L. Mulvey is a british feminist film theorist who's essay 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' is a primary text that highlights the gender roles in popular 50s/60s film from the perspective of feminist psychoanalysis.
These are some of the key points taken:
1. Women have traditional roles in the media as being the spectacle of sexual attraction rather than the narrative of the film.
2. The visual presence of a woman in a film tends to work against the development of the story line.
3. In quoting Budd Boettichers point, Mulvey refers to a presence of a heroine in a film as alien and addresses it as a problem. This is supported by her reference to Molly Haskell’s term, ‘buddy movie’ where the narrative can be carried along with the sexual distraction of a female character.
4. Mulvey
establishes that there is a split between spectacle and narrative which
relates to the gender roles of a heterosexual woman and man
respectively.
5. The male figure can not bear the burden of sexual objectification, hence he is responsible for driving the plot forward.
6. Mulvey argues that the male spectator does not look at the male movie star's with a male gaze but rather aligning himself to the actor's ideals, making him feel more complete, perfect and powerful.
R Dyer is an English academic who's book 'Stars' (1979) analyses critics' writing, magazines, advertising and films to explore the significance of stardom and the idea that viewers' experience of a film is heavily influenced by the perception of its star.
These are some of the key points taken:
1. Dyer establishes that L. Mulvey states that the moviegoer is positioned according to the pleasures of the male heterosexual desire.
2. Dyer argues that film continually looks at the male body for objectification.
3. Steve Neale argues that the looks between the male characters are there to divert their erotic potential.
4. Dyer agrees with Neale through his explanation on how male models look away from the spectator in pin up posters to divert the explicit objectification.
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, according to Cohan. He uses them as examples to support his argument against Mulvey.
J Storey is an established professor and writer who has provided scholarly articles on subjects ranging from Management to Sociology. In 'Cultural Theory and Popular Culture', Storey explains the arguments Mulvey states.
These are some of the key points taken:
1. Storey picks out from her essay the definitions related to the male gaze.
2. That the conventions of popular cinema suggest a sealed world unaffected by the spectators gaze.
3. Storey does not offer a analytical view over Mulvey's text. Storey is simply explaining and highlighting the key arguments needed to understand Mulvey's intentions.
In 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' (1975), L. Mulvey states that "the male figure can not bear the burden of sexual objectification" (1975). Dyer argues this point by stating how film continually looks at the male body for objectification. This is supported by Neale's argument stating that "looks between male characters on film are made obviously threatening and aggressive in order to direct their erotic potential" (Masculinity and Spectacle' p. 14). Dyer then continues to further his claim by validating it through Neale's argument, stating "how male pin-ups appear in the image to be looking in ways which suggest they are not an erotic object" Dyer, R. (1998). Not only that, but validates his claim by using Steve Cohan's argument on the actor persona is how they shift the 'reality' of male objectification from the spectators. By breaking down Cohan and Neale's arguments, one can draw parallels from each other. It can be said that Neale's example of how the "erotic potential" of the male actors is drawn away by aggressive emotions can be equivalent to Cohan's statement how the persona of the actor of the film creates a "star profile" masks the attempts of Holden's objectification become a reality for the audience. Therefore the counter argument to Mulvey has been considered by Dyer, and as a result offers multiple examples which bare similarity to the basis of his overarching statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment