Film analysis essay

t~di~ubtly through ;pHdt dialog. Thus, f of the conservat­ so possible to read 'so

makes you masculine or ; "properly" masculine or

'se more recent examples do they ever make a case

Jexamples from your own

t Film Criticism. Minneapolis:

ader. Philadelphia: Temple

the Woman's Film. London:

ton, 1974.

1994, 5'>.1989. ream, New York: Coward,

10.

Chapter Eleven Explo0lg the Vis~al Parameters of Women In Film

The last chapter explored the role of women in early American filmmaking, and surveyed the types of roles and storylines that were available to women during Hollywood's classical period. That chapter fOCllsed primarily on issues of literary design, but it also touched upon other formal axes (such as lighting, setting, and props) that contribute to the overall cinematic representation of women in Hollywood film. This chapter continues to examine issues of film form and focuses more directly on how women were specifically filmed and edited in Hollyw'ood movies - how their bodies were presented to the camera and thus to the spectator. In so doing, this chapter will address the differences in the ways mainstream Hollywood films have photographed women and men. Furthermore, many of these basic issues regarding the cinematic representation of gender can be modified and adapted into tools with which we might also investigate the cinematic representation of race and sexuality. The theoretical models and concepts discllssed below have thus had enormous impact on how issues of social difference are understood within film studies. What follows is an introduction to (and to some degree a necessaty simplification of) S0111.e of those concepts, as well as a con­ sideration of how those same theories may be inadequate or in need of more complex forrnulations.

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

Ways of Seeing

Throughout the 1960s, a growing number of people (both women and men) began to question, critique, and rebel against the traditional concepts of womanhood that had pervaded American society in previous decades. By the end of the 1960s, women's liberation had joined the crowd of political movements aimed at over­ turning the white heterosexual male -power structure. Feminist concepts began to affect various academic disciplines. For example, historians began to research for the first time in any consistent way the role of women in history and how concepts of femininity have changed over the years. Feminist researchers in the humanities began to reclaim female authors and artists, while feminist scientists criticized and explored sexist concepts ,\'ithin their disciplines. Feminism also profoundly affected the fledgling academic area of film studies. Building upon concepts of cinema as a product and conduit of ideology, film scholars began to examine how films replicated and disseminated patriarchal concepts, helping to maintain a sexist status quo. (As should be obvious, this book con tinues in tllis critical tradition. )

Two very important works were published in the early 1970s that shifted the focus of feminist film analysis away from content ~ what women could and did do within classical Hollywood stories - to the ways and means that Hollywood form repre­"­ seilts 'vornen regardless of their storylines. These two works differ in their specific subject matter, but contain strong parallels that help reinf01'ce each other's arguments. The first to appear was John Berger's Ways of Seeing, a survey of visual culture that attempted to map out the ways that Western society literally teaches individuals "how to look" at the world. Berger does this by examining billboards, magazine ads, photographs, and paintings. His book explores how visual culture keeps capitalism stabilized, and how it can promote national pride. In a highly intlu­ ential section, Berger also analyzed the history of female portraiture in 'Western painting. Complete with numerous reproductions of actual paintings, Ways of Seeing points out a tradition of representing women as properties that belong- to men. In earlier periods, of course, women were considered men's property - often handed over from father to husband-to-be as part of a business transaction. These paintings thus often pictured women as part of the "goods" that belonged to a wealthy male, and the paintings them,selves were usually cornmissi0l1cd by men as symbols of their ma terial wealth.

Hence, Berger concludes tIla L these paintings do not portray Women realistic­ ally, as complex and individualistic human beings. Rather, the paintings trans­ form actual women into objects, devoid of individual will or subjectivity. This process, whether it occurs in portraiture, advertising, or the cinema, is called objectification. A strong support for this argument can be found in the tradition of painting Ilude female subjects with their eyes turned away from the painter. By not looking hack directh', the women in the paintings deny their oWn agency and grant all the "power of the gaze" to the male painter and the man who

230 -,~-,-~",~,~--~._' -'~-"~-"'~-'~-"--'----'-

I­ t

II

t

l tl 11

n SI

1:1

c

b o L, I"

CI

en and men) began )ts of womanhood e end of the 1960s, ~nts aimed at over­ t concepts began to ~gan to research for y and how concepts 's in the humanities scientists cri tidzed

5m also profoundly ~ upon concepts of ; began to examine helping to maintain nues in this critical

that shifted the focus Id and did do withil1 lywood form repre~ iffer in their specific nforce each other's 'lg, a survey of visual :iety literally teaches xamining billboards, s how visual culture ide. In a highly influ" .rtraiture in Western 1 paintings, Ways of ~rties that belong·· to en's property - often 'ss trar1saction. These belonged to a wealthy ,d by men as symbols

:ray women realistic­ the paintings trans~ or subjectivi ty. This

:he cinema, is calleel ound in the tradition Tal' from the painter. my their own agency 'r and the man vvbo

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

commissioned the painting. The females represented on the canvas have no control; rather they are on display for the male's enjoyment. Importantly, Berger implicates the style of Western painting in this discussion. During the EuropeaI1 Renaissance, painters developed the quattrocento style, which created a sense of perspective and three-dimensionality. The use of quattrocento style constructs a viewing position for whoever gazes at the painting, organizing the world represented on the canvas ( y for that one viewpoint. In other words, the viewer becomes the implied center ) of the wodd constructed in the painting. When portraits of women are painted in the quattrocento style, then, the implied male viewer (whether it is the man who actually commissioned the painting or any other man who looks at it) is structured -' as its center, as the dominant and empowered figure, and thus reinforces patri­ archal hegemony.

Berger's work points out that such objectiflcation of women has had a long history. The fundamental concepts that governed female portraiture in earlier cen­ turies can be found in various areas of the maSS media today. Because patriarchal capitalism is still the dominant ideology 0 f the \Vestern world, conceiving of women as objects that can be bought and sold (or used to help sell other products) has become a standardized practice within the advertising industries. Television com­ mercials and magazine advertisements frequently use beautiful women to entice presumably heterosexual male customers, and in so doing, they often make an implicit comparison between the woman's body and the product being sold. Just what is being sold by a bikini-clad woman in a beer ad? The beer itself, or the promise of further sexual excitement that purchasing the product will allegedly provide? This specific formulation of female objectification has also been given a racialized twist in recent years, as in the advertisements for Kalna & Cream that implicitly com­ pare the cate-au--lait-colored liquor to a sexy model of mixed racial heritage. The ads want to capitalize on the exotic and erotic lure of the model in order to sell Kalua as likewise exotic and erotic. In so doing, it reduces the image of the woman to an object that can be consumed for pleasure by the male spectator.

