The male gaze theory as outlined by Laura Mulvey in her essay ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ is the theory around the objectification and sexualization of women characters in film. This was written in nineteen seventy three and published in nineteen seventy five but the question I am studying is whether this theory is still relevant today in cinema and culture.
The gaze part of the theory is the way the camera is viewing the female character. A great example of this is a scene in Double Indemnity a film noir made in nineteen forty four. Walter Ness the male protagonist meets the ‘Femme Fatale’ (a recurring theme in film noir), Phyliss Dietricson for the first time in a sexually charged scene. Mrs Dietricson appears at the top of the stairs with nothing but a towel on, she is viewed from a low angle subjective shot completely mirroring the view Walter Ness has of her. In this scene the camera is looking through the eyes of Walter Ness and thus giving the audience the male gaze. This shows how relevant the male gaze was in film noir and early cinema. It is also the case that in film noir’s the female character is always the downfall of the man. This is how the expression Femme Fatale came to fruition, Mulvey makes the point in her essay, ”The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation” (L. Mulvey, 1975). I slightly disagree with this point when looking at Film Noir as the female character brings more to the plot than just her visual presence. But it is clear that the downfall of the male character is because of his lust over the female character. Which in turn connotes the way the audience is made to view the female character in this case Phyliss Dietricson and how they also lust over her. This ties in with the Freudian psychoanalytic theory around scopophilia, and the pleasure the audience gets out of using an object of sexual stimulation through sight.
But how does this translate into modern cinema and culture? Firstly, the gaze is not just prohibited to the medium of film. The gaze is prominent throughout the media world. The world of Advertising in the media seems to ooze objectification, and again especially objectification of the female gender. There was an advertising campaign of a product (aftershave/perfume) for men by Calvin Klein, called Obsession. Where the image was Kate Moss completely naked, covering her sexual body parts. No sign, of a Man or the product. This shows that the notion ‘sex sells’ is true. As this objectification of the Model (Kate Moss) to sell the product. It is dangerous to have this level of objectification in the media, as women begin to view themselves as an object. ”Because of the objective portrayal of women in the media and advertisement, some women actually start viewing themselves as objects and start to dissect their appearance to what is the culture’s standard of being attractive”. (G. Miller). It is the case that the way the media has objectified women in the world of advertising, modelling, magazines and newspapers. It has put pressure on young women and the image they are portraying of themselves.
The film industry has changed form the nineteen forties to mid fifties when film noir was prominent. But do we still objectify women in the same way? Films such as Bend it Like Beckham show that progress has been made. A predominantly female cast about a group of football playing women. A film about a sport that has a certain male dominated stigma around it. Another example is Sex in the City, the film and the TV series. Where are female cast, depict sexually active characters and the gaze is tailored at the male characters. For example the infamous shot of a male’s genitalia. But it seems to me that these films paper over the cracks of female objectification in Hollywood. When you look at the current Hollywood female movie stars they tend to have one thing in common. They are all aesthetically pleasing on the eye. It is also the case that the male Hollywood stars are also attractive people. But not on the same scale. It also has to be taken into consideration the number of women in executive positions in the film industry and there aren’t a lot. A newspaper article in the Guardian consisting of interviews with women who work in the film industry like Sarah Gavron (Director of Suffragette), Lexi Watson (Director of Green Street) and Emma Watson (Actor, UN Ambassador) to name just three, all comment on their experiences of sexism in the workplace. ”I have experienced sexism in that I have been directed by male directors 17 times and only twice by women. Of the producers I’ve worked with 13 have been male and only one has been a woman”, a quote from Emma Watson. This backs up my point that the industry is male dominated and this in turn means the films we see are going to be tailored towards the male audience. This is systematic sexism and until more women are in positions of power the male gaze will still be prominent in the film and media industry.
References:
* L. Muvley, (1975). ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen: Oxford Journals, Oxford: New York, 16 (3): 6-18.
* G. Miller.”The Consequences Of The Male Gaze And Sexual Objectification”. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
* Wilder, Billy et al. “Double Indemnity (1944)”. IMDb. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
* the Guardian,. “‘99% Of Women Working In The Film And TV Industries Have Experienced Sexism’”. N.p., 2015. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
felixlaing 