Is Mulvey's Perspective On Cinematic Pleasure Still Relevant In Morden Cinema?

 

Is Mulvey's Perspective On Cinematic Pleasure Still Relevant In Morden Cinema? 

Within the world of creative arts, in this case, cinema, Laura Mulvey a feminist film critic conceptualized the term male gaze which in relation states that the depiction of women is viewed from a heterosexual masculine perspective which in turn presents women as an object to be gazed at by a heterosexual male viewer. she further states that there are three main male perspectives; That of the man behind the camera, That of the male perspectives and representations within the narrative, and that of the spectator of the film gazing at the film.  when conceptualizing this theory, Laura Mulvey Used the theories of both Lacan and Freud as foundations as it allows her to understand these ways through a primordial perspective. As a means of viewing women and the world, the psychoanalytical theories of the male gaze include Freudian and Lacanian ideas such as scopophilia, or joy in looking. The words scopophilia and scoptophilia describe both the aesthetic pleasures and the sexual pleasures of looking at someone or something. however, with all this information at hand, this theory was conceptualized in the year 1975 meaning that the relevance of this theory may be outdated as a whole over the decades following. I shall be further discussing this topic within this essay.

The male gaze takes many forms but can be identified by situations where female characters are controlled by, and mostly exist in terms of what they represent to, the hero. As Budd Boetticher, who directed classic Westerns during the 1950s, put it: What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself, the woman has not the slightest importance.

This can be seen in the various ways that the camera repeatedly places us in a position to look at women's bodies. Think of the Rear Window (1954), for a literal framing of women's bodies, or She's All That (1999), which centers around a transition. For the most recent example, the Transformers Film Series (2006-2014) portrays women as pornographic objects to be coveted. to stop the conversation from becoming too general I shall be discussing this topic in regards to the Superhero films from DC and Marvel as one, they're great examples to cover and two they're highly accessible regardless of gender and age. 

Although times have changed, in regards to the representation of females and feminity within the world of modern arts, drastically in comparison to when the theory first originally came to light, the conversation of "has anything really changed in today's day and age" still holds a lot of weight. The role of a woman has developed expeditiously in recent times where more women are taking roles of a man in modern arts. An example of this is the rising big-budget female superhero action movies where women are portrayed to be more confident and strong to the audience. films such as Wonderwoman and captain marvel are a great example of this, however, DC's 'Birds Of Prey' takes a rather weird yet but empowering approach. Birds of Prey accepts the presence of this gaze and firmly condemns it, offering an amusing but also thoughtful substitute. Female authorship is prominently and confidently seen in the film, both in the way it was made and in the development of Harley's character. This approach may have taken place because of the complaints and/or negative reviews from the film's predecessor 'Suicide Squad. In Birds of Prey, as opposed to Suicide Squad, the camera follows what Harley is doing, and not focussing on her physical features win the process. When these two variables are at odds in the earlier film, the latter consideration consistently wins out. In Suicide Squad, you don't need to look further than the film's trailer to see an example of the male gaze. There’s a moment where Harley steals a purse from a busted window display. You can barely make out what the accessory looks like because it’s out of focus. The purse might be what her character cares about at that moment,  but the shot cares about the figure she cuts when she bends over in leather booty shorts. That is what is in focus, front and center. This shot can be looked at from various perspectives as to why this shot was actually done. One will be the fact of selling it to the main audience that DC has as the original reveal trailer was screened at comic con, the attendance majority being white males in their teens and older. With this, in mind, this scene can be seen as a cheap marketing ploy to build attention just by using Margot Robbie's character as an object and not an actual person. Harley Quinn's representation goes through various changes in Birds Of Pray compared to her character in Suicide Squad with things such as costume design changes and her overall persona being analyzed instead of her being a thing to be stared at whilst the male characters have the more important roles. In Suicide Squad, Harley Quinn’s main look features a red-accented baseball tee with “Daddy’s Lil Monster” stamped across the chest. The shirt debuts in a long leer across Harley’s body as she strips down in front of an overwhelmingly male crowd to put on the item of clothing; an outfit and performance designed with the fantasies of a specific sort of viewer in mind, first and foremost, as opposed to the character actually wearing it. Harley’s basic aesthetic in Birds of Prey is consistent—shorts, t-shirts, heavy makeup—but the details and the subtext of director Cathy Yan’s installment could not be more different than Suicide Squad filmmaker David Ayer’s. For most of the film, Harley wears a loose-fitting t-shirt patterned with her own name—all caps, bolded font. She is her own. Small changes of this manor show the care director Cathy Yan had in portraying a female character in a more "human" light instead of making her the sexual object she was in Suicide Squad. To sum this up, I would firmly say that certain directors are taking the right direction to represent women in more creative ways instead of the cheap and easy route of flaunting an actor's sexual aspects in a character as a selling point. Laura Mulvey's male gaze theory is very much alive within the present day as it can still be seen in many films whether used positively or negatively.

