”—nc-

u..- n...

 

! I: .
... s! " * i
1; 5'." .. _ . ‘4
" I‘ _ . 4?
x}. 1 $Ԥ 3E lawn -
- g. “2 ‘
} ‘l
1
r I“.

_.,
‘vrxmirqgjzz.

~— JE ,
mm}

«

Jar. .1. ~

«1—32

.1. ‘1

m

an}
'1' .
““5““:
‘I

Ԥ fag:

HT
. {#423
§ 1"

 

 

:2.
,l.

 

 

,‘wv; ..-u,..n~

2:: 1 :“~.';L~“:::.

   
 
   

9r?" v» 7‘-
”Hum...“ ,
-.._...-....--.-W,...~. ‘
1‘",
-. ,4. 7:,
”-mfi‘ 5.4”;
' JT‘ n»
' .‘fS/i;

...-..... .
s. 1'4

swan»
... mm. ,

523222;": .

 

.% ' . _' . 7-: 5“
. Irw'. ‘. ‘ .fl
.. ' 3: f3" ”2* . "*
, , A _-—‘ v - :v A.
. . ‘ 'w'" r "Mim
_ .0 J . ‘
A ‘D‘:1 . a“
”gig,

ff." " -

    
  

3: ’v“ A" [I Alias; A ' .
:zq ‘ if fizgfit i g5 V
"01‘ '1 .3111} i fig

lllllllllllllllllllHillIllllllllIlllllllllllllllIlllllll

V“ 1 3 1293 020741

(

 

LEBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

HIGH HEELED SEXUALITIES: REPRESENTATIONS OF FEMININITY AND
MASCULINITY IN FOUR FILMS BY PEDRO ALMODOVAR

presented by

H. Louise Davis

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MA degree in Enflish

 

 

I/ 11/ng

Major professor

Date;27 [“3 ’99?

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

9&6 5353 to?

 

 

Di 1 0 2007
1...:

 

lei
Ci

 

’54} .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 chIHCIDaNDupBS—p.“

High Heeled Sexualities: Representations of Femininity and Masculinity in Four
Films by Pedro Almodovar '

By

H. Louise Davis

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of English

1999

Abstract

High Heeled Sexualities: Representations of Femininity and Masculinity in Four
Films by Pedro Almodovar

By
B. Louise Davis

One film-maker who attempts to portray gay and lesbian lifestyles and
activities as “normative”, rather than as example of psycho-sexual deviancies which
must be modified and made palatable for the heterosexual majority audience, is
Spanish writer and director Pedro Almodovar. Despite his protestations that “his
filmic career can be read as a progressive disavowal of homosexuality, whether
masculine or feminine” (Smith, 2), Almodovar has created and produced cinema
which places the world (or, as some argue, Madrid) in the context of a sexually
marginalized Other. He abandons the notion of heterosexual or “straight” normativity
and presents all that has traditionally been considered to be sexually or socially
aberrant and perverse as a simple, if not more desirable, alternative mode of behavior

However, despite his aims, through his choice of form and through the content
of his films, Almodovar continues to perpetuate patriarchal stereotypes about women
and female sexuality rather than liberating women His appropriation of a feminine
mode of expression and subversion, and his representations of women, are clearly
indicative that his assumptions are based upon the traditional phallo-centric view that
that which is female and/0r feminine is available for male consumption and

exploitation.

For my mother who is a constant source of encouragement and support.

iii

Acknowledgment.

I wish to acknowledge Dr. William Vincent without whom this work would not have
been possible nor would my time at Michigan State University have been so fruitful.

“Muchas Gracias!”

iv

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER I

“El Amor de los Ratos”: Representations of Female Sexualities and Relationships ...... 9

Lesbianism ..................................................................................................................... 10

Female Heterosexuality ................................................................................................. 28

CHAPTER H

“Eso Se Llama Reciprocidad”: Representations of Male Sexualities and

Relationships ................................................................................................................. 47
Transvestism and Disguise ................................................................................ 48
Male to Female Transsexuality ......................................................................... 57
Male Homosexuality ......................................................................................... 63
Male Heterosexuality ........................................................................................ 73

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 82

Footnotes ....................................................................................................................... 92

Works Cited ................................................................................................................... 94

Introduction

As Rob Epstein and Jeff Friedman clearly indicate in their documentary, The
Celluloid Closet, mainstream cinema has, for decades, failed to produce either images
or characters with which the homosexual spectator can identify. Up until the mid-
19703 direct and overt representation of homosexual men, women, and lifestyles had
been restricted so much by the implementation of censorship laws and rules (which
were supposedly based upon the majority of public moral opinion) that any film-
maker, director, or actor who attempted to deal with issues of gayness and/or
lesbianism was forced to use subversive or ambiguous means of representation.
Therefore, the homosexual or queer character portrayed in Hollywood cinema had to
successfully pass and function as heterosexual or be undermined and destroyed by the
end of each film.

As a direct result the homosexual spectator of mainstream film was forced to
read and interpret in cinema more closely and independemly than the heterosexual
spectator who could effortlessly relate to the heterosexualized images and scenarios
plastered across almost every screen projection of almost every Hollywood movie.
The homosexual or queer viewer was, in contrast, made to feel uneasy, alienated, and
isolated. In an attempt to find affirmation and alleviate her/his feelings of discomfort
she/he had to either deconstruct and decode, or create hidden clues and meanings
within the sub-text of each film.

Fortunately, in the last twenty to thirty years, with the loosening of censorship

and the emergence of a new non-mainstream/ non-Hollywood cinema (produced

-1-

independently) gay and lesbian characters have finally been depicted as protagonists
and have been provided with coherent means of expression. As a result homosexual
spectators have also been liberated (to a certain extent) in the sense that they can now
easily discover characters and events with which they can relate and which tend to
affirm and ground homosexuality or queemess as a normal, acceptable, and
presentable alternative sexualities.

One fihn-maker who attempts to portray gay and lesbian lifestyles and
activities as “normative”, rather than as example of psycho-sexual deviancies which
must be modified and made palatable for the heterosexual majority audience, is
Spanish writer and director Pedro Almodovar. Despite his protestations that “his
filmic career can be read as a progressive disavowal of homosexuality, whether
masculine or feminine” (Smith, 2), Almodovar has created and produced cinema
which places the world (or, as some argue, Madrid) in the context of a sexually
marginalized Other. He abandons the notion of heterosexual or “straight” normativity
and presents all that has traditionally been considered to be sexually or socially
aberrant and perverse as a simple, if not more desirable, alternative mode of behavior.

Such alternatives are not directly condoned 0r condemned. Rather, in the true
spirit of postmodernism, they “are not in principle governed by preestablished rules,
and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgment, by applying familiar
categories to the[m]” (Lyotard, “Answering the Question”, 81). Almodovar’s films
simply present various life-styles, cultural activities, and sexualities and the audience

is expected to view and accept all, despite apparent contradictions.

-2-

It is his presentation of the previously “unpresentable” that many of
Almodovar’s critics focus upon.l They claim that, due to his successful attempts to
parody, fragment, and re-define social and sexual mores, Almodovar’s cinema is the
epitome of postmodernity. However, although such claims hold some truth one must
also recognize that Almodovar’s appropriation of postmodern techniques is
problematic. According to Ellen Friedman and Miriam Fuchs postmodern techniques
of subversion and expression were originally created and developed by female writers
of the twentieth century.2 Like many male postmodern writers and film-makers
Almodovar blatantly disregards this fact and, thus, corrupts and commandeers
elements of the feminine or femaleness for his own ends. This becomes even more
evident when one examines Ahnodovar’s depictions of women in his films.

Whereas Julian Paul Smith praises Almodovar’s ability to create films that
function as “vehicle[s] for female identification or projection.. [which have]
consistently placed women at the center of the frame” (2) feminist critics should be
aware of the assumptions behind Almodovar’s intentions and achievements in
presenting the feminine:

Women have been able to give themselves up unashamedly to

friendship for cultural reasons, because they have been condemned to

live out their private lives in secret and that private life has only been

revealed to female fiiends. [...] Now I’m aware that the fact that I like

the private life of women may still be a reflection of maschismo. But I

hope not, because I’m interested in women and their world, not just

-3-

when they go to gossip in the bathroom, but at all times. I believe I’m

one of the least machista men in the world, one of the most

authentically feminist. (Smith, 9)

Although, as Stuart Hall indicates in “Deviance, Politics, and the Media”, women and
homosexual men share an affinity with one another as a result of their simultaneous
marginalization, their experiences cannot be described as identical. Ultimately, the
homosexual man attains more privilege than either the heterosexual or homosexual
woman simply because he is a man. Despite his sexuality, it is both impossible and
presumptuous for Almodovar to assume that he is able to, or has the right to, reveal
the “private life of women”. It is true that through his critique of social and political
institutions and practices he can create an environment in which all marginalized
groups have the potential to oppose the dominant oppressive powers. However, it is
naive to assume that this also allows him to define or to speak on behalf of women.
Thus, despite his attempts to provide women with a voice he tends to oppress them
fiirther.

It is my intention to examine how, whilst claiming that he is producing
feminist film, Almodovar continues to perpetuate patriarchal stereotypes about
women and female sexuality rather than liberating women, not only through his choice
of form, but also through the content of his films. I will demonstrate how Almodovar’s
appropriation of a feminine mode of expression and subversion is simply an indication
of his traditional phallo-centric view that that which is female and/or feminine is

available for male consumption and exploitation and why his representations of

.4-

female and/or feminine characteristics, behavior, and life style are problematic. In the
course of my analysis I also wish to examine whether or not it is either possible or
desirable for men, such as Almodovar, to provide a feminist commentary upon the
lives of women particularly if such men rely or utilize Freudian/ psychoanalytic
imagery, symbolism, and assumptions.

Almodovar’s reliance upon psychoanalytic theory becomes considerably
noticeable when one considers his implication that the values and practices of the
“old” world, in which F rancoist belief systems were dominant, should be replaced by
new practices and values that are based upon the need, desire, and ability to explore
diverse and alternative sexualities and modes of sexual expression. Whereas, under
the Franco regime, religion was a determining factor in the lives of both men and
women, in Almodovar’s world, one’s identity is defined through one’s sexuality and
sexual perversions.

In the cinema of Almodovar religious expression and experience is replaced by
sexual expression and experience. Whereas, in the catholic church, the sinner must
confess for his/her sins, in Almodovar’s film the sexually active protagonists must
confess their sexual desires and acts even if each person is content with their sexuality
and does not feel the need to classify his/her desires as sins.3 The confession functions
more as a self-purging (if not a form of psycho-therapy) than as a justification or
repentance. The spectator, and indeed Almodovar himself, is reduced to the function
of the therapist. In this role both the director and spectator are distanced by the camera

and thus enabled to is able to form value judgments about each character and her/his

-5-

lifestyle. These judgments, however, are most problematic in particular with regards
to women.

Many of Almodovar’s characters are nothing but sexual beings whose lives are
controlled by their sexual needs. In addition, whilst accepting themselves for who they
are and being presented as normal it is clear, because of their need to confess, that in
some ways these characters ruled by their sexuality and desires feel an unconscious
sense of guilt and moral deviation. Social values are not so undermined that these
characters can completely disavow conventional beliefs. Both men and women relish
the prospect of doing something sexually “abnormal”.

However, as Louise J. Kaplan indicates in Female Perversions these
supposedly abnormal perversions tend to reaffirm certain gender and sexual
stereotypes. She states:

What makes a perversion a perversion is a mental strategy that uses one

or another social stereotype of masculinity and femininity in a way that

deceives the onlooker about the unconscious meanings of the behaviors

she or he is observing (9).

Kaplan’s ideas can certainly be applied to Almodovar’s work as all those characters
who participate in “perverse” acts reaffirm gender stereotypes, if not through their
confessions, through the acts themselves. Nevertheless, what is most striking about
Almodovar’s cinema is that it is those characters who conform to traditional,
outmoded value systems and modes of behavior are often those who are undermined

the most. These characters are always willing to point out the deviousness of perverse

-6-

acts but, in the process of doing so, it is they who are undermined. They are viewed as
being remnants of the old system which is defunct, obsolete and wrong. Ultimately, it
is they who are perceived as misguided or even deviant because they are repressed
individuals who fear their own sexuality as well as that of others. As Almodovar
represents the new as normal those who are part of the old cannot function normally.
They are viewed, by the spectator, as most deviant; as narcissistic, hysterical, or
suffering from a masculine-complex. It is noticeable that, according to psychoanalysts,
only women suffer from these deviant, mental conditions; and what is interesting
about Almodovar’s representation of those who are trapped within the old conformist
world and are unable to define themselves is that they are typically women.

In Almodovar’s films women are less capable of abandoning those roles which
society has, for hundreds of years, assigned for them. However, according to
Almodovar those women who fail to express themselves through their sexuality only
have themselves to blame for this failure. Rather than depicting them as women who
have had little access to language and who are bound by patriarchal assumptions and
constraints in post-Francoist society in the same ways as during Franco’s reign
Almodovar implies that they have made the choice to remain part of the “old” and that
they have rejected sexual freedom, oftentimes, because of their firm religious beliefs.

The women who refuse to abandon the past and define themselves in a new
manner are always heterosexual women, many of whom have accepted married life
and conformist day to day lifestyles. Only in his early films are there women who have

originally accepted these conditions and later rebelled against the tyranny of their

-7-

fathers, husbands, and children and the boredom of their lives. In his films the
heterosexual woman is not presented as a strong human being; she is feminine and
futile unless she can fulfill the sexual desires of a man. However, in a homosexualized
world in which homosexual men thrive as protagonists, it is difficult for women to
even serve the one sexual or reproductive purpose that they have always been revered
for. Once a woman’s sexual appeal is spent, or if it is ignored and undervalued, she no
longer serves any real purpose. According to Almodovar’s, only is she can find a way
to gain sexual fulfillment for herself, through a “perversion”, can she abandon
patriarchy altogether. However, as Kaplan indicates, this is not, in fact, the case.
Almodovar’s reliance on Freud and reaffirmation of gender and sexual
stereotypes, prevents many of his films from being as radically challenging to the
social order as many Almodovar critics claim. Even those characters who do not
conform to conventional sexual “norms” do tend to believe in gender distinctions.
Their sexualities are non-threatening because they are people who are already
excluded by society; drug addicts and film-makers and thus their sexual activity is to
be “expected”." The fact that they support gender distinctions insinuates that such
distinctions are “natural” as even those people who reject society altogether or stand

outside of it believe in such social codes.

Chapter 1.
“El Amor de los Ratos”: Representations of Female Sexualities and

Relationships.’

Lesbianlsm.

Although Freud makes some distinction between male and female
homosexuality, with regards to the causes, he implies that homosexuality manifests
itself in the same way for gay men and for lesbians.6 Freud’s argument that
homosexuality or “inversion” occurs when “1) several serious deviations from the
normal are found together, and 2) the capacity for efficient survival and functioning
seem to be impaired” (242) has been traditionally accepted for most of the twentieth
century. Even though Almodovar does, to some extent, attempt to challenge the
assumptions behinds such traditionalist lines of thought it is necessary to note that all
of the homosexuals characterized in Almodovar’s films exhibit serious sexual
deviations from socially accepted norms. Female inverts, in particular, tend to display
the most “perverse” deviant behavior and, as a result, are unable to function in a
“normal” or socially acceptable manner. In contrast, and contrary to Freud’s beliefs,
male homosexuals lack none of the attributes or abilities necessary to function
successfully within both the new world of alternate sexual lifestyles or within the old
traditionalist world.

Thus, whereas Freud felt the need to provide psychological explanations for
sexual inversion:

the homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a

childhood, in addition to being a type of life, a life form, and a

morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious

physiology... the homosexual was now a species” (43)

-10-

Almodovar views all male homosexuals as normative. Only female inverts or
bisexuals are classified as “species other” and as complex yet classifiable mysteries,
within Almodovar’s cinema.

The most fundamental problem with Almodovar’s first film, Pepi, Luci, Bom
and Other Girls on the Heap, is indirectly illuminated by Paul Julian Smith when he
discusses Almodovar’s intentions. Smith states that the film:

begins with the violation of a woman continues with the deception

of men by women and a series of scenes in which women’s intimacy is

centre frame. Female friendship is thus a space from which men are

excluded and one to which they aspire (11).

Whereas Smith’s idea holds some validity he, like Almodovar himself, fails to
acknowledge that the male spectator is not excluded from female space when that
female space is presented on screen for his consumption. As Laura Mulvey clearly
indicates, in her article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, men view woman as
object and thus, when woman is placed on screen, and her experiences and behaviors
are filtered through a male lens for the male identified spectator, her space is violated,
controlled, and determined by men Thus, men are no longer excluded from female
intimacy, rather, they impose themselves upon it.

Almodovar does not view this imposition as a male privilege provided men as
a result of the imbalance of power within patriarchal society. In fact, he insinuates that
men, such as Luci’s detective husband (Felix Rotaeta), have the right to impose

themselves upon women, in particular lesbians. Primarily, Luci’s husband physically

-11-

imposes himself upon Pepi (Carmen Maura) in the Opening scene of the film. In doing
so he not only demonstrates a blatant disregard for female desire (even though she
requests that they have anal sex he penetrates her vagina) but he shows how it is
possible for a man, as a result of his brute strength and his ability to fulfill the
dominant role, to dictate the conditions of his relationship with women and deprive
them choice, economically and physically.

Like the detective, the male spectator violates Pepi without questioning his
own ability or privilege to do so. He benefits from the undetectable position of voyeur
who can enjoy sexual arousal at the expense of another without consequence. Thus,
Pepi’s violation is two-fold. She is not only penetrated by Luci’s husband but by the
piercing gaze of the male spectator through the lens of the camera.

The detective’s privilege is, however, more marked than that of the male
spectator. Whereas both experience sexual pleasure and a sense of dominance over the
female as a result of the rape the detective proves, in addition, that his actions have
severe repercussions which affect Pepi’s future plans. Because she is raped vaginally
Pepi can no longer rely on her plan to make money by selling her virginity. By denying
Pepi this choice the detective demonstrates how he has the power to affect the lives,
positively or negatively, of all women with whom he interacts. His lack of concern for
Pepi’s loss is typical of the disregard that men such as the detective, whose beliefs are
based within and supported by patriarchal structures, have for women’s bodies,
choices, and desires.

The detective gains power by denying the desires and needs of another, less

-12-

socially accepted being. His treatment of women, as we shall see later, serves to
justify and elevate him to a position of presumed superiority. Not only does he believe
that is it his right to rape a woman but his success in doing so encourages him to the
extent that he commits the same abuses again without compunction.

In denying the female her social and economic desires, as well as her sexual
needs, the detective demonstrates how men enjoy more privileges than women
because men have the power to make decisions for themselves and to grant and deny
the choices of others. In the same way that the detective denies Pepi financial
opportunity and sexual satisfaction he denies Luci’s life choices. He refuses to allow
her economic independence (as his anger at her giving knitting lessons implies) or to
gratify her sexually. Thus, Luci (Eva Silva) looks for satisfaction elsewhere, primarily
through her relationship with Born (“Alaska”).

Almodovar relies heavily upon traditionally established dichotomies which
distinguish between men and women and between the dominant and the subservient.
In addition, through his presentations of Luci and her search for fulfillment through
lesbianism he reaffirms the dichotomy which separates homosexuality and
heterosexuality but, at the same time, relies on the definition of one “”type of
sexuality to define the other. The following quote by Straayer not only emphasizes this
point but may provide us with some clue as to why Almodovar maintains that he
disavows homosexuality in his work:

[...] by adopting the perspective of a protagonist engaged in the

coming-out process rather than that of a mature lesbian— that is, by

-13-

choosing a “first time” point of view- the coming-out film substantially

reinforces a voyeuristic gaze at lesbianism. Content and construction

thus collaborate to ensure a relevancy to heterosexuality. [...] Any use

of coming out to form identity therefore depends upon the sexual

dichotomy of hetero/homo by which heterosexuality and homosexuality

each construct itself in opposition to the other (33-4).
Seemingly Almodovar is unable to define homosexuality without relating it to
heterosexuality. It is for this reason that he is able to create films which appeal to both
homosexual and heterosexual audiences. His work may not be placed in a
heterosexual context but the heterosexual spectator can relate and empathize,
especially with Luci and her search for a sense of self and sexual fulfillment.
However, as homosexual activity is often abandoned and replaced by heterosexual
activity it is possible for some to assume that Almodovar places his characters and
their lives in a heterosexual context. Both Brad Epps and Paul Julian Smith suggest
that Almodovar does not wish to create “gay cinema. Epps states:

Poses, propositions, and promises of gay encounters abound in this

film, but nowhere does homosexual pleasure succeed in showing itself.

The sex between Fabio and Riza, Sadec and Riza, can only be imagined

for it is not to be seen. [...] On screen homosexuality reveals itself as

desiring heterosexuality. Riza is thus not really gay, nor are his

flirtatious and caresses with Fabio and Sadec sufficient signs to the

contrary (105).

-14-

If one follows Epps’ line of argument it stands to reason that, when watching
Almodovar’s films, the homosexual or bi-sexual spectator must, at times, utilize the
same tactics she or he is forced use whilst watching mainstream film and interpret
subversive clues and signals in order to relate to those films. However, not all
homosexual spectators are excluded from the events depicted on screen and
Almodovar’s films are no more heterosexual than homosexual. Rather, his films are
particularly masculine and appeal mainly to a male identified audience and it is the
female homosexual as well as the female heterosexual who is forced to embark upon a
subversive and interpretive reading of his work. In both his films and his audiences the
desires and needs of women are denied as Almodovar is more successful at
disavowing women than he is at disavowing any other group.

Luci searches for alternative modes of sexual stimulation because her husband
abuses his male privilege and denies her to the extent that she cannot function as a
“proper” wife. However, her lesbian relationship is doomed because it is based upon
the premise that women only turn to lesbianism when their heterosexual relationships
are flawed and imbalanced. The logical conclusion of such an assumption about
female homosexuality would dictate that, if an adequate balance is restored within the
original heterosexual relationships and the man performs a dominant role which is
supported and necessitated by the passive female role, the “homosexual” woman must
surely resume her heterosexual lifestyle. Not surprisingly, Luci does return to her
husband and her actions indicate that, not only is this the right course of action to take,

but that she has learnt how to understand and appreciate her husband’s talents and

-15-

superior sexual prowess whilst temporarily separated from him. The relationship
between the Luci and Born has become unfulfilling simply because, although it is
based upon the same dominant and submissive dichotomy as Luci’s relationship with
her husband, a woman is never truly capable of succeeding in the dominant role which
is conventionally assigned to and performed by men.

According to Almodovar’s presentation of lesbianism, it only natural that Luci
desires and return to her husband In presenting Luci’s and Bom’s sexual activities as
simply an imitation of heterosexual sexual acts Almodovar demonstrates a lack of
understanding of lesbian relationships. However, what is most shocking about
Almodovar’s portrayal of the sexual relationship between Luci and Bom is not the fact
that it is a lesbian relationship but that it is a relationship in which sexual desires and
fantasies are expressed through sado-masochistic behavior during which Born always
possesses the power of domination but that, as in “straight” sexual encounters which
“entail women’s subordination” (Jackson, 175), Luci is forced into submission. Only
one participant, Born, is able to perform the role of dominator/dominatrix.

In her article, “Feminism and Sado—Masochism”, Pat Califa indicates how such
an interpretation of female sado—masochism, as portrayed in Pepi, Luci. Bom, is false.
She states:

The key word to understanding SM is fantasy. The roles, dialogue,

fetish costumes, an sexual activity are part of a drama or ritual. The

participants are enhancing their sexual pleasure, not damaging or

imprisoning one another. A sadomasochist is well aware that a role

-16..

adopted during a scene is not appropriate during other interactions and

that the fantasy is not the sum of her whole being. S/M relationships are

usually egalitarian. Very few bottoms want a hill—time mistress. (232)
Almodovar’s representation of female S/M differs greatly from the definition provided
by Califia (a self-professed expert in the art of sado-masochism). Bom is incapable of
abandoning the dominant role outside the bedroom and treats Luci as a servant. As a
result Luci becomes imprisoned in a non-egalitarian relationship which does not serve
to satisfy her sexually. Finally Luci rejects Born and succumbs to the desires and
brutality of her husband once again.

Luci’s husband is not only capable of extreme aggression and violence but he
possesses a penis which, ultimately, provides him with the power to both define and
satisfy Luci’s sexual needs if he so chooses. His natural talent for violence and his
possession of a tool of penetration result in his victory over Born and the return of his
wife Luci. Unlike with Born, the violence of the detective is never questioned as it
seems that violence and aggression are simply “natural” masculine traits, if not
necessities. Contrarily, Bom is presented as a sadist who, because of her gender, is
incapable of channeling her violent tendencies or desires for purposeful means. Her
attempts to take control and act a dominant role during the sexual act as well as in her
everyday role (which is always underpinned by sexual activity) are futile and she must
resort to more perverse methods of violence, such as the golden shower, in order to
appear powerful and appeal to heterosexual women such as Luci. But, as even these

extreme methods fail to lure women away from their men permanently, Almodovar

-17-

implies that men inherently possess more power of attraction than women.

The detective’s belief in his right to privilege is a typically conservative belief
of men immersed in patriarchal, capitalist social values. In the true sense of a
F ranconian supporter he open mouths his conservative ideology whilst ignoring even
the presence of his own wife. In a sense his words and gestures are comical in the
scene in which he discusses “how Spain is going to the dogs ‘with so much
democracy’” (Smith,1 1) and it appears that Almodovar, through the use of comedy, is
attempting to undermine such conservative bigots. Nevertheless, when one considers
that such men are more desirable and acceptable in a society which undervalues strong
and decisive women, and that in his films Almodovar also marginalizes women, it
seems too difficult to believe that characters such as the detective are really being
ridiculed or critiqued.

It is only during Luci’s absence, when he is feeling most vulnerable and has
little outlet for his sexual aggression and is forced to find sexual satisfaction
(stimulate his penis) through looking at pornography that he is viewed as degenerate.8
However, despite the unsavory nature of his “reading” materials and of the rape he is
about to commit, his actions cannot be condemned by the spectator who, whilst
watching the rape scene, also find pleasure in the act of voyeurism.

The detective’s use of pornography indicates that he, like many of
Almodovar’s male characters and spectators, cannot function without possessing a
means of sexual expression and release. For Luci’s husband this, as well as the fact

that his wife has left him for another woman, leads to a sense of inadequacy. Such

-18-

inadequacy can only be alleviated if he can prove his dominance over another woman;
either through visual or physical violation

Rather than allowing women such as Luci and Born to metaphorically castrate
him by removing his power and taking control of themselves into their own hands he
proves that his masculinity by forcing himself, aggressively, upon Charo. Rape is the
only way that he can combat the threat of powerlessness is to use his penis as a
weapon and sexually violate, yet again, a woman who is less powerful than himself.
Charo is neurotic and frigid and, seemingly, deserves to be overpowered During the
attack she is presented as a physically and mentally weak woman who deep down
desires the advances of Luci’s husband. She is more concerned with the prospect of
being naked than she is with the idea of forced penetration and her feeble protestations
during and after the rape cause the spectator to view it as less serious and callous than
it is. The effect of the rape is intensified partly because Luci’s husband is portrayed as
a victim who has no choice but to rape Charo in order to allay the threat of
emasculation and partly because the viewers have participated in the rape themselves.

Throughout the film a sense of ominous foreboding is created whenever a
knock at the door is heard First Pepi allows her attacker to enter her room, later Charo
enters a room in which she will be attacked, and towards the end of the film Roxi
attacks an unsuspecting mailman who innocently enters Bom’s house to bring a
telegram from the hospitalized Luci. In entering or allowing others to enter through
the door Pepi, Charo, and the mailman all put themselves in a compromising position

which, Almodovar implies, they appear to deserve because they have laid themselves

-19-

open enough to be entered themselves. Following this line of argument it seems that,
In some sense, Almodovar is implying that men have the right to both define and view
women on screen because women have agreed to be examined through a camera lens.
This not only justifies male voyeurism and the objectification of women but insinuates
that women are to blame for being sexualized

The scene between Luci’s husband and Charo is, however, the most disturbing
of the violation scene 5 in Pepi, Luci, Born in the sense that the real victim, Charo, is
totally unaware of her fate. Immediately she is pushed against the wall, her clothing is
removed, and she is violated. As with Pepi, Charo is not only raped by Luci’s husband
but also by the camera which focuses and concentrates upon the area of penetration
just as she is being penetrated. Straayer suggests, whilst referring to Elisabeth in
Peeping Tom, such a shot enables the spectator to “spy” upon the victim and she also
identifies the more sinister effects of pointing the camera at a woman genitalia.

The act of gazing, meant to be traversed rapidly as the subject moves

on in his or her trajectory toward the final aim of sexual activity, with

sexual satisfaction gained exclusively from this act of gazing. [...]

Gazing takes the place of the touching, indeed becomes an independent

process, leading to a twisted form of penetrating the other... (60)
Unfortunately, the rape of Charo only offers Luci’s husband temporary satisfaction
and it is not until he has succeeded over Born, by repossessing his wife, can he truly
reaffirm his own masculinity.

It is not surprising that the method he chooses to retrieve his wife is one of

-20-

violence considering his former methods of gaining power and control form and over
Pepi and Charo. Primarily Luci’s husband, who is unaware of his wife’s masochistic
nature, decides to overpower her and abduct her without her consent. In the alleyway
he attacks her and , using expletives and physical violence, he forces her into a state of
disability which will force her to submit to him. It is at the point at which he realizes
that she finds such acts of violence to be erotic that he begins to understand how he
can control her and reaffinn his masculinity at the same time.

Luci’s husband does not choose to deal with Luci in such a brutal manner
simply because she desires to be treated so. His violence serves his own means. Not
only does it guarantee that his wife will remain submissive to him but it ultimately
always results in sexual intercourse and penetration. In the hospital, however, his
sadistic treatment of Luci serves yet another purpose as it also allows him to
demonstrate his dominance and power over Pepi and Bom.

When Pepi and Born first enter the Luci’s hospital room they are under the
illusion that they can persuade her to return to her alternate lifestyle. The presence of
Luci’s husband in the room, however, alters their perception of the situation and
immediately the viewer is made aware of the fact that he will call the shots. His ability
to do so is made apparent when Luci states that “I didn’t realize that you were such a
bastard” as he twists her arm and inflicts pain upon her in a way that Born never
could. Here Luci’s husband’s sadistic action does more than simply arouse both him
and his wife- it forces Luci to finally confess her sexual desires which leads to the

exclusion and exit of Pepi and Born.

-21-

In The History ofSexualiiy Foucault explains how the act or ritual of
confession has gained a central role in contemporary society and how the need to
confess has become an integral part of demonstrating and accepting one’s sexuality.
Even though in Sexuality he does not always consider the ways in which gender
assumptions and gender inequality alters such power structures in favor of men, and
that we have not so much become “a singularly confessing society” but a society in
which those who are considered as “other” are forced to confess, his theories about the
nature and validity of confession can be applied to Luci. Foucault states:

The confession has spread its effects far and wide. It plays a part in

justice, medicine, education, family relationships, and love relations, in

the most ordinary affairs in every day life, and in the most solemn rites;

one confesses one’s crimes, one’s illnesses and troubles; one goes

about telling, with the greatest precision, whatever is most difficult to

tell. One confesses in public and in private, to one’s parents, one’s

educators, one’s doctor, to those one loves; one admits to oneself, in

pleasure and in pain, things it would be impossible to tell anyone else,

the things people write books about. One confesses— or it forced to

confess. When it is not spontaneous or dictated by some internal

imperative, the confession is wrung from a person by violence or threat.

[...] The most defenseless tenderness and the bloodiest of powers have

a similar need of confession. Western man has become a confessing

animal (58).

