Comparative Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Gender and Power Representation in Pakistani Films Bol And Dukhtar
This paper provides a comparative multimodal discourse analysis of gender and power representation in the Pakistani films Bol (2011) and Dukhtar (2014) exploring how a discourse in the Pakistani socio-cultural context constructs, negotiates, and challenges patriarchal ideologies in the Pakistani films. In Pakistan, gender is strongly intertwined with the power relations, as the gender roles in the male-dominated patriarchal society define the gender relations and regulate the autonomy, mobility, and sexuality of women. The study will utilize the theory of power/knowledge proposed by Foucault (1977) and Kress and van Leeuwen's (2006) Visual Grammar framework to analyze the impact of visual design, camera work, sound, dialogue, narrative sequencing, and symbolism to construct meanings of gender, power, and resistance. The comparative framework identifies how the differences in cinematic stylistic and semiotic decisions between the two films result in the formation of different ideological stances against patriarchy. Based on the purposive sampling of key scenes, the analysis systematically examines representational, interactive and compositional meanings and how each film constructs oppression, victimhood, agency and resistance. The study has a contribution to applied linguistics and film studies in that visual and linguistic resources work together to create ideological meaning in Pakistani cinema.
Keywords: multimodal
discourse analysis; visual grammar; representation; gender; power, Pakistani
cinema; patriarchy
Introduction
The representation
of power and gender in Pakistan is a socially constructed and discursively
sustained phenomenon. The patriarchal norms place women as repositories of
their men’s will as male gender is considered superior and entrusts abusive
power against women. Such ideologies are actively constructed and deliberately
presented on Pakistani cinema through images, narratives, symbols and language.
These are shaping the public opinion. This article uses two Pakistani films as
multimodal discourse that analyzes discursive constructions of society based on
gender and power combining image, sound, dialogue, gesture, and spatial
organization to construct layered ideological meanings rather than merely
narrating events. Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA) provides a particularly
appropriate analytical framework for examining such cinematic texts because it
moves beyond language-centred approaches and foregrounds the interaction of
multiple semiotic resources (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006). By situating gender
and power within a multimodal discourse framework, this study positions cinema
as an active ideological force that can both reproduce and disrupt patriarchal
narratives.
The
purpose of this study is to comparatively examine how gender and power is
discursively constructed, represented and challenged in the Pakistani films Bol
(2011) and Dukhtar (2014) through multimodal resources. The existing
studies largely rely on thematic or sociological readings, neglecting how
language, visuals, and sound jointly construct meanings of gender and power.
Moreover, Bol and Dukhtar have not been comparatively analyzed
through an integrated multimodal framework. This study addresses this gap by
systematically examining how Pakistani cinema negotiates and challenges
patriarchal ideologies of gender and power. This study analyses Bol (2011)
and Dukhtar (2014) as discursive sites of struggle, where gender and
power (male dominance in this case) are constructed, legitimized, questioned,
and resisted through carefully designed multimodal resources. A comparative
focus enables the study to highlight how different cinematic strategies
articulate divergent critiques of patriarchy within the same national context,
thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of honor-based violence in
Pakistani film discourse.
Research Question
How do the
multimodal and linguistic features in Bol and Dukhtar represent
gender and power in relation to the gender-based violence?
Literature Review
The
Pakistani society is mostly patriarchal. It is impossible to conceptualize
gender and power in Pakistan without its socio-cultural framework where
patriarchal values, family organization and community complicity intersect to
shape the bodies and decisions of women as the owners of family honor. Izzat
(honor) and sharam (shame) are also the most highlighted concepts in this
discussion as they serve as moral currencies that govern human behavior
(Shaheed, 1990; Kandiyoti, 1991; Hossain and Welchman, 2005). The independence
of women on topics like marriage, sexuality or movement is often created as a
possible danger to societal stability, and offences actual or imagined are
presented as a contravention of honor that requires punishment (Chesler, 2010).
In
Pakistan, gender roles are distributed at a tender age, which is dictated by
the patriarchal social structures. Girls are taught how to be modest, obedient
and self-sacrificing whereas boys are taught how to be authoritative,
exercising control and protecting family honor (Shaheed, 2010). The idea of 13
patriarchal bargain by Kandiyoti (1988) can be applied directly to this
situation: the women internalize the principles of honor as a survival tactic,
thus replicating the same set of structures that oppress them. The gender and
power spreads through family education, religion, community supervision as well
as folklore, which entails the inculcation of gender and power within the
normal socialization.
The
way honor-based violence is cinematically treated in Pakistan has passed
through a remarkable shift, actually, what implicitly occurred in the previous
commercial cinema has acquired a direct and critical approach in the modern
period (Khan, 2017). In the past, films of mainstream Pakistani cinema tended
to introduce the motifs of family honor (izzat) into the framework of romantic
or melodrama, and the violation of the female characters was often penalized,
although more figuratively. These stories were more inclined to support
traditional patriarchal values that could hardly challenge the logic behind the
honor code itself. Direct violence was frequently regulated by state censorship
and traditional social decency. The emergence of a new generation of Pakistani
films in the 21st century, however, has witnessed film makers addressing the
theme of male dominance and power with more boldness and critical insight than
it has ever been addressed before. The films such as Bol by Shoaib
Mansoor (2011) and Dukhtar by Afia Nathaniel (2014) have become a
landmark in this shift but place the issue at the center of the stories,
instead of in its background. These movies clearly criticize the patriarchal
institutions, such 39 as family, society and religion, on which violence
against women is based and employed in the name of honor. They are a deliberate
attempt of filmmakers to utilize the cinematic feature as a social commentary
and activism (Hashmi, 2015).
Kress
and van Leeuwen (2006) conceptualize the idea, visual grammar offers the
principles of structural analysis of the visual composition of films, which
allows researchers to study how the meaning is coded in the gaze, framing,
salience, perspective, and camera angle. Visual grammar in film allows
researchers to decipher the process in which cinematography, framing, gaze,
salience, camera angle, and composition can lead to meaning-making. In MDA, the
visual and linguistic modes are constitutive, i.e., textual focus can inform
the interpretation of visual representations and vice versa, leading to the
creation of stratified semiotic effects (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006; Bateman
and Schmidt, 2012). They also point out that modes such as language, image, and
sound make social meaning in line with cultural norms. The semiotic resources
such as images, gestures, and linguistic elements are presented as cultural
coded for making meanings (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2001). Combination of these
modes will be especially pertinent to films that touch upon sociocultural
issues like gender and power, in which ideology is coded as a multi-semiotic
code. The systematic approach to decoding these multimodal ensembles is
therefore the analytical interest of MDA, and how the interaction of modes
defines, legitimizes, or disputes social and cultural norms (Machin, 2007;
Gill, 2014). The theoretical basis of MDA is social semiotic that views
meaning-making as a social and cultural activity (Hodge and Kress, 1988; Kress,
2010). In this perspective, any semiotic resources are culturally and
historically determined, and they have certain affordances that can be used to
conduct certain types of communication and restrict others.
