Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Komedi ve Kadın: Hokkabaz Filminde Cinsiyet Problemi

Year 2016, , 171 - 197, 15.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.32001/sinecine.537797

Abstract

Bu çalışmada toplumsal cinsiyet alanında erkeklik hegemonyasını yeniden üreten anlatılar sunan Hokkabaz (The Magician, Cem Yılmaz & Ali Taner Baltacı, 2006) filmindeki kadın kahraman temsili incelenmektedir. Filmin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğini desteklediği yerler, tür kuramı ve hegemonik erkeklik kavramı yoluyla incelemektedir. Çalışmada ilk olarak güldürü türünün toplumsal cinsiyet alanındaki uzlaşımları araştırılmaktadır. Ardından, ataerkil toplumda babanın oğul üzerindeki anahtar rolü ve hegemonik erkeklik kavramı incelenmektedir. Çalışmada metin analizi tekniği kullanılmaktadır. Analizin temel birimleri anaakım güldürü filmlerinde kadınlar hakkında geliştirilen kolektif söylemler ve hegemonik erkeklik literatüründe üretilen erkekler arası ilişkilerdir.

References

  • Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. London: Verso.
  • Bayram, N. (2002). Yeşilçam romantik güldürüleri ve kültürel temsiller. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • Bayram, N. (2006). Varlıklı ve egemen olmayan bir aylak. In K. Özyazıcı (Ed.), Kahkaha ve hüzün: Sadri Alışık (pp. 104-114). Ankara: Dost.
  • Bora, T. & Necmi, E. (2005). Zenginlik: ‘Zengin’ bir araştırma gündemi, ‘yoksul’ bir literatür. Toplum ve bilim, 104, 3-12.
  • Byrge, D. & Miller, R. M. (1991). The screwball comedy films. Chicago: St James.
  • Connell, R. W. (1998). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve iktidar (trans. C. Soydemir). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinities: Rethinking the concept. Gender and society, 19(6), 829-859.
  • Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P. & Murdock, G. (1999). Researching communications: A practical guide to methods in media and cultural analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Deleyto, C. (2003). Between friends: Love and friendship in contemporary Hollywood romantic comedy. Screen, 44(2), 167-182.
  • Dorsay, A. (1977). Mitos ve kuşku. İstanbul: Görsel.
  • Easthope, A. (1990). What a man’s gotta do: The masculine myth in popular culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
  • Esen, Ş. (1996). Türk sinema endüstrisi oluşmalı. In S. M. Dinçer (Ed.), Türk sineması üzerine düşünceler (pp. 25-30). Ankara: Doruk.
  • Fairclough, N. (1996). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Fischer, L. (1991). Sometimes i feel like a motherless child. In A. Horton (Ed.), Comedy/cinema/theory (pp. 60-78). California: University of California.
  • Freud, S. (2002). The joke and its relation to the unconscious. N.Y.: Penguin. (First published in 1905, translated into English in 1960)
  • Fyre, N. H. (1957). The anatomy of criticism. N.J.: Princeton University. http://northropfrye-theanatomyofcriticism.blogspot.com/
  • Gitlin, T. (1986). Watching television: a pantheon guide to popular culture. N.Y.: Pantheon.
  • Gledhill, C. (2000). Rethinking genre. In C. Gledhill & L. Williams (Eds.), Reinventing film studies (pp. 221-243). London: Arnold.
  • Grossman, J. (2009). Rethinking the femme fatale in film noir: Ready for her close-up. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gürbilek, N. (2004). Kötü çocuk Türk. İstanbul: Metis.
  • Güven-Akdoğan, Ö. (2014). Popüler Türkiye sinemasında gülünçleştirilen erkeklik. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Horrocks, R. (1995). Male myths and icons, masculinity in popular culture. London: Macmillan.
  • Horton, A. (1991). Introduction. In A. Horton (Ed.), Comedy/cinema/ theory (pp. 1-21). California: University of California.
  • Karnick, B. K. & Jenkins, H. (1995). Introduction: Comedy and the Social World. In K. B. Karnick & H. Jenkins (Eds.), Classical Hollywood comedy (pp. 265-281). New York: Routledge.
  • King, G. (2006). Film comedy. London: Wallflower.
  • Kuhn, A. (1985). The power of the image: Essays on representation and sexuality. London: Routledge.
  • Malhotra, S. & Alagh, T. (2004). Dreaming the nation: Domestic dramas in Hindi films post-1990. South Asian Popular Culture, 2(1), 19-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1474668042000210492
  • McHugh, K. & Abelmann, N. (2005). South Korean golden age melodrama: Gender, genre and national cinema. Michigan: Wayne State University Press.
  • Mckee, A. (2003). Textual analysis. London: Sage.
  • Mulvey, L. (1999). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. In L. Braudy & M. Cohen (Eds.), Film theory and criticism: Introductory readings (pp. 833-844). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Neale, S. (1993). Masculinity as spectacle: Reflections on men and main stream cinema. In S. Cohan & I. R. Hark (Eds.), Screening the male: Exploring masculinities in Hollywood cinema (pp. 9-22). New York: Routledge.
  • Neale, S. & Krutnik, F. (1990). Popular film and television comedy. London: Routledge.
  • Robinson, D. (2003). Komedi (trans. A. Fethi). In G. Nowell-Smith (Ed.), Dünya sinema tarihi (pp. 103-112). İstanbul: Kabalcı.
  • Rotha, P. (1996). Sinema tarihi-ülke sinemaları (trans. İ. Şener). İstanbul: Sistem.
  • Rowe, K. K. (1995). The unruly woman: Gender and the senres of laughter. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Ryan, M. & Kellner, D. (2010). Politik kamera (trans. E. Özsayar). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Schatz, T. (1981). Hollywood genres: Formulas, filmmaking and the studio system. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Segal, L. (1992). Ağır çekim (trans. V. Ersoy). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Suner, A. (2006). Hayalet ev: yeni Türk sinemasında aidiyet, kimlik ve bellek. İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Yılmaz, C. & Baltacı, A. T. (2006). Hokkabaz [Motion Picture]. Turkey: BKM

