Screw Women, Man: Power Dynamics in “Swept Away” by Alexus Rogers

At the end of the day, women have caused every single problem known to man. Since the dawn of time, women have been the symbol for temptation and sin. Starting off with Eve tempting Adam and causing their expulsion from Paradise, women produce nothing but the downfall of mankind. In Lina Wertmüller’s film, Swept Away, the male protagonist blames the wealthy female, Rafaella, for everything wrong in his life. Serving as one of her personal waiters, Gennarino shoves her harsh insults into an overflowing bottle of fury. Stranded on an island with this catty spitfire of a woman, Gennarino finally lets loose all of his anger towards her. Giving her a piece of his mind, he explains why he despises her so: “When you were on the yacht like so many pigs lying in the sun with your tits hanging out... Like we were animals, not men. But I think you pigs knew. Every one of you pigs knew we were men not animals. You must have been very pleased turning us on so much that it was unbearable” (Wertmüller, 1:05:26-1:06:35). Gennarino’s sexual frustration is well deserved. To see a topless Rafaella and not be able to do anything about it can drive a man crazy, as it did in his case. A gorgeous woman such as herself taunts every man within viewing distance. However, “Gennarino hates the thing he’s attracted to” (Gordon).

Furthermore, stranded on a deserted isle with no means to get her usual coffee and caviar, Rafaella must find a new source of food. Gennarino, our male lead, easily catches fish after fish. He gloatingly eats his crab while the starving Rafaella watches. Proving his superiority over her and his worth, Gennarino captures the heart of Rafaella. During my first time watching the film, I could see the devotion and admiration Rafaella held for Gennarino. Being able to ensnare food—and Rafaella—through brute force, Gennarino encompasses the true stereotypical man. Masculinity at its finest is a bit on the sensitive side, and any threat must be immediately eliminated before masculinity becomes soft and weak. Despite constant beatings for her disobedience, “She becomes attracted to Gennarino’s abuse of power and begins to view it as a positive display of masculinity” (Farajollah, par. 5). For a woman such as herself, in an environment where she can do nothing but rely on the man to furnish the necessities, her instincts convince her to love Gennarino. Thus, she does, much to my contempt and desire for her to find her own way of providing for herself. Repugnance pumped through me as I watched the scene in which Rafaella begs Gennarino to “sodomize” her. In Roger Ebert’s review of the film he interprets her request as to telling the audience, “Woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male” (par. 5).

Before women can grow a sense to fight back, society teaches them how to surrender themselves to others. Every girl dreams of marriage and being tied down to someone. If she does not dream it up herself, then she is told to do so. In the words of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, “Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage. I am expected to make my life choices, always keeping in mind that, marriage is the most important” (Adichie). Society mocks the women who do not marry. Kids will run up to her and yell “spinstress” while egging the scarily secluded woman’s house. The adults will ask her if she regrets not having any children. They will poke and prod her until she feels ashamed of not giving life to a woman’s purpose. The moment she was born, a woman has committed to offering up herself to the career of a happily married mother. Society has deemed it so, and Rafaella chose to let her eyes wander. Punishment must ensue. Gennarino makes sure of that, beating her for every sin she, or the rich, has enacted.

Moreover, brazen and combative women such as Rafaella must be tamed. She must fulfill her righteous duties in life. Not bearing children was her first mistake, and now she allowed Gennarino to catch her checking him out. Raising his fist towards her and raining down hell, he ensures she gets the message society has been screaming at her since the beginning: submit or suffer. Rafaella seemingly goes along with every one of his whims. Throughout the film she assures Gennarino of her love, going so far as to tell him, “I’ve never felt so good. I never want it to end. I love you” (Wertmüller, 1:26:00), when he suggests returning to the mainland. Needing proof that he is indeed manlier than her husband, Gennarino wants to chip away at Rafaella until she is nothing but his. In society’s eyes, the ultimate man would be able to do so without batting an eyelash. Proving his masculinity, Gennarino convinces her to go back to the mainland. Whilst there, we get to see the true nature of Rafaella.

Satisfyingly, Rafaella falls back into her old routine with her husband. When she throws Gennarino aside, I began to wander if she ever truly loved him. Being a romantic, I always want true love to prevail, yet I never got the sense that she had him in her heart. Moreover, I never felt her love towards her husband either, especially in the ending where she barely acknowledges him. When she glanced her husband’s way and then back at Gennarino’s longing stare for the last time, I realized she loves neither of them. The person she loves is herself. Her skill in surviving through any means necessary, including feigning devotion, emphasizes her self-love. In the scene right before she throws herself under Gennarino, she stares out at the waters, and in that moment I believe that she realized that she must fight back. As a woman, she does not need to prove masculinity or femininity. She must fight for herself. If she fights with her survival in mind, she can outsmart Gennarino and thrive on the island until she gets to the mainland. Wertmüller demonstrates the sophistication and decades long build-up of the feminist movement in Swept Away when she alludes to society’s viewing of women as their permanent scapegoat. Outsmarting mankind at their own game, women play into the submissive role while fighting to survive and thrive, just as Rafaella does with Gennarino. According to Roger Ebert, “She finds herself powerfully attracted to the situation; she's been spoiled so long, it's almost a relief to be ordered around” (par. 4), yet I would argue that she never truly does anything she has not convinced herself into doing. Everything she does is a rebellion against society and Gennarino. Wanting to remain in control, Rafaella implores Gennarino to sodomize her before he decides to do it himself. She goes above and beyond, and in doing so remains the one in control, mentally at least. Rafaella seduces not only Gennarino into believing that she truly loves him but the audience as well. Roger Ebert falls under her spell, dismissing her actions at the end as one of the mysterious things women just do sometimes (par. 8).

