For the last week or so, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about the male gaze and the male spectatorship that films appeal to, especially in the visual sense. During our discussion on Wednesday, we happened upon the idea of the female spectator. I wonder why it is not addressed as often because I think there is a lot to be said on the female perspective. In this blog entry I will discuss ideas of the female spectator through the class texts and Hitchcock’s films.
In Graeme Turner’s Film as Social Practice IV, Chapter 5 outlines Mulvey’s argument that much of mainstream cinema is constructed for the male gaze. The female in the film serves as the object of desire, but the female spectator is unlikely to identify with the voyeurism of the male protagonist. Feminist film theory attempts to revolutionize the acceptance of the dominant male gaze. In trying to model a “female gaze,” Modleski and other critics resist the idea that all women can be generalized to one perspective. This also makes me wonder how all the articles we’ve read can so unrealistically characterize all male viewers to have the same psychoanalytic complex. Subconscious processes do not determine the theoretical female gaze as much as the cultural and historical perspective they’ve gained from being active women in the realm of society. I think that women find pleasure in the nonsexual relationships they form with the characters on screen.
I think its fair to say that the women of Hitchcock’s era identified with the females in Suspicion and Rear Window. The fear of domestic violence is widespread and the women characters in the film are representative of the same fear. Lina’s character responds to the clues of Johnnie’s threats in the same way many of the women in the audience can see themselves reacting. Although they cannot identify with the male gaze of Lina as a spectacle to be looked at, they can connect with her emotionally in a way that the male gaze cannot. Lisa stands as an powerful character who takes the action where Jeffries can not, thereby connecting with the empowering emotions of the female spectators who like to see themselves as doing the same. Hitchcock presents the females as spectacles, but not to the likes of older movies we watched. His films don’t compare to those with Marilyn Monroe who is presently merely as a object of sexual pressure.
Another idea addressed by Turner is the female obsessions with actors and actresses beyond the stories of the films. Moviemakers must appeal to the likes of the female spectatorship because they are the ones who comprise the market of fandom. It seems that in the realm of cinema, the male gaze might dominate the perspectives on screen, but off screen, the cultural effect rings with the female population just the same. The women in the audience don’t need a cut-up male body shots to drool at to find pleasure in a film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Shilpi,
ReplyDeleteI was fascinated by your blog entry! Glad you decided to write about the female gaze, as we've been talking so much about the male gaze in class! :)
When we have been talking about the male spectator we've been focusing mainly on sexual desires, voyeurism, etc. It's a very good point you bring up, that when women of Hitchcock era saw women in these films (like Lena), they would have identified with those women's problems and admired their actions...and I suppose, looks as well? Either way, "nonsexual relationships" as you have so well put.
I also like what you said about females comprising "the market of fandom". I think it's because women are often more liberated in expressing what they like, especially in art form. Sure, both men and women love movies, but from my personal observation most men would feel more comfortable social-wise supporting a baseball player than a beautiful actress. The attraction lasts and stays on screen.
Some great ideas here! :)
This blog entry was quite refreshing, after focus so much on the male gaze. I found it very interesting how you compared Hitchcock's females to that of the Marilyn Monroe figure, for me that was a great way to elucidate the differences in the characters.
ReplyDeleteAnother of one of the great points you make, that I hadn't thought of, "Moviemakers must appeal to the likes of the female spectatorship because they are the ones who comprise the market of fandom" I find a lot of truth to that, males may contribute a little to "the market of fandom" but not nearly as much as females.
Great Job
I really liked how you chose to focus on the female perspective in this post. I think it was really important how you pointed out the ability of female viewers to relate to the female characters from a more understanding perspective rather than looking at them as a spectacle as the "male gaze" requires. In all I enjoyed you post but I think you could have developed your point on how the male perspectives lack homogeneity (not having the "same psychoanalytic complex) in the same way that female perspectives show variety based on differing societal experiences. It was an interesting point, I just think it was left dangling in the second paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad that you brought up the possibility of non-sexual relationships between the spectator and the viewed object.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, but whenever someone starts expanding the conversation to include the female gaze as well as the male gaze, I find myself becoming preoccupied with the queer gaze, even though it doesn't usually occur to me! I guess it's because, even though I am a woman, my relationship with women on screen is not non-sexual, though it does differ wildly from the heterosexual male gaze. But now I have exceeded the scope of your post...
The idea of a female gaze is fascinating and complex, possibly more so than the male gaze because it is often hiding beneath the surface, and I'm glad that you have taken a look at it. It's definitely and idea that I think needs more attention, especially since, as you point out, women often comprise a huge part of the market. These days one could point the cult of personality in tabloids and so on, as you mentioned, but especially in the more formative years of film, between the wars, women often consisted of the majority of the film audience.
I think you're starting to get at a old problem for film studies -- that is what kind of subject/spectator/person is watching the film. Mulvey's psychoanalytic "subject" is not the same as a flesh-in-person viewer and so she expects to get away with making the kind of broad generalizations that you're calling her out on.
ReplyDeleteeloriane: time to take a look at patty white's Uninvited on the lesbian gaze.
Just like everyone else I found this blog entry very refreshing to read. It seems like every film we watch and discussion we have has been about the male gaze and why films are made in such ways to go along with this. I enjoyed reading about a different side of film. You did a great job discussing this and I was impressed how you were able to bring in the films and articles on this topic even though it was not a topic we really discussed at all.
ReplyDeleteRob took the words right out of my mouth, your post was sooo refreshing to read. Your discussion of the female gaze was so interesting and extremely thought-provoking. My favorite passage from your post was: "In trying to model a 'female gaze,' Modleski and other critics resist the idea that all women can be generalized to one perspective." The statement is simple but SO true. I also really enjoyed the point you brought up about females on screen and the nonsexual relationships the they form with other characters. Great post!!
ReplyDelete