-22-

Perhaps, as Foucault claims, “western man” has become a confessing animal but, for
Almodovar, “western woman” does not simply have the freedom to “become”
anything. She is either coerced into admitting her faults, sins, crimes, and desires in
the presence of a man who feels power from her weakness or she is silenced, left
voiceless and expressionless by men who wish to avoid hearing a confession that may
compromise their position and make them feel weak.

Luci is forced to confess to Pepi and Bom her desire to stay with her husband
by her husband Lying in her hospital bed, her position (like the camera shots and
angles) being overshadowed and dominated by the looming figure of her husband who
stands with his arm positioned upon her injured shoulder, she confesses that she no
longer desires Born. In doing so she reaffirms her husband’s masculinity. She states
that Bom is weak and lacks the ability to control her in the same way as her over-
aggressive husband who, rather than silencing her immediately, inflicts physical pain
upon her so that she will continue to conflate his ego and undermine Bom’s power.
Whilst he intimidates both Pepi and Born by continuing to stand while they sit, Luci
verbally allays his fears of castration by implying that he is a superior to Born as a
lover and as a “man”. Although it is he who conspired to bring the girls to the hospital
by sending them the telegram, which was supposedly sent by Luci, he does not wait
long until he orders them to leave. Once he is reassured of his position he orders Luci
to be silent and forces Pepi and Born (the “Kid”) to go.

The fact that the scene takes place in a hospital seems to reaffirm him further.

The state institution which is still controlled by a government whose laws and values

-23-

have always been, and will always be, structured by a patriarchal system gives him the
power that he would perhaps not have if he were situated elsewhere. He is forced to
abduct her from the club, and is unable to reaffirm himself there, because the
nightclub is a safe space for women. It, unlike the hospital, is a place controlled by
women, full of women, and situated in Bom’s hometown. However, the hospital room,
which is overshadowed by a conservative symbol of christian mythology, the crucifix
which Luci’s husband carefully places above the bed before Pepi and Born enter, is
not a safe female space and thus his power is restored.

Luci’s hospital confession can be described as the first in a long line of
confessions that take place in a safe male space in Almodovar’s films. In High Heels
Becky (Marisa Paredes), upon her death bed, confesses to a murder she did not
commit in order protect her daughter, Rebeca (Victoria Abril), from the law. Both
Becky’s confession and her death provide Rebeca with freedom; freedom from
incarceration and freedom from the inadequate feelings imposed upon her by her
mother. Becky has proved to be more successful than Rebeca for all of Rebeca’s life.
She robs Rebeca of her childhood, of her love, and finally of her husband. The only
way Becky can purge the guilt she feels for ruining the life of her child and driving
Rebeca to commit murder, is by proving her love through her final act of confession.

In the same way that a parishioner confesses all the sins of his or her life to a
catholic priest Becky tells Judge Dominguez (Miguel Bose) of her failings. However,
as her abandonment, jealousy, and coveting of Rebeca’s husband are not crimes

according to the law, she cannot explain her actual actions. Therefore, as she has

-24-

indirectly caused Rebeca to kill, she takes responsibility for that final act. In doing so
she implies that a mother is always responsible for the failings of her child.

Despite her intentions, Becky’s false confession is a sin and hinders a criminal
investigation. However, although her words result in her being considered a sinner and
a criminal, she has no choice but to protect her child. As a mother she is oppressed by
both religion and society and is, therefore, doomed to an existence filled with blame
and guilt both during this life and the next. Patriarchal structures of law and religion,
neither of which recognize a husband’s emotional abuse as a sin or a crime, control
women and impose a false sense of guilt upon them, to such an extent, that they can
never escape patriarchal constraints even after death.

In the same way Pepi and Bom cannot escape their inherent flaws because they
are women. They are subjected to a confession which dis-empowers them, proves their
lack of choice, and again justifies and maintains the ideas of Freud. Pepi and Bom
must be overpowered by the detective because they are female (born with original sin)
and partly because the sexual activities they participate in and their attitudes towards
sexuality are perverse “sins” according to all patriarchal institutions; the law, the
church, and society.

Throughout his work Almodovar presents alternative sexualities but none of
which are as explicit and controversial as those initiated by Born. Whereas the
“perversions” of heterosexual men, such as voyeurism or violation, are not presented
as that unusual (especially considering that the male spectator is performing such

activities as, whilst simply watching the film, he is being a voyeur who imposes and

-25-

violates female space) in comparison to the “water-sports” which arouse Born and
Luci.

Luci’s return to her husband and her confession is problematic because it
undermines lesbian or female bonds and relationships but most importantly the act of
returning emphasizes Luci’s weakness as a heterosexual woman. She chooses to spend
the rest of her life with a man who abuses her physically, not because she desires it,
but because he feels the need to punish her for making decisions by herself. If her
leaving him was an act of strength and resistence, her return to him is an act of
ultimate subservience. She demonstrates the need to put her husband’s concerns
before her own in the same way that Becky, before her confession, puts men before
her own child. Luci’s husband’s hate and anger are, again, never questioned, nor is her
willingness to submit.

As in traditionalist patriarchal societies, in particular those heavily influenced
by the catholic church, their acceptance of the roles of dominant husband versus
subservient wife is not only accepted but expected. As the priest in Law of Desire
indicates, there is no room for deviants in the church. When Tina asks to sing in the
church of her boyhood he asks her to leave. He cannot accept her because she is now a
woman. She is viewed as deviant in her female form whereas, as a homosexual boy
who accepted and cherished the sexual advances of a paedophiliac, he/she was not. As
a man, who is privileged in the catholic church, he has the ability to deny her religious
needs upon the basis that he no longer has a sexual need or desire for her.

Without religion to guide the heterosexual woman she is lost. She is left to

-26-

search for new meanings and new outlets of expression other than prayer and
confession. However, in Almodovar’s cinema, sexuality is the only replacement for
religion. As the fate of Pepi, Luci, and Born illustrates, Almodovar’s women are
unable to deal with sexual freedoms or find meaning through alternate sexual
encounters and, therefore, they are doomed to lives of emptiness or as disciples to a

false, male dominated, hierarchal form of Christianity.

-27-

Female Heterosexuality.

Since the beginnings of what we now term “civilized society” men have
believed that any acknowledgment of female sexuality or desire posed a threat to
society and the patriarchal social order. Women’s sexuality was viewed as so
mysterious and untamed that men felt the need to silence expressions of female
sexuality and enforce moral codes and laws which inhibited women’s social
movement and prohibited women from either realizing or acting out their desires.
Male dominated institutions (such as the law, religion, and all other elements of the
superstructure) developed social constructions which encouraged women to behave in
a constrained and submissive manner. Men and women were exposed to and forced to
accept a false consciousness which advocated that female desire was to be repressed
for the good of society.

Almodovar not only supports the continuance of this false consciousness
through his negative portrayals of strong, sexually aware women but demonstrates a
tendency to perpetuate the contradictory notion that women have no right or ability to
choose their social or sexual place in society but that every female is responsible and
accountable for their actions.

This contradiction becomes most apparent when one examines Almodovar’s
presentations of heterosexual women Rather than concluding that women oflen marry
because they feel that they have no other choice (particularly in Almodovar’s world in
which all lesbian relationships are doomed to failure) Almodovar blames heterosexual

or married women for making the misguided decision to many.

-23-

In Labyrinth of Passion Sexi (Cecilia Roth) decides to spend the rest of her life
faithful to Riza (Imanol Arias) because her relationship with him enables her to escape
the horrific, psychologically scarring events of her past and “cures” her nymphomania.
In Sexi’s case marriage is viewed as a means to create both a secure life and a stable
psyche. Almodovar claims that the film, and Sexi’s and Riza’s ultimate escape into
heterosexual bliss, is a critique of Freudian analyses of sexual normativity.

In his article “Sense and Sensibility, or Latent Heterosexuality and Labyrinth
of Passion” James Mandrell attempts to explain the reason why the two main
characters in the film, Sexilia (Cecilia Roth) and Riza (Imanol Arias), find an outlet
for their passions and the fulfillment of the desires through their stereo- typically
“normative” heterosexual relationship. Mandrell states:

The fact that most of the characters, that is, the straight characters, end

up happy in Labyrinth of Passion, despite or even because of the

convoluted nature of desire, leads one to suspect that Almodovar is

offering a pointed if humorous critique of Freudian theories of

psychosexual developments (46).

It is clear, to some extent, that Mandrell is correct to assume that Almodovar is trying
to discount certain Freudian notions. However, Almodovar fails to do so and, rather
than challenging Freud he affirrns Freud’s disavowal of the feminine. Mandrell not
only refuses to acknowledge this but supports Almodovar’s limited analysis of Freud
when he “suggests” that “[...] Almodovar’s sexuality- or gender- ought to be virtually

irrelevant when it comes to the making of a film” (43).

-29-

If we ignore Almodovar’s gender and the privilege afforded to him because of
his gender we run the risk of failing to recognize the bias and assumptions upon which
his films are based. Freud suggests, throughout his writing, that men have both the
ability and the right to define heterosexuality, homosexuality, and femininity. Women,
on the other band, do not have the mental capacity or the power to create such
definitions. By making Almodovar’s gender irrelevant his critics support this notion.

Whereas within Pepi, Luci, and Bom Almodovar inadvertently uses Freudian
assumptions to examine lesbianism and sado-masochism as specifically female
perversions, in Labyrinth of Passion he deliberately plays upon Freudian notions of
femininity to explain how, through the characterization of Sexilia’s nymphomania as a
specifically feminine disorder. By the end of the fihn, however, Sexilia, with the help
of her psychoanalyst, has overcome her phobia of the sun, psychoanalyzed her past,
and found satisfaction in a monogamous relationship with Riza The chain of the
events leading up to Sexilia’s discovery of her “true” monogamous nature (if only she
can find the right man!) are comical because they are predictable for any spectator
who has a knowledge of Freud. It is this comical aspect of Ahnodovar’s case study of
Sexilia’s nymphomania that prevents many critics from identifying the problematic
and inadequate nature of Almodovar’s critique of Freud.

The opening scene of the film is shot amongst the crowded market stalls in El
Rastro, Madrid’s largest flee market. Amidst the commotion, the hustle and bustle of
buying and selling, the two central figures of Sexi and Riza become most noticeable.

Their presence is striking because, whereas other shoppers are looking for material

-30-

bargains, Sexi and Riza are looking for commodities of a different kind.

Both characters are in search of men with whom they can share a sexual
encounter. As a result, they focus their attention upon the most sexual aspects of the
men who pass them by. Ahnodovar emphasizes both Sexi’s and Riza’s intentions by
also focusing the camera upon the crotches and buttocks of male shoppers and
marketeers. Whereas mainstream audiences are, as Laura Mulvey points out, used to
viewing the female body in such an objectified, disembodied, sexual manner this
focus upon the male body is somewhat disturbing. However, even though the spectator
is forced to consider this particular scene, the film’s opening, from either a female or a
male homosexual perspective Almodovar does not continue to make mainstream,
conservative spectators uneasy throughout the rest of the film. As Barbara Morris
implies in “Almodovar’s Laws of Subjectivity and Desire”, Almodovar cannot avoid
making his characters erotically appealing to the males in his audience even if his
characters are, themselves, male. When discussing The Law of Desire Morris states:

Ahnodovar configures the male body in Desire as one of the primary

loci of scopophilic desire, and its specular display is always in visual

relation to the gaze of another desiring male (89).

By the end of Labyrinth of Passion the perversions of both main characters
appear to have been “cured”. Both Sexi and Riza stop searching for sexual fulfillment
in brief encounters with random men, they no longer objectify the male body, and they
settle into a comfortable, heterosexual relationship with one another. Almodovar

claims that by ending the film in this manner he completes his critique of Freud’s

-31-

theories about the curable nature of sexual perversions.7 However, in contrast to
Almodovar’s own assertion, I would argue that, although the fate of Sexi and Riza
may encourage mainstream audiences to question the stereotypical nature of Freud’s
theories about homosexuality, the neatly tied ending does not challenge
psychoanalytic assumptions about female perversions or detail a more feminine
perspective upon sexuality. Male homosexuality is not presented as abnormal nor is it
necessary that all male homosexuals be cured of their “perversion” (Sadec, played by
Antonio Banderas, is still gay at the end of the film), but Sexilia’s “perversion” must
be averted.

In forcing all women to convert to more acceptable modes of sexual behavior
whilst allowing certain male characters to continue exhibiting and participating within
the perverse Almodovar once again recreates a binary which separates male and
female behaviors, attitudes, and potentials to succeed. Not only does he imply that
there is an inherent difference between the types of perverse desires and activities that
men and women take part in but that it is more acceptable for men to continue to
behave in a “perverse” manner.

Like Almodovar, Louise J. Kaplan identifies a difference between male and
female perversions. However, unlike Almodovar, Kaplan attempts to create a
framework which analyses how this difference arises. She claims that male and female
perversions are the product of constructed gender stereotypes and are not an innate
biological or mental condition that separates the two sexes. Kaplan states:

A perversion is a psychological strategy, [...] The overall strategy

-32-

operates in the same way for males and females. What makes all the

difference between male and female perversions is the social gender

stereotype that is brought into the foreground of the enactment (10).

As a result of this conclusion Kaplan defines certain perversions, such as “fetishism,
transvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, pedophilia,
zoophilia, [and] necrophilia” (12), as specific to men. Kaplan’s assumptions are,
however, based within the notion that gender is fixed and that neither the male nor the
female is able to move beyond or alter socially constructed gender stereotypes.
Almodovar, too, is unable to reject the fixed nature of gender binaries and thus, like
Kaplan, he insinuates that certain “perversions” are particular to men and others are
particular to women.

The reason why Almodovar does not feel the need to undermine all men who
participate in alternate sexual activity is, I would argue, because he judges the “types”
of female perversions depicted more harshly than those of men. It is noticeable that
Almodovar’s list of male perversions differs somewhat to Kaplan’s in the sense that
none of Almodovar’s men suffer from the desire to be sexually masochistic.
Masochism is, in Almodovar’s cinema, a sign of weakness and of the need to be
dominated Men, in Almodovar’s world, rarely feel the need to be dominated, rather,
that role is left for women to perform because, stereotypically, they have always
performed that role.

This is made most evident through the relationship between Sexi and Riza.

Riza’s perversion, which he able to purge himself of through a confession at the end

-33-

of the film, is considered to be less threatening simply because “in every normal male
and female individual, traces are found of the apparatus of the opposite sex” (Freud,
243-4). By looking to Freud Almodovar is able to find a biological or scientific
explanation of Riza’s homosexuality as:

These long familiar facts of anatomy lead us to suppose that an

originally physical disposition has, in the course of evolution, become

modified into a unisexual one (244).
However, as Freud claims, “we are ignorant of what characterizes a female brain”
(244) and, therefore, the activities or desires created within the female brain are
considered to be mysterious. Hence, Sexi’s perversion, her nymphomania, cannot be
readily explained unless one is provided with a complete and detailed account of the
childhood trauma and the psychological trauma that led to her desire to have sex with
numerous men at one time. True, Almodovar does provide a basic rationale for Riza’s
homosexuality, however, as Riza is not the only character who represents male
homosexuality in Labyrinth, his experiences are not considered to be the only
experiences that lead to homosexuality in men. Riza’s case is viewed as an isolated
case in which his relationship with his step-mother has forced him to find alternate
sexual outlets of expression. In contrast, Sexi is the only female character who
performs sexually perverse acts in Labyrinth and therefore her experiences and
psychological case study stands to represent all female “perverts”.

Sexi is the only women in either Pepi, Luci, Bom or Labyrinth who is depicted

as powerful enough to fulfill her own obsessive needs. However, unlike Luci, who is

-34-

overpowered by her sexual partners, in particular men, Sexi finds power and
fulfillment in her polymorphous sexual activities. Thus, when she is finally reconciled
with Riza, as the scene between them in the taxi cab demonstrates, she is not allowed
to confess because her confession would not serve as an affirmation of his manhood
but as a affirmation of her sexual drive and her ability to express herself sexually.

