The article which discusses women and their role in film is quite interesting. Coming from the eye of one who has never been exposed to the world of film that exists behind the movie or television screen, it’s particularly effective in explaining the several components to film and the industry as well as illustrating how they’re flawed. However, I do wish that some points were expanded upon a little more, as I felt a counter argument to many of the points would be easy to develop. Particularly, I think that although the connections made in the illustration of women for men’s sake in film were adequate and in most cases very true, I found myself writing on the side several times throughout the article, ‘women do this to men too.’ The article was a little to Freudian for me. Examples:
7. Fetishism:
I think the fetishism of women on screen can exist for reasons beside that of men attempting to “counteract the fear of sexual difference” and find a penis on her (14). If it’s essentially about sexual objectification, what about women who fetish over other women in objectifying them? What about women who fetish over men on screen? Are they trying to find their own female parts in the male?
9. The Gaze: The Three “Looks” in the Cinema
There is a fourth look, which if included in the text, would exist between the first and second (i) as (i.2). That look is the one where the females are looking at males, who in turn become objects of their gaze. The shirtless half werewolf half human (I hope many of you get the reference) is a clear example of this. In that moment, he exists for the female gaze, during which time he is being objectified by the female.
The problem I have with the classic Freudian analysis- the scope which this article adopts- is that while is does explain how women are viewed by and for men, it completely ignores how this notion is mimicked by females who have a gaze (and use it) as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment