header image
Home arrow About Covered arrow Covered: A Video Installation and Booklet arrow Director's Commentary on 'Covered'
Director's Commentary on 'Covered' PDF Print E-mail


‘Debating the Scarf’ ‘Romancing the Veil’ ‘Contradictions of Cover’


In Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Love in the Time of Cholera, ‘the smell of a black woman’ drives Femina Daza away to San Juan de la Cienaga ‘with only one trunk, in the company of her goddaughter, her face covered by a mantilla to avoid questions for herself and her husband’ (1985: 305). To the horror of his wife, Femina, Dr Juvenal Urbino, the erstwhile husband, has engaged in a heady affair with an Afro-Caribbean woman. The incident pinpoints a host of questions about the veil and veiling. Shamed by her husband’s adulterous behaviour, Fermina Daza chooses to done the lace net. She covers up, simultaneously indulging in an unsettling conclusion, based in notions of racial superiority, that her husband’s conduct is all the worse for his having chosen ‘black’ over ‘white’, mistress over wife, adultery over marriage licence.

For years, Femina refuses to return, yet by doing so she gains herself an independent life away from the trappings of domesticity. Hence, the symbol of women’s oppression – ‘cover’ lends itself to a woman’s escape. Yet the escape is grounded in the wife’s subjugation to her husband, in the sense that she cannot remain in her own home town, at least according to her own lights (and the social mores of the time), because of her husband’s infidelity and, in consequence, her pride.

Although many may profess there is a gulf between mantilla and burqah, lacey net and the heavy veil that may accompany or be part of the niqab and chador, many of the contradictions repeat themselves in both forms of cover. On the one hand, cover as a symbol of shame or notions of the face or body’s need to be hidden away;  on the other, a release to freedom of invisibility or anonymity. These contradictions are explored in ‘Covered’, through ‘Debating the Scarf’, ‘Romancing the Veil’ and ‘Contradictions of Cover’.

‘Romancing the Veil’ deliberately incorporates lyrical or pastoral images: women placing scarves on one another’s heads, reminiscent of village life, companionship and praising another’s beauty;  white swans swimming and preening alongside smaller black waterbirds – which they pass by seemingly registering difference, but tolerating one another’s presence;  a bird swooping into tree tops whilst below two women chatter whilst picking through a pile of scarves – will they, or won’t they ‘choose’ to cover? This stream begins, deliberately, too, with painted images of young women or girls wearing a variety of cover – a scarf, a cloak, a long piece of cloth which might be a scarf, a shawl, an enormous handkerchief … The connections are drawn between cultures over time and place.

‘Contradictions of Cover’ begins with women gazing out, across water – where a couple walk by dressed in Western clothes, pushing a pram. The women wear cloaks and scarves, cover reminiscent of the burqah, a dress seen as foreign in London, yet (as Yasdani says in ‘Debating the Scarf’) more and more common. So common that it seems surprising to Yasdani that Naheed Khan is reluctant to wear it. Naheed feels ‘so comfortable’ in the djathah (scarf) when in the country of her family’s origin, Pakistan, but does not feel able to wear it in her own country, Britain.

‘Contradictions of Cover’ are present not only in the stream that emphasises this theme in its title and content. At Tthe Dinner Party or ‘A Moveable Feast’ that forms the central stream of ‘Cover’, women sit alongside one another wearing scarves, on the one hand, and traditional Western dress on the other. In the images incorporated into ‘Contradictions of Cover’, the women walking on Hampstead Heath wear scarves atop a variety of dress: jeans and boots on the one hand, cloaks on the other and, in between, ankle-length dresses – one of which is clearly Western, the other more ambiguous. On the path, when wearing their burqah-like garb, they pass by a jeans-clad woman leading a dog – who pays not the slightest attention to their cover.

The Dinner Party – A Moveable Feast, and No Vox Pops
‘Debating the Scarf’ brought together twelve women to a ‘dinner party’ held in the Matrix East Studio at the University of East London. These women are of varying ages, backgrounds, occupations, upbringing, opinions, identities, dress. One is from Serbia, one from Poland, one from (what was) Czechoslovakia. One’s parents came to the United Kingdom from India. Two are British citizens whose origins are Pakistan. Two are French – one’s family from Algeria, the other with a Lebanese mother, an Iraqi father. Four are undergraduate students, three postgraduate. One is a Pprofessor and Dean of Law whose married partner is from Bahrain. Two are lecturers are a senior level – one is Principal Lecturer in Innovation Studies, the other Senior Lecturer  in Media and Advertising. Two are in university administration.

