L Mulvey - Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Primary Document, A critical essay on 'the male gaze'. Established British feminist film theorist, professor of film and media studies at Birkbeck University London.
Woman are seen as the spectacle of sexual attraction not the narrative.
Refers to the woman as a heroine as an Alien presence. Supported by 'Buddy Movie' point on homosexual eroticism of the central male figures can cary the story without distraction.
The visual presentation of women in a film works against story line.
J Storey - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture.
1. Agrees with Mulvey
R Dyer - Stars. men and women are both objectified but it is less obvious and the cinema mainly tries to keep away from this.
1. The moviegoer is positioned according to the pleasures of male heterosexual desire. - L Mulvey's point.
2. Dyer argues that the film continually ok at the male body
3. Steve Neale argues that the looks towards the male are there to divert the erotic potential
4. Dyer agrees with Neale through his explanation on how on how male models look away from the spectator.
5. Dyers point on male pin-up models is parallel to Holden/Hal's role in Picnic. How the male models divert their sexuality through their gaze is equivalent to how Holden's acting and anecdotes distract the viewer from the 'reality' of his objectification.
After highlighting the key points views and other important information I have written up this sumary.
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema written by L Mulvey gives an insight into how women are perceived in narrative cinema in this case in 1940 - 1950 Hollywood. L Mulvey introduces us to the theme of the 'male gaze' and the idea that in mainstream films the role of the female within this has no significance but to be displayed as sexual objects. L Mulvey explains woman are seen as the spectacle of sexual attraction not the narrative, 'The presence of women is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line'. L Mulvey described the woman as a heroine as an 'Alien' presence. Supported by 'Buddy Movie', 'homosexual eroticism of the central male figures can carry the story without distraction'.
R Dyer, on the other hand suggests that men are also objectified in cinema, it is the way they are presented in the film that diverts this objectification. In the text R Dyer references Steve Neale 'that looks between male characters on film are made obviously threatening and aggressive in order to divert their erotic potential'. R Dyer explains how male objectification is avoided through cinematic techniques 'male pin-ups appear in the image to be looking in ways which suggest they are not an erotic object. This can involve looking off as if disinterested in the viewer, glancing upwards to appear lost in a higher spiritual form of thinking'. Dyers point on male pin-up models is parallel to Holden/Hal's role in Picnic. How the male models divert their sexuality through their gaze is equivalent to how Holden's acting and anecdotes distract the viewer from the 'reality' of his objectification. 'Holden's star image as 'a red-blooded American boy', his ambivalent attitude to acting and anecdotes about his reckless stunts when showing off to acquaintances are read by Cohan as constructing a star profile which attempts to counteract Holden's objectification and authenticate the 'reality' of his masculinity'.
J Storey's Cultural Theory and Popular Culture gives an explanation of Mulvey's longer essay, offering no real new information to the argument or discussion rather just highlighting the key themes and points. J Storey paraphrases Mulvey 'she suggests that it is always more than just the please of looking: scopophilia involves 'taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling gaze'. The notion of the controlling gaze is crucial to her argument.'
Comparing the thoughts of both R Dyer and L Mulvey both agree that women are objectified through the male gaze using the example of 1940's and 50's Hollywood. 'The presence of women is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line' - L Mulvey. R Dyer's point though is that not just women are subjects of this objectification. Explaining when the male actor in the film Picnic removes his t-shirt the female cast 'each register their erotic recognition of the objectified male body.' However R Dyer does suggest that 'that looks between male characters on film are made obviously threatening and aggressive in order to divert their erotic potential' and 'male pin-ups appear in the image to be looking in ways which suggest they are not an erotic object. This can involve looking off as if disinterested in the viewer, glancing upwards to appear lost in a higher spiritual form of thinking'. In the writings of J Storey's Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, Storey explains 'Visual pleasure and narrative cinema' is perhaps the classic statement on popular film from the perspective of feminist psychoanalysis' outlining that Mulvey's views could be bias. As R Dyer is homosexual this could be seen as similarly bias. Both opinions are written from two contrasting perspectives so may not give the most rounded views. As R Dyer acknowledges the idea that men and woman can be subject to the idea of objectification 'Studlar's account of masochism suggest how the image of the female star can represent a power found in performance which transforms the pleasure anf control of the male gaze' his argument can be seen as more balanced.
No comments:
Post a Comment