"the male gaze": classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

The question here is not whether the male gaze itself is C or D, but whether the concept of "the male gaze" (i.e. that for which everything for which everything from visual narrative to "beauty," however you want to construe that, is allegedly constructed) is critically useful, or whether it is so broadly construed a bogeyperson that it becomes all-purpose and therefore kind of useless. Would it be possible, for instance, to make a film that alienates the male gaze and does not also alienate the female gaze? I don't mean "chick flicks" here, I mean serious Laura Mulvey-inspired work that doesn't simply bore everyone to distraction.

(This inspired by someone in one of my classes who held up the fashion section of Time Out New York as an example of something constructed specifically for the male gaze. Got news for you, friend, that's not generally who's looking at that section or buying the magazine because of it...)

Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Dud.

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 12:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic.

Alex K (Alex K), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

one of the interesting oddities of that cluster of screen crits is the question of the gaze-status of their own writing style — eyeglazingly rebarbative, theorywise (= male?)

laura m herself is a total honey, for one thing (a very funny sweet clever little old posh brit woman, and a good companion to get drunk w.after work): she is i think long past LaYMoR gender-essentialist versions of her own ideas, if she wz ever caught in them in the first place: the idea of genedered gaze is of course tremendously strong, even if you want to disprove it (and a good movie to ask douglas's Q abt is todd haynes's yes-sirkian-but-something-else-too FAR FROM HEAVEN)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 12:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Ditto on Mark S summary of Laura, ver ver nice and certainly not pigeonholed by her 70's work (indeed she has withdrawn it from publication and has spent much of the last thirty odd years trying to knock it into better shape). I think the essential idea behind a gendered gaze is almost so simple it suggests itself, the problem comes in how that gaze is then mediated by culture and society (or vice versa - does culture/society mediate the gaze?) I think in many areas you are right that it has become such a giant catch all that a lot of its usages are redundant. More importantly a look at how the idea of a gendered gaze has then altered the gaze.

Fashion pages are interesting because on the whole they are aimed at women - however one of the ideas of certain kinds of fashion is to attract men, so whilst the page will be set up for the female gaze, they are attempting to replicate a male gaze in reading it. I don't think it is as binary as saying "who is this page made for".

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, thing is I was watching Predator last night and actually explaining to my mum the male gaze and how the only woman in the film functions only as a catalyst for the quest of the lead male and my mum just looked back and said "Yes, Nick."

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:18 (twenty-two years ago)

yes but is the only woman in the film the only female in the film? what sex is the predator? is that mr or ms vagina dentata under all that armour?

arnie under the cold mud = like a man fantastically panicking abt his sexuality when he go into a gay sauna and gets a hard-on

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What would Mr Schwarzenegger say?

As for the male/female alien question - the Predator is hunting them because they've got big guns...

Wouldn't the Alien vs Predator thign posit Pred as male cos the Aliens are posited as female? The face-hugger things being male?

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's interesting looking at the male gaze in the realm of video games and how issues of viewing gender translate across to (FSVO) 'genderless' characters - such as Rez and even the dinosaurs in Bubble Bobble! Interaction with videogames is still more gendered than interaction with film (to change this I should write for EDGE magzine hoorah hoorah) and the male gaze becomes even more apparent when you are asked to take part in male-constructed environments. Largely, games are created for males by males and the *construction* of the female when bringing in the two genders can't escape being a product of the mediated woman. Who then becomes *doubly* mediated in her cel-shaded/polyoned/pixelled way.

Sod Hstencil, I blame Lara Croft (and the fact that I was never any good at sodding Tomb Raider).

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyway this thread is POPULATED with the male gaze - it's all so sexualist.

(Apart from Mark S who is a pokémon).

(Actually pokémon have genders too but I will leave it at that before I reveal myself as even MORE of a dork).

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:50 (twenty-two years ago)

The male gaze is not my fault!

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I know. That is why I said I blame Lara Croft. Bloody male gaze strikes again :)

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

what's the difference between the male gaze and the male stare? Is drool involved, or what?

