The
literature that has been collated is all published, academic studies concerning
Feminist film theory, focusing on Laura Mulvey’s seminal work: ‘Visual Pleasure
and Narrative Cinema (1975). Other works considered by Gillian Swanson (1991), Ankeke
Smelik (1999), Pam Cook and Claire Johnston (1975) only build on Mulvey’s
research. These works were important during the research stage, adding depth to
the understanding of this subject matter, but ultimately it was Laura Mulvey’s work
that would act as the centrepiece for this research and its counter arguments.
Mulvey’s
1975 work revolutionised Feminist film theory, and made famous it’s ideas and
claims regarding ‘Visual Pleasure’, the ‘Female Spectator’ and the ‘Male Gaze’.
These terms have become a standard part of the cinematic vernacular, yet it was
Mulvey’s seminal work that begat them. Mulvey’s work is vital to this research
and any counter arguments made, as it established the feminist view on modern
cinema plainly. It establishes it’s ideas anchored in the psychological studies
of Freud, and makes claims on both female and male spectators of cinema, and to
what extent their role influences the action on screen. Modern cinema is hugely
misogynistic, it has its foundations built on a patriarchal vision, of white,
middle class, American ideology. Over the years the role of women has changed
significantly both on screen and off, but is it possible for women to play
anything other than the submissive role in cinema? Can ‘She’ only be a catalyst
in narrative, to the male protagonists story? Is ‘She’ ever the centrepiece of
her own story or is her sole purpose to serve the narrative trajectory of the
male, remaining benevolent and giving, in a purely matriarchal role?
Laura
Mulvey’s seminal work on ‘Visual Pleasure’ argues that the female spectator,
she who is watching the film, is so at odds with the content on screen, that
only male fantasy is being portrayed and that only ‘He’ can be fulfilled by its
content. However she also argues that this may not always be the case, that the
female spectator may find herself subconsciously enjoying the freedom of
archetypes she cannot play out in reality, therefore find pleasure in the
aggressive, male roles portrayed in action films and male led cinema. She
argues that this is rooted in sexual identity and the quest for it, by opposing
the feminine heroine, and identifying more with the masculine, the female
spectator finds pleasure from the male protagonist, identifying with his quest,
and therefore willing him to succeed, by accepting the submissive role of the
heroine as acceptable, as she too must ensure the male protagonists success.
Mulvey’s
work links this to Freud and his work on ‘Phallocentrism’ and ‘Castration Theory’.
The woman is born without a penis, the man with, she is eternally at odds with
the man for this sole reason. Freud argues this is a vital stage of child
development, the ‘phallic stage’ and if not met, then this dichotomy will
permeate throughout adult life, hence why the aggressive, dominant, male
protagonist is so appealing to the female spectator, as he has what she cannot;
a penis. This simple dichotomy is what ensures this fantasy is maintained, and
the female spectator will forever be drawn to this dynamic, and forever
accepting of the injustice and social position of the woman as inferior to the
man, as biologically ‘he’ is ‘to have’ and ‘she’ is to ‘have not’. This is an
instinctively accepted truth which permeated through all media and art forms,
affected cinema since its inception, but to what extent is this very simplistic
dynamic the case in all modern cinema?
The
work initiated by Laura Mulvey and continued by the likes of Swanson, Smelik, Cook
and Johnston acknowledges this dichotomy and this accepted truth. The argument
that ‘Visual Pleasure’ maintains this dichotomy and that Freud’s ‘Castration Theory’
is what permeates this idea. The woman literally ‘without’, ‘bearer of the open
wound’ accepts this role of submission as there is an inherent level of guilt
already attached to being ‘without’. This shame is what influences this
acceptance and when exposed to cinema and narratives, the female spectator is
accepting of the collateral characterisation, superfluous to her own narrative
but vital to the males. This misogyny is entrenched in ‘W.A.S.P’ values; the
very values that built Hollywood, however, over the last fifty years, women’s
roles, both on and off screen have deviated significantly, though ultimately
still bound by patriarchy. Are there women that now establish a new identity
for the female spectator, and are their characters and actresses that embody
more traditionally male roles? There has never been freedom of choice for women
regarding characters in cinema, Mulvey would argue their still isn’t, yet the
public image of ‘the actress’ is changing, and there may just be exceptions to
the rule.
Counter
arguments to be made against Mulvey is that her work generalises far too
heavily and focuses too much on the psychological findings of Freud. Mulvey
doesn’t acknowledge the variation in women and femininity, irrespective of
social standing, class or characteristics she claims women all to be the same.
Admittedly her seminal work was published in 1975 and the world has changed
significantly since; she published another paper in 1981 ‘Afterthoughts on
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, but it would be beneficial for her to of
once again reflected on her work in the 21st century, as the world
has changed, and you cannot ignore the seismic shift in women’s role both on
and off screen.
Mulvey’s
work addresses the patriarchal dynamic of cinema between the 1940’s and the 1960’s;
the roots of Hollywood were as sexist and misogynistic as society at the time.
