L Mulvey is a feminist, avant-garde film maker (with her husband Peter Wollen), who teaches and writes about film/media studies and is best known for her essay 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' (Link: Mulvey, L. (1975) 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema'). Mulvey wrote this essay in the 70s, influenced by the women's rights movement. The essay argues that women in film are portrayed as objects for sexual appeal or desire while men are portrayed as the main protagonist for "advancing the story" and "making things happen" (Mulvey L. (1975) 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema', pg 20). Mulvey calls this the 'male gaze', i.e. a male protagonist gives the male audience a sense of authority and the females provide the "erotic look".
J Storey's essay 'Cultural Theory and Popular Culture' (Link: Storey, J. (2008) 'Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction') uses many references to Mulvey's essay ('L Mulvey Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema', 'Cine-psychoanalysis', pg 81). Storey adheres and build upon Mulvey's opinion of the 'male gaze' confirming scopophilia (using the image of a person for sexual pleasure) is sexually objectifying, using the same term Mulvey uses to describe women in film as "to-be-looked-at-ness" (Mulvey L. (1975) 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema', pg 19) while "men look" (Storey J. (2008) 'Cultural Theory and Popular Culture', pg 82).
Recent discussions of sexualisation and feminist opinions that I have found question/explain the reasons behind the sexual objectification of women by arguing that men are also objectified.
In a recent video entitled 'Women On YouTube (THE TRUTH)', where women talk about being objectified, threatened and explain how "difficult" it is to be a woman on YouTube, I only discovered through reviews which question the video. One review made by a female explains that many of the points the women make in the video also apply to men. She makes a point that the women in the video complain about being sexualised when they freely sexualise themselves if you look at their videos, one even had a photoshoot for Playboy magazine (Shoe0nHead (2016) 'being a woman on youtube').
Another video which has women ask men questions is also criticised. One question in the video in particular asks why men don't like rom coms. In response, Youtuber Dr Shaym (Dr Shaym (2016) '36 STUPID FEMINIST QUESTIONS ANSWERED'), says men don't like rom coms or most romance films in general for the same reason women don't like over sexualised female characters. He explains how most romance films in general "cause women to have unrealistic expectations of men in what love should be like". This is just as objectifying to men as previously explained by Mulvey regarding the objectification of women in film. As Dr Shaym says in his video men are the ones perceived as "selfish" or misogynists when they show their desires of women. Even when men show their emotions this is still criticised because of the expectation that they should be 'real men'. However women easily attract sympathy when they show their emotions and wouldn't be called "selfish" or misandrists (hateful against men).
The document 'Stars' (Link: Dyer, R. (1998) 'Stars') contains mixed opinions with R Dyers discussing the possible evidence of 'female gaze' in which males are sexualised and objectified in films prior to Mulvey's claims. This document therefore questions the evidence that films only contain 'male gaze'. It explains that the 'male body' is repeatedly used within films (Dyer, R. (1998) 'Stars', 'Stars and spectators', pg 187). One example is a rom com film called 'Picnic' (1955) in which Steven Cohan describes how the male actor William Holden's body is eroticised in the film. He also tells us how Holden's character "continually removes his shirt to reveal an athletic physique" and how the female actors "each register their erotic recognition of the objectified male body". Films such as this would counteract Mulvey's claim of the 'male gaze' only existing within films since 'Picnic' existed before her essay's publication. However, as said by Cohan, Holden's objectification is apparently counteracted by authenticating 'his masculinity' (Dyer, R. (1998) 'Stars', 'Stars and spectators', pg 188). R Dyer does explain in his opinion that the 'male pin-ups' do not suggest them as erotic objects. I hardly believe this as 'counteracting' since this just perceives him as a manly hunk for the 'female gaze' and shows Dr Shaym's point why most men don't like romance films. I also know of many recent female characters who besides their sexualised appearance are shown to be strong and/or dependable characters within their series, yet they are perceived as inappropriate for being there for the 'male gaze'. For example, the female character Revy from the anime series 'Black Lagoon' (2002) looks very much like Lara Croft. Just as much as Lara she is very dependable and has been shown to be the one to save the damsels in distress (i.e. the guy characters, which almost shows the females to have a sense of authority as most of the strongest characters in the series are women) but she is extremely violent compared to Lara. In contrast the anime series 'Free!' (2013) is a swimming anime which shows a group of shirtless teenage boys with slim toned bodies, yet I don't hear any criticisms about the 'female gaze' when it is clearly there. The supposed 'counteracting' described in this document with R Dyers still seems conditional depending on the gender. Even by R Dyers opinion I don't see how 'male pin-ups' aren't seen as erotic since such pin-ups are there for scopophilic purposes.
