Notes on The Gaze 10/06/2007 09:04 PM Notes on 'The Gaze' Daniel Chandler Laura Mulvey on film spectatorship Whilst these notes are concerned more generally with ‘the gaze’ in the mass media, the term originates in film theory and a brief discussion of its use in film theory is appropriate here. As Jonathan Schroeder notes, 'Film has been called an instrument of the male gaze, producing representations of women, the good life, and sexual fantasy from a male point of view' (Schroeder 1998, 208). The concept derives from a seminal article called ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ by Laura Mulvey, a feminist film theorist. It was published in 1975 and is one of the most widely cited and anthologized (though certainly not one of the most accessible) articles in the whole of contemporary film theory. Laura Mulvey did not undertake empirical studies of actual filmgoers, but declared her intention to make ‘political use’ of Freudian psychoanalytic theory (in a version influenced by Jacques Lacan) in a study of cinematic spectatorship. Such psychoanalytically-inspired studies of 'spectatorship' focus on how 'subject positions' are constructed by media texts rather than investigating the viewing practices of individuals in specific social contexts. Mulvey notes that Freud had referred to (infantile) scopophilia - the pleasure involved in looking at other people’s bodies as (particularly, erotic) objects. In the darkness of the cinema auditorium it is notable that one may look without http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html Page 1 of 5 Notes on The Gaze 10/06/2007 09:04 PM being seen either by those on screen by other members of the audience. Mulvey argues that various features of cinema viewing conditions facilitate for the viewer both the voyeuristic process of objectification of female characters and also the narcissistic process of identification with an ‘ideal ego’ seen on the screen. She declares that in patriarchal society ‘pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female’ (Mulvey 1992, 27). This is reflected in the dominant forms of cinema. Conventional narrative films in the ‘classical’ Hollywood tradition not only typically focus on a male protagonist in the narrative but also assume a male spectator. ‘As the spectator identifies with the main male protagonist, he projects his look onto that of his like, his screen surrogate, so that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look, both giving a satisfying sense of omnipotence’ (ibid., 28). Traditional films present men as active, controlling subjects and treat women as passive objects of desire for men in both the story and in the audience, and do not allow women to be desiring sexual subjects in their own right. Such films objectify women in relation to ‘the controlling male gaze’ (ibid., 33), presenting ‘woman as image’ (or ‘spectacle’) and man as ‘bearer of the look’ (ibid., 27). Men do the looking; women are there to be looked at. The cinematic codes of popular films ‘are obsessively subordinated to the neurotic needs of the male ego’ (ibid., 33). It was Mulvey who coined the term 'the male gaze'. Mulvey distinguishes between two modes of looking for the film spectator: voyeuristic and fetishistic, which she presents in Freudian terms as responses to male ‘castration anxiety’. Voyeuristic looking involves a controlling gaze and Mulvey argues that this has has associations with sadism: ‘pleasure lies in ascertaining guilt - asserting control and subjecting the guilty http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html Page 2 of 5 Notes on The Gaze 10/06/2007 09:04 PM person through punishment or forgiveness’ (Mulvey 1992, 29). Fetishistic looking, in contrast, involves ‘the substitution of a fetish object or turning the represented figure itself into a fetish so that it becomes reassuring rather than dangerous. This builds up the physical beauty of the object, transforming it into something satisfying in itself. The erotic instinct is focused on the look alone’. Fetishistic looking, she suggests, leads to overvaluation of the female image and to the cult of the female movie star. Mulvey argues that the film spectator oscillates between these two forms of looking (ibid.; see also Neale 1992, 283ff; Ellis 1982, 45ff; Macdonald 1995, 26ff; Lapsley & Westlake 1988, 77-9). This article generated considerable controversy amongst film theorists. Many objected to the fixity of the alignment of passivity with femininity and activity with masculinity and to a failure to account for the female spectator. A key objection underlying many critical responses has been that Mulvey's argument in this paper was (or seemed to be) essentialist: that is, it tended to treat both spectatorship and maleness as homogeneous essences - as if there were only one kind of spectator (male) and one kind of masculinity (heterosexual). E Ann Kaplan (1983) asked ‘Is the gaze male?’. Both Kaplan and Kaja Silverman (1980) argued that the gaze could be adopted by both male and female subjects: the male is not always the controlling subject nor is the female always the passive object. We can ‘read against the grain’. Teresa de Lauretis (1984) argued that the female spectator does not simply adopt a masculine reading position but is always involved in a ‘doubleidentification’ with both the passive and active subject positions. Jackie Stacey asks: ‘Do women necessarily take up a feminine and men a masculine spectator position?’ (Stacey 1992, 245). Indeed, are there only unitary ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ reading http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html Page 3 of 5 Notes on The Gaze 10/06/2007 09:04 PM positions? What of gay spectators? Steve Neale (1983) identifies the gaze of mainstream cinema in the Hollywood tradition as not only male but also heterosexual. He observes a voyeuristic and fetishistic gaze directed by some male characters at other male characters within the text (Stacey notes the erotic exchange of looks between women within certain texts). A useful account of 'queer viewing' is given by Caroline Evans and Lorraine Gamman (1995). Neale argues that ‘in a heterosexual and patriarchal society the male body cannot be marked explictly as the erotic object of another male look: that look must be motivated, its erotic component repressed’ (Neale 1992, 281). Both Neale and Richard Dyer (1982) also challenged the idea that the male is never sexually