Adhering to the overarching theme, Rafaella’s case only goes to prove that when a man takes away a woman’s control and convinces her that she needs him in order to survive, then the woman will delude herself into having feelings for him. It helps that Gennarino is easy on the eyes. Rafaella was infatuated with Gennarino's aesthetic. Since the beginning, she was sexually charged for him. He was a forbidden fruit that she could not have because he was too dirty or too savage. Her sexual desire for him sparked a fire in her heart that she could not contain, especially when that fire was the only thing keeping her alive. In this sense, she saved herself by loving him. The fight or flight, freeze or fawn response is a normal human reaction to life-risking events. She used her instincts to her advantage. Her inborn intuition allowed her mind to fight on while her body feigned submission. Furthering the point, “Her mind was, in fact, merely colonized by the influence of Stockholm Syndrome” (Farajollah par. 4), which causes a captive to empathize with their captor in order to survive. Submission can give a captive the edge they need to last until rescue, which is something Rafaella takes advantage of. Without deluding him into the distraction of her body, Gennarino may have caught on to what she was doing. “She was smart enough to see the future and to think ahead, while Gennarino was stuck only seeing what was in front of him” (Gordon).

Throughout the film, Wertmüller brings forth examples of women resisting vassalage. From the opening scene of the film, Rafaella questioned society. She argued politics with the men and afterwards stayed up late to gamble while her husband slept. Embodying everything a woman should not be, Rafaella held true to her nature even in moments where the audience thought she gave up. Wertmüller, a fighter through and through, directs the movie through the lenses of the beguiled party. Movie reviewer Samantha Storms emphasized, “With this film, the negative light that is shed upon women such as Rafaella is not a symbol of inhibition, but an indication of forward movement and progression within a corrupted, subjugating culture” (par. 7). Societal expectations extort women into achieving nothing more than a person to be subjugated by the ambitious. Men are raised to be ambitious and to surmount anyone in the way of their success. Without eliminating these standards for each gender, there cannot be personal success and happiness for all. Wertmüller brings to light this aspect of our society through her film. She illustrates the battle between man and woman for dominance and equality respectively. The end goal for Rafaella is to survive in the wilderness and to be on or above the same playing field as men. 

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August Movie

Review (1976) | Roger Ebert. RogerEbert.com.

Farajollah, Ariana. “An Abused Woman's Colonization and Declaration of

Independence.” Taking Giant Steps Press Blog, 7 June 2017.

Gordon, Paul Kirpal. 12 Mar. 2018. Class discussion.

Storms, Samantha. "Passion’s Dark Side: Roeg’s Walkabout vs Wertmüller’s Swept

Away.” Taking Giant Steps Press Blog, 08 Dec. 2016. Web.                                     

Wertmüller, Lina. Swept Away. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato.

Medusa Distribuzione, 1974. YouTube. YouTube, LLC, 28 Aug. 2014. Web.

“We Should All Be Feminists.” Performance by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, TedX,

TedTalks, Dec. 2012.

Tainted Roots: A Woman of East Indian Heritage Eyes “Swept Away” by Drashti Mehta

"You can be the servant for me because women were meant to serve men!" (Wertmüller 00:59:32). Creating controversy among its crowds at its initial release, Swept Away is known notoriously for offending feminist audiences. As the overwhelming tone of the patriarchy created its prominence in Lina Wertmüller’s film, I was reminded of the oppression that branches from my own ancestral roots. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to grow up in the United States and not fall into the submissive patriarchal culture of India. However, as a bystander in my own culture, it dawned on me that the character of Raffaella was merely exposed to the oppressive patriarchal cultures many women endure worldwide.

For centuries, India followed a caste system, and despite their differences, the one thing they could all agree on was that women were inferior to men, a view that the male characters in Swept Away seem to be strongly in agreement with. According to an article from the from the Huffington Post, "The vast majority of Indians (64%) are of the view that the role of women in society is to become good mothers and wives and they should focus mainly on home" (par. 2). When a girl is born in India, she only has one purpose in life: to be trained to make the perfect wife and mother to her future husband and kids. From as young as seven-years-old in certain parts of India, girls spend their days with their mother learning to cook and clean, so they may be the perfect servants to their husbands in the future.