To summarise, as far as I analyse it Storey's opinions very much agree with Mulvey's, especially since he uses many references to her essay. Storey builds upon Mulvey's arguments that women in film are victims of 'male gaze' which he describes as scopophilia and therefore sexually objectify the image of women in film. He even uses Mulvey's own term of "to-be-looked-at-ness" and he describes the men as the ones who look (active male and passive female). The opinions in the document 'Stars', including R Dyers and Steven Cohan, are mixed as they talk about the existence of the 'female gaze' but try to prove that this somehow isn't as severe as the 'male gaze', as if to satisfy Mulvey's claims. The use of the rom com film 'Picnic' practically contradicts Mulvey's opinion who claims she wants to make a change within the film industry. In fact other films in the 50s like Disney's Cinderella portrays a female who is the main protagonist for "advancing the story" and "making things happen". These are descriptions Mulvey claimed were only exclusive to male main protagonists in films yet the Prince in Cinderella was the object of desire, the charming prince women dream of meeting. This shows the point made in Dr Shaym's video about how unfair it is to show what women expect of men, plus both Cinderella and the Prince are only attracted to each others' looks based on one night together. It makes it feel like 'male gaze' started to only exist in film when feminism started to exist and that these documents don't look to consider many possible films which contain 'female gaze'. Their arguments are based on their own opinion and are not evidence driven, because they are not looking at how it affects both genders.
What Mulvey and Storey explain is true, there is no denying that 'male gaze' exists even till this day. However, the document 'Stars' shows that 'female gaze' also exists prior to Mulvey's claims. As Shoe0nHead points out, there are many bad and objectifying things towards women which can also apply to men. Perhaps the real problem isn't whether or not 'male gaze' and 'female gaze' exist but society's interpretation. How would we feel about being objectified? Is it more embarrassing for women and why?
Recent discussions of sexualisation and feminist opinions that I have found question/explain the reasons behind the sexual objectification of women by arguing that men are also objectified.
In a recent video entitled 'Women On YouTube (THE TRUTH)', where women talk about being objectified, threatened and explain how "difficult" it is to be a woman on YouTube, I only discovered through reviews which question the video. One review made by a female explains that many of the points the women make in the video also apply to men. She makes a point that the women in the video complain about being sexualised when they freely sexualise themselves if you look at their videos, one even had a photoshoot for Playboy magazine (Shoe0nHead (2016) 'being a woman on youtube').
Another video which has women ask men questions is also criticised. One question in the video in particular asks why men don't like rom coms. In response, Youtuber Dr Shaym (Dr Shaym (2016) '36 STUPID FEMINIST QUESTIONS ANSWERED'), says men don't like rom coms or most romance films in general for the same reason women don't like over sexualised female characters. He explains how most romance films in general "cause women to have unrealistic expectations of men in what love should be like". This is just as objectifying to men as previously explained by Mulvey regarding the objectification of women in film. As Dr Shaym says in his video men are the ones perceived as "selfish" or misogynists when they show their desires of women. Even when men show their emotions this is still criticised because of the expectation that they should be 'real men'. However women easily attract sympathy when they show their emotions and wouldn't be called "selfish" or misandrists (hateful against men).
