Many would argue that men rule the world and ultimately dictate society and its beliefs. Since cinema is a reflection of society, it is natural to deduce that films are styled from what Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema called the "male gaze." In her essay, Mulvey employs psychoanalysis to determine the cinematic patterns of fascination that have shaped audiences. She uses psychoanalysis to explain the way in which the patriarchal society we live in influence and translate onto the films we watch.
In the blockbuster romance film, Titanic, we see a classic rich-girl/poor-boy love story that is driven by two opposing male or (male-influenced) forces: "Cal", the rich but controlling fiancé who wants "Rose" as a trophy wife and "Jack", the broke yet loving artist who wants "Rose" to break free of her degrading relationship with "Cal" and start a new life with him. In this film, the audience has to assume that the characters live in a "phallocentric society." According to Mulvey, this means that this is a society that standardizes the acknowledgement of men and their sexuality towards women. And anyone who has seen Titanic knows that for most of the part in the movie "Rose's" body is either being used as a life-size jewelry-decorated Barbie doll by the evil "Cal" or immortalized through "Jack's" male gaze during the famous nude drawing scene. In both cases, despite either character's intentions, they used "Rose's" body for pleasure for themselves.
Notice how neither male character's body is exploited or displayed in the same fashion as the female character. The answer is simple. Because according to Mulvey's "phallocentric society", everything must be geared towards fulfilling and strengthening the male ego and inhibiting any desires of women. That means that men are the dominant gender that controls women and their sexuality, and it does not feed the male ego when a woman is in charge of her own sexuality. Mulvey explains this as a fear through psychoanalysis. Even though the female figure is pleasant to the eye, she is to be controlled because she represents the lack of a phallus - a castration danger.
Both Christian Metz and Laura Mulvey touch on the same subject in their articles: scopohilia. Scopohilia is literally the "love of looking." When related to Hollywood cinema, the term suggests the male figures enjoying the women being gazed upon as objects, not as humans with their own thoughts and opinions. In her article, Mulvey identifies three "looks" that objectifies women. The first is the viewpoint of the male character and how he views the female character, which is usually satisfying to the male. The second is the viewpoint of the audience and how they view the female character. The third look is a combination of the two. The male audience adopts the same perspective as the male character and objectifies the female character as their own personal sex object. For example, when asked their favorite scene in Titanic, many men referenced to the scene where "Jack" draws a nude "Rose" donned in jewelry and being objectified by a man. This is a classic case where the male audience adopted "Jack's" perspective and made "Rose" their object of sexual desire and dominance.
When reading all of these articles, I found all this information to be very sexist and skewed in a way that does not capture all of what society is and what it can be. I am aware that this information is being communicated through a purely psychoanalytic view, but I do think that we do not give men or women enough credit for advances in gender equality. While I do think that in many ways we do live in a patriarchal society, women have made incredible strides with showing women in leading and dominating roles and men in more sensitive and emotional portrayals.
7 comments:
In your discussion of "Titanic" you state, "Notice how neither male character's body is exploited or displayed in the same fashion as the female character." I would like to point out that although not as common, there are definitely films that objectify the male body to some extent (think Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale"). However, the comparison you make between the exploitation of female versus male characters brings up the question for me, why aren't male bodies exploited as often? There are tons of women who would eagerly flock to screens filled with the bodies of chiseled men.
You explain Mulvey well and do a thorough job showing how her ideas are employed in "Titanic". Everyone and their mother has seen "Titanic", so the exploitation and objectification of Rose that does occur is important to analyze, as "Titanic" is such a cultural landmark in society. You hone in on the film's most famous scene (Jack-painting-Rose-nude), and analyze the scene well. Clearly, the racier scenes in film's are often the film's most memorable ones, but what does it say about our society when the most famous scene of the most successful film ever made is of a man painting a nude portrait of a woman?
However, I second Shayna's comment about how men are more and more being exploited as well. I do enjoy how you end your post showing how Mulvey's beliefs are a bit outdated, and that strides have definitely been made for woman in film.
Reading through these blogs, I'm becoming increasingly aware of how pervasive the male gaze is in cinema. It's a bit disquieting, but it's impossible to deny: the female body is very often objectified in film, slow pans up emphasizing and eroticizing the feminine form for the pleasure of the male audience. The example you used was a great one. We see in Jack a person who loves Rose very much. And yet, in the most famous scene of this film, we see him (if unknowingly) making out of her an object of desire as well.
I do, however, agree with your final point, and even in films one wouldn't exactly pin as movies women would enjoy; I know I'm not the only one who held her breath multiple times watching "300" as a number of very attractive men performed feats of athleticism and daring-do. It makes me wonder when the "female gaze" will become a topic of study, if it hasn't already.
I agree with you in that big strides have been made for women in cinema, and as I wrote in response to Keith's blog, the movie Tomb Raider illustrates how a strong female can also attract the male gaze--it doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive dynamic where the female is either the protagonist or just an object.
Mulvey's argument about the commoditization of the female does ring true, yet the overall tone that this is a one-way street is false. Like mentioned multiple times in other blogs, male stars are commodities as well, as seen in 300 and Sex in the City (Samantha's boyfriend/boytoy Smith Jerrod). In classic-style blockbuster Hollywood films, (Mulvey's argument should definitely not be applied to most indie modern films) female leads are objects to be gazed upon by both men and women (we analyze, men sexually feast) yet the men are also Kens, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator or Daniel Craig 007.
Titanic is a great example, because it clearly lends truth to the Mulvey article. Yet I believe that Rose, as an object of the male gaze, is more empowered, the facets of her identity unearthed, than objectified as a character peripheral to any male protagonists.
I agree with your point about the level of gender equality conveyed by the text. As many of the above posters have said, males also seem to have recently been more objectified in film and I think the examples above such as 300 and Bond are very representative of that.
I do feel that the style and level of female objectification has changed over the last few years. Don't you feel like the female persona on screen is now more assertive and stronger in general?
I found your application of Mulvey's psychoanalytic theory to the film "Titanic" to be very provocative. You note that within both Rose's relationship with Cal and her romance with Jack she is displayed through camera angles seemingly bent on conveying her as a sexual object. If Titanic, a film that centers around an epic romance meant to melt the hearts of female viewers, gets away with employing this dynamic of gender inequity, it seems inevitable that all of film is inherently and inextricably bound to this occupancy of the "male gaze".
However, I appreciate your argument that perhaps this concept of objectification as gendered and marginalizing is slightly extreme and possibly now obsolete. I am similarly unconvinced of this arguments relevancy. In my opinion, the exploitation of scopophilia in cinema is no longer gender exclusive. Men enjoy the sexualized visuals of Kate Winslet the same way female viewers are excited by the image of a shirtless Brad Pitt.
However, I do think that Mulvey's discussion of "phallocentric society" retains it relevance with regard to "Titanic", as the film is set in a time period during which these now-antiquated concepts were the entirely dominant ideology.
Post a Comment