objectified in mainstream cinema and argued that the male is not always the looker in control of the gaze. It is widely noted that since the 1980s there has been an increasing display and sexualisation of the male body in mainstream cinema and television and in advertising (Moore 1987, Evans & Gamman 1995, Mort 1996, Edwards 1997). Gender is not the only important factor in determining what Jane Gaines calls 'looking relations' - race and class are also key factors (Lutz & Collins 1994, 365; Gaines 1988; de Lauretis 1987; Tagg 1988; Traube 1992). Ethnicity was found to be a key factor in differentiating amongst different groups of women viewers in a study of Women Viewing Violence (Schlesinger et al. 1992). Michel Foucault, who linked knowledge with power, related the 'inspecting gaze' to power rather than to gender in his discussion of surveillance (Foucault 1977). Contents http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html Page 4 of 5 Notes on The Gaze 10/06/2007 09:04 PM Contents Page Introduction Forms of gaze Direction of gaze Angle of view Apparent proximity The eye of the camera The social codes of looking John Berger's Ways of Seeing Laura Mulvey on film spectatorship Related issues Categorizing facial expressions References and supplementary reading Last modified: Wed Jun 07 2000 15:57:21 http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html Page 5 of 5 Review: [Untitled] Reviewed Work(s): The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Criticism by Tania Modleski The Hitchcock Romance: Love and Irony in Hitchcock's Films by Lesley Brill Paul Thomas Film Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4. (Summer, 1989), pp. 40-42. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-1386%28198922%2942%3A4%3C40%3ATWWKTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S Film Quarterly is currently published by University of California Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucal.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org Wed Jan 23 00:23:15 2008 monplace) questions about 1950s science fiction are given the lightest brush in this book. The "sense of wonder" at the heart of Then? o r Us is not new t o appreciations of the fantastic cinema, except that it is usually found in fanzines rather than critical literature; the difficulty is that the fanzines have long since recognized that "wonder" doesn't go very far in understanding horror/sci-fi's hold on consciousness. -CHRISTOPHER SHARRETT THE WOMEN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH Hitchcock and Feminist Criticism By Tania Modleski. New York: Methuen. 1988. $27.50 cloth, S10.95 paper. THE HITCHCOCK ROMANCE Love and Irony in Hitchcock's films By Lesley Brill. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. $24.95 These books d o much to explain why Hitchcock has long been central to feminist film criticism. Lesley Brill's The Hitchcock Romance, by far the lesser of the two, does so by default. Brill shrinks from anything "political" o r even contentious, without seeming t o see anything contentious about the application of a literaryhumane model to Hitchcock's films. What Brill lacks and needs-critical edge-Tania Modleski has in abundance. In future, n o one writing about Hitchcock will be able to ignore Modleski's challenges. Modleski positions her argument against as well as within a n established genre of psychoanalytic-feminist interpretation. Her aim is not at all to redeem Hitchcock morally (in the manner o f Lesley Brill) or t o "rescue Hitchcock for feminism" (in the manner of Robin Wood). It is rather to confront head-on the dilemma encountered by any feminist critic writing about Hitchcock. She is under n o illusions: Hitchcock's films enact "rituals of defilement" which evoke fear of women and contain this fear by punishing them. But simply to point t o the brutalization of women as a motif of Hitchcock's films is to punish women all over again by reinstating Hitchcock at the pinnacle where auteur theory (and his own imperiousness) had lodged him long ago. The problem is that "the strong fascination and identification with femi- ninity revealed in [these same films] subverts the claim t o mastery and authority not only of [Hitchcock's] male characters but of the director himself." (My emphasis.) The effect is o f a kind of double-bind, but one which Modleski sees as one-dimensional. She proposes accordingly to "save female viewers from annihilation at the hands not only of traditional male critics, but of those feminist critics who see women's repression in patriarchal cinema as total, women's liking for these films as nothing but masochism." Both approaches are fatally overdrawn and reductionist. Modleski, who avoids any such reductionism, weaves a sinuous argument through (and beyond) the films she discusses. Since this argument is complex enough to defy paraphrase, I shall use her own words in what follows. Becauce Hitchcock's films "seek both to destroy and preserve femininity," the question whether he is "sympathetic towards women or misogynistic" is a question twal posee. It admits only of reductionist answers. T o point out that Hitchcock is both and that his "sympathy and misogyny actually entail one another" is by no means a failure of critical nerve on Modleski's part; it serves to indicate how pervasive and how deep Hitchcock's ambivalence towards women finally is. What then goes into this ambivalence? Films that are told from the woman's point of view (Blackmail, Rebecca, Notorious, Stage Fright) should not be rigidly distinguished from some that are not (Murder!, Rear Window, Vertigo) since these latter either have "women as the ultimate point of identification o r . . . place the spectator-regardless of gender-in a classically feminine position." It may seem that the qualification this sentence contains weakens it, since Modleski (whose agenda here would seem to go beyond Hitchcock) regards spectatorship as anything but genderless in principle. There are two reasons why Modleski is not tempted to abandon ambivalence. First, Hitchcock's films permit and encourage a female spectator to feel (and enjoy) a distinctly nonmasochistic and nonvoyeuristic anger. "Male critics frequently point to Psycho as a film which punished audiences ["regardless of gender"] for their illicit voyeuristic desires, but they ignore the fact that within the film not only are women the objects o f the male gaze, they are also recipients of most of the