Laura Mulvey - A critical analysis of Visual Pleasure and Narrative cinema, taking a feminist stand point - is a very one sided piece of academic writing.
John Storey - Analysis of Mulvey's essay, it doesn't have any arguments against her text, just points to back it up - academic. Finds main points to summarise her theory but doesn't appose her.
Richard Dyer - Personal beliefs on sexualisation not being just on females (bias). Goes against Mulvey's view. Academic writing. Cinema could not promote homosexuality - 'divert erotic potential'.
In summary what is being discussed and argued? 6 Point for the primary article and 3 for each of the others.
Mulvey
1. An active male and passive female.
2. Females are there for the 'male gaze' the protagonist on screen and the audience.
3. Females can't enjoy sexual pleasure as males do.
4. Males cannot bear the burden of being sexually identified because they are there for the story
5. Men are a mirrored projection of what the audience fantasises themselves to be like.
6. The camera uses techniques to blur the lines between fantasy and reality to immerse the audience, which supports the voyeurism concept.
Dyer
1. Men cannot be seen as sexual towards each other in a scene because it promotes homosexuality (looks and stance)
2. Holden's image is passively female - men are sexualised in films - Holden takes his shirt off, the female gaze is obvious.
3. Male pin-ups (if men are sexualised) look in a way which suggest they are not an erotic object, they confront the fact of being looked at. If they were sexualised it would be considered pro feminism, as they would become the passive female - which is considered a loss of dominance and masculinity.
Storey
1. The image of a woman is the object of male desire (male gaze) and a sign that you could lose your masculinity.
2. Popular cinema has two main moments - moments of narrative (male) and moments of spectacle (female) the active male is associated with the narrative and the passive female is for the spectacle of the male gaze.
3. Cinema needs to be less objectifying of woman, and more gender neutral.
What is the article in reference to?
The 3 articles reference gender differences and the objectification of women within films of the 1940's/50's - relevant to it's time.
Triangulate:
What is the relationship between the writers?
Mulvey and Storey talk about the same theories and Storey supports the initial ideas laid out by Mulvey. Dyer counters the points made by both Storey and Mulvey. The two secondary essays both reference the primary essay
Does one text help to highlight information in the primary? Which points?
Storey highlights the key points made within Mulveys essay.
-Male gaze
-Objectifying women
-Feminist ideology
-Passive female and active male
-Voyuerism from audience
-Mirror fantasy created on screen through male character suggesting it is what the audience desires.
Are there any criticisms? What are they? How are they justified?
Dyers essay openly criticises Mulveys text, as he points out men can be objectified in the same way as women. The balance of dominance is never broken, as men through the way they look or have been portrayed do not suggest they can be feminine.
Individually write 300 word summary triangulating the three texts.
Laura Mulvey’s A critical analysis of Visual Pleasure and Narrative cinema takes a feminist standpoint as she discusses the role women have within film. Mulvey explains that there is an imbalance, as there is an active male and a passive female, ‘The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly.’. Females are there for the ‘male gaze’ the protagonist on screen and the audience. This is supported by John Storey who says ‘Popular cinema is structured around two moments: moments of narrative and moments of spectacle.’ Which the active male and the passive female take on. However, Richard Dyer believes that men can be sexualised, he uses the example of Picnic where Holden takes his shirt off, ‘The female cast… each register their erotic recognition of the objectified male body.’ the female gaze is obvious.
Mulvey goes on to explain that males cannot bear the burden of being sexually identified because they are there only for the story. Yet Dyer states that if men are sexualised but look in a way which suggest they are not an erotic object, they confront the fact of being looked at ‘looking off as if disinterested in the viewer, glancing upwards to appear lost in a higher spiritual form of thinking’. If they are sexualised it would be considered pro feminism, as they would become the passive female, which is considered a loss of dominance and masculinity. Storey helps to highlight key points made within Mulveys essay but lacks his own voice to help back up any of her points. Whereas Dyers writing openly criticises Mulveys text, as he points out men can be objectified in the same way as women. The balance of dominance is never broken, as men through the way they look or have been portrayed do not suggest they can be feminine.