Wertmüller opens her film with Raffaella in a heated, politically based argument with her husband. As she expresses her anti-communist views and beliefs on abortion policies, her husband is shown immediately proposing his rebuttal in an attempt to belittle her opinions (Wertmüller 00:04:24). It is from this scene that Wertmüller manages to carry the theme of women's oppression throughout the film. Similar to Raffaella, women in India were often discouraged from speaking their minds, particularly in political matters. Furthermore, they were expected to adopt their husband's political beliefs after marriage. Raffaella's independence deteriorated as she became dependent on Gennarino much like the millions of Indian women that were forced into an arranged marriage.

Gennarino was quick to recognize that Raffaella wouldn't be able to survive without his assistance in obtaining food and put her to work. It was in the next few scenes that Raffaella’s life reflected the life of the average Indian woman. While many filmgoers and critics would argue that Gennarino was abusive towards Raffaella when he made statements such as, "My pants do get dirty and someone has to wash them" (Wertmüller 00:54:25), household labor is part of everyday life for many women in India. Additionally, I noticed in class that many of my peers began to feel bad for Raffaella when Gennarino demands chilled water and cooked fish (Wertmüller 01:04:57). Upon observing their negative reaction, I began to doubt my feminist qualities: was I a bad feminist for not being phased by Gennarino's demands for food, or had I simply come to view this as a societal norm through witnessing my grandmother perform these tasks on a day to day basis throughout my childhood? In many parts of India, it is not uncommon for the man, the financial provider in the family, to come home from work and rest while the wife prepares dinner. Furthermore, in smaller villages, the wife is expected to serve her husband and in-laws dinner and wait until they are finished before she seats herself.

As unfortunate as it may be, societal norms in India run deep with patriarchal characteristics. In many Hindu communities, the idea of "until death do us part" is nonexistent, for if the husband is to die first, the community expects the widow to partake in the practice of sati, a self-sacrifice ritual for the recently widowed woman. She commits suicide by burning herself with her husband, so they may be together in future lives (Kashgar, par 3).  Many women must additionally endure a virginity test on their wedding night. In this degrading practice, a newlywed couple is expected to consummate their marriage on a white towel while immediate family from both sides wait outside. If she does not bleed during intercourse, she is considered impure and her husband is allowed to divorce her for her impurities (BBC, par 4). Historically, a woman in India has never been seen as an individual; if she is not under the control of a man, she does not exist. Women in India were expected to abide by the rules set by society and do nothing more. However, it is knowledge of these practices that allows me to say that Raffaella is deeply feminist for sticking by her beliefs and opinions.

Film critic Roger Ebert criticizes the film for being anti-feminist: “Although Lina Wertmüller is a leftist, she is not, apparently, a feminist" (par 5). While many people may agree with Ebert's statement, I personally connected with a statement made by Samantha Storms in her analysis of Swept Away and Walkabout: “The negative light that is shed upon women such as Raffaella is not a symbol of inhibition, but an indication of forward movement and progression within a corrupted, subjugating culture” (par 6). Raffaella is the epitome of feminism.

At the moment in which Raffaella left Gennarino, I felt as though she symbolized freedom, reassuring women worldwide that the patriarchy only exists until we women fight for our rights and put an end to it. “Some women can escape social conformity and become conscious of the incredibly sexist, patriarchal society we live in. Others are trapped and are incapable of realizing their true identity because they are the product of someone else’s identity formation” (Solis, par 2). Wertmüller's film conveys the message of oppression through Raffaella.  This is not an anti-feminist film or the story of a damsel in distress; it is a statement. It's time for women to rise above the submissive culture they have been pushed into and receive the equality they deserve.

 

Author Drashti Mehta (left) and friend Manjari Parikh

Works Cited

Dutt, Rimin. “A Shocking 64% Of Indians Think Role of Women Is to Become Good Mothers and Wives: Survey.” Huffington Post India, Huffington Post India, 17 May 2017, www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/05/17/a-shocking-64-of-indians-think-role-of-women-is-to-become-good_a_22095588/.

Ebert, Roger. “Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August Movie Review

(1976),” https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/swept-away-by-an-unusual-destiny-in-the-blue-sea-of-august-1976

Farajollah, Ariana. “An Abused Woman’s Colonization and Declaration of Independence in Swept Away.” https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-abused-womans-colonization-and.html

Kashgar. “The Practice of Sati (Widow Burning).” Kashgar, kashgar.com.au/blogs/history/the-practice-of-sati-widow-burning.

Solis, Lola. "Is Feminism the New F Word? From Resistant to Responsive." 

         giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-feminism-new-f-word-from-resistant.html.

Storms, Samantha. "Passion’s Dark Side: Roeg’s Walkabout vs Wertmüller’s Swept Away,”

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2016/12/passions-dark-side-roegs-walkabout-vs6.html.

“The Fight to Ban a 'Humiliating' Virginity Test for Newlyweds.” BBC News, BBC, 1 Feb. 2018,

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42814681.

Wertmüller, Lina (Dir.). Swept Away. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato. Romano

         Cardarelli, 1974.

