Laura Mulvey's piece about the relationship between the audience and film identified familiar thoughts (while watching a film) as well as an explanation of the allure towards cinema. It is incredible how the dimmed, almost completely dark lights in a movie theatre allow us to zone in on the movie; we become so engrossed in the film when we can relate the characters to our people, and the stories to our own memories. While Mulvey does identify the audience's interest to voyage into the depth of the lens, she almost contradicts herself; Mulvey states how we must diffuse our scopophilia(s)? by understanding them and then finding other ways to enjoy eroticism- versus the third party/uninteracted perspective; however, much of the essay goes into to detail as to why we enjoy film they way we do. Also the cinematography of a given movie grants a particular point of view, from a character or angle, that adds to the dynamic of this voyeuristic glamour.
I found bits of this essay to be very parallel to the content in Chapter 2 of Ways of Seeing. The conclusions and explanations as to why women possess certain qualities, while men normally contrast them in art. The description of the various tones, in both photography and film, are easily transcended into real life circumstances. I enjoy reading these exerpts, which detail thoughts that occassionally surface or swim in my mind.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm bias because I hate Freud and most of his theories and Mulvey's article has a lot to do with it. I won't argue that film has nothing to do with eroticism and voyeuristic views, obviously it does, but I think she went far too into the whole "women represent castration and their want for a phallus" thing. I felt like I was reading an article that Freud wrote in 1899 rather than an article on film. I'm not going to dismiss this article completely. She backs some of her points up with Hitchcock references that I thought were relevant. I just thought the whole psychosexual analysis looked too deeply into things. And I felt like she was talking about film in general, and that I don't agree with. Of course there are films with eroticism and voyeurism, those things are entertaining and pertain to real life, but not all. I don't know maybe I missed the point of this article, or maybe I just hate Freud references; I'm not sure.
-Kate Price
I agree with the feminism in this post and I think it's true that me and women interpret art and film differently. When I watch a really interesting film I find myself thinking all of these things and really interpreting the themes of the film and aferward I always wonder why I even watch any other types of movies and pay to sit in a dark movie theatre and watch something that doesn't actually move me or get me to think, just for the point of watching entertainment. Becoming engrossed in a film is an amazing feeling because you forget about your life until the lights come back on; despit the fact that throughout the entire film I (subconsciously almost) relate to the characters and plot.
We may or may not all use our scopophilia (or whatever) to understand and enjoy the movie, but I think that is is always subconsciously there in our minds when we watch films, but we're not always aware of it.
Film is a hugely voyeuristic and vicarious artform that is primarily male run, so it is only natural that women would become erotic figures for the most part. Not to excuse such a state, but it is usually the male character we are invited to identify with and so when he is more perfect, so are we. When he tames and gains the woman, our own sexual and even emotional desires can be satiated for the duration of the movie.
-Laura Kazdan
I couldn’t help but think about Freud throughout this entire article. So many of the thoughts that Mulvey explores relate directly towards Freud. Penis envy was a huge part of the article, maybe even too much. It only makes sense though that women and men are stereotypically portrayed in film, because film was started and still is under male dominance.
I really like what Laura said about how most of the time, the main character is male and the character we are invited to identify with. It seems this is often the case and it’s a natural thing for women to be portrayed as a sexual object. Even though I do not agree with this portrayal, everyone in the audience usually sympathizes and wants the main character to get the girl because it satisfies our own fantasies. As cliché as it sounds, Guys want to be James Bond getting the attractive model. And girls want to be with James Bond. While these portrayals are very stereotypical, I think they work because they will always appeal to a majority of people.
whoops
its
IAN MICHNA
I liked the Freud writing because it really made me think about eroticism and look at what films in my mind do this based on the Hitchcock example. I mean I agree with the idea that men are always out as the character to identify with. And women are the ones in distress or the seductive woman that gets with the man. But, at the same time there are films that "empower" women. Like Charlies Angels, and the Tomb Raider films. Slowly but surely this standard might change but i understand prodominatly it won't.
Post a Comment