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

the male stare draws to much attention to itself (ie drool) and so becomes looked-at itself, a big male-gaze no-no

I'm trying to think of the viddy games my lady-friends like:

driving games
1-on-1 fighting games

The latter have a spectator's point of view and doesn't privilege one fighter over the other (though I recall some of the female fighters have jobble-tastic boobie action... hm). The former could be read as male, but I'm not sure it holds.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Does anyone else see the Wizard of Oz as a giant metaphor for the paranoia of the male gaze, or did I just read that somewhere? The force that unites a land, that creates technology so advanced it's mistaken for magic: unmasked for the shrively flaccid old man that it is.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Hi everybody!!!!

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure if it is a GREBT STEP FOR WIMMIN to only feel like they can participate in male dominated pursuits suchas drivingincars and er... major league violence by taking on the role of men in such games - it's usually the same male driven narrative - even Chun Li is only fighting to avenge her blooming father, as we KEEP ON HEARING... then again Chun Li is probably my first GURL CRUSH ever. I like my women pixellated. I am of course using the original Chun-Li incarnation when she wears the pretty fighting dress, not when she has freakishly long legs and wears a tracksuit and looks just like Cammy but in blue and yellow.

(NB I am possibly playing devils advocate here - I've read a Germaine Greer book you know).

I personally think I should stay away from driving games. They make me too violent => I AM TOO INFLUENCED BY THE MALE GAZE!!

It is also worth mentioning that when the male gaze tries to reconstruct a 'female gaze' in vid games we end up with Mary Kate and Ashleys shopping extravaganza or yet another Lara-clone. This is why I like Ape Escape 2. Focus on the monkeys...

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey Tracer!

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

alien vs predator AND THEN THEY LEZ UP!!

seriously (well "seriously" heh), they *are* both medusa-form monsters = effie gray's pubic hair = THEE NATURE OV THEE GOTHICK

(dear god my "theory of everything" is getting very extremely mentalist)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I found it irritating in a college lit course about this subject when the professor kept talking about how the male gaze informed all narrative film. Specifically, I proposed non-narrative film as an antidote or reaction to the "problem" (tho not necessarily a solution), and her reluctance to talk about purely "poetic" or imagistic or abstract (or whatever) film seemed to belie an ignorance of it (i.e. "I'd rather talk about Hitchcock, who is this Maya Deren anyway?"). That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it seems strange to me to set something up as needing opposition, without actually making any effort to oppose it.

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Also mark both of them are VERY FAST.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

(hstencil a "gaze" of some type does in fact inform all narrative film. if you ran numbers on strictly POV shots the preponderance would certainly be of a male gaze. solution = Maya Deren?)

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

This is hard having 3 convos at once! The SPECTRE of the HYDRA'S GAZE!!

Hey Sarah how can it be a "male-driven narrative" if YOU'RE DRIVING, eh??

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

well see Tracer it was just a proposal, and obv. most of Deren's films are narrative. Hell, even Tony Conrad's The Flicker is narrative, to an extent (I didn't see how it could be until I talked with him about it). But still, it seems like the underground film movement - esp. the explosion of the 1960s, but not limited to then - very specifically changed almost every aspect of film, from exploring different ways of production (or even non-production! i.e. Tony Conrad's "cooking" films, Fluxus stuff, etc.) and distribution to content. And even underground stuff that sticks to a narrative tends to really subvert the "male gaze," in my opinion (I'm thinking of Jack Smith's Flaming Creatures, and how its explicit homoeroticism plus fragmented structure turns trad film on its head - pardon the pun). I just don't understand why this stuff, while obscure, isn't more talked about as, say, Hitchcock (and don't get me wrong, I like the latter, but at this point it doesn't seem such a rich vein to chisel away at).

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Preponderance of male gaze != absolute male gaze.

Compare this with TV - esp soap operas.

