Judith Rifeser [email protected] Orcid.Org/0000-0001-8789-5983 Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, and an Audiovisual Practitioner

Judith Rifeser J.Rifeser@Gold.Ac.Uk Orcid.Org/0000-0001-8789-5983 Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, and an Audiovisual Practitioner

Vol. VIII comparative cinema Judith No. 15 2020 Rifeser

Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The 25-40 Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress An exploration of feminine desire through the lens of Luce Irigaray’s caress is afforded here through the feminist film-philosophical analysis of Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow (La teta asustada, 2009) and Women Without Men (Zanan-e Bedun-e Mardan, 2009), by Shirin Neshat. Drawing on key scholarship (Watkins 2000; Bainbridge 2008; Bolton [2011] 2015; Quinlivan [2012] 2014), this article offers a novel contribution through its emphasis on the Irigarayan caress. Despite important limitations and silences in Irigaray’s work (Rifeser 2020; Ingram 2008; Bloodsworth-Lugo 2007; Deutscher 2003; Jones, 1981), here the usefulness of Irigaray’s caress is discussed. An exploration of the narrative, formal and aesthetic strategies of Llosa’s and Neshat’s feature films attune the viewer to the embodied, lived experiences of the main women characters, so that we can envision the Irigarayan caress and the lived experience of feminine desire as woman with oneself, as well as the desire for the other.

Keywords FEMININE DESIRE CARESS LUCE IRIGARAY CLAUDIA LLOSA SHIRIN NESHAT WOMEN FILMMAKERS Date received: 24/04/2020 Date accepted: 19/10/2020

Judith Rifeser [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-8789-5983 Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, and an audiovisual practitioner. A plurilingual scholar in languages, cultural studies and feminist creative praxis, she is particularly interested in teaching with and through film(making), intercultural understanding and in women’s studies in relation to identity and diversity. Her audiovisual essays have been screened to date at film festivals and cinemas/exhibition spaces in the UK and abroad. DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 comparative cinema comparative

Fig. 1: Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat, 2009)

26 and Shirin Neshat’s and Shirin Neshat’s

The Milk of Sorrow Sorrow The Milk of in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress of Philosophy with Irigaray’s in Dialogue

Fig. 2: The Milk of Sorrow (Claudia Llosa, 2009)

Article JUDITH RIFESER Llosa’s in Claudia Desire Feminine Without Men Women 2020 No. 15 No. Vol. VIII Vol. DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 27 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress and indeed overcome thesewithinthe films and how they try to negotiate main characters inNeshat andLlosa’s lends insight into thestruggles of the inherent issues, theIrigarayan caress Lugo 2007, Ingram 2008). Despite these 1981, Deutscher 2003, Bloodsworth- woman’s biological physicality (Jones and anemphasisonaheterosexual of intersectionality such asrace, class, to heromissionof engagingwithissues Irigaray’s work more broadly inrelation previously beenapointof critiqueof (Rifeser 2020, 254), anaspect that has heterosexual woman/man paradigm” caress “remains withinthedualistic in greater depth. The Irigarayan an aspect that isyet to beexplored Irigaray’s concept of thecaress remains of breath andsound(s)infilm. Yet, theory) to engage withthenotions (instead of Merleau-Ponty orDeleuzian research by usingIrigaray’s work intervention infilm-phenomenological 2014) research offers animportant color (2002). Davina Quinlivan’s ([2012] Watkins’ work focusses specifically on screen viaIrigarayan theory, whilst Liz facets of feminine consciousnesson Bolton’s ([2011]2015)which explores in (2008) exploration of women’s cinema works such asCaroline Bainbridge’s of feminist film studies inlandmark basis for discussion within therealm philosophical theoryhasformed the work grounded inpsychoanalytic and Fig. 2), respectively. Irigaray’s bodyof the above two sequences (Fig. 1and ( Claudia Llosa’s TheMilkof Sorrow ( Shirin Neshat’s Women WithoutMen exploration of feminine desire within caress provides thebasisfor the and feminine desire La teta asustada, 2009), specifically Mardan,Zanan-e Bedun-e 2009)and A Feminine CinematicsorLucy Luce Irigaray’s philosophy of the The Irigarayan caress withoneself

although highly problematic (Jones [1977] 1985b, 24). From these— lips incontinuouscontact” (Irigaray […] for hergenitals are formed of two herself withoutany need for mediation lips. Woman herself“touches inand of of feminine desire through thevaginal woman’s lived, embodiedexperience traced back to herearliest writingson Irigaray’s interest inthecaress canbe concept of theIrigarayan caress. to important mapthemorphological and Llosa’s cinematic works, itisfirst experience of thefeminine viaNeshat more broadly. for thinkingfeminine desire incinema also thepoliticalpotential of thecaress explore not only thephilosophical but above texts, offers to theopportunity Irigarayan caress indialogue withthe calls itaparlerfemme. Reading the a feminine enunciation, orasIrigaray that excludes her, withnospacefor trapped withinapatriarchal society in exile. Sheistheother andsheis foregrounds theideathat woman is is Never Neutral ([1985]2002), Irigaray Is NotOne([1977]1985b)andTo Speak Woman known works, Speculumof theOther Already inherearlier andperhapsmost a peaceful meeting withtheother. Irigarayan caress offers amodelfor to woman’s experience; finally, the patriarchal scholarship to give voice of philosophical discourse and desire; thirdly, through her challenging woman’s bodily, lived experience of due to Irigaray’s advocacy to recognize from patriarchal constraints; secondly, enunciation, thereby breaking free space for thefeminine andafeminine femme, that is, theestablishment of a subjectivity through acallfor aparler acknowledge andforeground feminine This isfirstly, given Irigaray’s quest to patriarchal system that confinesthem. Before engaginginthelived ([1974] 1985a), ThisSex Which DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 28 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress Fecundity of the Caress” ([1983]re- 1996). Braidotti 1994; Grosz 1994; Gatens difference (Spivak1987; Butler 1993; other key feminist theorists of sexual subjectivity, anideathat isshared with of embodimentinrelation to feminine ofhighlights theories theimportance to issuesof intersectionality, here critique of Irigaray’s lack of attention Bloodsworth-Lugo (2007)despite her which Irigaray contributes, and Mary significant theories of embodiment to this, to itisimportant recognize the the vaginallips(Jones1981). Saying who might not share thephysicality of people whoidentifyasfeminine, but problematic dueto itsexclusion of vaginal lipsintheseearly writingsis absence thereof. Such afocus onthe not simultaneous)sensation of touch/ other, evoking thecontinuous(though vaginal lipsbeingincontact witheach Woman isalready whole dueto her to feel thesensation of beingtouched. touch. Woman doesnot needanother mediation to evoke thesensation of 45). For Irigaray, woman requires no her multiplicity” (Bolton [2011]2015, for thesingularity of each woman in [1974] 1985a, 26)andinstead to “speak perceived asa “hole” or “lack” (Irigaray overcome thenotion of thefeminine writings, Jacques Lacan’s work—to earliest, perhapsmost prominent scholarship—specifically, inher subvert patriarchal, psychoanalytic the vaginallips, Irigaray isable to closeness/distance. By focusing on touch/the absencethereof and of active/passive, presence/absence, continuously navigates thedichotomies caress” andherthinkingabouthow it Irigaray callsher “philosophy of the lips, shebuilds thefoundations of what 1981)—observations onthevaginal Irigaray’s essay entitled “The (Levinas [1961]1969, 194–219). to challenge hisperception of thecaress a “face-to-face encounter” withLevinas a feminine subjectivity. Irigaray sets up remain asilenced topic inthequest for one’s subjectivity, and thusitcannot with theindividualityof aperson, orwith place that ismost closely associated quest for subjectivity asitinhabitsthe The face plays role aparticular inthe conceptualization of thefeminine face. particularly troubled by Levinas’ useand who senses, feels, desires. Irigaray is of woman asanindependentsubject desire of woman, andtheestablishment attempt to give voice to thesilenced focus onthevaginallipsisafurther also bringsto light how Irigaray’s early Analyzing Irigaray’s critiqueof Levinas feminine enunciation, oraparlerfemme. wider project to establish aspacefor a Levinas isclearly situated withinher return to later. Irigaray’s critiqueof sexuate difference, anaspect Ishall woman that allows for ethical livingin relationship between amanand and thusnon-objectifying, respectful (Irigaray 2008, 161)inahorizontal, between two as “different other(s)” focuses onthepossibilityof coexistence much of Irigaray’s recent work, which sensing subject. These texts inform denial of woman asindependent, active, of patriarchal oppression dueto his ideas onthecaress astheepitome 1992, 178–89). Irigaray reads Levinas’ to EmmanuelLevinas” (Irigaray [1991] critiques Levinas, namely “Questions to alater pieceof hers that explicitly with oneself). These ideasare central the other (aswell astherelationship caress, namely therelationship with a key aspect of herphilosophy of the Emmanuel Levinas, sheestablishes engagement withthephilosophy of on feminine desire because viaher especially interesting for thispaper printed inIrigaray 1993, 185–217) is DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 29 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress access to herown spaceof origin, nor subject and, consequently, hasno the placeof originfor themasculine independent subject. “She embodies only asmother andnot asdesiring, emblematic here for therole of woman 1992, 178). The feminine face becomes the light, asitsnegative” (Irigaray [1991] or reverse of man’s aspiration towards [T]he feminine appears astheunderside Levinas, isnot other thanhimself […] “The feminine, asitischaracterized by addresses him directly andargues: Irigaray’s secondtext onLevinas, she with Levinas (Ince1996, 10–11). In detailed study of Irigaray’s engagement light, asKate Incehighlights inher of woman withdarknessandman patriarchal system of theassociation philosophy inorder to the overturn fight to write the feminine into Western Such aviewpoint Irigaray’s supports desires butrather aspassive object. therefore not asasubject withown not recognized asactive subject and face istrapped. That is, thefeminine is act of devouring inwhich thefeminine used to emphasize thepassivityof this with theother. The verb “swallow” is intherelationshipimportance of one with theverb “touch” to highlight its [1983] 1993, 191–92). Irigaray plays the visible andthenight. Both” (Irigaray it must defend itself unceasingly from Without aface? […]Invisible because preserve thememory of theflesh? [...] troubled by this. Sheasks: “How to [1961] 1969, 263). Irigaray isclearly into “non-signifyingness”(Levinas which the face shiftsfrom signification seeing thefeminine astheplacein femininity” (Levinas [1961]1969, 262), describes the “inversion of theface in and enunciation assubject. Levinas face, hedenieswoman’s presence of thefeminine the importance critiques Levinas because by denying As mentionedearlier, Irigaray mistaken withbeing silenced. Instead, 2000, 62). Silence here must not be [that isthesilence] of theother (Irigaray protect thesilence inme,” like theone phallogocentric framework. “I must develop one’s own voice outsidea to engage withoneself—a spaceto subject issilence (Irigaray 2000, 64–65). that perceives thefeminine asdesiring of “constructing [afeminine] history” which respect thebreath” andindeed core of developing “modes of speaking relation to thisprocess? At thevery then what aboutthespoken word in of ourengagement withourselves, silence andbreath are key constituents body, ourdesires, ourown existence. If provide spacefor consideration of the to hearourown breath) butalsoto demands usto besilent (quite literally 94). Inorder to focus onbreath, Irigaray subjectivity” (Quinlivan [2012]2014, that fleshes outourinterior, corporeal as well astheair ‘touching’ usinaway our bodiesasaform of touching oneself its passage from outsideto theinsideof considers theflow of breath itself and the dimensionto breathing“tactile are fleshed outintheobservation that ourselves andourembodied subjectivity dimensions of touch inrelation to to acaress withoneself. The nuanced 124), arguing that breathing iscentral uponinwords”“touching (Irigaray 1996, Irigaray directly relates breathing to a problematic focus onthevaginallips. that importantly shiftsaway from the later work anemphasisonbreath thought onthecaress reveals inher feminine enunciation, herparlerfemme. subject andto create arealm for a woman isrecognized asadesiring Irigaray’s work to fight for aspacewhere 25). Here of we seetheimportance the maternal realm” (Bainbridge 2008, indeed to any spaceof herown outside Silence acts asaprotective space Tracing thedevelopment of Irigaray’s DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 30 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress to feminine desire andsubjectivity. with Irigaray’s central idea inrelation as Idiscusslater, resonates closely The first scene evokes aspace that, that returns at thevery endof thefilm. Men that constrains them.Women Without by anorchard from apatriarchal society they find temporary refuge inahouse intersecting stories of four women as with director ShojaAzari, telling the novel of thesame nameincollaboration Parsipur’sShahrnush acclaimed1989 told inFarsi isadramatic re-telling of filmmaker. Neshat’s magic realist tale living ShirinNeshat, and avisualartist feature film by Iranian-born, inUS exile through role inNeshat’s Women WithoutMen. thought. These elements alsoplay akey is crucial inthisfacet of Irigaray’s of breath,importance voice andsilence desires andto beingwithourselves. The understand andlisten to one’s own to thedevelopment of subjectivity, to contemplation andreflection are key this world). For Irigaray, timefor pauses, reflection onourselves assubjects in on ourbody)andspiritual(through a both (through carnal anemphasis with oneself isfueled by desires can seethat, for Irigaray, thecaress on ourplaceintheworld. Here we reflection onour own subjectivity and argues that thisquestion demands you?” (Irigaray [1983]1999, 26). Irigaray one’s desires, one’s identity: “Who are confronted withthequestion regarding and results inonebeingcontinuously body constitutes acaress withoneself, Paying attention to oneself andone’s space to listen to one’s innervoice. inward, atimefor repose, soasto give silence isto beunderstood asalooking Women WithoutMenisthefirst Exploring theIrigarayan caress opens withacrucial sequence Women WithoutMen Brown notes thepower of active silence senses, perceives, desires. MelissaS. independent subject that breathes, space where woman isperceived as of oneself inorder to carve outa as well asanact of contemplation as acomplex vehicle of resistance 137). The notion of silence serves here [1974] 1985a, quoted inWhitford 1991, a “speaking (as)woman” (Irigaray woman” butrather, asIrigaray clarifies, enunciation. That isnot a “speaking of space for aparlerfemme, afeminine give voice to Munis’ desire(s) andprovide of thecaress, namely the struggle to oneself asexplored inIrigaray’s theory complexities of feminine desire with poignantly audiovisually presents the silence… andnothing.” a voice-over, uttering: “Now I’ll have voice. Munisinclose-up, speaks via silence isbroken by Munis’ non-diegetic she isseemingly floating intheair. The face half towards turned thecamera, as Figure 1reveals theclose-up of Munis’ nor non-diegetic sound. There issilence. subsides. We canhearneither diegetic and thevoice of themuezzin suddenly means that theaction isnot hurried, a suicideattempt. Buttheslow motion rooftop of thehouseinwhat seemslike slow motion. Munisisjumpingfrom the which then moves outof theframe in lingers ontheback of Munis’ head, elevated view of Tehran. The camera in thewindasshecontemplates an rooftop, herblack hairgently moving as sheispacingupanddown onthe of shots reveal thedistressed Munis empty cobble street below. Anumber shot reveals thehard, grey surface of an Momentarily later, acutto areverse she isstanding somewhere uphigh. low angle long shot—suggesting that Tolouei). Munisisshown inaslightly come to know asMunis(Shabnam It shows awoman, whomwe later This last shot inthissequence DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 31 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress in Irigaray’s emphasis on theimportance Such areading works inlinewith in which sheistrapped by her brother. a spaceoutsideof thepatriarchal space resistance” (Brown 2011, 11)to carve out may beagential, and may beaform of 2011, 11). Indeed, Munis’ “[s]ilence is established here for Munis(Brown space to give voice to herown desires, with oneself. “[A] spaceof privacy,” a oneself assheenvisions inthecaress to findpeacewithinoneself, to return to pausing andafocus onbreath