The Reflection of the movie ‘Hidden Figures’ with a critical analysis of Luce Irgiary’s ‘the question of others’

Length: 750 words (maximum)
Task: write a critical analysis of the movie ‘Hidden Figures (2006)’ which explores the ways this movie speaks to concepts/theories of Luce Irigaray.

Questions to guide your response:
What was your initial response to the movie and has it changed once you learned more about it and its creator?
In what ways does the artwork speak to theories/concepts?
How does the artwork challenge or reproduce hegemonic gender constructions? Consider, for example, what cultural political work the movie is doing and what alternative story (and reality) the movie is imagining.

Critical analysis:
Write a critical analysis in response to the movie using the above questions as a guide. Your critical analysis must include information about the artist as well as significant engagement with the concepts and theorists from the course that inform your response. Please use Harvard Author-Date referencing system, in-text citations and bibliography

Theory:
“….the fundamental model of the human being remained unchanged: one, singular, solitary, historically masculine, the paradigmatic Western adult male, rational, capable. The observed diversity was thus thought of and experience in a hierarchical manner, the many always subjugated by the one. Others were only copies of the idea of man, a potentially perfect idea, which all the more or less imperfect copies had to struggle to equal” (Irigaray 1991: 7).

My understanding of the theory:
Irigaray in her article acknowledges that since time immemorial, there have been people who are different from the majority in the society, for example, children and mentally unstable people (Irigaray, 1995). Nevertheless, this did not mean that they were completely different from the rest. A man has always had a distinct form that identifies him as that, and this remains with him all through time. The differences in men were then observed from the picture of that ideal man, considered to be perfect, these other men were considered copies of the ideal man and the ‘others’ looked up to the ideal figure and try to equal it. These differences were with respect to factors such as race, age, and culture (Irigaray, 1995, p.7).
Irigaray (1995, p.8) disagrees with the plight of Simone de Beauvoir’, who declined from putting a woman in the position of the ‘other’ because this would mean that man is the perfect and idealistic being, and woman is working towards meeting the standards he set for her. Irigaray opines that this notion is a practical error (Irigaray, 1995, p.8). That most scholars in history including, Beauvoir’ have misunderstood the meaning of ‘other’ to be a lesser being when in fact it is not. The word ‘other’ according to her, means different, yet not in any way related to the former. It could be greater or lesser than the aforementioned in equal capacity, and equal to it as well.
In terms of gender, referring to the female as the ‘other’ does not necessarily mean reduction from masculinity. However, it connotes a gender that is different from the aforementioned or rather the male. As opposed to the initial idea of the copies struggling to equal the ideal being, the copies should just embrace their differences. The way to overcome this problematic situation is to analyse the meaning of the word ‘other’ keenly then embracing its positive outlook.

Sample Solution

ACED ESSAYS