Games: how important is the framing device to the way you play a game. F'rinstance in a first person shooter if you never see your character it is merely constructed my cut scenes and the box cover. how much freedom do you have? (Is playing Crazy Taxi as one of the female drivers significantly different to playing it as one of the male ones?)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

stencil did you ever see any of the screen mob's OWN movies (wollen, mcmullen, sally p0tter)?

i think they "subvert the gaze" mainly in the sense that they are all unwatchably awful: i assume a lot of 60s undergrd movie ideology went into their making also (snow, dwoskin, mekas yada yada)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

nope mark I'm not familiar with those names. Tell me more?

(did I tell you that Adolfas Mekas teaches where I went to school?)

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Because you (generally) have to drive as a bloke, and even if you DO get the gurl option she's as handicapped as all rub IE rubbish Gena in CRAZY TAXI!

In OutRun ISTR you played as a bloke with a simpering blonde as yr escort. I have been reminded of this in the VENUS RAZOR ads which feature lots of lovely blond chixx0r all in pink driving a pink car and showing off their freakishly hairless leggies saying that their razor is so good it's scandalous - ARGHHH! At least in Outrun the woman was getting a nice drive around sunny Cali-By-Numbers...

I really do not see how such a rub advert cd be designed for a female gaze - I suppose they've missed out the 'science' bit - maybe that's more one for the blokes eh?

No no it is surely too rubbish to be human or even simian - it must have been designed by a passing carrier bag on the wind...

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

hstencil you haven't said anything about how these flicks "subvert" a male-oriented gaze, you're just saying they do. For instance homoeroticism isn't a subversion per se of the mechanics of looking and being-looked-at. And the other stuff, I mean, I haven't seen them, so you can't assume that we all know what you're talking about. For better or worse LOOKING is one of the few basic buildings blocks directors have to create meaning. Subversion of a male point of view could come via overdeterministic hyperextension: "Peeping Tom" for instance!! But throwing away the notion of looking and being-looked-at, I don't know, I'd be a little reluctant to get rid of this tool, too, lest the movie become, ahem, unwatchably awful. I sympathize about your classroom situation though, maybe your professor should have been more open-minded.

Pete what's difft about TV?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

[tell you more] + [be reliable] = [i have to look some of it up], so latah d00d on that

(there is an amusing paragraph or two on these movies in bailey-head b.watson's "art, cl4ss & cl34v4g3", and the probems w.their idea of avant-gardism... but i'll have to look that up also)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I do not care about the male gaze. The only gaze I care about is the SHOE gaze.

http://www.angelfire.com/ut/pinevergreen/images/MBV.jpg

kate, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

tv is difft cz the screen is little and you can zap over to who wants to be a millionaire in the middle

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:55 (twenty-two years ago)

We should take this to ILF!

I think one thing about Mulvey is her big essay ("Visual Pleasure . . .") has been misunderstood. My impression was that it was more prescriptive than hermeneutic--more advocating for a new kind of cinema, or a new kind of responsibility in cinema, than suggesting a new way of interpreting cinema (although that's been its lasting influence).

Wollen's Riddles of the Sphinx (Mark: that's his right?) is unwatchable, but I kind of like Sally Potter's Gold Diggers. Sure you can sense the points they are trying to make, but Potter at least has a good deal of basic filmmaking skill and imagination.

amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

heh is that from the shoe's POV kate?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

actually i've never seen sphinx: i'd kind of like to see gold-diggers again, but i *hate hate hated* it the first time round (c.1983 so my perpsective has probbly changed)

these days wollen is a good writer, esp. in ref (yuk term alert) "cross disciplinarity"; laura is still a bit clenched for my tastes as a stylist

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh fcuk!! Stupid dumb Nestcape 4.5 just ate my HUGE POST!

Summary:

1. Yes Pete, Gena is rub in Crazy Taxi - also look at yr surroundings and the skimpily dressed gurls you pick up...

2. Although you don't see your body in an FPS, your actions and surroundings tend to be gendered just as much as a rendition of your body wd be. Lots of monsters + bloke squaddies = a v restrictive headspace, especially if you're trying to look for some chixx0r headspace.

3. There's more than a bit of contrarianism creating something where the only purpose is NOT to be male at all - and I love it! I admit I don't have a clue abt the films yr referring to but I think in the HEM HEM musical ouvre that the Slits managed to do that vvv well and they didn't half blooming make a racket eh?