inorder read inlinewithIrigaray’s emphasison (Hissan 2008). Therefore, silence canbe ‘ of state cords to bedisturbed from itsoriginal The act of speakingcauses the “vocal sukun Farsi (andArabic) sukut interpretation could beoffered. “In lacking invoice ormovement, adifferent before, silence might beinterpreted as one’s subjectivity. Whilst, assuggested that Irigaray emphasizes asbeingkey to relationship withherown body, practices voice andto cultivate arespectful space for Munisto listen to herinner air provides amomentaryin-between “motionlessness” (Brown 2011, 14). The (Harper 2019). Itdraws attention alsoto silere [meaning bestill,“to quiet”] silent,” yet theword stems alsofrom the Latin silentium,means “being (Brown, 2011). The word silence, from of confinement, andalso of stillness” Munis’ brother reinforces Munis’ “threat Munis” (Brown 2011, 13). The action of becomes asymbol of confinement for outofis born scenesinwhich “silence further suggests that Munis’ suicide and for women more generally. She a powerful feminine spacefor oneself of of silence as—paradoxically —aform chimes with Irigaray’s understanding Women WithoutMen, anideathat parler femme through thecreation of […] equilibrium” (Hissan2008). sukun orsukut-rest orsilence’” […] meansrest, desiring subject. as independent thinking, sensing, space where thefeminine isperceived framework, apatriarchal realm, a space that defies aphallogocentric that canandshallbeimagined, a of Irigaray, aspace for aparlerfemme 2013) butperhapsalso, inthespirit fraught spaceof liminality” (Holman perfect vehicle inwhich to evoke this she istryingto navigate. Itis “the Munis withintheoppressive system creation of aspacein-between for momentarily —possible through the to suggest. Freedom is—even ifonly first scene at theend of thefilmseems only temporary, asthereturn to the new life for herself. Herliberation is 98), orbetter Superwoman, to forge a “flying like Superman” (White 2015, and indeedareturn to herself. Sheis fidelity to herspiritualandbodily self, as acultivation of herown identity, a the rooftop of thehouseisrevealed in-between. Munis’ act of jumpingoff clouds. Munisis caught inaspace the bluesky, interspersed withwhite The camera cutsto aclose-up shot of patriarchal system oppressing her. freed from therestraints of the freed from spaceandtime, temporarily between andsky, earth temporarily and contemplation. Irigaray’s ideaof repose for reflection to give voice to herdesires, evoking which Munis chooses to bewithherself, This momentcould beread asonein perceives andfeels” (Rifeser 2020, 249). on thebodythat touches, senses, and logocentric investigation to afocus the caress “shifts from anocularcentric to note here that Irigaray’s philosophy of caring aboutandfor oneself. Itiscrucial yes to one’s own desires, asameansof of silence to say yes to oneself, asaying of silence not asasilencing , butasause For abrief momentMunisiscaught DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 32 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress opens up a space for dialogue, or what opens upa spacefordialogue,or what than between asubjectandanobject, desire, betweentwosubjects, rather 186). Therelationship fueledbyloveand “the touchofthecaress” (Irigaray1993, Irigaray meanswhenshe discusses ing” (Irigaray1993,186).Thisiswhat It isameeting,“withoutconsum(mat) person remainsanindependentsubject. of desirefortheother.Instead,each person doesnotbecometheobject conceptualization ofthecaress,one feminine desire.IntheIrigarayan provide usefulwhenthinkingabout subjectivity ofthetwobeings,can two thatdoesnotcompromisethe the necessityofameetingbetween philosophy ofthecaress,namely shortcomings, theessenceofIrigaray’s 95–96; Rifeser2020).Despitethese model” (Bloodsworth-Lugo2007, likely premisedonawhite,heterosexual class giventhatIrigaray’s“‘woman’is such asrace(Ingram2008,xvii-xviii)and implicit refusalofintersectionalissues and hereagainthroughIrigaray’s and heterosexualrelationshipsonly— through thefocusonvaginallips of Irigaray’sthought—notedearlier complex andproblematicunderbelly sexual desire.Hereweobservethe woman andaman,itisfueledby meeting. Itisameetingbetween other isbothaphysicalandspiritual For Irigaray,then,thecaresswith (heterosexual) meetingbetweentwo. Irigaray describeshereasweddingthe divine” (IrigarayandMarder2016,36). more theweddingsarebothcarnaland remain tocosmichierogamies,the “There isnodoubtthatthecloserwe with theother.InIrigaray’swords: to boththecaresswithoneselfand breath, pausesandsilence,iscentral and payingattentiontonotionsof other and thespacein-between For Irigaray, respecting the body, For Irigaray,respectingthebody, Feminine desire, thecaress withthe questions, for example “‘[w]ho are questions, for example“‘[w]hoare Such anin-between leavesspace for positive spacewithin which tolive.” between thesexes[…] itengendersa 2014, 29)remindsus, “a mediatoryrole air, whichprovides,as Quinlivan([2012] of in-betweenspaceevoketheidea her thinking.Bothbreathandtheidea the explorationofrolebreathin tangible norvisible,aswesawabovein between spaceiscreatedthatneither for Irigaraythroughthecaress,anin- I caress”(Irigaray1993,163).Thatis, notes that“Idonotseeinwhich his insistenceonthevisible.Irigaray skin, andthusoutsidethebodythrough the caressasbeingfeltonlyon critiques Merleau-Pontyforconsidering body (invisibletotheeye).Irigarayalso body (visibletotheeye)andinside of touchbeingfeltbothoutsidethe Irigarayan caress,namelytheinclusion an aspectoftouchthatiskeytothe emphasis onthevisible/seerprecludes the skin,inflesh.Inotherwords, felt insidethebody,deepunderneath visible precludesexperiencesthatare 71). Merleau-Ponty’sinsistenceonthe touching withoutseeing”(Irigaray1993, Irigaray enables“aphenomenologyof outside ofthatwhichisvisible.Thatis, touch, touchenablesanexperience understanding visionasdifferentto lost totouch”(Vasseleu1998,71).By what isirretrievableinvisionnot sight andtouch.“Irigarayarguesthat phenomenological interestinboth Merleau-Ponty’s apparentlyoverriding which favorssightovertouch,despite philosopher’s ocularcentricviewpoint, (1993, 151–84)takesissuewiththe and theInvisible([1964]1968),Irigaray Maurice Merleau-Ponty’sTheVisible a favoringoftouch.Inhercritique from afocusonvisionandtowards in-between spacebymovingaway Irigaray seesasanin-betweenspace. Irigaray develops her idea of the Irigaray developsherideaofthe DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03

