Fiske and Mulvey

Fiske puts Althusser’s theory of ISAs in terms that mirror Mulvey’s writings on the “male gaze.” Fiske points to media, and more specifically, news reporters as an example of ideologies at work, hailing viewers and identifying them as certain subjects. In his example, the news anchor and reporter both use language that forces viewers to identify as particular subjects – in other words – to identify with a particular view. In this case – the idea that the railroad unions are “threatening” the nation and are mainly to blame for the strike (1271-1272).  I connect this with Mulvey’s idea of how films assume a male audience, and in doing so, make all audience members male subjects, no matter their gender.  As Mulvey explores the elements of film, Fiske takes the same thinking and applies it to wider social structures. Fiske says that the ISAs “all perform similar ideological work” and hail subjects in ways that promote the patriarchy and capitalism (1270).

I am interested in questions of literature as an ISA and how an author plays into it. What ideological or cultural ideas often go unconsciously, on the part of the author, into novels? In other words, how are novels, or literature in general, addressing readers as subjects? This question is better when tailored to a particular text, but it is a question I want consider when reading in the future. A similar but more specific question just for discussion:  Is the “male gaze” at work in written texts? Is that even possible?

“Fiske says that “the norms used to define equality and fairness are those derived from the interests of the white, male, middle classes” (1270).  I think this is seen in the way that equality is talked about; it’s talked about as equality between white, male, middle class and every other race/class.

Using Nudity to Un-Eroticize

In the article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” Laura Mulvey explores how women are objectified in classic Hollywood movies to please the “male gaze” and unfortunately it still is happening today. Watching modern movies, female characters are still being held as tokens for male conquest by becoming sex objects with their bodies on display. Some movies such as Mr. and Mrs. Smith attempt to empower women by giving Angelina Jolie extraordinary skills while retaining feminine sexual appeal attributes. However, those attempts still resulting in trying to pleasure the “male gaze” despite Jolie’s active role instead of passive female in classic Hollywood films: the sultry portrayal of her character sometimes devalues the strength. In Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Angelina Jolie is a skilled and deadly spy agent that is on par with her male counterpart, Bradpitt. However, Jolie is the only one who uses her sexuality during her job. In one of the scenes, Jolie wears a skimpy S&M outfit in disguising her identity to draws information from an enemy. Brad Pitt is never subjected to this type of treatment; instead, he embodies brute force that is typically associated with male characters while Jolie is automatically linked with female sexuality.

Angelina Jolie in Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Female empowerment on screen experimentation may fail even with the best intention, but it provides flexible alternatives    The method a 1995 anime movie called Ghost in the Shell is unconventional, but it effectively un-eroticizing the female body: using nudity. In the opening sequence, the main heroin Mokoto Kusanagi strips naked and displays her full naked glory to the screen. Additionally, throughout the entire film Kusanagi is the only character that exposes her body the most and she is not shy in doing so. Although the amount of nudity can classify the film as a pornographic film, there is nothing sexual about Kusanagi’s action nor is she sexualized in anyway. The camera does not bother to caress her body to sensualize the viewers in the voyeurism experience. Kusanagi’s nudity states are not presented for erotic display of male desires by slowing down the story flow; instead, the presentation of her body is portrayed in a matter-of-fact manner. It is almost as if Ghost in the Shell is challenging its audience maturity in perceiving a naked body. The reason why the film can portray female body in this manner is because it presents human bodies are nothing more but shells to house souls, the film refers to as ghosts, that can be transfer like computer data. The bodies now can be compared to replaceable doll parts, in which are not like the sexualized flesh. In the opening scene where the audience witness Kusanagi’s birth from data into a fleshly cyborgs, accompany by musical scores describing gods descending upon earth. Humanly desires are no longer nessecary, freeing women from objectification structures from cinema. In order to break apart the cinema structure of eroticizing woman portrayal for “male gaze,” Ghost in the Shell presents the body as nothing but physical material that can be replaced once broken. The “fragmented body” the camera uses to objectify the women’s body is countered by this birth scene because it exposes that eroticism is a human convention that is structured by those in control of the camera.