4. Crossroads is the best TV show ever.

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Tracer, I don't think there's any one way "they" subvert the male gaze, and I'd be hard-pressed to try to define one way for a genre that encompasses hundreds of films (and I use genre in a very, very loose sense here).

I agree with you about looking being the building block, although there are certainly films where looking isn't even the point! I mean, a lot of the Fluxus stuff is pure experiment. To bring up Tony Conrad's cooking films, the idea there was that instead of shooting anything, he actually "cooked" the films. That is, he was interested in the idea of making film without processing, and wanted to explore filmmaking as an extension of "recipe," in a sense delivering filmmaking from auteurism to amateurism.

As far as homoeroticism, I agree with you, but maybe my point would come across better if I could show you Flaming Creatures. Homoeroticism isn't exactly the word I was looking for, unless flaccid penises are erotic (and I don't think they are, at least not as erotic as erect ones!).

Also, I can think of some filmmakers that explicitly "use" the male gaze itself, bringing it to a sort of breaking point (knowingly or not). First thing that comes to mind immediately is Warhol's films (a number of which were really just his attempt to "cash in" on ideas already posited by other L.E.S. types - Jack Smith, the Fluxus people, etc.). Something like Empire stretches the gaze to the point where it's no longer tenable, and fascination turns to repulsion or indifference. Or any of the "fetish"-type films (Haircut).

I don't know if this is all coming across that well, but I think there are a lot of different strategies from underground film that, while employed, haven't really been followed through with. These strategies aren't just from a purely "film theory" perspective, either; I think there's a lot of fertile ground here for the cult stud types to ponder (if they ever get tired of talking about Madonna).

(Also it didn't help that in one book assigned in that course around film had dozens of factual errors in it.)

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, Deren's Meshes of an Afternoon is probably an absolutely classic example of a "subversion per se of the mechanics of looking and being-looked-at." There are many dizzying shifts of perspective amongst the Deren-protagonist, Deren's doppelgangers and what they're *looking at* or reacting to; to top it all off, Deren is both star and the director of the film. Though like Tracer suggests, this might be awful carried to an hour, though at ten-fiteen minutes it's absolutely unforgettable (if a touch ridiculous, too -- she can't lay off all the super-obvious Freudisms.)

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

also her trousers are really ugly!

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:07 (twenty-two years ago)

< / female gaze >

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

lots of good points about Meshes..., Michael. I'd also add that I don't think that there's a SOLUTION, i.e. yeah there's always gonna be super-obvious Freudisms when you're dealing with representation, symbols and signs. To me though an unsuccesful attempt is a lot more interest than not attempting at all.

Can we talk about how Milla basically ripped off Meshes... for that one music video?

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, totally! Not as bad as Tarsem's wholesale appropriation of Jarman's Caravaggio for the "Losing my Religion" video.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

and subsequent appropriation of every British art-world sensation for the Jennifer Lopez flick (a male-gaze assessment of which would make my head explode, or at least my stomach turn)

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I do not care about the male gaze. The only gaze I care about is the SHOE gaze.

What, do you mean that when you gaze at the shoe, the shoe gazes back at you?

j.lu (j.lu), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Only if you paint goofy little eyes on it.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Heh heh heh..."male gays"...heh heh heh.

Nick A. (Nick A.), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

no, the shoe has 10 eyes (at least each one of mine does - the laces gotta go through something).

hstencil, Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

subvert the shoe gaze with velcro.

amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Has anyone ever made a movie about a flasher?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Male Gaze:

http://empty.org/empty/full/m/body.jpg

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

(nb - this is my favorite thread ever. My Bloody Valentine and Laura Mulvey together! - wow)

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, I know, you can start anywhere. Those accounts sound interesting to me but how much of that interest comes from the concept of the male gaze? How much do teenage boys have in common with returning GIs because of their maleness? That was I was responding to in my original post.

