Introduction
The growth of the media and cinematic industry has created a new standard of social status, specifically for females. The value of women has been heavily judged in accordance with their physical looks. There is a pressure that requires women to present their appearances first to get the public’s attention. Rather than analyzing women’s thoughts, words, and contributions, the audience focus is more directed to objectify women’s bodies and the aspect of their sexuality. Undeniably, this objectification is publicly internalized because of the unbalance and exaggerated sexual representation and exposure of women’s images that are presented to the public in the form of movies. This tendency in the film industry is the essence of the male gaze theory by Laura Mulvey. Mary Devereaux interprets that the concept of gaze as an overpowered male dominance in society whereas women are seen as sensual objects of pleasure (Devereaux 2021). Not only does this public perception undervalues women’s role, but gradually, it sets a precedent for the female audience to also objectify themselves and prioritize their physical attractiveness over ability.
Mulvey’s concept of ‘the male gaze’
The male gaze theory criticizes how the role of women has been portrayed in such passivity to satisfy and strengthen the consciousness of patriarchy in society. It is clear to see that one visual presentation making’s objective is to objectify women as a meaning that is meaningless without the dominant presence of men. (Mulvey 1975) As a result of the constant public consumption of this visualization in cinema, advertisements, and numerous other visual media platforms, women’s emancipation progress seems hindered. Therefore, the usage of the word ‘gaze’ is to refer to the observers specifically male audience, who are stimulated to look at the women from the patriarchal perspective. The camera shots and the role of women in the movie promote the narrative of women being dependent on men. More directly, women’s values matter by being sexually appealing in the eyes of their counterparts. On the other hand, men tend to find pleasure in looking at the object of desire which Freud in Manlove calls the tendency as “scopophilia” (Manlove 2007, p.84). In the same paper, Manlove also refers to Lacan’s argument which states that pleasure doesn’t always come from disrespectful intention but can rather be seen as the nature of the visualization. Manlove himself, taking the movie Vertigo, Rear Window, and Marnie into account, offers the impression that constant display of pleasure could mutually empower women to take action and overturn the “to-be-looked-at-ness” (Mulvey 1975, p.11) judgment (Manlove 2007).
It is crucial to keep in mind, that Mulvey’s theory is not against the exploration of sexuality for both genders. However, it should become problematic if the drive and representation of sexuality on the screen are repetitively and unequally associated with women. Her criticism centralizes on “sexual imbalance” (Mulvey 1975, p.11) of male and female roles displayed. Undeniably, various movies have implemented the methods to characterize the female role in such a manner. Using the recent movie Black Widow as an example, notice how the female superhero’s costumes are exposing the shape of her body and how the camera slowly closes up to her body’s parts. Sam Girgus explains that such an outcome should not be unexpected when most components of the movie industry from production and presentation to viewing, reception, and discourse are controlled by predominantly male individuals (Girgus 2021). The gender hierarchy is only apparent in the movie but exists or even is rooted behind the scene.
The male gaze theory plays a significant role in academic and film industry development (Columpar 2021). Numerous feminist movements have been initiated afterwards. Movies are held to a higher standard in terms of addressing gender equality following the emergence of the Bechdel test which in itself remains to be improved (O’Meara 2016). On the other hand, Mulvey’s essay has drawn numerous critics as well. Her theory seems to ignore the homosexual perspective of spectatorship (Mayne 1991) which to this criticism, Samuels adds that the absence of regard to lesbians can oppress homosexuality (Samuels 1998). The other issue around the male gaze theory is an overemphasis on being the object as a burden, while women nowadays could view objectification on their body as an expression of freedom. In this sense, the new female generations have moved forward on the negativity, utilizing the gaze to amplify their fight against gender inequality. The criticism against the male gaze also comes in the form of the ‘female gaze’ theory.
The following part of this essay will dissect the female gaze critic comprehensively.
The female gaze: what about male objectification?
Positive progress of the feminist movements is able to modernize the traditional concept of society to be more equal and welcoming women’s participation to take part in ‘men’s’ world. The border that differentiates men’s and women’s entertainment has become deconstructed. Seeing that as an opportunity to expand the market, the film industry realizes that female audience’s pleasure is important. Therefore, masculinity becomes an important point of sale to the spectator who enjoys the sexualization of males. This trend also frames the male gaze theory as a one-dimensional and outdated one. It starts with Kaplan’s question on the gender of spectatorship: “Is it only male?”(Kaplan 1983). The essence of the female gaze argues the possibility of men being equally objectified in the movie through the camera shots and sexual characterization by the female audience. It is justified in the movie Romance which explicitly displays male erotism (Phillips 2001).
However, even the female gaze critic can also attract countercriticism. Steward refuses the notion that objectification to men and women are equally comparable. She states that;
“…this is a false equivalency; in fact these male bodies are not considered in such depth or through such a narrow lens of sexualization” (MacCallum-Stewart 2014).
Moreover, Malone delivers a quite coherent argument that essentially denies the ratio of the female gaze simply due to the nature of the imbalance position of power (Malone 2018) between men and women. Objectification towards men links to power whereas female objectification brings the optic of passivity and submission.
