. music. and Sarah's curiosity about life in general. When Danielle meets the love of her life. Danielle's quest for artistic creativity. After their first sexual encounter. The film thus creates an unexpected link between an older woman's sexuality and the fertility of spring.

in Patricia Erens (ed.  Flitterman-Lewis. London: Routledge. (1988)The Matter of Images. Gender Trouble. Queer Looks. revised edition New York: Zoetrope 1984: 40-57. Issues in Feminist Film Criticism Bloomington: Indiana University Press.  Butler.  Dyer. Richard. reprinted in Femmes Fatales. 1995. in Diane Hamer & Belinda Budge (eds.  Dyer. Studies on Lesbian and Gay Film. New York: Columbia University Press. 1990. 1993: 141-163.). New York and London: Routledge. Janet and Doane. The Woman's Film of the 1940s. Elizabeth. P. What A Man's Gotta Do. Sandy. . Parmar (eds).  Easthope. Men. London and New York: Routledge. 1987. 1990. 1992. Special Issue 'The Spectatrix'..  Gever. The Good.  Chapman. Angela. Camera Obscura. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Bibliography  Babuscio. Richard.  Cook. Popular Culture's Romance with Lesbianism. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Film and Video. that is revealed in the last scene as Sarah's voice. Mary Ann (eds). the Bad and the  Gorgeous. 1988. 'Don't Look Now: The Male Pin-Up'. The Masculine Myth in Popular Culture. J. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1989. 1990: 183-196..  Clover. 'Camp and the Gay Sensibility' in Richard Dyer (ed. within the symbolic. 1993. Anthony. Richard.  Feminism. R. New York and London: Routledge. Jacqueline. 'Feminist Spectators and Personal Best'. Male Order. The voiceover brings once more the female fantasmatic firmly within language and history. The Desire to Desire. A Journal of Feminism and Film Theory. London: Paladin. 'White'. 'Film and the Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator'. and Chain Saws. Carol. 1990. 1986. that is.  Dyer.  Ellsworth. 'Basic Instinct: Damning Dykes'. Mary Ann. J.  Bergstrom.survive and to punish the culpable men. London: British Film Institute Publishing. It is a poetic voice that recounts the passing of time and the cycle of life and death. Feminism and the French Cinema. 1982: 61-73. Psychoanalysis.  Bobo. Greyson. To Desire Differently. Gender in the Modern Horror Film. and Rutherford. M.). 1991: 17-32. New York and London: Routledge. (eds). One of the distinctive features of the film is the use of a disembodied female voice. Mary Ann. 20-21. Gays & Film 1977. Jack. in Screen 29 (4). London: Pandora. Film Theory. Essays on Representations. Women. (1982). 'Masculinity in Crisis' in Screen 23 (3-4).  Gaines. 1994: 218-231.  Doane. 1982: 39-46. Judith.  Galvin. 'White Privilege and Looking Relations: Race and Gender in Feminist Film Theory'. Black Women as Cultural Readers. Now You See It. 1988: 12-27. Jane.  Doane. Unwrapping Masculinity. in Screen 23 (3-4).).

and Fiction. 'Film and the Visible'. J. and Thumin. 1988: 155-177. You Tarzan. Grayson. Gorsen (eds). P. (1982). Maggie. Notes on Women's Cinema. Paula. Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era. The Politics of the Realist. 'Male Hysteria and Early Cinema' in Camera Obscura 17. Teresa de. Teresa de. 1984. in Theatre Journal 40 (2). How Do I Look? Queer Film and Video. 'Women's Cinema as Counter-Cinema'. Edinburgh pamplet on Jacques Tourneur. in G. Humm. revised edition 1994. bell. Gertrud. 1980: 15-29. Haskell. 'Girl's Camp? The Politics of Parody'. Masculinity. Band I. 1983. Women's Pictures. Essays on Theory. Joy. Claire. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.All I Want is to Show My Video'. Feminism and Film. New York and London: Methuen. 1994. Deborah. 1975. 1995. Koch. Lauretis. Jump Cut. Grayson. Teresa de. Feminism and Cinema. Spectatorship. Boston: South End Press. (1973) SEFT. 1995: 13-30. London etc: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Johnston. 'Warum Frauen ins MŠnnerkino gehen'. Special Issue `Lesbians and Film'.Camera Obscura 36. hooks. 1988: 113-131. London: Harvard University Press. Semiotics. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. in Frauen in der Kunst. Sander and P. Hansen. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Susan. Glasgow: Screen Reprint. Miriam. Kuhn. Juhasz. The Treatment of Women in the Movies. 'Femininity and the Masquerade: Anne of the Indies. James. 1992. orig. 1991. Lauretis. and Visual Culture'. special issue on 'Black Women. in Tamsin Wilton (ed). Babel and Babylon. H. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Feminism. Alexandra. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Teresa de. 1981. 24/25. 1995: 163-181. Annette. Race and Representation. Washington: Bay Press. Feminist Documentary'. Film. Movies and Men. Women and Film. 'Is it Fake? Black Women's Hair as Spectacle and Spec(tac)ular' in Camera Obscura 36. Lauretis. Johnston. E. 1997. 1993. Kaplan. Ann. 1995: 33-47. 1973). Nabakowski. Both Sides of the Camera. Lesbians and the Moving Image. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Cinema. Spectatorship in American Silent Film. Immortal. Kirkham. 1991: 223-264. (eds). 'Black Femmes Fatales and Sexual Abuse in Progressive 'White' Cinema' in Camera Obscura 36. 1987 (revised edition. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Black Looks. From Reverence to Rape. Lynn. 1991: 2431. Claire.                      Graham. Lauretis. 1994: 171-190. Invisible. 'Sexual Indifference and Lesbian Representation'. Technologies of Gender. Alice Doesn't. Hard Bodies. Kirby. Deborah (ed). Molly. in Bad Object-Choices (eds). Jeffords. in Screen 35: 2. London & New York: Routledge. ''They Said We Were Trying to Show Reality . 1987. .

