Re-assessing Laura Mulvey and The Male Gaze in 2020

Chloe
Jun 1, 2020
10 min read

It's been 45 years since Laura Mulvey's groundbreaking academic paper on the male gaze in the media.

Male gaze theory is used to describe how women are viewed in film, television and other media. It argues that the camera takes on a heterosexual male perspective in the way it frames female subjects, enticing male audiences to a scopophilic fantasy experience where female characters are only stimuli.

That's the "in a nutshell" version. Male gaze theory doesn't just cover how female subjects are framed in films but also how they are received by audiences (reception theory) and how they are utilized in a narrative.

Male gaze theory has always fascinated me not just as a feminist or a filmmaker but also as a gay woman. It's a complicated contradiction which can sometimes be difficult to navigate.

Mulvey revised her theory in a book released last year but before I read what's changed for her I want to re-assess Laura Mulvey through my own eyes. What has changed in the last 45 years regarding how women are portrayed? Is the male gaze the same as a lesbian "queer eye"? Is there such thing as a female gaze? Who decides where the line is? Is the male gaze ever justified?

I will be using a list of films to illustrate my points and will link to some further reading at the end of the blog post.

1. Jennifer's Body: The Monstrous Femme

I know there are much better films than Jennifer's Body to talk about female horror monsters but what's interesting about this 2009 cult film is how perceptions of it have changed.

Female villains have been around since the birth of cinema but unlike male antagonists, the threat of female villains usually comes from their sexuality. They are seductresses, a threat to the male protagonists masculinity. In Mulvey's theory she refers to the idea of woman as "castrator" that a powerful female character is a threat to the male protagonist's masculinity and that he is "less of a man" until the threat is destroyed or she is sexualised to the point where she is non-threatening.

Jennifer's Body is a horror/dark comedy about a high school cheerleader who is selected as a virgin sacrifice to Satan by the school rock band so they can become famous. The problem is that Jennifer is not a virgin, causing the demon to possess her. She then goes on a killing spree. Her best friend must stop her before she kills her lover Chip... yeah bear with me on this one.

Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried are cast in the two main roles. Megan after her success in the 2007 Transformers and Amanda after already appearing in hit films like Mean Girls. The marketing for the film heavily played on the "sexiness" of their main cast. Including a lesbian kiss moment in the trailer. The film was marketed for a male heterosexual audience promising sex and gore.

The script was written by female scriptwriter Diablo Cody (Juno) and directed by Karyn Kusama (Destroyer) who wanted the film to be a comical re-purposing of sexist horror tropes while still staying true to the genre's scary roots. So how does a film written and directed by women become a product of male gaze?

I think reception theory is a huge part of this. What Cody and Kusama wanted to make was not in line with the low budget, sexy, gore fest the studios knew would sell. This resulted in bad casting choices, unconvincing special effects and marketing at odds with the original vision of the film in order to attract an audience.

The conflict of marketing with the material led to the film bombing. The male gaze was implemented in order to sell the film to a male audience before they even knew there was an audience for it at all! In an interview Diablo Cody said that the test audience the studio brought in to watch the first cut were males aged 18 to 24. Not the audience she had written the film for.

The cinematography in Jennifer's Body does, without any doubt, sexualise both Jennifer and her friend Anita. However, in recent years there has been a debate over viewer identification.

Jennifer's Body has become a cult classic because of its rebranding as a feminist cult horror film in the wake of the #MeToo movement. The story at its core is about a woman used as a tool for male success which backfires causing the now demon possessed woman to take revenge. We are not identifying with the male characters in the film. Quite the opposite, we kind of want to see them seduced and murdered. The film flopped because it was made and marketed for the male gaze when it was written for a female one. When viewed from a female perspective it takes on a different meaning.

When viewed from a female perspective the male gaze could be a justifiable part of the storytelling. Showing how Jennifer is viewed by her victims adds to the tension of a scene due to the dramatic irony of how the audience views her. We know how disgusting she really is. The casting of Megan Fox also makes narrative sense. Jennifer's popularity is linked to her relationship with Anita and Anita's own insecurities about herself.

