sarah drummondIs the gaze still male?
April 28th 2008 04:59
There's a film theory - and it's been a few years since I studied it, so I may need some correction here and there - that says that the gaze from which the audience sees anything on screen is from an inherently male perspective.
This theory states that even when the narrative of a film is told from a female point of view, the images and sounds that emanate from the screen are created as if from a man watching it unfold. I always agreed with this theory. There were often students that would argue that plenty of stories were told from a female point of view. "What about chick flicks?" etc. But even the most female of movies are created as if being viewed by a man. Even in a Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan movie, the camera will leer at the line of a female pair of legs, or linger on the chest of an actress for a split second too long. The feminist movement seems to have left the gaze of film behind. The content of course has been affected, but the lingering stare of the camera has been left firmly in the hands of a man.
I'm curious, however, is television capable of changing the rules?
I pose this as a question because I'm seriously requiring an answer from you. You see I've seen quite a bit of girly tv lately, and in hindsight I'm starting to think that maybe these shows are being made from a female gaze...
I recently had a baby and while feeding every four hours, rather than subject myself to daytime television, I've watched the entire span of 'Sex and the City' on DVD. Has six years of those four women got me desensitised or are they desexualised a little? I could be wrong, because this only appears as an afterthought, but I get the feeling that the camera does not spy on these women the way I've seen women watched in other shows. The main characters are shown to be sassy and strong, always fabulous, but I don't feel like they're being objectified by the typically male gaze.
Another show I caught a lot of recently was 'Cashmere Mafia'. Merits of the show itself aside, I feel like that show was genuinely viewed by a female lens. The women are gorgeous, and there's no denying that, but the camera appears to have watched them as a good friend, not objectified and sexualised them like a predator waiting to take advantage. I don't know if it's the dust settling on my film schooling or just mummy-brain, but I can't classify the exact features of the style I would refer to as being male. I'm trying to use examples to illuminate the difference.
(Ah, ignorance, my well-worn friend) I haven't seen a lot of 'Women's Murder Club', but it appears that this is a decent example of the male gaze in action. The main characters are female, you'd assume a large portion of the audience is also. But the women are filmed in a way that would appeal to a man, in a way that a man would look upon them. The characters in this show are written to be strong and self-sufficient, yet shown to be objects of viewing pleasure. Each of the characters constitutes a different male fantasy (it can be argued that the women in 'S&tC' are too, but they are not put on display in the same way these women are) and are framed, lit, dressed and made up as art pieces for the viewing. There's a 2-second grab from the first episode that was used in all the ads for the show here in Oz, and it consists of Laura Harris (the character name of whom I have no idea) raising her eyes and tilting her head up past the camera. That's right! No dialogue or preview of possible storyline, just a cherubic actress looking demurely at a taller, dominant male character.
That's probably enough disjointed rambling on the topic that I hope to revisit one day when my thoughts can be arranged in a more linear fashion. But here's hoping 'women's shows' can eventually shake loose that male gaze.
Does anyone agree? Can anyone make enough sense of this to form an opinion one way or the other?
This theory states that even when the narrative of a film is told from a female point of view, the images and sounds that emanate from the screen are created as if from a man watching it unfold. I always agreed with this theory. There were often students that would argue that plenty of stories were told from a female point of view. "What about chick flicks?" etc. But even the most female of movies are created as if being viewed by a man. Even in a Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan movie, the camera will leer at the line of a female pair of legs, or linger on the chest of an actress for a split second too long. The feminist movement seems to have left the gaze of film behind. The content of course has been affected, but the lingering stare of the camera has been left firmly in the hands of a man.
I'm curious, however, is television capable of changing the rules?
I pose this as a question because I'm seriously requiring an answer from you. You see I've seen quite a bit of girly tv lately, and in hindsight I'm starting to think that maybe these shows are being made from a female gaze...
I recently had a baby and while feeding every four hours, rather than subject myself to daytime television, I've watched the entire span of 'Sex and the City' on DVD. Has six years of those four women got me desensitised or are they desexualised a little? I could be wrong, because this only appears as an afterthought, but I get the feeling that the camera does not spy on these women the way I've seen women watched in other shows. The main characters are shown to be sassy and strong, always fabulous, but I don't feel like they're being objectified by the typically male gaze.
Another show I caught a lot of recently was 'Cashmere Mafia'. Merits of the show itself aside, I feel like that show was genuinely viewed by a female lens. The women are gorgeous, and there's no denying that, but the camera appears to have watched them as a good friend, not objectified and sexualised them like a predator waiting to take advantage. I don't know if it's the dust settling on my film schooling or just mummy-brain, but I can't classify the exact features of the style I would refer to as being male. I'm trying to use examples to illuminate the difference.
(Ah, ignorance, my well-worn friend) I haven't seen a lot of 'Women's Murder Club', but it appears that this is a decent example of the male gaze in action. The main characters are female, you'd assume a large portion of the audience is also. But the women are filmed in a way that would appeal to a man, in a way that a man would look upon them. The characters in this show are written to be strong and self-sufficient, yet shown to be objects of viewing pleasure. Each of the characters constitutes a different male fantasy (it can be argued that the women in 'S&tC' are too, but they are not put on display in the same way these women are) and are framed, lit, dressed and made up as art pieces for the viewing. There's a 2-second grab from the first episode that was used in all the ads for the show here in Oz, and it consists of Laura Harris (the character name of whom I have no idea) raising her eyes and tilting her head up past the camera. That's right! No dialogue or preview of possible storyline, just a cherubic actress looking demurely at a taller, dominant male character.
That's probably enough disjointed rambling on the topic that I hope to revisit one day when my thoughts can be arranged in a more linear fashion. But here's hoping 'women's shows' can eventually shake loose that male gaze.
Does anyone agree? Can anyone make enough sense of this to form an opinion one way or the other?
| 72 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Irene
Women In Cinema
Grammar Matters
The theory is rather outdated, though, and it assumes that the male gaze is also a male heterosexual gaxe (I mean, aren't there women who like to look at boobs and legs? Aren't there men who aren't turned on by the same?). This reminds me of the recent brouhaha about Daniel Craig's Bond: apparently men and women were looking at him, and he wants to play up to that in the next movie. I don't think that the gaze is as simplistic as Mulvey made it out to be.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen those shows you mention...BUT I do think that there are plenty of films/TV shows that do not inherently represent a male audience. I haven't watched TV in years, but Buffy was definitely not from a patriarchal perspective (at least, not always). The camera often lingered over the buff torso of David Boreanaz--even on his own spin-off, Angel.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I saw "An Old Mistress" by Catherine Breillat - I didn't think it seemed like a male gaze.
Comment by Brad Gaylard
Mens Zen
I haven't watched a lot of Sex and the City.... but I think that Desperate Housewives has a definite male gaze to it. Although this is probably a function of the show having a male showrunner.