In the back of the taxi Sexi and Riza are enclosed in a small space in which the
sounds of the outside world are excluded. This space immediately becomes a
masculine space when Riza begins to confess his past and, as a result, rids himself of
the guilt he feels for being gay and for sleeping with the countess. His limited
heterosexual experiences lead him to feel inadequate in comparison to Sexi who has
had countless heterosexual partners despite the fact that, once he has established a
relationship with Sexi, it is she who cannot perform sexually for fear of making their
relationship “the same as all the rest”. She attempts to conform to the normative
heterosexual pressures of a relationship, but, not being content with this or being able
to acknowledge and accept his own fear of inadequacy, Riza feels the need to prove
his authority, power, and masculinity by silencing Sexi.

Not only is Sexi not allowed to confess to Riza, but her voice, if she were to
use it, would be excluded from the outside world She cannot be heard through the
metal or over the sound of the moving vehicle in which she is named. She cannot
express herself in such a safe masculine space and thus she is silenced for the first
time but not for the last time. Riza’s need to silence Sexi, to avoid hearing stories

about her past that will affum his inadequacy, emphasizes both his desire to be heard

-35-

and to maintain the appearance of his masculine strength. Like Luci’s husband, he
gains a sense of power and dominance by oppressing women. One can only assume
that, even after they escape to Teheran and he becomes King, he will still feel the need
to dominate others and, therefore, the road of life to he traveled by Sexi will be the
same as the road she travels, metaphorically, in the cab; both journeys result in her
subordination.

In The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State Friedrich Engels
discusses why, in contemporary society as in ancient societies, it is necessary for
women to become and remain monogamous in order for the patriarchal structures and
institutions to provide and preserve the power and privilege offered to men. Engels
states:

Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the

hands of a single individual- a man— and from the need to bequeath this

wealth to the children of that man and no other. For this purpose, the

monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this
monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or

concealed polygamy on the part of the man (106).

According to Engel’s argument, a woman who insists upon participating in
polygamous relationships is not considered to be “alternative” in a patriarchal,
capitalist society but a threat to that society. Therefore, it is no surprise that Sexi’s
sexual behavior must be curtailed as, if she were allowed to continue in her originally

“perverse” manner, she would threaten Almodovar’s perception of the world as well

-36-

as the assumptions of his male— identified audiences.

Sexi is a threat, not simply because she does not conform to the stereotypical
role assigned to women in order to benefit men economically, socially, and
psychologically, but because she behaves like a man in all aspects of her life. Rather
than “... attach[ing] to men and women by over-identifying with them [which] can
result in the depletion of [her] own separate self and activity” (Shapard, 163) her
detached, typically masculine attitudes towards sex, relationships, and commitment
enable her to satisfy herself before others. Whereas Wendy Harcourt, in “Feminism,
Body, and Self”, implies that women such as Sexi should be viewed in a positive light
because they prove that “gender is a social construct and that women would benefit if
men feared them less and if culture regarded women as more than mothers or sexual
partners” (73) Almodovar, in converting Sexi, insinuates that her lack of emotional
attachment or maternal feelings is unnatural.

The conversation between Sexi and Riza is reminiscent of the conversation
between Queti’s mother and her lover which also takes place in the back of a taxi.
Queti’s mother, like Sexi, is forced into a position that she does not desire but, due to
the overbearing will of her lover, she is forced to acquiesce with his wishes to such an
extent that she changes her own. This does not happen when Queti ( Marta Fernandez
Mum) and Sexi, two women, converse in a taxi. The women share a conversational
exchange and, because the space is a safe feminine space protected by the insular
nature of the car, both can express their desires, needs, and dreams.

The experiences of Luci, Sexi, and Queti’s mother lead one to surmise that

-37-

women are only allowed or forced to confess their pasts if it suits the need and inflates
the egos of the men to whom they confess. Men have the choice to confess or not to
confess. Riza makes the decision to voice his sexual “sins” because, in doing so, he
can be absolved without remorse or penance as Sexi has little power to deny him.
Sexi, who can no longer use poly-amorous sex as an outlet for expression, and who is
not allowed to talk about the process of expression she has developed through sex, is
placed in the same position as all other monogamous, heterosexual women She is
powerless.

By presenting Sexi thus, Almodovar negates his own attempts to critique
Freud As well as reaffirming Freud’s notion that homosexuality or “inversion” can be
cured he also indicates that monogamous, heterosexual relationships serve to put
women in their subordinate place. The fact that Almodovar fails to examine the
psychoanalytic reasoning for all male perversions but clearly provides a
psychoanalytic explanation for female perversion also proves that he is less concerned
with creating a “rich account of masculinity” than describing the mysteries of, and
solving the problems posed by, the female mind.

As Almodovar continues to base his analysis of sexuality within a Freudian
framework and reaffirm gender stereotypes one can only assume that he, like Freud, is
content with the assumption that all psychological traumas caused in childhood are the
fault of the mother as, despite his so—called attempt to undermine Freud, Almodovar
fails to examine the ways in which Freudian theorists implicate the mother when

discussing a child’s perversion.

.33-

Riza demonstrates few homosexual tendencies until after his horrific sexual
experience with the countess upon the beach in Teheran. During this encounter he
becomes aware of the countess’ lack of the phallus (her lack of power as well as of
male genitals). As a response to the shock of his realization he turns away from his
pursuit of females, in particular the young Sexi, and turns his attentions towards
members of the same sex. In presenting Riza’s adoption of homosexuality thus,
Almodovar, in the guise of critiquing Freud, uses the same model as Freud to explain
Riza’s inversion. Similarly, as the beach scene again demonstrates, Almodovar
employs Freud’s theory of the female Oedipal complex in order to explain Sexi’s
nymphomania. As Susana (Ofelia Angelica) explains, Sexi’s fear of the sun is
psychological. It reminds her of a traumatic experience in her childhood; the threat
posed by other, phallic-less women and the loss of her father’s love. As she cannot
acknowledge this she must turn to other, more devious means of attaining love,
acceptance, and a father figure as a love object. Thus, in an attempts to compensate
for her father’s lack of interest in her, she searches for both love and fulfillment in the
many numerous sexual encounters she shares with random men.

However, whilst obviously parodying Freud’s most well known theories, and
thus making them appear to be as extreme as the clothing and behavior of Sexi, Riza,
and their fiiends, Almodovar does not consider the implications about gender that lie
behind his representation of male inversion and the oedipal complex. Seemingly,
Almodovar is content with the notion that male perversions occur as a result of the

male being exposed to a form of female perversion. Riza’s stepmother’s actions, and

-39-

her lack of the phallus, “force” Riza to become homosexual. However, female
perversions are not the fault of any male act. True, Sexi’s father does ignore her and
cause her to yearn for male attention but one can assume that it is ultimately Riza’s
rejection of Sexi, which has been caused by the countess, that makes her fear the sun
and turn into a nymphomaniac. Thus, as with male perversion, female perversion
results from being the victim of another female’s need to behave in a perverse manner.
If Ahnodovar were truly attempting to ridicule Freud surely he would attempt to turn
this assumption around and critique the idea that the mother figure is always to blame
for the psychologically abnormal behavior of children.

In contrast to his depictions of women Almodovar does not indicate that men,
be they straight, gay, transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, or rapists, must alter their
behavior or suppress their desires for any reason other than their own choosing.
However, whilst men possess the privilege of choice they are not presented as
accountable for the consequences of their choices.

Dr. de la Pefla (Fernando Vivanco) serves as an example of a man who is not
responsible for his actions. In contrast, however, the two traditionally normative
heterosexual women who are portrayed, Susana, and the Countess Toraya (Helga
Line). in the film, are to be blamed for their behavior and attributes even though they
have little ability to change either.

Sexi’s father, Dr. de la Pefia, who we can assume to be heterosexual due to his
prior marriage and his later attraction towards a woman whom he believes to be his

daughter, devotes his life to experimental science because he believe that sex is a

-40-

disgusting, futile, and unnecessary activity. His work becomes an obsession. He finds
fulfilment in science because, his focus upon the reproductive and sexual
abnormalities of women, enables him to deny his own sexual frigidity .

Dr. de la Pefia’s focus bears an affinity with that of Almodovar. His work
stands as a metaphor for the sterility, frigidity, and “unnaturalness” of heterosexual
society. The artificial insemination techniques he develops are themselves
“unnatural”; the test tube baby he creates is a monster, his artificially inseminated
budgies won’t sing (until given an aphrodisiac), and the idea of giving a mentally
unstable woman, such as countess, a child in order to taunt her ex-husband seems
inhumane.

It is only when Dr. de la Pena is made aware of his desire for his daughter that
he is able abandon his scientific obsession. However, his sexuality still appears to be
unnatural as, in performing the sexual act with Queti (who he believes is Sexi), he
believes that he is committing incest. Nevertheless, because he does so in a drug
induced state, his actions and intentions can be excused. In the same way that Queti
must give the budgies and aphrodisiac to make them perform their song she must give
Dr. de la Pefia Benzamino to make him perform sexually. This is significant, again, in
the sense that, by indicating that men can only perform acts which are traditionally
viewed as perverse in a drug induced state, Almodovar implies that, men who are
obsessive about their sexuality or a specific sexual object, are not as prone to act upon
sexually psychotic desires in the same way as women.

Of course, in The Law of Desire, Antonio’s character (Antonio Banderas) can

-41-

be read as somewhat psychotic, however, his desire for Pablo is not presented as as
absurd as, for example, Susana’s desire for Sexi’s father. The reason for this being
that Susana is a comic character who serves as a catalyst for the events that occur
between Sexi and Riza as well as Queti and Dr. de la Pei‘la. Antonio, on the other
hand, is depicted as a confused young man who is caught up by the glamour and
suggestive writings and films of Pablo Quintero. The spectator can identify with
Antonio, as with many of Almodovar’s gay male characters, because his desire
appears to be filled with deep felt anguish which forces him to perform obsessive acts,
such as murder and kidnaping, that express his confusion and sexual need In contrast,
the audience cannot identify with Susana who is not only ridiculed throughout the film
but presents herself as desperate, not for self- fulfillment through sexual union, but
simply for sex.

There are two specific scenes in Labyrinth of Passion which highlight
Susana’s desperation. The first occurs mid-way through the film when she admits to
Sexi that she wishes to sleep with Dr. de la Peiia. This admission prompts Susana to
telephone Dr. de la Pena and tell him of her desire. It is her body language during this
scene which in most significant. As she raises her foot upon the chair and begins wave
and finger her hair whilst speaking in a deep sexual voice of her desire to meet Dr. de
la Pefia she appears to be participating in a mating ritual. However, she fails to appear
“sexy” in the same way as either Sexi (whose image is interspersed with Susana’s
throughout this scene) or any of the male transvestites depicted by Almodovar who,

despite their male gender, are more capable of behaving in a traditionally feminine

-42-

manner. Susana’s weight and her unattractive clothing and style make her attempt to
be sexual laughable.

This is again emphasized in the scene between Susana and Dr. de la Pefla in
the cafe. Susana uses all her powers of persuasion and psychoanalytic knowledge in an
attempt to persuade Dr. de la Pefla to participate in a sexual act with her. Despite his
obvious disgust at her appearance and her sexual aggressiveness, she refuses to
acknowledge Dr. de la Pefia’s protestations, and it is not until he exits hastily that she
gets his message.

Although neither of these scenes are pivotal to the plot of Labyrinth of Passion
they are an important indication of the way Almodovar thinks about women,
femininity, and beauty. Almodovar’s female characters fail in many aspects of their
lives: they rarely achieve sexual satisfaction even if they participate in alternative
sexual acts, they are often dominated by men, and if they maintain their individuality
and independence they are presented as masculine-complex man haters who threaten,
and have the potential to destroy, those very patriarchal structures that Almodovar
attempts to uphold. However, despite this, women do have some purpose, albeit
limited, as they can either perform a maternal or sisterly role, as Tina and Antonio’s
mother (Helga Line) do in The Law of Desire, or be available for use as a sexual
objects, as are Queti and the countess in Labyrinth of Passion. In this sense
Almodovar’s women fit into the traditional roles that, as Wendy Harcourt explains,
were set aside for them in the nineteenth century. Harcourt states:

The meanings that woman signified in nineteenth century discourse

-43-

were woman as mother; woman as moral; woman as passive; woman as

[...] woman as social body; woman as “the sex”; and woman as

reproductive economy (78).

Susana does not even fit into any of these roles simply because her appearance
dictates that she remain to be an “old maid”. As she is, according to Almodovar and
probably most of his audiences, sexually unappealing (fat, desperate, aggressive, and
thus ridiculous) she cannot be viewed as a “real” woman and, thus, she is unable to act
as a woman supposedly should or find satisfaction in being a woman. The fact that she
is ostracized by Almodovar indicates that Ahnodovar believes that there are standards
and codes of feminine beauty and female behavior, to which all women should aspire
to achieve and maintain, if they wish to be considered as “women”. Those, such as
Susana, who are unable to reach the high goals of “womanhood” and femininity set by
Almodovar, become futile, gender-less, sexless creatures who cannot perform the
roles of women but who are not allowed to function as men.

Often such women are representatives of the “old” world which Almodovar
attempts to deconstruct throughout the course of his films and, although Susana does
not represent the old in the same way as the countess, for example, her belief in Freud
and Lacan implies that she is caught within an outdated value system (which
Almodovar is also, ironically, caught up in to the extent that he is unconscious of its
influence upon him). However, her appearance and aggressive nature do not enable
her to function in the misogynistic world of Freud and Lacan any more than they

enable her to sexually satisfy Dr. de la Pefia in Almodovar’s sexually orientated world

.44-

and, thus, at the end of the film she must suffer the same fate as all those women who
do not “fit in”. She is left dissatisfied and alone to deteriorate in the “old” world
whose values and expectations she embraces but cannot live up to.

The countess, too, suffers the same fate as Susana. Despite the fact that she is
able to attain some sexual satisfaction from her brief encounter with Riza, her
aggressive nature leads to her demise. She is unable to gain either the respect or the
sperm of her ex-husband which results in her inability to pro-create. She has already
failed to perform a motherly role with Riza and, ultimately, is left with no second
chance despite her new-found fertility.

It appears, however, that the countess has more opportunity than Susana to
fulfill herself and others not only because she is more sexually appealing but because
she is more able to channel her sexually aggressive nature, which is traditionally
viewed as a masculine trait, in a productive manner. During her search for Riza the
countess dons the clothes of a man and travels into areas of the city known for their
largely gay population. It is at this point that she has the potential to embrace an
alternative sexuality which may provide her with an outlet for her frustrations and a
sexual purpose. Nevertheless, unlike the male to female transvestites depicted in
Almodovar’s films, she cannot completely alter her gender or gender outlook. She is
trapped within her female body in the same way that her ideologies are trapped within
the “old” world. As her rejection of her opportunity to participate in alternate socio-
sexual activities (by indulging herself in alternate sexual activities whilst cruising the

“gay” underworld of Madrid) demonstrates her motives or intentions do not change

-45-

and, thus, she cannot succeed in her aims and her aggressive desires ultimately destroy
her in the same way that Susana’s aggressive nature destroys her. Even though for the
countess, as for many female transvestites, “transvestism [...] means a taste of male
privilege” and allows her to enter a male dominated environment (the gay male area
of Madrid) she differs from those female transvestites who “commonly resist
relinquishing” their new found privilege (Straayer, 49). Rather, she gives herself to
Riza only to be rejected immediately after the sexual encounter in which she has been
reduced to the inferior role of “woman as sexual object”. Thus, once her sexual

usefulness has gone she is discarded.