The
Pakistani films emphasize on female agency, resistance and narrative transformation.
In contrast to some previous films, in which women were usually passive targets
of fate, Bol and Dukhtar have female protagonists, who are active
enough to act against their oppressive conditions and struggle to achieve
independence and survival. This characterization change is vital because it
offers viewers other ideals of femininity and bravery to overcome the
conventional narrative of female subordination. The movies delve into the
tremendous psychological and physical burden of this resistance and eventually
confirm its potential and need. The portrayal of honor-based violence in the
contemporary Pakistani cinema is commonly coupled with the film commenting on
larger social and political problems, including the inadequate understanding of
Islam, inequality of the classes, and the inefficiency of the legal system of
the state. Bol attributes the exploitation of women in the family to
strict and patriarchal interpretation of Islam, whereas Dukhtar emphasizes
the insecurity of women and children in remote and lawless areas where tribal
traditions are more powerful than the state.
Research Methodology
Research Design
The
study adopts a qualitative, comparative research design to examine how
Pakistani film discourse employs semiotic choices including language, visuals,
sound, framing, and narrative structure to construct, legitimize, and challenge
patriarchal ideologies. The method allows conducting a comparative analysis of Bol
(2011) and Dukhtar (2014) in detail in terms of how they establish
oppression, resistance, and patriarchal power relations. The analysis is based
on Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen (2006), social semiotic framework,
suggested in Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design that offers
means to analyze visual meaning-making in multimedia texts. Moreover, the paper
relies on Foucault theory of power and knowledge (Foucault, 1977) as a critical
theoretical framework to conceptualize how discourses in movies create and
control gendered relationships and power relations in a socio-cultural
environment. This study adopts qualitative research study design using
Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA). MDA extends the scope of discourse studies
beyond language to include other meaning-making resources such as images,
gestures, actions, sound, music, spatial organization, and visual composition
(Kress, 2010).
Data Collection
The
sample for this qualitative study consists of two Pakistani feature films: Bol
(2011) and Dukhtar (2014). Both films were deliberately selected due to
their explicit engagement with gender and power, patriarchy, and female
oppression within Pakistani society. In addition, both films are critically
acclaimed, widely viewed, and frequently cited in academic and public
discussions on gender and social justice in Pakistan. As part of this research
project, a method of visual sampling of films that is based on scenes is
utilized. The primary data consist of still frames from selected scenes,
transcribed dialogues and subtitles. Data are drawn from purposively selected
scenes that foreground domestic conflict, gendered oppression, silence,
emotional confrontation, resistance, and escape. Still frames are extracted
from specific scenes, while dialogues are collected from subtitles and publicly
available scripts. These visual and linguistic elements are analyzed to
interpret how meaning is constructed through camera work, framing, dialogue
delivery, composition, and silence.
Theoretical
Framework
The
theoretical framework for this study integrates two complementary perspectives
Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2017) Grammar of Visual Design, and Michel Foucault's
theory of Power/Knowledge Discourse (Foucault, 1977). Kress and van Leeuwen’s
(2006) framework, grounded in Halliday’s social semiotic theory, proposes that
visual communication operates through three meta functions; (a) Representational
meaning which examines how participants, actions, and events are depicted, (b)
Interactive meaning which explores relationships between participants and
viewers through gaze, distance, and angle, and (c) Compositional meaning which
focuses on information value, salience, framing, color, and layout. In this
study, these three meta functions are systematically applied to selected still
frames and scenes from Bol and Dukhtar to analyze how gender and
power under patriarchal values are visually and linguistically constructed. Whereas,
the theory of power and knowledge by Michel Foucault (Foucault, 1977) looks
into the relationship between knowledge systems and the system of power in the
society. According to Foucault, power is not solely affected by force and
authority but it exists within the discourses that determine what is regarded
as truth, normalcy and legitimacy. Foucault (1980) asserts that knowledge is
constructed by social practices and institutions and these systems of knowledge
in turn reproduce power relations. Power and knowledge, therefore, are mutually
constitutive, that is, they determine the identities, behaviors and the social
roles of people. Gender and power discourses in media and cultural texts, such
as films, are made up of language, visual presentation and narrative forms
where social norms are controlled.
Findings and Discussions
(a) Linguistic
Features Analysis
Along
with the visual semiotics, language in both Bol (2011) and Dukhtar (2014) is a key resource of critical
semiotics to build and negotiate gendered authority, patriarchal authority, and
female resistance. Linguistic features work in tandem with the visual
modalities, and they do support hierarchical relations and emotional appeals,
give cultural context using dialogue, idiomatic expressions, and culturally
encoded speech acts. This analysis will look at the sentence types,
intertextuality, evaluative lexis, metaphor, modality, presupposition,
nominalization, silence and threats and explain how each of these elements is
used to encode power, gender and social norms. These linguistic categories are
presented in Table-1 with regard to contexts, films, and timestamps.
Table 1: Linguistic Features Analysis: Bol vs. Dukhtar.
|
Linguistic
Categories |
Bol (Context
& Code) |
Dukhtar (Context
& Code) |
Gender &
Power Analysis |
|
|
|
1. Imperative
Declarative
Sentences |
Imperative: "Khamosh
raho!" (Silence!). Declarative: "Isay ghar se bahar nahi janay
dain gay." |
Declarative:
"Main zubaan de kar aya hoon." (The promise is a final fact). |
Imperatives function as verbal slaps to enforce female
submissiveness. |
|
|
|
2.
Intertextuality & Moral
Judgment |
Moral Judgment: Using religious "texts" to justify
hating the birth of daughters. |
Intertextuality:
Quoting tribal "Riwayat" (tradition) as a
legal document. |
Men use
"external texts" (God/Tradition)
to validate their personal control. |
||
|
3.
Evaluative Lexis (Gender
Terms) |
Lexis: "Na- mukkammal"
(Incomplete) used for Saifi. |
Lexis: "Bunyaad" (Foundation) used for the daughter's
marriage. |
Language evaluates females/non-binary as "lesser" or
"tools" for peace. |
||
|
4.
Metaphor |
Metaphor: The house as a "Picture Mahal" vs. a prison. |
Metaphor: "Parion ka jhoola"
(1:01:59) for the rainbow. |
Metaphor is a survival tool used by women to mask trauma for
children. |
||
|
5.
