The dynamics of oppresion and resistance in the movie Roma

The dynamics of oppression and resistance in the movie Roma

Fiorella Vasi Grillo

12183164

Supervisor: Daan Wesselman

Pálidas muchedumbres me seducen; no es un instante de alegría o

tristeza:

la tierra es ancha e infinita cuando los hombres se juntan. Pale crowds seduce me;

It is not an instant of joy or sadness: the earth is wide and infinite

when men come together

Content

Introduction 1

Chapter 1 4

Narratives of oppression: Labour and Commodification

in connection to race and gender

Chapter 2 17

Narratives of oppression: emotions and gender

Chapter 3 33

Narratives of resistance: language and humour

Introduction

This thesis focuses on an analysis of Alfonso Cuaron’s movie Roma, released in 2018 by digital platform Netflix. The film begins with two minutes of water running on the floor, before it reveals the person scrubbing it. She talks to a dog, then enters a different room. There, she changes dirty bedsheets for clean ones while listening to music. It could be assumed that this is her dog and her house. After a while, however, the viewer realizes that that it is not, and these activities are part of her job as a care worker for a white middle-class family in Mexico City. Set in 1970 and 1971, the movie is about the daily life of this indigenous care worker named Cleo. One of the first concerns about real life issues raised by the fictional situation described above is the conditions in which this kind of care work takes place in Latin American countries. It is very common for Latin American middle and upper-class families to hire women like Cleo to cook, take care of children and look after the household in general. Why this kind of care work is problematic and what social issues does it create or perpetuate?

First, she is noticeably not white like the family she serves. This situation is directly related to Mexico’s colonial past and the fact that indigenous citizens are still considered inferior. They are therefore neglected by the government and much more prone to be poor and have scarcer education and job opportunities, making them perfect candidates for this type of work. The problem is not only related to a high economic inequality and the low salaries for this type of work, but also to how racism and classism play a big part in the way they experience their lives as care workers. In which ways are racism and classism crucial in understanding the role of a care worker within the context of Latin American society? Why are these elements so embedded in Cleo’s situation of oppression and the situation of other care workers? Is it productive to understand the job of a care worker as a new form of slavery in the context of capitalism and social exclusion in Mexican and Latin American society? The present thesis will attempt to address these questions.

A second concern raised by the movie about the real world is that of women’s position in Mexico and Latin America. Another trait of Cleo’s oppression is her womanhood. Cleo is expected to be readily available to be confined to the private sphere

because she is a woman. I suggest that this subordination to the private sphere of life is

due to the fact that women are regarded as more emotional than men. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss how the relationship between women and emotions is shaped, and how it plays into women’s domination in contemporary Latin American reality. Why are emotions automatically associated with women? How are emotions related to social customs and the subordination of women in Latin America? Another important character that plays into this issue is Cleo's employer, Sofia, mother to the children she looks after. Though her oppression experience is unlike Cleo's, she is still subject to certain expectations for being female. How is oppression different between a white woman and an indigenous woman in the Mexican context? Can Sofia be considered to be oppressed even when she is the oppressor of Cleo? Can they somehow be united their oppression in order to resist it even if their relationship is marked by power relations? We will also discuss other issues of contemporary reality that the movie brings forth.

A final important issue present in the movie is that of resistance. What can women in Latin American countries do to overcome their situation? What can care workers do in order to improve their work situation? What could indigenous people do to tackle the exclusion and discrimination that they suffer at the hands of the State and civil society? Clearly, the complex social dynamics at work behind the oppression of these social actors does not have a simple solution. Precisely, another goal of this thesis is to try think on how can people in situations of oppression resist it in the context of their daily lives. A fundamental question is how can the dynamics of oppression be grasped and understood through the ways we fight back, and why it is important to reflect on this.

In my view, the main aspect of the film that makes it relevant to contemporary Latin America lies in the relationship between the scenes that portray oppression, domination and exploitation, and the scenes that depict some trace of resistance. One of the main inquiries of this thesis is the specific ways in which oppression and resistance are related and intertwined in the movie, and how the film poses a new, more nuanced understanding of them that can contribute to a new Latin American reality with less exclusion and more opportunities, especially for indigenous women.. The main oppressed subjects are the female characters in the film, especially Cleo and Adela - the other care

worker that works in the household – who are precisely indigenous non-white women. This means the dynamics of domination are questioned and explored from two fronts: the relationship between the care workers’ labour and commodification due to race, and the fact that this oppression is based on gender, and mainly related to the influence of certain emotions like love or happiness. The movie also presents three possible ways in which the female characters could resist the oppression: the use of the Mixteco language, the power of laughter and humour, and the sense of collaboration, reciprocity and community that these elements bring to indigenous women.

Chapter 1

Narratives of oppression: Labour and Commodification in connection to race and gender

In this chapter, we will explore the oppressed condition of Cleo from the lens of her labor and subsequent commodification. Throughout this chapter, I argue that Cleo’s labour situation constitutes a redesigned way of slavery. This situation is not exclusive to Cleo, but rather one that most care workers in Latin American find themselves in. How can the film’s depiction of Cleo’s job as a new way of slavery and its representation of care workers be helpful to better understand their situation and improve it? In my regard, the first factor conditioning her situation as a care worker is the task to carry out "emotional labour", a concept developed by Arlie Hochschild. This means she is to suppress her own feelings and wishes in order to fulfill those of others and ensure their well-being. In Cleo's case, a requirement of her job is to take care of children who are not hers. As a consequence, her feelings are less important than those of the people she looks after. This is a common theme for women in this line of work. And, while a particular trait of Cleo's job in the film is her close bond to Sofia, her direct superior, this is not positive as it implies a "maternalistic" dynamic. In this regard, we will further explore how the film's representation of this dynamic might complicate this conceptual framework and how this ties into the actual situation of care workers in Latin America.

Furthermore, I believe the film conveys that the features of Cleo’s work-based oppression are connected to her status as a non-white indigenous woman. As I see it, the second defining element of Cleo’s condition of redesigned slavery the white middle-class family treatment of Cleo as socially dead. The concept was coined by Frank Wilderson III, a revisionist of Marxist ideas. According to him, the proletarian subject is not only oppressed by his wage, but also his non-whiteness. For him, slavery is not only a matter of being paid a wage or not, but also being subject to a specific treatment the employee must tolerate. He claims that this kind of redesigned slavery is not only about domination, but the accumulation of human beings in order to maintain the capitalist system working. This, in turn, means that workers like Cleo are interchangeable. What does this entail for Cleo in the film? And, more importantly, why is the concept useful to better understand the commodified situation of actual care workers? How is the movie contributing to

deepen this concept? Our examination will attempt to find meaningful answers to these questions.

A further aspect that I believe is related to Cleo’s situation of slavery is her womanhood. According to Silvia Federici, the transition from the feudal system to the capitalist one meant the foremost obligation of women, and the main element through which they are exploited, is their ability to reproduce, which also leads to the confinement of women to the private sphere. For Federici, women are exploited insofar as they have the responsibility to reproduce and guarantee the existence of new workers to sustain the capitalist system. This situation also places women at a disadvantaged position in which men play the role of supervisors. In this regard, I argue that these feminist ideas are not only relevant to interpret the slavery experienced by Cleo and other female characters in the film, but also to have a grasp on the situation of subordination experienced by Latin American women and attempt to tackle it.

I believe these scenes- presented in stills below this paragraph- are crucial in understanding Cleo’s situation of slavery as a care worker because of gender and race. Before I interpret these images and their role in the movie, it is necessary to understand their context within the plot. Cleo (the female paid worker) fears she might be pregnant and decides to talk to Sofía, the mother of the family and her “boss”. Although the viewer might perceive Sofía as being understanding to her employee, this circumstance can be seen in a more oppresive light.

Images 1, 2 and 3

In the scenes presented, Cleo (the paid female worker) is not only being oppressed for being maid - which often means unfair and sometimes illegal labour conditions - but also for not being white and a native of Mexico City as the rest of the family. Cleo is an indigenous woman. In that sense, it is fundamental to mention that the phenomenon of female indigenous maids in South America is a very common one. In a 2018 article. Merita Jokela and Merike Blofield stated that “about 30% of households are intimately involved in paid domestic work in Latin America, either as employers or as workers” (531). This means that Cleo’s situation is not exceptional in the context of Mexican society. Although the movie is situated in the late seventies, the situation of care workers in countries like Mexico or Peru has not changed much: over 15 million females in Latin America work in domestic service and many of them work full-time for one family (Blofield and Jokela 534). This is the exact case of the film’s protagonist. Another key feature of this kind of work in analyzing this scene is that workers of African descent or of indigenous heritage tend to earn less than white workers doing the same kind of job (434). This means Cleo is not only oppressed because she is female and indigenous, but mainly because she is not white.

A first theoretical lens helpful in understanding this scene within the protagonist’s labour context is the Frank Wilderson III’s revision of a number of Marxist concepts in an article titled “Gramsci’s Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society?” (2003) as well as his book Red, White & Black. Cinema and the Structure of U.S Antagonisms (2010). According to Wilderson, the main subject of the Marxist discourse is the figure of a subaltern that is oppressed by a wage. In other words, “Marxism assumes a subaltern structured by capital, not by white supremacy” (2003, 225). As was mentioned previously, the interaction between Cleo with Sofía, her boss, is conditioned not only by the scarcity of her wage but also her skin colour. In that regard, Wilderson’s notion of “social death” is essential to examine the scene. For him, slavery is not over despite its

abolition, and the concept of social death means to explain the constantly renewing institutionalized racism in the United States. I argue that the way the movie presents Cleo’s situation complements Wilderson’s perspective. Though Cleo is not black and does not live in the United States, her situation is as precarious as the one faced by black people. She is not seen as an equal or a full subject, and that is mainly because she is not white. As per Wilderson, slavery is not the same as forced labour because “whereas it explains a common practice, it does not define the structure of the power relation between those who are slaves and those who are not” (2010, 14). At first look, Cleo will not be understood as a slave because she works for a salary. In line with Wilderson, however, I suggest that this kind of precarious care work, while not exactly slavery, is a redesigned version of it.

In my opinion, although the author focuses on the condition of blackness of new slaves, the situation of Cleo’s labour in the movie complicates the concept’s requirement. Firstly, Cleo’s attitude when she approaches Sofia is guided by fear and despair. She is scared of being traded for another maid, as can be seen in Image 1. Sofía assures that she is not going to fire her. However, Cleo’s attitude is more sever than just fearing for her job; she acts as if approaching an authority figure who is in charge of her fate. Wilderson refers to the slavery of Afro American subjects as ontological and gratuitous because its main traits are not exploitation or alienation, but accumulation and fungibility (14). In other words, they can be owned and traded; their existence and labour force are indispensable for the constitution of the system itself, but they are not recognized as fully human, which means they are socially dead. In this particular scene, Cleo’s socially dead condition is evidecend, for, as relevant as her role is in the household, she fears being fired and replaced by another worker – in this case, due to her pregnancy. As stated above, it seems like Sofía is in charge of Cleo’s life; she acts like Cleo is her older daughter. Cleo is also socially dead because she is not treated as an equal or a fully constituted individual, capable to handle the situation: Sofía refers to Cleo as “mensa”, which is translated as “silly”. By the tone, it’s clear the expression is not meant as an insult, but it is the kind of tone that would be employed talking to a child. Subtly and condescendingly, Sofía is expressing that she does not consider Cleo smart or mature enough to handle her pregnancy and her future. Consequently, due to the treatment that she is subject to based on accumulation and fungibility, I purport that her situation can be regarded as one of redesigned slavery.

Another way in which the film presents Cleo as socially dead and as a new type of slave due to her race and job is through a specific dynamic between her and Sofia, which we will explore under the concept of "maternalism". Judith Rollins explains the following about this concept in her article “Between women. Domestics and their employers”:

The maternalistic dynamic is based on the assumption of a superordinate-subordinate relationship. While maternalism may protect and nurture, it also degrades and insults… The female employer, with her motherliness and protectiveness and generosity, is expressing in a distinctly feminine way her lack of respect for the domestic as an autonomous, adult employee (186) (cited by Moras, 249).

As for the scene above, though it may appear at first look that Sofía is considerate and caring towards Cleo’s situation, her use of “mensa” and the way Cleo approaches her (knowing that her job and future depend on her reaction) can be explained through this maternalist dynamic. Sofía appears to be generous and protective when she affirms that she will take care of Cleo and get her checked (image 3) but at the same time, through her degrading use of “mensa”, she confirms that she does not see Cleo as a full person, as an autonomous and adult employee, as per Rollins in the above quote. Furthermore, Sofía does not ask what she wants to do with her pregnancy. She simply decides that Cleo must visit a doctor and get checked. In a way, if follows, Sofia owns Cleo, as she has the last word regarding matters that should be Cleo´s jurisdiction, like her own body. She earns a wage but she is not in a position to make her own decisions. Nevertheless, Sofia depends on Cleo to carry out a large number of domestic tasks not limited to cooking or cleaning but also taking emotional care of her children. In that regard, she is an element that makes that household work but, simultaneously, she is treated like an interchangeable object who cannot decide over her life.

Furthermore, one characteristic attirbuted by Wilderson to people treated as socially dead is that they are “natally alienated” meaning their claims on ascending or descending generations are denied to them (14). In this case, it can be understood that Cleo is being forced to reproduce because that is what Sofía decides regarding her pregnancy. She cannot question this decision. This analysis reveals the presence of the accumulation and fungibility factors. First, Cleo knows she can be replaced for another maid. Secondly, the attention she provides the children and her domestic labour warrant

that the system itself continue to function. This means the household system cannot survive without her, but it needs to commodify and oppress her through exploitation with a low wage and through social death, depriving her of rights over her progeny. This is another key feature to her socially dead condition, and could therefore be considered an important reason why she is a new type of modern slave.

In my view, one way in which the interaction betweem Cleo and Sofia in the movie adds to and complicates the maternalistic dynamic that reinforces Cleo’s natally alienated situation as socially dead is the likelihood that Sofía behaves this way not only due to being white and to racist and classist attitudes being naturalized in a colonial society like Mexico, but also because, as a white woman, she is not in complete control of her body. Therefore, it is not even imaginable for her to let another woman under her command it. It seems she, too, is used to being supervised. Granted, this interpretation of her behaviour does not justify the ways in which Sofia oppresses Cleo and treats her as socially dead, in other words, as a slave. I believe it is important to understand Sofia not as a villain but as being oppressed herself, though her oppression clearly does entail her social death. I also believe it important to highlight this because the relationship between Cleo and Sofia is very common in real life. It is therefore crucial to explore the ways in which oppression is depicted in the movie in order to understand the nature of the particular social position of care workers.

In my opinion, the scenes deal with the concept of labour and the situation of modern slavery, specifically to the way it plays into women’s role in Mexican society and how they perceive their own bodies. In the movie, this is reflected in the way both women regard Cleo’s pregnancy. In images 1 to 3, neither woman even remotely considers abortion, much less Sofia, who acts like she owns Cleo. They both seem to think that pregnancy is a fact that cannot be avoided: Sofia is mother to four children. Silvia Federici’s book Caliban and the Witch could provide a further historical explanation of the situation between Cleo and Sofía. Unlike Wilderson, Federici departs from Marx’s theories not from a race standpoint but from a gender standpoint, by analyzing the changes that capitalism brought to the social position of women and the production of labour- power (11). One of the most relevant arguments in Federici’s analysis regards the fact that the women’s subjugation is based on their reproductive function and the reproduction of work-force (11). In other words, women’s bodies were transformed into a machine for

the production of new workers; women’s unpaid labour was not only to have children, but also to take care of them. Federici points that Marx never questioned that procreation could become a way of exploitation and that “it is not a fact of nature rather than a social, historically determined activity, invested by diverse interests and power relations” (90). In the above scene, pregnancy is understood by both women as an uncontestable fact of nature, to which the only answer is to “get checked”. In this case, “get checked” does not have any connotation that could suggest abortion. In fact, in image 4, after Cleo explains that her period has not come in the 3 months since she became sexually active, the doctor states that the situation is common.

Image 4

I do not take the doctor’s remark to plainly mean that it is likely or even possible to get pregnant without the use of any type of contraceptives. As I stated above, I hold that this is a way of naturalizing the reproductive function in women, as the doctor does not offer any options to prevent or stop her pregnancy. Cleo is forced to procreate against her will, but mainly because she and Sofía have completely interiorized and naturalized their function as machines tasked with creating new human beings in order to sustain the capitalist system. In this light, if reproduction is understood as women’s job, the movie presents this activity as mandatory and as an important feature of the way Cleo experiments her daily life as a modern slave. As for Sofía, though she is endowed with class and race privileges, she also regards herself as a child-bearing machine.

In this second scene, the movie presents the possibility of Cleo being treated as an equal within her daily situation of redesigned slavery instead of socially dead. However, the context this opportunity takes place in reveals new aspects of her situation of oppression. The scene begins with Cleo doing the laundry. Afterwards Pepe, the younger of the children in the middle-class family, is shown to have been rejected by his older

brother. His older brother told him he could not play with him anymore, so he killed him fictionally. Pepe then decides to lie down in this part of the laundry space, which is Cleo’s work area. When Cleo asks him if everything is all right, he replies that he is dead, as shown in Image 5. Cleo imitates him and declares she is dead, so she does not have to answer him either (Image 6). The dialogue ends with her claiming that she likes to be dead (Image 7).

Images 5, 6, 7, 8 in chronological order

As for the cinematography, the scene is a medium shot that focuses on the two characters, and presents both characters as being at the same level when they lie down. In addition, their placement in the frame and their conversation suggest an absence of

hierarchies: when Pepe expresses that he cannot talk, Cleo respects his claim. Pepe , too, honours Cleo’s statement that she cannot talk due to being dead. I also think the scene is special in that it is one of the few scenes in the film where the characters seem to be completely illuminated by sunlight, which can be interpreted as a confirmation of the horizontal interaction between Cleo and the child. I therefore argue that the interaction with Pepe on the roof is the only time in the film where she interacts with interacts with a white middle-class family member and is not socially dead to them. It is not just the way they are depicted at the same level by the camera angle and lighting, but more importantly their shared silence, which exists outside the daily context of accumulation and fungibility. I believe this is why, in image 7, Cleo says she likes being dead: she is no longer doing the laundry, and she lies there not at the child's command, but because she has decided to share this moment with another non-full subject. The employer-employee relationship is thus dissolved. She is not afraid that Pepe might fire, mistreat, or replace her: Pepe and Cleo are equals under the sun. In this scene, as per Wilderson, she is not socially dead to the child. She is a human being that can opt not to speak.

We must remember that the reason Pepe thinks he is dead in the first place is because his brother kills him to leave him out of the game. Consequently, in this scene, Cleo is joining the game. It is sad that the only likely scenario in which Cleo can express her preferences, be treated as equal or simply be left alone is within the imaginary physiological process of dying, or within the fiction established in the children's game. In fact, she only feels free and equal to Pepe inside the game, which is not that surprising.. According to David Harvey in his book Seven Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, the Marxist concept of alienation is still very much valid for every kind of labour in the capitalist economic system: “the worker, Marx for one suggests, is typically reduced to a “fragment of a man” by virtue of his or her attachment to a fixed position within an increasingly complex division of labour” (125). This statement is supposed to apply to every person who is involved in a job in the capitalist system. However, the movie complicates this concept a bit: Cleo´s job is extreme not only because she lives where she works but also because her labour is completely fixed into being a care domestic worker, a job that also targets women. Her feeling of alienation is so pervasive that she can only imagine herself being free of her job when she is literally dead or by playing a children’s game. I agree with Harvey and posit that in a job like this “all creativity, spontaneity and charm go out of the work” (125). However, Pepe gives Cleo the chance to be spontaneous,

using the game as an escape from her daily reality. It is only through the game’s narrative that she allows herself to quit working. In that regard, I believe this feeling of alienation reinforces the situation of slavery in which Cleo is immersed in the context of her labour as a care worker.

I believe the film illustrates how Cleo's extreme alienation is tied to the work she performs in the household. Hence, being a care worker is also part of the reason she could be considered a modern slave. The situation is also visibly conditioned by the variables of gender and race, given that Cleo is an indigenous woman. According to Arlie Hochschild in her book The managed heart, “this labour requires one to induce or suppress feeling in order to sustain the outward countenance that produces the proper state of mind in others- in this case, the sense of being cared for in a convivial and safe place” (7). Indeed, in this scene, Cleo does not suppress negative feelings (such as the desire to be dead) in order to satisfy the children’s emotional needs. This means that, in this particular scene, Cleo enters the kid’s game and stops being a caregiver; she ceases to work for him and is able to express her real feelings, her desire of dying. The reason for her attitude can be explained through the labour’s requirement to coordinate mind and feeling “and it sometimes draws on a source of self that we honour as deep and integral to our individuality” (7). Cleo’s duties are not limited to cooking meals, cleaning the house and switching lights off at night, but include activities that involve interacting with children who demand emotional care. Although Cleo’s interaction with Pepe in this scene does not suggest that she is faking her concern for him, the fact that she expresses a desire to die could be provoked by the damage to individuality described by Hochschild. If a job demands care, the care will not always be authentic because it is mandatory. It is crucial to point that, according to Hochschild, this emotional labour does not have the same consequences for men and for women (163). In fact, women tend to manage feelings more, and the emotional work they perform “affirms, enhances and celebrates the well-being and status of others” (165). Thus, her situation of oppression is again tied to her gender: modern slavery also profits from women prioritizing others before themselves even in the context of work.

In this third scene (image 9), Cleo’s labour as a maid and her oppression as indigenous women reveal another feature of reinvented slavery: she is socially dead because she is mistreated for no reason. After Cleo puts the children to sleep, she hears

Sofia’s husband complain that the fridge is not being well organized enough and that there is dog crap all over the backyard. Despite Sofía closing the door for Cleo not to hear, it is clear her presence there is irrelevant. They are talking about her disregarding that she is walking around the house, putting the kids to bed and turning off the lights. According to Wilderson, Cleo is socially dead here because she is “generally dishonoured” which means she is “stigmatized in their being without any transgressive act or behaviour” (14). According to Antonio (Sofia’s husband), the house is a mess because Cleo does not organize the products in the refrigerator or clean the dog crap in the backyard. As I see it, these cannot be understood as transgressive acts. On the contrary, given the amount of work and responsibilities assigned to Cleo in the household, it is only understandable that she could forget some of them. However, she is once more expected to fulfill her employer’s expectations as if she were not human. Otherwise put, she is not only not being treated as a full person because Antonio cares not if she hears him criticising her, but also because she is expected to run the household with machine-like precision and efficiency, including “emotional labour”. In keeping with Hochschild, this is not surprising because “high- status people tend to enjoy the privilege of having their feelings noticed and considered important” (172).

Image 9

Conversely, according to the author, when someone manages their feelings as a form of labour, as Cleo does, this immediately lower her status. Therefore, her feelings will be generally disregarded, discredited and less believable. This is an incredibly unfair situation because Cleo’s job is to take care of children, and this always implies dealing with their feelings. She has to appear invested in the family members’ well-being and work towards it, but the same kind of consideration is not provided to her. Hence, it is even more poignant that she is socially dead, because she is stigmatized without having

incurred in any transgressive behaviour when the dog’s crap is mentioned. It is true that taking care of the dog is part of her duties but it is inevitable thinking that the animal’s well-being is more important Cleo’s feelings, who is not only in charge of their household but also of providing care and safety to the children. The dog is actually treated with more consideration and respect than Cleo, which confirms Cleo’s socially dead status due to her race and job as a care worker.

As mentioned before, race is not the only factor that oppresses Cleo. There is one factor of oppression that is shared by Cleo and Sofia: their gender. In image 9, Antonio, the husband, feels fully entitled to complain to her wife about the household and Cleo, another woman. As a man, he believes that the domestic sphere is not really his responsibility; in this scene, he acts like the manager or supervisor to women. According to Federici in Caliban and the Witch, ever since the transition from the feudal system to capitalism, the family has been conceived not only as women’s workplace but also as a political institution (97). Historically, “in the new bourgeois family, the husband became the representative of the state, charged with disciplining and supervising the subordinate

classes” (98). As for the above scene, the issue is not only that domestic work is a

woman’s responsibility, but also that the husband must manage women in order to guarantee the household’s proper functioning, which acts as a metaphor for the functioning of the nation. In this case, the “subordinate classes” are the three women in the household (his wife, the maid and the grandmother) and the children. The position of women here is almost equal to that of children. And though these three women are being supervised by the husband figure, the grandmother and wife still hold more privileges than the maid (Cleo) for the sole reason of being white. These women are oppressed, but they are not socially dead like Cleo is for being an indigenous woman, invisible to the man in the house, as has been explained above. In my regard, the micro-politics of this household could be understood as a representation of the hierarchies within Mexican society, where white men have to manage white women who, in turn, supervise indigenous women.

To conclude, in chapter 1, there is a detailed analysis of the way in which the movie presents the Cleo’s working situation. I argue that the way she is treated can be understood as a form of redesigned slavery, in which the main protagonist -Cleo- lives

within the context of her job as a care worker. Cleo has lost the right to be treated as a full subject; meaning her authority figures do not consider her capable of making own decisions, even when choices over her own body are at issue. This situation is determined not only by the meager wages paid her but also by her skin colour. A consequence of this is the “maternalistic” relationship that she has with Sofía, which bars her from seeing Cleo as a full subject. In spite of the emotional labour that she carries out in the household being indispensable to the children’s quality of life, she can be replaced, mistreated and generally dishonoured. The movie depicts one further oppressive feature of her situation: as a woman, this emotional labour demands activities that require a mandatory emotional involvement, which can affect her own integral self-perception as an individual. In that regard, Cleo is expected to perform this care work because she is a woman. The same thing goes for the understated obligation to procreate.

Chapter 2

Narratives of oppression: emotions and gender

In this chapter, we will analyze the two female protagonists' (Cleo and Sofia) situation of oppression in relation to their womanhood and the value attributed to feelings in their situation. While both characters are expected to experiment love and desire towards certain objects for being female, it is necessary to point that the film embeds their situation in Mexican society, and their roles in the household is significantly different. I suggest that there is not only a power relationship between them but also a racial division of labour which will be explained through to their shared bonds of affection, as per the ideas of Aníbal Quijano.

A new perspective that the film contributes to this analysis is the suggestion that emotions like happiness and love play a role in imposing determined expectations on women, which are related to heterosexual love, family and marriage. The first author crucial in developing these ideas is Silvia Federici. From her feminist point of view, women have been expected to be closer to emotions, and this situation brings negative consequences because it confines them to the private sphere. In that regard, Sarah Ahmed is not interested in finding out what emotions are but rather what emotions do. She claims that emotions do not reside in objects or subjects but are rather produced as effects of circulation (9). This is not as easy as seeing emotions as a mere social practice instead of psychological events, but it is about understanding that emotions are not completely individual or social, as they create surfaces and boundaries that allow us to understand different objects in different ways (Ahmed 10). In this light, the movie prompts the viewer to link these ideas to the question of how these emotions make these women attached to certain social forms -like the ones mentioned above – and how this attachment enhances their subordination.

According to Lauren Berlant, these emotional attachments to certain social forms can be also considered relationships of “cruel optimism” when the object desired only brings the opposite of what initially attracted the subject (1). This kind of desire is based on what she calls the “good life”: fantasies that are often related to conventionality but enhance the precariousness people live in. This chapter will explore why and how are the

lives of Sofía and Cleo as represented in the movie related to this kind of emotional experiences – specifically regarding love and happiness- in connection to their ordinary and everyday lives, and their specific situations as a wife and care worker. This way, their different situations of oppression could be resisted by identifying and relating to the other as women who do not have to please everyone else’s desires.

I believe this scene connects the ways in which emotions are expected from women and why this prejudice reinforces the thought that women are inferior. This situation is also related to the fact this emotional property of women is related to their confinement to the private sphere, which enhances the sexual division of labour. We will also analyze the role of men in regards to emotions within said division. In image 1, we see Cleo, Sofía and two of the children cheer because Antonio is home. In images 2, 3 and 4, we see the process of Antonio driving his Galaxy car into the narrow garage. Image 11 shows how close the rear-view mirror is from hitting the wall . In image 12, the Galaxy is parked but the dog’s crap stands out.

Images 1, 2, 3, 4

First, I argue that image 1 reinforces a specific conception of femininity: “it was established that women were inherently inferior to men- excessively emotional and lusty, unable to govern themselves- and had to be put under male control” (Federici 100-101): they are eagerly waiting for the man to come home and validate them, down to their activities in the private sphere. It is of course ironic to accuse them of being excessively emotional, when they are clearly the only ones taking emotional care of children. The scene portrays the image of a father that comes late at night and has no involvement in the children’s daily activities. In other words, images 1, 2 , 3 and 4 not only represent the sexual division of labour but also how men are entitled to the public sphere and have no responsibility in the emotional labour of caring after children. However, it is crucial to analyse the scene’s specific contribution to this idea of femininity and its relation to emotions.

One of the key cinematographic features in this scene is the fact that we only see Antonio’s hands as he parks the car, but not his face, as shown in image 2. The car can be said to protagonize this scene, in which it represents the presence of the household man. I believe this is achieved through the many close-ups of the car about to hit the wall, like the rear-view mirror in image 3. Another important feature of this scene is the soundtrack. There is scarce music through the film, but I think that Antonio’s choice of classical music in his car is not accidental. According to Jane Stadler and Kelly McWilliam in their book Screen Media. Analysis Film and Television, “the musical score often functions to unify a film or television narrative in terms of theme, character or other motifs. Music can be either a diegetic or non-diegetic sound” (71-72). The classical music Antonio is playing in the car is considered a diegetic sound because it refers to sounds “made by a physical source inside the story world” (72). Therefore, the male presence in this scene is represented by a car that barely fits in the garage and the sound of classical music.

Throughout the scene, the viewer cannot see Antonio’s face, only his hands and feet. In contrast to this, for a couple of minutes, all that is present to the viewer is the car moving around. This scene could portray the mechanization imposed on the body by the transition to capitalism. According to Federici, the human body was the first machine invented by capitalism (146). For her, “the counterpart of the mechanization of the body is the development of Reason in its role as judge, inquisitor, manager, administrator” (149). In that sense, only the male body is properly mechanized, represented by a car in the case of the above scene. As was noted before, the mechanization of the male figure is also related to judging and administrating duties. Federici claims that since the 17th century, the individual is reconstructed as a battlefield between two opposing forces. On one hand, there are the forces of Reason which are “parsimony, prudence, sense of responsibility, self- control” (134) and, on the other, the low bodily instincts that dissipate the individual’s vital energy. As I see it, at first glance, the male figure represented by the car wants to play the role of the administrator and pretend to be prudent, responsible and in control; capable of actually supervising women in the household as a clear superior to them. This is even more poignant if we factor in the classical music: a genre that is stereotypically associated with reason, high culture and knowledge. The role of women as inferior is thus reinforced here, as their subordination is based on their closeness to emotions and nature.

This perception is heightened when compared the women in image 1: the women are expressing emotions and are eager to receive the male presence. According to Sarah Ahmed in The Cultural Politics of Emotion, “emotions are associated with women, who are represented as ‘closer’ to nature, ruled by appetite, and less able to transcend the body through thought, will and judgment” (3).At first glance, this is the impression the viewer gets of women in image 1. I believe, however, that car almost bumping into the walls, as in image 2, conveys that this whole construction of the male figure is only a mechanism to uphold the power of men over women and it is not as effective as it was before. As I see it, by having the Galaxy not fit in the garage, the film is denouncing and mocking the whole representation of the male mechanized body as a supervisor of women. It is clear that the women in image 1 manage the household and assume emotional responsibility for the children. To do that, they must be capable of thought, will and judgment. Therefore, I interpret the presence of dog crap on the backyard floor as a disruptive

element in the context of the mechanized male supervisor figure and, as stated before before, as proof that these women do not need to be managed by the male figure. However, the way the scene is shot shows that the real disruptive element is the car, meaning the male presence. The car takes too much time and effort to park because it does not fit in the garage, just like Antonio’s behavior does not fit in the household.

I argue that this is exactly what is peculiar and unique about this representation. A kind of masculinity that wants to supervise and manage women because they are creatures ruled by emotions is no longer valid. In fact, the dog’s crap near the car, which represents toxic masculinity, could mean to break this dichotomy in which emotions are confined to women and reason is the domain of men. These predetermined notions of female and male behavior and desire are, of course, connected to Latin American reality, where gender roles and the sexual division of labour are still deeply rooted. In that regard, the film attempts to invalidate these stereotypes in order to represent a different version of reality: a family structure where women are not confined to the emotional needs of the family while men supervise them, as purported holders of reason and prudence. In fact, I posit that the scene suggests a new way of understanding emotions, not as physiological dispositions but as “investments in social norms” (Ahmed 56). It could be understood from image 4 that men are expected to be mechanized and reasonable as the Galaxy and to avoid acknowledging their emotions. On the contrary, the dog’s poop could mean that women are expected to be more emotional and carry out care work in the household. Otherwise stated, it is not that women are naturally prone to feel and embrace emotions but rather they are expected to do so, just as men are expected to be mechanized and strong as the Galaxy. Therefore, men are expected to desire cars (reason and mechanization) and women are expected to desire care work in the household, which is represented by the dog’s crap. Consequently, I argue that this can suggest that the stereotype of women being closer to emotions could lead women to desire certain objects, like work in the private sphere that will lead them into situations of oppression.

The next scene will further explain this understanding of emotions as an investment in social norms regarding expectations on women. I suggest that this will especially be true for emotions linked to specific social forms that women should want and that are supposed to provide them satisfaction. In image 5, Sofía, Cleo, and the children are at the beach moments after Sofía breaks to them the news that Antonio, the

husband and father, will leave the house, which is the reason they’re at the beach. They are all looking sad due to the news. In addition, Cleo is also sad because she just gave birth to a stillborn baby. A peculiar feature that the movie sets up is the background: it is interesting that the local people are celebrating a wedding as a backdrop to this moment of sadness and disappointment. We will use this scene to analyse the concept of happiness, or lack thereof. According to Sarah Ahmed in her book The promise of

happiness, the feeling is not important by definition but because of what happiness and

emotions, in general, do in social reality (2). According to her, happiness is not found in objects themselves but in the fact that certain objects –not only physical, material objects but values, practices, styles, etc. - circulate as social goods (29-31). In this particular scene, we identify a chief social good in Mexican and Latin American culture that is closely associated with happiness- especially for women: marriage. One should note the contrast between the backdrop of the scene and the cast’s situation. The local people are celebrating that a new couple is leaning towards this object that reportedly provides happiness: the trick behind this kind of social good is that it promises happiness even before obtain it. The couple getting married is evidence that people still believe in this dynamic.

Image 5

However, as evidenced in the scene, these women have become alienated because they have not derived pleasure or welfare from proximity to objects that are deemed good (Ahmed 41). In Sofía’s case, her situation was once the same as the soon-to-be couple when she decided to marry Antonio. However, the scene depicts the very moment of alienation from the social good that was supposed to bring her joy and satisfaction. She is sad after telling her children that their father is leaving the household. Marriage was supposed to bring her joy, but now she feels alienated because she is not getting that feeling from the social good that was to provide it. Another possible interpretation is that

Cleo is carrying out Antonio’s role by helping Sofia raise their children and confront their sadness. Consequently, marriage is not the only social good that has lead Sofía to feel alienated but also the idea of a family, which “also becomes a pressure point, as being necessary for a good or happy life, which in turn is how we achieve a certain orientation toward something and not others as good” (Ahmed 46). The expectation of happiness in the social good of family also affects Cleo because she was supposed to encounter happiness after giving birth to her child, but the baby was stillborn. In her case, she did not get to see if having a family of her own would have brought satisfaction. The whole atmosphere of disappointment and alienation is further reinforced by the giant crab behind them. The crab is often a symbol for the beach can also be understood as a social good, as people expect to have a fun and relaxing time there. Nevertheless, it is here that these women become alienated from what they thought was going to bring them happiness.

It is worth mentioning that this analysis does not mean to suggest that social goods as marriage and family will always lead to disappointment or that they are a lie. I believe, as seen in image 5, that the marriage between the locals can mean that happiness can actually be derived from these social goods. In that regard, the film adds to, and complicates, Ahmed’s ideas. I hold that the problem lies in the fact that women specifically are compelled to seek marriage and a family as the only path to welfare and satisfaction in life. I believe this is true for Sofía. These social forms can be a way to achieve happiness but they are clearly not the only way for women to feel satisfied with themselves. Also, they cannot be regarded as a way of securing happiness. In my view, for both women, marriage and children were a surefire way to guarantee their expectations of satisfaction in life without considering other ways to achieve self-realization. These social forms are the easiest and most conventional path for women to be approved and find happiness within the context of Latin American. Granted, this does not mean they do not find joy at all through the imposition but the feeling of alienation persists.

I argue that the film presents a relation between emotions and the female gender that not only fosters alienation in them but also a relationship of cruel attachment to the objects they desire. In images 6 and 7, we see how Sofía desperately holds on to Antonio, her husband, before he leaves to a supposed conference in Canada. She reminds Antonio

that their children and her are still there, because she suspects that Antonio has a lover or parallel romantic relationship. In Ahmed’s terms, as explained above, she wants to hold on to the object that circulates as a social good - marriage - , but there’s also a longing for heterosexual love. According to Lauren Berlant in her book Cruel Optimism, “a relation of cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing” … (2). As Berlant claims, this desire may involve all sort of fantasies including food, love or politics, but the main point is that “they become cruel only when the object that draws your attachment actively impedes the aim that brought you to it initially” (2). In my view, it is obvious that Sofía desires to preserve her marriage and the romantic relationship with her husband, but this desire is driving her to react and humiliate herself like this. It is clear that her desire for marriage and love does not bring her happiness or welfare of any kind. On the contrary, the desire is making her unhappy. Keeping in line with Berlant, at the centre of this project, there is a concept called the “good life” (3). The real interesting question for her is why people continue believe in good-life fantasies when faced with so much evidence of their fragility and instability. In the case of Sofía, her good life fantasy includes the certainty that marriage does not end and that her husband will come back to the household. Berlant’s answer to this situation is that the good life fantasy is necessary because people need to feel that “they and the world add up to something” (3). As shown in images 6 and 7, Sofía needs this cruel attachment to her marriage and the love that should come with in order to find a reason to live. In that regard, once again, I believe that emotions reinforce the subordination of women due to their connection with social forms like marriage and a heterosexual family.

Image 6 and 7

The cruel attachments that these women have are not only related to social forms as marriage and having a family or a job, but also to specific feelings. In another book,

The Female Complaint: The unfinished Business of Sentimentality in American Culture,

Berlant explains that: “the modern love plot requires that, if you are a woman, you must at least entertain believing love’s capacity both to rescue from your life and give you a new one (…) to be needed demonstrate your feminine worth: it is in this sense that the institutions of heterosexual love provide normative locations to imagine the feminine good life” (171). While the film is far from representing the fictional female characters in American culture, these ideas are very pertinent to explain Sofia’s attitude towards her husband and her marriage, which work as a cruel attachment. In this case, Sofía specifically needs her husband’s love and the security that being married brings in order to feel close to the conventions of the hegemonic feminine good life. This kind of love is the only one capable giving her life meaning. Hence, in image 9, Sofía lies to her children and tells them Antonio is staying longer in Canada, though she knows he is not there. In a second desperate act, she tries to preserve her marriage by ordering her children to write letters to her husband to make him come back. These two actions, presented in images 6, 7, 8 and 9 show the burning desire that Sofía has to keep her marriage and fit into the heterosexual conventions of feminine good life based on the need for love, despite the fact that this is not making her happy and is not improving the situation with her husband. In line with Berlant, the relation of cruel optimism is very relevant to the subject because it involves relations to “strangers, power, and the infrastructures of belonging” (27). In that regard, these relations shape the subject’s life. Consequently, “the loss of what’s not working is more unbearable than the having of it” (27). Ultimately for Sofia, losing her marriage appears to be worse than the suffering it brings her. She belongs to the world

via the fact that she is married and has a supposedly happy family. The end of this state means that she will have to adapt and reinvent the terms of value that her life is grounded in. This is the deepest reason why she can’t agree to lose her marriage. Sofía approaches life through the institution of her marriage and heterosexual love. The film’s representation of the connection between marriage, happiness, love and a particular way of approaching life is also very close to the real situation of middle-class women in Latin America.

Image 8

I believe the good life fantasies portrayed in the film also affect Cleo and the emotional cruel attachment to her labour situation, which is gendered given that she is a care worker. Just like the cruel attachment Sofia has to her marriage, Cleo has a cruel attachment to her job. As shown in image 8, once Antonio leaves, Sofía yells at Cleo that she should have cleaned the dog poop so her husband does find it. The viewer knows Antonio complained about this earlier. The first standout element here is the type of good life fantasy that Cleo has, and which liberal meritocracy imposes on people: she probably thinks doing her job as good as she can will avoid the episodes where Sofia shouts at her, as if blaming her for Antonio leaving. According to Berlant, people’s ordinary lives are an element shaped by crisis, which forces people to adapt to the new pressures brought about by cruel attachments. This means that there is not one big traumatic and hurtful event, but rather that people live in a situation of crisis or “crisis ordinariness” (11). In Cleo’s case, Sofia yelling at her is an ordinary and common crisis event that she has to tolerate and adapt to in order to keep her job. Cleo has a cruel attachment to her job: working for a white middle-class family is supposed to bring her money and prestige, but

instead, the working conditions yield moments of crisis and disrespect that hurt her and show that she is almost in a position of redesigned slavery.

It is also a cruel attachment because the job of a care worker demands that she develop feelings toward the children in of itself. The people that she loves and respects put her in a very precarious situation. I think this is how the film subtly complicates what Berlant is stating. In Cleo’s case, the relationship of cruel optimism is not only driven by beliefs regarding her job as per the ideas of the good life, but also by the honest and evident affection that she has towards the members of the family. Like Sofía, she also understands the world through her role as a care worker in Mexican society, and leaving her job will definitely mean having to reorganize her life. But, unlike Sofía, she appears to feel real affection towards the children she looks after, which is not linked to good life fantasies or the security that its conventions bring.

Image 9

The film also depicts how the emotion of love circulates through objects and situations in a different way when it comes to the Cleo’s gendered labour. This scene will complicate her redesigned slavery situation through her emotional bond to the family. In images 10 and 11, Cleo has just saved two of Sofía’s children from drowning in the sea, in spite of not knowing how to swim. Instead of feeling proud of saving the children, she starts crying and suggests that her baby was born dead because deep down she did not want her to be born. Sofía thanks her for saving her children while she was away and says they all love her very much. One of the most striking features in this scene is how it was shot. The scene was shot close to the golden hour, and the exact positioning of the sun makes the lighting unique. The light does not fall directly into the characters but is working as a background illumination that makes the scene particularly enjoyable to

watch. Additionally, the main characters are positioned in the exact middle of the frame. I believe this is a crucial scene in the film because it works as a sort of anagnorisis, or discovery of the supposedly hidden truths in the film. The viewer discovers that Cleo did not want her child, but did not have a chance to say so, and neither did Sofía give such a chance (as explained in Chapter 1). It is also the only time in the movie where the family, in this case Sofía, expresses to love her and care about her. As stated in Chapter 1 in regards to Cleo’s labor, the fact that they care about her does not mean they see her as a full subject capable of making decisions of her own, such as choosing to have an abortion. In fact, according to Sarah Ahmed in her book The cultural politics of emotion:

Love is not what will challenge the power relations that idealisation ‘supports’ in its restriction of ideality to some bodies and not others. In fact ‘to love the abject’ is close to the liberal politics of charity, one that usually makes the loving subject feel better for having loved and given love to someone presumed to be unloved, but which sustains the relations of power that compel the charitable love to be shown in this way (141).

In images 10 and 11, it is striking that the only moment when Sofía expresses affection for Cleo is after she risks her own life to save her children, and she probably also does it because she thinks that her own child died because she did not want her to be born. In order to complicate Ahmed’s ideas, I do not think that the dynamic between this middle-class family and Cleo is close to the liberal politics of charity. However, another truth that can be revealed in this moment of anagnorisis is this direct expression of love completely reinforces the power relations between the white middle-class subjects and the indigenous women. I maintain that it is necessary to link the existence of the feeling of love with the colonial past of a Latin American country. According to Aníbal Quijano, in his article “Coloniality of power, eurocentrism and Latin America”, the modernity in these countries is marked by the two main events: the supposedly biological racial difference between the conquerors and the conquered which lead to positioned the last ones in an automatic inferior situation than the conquerors, and the fact that all forms of labour were organized around the capital and the worldwide market within the capitalist system (778). Therefore, the different racial identities were associated with labour roles which lead to a systematic racial division of labour (781). In that sense, the subordination of Cleo is linked not only to the colonial past but also to this racial division of labour: she is automatically inferior for her race but also her job as a care worker and nearly a slave is very much associated it. This is how the dynamics of domination still work in Latin

America: white people feel naturally entitled to hold positions of power. This is why the expression of love here reinforces this mechanism of domination: the white middle-class is reinforcing this racial division of labour while pretending that her role in the household is maintained by love bonds. This does not mean that they do not love her but that they ignore their historical position of power over Cleo and the fact that they still perceive her as inferior as it was explored in chapter 1.

In that sense, after seeing many scenes in the movie in which Cleo is clearly not treated as a full subject, I think that this scene tries to justify all the commodification and exploitation through the affirmation of love despite differences which is indeed a very liberal and simplistic way of forgetting to deal with the antagonism of Cleo’s situation in that household. Did she earn a place in the family by saving the children? Ahmed’s point could be relevant to try to answer this question: “acting in the name of love can work to enforce a particular ideal onto others by requiring that they live up to an ideal to enter the community” (138). Apparently, this scene could be insinuating that the action that was needed for Cleo to enter this community, which is this middle-class family, was to risk her own life. Without noticing it, Cleo could be trying to reach this ideal that the white family presents by risking her own life and even reproducing the frame of the happy family with heteronormative conventions which are seen by them as a social good that is not easy to let go. However, as it was mentioned above, the dynamics of domination based on the racial division of labour make it impossible for her to be treated as equal.

Images 10 and 11

Finally, this last scene exposes a different kind of emotion that is also related to the subordination of women- loneliness- and another aspect of the relationship between Sofía, Cleo and the Galaxy: the possible existence of emotional identification between women. This means that emotions do not only lead women to subordination but also they can be a tool to some sort of resistance. In image 12 and 13, the viewer observes the Galaxy car again but this time Sofía is driving it and she does not care to about the fact that it is tricky to park it in the garage. She just parks it without any special attention to the car. Therefore, it bumps a couple of times with the walls of the garage. After she steps out of the car, she encounters Cleo and tells her that women are always alone no matter what anyone says. First, the car in this scene is no longer representing the mechanized male presence and the supremacy of reason over emotions as it was in chapter 1. On the contrary, we can observe that the car could still mean for Sofía not the presence but the absence of Antonio. Therefore, bumping the car could be a sort of material punishment for her husband who took care of the car. Symbolically, Sofía has appropriated the car and the function that it had: there is no man anymore that she is waiting for and no man that has to supervise and administrate the work of her and Cleo the household. It is necessary to mention also that in image 11 the soundtrack while Sofía parks the car is completely different than the hegemonic traditional classical music that Antonio was listening to. The song is called “Mi corazón es un gitano” (“My heart is a gipsy”) by Lupita D’alessio, a Mexican singer who released this song in 1971 and was a hit by the time. The song talks about a woman that looks for true real love and when she finds it her heart will finally stop wandering around. On the one hand, the lyrics of the song confirm the idea from Berlant that was mentioned before: love can change a woman’s life and it is very much needed into the heterosexual conventions of the feminine good life (171). In fact, this song could be sustaining this idea about women and their emotional

disposition. Once a woman finds love, her heart can finally rest. On the other hand, this completely different presentation of the same situation (the car in the garage and the music) could be consolidating the presence of women in the household not in an oppressive way but in a positive way. According to Rita Felski, “everyday life has also been hailed as a distinctively female sphere and hence a source of value” (94). The problem with this reading is that none of the women present in the garage seems to feel powerful or enjoying their presence in the household. On the contrary, Sofía informs Cleo about the oppressive destiny that comes with being a woman: loneliness. Once again, emotions are related to the oppression and suffering of women.

Image 12 and 13

If women are so associated with emotions and care, why do they feel alone? How can they feel alone if they are surrounded by the love that comes from marriage and the family? If we compare image 12 with the first scene in which they are waiting for Antonio (image 1), in this one, they do not look as happy as in that one. I believe that feeling alone is one more of the symptoms of being oppressed. According to Simone de Beauvoir, in

The Second Sex, when women think about themselves they cannot imagine existing

without the male presence; they are “ determined and differentiated in relation to the man” (26). In that sense, “He is the Subject, He is the Absolute and She is the Other” (26). Sofía and Cleo, who also had a heterosexual relationship that failed, understand themselves not

as autonomous subjects but as subjects build to please not only men’s desires but somebodies else’s wishes. They do not define themselves positively according to her own wishes in relation to love and happiness but negatively regarding what is expected from them to desire in a patriarchal society. Without the presence of the male Subject to please, they feel alone. Definitely, the hope of image 12 lies in the fact that these women have started to identify between themselves which could be the first step to resistance. Although, as was noted before, there is a power relation between them, there is an acknowledgement in this scene of the shared situation of oppression as women and the need to stop feeling alone and in need without the presence of a male Subject. In the case of Sofía, she just lost her husband and Cleo was humiliated by the father of his stillborn child when she tried to reach him. In a subtle way, Sofía is advising Cleo against the expectations toward women and how they have to please everybody else´s wishes, especially the ones that come from men. If she follows that path too, she is going to feel alone. However, in this scene, it seems to be hope in this constant representation of oppression if women cooperate with each other and acknowledge their particular ways of oppression together. In that sense, I believe that this moment of sharing and female identification could be the start of a kind of resistance that is presented in the movie as a consequence of the alliances between females. This is going to be developed further in chapter 3.

In conclusion, the unique way in which the movie represents the oppression of women can be associated with how feelings lead the decisions and behaviors they have in daily life. First, I suggest that the movie manifests that women are in general more related to emotions while men are associated with reason. In the case of women, this investment on feelings conducts them to fit into certain social norms. Their pursuit of happiness is closely connected to social goods as marriage, having a family and a husband. Furthermore, the emotion of love also enhances the subordination of Cleo as a care worker and of Sofías, like a wife that denies that her marriage is over. Secondly, this last situation can also be understood as dynamic of cruel optimism: she still believes she can save her marriage but ignores that that same marriage is causing her suffering. In the same way, Cleo also seems to want to conserve her job even though it is slaving her. Finally, the movie presents a comparison between the first and the last scene analyzed in which it is noticeable that both women do not understand themselves as subjects yet but the hope of identification between themselves remains.