Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema

Wall E.

Introduction:

This article analyses pleasure in cinema through psychoanalytical methods of spectatorship. Sexual differences are established through patriarchal dominance in society and is reinforced by spectacles, the act of looking and the images presented on screen. Mulvey emphasizes the significance of scopophilia, conceptualized by Freud, and narcissism of the ego, which is derived from Lacan’s mirror stage. Furthermore, she underlines the dichotomy of the active male gaze in contrast to the passive female in mainstream narrative cinema (Mulvey 62). The dichotomy presents itself as a critical component in visual pleasure and acts as a method of identification and recognition.

Summary:

Introduction:

Mulvey begins her article by arguing that psychoanalytic theory is “a political weapon, demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form” (Mulvey 57). She inserts the concept of phallocentrism to structure her argument that, unconsciously, women serve the patriarchal structure of dominance. There are two ways women do this that Mulvey has highlighted. One is through the symbolic meaning of “the castration threat by her real absence of a penis” and the other is through raising “her child into the symbolic” (Mulvey 57 – 58). Thus, she argues that “she can exist only in relation to castration and cannot transcend it” and that the woman acts only as a “bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning” (Mulvey 58).

Furthermore, Mulvey highlights forms of pleasure and looking as weapons of oppression. It is the “manipulation of visual pleasure” by satisfying the male spectator’s ego and subjectivity accompanied by the sense of loss that Hollywood films use to reinforce patriarchal dominance (Mulvey 59). She suggests that an “alternative cinema […] which is radical in both a political and an aesthetic sense” must be used to counter mainstream and dominant ideologies (Mulvey 58 – 59). However, to produce an alternative cinema, pleasure must be analysed. Only by “analysing pleasure, or beauty” will it be destroyed for new conventions of a new cinema be put forth (Mulvey 59).

Pleasure in Looking/Fascination with the Human Form:

In this section, Mulvey underlines two methods of evoking visual pleasure: scopophilia and narcissism of the ego. Scopophilia, taken from Freud, is to take looking as a form of pleasure. This involves “taking other people as objects [and] subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze” (Mulvey 59). It is through obsessive looking and the innate desire to see that will induce eroticism and pleasure. She argues that this desire is enforced by the “curiosity about other people’s genital and bodily functions” that subjects the spectator to scopophilia (Mulvey 59). Furthermore, the interior of the theatres, the contrast between light and dark, evokes this kind of scopophilic behaviour (Mulvey 60). On the other hand, she argues that the “fascination with likeness and recognition” of oneself is necessary to create pleasure (Mulvey 61). Taking Lacan’s “mirror stage” as inspiration, she argues that the ego is created through recognition and misrecognition of the spectator(s) in the cinema (Mulvey 60 - 61). In her paper, the ego is fundamental in visual pleasure because it identifies with the male protagonist and allows the spectator to be absorbed in the diegesis. Hence, the pleasure in looking is produced both by scopophilia and narcissism. In a sense, the two contradict one another, yet together, they are the foundations of desire that help create pleasure.

Woman as Image, Man as Bearer of the Look:

There exists a relationship between the male and female that produces pleasure in looking. The male is a device that moves the narrative forward and continues the story while the woman works “against the development of the storyline” (Mulvey 62 - 63). In short, the male is active, progressing the narrative, while the female is passive, providing a spectacle. It is the male’s role to be identifiable with the audience, to provide for an ideal ego and promote a “sense of omnipotence” (Mulvey 63). In contrast, the female characters are not important and do nothing for the narrative. She argues that this representation of the passive woman, the spectacle that halts narrative, is what allows them to be possessed by the audience and the male protagonist. On top of this, Mulvey argues that psychoanalytically, women symbolically represent castration, and thus, “threatens to evoke [castration] anxiety” of the male spectators (Mulvey 64). She underlines two methods for men to escape this: become absorbed “with the re-enactment of the original trauma” which is to say, “demystify her mystery” or transform the castration anxiety “into something satisfying in itself” (Mulvey 64). She argues against Sternberg’s films that depict “identifiable” female characters since they are misrepresentations of the female body and are still erotically displayed for pleasure (Mulvey 64 – 65). Moreover, male protagonists are “broken in favor of the image in direct erotic rapport with the spectator” (Mulvey 65). They are not dominant per se, but share the same gaze with the audience. Furthermore, she goes in-depth and analyses well known Hitchcock films: Vertigo, Marnie and Rear Window and argues that they support scopophilia through “oscillating between voyeurism and fetishistic fascination” (Mulvey 65). Regardless what film it is, there always is a dichotomy between the active male and the passive female.

Conclusion:

Scopophilia and ego libido are psychoanalytical mechanisms used for depicting visual pleasure. The active male and passive female used in films is to reproduce a patriarchal society where men control and manipulate women because they present castration anxiety. She mentions that there are three looks: the camera that records, the audience, and the characters in the film (Mulvey 68). Together, they form the visual pleasure necessarily to reinforce ideologies and capture the audience in its diegesis.

Influences:

Ernest Jones:

Although Ernest Jones was not mentioned in Mulvey’s paper, it was Ernest Jones that coined the term “phallocentrism” (Young-Bruehl 342). Phallocentrism is the conceptualization whereby the woman’s lack of phallus symbolizes the phallus and the woman’s role “to make good the lack that the phallus signifies” (Mulvey 57). Thus, Mulvey argues that the women helps build patriarchy by symbolizing castration because of her lack of a penis and by raising “her child into the symbolic” (Mulvey 57 – 58). Since she is only a manifestation of the symbolic, she cannot be anything but a symbol of castration. As Mulvey puts it, “she can only exist in relation to castration” (Mulvey 58). She argues that it is because of this inability to act, to only exist as a symbol, that women are oppressed (Mulvey 58). It is also because of this that patriarchal dominance can be achieved and maintained.

Sigmund Freud:

The castration complex is also mentioned in Mulvey’s article. The castration complex is the fear of having the penis cut off for the male children (Levine 106). She argues that “the woman [is an] icon [that] always threatens to evoke the [castration] anxiety” (Mulvey 64). Through this, there are two methods of avoiding the anxiety caused by the women: “punishment or saving of the guilty object” or “fetishistic scopophilia” (Mulvey 64). Put differently, men can either sadistically punish women by forcing anxiety on to them or turn it into something pleasurable through obsessively voyeurism. She uses these two methods of avoiding castration anxiety to argue that Hitchcock’s male protagonists share these fetishistic characteristics.

Another concept by Freud used by Mulvey is scopophilia taken from “Three Essays on Sexuality” (Mulvey 59). Scopophilia involves the “voyeuristic activities of children [and] their desire to see and make sure of the private” (Mulvey 59). Hence, this is related to phallocentrism and the castration complex in the sense that it is sensation and pleasure created through demystifying the unknown, in this case, the penis or the lack thereof. This psychoanalytical concept is used to argue that pleasure can be derived by uncovering the mystified and actively controlling it.

Jacques Lacan:

Lacan’s “mirror stage” is heavily underlined for Mulvey’s argument of the development of the narcissistic ego. The mirror stage is the stage where a child recognizes itself and its environment in the mirror through its movements being reflected (Lacan 1). In Mulvey’s essay, recognition and misrecognition of the spectator is crucial in developing a pleasurable experience. First, there is a recognition in the mirror image but also a misrecognition in “itself as an ideal ego” (Mulvey 60). She compares the cinematic screen with a mirror and argues that they both frame the spectator into a construct of a being with a human form. With this, she argues that the cinema ensures a “temporary loss of ego while simultaneously reinforcing the ego” (Mulvey 61). Hence, it is the ego that “demands identification […] with the object on the screen” that consequently work with scopophilia that produces the pleasure in looking (Mulvey 61). Thus, Mulvey derives the use of recognition and misrecognition through Lacan’s “mirror stage”.

Analysis:

There are many assumptions that Mulvey has made in her argument. Many of which will be discussed and analysed in this section. It is safe to say that her essay highly relies on the dichotomy of the male and female sexes for visual pleasure. Men have an active gaze that is used to project phantasies on to the passive female characters. Also, females symbolize castration that traumatizes men to a point where they must either punish women or enact in scopophilia (Mulvey 64). However, this relationship between genders is misleading because it is simply binary and does not account for other sexualities. Not only this, but arguing visual pleasure in narrative based on sex alone only accounts for individuals that specifically fall under the category of what Mulvey defines as “male” or “female”. Therefore, it is arguable that Mulvey’s essay does not situate every film because it does not include other sexualities, does not include female spectators and their gaze, and assumes every film has an active male protagonist and a passive female.