Although Western culture has changed a great deal over the past two centuries, because of these "ways of seeing" many contemporary American women still develop a sense of self"worth based primarily on how they look, rather than how talented or intelligent they are - or what they may have accomplished in their lives. As in Hollywood narrative form, men in Western culture are taught that it is their birthright to do things (nm, jump, desire, look) while women remain relatively imni.obile in order to be the object of the male gaze. The fashion industries, the make-up and cosmetic industries, and even the health and fitness industries con­ stantly bombard Womell with the message that they are not complete or perfect unless they have the right hairstyle, the right bone structure, the right makeup, the right clothes, the right body, ad infinitum. Advertisements constantly treat women's bodies as objects that can be sculpted and remade into some supposed ideal form. Tn order to change their bodies, women are encouraged to buy their femininity - through fashion, makeup, diet pills, liposuction, or various l~ml]S of plastic surgery. (Of course, the concept of "ideal beauty" is itself ideologically determined, since it has

231

• Visual Parameters of Women in Film

historically been racially constructed in the West as fair-haired whiteness. Although our concepts of beauty are changing in the twenty-first century, some non-white women are still undergoing skin bleaching and plastic surgery in order to attain a Western ideal.) Women are thus encouraged to be compIicit in their own objectification. Once they have internalized the ideology that their self-worth is based upon their public image, some women believe that achieving total objecti­ fied desirability is the only thing that will give them happiness and fulfillment. Obviously, women's pursuit of this mythical ideal keeps patriarchal dOmination in place a11d supports the ideology and practices of consumer capitalism.

Berger's observations about painting and advertising can be applied to film with­ out much trouble, as cinema is yet another arm of the mass media that creates

· idealized visual images of women. Fil In is also an industry that encourages people to buy and consume products. Hence, it is unsnrprising to find that women are

r consistently objectified in mainstream Hollywood movies. The technology of cinema recreates on the film strip the quattrocento perspective, and the Hollywood star system strongly supports the packaging and selling of women's images. Even after her death, for example, Marilyn lvlonroc's image continues to attract 'lttention. From

Marilyn Monroe epitomized the blonde bombshell in 1950s Hollyvvood movies. Here her body is made into a spectacular display in Ilow to Marry a Millionaire (1953), How to Marry a IlAillionaire, copyright © 1953, 20th Century,Fox

~~-_..._-- .' , .. _-­232

'-haired whiteness. -first century, some tic surgery in order mplicit in their own • their self-worth is leving total objecti~ ess and fulfillment. :chal domination in

Jitalism. Ipplied to ftlIll with- media that creates

t encourages people nd that women arc :chnology of cinema the HollywMd star s images. Even after ract attention. From

ore her body is made illto

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

silent filmmaker Mack Sennett's Bathing Beauties to Jemlifer Lopez's revealing awards­ show fashion choices at the tllf11 of the millennium, women have consistently been placed on display for the pleasure of a male-dominated society.

"Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema"

At about the same time as John Berger wrote Ways o{ Seeing; feminist film scholar Laura Mulvey wrote a highly inHuential essay entitled "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Mulvey's arguments shared much with Berger's, yet she also drew upon existing psychoanalytic frameworks to examine the specific ways that classical Hollywood films manufacture tlleir images of women. As the title of the article makes dear, Mulvey was interested in understanding how mainstream narrative cinema creates pleasure for viewers. She explored how the psychoanalytic concepts of narcissism and voyeurism can be used to explain how visual pleasure is generated. Narcissism, a pleasure of the self, is created when narrative cinema encourages spectators to identify with characters in the film. With such iden­ tification, viewers are able to feci as if they themselves are experiencing great adventures and accomplishing extraordinary deeds. On the other hand, voyeurism is a visual pleasure that arises hom looking at others in a sexualized way. A common term to describe someone who enjoys voveuristic pleasure is a "Peeping Tbm." Part of the pleasure derived from voyeurism comes from watching people who are not aware they are being watched (thus giving the watcher a sense of power or contml). Since film is fundamentally based on wntching, cinema falls easily into the realm of voyeurism. Hollywood narrative cinema, in particular, creates entertainment by presenting to spectatol's people who do not seem to know their lives are being watched. The convention of actors not "breaking the fourth wall," th,lt is, not acknowledging the camera, therefore helps maintain a voyeuristic framework for Hollywood filmmaking.

Because classical Hollywooll cinema operates within a patriarchal society, Mulvey contends that these two modes of visual pleasure created by narrative cinema must contain male biases, In most Hollywood films, the narcissistic pleasure of identification usually involve.s identifying with the male characters, the ones who are active and aggressive. On the other hand, the voyeuristic pleasures created by cinema primarily iIl\'olve looking at the female characters onscreen. Thus, classical Hollywood cincma aims most of its films at a presumed male hetero­ sexual audience member, forcing individuals olltside this group to adapt to a male point of view- the so-called "male gaze" that objectifies women - or elsc risk finding thc film un pleasurable. Mulvey supports her contcntions by analyzing one of the most basic formal elements of HoUy\vood narrative cinema: the usc of editirlg techniques to create relationships between subjective and objective points of view. An objective shot is one that is not tied to a characler's point of view, but rather a shot that most clearly conveys the action of the scene. 1n Hollywood films, almost

233

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

all of the shots are obJective and omniscient ­ they show the spectator, from the best possible angle, what he or she needs to see in order to follow the story. The rarer subjective shot, however, is tied to a specific character's point of view - a shot that literally shows the spectator

exactly what a character is seeing. Imagine a

shot of a prison cell where a single prisoner goes to the window and looks on!. That shot is

an obJective one, as we see the prisoner from the camera's perspective alone (there are no other

Objective shot - not tied to a clwacter's point of view prisoners in the cell to whom the view can be attributed). The very next shot, bOl\Tever, is

likely to be a subJective one, as we cut from the ··-f objective shot of the prisoner looking out the

window to a subjective shot of what he is seeing outside the window. The audience member is

thus tied into that character's point of view:

spectators are literally placed inside the head of

that character and are able to sec through his eyes. This sequence of shots thus strongly activates

Subjective shot - lied to a character's point of view both narcissistic and voyeuristic pleasures. The

shared experience of the subjective shot (sharedIn classical HollywoDd films, objective shots Df the male protagonist are often followed by subj,:ctive by both character and audience member) allows

shots or what he is looking at, a formal pattern that the spectator to imagine himself as being the directly ties the spectator to lhe protagonist's point character on the screen (narcissistic pleasure), of view. wl1ilc what that character is looking at activates

voyeuristic pleasures.

