Unearthing the Archives: "Extreme Women" by Iris Rose

Written by Clara Perlmutter

Extreme Women by Iris Rose from Franklin Furnace on Vimeo.

When I saw “Extreme Women” by Iris Rose on Franklin Furnace’s Vimeo, I was immediately drawn in by the title. In a way, I almost identified with the title. I have always been a pretty dramatic woman, and extreme is a synonym for dramatic, no? As I began watching the video, I found that the title was quite descriptive. However, the more I have come to understand the video, the less I have identified with the title.

The writing on screen at the start of the video informed me that the video was comprised of clips of a performance, but the first time I watched the video, I missed the words that flashed in the bottom right corner for the first performance that told me who Rose was portraying. I was somewhat startled when piano music began playing, and a woman in all black began shouting. I didn’t understand what was going on until I heard the line, “God! Politics! The future of Germany!” and began to realize that Rose was acting as a female political figure from Germany. It then became clear that the woman being pictured was jailed for whatever it was she was doing.

For the second performance, I did catch the writing on the screen: “Jayne Mansfield”. Whenever I watch Law & Order: SVU with my mom, I hear all about Jayne Mansfield, who, my mom likes to inform me, was Mariska Hargitay’s mother. I knew enough about her to understand why Rose was portraying her in such an... extreme... way. Rose cooed every line in gold lame pants, an animal printed top that showed oh so much cleavage, heels, a waist-cinching belt, and a blonde wig. It was a little bit hard to keep up with the pace of the clips, but for the most part, I got the jist of what was going on.

The third performance was of Mother Teresa. It was very jarring to see Rose go from Jayne Mansfield to Mother Teresa, but after I got over the shock, I was able to pay attention to the performance. Mother Teresa was more sedate than the other two characters, and her scenes involved more narration than monologues. It was the most straightforward, for sure, and the easiest to keep up with.

When I looked up the video on the Franklin Furnace archive, I got a little more background the first character. Rose is acting as Ulrike Meinhof, “founder of the German terrorist group "Red Army Faction" (popularly known as the Baader-Meinhof Group), whose intellect took her to extremes of political violence”. The description explains that Rose is portraying three very different, very extreme examples of roles that women take on in their lives. This was easy to gather from the video. What was not as easy to gather, though, were Rose’s stances on these different extremes.

The complicated thing about trying to respond to this performance is that what I watched is made up of only short clips. It is possible that the things I picked up on are different from what the artist’s intended to express, as I am only watching brief, out of context clips. I am going to make an effort to make as few assumptions as possible, but this is a difficult task, as I am only working with fragments of a performance.

Before watching “Extreme Women”, I knew nothing about Ulrike Meinhof. In order to write fully process Rose’s portrayal of her, I had to learn more. Naturally, I went to the two people I always ask to explain things to me; my former history teacher, and my mother. Neither of them could be of that much service to me, both giving me vague answers that told me what I already knew. The obvious next step was to hop onto Google and see what I could find. I learned some background information, and a few more relevant details, like that Meinhof used to be a journalist, and that the Red Army Faction was pro-Communist, and anti-Western influence. Oh. And, most importantly, that Meinhof was pro-violence. All in all, I felt as though I had enough information to watch the Ulrike Meinhof piece a bunch more times.

The first clip of the performance talked about teenage Meinhof. She read books, smoked cigarettes, went to college on a scholarship, and was a pacifist. The second clip talks about Ulrike’s views change, and touches upon people who condemn arson and the destruction of property, but don’t condemn things like the war in Vietnam, when human lives matter more than the lives of pieces of property. Rose recites a famous Ulrike Meinhof quote, “Protest is hwen i say I don't agree with this and that. Resistance is when I see to it that this and that don't happen anymore” The video flashes forward to when Meinhof is in an isolated setting at a prison, and how living this type of lifestyle is harmful for the brain.

From my research, I found out that Meinhof was found hanging in her prison cell, dead from an apparent suicide. I also found that the circumstances surrounding her death were kind of suspicious, like maybe the authorities had her killed, and made it look like a suicide. The way the scene ended made it seem like Meinhof was potentially in a state where she might be suicidal, but it also seemed like she could be in a paranoid state, where she thought someone was after her. I thought that was a good way to resolve the unclear end to Meinhof’s life.

In all honesty, I don’t have that much to say on Meinhof. The more I read about her, the more I disliked her. I do believe that she exemplifies the politically radical extreme woman well, but it’s hard for me to get over the whole TERRORISM thing. I don’t think I’d be for terrorism at any point in history, but viewing this video and learning about Meinhof in the post-9/11 world makes me shake my head. She was on the wrong side of history. Period. Bombing innocent people is never cute (not even when it’s done accidentally in a drone strike). Terrorism is simply not how you get a message across. As I began researching Meinhof after watching the performance, I was surprised to find that she was such a negative character. The way she was portrayed made her seem like a revolutionary. I guess she actually was a revolutionary, but not exactly in a good way. I think I wanted to find out that she was a cool, badass female leader who brought about positive change, rather than an organizer of chaos. Generally, when I think of an extremely politically involved, strong woman, I am left feeling good. Thinking about Meinhof makes me feel demoralized, despite the fact that I cannot deny her strength. She had so much potential for good, but I, personally, cannot get behind her cause. She is a very extreme woman.

The Jayne Mansfield performance is the reason why took me so long to write this piece. “Extreme Women” has made me think a lot about how women fit into society. This particular part of the performance has been turned over in my mind for countless hours. The things it has brought up, at times, have left me feeling sick to my stomach. It is the reason why I have nothing remotely funny to say in this piece. If then Meinhof piece makes me feel demoralized, I don’t know what to call how the portrayal of Mansfield makes me feel.