Tania. Laura.'From Repressive Tolerance to Erotic Liberation: Maedchen in Uniform'. The Woman at the Keyhole. New York and London: Methuen. Reiter (ed). Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship. The Women Who Knew Too Much. New York: Avon. Mayne. 1988. London: Cassell. 'Desperately Seeking Difference'. Rich. Essays in Feminist Film Criticism . Silverman. Judith.                      Lauretis. 1994. special issue 'Male Trouble'. 1991. Deviance and Camp'. New York: Routledge. ---. M. Simpson. Ruby. Rubin. Feminism and Women's Cinema.Visual And Other Pleasures. Stacey. London: Macmillan. Rosen. 'The Traffic in Women: Notes on the `Political Economy' of Sex'. reprinted in Mary Ann Doane et al. London: Macmillan. 1973. homosexuality and authorship' in Screen 32: 2.. 'Masculinity As Spectacle'. And the Mirror Cracked. Kaja. Constance and Sharon Willis (eds) Camera Obscura 17. 1989: 14-26. Culture and Criticism in a "Postfeminist" Age. Women. Andy. 'Batman. 1993. Stacey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (1981). Lesbian Sexuality and Perverse Desire. 1988. New York and London: Routledge. 'That special thrill: Brief Encounter. New York and London: Routledge.1988. Modleski. 1990. Jackie. in Screen 28 (1) 1987: 48-61. Tania. Mark. Kaja. London: BFI Publishing. Modleski. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Shelton. Judith. Male Subjectivity at the Margins.R. 1983: 2-16. Steve. 'Whitney is Every Woman?: Cultural Politics and the Pop Star'. Merck. Los Angeles: American Film Institute & University Publications of America. 'Afterthoughts on "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema". Mulvey. Feminist Cinema and Film Theory. Feminism Without Women. Toward an Anthropology of Women. Gayle. Popcorn Venus. The Acoustic Mirror. in R. 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' (1975). Men Performing Masculinity. Re-vision. Mulvey. Anneke. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1993. Neale. 1992. in Roberta E. Critical Approaches to a Superhero and his Media. The Practice of Love. Marla. Teresa de. London: Virago. Penley. Mayne. Hitchcock and Feminist Theory. Mandy. 1991b: 149-163. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Screen 24 (6). Male Impersonators. Deviant Readings. inspired by King Vidor's Duel in the Sun' (1981). Movies and the American Dream. Perversions. 1994. in Camera Obscura 36. Laura. The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema. 1995: 135-153. 1998. 1989: 29-37. Jackie. 1994. Silverman. London and New York: Routledge.Visual And Other Pleasures. Smelik. London: Macmillan. 1984: 100-130. Medhurst. 1975: 157-210. Pearson & William Uricchio (eds. 1991a: 197-208. The Many Lives of the Batman. .. Star Gazing.). Directed by Dorothy Arzner.

1988. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Useful anthologies are:  Carson. 1995: 92-114. pp 353-365. Trinh. Welsch (eds). Yvonne.  Studlar. Invisible. Native. Lesbians and the Moving Image. Von Sternberg. Linda Dittmar. `Race'.  Weiss. second edition. Lesbians in the Cinema. 'Personal Best': Women in Love' in Charlotte Brunsdon (ed. New York: Routledge. Minh-ha. New York and London: Routledge. 1988. and Janice R. Dietrich. in Diana Fuss (ed).  White. Inside/Out. 1996. 1989. London: Jonathan Cape. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Andrea. Genre and the Action Cinema. London: BFI Pubishing.) Feminism and Film Theory. Patricia. Lola. Fear of the Dark. London: BFI. Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism. Jackie.). This article is published in Pam Cook and Mieke Bernink. Woman. 'If You Don't Play You Can't Win': Desert Hearts and the Lesbian Romance Film' in Tamsin Wilton (ed. Gaylyn. Immortal. Spectacular Bodies.  Young. London: British Film Institute. 1994. the Netherlands. Gay Theories. Other. (eds). 1991: 142-172. and the Masochistic Aesthetic. Patricia (ed).  Williams.). 1992. London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1999. Anneke Smelik is Assistant Professor in Film Studies at the University of Nijmegen. Constance (ed. Diane. London and New York: Routledge. The Cinema Book. Issues in Feminist Film Criticiscm. In the Realm of Pleasure. Lesbian Specter: The Haunting'. `Female Spectator. 1990. Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism.Stacey. Gender and Sexuality in the Cinema. Lesbian Theories. Linda. Vampires and Violets. 1993.  Penley. Gender. London & New York: Routledge.  . 1986: 146-154. Films for Women.  Tasker. London and New York. New York: Columbia University Press.  Erens.