~

Linking shots of people looking and shots of what they are lookil1g at is one of the basic building blocks of classical Hollywood storytelling. Mulvey

observes that this simple formal trope of Hollywood editing itself carries and \' encodes powerful gender dynamics. Chiefly in Hollywood. films, male characters l are the ones doing the looking (subjective shots are assigned to them) while

female characters are usually the ones that are being looked at (obJectified from the male character's point of view). This configuration ,tlso recreates the effect

of quattrocento perspective: by cutting hom someone looking to what they are loolZu;ga-Ct'he film places the viewer inside the character's viewpoint, construct~ ing the viewer's place as the center of the world crea ted by the film. Examples of these objective/subjective shot configurations are so 1111merous that they arc

impossible to list. From the very first silent story films to present-day Hollywood blockbusters, examples abound. One of the earliest films to play with this formal trope, As Seen through the Telescope (1903), obiectively depicts an elderly gentleman peering through a telescope, followed. by a subiective shot of what he is looking at: a female bicyclist's exposed ankle (which was pretty sex!' back in 19(3).

234 -~-""~--'~--~"~-'~~"---'---~-"'--'-'~-_.,~~._--,--~

ive and omniscient ­ rom the best possible ~ds to see in order to uer subjective shot, k character's point of y shows the spectator is seeing. Imagine a

.ere a single prisoner oaks out. That shot is . the prisoner from the e (there are no other whom the view can next shot, however, is rlC, as we cut from the ;oner looking ant the ot of what he is seeing ~ audience member is aeter's point of view: ced inside the head of to See through his eyes. hus strongly activates euristic pleasures. The mbjective shot (shared :lienee member) allows ~ himself as being the (narcissistic pleasure), ~ is looking at aclivates

hey are looking at is i storytelling. !vlulvey iting itself carries and films, male characters

:igned to them) while ed at (objectified from Iso recreates the effect lking to what they arc ; viewpoint, construct·" by the film. Examples umerous that they are )resent-day ITollywood o play with this formal ~ly depicts an elderly ctive shot of what he i:; etty sex)' back in 1903).

---_ _-"._­

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

D.W. Griffith, a key figure in the standardization of Hollywood storytelling form, consistently used the type of editing patterns that Mulvey describes. In Birth of a Nation (1915), Griffith continually cuts from Ben Cameron gazing romantically or Silas Lynch gazing threateningly to shots of Elsie Stoneman (who demurely docs not return the gaze. as was considered proper etiquette). Even when the objectiv­ ity and subjectivity of individual shots are not so clearly demarcated, Hollywood cinema repeatedly thcmatizes mCn looking at women: Clark Gable stares lustily at Jean Harlow in Red Dust (1932), Humphrey Bogan tells Ingrid Bergman th;t he is "looking at you. kid" in Casablanca (] 943), and every male in sight gawks at the voluptuous Jayne Mansfield in The Girl Can't Help it (1956). In the recent blockbustcr hit Titanic (1997), Jack (Leonardo Di Caprio) asks Rose (Kate Winslet) to pose for him so that he (and the audience) might enjoy the sight of her nearly naked body. Throughout mainstream narrative cinema, men are positioned as the ones iIi control of the gaze \vhile 'women are positioned as the objects of that controlling gaze.

Mulvey goes on to point out the multiple ways in which women are placed as the objects of the male gaze. All of the above examples show male characters within the film gazing at womerl. But on another level, the Hollywood film industry itself has been (and continues to be to a large extent) male-dominated. Hence, male directors, producers, writers, and cinematographers all use the camera as an instrument to look at Women. From this vantage point, the controlling aspects of the male gaze become eve11 more apparent, as the men behind the camera instruct the woman in front of the camera what to do. The French New Wave filmmaker Jean- Luc Godard, who was a big fan of Hollywood filmmaking, once quipped that "film bistory was the history of boys photographing girls." Thus, in Mulvey's formulation, the three \ gazes that comprise cinema in the first place (the gaze of the.' camer.a, the gaze of \ the characters at each other, and the gaze of the spectator toward the screen) are \1 all i~lhe.rently male, even When, the actual spectator is a wonwn. vVhen objective and .~ subjectIve shots are arranged ll1 the manner described above, each of those three gazes becomes the same thing. Thus, a male character's gaze at an objectified woman is also the gaze of the camera and the gaze of the implied male viewer who paid money to see female bodies displayed in this manner. Women in the audience arc forced either to identify with the obJectified female or else inhabit the male char­ acter's point of view. In either scenario, "real" women remain marginalized while the "image" of women remains objectified.

These gel1dercd gaze dynamics are played out within popular film narratives as well as within specific shot configurations. One of the stories replayed over and over agaitl in popular cinema is the "Cinderella" story, in which the mousy young girl is transformed into a beautiful woman so that she may win the man of her dreams. Probably without exception, every version of this tale includes all example of these editing patterns, as the "Prince Charming" lays eyes on the newly transformed heroine. Among the more recent reworkings of this story are Pretty Vv'01Tlall (1990), wherein Richard Gere becomes speechless as he sees Julia Roberts turn from a pros­ titute into a high-class beauty. In the teen comedy She's All That (1999), Freddie

235

I

Visual Parameters of Women in Film ·~T Prime, Jr, watches with amazement as his ugly duckling date reveals that she has become a swan. These dynamics can even be found in recent Hollywood films directed by women. In The Mirror Has Two Paces (1996), directed by Barbra Streisand, Jeff Bridges is stunned as Slreisand herself is made over from frumpy housewife into a desirable sex kitten.

These last few examples also draw attention to another of Mulvey's points: wilhin Hollywood cinema, women are usually carefully prepared to maximize their ability to attract sexualized attention from the heterosexual male spectator.

'1", Even when a woman is the hero of the film (as in Alien [19791 or Tomb Raider [2001]), her sexualized body is still on full display. Filmmakers often find (some­ times very contrived) ways to get female characters out of their work clothes and into bikinis, underwear, or sheer negligees. Hence, every aspect of an actress's bodily appearance receives the utmost attention. Aclresses usua]]y spend hours having their hair and makeup prepared before they step onto a movie set. Their costumes ai'e intricately designed to maximize what are considered their most sexually appealing aspects, and downplay their "problem areas." Various tech­ niques with the camera have also been used to enhance an actress's visual appeal.

For example, filters and gels can be used on camera lenses to hide wrinkles, and special lenses can minilllize facial features such as a nose deemed too large. Actresses such as Barbra Streisand and Claudette Colbert often preferred a specific side of their face for pro­ file shots, and studio publicists were quick to comply.