Birth of Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell

Vy

Psychoanalysis and Cinema

We discussed both Laura Mulvey and Vertigo in depth merely a few weeks ago in my Gender and Sexuality class and I thought it might be helpful to share a few key points as they relate to this class, especially as they pertain to the cinema and tying all of that back to Lacan. As Mulvey states, “The cinema satisfies a primordial wish for pleasure looking, but it also goes further, developing scopophilia in its narcissistic aspect.” In her use of cinema she isn’t talking about films in general but about the actual showing of a film in a movie theater. This is because the physical setting of a movie theater allows us to slip out of reality (to lose our unified sense of self, our ego) into a dream-like mental state of infantile fantasy. It does this by essentially recreating a dream state or, to a lesser extent, the mother’s womb. It is dark, we are seated in a state of immobility, we can’t see the machinery producing the images on screen, etc. Some theorists claim that our desire to return to this earlier stage of physical development, before the ego was formed, is why “a night out at the movies” is so immensely satisfying for us (so much so that we are willing to shell out 15$ in many cases.) The cinema is able to reproduce or closely approximate the structure and logic of our unconscious because of this voyeurism that it elicits in us, we feel as if we are producing and controlling the images on screen, similar to dreaming. This causes us to disavow what we know to be true (ie the events on screen aren’t actually happening) in favor of belief. This explains why some people cry during a particularly emotional scene or jump out of their seats during a scary movie. Yet we are never able to fully immerse ourselves in this fantasy presented to us which parallels closely Lacan’s assertion of the inability to access our unconscious desires.

Through the male gaze at women as objects, we lose the concept of ourselves as we attach our identity and point of view with the (in most cases) male protagonist. It could be possible that our identification with this character occurs in a process somewhat mimicking the mirror stage. I don’t think this necessarily applies to Vertigo, but in many cases (at least for men) I think we see the strong male protagonist as a better, more perfect version of ourselves. In class when we watched some of the scenes in Vertigo, not only did we view a ton of close-ups, which emphasize the gaze of the male and to some extent the emotions that we should be feeling, but also many point-of-view shots in which we “became” Scotty; we saw what Scotty saw. This serves to strengthen our already significant identification with the man.

“The Ugly Truth” of the Female Gaze.

Laura Mulvey’s criticism of cinema is simple. She argues, “In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female” (33). In film specifically, the female character becomes the object of the male gaze – that is, she is an “erotic object” for the male character and for the audience.

In class, we discussed how film has changed, and we see women as bearers of the gaze and men as objects more-so than before. In her blog post, Katherine Noonan gave the example of Pacific Rim, where Raleigh is the object of the Gaze. Katherine pointed out that there isn’t a complete reversal of roles because Mako’s looking does not remain unnoticed. Raleigh still has control of the gaze because when he sees Mako looking, he closes the door.

This made me think about other examples in film when the female character is the one watching, and more times than not, the male character is either actively aware of being watched and/or the female character pays some sort of consequence for her looking.

In a gender studies class I took, we talked about The Ugly Truth, specifically the scene in which Abby climbs into a tree to get her cat and then sees her neighbor half naked.

At first, this seems like a complete reversal of Mulvey’s theory. Abby is the voyeur and her neighbor is oblivious to her gaze. Abby’s gaze is also scopophilic.

However, her gaze is short-lived because the branch she is standing on breaks, and she soon becomes the object of the neighbor’s gaze. Essentially, the roles are reversed, and Abby pays a consequence for looking. Furthermore, the neighbor is suddenly the one with power over the situation. Mulvey claims that the male is the representative of power (34), and by the end of this scene, this holds true. Not only is Abby embarrassed by being caught, but her power over the situation is revoked.

Although on the surface it seems that film is progressing to reverse Mulvey’s theory, female characters are still not given the same amount of power to look as male characters. They look, but only with the knowledge and awareness of the male character. If they look without the knowledge of the male character, they soon pay consequences. In today’s movies, males still play an active role in the voyeur/object dynamic.

I can’t say I’m satisfied with this because only on the surface does it seem that film is progressing in the right direction, as Mulvey would like to see it. What today’s films seem to be saying is “Women can look, but their looking can’t go unnoticed.” Male characters cannot remain in a passive role the way Madeleine does in Vertigo.