089.997.944.302.3/.82147..7814708-.302. 89:.9..943 %0102..40:782 3/.9.- .7-43":0037893.94785. /3./341.9908.947839097908 850.3088.0444/89. .80 /0391.8489.04 8:08989.9 .3/3857.08-.9..550.9 /.3 850.3 .839008-.:880890 ../110703...753 -.382897:38897433247070.9433444/1284108-..9434:98/0.943 3%02.7099 &$ 07002-7.908083030.900894.078 ..312$0:890$003%38 &$  80090 /8.79.3824190102.38:-0..078 .:8843841850..3/ 42480:.0-003.80/ %0.078 .3/08-.343 .4:397..9 -:9914.90/08-.3850..9408 &$ 8430419480128.9.03943. 147 0.9.054390/4:99.880749.03/07 3 -09003.43974.0-://128  70/7003%42.3 08-.3850.0/.78.3122.943-09003904203.-:99./3841444/.9071703/859:.07074909012- 2.7..9.33908947.9.:7098.3/5..88:.-4:9102.5488-0424 0749.42-3.990 34....92.0/7070. &$ .9.83.82 %0819..:/03.41102.8.:/03.3/4:80 &$ 9008-.:88431443/0.425430398307/087344 0.79..3/7434:8.7.:/005.0709.33.  .:9:7.250 /8.997.0.0 1703/853.3043/.3.944 .947.3..03/075489438  09080/8.0 .4 &$  709.990 08-.12  %090204108-.550.4..:7098 .72.3 .3394.8 %83..98. 90.99074190801288.307 444/128419033.3.943417.07.58.3.3/841.4/ 9.3/.3/08-.24708947.08-.08 0.3..:/0900907403094190850.9.04180:.8241.0/1473499.418439.20920/03913990 42.03090/423...0 %0424 0749.250419025.8 850.  71703/8 &$ 3 842012890102.7941.9:70808-.9078.030841/033.8.0749.7.3850.041 897039..9.8708:90/3..908-.0-://08 40..2.308-..0.43..9073005-:733$.884.8543941 /0391.908-.-4:990 ....092.94785.32.38:385403 .9478:80 39075709.94341444/89.2-:9 %089.4380/ 088  1470..79.:/03.9478.4242084158.039102.3/07.8841.94785.7030097.059.3893.33.#0/7.84:7.07 -0.:884384108-.041.3474.79..4203390..339039 3:.9.17429070897.041.382702.0 %0.9..8.40.94786:9009403. '.94:98.79.425./943../07 24. &$ .0/.0203931289:/08943.0-://12 347/0794.943":007448 0.08  -0.343 850..089 &$ $0.0 0754398 34994/0 0749.0 1703/854190940743088349 9.594907/0.0897...9394907.94785../110703903/3 077080.80/0870 -:99444147.880:.4204.4390920 4/..3/ 4180:.122...2.9 &$  10.88439024:9 :89-01470900.92.7.3/-80:.3970..705. 08-..  907 1285:9.-803..85.//70880890.0850.3829/0.0 %088:041-..3/.-094.3850.8.82100/839497.3/14:3/9.8.3/743807. 70.79.3/!07843.2.33901..8.:80980749.:808247043. $.3  8:08989. &$  .370854380894 9012.3/08-. 8479  3.4.28  .7/-0037..990102.8 3/00/-003/070.0/.0841.9.102389 129047 .83.343-00570880/3.0039007430 8.2:89..9.39.  .943 2489/8.

3742..823907284190903843-09003549.3 072./94341./.39/ 24:7 $43414.92:89-02039430/398..9.3.3.3/08-.420034724:8545:.8.: $0/:.3/ 08909.370.3122.2  438/07070.380:..039438.943907:042.403.3/08-.0  543984:9 9012 6:908:75783 .4.990.08-..80/14790770.894/.831:03.898479841 072.9478./3841444/128.84304190178912894-73 102.-4:9902890741 42.08:./42.102339.77.80/.0  34907122.943-0900380:..3-84:90#:07 072.79.39.3.3974039080 05072039.82.97041 '071Q7:3/07.943418.39 1.033&31472 783&31472 072.82 090128.41 434..03.84.078 07  /8..3/50.42.94341.712841:7450.3/ 08-.079.943 415407.07%02.829:730/94 1282..4.88.-4411.439098&70 99307  4801.302.99070300/549.796:08410907480:.947.3/.. %.0 .3 1283900908 .90/99808-./.3.7941..430-:985.8.79.3 897:.325479.8./.38:-0.808.20 030.0-00370.200:/09 %0$2320 0:/09 7.3/90072.070/ 8:.3.4330..70.250-014:3/3908.415407..8.50.088 8.3/ 507.943.078080:.07..3/08-.9:708.9 99072./0-08-.3 08  .3  -108.00-7.390.9.3/43.389.83491440/-4907 .39070893 507.3  0.82419012 07.3 7.89549.33.557457.3930.3122.8-0. 07128.3073  /.807 7.070 70/8..8-0.798 &$  . 705708039.79.08:39 94/.1281742.078 0908:770.8:708  49078944.3/08..43909 4102.3/.3.38:-.85.0470.0890123908947.7998.99390/42./3419012 80749.302.3/.3128 03432.984884204190..:9479.943410749./943 79:.0 080790....073 .$4:7.90208 8420850.40:789.3/08-.3/0/901214798 455708843 41.4:..9089904308-.90342..3/80:.:9:70 0850.8.82./0-.3 :2474:8/0.4708-.30309 85784312&3.80.. 072.30:.070572..39..0 8 .8.3/5407  %05.8082:7/07307-:41.0.3893.:8-.53174207-4:70482.908 90 43104   %080128.0/.9:70.3//0870.3.0 $9.033&314728 3907.033&31472/40834989.:/03.39.9.31470..7:089. 80007 088  907 1280702.38.../0.5.3  #..8.705708843 #.-84:900778.390.74:8 70854380841102389.0 7.3 944.07/110703917429008-.-7.46:0090072..203 ..7:089...3415407.20 .. 0309086:0 97.999:/09490 8.207.7.8/.8:70  08420.128 3.84.0 054808 0/5.3 %0$0.8 08-. 20347070/89:7-0/-98 42454-. 7.0 1.00-7.0-003 .3/.97.80/0547..997.2.79.08410254070/4203408..3/4:80.79..3/.90/902 .0 .3908-.841/.7.79.8.39020.31.3/98897:0.:8808 9012 80749./.2./0 :8041444/.84.70..420909020418420.43.3//0870.90845030/.39.9.0/0870.3/8947.3/147907 0549.823 90728419084.43897:..7705708039../943./.  .122./42.3/ .3/.3/.%70:9 %81472..33/0503/03910.0780.:8.2470507288.:/.5090.94341897434203.

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

#..7/07 .