Presupposition |
Presupposition:
"Log kya kahen gay?" (Assumes society is always
watching). |
Presupposition:
Assumes a daughter's consent is
unnecessary for tribal peace. |
Presuppositions act as "unwritten laws" that restrict
female mobility. |
||
|
6.
Modality (Deontic &
Epistemic) |
Deontic: "Aap ko marna chahiye tha" (You ought to have
died). |
Epistemic: "Dulat Khan se bachna mushkil hai"
(Certainty of his power). |
Deontic modality is used by Zainab to flip the moral obligation
onto the father. |
||
|
7.
Nominalization |
Noun: "Gunaah" (Sin) as a
fixed label for Zainab’s existence. |
Noun: "Izzat" (Honor) used to turn a child
into a commodity. |
Turning
actions into "Nouns"
makes patriarchal
violence seem like an abstract duty. |
||
|
8.
Silence (Absence of Speech) |
Silence: Saifi’s
inability to
speak back to the father. |
Silence: Allah Rakhi's quietness in the village vs. her voice in the truck. |
Silence is the ultimate sign of Identity Suppression in the
domestic sphere. |
||
|
9.
Threatening Speech Act (Fear Control) |
Threat: "Zuban katwa doon ga."
Followed by physical
slaps. |
Threat: Pursuit by the tribe with guns and warnings. |
Language is used to create a Mood of Terror to prevent
resistance. |
||
The sentences in the two movies reveal dominance and gendered
power. Bol
also
uses imperative sentences to impose obedience and silence. The father dictates,
in the confrontation in the home at 13:08, that the command Khamosh raho! is
imperative and shows the father dominating and requiring obedience. To the
contrary, declarative sentences, as in Dukhtar (14:42), are used to
authoritatively create a binding force by asserting facts. The mother or elders
of the tribe say, Main zubaan de kar aya hoon, putting forth speech as a
culturally approved, unquestionable reality.
Both movies also employ intertextual allusions as a way of
supporting ideological arguments so that patriarchal dominance can be justified
using cultural or religious authority. In Bol, religious allusions are used with great strategy to make the
killing of female births justifiable. Equally, Dukhtar appeals to tribal riwayat to
designate control over gendered behavior. The utterances by tribal elders,
including the one about arranged marriages or ownership of daughters.
Intertextuality then serves the purpose of naturalization of authority, in both
establishing gendered power within the cultural frameworks of legibility, and
limiting female autonomy at the same time.
Hierarchies and expectations on the society are also supported by
lexical choices and metaphorical language. Na-mukkammal (incomplete) is used to
refer to Saifi and other female characters in Bol to create female identity as a lack or inferiority as shown in
11:46. Such evaluative lexis ciphers normative evaluation, making a man the
dominant in the daily language and strengthening internalised ideas of the
female ineptitude. In Dukhtar, such terms as Bunyaad (foundation)
place daughters in the position of social commodity, an object by which the
male authority and tribal honor are achieved as shown in 12:00. Besides the
lexicon, metaphor takes action to express trauma, survivance and social
expectation. The house as a Picture Mahal is metaphorically used in Bol as a domestic
location and a place of patriarchal incarceration as shown in 1:10:43. In Dukhtar the Parion ka
Jhoola (Rainbow Swing) figuratively symbolizes short-lived hope and the
possibility of freedom when faced with a time of need as shown in 19:58. These
metaphors work intermodally, in supplement to visual semiotics, to convey
multiple meanings on oppression and resistance, and constrained society.
The key to the creation of the inevitability and moral right of
patriarchal authority is modality and presupposition. Deontic modality, which
is observed in Bol with such
statements as “Aap ko marna chahiye tha” (33:09) is the obligating deed that takes the locus of judgment on
the female character. These assertions are performative and they require
obedience and institutionalize the ethical standards that reinforce the
dominance of men. Epistemic modality, which is evident in Dukhtar through the use
of such statements like Dulat Khan se bachna mushkil hai (12:10) expresses
certitude concerning the boundaries of female agency, which supports the
irreducibility of patriarchal restraint. Already existing rules in the society
are also encoded in presuppositions. The recurrent emphasis on log kya kahen
gay (16:49) in Bol already assumes that the society is always vigilant and judges the
woman; this is where the fear of social disapproval is instilled into the
subjectivity of women. In Dukhtar, the presumption is that tribal
transactions do not require the consent of the daughter, which shows structural
coercion and emphasizes the invisibility of female desire to discourse
patriarchy. All these language processes have the effect of naturalizing
control and normalizing the limitations against female mobility and autonomy.
Nominalization is an act of abstraction of social and moral
activities that act to convert action into absolute categorical identity. In Bol, Gunaah (sin)
describes the life of Zainab, who turned the moral violation into an
unchangeable type of identity (1:10:43). In Dukhtar, Izzat (honor) turns the daughter
into a symbolic one with the help of which the patriarchal power is played out
(16:15). Silence serves as a means of oppression and means of strategy. The
failure of Saifi to react in Bol indicates imposed inertia in family structures. In Dukhtar,
self-protection and opposition to the men of power is highlighted by the
strategic silence of Allah Rakhi in the process of concealment (26: 47). The
speech acts of threat are persuasive: in Bol the father says, Zuban katwa doon ga (33:09) and goes on to whip
the child, whereas in Dukhtar, the tribe chases mother and
daughter (1:23:42) and serves as an actual and metaphorical coercion.
Collectively these aspects encode gendered power, violence, and survival
tactics whereby there is the intersection of the language and the authority.
(b) Visual
Features Analysis
The
following Table 4.2 is a synthesis of all visual elements, descriptions of
scenes, dialogues, and times that shows how spatial, compositional,
interactive, and audiovisual resources jointly coded gendered authority and
resistance in both movies.