33 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress the young Quechuan woman Fausta film tells thecoming-of-age story of on Peruvian cinema, Barrow 2018). The Rueda 2015; White 2015; Maseda2016; colonialism, race andclass (Llosa 2010; but alsoby addressing issuesof events by which thisfilmisinspired specifically in relation to thehistorical to woman’s experience of trauma, a symbol more broadly, to give voice a tool withinthenarrative butalsoas the useof Spanishversus Quechua as the role of singing(inQuechua) and the element of soundandspecifically relation to discussingtrauma, aswell as deal of commentary, in inparticular The Milkof Sorrow hasreceived agood and Peru. Sinceits premiere, Llosa’s Claudia Llosa, co-produced inSpain by Peruvian-born, Spanishexpatriate feature film(after Madeinusa, 2001) through the applicationofIrigarayancaress. making thatisbeinggeneratedthrough character, Fausta,andthemeaning- of femininedesireforLlosa’smain Let usnowturntothelivedexperience and femininedesireonitsownterms. the experienceoffemininesubjectivity experience thatcarvesoutaspacefor of touchandtheembodied,lived caress isfoundedupontheimportance with theother.Aboveall,Irigarayan through thecarnalandspiritualmeeting takes placeinaspacethatiscreated Merleau-Ponty, theIrigarayancaress to theworkofeitherLevinasor two” (Irigaray1993,183).Incomparison for thefreedomofquestioningbetween question(s). Ithasnospacingorinterval Merleau-Ponty attemptsiswithout “[t]he phenomenologyofthefleshthat (Irigaray 1993,183).Inotherwords, thou?’ The Milkof Sorrow isthesecond Exploring theIrigarayan caress [and] also, ‘[w]ho am I?’” […] [and]also,‘[w]hoamI?’” The Milkof Sorrow moves along thewall with thelily in wall. The camera tracks Fausta asshe concrete, herfingers caressing the a wall, herbodytouching thecold in hermouth, assheleans against has astriking red lily infull blossom the mainprotagonist, Fausta. Fausta The Milkof Sorrow (Fig. 2)features Irigarayan caress with theother. resonate withmyreading of the that forms between Fausta andNoé tell thestory abouttherelationship and aesthetic tools employed to other canbeperceived. The narrative which theIrigarayan caress withthe of dialogue, aspacein-between in offers arare insight into aspace Solís).Noé (Efraín For me, thisfilm home where shemeets thegardener her mother’s funeral. ItisinAída’s in order to money earn to pay for (SusiSánchez) white pianist Aída village andwork inLima for therich, against rape. Fausta hasto leave her into hervaginato protect herself happen to her, hasinsertedapotato scared andworried aboutwhat might abuse. We later findoutthat Fausta, many women were victims of rape and during theconflict (1982–89) inwhich Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) and theGuerrilla fighters known as between thePeruvian government by theevents of theviolent conflict magic realist story butitisinspired an interview (Llosa 2010)afictional film is, asshe explains herself in inthewomb.as anun-born Llosa’s mother Perpetua (Bárbara Lazón) her witnessingtherape of herown The trauma was caused through frightened breast”—suggests.“the the film—Lateta asustada, meaning the breast milkasthe originaltitle of according to anAndeanmyththrough of thetrauma that sheinherited, (Magaly Solier)andherover-coming The sceneinquestion inLlosa’s DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 34 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress door to thewindow. The camera cuts Then shestruggles alittle to openthe gardener.” Fausta pauses for amoment. which themananswers: “Me, Noé. The “Me.” Fausta thenasks: “Who me?” to “Who isit?”. Aman’s voice replies: closer to thewall, asking inSpanish: window. Instead shemoves her head the shutter to seethrough thelittle on hertoes. Butshedoesnot open rings. Onceoutside, Fausta hasto stand immobile andsilent. Suddenly a buzzer left sideof theframe, sittingonherbed, portrayed inamediumclose-up on the the scenewhenthey meet, Fausta is as theIrigarayan caress proposes. In oneself inthemeeting withtheother, of maintainingaspaceforimportance also ultimately represents theethical between, amaterial separation which continuous negotiation of thisspacein- Fausta andNoéstrikingly depicts the of thecaress withtheother iscomplex. Yet, aswe shallsee, thelived experience patriarchal system that confinesher. herself from thepotato, symbol of the be able to overcome hertrauma andfree own femininity, leading herultimately to potential for Fausta to engage withher The relationship between themoffers with theother fueled by sexual desire. and respectful caressing meeting that Irigaray imaginesinthepeaceful imagined asthespacein-between Fausta andNoé, which could be gate, aspacein-between, between it signals, through theelement of the around feminine desire. Furthermore, to theother that beginsandcenters insight into feminine desire inrelation of Fausta’s desire. This sceneoffers an lily inanextreme close-up, evocative lily andFausta’s face untilwe seethe The camera moves closer inontheopen gardener Noé, whoisontheother side. wall here stands infor thebodyof the her mouth, playfully caressing it. The The first meeting (Fig. 3)between flower is key also for the relationship potato plant. Indeed, theimagery of the close-up, contemplating theflowering potato insideher. Fausta isshown in of herfear andtheliberation from the flowers, symbolizing her overcoming film gifts Fausta apotato plantthat him. ItisNoéwhoat theendof the Quechua to take herhome. Shetrusts entering theframe, askingNoéin where Noéisworking. Fausta isseen the window aview into thegarden though, thecamera reveals through insist butsimply leaves theroom. Later saying that sheisfine. Hedoesnot home, but sheshrugs off hisoffer by Fausta feels ill, Noéoffers to take her Quechua, instead of inSpanish. When communicatingstart intheirnative evident through thefact that they unfolding of theirrelationship becomes working inthegarden. Sonically, the through thewindow to look at Noé for example, sheisseenpeekingout other. AsFausta works inthekitchen, meeting placefor thecaress withthe space in-between that for Irigaray isthe moments that conjure uptheideaof a absence thereof, continuously creating of touchimportance orindeedthe in thefilm, attune theviewer to the with thecareful editingprocesses Noé unfolds slowly andinconjunction see. Then Noéenters. into theopeninginwall for Fausta to before revealing his left hand, placingit at Fausta, slightly squintinghiseyes down on hishands, andwhothenlooks Cut to amediumshot of Noéwholooks as shesays: “Let meseeyour hands.” Fausta’s face, which remains immobile a distance by thewindow. Cutback to medium close-up, framed andkept at now reveals thecharacter of Noéina by thelittle door. Apointof view shot half herface, astheother isstill hidden to aclose-up of Fausta, revealing only The relationship between Fausta and DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 comparative cinema comparative