COMEDY AND WOMEN: THE PROBLEM OF GENDER IN HOKKABAZ

Year 2016, , 171 - 197, 15.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.32001/sinecine.537797

Abstract

This study argues that representations of the female protagonist in the Turkish filmHokkabaz (The Magician, Cem Yılmaz & Ali Taner Baltacı, 2006) replicate gendered masculine hegemony. Using the concept of hegemonic masculinity and genre theory, we suggest that Hokkabaz contributes to the inequality of gender through its treatment of the father-son relationship. We first examine the formation of gender roles by means of the conventions of comedy and then, in terms of hegemonic masculinity, analyse the impact of the father on the son in a patriarchal society. The main elements of the essay, which employs the technique of textual analysis, are the collective discourses about women as represented in mainstream comedies and the hegemonic relationships between men found in the literature of hegemonic masculinity.

References

  • Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. London: Verso.
  • Bayram, N. (2002). Yeşilçam romantik güldürüleri ve kültürel temsiller. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • Bayram, N. (2006). Varlıklı ve egemen olmayan bir aylak. In K. Özyazıcı (Ed.), Kahkaha ve hüzün: Sadri Alışık (pp. 104-114). Ankara: Dost.
  • Bora, T. & Necmi, E. (2005). Zenginlik: ‘Zengin’ bir araştırma gündemi, ‘yoksul’ bir literatür. Toplum ve bilim, 104, 3-12.
  • Byrge, D. & Miller, R. M. (1991). The screwball comedy films. Chicago: St James.
  • Connell, R. W. (1998). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve iktidar (trans. C. Soydemir). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinities: Rethinking the concept. Gender and society, 19(6), 829-859.
  • Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P. & Murdock, G. (1999). Researching communications: A practical guide to methods in media and cultural analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Deleyto, C. (2003). Between friends: Love and friendship in contemporary Hollywood romantic comedy. Screen, 44(2), 167-182.
  • Dorsay, A. (1977). Mitos ve kuşku. İstanbul: Görsel.
  • Easthope, A. (1990). What a man’s gotta do: The masculine myth in popular culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
  • Esen, Ş. (1996). Türk sinema endüstrisi oluşmalı. In S. M. Dinçer (Ed.), Türk sineması üzerine düşünceler (pp. 25-30). Ankara: Doruk.
  • Fairclough, N. (1996). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Fischer, L. (1991). Sometimes i feel like a motherless child. In A. Horton (Ed.), Comedy/cinema/theory (pp. 60-78). California: University of California.
  • Freud, S. (2002). The joke and its relation to the unconscious. N.Y.: Penguin. (First published in 1905, translated into English in 1960)
  • Fyre, N. H. (1957). The anatomy of criticism. N.J.: Princeton University. http://northropfrye-theanatomyofcriticism.blogspot.com/
  • Gitlin, T. (1986). Watching television: a pantheon guide to popular culture. N.Y.: Pantheon.
  • Gledhill, C. (2000). Rethinking genre. In C. Gledhill & L. Williams (Eds.), Reinventing film studies (pp. 221-243). London: Arnold.