Hislorically, women in Hollywood 111m have also been carefully lit lo make them

Fill seem all the more alluring and stellar. By the 1920s, the I-Ioll)'\vood industry had developed a lighting style known as three·point lighting, which made stars seem luminescent. This ~ style involved, as the term indicates, three

Three,point lighting was and is the Iiollywood standard; separate light sources. The key light was the it focuses attention on the star and (reates a glamorous brightest light, and was usually ,timed at the look. For an example of the effect, see the photo of Rita front of the star from above and slightly to Hayworth on p. 243. the side. The fill light was less bright than the

key light, and was aimed from abo\'e the star on the opposite side to the key light. The fill light helped lighten any shadows possibly caused by the key light (for example, a dark nose shadow across the side of a star's face). The back light was of !csser inlensity, and placed behind (and usually slightly above) the star, to create a "halo effect" - a glowing outline around the star's hair and body, as if the light was radiating directly oul of them. Such elaborate lighting helped separate the slats from the set, and focus audience attention on them ~ but also worked to make female stars aLi the more radiant and

236 --,.--------..----.---­

I

I

veals that she has Toad films directed bra Streisand, Jeff py housewife into

, Mulvey's points: ned to maximize al male spectator. ] or Tomb Raider often find (some·, n.eit work clothes Jett of an actress's la11y spend hours I movie set Their idercd their 1110St as:" Various tech­ ~ss's visual appeaL :Is can be used on nkles, and special features such as a Actresses such as lette Colbert often their face for pro~ cists were quick to

I-IollYVlOOd film lit to make them and stellar. By the 5try had deVeloped ree-point lighting, luminescent. This u indicates, three key light was the

ually aimed at the )ve and slightly to ess bright than the rom above the star ;hten any shadows low across the side laced behind (and ing outline around out of them. Such ld focus audience ~ more radiant and

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

attractive to the male gaze. Many of these techniques of lightillg, costume, and makeup ate also applied to male characters and actots in Hollywood films, though rarely to the same extent and for the same purpose of arousing the viewer. These con­ siderations will be discussed more fully below.

With female characters structured into mainstream narrative cinema as "things to be looked at," Mulvey also notes the distinction between what men are allowed to do in films and what women are allowed to do. Limited to "looking pretly;' women \ must remain relatively passive and somewhat outside the action of the story. In contrast, the men drive the story forward: they chase the bad guys, accomplish I great feats, and in the process romance and "win" the girl. In some ways, women are presented as an impediment to the action narrative - a problem that the men must deal with as part of the resolution of the contlict. Sometimes this involves female characters specifically as antagonists, but even "good girls" can cause prob­ lems for heroes. For example, it has become a cliche that the sweet young ingenue always tends to trip and fall while the hero is trying to make good their escape. Beyond this, however, Mulvey contends that female characters, simply in their "to-be-looked-at-ness," often tend to bring the narrative to a halt. For example, imagine a scene in which two male characters are having an argument that is central to the conflict that is driving the movie. In the middle of the argument, a beautiful woman walks by. The tvvo men stop talking for a moment, because they have to look at this beautiful creature - and so does the audience. Then, after she has left the room, the atgument can recommence and the story G111 pick up where it left off. Variations on this idea can be found in countless Hollywood movies - in some comedies, massive fistfights come to a halt while some starlet wanders through the beer hall. Musicals often function in this manner: the story proceeds until everything stops for a musical number that showcases lots of chorus girls in skimpy outfits. One Can even find examples in cartoons: Bugs Bunny always knows how to distract Elmer Fudd from his goal of "hunting wabbits" - by dressing up as a beautiful female. In Disney's Aladdin (1992), Princess Jasmine distracts the villain by putting herself on display, and when she kisses him, all the characters stop to gape at her action.

"rhus, in Hollywood films, a woman's power is associated with her ability to use her sexual allure to arrest the narrative action. While unable to be active in the way that the male characters are, a woman's ability to draw the male gaze gives her the ability to bring the narrative to a halt. As limited as this power obviously seems to be, Mulvey concludes tl1o.t even this poses a threat to patriarchal domination, and tbat Hollywood cinema attempts to contain that threat in one of two ways. The first is a method of investigation and punishment. In many films the male cbar~ acters (and hence the male viewers as well) are able to diminish (if not totally negate) the female's power by uncovering and unveiling her mysterious aLlure. Mulvey uses some of director Alfred Hitchcock's films to show how this process works. In Vertigo (1958), for example, Scottie (James Stewart) is fascinated by the ghostly and sen­ sLlal jy[adeline (Kim Novak). The film is filled with subjective shots of him staring uncomprebendingly and longingly at her (and her not looking back, just as in the

237

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

portraits analyzed by John Berger). As a detective, Scottie spends the film trying to solve the mystery of Madeline, and it is only at the end of the film, as Madeline is murdered, that Scottie realizes how he has been manipulated by a can job. The entire film might thus be understood as being about the investigation and punishment of Madeline's power over Scottie. ~ Such attempts to "figure out" and thus control the dangerously beautiful woman have structured many Hollywood movies. This process of investigation often entails and encourages a more intense employment of the male gaze. Men stare harder at these mysterious women in the hope that the power of the male gaze will pen­ ettate the female's beautinrl armor. At times, once her shell is cracked by the male gaze, the woman can then be reclaimed by the hero. For example, Humphrey Bogart's character in The Big Sleep (1946) spends most of the film trying to determine whether Lauren BacaU's character is trustworthy or not. Once he learns all her secrets,

;' though, she turns into the typical "good girL" supporting his authori ty rather than potentially challenging it. At other times, however, the female character's power is not sufficiently quelled after the mystery has been solved. Consequently, re··establishing male dominance involves physically punishing the female - either

_ with imprisonment (as happens to Mary Astor's characler in the Humphrey Bogart film The MClltesc Falcoll [1941]) or with death (as happens to Lizabeth Scott's character in Dead Reckoning [19471).

According to Mulvey, the other method that Hollywood uses to contain women's onscreen sexual power is fetishization. Feti$hization in general involves excess emotional or sexual investment in a particular object. For example, most

>",,,,...,' people have heard of the idea of a "foot fetish;' in which a personJocuses their sexual desires on a specific part of the body, the foot, instead of the entire individual. Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud tied fetishization specifically to male feafs of lack of control. He asserted that the male psyche, in attempting to reassert a sense of control and power, might sometimes focus obsessively on one object that can be controlled. Tied to the way women are figured under the male gaze, fetishizatioll works fUrther to objectify WOmen in order to make them less of a threat. If they afe regarded as objects and not fully capable human beings, then women can be kept in a subordinate IJosition. Throughout the years, American culture has singled out and fetishized certain areas of the female body as the center of male heterosexual attraction. During the 1940s, there was an emphasis on women's legs. Betty Grable, America's top box office movie star during World War IT, bad her legs insured by Uoyds' of London. By the 19505, there was a shift to fetishizing women's breasts. Other aspects of American culture fetishize the female posterior. Music videos and Howard Stern's radio and television shows come quickly to mind as pop cult me vel1ues in which the fetishization of women's body parts is not just practiced but actively celebrated .

