Week 6: Women in film/visual framing (Laura Mulvey)
Blog Post Topic:
"Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema"
by Laura Mulvey
This week we explored the mid-70's writing (shortened version) of Laura Mulvey to follow how women have been a large part of the cinema, but not as characters, exactly. Her main goal was to address the way the female form has been left out of many other analyses. Following this writing wasn't as challenging as I expected, but there were a few new concepts I had to look up like scopophilia (pleasure in looking) and Jacques Lacan's psychoanalysis work, and a few refreshers like Freud's models of phallocentric psychoanalysis. Mulvey started by identifying the imbalance in representation and how women are seen as lacking compared to men. Patriarchal values can be seen in the way women are seen as objects in a man's world. Mulvey goes on to describe how the narcissistic viewing pleasure associated with Lacan's "mirror phase" in childhood has shaped films. Self-awareness and "ideal ego" are all concepts she goes over and attributes to the way men have held control and shaped the first moving pictures to reflect themselves and their perspectives. Mulvey concludes her analysis with a theme she laced well through her review: that women have been the (passive) object to be looked at and viewed, while men are the (active) lookers doing the looking (and most action). She explains how “looking” is a main feature in film and how we as an audience forget about our own “looking” and the camera's, too, in favor of the “looking” from the characters we see within the scene. Overall, this essay did a very thorough and articulate job of explaining how the images of women have always been stolen and utilized for male viewing pleasure.
 |
| Ziegfeld Follies. Film (MGM) 1946 |
I chose an image that seems standard for the time because I noticed a common pattern through the films and also their promotions, that every woman was portrayed strictly as visual content and that was distinctly different from any man in the same frame. As was the case with this poster for the film, “Ziegfeld Follies,” all of the women are portrayed as ornamental decorations and I even feel they are transformed often into a doll-like object. The similarities from film to film during these times seems very apparent to me that the presentations are steeped in patriarchal superiority, as we can see that men do not need to present in fantastic colors or show off for the camera. They stand as they are, sometimes even in professional suit and tie. This all lends to the way men have controlled anything and everything from the way art is made to what the art is about, and much more. Having control of the narrative has been suppressing women for as long as we could create these things, and so the outcome is that of course we see men making the top decisions and directing the shows. Men are framed as the “active” main characters, and women have traditionally been set as side characters at best. I agree with Laura Mulvey and others in class that as women, looking back on the declining traditional film form has a feeling of sentimental regret.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16, no. 3 (September 1, 1975): 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6.
Ziegfeld Follies. Film. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, 1946.
Hello Zee. Nice blog post! I really like the image you chose this week. It is a great reflection on what we discussed during the zoom. When you mention that women need to wear bright colors to be seen, whereas a man can wear a suit and it as seen as a power move, it is so true. Looking back at traditional film can feel regretful, but I am glad there is change happening, even if it is small.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! I was really looking for an image that was both typical and fantastic in a way. I agree that it is great to see change happening! We have to make the difficult steps in growth/healing, even as a society and it really looks like we're trying to do it. (I'm hopeful)
DeleteHi, Zee! This is a great post! Mulvey's writing inspired a lot of creators and critics to reshape the way they create their narratives, and how they view them, respectively. This article was published about 50 years ago and undoubtedly a lot has changed in media since then. Do you still see a lot of these same flaws in more recent productions? Is it better balanced now? Or are there times when it swings in the opposite direction in favor of the female characters? I'm just curious about your thoughts on this. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response! Yes, I agree that things in media, art, and the world have changed since the 70s but I do still see a lot of the same flaws in a large amount of recent media. I believe that the "active" and "passive" roles of masculine and feminine presenting people (respectively) has begun to change over 50 years in what they *must* look like. There are examples, surely, that exist in a visual contrast to that old typical male-dominant narrative, but I feel that they are still deeply defined by the same old tropes and perspectives. "Kill Bill" or "Alien" or even "Terminator" might have very active/aggressive leading actresses, but a lot is still framed either from men in the production or by men in the past setting the environment first. In my opinion, a lot of it still measures up to a standard that was factually and historically created by men. Just like the question "Why are there no great women artists in history?" asks us to consider more that is actually outside of the question, I think a lot of modern shifts in the name of correction must also raise more questions like, "Why did these rules/ideas exist to begin with?" while we address a system's problem that is this big.
DeleteThere is no doubt that suppressing women in favor of empowering men has had a lasting effect on all of (our Western) society. Even the corrections we have seen are from the people (men) in control, and those people never really saw a problem with what they were doing. It makes sense that the changes have been only barely perceptive in visual representation, because that's the very least they could do to look like they were doing something about the "problem" that they never saw as a real problem.
So while I see where you're going with the possibility of some film swinging "in the opposite direction in favor of the female characters" as I watch "Star Wars" and the new "Borderlands," I still think this is all just the beginning of our healing communities because we're still using the same measuring stick and beating an irrelevant point with it instead of addressing why it's so warped and twisted.
I honestly see these "overcorrections" as men trying to make it look harder or even impossible for women to hold a serious place on *their* stage, when we just need to get to work making a whole new kind of stage. (And also they're just poorly produced films) But that's my theory, and it looks to me like most people with the power to change it have not really been trying to balance it at all, because it is just fine for (white) men.
At least there are a few people trying, though!
Hello. I don't see it as though men have controlled everything. Rather, we as a total earth society were in a position where the men handled the majority of the work outside of the home because that work required stronger physical bodies. That led the men to make the outside-the-home decisions. As we have transitioned into a society (and still are) that doesn't need as much of the back breaking work, those roles have become more and more opened up, both in the concept of who does what and in the concept of and that many couples both work outside the home nowadays.
ReplyDeleteIt's my opinion, every part of life affects every other part. So essentially, the butterfly has an opportunity to cause a painting to not get painted or a country to go to war. What does that mean for women as subjects or artists? Well, women having to keep the home meant a particular role vs the shared roles we are working towards today.
Hi Jerrod, I think I'm understanding your response to essentially just disagree with the controlling nature that is inherent in a position of access. I'll ask you, who decided that the men should handle the majority of work outside the home, and why? Yes, women were traditionally expected to take care of a house, (by who?) and the men left the house but I imagine you might not see the way that staying at home limits a person versus leaving the house doesn't. The men leaving have both access to the world and access to the home. Even more, men have a more dominant physical power than a woman who only has the strength and skills they learned at home. There is no limit or deficit with the man's position in your scenario, but there is for the women.
DeleteI don't understand your butterfly reference, but I suppose a butterfly has no choice when a human changes their environment from peaceful painting to violent battles, much like women. This (in my mind) gives more credence to how men have controlled women's environment against women's wishes or without respect to what they think, like a voiceless butterfly.
People who have access to or knowledge of different choices have more power to make them.
Zee, the image you chose is perfect. It shows many women in different stages of overextended pose and placed in this ad, as if snacks on a cupcake plate. Traditional film form is filled with regretful content and images, but hope is in the air. Perhaps the pendulum can swing and stay at the point of, 'balance in power' long enough for it to be the norm rather than the exception. Great writing!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Rebecca! I had similar thoughts about the image when I found it because every woman is so fabulously posed, but the man is definitely not. They really do look like snacks! I agree, hope seems to be in the air and I'm looking forward to seeing more normalizing of authentic women just existing as people. It seems to me that the power isn't located in the pendulum where it swings, but in the clockmaker who placed the gears and set the swing. Thanks again, I appreciate your comment!
Delete