After class today, I thought quite a bit about how/why Mulvey came to her specific conclusion. At first, I disagreed with her wholeheartedly. I found her thesis to be shortsighted and close minded. How could all film possibly be depicting a male gaze? I for one refused to believe that the gender of my gaze could change because some theory of Mulvey says so. I am a woman! I am educated! I can gaze however I damn well please!
But what I wasn’t considering was that what I want to watch and what I am actually given are different. Although I did not wish to watch scantily clad women eat huge hamburgers on the hood of a truck, that is the image my eyes are being presented with when my favorite show cuts to commercial. Although I might not like it, commercials and films like this are undoubtedly from a male’s gaze. I’m using commercials because they are the easiest to dissect, but it obviously carries into movies as well. Even action films. Action films with a male lead focus on the man’s physical prowess, but not in a sexual way. Indiana Jones, Gladiator, Taken, ALL war movies… these are all examples of men being badasses, not getting naked so that woman can get their kicks. Obvious male gaze. As far as women action movies go, the trend of male gaze continues. I can’t even count the number of times I have laughed to myself about the impracticality of a heroine’s outfit. Was leather really the best choice here? Stilettos? You would think jumping from rooftops would be easiest in sweatpants and tennis shoes, but not once have I seen a female lead wearing anything other than a zippered bodysuit. And not once have I seen a female who is portrayed as having true physical strength. (Of course not, that would be too masculine!) Instead, she uses her intelligence, or even more often, her sexual prowess. Females cast in action movies are absolutely ridiculous; a specific example that comes to mind is Angelina Jolie in “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.” In one scene, Jolie hoists a rocket launcher up with one hand, aims, and fires, all without any recoil. This would obviously be impossible for her tiny frame, but the filmmakers shoot it anyway, because it’s “sexy.” What isn’t sexy, though, is casting a woman who actually looks like she could kick some ass.
Although I agree with Mulvey to a point, I believe her theory is a bit too blanket. It may be the general rule, but there will always be an exception. The exception that immediately came to my mind is Katniss Everdeen in “The Hunger Games.” Everything about her character fights the stereotypically sexualized female role. Her clothes are baggy. Her breasts are hidden. She wears no makeup. She does not use her sexuality as a weapon. The list goes on and on. The transformation is so extreme, Mulvey might even argue that based on gender roles, Katniss is depicting a male role. This becomes even more interesting when you think about Katniss’ blasé attitude towards Peeta originally, and his pathetic adoration of her in return. Gender inversion? Perhaps. But I suppose that’s a question for another time.
Cassidy DeVore
Meaning and Pleasure2014 