While I would not credit Jennifer's Body with being a feminist film in its current iteration, if there's any horror film due a 2020 remake it's this one. Times have changed and the film is being watched differently by both male and female audiences. Mulvey doesn't really touch upon this fluidity of interpretation in her 1975 theory.

2. Birds of Prey: Objectification Vs Male Gaze

I believe there is a difference between objectification and male gaze although it is a fine line frequently crossed.

When Laura Mulvey wrote her paper I think it was different. In the case of a lot of 70's Hollywood films the male gaze is the same as objectification. The female character has little purpose outside of how she looks and is viewed by a male protagonist. Now I think these elements are more independent. I think a female character can be a well written, interesting and strong protagonist and still be framed by the male gaze.

As a lesbian I do find woman in films and TV... well... attractive. It comes with the territory! I do sexualise women. However, I wouldn't say I objectify women. It frustrates me for female characters to be valued only on their appearance because I am a woman and I want to relate to the female character on screen. The female character cannot just be an object. My sexuality doesn't blind me to sexism.

Objectification is reducing a character to an object, only there for visual pleasure.

Male gaze is viewing a character through a heterosexual male perspective.

Objectification can be a form of male gaze but not all male gaze is objectification.

The best way I can think of to show this difference is with the same character across two different films.

In Suicide Squad, Harley Quin is objectified. Her idea of self worth is dictated by her relationship with the Joker. Her clothes are made purposefully to show off her body. Her motivations and decisions are not her own and the camera will always pick a shot that makes her look sexy over a shot that furthers the story.

In Birds of Prey Harley is sexy but she's not objectified. Her story is her own (as the elongated title suggests). She takes authorship over the film through her voice over and her story is no-longer tied to the Joker. She still dresses in a sexualised way but it feels more like an expression of the character's own sense of style rather than an objectifying image. She can still be viewed under the male gaze but she is her own character. It's a creative choice.

This is the main problem with male gaze theory as it stands in Mulvey's 1975 paper. As long as there are men on the planet there is going to be a male gaze. There is nothing inherently wrong with a sexy female character, infact denying female characters from expressing sexuality could push feminism in the opposite direction than where we want it to go. There is also nothing wrong with heterosexual men finding women sexy... That's why they're heterosexual.

I don't believe that male gaze is automatically misogynistic. The issue comes with the line between male gaze and objectification which is frequently crossed. There is a difference between viewing a character a certain way and creating her for that sole purpose and we are still not at a stage where characters are not written just to be attractive to a male audience.

We are also not at a stage where there is enough variety in what is considered "sexy" in mainstream film and TV. There are certain kinds of female characters that are objectified by the male gaze, leaving bigger women or less conventionally attractive women to comedy or supporting roles that are never framed this way.

I think the thing to ask yourself if you're trying to figure out if it's objectification or male gaze is to ask if it's motivated.

I am hereby coining the term Motivated Male Gaze.

Male gaze can be motivated by:

1. The point of view of a male main character (Whether likable or unlikable) when we are seeing the world through his eyes. The female characters aren't objects but they are desirable to the main character and therefore framing them in a way that conveys this to an audience is motivated. I would argue films like Scott Pilgrim Vs The World fall into this category.

2. The personality and choices of a female character. If a character wants to be found sexy then it would be wrong for that character to be framed in a way that isn't in line with their own choice. Buffy the Vampire Slayer comes to mind as a character who wants to be found attractive, who likes clothes and makeup and boys but is still a fully fleshed out character and is treated with respect by the narrative. There is undoubtedly male gaze choices in the show but they are motivated by who the character is.

3. A way to demonstrate period accurate misogyny such as in shows like Mad Men.

3. Ibiza: Female Gaze

While still not at the level of use as the male gaze, female gaze films are becoming more popular and do attract audiences.