The characterisation of women was such, as there was no other socially accepted
role women could play other than mother, damsel, femme fatale or counterpart to
the male heroes’ narrative. These roles were always desexualised as women, in a
patriarchal society are not allowed to own their sexuality, it must be neutered
or vilified, it cannot thrive and be empowered, independent and liberated, it
must only serve the male protagonist, wholesomely, according to Christian
values of the time. Women’s sexuality and freedom to express and own it has
changed staggeringly since the 1960’s therefore Mulvey’s work is a little out
of touch. Though it is still applicable, patriarchy is still at the heart of
modern cinema, arguably more than ever, yet progress has been made
significantly. Women have much more freedom of choice in cinema and characterisation
is not always as limiting as it once was.
Just
after Mulvey’s work was published, ‘Alien’ (1979) revolutionised the female
symbol in cinema and blurred the lines between matriarchy and patriarchy
forever. Sigourney Weaver defined a generation as androgynous women were fully
accepted as formerly male led protagonists. This masculinisation of women
continued throughout the 1980’s as female heroes became more popular. However,
as empowering as this was it was still desexualising for women as they still
were either represented as sexless or traditionally ‘sexy’.
In
contrast to Mulvey’s claims and significant to the progress of women’s
sexuality both on and off screen are actresses Julianne Moore and Scarlett
Johansson. Both women are traditionally very attractive according to
archetypical male fantasy; however they have sought to carve careers for
themselves as hugely successful Hollywood actresses both playing incredibly
powerful, independent, sexually liberated women. Scarlett Johansson embodies
the faux feminist argument that to be a sexually dominant female in a
patriarchal world, is ot be liberated of misogyny’s shackles. This may not be
the case, no matter how dominating Johansson’s sexuality is on screen,
emasculating both the male protagonist and the voyeur, it still plays into the
moulded idea of feminine sexuality, crafted by the male. Scarlett Johansson has
led her career and personal life fully in control and goes against many
traditional ideas of female sexuality. Promiscuity and affairs have not tainted
her ability to be cast in both wholesome and non-wholesome roles, she is the
quintessential male fantasy, and plays it with empowered self assurance. But is
she victim to patriarchy? Or is she in control?
Julianne
Moore is an actress that since she first grew to prominence in the public eye
in ‘Boogie Nights’ (1997) has always chosen to play role of dubious sexual
moral fibre. Her roles have shifted perceptions of what women can and can’t do
in cinema. Her roles in films such as ‘The Kids are Alright’ (2011), ‘A Single
Man’ (2009), ‘Magnolia’ (2000), ‘Crazy, Stupid, Love’ (2011) and ‘Don Jon’
(2013) have set her apart from other actresses of her generation, as all of
these roles portrayed are incredibly varied, sexually independent female
characters. It is not the content of these films that is significant, nor is it
the sexual nature of the roles, it is the choice that Moore has been able to
attain, given a career in Hollywood. These are choices driven by nothing else
other than what the ‘actor’ wishes to explore, choices previously only
available to male actors. Prior to the 1980’s women did not have this kind of
choice in cinema and their roles were reductive, as Mulvey states, however
Julianne Moore is testament to the significant change that has occurred in
cinema and though it is not perfect, and patriarchy is still rife and at the
heart of the studio system, progress has been made significantly since Mulvey
first published her ‘Visual Pleasure’ theory.
Julianne
Moore’s choices on screen and sexual freedom explored in character are rare as
her choices do not in any way deter her public image as a wholesome family
orientated mother and wife. Often, what actresses portray on screen is echoed
in their public persona or vice versa. Many young actresses have not had
Moore’s success and longevity due to personal reasons, their careers have
declined due to their personal lives. Kristen Stewart’s affair tainted her
public persona and her popularity has therefore decreased among her young
audience. Similarly Anne Hathaway’s transition from ‘Disney’ teen princess to
adult, sexually driven roles, were met with apprehension and criticism.
Julianne Moore is very rare, her career is completely her own, her choices are
entirely her own and her personal life remains private and wholesome, despite
her foray into sexually dubious female characters.
Mulvey’s
work is significant, her work is the key text on feminist film theory, and her
work on ‘Visual Pleasure’ and the ‘Female Spectator’ still resonate today. There
is enormous validity to her arguments that address the limitations and reasons
for such popular female characterisation, and attempts to explain the root of
the inherent misogyny that is rife in Hollywood. However their is also
significant progress that continues to be made since her work was published and
the role of women has changed staggeringly. Hollywood remains an incredibly
patriarchal business, the studio system still resonates the same ideology that
was established almost one hundred years ago, yet to what extent female
characterisation is determined by patriarchy is still a contentious issue.
Pessimistically, you could argue it has not changed all that much, women are
still held by the same shackles they have always been, but there is
undisputedly more room for choice, and for exploration of sexuality and
character in modern cinema, female driven narratives are increasingly more
popular post ‘Twilight’ and the stance Mulvey has on cinema is beginning to
look a little outdated.
