Laura Mulvey theorises that visual pleasure in the mainstream cinema is largely founded upon a male gaze that fetishises the female body and positions the male spectator voyeuristically in relation to the film. To what extent you agree with this hypothesis?

The ‘Male Gaze’ is a term that refers to instances in film, where the audience view a scene through the perspective of a heterosexual man. For example, a scene that focuses on a woman’s curves and these features are accentuated in some way, such as, purposeful camera movements or through the use of slow motion and/or cut-aways. The term was first coined by Laura Mulvey in her article “Visual pleasure and Narrative cinema”.

In this article, Mulvey advocates that the use of the Male Gaze in films, causes women to only be admired for their physical appearance and therefore relegates women to the stature of objects, refusing them human identity. She demonstrates this by using film examples that infer a female’s existence in the film world is only in relation to the male, that she has no real importance, besides how she makes the male feel or act. Mulvey states female characters only serve two roles in a narrative: 1) As an erotic object for the characters within the narrative to view, and 2) As an erotic object for the spectators with the cinema to view. They tend to slow the narrative down; they give men inspiration to act, they are considered passive. Where as male characters push the narrative forwards making events happen, they are seen as active. This can be seen in Star Trek into darkness (2013) Directed by J.J. Abrams. In this scene Carol (depicted by Alice Eve) a weapon specialist is informing Kirk (Chris Pine) that they must make a detour to a near-by planetoid – thus also making a detour from the main narrative. As well as you can see from the image above her intelligence and authority is undermined as the camera gapes at her whilst she is getting changed. It is gratuitous and is merely an exhibition of the actress’s physical attributes, according to Mulvey Carol would serve as both typical roles of a female character.

According to Mulvey the Male Gaze impacts our society creating hegemonic ideologies within it, due to women being presented in the media from the perspective of men and this can lead to women looking at each other as men do – through the male gaze, thus objectifying their own gender. She argues we live in a patriarchal society where men set the rules and creates these ideal visions and roles in which males have dominance over woman. Mulvey is worried that this male representation of reality will be copied by a passive audience and making it a true reality.

The images above are taken from Transformers (2007) Directed by Michael Bay, they depict a scene where Sam (played by Shia LaBeouf) offers Mikaela (Megan Fox) takes a lift home, on the way home his car breaks down, Mikaela gets out to look at the car revealing her dad is a mechanic and has taught her a lot about fixing cars. However, the camera concentrates on Megan’s body rather than the car and how she is fixing it, undermining her practical competence – declining her an active role in the narrative and demoting her to object status. In the end the car starts working again on it’s own, after she decides to just walk home instead. Sam offers her a lift again, she takes it and the narrative continues on the same tracks before the detour of this scene, rendering that whole sequence futile in terms of narrative. Taking this into consideration, along with a behind the scenes interview with casting, that shows they were instructed to find the most attractive 18-year-old to play Mikaela, Sebastian Banks (2013) Megan Fox’s audition for the hit movie transformers". Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLl5uk6q-g8 (Accessed: 19 December 2015). It would suggest the only intention Michael Bay had with this scene is to parade Megan Fox’s physical attributes. I consider this a prime example of where the audience is subjected to the Male Gaze, in this example Bay’s gaze.

Despite this Mulvey’s theory has had a significant impact on the film industry, through bringing awareness to the masses, causing more people in the industry to narrow the gap between male and female leads; and a higher consideration for diverse audiences. This impact can be seen through the Terminator series. In the first film of the series (released 1984) Sarah Connor is depicted as the archetypal damsel in distress, she is fearful, weak and is constantly being saved by Reese, who is represented as strong and knowledgeable and drives the narrative. Later on Reese shows her how to handle a fire arm and eventually she learns to be more independent in time for when Reese dies and she has to fight the terminator all by herself. Although she transitions into a more powerful role by the end of the film, her power was enabled by Reese – a typical active male role. Through this film you can understand Mulvey’s plea. Now looking at Terminator 2: Judgment day (1991) Directed by James Cameron, the film starts out with Sarah Connor in an institution put there by patriarchal authorities such as the police and doctors as they consider her crazy. Early on James Cameron shows the audience that Sarah Connor is strong and independent by depicting her working out in her cell which she has converted into a makeshift gym, this is instantly contrasting from the first film as there is no male character endorsing this. Although Cameron’s intentions may have not been influenced by Mulvey’s movement, I do think it illustrates how the film industry has grown and other instances can be found throughout films particularly around this time and there on. Other examples of strong female leads that come to mind are: Ripley from Alien; Coffy from Coffy; Trinity from Matrix; Carrie from Carrie; and Katniss from The Hunger Games.