Table 2A
Spatial Representation
|
Feature |
Category |
Bol |
Dukhtar |
|
Spatial
Control |
Physical |
"Isay
ghar se bahar bhi nahi janay dain gay." |
"Darwaza
kholo! Allah Rakhi darwaza kholo!" |
|
Social |
"Zamana
kya kuch kare ga iskay sath..." |
"Main
zubaan de kar aya hoon... kisi aur ko pata nahi hona chahiye." |
|
|
Surveillance |
"Aba ke
atay hi wo ek kamray mein chup jata." (Implicit Surveillance) |
"Ghar
ghar mein talashi ya gaariyon ki talashi ho rahi hai." (Explicit
Surveillance) |
|
|
Gaze |
Demand |
"Main
sirf qaatil hoon, gunaahgaar nahi." |
"Aapki
koi beti hai? Phir aapko kya samajh aayegi?" |
|
Offer |
"Wo
dakhny me to lrka hy. Pr wo lrka ni hy" |
"Buniyad
ke waste tumhari beti ka hath chahiye." |
|
|
Male |
“Hakim looking
at Saifi with hatred/disgust.” |
Ye bro ka
faisla hy. |
|
|
Resistant |
"kaash
main Khuda hoti, me hr mrd sy eak bcha janvati." |
"Kha ly
k ja rhy ho kya kr rhy ho" |
Spatial Control
as a Representation of Patriarchal Authority
Spatial
organization serves as one of the main resources that portray patriarchal
authority in both movies. Physical spatial control is also well illustrated in Bol (13:08) when
the father secures the heavy wooden door, saying, Isay ghar se bahar bhi nahi
janay dain gay as shown in figure 2. The camera remains on the mechanical
locking system, highlighting the process of confining and encoding the locking
mechanism of the father as an appellation of patriarchal control. Likewise, in Dukhtar (20:47) the
visual image is restricted to Allah Rakhi and her daughter in a hut of small
size and dark coloring, made of stone as shown in figure 3. Although the
architectural and geographical settings are different, urban domestic home in Bol and tribal hut
in Dukhtar, both spaces serve as the places of female confinement, which
visually reflect the element of subordination and the factual manipulation of
women movement.
Figure 2
Spatial Control in Bol.
Figure 3
Spatial Control in Dukhtar.
Social
spatial control is achieved by dialogue along with the framing of compositions.
The combination of paternal authority and the burden of social expectations is
presented with the statement of the father in Bol (13:13), when he is directly framed between the dark interior
walls with the phrase: Zamana kya kuch kare ga as shown in figure 4. Equally,
the words, Main zubaan de kar aya hoon, in Dukhtar (14:33) make the speaking into a
social act that binds and at this point the camera is in still position, which
stresses the permanence of the male authority in the cultural norms as shown in
figure 5. These moments show how both space and word play off in order to lock
up patriarchal legitimacy as a relationship between personal control and larger
social forces.
Figure 4
Social regulation in Bol, community-based
control over female behavior.
Figure 5
Social restriction in Dukhtar, secrecy and
controlled communication within patriarchal structures.
Another
form of spatial control is the surveillance. The image of the father is
outlined on the dark background in Bol (16:56), whereas Saifi is more or less obscured in the foreground
as shown in figure 6, which sets a patriarchal order of observation and
highlights the implicit surveillance underlying patriarchal structures.
Conversely, Dukhtar (05:34) speaks of surveillance
directly: Ghar ghar mein talashi ya gaariyon ki talashi ho rahi hai, which
means that the tribal community imposes this surveillance collectively as shown
in figure 7. Collectively, these examples suggest that spatial organization in
both movies is a backdrop and is an agent of control, which strengthens gendered
authorities by providing visual, spatial, and dialogic resources. Table 1 is an
organized overview of all the spatial control features and applicable scene
references and timestamps.
Figure 6
Implicit surveillance in Bol, hidden monitoring
within domestic space.
Figure 7
Explicit surveillance in Dukhtar, search and
inspection practices as mechanisms of control.
The
discussion of spatial strategies shows various options of cinema in portraying
gendered power. Bol employs the domestic interior in expressing patriarchal discipline,
but Dukhtar incorporates
the social and geographic space in representing the power and the potential of
women revolt. The two methods display the dynamics of the visual in negotiation
of gender relations and social conventions.
Gaze and the
Construction of Gendered Authority
Gaze
is a valuable interactive tool of bargaining power, objectification, and
opposition. The demand gaze is manifested in Bol (08:58) when Zainab stares at the camera at the moment of
declaration, when Zainab says, Main sirf qaatil hoon, gunaahgaar nahi as shown
in figure 8. The similitude of the extreme close-up, as well as the frontal
angle, creates a direct contact with the viewer, placing the audience in a
moral witness position of the injustice that is being told. As shown in figure
9, in Dukhtar (37:42), Allah
Rakhi sets a demand gaze at the truck driver when she inquires, Aapki koi beti
hai?. In this case, the direct gaze serves to shift the moral burden making the
male interlocutor, and consequently the audience, responsible to the social
order and ethical conduct.
Figure 8
Demand gaze in Bol, direct engagement that
confronts the viewer.
Figure 9
Demand gaze in Dukhtar, visual confrontation
with authority.
Offer
gaze is also present when a participant is gazing at the other without
returning the gaze, and is basically objectifying the one being gazed at. In
figure 10 midwife looks directly at Saifi (Bol 11:57 which makes him look like an object of medical concern, but
not a subject). Figure 11 shows gaze of the tribal elders towards the daughter
(in Dukhtar) as a
commodity to be married also places her as an object of the negotiations of
patriarchy as a passive object (12:00).
Figure 10
Offer gaze in Bol, the subject as an object of observation.
Figure 11
Offer gaze in Dukhtar, passive representation
within a social exchange.
Dominance
is also strengthened by male gaze. In Bol (11:46), the camera is in harmony with the evaluative gaze of Hakim
on his own newborn infant, camera confirming his judgment and his disgust as
shown in figure 12. The same exclusionary gaze can be seen in Dukhtar (12:26) where
tribal elders are visually reinforcing the male-dominated hierarchical system
of power as shown in figure 13.
Figure 12
Male gaze in Bol, dominance and control over the subject.
Figure 13
Male gaze in Dukhtar, patriarchal authority
within decision-making structures.
Resistant
gaze is expressed in the form of a slight defiance. In Bol (35:22), the
mother does not look at Hakim as shown in figure 14, denying his visual
authority, whereas in Dukhtar (1:23:42), Allah Rakhi does not
stare at people trying to capture her by refusing to comply with their visual
authority as shown in figure 15. Such visual techniques depict power as a
negotiated place of gaze and the interactive metafunctions of vision can encode
compliance, dominance, or resistance as to the patriarchal relations.
Figure 14
Resistant gaze in Bol, defiance against
patriarchal norms.
Figure 15
Resistant gaze in Dukhtar, visual resistance to
imposed authority.
Another
important multimodal resource of building gendered authority and power
relations is gaze. According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) there are two
types of gaze, demand (where the subjects are addressing the viewer directly)
and offer (where the subjects appear as an object of observation). Demand gaze
in Bol works to create
female testimony and moral authority. In the courtroom and media interview
scene, Zainab looks straight into the camera and challenges the audience with
her statement that she is a killer but not a criminal as shown in figure 4.5.
