Reviewed by:

• Medieval Women on Film: Essays on Gender, Cinema and History ed. by Kevin J. Harty
• Susan Aronstein

Beginning with the publication of Cinema Arthuriana: Essays on Arthurian Film in 1991, Kevin J. Harty’s work on the ‘reel’ Middle Ages has been invaluable for the study of medieval cinema, and Medieval Women on Film is a welcome contribution to this work. Chronicling the cinematic fortunes of medieval women, fictional and historical, the volume’s essays offer an insightful cross-disciplinary exploration of ‘the multiplicity of contradictory roles’ medieval women have played on film for over a century—‘as role models, as saviors, as saints, as sinners, as viragos, as victims, and as victimizers’ (p. 3).

Amy Kaufman’s analysis of Hollywood’s Guinevere in the context of ‘evolving anxieties about women and sex in each cinematic generation’ places film Guineveres, from Vanessa Redgrave (1967) to Keira Knightley (2004), in the ‘feminist discourse of [their] time’ (p. 19). In the end, Kaufman concludes, filmmakers’ ‘troubling answer’ to ‘handling’ Guinevere ‘may be the one provided by . . . King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, which has no Guinevere at all’ (p. 30). Usha Vishnuvajjala’s exploration of Morgan le Fay on film demonstrates that cultural discourses about women have also determined Morgan’s characterization, as films from the 2000s displace ‘contemporary [End Page 73] misogyny onto the past,’ resignifying the complex and sympathetic Morgan of the 1980s (p. 48). Valerie Johnson’s study of Maid Marian provides yet another example of the disturbing modern misogyny that persists in films set in the Middle Ages; her examination of Robin Hood films from the 1920s to the 2000s finds that ‘neomedieval archetypes [always] dictate Marian’s behavior, her story potential, her narrative role, and ultimately her value’ (p. 69). Of all the fictional screen women studied here, only Isolde, as Joan Tasker Grimbert argues, seems to escape this fate. Grimbert, however, gives medieval sources and not ‘modern feminism’ (or filmmakers) the credit for ‘Isolde’s cinematic characterization’ (p. 64).

Turning to historical women, Sandra Gorgievski explores Lady Godiva’s film career, arguing that Godiva’s inconsistent cinematic characterization—‘dutiful wife, feminist activist, and sex symbol’—stems from ‘the audience’s expectation of a film’s genre . . . [and] the version of the legend [they are] familiar with’(p. 144). Fiona Tolhurst shows that narrative expectations also limit Eleanor of Aquitaine, as films never allow her to become the female hero proposed by 20^th-century feminism’s Golden Myth of Eleanor. Instead, from Beckett to Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, filmmakers reframe her, using the medieval Black Legend to discredit Eleanor in various ways—as an adulteress, a bad mother, a catty wife, a jealous murderess, a traitor, a rebel. Among the historical women discussed in the collection, only Joan of Arc, as Kevin J. Harty demonstrates, has been allowed a heroic portrayal on film; however, she, too, has been subjected to the visions and agendas of filmmakers who have ‘wrestled with Joan the simple peasant girl, Joan the androgyne, Joan the woman, Joan the doubting sinner, Joan the standard-bearer of a nation, and Joan the self-assured saint’ (p. 196).

In addition to these analyses of medieval women’s cinematic histories, the volume offers four in-depth studies of individual films. Donald L. Hoffman examines Fritz Lang’s The Nibelungen, arguing that Lang’s legendary queens ‘despite being part of an exciting new medium . . . are creatures of an old worldview’ who precipitate Germany’s fall from myth into history (p. 94). Andrew B.R. Elliott, reading La Passion de Beatrice as both a Tavernier film and a product of French cinema in the 1980s and 90s, finds that this film also remains trapped in old worldviews; relying on a ‘fundamental gender essentialism’ that equates women with suffering and exploitation and men with violence and domination, Beatrice promises but does not deliver ‘a progressive, empowering and refreshingly different film that dares to depict genuine female agency’ (pp. 130, 116).

Joseph M. Sullivan and Kristin...