. / In IIollywood films, fetishization can occur when the female body is broken by thecamera and editing patterns into a collection of smaller objectified parts: hands,

) feet, legs, hair, breasts, etc. Close-ups of women's body parts appear repeatedly

II in Holl}'\\Tood films. Objective and subjective shot configurations function in \ ......

238 ~-..~-~,.~~-

ie spends the film trying to of the film, as Madeline is

lted by a can job. The entire ~stigation and punishment

ngerously beautiful woman ess of investigation often male gaze. Men stare harder of the male gaze will pen­

,heU is cracked by the male lCample, Humphrey Bogart's crying to determine whether : he learns a11 her secrets, Lg his authority rather than e female character's power ~en solved. Consequently, 1ishing the female - either er in the Humphrey Bogart appens to Lizabeth Stott's

)l1ywood uses to contain .izatioD in general involves object. For example, most l person focuses their sexual d of the entire individual. cally to male fears of lack )til1g to reassert a sense of on one object thaL can be he male gaze, fetishization t less of a theeaL. If they are 0, then women can be kept :an culture has singled out enter of male heterosexual vOlUen's legs. Betty Grable, II, had her legs insured by :tishizing women's breasts. osterior. Music videos and ly to mind as pop culture :s is not just practiced but

female body is broken by er objectified parts: hands, y parLs appear repeatedly )I1hguratiol1s fUI1ction in

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

taI1dem with this process of fetishization. Shots of various female body parts are often preceded by or followed b}' shots of men look­ ing at those parts. Many times, women are introduced in movies by only showing a part of their body. Lauren Bacall's character in Written on the Wind (956) is introduced behind a bulletin board, so that all the audience sees is her legs. The first shot of Pillow Talk (1959) (after the credits) is offemalc legs putting on pantyhose, before the camera pulls back to reveal that they belong to Doris Day. A more recent example would be the introduction of Julia Roberts' character in Pretty Woman: a series of individual shots of her legs putting 011 hOSe and boots, her midriff as she puts on a halter top, her rear as she adjusts her leather miniskirt, and the back of her head as she straightens her blonde wig, before the film finally shows a full shot of her entire body. By breaking the female body down into individual parts, and valuing certain parts more than the whole, patriarchal culture subtly refuses to recognize women as whole and entire human beings. Women are instead figured as composites fetishized body parts that arc thought Lo appeal directly to the sexual desires of men.

Good examples of cinematic objectification and fetishization can be found in the musical numbers choreographed and directed by Busby Berkeley. Considered one of the gre,ttest geniuses of the Hollywood musical, Berkeley created elaborate numbers that rev~ cIed in putting women's bodies on display, invoking the theatrical tradition of tableaux. Tableau numbers began on the stage, as pro~

This famous World War"ducers like Florenz Ziegfe1d showcased women in varioLls elaborate publicity photograph of Beltyheaddresses and revealing gowns. In a tableau number, chorus girls Grable is a good example of

do nothing more than take a sLately walk across the stage or down the way that female bodies

a staircase. Audience enjoyment thus derives from the mere act of are objectified - put on

gazing at these women and not [tom their si nging or dancing abil­ display for the male gaze.

ities. Busby Berkeley's "By a \Valerfall" number in Foot-light Parade Unidentified publicity photo, (1933) is famous for its inventive parading of chorus girls in various authors' personal collection staLes of undress. After st,lr Dick Powell sings a chorus of the song at some shady glen, he falls asleep and girlfriend Ruby Keeler takes the opportun­ ity to join dozens of chorus girls in ,1 nearly nude bathing sequence. While the Women arc wearing bathing suits, they are made of skin-toned material, with plastic bathing-cap/wig headgear artfully draped to cover their nipples. The objectifica­ tion of the chorus girls is also exemplified by their blending into the scenery - they are often photographed as if they Were part of the decor. For example, at one point, the chorus girls stand astride various levels of a column which spouts streams of water, creatit1g a "human fountain" (as the preview trailer for the film advertised at the time). All the chorus girls (except for star Keeler) are costumed in the same manner, making It further difficult to distinguish or individualize any of the women. Berkeley presents them as mass-produced items, not individuals.

239

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

The "human fountain" of chorus girls from rootlight Parade (1933), aspectacular Busby Berkeley musical number In which women are positioned as interchangeable and objectified building blocks ot a male fantasy, Faa/light Parade, copyright C<;) 1933, Warner Bros,

Throughout the nine-minute extravaganza, chorus girls arc photographed in a variety of erotic and fetishistic ways. One underwater shot looking up at their splayed legs serves as an excellent example of fetishization: the women are rep­ resented by rows and rows of individual body parts. Berkeley was also famous for his overhead camera shots of chorus girls creating kaleidoscopic designs. When the women form the "human fountain" described above, Berkeley cuts to an overhead shot as they sit on the fountain and stick their legs Ollt. Within the overhead shot, it appears as if the viewer is watching dozens of disembodied legs per" forming tricks, The overhead shots in general make it hard to distinguish among

240

~.._~------- Visual Parameters of Women in Film

This typical kaleidoscopic shot from BLisby Berkele{s Cold Diggers of 793; positions women as abstl"act cogs in a machine, or ;leta Is all a flower. Cold Diggers of 1933, copyright <'~\ 19.53, Warner Bros.

wornen, and indeed to regard them as women at all Rather, these geometric patterns can make the women seem to be mere cogs in a machine. Intriguingly, these kaleidoscopic patterns often have a sensual quality of their own. Usually organized in some circular shape, the patterns shift and reconfigure themselves as the chorus girls move in and out of the center, or move lheir arms ,md legs up and down. The sense of pulsation and vibrancy in these circular shapes creates a symbolic representation of the ultimate disembodied fetish - a vagina without a body .~ and the way Berkeley has the camera move forward and pull back fronl these overhead patterns does seem to create a veiled sense of sexual intercourse. While such a reading of the 11l1111ber mav seem scandalous to some readers, the sexual drive of the (l\~erall number is consistent with Berkeley's usual style. Indeed,

ular Busby Berkeley musical number ~ blocks of a male lantasy,

;irls arc photographed in I' shot looking up at their tion: the women are rep keley was also famous for )scopic designs. When the rkeley cuts to an ovcrhead lUt. Within the overhead )f discmbodied legs per­ ard to distinguish Jl110ng

---~'~-'--"--' 241

T I,Visual Parameters of Wom~n in Film

one of his more outrageous musical numbers (from The Gang's All Rete [1943]) features chorus girls poking giant bananas in and out of a strawberry~strewn female kaleidoscope. While the sexual symbolism of the number was overlooked by many American viewers, the number was understood as a smutty joke by British film censors, who cut it from the film altogether.