punishment." Again, Hitchcock is "obsessed with exploring the psyches of tormented and victimized women. While most critics attribute this interest to a sadistic delight in seeing his leading ladies suffer," the point remains that "the obsession often takes the form of a particularly lucid expose of the predicaments and contradictions of women's existence." This means that the female spectator need neither be the "misogynist, identifying with the passive female character," nor the "transvestite," identifying with the male hero. "The source of so much desire and so much dread in so many Hitchcock films" is the possibility of identifying with the female outlaw, since Hitchcock frequently associated men with the impersonal power of the law as a way of keeping femininity at a safe psychic distance. The second reason Modleski sticks to her notion of ambivalence follows from the first. If "woman's response is complex and contradictory," it does not admit of a reductionist characterization and "requires an understanding of woman's placement on the margins of patriarchal culture-at once inside and outside its modes and structures," then we must pay attention-as many reductionists d o not-to the female spectator's uneasy counterpart, the male. The world of false appearances, a familiar Hitchcock menace, "is so dreadful to men . . . because it is a feminine and feminizing space." This turning of the tables applies first of all to Hitchcock himself. It was in Rebecca that Hitchcock found one of his proper subjects"the potential terror and loss of self involved in identification, especially identification with a woman." This makes Hitchcock's own denial of authorship ("it's not a Hitchcock picture") all the more significant. Since the feminine subverts identity, even (or especially) from beyond the grave, the male spectator is as much deconstructed as constructed by Hitchcock's films, which reveal a "fascination with femininity that throws masculine identity into question and crisis." At this point, Modleski tellingly insinuates into her argument Hitchcock's frequent "images o f ambiguous sexuality that threaten to destabilize the gender identification" of (male) protagonist and viewer alike. Murder!, for instance, which Modleski analyzes brilliantly, suggests "that sexual difference is, ultimately, a matter of not simply denying the male's 'similitude' t o the female, but his risking feminization . . . in order to achieve mastery and control." Not that the male always succeeds. Vertigo works to elicit in the audience the same kind of identification with Madeleine that lies behind Scotty's attraction t o her-so that we are identifying with Scotty, who is identifying with Madeleine, who is identifying with Carlotta Valdez or Mrs. Elster or Judy. (Lesley Brill notes that Vertigo contains an unusually large number of dissolves. Modleski explains why.) Not only does woman in this way become "the ultimate point of identification" for the spectator; Hitchcock also, and famously, goes out o f his way t o make the spectator privy to Judy/Madeleine's thoughts. Vertigo, like Rebecca, indicates "the complex and contradictory nature of male desire" and its "impossible dialectics. " By also suggesting that "masculine identity is bound up with feminine identity," it helps us "problematize male spectatorship and masculine identity" in general. (This, I take it, is Modleski's broader agenda.) In scenes like the one at the costume ball in Rebecca, it is the male spectator who becomes the "transvestite." Here Modleski executes a skillful turn o n (or turning inside-out of) the oedipal. "Women's bisexual nature," she points out, "is less a problem for women than for patriarchy." Since men's fascination and identification with the feminine undermines their efforts to achieve masculine strength and autonomy, it is "a primary cause of the violence towards women that abounds in Hitchcock's films." Notorious, Modleski wryly observes, "does not sound like a promising narrative from a feminist point of view." ("After setting the woman up as a n object o f male desire and curiosity, the film proceeds to submit her to a process of purification whereby she is purged of her excess sexuality in order to be rendered fit for her place in the patriarchal order.") Yet even here, we are encouraged "to condemn Devlin in his role as withdrawn, judgmental spectator," and are drawn into "an intimate identification with the vulnerable and increasingly helpless heroine," whose "tribulations force Devlin to acknowledge his vulnerability and his error." In general, the male in repressing feminizing aspects of himself projects these onto the woman who then (to purloin and alter a damaging line of Ingrid Bergman's, from Casablanca) has to d o the suffering for both of them. Men are both fascinated and threatened by (their own or women's) bisexuality, and "it is woman who pays for this ambivalenceoften with her life." Men's fears become women's fate. But one would never think so from Lesley Brill's relentlessly subfeminist account, The Hitchcock Romance, which centers on "the redemptive possibilities of love between men and women," imported into Hitchcock's films as a rule to which the myriad examples of something else are exceptions. While Modleski's argument reaches beyond itself (to the question of spectatorship at large) Brill's has no difficulty defeating itself. Brill observes in passing that "the equivocal status of many women and their intermittent (sic) brutalization by men . . . damps somewhat the glow of the comedy," which may stand as the understatement of the year. More generally, Brill admits that his "limited concern with recent feminist attacks on Hitchcock may strike some readers as eccentric." (It struck this reader as downright perverse.) That Brill's lukewarm interest "in politically oriented criticism . . . is a matter of taste, not dogma" is scarcely disarming. One does not obliterate politics by hiding behind elaborate plot summaries, vague generalization, cliches (how Yeat's "widening gyre" got across a n editor's desk into Brill's section on Vertigo will forever defeat me), and watered-down ideas derived from William Rothman, Stanley Cavell, and Northrop Frye. The Hitchcock who emerges from this miasma is a Hitchcock with his claws pulled, as he might be bowdlerized for Alan Bloom's humanities canon, and notheaven forfend-destined for Joe Bob's DriveIn. Brill is small beer alongside Modleski. One frequently wonders whether they are discussing the same director. Brill, following Frye, contrasts "romance" with "irony," yet remains impervious to Hitchcock's own ironies. One example, from Frenzy, must suffice. Brill, who thinks that Hitchcock's "deepest dreams were composed of nothing more remarkable than love and marriage, happy families, and a forgiving universe that allows such things," sees the blatantly dyspeptic dinner scenes between Inspector Oxford and his wife as nothing but exemplars o f the same. That Oxford is capable, however, fleetingly, of wishing his wife deada point no more lost on Pvlodleski than o n Hitchcock himself-never even crosses Brill's mind. It is N o r m a d M r s . Bates, let us remember, who wouldn't hurt a fly. -PAUL T H O M A S CULT MOVIES 3 By Danny Peary. New York: FiresidelSimon and Schuster, 1988. S12.95. This third volume in Peary's on-going survey of cult films has all the virtues and drawbacks o f his previous two. His books are a joy to read, full of sharp insights from a true cineaste with more than a little chutzpah (who else would spend time proving that the chase scene in The Road Warrior was derived from the Alamo sequence of Davy Crockeff, King of the Wild Frontier?). The difficulty is Peary's less-thanadequate definition of the cult movie, although it may be a moot point at this stage; as "cult" becomes a n increasingly popular category in video rental stores, this slippery sub-genre continues to be a topic of critical writing at least as vaguely formulated as Peary's books. Originally it seemed that "cult" was associated with camp o r such notions as "It's so bad it's good." This is born out by Peary's selection of films such as Glen or Glenda and Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, but undermined by the inclusion of films which are more or less part of the mainstream canon, such as Psycho and Dr. Strangelove. Peary's justification for his sense of the cult film seems based on a form of reader-response criticism. He argues that certain films gain cult status as audience perception changes and particular audience phenomena occur, such as a film's gradually achieving a devoted following or new critical celebrity with changing social circumstances. This sounds fine on the face of it: Plan 9 From Outer Space, viewed simply as grade-C science fiction in the 1950s, today seems primarily a peculiar reflection of fifties naivete and bad taste, and has benefitted commercially from its presentation as kitsch. Yet this approach doesn't work, since other films Peary lists have always enjoyed large followings and for reasons which have been consistent and not especially quirky (Los Olvidados is great Buiiuel; Ride the High Country is a superior Western). Some of the films selected seem to be works Peary hopes will achieve cult status, such as Brando's beautiful and idiosyncratic Western Screening Report Criteria: OBJECTIVES FOR SCREENING REPORTS: • Encourage students to engage critically and moving beyond personal or gut reactions about a film through assigned readings. • Demonstrate an understanding of the film in the context of the readings. • Understand womens’ roles in a given culture and context. • Understand films as cultural texts that represent social and political structures KEYWORDS: Each film has a set of readings that contain keywords that are meant to be the focus for screening reports. TOPICS: Screening Report #1: Students SHOULD write about a film viewed in class and assigned readings’ keywords that have been viewed in class up to the due date. CRITERIA: • Three short (maximum five pages, double-spaced) critical screening reports about different films and readings’ keywords that are. Use 6 keywords from the readings using the language of the assigned readings. Do not summarize the readings or film. Reports are not opinion papers and the discussion needs to be supported by references sourced. Screening reports are individual not group papers • Papers should include critical comments, a short discussion and/or critique of some interesting issue; a contentious point and/or an argument interacting with the assigned readings and main keywords. When possible define the keywords with examples from the film. No opinions that are not supported by the resources. • References should be in-text citations and endnotes or reference cited page. (Quotes from films should be placed in quotation and referenced). A paper without references may receive a zero. CRITERIA FOR AN “A” PAPER: • An “A” paper can go beyond defining 5 main keywords by bringing about a deeper understanding of how they apply to the film/readings. • An A paper might compare and contrast readings and keywords from two films. • An “A” paper you should use at least one outside resources in your discussion. • “A” papers should discuss at least 5 main keywords (no less). However, the paper should not exceed the limit of 5 pages when ever possible. • Please see the rubric for how to achieve an A paper. Pick a film viewed in class prior to the due date. 1. What to write about: Choose your keywords from the readings and Research. Review the following Tips a. Choose a film/s you liked and/or keywords/readings that you understood or resonate with. 1) Can you take some of the main points from this film and apply them to another film viewed to this point in class? (A paper potential) 2) Can you compare and contrast characters in the same film and/or two different films while using the keywords from a reading? 3) Can you bring out a point that was not discussed in class? 4) Can you find a point in the readings that could be applied to this film that was not discussed in class or in the presentation? 5) While doing outside research can you illuminate or counter argue a point further than the readings? 6) Identify patterns: Use of repeated elements (called conventions and/motifs). Often a film has a set up patterns that are repeated to illustrate a theme. Can you take a cinematic technique and explain its use in the film and at the same time illustrate some points in the readings? For example, one might think about lighting, sound, and cinematography in a film and how it might help to illustrate a point discussed in the film’s readings/keypoints. 2. Do some outside research about the film and or the topic. For example in Orlando we are trying to understand genre and conventions and gender identity. We might do some research about historical costume drama (a type of genre found in the film) to add to the discussion. Outside references should be more than a free-standing quote, or a one-line quote. 3. Write a draft so you can be concise. 4. Write the final paper and review the requirements before submitting. Structure of the paper: 1. Introduction: In two sentences or less state the film and readings and give a brief synopsis of film. 2. Thesis: State clearly what you are reviewing for the paper. Do this by listing the keywords, in one or two sentences. In this paper I will compare and contrast… review the meaning of … highlight the use of ….., argue that the film or readings… add additional understanding to the discussion about…. 3. Argument and specific examples: Define 6 keywords using examples (using references with in-text references). Make your argument and/or illustration concisely your points. Add your outside reference discussion. 4. Conclusion: Briefly review your discussion in the body of the paper. Here you can briefly add your opinion or another expert’s opinion to confirm your findings or to make a statement about the film. 5. Reference: Quotes taken from the text, films, other sources, any use of any quotation marks, any summarization you make from any source should be referenced by in-text citations and added to the reference page. Failure to do this will cause the paper to not be accepted. 6. Review the rubric before submission. 7. Submit paper to Safe Assignment: Always use safe assignment to submit your papers. Label with your name, ID, Chapter and # (of report). Do your first draft of the paper (do this without stopping): 1. Do an Initial Read through 2. Do a reverse outline a. As you read each paragraph – write a sub point (each point that a paragraph is making) b. You can rearrange paragraph as needed o Each point should progress from one paragraph to the next o Each paragraph should build on the previous o Here you can add some of your research as needed. 3. Edit Content: (some suggestions) Sentence length: a. A fifteen-word sentence is average. ▪ 40 words too long. Long sentences leave a reader gasping for air by the time they read the sentence. Long sentences are not the best way to communicate. Guide the read through your ideas. Don’t use conjunctions and, but, etc. b. Too short can be a problem too. ▪ Choppy flow is frustrating and there is no rhythm. c. Vary sentence length. ▪ Make some shorter and some longer. If you are trying to compare and contrast the sentence needs to be longer. To make a point use a short sentence. Sentence variety: a. Formulaic variety: ▪ Do you ask a lot of rhetorical sentences? b. Repetition and vagueness: over explaining is repetition. • Examine each paragraph to be sure that you are not repeating. First sentence explains all you need then don’t add an entire paragraph. Combine paragraphs or sentences if needed. c. Vagueness: ▪ Are there two or more summary points to a paragraph? Then you are being vague. Add sentences only to elaborate d. Word choice. • Causal language can use the same words. Use the thesaurus to replace some words but be careful using to formal of words. • Replace your repeated commonly used words. Or if you use too formal words or jargon replace some of these. • Acronyms – • Remind your reader what these stand for throughout the paper (longer papers). • Longer paper Style Sheets: every time you come across a choice you have made write it on your style sheet (word choices for acronyms). Surname1 Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Code Date Screening Report Vertigo is a film that lists as one of the psychological thrillers as evident by the actions of the characters. The producer of the movie Vertigo, Alfred Hitchcock scripts a storyline that gives an equal chance to all the actors to express love. The romantic setting of Vertigo makes the characters James Stewart and Kim Novak to fall in love, but Madeline is under control by spirits. The psychological thriller in Vertigo is relatively dark because most of the scenes are romantic and reflect light. The light moments in the film reflect the love between Scottie and Madeline. The love between the two blossoms to trigger spectatorship from other actors. Thesis Statement Diverse characterization in the script shows a mystery of love and limited effort to create deceptive and murky cinematography. Keywords. Vertigo, male gaze, Spectatorship, The theory of Scopophilia, Misogynistic Surname2 Vertigo outlines the male gaze based on the woman representation and the imagination about sex from man's point of view. The "male gaze" in Vertigo refers to the objectification of women by making some actors become part of spectatorship based on gender. The male gaze is an aspect of the social life geared by Michael Foucault and Laura Mulvey. The male gaze is based on a specific point of view that focuses on the lack of transparency in the distribution of power. The level of gaze is limited because few members of the hetero-patriarchy control the women characters. For instance, Scottie, as the man in the romantic affair, is unable to control Madeline, and she keeps on disappearing from the house. Vertigo presents a combination of the psychological distractions and elegance to produce a dramatic image. Point of view means the emotional perception and position of the characters in the movie concerning reality (Modleski, 280). The producer shows some domineering, which causes spectatorship at some point in the film. Spectatorship refers to a state in which some of the actors become audience due to the dominance of others in a particular scene. The aspect of spectatorship is evident in the film where at first Scottie gets the role of observing Madeleine. Scottie goes to the extent of obsession and ignores the primary purpose of finding and controlling her as his lover. Scottie observes her from afar turning into a guilty pleasure while the spectator partially gets Scottie's point of view. The language in Vertigo contributes to spectatorship because Scottie watches Madeleine for long in an obtrusive way. Most scenes drive the audience to watch in a way that makes one self-aware, especially when Scottie sees the lady for the first time in the restaurant. The spectator sees the close up of Madeleine's side picture as she walks past Scottie by the bar. The subjective camera holds the profile close up for a long time which makes the audience feel like part of the dialogue. The spectator wishes the actor to make eye contact by turning towards the angle of the subjective camera. Surname3 The theory of