Throughout Mulvey’s essay, she refers specifically to males or females. Understandably, she refers to Freud’s works on castration to further her argument, which involves penises or the lack of it. However, this is problematic since the presence or absence of a penis does not represent sexuality. In other words, an individual’s biological sex does not account for their sexual orientation or sexuality. In Mulvey’s case, men are men and women are women. She assumes that all men are heterosexuals who achieve pleasure from obsessive voyeurism whereby “sexual satisfaction can come from watching” (Mulvey 60). However, this is clearly not the case since some men identify with other sexualities. This brings up the question of whether Mulvey based her argument based on biological sex or sexuality. Do asexuals or homosexuals experience the same pleasure from watching female characters? Furthermore, in regards to gender, the term “masculinity” becomes obscured. Does “masculinity” play a role in visual pleasure? Men are referred to as masculine based on their “machoness” and “manliness”, but what about masculine females? In her terms of visual pleasure and sex, how is a male defined as a male? If there are characteristics that are associated with the term “male” like “masculinity”, then does being a female with male characteristics share the same spectatorship? These are all questions that Mulvey does not answer in her essay because of the way she presented gender and sexuality as binary constructs and not as spectrums, which they arguably are. Not only this, but the ability of changing sex is completely ignored by Mulvey. This is important because sex change operations were available at the time that Mulvey’s essay was published (Westbrook and Schilt 33). This is important because this does not support the concept of women trying to obtain the penis because it can be and was possible through surgical operations at that time. Therefore, her argument is specifically targeted for specific individuals and does not provide context for individuals outside of it.

The active male gaze supports the ego through identification, but Mulvey does not elaborate what women see when watching these films. Again, with gender being stated as binary and Mulvey’s work only involving active male gazes, she consequently ignores female gazes. Although she mentions passive females in the film as spectacles, as connotations for being looked at, she never mentions female gazes or spectatorship. This also brings up the question of what other pleasures can be experienced from watching films since female individuals can also have a pleasurable experience watching a film. If visual pleasure comes from scopophilia and the ego, then the concept of pleasure coming from the objectification of women becomes an issue in of itself because women do not share the same erotic pleasures as men do when observing women. This suggests one of two things, either women have their own mechanism for visual pleasure or women do not achieve the same pleasure experienced by men and perhaps experience different forms of pleasure that do not rely on visuals. It is evident that there is a relationship between the male spectators and the male protagonist as argued by Mulvey. However, in regards to this relationship, could Mulvey have implied that female spectators identify with the passive women on screen? If so, how would they identify with them and in what sense? Mulvey stated that women function only as an “erotic object for the characters” and spectators in the theatres (Mulvey 62). Given this, how would female spectators identify with female characters meant to be objectified for the spectators to evoke visual pleasure? Therefore, issues surrounding identification with female spectators becomes an issue. Applying the same logic behind male identification but for females, a paradox becomes evident. With this being said, it is evident that Mulvey does not provide an answer to how females achieve visual pleasure like male spectators.

Mulvey criticizes and underlines Hitchcock’s films for their excessive “scopophilic eroticism” (Mulvey 65). She argues that his films are constantly “oscillating between voyeurism and fetishistic fascination” with a perverted fashioned of identification (Mulvey 65). However, these films that Mulvey criticized were, first of all, Hitchcock films, and second, had male “heroes” with female characters. Arguably, by analyzing films made by one director, their specific style of directing and storytelling, their auteurism, becomes prevalent and noticeable. Given this, it could be argued that Hitchcock was a sadist and was sexist through his style of directing which has nothing to do with Hollywood films. Rather, it was Hitchcock’s specific directorial style that displayed fetishistic ways of depicting visual pleasure through women. Also, it does not help that Mulvey does not analyse other films to provide a more thorough understanding of her paper. Thus, the lack of films that were criticized by Mulvey is a clear issue for her argument. Not only this, but the assumption that every Hollywood film has an active male gaze accompanied by a passive female is inaccurate. A prominent example is “The Thing” directed by John Carpenter and released in 1982 that features an all male cast with the inclusion of a shapeshifting monster. Understandably, it was released in 1982, after Mulvey’s paper. However, another notable film that consists of an all male cast, but was released before the publication of Mulvey’s paper, is “12 Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet and released in 1957. Although there are mentions of women, no woman appears on screen. Moreover, it is important to note there are, without a doubt, many more films that do not have a female character. Given that there are no passive females in these films, an issue regarding Mulvey’s argument arises. How is visual pleasure depicted without passive female characters? Visual pleasure cannot exist because female characters do not exist. Put differently, this negates the concept of the passive women as a source of pleasure in looking. It is possible that pleasure can still be achieved but without the appearance of female characters since “The Thing” and “12 Angry Men” are, arguably, entertaining and pleasurable films. However, with the absence of passive female characters to eroticize the male gaze, there will be no “control of possession of the woman within the diegesis” (Mulvey 63). By eliminating half of Mulvey’s conditions for her argument, it becomes evident that she heavily relies on a relationship that requires both men and women, each playing a crucial role in cinema. Therefore, without the female role in films, her argument becomes flawed.

In conclusion, Mulvey’s essay contains assumptions that does not accurately reflect real spectators. One of the most problematic assumptions made by Mulvey is the spectator’s sexuality. Moreover, the neglected perspective of the female spectators is problematic because it suggests that females do not and cannot experience visual pleasure. Lastly, her assumption that every narrative film consists of at least one passive female character is also misleading since there have been films released that have an all male cast.

Interpretation:

“True Lies” directed by James Cameron and released in 1994 is an exemplary film that depicts Mulvey’s argument. Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the male protagonist, Harry Tasker, a secret agent living a double life with the mission to save the United States from nuclear missiles stolen by terrorists but becomes distracted with marital issues when he suspects his wife of cheating on him. Jamie Lee Curtis plays Harry Tasker’s wife, Helen Tasker, and ends up getting involved in Harry’s secret mission when Harry mixes his personal life with his work life. This film depicts pleasure in looking through scopophilia and narcissism as well as pleasure in looking through the relationship between the active male, Harry Tasker, and the passive female, Helen Tasker.

There is a specific scene in “True Lies” that captures and strongly supports Mulvey’s arguments that will be used in this section. To put it into context, Harry discovers his wife’s affairs with another man. Furious and in denial, he and his team kidnaps her and interrogates her in an undisclosed location. He, along with his partner, learns that Helen’s relationship with that man was only for her to escape her normal, boring life and experience a sense of adventure. Knowing this, Harry puts together a fake mission where she would pretend to be a prostitute and meet an arms dealer at a hotel. She is informed that the arms dealer, who is actually her husband, Harry, only likes watching and will not have any physical contact with her. The scene starts as she enters the room where she is greeted by Harry sitting in the corner of the bedroom, too dark for her to see. Harry tells her to undress and dance for him while he watches. This scene will be referred to in this section because it perfectly depicts what Mulvey is arguing.

Mulvey refers to scopophilia as the pleasure in watching through objectifying people. Evidently, in this scene with Harry and Helen, it is depicted that Harry enjoys watching Helen undress and dance for him. It is erotic and pleasurable for both the audience and for Harry. Moreover, the fact that Helen acts as a prostitute allows Harry to control her and use her any way he pleases. Thus, he is controlling and objectifying her alongside the audience. Furthermore, Mulvey argues that the theatre presents a perfect environment where “extreme contrast between the darkness [and the] light and shade on the screen helps to promote the illusion of the voyeuristic separation” for male phantasies (Mulvey 60). In short, the audience sits in the darkness, which allows them to conduct their phantasies while watching the bright screen. This is important because it is also depicted within the scene. The stark contrast between the spectator, Harry, and the spectacle, Helen is prominent to reflect the nature of observing and being observed. While Harry sits in his chair in the dark corner, Helen dances for him on the other side of the room. Through the depiction of Harry’s facial expressions, he is also projecting his voyeuristic phantasies like the spectators in the audience. Hence, the pleasure in watching Helen undress and dance is reinforced through the eyes of Harry where he sits in the dark, reflecting the audience in the theatres. Secondly, Mulvey’s argument of narcissism of the ego is also evident in this scene. Again, with the image of Harry watching Helen in the dark, the spectator identifies with Harry because he is also observing Helen similar to how the spectators in the theatre is. This identification with Harry is what Mulvey states as the recognition of themselves “through the spectator’s fascination with and recognition of his like” (Mulvey 61). However, it is also misrecognition because the image is not actually themselves (Mulvey 60). This produces an illusion of reality where identification with the protagonist can happen and where visual pleasure becomes enforced. Thus, scopophilia and the ego is evident in producing visual pleasure in this film.

Helen, the passive female, is explicitly used to produce a visual spectacle for visual pleasure. In this scene specifically, she is connotating the very definition of a spectacle by erotically performing for Harry and the audience. However, it is important to note that this scene also worked “against the development of a story line” which Mulvey argues is what passive female characters do (Mulvey 62). This scene has very little dialogue and does not progress the narrative in any direction. In fact, this scene lasts for about five and a half minutes before the narrative gets reintroduced. Hence, this scene of her undressing and dancing is specifically used to halt the narrative and to produce a spectacle. On top of this, Mulvey argues that the function of the female role was to be an “erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as [an] erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium” (Mulvey 62). This is explicitly shown through the parallel between Harry and the spectators in the audience. In fact, Helen is the only person who moves during the scene because of her erotic dancing. On the other hand, Harry and the spectators are simply watching from a distance and in the dark. Not only this, but close-ups of her back, chest, legs, and face are all apparent. This display of bare skin is eroticized and “gives flatness” to the female character (Mulvey 62 – 63). Therefore, this scene supports this claim because as Helen undresses and her bare skin is exposed, she becomes an erotic spectacle. Most importantly, it is through Harry’s gaze and control that acts “as the bearer of the look of the spectator” (Mulvey 63). It is through the identification with Harry that evokes visual pleasure because it is ultimately Harry’s point of view and eye line match that allows for Helen’s undressing and dancing. It is through Harry’s point of view that allows the spectators in the audience to achieve a “sense of omnipotence” (Mulvey 63). This relationship that exists between the audience and Harry is underlined, again, through the parallelism of Harry and the audience’s gaze. Lastly, the threat of castration and the method of how Harry escapes it is also depicted in this scene. As stated before, the male can escape the anxiety in two ways: to “demystify her mystery” and punish her or to transform “it into something satisfying in itself” (Mulvey 64). Arguably, in this case, Harry is punishing her for her need for adventure and consequently saving her from potential danger. This is because Harry fakes a dangerous mission for her as a warning of how dangerous adventure can be. He makes her feel guilty for allegedly cheating on him and makes her feel guilty for wanting to be adventurous after revealing that he was an undercover agent his entire life. Moreover, as the film progresses, Harry is constantly protecting Helen from terrorists and gunshots. Therefore, the dichotomy between the active male and passive female is prominent in “True Lies” because Helen provides visual pleasure through embodying spectacle.

In conclusion, “True Lies” is exemplary in portraying Mulvey’s argument of visual pleasure in cinema. One specific scene in “True Lies” captures visual pleasure conveyed through scopophilia and the ego because of the objectification of Helen as an erotic spectacle. It also produces a pleasure through the relationship between the active male, Harry, and the passive female, Helen. Helen is a passive female because of her role as an erotic spectacle and is manipulated by Harry, and subsequently, the audience.

Works Cited:

Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed Psychoanalytic Experience.” 16th International Congress of Psychoanalysis, 17 July 1949, pp. 1–7.

Levine, Howard B. "The Castration Complex Revisited." Psychoanalytic Inquiry 38.1 (2018): 106-11. Web. 9 Dec. 2018.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” 1975, pp. 57–68.

Westbrook, Laurel, and Kristen Schilt. "Doing Gender, Determining Gender: Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System." Gender & Society 28.1 (2014): 32-57. Web. 9 Dec. 2018

Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. "Introduction." Studies in Gender and Sexuality 3.4 (2002): 339-43. Web. 10 Dec. 2018