Fantasy is the essential component of film representation, and numerous psychoanalytic theories have been used to explore the relevance of multiple meanings as well as the role of subjectivity in designing the film plot. Moreover, it is more than important to investigate the impact of these multiple significations on the way daily practices in families are being embedded into their regular lives. In her text, Walkerdine refers to the relationships between domestic practices and film discourses to investigate how film viewers become the participants of its plot line and how they tend to use the lived relations they view on the screen to interpret the regimes of meanings.
It appears that these representations and their meanings cannot be understood without relating them to the balance of power and oppression. Also, the multiplicity of meanings and incorporating fantasy into the film plot makes it possible to see how the conflict between one’s becoming a subject and one’s resistance to subjectivity creates a new film consciousness. In her argument, Walkerdine for example, suggests that fighting in films does not always represent power, but on the contrary, can also be associated with lived oppression, powerlessness, and fear (195).
In many aspects, and this particularly refers to the aesthetics of high culture, fantasy comes out as a kind of intellectualization that implies that watching Hollywood films is needed to confirm the hope for complete spiritual and mental transformation, as well as to look deeper at the opposite side of the film terror – the side that seeks to rationalize the pleasures of body and valorizes mental labor as creativity genius (Walkerdine 197). Walkerdine’s argument is interesting in a sense that it sheds the light onto the most problematic issues of film signification, as well as its connection to the mental and psychoanalytic shifts which viewers have to undergo. Walkerdine tries to analyze the most problematic aspects of theoretical cinema, and to confirm the need for further profound research. In this context, the question that remains unanswered is how the viewer’s visual dimension works to promote this multiplicity of meanings and subjectivity of film connotations.
For example, Aston and Savona write that in theatrical composition, “the spectator decodes the production, works upon and is worked upon by the visual dimension as an integral aspect of the reception process” (142). Does that mean that in case of cinema, viewers undergo similar changes? And, is it possible that visual dimension in cinema acquires additional psychoanalytical meaning? These questions are yet to be answered, but it is clear that the work of Walkerdine can become the starting point of the far-reaching cinematic analysis of plot representations and meanings.