35 and Shirin Neshat’s and Shirin Neshat’s

Fig. 3: The Milk of Sorrow (Claudia Llosa, 2009)

The Milk of Sorrow Sorrow The Milk of in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress of Philosophy with Irigaray’s in Dialogue

Article JUDITH RIFESER Llosa’s in Claudia Desire Feminine Without Men Women 2020 No. 15 No. Vol. VIII Vol. DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 36 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress screen isaccompaniedby thevoice with ablack screen. The first black elliptical sequence, andending starting The Milkof Sorrow beginswithan within thefilm. For example, Llosa’s reconfigured alsothrough theediting concept of thecaress isstrikingly and between sensingandthinking. divide between thebodyandmind, becomes apassage that bridges the without becominganobject), wonder a subject that senses, thinks, perceives intellectual (aseach individualremains ful eroticism isboth sensualand (Irigaray 1993, 81–82). Sincewonder- that which surrounds, enlaces” an as “not anenveloping […]Itconstitutes via touching, Irigaray defines wonder its role increating aspacein-between, In herown discussionof eroticism and affect of wonder” (Vasseleu 1998, 113). is the “association of eroticism withthe highlights, key to theIrigarayan caress as anin-between space. As Vasseleu space for dialogue, orwhat Irigaray sees a subject andanobject, opensupa two subjects, rather than between relationship fueled by desire, between read thefilminamore nuanced way. The placed onfeminine desire, helpingusto caress withtheother andtheemphasis Sorrow caress inparallel withTheMilkof imagined asanIrigarayan caress. meeting withtheother inwhat could be perceive thepotential of aflourishing a gateway for Fausta momentarily to 2016, 19). Their relationship provides when Fausta needshim” (Maseda respecting herspace, butbeingthere Fausta butplaceshimself at adistance, in of theindigenous trauma asportrayed Maseda pointsoutinherclose study between Fausta andNoé. AsRebeca The Milkof Sorrow: “Noé cares for opening priorto andfollowing As previously mentioned, the I argue that reading theIrigarayan allows usto seetheIrigarayan Hinduism (Irigaray 2000, 59) —Fausta Irigaray inherwriting onBuddhism and flower —animage that issignificant for of Buddha’s contemplation of the for feminine sexuality. Asintheimagery or theflower asanimage of awakening symbol of thewomb andof beingborn, subjectivity, such asthewater that is mythological references to feminine of (re)birthandresurrection, rich with These images are evocative symbols leaning over theflowering potato plant. the seaandfinally, when Fausta isseen film when Fausta isseen standing by above, aswell astowards theendof the the beginningof thefilm, asmentioned to oneself isalsoemphasized both at The overcoming of borders to return she inherited to findher own path. journey to overcome thetrauma that for hermother’s funeral, aswell asher leave thehometo money earn to pay ahead for Fausta. That is, theneedto emphasizes thenotion of what lies inside/outside isstriking here and blackturns again. The dichotomy of lies beyond thehome. Then thescreen window to theoutside, to that which and theinsideof thehouse, viathe as sheshiftsherview from hermother mother’s passingandFausta’s reaction act of care. The finalshot marks the her pillow andstroking herhairinthis eat to get stronger, whilst adjusting through song, noting that shemust shows Fausta replying to hermother evident already inthe next scenethat herself free, to care for herself. This is narrate herjourney andultimately set Singing isalsoavehicle for Fausta to experiences of violence andtrauma. 2015, Maseda2016)to give voice to others before mehave noted (Rueda crucial andpowerful role inthefilm, as (with Spanishsubtitles). Songplays a her own rape through songinQuechua her daughter thegrueling memoriesof of Fausta’s mother, Perpetua, telling DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 37 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress Milk of Sorrow. (Holman 2013), alsoapplies to The as psychological andcultural exiles” and [it]externalizes theirexperiences internal workings of itsprotagonist includerepresentations“to of the with themagicalbecomingavehicle issues of trauma andhealingare key, Women WithoutMen, namely that the way to free herself. What istrue for but offers alsofor Munistheonly cyclical nature of life ontheonehand, sequence of suicideunderscores the Men The elliptical nature of Women Without paradoxically viathenotion of silence. for feminine desire andenunciation, carve out aspacefor herself, aspace she commitssuicideasanact to woman. Munisisfearless. Ultimately, independent, politically engaged emerging for her(ifbrief) life asan resurrected andbathes inthepond, own desires. oneself inwhich sheisattuned to her inner/outer, allowing for areturn to outside, creating apassage between tostart healfrom theinsidetowards the physical painanymore, herbodycan Fausta, fearful allherlife, isnot in anymore, butrather outside, flourishing. of thepotato that isnow not insideher desires, symbolized by theflowering is awakening to herself, to herown of eighteen women filmmakers from features excerpts from feature films as-Research (seeRifeser, 2017)that be seeninmyaudiovisual Practice- scope for further consideration, ascan women filmmakers, providing ample central elements inthework of other explication of feminine desire are also as thecaress withtheother, andthe of thecaress withoneself, aswell and has focused onWomen WithoutMen In Whilst thisspecific research here The Milkof Sorrow, thenotion that andendswiththis starts Women WithoutMen, Munisis

