Film Matters: Please tell us about your article that is being published in Film Matters.
Sophia Rubino: My article combines two different analytical frameworks, object-relations psychoanalysis and phenomenology, to bring together the unconscious happenings of the mind and how they manifest in conscious choices. To me, this sort of work is only truly meaningful when you consider the subject (in my case, as I highlight, it’s Gustav von Aschenbach, played by Dirk Bogarde) and the identities that dictate their overall societal treatment. The most important factor to me, the one which limits his ability as perceived by others and ultimately himself, is age. My primary objective was to dive into the processes of thinking that lead to the oppression of the elderly, much of these fears of aging and death being a manifestation of assigning moral judgments based on an individual’s ability.
FM: What research and/or methodologies do you incorporate in your article?
SR: I mentioned this in my previous answer broadly; however, I worked off of two primary scholars based in the respective fields: Simone de Beauvoir and her existentialist phenomenologies in addition to Christopher Bollas’s The Shadow of the Object, which discusses the unconscious sensibilities of the mind and its relation to a subject’s formation of memories and everyday existence.
FM: Describe the original context for/when writing this article while an undergraduate student.
SR: I was very, very, deep into my “Dirk Bogarde Era”—which basically just meant finding every single film he was in and watching them as soon as I possibly could. I fell in love with his style of acting, that ultimately, just breaks my heart. Everything he reveals with tiny expressions on his face. It just amazed me. Death in Venice could certainly be argued as the epitome of that special work. Combined with that, I’ve never not had an interest in examining the ways in which people become disenfranchised, and the aesthetic tools that are employed to propagate those expressions of hatred. I think Visconti’s filmography delves into that as a whole in unique ways, but the conversations of age and natural versus unnatural and beautiful versus ugly often being conflated interested me most especially. I wrote the first draft in three days simply because I was so excited about all the thoughts swimming around in my head—it was truly, I think, the first experience of my undergraduate degree that reminded me how adventurous and pleasurable the process can and should be.
FM: What does your writing process look like?
SR: Lots of scribbling in a journal with empty pages to get all my ideas out, even if they’re horrifically bad. I have issues with the guy, but I do think Quentin Tarantino’s advice on this has really stuck with me: sleep on the muck (as I mentioned above) you wrote, leave it on the nightstand for you to first see upon waking up. I think having that refreshed mental clarity can really help you work though ideas you might’ve been previously stuck on.
FM: How have your personal experiences shaped and influenced your writing?
SR: I mean, I’ve always been told to write about what specifically interests me. And as a woman, my body is inherently made political (whether I knew it or not). I like to uncover and think through the resources that have led to that point; this might’ve unconsciously worked as my foundation for “The Lesser Examined Coming of Age.” Thinking about beauty standards especially, something that probably all women can agree have messed them up in some form, about how the words “youth” and “beauty” are conflated like “old” and “ugly” have stereotypically come to be.
FM: What are your methods for finding diverse and relevant sources?
SR: It has gotten gradually easier and easier to do so on my own, but if my professors weren’t assigning readings to us by a diverse group of authors in the first place, I don’t know how I would’ve gotten to my current point. I think if you’re in that stage as I was, your best tool quite honestly is the Notes section. See who those authors are in discussion with, look them up, see who they disagreed with, because these formative thinkers are always in discussion with one another.
FM: Why is including marginalized voices in research important to you?
SR: I’m a self-described existentialist, which for me boils down to the idea that we cannot recognize our own freedom without recognizing that of those around us, whose freedoms are being blocked off by dominant and oppressive ideologies. Using that line of thought, we must include these voices because the voice of the marginalized is indicative of the situation they have been forced into and perhaps can serve as a vessel to imagine futures where their freedom is reciprocated.
FM: What aspects of the writing process were most challenging? Why?
SR: I run into the problem of ensuring what I write on the page is digestible to those reading it beyond me. I have a tendency to forget that not everyone lingers inside my head at all times, which can often make what lands on the page super confusing for others. But, thankfully, those frustrations often simmer down when you begin the peer review process.
FM: What’s a resistance point you hit in your writing, and how did you move past it?
SR: I struggle a lot with believing in the work I put out, whether it be from “imposter syndrome” or just flat out thinking its incoherent. I think the peer review process has actually very much helped me iron that out: it can be both affirming to hear people tell you your piece is, in fact, coherent, but also at the same time having the things that maybe are not as clear or insightful being worked through in a collective environment to ensure I don’t forget that at the end of the day, this process of writing will always be communal in some sense. And it feels good to relax and warm yourself up to that idea after you can jump the hump of feeling like criticisms are inherently personal.
FM: What do you enjoy most about your article?
SR: I started here something that I would love to continue on in my writing—to a lesser extent—analyzing the work of the actor and the way their body operates in the filmic world and with the way the camera captures and frames them. I really wanted to analyze more of the “Bogardian flair” here, but I’ll have to bookmark it for future use.
FM: How has the Film Matters editorial and publication process impacted the development/evolution of your article?
SR: All I will say is I’d be extremely embarrassed if my first draft of this piece was the one getting published. Nothing gets done in writing without the work of community, in any form, helping you pick up the pieces you dropped on the way. All writers have a tendency to be too far into their head to the point where anyone else might need some clarification—with my peers who reviewed “The Lesser Examined Coming of Age,” this perhaps was the biggest factor.
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?
SR: I hope to reach anyone, especially women, to be frank, even if the article is not explicitly “feminist” or anything, because my process of writing this article made me think a lot about general beauty constructs that stop at nothing to tear apart young women and girls. If anything, at least, I hope it produces that line of questioning and critique.
FM: How has your department and/or institution supported your work in film and media?
SR: The Film Studies department has fostered an environment so small and personal that not for one second have I felt a sense of hesitation having discussions with the faculty about the scholars we are reading for a certain week or the movies we watch, and not being afraid to have intense conversations out of that! That sense of community is truly wonderful. Additionally, I was able to present this paper in a condensed version at the National Conference of Undergraduate Research that I would not have been able to go to if the Center of Undergraduate Excellence and Wilkinson College did not support me financially.
FM: How has your faculty mentor fostered your advancement as a film scholar?
SR: Dr. Kelli Fuery has been by my side through and through on this project and I am truly indebted for that. Without her introducing me to the heavy works of Beauvoir, as she did here, I would’ve firstly never found my core research interests as they are today. All she wants to do for her students is to let their passion flow in a way that challenges ideas, past and present, already laid out. I would not have recognized my voice as a writer if not for her guidance and care.
FM: What advice do you have for undergraduate film and media scholars?
SR: Let yourself sit with the discomfort of films not made for Hollywood. When you can get out of the framework Hollywood employs for maximum audience closure and comfort, your life gets a whole lot better. The world opens up a whole new exciting path for you, and that is not exclusive to film and media.
FM: What are your future plans?
SR: After I complete my undergraduate degree, I plan to stay at Chapman for an extra year to get my master’s in film and media studies. I might go back to get my PhD and continue my studies either in media history or cultural studies, but I am also interested in the prospect of working at film festivals or in journalism.
Author Biography
Sophia Rubino is a Film Studies major at Chapman University. Her primary research interests include feminist phenomenology and film acting. You can likely find Sophia heavily annotating a new book or watching films with her cat, Dirk.