The performance covers many aspects of Mansfield’s life, from her relationships, to motherhood, from her personal struggles, to her career. Rose’s voice and movements and costume are pretty accurate, but they seem to be mocking. That struck me as odd, seeing as the Meinhof section didn’t seem like a joke. The part that stood out to me most, though, was the “Jayne Mansfield” diet clip, that details how she didn’t eat much food, but drank heavily. It was weird to see alcoholism and unhealthy eating habits discussed in such a dramatic way. It seemed satirical to me, which I normally would find funny, but in the context of this performance, I was disturbed.

I consider my mother to be a pretty open-minded person, especially when it comes to feminism. She has always been excellent at adapting to changing times. She raised me to be the same. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve been able to form my own opinions on women and society. Now it is I who educates my mother on things that I learn about on social media or in school. I generally feel good when I teach her something new, and it opens up the floor for interesting conversations. However, recently, I found a topic that we do not see eye to eye on. And the fact that we disagree kills me inside. (I would like to apologize in advance for the topic I’m about to bring up. I’ve turned it over in my mind for days, and I finally decided to go for it. It’s actually kind of an important thing to talk about.) It all started when (I’m really, really sorry) Kim Kardashian posted some sort of nude mirror selfie on Instagram. I don’t remember why, exactly, but many other celebrities came out of the woodwork criticizing her for it. To be clear, I do not keep up with the Kardashians. I have never seen an episode of their show, and do not follow any of their social media accounts. I respect them as businesswomen and whatnot, but I have plenty of issues with them, most of them having to do with the fact that they do not use their huge followings to promote activism and change. It frustrates that they have this gigantic fan base, but don’t use it for good. I understand that they behave in such a useless manner because they want to make money, but it really grosses me out. However, when good old Kimmy K posted that picture, and many people essentially slutshamed her, I was extremely disappointed by the reactions it got. A lot of the people responding to the post were women, ragging on Kim Kardashian for having plastic surgery, or for having existing nudes and an existing sex tape. I found it really upsetting that of all the things that the Kim Kardashian could be judged for, people decided to tear her down for being BODY CONFIDENT. The tweet that pissed me off the most came from Chloe Grace Moretz, who said “...I truly hope you realize how important setting goals are for young women, teaching them we have so much more to offer than just our bodies”. Reading that made my jaw drop. She was trying to turn this into a feminist issue, while she was literally shaming a woman for displaying her body? What?! No comprendo. It’s always tragic when people use “feminism” as a medium for slamming women they don’t like, and it gives feminism such a bad reputation. Anyways, I thought this would lead to an interesting conversation with my mom, so I explained to her the situation. I was completely shocked when she sided against Kim Kardashian (my GOD, what a strange sentence to be writing). I genuinely felt - and still continue to feel - that if Kim Kardashian wants market her sexuality, then she should be able to do it without facing criticism. There are enough people out there who try to stop women from feeling sexually liberated. Why are there feminists who are doing just that? In Kim Kardashian’s case, she has taken control of her body. She is choosing to display it. Because she is in control, shouldn’t it be considered empowering when she posts a nude selfie on Instagram?

In the clips from the performance, the portrayal of Mansfield reminded me of my disagreement with my mother. When I spoke to my mom about the performance, she brought up that I don’t know how in control of her body Jayne Mansfield was. Was a manager (emphasis on “man) pulling the strings? Was she a victim, being objectified? The video didn’t answer any of those questions for me. However, I did get the impression from the satirical nature of the performance that the video was mocking Mansfield for her sex appeal. I don’t know why I was surprised, as it seems like most of the women in my life feel that way about women who use their looks to their advantage, but when I watched the performance, I was blindsided. The video has had me thinking about sex appeal for days on end. Part of my struggle with this is the fact that I’m a young woman. As I get older and become a part of the “real world”, I’m going to have to make a lot of decisions about how I want others to perceive me. Do I want to use my good looks to my advantage? Even if I don’t try to, I know that there will be situations in which I will receive opportunities because I present myself well. Is there a harm in intentionally playing up my appearance to help me out? To some people, I know that sounds horrible, shameful even, but I see it as falling under the category of “charisma”. And a man could do it without being questioned.

I feel a tad bit guilty for this, but I don’t have too much to say about the Mother Teresa performance. What kind of weird, vain creature am I if the section that spoke to me the most was the one about a friggin’ celebrity? I picked JAYNE MANSFIELD over MOTHER TERESA. But here’s the thing. Religion. Makes. Me. Uncomfortable. And “Extreme Women” came out in 1987. Since then, a lot of stuff has been published criticising Mother Theresa, and I have read some of it. When this performance was made, none of it was available, so I completely understand why Mother Teresa was portrayed in such a noble light. I do know she did a lot of good. She is a woman who gave up her life to help people. Mother Teresa is, for sure, an extreme woman. But I also know that she did sketchy stuff like baptizing people who were dying without any consideration of their wishes. Helping people is nice, but I’m weary of it when along with the help comes an attempt to convert someone to a different religion, and when I think of Mother Teresa, I think of colonialism. Sigh. White people.

Viewing “Extreme Women” in 2017 was definitely a weird experience. All three of the examples of extreme women still are pretty extreme, which is likely why this piece was so effective, and why it made me think so much. It would be interesting to choose three modern examples of extreme women to portray. Time has certainly changed ideas, but has it changed people? I’m not so sure, myself. There are enough patterns in history to suggest that it hasn’t. There are certain roles that stay the same, and as soon as someone leaves their role, a new person always steps up to fill it. For instance, there are no slave owners in the United States anymore, but rich, white males still control the economy and political decisions! I think it would be surprisingly easy to find three female characters that would embody the same themes as the ones from the version from 1987. Thirty years has done a lot, but underneath it all, depressing as it is, things have stayed the same.