Scopophilia refers to the objectification of an individual for sexual matters which in Vertigo mostly occurs to the female characters. Vertigo achieves Scopophilia through sight as Scottie watches over Madeleine at the restaurant. Similarly, in other films, the theory of Scopophilia is evident in cases of peeping stripper or Toms in clubs. The viewer is barely blamed by society, especially when male characters become the spectator (Thomas, 41). Females in the scene are objects that men watch for sexual sensations within Hollywood cinema. Freud states that women are passive while men are active until the female character interrupts to create tension. Scottie, a retired detective, spends most of the time following Madeleine in silence. "You know, the Chinese say that once you've saved a person's life, you're responsible for it forever" (Chandler, 60). The silence shows some sort of satisfaction that Scottie gets especially at the florists and McKittrick Hotel, where the aspect of spectatorship reflects. Alfred, as the producer, outlines the theory of Scopophilia throughout the film with Scottie as the active character. Discrimination against women is a dominant aspect in Vertigo as Freud shows the impact of gender in society. Hitchcock shows misogyny through scenes that prejudice women. Misogynistic is common in most films that tend to show the power of a man in society by degrading a woman. Madeleine, as a woman, does not enjoy the freedom to walk on her own because Scottie tales the role of following her in every place. Women depend on men for most decisions which impact their capacity to progress negatively. Misogyny is prevalent among women due to lack of freedom to exercise power and ability to think own theory own. The mother of Hitchcock is evidence of extreme misogyny because the woman depends on a different gender. Some Hollywood's reflect a mother as a weak vessel that assists the opposite gender through objectification. "Here, I was born, and there I died. It was only a moment for you; you took no notice", a statement by Madeleine expresses misogyny (Danieau, 15). Surname4 Hitchcock uses a variety of characterization to demonstrate the mystery of love, regardless of psychological reality. Vertigo, a film short in 1954 characterized as a psychological thriller, shows the position of women in society. The romantic relationship between Scottie and Madeline outlines the theory of Scopiphilia, where a woman is used for sexual sensation through sight. Scottie, as the spectator at the restaurant, watches the enhanced side profile of Madeleine in silence. In conclusion, Hitchcock in Vertigo uses a light-hearted thriller to extract a variety of themes and characterizations rhetorically. Surname5 Works Cited Chandler, Daniel. "Notes on'the gaze': Laura Mulvey on film spectatorship." (2000): 56-67 Danieau, Fabien, et al. "Toward haptic cinematography: enhancing movie experiences with camera-based haptic effects." IEEE MultiMedia 21.2 (2014): 11-21. Modleski, Tania. "Femininity by design: Vertigo." Post-War Cinema and Modernity: A Film Reader (1989): 275-286. Thomas, Paul. "The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Criticism by Tania Modleski; The Hitchcock Romance: Love and Irony in Hitchcock's Films by Lesley Brill." (1989): 40-42. Screening Report Criteria: OBJECTIVES FOR SCREENING REPORTS: • Encourage students to engage critically and moving beyond personal or gut reactions about a film through assigned readings. • Demonstrate an understanding of the film in the context of the readings. • Understand womens’ roles in a given culture and context. • Understand films as cultural texts that represent social and political structures KEYWORDS: Each film has a set of readings that contain keywords that are meant to be the focus for screening reports. TOPICS: Screening Report #1: Students SHOULD write about a film viewed in class and assigned readings’ keywords that have been viewed in class up to the due date. CRITERIA: • Three short (maximum five pages, double-spaced) critical screening reports about different films and readings’ keywords that are. Use 6 keywords from the readings using the language of the assigned readings. Do not summarize the readings or film. Reports are not opinion papers and the discussion needs to be supported by references sourced. Screening reports are individual not group papers • Papers should include critical comments, a short discussion and/or critique of some interesting issue; a contentious point and/or an argument interacting with the assigned readings and main keywords. When possible define the keywords with examples from the film. No opinions that are not supported by the resources. • References should be in-text citations and endnotes or reference cited page. (Quotes from films should be placed in quotation and referenced). A paper without references may receive a zero. CRITERIA FOR AN “A” PAPER: • An “A” paper can go beyond defining 5 main keywords by bringing about a deeper understanding of how they apply to the film/readings. • An A paper might compare and contrast readings and keywords from two films. • An “A” paper you should use at least one outside resources in your discussion. • “A” papers should discuss at least 5 main keywords (no less). However, the paper should not exceed the limit of 5 pages when ever possible. • Please see the rubric for how to achieve an A paper. Pick a film viewed in class prior to the due date. 1. What to write about: Choose your keywords from the readings and Research. Review the following Tips a. Choose a film/s you liked and/or keywords/readings that you understood or resonate with. 1) Can you take some of the main points from this film and apply them to another film viewed to this point in class? (A paper potential) 2) Can you compare and contrast characters in the same film and/or two different films while using the keywords from a reading? 3) Can you bring out a point that was not discussed in class? 4) Can you find a point in the readings that could be applied to this film that was not discussed in class or in the presentation? 5) While doing outside research can you illuminate or counter argue a point further than the readings? 6) Identify patterns: Use of repeated elements (called conventions and/motifs). Often a film has a set up patterns that are repeated to illustrate a theme. Can you take a cinematic technique and explain its use in the film and at the same time illustrate some points in the readings? For example, one might think about lighting, sound, and cinematography in a film and how it might help to illustrate a point discussed in the film’s readings/keypoints. 