Originally, planning included vox pops, the idea being that this would provide a variety of views and illustrate what is happening ‘out there’, in the community. This proposal met with scepticism and a less than enthusiastic response when put forward in one of the class sessions, with the same lack of enthusiasm prevailing in course presentations throughout the project’s planning. The view was expressed that approaching people on the street and expecting them to respond to questions when faced by camera and microphone would not result in any genuine ideas or conclusions. Either they would provide answers conforming to what they believed the interviewer sought, would shy away from expressing any view, or might respond boisterously or with definitive answers simply to appear to have an opinion on the subject.

In the original planning, there was no question that The Dinner Party would substitute for vox pops or that it would bear any relation to the approach with camera on the street. However, it did become clear that the energy and time put in to organising The Dinner Party had a return that far outweighed any outcome that may have resulted from walking in the street and ‘cold calling’ passersby. The contributions made through exchange of ideas in ‘Debating the Scarf’ far outweighed any input that may have been gained by vox pops.

The advantage of having women sit around a table over dinner was that this promoted discussion at a level that allowed for consideration of other points of view and expression – sometimes firm, sometimes hesitant, sometimes searching, always insightful – in a setting where each opinion had its own value and generated thoughtful responses that in turn led to additional points of view being expressed.

Editing the Conversation: Themes
The themes arising during and out of The Dinner Party/Moveable Feast are reflected in ‘Romancing the Veil’ and ‘Contradictions of Cover’. One was that of fashion – and the impact the burqah, veil and scarf is having, and has had, upon Western fashion. This was followed up in the ‘news items’ aspect of the production and is a part of the introductory lines that underpin the titles introducing the three streams. The catwalks of London, Paris, New York and Rome are obviously being influenced by the appearance of ‘cover’ on the streets. In an interview with Diana Warburton – not included in the video installation but as background research and for the website – the question is asked whether this is a consequence of the desire for fashion students to rebel against convention: is this reflection in the fashion industry a consequence of designed ‘going along’ with what is becoming more common in towns and cities all over the world, with the movement of refugees and asylum seekers, along with economic immigrants and tourists, from the Middle East to the West? Or is it resistance to attempts to ban and, now, laws and regulations imposing fines and citizenship lessons on wearers: are the fashionistas and the designers engaged in making gestures of rebellion against government imposition?

Western fashion comes in for criticism from participants at The Dinner Party/ Moveable Feast: why not, says Susan Edwards, concentrate upon the sexualisation of women’s bodies and the demand that women in the West wear revealing clothing? Why are nakedness and flimsy dress acceptable or accepted by dominant culture, society and governments, and promoted over cover? Eva Turner engages here, too, reflecting upon the impact of magazines and advertising upon young girls and the consequences of this for ‘choice’ in adulthood. She parallels this with the question of choice for young girls who grow up ‘shut away’ from Western advertising and the full panoply of these influences, but who are subjected to influences and impositions equally strong – that result in their being covered according to (formal or cultural) Islam, rather than dressing-down in conformity with Western notions of how women should look.

Pornography is another theme – the pornography industry and the sex industry are valorised in the West, whilst women covering their bodies are told not to do so, fined for covering, or banned from wearing the burqah. Eva Turner remarks upon the combination of nakedness or near-nakedness with the burqah and niqab.

Research undertaken for ‘Covered’ revealed that Eva Turner’s point here intersects with the point about fashion. The images of naked or near-naked women wearing ‘half-burqahs’ which appear in ‘Contradictions of Cover’ come not from pornography sites, but from Bradley Quinn’s books The Fashion of Architecture (2003: chapter one)# and Techno Fashion (2002:52). Quinn observes that more than ten years ago, fashion designer Hussein Chalayan clothes and models incorporated a Middle East theme combined with a vision of the decadent West:

In 1997, some of Chalayan’s models worse black chadors of varying lengths and nothing else alluding to fashion’s continual shift of erogenous zones around the female form as body ideas change.# 

Quinn’s books also illustrate connections between ‘environmental fashion’ and Middle-Eastern clothing: images appearing in ‘Contradictions of Cover’ which are taken from his books show tent-like coverings (categorised by Quinn under ‘environmental fashion’), hoods incorporating facial coverings, and even coverings that cover the face completely. This is then paralleled in the award-winning advertisement for Virgin Airlines, included as a part of the ‘Contradictions of Cover’ stream, too. The blurb to the advertisement says that the figure depicts an aeroplane in flight – arms spread, face covered so that the head appears as the nose or outer covering of the cockpit. Yet this again connects with the models appearing on the catwalk in Bradley Quinn’s books (2003:chapter one), whose faces are completely covered in a manner identical with the Virgin Airlines’ advertisement.

The environmental garments appearing in the Bradley Quinn books link also with Bashan Rafique’s comments in the course of ‘The Dinner Party’ (not able to be included in ’Covered’s - ‘ Debating the Scarf’), that had the Prophet Muhammad lived in a cold climate such as Iceland or Greenland, the mode of dress under cultural or traditional Islam would be likely to be polar fur covering the entire body, rather than tent-like garb designed to keep out sand, dust and wind.#

They also connect with the ‘look’ at women’s bodies and the way cover denies the opportunity to look which is referred to by Emena in ‘Debating the Scarf’:

That’s partly why I wear this too, because I don’t want men to look at my assets …

This reference to cover links, as well, with the conflict between Bashan Rafique and Eva Taylor on the question whether women are ‘jewels’ to be looked after – as Bashan says, or whether – as Eva observes – the danger of this observation is that ‘jewels can be sold’ and perhaps, by implication, that is the reason for their existence.

Another aspect is that raised by Marta Rabinkowska who, in reply to Sonia Ait Bouzard, says that the problem in Belgium and France (that led to banning the wearing of the burqah in the street and public places) was ‘I can’t see you’ under the veil. Yet Bradley Quinn’s books raise another way of looking at the question: one of his images, a figure concealed entirely in a hooded tent-like garment, with only the eyes visible, is labelled ‘Surveillance’ (2002:65). Quinn’s book incorporates an entire chapter under this heading (2002:57-75). Is this the problem in France and Belgium – rather than ‘I can’t see you’:

You can see me and I am therefore vulnerable to you and your gaze, whereas you are not accountable to me through my gaze or look.

The question of gaze – who is seen, who looks at whom, who is entitled to look and to see and to deny the gaze – is a powerful theme of John Berger’s work (1972), and particularly focuses on the gaze as it places women in its sights:

To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of women has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage within such a limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman’s self being split into two. A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. Whilst she is walking across a room or whilst she is weeping at the death of her father, she can scarcely avoid envisaging herself walking or weeping. Frorm earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually.

And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman (1972: 46)

This highlights the irony reflected in Femina Daza’s situation referred to at the outset, as illustrated in Love in the Time of Cholera: woman is ‘born into the allotted and confined space of men’. To escape that confined and allotted space, the woman veils or covers herself – putting herself into a confined and allotted space – of her own making? Or of the making of men who confine and allot her ‘space’ in the first place?

The conversation amongst women in The Dinner Party revolves around this question: is it a real choice for women to cover, or is the choice constrained (as Susan Edwards says) by women’s political positionality? As well, does any woman escape the contradictions and politics of women’s dress, as the exchange between Maya Davis and Marta Rabinkowska: for Maya the scarf is something she ‘put[s] on when it is cold’, rather than dwelling upon the complications of cover as do others around the table. With modesty, Maya expresses her feelings of good fortune in not being in the position of women who are directly confronted by veiling’s politics. Yet, says Marta, is there any woman who would not want to decide for herself what length of skirt she might wear – or follow Coco Chanel in tossing away the  bra? Is this, she asks, any different from the desire of women who wear the scarf to do so in whatever style and for whatever reason they wish?

Editing the Conversation: Technicalities and Techniques
That this was a conversation conducted over some 2-3 hours, with a changing cast and varying voices, provided an opportunity for learning and applying editing techniques employed to ensure that exchanges in conversation appear natural rather than forced or incorporating jump cuts. Sometimes, the technique of ensuring that the visual and audio ‘cut’ is not aligned was not difficult to attain. This most often occurred where there was hesitation in the speaker’s voice, or pauses after a speaker made her contribution. However, it was more difficult where a speaker hardly paused at all in her contribution to the discussion. In those instances, editing was easier where cutaways were able to be used, or with participants who did not speak as often, or who between their contributions engaged in expressions that were able to be used to intercut with the impassioned contributions of other speakers. The difficult arose, on the other hand, where a speaker had elongated pauses or used ‘fill words’ such as ‘um’ or ‘you know’.  With this group of articulate women, that did not happen often but when it did there was a conflict between maintaining the ‘naturalness’ of the exchanges, but not taking up time with expressions that did not advance the discussion and that held up the debate, as well as lengthening the time of the video.

The camera work provided cutaways and other footage that could be used for this purpose, however, any practitioner sees always ways to improve her work: the possibilities are ever there. Editing the conversation so as always to maintain the rhythm of exchanges and avoid the jump cut is a skill acquired over time. In ‘Debating the Scarf’, many jump cuts were avoided and a number were dealt with well so as to add to the feeling of exchange, the back and forth rhythm of conversation, the sense of engagement between minds sharply focused on issues of moment. At the same time, an exploration of further work on some and overall would be invaluable.

Political Perspectives
The Dinner Party/Moveable Feast  discussion raised both the question of Orientalism, and of colonisation. Fourate Chahal El Rekaby was impassioned about the need to go beyond the scarf to look at the consequences of colonisation:

You cannot colonise the world for centuries and then expect people to stay in their home …

In exchanges that could not be included, Fourate talked of the demand of colonising countries not only that the colonised should not invade the colonisers’ space, but that when they do (albeit confined to particular areas and ghettos) they should not bring with them their clothes and customs. How can this be fair or right, she asks, when the colonising French demanded that the Algerians and other colonised should speak French and sing La Marseilles.

Fourate also referred to the way in which the history of Algeria is taught in French schools: students are taught that the consequences and outcomes of colonisation for Algeria and Algerians were ‘all positive’, without any reference to the destruction or denial of culture/s and the need for a people to maintain their identity through their connections with their own history and cultural understandings and belongings. This connects with the theme at the centre of Yosefa Loshitsky’s recent book, Screening Strangers – Migration and Diaspora in Contemporary European Cinema (2010). As she says in her ‘Introduction’:

Today’s Europe, led by a coalition of former enemies – Germany, France and Britain, and still haunted by t he shadow or World War II and the Holocaust – likes to view itself as the ‘New Europe’, free of its dark past and liberated from its traditional racism … This book examines, through an exploration of some contemporary European films, whether, indeed, this utopianism is flourishing in contemporary Europe seemingly ‘flooded’ by waves of migration and ‘tainted’ by ‘colored diasporas’ in the midst of its formerly ‘white’ capitals … (2010: 1-2)

The connections are even more pronounced when Fourate refers to the riots taking place in France, which are depicted in La Haine (Mathieu Kossovitz, France, 1995) one of the films extensively discussed and analysed in Screening Strangers. This connection and the Algerian link is reflected in ‘Contradictions of Cover’ by reference to images of women in burqahs walking in Algerian streets whilst French soldiers bearing arms pass them by. The images are taken from The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, Italy, 1966) as they appear in Veil – Veiling, Representation, and Contemporary Art (Bailey and Tawadros, eds, 2003).

The Feminist Conversation
The nature of editing is that choices always must be made, of what to leave in, what to take out. The question of conflict amongst feminists as to whether the scarf should be banned or not arose in one sense, in the question of choice. Eva Turner raised it directly in reference to the position in France, where a large number of French feminists supported – and support – the ban. Joan Wallach Scott in The Politics of the Veil (2007) confronts this question head-on. Exchanges at The Dinner Pparty – part of which was able to be included – went to the issue of ‘secular fundamentalism’, which comes into the equation in the French example. Is the French banning of the scarf ‘equivalent’ as secular fundamentalism, to the imposition of the scarf in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is seen as a consequence of religious fundamentalism? Joan Wallach Scott sees it this way, saying:

Caroline Fourest … is a feminist, one of the founders of the journal ProChoix (Pro-Choice) and a leading supporter of the headscarf ban. She has been a fierce opponent of what she calls religious fundamentalisms and a staunch advocate of laicite. To characterize her secularism as absolutist is an understatement: she sees it as the only weapon that can protect us from the loss of freedom and self-determination that religious activists will impose the minute they get the chance (2007:176)

Albeit the French feminist position was not included directly in ‘Covered’ – ‘Debating the Scarf’, the recurring theme of choice which, as noted, was addressed and incorporated into the edited conversation, was extensively debated. Those who said it was a choice – Sonia Ait Bouzard, Emena, Yasdani, Raheema, Maryam, Susan Edwards for example – were part of the conversation critiquing the nature of choice in the political circumstances confronting women.

‘Covered’ did not aim to be a definitive answer on the question of the veil, on feminist approaches, divisions, agreements or disagreements, nor on what anyone’s position should be on the burqah. The aim was to explore the nature of the question and to enable views to be put and to be heard. The articulate nature of the discussion taking place in ‘Debating the Scarf’ meant that this aim was fulfilled. The images and visual action in ‘Contradictions of Cover’ and ‘Romancing the Veil’ add to is exploration through enabling the viewer to engage with the debate through these additional dimensions of seeing.

A deeper and more sustained feminist conversation will have to take place – and indeed is taking place – where a more lengthy opportunity is provided. The question cannot be settled in one discussion or several, even with the added dimension of visual action and images. It is not ‘the end’ as Sonia Ait Bouzard says, along with Susan Edwards statement, ‘it is the beginning’. Finally, as Sonia, Susan and Bashan Rafique conclude in ‘Debating the Scarf’, it is an ongoing discussion that is required – for women, for feminists, for society/ies, for communities, and for governments.

Lessons From A Video Installation Project
This project proved to be an educational experience not only in terms of lessons learned about editing (as earlier referred to) but lessons learned from visiting and viewing video installations in situ. During the course of research and production and at post-production stage, the British Film Institute (BFI) hosted a number of video installations, and others where on view at other galleries – such as the Tate Modern, and in films – for example, The Beaches of Agnes (Agnes Varda, France, 2010).

The scarf debate is just that – a debate. This means that voice is important – both audio and visual. What I learned most significantly is the limitations of video installation if the artist/filmmaker wishes to incorporate many (audio) voices, in a number of streams. This is just not possible.

Initially, I wished to include a stream including interviews, and including an analysis of films where scarves are on display and other forms of veiling are prominent – such as a number of the films of Elvis Presley -  including Blue Hawaii (Norman Taurog, USA, 1961), Girl Happy (Boris Sagal, USA, 1965) and  Girls! Girls! Girls! (Norman Taurog, USA, 1962);  films featuring nuns, such as Black Narcissus (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, UK, 1947) and  The Nun’s Story (Fred Zinnermann, USA, 1959);  films where Western women wear hats with veils covering the eyes and lower part of the face, with chin alone ‘on view’ – including Now, Voyager (Irving Rapper, USA, 1942) and The Reckless Moment (Max Ophuls, US, 1949);  and films such as Kandaha (Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Iran, 2001), where questions of religious veiling in countries under religious fundamentalist rule are at the heart or at least significant.

This was not possible for a number of reasons. There was, of course, the question of copyright but more importantly from the perspective of a video installation, this would have involved more (audio) ‘voice’ – and competition between the voices of ‘The Dinner Party’ and the authoritative voice on film and interview. This same problem arose in the question whether a stream or at least a part of a stream should be based in interviews.

I conducted a number of interviews which were used – and useful - as background and research – with, for example, Bashan Rafique, Patmalar Ambikapathy, Diana Warburton and Elizabeth Sydney. On reflection it seemed to me that rather than devote a stream to interviews, ‘Debating the Scarf’ through The Dinner Party/Moveable Feast was a better use of time, space and audio-room. If this had been a single stream documentary, I would have engaged differently and planned the production differently. It was not a single stream or ‘one film’ documentary. From the outset it was planned as a video installation. This provides both limitations and opportunities. My learning experience was enhanced in terms of addressing – and accepting – the limitations, and utilising the opportunities.

Visuals can be compelling and it is important to know how to use visual streams in video installations. Julian Rosefeldt’s American Story (Germany, 2010) was particularly insightful. He used five streams (my original intention was to have five streams), two of them with (audio) ‘voice’, three being overwhelmingly silent – with some movement, more in some of the streams than in others. The two streams with (audio) ‘voice’ did not employ equal time on voice. One stream was the major ‘voice’ stream – scenes in a bawdy saloon in the ‘Wild West’ of the United States. The other stream with voice used the audio when the ‘Saloon’ stream was silent, employing visuals only: it involved a noisy and rambunctious discussion around a campfire, with five cowboys beginning the conversation in a desultory manner then reaching a crescendo with a rap song and clicking heels raised around the fire in a parody of dance.

If I were to go back to the beginning, the planning stages, I would take into account the use of voice/audio by Julian Rosefeldt and others whose work I have seen – although as is evident Rosefeldt’s work has had a significant impact. Rather than two streams wholly silent, incorporating images alone, with one stream only devoted to audio, I would like to explore the possibilities of including some audio in at least one other stream. However, in looking in this direction it is necessary to bear in mind that the central stream was ‘The Dinner Party/Moveable Feast’, the focus being the discussion between women of diverse backgrounds and ages, as observed. To cut out any of the discussion in that stream would be to leave viewers in the lurch, it seems to me, for the engaged and engaging discussion amongst the diners/participants left little room for silences or at least lengthy silences. Devoting other streams to (audio)voice would deny the validity and value of the voices of the women at and in ‘The Dinner Party’.

However, this project has meant that I have had an opportunity to reflect upon, engage with and research the possibilities of video installation. In so doing, I note that a number of the visiting filmmakers during the MA Film, Video and New Screen Media course assisted me in developing my ideas and this project.

Reflective books, essays and articles such as that by writer Daphne Du Maurier in The Rebecca Notebook & Other Memories, Virago, London, 2004 can be helpful in projects such as this. Du Maurier writes of the way she came to construct her novels – one particular novel, Rebecca, and what was relevant of past and present in its construction. Similarly with Gary Kelly’s reflective ‘Introduction’ in Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary, The Wrongs of Woman.  The experience and learning gained from planning, shooting, editing and constructing a video installation is invaluable. The differences between making a single stream film are striking. To have had the opportunity of engaging with this form of filmmaking – video installation – has provided me with insights and ideas for future work in video installation. This will also, of course, provide me with opportunities for incorporating what I have learned through the making of ‘Covered’ – A Video Installation in three streams: ‘Debating the Scarf’, ‘Romancing the Veil’, ‘Contradictions of Cover’.

Three Streams –
Covered : The Dinner Party – Debating the Scarf
Covered : Romancing the Veil
Covered : Contradictions of Cover

David A. Bailey and Gilane Tawadros (eds), Veil – Veiling, Representation, and Contemplator Art, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 2003
John Berger, Ways of Seeing, BBC & Penguin Books, London, UK, 1972
Geoff Dyer, Ways of Telling – The Work of John Berger, Pluto Press, London, UK, 1986
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera, Penguin Books, London, UK, 1989 (trns Edith Grossman;  originally published in Spanish as El amor en los tiempos del colera, 1985)
Daphne du Maurier, The Rebecca Notebook & Other Memories, Virago, London, 2004
Joan Wallach Scott, The Politics of the Veil, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007

Daphne du Maurier, ‘The Rebecca Notebook and Epilogue’ in Daphne du Maurier, The Rebecca Notebook & Other Memories, Virago, London, 2004
Feisal G. Mohamed, ‘The Burqa and the Body Electric’, ‘Opinionator’ The New York Times 28 July 2010, http://blogs.monografias.com/sistema-limbico-neurociencias/2010/07/30/links-articles-and-lots-more-enjoy/ (accessed 28 July 2010)
Gary Kelly, ‘Introduction’ in Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary, The Wrongs of Woman, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007 (rev. edn)

The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, Italy, 1966)
The Beaches of Agnes (Agnes Varda, France, 2010)
Black Narcissus (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, UK, 1947)
Blue Hawaii (Norman Taurog, USA, 1961)
Girl Happy (Boris Sagal, USA, 1965)
Girls! Girls! Girls! (Norman Taurog, USA, 1962)
La Haine (Mathieu Kossovitz, France, 1995)
Kandaha (Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Iran, 2001)
Now, Voyager (Irving Rapper, USA, 1942)
The Nun’s Story (Fred Zinnermann, USA, 1959)
The Reckless Moment (Max Ophuls, US, 1949)


Visited to view video art and/or video installations
Voyeurism, Surveillance and the Camera, Tate Modern, Saturday 10 July 2010
John Akomfrah: Mnemosyne, BFI Gallery, BFI Southbank, London, Private view Friday 9 July 2010
Julian Rosefeldt, American Night, BFI Gallery, BFI Southbank, London, Private view Thursday 9 September 2010