for this segment of my essay, I will not be talking about superheroes as they were not as prevalent as they are today. when Laura Mulvey first conceptualized this theory times were very different in regards to the representation of women. the male gaze pre and post theories are more upfront and less subtle about hiding it The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) offers a famous example of the male gaze. Using close-ups, the camera forces the viewer to stare at Cora’s body. It creates a mode of looking that is sexual, voyeuristic, and associated with the male protagonist’s point-of-view. in these times (pre-theory), women had little to no power within times therefore the representation of women was in the hands of the middle-aged white men in charge. comparing this to the modern-day nothing has really changed. films that starred actor Rita Hayworth have many similarities to the characters of Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and the many other females within the superhero universe of films. this does nothing but exclaim the relevance that laura Mulvey's theory holds. it just happens to be that the male gaze was in its most primal form cus directors were not taking the risks needed to make an interesting character for a film whilst having the character wield their sexuality as a trait. 

Throughout the history of cinema, the male gaze has been a prevalent problem as it undermines the representation of women. However, in recent times, the conversation of the female gaze has been another significant problem. The female gaze is a feminist film theoretical term representing the gaze of the female viewer. It is a response to feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey's term "the male gaze", which represents not only the gaze of a heterosexual male viewer but also the gaze of the male character and the male creator of the film. Within marvel films this is has been a significant issue. Marvel films consist of shooting scenes where men are placed In a position where they are only meant to be looked at with great examples being the Thor and the Captain America franchise. They're various reason as to why this may be the case. one reason may be the act of swapping gender roles to help the progression of female representation within the cinematic world. Another reason may be to attract more female viewers by creating scenes where manly characters are shown with shirts off for a long period of time for the sole purpose to be gazed at by women.  the reason why this conversation is so complicated is that it can be seen from many perspectives. one may argue that it is because it's bound to happen as the portrayal of the male superhero has always been "Manly, Muscles, Masculine" but this creates ideologies of unrealistic body types for males Similar to the Male gaze. but one key difference is that within these films the male character's sexuality isn't the fore point of these characters. they have actual emotions and motifs compared to the female characters in the MCU. this can be seen alone with the screen time given to the characters. Natasha Romanoff's character black widow accumulates a total of 1 hour and 50 minutes in the 8 movies she has been in making her the most seen female in the MCU however compared to Male characters, Iron Man has a total of 6 hours creating a 5 hour and 10-minute difference between them. Yes, one could say that as iron is the main character within the franchise he deserves the most screen time however it is not a difficult task to incorporate interesting character types into female characters without straying too far from the comic book source. To further this conversation, in recent times the male gaze has been accompanied by the female gaze where both men and female characters are seen as objects however the female gaze happens to be vastly inferior in sense of which is the greater problem within modern cinema. The female gaze will incorporate sexuality within a character merely as a bonus to the character. an example being Thor and Captain America in the MCU. These characters have motifs emotions goals and depth within their character, these same traits a rarely seen in female characters within superhero films in modern-day cinema.

in conclusion to this topic. in my own respected opinion, I believe that the male gaze is more than relevant within the modern world of cinematic entertainment. the reason for this being that even though that the theory was conceptualized over 40 years ago, the role of a male being in power is still firmly in place in cinema but still in place therefore the male gaze is bound to happen in many films. but this is not to say the production companies and taking the correct steps to make sure that the representation of women is respectful as well as interesting. the use of the male gaze has become more than just visual pleasure in recent times. it has become a cheap marketing scheme to sell tickets to an audience whose sole purpose of watching is to gaze at an actor's/actress physical assets instead of making a creative and more innovative character for a general to enjoy. However with this in mind, the male gaze has evolved into more of an empowerment trait in a film where many women take the sexuality that they possess and use it against the male character. a perfect example of this being Catwoman within the DC franchise allowing us to see that the male gaze isn't necessarily a bad thing to have within a film if done correctly. Also, the male gaze isn't the only problem in modern cinema, the female gaze is also an equal trait within the cinematic where the woman is replaced with a man. with all the points stated I believe it is more than fair to say that Laura Mulvey's male gaze theory holds more than enough relevance in today's cinema and tomorrow's cinema and will continue to stay relevant for many generations.