This imagery confronts patriarchy because it places her in an active role of a
subject of speech and not an object. According to Foucault, the scene is an act
of disruption of domineering structures of discourse that traditionally
marginalize women reasserting control and revealing structural violence that is
also present in the home (Foucault, 1977).
At the same time, the male gaze is also exhibited by Bol. The camera is
positioned in line with Hakim perspective in the scene when the Hakim inspects
the new born, furthering male dominance of the female identity and body
control. The demand and offer gaze in the movie portrays the conflict between
patriarchal surveillance and female agency. Gaze in Dukhtar works differently. The contact
between Allah Rakhi and the truck driver is an example of ethical appeal but
not a confrontation as shown in Figure 4.6. Her look is rather sympathetic, and
without his outright disobedience, it pushes against the patriarchal norm. This
method demonstrates the relational aspect of power where the visual interaction
has the ability to affect the social behavior with moral persuasion instead of
coercion. Whereas Bol is founded on confrontational tactics to challenge the structures
of power, Dukhtar
is
founded on the relational tactics of negotiating power to seek attention
through the various cinematic techniques of visualizing gendered power.
Framing, Camera
Angles, and Visual Hierarchies
The use of framing and camera angles also supports the existence of
a hierarchical relationship between the male and female characters. Kress and
van Leeuwen (2006) state that framing determines visual salience and narrative
significance whereas camera angles cipher authority or vulnerability. Low-angle
camera shots are common in Bol which focus on the domination of the father over his daughters as
shown in figure 4.11. Marginalized characters like Saifi are in high-angle
shots, which indicate their inability to act and their susceptibility. The
distorted framing, like the incomplete representation of the body of Saifi, is
an allegory of identity oppression and emotional aftermath of patriarchal
violence as shown in figure 4.10. These aesthetic techniques are in line with
Foucault and hierarchical observation which is a method that leverages
authority through surveillance and normal social practices (Foucault,
1977).
Dukhtar is the film in which the cinematic
accent is changed to landscape framing. Wide shots also often place female
characters in small figures in mountainous landscapes, which at first means
their vulnerability but also shows their strength and bravery against the
dominance of the patriarchy as shown in figure 4.12. Whereas Bol stresses on
close domestic inequality, Dukhtar places gendered warfare in a wider
context of social and geographical scope. This opposition echoes the visual
differences of addressing the dynamics of power: Bol is more concerned with the internalized control in interior spaces,
but Dukhtar preempts the
bargaining of freedom in open spaces, which are both larger and more social.
Table 2B Visual
Composition
|
Feature |
Category |
Bol |
Dukhtar |
|
Framing |
Foreground |
Zainab in the
witness box (dominating frame). |
Allah Rakhi
in the truck mirror (taking space). |
|
Background |
Saifi hidden
in the "Picture Mahal." |
Mother hiding
behind mountain rocks. |
|
|
Fragmented |
"Inhon
ne kapra thoos diya tha mere mun mein." |
Close-up of
the tribal elders' handshakes. |
|
|
Camera
Angle |
Low |
Hakim
standing over his daughters while shouting. |
Torghul
looking down from his seat of power. |
|
High |
Saifi huddled
on the bed after the incident. |
Camera looks
down at jeep from a it look small from mountain. |
|
|
Eye
Level |
Zainab
talking to the TV media reporter. |
Allah Rakhi
talking to the truck driver (Sohail). |
|
|
Frontal |
Zainab facing
the judge directly during the trial. |
Allah Rakhi
facing the camera while running. |
|
|
Oblique |
Tilted frame
during the chaotic family dinner. |
Slanted shots
of the steep, rocky mountain paths. |
|
|
POV |
Subjective |
Saifi
watching the outside world from the roof. |
Child looking
at the blurry road from truck. |
|
Resistance |
Low angle
shot of Zainab looking down at Hakim. |
Wide shot of
mother walking away from tribe. |
Framing
structures the arrangement of the visual sphere, and it brings out salience and
marginalization. Foreground framing is dominating, like in figure 16 Bol (08:43), where
Zainab is in the center of the foreground in the courtroom, and the narrative
power and the sense of morality embody the rule of law. In figure 17 Dukhtar (37:42), the
reflection of Allah Rakhi in the truck mirror takes the foreground and thus it
literally takes control of the narrative space despite being physically
vulnerable. Background framing, in its turn, reduces presence.
Figure 16
Foregrounding in Bol, female testimony as
central within the frame.
Figure 17
Foregrounded identity in Dukhtar,
self-representation through reflective framing.
In Bol (17:01), Saifi
is a tiny character in the grand rooftop and in Dukhtar (26:47), the mother and daughter
are tiny in the shadow of the vast mountains and this shows the frailty of the
characters in the hierarchy of structures and society as shown in Figures 18
and 19 respectively.
Figure 18
Backgrounding in Bol, marginalisation through spatial positioning.
Figure 19
Background framing in Dukhtar, concealment
andvulnerability.
Fragmented
framing isolates certain things in order to communicate power or trauma. The
camera is centered in Bol (1:10:43) as the struggling hands and covered mouth of Saifi are
the only elements seen in figure 20, which symbolically means suppression and
dehumanization of the body. As shown in figure 21, in Dukhtar (11:43), the
camera focuses on the handshake of tribal elders, and transactional male power
is depicted visually, making the female body non-existent. Through these
compositional techniques, it is possible to see that framing may be used to
distort visual attention to encode power relations and hierarchies into the
discourse of the movies.
Figure 20
Fragmented framing in Bol, illustrating
disjointed representation of trauma.
Figure 21
Fragmented visual emphasis in Dukhtar, symbolic
representation of authority.
4.3.4 Point of View and Angle of
Camera:
The
use of camera angles and point of view serves as a way of creating a
hierarchical placement or subjective views. Low-angle shots exaggerate
superiority, e.g., in Bol (13:08), Hakim is larger than his daughters as shown in figure 22,
in Dukhtar (10:56), the
dominance of Torghul is also enhanced as shown in figure 23.
Figure 22
Low-angle shot in Bol, patriarchal dominance
and power.
Figure 23
Low-angle shot in Dukhtar, reinforcing
authority and hierarchical power relations.
On
the other hand, high-angle shots make subjects smaller, thus, revealing
defensiveness; in Bol (1:10:37), Saifi is shown as a small object, which only highlights
his powerlessness, whereas in Dukhtar (12:10) the jeep is the tiny and
unimportant object in the mountain background.