The document 'Stars' (Link: Dyer, R. (1998) 'Stars') contains mixed opinions with R Dyers discussing the possible evidence of 'female gaze' in which males are sexualised and objectified in films prior to Mulvey's claims. This document therefore questions the evidence that films only contain 'male gaze'. It explains that the 'male body' is repeatedly used within films (Dyer, R. (1998) 'Stars', 'Stars and spectators', pg 187). One example is a rom com film called 'Picnic' (1955) in which Steven Cohan describes how the male actor William Holden's body is eroticised in the film. He also tells us how Holden's character "continually removes his shirt to reveal an athletic physique" and how the female actors "each register their erotic recognition of the objectified male body". Films such as this would counteract Mulvey's claim of the 'male gaze' only existing within films since 'Picnic' existed before her essay's publication. However, as said by Cohan, Holden's objectification is apparently counteracted by authenticating 'his masculinity' (Dyer, R. (1998) 'Stars', 'Stars and spectators', pg 188). R Dyer does explain in his opinion that the 'male pin-ups' do not suggest them as erotic objects. I hardly believe this as 'counteracting' since this just perceives him as a manly hunk for the 'female gaze' and shows Dr Shaym's point why most men don't like romance films. I also know of many recent female characters who besides their sexualised appearance are shown to be strong and/or dependable characters within their series, yet they are perceived as inappropriate for being there for the 'male gaze'. For example, the female character Revy from the anime series 'Black Lagoon' (2002) looks very much like Lara Croft. Just as much as Lara she is very dependable and has been shown to be the one to save the damsels in distress (i.e. the guy characters, which almost shows the females to have a sense of authority as most of the strongest characters in the series are women) but she is extremely violent compared to Lara. In contrast the anime series 'Free!' (2013) is a swimming anime which shows a group of shirtless teenage boys with slim toned bodies, yet I don't hear any criticisms about the 'female gaze' when it is clearly there. The supposed 'counteracting' described in this document with R Dyers still seems conditional depending on the gender. Even by R Dyers opinion I don't see how 'male pin-ups' aren't seen as erotic since such pin-ups are there for scopophilic purposes.
To summarise, as far as I analyse it Storey's opinions very much agree with Mulvey's, especially since he uses many references to her essay. Storey builds upon Mulvey's arguments that women in film are victims of 'male gaze' which he describes as scopophilia and therefore sexually objectify the image of women in film. He even uses Mulvey's own term of "to-be-looked-at-ness" and he describes the men as the ones who look (active male and passive female). The opinions in the document 'Stars', including R Dyers and Steven Cohan, are mixed as they talk about the existence of the 'female gaze' but try to prove that this somehow isn't as severe as the 'male gaze', as if to satisfy Mulvey's claims. The use of the rom com film 'Picnic' practically contradicts Mulvey's opinion who claims she wants to make a change within the film industry. In fact other films in the 50s like Disney's Cinderella portrays a female who is the main protagonist for "advancing the story" and "making things happen". These are descriptions Mulvey claimed were only exclusive to male main protagonists in films yet the Prince in Cinderella was the object of desire, the charming prince women dream of meeting. This shows the point made in Dr Shaym's video about how unfair it is to show what women expect of men, plus both Cinderella and the Prince are only attracted to each others' looks based on one night together. It makes it feel like 'male gaze' started to only exist in film when feminism started to exist and that these documents don't look to consider many possible films which contain 'female gaze'. Their arguments are based on their own opinion and are not evidence driven, because they are not looking at how it affects both genders.
What Mulvey and Storey explain is true, there is no denying that 'male gaze' exists even till this day. However, the document 'Stars' shows that 'female gaze' also exists prior to Mulvey's claims. As Shoe0nHead points out, there are many bad and objectifying things towards women which can also apply to men. Perhaps the real problem isn't whether or not 'male gaze' and 'female gaze' exist but society's interpretation. How would we feel about being objectified? Is it more embarrassing for women and why?