Laura Mulvey and The Male Gaze

In Laura Mulvey’s essay, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Mulvey utilizes psychoanalysis theory to show how our subconsciousness of society shapes the way we view films. The most interesting thing I found in her essay was the Male Gaze. I have read this actually in two other and I always find something new. But I want to focus on the Male Gaze. Her main argument is that the female of the film is used to provide a pleasurable experience for men. She uses the movie Vertigo as an example of this gaze. In many of the scenes, we are looking through the male’s eyes, which is placed on the woman. We see this in a lot of films, and I don’t think it is something that will go away. For example, in Charlie’s Angels, many scenes are focused on the angels’ rear ends. Oops? Can the Male Gaze also be seen in other medias too? The answer to this is absolutely. For example, in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, there is a scene when Esmeralda is being taken to the gallows. During this scene, Victor Hugo spends an awkwardly amount of time describing her “long black hair….more lustrous than the raven’s wing” or how about her “half-naked shoulders” and “bare legs”. Even though we cannot physically see these things, we are supposed to imagine it in our heads, but from the male’s perspective.

Can this gaze be switched to the female’s perspective? I believe it could be. Take for example the movie Magic Mike. We are seeing the male’s perspective, but from the female view (amazing eye candy, but this is what Mulvey is getting at, no?). Overall, I thought this was a great read and it really enlightened me. Here’s a picture of Magic Mike for your viewing pleasure.

The Male Gaze and Aliens: Sci-Fi and Scopophilia

So I was thinking about Laura Mulvey’s definition of scopophilia on page 30 of her article and how that connects with the male gaze. As we know, scopophilia is the pleasure of looking. Mulvey goes a little into Freud’s comments on scopophilia (which I won’t get into here on account of my overwhelming penis envy), but the basic idea here is that there is a definite pleasure of looking at something or someone that we experience. This could be tied in with sexual desire—as many of the things we look at and enjoy are in some way attractive to us in some sense. That leads me to the male gaze. The male gaze, for our purposes, is the way we as the audience experience a work (a film) through the eyes of a man, whether that be from a male character or in the sense that audiences subscribe to some kind of masculine ideology (kind of like mental penis envy!). So I was thinking about all of this when we were in discussion, and what is it about the female form that is so fascinating to us as a culture? Obviously it’s rooted in sexuality, but my bigger question was what makes the woman so much more susceptible to being sexualized than the man? Again—it seems to be an obvious answer: men are the primary sources of film entertainment, whether that be as the director, the leading actor, producer, or writer. That doesn’t mean women don’t make films, we know they do, but it does mean there’s a clear disruption of power and control in the film industry that leans towards fetishizing women’s bodies and supporting the male gaze. Now, how does this tie into aliens? Let’s take a quick look at some popular Sci-Fi movies and the how females are represented in them.

Let’s start with Splice, arguably one of the strangest Sci-Fi movies about genetic tampering and sexuality to date. For those of you who have been fortunate enough to have never seen this film, Splice tells the tale of two lovers/scientists who do some jacked up things with animal and human DNA to create a hybrid creature named Dren. Dren is categorized as a female in the beginning, and we watch her grow from an adorable little test tube into this winged beauty below.

 

So, Dren (who isn’t an alien but bear with me here), grows to look like a slightly homicidal young girl. That’s explained in the movie by the lady scientist admitting to using her own DNA to create Dren, but it seems to me that was just an excuse to make this unnatural creature seem more natural—and therefore sexual—to the audience. Up to that point, she’s been a curious little scamp who just wants to go out and experience the world. Now here’s when it gets good: Dren matures into what is basically a frisky teen hybrid and ends up “seducing” (according to Wikipedia) the male scientist. He’s been a reluctant father figure to her for the whole movie, and he’s never agreed with raising her and keeping her safe—BUT—he is completely able to have sex with her. The sex scene is, in my opinion, hella weird. But that isn’t the point here—the point is that this weird hybrid non-woman creature was sexualized and we, as the audience, are supposed to accept that because the main male character normalizes this through the male gaze, where he views her as a sexual being and therefore has sex with her. But wait! Eventually, Dren (probably sexed into becoming crazed), kills the man, morphs into a male hybrid, and rapes the lady scientist. So here we have her being slightly docile, even innocent before the sex, then turning homicidal, and finally becoming a male monster. Keep that in mind for later.

