February | 2014 | ConFashion

The Male Gaze is a term from Gaze theory that describes the tendency of works to assume a (straight) male viewpoint even when they do not have a specific narrative Point of view, and in particular the tendency of works to present female characters as subjects of implicitly male visual appreciation.

The concept of gaze is one that deals with how an audience views the people presented.

Laura Mulvey coined the term male gaze in 1975. She believes that in film audiences have to view characters from the perspective of a heterosexual male.

One of the most obvious results of Male Gaze is the way a (usually male) director/cameraman’s interest in women informs his shots, leading to a focus on breasts, legs, asses and other jiggly bits even when the film isn’t necessarily supposed to be a T&A-fest. For example, a sex scene between a man and a woman may show more of her body than it does of his, or focus more on her reactions than his . Alternatively, it could appear in shows that aren’t overtly sexual – for example, scenes of bikini-clad female characters talking that emphasize their bodies rather than showing just their heads.

The woman is usually displayed on two different levels:

– as an erotic object for both the characters within the film

– the spectator who is watching the film

The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man. This adds an element of ‘patriarchal’ order and it is often seen in “illusionistic narrative film”.

Mulvey argues that, in mainstream cinema, the male gaze typically takes precedence over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.

Mulvey’ also states that the female gaze is the same as the male gaze because women look at themselves through the eyes of men. A feminist may see the male gaze as either a manifestation of unequal power between gazer and gazed, or as a conscious or subconscious attempt to develop that inequality. From this perspective, a woman who welcomes an objectifying gaze may be simply seeking to benefit men, welcoming such objectification may be viewed as akin to exhibitionism.

The Male Gaze typically focuses on:

– Emphasising curves of the female body

– Referring to women as objects rather than people

– The display of women is how men think they should be perceived

– Female viewers, view the content through the eyes of

a man

even for ads and commecial for men and women we can clearly see the Male Gaze

A subtle psychological effect of this is that, in visual media, audiences are primed to sympathise with, or at least respect, characters if the first prominent shot of them concentrates on their face. If it shows another body part the audience is more likely to see the character as a threat, or an object of desire. It isn’t difficult to override this later, but the audience will usually experience it at least subconsciously as a twist.

Source: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MaleGaze

http://katiehamilton25.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-male-gaze-theory.html

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Male_gaze

The Male Gaze Laura Mulvey from Mr Smith

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=male+gaze&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=J077UqjdH-eciAevjYBY&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=624#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=NNjOfaYRJrx7CM%253A%3B0ihRAtrLeJMgcM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Floismclaughlin.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F09%252Fthe-male-gaze.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Floismclaughlin.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F09%252F17%252Fexample-of-the-male-gaze%252F%3B2505%3B3543

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=male+gaze&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=J077UqjdH-eciAevjYBY&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=624#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=-O_MNW1U6d-xUM%253A%3B39Sz819XvaCP0M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F3.bp.blogspot.com%252F_beuhg0sgwzA%252FS6su14auyDI%252FAAAAAAAAACE%252FvoW2YI-ExxY%252Fs1600%252Fmegan-fox-transformers.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Frealizziie.blogspot.com%252F2010%252F03%252Ffemale-gaze-vs-male-gaze-has-there-been.html%3B600%3B399

http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2F1101e2group4.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fbeer-campaigns-and-male-gaze-final.html&h=0&w=0&sz=1&tbnid=TkJrQ7ZU8AliXM&tbnh=120&tbnw=160&zoom=1&docid=zxBuQhEb1TRkfM&ei=7lL7Uq_9Fq6eiAegyYCwAQ&ved=0CAUQsCUoAQ

What is apparatus theory?

According to the Wikipedia apparatus theory is derived in part from Marxist film theory, semiotics, and psychoanalysis, was a dominant theory within cinema studies during the 1970s. It maintains that cinema is by nature ideological because its mechanics of representation are ideological. Its mechanics of representation include the camera and editing. The central position of the spectator within the perspective of the composition is also ideological. Also, Apparatus theory argues that cinema maintains the dominant ideology of the culture within the viewer. Ideology is not imposed on cinema, but is part of its nature.

Apparatus theory follows an institutional model of spectatorship.

Apparatus’ is another word for the means in which a specific production is created. In the case of film / cinema, the film projector and the screen. Apparatus Theory is a model of spectatorship and institutions. It argues that cinema is ideological (based on ideas) because the films are created to represent reality. This means that because film is created to illustrate different ideas, everything has meaning – from the camerawork to the editing. It argues that ideology is not imposed on cinema, but is part of its nature (through the viewer) and it shapes how we think. Apparatus theory was dominant in the 1970s (following the 1960s where psychoanalytical theories and debates were very popular) and is derived from a combination of Marxist theory, semiotics and psychoanalysis. In film theory, the idea is that representation must include the mechanics of film, for example the camera and editing. The production of meaning in a film text, the way a text constructs a viewing subject and the mechanics of making a film all affect the representation of the subject. This theory is that the central position of the spectator/ viewer within the perspective of the text is also ideological – it is a reproduced reality and the experience of cinema influences the viewer on a deep level.

Who is Christian Metz?

Christian Metz – was a French film theorist, best known for pioneering the application of Ferdinand de Saussure’s theories of semiology to film.

Metz was born in Beziers. During the 1970s, his work had a major impact on film theory in France, Britain, Latin America and the United States.

In Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema, Metz focuses on narrative structure — proposing the “Grand Syntagmatique”, a system for categorizing scenes (known as “syntagms”) in films.

Metz applied both Sigmund Freud’s psychology and Jacques Lacan’s mirror theory to the cinema, proposing that the reason film is popular as an art form lies in its ability to be both an imperfect reflection of reality and a method to delve into the unconscious dream state.

Metz’s foundational essay ‘The Imaginary Signifier’ is an exemplary account of the film/spectator relationship, providing what was to become a model for the use of psychoanalytic theory in film criticism. In the scientific manner that characterized post-revolution film studies, Metz sets out to define exactly what the cinema is and how it differs from the other arts. He proposes that the main distinguishing factor is that the cinema is a signifier whose presence is absence, i.e. the act of perception takes place in real time, but the spectator is viewing an object which is pre-recorded and thus already absent: it is the object’s ‘replica in a new kind of mirror’ (Metz 2000, 410). He states that, ‘[m]ore than the other arts…the cinema involves us in the imaginary: it drums up all perception, but to switch it immediately over into its own absence, which is none the less the only signifier present’ (Metz 2000, 410).