High and low angle shots are crucial cinematographic techniques
that can be used to visually denote power relations and authority,
vulnerability and emotional positioning of characters. High angle shot is
captured above the subject, and the character seems to be small, weak,
vulnerable or powerless in the frame. This angle may induce a sense of
surrender, fear, or a lack of control as the audience sees the character from a
higher perspective. In both Bol and Dukhtar, characters who are female or
marginalized are generally portrayed as socially oppressed and emotionally
fragile, and are often shot at a high angle to emphasize their subdominance to
patriarchy. For instance, when violence happens to Saifi in Bol, he is
portrayed from above, highlighting his state of weakness and victimisation.
A low angle shot, on the other hand, is a shot from a lower angle,
making the character seem larger, dominant, authoritative, and powerful. This
angle raises the subject up, enhances control, superiority and intimidation.
The father figure's use of low angle shots in Bol, in order to assert his
superiority over his daughters, is comparable to that of the tribal elders and
male power figures in Dukhtar, who are also drawn through low angle shots to
portray their social and cultural superiority. The visual grammar model of
Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen posits that camera angles are interactive
meanings which place viewers in an ideographic frame of reference in relation
to characters and power relations. Thus, the difference between the high angle
and the low angle shots in both films creates visually the concepts of
authority, suppression, resistance, and hierarchy of genders in the patriarchal
social structures.
Close-ups
and frontal shots form a feeling of relation equality. In Bol (08:32), the
media interview of Zainab places her in the role of an interlocutor with social
credibility whereas in Dukhtar (51:53) the dialogue between Allah
Rakhi and the truck driver creates a mutual recognition and collaborative
interaction. The angles of oblique (including Bol (23:15) when the family is left in chaotic dinner and Dukhtar (28:40) when
going through the rocky mountain routes) add instability, which is the tension
and uncertainty of gendered and social hierarchies.
Point
of view (POV) shots consist of subjective experiences. The scene on the
rooftops, Bol (17:01), makes
the audience share the point of view of Saifi, which makes it more empathetic
and emphasizes the restriction. The perspective of the child in Dukhtar (31:33) brings
to the mind vulnerability and uncertainty. Resistance POV also expresses
agency: in Bol (1:15:00)
Zainab gazes down at Hakim in a low shot, graphically stating moral
confrontation, and in Dukhtar (22:10) the mother who walks away
out of the tribal settlement, stipulates the independence and tactical evasion.
The use of camera angles, framing, and space creates a multimodal
image of power. The two movies employ these visual aids to render power
relations visible, but their focus on various aspects: domestic and
social-geographical respectively, can provide clues to the functioning of the
patriarchal authority in diverse contexts.
Linguistic
Properties and Ideological Construction
Language in both Bol and Dukhtar, is a critical location of power
relation construction and negotiation. This is proven by multimodal discourse
analysis that shows that the linguistic options (sentence type, modality,
presupposition, intertextuality) interact with the visual structures to support
or undermine the patriarchal ideology. Through the analysis of these language
characteristics together with visual grammar, one may understand the ways in
which gendered hierarchies are constructed linguistically and visually in
accordance with the conceptualization of Kress and van Leeuwen (2006). In
addition, the theory of knowledge and power developed by Foucault (1977) offers
a theoretical point of view by which these linguistic practices may be
interpreted as sources of power generating, circulating, and legitimizing
power.
Table 2C Cinematic
Techniques
|
Feature |
Category |
Bol |
Dukhtar |
|
Lighting |
Low-key |
Dark,
shadowed hallways of the Delhi Gate house. |
Inside the
stone tribal hut at night. |
|
High-key |
The bright,
white light of the TV studio/court. |
The
bright sun hitting the mountain roads. |
|
|
Natural |
Sunlight
coming through the small window crack. |
The
"Rainbow" (Parion ka Jhoola) scene outdoors. |
|
|
Sound |
Diegetic |
The sound of
the heavy door locking (SSC). |
The loud roar
of the truck engine during chase. |
|
Non-diegetic |
Scary, tense
music during Saifi's birth scene. |
Emotional,
hopeful music during the journey. |
|
|
Silence |
Complete silence during Saifi’s trauma scene.
|
Mother
holding her breath while hiding. |
|
|
Intensity |
"KHAYE
KABOOS...!" (Father screaming). |
Soft,
protective whispers to the child. |
|
|
Proximity |
Intimate |
Extreme
Close-up (ECU) of Zainab’s eyes/tears. |
ECU of the
"Khoon ka Daagh" on the clothes. |
|
Close
Personal |
Close-up (CU) of the Mother’s face during prayer. |
Mother and
Zainab hugging tightly. |
|
|
Far
Personal |
Waist-up
shot of the sisters talking in the kitchen. |
Allah Rakhi
talking to the driver outside. |
Lighting, Sound and
Proximity
The
lighting effects, sound, and spatial proximity can be considered the most
important semiotic resources which not only provide the narrative clarity but
also the emotional, psychological, and power-related aspects of the movies.
These aspects of multimodes in collaboration with framing, gaze and spatial
arrangement strengthen or challenge patriarchal authority and present female
vulnerability, agency and resistance.
Both
Bol and Dukhtar use lighting to
encode mood as well as focus on thematic content and visually organize power
relations. The repression, the confinement, and emotional tension are always
marked by low-key lighting. As shown in figure 24 Bol (26:38), the interior of the house is overwhelmed with deep shadows
that conceal the faces of the sisters and create a visual metaphor of the
social and home repression. Equally shown in figure 25, in Dukhtar (14:26), the
hut with candles partly illuminating the mother and child imposes a physical
separation of these characters in the dark area and symbolically depicts the
limitations of patriarchal surveillance. These subdued lighting installations
are not only focused on making the space bright, but it is also a hint of the
psychological effect of oppression, which makes the viewer focus on the
vulnerability of the characters, as well as the power that dominates them.
Figure 24
Low-key lighting in Bol, creating a dark and
oppressive atmosphere around female characters.
Figure 25
Low-key lighting in Dukhtar, emphasizing
isolation and vulnerability in enclosed space.
Exposure, visibility and
moral transparency in the films have been denoted by the use of high key
lighting. In figure 26 Bol (07:49) the scene with the television studio, which is bright and
has numerous sources of light, is contrasted with the dark, stifling rooms of
the house. This illumination indicates a sense of openness and social
investigation in that the light brings to the fore the central character Zainab
to direct her sense of moral and ethical power towards patriarchal
supremacy.
Figure 26
High-key lighting in Bol, exposure, visibility,
and institutional authority.
The
broad, sunlit mountain scenery in figure 27 Dukhtar (56:57) gives the picture a feeling
of expansiveness and possible freedom when the mother and daughter are going
through a physical and social threat, and the idea of being able to escape
being trapped in the world.
Figure 27
High-key lighting in Dukhtar, openness and
spatial freedom in the external environment.
The
natural lighting in figure 28 also enhances realism and authenticity of the
story as in Bol (11:14) when the sunlight pouring through a small, broken window
brings light to the small, sealed-off area occupied by Saifi showing physical
restraint and human resilience. Likewise as shown in figure 29, in Dukhtar (17:46) the
scene of the Parion ka Jhoola brings the mother and daughter to the soft golden
light, which represents hope, strength and the short-lived sense of emotional
bonds in the face of challenges. Taken altogether, all these lighting moments
direct the path of the viewer to follow, shape the emotional moods, and
implicitly introduce the relational power among characters.
Figure 28
Natural lighting in Bol, suggesting limited
hope within constrained domestic space.
Figure 29
Natural lighting in Dukhtar, symbolising warmth
and emotional connection.
Sound,
diegetic and non-diegetic, serves to support the visual encoding of power and
control besides influencing the emotional reaction of the audience. Diegetic
sounds make the viewer feel attached to the space and social surroundings of
characters to make them more real. In Bol (12:43) as shown in figure 30 the metallic sound is heard when the
father clicks the door to lock the house, and this sound reverberates
throughout the space of the house, underlining the physical and psychological
mobility of the father to exercise his control. In Dukhtar (33:42) as shown in figure 31, the
rattling of the engine of the truck when the mother and daughter are escaping
strengthens the sense of urgency and tension, placing the two in physical
danger.
Figure 30
Diegetic sound in Bol, representing control
through environmental auditory cues.
Figure 31
Diegetic sound in Dukhtar, movement and tension
through ambient sound
Background
music and non- diegetic sound enhance the narrative meaning. Tense orchestral
music highlights the unsettled anticipation of the father awaiting son in Bol (10:59), but
the melodic flute accompaniment is used in Dukhtar (27:32) to reinforce the emotive
resonance of the fatherdaughter journey by highlighting the strengths and
optimism. Silence, which is tactfully applied, can enhance emotional and
psychological tension.
The
lack of sound in Bol (1:10:43) seems to contribute to the horror as well as the
immobility that the male authority enforces on Saifi (the sequence of traumas).
The silence in the hiding sequence of the mother in Dukhtar (26:47) brings about suspense and highlights the
tension of avoiding being caught. The sound intensity also introduces the
elements of power: the authoritative and high voice of the father in Bol (33:09)
suggests the dominance and instills fear, whereas the gentle and protective
murmurs of the mother in Dukhtar (1:11:04) evoke the image of
emotional care, subtle power, and opposition, which are contrasting ways of
power performance.
The
combination of lighting, sound, and proximity with the aspects of spatial,
framing, gaze, and camera angle creates a multimodal display of gendered power
relations. The vulnerability and suppression are noted through low-key lights,
diegetic restrictions, and close framing, and the hope, agency, and the
possibility of liberation through high-key lights and natural lights,
non-diegetic music, and distance framing. These visual and sound components,
therefore, act as important semiotic tools, in between the perception and
feeling of the viewer, and as a support mechanism to the ideological frameworks
of the two movies.
The
above-mentioned linguistic strategies are enhanced by the multimodal
interaction with the visual structures. Imperatives, declaratives, and threats
are persistently supported with the camera angle, framing, and gaze. An
example, namely, low-angle shots depicting male characters issuing orders in Bol enhance the
force that is encoded in imperative sentences as shown in figure 5.21. In Dukhtar, it is
literally true that the tiny size of the female characters in expansive
sceneries is reflective of the limitation implied by the declarative utterances
and prescriptive cultures as shown in figure 5.22. The multimodal discourse
analysis will therefore demonstrate the interaction of linguistic and visual
resources, which demonstrate the co-construction of authority and resistance
across modes.
A combination of the visual grammar developed by Kress and van
Leeuwen and the Foucauldian theory would offer a powerful analytic model.
Although the visual grammar is used to define the semiotic resources, which
encode dominance, gaze, and framing, Foucauldian theory describes how those
resources, in turn, are integrated into larger social and discursive regimes of
power. Linguistic and visual modes do not act in isolation but act
synergistically to create ideological effects to influence the perception, social
behavior and the cultural expectations.
Conclusion
This study presents a comparative multimodal discourse analysis of
the Pakistani film: Bol (2011) and Dukhtar (2014) in regard to
how gender and power are mediated, asserted and challenged using visual and
linguistic resources. Even though both films discuss the issue of gender
inequality, they are very different in terms of plot and cinematic techniques,
providing the different insights on patriarchal power and opposition. It is
based on the Visual Grammar and Foucault theory of power/knowledge (Foucault,
1977) to analyze how visual and verbal modes interact to create, maintain, and
challenge gendered power relations.
Bol concentrates on the inner life of a patriarchal family in a closed
domestic space, the lack of space symbolizes the lack of freedom. There is a
primary role of dialogue with authoritative commands like Khamosh raho! (Remain
silent!): strengthening the hegemony of men. These verbal instructions are
visually reinforced with close framing and low-angle shots, which only enhance
the depiction of patriarchal authority. The domestic space is therefore a
disciplinary space, which is formed in the areas of surveillance, control and
mental repression.
Conversely, Dukhtar uses a journey narrative that contextualizes
female resistance in broad geographical contexts. Escape by mother and daughter
is symbolized by the movement over mountainous terrain where long shots and
mountainous landscape underline vulnerability, struggle, and the prospects of
freedom. The film is dominated by silence and visual imagery, unlike the
dialogue-driven form of Bol. The trip is symbolized as the struggle and seeking agency in a
socio-cultural system that is restrictive.
In spite of these stylistic variations, these two films have
constructed and criticized the same ideological framework. Cultural discourse,
language and visual representation are used to maintain the Patriarchal power.
It is supported by religious justification, verbal power and domestic
surveillance in Bol and tribal tradition and social organization in Dukhtar. There are
also, however, scenes of resistance in both films. The testimony of Zainab in Bol breaks the
patriarchal silence by transforming her into an active speaker instead of a
victim and the choice of Allah Rakhi to flee in Dukhtar is a challenge to
tribal determinism and to assert female agency. The theory of power/knowledge
by Foucault (1977) can also be used to explain how these representations are
put to work in regimes of truth. The ideology of patriarchy in both Bol and Dukhtar plays a
dominant role in both movies, which naturalizes the roles of gender to be fixed
and culturally acceptable as seen in the religious overtones of Bol and the tribal
aspect of Dukhtar. Power is
therefore not necessarily exercised through coercion but by the systems of
knowledge and culture that generates what is considered normal, moral, and
acceptable. Both movies can therefore be seen as discursive spaces in which the
ideologies of patriarchism are at once recreated, negotiated and challenged.