“Swept Away”: An Illusion of Affection Stretched Too Thin by Lindsay Knight

Fury curled in my gut when I watched Lina Wertmüller’s Swept Away for the first time. I was so angry that my neighbors could probably feel my irritation through the walls. The relationship between Gennarino and Raffaella portrayed almost every terrible stereotype about women that I resent; she was a rude, high-maintenance, unreasonable snob who constantly nagged her husband and the help until a “stronger,” “dominant” man came into her life and taught her the “pleasure” women get from being submissive to men. She started to accept his abusive treatment without question until she eventually gives in to his sexual demands and declares her love for him despite his constant sexual, emotional, and physical abuse in the name of male superiority. Vincent Canby from The New York Times even claimed that “Swept Away is the story of their tumultuous, slapstick courtship, his systematic humiliation of her (as she sees it) until, suddenly, she submits to her love for him and becomes in the process truly liberated” (Canby, par. 8), which only reinforced my original interpretation. I thought that Raffaella was really in love with Gennarino; the only reason, I believed, that she turned down going back to the island with him at the end of the movie was because she wanted to return to her rich life. I immediately wrote the film off as misogynistic propaganda.

After reading Ariana Farajollah’s essay on Raffaella’s possible case of Stockholm Syndrome, though, and discussing the film in class, I realized I may have been missing an essential part of the movie that painted Gennarino and Raffaella’s relationship in a completely different light. Swept Away is not portraying the love between a tamed woman and the dominant man who puts her in her place; rather, it is a story about a cold mockery of love born from fear and abuse meant as a means of survival, not affection. Raffaella is not in love with Gennarino, nor is he in love with her; her affection on the island is an attempt to ensure her own survival that immediately shows its true frailty once they return to the mainland while Gennarino’s narcissism prevents him from actually caring about Raffaella as a human being, let alone as a true romantic partner.

Raffaella’s transition from an outspoken and intelligent woman to a subservient slave is one of most obvious indicators that the affection she displays for Gennarino is actually a survival mechanism she uses to protect herself from more abuse. Raffaella starts the movie as a woman who speaks her mind without fear; she argues with her husband and expresses her opinion without hesitation, not afraid to open her mouth whenever she has something to say. But when her food is suddenly being controlled by Gennarino, and he begins to abuse her whenever she does something he does not like, she starts obeying everything he says without complaint. To some, Raffaella’s change in attitude may seem like the beginnings of love, as she is willing to submit to Gennarino unlike before; but in reality, her strange shift in behavior may be a sign of something more calculated than pure affection. Sharie Stines, psychologist and expert in trauma and abuse recovery, explains what she calls the “eggshell” mentality in her article titled “Victims of Abuse”: “Victims are notorious for being conditioned to ‘walk on eggshells’ in the relationship in order to try to prevent or minimize any future occurrences of upsetting the abuser…They have learned to be hyper-vigilant to the feelings and reactions of others and have stopped focusing on their own internal feelings” (Stine, par.6). Victims of abuse learn to be as unobtrusive as possible to avoid drawing their abuser’s focus, since less attention means that they may escape more punishment. They learn to heavily consider every move they make and every word they say, constantly aware of the possible consequences if they offend or anger their abuser. This mentality is what drives the immense change in Raffaella’s personality that we see throughout the movie. Every time Raffaella speaks her mind or does something without his permission, Gennarino hits her and berates her. Eventually, just as Stines points out, Raffaella learns that in order to continue to survive on the island, she needs to avoid actions that offend Gennarino, so she changes her behavior to match his expectations. One such instance is when Raffaella bends to Gennarino’s wishes and kneels at his feet, laying her head down in submission to possibly gain some of the rabbit that he just killed. She even goes so far to put Gennarino’s hand on her head to appeal to his demands for control rather than face more punishment, which in this case is starvation (Wertmüller, 01:16:23). She modifies her behavior to become what he wants her to be, growing more sexually promiscuous as an appeal to his demands for sex, and stops fighting for her opinions to avoid the physical abuse. Her actions, therefore, are not performed out of love or affection; they are attempts to gain his approval and curtail his abuse by making it seem like their relationship is something stable and healthy. When viewing her transformation through this lens, Raffaella becomes the victim of an abuser rather than a tamed woman who is saved by the power of male superiority, and the validity of any love for him is cast into doubt.

Besides Raffaella’s lack of love for him sinking any chances of any real relationship between them, Gennarino’s narcissism, a trait he displays throughout the film, prevents him from seeing Raffaella as an equal and independent person, let alone as someone to love. Gennarino has several characteristics that match the definition of narcissism; he thinks himself above women, constantly tries to control the lives of those around them, and always needs to feel superior, which is why he gets upset when someone supposedly undermines his “authority.” Dr. Margalis Fjelstad, Ph.D., LMFT, who works with individuals in relationships with narcissist, wrote an article citing the “14 Signs You're Dealing With A Narcissist,” and unsurprisingly, Gennarino fits clearly into no less than nine of the listed symptoms; superiority and entitlement (which is seen in Gennarino’s claims that men are always superior to women), an exaggerated need for attention (his constant want for her to act submissive and loving to him), a great need for control (his demands that Raffaella always refer to him when making any decisions), a lack of responsibility (his insistence that Raffaella is forcing him to abuse her), a focus on emotional reasoning (his abuse is based on the state of his own fragile emotions), splitting (Gennarino blames Raffaella for her punishments all while praising himself for keeping her “in line”), fear (his insistence that Raffaella must prove her love for him by returning to the mainland), and an inability to be truly vulnerable (his belief that being too intimate with his lovers is unmanly and wrong) (Fjelstad, pts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13).