~46-

Chapter 2.
“E30 Se Llama Reprocidad”: Representations of Male Sexualities and

Relationships.8

.47-

Transvestism and Disguise

The countess Toraya may, at first, appear to be a transvestite when she dons
the clothing of a man. However, Louise J. Kaplan argues, transvestism is specifically
a male perversion. Kaplan describes male transvestism as a form of fetishism which is
inherently linked to male sexual desire whereas female “transvestism” is more related
to issues of power, not sexual arousal, and thus it must be described, simply, as cross-
dressing. Kaplan claims that:

Transvestism is now defined as heterosexual cross-dressing in which

clothing is used fetishistically for sexual arousal. For example, unless

her cross-dressing is driven and imperative and required for sexual

arousal and performance, a woman who dresses in men’s clothing

would not be considered a transvestite. [...]Very few females cross-

dress as a means of sexual arousal. The typical transvestite is a

heterosexual male who wears female clothing to achieve an arousal

(23)
As I have outlined, Almodovar, like Kaplan tends to make a similar distinction
between the types of “perversions” or alternate sexual activities performed by men
and women and he indeed implies that whereas men are transvestites, women are
cross-dress. However, to some extent Almodovar’s representation of male to female
transvestism differs from Kaplan’s theory in the sense that characters such as Fanny
MacNamara or “Roxi” (played by Fabio) are homosexual transvestites who do not

enact their “scenarios with only one or two sexual partners” (23).

-48-

Nevertheless, the fact that Almodovar presents female “cross—dressers” as less
capable of imitating the behavior and appearance of men than male “transvestites” are
of imitating that of women indicates that, according to Almodovar, female cross-
dressers have different motivations for their transvestite-like behavior. Although the
countess uses her disguise to enter the male gay scene of Madrid she does not become
sexually aroused by either her appearance, her deceit of men, or by the other
transvestites she sees. Rather, her sexual arousal comes later, at the point at which she
has sexual intercourse with Riza. Her aim is to find a man who will arouse her
sexually as, despite her male persona, she is unable to this by herself.

Chris Straayer offers some explanation as to why women are unable to achieve
arousal simply by cross-dressing and why, in contrast, men find cross-dressing
titillating and stimulating when she states that ofien:

[...] the female costume delivers sexual anatomy whereas male costume

abandons it. Sex is “present” in both the masquerade of femininity and

the female body, but doubly absent for the male (79).

Thus, in addition to the fact that she uses her transvestite disguise to gain the power
she desires, and not sexual fulfillment, her attempt to appear as a man cannot succeed
because both her gender and sexuality are always visible. As a result of this visibility
she will never attain the power that women, according to Almodovar, do not deserve.
Therefore the countess initiates a relationship with Riza and attempts to have the

emperor’s child in order to gain the power associated with the possession of the

phallus.

-49-

At first Toraya turns to Riza He, being a boy who has the potential to become
a great and powerful leader, has the phallus. If she can control Riza she can take the
phallus as her own. When this attempt fails she disguises herself as man under the
guise of trying to find Riza again. As the maid’s reaction to the countess’ garb
indicates, the clothes of a man have the potential to make the countess feel
empowered. Nevertheless, she fails to recognize this and, as such power is only
superficially external, her cross-dressing becomes a futile endeavor. She lacks the
male privilege of utilizing alternate sexual activities to find a sense of self and succeed
in one’s aims.

Ultimately, the countess buys her fertility in a final attempt to gain the phallus
through her child which, according to Freud, stands as a phallic symbol that can be
controlled by the mother. Freud describes such behavior in women as being the result
of a masculinity complex which is caused by the female’s early identification with her
father, rather than her mother, and results in the desire for the same power that is
enjoyed by the male head of the family.

Kaplan, following Freudian lines of argument defines females with a
masculinity complex as:

[...]women [who] decide to take vengeance on the world and their own

bodies and minds by repudiating everything about them that is sofi,

tender, nurturing, and merciful and instead fit themselves into a

caricature of masculinity, becoming harsh, cruel, rapacious, tyrannical-

even if it means being cruel to their own body (185).

-50-

Despite the flawed reasoning and the stereotypical assumptions behind Kaplan’s
statement Toraya does appear to behave in the manner described above. She does not
function in a motherly way for Riza, she is cruel to Sexi, she is demanding and harsh
with her spies in Teheran, and devious in her attempts to gain the Emperor’s sperm.
However, it is not for these reasons that she fails in her quest to gain the power of the
phallus. Her failure is the result of both her inability, as a woman, to ever possess and
maintain the phallus and the indefinable nature of masculinity and maleness.

Toraya fails partially because the men to whom she is related are forced to
deny her in order in order to maintain their own power and allay the fear of castration
posed by powerful women. It seems that Almodovar, like Freud himself, feels the need
to present powerful women as “deviant” in order to maintain the illusion that he, too,
can remain in control of his life. However, even though men have the power
Almodovar does not wish his viewers to believe that men abuse such power and, thus,
Almodovar forces the audience to believe that, in fact, the countess actually denies
herself. By rejecting her male persona and dress and desiring to remain female, the
Countess denies herself the one, small opportunity to transgress gender boundaries and
enjoy the privilege of being viewed as a man.

Throughout his work, particularly in Women on the Verge of a Nervous
Breakdown and Matador as well as in Labyrinth, Almodovar undermines women who
have a masculinity complex so as to set his male-identified viewers at ease whilst at
the same time attempting to trick his female identified audience into believing that

they too are being represented. It is for this reason that he also presents the male to

-51-

female transvestites who, whilst appearing to break down traditionalist assumptions
about gender and sexuality, actually reinforce them whilst setting the audience at case.
If one accepts Straayer’s idea that men cannot be identified by their clothing
one must also acknowledge that, in Almodovar’s world, women have little chance of
gaining power. By implying that clothing and anatomy define femininity and
femaleness Straayer has not only insinuated that external, visual characteristics define
femininity but that being “feminine” is a masquerade. By indicating that femininity
becomes a fixed and constructed set of codes which can be easily identified and
recreated because they are so concrete she explains why and how both women and
male to female transvestites agree to act in accordance with a set of established rules
about the nature of femininity (even though, as Almodovar demonstrates in Labyrinth,
women are not always as capable of “acting” in a feminine manner than men are).
Thus, any man who attempts to affect a female persona or identify as female, can,
according to Straayer, adopt such characteristics in order to be recognized as female.
Woman is as man determines her to be and is always objectified as “species
other”. Man, in contrast, can be whoever he chooses to be. In contrast, masculinity,
which is not confined or restricted by a set of codes relating to either clothing or the
body, is indefinable, variable, and intransigent. Almodovar’s representation of
masculinity and maleness is typically postmodern in the sense that it is fragmented
and plural. Men have the ability to choose what masculine attributes they wish to
exhibit and they are able to compromise and combine elements of masculinity and

femininity in order to define self because they have the social status and power of the

-52-

phallus. It is this plurality that women (female to male transvestites) are incapable of
harnessing when attempting to portray maleness because, as they unable to escape
their own anatomies, they can never escape the confinement of their own femaleness.
As they also lack the phallus they cannot alter themselves depending upon their own
desire or present themselves as other.

However, the male to female transvestites in Almodovar’s cinema can be
described as the epitome of maleness despite their decision to appear and identify as
female because, whilst defining femininity and reaffirming socially constructed
stereotypes of women, they also enjoy the privileges afforded to men because of their
possession of the phallus. They do not feel the need to validate themselves in the same
way as Luci’s husband, by physically controlling the actions and beliefs of one
particular woman, because their dress, characteristics, and affectations enable them to
control women as a group. Therefore, the male to female transvestite has even more
power than the average, heterosexual man because his appearance and actions, which
define femininity, create the standards of femininity to which all women should
aspire. He influences women’s ideas of what a woman should be.

Rather than creating “a rich account of masculinity as it defines itself in
relation to women [which provides] several potential openings toward more plural
conceptions of gender and sexuality” (Chodorow, 31), Almodovar allows his male
characters to experiment with their masculinity and deve10p its multi-faceted aspects
without re-evaluating his traditionalist views of femininity or defining masculinity at

all (never mind in the same limited way as he defines femininity).9 Thus, it is not

-53-

surprising that the male to female transvestites depicted in Ahnodovar’s films
concentrate on particularly stereotypical aspects of the female body and character
whilst attempting to imitate femininity but, at the same, time maintain the plural
masculinities.

The fact that femininity and femaleness is definable and, therefore,
“presentable, whereas masculinity and maleness is “unpresentable”, not only enables
men to mimic female attributes but enables the male to female transvestite to fix and
limit it further. Straayer, when specifically referring to temporary transvestites film,
examines the underlying assumptions behind transvestism (and to some extent
transsexuality) and the problematic effects of presenting male to female transvestite
characters on film when she states:

[...] temporary transvestite films use gendervcoded clothing and

disguise to carry/elicit generic gender—crossing gestures, behaviors and

attitudes. In addition, although they ostensibly challenge gender

constructions in that generic system, they rely on biology and sexual
difference to realign gender and sex according to convention, and

therefore limit their challenge severely (70).

However, whilst supposedly “achieving” perfection in his “portrayal” of
femininity the male to female transvestite create a type of femininity which is,
ultimately unattainable for women. He implies, through his very existence, that the
perfect woman possesses the power of the phallus and has no anatomical lack But, as

women can never possess such power or a penis, they can never fit into the category of

-54-

feminine even though such a category is designed for them. Therefore, as Straayer
identifies, even though he proves that femininity is a construction or masquerade he
supports its very existence by embracing it.

Almodovar’s portrayals of male to female transvestites, such as Roxi (Fabio),
not only limit femininity but seem to epitomize his traditionalist views (which
correspond to those of Freud) of women as hysterical, oversexed, ridiculous
“creatures” who only are lacking in self control. 1° As demonstrated in the scene in
Luci, Pepi, Bom, in which Almodovar directs Fabio’s erotic, masochistic sexual
fantasies, the male to female transvestite captures and solidifies all that it means to be
a woman.

Both Fabio’s clothing and posture is reminiscent of the stereotypes of costume
and pose associated with women. He lies on the floor, dressed in a short, pink and
black fur coat and panties with his bloody chest bear and his legs spread wide apart.
As Almodovar himself (playing the role of director) stands over him shouting
commanding him to “enjoy it, enjoy it more”Fabio succumbs to the will of his sadistic
killer’s drill. The drill (meant to function, so obviously, as a phallic symbol) is
presented as an erotic instrument which can produce pain and pleasure for its willing
victim. As commanded Fabio sensuously screams “I deserve it. [...] I’m so bad. [...]
I’m bad. I’m wicked. I deserve it. Destroy me”.

In one simple scene Fabio, like Luci, acts as all women should. He
demonstrates how female desire is violent and yet submissive and conveys the notion

that the male sexual act is not only pleasurable but so powerful that it can destroy

-55-

women. The drill has the potential to kill him in the same way that male power and
privilege, provided by the phallus, has the potential to metaphorically kill women’s
sense of self and their desire. If the sadistic killer so chooses Fabio may be saved and,
as a result, be capable of meeting with another “sweetie” in a cafe to eat “greasy
foods”. However, it is possible that the killer may decide to inhibit Fabio’s actions and
deny him the opportunity to enjoy an encounter with another lover in the same way
that Luci’s husband denies her the choice to find sexual satisfaction with anyone other
than himself.

Nevertheless, Fabio’s situation differs from that of Luci because, ultimately
Fabio is only acting. He is not really forced to submit to the will of a phallically
empowered man because the scene is not real. If the scene were real, however, Fabio,
would have both the choice and opportunity to alter the situation because he has the
power of the phallus. Because, despite his act, he possesses male sexual organs he
would be able to use the privilege they afford him to leave the scene of the crime if he
so chooses. If he decided to stay he would still be able to limit the effects and power
of the other male and force him (the killer) to compromise himself and accept the fact
that Fabio may have another lover.

The existence of another lover in Fabio’s “unreal” life is also an indication of
the assumptions Almodovar has about women. As he insinuates through his depiction
of Sexi, Almodovar implies that women feel the need to engage in sexual activity with
more than one partner. However, as Sexi’s fate demonstrates, such a desire in a

woman must be curtailed.

-56-

Male to Female Transsexuality.

Through the character of Tina in The Law of Desire Almodovar insinuates that,
whereas it is acceptable for the male to female transvestite to act as, and perform the
function of, a woman, it is not acceptable for him to become a biological woman
because, at the point at which he becomes a fully, biologically female, he relinquishes
the power of the phallus and is demoted to the position of all women.

Renata Salecl attempts to explain why male to female transsexuals make the
decision to become female. She states that:

Such a desperate attempt to identify with women arises in the

transsexual’s demand for a sex change. [...] A transsexual man tries to

be more feminine than a woman, which is why he tries to embody all

women (197).

Here Salecl correctly implies that whilst anatomically the male transsexual possess
male organs he has the ability to “demand” a sex change. Thus, she indicates, again,
that men are presented with the choice to make such decisions about their gender
identification and their bodies. However, contradictory to Salecl’s claims that the
male to female transsexual attempts to be “more” feminine than women, Almodovar
implies that a male to female transsexuals are simply women who can never truly
achieve femininity because, in relinquishes male organs and male power, he/she also
relinquishes her ability to be feminine.

Ahnodovar implies that, unlike the male to female transvestite who has the

appropriate organs which enable him (her), the male to female transsexual, in

-57-

allowing his male sexual organs to be disfigured or removed, he proves that he has
succmnbed to the lure of castration which all “real’ or “normal” men fear and avoid at
all costs. He becomes a victim who, in identifying so strongly with women, has
allowed women to act upon their threat to overpower him by removing his
masculinity. At the point where he acquires female genitalia he becomes female and,
as “she”, stands as an example to all men that the power of the phallus can be severed
or removed easily. “She” foregoes the right to behave in a masculine fashion if “she”
so chooses and, thus, “she” must be marginalized and oppressed in order to allay the
threat she poses as both a representation of the castrated male and as a woman. In
addition to relinquishing her ability and right to embody femininity, “she” loses her
ability to define femininity because she no longer possesses a penis or the power of
the phallus. She becomes part of the group “species woman” because she is now
representative of the female lack. Thus is the fate of Tina; the one transsexual
represented in all of Almodovar’s cinema.‘l

As the confession scene clearly demonstrates, the consequence of Tina’s
decision to become a biological woman results in her demotion to the position of
“woman”. In Almodovar’s world she would have enjoyed more social privilege and
maintained a superior position in society as a homosexual male than she does as a
heterosexual female. This illustrates, once again, that even though Almodovar has
attempted to release male homosexuals from their marginalized position, he does not
view women as worthy to be liberated from their silenced and oppressive position.

The loss of her male privilege, and the resulting social and sexual oppression

-53-

she faces as a woman, lead Tina to repress her desire for male love objects and turn
attention to the more attainable goal of other women. She attempts a lesbian
relationship with Ada’s mother in the hope that she will be viewed and treated as an
equal by her social equal. However, in the same way as Luci, Tina is mistreated by
her lover. Ada’s mother (Bibi Anderson) refuses to acknowledge her lower status as a
female and, consequently, abandons both Tina and Ada in search for a more fulfilling
relationship with a man.

Tina’s turn towards lesbianism and her abandoned state place her in an even
more vulnerable and marginalized position. The fact that she is a female identified
man in a woman’s body who cannot successfully maintain a relationship with man nor
woman implies that she is a failure whose only means of success lies in the hands of
her brother Pablo (Eusebio Poncela).

Tina depends on Pablo for both economic and emotional support. It is he who
she turns to in an emotional crisis and it he who she relies upon to give her work. It is
he who she visits after hearing the devastating news that Ada’s mother, her lover, is
not returning to Madrid. It is also Pablo that provides financial aid to both Tina and
Ada by giving Tina the role in his stage play. In the play she performs the role of an
abandoned lover who, much like herself, is disconnected from the world. On the stage,
as a character, she has an opportunity to voice the very feelings that in real life she has
no outlet for and, as her discussion on the telephone in the play demonstrate, she can
control her lover. With Ada’s mother, her real life lover, she has no opportunity to

express her emotions. Almodovar emphasizes this most clearly by juxtaposing scenes

-59-

from the play with Tina’s real life lover’s surprise anival. Whereas the vision of Ada’s
mother forces Tina to “overact, according to Pablo, it is obvious that she is simply
portraying that which she truly feels. However, off stage, she is incapable of exhibiting
such emotion for any productive means.

Pablo has provided Tina with a voice, yet, at the same time, this voice is false
and directed. He has put the words into her mouth and he commands her in the same
way that “Pedro” commands Fabio in the pornographic scene in Labyrinth. In
addition, she must ultimately sacrifice a part of her “self” in return for the pretense of
freedom that Pablo provides for her.