2. Do some outside research about the film and or the topic. For example in Orlando we are trying to understand genre and conventions and gender identity. We might do some research about historical costume drama (a type of genre found in the film) to add to the discussion. Outside references should be more than a free-standing quote, or a one-line quote. 3. Write a draft so you can be concise. 4. Write the final paper and review the requirements before submitting. Structure of the paper: 1. Introduction: In two sentences or less state the film and readings and give a brief synopsis of film. 2. Thesis: State clearly what you are reviewing for the paper. Do this by listing the keywords, in one or two sentences. In this paper I will compare and contrast… review the meaning of … highlight the use of ….., argue that the film or readings… add additional understanding to the discussion about…. 3. Argument and specific examples: Define 6 keywords using examples (using references with in-text references). Make your argument and/or illustration concisely your points. Add your outside reference discussion. 4. Conclusion: Briefly review your discussion in the body of the paper. Here you can briefly add your opinion or another expert’s opinion to confirm your findings or to make a statement about the film. 5. Reference: Quotes taken from the text, films, other sources, any use of any quotation marks, any summarization you make from any source should be referenced by in-text citations and added to the reference page. Failure to do this will cause the paper to not be accepted. 6. Review the rubric before submission. 7. Submit paper to Safe Assignment: Always use safe assignment to submit your papers. Label with your name, ID, Chapter and # (of report). Do your first draft of the paper (do this without stopping): 1. Do an Initial Read through 2. Do a reverse outline a. As you read each paragraph – write a sub point (each point that a paragraph is making) b. You can rearrange paragraph as needed o Each point should progress from one paragraph to the next o Each paragraph should build on the previous o Here you can add some of your research as needed. 3. Edit Content: (some suggestions) Sentence length: a. A fifteen-word sentence is average. ▪ 40 words too long. Long sentences leave a reader gasping for air by the time they read the sentence. Long sentences are not the best way to communicate. Guide the read through your ideas. Don’t use conjunctions and, but, etc. b. Too short can be a problem too. ▪ Choppy flow is frustrating and there is no rhythm. c. Vary sentence length. ▪ Make some shorter and some longer. If you are trying to compare and contrast the sentence needs to be longer. To make a point use a short sentence. Sentence variety: a. Formulaic variety: ▪ Do you ask a lot of rhetorical sentences? b. Repetition and vagueness: over explaining is repetition. • Examine each paragraph to be sure that you are not repeating. First sentence explains all you need then don’t add an entire paragraph. Combine paragraphs or sentences if needed. c. Vagueness: ▪ Are there two or more summary points to a paragraph? Then you are being vague. Add sentences only to elaborate d. Word choice. • Causal language can use the same words. Use the thesaurus to replace some words but be careful using to formal of words. • Replace your repeated commonly used words. Or if you use too formal words or jargon replace some of these. • Acronyms – • Remind your reader what these stand for throughout the paper (longer papers). • Longer paper Style Sheets: every time you come across a choice you have made write it on your style sheet (word choices for acronyms). WEEK 2 - VERTIGO “Vertigo: A Closer Look at Scopophilia: Mulvey, Hitchcock, and Vertigo” by Keane “Femininity by Design: Vertigo”, Modleski “Notes on a Gaze” by Danial Chandler BACKGROUND ON FEMINIST THEORY: Feminist theory: Early feminist theory attacked the rigid ideas about what it means to be a woman and/or man in the social, economic and political realms. Further, early feminist theory (Mulvey) states most women were confined to roles which were considered passive (not in the labor force but instead at home)—women lacked power in social, economic, political area – this led to theories Confined to Roles: A. Women are passive actors B. Men are active—since men, in reality, had the power in the before mentioned roles (Keane, pg. 231). In the 70’s the division of women roles and men were still very much rigid. Consequently, feminists have linked a split between looking in which A. Women are looked at – passive B. Men do the looking – active Hollywood duplicates these roles: In “Hollywood” films, Mulvey maintains, A. Women occupy the passive position of being looked at B. Men have the active power of looking (quoted in Keane and as noted in the Notes on a Gaze article). (One of the ways this division is reproduced in films is by a shot representing the view of one figure by another) (this discussion would make a good screening report) Early on we have (1975) Mulvey's feminism (which both Keane and Modleski refer), which sites example of how roles define expectations about behavior: males are mostly explorers and women stayed at home. A. Roles are how we form expectations about women and men. Rigid role models mostly damage men and women alike. 1 1. What do we mean by male spectatorship in Vertigo? (Modleski) • • • Subjective camera: We only see Scottie’s perspective of Madeline/Judy. The camera’s point of view is Scotty’s POV (male spectatorship). We do not see what Madeline see’s--- we only see Scotty watching her? Examples: Opening scene suggests that we are going to see from the woman’s perspective – however, the spiraling from the eye places us into a state of anxiety. • Scottie watches Madeleine: restaurant, flowershop, and museum… • Looks through door in flower shop/ split scene – Scottie watches Madeline… he is looking at her. 2. (I heard sniggering when Scotty fell of the ladder and rested his head on Midge.) One of the themes that Modleski focuses on is “the fascination of femininity of the male protagonist. In what ways does Scotty’s behavior resemble the feminine (stereotypes • Vertigo-- acrophobia is considered a feminine weakness – women have a fear of heights? (Also: suggests: sensitive, emotional, suffers, empathetic) • Discussion of the bra or corset. He wears a corset.. “do you suppose many men wear a corset? • Melancholia – obsession with loss of love – is generally associated with women (sensitive, emotional) and he is hospitalized for this mental illness. 