Given how many of these characteristics fit Gennarino’s personality and actions perfectly, any affection he possibly has for Raffaella is immediately brought into doubt; if Gennarino actually has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, can he even love Raffaella in the first place? Melissa Schenker has studied love in the home and the workplace, and she warns people away from relationships with narcissists because, “A narcissist acknowledges your existence when you serve a purpose. A person who is not separate from you cannot love you because they cannot see and know you. It’s as if you are one being — the narcissist. You, as a separate, distinct individual cannot be appreciated” (Schenker, par. 4). Schenker writes that narcissists cannot love someone else because they lack the ability to think of others as independent people rather than as tools that exist to serve the narcissist; those with NPD can think they are in love, but because they consider others as extensions of themselves to use for whatever they want, narcissists cannot actually care about anyone as more than an instrument for their own use. Examining Gennarino with this lens brings every instance of “love” between Gennarino and Raffaella into question. Gennarino, therefore, can never love Raffaella because he lacks the ability to think of her as something other than a tool to be used purely for his own pleasure. In class discussion, Professor Gordon stressed the importance of the “power to join” in romantic relationships: a constant combination of trust and working together to grow as one, which can only be accomplished by an equality between the partners (Gordon). Gennarino has no such respect for Raffaella, thinking her as his slave, and it only shows that he is not in love with Raffaella at all. He only wants her as a trophy: a tool for his own pleasure, not someone to love and cherish as his equal in a loving relationship.

Once Raffaella finally has the chance to examine their relationship without Gennarino around, the lack of love in their relationship comes out. When the pair is rescued from the island and brought back to the mainland, Raffaella is freed from constantly being under Gennarino’s influence, and almost immediately the façade of their relationship falls apart. Raffaella realizes that nothing about their life on the island was healthy once she is no longer relying on Gennarino for food. She knows that she can have a life of freedom instead of staying under the control of a man who sexually, verbally, emotionally, and physically abuses her, so she decides to leave him. In her essay, “An Abused Woman’s Colonization and Declaration of Independence in SWEPT AWAY,” Ariana Farajollah perfectly sums up Raffaella’s reason for leaving Gennarino behind: “Thus, Rafaella chooses to desert her suitor, evidencing the notion that she never truly loved him, and that her mind was, in fact, merely colonized by the influence of Stockholm Syndrome” (Farajollah, par. 4). As Ariana points out, Raffaella’s brief time away from Gennarino proved to her that what she was expressing on the island was not love at all; it was an appeal to his demands for submission and sex in order to avoid more punishment, and that any affection he was expressing was not love for her, but his own twisted approval of her subservient actions. Once she has the chance to escape him, Raffaella runs as far away as she can, flying away in a helicopter as he shouts obscenities at her (Wertmüller, 01:59:50). She does not have to rely on Gennarino for survival anymore, so she does not need to pretend to love him in order and can finally leave him. If she had truly loved him, she would have given up her life on the mainland and returned to the island with Gennarino. Instead, she shows their relationship’s true colors as a mockery of love born from Raffaella’s need to survive and Gennarino's narcissistic belief that she is his property top control and abuse.

If there was any sort of actual love between Raffaella and Gennarino, Swept Away would have been a very different movie; Raffaella likely would have gone back to the island with him instead of choosing to leave him if she had any real feelings for him, and Gennarino would not have treated her like a slave if he actually cared about her. Gennarino and Raffaella’s actions prove that what they had between them was never love; it was a relationship built on abuse and narcissism that created a twisted and damaged illusion of affection that can never truly be called love. His narcissistic treatment of Raffaella reveals he never loved her, and that any affection that she may have shown in return was a farce built on her attempts at survival.

When I watched Swept Away for the first time, I thought that Wertmüller was suggesting this kind of relationship was the norm: that women are supposed to be subservient and can only be satisfied when dominated by a man, who has the right to treat her as he wishes. I believed that the blasé attitude that the film has towards abuse and rape was Wertmüller claiming that this was the way that women should be treated when they are being “unruly” by speaking their minds and going against men. But now, I see that Wertmüller is not suggesting that this is the norm; rather, she is pointing out how the twisted circumstances that bring the two together and Gennarino’s narcissistic demand for control is what determined the kind of relationship they had. Raffaella’s actions are not Wertmüller’s way of saying that women should fall in love with men that abuse them; instead, she is suggesting that victims have the ability to leave their abusers and regain their freedom, and that women do not have to be tethered down by men that wish to control them. Swept Away should be seen as an example of how people like Gennarino take abuse people like Raffaella, preying on any form of weakness for their own gain and claiming affection before taking advantage of them.