Berkeley also had a reputation for working his chorus girls relentlessly, forcing them to submit perfectly to his designs. The "By a Waterfall" number itself also eventually foregrounds that these women are all under the control of one man. While some could argue that the number shows women enjoying a private space of their own while the male character sleeps, their presentation for the camera is definitely fetishized and for the sexual pleasure of the male gaze. Furthermore, the number ends when it is revealed that it has all been the dream of star Dick Powell. (In. all sorts ofways, this musical number gives new meaning to the phrase "wet dream.") Consequently, the male character (and filmmaker, and spectator) have been authoring and directing what has transpired, fetishizing the female body in otder to maintain control and power over it. While Berkeley stands as an important his­ torical figure in the fetishization of women in Holly_vooel cinema, this process remains typical to the present dav. Anyone who has ever watched a music video has seen examples of such objectification and fetishization of the female body. Usually, once people have been introduced to ho\\' fetishization works in Hollywood cinema, they can easily find examples of it the very next time they go aLIt to the movies O[ tUrn on the relevision set.

Cas~Stl1dy: Gilda (1946t· .

, Gihiast<lrtdsasiaI!oweefulexaniple· of how women ha\re been rep resented in .' dilssiGal' Hollyw6od ·cillema,ant1'exemplifies111aI1Y 0 f·.the concepts discussed ··;nthis ·cb"pter, The fi,hnstars Rita"I-I~ywotth;one of the, biggest "pill-Up" girls of tb~'"V\forldWar llera.As,v;lsdiscmsediI1 chapter ,7; Columbia Pictures

'. vis ually ,refa~hion:edHay\voTth'sjmage to, diminish her •Latina heritage. This , incl\.;dcddYirighethaii·, and raising her hairline through electrolysis, Hay\vortb

'., thus personifics.hbwboth '\romen,-and l':'lcial minorities were often obiectified \ . and even recn'atedbytlte \vhitepatriarchal media industries of the era. Gilda . . remains oile of fc{ay\vorth'sbest~reinelilbercd films, and it capitalizes on the

bcautifuFp~J.'son(l created for the actress by the studio. In the fIlm, she is re~ peatedlyplacedon display both for the male characters in the film and for the viewCl'. She is introduced ,1S her new husband calls out to her and asks, "Are you decent?" 'fbe. film cuts to inside her bedroom, and Gilda comes up from the bottolll 6f the screen, l1ipplng her long hair back, until she is framed in a close-up and answers sl)'ly, "\Vho, tne?" Tn this shot, although Gilda is ostensibly still getting ready to go all t for rbc evening, Ha)'\\lorth's makeup and hairstyling are both impeccable. :\1t:hough she mps into the shot. 0 nee sh(' comes to rest to say her line, lhe shot provides a good example or lhree~poill[

242 ~_., --~""---"'--"--"""'--'." --_.""-.---""".~--", ..__.._."--,._-"",.. "",,,.---,,.. -"":"'--"',­

1 Visual Parameters of Women in Film I

All Here [1943]) I

trawbeny-strewn r was overlooked . smutty joke by

lentlessly, forcing lumber itself also )f one man. While rate space of their lmem is definitely nore, the number itk PowelL (In all 'ase "wet drearn:') tater) have been tale body in order an important his, 1is process retnall1S sic video has seen ,ady- Usually, once Nood ciner'nil, they he movies or turn

:n represented in mcepts discllssed est "pin-.up" girls olumbia Pictures na heritage. This rolysis. Hayv\!orth : often objectified a f the era. Gilda

:apitalizes on the lC ftlm, she is rt'~ the film and for

her and asks, "Arc la comeS up (r'onl

she is framed ill Ilthough GildJ IS )rth'$ makeuf:' alld 1e shot, once sl\C pie of three I_,,)ini

'-:~I:r

'lib;~st ... _\ __.~~);S'ii~tCK¢i!tfi:: .._.. ,.__._...!,._':O¥~F'~~()~p l?ft;;ili~Il,: __

+~~·:st6;rvlitle-irlvQ15es.·.c;U~ajn-,· .'

'~~~~~6;I~l~t~;:~~1~it~i~". pa:~t'h.is·;iBbt6jtri2h~1··'I:;usb~ild:sassi$tant. Both merig<lz~a~~pildalongingly,althongh the~lcl.· .' ·flan:le J9h#~xi{Glenn ford);both.- desires and ( _. distrustshct-a positi(In eventmllly adopted'

· by the h...\.lSb.. an.d. a.swell: T..l.Ie.....re.. '.a.ctions of botb.···. J. men serve as . a good exarnple of both the l

. fascinatiOl}and .fear creat~d i~classical Holly­ woodcinerrm by the representAtion ofsuch a beautifuLwcu;ml:Gilda is thusalso a story o[ men lryingtopenetratc and solve the mystery of the daIlg¢l'ously alluring Woman_ Seemingly aware"ofthcl')osition in' which she has. been plac~dbYtl\f~1ale charaders;Gildadecides 110t. to fIght agail;'sther objectification bllt to revel in it She consistently perfornis througboL\t the

·f1lm.:phlyibg tl~eguita-l,;singing tlmes,' doing ;, vatihy ofnightc'1ub acts. Asone.might expect, the audienteforall these performances is shown

Rita H8ywor1h as Ihe ovel11y to be predomirrantly,ifnot exclusiVely; male. sexualized Gilda (1945). The narrative

.Themostfanlous moment in the film occurs will see to it that she is investigctecJ when Gilda !)eiJorms "Put the Blame on )vfame" and pUllisllecJ for her sexualized at the casino's nightclub. At this point in tlw story, transgressions against the male her hltsband seems to have died in a plane crash. protagonist Johnny has decided to punish Gilda by marry­ Cilda, copyright G> '946, Columbia ing her, but only to control her and keep her cJged. Ina secondary plot, the local police are investigating illegal doings at the casino. As the police inspector interrogates Tohnny about these dealings, he paces llervollsly- but he is nervous about Gilda, not the police inRstigatioll. The "pro" blem" that she represenls as a beautiful, alluring woman is more dlsturbing to lohnny lhan his potential arrest. Tlte insl)ector teils Johnny that he can see that something seems to be bothering him. Tohnnj· tries to laugh it off and says that he will look in a milTCJr to see if tlut is actuallv true. However, before he can do