(Irigaray 2017, 11). the “first homeshould be ourselves” own desires. AsIrigaray reminds us, space for one’s own subjectivity, one’s a spacefor afeminine enunciation, a to Irigaray’s work, namely, to carve out films share a force that isalsocentral aesthetic andformal tropes, these despite theirdifferences in narrative, other inallitscomplexities. Ultimately, oneself aswell asthecaress withthe Irigaray’s concept of the caress with engagement withideasthat conjure up romantic tale offers acaptivating (Mame Sane). Diop’s supernatural Ada (Ibrahima Traoré) andSouleiman 2019) andthestory of itscharacters ( feminine desire isMati Diop’s Atlantics provides ample scopefor exploration of stunning recent work that Iwould argue two subjects andtheirrelationship. A to thelived, embodiedexperience of concept of thecaress withtheother of theapplication of thetheoretical the filmalso reveals thecomplexities Eidinger). At thesametime though, to entertainherboyfriend Chris(Lars Gitti (Birgit Minichmayr) usesto try little mascot madeoutof ginger that of theintimate play with “Schnappi,” a complexities, for example inthescene of thecaress withthe other andits we can observe thelived experience Else with herself. InMaren Ade’s Everyone the realization that sheisat peace raped by herfiancée. For Star, itis is to overcome thetrauma of being symbolic act of freedom. For Nour, this water asasignof theirre-birth, asa (Sasha Lane)respectively, enter the Nour (ShadenKanboura), andStar (UK andUSA, 2016), key characters and Andrea Arnold’s AmericanHoney ( Maysaloun Hamoud’s In-Between around theglobe. For example, inboth Atlantique, France, Senegal, Belgium, Bar Bahar, Israel andFrance, 2016) ( Alle Anderen, Germany, 2009), DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 38 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress an independent subject that breathes, an independentsubjectthatbreathes, model thatrecognizeseachpersonas enunciation, ultimatelybringingfortha feminine desireanda provide aspaceinwhichtoperceive contradictions andlimitations,seekto work morebroadly,despitethe The Irigarayan caress and Irigaray’s The IrigarayancaressandIrigaray’s York: Routledge. Bibliography London: Routledge. London &New York: Routledge. doi.org/10.7591/9781501723735 Work of LuceIrigaray. New York andLondon: University Cornell Press. https:// Shirin Neshat’s Revista Clepsydra 10(1): Women.” WithoutMen 11–26. in Contemporary Feminist Theory. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. Women.and Thinking Race, and Sexuality. Albany: SUNY Press. Violence onScreen. London: Bloomsbury. Film. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230583689 Harper, Douglas. 2019. OnlineEtymological Dictionary.https://www. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Towards aCorporeal Feminism. Gatens, Moira. 1996. ImaginaryBodies: Ethics, Power and Corporeality. Deutscher, Penelope. 2002. APolitics of ImpossibleDifference: The Later Butler, Judith.1993. Brown, MelissaS. 2011. “Other Ways of Being: The Significance of Silence in Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. NomadicSubjects: Embodimentand Sexual Difference Bolton, Lucy. (2011)2015. Filmand Female Consciousness: Irigaray, Cinema Bloodsworth-Lugo, MaryK. 2007. In-Between Bodies: Sexual Difference, Barrow, Sarah. 2018. Contemporary Peruvian Cinema: History, Identityand Bainbridge, Caroline. 2008. AFeminine Cinematics: LuceIrigaray, Women and and Dr. WilliamBrown for theirsupport. and Digby College. Stuart Withthanks to Professor Caroline Bainbridge and was awarded additional funding from both theDeansof Southlands received through theUniversity of Roehampton Vice-Chancellor Award This research benefitted initsearly stages from doctoral funding Acknowledgements Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bodies Bodies That Matter: OntheDiscursive Limits of Sex. New investigation. desire, openingupaspaceforfurther lived, embodiedexperienceoffeminine engagement withthemultiplicitous, the Irigarayancaressthroughtheir multiplicity thatexpandsandenhances of thefemininealsoofferadimension their diversetreatmentoftheexperience senses, desires.Yet,thesefilmsthrough DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 39 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress X7AWD8hKg2w [accessed July 07, 2015] filmmakermagazine.com/12035-claudia-llosa-the-milk-of-sorrow/#. by Brandon Harris. Filmmaker Magazine , August 25, 2010. https:// Press. Exteriority. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: DuquesneUniversity org/10.2307/3177523 of ‘L’EcritureFeminine.’” org/10.7312/irig17386 Philosophical Perspectives. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. https://doi. Monoc. London: Athlone Press. Translated by Alison Martin. New York: Routledge. and GillianGill. London: Athlone Press. Blackwell. Reader, edited by Margaret Whitford, 178–89. Oxford &London: Whiley & London: Continuum. Mary Beth Mader. London: Athlone Press. New York: University Cornell Press. Gillian Gill. New York: University Cornell Press. Racial Difference. Albany: State University of New York Press. doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1996.tb00667.x October 14, 2019] [accessed ambivalence-in-shirin-neshat%e2%80%99s-women-without-men www.screeningthepast.com/2013/12/holding-a-mirror-to-iran-liminality-and- in ShirinNeshat’s ScreeningthePast, December. Women WithoutMen.” http:// 2019] https://katib.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/silence-sukut [accessedApril03, etymonline.com [accessedNovember 15, 2019] Maseda, Rebeca. 2016. “Indigenous Trauma inMainstream Peru inClaudia Llosa, Claudia. 2010. “Claudia Llosa, TheMilkof Sorrow.” Interview Levinas, Emmanuel. (1961)1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Jones, AnnRosalind. 1981. “Writing theBody: Toward anUnderstanding Irigaray, Luce, andMichael Marder. 2016.Vegetable Through Being: Two 2017. To London: Born. Be Palgrave McMillan. 2008. Conversations. London: Continuum. 2000. Tobe Two . Translated by MoniqueRhodesandMarco Cocito- 1996. ILove to You. Sketch of aPossible Felicity inHistory. 1993. AnEthicsof Sexual Difference. Translated by Carolyn Burke (1991)1992. “Questions to EmmanuelLevinas.” InTheIrigaray (1985)2002. To SpeakisNever Neutral. Translated by GailSchwab. (1983)1999. TheForgetting of AirinMartinHeidegger. Translatedby (1977)1985b. ThisSex Which IsNotOne. Translated by GillianGill. Irigaray, Luce. (1974)1985a. Speculumof theOtherWoman. Translatedby Ingram, Penelope. 2008. TheSignifyingBody: Toward anEthicsof Sexual and Ince, Kate. 1996. “Questions to Luce Irigaray.” Holman, Rosa. 2013. “Holding aMirror to Iran: Liminality andAmbivalence Hissan,2008.Adill. “Silence ‘Sukut’.” Feminist Studies7(2): 247–63. https://doi. Katib (blog), November 23, 2008, Hypatia DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 11 (2): 122–40. https:// 40 Vol. VIII Article comparative cinema No. 15 JUDITH RIFESER 2020 Feminine Desire in Claudia Llosa’s The Milk of Sorrow and Shirin Neshat’s Women Without Men in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of the Caress edu/dissidences/vol6/iss11/13 [accessedNovember 08, 2019] Llosa’s Dissidences6(11). TheMilkof Sorrow http://digitalcommons.bowdoin..” & New York: Routledge. org/10.1215/9780822376019 Contemporary Feminisms. Durham&London: Duke University Press. https://doi. 117–28. https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2002.25.3.117 Dialogues,” SpecialIssue, Paragraph: A Journal of ModernCritical 25 (3):Theory Levinas, and Merleau-Ponty. London &New York: Routledge. London: Methuen. hpn.2015.0084 Llosa’s Hispania98(3): Lateta 442–51. asustada.” https://doi.org/10.1353/ University Press. Hopelessness, edited by Agnieszka Piotrowska, 242–52. Edinburgh: Edinburgh dialogical encounter.” InCreative Practice Research inthe Time of Neo-Liberal October 26, 2020] horizon-for-a-dialogical-encounter-with-practice-as-research/ [accessed seminar-2017/judith-rifeser-luce-irigarays-philosophy-of-the-caress-a-new- Luce Irigaray. https://workingwithluceirigaray.com/previous-seminars/the- Horizon for aDialogical Encounter withPractice-as-Research.” Working with Edinburgh University Press. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Whitford, Margaret. 1991. LuceIrigaray: Philosophy intheFeminine. London White, Patricia. 2015. Women’s Cinema, World Cinema: Projecting Watkins, Liz. 2002. “Light, Colour andSoundinCinema.” In “Luce Irigaray: Vasseleu, Cathryn. 1998. Textures of Light: Vision and Touch inIrigaray, Spivak, Gayatri. 1987. InOtherWorlds: Essays inCultural Politics. New York & Rueda, Carolina. 2015. “Memory, Trauma, andPhantasmagoria inClaudia 2020. “Feminist ‘Pensive-Creative Praxis’ andIrigaray: Aporous, Rifeser, Judith. 2017. “Luce Irigaray’s Philosophy of theCaress: ANew Quinlivan, Davina. (2012)2014. ThePlaceof BreathinCinema.Edinburgh: Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. (1964)1968. The Visible and theInvisible. in Dialogue with Irigaray’s Philosophy of theCaress.” Llosa’s How to reference Rifeser, Judith 2020. “Feminine Desire inClaudia Cinema The Milk of Sorrow Sorrow of Milk The , Vol. VIII, No. 15, pp. 25-40. DOI: 0.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 and ShirinNeshat’s Women Without Men Without Women DOI: 10.31009/cc.2020.v8.i15.03 Comparative Comparative