Any relationship like Raffaella’s and Gennarino’s, as Wertmüller so glaringly shows, is doomed from the start, and Wertmüller does not shy away from this implication. In fact, the film seems like Wertmüller’s own call of action to humanity; if we allow people like Gennarino to get away with their actions, and we do not help those in Raffaella’s position regain their freedom by providing them with the help they need, we are little more than accomplices in the recurring abuse cycle that still plagues society. Gennarino and Raffaella’s circumstances may be unique, but there are still men who follow the same beliefs as Gennarino and treat women like their tools to be used, bruised, and abused at their whim. Women still feel the need to be silent about their abuse in order to survive, whether it is domestic or in the workplace. Wertmüller is dragging the reality of the disease that abuse, both on the part of the victim and the abuser, back into our consciousness. We cannot turn the other cheek now that we have seen the truth; victims deserve the same freedom to live and love as we do, without those that poison affection with their desire for power and control.

Works Cited

Canby, Vincent. “'Swept Away' Is a Wertmuller Film with Solid Appeal.” The New York Times, 18 Sept. 1975, http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9901EED7163FE034BC40 52DFBF66838E669EDE

Farajollah, Ariana. “An Abused Woman’s Colonization and Declaration of Independence in SWEPT AWAY by Ariana Farajollah.” Taking Giant Steps, 7 June 2017, http://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-abused-womans-colonization-and.html.

Fjelstad, Margalis. “14 Signs You’re Dealing With A Narcissist.” Mind Body Green, https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/14-signs-of-narcissism.

Gordon, Paul. Class Discussion. 5 Mar. 2018.

Schenker, Melissa. “Can a Narcissist Love Me?” The Huffington Post, 22 Sept. 2014, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-schenker/can-a-narcissist-love-me_b_5611788.html.

Stines, Sharie. “Victims of Emotional Abuse.” Psych Central Professional, 30 Aug. 2016, http://pro.psychcentral.com/recovery-expert/2016/07/victims-of-emotional-abuse/.

Swept Away. Directed by Lina Wertmüller, performances by Giancarlo Giannini, Mariangela Melato, Medusa Distribuzione, 1974. YouTube.

Interpreting WALKABOUT and SWEPT AWAY: Saeviri Humanum Est by Isaac Hoffman

Reviewers and interpreters of the films Walkabout, by Nicolas Roeg, and Swept Away, by Lina Wertmüller, tend to paint the over-arching messages of the films as acutely monochromatic, when often there is much evidence that through the motifs of juxtaposition in the two pictures, the directors not only contrast “civilization” with “savagery” and capitalism with communism, but also compare the adverse concepts in such a manner that the viewer is forced to critically contemplate the value of each. These interpretations, though perfectly valid, often neglect the inherent reciprocity of “juxtaposition,” that the correlation of different ideas highlights both differences and similarities.

In her analysis of Walkabout, “Eyes Wide Shut,” Alexa Grabowski skillfully elaborates one such comparison in the beginning shots of the film:

People’s faces were not shown for the majority of the opening scene; they were cut off at waist level. The children even appeared to be panting like dogs while in class leading me to believe that Roeg wanted us to see them as a herd of animals rather than individuals. At that point I understood that there was going to be a hint of societal mockery throughout the film. (2)

This is an engaging interpretation, and later in her essay, Ms. Grabowski explains that to interpret this “societal mockery” as purely subversive detracts from the film’s message as a whole (4). Rather than focusing only on the contrasts between civilization and savagery, the film considers the parallels between modernity and its ancestors in tribal systems and unfortunately suggests no solution to the problems which Roeg presents.

In a similar manner, Xavier Eang Lee in his analysis, “The Colored Man’s Burden,” interprets a poignant scene in the film which juxtaposes the Aborigine boy’s gutting of a kangaroo with cuts to a professional butcher in his shop:

The switching between visuals shows the connection between the two ways of butchering. Ab’s way is messy and out in the open, while the Western butcher is chopping in a clean, white environment.  Although these two methods are different they are still essentially the same thing.  Roeg uses the constant changing between frames to show that what may seem savage or taboo from one point of view may not be so from another. (4)

This scene does not demonize Western society, but uses the assaulted sensibilities of the viewer, offended by the brutality of the butchery, to remind him/her that the most significant difference between the two worlds, civilized and savage, is that Western society demonizes the personality of the uncivilized; the concept of civility pretends that the connection between actor and action has been severed, that interaction which remains impersonal is of higher status. Notice that, much like the children in Ms. Grabowski’s scene, the face of the butcher is not in the field of view, his identity is separate from his deeds.

This insulation of doer from done is most clearly present in the young boy, who runs about playing war in the beginning of the movie, yet does not understand the implications of his own father taking shots at him. Society has severed the connection between the deed and the morality and brutality of its author, no one is personally invested in their action and this allows them to do as they please without intervention on the part of the conscience. It is this intentional severance which Roeg is highlighting in this film and he gives no real suggestions for solving the problem.