.8 7.01:3.443.9 .990850.4390 20.042480:.089.:809030888 ..77.91902...0793 %8007057450794190308 94-03493.47/3940.0-4/-0.8.3 90:2.3.305480/089073../0 903494341850.9.94389.9.9..0 8:-0.8.39...244 8088.44817.94341902...:393.344/ ..0 850.0 0.3 :8:.302.-4:9903088  -0.8.9908.03.3/80:.08980110.92.909042.04198705708039./2411023891290477.36:041444/ .0308.302..9 09 2..5407 38 70.00/70.2-.94190102.7003  390/8..6:70/ /0.0 9079:.8.:3. 9..30391023./0870.9 !.0.38970.825.0 489.8.0841203.894-05:93.387088434100-0 0990.7009.43.24.97.41 904240749..92.3 -0..9.89.94190 -.0897:0.8..80/6:089438.30781479054834750714723 2.042480:.9.0.802593088.0850.4389.8-0..8./4 2.90/.419042.088.393.3/.389.:8843412.3/93..3 8807.3:3/07.88:041$.8903472 98:32. 843041901012.0 9.84.3/.94384142480:.8 0902.894-070570880/.80749.3/./010.:0 .0-4/8904-0.:39390.8.9902.4/.302.0850.-4:9902.0308412.0-738. 0.9433.4-0.9.39 5.0-4/.3//03.890/423.3.719  %02.89743102330.08 0709090 80:./34100-0  075439894903.807.050714720794-05:943 /85.3341905.08:-0. 47 1474203 .9147.947.9438412.43897:...:942.443 2.128.:.9..30.8 1.:9:70.:74:8.2..31:82-409 94:90 5..938088.0412.808 03.3./0.3/80:..3 47/0.70/85.40/84.90/ 98.9.0/ 8.  3.0-4/94 908.43806:03.7.9.0/.3/ 0.85708039.090748089. .044.0 /423.574/:.3/90 102.20920 89084:7.45548090 ..82.9.-4:9 9030883.072..-4:9900749.8 054839.4794/43.39 $:.8.9.041902..9.79.9/0..8 94..98 .:8.43349..325.0 -4/.34-0.42.90208 8.0 %.94-06:90.0/.943907//0/ 6:08943412.941/08700.041102382 :.:80905.9/408902.0304190850.8349.8241443.88:.48:70890.739419042..998/11.943.08 41203/4349.82-4.344/9490.92.2.0/.0 4741.:393788   3.2.3-0398018002102330   .30.0.:8 90.42090 8310741905.70/ 09 477.102330548943 %022.70570880/07430.413.99044.:8 $.0900749.700345030/:5.80/ 07 0.70.349072.:7703998444/ 8825942 %0/03.9.:9:70.:99.90388..3/1.08  7057088438.3892 0.43.0-4/.941 7/.0..0.0807 0249438974:90-.1023899047412..:99493.80/6:089438..86:07.807  .84-0.:80984190370.420904-0. 0020393443.94394905.94:2:.847.941.57.879903.79.3349.0 0147079820...0793.03943.8970.0.-4:9945488-0/. 850.:8 0.9.3 7057080390.7.7:089.907 . .39 98.0 903  039.4.899.9088:04142480:.090.8 8:..3//8.:39 01023898.83107 342.8.84.1742902..-803.:8 8.3/40.943412.2.8:70419012083 9097.:942.847941905.:39 0.9.419050.

7883.9.3.-80/3102389129047390 8 3 .2-:908.399.25 841903705.250 /08.8:7089..411078/0391..9:8:.0/850. -8.9438.89:/08412.4/08  .3. 70.84..74/ 147..$25843 .08:-0.43902547..20.82..93..:9039.8.40:782.39/044  %8.3   48989:/08412.43897:.302.0 0907480:.3/548924/07382/03.:3941903-47/0743./341545:.4393:4:81349 5..814797.00-7.$.9..2470.07-/423.0. $0.79.9089.08444//08507..-738.9478.. 8:-0.0841.7.908.0%74:-0 41..43.0/-90 9072 6:007 . 907407.:398 17.43897:.07.7./.0708:9833.4389.701:790705470/3-448432.00-7.30.:3954399490.:3989:/08-0.302.8807989.08:-0.9:7..3384103/07  %86:007.0870...0 2507843.07.70.-03494314708-.25  .3//423.8:-0.289.72.884.0841 .3 .253949070.03574.9390 8903494341 ..9.7047.:39.9.702.9438.2570.7438.791.841903-0033490/  0/:7890.3//03.947242039 38-44432.9./3841902.3 800294.3..39147743 5.8.3870883.0147-7334:990.9.0 489.0 850.25.0203941 .3/109882 90907289.84-0.80701147/8 %083107841 2.0110.3/5.48090/ 42480:.7:089. .84 .3/548924/073 90478.33 .9.8.3/ 90850..3.709412.80.:39  98831.4190720.8907.4.0 8907..3/090740309 $:-.43/943 -:9924/07390.990025...70.3/2.99070.39.9:7.9.8.20.420/-..03..947 8907.7:09.0!030..0...38498 .25..30..0..8 .0 94:/9:907 8349434103/0783135071472.078.03908908.7$258439.8.9 548924/073828430907480:.78832.89077/0 908500/3 97.25....407039.3:59.8.994480    :907  .2 49...88:043 ..894507.3/ .25.3/ .3.9390 /0.3/0399 :89.3/548924/07382.3-08003.88003.3/341.8.1472.:39 80.9.  900/9478 4389.9..9.0 . 6:39088039.25.9.30/.9/423.0 708543/0/98907.  983/00/.:9:70.2 %:23 %...301147/8 09 90.38 8007.909413/.:7.8.03943.:2. 10 44/90203 39047/841$:8.3/ 2.3/..51742 .3/ 2./3 .8.20089..7.98410..3/03.7.90789.:39.99089708843 5071472..2-...8843890 8:71.072.:9:7..84.2.7-082..3/2.503.-:8..8010239.3-08:-.8.380.94389.7-003:80/310238912 904794/08.9- %.3/850.3..9079..90/990.9:7.82 8 9054394:9 908094825942.7883.0-09003.4.3/ 5071472.8..34420307006:.0/ .102.7-02.70.9.990 /89:7-384.20390/.3/43.345548943.9419011908.4397.8 8. .437:908-09003 .9..3/$.241548924/07382.94785 3307- 147 0.4 8:3/0789.3.90902. 3..913/82801 .08 %:8 9..8.08907.8:703.82.950.48:89480003/07.74:3/8907.-07.850.2094908:71.8.3 45548943.2588947.80941/8.74/.5071472.0 0/:789.943412.80.9.883135071472.3.9.39   ":007%047 .803.207.:9:70/03089442480:.3/ 50.90/9484.-:8.3 08903..903/85.8.9347507843894 .25.0/4.3/97.:9:7.907 9.

