Women in Cinema: An Academic Research Essay

The subject surrounding the research conducted is to determine ‘to what extent the representation of women in Cinema meets the demands of a patriarchal Society’. Given the time frame, and breadth of this subject matter, it wasn’t possible to conduct research via other methods such as interviews, or field studies; primary research was not as available as secondary research. The research was conducted by analysing various secondary sources of Feminist film theory. It was important to find existing, published work that already had substantiated this very contentious issue. The secondary research that has been appraised is varied in its format, ranging from books, websites, published academic papers and journals, substantiating the arguments being addressed and establishing the attitude that opposes mainstream cinema and it’s representation of women.

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 21^st 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.