Unlike the previous analyses, the following interpretations attempt to place the film Swept Away in neat little boxes of “misogynistic” or “pseudo-feminist,” with little consideration of how the themes are used in the movie, particularly whether or not the sexism in the film—Gennarino states outright, “Women were meant to serve men” (Wertmüller 59 min.)—is presented in a negative or positive light. Though it is certainly arguable whether or not rape in film (and, in this case, it most certainly is rape) can even be comedic at all, Wertmüller’s film can be interpreted satirically, and the question simply becomes whether or not the mockery was successful and clear (the very fact that it must be debated is evidence that the parody has failed). How this satirical interpretation affects the intent of the film remains mostly unexplored.

Roger Ebert, in his review of the film, argues that the film sends two specific messages:

(1) That once the corrupt facade of capitalism is stripped away, it's the worker, with the sweat of his back, who deserves to reap the benefit of his own labor, and (2) that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male. (par. 5)

While this is one possible interpretation, it assumes that Gennarino is meant to be viewed as the film’s protagonist, that he is in the “right” at all times. It seems a more nuanced approach is necessary. Perhaps Wertmüller intends to highlight the similarities between the two systems, capitalist and communist, as she points out that even when the communist is in power, he abuses his power as much as Raffaella does when she has the greatest influence. This is certainly not to say that her verbal abuse is somehow equal in magnitude to rape, as this is not the case, but if the director is satirizing Gennarino’s actions, then it is incredibly ironic that the communist, who ostensibly fights for a classless society, sets up a diminutive sexist hierarchy as soon as the reigns are his to snap.

James Berardinelli, in his opposing view of Swept Away, argues that those who criticize the film’s sexism are neglecting two pieces of evidence:

First, Raffaella actually starts the abuse with her constant berating of and lording over Gennarino on the yacht. Secondly, this "romance" is not taking place in anything resembling a civilized situation - by virtue of their circumstances, the characters have been thrown back into a setting that mimics prehistoric times, when survival (of the individual and of the species) dictated coupling. Gennarino's physical dominance of Raffaella is, in a strange way, the manner in which he proves to her that he is strong enough to be her mate. (par. 4)

About the most valuable fragments of analysis in this review are the scare-quotes around “romance,” as the film is hardly romantic and not very comedic. The critic’s first point, which has already been touched upon, argues that Raffaella somehow brought the sexual abuse upon herself through her verbal attacks on Gennarino—when he ignores her whining, she shouts, “Your refusal to answer me only shows what a peasant you were!”(Wertmüller 55 min.)—and this argument essentially justifies rape to avenge insult. Berardinelli’s second point romanticizes a primitive state of being and he falls into the trap of demonizing civility and glamorizing “prehistoric times.” The characters’ natural setting is not an excuse to defenestrate morality, but an opportunity to analyze society (which is has both advantages and disadvantages) in an objective manner; injustices can be redressed and a better amalgamated system implemented. To throw completely off the mantle of civilization is to lose its benefits along with its issues, and this principle can also be applied to capitalism, which, though quite imperfect, has some admirable qualities. This is perhaps the message of Wertmüller’s film, that critical analysis and alteration of the status quo is a better path than starting again from tabula rasa. Not to mention that to justify rape by the location in which it was committed, which Berardinelli attempts to do, is morally myopic.

These reviews prove that to focus only on either the comparisons or the contrasts between two concepts limits interpretation, and, ironically, falls into the same trap as the characters in Swept Away, who can only see each other’s differences, physical and political, and not their similarities as fellow human beings. Neither Walkabout nor Swept Away attempt to subvert civilization as it is today, but to force their audiences to think critically on societal issues with an objective morality, without romanticism or hatred of different concepts in their entirety, and by union of the most beneficial aspects of each system to create an objectively better world.

Works Cited

Berardinelli, James. Rev. of Swept Away, dir. Lina Wertmüller. ReelViews. Web.

Eang Lee, Xavier. “The Colored Man’s Burden.” 2016. Print.

Ebert, Roger. “Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August.” RogerEbert.com.

            20 February 1976. Web.

 Swept Away. Dir. Lina Wertmüller. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini, Mariangela Melato. 1974. Web.

Walkabout. Dir. Nicolas Roeg. Perf. Jenny Agutter, Luc Roeg, and David Gulpilil. 1971. Film.

            YouTube. 10 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

"Invisible Woman" by Morgan Parker

The modern day woman is active. She is a political titan, a social idol and a domestic leader. She has a voice that carries the war cries and merciless intentions of her fallen, but not in vain, predecessors. She speaks not for the ears of others, but for the indulgence and dignity in hearing her own voice. She speaks in statements, she speaks in movements, she speaks for all the empty throats of the women whose voices were drowned out by the heavy lull of time’s ignorance. She is a powerful force beckoning us towards a greater purpose yet still forcing us to find it on our own. Identifying as a modern day woman means many things but, above all else, it requires self discovery and self empowerment. First, I had to discover that I am an invisible woman!