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

But when is a bannister just a bannister? (Hint: when over it leans a face, tenderly sweet and . . . )

I have a similar reaction to commercials, but I don't know that I consider them evil. I like that you have a clear standard against which to judge them -- do they sell the product or not (obv. if you're in advertising this is not so "clear" after all) -- and it's interesting to see when the director and writer's artistic goals are at odds with that, and when the two goals harmonize. So it's like Hollywood for Dummies, I guess.

amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:47 (twenty-two years ago)

(I do recognize the utility of understanding things like the male gaze in my endeavors to become one with evil)

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

locus classicus of the male gaze, BTW:

http://www.academic.marist.edu/pennings/rw1.jpg

amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:50 (twenty-two years ago)

(gazes)

amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:50 (twenty-two years ago)

you're so sentimental

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

But my sentiment just undergirds the hegemony of conservative gender roles!

amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:54 (twenty-two years ago)

(not sure if he's kidding or not)

amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:54 (twenty-two years ago)

The Pope is Catholic, y'know.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Goodness, I absolutely loved that joke that joe lakeside told about the Pope.

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

(that is funny)

also, Amateurist, with regards to the hegemony of conservative gender roles, I'm not sure if you mean that in a politically conservative sense? If so, I think that while some theorist have clear political aims, many are just illuminating or describing the condition of gender and identity. It's not conservative or liberal or even a choice, necessarily. I.e. even though gender may be a construct, it's not really a construct that anyone has a choice in (though perhaps in the far off future when we all live by Harraway's 'Cyborg Manifesto'), and it's really a practicality that we must live with - even if Freud or Lacan help us to see our predicament more clearly. I feel like the Cat in 'Babe' who tells him that he's going to the slaughterhouse no matter what.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Spencer, I only just now noticed, up in the sky, high above my head, the point your reference to the Pope made. So I guess there is no such thing as obvious.

I have enjoyed this thread.

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel like the Cat and Babe at the same time but you guys help take the edge off.

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)

So you're saying we're kinda like booze?

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Reading from top to bottom...

Lisa
Carol
Gabbneb

(that's one of those allusions that signifies nothing) (gabbneb), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, but unlike my lowball, you talk back.

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:30 (twenty-two years ago)

this one's on me:

http://www.neworderonline.com/images/gallery/electronic_gettingawaywithit_front.jpg

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Having read Middlesex I think setting up gender as a binary opposition is reductive. Example: Jane Dark (who may or may not something to do with Carol Clover, enlighten me) where there is a conscious choice to use (or perhaps just give the impression of using) the female gaze.

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Wednesday, 30 April 2003 23:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Brad, I'm not sure I follow you. could you restate?

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 1 May 2003 00:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Where does Dick and Jane fit into all this?

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 1 May 2003 00:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Or, just because you're male doesn't mean you have to look with a male gaze - but people will assume you do unless you take steps to confuse the issue (e.g. disguise your gender, or act like a Queen or something).

Whether this statement is meaningful or trite depends I think on whether the male/female gaze (concepts I think we have established are useful) is a binary oppostion or a continuum.

I would say that Dick fits into Jane, but that would be undergirding the hegemony of conservative gender roles.

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Thursday, 1 May 2003 00:23 (twenty-two years ago)

hmmm, I think that the male gaze is not something that we *choose* to look with. The pleasure we derive from it is a by-product of "normative" oedipal development. The interesting question for me is whether certain texts can both defy the male gaze and satisfy our desires. This applies to other film theories - especially Jameson's analysis of Hollywood narratives (how they always subvert a fantasy and return us to various status quos).

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 1 May 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

All the great humanist artists have the capability to look from both gazes (in fact, from a multiplicity of gazes). Rather than being separatist, the best female artists aim for this humanist ideal.

(What worries me about my argument is that I tried to list all the great humanist artists and they were all male.)

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Thursday, 1 May 2003 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

The interesting question for me is whether certain texts can both defy the male gaze and satisfy our desires.