审核人：

• 电影中的中世纪妇女：性别，电影和历史随笔集。凯文·哈蒂（Kevin J.Harty）
• 苏珊·阿伦斯坦（Susan Aronstein）

从1991年《亚瑟安娜电影院：亚瑟王电影随笔》开始发表以来，凯文·哈蒂（Kevin J. Harty）关于“卷轴”中世纪的研究对于中世纪电影的研究就具有无价的价值，《中世纪妇女在电影上》对此工作可喜可贺。该书的编年史记载了中世纪女性的小说，虚构和历史的电影命运，对跨世纪的中世纪女性在电影中扮演的“多种矛盾角色”进行了深刻的跨学科探索，作为榜样，救世主，圣徒，罪人，处女座，受害者和受害者（第3页）。

艾米·考夫曼（Amy Kaufman）在“不断变化的电影一代对女性和性的焦虑感”的背景下对好莱坞电影《吉尼斯人》的分析，把电影《吉尼斯人》从凡妮莎·雷德格雷夫（Vanessa Redgrave）（1967）到凯拉·奈特莉（Keira Knightley）（2004）放在“ [时代]的女性话语”中。 （第19页）。最终，考夫曼总结说，电影制片人对“处理” Guinevere的“令人不安的答案”可能就是。。。亚瑟王：《剑的传说》，根本没有Guinevere'（第30页）。乌莎·维斯努瓦杰拉（Usha Vishnuvajjala）在电影中对摩根·莱·费伊（Morgan le Fay）的探索表明，关于女性的文化话语也决定了摩根的性格，因为2000年代的电影取代了“当代” [End Page 73厌恶过去”，代表了1980年代复杂而富有同情心的摩根（第48页）。瓦莱丽·约翰逊（Valerie Johnson）对女仆玛丽安（Maid Marian）的研究提供了又一个例子，说明中世纪电影中仍然存在令人不安的现代厌女症。她对1920年代至2000年代罗宾汉的电影的研究发现，“中世纪的原型总是决定着玛丽安的举止，故事的潜力，叙事角色以及最终的价值”（第69页）。正如琼·塔斯克·格里姆伯特（Joan Tasker Grimbert）所言，在这里学习过的所有虚构电影中，只有伊索尔德（Esolde）似乎逃脱了这种命运。然而，格里姆伯特却将中世纪的资源而不是“现代女权主义”（或电影制片人）归功于“伊索尔德的电影刻画”（第64页）。

谈到历史女性，桑德拉·戈列耶夫斯基（Sandra Gorgievski）探讨了戈迪瓦夫人的电影事业，认为戈迪瓦的电影特征不一致-“尽职的妻子，女权主义者和性象征”-源于“观众对电影体裁的期望”。。。[和]他们熟悉的图例的版本'（第144页）。菲奥娜Tolhurst显示，叙事的预期也限制了阿基坦的埃莉诺，如电影从不让她成为20提出的女主人公^个埃莉诺-century女权主义的金神话。相反，从贝克特到里德利·斯科特的罗宾汉，电影制片人改组了她，并使用中世纪的黑色传奇以各种方式抹黑了埃莉诺，如通奸，坏母亲，a的妻子，嫉妒的谋杀女，叛徒，叛逆者。在该系列中讨论的历史女性中，只有凯文·J·哈蒂（Kevin J. Harty）所展示的圣女贞德（Joan of Arc）被允许在电影中进行英雄刻画。但是，她也一直受到电影制片人的异象和议程的影响，这些电影制片人曾与“朴实的农民女孩琼”，“雌雄同体的琼”，“女人的琼”，“令人作呕的罪人”，“一个国家的旗手琼”以及“一个国家的旗手”角力。放心的圣人琼（第196页）。

除了对中世纪妇女的电影历史进行这些分析之外，该书还提供了四项对单个电影的深入研究。唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald L. Hoffman）审视弗里茨·朗（Fritz Lang）的《尼伯龙根（The Nibelungen）》，认为朗的传奇女王/王后尽管是令人兴奋的新媒介的一部分。。。是旧世界观的产物，它们促使德国从神话堕落为历史（第94页）。安德鲁·BR·埃利奥特（Andrew BR Elliott）在1980年代和90年代既读着《 Tavernier》电影又是法国电影的一部产品，读了《激情披头士》，发现这部电影还被困在旧的世界观中。比阿特丽斯（Beatrice）依靠一种“基本的性别本质主义”，使妇女遭受苦难和剥削，而男子则受到暴力和统治。 承诺但不提供“敢于描绘真正女性代理人的进步，授权和令人耳目一新的电影”（第130、116页）。

约瑟夫·沙利文（Joseph M. Sullivan）和克里斯汀（Kristin）...