I should say, rather, that I am one among a growing population of invisible women; a group of those unregistered on the visible spectrum of feminism's woman---a woman who is strong, independent and selfish in the best way. She redefined the role of women in the mid-20th century and continues to forge forward in the pursuit of justice. As a movement, feminism has grown and changed to fit the many decades it spans, yet it’s ideal has remained rigidly constant.  In 1963 Betty Friedan, a founder of feminism, wrote “A woman may live half her lifetime before she has the courage to listen to that voice and know that it is not enough to be a wife and mother, because she is a human being herself” (Friedan 5). For feminism’s woman, self-fulfillment is the key to true happiness. No longer should a woman aspire to home-making, but rather to education, to working and to making a life for herself. It is okay to be on a ruthless pursuit of self interest, as it is no longer selfish for a woman to want the best for herself since Friedan proclaimed, “Who knows what women can be when they are finally free to be themselves” (Friedan 10). This was an inspiring and welcomed change for the 1950’s woman because finally she could “learn to listen without fear to the voice inside her instead of smothering it” (Friedan 11). Feminism’s woman gained her trademark of independence to break ground on a new path and begin to change the course. There was now power and fashion behind this woman when the famous words of Gloria Steinem exclaimed, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” (Parker 9).  I, at one time, wanted to be feminism’s woman; one who walks the Earth with eyes wide open, a heart impenetrable and arms outstretched with fingers to grasp only what she wants and palms to cast off that which she does not.

Furthermore, I had always felt that feminism was the most attainable form of liberation a woman could find, but even that no longer seemed true. I tried walking the path of the many remarkable women before me, all the while searching for small similarities to tell me I was headed towards the same great destination. However, all I had to do was look down because my footsteps were nowhere to be found. I had become invisible simply because I could not see myself in it. Alan Watts explains, “Just as sight is something more than all things seen, the foundation or 'ground' of our existence and our awareness cannot be understood in terms of things that are known” (Watts 21). Understandably so, I was invisible because I had tried to see my identity within the already established identity of another. Feminism’s woman was a role in the making years before I tried it on my own skin, which made it feel uncomfortable and restricting. It is of no use to hold onto such identities in “a human world that is changing so rapidly that much of what one learns in school is already obsolete on graduation day” (Watts 13). Thus, as a modern day woman I am challenged to make myself visible by creating my own individual path and understanding my own individual identity. Alan Watts said, “The less I preach, the more likely I am to be heard” (Watts 28). Similarly, the less I force myself upon the world, the more likely I am to be seen.

In this same degree, Gloria Anzaldua’s writing, “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” explores creating individual identity against popular opinion. Although her story is one of national identity, the same theme of self-empowerment remains. She says, “Shame. Low estimation of self. Repeated attacks on our native tongue diminish our sense of self. The attacks continue throughout our life” (Anzaldua 2951). Constantly hearing the voices and opinions of others makes it nearly impossible to hear your own. These outside voices try to tell us a lot about ourselves, and believing them is the first way to let them know they are right. Trusting in your identity is just as important as discovering it because in the face of adversity, this is how we keep our tongues untamed and our feet planted in the ground.  Anzaldua writes, “Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself… I will no longer be made to feel ashamed of existing” (Anzaldua 2951).  

Certainly the modern day woman sees herself in many different ways, but often she neglects to understand the ways in which she is not seen. Through self discovery and self empowerment, we can truly understand individuality and identity. Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man says “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me” (Ellison 3). I believe our invisibility occurs in three stages. The first is when our identity is ignored. Our differences go unappreciated by others, so we search to once again become visible in their eyes. We force ourselves into shapes we do not fit, try on uncomfortable skins and walk long paths with no destination in sight; and again, we find ourselves invisible. This time, however, it is because our identity is lost when our differences go unappreciated by ourselves. So again we search to become visible. We discover the reasons why these various shapes and skins and paths are uncomfortable and futile. And this time, we become invisible by choice when we discover our identity is separate from preconceived perceptions. We do not fall on the visible spectrum, because it is our individuality that becomes our identity; we discover the power in our invisibility.

I am an invisible woman; I am a blank piece of paper and an unmolded clay, I am all that has great potential and untold paths, I am all that possesses true freedom. Before I am anyone else, I am my own woman; I walk the Earth with eyes wide open as my heart and arms outstretched towards a great unknown, with fingers to grasp all that is new and palms to hold onto that which I shall keep for myself.  

Works Cited

Anzaldua, Gloria. "How to Tame a Wild Tongue." (n.d.): n. pag. 1987. Web. 06 Dec. 2015.

Ellison, Ralph. "Prologue." Introduction. Invisible Man. New York: Vintage International, 1995.

3-14. Print.

Friedan, Betty. "Women Are People, Too!" Good Housekeeping. N.p., 09 Aug. 2010. Web. 06

Dec. 2015.

Parker, Kathleen. "Clinton, Steinem and Albright Are #Outoftouch with Millennial Women."

HeraldCourier.com. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.

Watts, Alan. "Inside Information." The Book. ABACUS ed. London: Sphere, 1973. N. pag. Print.