Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema
Laura Mulvey explains in her essay “Visual pleasure and narrative cinema” how psychoanalytic theories, like those suggested by Freud, influence the creative process in gender roles, themes, camera movement and angle, and plot choices in traditional cinema. Mulvey also addresses in particular the dimensional discrepancy between male and female presence in acting roles, how their cinematic presence is absolutely necessary but it “tends to work against the story-line” and how women are only allowed a presence on screen for the male satisfaction, reinforcing gendered norms as set through the male gaze.
At the heart of Laura Mulvey’s argument is the concept of “male gaze.” Based on the assumption that classical Hollywood operates within a scopophilic framework, she explains how the perspective of heterosexual men dominates and more so influences film making as well as spectatorship. As mentioned in her essay, Mulvey identifies two contradicting aspects of pleasurable viewing in a conventional cinematic sense, ego and libido. In terms of pleasure, these factors are polar unless attached to an idealization. In this case, the idealization is cinema: “one implies a separation of the erotic identity of the subject from the object on the screen (active scopophilia), the other demands identification of the ego with the object on the screen through the spectator’s fascination with the recognition of his like” (383). In other words, male versus female roles. Because of this perspective, Mulvey argues this as influence to the construction of female characters as passive, objects of desire, and for the male protagonist's pleasure. Therefore, reinforcing traditional gender roles and power dynamics.
Mulvey continues to deconstruct the cinematic role of female actors, connoting it “to-be-looked-at-ness"; being presented as passive, sexualized objects, ultimately only having two jobs on screen which are to please the character and to please the audience. Comparatively, “the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification… made possible [ ] by structuring the film around a main controlling figure with whom the spectator can identify” (Mulvey 384). While women represent an indispensable but ironically counterintuitive-to-the-plot role, men play active roles, meant to “reproduce as accurately as possible the…natural conditions of human perception” in order for viewers to be able to relate.
Something I find worth noting is the psychological premise of Laura Mulvey’s statement and how the mirror phase of a child’s cognitive development is crucial for the constitution of the ego, where visual recognition of themselves overlays misrecognition of ideal superiority, unconsciously shaping how said child will adapt ideas, attitudes, and perception in the future. Cinematically speaking, this concept may identify some roots of an ideal in traditional cinema. The reason I find so much interest in this especially is because of how perspective is shifting and this isn’t necessarily so much the case anymore, sociopolitically that is. We as a society are in a slow but visible process of stepping away from the traditional cinematic framework to something less femininely objectifying, more inclusive, and relatable to the general population. Strong actress led movies like The Help and Hidden Figures may not necessarily have aimed to abolish traditional cinematic structures of visual pleasure, but still did so by maintaining a linear plot with women successfully playing leading roles.
At the heart of Laura Mulvey’s argument is the concept of “male gaze.” Based on the assumption that classical Hollywood operates within a scopophilic framework, she explains how the perspective of heterosexual men dominates and more so influences film making as well as spectatorship. As mentioned in her essay, Mulvey identifies two contradicting aspects of pleasurable viewing in a conventional cinematic sense, ego and libido. In terms of pleasure, these factors are polar unless attached to an idealization. In this case, the idealization is cinema: “one implies a separation of the erotic identity of the subject from the object on the screen (active scopophilia), the other demands identification of the ego with the object on the screen through the spectator’s fascination with the recognition of his like” (383). In other words, male versus female roles. Because of this perspective, Mulvey argues this as influence to the construction of female characters as passive, objects of desire, and for the male protagonist's pleasure. Therefore, reinforcing traditional gender roles and power dynamics.
Mulvey continues to deconstruct the cinematic role of female actors, connoting it “to-be-looked-at-ness"; being presented as passive, sexualized objects, ultimately only having two jobs on screen which are to please the character and to please the audience. Comparatively, “the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification… made possible [ ] by structuring the film around a main controlling figure with whom the spectator can identify” (Mulvey 384). While women represent an indispensable but ironically counterintuitive-to-the-plot role, men play active roles, meant to “reproduce as accurately as possible the…natural conditions of human perception” in order for viewers to be able to relate.
Something I find worth noting is the psychological premise of Laura Mulvey’s statement and how the mirror phase of a child’s cognitive development is crucial for the constitution of the ego, where visual recognition of themselves overlays misrecognition of ideal superiority, unconsciously shaping how said child will adapt ideas, attitudes, and perception in the future. Cinematically speaking, this concept may identify some roots of an ideal in traditional cinema. The reason I find so much interest in this especially is because of how perspective is shifting and this isn’t necessarily so much the case anymore, sociopolitically that is. We as a society are in a slow but visible process of stepping away from the traditional cinematic framework to something less femininely objectifying, more inclusive, and relatable to the general population. Strong actress led movies like The Help and Hidden Figures may not necessarily have aimed to abolish traditional cinematic structures of visual pleasure, but still did so by maintaining a linear plot with women successfully playing leading roles.
Comments
Post a Comment