"our" who? What kind of desires?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 1 May 2003 02:02 (twenty-two years ago)

this thread just got better.

hstencil, Thursday, 1 May 2003 04:17 (twenty-two years ago)


that was preposterous

vahid (vahid), Thursday, 1 May 2003 07:04 (twenty-two years ago)


that was preposterous.

vahid (vahid), Thursday, 1 May 2003 07:05 (twenty-two years ago)

"our" who? What kind of desires?

the satisfaction we get from spending 2 hours watching a story develop and end, using camera shots and various cues to suspend our disbelief etc; things we take for granted and often things that are included by the creators and enjoyed by the audience on an unconscious level.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 1 May 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I like how thanks to Stence's link, vahid now says:

"that darn wuz preposterous. Drink your Milk!"

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 1 May 2003 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

four months pass...
i apologise for my earlier grumpiness on this thread. incidentally, has anyone read mulvey's essay on cindy sherman? if not, read it!

The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Saturday, 20 September 2003 23:12 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...
i miss felicity, and i can't recall jess being so engaging in quite some time

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 9 July 2005 15:50 (twenty years ago)

whats it called wheres it found lucy

anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 10 July 2005 08:04 (twenty years ago)

I just started the Modleski book Felicity mentions upthread. It's fantastic so far (and apparently closer to Mulvey's revised view that Mark hints at), especially in dealing with the problematic auteurism many feminist Hitchcock critics rely on.

C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Sunday, 10 July 2005 21:38 (twenty years ago)

A lot contemporary film scholarship is dazzling sophistry but totally unconvincing as an argument about films and how they made and appreciated.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but Am, this is totally OTM.

jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 11 July 2005 00:58 (twenty years ago)

A lot contemporary film scholarship is dazzling sophistry but totally unconvincing as an argument about films and how they made and appreciated.

Based on some of the art and music criticism I've read, I'd say this could apply to quite a lot of other kinds of scholarship as well.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 11 July 2005 01:26 (twenty years ago)

strange that douglas began this thread and never again contributed to it.

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 11 July 2005 05:08 (twenty years ago)

A lot contemporary film scholarship is dazzling sophistry but totally unconvincing as an argument about films and how they made and appreciated.

I still like reading it... even if I find writing it a major exertion.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 11 July 2005 13:56 (twenty years ago)

Plus it might fail as an argument about how films are appreciated, but typically the trade-off is a pretty convincing demonstration of it.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 11 July 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

four years pass...

I once had a kind-of-crush on a girl whom I, subconsciously, would always reflexively call Laura Mulvey.

EDB, Saturday, 14 November 2009 15:13 (sixteen years ago)

lol

rent, Saturday, 14 November 2009 15:16 (sixteen years ago)

Classic, if sometimes drawn to absurd lengths:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJAApAuhSg

Deliquescing (Derelict), Saturday, 14 November 2009 17:31 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/node/285#comment-1594

find on the page "male gaze"

bamcquern, Saturday, 14 November 2009 17:59 (sixteen years ago)

that's really funny, esp. in the context of the last "scene" of Riddles of the Sphinx

sarahel, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:09 (sixteen years ago)

My male gaze is too advanced to not be bored by the youtube video Derelict posted. If her nostrils began to dilate and someone began to sodomize them I suppose then I'd have a little something to look at.

bamcquern, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:24 (sixteen years ago)

i was referring to the thing you posted btw

sarahel, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:26 (sixteen years ago)

I figged. I've never seen the Riddles of the Sphinx. I imdb'd it, though.

lol functional shift

bamcquern, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:27 (sixteen years ago)

(No plot synopsis.)

bamcquern, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:27 (sixteen years ago)

it ends with a long scene of one of those plastic toys with the small metal ball-bearings in a brightly-colored maze that you're supposed to shake, turn, manipulate to get into the hole at the center. It takes a very very long time showing the ball-bearings rolling around the maze and not getting in the hole. When they finally did so, the screening audience of a hundred or so freshman MCM students clapped and cheered.

sarahel, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:31 (sixteen years ago)

primarily because they/we had spent over two hours watching this movie and it was finally over. I think Tracer Hand was there in the audience as well.

sarahel, Saturday, 14 November 2009 18:32 (sixteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.