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

3.42.0.4554894382.9409079070.

86:07.343 2.0 %88:897. 81.24:8./083.390109880/2.7488 /70883390-0333 419012 %02.0412..:843.908900.0 20703/.90/-097.890.-803.3/705708843414203 .

0 .   47.:7.:.

.43$9073-07 8128 347/0794 .041.890:92.90 70:/.7030097.3 1098390. 944 .

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

987057080390/-.843041.7:089.3/03/07/039908./0 8:-.907 24 87050.9097.:2. 98:80419042.0/94 9054894341.08.0 .93902.7  $9:/.0.43$9073-07 812890 2.3/.943.3 .088G7083/00/ 84394708905:-.3/5.:39.48411070/-.80/-90.00.770.05088.89.48308 7434:939039.044:3/07230890349439. 89.801 .783102. 8.8.//0/9407.0 98097.78-03/80.0 474.9.89.08435.9:8 8039:73-0.08841 102339895.8:7.43974  ./087097../090801 .2./89006:8909479:70 41904/07 7.70743 $9:/.4:8507-48.3/07.:30 -0.9:70419044 3/01..832.079.8.70.7  %40790 1205708808.99..088G70890945 .8:89.9 39003/419012.8.:-07080838.4190102201.439082-4. 1./  $9:/.3/430/.:38.8./341474.84.57428.:4:842.943 %050.-.907.90058294 13/902.94341102339 %80.:30897:.0102.84.3$9:/..990/  9:0/40/8:947942 02:3/072308882-4.1407 .242039841:2./8:80543989490 2.43$9073-07 812880 7408..431:80/ .80/-90039741907.0 $097482.83.4:390754390/-9001102380/2.7.89.9..990/ 9:0/40/8:94794743  097.86:07.943.0. 8.74841.80:.9.39.0 .07.9434190102201.9.89.94341.557.7030097.3-90102201.7488 /708838.7:089.3 843-4/.30/.0798902.-0:2..3804.3/ 84.8.-30.943 .8..3 .84.088G70543989482.8.03..882.90/ 700.4347.84.70.86:07.3.3/444824.9.08 0433.3/.5  /110703970.3/7434:8 .89.943 83.088G70870/:.3/98348:757809.941/0870 81:7907025.84.89. 574899:9047.30 944 902.0 84-0.0 0907.2.7.420890945 ..:941%42743 %010238...24/041/0870 3.2..7.8:-0.9902.3/5:-.2.438.

4.4942 9.880:..7.843.7907.. 83..4770.7.0/ .981:.005072039.943 307793.041907.0/ #050994341.24:398 5:-.3/4885.9.:2039.8802-. :3/0789.4254807 80.-70.7434:89 .7:089.3//110703.9080747/8.550.3/1742.80.943841/110703.0 47 905489 .743$030.:/03.314790700.020.24907 9074993 .932.480 :5.3 /110703.0 40.-094 .90.0908.9 /110703.:.8802-.0941290 907  %733 .9.0397.8:80/2:8..0443.8.943  #0.07.  79.3/ .0-08-.79 347003 903.5409.08 ..2080 207..0342039 #0.9948..0710093.0324708:-.70.257088434190/.102.0841..207.32070 /1107039 1742  $09:8.38 088039.0574.473 73/3 7.3.07..0300.8041474.8:-.9439904709..-34.2580414240749.33948-.3 0.0 705708039.079.3179.80313/3.08994%42743390.- 00:0 8342...0 243.8997.12  .97.2-:9. 907 98983/ 41.3/ 128 %733 .3 0934 2:8.42-308.0 89:/41905489434190/4.7122.9..3.0 93.3/089.07%733 .08.70.03$030.3:3/0789..894-0.090.0 8   $0.0/ 00708-.3/4733.9907. 097.//9490 79241902439.129. 889..-07...3.38498.83-.010.:841102389129047:543.382.0384984190 17. .3/122.80.8 $44/4089012./44 347/079405470905488-9415489.302..010 8334:9904203147.90780:.08071407.9:7../943-050720393984:3/  73..2.32.  #0..0 &$  %73% 3 .850.4 097.3/93/110703.0./943.:/03..3/80/:.7./0890850.389478:.3/341/110703.9.947./4.3/9084:3/ %084:3/8.7.07 %0128/01390.030878947/ 102382 0714.3430758 9.4489 ./.9 84.7488 /708838..43909 /110703.08:-0.102.3/2..4147..302.908 8:..083.:9039.9.411239042039./..3/128800547086:08943841/0399 ..7./.3.0./.070703970-4/ 9:738. 24203982.034780 023.88420930809.443.843 /828843470.08:-0.30.0748047./ -0038.-08 %0128:08989080.9479 2.078.92.3 %038088089042.3974544..94.0 2. 8 7:24:70/08-.3850.3/98...990128.3/ .8574/:.0894:3/0789...42.80/.557457.9..0.425090841902.0 %733 .-0  $04484.3/9097.3.0804203  78992.3/97.90//89.58.9903943..8802-.70889.89548450841/110703..:- $0.3:.0798900907480:.990 42.796:090./.03-00305490/-!.4203.8390 8 097.43.9.9/408349.934390792841907/. 39.7507843.088  .0.8433.3/07-:9./110703.0/.9. 98.3/34190.99012/0108 #0.3/3 /110703.3.70..443.4890 08-.3974544./0/.03988:-0.0 84.0.-03..0890178912-'093.943.-02470 ...8/4339490.908-01470443. 47/074180/:. 9042.439089-09003902.70/390.%7/47/4203 88:0   %014.801 7010.3994 800 390..9 49307793 .10414203 ./9433 123/110703.:9:70.9.704190.880841.88.3850.3 .4203.:2039.0 349.990128..54398905489.8802-..847008435489 897:.9.9. 3/70.9478 #:24:7.0.8.3.30.3 :34-97:8.802-7.3122.0..9.3/89.9.703.84589.030 2450714728.

..898.549039.1023899 %070.05943.90/ %012..030890:84382 .709:8349.848:0899.0 398.9430.9900./809:738 394.7147.. .82:.47/0-0. 90'4...444/ ..2088. 800 90 907 %070834/70.0570803989008907347/.43/12 740377478  .3089.089.2.9438-09003908008054/0394.91907.-4:96:0845 432.70 438943.79.97.50. 7010.9:708 :22 .422039..:7.34107 .0.-0-0.3/90/080798.2489:945.7.3894741.07 6:90 20/.2/4.70034778.03943841800390 907 %733 .:2039.2039.-7:59819317422:8. 897:089413/.39894850.041070.3/4-0.90/ 800$20  3943.078334..708:-0.3 8./.38970.09.3/ 907014709/0./.8:08983#0.-80/2.08..73 902.93/09.79.8090780.97..94-0.0807549.0.8:70.79415. 0888:.:8434203 8455708843.8988:084190.080 07801 7010. 830 0907.9:70890.0.9 40.-4:92..79./943.3.0:380990834943908:-0. 805.3..43..70034778  .9.3/574899:943 0797/12. 830-70.9. %0-089 .0790257088434170.890.0 4. /4.4.088-047.08 .88.10.403.7 %733 .-4:9.7917423472.0 .20 8..3/  138084114778 974.47/32094/ $0..308 1. 94.4.7003 3#0.330.0  ..030 4704.3/8 .890178942.0843 1089.8802-..9307743.420209.8.:.90.9.403.3-08003.3.20. 2.908947. 8303  %88.3974544.940907/1107039.8.0.08 ..9:70 1290.91089042.0%733 .7.98:54307548943.4:3907 . 9057843 90-7490.5574.. 907 %8.0.989084:7.943 3943.30.:7450.898.34:985403 102389122.04198 897039.207.3/ 2./.4.09.43909  %0.0 09 4778 5./..08907.90/3.0308904-0.7/14790-08914703121473943.707128 910...  98974:209.00708349902.578431474203740377478 8489847/.3 49073  449-08948/110703.3/.3/9.0993902.74.3 -:990 089073.982.7.8.8.1.9470.3017.7041903897.54789.907 80.357.3/:54390.43897:.80.92.:80412.8:.07 9012 /0.7730/90/ .88.0.0 /423.07 07178912 ":0894341$03.0":08943 41$03.7..8 40.081742/1107039.902470702.3.3/-0.83.3908:-0.94778..3/.43.3/90.7084343908.84.99708944-0.84901238:-0.5.0.0770.3/2.34907 $0 701:80894850.389-070.7.9.-0.9  #0.293..422038:7.3/-0.902.4203..9 9017.4:397./02.-4:99700 420342:7/0790430741.3/1..90/84..5478147. 4907.07.08540770.07 94803.102382  %8.0394389.8.79.0:54390 907 %088:08.12889:.20/  47..897.03247090.3/1107039 .07801850..430/32.80/9147987.422039..9435488-09.41...403.9.09490 907  110703.0 .94-030:97.30...48248419080 03. 70..07 90.-7490..43.-0 %02.093.09.07.039070/ :543..807.17424778 14.7.9 120/ -:9..:80808343..081:3/..03908.3/.0.0894.7 890.8802-.3/3%0.302.8802-.3/70.9079.4.0414/ 4197.:947.:.2504190..9/0.1479049074203 7..07943..7-90 $030.403.03.0881: %0.8.99070834220/.38.3/.9047/809.9.77.8122.3 397.:2039.4397..997.0 4.40:782 -:9:543.8.5.4570.94190..3.