There are an increasing number of films that are now sexualising men just as much as women and sometimes they are reduced to objectification. I personally don't agree with objectification for any gender because it's lazy writing and perpetuates negative ideas of body image, sex and relationships but female gaze, just like male gaze is inherently fine as long as they are in equal usage.

I'd argue that superhero films especially Marvel is a good example to look at for both male and female gaze. In the earlier films there was definitely a lean towards the male gaze with the main protagonist's love interest framed in a sexualised way. Over time these have started to even out with the female characters taking more of a narrative lead and the male superheroes having more pointless shirtless scenes, hoping to appeal to a female gaze audience.

However, I'd argue that male gaze is still closer to objectification than the female gaze in the majority of films. Sexualised male characters nearly always still have more character and narrative purpose than women under the male gaze. Films like Fast and Furious, Mission Impossible and James bond all sexualise their male characters but they have all, at times, objectified female ones.

Female gaze always seems to be more motivated, showing how a female character looks at a male character instead of a low camera angle for the sake of it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it is much rarer.

A recent film which is an example of female gaze is the netflix original Ibiza staring Gillian Jacobs (Community) and Richard Madden (Bodyguard). I was debating to myself if this film would fall under objectification because Madden is not in the film a lot and is there as the romantic interest with little to do except look sexy while pretending to be a DJ. However, his character is the catalyst for the whole film to happen. He isn't there as a spare part just to be ogled, the story wouldn't work without him and the female gaze is motivated by Jacob's character's attraction to him.

The point I'm trying to make is that male and female gaze are still very disparate. Female gaze is usually restricted to rom-coms, comedies and chick flicks while male gaze can pop up anywhere and everywhere. Also the existence of a female gaze does not excuse the objectification of female characters. It's an argument I see a lot online that really annoys me.

They are different. Female gaze rarely indicates the power balance that male gaze does. It's not just about the appearance and the framing of a character but the way they're written.

4. Portrait of a Lady on Fire: Is the camera inherently male?

This is what I believe to be the most out-dated part of Mulvey's theory. That due to the patriarchy that led to the development of cinema that the camera is inherently male because of the cinematic conventions created by men.

I don't think there's no truth to it but I do believe a lot has changed in this regard in 45 years. Pioneering female filmmakers and the evolution of film technology and storytelling has led to what I believe to be a "gaze-less voice"

Instead of imposing a gaze onto the audience, a gaze-less film would take the eyes of the spectator.

More and more modern films, especially outside of hollywood are starting to approach their storytelling and marketing from a gaze-less point of view. Characters might be sexualised by the audience but they are not framed that way by the camera.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a love story between two women but neither character is sexualised by the positioning of the camera. It doesn't take a male gaze perspective of their relationship, nor a female one. There is sexual tension between the characters but it is never displayed as a spectacle for the audience only as part of the narrative.

5. Conclusion

Mulvey theorises that all cinema is scopophilic. That we derive pleasure from watching and that most films are created to satisfy male scopophilia.

I still believe this to be accurate. Most films are made and marketed for a male audience and male gaze is still much more prolific and objectifying than a female one.

But I don't believe that it should never happen.

There shouldn't be no sexualised female characters in cinema. Not allowing female characters to be sexual just to prevent male gaze isn't the way to solve the problem but we do need to change the way female characters are sexualised.

Is it motivated? What is it saying about this character? Where is the power in the scene?

There needs to be more variety in what kind of characters and body types get sexualised to promote healthier attitudes. The way other characters react to a sexualised character also needs to be re-assessed. A misogynistic character needs to be branded as such. There is no excuse now for misogynistic behaviour going un-checked and played for laughs. Objectification can not be branded as "cool"

The imbalance between male and female gaze needs to be evened out which will be achieved by bringing in more female writers and directors.

Male gaze isn't inherently bad but we need to change how it is used and for what purpose.

Filmography

Jennifer's Body (2009)

Transformers (2007)

Mean Girls (2004)

Juno (2007)

Destroyer (2018)

Suicide Squad (2016)

Birds of Prey (2020)

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World (2010)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV Series) (1997)