In this comparative study, we discuss the ways in which the author
of the paper, Bol (2011), and Dukhtar (2014) approach the issue of gender
inequality using different narrative and visual approaches. Although the
cinematic styles of the two films are different, they portray the patriarchal
authority as a widespread phenomenon according to which gender relationships
are formed, but that also discloses the possible channels of female resistance.
Using the Foucault theory of power/knowledge (Foucault, 1977) as a conceptual
framework, we are able to understand how gendered power is not only recreated,
but also challenged by the use of language, frame of the visual and space.
Bol pays closer
attention to domestic sphere, the household as the main location of patriarchal
oppression. The movie engulfs the viewer in the intra families politics of
dominance of men. A dialogue is the one in question; conflicts, including the
one where the father orders his daughters to stay inside of their house, are
played out in narrowly closed, closed-in household areas. This confinement is
not only a physical limitation; it is a visual metaphor to the disciplinary
power as Foucault (1977) shows. By so doing, the spatial arrangement of the
film is used as a symbolic representation of how female independence is limited
not through the use of outright power but through the constant, internalized
regulation.
References
Adolphs, S., & Carter, R. (2013). Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to
multimodal. Routledge.
Ahmad, S. (2016). Sexualised objects and the embodiment of honour:
Rape in Pakistani films. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 39(2),
386–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2016.1166473
Ali, T. S., Farhan, R., & Ayub, M. (2020). Intimate partner
violence against women in Pakistan: A review of qualitative research.
Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 70(5), 892. https://doi.org/10.5455/JPMA.20759
Amir, M., Khan, R., & Tahir, M. (2025). Human rights and honor
killings in Pakistan: A critical and analytical assessment of legal frameworks
and international law. Social Science Review
Archives, 3(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.70670/sra.v3i3.835
Baldry, A. P., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal
transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook. Equinox.
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Text and image: A critical introduction to the
visual/verbal divide. Routledge.
Branigan,
E. (1992). Narrative
comprehension and film. Routledge.
Bateman, J. A., & Schmidt, K. H. (2012). Multimodal Film
Analysis. Routledge, London/ New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203128220
Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., & Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality:
Foundations, research and analysis – A problem-oriented introduction. De Gruyter
Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110479898
British Sociological Association. (2017). Ethics
guidelines and collated resources for digital research. British
Sociological Association.
Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on
disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and
Information Technology, 4(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021316409277
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the
prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published
1975)
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and
other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books.
Gill, A. (2009). Honor killings and the quest for justice in black
and minority ethnic communities in the United Kingdom. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 20(4), 475–494. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0887403408329604
Gill, A. K., Begikhani, N., & Hague, G. (Eds.). (2012). Honour,
killing and violence: Theory, policy and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gorar, M. (2021). Honour-based crimes and the law: Defining the
limits of honour-based violence and abuse. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003166207
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Cultural
representations and signifying practices. SAGE Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social
interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Polity
Press.
Jatoi, B. (2016). The Punjab Protection of Women Against Violence
Act 2016: A critique.
Jewitt, C.,
Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge.
Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender &
Society,
2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
Kathrada, S. (2014). Patriarchy, culture and violence against women.
GRIN
Publishing.
Khan, A. (2024).
‘Honour’ Killings in Pakistan: Judicial and Legal Treatment of
the Crime: A Feminist Perspective. LUMS Law Journal, 74-104.
Retrieved: https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/sites/default/files/2024-05/%E2%80%98Honour%E2%80%99%20Killings%20in%20Pakistan%20Judicial%20and%20Legal%20Treatment%20of%20the%20Crime%20A%20Feminist%20Perspective.pdf
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to
contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images:
The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2021). Reading images:
The grammar of visual design. Routledge.
Machin, D. (2016). Visual communication. De Gruyter
Mouton.
Machin, D. (2021). Language and power in the media. Bloomsbury.
Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis.
Hodder Arnold.
Academic. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2016). How to do
critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research:
Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0).
Association of Internet Researchers.
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen,
16(3), pp. 06–18.
https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6
Naseem, F., Khawaja, A. S., & Choudhry, I. A. (2019). Reasons
and Victims of Honour Killing in Pakistan. Journal of Political Studies, 26(2), 111-126
Nasrullah, M., Haqqi, S., & Cummings, K. J. (2009).
Epidemiological Patterns of Honour Killing of Women in Pakistan. European Journal
of Public Health, 19(2), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp021
O’Halloran, K.
L. (2011). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. The
Bloomsbury Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 249–266.
O’Toole, M.
(1994). The language of displayed art. Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press.
Pink, S. (2015). Doing Visual Ethnography (3rd ed.).
Sage.
Salhi, Z. S. (2013). Gender and Violence in Islamic Societies. I.B. Tauris.
Shaheed, F. (1986). The Cultural Articulation of Patriarchy. South Asia
Bulletin,
6(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1215/07323867-6-1-38
Shaheed, F. (2011). Gender and Citizenship in the Information Society:
A Perspective from Pakistan. Think Piece. https://www.gender-iscitizenship.net/sites/default/files/citigen/Farida_TP_23Sep2011.p
df
Shahzadi, A. I. (2015). Feminist representation in Pakistani
cinema. New
Media and Mass Communication, 43, 17–30. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/NMMC/article/downlo
ad/27228/27911
Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (2014). Unthinking Eurocentrism. Routledge.
Suhail, K. (2024). Rape and Culture of Silence in Pakistan. Journal of
Gender & Social Issues, 23(1).
Tan, S.,
O’Halloran, K. L., & Wignell, P. (2020). Multimodality. The Handbook of Discourse Studies, 263–281. Cambridge University Press.
Tasker, Y. (2015). The Hollywood Action and Adventure Film. Wiley.
Mustafa, A.,
& Munir, M. (2024). Pakistan’s National Commission for Human
Rights and UN mechanisms. Pakistan Journal of Law, Analysis & Wisdom, 3, 210. https://pjlaw.com.pk/index.php/Journal/article/view/v3i7-210-225
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice. Oxford
University Press.
Welchman, L., & Hossain, S. (Eds.). (2005). Honour: Crimes,
paradigms and violence against women. Spinifex Press.
Wiles, R. (2013). What Are qualitative research ethics? Bloomsbury
Academic.
Welchman, L., & Hossain, S. (Eds.). (2005). 'Honour':
Crimes, paradigms, and violence against women. Zed Books.