<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

This review of various feminist film theory discusses the contradictions and similarities between five of the most well known feminist film theorists Tania Modleski, Teresa de Lauretis, Mary Ann Doane, and Christine Gledhill. Theories include discussions of the women's film as genre and a feminist view of subjectivity. One question raised in the review is the contradiction between how women appear in film and how they appear and operate in reality. This dichotomy is partially explained by the absence of women, on screen and during the process, and the resulting loss of identification with women on screen. The images of women in film becomes oppressive. Hitchcock manages to close the gap between women in reality and women in film by portraying them less like objects and more like subjects.

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

This article discusses Hitchcock's ability to create romance in his films. The author asserts that the romance is a result of the flawed male characters and the deceiving female ones. The romance blossoms out of their human plights, they are both flawed and imperfect. It is stated that such films as Blackmail, Vertigo and Psycho are overrated in their importance to Hitchcock's oeuvre and therefore shouldn't be considered for this assertion.

I would argue that Blackmail is not overrated and that it is the flawed males that drive the tragedy of the film and reject Alice's sexuality. There is nothing romantic about the suppression of another human being. While Alice was deceptive, Frank's behavior as well as the other men in the film have nothing attractive to offer her.

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

In this article, Tania Modelski offers a feminist interpretation of Blackmail. She explores the issues raised by attempted rape and the silencing of women. She notes that the painting of the jester is used to put women back in their place. The jester represents the laughing male to both Alice and her fiancé Frank. The jester shames Alice and stops her laughter at the end of the film. As for Frank, the jester reminds him that he has been had by Alice when he finds her glove in the studio. Essentially, it reminds Alice that she is the joke and not the one in control and laughs at Frank that for Alice's deception towards him.

While Modelski argues that Alice is objectified and not given a voice, I would argue that the jester in the film doesn't win. The portrait of the jester that condemns and shames Alice is stabbed and carted off by the police at the end of the film. The jester is punished for its crime of passing judgment. While the males in the movie attempt to speak for Alice and keep her from speaking, they are not entirely successful. Alice takes control of her anxieties towards her sexuality and usurps the male role by killing Crewe and stabbing the portrait.

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

In response to a letter from a male critic, Tania Modelski argues that male critics specifically give Alice the trial that she does not receive in Blackmail. She asserts that the law is patriarchal and that since it is considered impartial the male view of justice becomes the accepted one. It is then interesting that Hitchcock did leave out the trial and judgment of Alice that Modelski claims is prevalent in the male perspective of the film. Perhaps it is an acknowledgment by Hitchcock that the law is not impartial and would have been unfair to Alice. By removing the judgment of Alice in the film, Hitchcock might be trying to remove a primarily male perspective.

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Jessica Brent makes the claim that with the advent of sound, Hitchcock was able to marginalize the feminine image. The sound age forced a change in aesthetic and style with the feminine being destroyed and replaced with the investigative gaze. She asserts that the visual pleasure beyond the gaze is removed from Hitchcock's work. Women and feminine figures are forced into the narrative demands of the male eye.

On one hand, I'm still not entirely convinced of this argument or completely sure of its meaning. However, I think that scene in which Alice kills Crewe escapes Brent's interpretation should it be true. Alice kills Crewe behind a curtain, away from the eyes of the portraits and the audience. The only male eyes that see her are Crewe's and she is usurping his position. Therefore, at the crucial moment of the film where Alice asserts herself and confronts her anxieties, she is separate from any narrative demands that might be forced upon her.

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

This article claims that homophobia was displaced in Hitchcock's films from an issue of national security to a condemnation of women's sexuality in the domestic sphere. The article further asserts that the knowledge that men acquire in the film is the result of their ability to suppress and manipulate women. Essentially, Hitchcock was a force in Cold War culture.

In the case of Blackmail, Frank doesn't gain any knowledge from his suppression and manipulation of Alice. If Alice's feminist gaze had been verbalized or if Frank had let Alice express herself without the threat of shame or judgment, the entire premise of the film might have been averted. It might be the case that Crewe's murder is a result of the male suppression of Alice. Perhaps the film is meant to serve as a warning that the suppression and manipulation of women is something to be feared.