-._--_.,._-- ..._---_ .._--- --- .. _._---­ 2.43

Visual Parameters of Wom~n in Film

.....•.•.....•.•. t~'(9,~lle~i.~ameraa.pgI~;#~i'·J~aifis;ifiiractllou$ly ...backih.··perf¢c~.shape; She· :iQ~!~.ll$ibly'l1as QIlI}' aspgtligltfdn herci4ting herriightdulr performance,bllt ilie ;'filrn!~lal(~rs· t0I1~i~tCn1:ly ~lseabackligbt f()( everyfetishized c1ose-upofher, n6 ·.tl1atter\vhereslleisOftthe Hoor. Her·costume also w~rkstqaccent{lateher to-be~

·lo()ked :.at.iless.'Theliglit~fitting, strapless. bla ck sheath seetl~s:tohideuoUiing ·ofHayworth'sDody'ftb1n::view: (HaY.\vorth was actually pregna.htwhtn.shc filmed thi~ scquence,arldiil'carefully placed bow on1:be bodicecifhet dressworlzs to

•. shjft~ttention awayfrotntbe early sighs of that pregnancy.) Gilda'Snllmh~ris alsoasrriptease,andshcrolls off her gloves a.l1d a necklace and throvvs them to the

. e~lgerlTIale audience: vVhentbe song finishes, the fi.ln1cutsto men shollting for rndlT.'Sbe replies tbafshewouklloveti), but she has neverbeen good with zip- pers.Men in theandiellce (the active lookers and doers,. according to Mllivey's

. model) rush out tOllndo the zipper on her gown and she (the passive, looked­ atobject) simply stands there, not c\'en looking atthe men who are pawing at

.l:icr. Indeed, throtighout the number, there are shots of Johnny, the inspector, and· other men staring dir(ctly ather, b~lt Gilda is never shown directly return·· inga look at anyone; she is merely there to be adored. Yet that is her power ­

. and Gilda was performing this striptease llnmber precisely to shame Tohnny. (Even the sougitself describes a woman'S allure as destructive power. "Put the Blame on Matne" tells how Mame's sensuality allegedly started the great Chicago nrc.)

Johnny responds by having the casino bouncer yank her off the stage, where .Johnny then slaps her across the face in an attempt to reassert his dominance, By the cnd of the film, he discovers that Gilda had never actually betrayed him in their earlier relationship, tint she was acting like a loose woman in retaliation fbI' the hurt that he had caused her. Her mystery solved, Johnny's masculine privilege is restored and their relationship can end happily.

Conclusion: Complicating Mulvey's Arguments

C;ildt? does s~em to exhibit its star Rita l-Ll\wonh in perfect concordance \vitll Laura i\luke\"'s contentions in "Visual Plcasure and Narrativc Cinema." Yet the movie ;]Iso f'oints out is,ues not addressed b:' i\[ulvcy's lnitial article: namely, thilt

sr I I

i i I

l!~ting $1i¢<~111!ed :wor~sto

~f)i~i. ii Il\}111bh is . [~:::t~)~~~§:~heln to the .~()<~t7rsltQ1.1tipgfor p~~ll.~()Q~with.. zip­ ~9Slt·ail1g!()·.·Mlllver's (tli.epassive, looked­ nWhoare pawing at Jltnrty,the inspedor, lOwudirectly teturn­ tthat is her pm,vct ­ shame Johnny. (Even

)'wer. "Put the Blame e great Chicago fire.) r off the stage, where .ssert his dominance. ually betrayed him in woman in retaliation , Johnny's masculine 1.

feet concordance with ltive Cinema." Yet the al article: namely, that

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

representing gender (and analyzing those representations) encompasses !nore than just women. Reptesentations of men and masculinity are just as socially constructed as are those of women, and need to be explored in a similar manner. For example, Gilda begins with Johnny as a down-and-out grifter who is literally seduced by the casino owner into becoming his employee. At the casino owner's urging, Johnny gets new clothes and a new haircut and generally deans himself up, as he rises in rank at the casino to become the owner's personal assistant. Consequently, Johnny's looks and his body are put on display here for the approving gaze of the casino owner, as well as the spectator. Exactly what happens when a male char­ acter is objectified in this manner? How docs objectifying men in Hollyw'Ood film )' differ from objectifying women?

It is true that most of classical Hollywood's glamor industry and cinematographic conventions worked La represent women in the ways described above, but male stars in Hollywood were also being carefully costumed, made up, and photographed in objectifying ways. From silent film stars such as Rudolph Valentino and Douglas I'airbanks, to Clark Gable and Rock Hudson, to Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, male stars in Hollywood have also been carefully packaged and represented for the voyeuristic pleasure of the viewer. Indeed, this trend has only increased in recent decades as Hollywood has come to recognize that women (and gay men) in the audience might enjoy the spectacle of a man's objectified body. However, in our cnlture, the very act of placing the male body on display is often seen as femin­ izing, precisely because such a procedure is so closely tied to female bodies. Sometimes a highly objectified male star can be the victim of a public backlash: many men of the 1920s considered Rudolph Valentino unmasculine even as their wives and girlfriends were swooning for him. '''''hat the opening section of Gilda inadvertently shows is that although the onscreen objectification of men is ostensibly for the voyeuristic pleasure of female spectators, a male-male homoerotic effect is created, since Gilda and films like it were still directed and photographed by men. In other words, men behind the camera were objectifying men in front of the camera, and men in the audience were being asked to gaze at other men in a voyeuristic way. This situation, which places a male spectator in the position of gazing erotically at another man, can canse discomfort for men for whom homo~ sexuality is disturbing. That discomfort may then be another reason why men are far less frequently objectified in classical Holl)"'Iood cinema than are women. (The traditional Hollywood objectification of WOmen certainly al lows for lesbian gazes between women in the audience and on5C1'een female characters, but those homo, erotic aspects were rarely acknowledged either by the men behind the camera or by those in the audience.)