3. Modleski goes on to cite parallelisms between Scottie’s identification with the feminine and Judy/Madeleine. These scenes point to how Scotty’s identification with Madeleine which moves him into a feminine viewpoint. Can you give me some examples of how Scotty is absorbed or identifies with Judy/Madeleine? (through his actions)? • In the museum, he notes that the flowers and hair are the same as in Carlota… the camera tracks and shows a CU to show Scotties fascination and obsession. • Madeleine says she is mad—she is Carlota--- so Scotty has to prove that she isn’t so he cannot be mad, for if he believed her then wouldn’t he be mad as well? • He has the dream in which he is committing suicide just as Madeleine • The dressing of Judy to be like Madeleine (hence Femininity by Design) • “ It is as if he were continually confronted with the fact that woman’s uncanny otherness has some relation to himself, that he resembles her in way intolerable to contemplate – intolerable because this resemblance throws into question his own fullness of being (maleness) (The ghostliness--- pg. 92). What is meant by this quote? How comfortable is Scotty with his feminine qualities? 2 HERE IS WHERE MOLDESKI SUGGESTS THAT THE FILM IS TOLD FROM THE FEMININE POINT OF VIEW (AS WELL FOR SCOTTY MOVES INTO THE FEMALE PERSPECTIVE!!!!!!) This is because he identifies completely with Judy. 4. Are we ever privy to Judy’s thought and feelings? How and when do we identify with Judy/Madeleine? • In the hotel room after Judy looks directly into the camera; then has a flashback of what really happened---starts to write the letter and then decides to go on with the masquerade. We are then privy to information that Scotty doesn’t have. The film now takes on primarily Judy’s perspective? • Looking directly into the camera is a cinematic device called breaking the fourth wall, when we become aware that we are watching a film…. The imaginary wall between the audience and the actor 5. MODLESKI states that spectatorship is split. What do we mean here? While the spectatorship starts out with male, it becomes equally split when we see Judy’s view. Or we relate to both characters and the camera takes on both points of view at the same time. At what point in the film does Modleski point to the “split spectator position between Judy and Scottie? • • • MIRROR shot in hotel room when Scotty sees the necklace– this is a turning point where we expect to see Scottie is in possession of Judy --- however we see a shot of Scottie --- and he is caught in a mirror relationship --- he realizes he has been fooled and was not in control after all. Modleski (1988) returns to the question of the film's supposed male viewpoint, and suggests that 'the male spectator is as much "deconstructed" as constructed' by Hitchcock, due to his 'fascination with femininity’ which throws masculine identity into question and crisis' (p. 87). Mulvey views voyeurism as purely active and sadistic and Modleski suggests that the male spectatorship becomes split and masculinity is in question. 6. A Closer Look, Keane (1986) raises questions to Modleski and Mulvey’s claims to the male gaze – such as Scotty’s scopophilia. How does Keane use Freud’s theory of scopophilia? Firstly, what is scopophilia? • Scopophilia is taking other people as objects subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze. In extreme cases it can be used to explain the behavior of peeping toms and obsessive voyeurs. Where satisfaction comes from watching in an active controlling sense, an objectified object. 3 • Keane suggests that scopophilia is both active and passive as one is also a victim of their obsession • Keane states that Scottie also suffers in his voyeuristic position, • Scottie is acted upon, Scottie becomes passive character as well as Madeleine/Judy • THEREFORE, SCOTTY IS VERY MUCH A VICTIM AS MADELINE/JUDY CLAIMS TO BE. 7. When do we see a final shift in the film’s point of view (or whose perspective are we sharing)? • After the dream sequence-- In Judy’s hotel room. • The camera tracks forward and then the camera changes position and it is placed in front of her with Scottie remains to one side. So we see a part of Judy that Scottie cannot see. This allows us to see a side of Judy that Scottie can’t see. She says, “It can’t matter to you.” • IF WE KNOW THAT JUDY IS PAID TO HAVE SCOTTY FOLLOW HER; THEN WE KNOW THAT SHE WAS WATCHING HIM WATCH … DOES THAT NOW PUT HER IN CONTROL ALL ALONG? Why or why not? 8. What does the scene where the camera circles the couple suggest? • Scotty now makes Judy into Madeleine. He cures her and himself by making her Madeleine and then he can be in control or her and he is free and has power over her. (Pg. 98). It can’t make much difference to you? Do it for me? Do they become one? • What does the article tell us about Hitchcock’s decision to let us know Judy was Madeleine before the film was over? 7. Is Hitchcock in Vertigo sympathetic to women or misogynistic? • A misogynist is a person who hates or doesn't trust women. Misogynist is from Greek misogynḗs, from the prefix miso- "hatred" plus gynḗ "a woman." The English suffix -ist means "person who does something." ADDITIONAL NOTES: Alfred Hitchcock: Vertigo The Women Who Knew Too Much “Femininity by Design” Tania Modleski 4 Laura Mulvey, who opened the debate in her 1975 paper, while harshly accusatory towards Scottie, Mulvey judges Judy severely as well: 'Her exhibitionism, her masochism, make her an ideal passive counterpart to Scottie's active sadistic voyeurism' (ibid). One of the themes that Modleski focuses on is “the fascination of femininity of the male protagonist, Scotty, his spectatorship, and his identification with Judy/Madeleine. Modleski raises the question about the spectator position being split between Scotty and Judy instead of the theory that it is primarily male constructed. Modleski also talks about Scottie’s identification with the feminine and how the POV becomes feminine rather than male. Toward the end of the film we realize that Judy is doing what she is paid to do -allowing Scotty to follow her. How does this realization change what we believe to be the POV of the film? 5
Purchase answer to see full attachment