Next is the Star Wars franchise, which I’ll assume is popular enough that we don’t have to get into any background for. Here is a story focusing on the adventures of men that has one main female character (Leia) who is seen through the male gaze and sexualized by the two male leads (one of which being her twin brother!). Here is a character that is pivotal to the plot, connected to the main characters, and arguably able to hold her own. Her most notorious look from the films is this:

Leia wore this little number when she was enslaved by Jabba the Hut, accessories include a chain around her neck (not pictured above). What’s important here is to consider how this futuristic film used the male gaze to sexualize the one main female character in such an obvious way. She’s a servant, but she’s not dressed appropriately at all. How is she supposed to go about her duties when her prime lady parts are only being covered by a thin layer of cloth and secured with a gold band? If you think back to the prequels, we got to see Anakin and his family before he became Darth Vader. Anakin was also a slave, and he wore a full outfit—he didn’t even have to show some leg! Even his mother was dressed with some sense, and she’s totally a woman too! But, if that’s not enough to show the male gaze in Sci-Fi, consider the possibilities of alien life. What would aliens look like? Will  they have 100 eyes? Will they be a different color? How many legs would they have? Do they have talons, tails, or tusks? In Star Wars we get this alien:

She is, to me, one of the most recognizable Star Wars female characters. She’s a Jedi, but unlike Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin, or Luke, she doesn’t wear the long, flowing Jedi robes. She wears a (leather?) belly shirt, tight pants, and rocks that midriff. Before I go any further, let me just say that I’m not critiquing what she’s wearing as a “slutty girl” argument. I’m not saying that at all—what I’m saying is that the audience gets to sexualize her and focus on her appearance through the male gaze. Here is an alien Jedi and all we get is a hot girl painted blue?!

My point here is that Mulvey’s critiques still hold true. Scopophilia and the male gaze are interconnected in such a paramount way that sexless, unnatural hybrids and otherworldly aliens somehow become the focus of a sexualized, desire driven gaze.

Yep. I Was Watching Tremors 2 and Thinking About the Male Gaze…

Who doesn’t love sci-fi B-movies about underground, man-eating worms?  And even better – who doesn’t love straight-to-video sequels of sci-fi B-movies about underground, man-eating worms!?  This weekend, I found myself watching Tremors 2:  Aftershocks on AMC amid what appeared to be a Tremors marathon.  If you’re not familiar with the movies, here’s the trailer for the one I’m talking about:

Yes, it’s ridiculous and over-the-top. But the series has developed somewhat of a cult following, and the first one actually received fairly good reviews from critics. The reason being that these movies harken back to the low budget, sci-fi B-movies of the 1950s. They embrace tropes and cliches and have no other purpose than to be monster movies. Considering this, I wasn’t surprised to see the “male gaze” at work in the film.

There’s a very interesting scene I’d like to point to. Earl (the male lead) and Kate (the female lead) are planning how to attack the monster worms.

At one point, Kate bends over to set something on the table, which gives Earl a view of Kate’s, shall we say, derriere…

Which results in this:

But hold fast! (Pun not intended.) This is quickly followed by Earl bending over, and….

“Boom!” I thought, “Tremors 2 undermines the male gaze by objectifying the male lead just like the female lead!”  But that’s not quite right – in fact, it does just the opposite.  This scene is supposed to be funny – and I’ll admit, I laughed.  When Earl gazes upon Kate, it’s not that funny.  The objectification of female characters is the norm – and as a movie that embraces traditions and tropes, it seems totally normal and “at home” in the movie. But when this is followed by Kate gazing upon Earl, it all of the sudden becomes a humorous scene. The movie is saying, “See!  Haha! It’s funny! A woman is checking out a man! LOLZ!”

The humor in this scene corresponds with Mulvey’s idea of the “male gaze” being the norm in classic Hollywood-type films.  The film reverses the “male gaze” to create humor – but in a way that doesn’t undermine it. The film totally buys into the “male gaze” and that is what makes this little role-reversal funny.  We could also add the little detail that Kate turns out to be a former Playboy model – and coincidentally, the one that Earl has had an obsession with for years.  And what do you know! They become a couple in the end! And all the men rejoice!