Frankly, both sides offer valid perspectives. Women have been unfairly misrepresented in the movie from the beginning, yet it is similarly unfair not to acknowledge the presence and negative impact that come with male objectification. Therefore, instead of taking a stand between the two, the writer finds it more constructive to build the rest of the essay upon the shift to subjectification to evaluate the relevancy of the male gaze nowadays.
The shift from objectification to subjectification
The second wave of feminism battles against the status quo that patriarchal society creates. In line with that motivation, the male gaze theory aims to reveal the female objectification in cinema and hopefully provide virtual access for feminists’ political activism. Surely, the cause comes to fruition given the gender equality awareness nowadays. Nonetheless, Oliver mentions that in this technologically advanced era, the culture of the male gaze theory is not diminished, but reinforced by social media in particular (Oliver 2017). Sexualization and objectification of women have become more accessible and have victimized women to a higher degree.
Interestingly, Oliver’s opinion, or rather the general idea of the male gaze is contradictory to the postfeminist media culture. This perspective looks at these new female generations as active, autonomous, and desiring sexual subjects. Gill argues that the postfeminist movement promotes and actualizes the transition from the male gaze to “the self-policing, narcissistic gaze” (Gill 2007, p.151). Public gaze is welcomed and women’s sexuality becomes the source of feminine power. In addition, Goddard claims that the nature of gender difference should no longer be taken into account when the male gaze topic comes up given the existence of the female gaze and modernization of masculine identity. He explains that;
“In a post-feminist world, the Symbolic is changing increasingly to include the Female as a symbol of power” (Goddard 2000, p.37).
Further discussion on the postfeminist theory and its contrast to the male gaze theory will take place in the next paper.
Conclusion
The writer believes that one is not able to decide whether or not the male gaze theory is still relevant just by observing the status quo of certain countries. It requires a comprehensive study that takes place in several jurisdictions with diverse ideological values, politics, and prosperity rates because all of those aspects indicate the type of social structure practised. For instance, in Indonesia where the law and customs are built on religious and conservative foundations, the gender disparity manifests into daily life. Yet, it doesn’t necessarily underestimate the role of women and limit their rights, rather sets a clear and certain structure. The vast majority of women don’t view that circumstances as an issue that needs solvency but rather find it as an integrated part of their cultures. While it might not be the case in a liberal society, where patriarchy is seen as a burden to have women’s rights exercised. As a coin has two sides, there are always two sides in every theory, specifically the one that relates to gender equality.
Bibiliography:
Columpar, C. (2021) ‘The Gaze As Theoretical Touchstone: The Intersection of Film Studies, Feminist Theory, and Postcolonial Theory’, p. 21.
Devereaux, M. (2021) ‘Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers and the Gendered Spectator: The New Aesthetics’, p. 12.
Gill, R. (2007) ‘Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10(2), pp. 147–166. doi:10.1177/1367549407075898.
Girgus, S. (2021) ‘Representative Men: Unfreezing the Male Gaze’, p. 10.
Goddard, K. (2000) ‘“Looks Maketh the Man”: The Female Gaze and the Construction of Masculinity’, The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(1), pp. 23–39. doi:10.3149/jms.0901.23.
Kaplan, E.A. (1983) ‘Is the Gaze Male?’, in Furstenau, M. (ed.) The Film Theory Reader: Debates and Arguments. Routledge.
MacCallum-Stewart, E. (2014) ‘“Take That, Bitches!”Refiguring Lara Croft in Feminist Game Narratives’, Game Studies, 14(2)
Malone, A. (2018) The Female Gaze: Essential Movies Made by Women. Mango Media Inc.
Manlove, C.T. (2007) ‘Visual Drive; and Cinematic Narrative: Reading Gaze Theory in Lacan, Hitchcock, and Mulvey’, Cinema Journal, 46(3), pp. 83–108. doi:10.1353/cj.2007.0025.
Mayne, J. (1991) Lesbian Looks: Dorothy Arzner and Female Authorship. Flow Do I Look? Queer Film and Video. Ed. Bad Object Choices. Seattle: Bay Press.
Mulvey, L. (1975) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen, 16(3), pp. 6–18. doi:10.1093/screen/16.3.6.
Oliver, K. (2017) ‘The male gaze is more relevant, and more dangerous, than ever’, New Review of Film and Television Studies, 15(4), pp. 451–455. doi:10.1080/17400309.2017.1377937.
O’Meara, J. (2016) ‘What “The Bechdel Test” doesn’t tell us: examining women’s verbal and vocal (dis)empowerment in cinema’, Feminist Media Studies, 16(6), pp. 1120–1123. doi:10.1080/14680777.2016.1234239.
Phillips, J. (2001) ‘Catherine Breillat’s Romance : Hard Core and the Female Gaze’, Studies in French Cinema, 1(3), pp. 133–140. doi:10.1386/sfci.1.3.133.
Samuels, R. (1998) Hitchcock’s Bi-Textuality: Lacan, Feminisms, and Queer Theory. SUNY Press.
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga
[email protected]