  • Grossman, J. (2009). Rethinking the femme fatale in film noir: Ready for her close-up. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gürbilek, N. (2004). Kötü çocuk Türk. İstanbul: Metis.
  • Güven-Akdoğan, Ö. (2014). Popüler Türkiye sinemasında gülünçleştirilen erkeklik. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Horrocks, R. (1995). Male myths and icons, masculinity in popular culture. London: Macmillan.
  • Horton, A. (1991). Introduction. In A. Horton (Ed.), Comedy/cinema/ theory (pp. 1-21). California: University of California.
  • Karnick, B. K. & Jenkins, H. (1995). Introduction: Comedy and the Social World. In K. B. Karnick & H. Jenkins (Eds.), Classical Hollywood comedy (pp. 265-281). New York: Routledge.
  • King, G. (2006). Film comedy. London: Wallflower.
  • Kuhn, A. (1985). The power of the image: Essays on representation and sexuality. London: Routledge.
  • Malhotra, S. & Alagh, T. (2004). Dreaming the nation: Domestic dramas in Hindi films post-1990. South Asian Popular Culture, 2(1), 19-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1474668042000210492
  • McHugh, K. & Abelmann, N. (2005). South Korean golden age melodrama: Gender, genre and national cinema. Michigan: Wayne State University Press.
  • Mckee, A. (2003). Textual analysis. London: Sage.
  • Mulvey, L. (1999). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. In L. Braudy & M. Cohen (Eds.), Film theory and criticism: Introductory readings (pp. 833-844). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Neale, S. (1993). Masculinity as spectacle: Reflections on men and main stream cinema. In S. Cohan & I. R. Hark (Eds.), Screening the male: Exploring masculinities in Hollywood cinema (pp. 9-22). New York: Routledge.
  • Neale, S. & Krutnik, F. (1990). Popular film and television comedy. London: Routledge.
  • Robinson, D. (2003). Komedi (trans. A. Fethi). In G. Nowell-Smith (Ed.), Dünya sinema tarihi (pp. 103-112). İstanbul: Kabalcı.
  • Rotha, P. (1996). Sinema tarihi-ülke sinemaları (trans. İ. Şener). İstanbul: Sistem.
  • Rowe, K. K. (1995). The unruly woman: Gender and the senres of laughter. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Ryan, M. & Kellner, D. (2010). Politik kamera (trans. E. Özsayar). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Schatz, T. (1981). Hollywood genres: Formulas, filmmaking and the studio system. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Segal, L. (1992). Ağır çekim (trans. V. Ersoy). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Suner, A. (2006). Hayalet ev: yeni Türk sinemasında aidiyet, kimlik ve bellek. İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Yılmaz, C. & Baltacı, A. T. (2006). Hokkabaz [Motion Picture]. Turkey: BKM
There are 40 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Features
Authors

Özge Güven Akdoğan

Publication Date March 15, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2016

Cite

APA Güven Akdoğan, Ö. (2019). COMEDY AND WOMEN: THE PROBLEM OF GENDER IN HOKKABAZ. Sinecine: Sinema Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 171-197. https://doi.org/10.32001/sinecine.537797

sinecine TR DİZİN ve FIAF tarafından taranmaktadır.