Not Disagreeing with You, Mulvey, Just Qualifying

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

A Twisted Relationship

This was such an interesting and complicated marriage- feminism and psychoanalytic phallocentrism. I really did not understand how these two literary criticism lenses tied together until Mulvey explained that psychoanalytic perspective could shed light onto the oppressing forces against women (feminist creed). Nice set up. When reading, I was first intrigued by the internal contradiction- the paradoxical relationship of the woman and man. Freud would say that women desire to be men due to penis envy. And Karen Horney is turning in her grave. Yet, Mulvey makes a valid point. Let’s say that women do envy a penis because they lack one. Therefore, they are inferior to man. Yet, without the woman’s ability to bear children, there would not be any penises in the world. Therefore, there is an internal contradiction between the absence of what she envies and her necessity of existence to potentially create a being that has what she envies but can never herself have. So, things get complicated.

Mulvey goes onto explain that, “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning” (29). Let’s dissect this. To review, a signifier is a sound-image- a letter- the label- the carnal nature of the text. The signified is the concept- the unconscious realm- the spirit- transcends text because it is of the mind. Woman, according to Mulvey, is a signifier that labels Man, the signified. By identifying and positioning ourselves in relation to Woman (the signifier), we are implicitly, unconsciously understanding ourselves in relation to Man, according to Lacan’s theory. Therefore, everything, all our identities derived from the signifier are phallocentric and conducive to a perpetuation of a patriarchic society. The unconscious mind is the maker of meaning in psychoanalytic theory (but it is inaccessible, so we can never fully understand meaning). We associate with labels- signifiers- in order to bear meaning or attempt to make advances in understanding meaning.

I was all-good, until I remembered being introduced to Thomson J. Hudson’s theory of the duality of mind. I read something awhile back about the concept that there is a thing called “mental gender.” This theory suggested that every mind has an objective (active, voluntary, and conscious) male component and a subjective (passive, involuntary, and subconscious) female component. And when there is anything involving consciousness, I immediately think Freud and the iceberg and psychoanalysis. If this theory exists, it contradicts Mulvey’s sentiment. The theory of mental gender would suggest that the Woman is the signified. By identifying with Man as a signifier, we are given insight into our relation to the unconscious signified, Woman (or maybe even subconscious- which on a side note, where would subconscious fit into the linguistic sign? In the bar between the signifier and signified?). I guess Mulvey was saying that due to our patriarchal society, men are given the ability to create and construct meaning using women as a label to represent something that is lacking but yet necessary for the production of superior offspring. But, I wonder if this theory could be flipped or read a different way, maybe women understand their relation to Man (a signifier) in a way that limits the extent of their creative power. Or, maybe something can be skewed in the process of identifying with a signifier. Also, saying the Woman is the signifier- the letter (the carnal nature) is interesting in itself. I haven’t read the entire Mulvey piece yet, so this may be way off track, but these are my initial reactions. Would have been cool to tie in Derrida’s perspective to these dualistic theories, but I should stop typing.

-Kaylie Fougerousse

Pleasure within an Image and the Objectivity of Women in Film

In the article Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Laura Mulvey says that pleasure is displayed through the imbalance of the two sexes (female and male). She says that the male is “active” while the female is “passive” (33). This is significant because in the film Vertigo, Alfred Hitchcock displayed Madeleine’s character to be naïve and very passive. How can she fall in love in just a couple of days– this is just a quick example of her naivety and passive character.

I believe this is what makes her character to be projected only for her sex appeal. She is beautiful yet she is naïve in this film and because she has a kind character, she doesn’t have a strong voice. This is what critics think is pleasurable in film: the passivity females have creates an imbalance with both genders, ultimately giving the males power over females. Furthermore, her character is seen as an object for the pleasure of the audience and particularly men. Pleasure is sought from the impact the sexual tension makes. One example is the dominance males have over females in film (the transitional change in appearance between Judy and Madeliene because of a male’s influence). Another example: Mulvey says that body parts are used to display this tension that people want to see on the big screen. For instance, she gives an example In the River of No Return, the camera gives a close up of Marilyn Monroe legs. This directly shows the affect that females have in cinema regarding objectivity.

What really fascinates me is the passive character Judy has! Alfred Hitchcock does a fantastic job displaying passive and active characters in Vertigo. Judy allows Scottie to change how she looks which is powerful. This shows the control/impact the male has on the female in film. Mulvey says that the films “narrative” reflects or “signifies male desire” (33). Below is a clip from the movie which I think demonstrates what Mulvey says in her article on women as an image and the male as a Bearer of the look.