Film Matters: Please tell us about your article that is being published in Film Matters.
Randall Rodriguez: This article aims at bringing to light some of the underlying themes in Ruxandra Ghițescu’s 2020 film Otto the Barbarian. One way to interpret the film is as an examination of adolescence, anger, and the old ways of life clashing with new ones. I believe that there is another (less obvious) way of interpreting the film: as a criticism of phallocentric cultural norms. Ghițescu does this by turning phallocentric storytelling tropes in on themselves and executes this in a way that keeps the first interpretation of her work intact.
FM: What research and/or methodologies do you incorporate in your article?
RR: For this article I leaned heavily on the work of Alison Bechdel and Laura Mulvey. Their thinking gives a framework to understand distinctions between films that challenge phallocentric styles and reinforce feminist ones. I also read and watched interviews with Ruxandra Ghițescu to give me a better understanding of her characters and her work.
FM: Describe the original context for/when writing this article while an undergraduate student.
RR: This article was originally a final assignment for a comparative literature class. The class examined Romanian art, film, culture, and history in both the global and regional context. The film Otto the Barbarian was part of the curriculum.
FM: How have your personal experiences shaped and influenced your writing?
RR: I am old. If nothing else, a number of my experiences have shaped my writing. I think this gives me a pool of references to pull from when I need some kind of anecdotal tool. For instance, in this article, I mention a way of constructing chords while playing music. I learned about this technique from a friend of mine who studied jazz and composition years ago. Also, my partner is a much more accomplished writer than I am. She is always willing to read, re-read, and edit my (wordy) work.
FM: What aspects of the writing process were most challenging? Why?
RR: The most challenging aspect of writing this article was trying to switch gears from a philosophical style to a more analytical style. For example, in philosophy, we rarely worry about using the pronoun “I.” I also use the word “seems” more than I should. For a philosophical paper, “seems” does not raise as many red flags (although not no red flags) as it does for, say, assessing a film.
FM: What do you enjoy most about your article?
RR: When I started writing this article, I was not sure what Ghițescu was up to. I felt like there was something deeper going on with the film. I had to ask myself questions like, “why does Otto have his back to the audience so much?” Digging into the film and viewing it for a second time felt illuminating to me. I enjoyed having an introspective moment and realizing that I had stumbled onto something that was not so readily apparent to me at first. The acts of watching the film and writing the article were highlights of the season as well. My partner and I were quarantining in a camper away from our daughter and my in-laws during a COVID-19 outbreak at our workplace while I was working on this project. Those were trying times, but I lost myself in the film and in writing the article a little.
FM: How has the Film Matters editorial and publication process impacted the development/evolution of your article?
RR: The process has improved the article by leaps and bounds. Originally, the article had a more introspective tone and read more like a class project. By the end of the process, the article felt more like a film analysis and much more universal.
FM: What audience do you hope to reach with your Film Matters article and/or what impact do you hope it has on the field of film studies?
RR: I hope my article will reach an audience who has seen the film but, like myself, may have missed some things in the first viewing. I think Ghițescu is doing much more with her film than is readily apparent. I also think there is more to extract from Otto the Barbarian than I have done with my article and would be interested to see what someone else might find at work in this film. I also share Ghițescu’s hope that eventually critics and viewers will not have expectations about what kinds of films women (or other underrepresented identities for that matter) can or should make. Some of the initial response to Otto the Barbarian has been surprise that a woman can tell this “type of story,” and that should feel absurd. All human beings have felt loss, anger, and angst; therefore, all human beings are able to tell this “type of story” authentically.
FM: How has your department and/or institution supported your work in film and media?
RR: In my experience, the University of Washington encourages an interdisciplinary style of study. For instance, another film class I took was a Chicano studies class. There we looked at films by and about Chicanos as a way to understand the Chicano experience, filmmaking, storytelling, and how all of those things relate to each other. In the same way, Dr. Baraboi and Dr. Marin’s class did not just look at Romanian history or culture, but framed those things through literature, poetry, art, politics, and especially film. That interdisciplinary style gives not only an understanding of the subject at hand but also how that subject interacts with many other areas of study and society.
FM: How have your faculty mentors fostered your advancement as a film scholar?
RR: Dr. Marin and Dr. Baraboi encouraged me to submit this paper for publication. By suggesting that I try to publish this article, they gave me more confidence in the article. They also pointed me in the direction of some articles and interviews with Ruxandra Ghițescu that gave me invaluable background for the film and Ghițescu’s thoughts on film. Their encouragement and recommendations of resources directly contributed to the final product.
FM: What advice do you have for undergraduate film and media scholars?
RR: Let other people see your work and listen to what they have to say. This is hard advice for me to take as well. It is somewhat painful to hear a peer or mentor tell me that they didn’t understand something that I’ve worked on or that I forgot about something that I should have remembered. That being said, the final product after making changes and reflecting on critiques and criticisms is always a vast improvement. Remember that our own voices always sound clear in our own heads; when we check with others is when we discover where what seems clear to us may not be as clear to others. In short, share your work.
FM: What are your future plans?
RR: I have been accepted into a graduate program at the University of Oregon. I hope to eventually complete a PhD in Latin American philosophy.
Author Biography
Randall Rodriguez is a student of Philosophy at the University of Washington. His areas of interest are Latin American philosophy, labor relations, literature, and film. He lives with his partner and daughter in Seattle, Washington, where he spends much of his time reading, playing soccer, and viewing films.