It is afier a display of selfishness that he informs Tina that Pablo intends to
base his next work upon her life story. In the bathroom of the restaurant, where he has
retreated to snort cocaine and she has followed claiming “you know I’m a junkie too”
he tells her . Primarily she objects to his assumptions and implies that, even though he
has already created a situation in which she is forced to express her emotion for the
consumption of a theater audience, her history and her sense of self are all that she has
left. However, after time she agrees to become the subject matter for his new film and
revels in the idea of playing the lead herself.

It is not until after Tina accepts Pablo’s desire to re-write her history, again, in
more detail, for public consumption, that she decides to tell him the truth about the
past. In filling in the gaps she leaves herself even more vulnerable. As she confesses to
Pablo, yet again in a hospital ward, she provides him with information about

motivations for her actions which could potentially be used to enhance the fictional

-60-

character that he is writing about. As Laura P., Tina becomes a fictional character that
cannot be traced in the real world. Her “life” and “self’ takes on a new form as she
and her history becomes a myth used to confuse the police and add intrigue to the plot
and now she provides her brother, a writer, with new ways to remove her of her
identity. At no point does Pablo acknowledge that perhaps Tina’s confession is for he,
alone, to hear and one can assume that, if it had not been for Juan’s death, he would
continue to use the information he has about his sister as material. It is only because
he blames himself and his typewriter for Juan’s demise (he has used the typewriter as
a tool to force Juan to act as he desires him to and the love letters which he has written
cause Antonio’s jealousy) that he decides to write no more.

Tina confesses to Pablo because she has no one else who will listen to her. She
has attempted to find solace through religion and to some extent she has not
abandoned her faith in the traditional institution of the catholic church. However,
when she is rejected by the paedophiliac catholic priest who abused her as a boy and
took away her innocence, she can no longer place as much hope in her religious
beliefs. She cannot attempt to find fulfilment through alternate sexual relationship
because, as her relationship with Ada’s mother proves, as does the relationship
between Luci and Bom, the performance of lesbian sexual acts is not a viable method
of self satisfaction.

Tina’s confession revives her strength and enables her to pursue a normal
heterosexual relationship with a man. However, like all other female relationships,

this one is also doomed to fail. Tina, who is not and can never be a real woman

-61-

because she does not succeed in fitting in to the restrictive category of femininity that
she has always strived to fit in to, cannot find fulfilment through her relationship with

a man because women never do.

-62-

Male Homsexuality.

Pablo continues to succeed in a traditional, patriarchal world, despite his
homosexuality, because he has not relinquished his male genitalia. His relationships
appear to be more egalitarian and he is not controlled by the restrictive dichotomies of
dominance and submission which curtail all lesbian relationships depicted in
Almodovar’s films.

That is not to say that, in The Law of Desire, certain characters do not appear
to behave in a predominantly passive manner whilst others appear to perform a more
dominant role. However, the male characters in this film differs from those female
characters in Almodovar’s first two films in the sense that those male characters who
are submissive choose to be so and can, at any point in the film, alter their position.
They are not controlled by the status or the social construction of expectations about
their gender roles. Despite the extreme and obsessive behavior of both Pablo and
Antonio (Antonio Banderas) the male homosexual is viewed as flawed but not as
ridiculous or comic. The love that Pablo and Antonio feel and inspire is presented
sympathetically. Both men are controlled by emotions and a law of desire that is
beyond their control.

In his relationship with Juan (Miguel Molina) Pablo attempts to take control.
His age, fame, and notoriety have provided him with a sense of superiority and a need
to dominate others. However, despite his desire to force Juan to behave in the way he
desires and to love him as he loves Juan, he is able to accept that his relationship is

one of equality and that he has no right to dominate or control the actions or emotions

-63-

of his partner. ‘2

After the premiere of his film Pablo leaves Juan and returns to his own
apartment. Even though he is disturbed by Juan’s decision to participate in a
heterosexual encounter with a random woman he does not feel the need to restrict
Juan’s movements in the same way as Bom restricts Luci’s. Juan refuses to relinquish
his own power and Pablo refuses to ask him to. Nevertheless, despite the liberal
appearance of the relationship and Pablo’s willingness to allow Juan to participate in
heterosexual relations Pablo is incapable of severing the bonds of love and desire that
tie him to Juan. Thus, when Juan leaves, Pablo does not become hysterical. Rather, his
narcissism takes him over and inspires him to attempt to gain control over the
relationship by writing a love letter from Juan to himself which he requires Juan to
sign.

Although Pablo’s lack of control is similar to the very lack that destroys the
relationship between Born and Luci, Pablo is aware of a solution which will recreate
the bond between he and Juan. He knows that, as Renata Salecl claims, “there is no
love outside speech: nonspeaking beings do not love” (190), and thus is prompted to
create the only form of verbal communication between him and Juan that is possible.
The effect of the letter and its ability to inspire love is not only proven when Juan
makes the decision to oblige his lover by signing and returning the note, thus
demonstrating to the spectator that he is truly in love with Pablo, but also through the
way in which Almodovar presents a voice over of both Pablo and Juan reading the

letter out loud. The communication between them, which at first appears to be passive

-64-

and non-spoken, is put into words. As a result, the viewer is led to believe that, if it
were not for Antonio’s fatal intervention, Pablo and Juan would eventually realize
their love for one another and live happily ever after.

The letter details activities similar to those shared by Pablo and Juan when
they were together. Pablo is aware that, by evoking the same memories in Juan’s mind
that he has in his own, he can establish a mental link or connection with his lover
which can be enjoyed despite the distance separating the two. When Juan signs the
letter and returns it, an act which Pablo’s typewriter is unable to do, he demonstrates
his willingness to participate in this creation of a mental or psychic love which raises
both men onto a higher plane above carnal pleasure and desire. '3

Juan’s signature is a symbols of the higher love shared between the men.
Unlike the relationships of Luci and Bom, Tina and Ada’s mother, the relationship of
Pablo and Juan is based upon compromise, equality, and love. When Juan dies this
mental connection is severed and, rather than moving forward and looking for another
comparable relationship as we can assume Bom does (perhaps with Pepi), Pablo feels
that he cannot continue his life as it was. He abandons the typewriter which, despite
its powers as a tool to create fiction, cannot create the illusion of Juan’s signed name
and cannot bring Juan back to life. The typewriter is a symbol of Pablo’s lack of
power of the universe and an indication, that despite their higher love, certain mortal
rules apply to all men and women.

It is significant that at the point at which Pablo’s lack of power- his ability to

play God and control the laws of desire only in a limited and fictional sense whilst

45.

writing for the big screen- is most clearly illustrated when Tina asks him to hear her
confession. Only when he is in a vulnerable, amnesiac state, when he is doubtful of his
own sense of self, is she able to ask him to listen to her social and sexual “sins”. At
all other times in the film Pablo is so incessantly consumed by his own needs and
desires that he cannot tolerate those of others. Ironically, it is Antonio, the man who
killed his lover, that restores Pablo to his original state of mind and reminds him that
blind faith and acceptance of oneself and one’s lover is necessary if one is to establish
a mental connection with one’s lover and that there is nothing wrong in self absorption
if one is a man.

Tina, unlike her brother, can never enjoy the love that he brother experiences
because she does not have the means nor the desire to deny others. She feels
responsible for Ada and, thus, assumes a motherly role for the child She also feels the
need to observe the religious rituals that she was exposed to as a child and which have
brought her many memories, in particular concerning her sexual relationship with a
priest. In contrast, Pablo has only himself to think of if he so chooses. In the final
scene between him and Antonio he risks losing nothing because, as a man, he is not
responsible for his actions (surely, if necessary, Almodovar could think of some way
to blame Pablo’s mother for his behavior!) His life is worthless if he does not fulfill
his own desires.

It is, however, this vain and narcissistic aspect of his personality that cause him
to reject Antonio primarily. At first Antonio chooses to act as a submissive lover who

will provide Pablo with everything he has always wanted. Afier rehearsing Pablo’s

-66-

televised interview by heart, and learning what Pablo most desires in a lover, Antonio
makes his move. However, despite his submissive behavior Antonio does not intend to
remain passive. He desires to possess Pablo and makes a conscious decision whether
to use means of submission or means of domination and power in order to attain his
aim.

Whereas, at first, Pablo rejects Antonio he later acquiesces to Antonio’s
wishes, and agrees to betaken hostage at the risk of his life.” It appears that dming the
scene prior to Antonio’s suicide in Tina’s apartment Pablo has desired to dominate his
lovers. However, as the final love scene indicates he ultimately desires that Antonio
take control. It is through a balance of both dominance and submission in which each
partner is able to show elements of both and make conscious decisions to take the
burden of being either the top or the bottom (to put it in sado-masochistic terms) that
creates a bond of true and fulfilling love. When performing the submissive feminine
role each man demonstrates a lack but, as Salecl identifies, “the enchantrnent of love
is how the subject deals, on the one hand, with his or her lack, and on the other hand,
with the lack in the loved one”. Pablo and Antonio understand and acknowledge that
they are both lacking (in their abilities to live up to the expectations of their lovers not
of the phallus) and it is this acknowledgment which enables them to compensate for
their failings and enjoy the more positive aspects of one

In consummating their love for one another Pablo and Antonio demonstrate
that men, despite their supposedly “perverse” desires, are capable of achieving a love

which homosexual women can only dream of. This leads one to question why, in

-67-

Almodovar’s films, men are the only human beings who can achieve love. Men alone
have the knowledge and understanding that enables them to balance the dominant and
submissive aspects of their personalities. In addition, men, because they do not suffer
from any social lack of power or sexual lack of the penis, are able abandon social
constraints and define themselves solely through their sexuality.

Almodovar’s representations of male homosexuality, which are more frequent
than his representations of lesbianism, are slightly more palatable for heterosexual and
homosexual spectators alike, not simply because men can achieve true love or that
their “perversion” is less perverse than that of lesbian women (such as Luci and Bom)
but because the only people who attempt to undermine male homosexuality are
heterosexual women who are themselves ridiculed. As I have discussed, heterosexual
women are viewed as the lowest members of the “species woman” and, as a result, the
behavior, beliefs, and attitudes of such women are presented as inadequate and
irrelevant.

The position of women as inferior critic is made most evident in Pepi, Luci,
Bom during the scene in which the “ old queen” Corazo , having been aroused by the
“general erections” next door, participates in heterosexual sex with his bearded wife.
Corazo’s homosexual desires are made apparent when his wife questions, in a high
pitched tone of voice, his depressive state. Whilst she speaks the spectator becomes
more and more aware of her husband’s true sexuality even though she refuses to admit
her suspicions of his gayness. She states:

There’s nothing worse than your silence. Don’t you realize it drives me

-68..

crazy. I start thinking awful things about you. For example- like about

you’re drinking. I know you’re nice smart, and sensitive- people like

you a lot. But I noticed you started drinking when your friend Oscar

came out of the closet and got himself a boyfriend. That’s what he

wanted to do. You claim you’re so liberal so how can you condemn

gays? People can do what they want with their bodies. But he was your

best friend and you couldn’t forgive him. As if you were jealous- to get

even- you married me and started drinking. Brave revenge! [...] I know

I’m possessive and jealous but what can I do? [...] We haven’t slept

together for forty days and forty nights- I’m like a cat on a hot tin roof.
The Bearded Woman is unaware of her husband’s motivations even though they are
relatively obvious. Her allusion to Tennessee Williams evokes the image of Brick, a
homosexual man in denial, and Maggie, his wife who is aware of his homosexuality
but tries to combat it by attempting to arouse him sexually, and thus the Bearded
Woman implies that, on some level, she is aware of her husband’s infidelity and
sexuality. However, on a more conscious level she refuses to accept that perhaps he is
homosexual and thus she allows herself to be deluded into thinking that he is
homophobic.

Her reference to the bible indicates that she, like many heterosexual women,
also buys into the institution of religion She accepts that she must fast but, at the
same time, she wishes to perform the duties of a proper wife. Through her character

Almodovar indicates that women should be content with sacrificing their own desires

-69-

for their husbands, for waiting until their men are ready to perform the sexual act, and
for “serving” him as an obedient wife. However, at the same time, he does not imply
that the husband who never performs his duties is at fault. Rather, despite the fact that
it is her husband that is devious and untrustworthy, it is the Bearded Woman that is
ridiculed and undermined for her hysterical behavior and demanding screeches.

In making the woman, rather than the man, appear to be the comic fool in this
scene Almodovar clearly displayed his ever so prominent sexual/gender politics. She
shaves in order to remove all the “unnatural” aspects of the masculine which she
exhibits and to make herself more attractive to her husband but, as we know, her
actions only serve to make her more unattractive to a man who appreciates a more
masculine appearance in his lovers. Whilst she thinks she has aroused him by “fixing
herself up” we are aware that it is the view he sees through his binoculars that has
given him an erection.

The scene serves to contradict Julian Paul Smith’s view that it is women who
deceive and men who are deceived in Pepi. As the Corazo does not wish to admit his
gayness and he chooses a marriage which not only serves perfectly to disguise his
homosexuality but provides him with enough wealth to enable him to continue his
homosexual activities in secret and a bearded wife who serves as a substitute for the
men he really desires.

Pepi, Luci, and Born do not possess the privilege of disguising their true
sexualities nor of satisfying themselves sexually by fooling a member of the opposite

sex. One can only surmise that this is the case because, as women, they do not have

-70-

the power nor the superior knowledge, skill, or attributes to fool any man. In contrast,
Corazo deceives his wife with ease. She is unaware of his voyeuristic intentions and,
whilst he views the “General Erections” and Luci being forced to perform fellatio
upon the winner through his binoculars, and thus she willingly, if not desperately,
participates in intercourse with him.

Unlike his wife who desires physical contact and penetration, The Corazo is
content with the more passive act of “watching” men and, in comparison to the
“extreme perversions” acted out by the lesbians characters in this film, his
“perversion” appears to be harmless . Perhaps this is because, as Kaplan indicates,
voyeurism is a typically masculine perversion and throughout Almodovar’s work the
actions of men are portrayed as more plausible and less harmful than those of
women."

The sex scene between husband and wife appears to be, superficially at least,
amusing and as no one is aware of The “old queen”’s voyeuristic intentions, except
those of us who share in the enjoyment of voyeuristic gazing and do not become a
victim of it, the significance of violating the space of another individual is presented
as a harmless act. However, as I have discussed, the voyeuristic gaze, as it affects Pepi
and Charo to name a few, is not as passive and un-intruding.

In presenting male homosexual perversions, such as voyeurism, as “harmless”
in contrast to the more destructive perversions favored by lesbians Almodovar
insinuates that male homosexuality is, due to its passive nature, less threatening to the

social/straight order than female homosexuality. Whereas the former group does not

-71-

allow its victims to be aware of its activity, the latter group makes its actions
conscious to everyone and thus threaten the male sense of pride and ultimate power.
In contrast to Corazo, who is able to “pass” as heterosexual but is really
homosexual, Pepi and Born are unable to succeed in either Almodovar’s
homosexualized world or heterosexual society. Towards the end of the film they
return to Bom’s house in order to perform a task of cooking which, traditionally, has
been viewed as most feminine. The fact that they retreat to perform a typically
feminine role is significant as it implies that they have no other option but to accept
their powerless, feminine state. Whereas, prior to Luci’s betrayal, they had the
potential to dominate other women, the re-emergence and power of Luci’s husband
denies them their potential power. If lesbianism is based upon a relationship between
dominance and submission, but Pepi and Bom no longer have the ability to dominate,
then what choices are they left with? Practically as few as Tina and the Bearded Lady,
neither of whom can survive without a man despite their dislike of the way they are

treated by men.

-72-

Male Heterosexuality.

Within the three films discussed thus far Almodovar makes plain the idea that
a woman without a man is no real woman at all. Women have no opportunity to
replace either men or male structures and institutions with a female alternative. In
contrast to his representations of female heterosexuality and homosexuality, however,
Almodovar’s depictions of male sexuality in general tends to imply that men, unlike
women, are able to maintain alternate sexualities and lifestyles without becoming
victims to normative heterosexual codes of behavior. Whereas all female characters
must either refuse to acknowledge their sexual needs or accept that the fulfillment of
such needs depends entirely upon the actions of a man the male characters have no
need to repress their desires. Whether or not men choose to abide by the conservative
rules of heterosexuality or to experiment with other more “deviant” sexual acts their
behavior and actions are unquestioned.