There are other differel1ces in the way male bodies and female bodies are rep~ resented on Hollywood screens. For starters, Consider how makeup is used for men versus WOmen. Everyone in the movies wears makeup, but female characters (as in real life) wear makeup that transforms their everyday looks into something man-made. Male characters in Hollywood films wear makeup that makes it seem as

245

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

though they are tlotwearing make,up at all. Next, consider the context in which male and female bodies are displayed. As Mulvey and others have noted, women get undressed and stand passively before the camera's gaze with the slightest narrative excuse, and in so doil1g often bring the story to a halt. When men disrobe in Hollywood film, it is frequeI1tly part of a11 action sequence. Tn other words, when the male body is on display, it is as an active, powerful, and dangerous (as well as sexy) weapon wielded against other men. One can frequently find this type of objectification of the male body in action movies and Westerns, and it has become something of a cliche that the hero's shirt will be torn open during a particularly rough fight with an opponent. The male body is also sometimes displayed in Hollywood films during or after torture scenes; here the point is again to show how the male hero's body can take brutal punishment but still defeat the bad guys. Action stars from the 1980s and ]990s such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and lean-Claude Van Damme often showcased their large, muscled bodies in their films, but almost always while running, fighting, shooting, and generally "kicking ass." Sometimes these active male bodies are framed from a female character's point •.~ of view, again creating a male-male homoerotic feel for male spectators. Another

i I way to sum up these differences would be to examine the phenomenon of the chonts boy in the Hollywood musical. While the chorus boy call be found in somc Hollywood JiJI1lS (especially in Pre-Code musicals), he is nowhere near as endemic to the genre as is the chorus girl. Busby Berkeley never shot a number objectifying the bodies of 100 chorus boys.

The arguments and ideas discussed in this chapter ate not without their detractors. Many fault the essentialist aspects of MUlvey's contentions - that all Hollywood films must always objectify womCn. FIer ultimate contentions have provoked. out~ cries because they imply that any female viewer who enjoys mainstream narrative cinema is agreeing to her own oppression. Mulvey also ignores the presence of gay and lesbian spectators for whom the two pleasures of narcissism and voyeurism potentially collapse into one. Her ideas, based as they were on essentialist psycho­ analytical models, also fail to take into consideration the historical changes that have occurred in the film industry since Hollywood's classical age. For example, switch­ ing the genders of the gazer and the object can be and is done in contemporary Hollywood films, although it is still a relatively rare occurrence. Thelrna and Louise (1991) is a good example of a more recent film that flips the genders of the active doers (women) and passive sex ()bjects (men). In one scene, director Ridley Scott inverts the usual Hollywood form and allows Geena Davis's character to eroticaLly objectify Brad Pitt's. Between objective shots of her lustful gazing, the film offers the audience her subjective shot of Pitt's glistening torso. While the. scene was probably pleasurable for women and gay men in the audience, it may be another reason why many men hated the film, even to the point of decrying its supposed "man-hating" politics On the op-ed pages of many American newspapers. While the scene may have provoked unwelcome homoerotic tensions for some 11lale viewers, the controversy it (and the entire film) sparked is illustrative of the gendered currents of American lilm spectatorship. Men who hated the film

-_.~~. __.._----_.__._--,,~--246

context in which male lye noted, women get the slightest narrative V'hen men disrobe in In other words, when dangerous (as well as

ntly find this type of "ns, and it has become . during a particularly metimes displayed in t is again to show how It the bad guys. Action ger, Sylvester Stallone, lUscled bodies in their md generally "kicking male character's point Ie spectators. Another , phenomenon of the can be found in SOme vhere near as endemic 1 number objectifying

ithout their detractors. - that all Hollywood

IS have provoked out­ mainstream narrative lores the presence of :issisl11 and voyeurism ·n essentialist psycho­ -kal changes that have FOl' example, switch-

one in contemporary :e. Thelma and Louise genders of the active director Ridley Scott :haracter to erotically azing, the film offers While the scene was :e, it may be another ecrying its supposed 1 newspapers. While ions for some male lS illustrative of the vho hated the Jill11

Visual Parameters of Women in Film

probably were 110t identifying with Thelrna and Louise, despite the fact that the film's narrative, cinematography, and editing all work to encourage such identifica­ tion. Many male filmgoers refuse even to attend movies about women and women's issues, and thus never e:'1Jerience female characters' "ways of seeing," Conversely, most female filmgoers have been trained to be quite adept at seeing filmic worlds from a male point of view.

An example such as this also problematizes the very concept of cinematic identification in the first place. Do subjective shots really create an absolute link / of identification between the character and the spectator? Certainly some spec­ tators resist those identifications. Other spectators may identify with different characters during different parts of the movie. Perhaps a spectator identifies with the sensibility of the director behind the camera ali.d with no onSCTeen character at all. Most likely spectatorship is a far more free-floating and complex process than Mulvey first theorized. Since her influential article was published, many other film scholars have presented counter-theories arguing for a more complex relationship between women and nlainstream cinema. However, Mulvey's basic arguments have maintained their strength, and they continue to have a lasting impact on how gender is discussed in film scholarship. Finally, they point out in import­ ant ways how the very form of Hollywood cinema (and not just its content) has objectified and continues to objectify bodies - sometimes male bodies, but usually female.

Think about your own lelationship to voyeurism and narCissism. 00 you make it a habit of seeing movies that star your favorite sexy actor or actress? Is pretending to be a movie character alld vicari­ ously sharing his Or her adventures part of your peasure in moviegoing7

2 List some other examples of how women's bodies are objectified in popular culture - advertisements, music videos, film, and TV. How do women relate to those images, and how do men relate to them?

3 What happens to the gendered dynamics of spcctatorship when the male body is put on display? Are women in our culture more likely to "accept" sexual objectification than are men7

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, London: 8Be/Penguin, 1972. Carson, Diane, Lirda Dittmar, ,md Janice R Welsch, eds. Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 1994, Fischer, Lucy. "The Image of Woman as Image: The Optical Politics of Domes," In Sex(1eJ! Strotagems:

The World of Women in Film, ed. Patricia Erens, New York: Horizon, 1979, Kaplan, E. Ann. Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera, New York: Methuen. 198.3, Lehman, Peter Running Scored' Masculinity and the Representation of the ililale Body, Philadelphia: Temple

University Press, 1993, fv1izei<:wski, Linda. Ziegfeld Gir!: Image and Icon in Culture and Cinemo. Durham Duke University Press,

1999. Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989 Thornham, Sue. Feminist Film Theory: A RMder, New York: New York University Press, 1999,

----~~._-.__.~_._--~. __.. ~---- ­ 247

~----~-~~~--------~~--Visual Parameters of Women in film

Footlight Parade (1933) The Maltese Falcon (1941) The Girl Can't Help It (1956) Barbarella (1968) Pretty Woman (1990) Thelma and Louise (1991) Tomb Raider (2001)

.._~.~_ .._.-_._~..248 _ .~-_."--._--