0207.30411.3/0850.9./94:9.998.3/$.39.770/24907 90430.9030770.3/.70.9 2.25039003708:-. 2.70.. %01041 9023/ 2.70.:800710..98/0.80/39012 %88 2.9 $.70 40.324203984190 12.2.0941990-4974190.07 908.00/.:7.9.0/-/11070393/41102.9808394.43/9438 1907907178980:. 2.890'03:841499.97.07 98/0.-4:91030307.9 7.12.094:990.3009490.9042030547080:.3/2490780908901.:907.3.94341803..0370 901290890894741 3943..102389..9:7390 97.0074 .077-48842-433903/ %0129:8.4198/.0.-808.03. %012 8549.39. 989390 02-7.089.147.980349.41 90.44/ 443 89:/14725703.7.0 983...07843 90 .34/0742.07802.:9078 %012450389904/3943.7.9. 81.0 -:994:9.7010. 2. 90701470..-4:9.90/1470.94107/087030723/ 800.31089.4480.0207-4/ 4307.903../703 %0248924.:94785. ..:94342147 0307.090.7.  %0089.03083.0-09003249078..054074190 42480:.420  02.8.2 1./0870  03.7989.04.3//.994/.0412:9:.3/-7:9.9477884:/-0.4808 94574. 8 81473/0503/03.9.8:70841902.94383908947.50 :99409079013/9089703994 .03203 .30020098904.9.041102.80890574/:. 830 &5430724907 8/0.907 24907.102389.574/.43174390/ 98.3/24907.:7489..38.98 3.3/.4.943894.709:738907 /./.1.3//.3.7 3943.207.3/.3.0 90 25479. 80 8008904-0.3 90 2039.0. 54845 80749.07901..9.9.80/0 -0.08979003.3//.8.9 %07G80 8 5:78:941340/0 ./70.3/900.422:39 98.-0034: 39.9042480:.9803803943.77.3/03.3/70574/:.943 90705708039./89.3310.302.0419047/4:98/0 %0.9073.-084203 8.88 .842. 90.9.3/7043 0709008-.3:3050.7022:309490.3041249078.908.3/0.0.7.9078 478438 1479..7:089.70/$.:907 $..300 86:089147.-8203941.94341.30005708808078147.3/574/:.902. 9.3 880:.:90789.82.07.7207.8.550/ 90:32.007080.7.9907 8702.9073..:907.3/44/.9.:90:7  07..7.3/9010799418573  3943.0410710 %07 80 8102.3/ 0.70.8 2:8.8-00343..943419005.0 .3 7:90885:78:090743/08708 8907/08708.2897: 2. 8308.7.03/8.0030.079. 8.080794943.3/ -:99.3/ /.0.4:3907 9012.9.4.190790.072.0  033943.9904203.997.3/  3943.33.7010703.0 98 0/5.40:78950..:7098 .9. 983943.943 .3.3 8.3-089:.08-7994/.9.8081:79072470390705708039.9.34:/.72 03.97.0.8 9..03:8 %07G80 3079:73 -0.2 -:93890.8-473949.70850.3/ 0/5.:8.050450. 81:8970399.4208249074190 70/ .94//89 5.:9894-7.77.030.102. 830./4110.990 4203.08  3943.313/701:0 40.01703/858 8:-9008-.0/08708 09071703/099.3/9 8920944 3980547.90/7.3/ 1703/89.3/ --.:907%07G80 49:7384:9 94-0.7..94383943.08 41.1.70.70.390803809..:8-.300.422:39411.4494:91.90.403.0/087087057080390/3.0.90/ 3-09003./ 9012089.943/40834920.

-09  02389$50.0.824423943 3/.39.30 .9.0.7/  43 9444%0.9870.3/443#0.5409.07 .00.843 #05708039.3 30.30.8 03/073904/073 477472 43/4379823899:90!:-83   O 44  .25.2.030.79   O 4..7003      O 4.89450 3943 .3 08 $.97      O 4-4 .3.703..7/07 0/  .0 9.3..30 .3/#:907147/   0/8 .309.4 .9:708419012890:8041.8:9:7.:39 43/43.  -47.308 ./802-4/0/102.733 0/8 .08  O 02382 2%047 !8.:5.3.4102382./078 047 4:2-.0908-.  ..3 # .3/90.07   70843 ! !..0 $50.74 03 4203 .3 8499.0789!7088     O 99072.4.8.3/'/04 047.3/43/43 #4:90/0    O 07 #.80/0/9430474097450   O 0789742 .9.3/. 8.8.3.207.82.3/47.4:398905.7/  90   %0.8$.0 7/07 &37.3.970.7003     O ...0!3 &5 3$.3//0...3/.04110.9.88 047.3/90.17293.3/8.010.8:7.4.9438#.3/90.0 9.9 %0./.5 O .72.4.733  2.#0.3/!07843.3$.3/43/43#4:90/0    .947   7057390/302208.089 3 !.8 2 70..3/.0 4.7:9:70 8#42.3/4. &7-.08 88.553 .:393788 3$..-0203  304190/893.  .&3.3/2%047 $50.3/43/43#4:90/0    O .4&3.4203.8.98 939082-4.3.9.207  03/.3 824190  8 44239433/..$038-9 3#..0.07-73843.733 %00870940870 %042.3/.3/047#4:90/0    O .86:07.0 . -8.898.30 .23308 3..:7.4.:3093 !45:.88:0 %0$50.0.-:8.6:030 .88341920.97.7:9:70 43/43!..8.9.3:.0 98.0/390.0789!7088   O 4.9907412.9.3/ 03/073023892%047 3$.30  90!7.382 43/43 !.&3.7.:/0 0/8 %044/ 90..7038 0/ 88:08302389279.078941348!7088   O ./3   O 8479 .7 0/8 ":007448 !07850.01.302.3/945:3890.7003       O 07 #.0789!7088   O :907 :/9 03/07%74:-0 047.9478.3.3/90 703.0843 08-.3/ 89479.9.9.    O 0.52.7/ 44:$009 $9:/084308-.3/ %408701107039 02382.0247090102.0.9438 43/43.9.&3.4 %0.  4:73..2  43/43#4:90/0   O 07 #.3893.3/90 O 4704:8 !45:./0%047839002.4.

08...  7 8.7..8$50.3/ $50. 3.80 4 742#0.943 48943$4:93/ !7088   :22 .:39390#0.6:08%4:730:7   :. -8.3803 7.2 !.7/4/08 444/. 0/ ..0789!7088   438943 .920394142033 904.8. 3.3/43/43%0&3.:9:70  7.3/$0:.#:9078&3.89 02389 4.70  4203 8302.:7.207.9.0 02382..0.38.84190#0.    .448 #.283943 0/ 22479.  89.078941.70  02339..207..80/0/94347   448 -0 .7003#05739    438943 .0 43/43  047#4:90/0    7..8-0 08-.4203 $50.9.3/90.84:3907 302.-43 $50.  %0$.   $% .    01147/8 $:8.0.38..84$.25%0!49.208 4  ..-:803!747088..:.:7.8 0.947853207.3$039 2 43/43./0070%7394$4#0. :.08 .843 0-47.88:0+08-.7 3$.7/&3. -8.0789!7088   ./033041903/08  /3-:75..3 7.O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7.3/904.4.3/2 .0789 !7088   .3/'8:.250943.0 90 302.94785 .3/7. -8.094#..02208.7003    :25:9 $50.32.:2039.88:043 .  850.:7.0703.-0.2 . 9. 490843 4203 8302.. 07:38..39894$4'/04 %0!49.7 3.3/.74/ 3%.9  .841!.9.3/2 /3-:7/3-:7&3.3/#05708039.3 .86:07.7...0.9.207.4!7088   70.843 0-47.4203 8.50 %0%70.

-.31:79.3/2 49$/084190.9 4.843%047 2  . 43/4309.9:708 02382.8.943 44239433/.3/ 03 43/43.79   4.3/.      .&3.3/90'8-0 3.0. #4:90/0.08.08907.:39 4.3/'/04 .04083 9 02382 $0249. -8.943  3%0.3 . 0797:/  .08 0/8 4444":0072.3#05708039.3/ 7.3/07.83943.7.0789!7088   . 3.:7.3  33 4203.     7.7302.2.:033/07:389  .3/0..8 302.0789!7088   ./ -0.344084103/07 88.3/302.207.3/43/4309:03   7- 33  .7:27.80/0/943  .:0338 330734003 3  .     :3 330990 4203 8!.207.!7088     .3.9704:73.25'07./0  2.3/110703./0 %0. 0 47.3/8.3/! 47803 0/8 37.3.  44239433/./0 .0.3!.3$:7.5.&3.3/%:23   0/8 4:%.703.48  $.:7098 %0708.2 ! ./0  $0:.:7098 %0708.3/08-.   .:7098 %0708.3/.:   70.:7098 %0708.

90/-47497307 44239433/.  '8:.0 302.943841207.084190.   '8:..9.3/2 %047 43/43..880   $20 3300 3/9077477.7438 0/8 .207..3 0.2 &7.0  08507.3/047#4:90/0   .07800870 44239433/.$:507074.30 :/9 %042..0789!7088   .7843 .9478 03!0714723.9.072.072.8..8:70.4 0/8 %0. .3/90 !45$9.9.0414.4:3907 42480:. 44239433/.88:0 .  9308.. &3.3/$.0789!7088   .3/4203 8 302.7.3/43/4309:03   4/08 %.7747 %002.7 3.3 444/302.7334.!49.8:708 43/43.7/.0/ 02389302.4342  41$0 3# # #0907 0/ %4.3.:7098 %0708..7003     #.    $..:7.3/90207.77.!0.3 .:7.977013..0 $90.77.:398$50..2. #:- 742#057088.3.3. !0.7003 .0.0 .O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .3/43/43#4:90/0   :.0 $50.&3.9. !4891023890 047.3/.3/ 02389%047 047.0 .3009.25 3#4-079.2  047.03 !8.207.&3.823.30 :/9 70.92.3..3/302...&3.0$:-0.8:70.370.0 $.4   4/08 %.      .0302. 0238294:94203 :9:70.990040 02382.. #0 .0/.9.33974544414203 0 47439#0. ..943.8.4:89.473'03:8 4203 4.9850.3/ 43/43#4:90/0   $25843 .3..94785 43/43..  190794:9843'8:..-07..9.7003      $9.3.7 .02507843.82 483008207.3   $9.43   #:-3 .3:9:7..3.88.0'4.!0.3/ !07.738 047.0789!7088   0/:789 3/  %.32 3899:90 &3...3/.0.8302389279.92.3$0:.0742.:39  43/43./38 43/43'7.   850..3/02.3/ !07..0%407.078438 0.3    :.3/80/.39#0.9.8..0789!:-.3..:7.9 .2.4. -8.3.3/79.0 3$.0  %0%7..3.3 .. 3/ 907!0.7.0 .2.3 79.4.3/ 907!0.0 $9.3/.3.843  88.:7.3.:94785 3$.0 .0894 .094749.3    !030 4389.0789!7088    $. -8.3/. 38570/-3'/47 8:0390$:3   '8:..08.990. 43/43!:-83 047 #4:90/0 -   07.5574.0  . 9.0!7088    $0943 .9. %0.03 3&31472   7057390/3.0%74:-0  0. %04203430%44:./0 %0!7.    #4803  !45.11.0 08-.90$003110703.3420349084390+!49.8:708 43/43. 44239433/.

&3.3/ 9008-..798.3#42.0789!7088   O %.7 .0$50.0789!7088   O 088 3/70.02 3%.0 .3/ 90.38390302.907%0.943 302. &3.:88 0/ 38/0.3.9..3/904. '.97.443.9.4:.25708.$9.241!0..4330 $50.9.3 390#0.0  907 793!489.3/90. +02.89.807 .3$50.84.9.8-0  08-.32.38.3/047  %73 3 .3/02382 44239433/.08909. 0474:2-.:.3.947 08-.3.74/08 03/07 0370. 43/43.8:70 '43$9073-07 097.3.0  14:43 9!.:393 3 . 42.  43/4343. ..50   O 90 !. 3.283943 0/ 22479.3 .3/'4098 08-.3 93 080790.9.0 43/43 047#4:90/0     O $9:/.

 0/8 :950 '4.3/330.&3.0 0/ 02382.0 3. 0/ 88:08302389279.085:-80/3!.39!7410884732$9:/08.3/.0# 08.28 3/.79.70 O .394408.8..089 420334.%04708 0 47.3.3/43/43#4:90/0    O .3/047#4:90/0   &801:.!7088   O 7038 !.97. :9 08-.3/2%047 43/43 0 47#4:90/0   3300$2088889.30 3/.0 03/07. 44 80.3%04708 .3/$0:.2 4423943 3/.7843 .08302389279.7 +#.7 .078941 2003 900907.82 43/43.  !07843. 0.3.74190.3/000733  0/8 %0302.990&3.3.0789!7088   O !030 4389.43/0/943 43/4379823899:90  55    O .548&3.244.992. 43/43.749907:38/43 0/ 281474203 43/43!:-83    O 4:3 4.0789 41330849..9390 302.3/8  %8.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful