Film as Pedagogy: Roth, J. (Producer) & Newell, M. (Director). (2003). Mona Lisa Smile [Motion Picture]. USA: Revolution Studios/Columbia Pictures.

by Amani Hamdan

University of Ottawa

As teachers, we acknowledge that “schools are sites of cultural politics organized through modes of semiotic production... thought of in this way, schools are a set of social, textual and visual practices intended to provoke the production of meanings and desire that affect people’s sense of their future identities and possibilities” (Roger, 1992, p. 40). Thus, traditional schools’ ideologies, including those of Wellesley College in Mona Lisa Smile concerning women’s role in society, affect female students’ sense of their future identities and possibilities as well as women teachers’ view of their own role in affecting social change. Knowing the struggle of feminist teachers in literature throughout the past several decades teaches us to appreciate the current state of affairs and prepare strategies for the future. Using films such as Mona Lisa Smile in classrooms in higher education allows for reflection on the role of women in education and the personal cost paid by many women. Though the film is set in a 1950s America, it serves as a particularly powerful text with Arab students in my classes in higher education.

The film opens in the socially conservative setting of the 1950s with the focus on the fictional character Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts), a teacher of art history who relocates from California to work at Wellesley College. The film embraces the ethos of the days in which young women in prestigious schools were prepared to oversee the education of their own children and serve as wives to the elite males rather than pursue careers of their own, no matter how capable they may be in this regard. This is the status quo that Watson challenges by presenting liberal feminist ideas to her art students— ideas that make a strong impression on three in particular. Their stories intertwine with Watson’s eagerness to teach about life and women freedom of choice.

Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), a bright, enthusiastic young woman, is torn between her dream to become a lawyer and the social pressure to marry and have children. When Joan goes to discuss her “C” grade with Watson, the latter asks, “What is your plan after graduating?” “After I graduate, I plan on getting married,” Joan replies. Watson enthusiastically asks, “Just for fun, if you could go to any law school in the country which would it be?” Joan is torn between two options: one is to pursue her dream of becoming a lawyer; the other is to marry and to become a housewife. Today women in various parts of the world are put into these difficult positions and may be pressured to fall in line with cultural norms of feminine hopes and aspirations.

Another character, Betty Warren, a malicious gossip as well as the editorial writer for the school newspaper, appears to be Miss Watson’s greatest opponent. The incompatible views of progressive thought and tradition are reflected in Miss Watson’s and Betty’s tense discussions about what is worthwhile. Betty seems threatened by Miss Watson’s alternative (single woman) life trajectory and her independence.

As illustrated by these conflicts, Miss Watson’s liberal and feminist values and aspiration to “make a difference” are continually challenged by the traditional view of the College’s alumni as well as her students and she is in regular confrontation with the head of the Alumni Association, who happens to be Betty’s mother. Miss Watson’s open, more modern relationship with the Italian teacher is another issue that disturbs her colleagues at the College. Early in the film, Watsons’s progressive views lead the administration to warn her of losing her job, yet, she continues to challenge the status quo. Ultimately, the College administration offers her the opportunity to return to teaching the following year on strict condition that she teaches the syllabus outlined by the staff, agrees to submit her lesson plans for approval, and does not to counsel students on anything other than the subject matter (no personal advice). That is, she is to teach art and not engage in any discussion about feminism or women’s status. In the end, Watson refuses this offer.

While the film mirrors the social conservatism and emerging feminist struggle in 1950s America, it also parallels the struggle of women in some Arab societies in the twentieth century. In my own Saudi culture, women are still told that the main purpose of their education is to prepare for the role of wife and mother and, until recently, girls were taken out of high school to start a family. Therefore, my analysis of (and enthusiasm for) the film may differ from the approach of some of my Western academic colleagues. As an advocate for women’s right of choice in all aspects of life (i.e. marriage, educational attainment, and career), I believe that the film challenges the traditional objectives of women’s education because it explores different possibilities available to women.

Indeed, Miss Watson in Mona Lisa Smile underlines the ways in which American women’s lives were shaped and limited by social structures, and examines the ways in which our attitudes are both a reflection and a reproduction of a society which is dominated by male hegemony. I view the character of Miss Watson as an inspiration; she uses a nuanced teaching method as reminiscent of Kathleen Weiler’s (1988) views of feminist teaching and opposition to power as being counter hegemonic, as articulated in Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class, and Power. Weiler refers to self-conscious analysis and the development of organized practices as key methods of opposing existing hegemonies and of building a new base for societal transformation (p. 90).

The film also reflects Magda Lewis’s (1993) eloquent assessment in Without a Word Teaching Beyond Women’s Silence that “In the academy, those of us who teach from a feminist perspective know that the intense scrutiny of our teaching stands in stark contrast to the review of the teaching of those who instruct from social/political positions that do not challenge the status quo” (p. 147). Indeed, the tension evident between Watson’s teaching philosophy and approach on the one hand and Wellesley’s administration on the other hand exemplifies the tension with those in power and the ethical parameters of teaching. In a similar vein, Ursula Kelly (1997) refers to “disarming femininities”—dominant schooling practices which are implicated in the production of specific forms.

The film offers a unique focus on the teacher’s role in informing young women at a critical point of crossroads. In many ways, this follows the Hollywood stereotype and conventions of presenting teachers as unusually dedicated, able to make connections with students even while unsupported or wavering in confidence. For me, Mona Lisa Smile is a powerful film and one that can be used with Arab students in particular as a way into discussions of women’s roles and the painful choices they have to make.

References

Kelly, U. (1997). Schooling Desire: Literacy, cultural politics, and pedagogy. London and New York: Routledge.

Lewis, M. (1993). Without a Word. Teaching beyond women’s silence. London and New York: Routledge.

Roger, S. (1992). Teaching against the grain: texts for a pedagogy of possibility Toronto: OISE Press.

Weiler, K. (1988). Women Teaching for Change, Gender, Class, and Power. New York: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.