Basic instinct (1992) Directed by Paul Verhoeven is a very interesting example that highlights the difficulty when considering Mulvey’s theory. In the film a murder investigation takes place where Sharon Stone’s character, Catherine Tramell, is a suspect in a murder case and is taken in for interrogation, during this she uses her physical attributes to help convince the cops she is not the killer (see images below), one of the investigators is then shown practically drooling. According to Mulvey’s theory, here that Catherine is devalued in this scene to an erotic object as the male interrogators gawp at her sexual nature and perhaps disregard the integrity of what she is saying.

However, I would like to present you with an alternative theory offered up by Gaylyn Studlar in her article “Masochism and the Perverse Pleasure of cinema”, that should be considered when looking at this film and others like it. Studlar argues a spectators viewing pleasure is derived from total submission to the female. She uses masochism to explain that, in films women are portrayed as idealised power figures which are simultaneously comforting and dangerous, so pleasure is not gained by “mastery of the female but submission to her”. Studlar also protests females being a ‘lack’ and instead claims this lack gives women power, explaining they are not the victim of the male gaze but rather the holder of said gaze. According to Studlar then, in this example, Catherine has the interrogators (figuratively) eating out of her hands, from the start she shows power over them, declining their request that she doesn’t smoke in there and then goes on to even turn the investigation on them. This is an example of where women clearly hold the gaze of men.

The power Mulvey has bestowed upon only the male spectator, causes other viewers to be discounted, thus alternative perspectives are neglected in terms of viewing films. Women are undeniably sometimes used for the aesthetic pleasure they bring male viewers, but that doesn’t mean females take no pleasure from viewing. Thus the Male Gaze theory is reductionist as it makes the assumption that all viewers are male and doesn’t consider female or gay spectators; and although there are examples that demonstrate moments in cinema where we see through the eyes of a heterosexual male; it could be argued similar techniques are endorsed by the industry to get heterosexual females to watch action films (an often male attributed genre). Such examples include: Arnold Schwarzenegger being topless for the majority of Rambo and Predator; or every Twilight film there’s a half naked vampire or warewolf. Take the image below for instance, it is a scene in The place beyond the pines (2013) Directed by Derek Cianfrance. Although this isn’t of the action genre, it is still an example of what could be considered ‘The female Gaze’. Ryan Gosling’s character is being incarcerated and has to exchange his clothes for a prison uniform, the shot shown below could have been left out or shot differently as it adds nothing to the story, instead, the camera loiters over Gosling’s muscular body. I’ve used this as an example to demonstrate that Mulvey’s theory perceives Scopophilia as being a male domain, when in actual fact the female viewer is being addressed through the use of all kinds of media, not just film. Although there may be an inequality in the amount of content being presented for men and women to consume, it still shows Mulvey’s theory of the Male Gaze relies on a system that is becoming more and more out dated. Mulvey states women are only used as erotic objects to be gazed upon by other characters or the audience, but my counter argument, which I believe she has not considered, is that actors such as Ryan Gosling are also constantly used as erotic objects in order to make certain films more appealing to wider audience’s; by this I mean stereotypical male genres like gangster and action films. Other films that employ is statuesque physique include: Gangster squad; Fracture; All Good Things; and Only God Forgives. My point here is that through their gender portrayals in films Hollywood sets high standards of what men and women should be and how they should look, it is shallow but at least they do not discriminate between the sexes.

In the book ‘cinema and spectatorship’ another Mulvey-substitute theory is offered by Judith Mayne. In which she even removes gender altogether from the process and states not all viewers are submissive, going on to distinguishing a spectator from a viewer. The former being an active participant interacting with the film’s narrative; and the latter being a passive bystander. Mayne describes two types of people: people who see watching films as a “leisure- time activity” are viewers (passive); and people who have a “passion” for watching films – these are the spectators (active).

As you can see in this essay I have identified and acknowledged how Laura Mulvey’s theory has clearly impacted the film industry, as well as this I have provided evidence of how it is growing increasingly out dated. There will always be examples of where it works but in this modern day there is a higher awareness of the variety of audiences’ mainstream cinema has to account for. Actors and actresses will always be objectified, in the same way that product designers will always sell their product in a pretty package as it increases the consumers appeal; but it’s because Hollywood remains shallow, not sexist. I favour Studlar and Mayne’s theories as they are more holistic approaches; by not putting shackles on spectators’ subjectivity of gender - encouraging viewers to see both male and female characters as having active and powerful roles. Furthermore, this means their theories have practical applications in cinema, changing people’s “conventional” perceptions of women being weak and passive; influencing views of them having equal status-quo with their male counter-parts.