All men, despite their sexuality or behavior, end up in relationships in which
they are happy. They do not suffer from the pains of unrequited love, they are not
subject to social persecution because of their object choice, they do not struggle to
attain sexual satisfaction, and they are not viewed as “deviants” who must be
controlled or “cured”. Men survive in Almodovar’s world because it is a world
designed purely for men As a result, as their behavior is construed and presented as
“normal”, male attributes and actions are not analyzed in the same way as those of
women.

One issue which must be considered when attempting to answer the question

-73-

 

of why Almodovar fails to criticize the behavior of men is the issue of class. As a
result of the elevated position enjoyed by men because of their social privileges and
rights, men have always been able to gain access to monetary wealth more easily than
women. The jobs they can attain, the salaries they receive, and the social status they
gain as a result of their work often serves to preserve the pro-male balance of power
and elevate their class status. The higher the class status of his male characters the
more concessions Almodovar seems to make for their behavior.

For example, Pablo, a wealthy man who gains fame because of the success of
his films and plays, is a member of an artistic community in which there are very few
rules imposed Drug use and poly-amorous activities are somewhat expected of a man
in his position. Thus, he lives a life free of social restraint, more so than the common
man, and it is not until he is suspected of committing a crime that cannot be ignored
that he becomes subject to the laws of the country. At no other point in the fihn is he
condemned for his illegal activities or his “perversions”. Whereas the policemen in
The Law of Desire comment upon Tina’s sexuality and gender choice, one criticizing
her for being perverse and the other viewing her as a sexual object, neither men
comment on the fact that their main suspect for the murder of Juan happens to be a
gay man. At no point does Pablo suffer prejudice for his object choices nor does he
have to defend or explain his position, unlike Tina, who must physically defend
herself against the youngest police man.

Almodovar presents Pablo’s life as being easier than that of Tina and he also

makes concessions for Pablo in the sense that Pablo is not undemrined or critiqued for

-74-

being hysterical (with regards to his love for Juan) or poly-amorous. This is because,
as a man, Pablo has the right to behave as he chooses. If his behavior happens to
challenge traditional gender roles, as he acts like a woman, he is simply presented as
being eccentric. His gender and his class provide him with excuses for his actions,
especially when such actions contradicts Almodovar’s own assumptions and
insinuations about gender dichotomies.

Like Pablo, Riza is also not governed by certain social rules because he is a
member of the upper classes. Riza, a royal figure, is placed in the same media
limelight as Pablo the director and, similarly, he becomes a successful figure in the
gay community. Riza’s creative abilities- his ability to sing— results in his fame. He
become the lead singer to a p0pular band in the not-so underground community of
Madrid. Despite such recognition Riza decides to give up his celebrity status in order
to maintain his relationship with Sexi and avoid the ever looming threat of violence
posed by the Teheranian terrorists. This act is not, however, a sacrifice for Riza
because his return to heterosexuality and his relationship with Sexi enable him to
return to Teheran and assume the even more elevated and popular position of King.
His disavowal of homosexuality is overlooked because a) the film is a critique of
Freud, and b) the benefits of Riza’s conversion outweigh the disadvantages.

Sexi is the one who must makes the sacrifice for Riza. She must leave her
homeland and family and assume the position of a faithful, submissive wife. She is
exempt from the benefits of being a member of the upper classes and the freedom that

wealth and fame can provide because, as a woman, she is constrained by the men to

-75-

whom she is related. Sexi compromises her position because she has to. Riza and
Pablo compromise their positions (the former by agreeing to Antonio’s demands and
the latter through his return to heterosexuality) because, as economically wealthy men,
they are subject to nothing and no one. They are not even constrained by economics or
by the law and, therefore, they can continue to live in any way they choose. They can
achieve all that they desire no matter what they do.

Almodovar can justify the fact that Pablo and Riza compromise in life, not
only by insinuating that they do so out of choice, but by implying that different social
codes apply to different social classes. Riza abandons his old lifestyle and is presented
as “cured” in the same way as Luci and Sexi but the implication of his return to
heterosexuality is not viewed as a failure in the same way that Luci’s return to her
husband or Sexi’s return to monogamy. The women are presented as being restored to
normality whilst, at the same time, they are criticized for failing to find an outlet of
expression through their alternate sexual activities even though they have little choice
but to abandon such alternate sexualities. In contrast, Riza’s sudden “change” in
sexuality and method of sexual expression is viewed as no less or no more “norma ”
than his previous method If his heterosexuality appears to be regressive out it can be
explained by the fact that “normative” rules do not apply.

Almodovar’s assumption that upper class men can enjoy even more freedoms
than women because of their status as well as their gender indicates that Almodovar
does not feel the need to analyze class structures any more than gender binaries. His

work truly differs from that of the post-Franconian artists because it does not criticize

~76-

traditional social structures in any way. Thus, it is not surprising that, when
Almodovar focuses upon male heterosexuality he does not undermine it. All gender
and class structures are predicated upon the assumptions and criteria of a normative,
male, heterosexual ideology. In an attempt to uphold many aspects of that ideology, in
particular with reference to women, and go against the highly politicized and critical
works of many of his contemporaries, Almodovar literally upholds the institution of
heterosexual ity.

Although gay men are the only human being who can achieve the highest form
of love and, as a result, have the potential to create a utopian society if only it were not
for the potential infection caused by the existence of meddling women, Almodovar
insinuates that straight men can still serve a purpose and achieve self satisfaction.

Even though he does not condemn men for being heterosexual Almodovar
does imply that straight men are bound by certain constraints which do not apply to
homosexual men. Unless celibate, the heterosexual man must develop relationships
with women. In doing so he denies himself the opportunity to create a higher spiritual
bond with his lover who, because of the inferiority of her gender, will never be able to
fully understand or mentally connect with him. In addition, the heterosexual couple’s
relationship will always be based upon traditional gender binaries within which the
woman will serve the submissive role and the man will serve the dominant role. The
maintenance of this dichotomy limits freedom of choice or compromise within a
relationship and thus the man is practically forced into the aggressive role which, in a

homosexual relationship, he would not have to play unless he chose to do so.

-77-

However, despite these disadvantages a heterosexual man still maintain control
over another and, even though he must be responsible for his wife or lover, he is
validated by her inferiority and continuously obvious lack of the phallus.
Alternatively, if he so chooses, he can abandon heterosexuality and search for a more
egalitarian relationship with another man. Either way the heterosexual man has
options. This is made evident in Labyrinth with the character of the detective, whom I
have already discussed, and in Pepi, Luci, and Earn with the Bearded Lady’s husband
However, the power which a heterosexual man possesses is illustrated most
successfully in Almodovar’s ninth film High Heels.

The character of Eduardo (Miguel Bose) not only demonstrates the power that
heterosexual men have over women but epitomizes the plural nature of masculinity.
Throughout the course of the film Eduardo plays the role of three other characters; the
drag-queen Femme Lethal, the policeman Hugo, and Judge Dominguez. Whilst
disguised in each of his various personas he comes into contact with Rebeca who is
fooled into believing that all three men exist separately.

Primarily she meets F emme Lethal, the drag-queen to whom she is attracted
because of his similarity to the mother that abandoned her. Almodovar implies that
most nights Rebeca enters the world of transvestites and homosexuals to catch a
glimpse of her “mother figure” lip-synching the tunes of her childhood. As a result
Lethal and Rebeca develop a relationship which turns sexual upon the night when
Rebeca’s real mother enters the scene.

Lethal claims that he wants to be more than a mother to Rebeca and, as her

-73-

own mother is present in another room, it becomes acceptable for her to abandon the
illusion of Lethal as a maternal figure and alter the status of their relationship.
Primarily, however, Rebeca is resistant to Lethal’s sexual advances. As he attempts to
engage her in the sexual act she struggles and screams “stop it”. However, her
attempts at resistance become futile at the point at which she raises herself on the
beam but cannot descend to escape because she is wearing “high heels”. Lethal takes
advantage of this predicament (of the weakness that result in her acceptance of her
female costume and her desire to appear “feminine”) and physically imposes his head
between her legs. In the same way that he violates her Almodovar directs the camera
to violate her. The lens focuses upon her bare buttocks and intrudes upon her body and
sexual organs in the same way that it invades Pepi’s and Charo’s bodies. Like the
other female victims portrayed in Almodovar’s cinema, Rebeca is raped twice, once
by Lethal and once by the camera.

However, in fitting with Freud’s notion that all women are sexually repressed
and actually desire to be violated, Rebeca finally acquiesces to Lethal and, after telling
him that she has “fasted for four months” and coming to the point of orgasm she
allows him to penetrate her with his penis. The act results in her becoming pregnant
and, due to her maternal instincts, prevents her from denying Eduardo later access to
her despite his deception.

As Hugo and as Judge Dominguez, Eduardo wields a different power over
Rebeca which, although it is non-sexual, is as inhibiting and violating as the rape. As

the scenes between Rebeca and the Judge in his office demonstrate, he is always in

-79-

control. He has the institution of the law to support him and force her, as well as her
mother and Isabel (Miriam Diaz Aroca), to confess upon demand. His interrogation of
all three women together is mild in comparison to the interrogation that Rebeca
receives when she is alone with him after her arrest. Whilst she is seated in a chair he
seats himself upon the desk. A position which enable him to loom over her and
intimidate her whilst he shouts his accusations. She is powerless to deny such
accusations because, as a result of the mobility allowed him due to the plurality of
masculinity and his various masculine disguises, he has gained information and
knowledge about her of which she is unaware. When she claims that she has been
totally faithful to her husband he contradicts her by pointing to the incident at the
Villarosa- an incident that she does not suspect him to have the knowledge of.

Despite his sexual and lawful power of Rebeca it is Eduardo’s ability to
influence her, when playing the role of himself, that epitomizes of the heterosexual
male’s power of women. Because he is the father of her child Rebeca feels obliged to
be with him on the evening when she discovers his multiple personas rather than with
her mother. Despite her disgust at his deception she cannot deny that he has sired her
baby and that, as a result, he will continue to have a hold over her in the similar way to
Lethal, Hugo, and the Judge. She knows he can satisfy her sexually and she knows that
he has information that could destroy her. However, it is he who claims that Rebeca
has the privilege of knowledge. In stating that “with what you know you could wreck
my life” he gives the impression that she possesses power and downplays the fact that,

as the man, he is, in fact, in control. This provides Rebeca with a false sense of

-80-

security and enables her to believe that if she marries Eduardo it is she, not he, who
has made that choice.

Rebeca’s ultimate acceptance of Eduardo validates both him as a male and as a
father and alleviates him of any guilt he may feel for his deception. Almodovar
insinuates that she can love all the plural aspects of his personality, the parts of Lethal,
Hugo, and Dominguez which are inherently part of him. However, one must question
if this is indeed the case. Rebeca has little choice but to accept Eduardo and forgive
him for his deceit because, if she does not, he may choose to expose her as a murderer.
She must choose marriage rather than jail because she must think about her child.
Thus, ultimately, the plot is resolved, the loose ends are tied, the heterosexual couple
move on to enjoy a fulfilling relationship and the joys of a family, and Rebeca’s
maternal instincts force her to believe that this is the “dream” life that she desires.
Lethal is rewarded for his prior actions (all of which were well intended) and Rebeca’s
actions are repressed. The film ends with her being silenced and submissive as all

women should be, according to Almodovar.

-8l-

Conclusion.

Almodovar’s representations of the Madrid’s sub-culture, the Movida, and its
alternative lifestyles have entertained audiences on numerous continents. They have
provided many, who are bound by social constraints and the duties of a routine
lifestyle, with a mode of escapism and an alternative way to view and live life. Critics
argue that the appeal of Almodovar’s work is the result of his ability to appear radical
and yet apolitical. His representations of both sexual and social “perversions”, (which,
according to Kaplan, are of most interest to those of us who are, ourselves, perverse)
have been described as original and challenging simply because of the fragmented
manner in which they are presented '7 He pushes boundaries, questions heterosexual
normativity, and identifies both the pleasure and pain of rebellious sexual behavior.

As Kathleen Vernon argues, Almodovar’s generation, caught up in “[...] a
somewhat frenzied search for appropriate modes of expression”(5), attempted to
distance themselves from their past and find a sense of self which neither Franco nor
the anti-Francoist movement could provide for them. Thus, as others had done in the
United States and the rest of Europe, Almodovar’s generation discovered the freedoms
offered by the postmodern movement. They were no longer bound by absolutes. They
became part of a new, youth sub—culture which, itself, developed a new form of
consciousness that enabled them to abandon all social expectations which had
previously constrained their movements, ideas, and desires. They were free to
experiment with new forms of expression and alternate lifestyles.

Out of Almodovar’s own experimentation comes a new type of Spanish film

-32-

which both “constitute[s] a chronicle of the Movida as well as an almost utopian
rendering of Madrid as locus amoenus, a space of infinite possibilities” (Vernon, 9)

and illustrates the division between reality and art whilst at the same time indicating

that the line dividing reality and imagination is blurred. In a Brechtian manner,

Almodovar constantly evokes images that remind the spectator of the fictionality of
his work. The image of the typewriter, which serves the specific purpose of
demonstrating the creation of an illusion in both Pepi, Luci, and Bom and The Law of
Desire (in Pepi, Luci, and Ham Toni types whilst discussing the party with Born and
we are led to assume that he is “creating” the script for the theatrical event, the
“general erections”, which are to occur later (in The Law of Desire Pablo types both
letters to Juan and scripts which create the illusion that love and life are as he desires
them to be), also symbolizes the creative process that Almodovar embarks upon in an
attempt to write his scripts. Its presence on screen constantly forces the viewer to
acknowledge that Almodovar’s scripts, like Pablo’s writings, are only a reflection of
the author’s perception of reality. They are not reality in themselves as they are
limited by the author’s own limitations; his repressions, his obsessions, and his
confessions.

Almodovar’s use of the typewriter image can be described as typically
postmodern as it demonstrates that he is conscious of the limitations of artistic
representations and of all modes of expression. Despite the pluralities of his texts, the
alternatives and the endless possibilities, he realizes that, at a certain point, both

language and image become insufficient means of communication and that he can

-33-

never communicate any absolute truth.

Like the images of the typewriter, the images of the camera serve to
demonstrate the ways in which the filmic medium is lacking. Again, the presence of
film cameras, photographic cameras, and photographs, are all indicative of
Almodovar’s consciousness. However, rather than being symbolic of the creative
process they are representative of the reflective process and a reminder of the
limitations of the specific medium which is being used to present a version of reality.

The camera can only encompass fragments of the whole. Much like the human
eye, the camera is limited to viewing objects as three dimensional. Despite the
versatility of the wide angle lens and of filming techniques such as panning and
zooming, the camera lens cannot record all the images that surround it. It is limited to
a certain angle, perspective, range, and gaze. Thus, there are always images that it
obscures, omits, and ignores. Similarly, Almodovar’s choice of focus and subject
matter is restricted by his own personal perspective and gaze. He cannot write about or
record what he does not see. He is incapable of stepping outside himself or his
environment and producing an objective representation of his experiences.

Thus, the very object that has been used to symbolize the power of the phallus
and its ability to penetrate everything within its path, is ultimately presented as lacking
in itself. As the presence of the director during Roxi’s pornographic shoot in Pepi,
Luci, and Bom, the televison studio in High Heels, and in the opening scene of The
Law of Desire demonstrates, the camera is simply a tool which, like the actors, must

be ordered to perform, modified, edited, and restrained in order to create the desired

-34-

image. Its limitations are made obvious as Rebeca’s photographs of her husband’s life
minus the image of her husband detail. The camera cannot lie, it cannot produce
images that do not exist, and it does not possess magical or mystical properties. Like a
mirror, the camera lens can only “reflect” reality.18 Nevertheless, as the photograph of
Sadec in drag demonstrates, the camera still has the power to disguise each image and
fool the spectator. The images recorded and projected do not appear to be rehearsed
but new and real. Therefore, they confuse the spectator’s sense of reality and fiction.
Throughout his work Almodovar attempts to play with and confuse his

audiences as, whilst forcing them to be conscious that they are viewing and
experiencing and artistic creation, he blurs the line between reality and fiction within
his fiction. The opening scene of The Law of Desire, again, serves as a good example
which illustrates this point. When the film opens the spectator is unaware that the
scene which unfolds is not actually part of the plot or of the film’s content but a
filmed scene within the film. The man being ordered to masturbate on the bed does
not reappear throughout the course of the film nor are we made aware of the real
purpose of filming his actions. The spectators are left to assume that the scene, which
is possibly taken from one of Pablo’s films, simply serves to set the tone for the rest of
the film. As a result they will expect that the themes of voyeurism and sexually
“perversity” presented in this first scene will be continued throughout The Law of
Desire.

Ultimately, however, when such expectations are thwarted and the spectators

realize that the film does not portray the male sexual act as pornographic but as a

-35-

means to attain love and fulfill desire they are forced to re-evaluate their assumptions.
This process of re-evaluation, which primarily occurs when the audience realizes that
the first scene is a fiction within a fiction and later when the plot and theme of the
film takes an unexpected twist, serves to alienate the spectators further.

The need to distance oneself from the text and think about one’s assumptions
creates a new form of consciousness. This distance, however, has already been created
in a sense by the camera itself. As well as recording images the camera creates a
barrier between the spectator and images. This barrier enables the audience to perform
voyeuristic tasks without feeling perverse but it also removes the audience from the
action to such an extent that the viewing of the film can never produce as much
pleasure or pain as reality can.

Despite this, however, as part of the social superstructure, film does have the
potential to affect and influence society and culture in the same way that society and
culture affect and influence film. The assumptions of every film-maker have a
profound affect upon the making of every film. If such assumptions reaffirm the
marginalization or oppression of certain people or groups then the direct result of such
film will promote the continuance of such marginalization or oppression. In this
respect film does have the power to cause “real” pleasure and pain because its
message affects reality. The medium of film, in itself, possesses the possibility to
influence either the change or the maintenance of social institutions, ideologies, and
structures.

The image of femininity, the third and final image that I wish to discuss, is

-86-

prevalent and recurrent throughout Almodovar’s work and symbolizes, to some extent,
Almodovar’s motivations. On one hand, the desire to explore the female mind and
body can be described as the inspiration that led Almodovar to begin the creative and
the reflective processes of writing film-making. On the other hand, however, it seems
that both the processes symbolized by the image of the typewriter and of the camera
tend to produce a perception of femininity which, whilst appearing to be fresh and
new, shares many similarities with traditional and stereotypical images of women.
Thus, despite his desire to present females and femininity from a feminist
perspective, Almodovar’s work has been criticized by feminist scholars because it is
“a reflection of machismo”. Because his assumptions about and depictions of women
tend to be based upon the theories and writings of Freud, Nancy Chodorow’s
conclusions about Freud can also be extended and applied to Almodovar. Chodorow
states that:
Hegemonic within his portrayed diversity is an account of mature female
desire and heterosexuality that renders them [women] inhibited at best; at
worst female desire and sexuality are seen entirely through male eyes (, 5)
The women presented in Almodovar’s work are always inhibited either by their sexual
object choice or their inability to admit or achieve sexual satisfaction and fulfilment.
Like Freud, Almodovar reaffirm the notion that there is an inherent difference
between men and women and, as a result, creates a theoretically “scientific”
framework which supports traditional gender binaries and posits the notion that

women are:

-37-

[...] interchangeable and fixed entities, members of the species

“woman”, every member of which is predestined to “want” the same

thing at the bottom and to want it consistently enough to justify being

classified as one (Schafer, 10).
Almodovar’s “species woman” takes numerous forms: the sexually perverse lesbian or
bi-sexual, the neurotic, and the non-woman, all of whom are subjected to the
dominant will and power of men who constantly prove their male superiority. The
notion of male superiority is based within traditionalist assumptions about the nature
of the body; the difference or so-called “lack” of the female body diminishes women’s
worth and “woman” becomes the lowest standard by which all men are measured

As male characters are not identified as sexual beings, because their clothing
is not indicative or a reminder of the male physical anatomy, they can be viewed as
human beings rather than sexual entities. Hence, since Freud posited the notion that
“men are more lucid, [and] rational than women” (Schafer, 9), men have been
placed upon a more sophisticated moral high ground than women which has allowed
them the power and perspective, because they are not defined or inhibited by their
sexuality or gender, to define themselves. In turn they also are allowed the privilege to
define and control others.

Even the homosexual man, who is marginalized by his sexual object choice
and participation in alternate sexual acts, is allowed the privilege of interpreting,
abusing, and inhibiting women. This is made most apparent when one considers how

lesbians are more bound by those socio-sexual constraints than homosexual men and

-88-

the fact that, among homosexuals, a gender hierarchy has been established. As in
Almodovar’s cinema, lesbianism is defined as it is viewed by men. It is either
eroticized for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer or constructed as
“perverse” by more conservative male audiences. In contrast, as constructions of both
sexuality and the perverse have historically been born out of patriarchal systems and
ideologies, male sexualities, all be they alternate, do not always come under such
scrutiny because they are always valued and judged by men who wish to continue to
promote male moral and physical superiority.

Almodovar affirrns such notions of male superiority, not only through his
depictions of male and female homosexuality, but whilst presenting more traditional,
heterosexual relationships and lifestyles. Throughout his work the male heterosexual
has the power to control the behavior and the destiny of all his female counterparts.
They become part of him, they are provided for by him, they are satisfied (supposedly)
by him, and they are judged and interpreted by and in comparison to him. Whereas the
female is defined in comparison and contrast to the more superior male, the male
character in Almodovar’s film is never defined at all. As with heterosexuality in
mainstream film, the male characters in Almodovar’s work are considered as the
normative element by which all others are judged. Thus, rather than creating “a rich
account of masculinity as it defines itself in relation to women [which provides]
several potential openings toward more plural conceptions of gender and sexuality”
(31)”, as Chodorow does whilst attempting to rethink Freud, Almodovar (despite his

occasional and obvious attempts to disavow and condemn Freud) simply reifies

-89-

traditionalist Freudian assumptions about the deviant nature of the female character
and the female body.

Therefore, it is no surprise that Almodovar’s depictions of the male to female
transvestite are problematic in the sense that, because “she is a man”, male to female
transvestites are more successful in their portrayals of femininity than women are
themselves. As men dictate what femininity is, in order to force women to be as they
desires her to be, men also have more knowledge and understanding of how to behave
in a feminine manner. When talking more specifically about temporary transvestite
film Straayer illustrates the underlying assumptions behind transvestism (and to some
extent transsexuality) and the problematic nature of presenting transvestite characters
on film most eloquently when she states:

[...] temporary transvestite films used gender-coded clothing and

disguise to carry/elicit generic gender-crossing gestures, behaviors and

attitudes. In addition, although they ostensibly challenge gender

constructions in that generic system, they rely on biology and sexual

difference to realign gender and sex according to convention, and

therefore limit their challenge severely (70).

One could almost assume that here Straayer is explicitly referring to Almodovar who,
in attempting to challenge gender and sexual dichotomies and stereotypes, limits his
own challenge because he cannot escape from Freudian assumptions and the male
objectified/objectifying gaze.

His cameo appearances as a transvestite in both Pepi, Luci, and Horn and other

-90..

Girls on the Heap and Labyrinth of Passion imply that physically, as well as
filmically, Almodovar is prone to assume that he has the right to define femininity, the
feminine, the female, and the female body as well as the ability to be, or at least
identify as, a woman.

Throughout his work Almodovar carefully disguises his misogynist tendencies
and creates an illusion of female power which, like his films, is unreal. Whilst he
appears to provide women with a voice and representation he interprets, inhibits, and
limits their movement and expression. Almodovar’s postmodern, pluralistic, non-
absolutist world is for men only. It is a homosexual male utopia in which gay men
succeed and prosper and all women are inferior and perverse. Contrary to this notion,
however, I would argue that it is Almodovar himself, and not the women he
re/presents, that is perverse. After all, it is Almodovar who, in claiming to be a
feminist and in employing postmodern techniques of alienation and subversion, uses
the most “perverse strategy to divert attention away from the underlying or latent

motives, fantasies, wishes, and desires” (Kaplan, 10).19

-91-

Notes

1. For a more detailed examination upon presenting the “un-representable” see
Lyotard’s article “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?”

2. See Breaking the Sequence, edited by Friedman and Fuchs.

3. As I refuse to validate the authority of the christian religion I have made the
decision to not capitalize the word “catholic” and the word “christianity”.

4. As the result of the distinction that Freud makes between male and female
homosexuality women traditionally have been viewed as separate to men. In addition,
those who base their assumptions upon psychoanalytic theories often define women by
comparing them to men. As a result women, who are lacking in varying respects, are
marginalized as a group and considered to be a of a different “species”.

5. “Rat Love”.

6. See Freud’s “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.”

7. Ibid.

8. “That’s called reciprocity”.

9. See Chodorow’s F emininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: Freud and Beyond.

10. For a more extensive account of hysteria in women see Freu ’5 “Three Essays on
the Theory of Sexuality.”

11. The notion that there are certain groups, such as performers and artists, are
excluded from society and a whole and are, therefore, “expected” to be eccentric, if
not perverse, is explored further in Almodovar’s The Patty Diphusa Stories and Other
Writings

12. Pablo does attempt to dominate the emotions and decisions of his sister.
13. I am referring to the definition of love as spiritual and sexual connection and
unification that is prevalent in Modernist literature, particularly in D. H. Lawrence’s

Lady Chatterley ’s Lover.

14. For men life is not worth living unless desire can be expressed and love achieved.
Thus, Pablo acquiesces to Antonio’s commands.

92

15. Following Kaplan’s line of argument, flawed as it may be, it is possible to assume
that male perversions are less harmful than female perversions because male
stereotypes are less oppressive and limiting than female stereotypes. If one agrees that
perversions result from the need to embrace gender stereotyping, then, this is a logical
conclusion

16. For more information regarding the fragmented nature of Almodovar’s films see
Epps’ “Figuring Hysteria: Disorder and Desire in Three Films of Pedro Almodovar”
and Smith’s Desire Unlimited: The Cinema of Pedro Almodovar.

17. Nevertheless, Almodovar does deal with transsexualism a second time in Patty
Diphusa.

18. Particularly in his later films Almodovar replaces the image of the camera with
images of mirrors. Both are, however, interchangeable. Not only do they both
symbolize or “reflect” Almodovar’s own reflective processes but, on a more basic
level, the properties and functions of camera and of the mirror are based upon the
same principles of reflective light rays. Jacques Lacan implies in “The Mirror Stage”,
this reflection is always fragmented and can never be viewed as a whole. He identifies
the function of the mirror in a child’s early stage of development. Although
Almodovar’s work does not focus upon infant development he does indicate that all
adults are products of their childhood experiences. Lacan claims that “We have only
to understand the mirror stage as an identification namely, the transformation that
takes place in the subject when he assumes an image ...the function of the mirror-stage
[is] a particular case of the function irnago, which is to establish a relation between
the organism and its reality” (4).

Here he emphasizes that, because the mirror appear to reflect but in fact
distorts reality, it is not always possible for the human being (or any other “organism”)
to distinguish between the image they see in the mirror and their actual image. This is
partly due to the fact that hmnans are only capable of seeing themselves, physically
and psychologically, as fragments of a whole. These fiagmentations become our
reality.

19. See Kaplan’s Female Perversions

93

Works Cited
Primary Sources
High Heels (T acones Lejanos). Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Paramount. 1991.

Labyrinth of Passions (Laberinto de Passiones).Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Cinevista.
1982.

Laws of Desire (La Ley de Deseo). Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Cinevista. I987.

Pepi, Luci, Born and Other Girls on the Heap (Pepi, Luci, Born, y Otras Chicas del
Monton). Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Cinevista 1980.

Secondary Sources

Almodovar, Pedro. The Patty Diphusa Stories and Other Writings. Trans. Kirk
Anderson. London: Faber & Faber, 1991.

Califia, Pat “Feminism and Sadomasochism.” Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader. Ed.
Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981. 230-237.

Chodorow, Nancy J. Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: Freud and Beyond.
Lexington, Kentucky: The University of Kentucky Press. 1994.

Engels, Friedrich. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New
York: Penguin. 1972.

The Celluloid Closet. Dir. Epstein, Rob and Jeff Friedman. HBO I996.

Epps, Brad. “Figuring Hysteria: Disorder and Desire in Three Films of Pedro
Almodovar.” Post- Franco, Postmodern: The Films of Pedro Almodovar. Ed.
Kathleen M. Vernon and Barbara Morris. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press,
1995. 99- 124.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume One: An Introduction. Trans.
Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage, 1990.

Friedman, Ellen G. and Miriam Fuchs. Breaking the Sequence: Women '5
Experimental Fiction. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1989.

Freud, Sigmund. “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.” The Freud Reader. Ed.
Peter Gay. New York: Norton, 1989. 239-292.

94

Hall, Stuart. “Deviance, Politics, and the Media.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies
Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove, Michele Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin- New York:
Routledge, 1993. 62-92.

Harcourt, Wendy. “Feminism, Body, Self: Third Generation Feminism.”
Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Future of Gender. Ed. Joseph H. Smith and Afaf
M. Mahfouz. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. 70- 98.

Jackson, Stevi. “The Social Construction of Female Sexuality.” Feminism and
Sexuality: A Reader. Ed. Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1981. 62- 73.

Kaplan, Louise J. Female Perversions: The Temptations of Emma Bovary. New
Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc, 1991.

Lacan, Jacques. Ferns: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1977.
Lawrence, DH. Lady Chatterley 's Lover. New York: Signet Classics. 1959.

Lyotard, Jean- Francois. “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism.” lhe
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Rouledge, 1979. 81-90.

- - -. The Postmodern Explained: Correspondence 1982- I 985. Minneapolis: The
University of Minnesota Press, 1992.

Mandrell, James. “Sense and Sensibility, or Latent Heterosexuality and Labyrinth of
Passion.” Post- Franco, Postmodern: The Films of Pedro Almodovar. Ed. Kathleen
M. Vernon and Barbara Morris. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1995. 41-
58.

Matador. Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Cinevista. 1986

Morris, Barbara. “Almodovar’s Laws of Subjectivity and Desire.” Post- Franco,
Postmodern: The Films of Pedro Almodovar. Ed. Kathleen M. Vernon and Barbara
Morris. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1995. 87-98.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Contemporary Literary

Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies. Ed. R. C Davis and Ronald Schleifer. New
York: Longrnan. 421- 432.

95

Salecl, Renata. “I Can’t Love You Unless I Give You Up.” Gaze and Voice as Love
Objects. Ed. Slavoj Zizek and Renata Salecl. London: Duke University Press, 1996.
179- 207.

Schafer, Roy. “On Gendered Discourse and Discourse on Gender.” Psychoanalysis,
Feminism, and the Future of Gender. Ed. Joseph H. Smith and Afaf M. Mahfouz.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. l- 21.

Shaphard, Barbara. “Gender Stereotyping as a Way of Not Knowing.” Psychoanalysis,
Feminism, and the Future of Gender. Ed. Joseph H. Smith and Afaf M. Mahfouz.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. 163-170.

Smith, Paul Julian. Desire Unlimited: The Cinema of Pedro Almodovar. New York:
Verso, 1994.

Straayer, Chris. Deviant Eyes, Deviant Bodies: Sexual Re-orientation in Film and
Video. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. (Mujeres a1 Borde de un Ataque de
Nervios) Dir. Pedro Almodovar. 1988

Vernon, Kathleen M., and Barbara Morris. Introduction. Post- Franco, Postmodem:

The Films of Pedro Almodovar. Ed. Kathleen M. Vernon and Barbara Morris.
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1995. l-24.

96

"Illllllllllllllllf