Male Gaze and Oppositional Gaze

When I think of pop culture, advertising and promotion, one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is “sex sells”. It is sad and it is very true. Whether it’s on television or billboards in movies or magazines, the ‘ideal’ female beauty is constantly displayed for all media consumers, women and men, to see. Lately, it’s hard not to notice just how on display a female’s sexuality is in all types of media content including racy commercial advertisements, billboards, print ads, television shows, music videos, and films. There is a ridiculous amount of influence from mass media to be the most beautiful which puts pressure on every day women who are not airbrushed supermodels.

 The male gaze is one which views women as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze. John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing” is about perception, the placement and objectification of women. To be naked is to be vulnerable but a female in the nude is what we see captured in old fine art, drawings, paintings and sculptures like the Venus de Willendorf- she is faceless, voluptuous, she could be any woman, but has no arms or feet. Without limbs she is trapped in a static quality because she is unable to move. This furthers the ideology that women are only to be looked at.  Berger explains in his article, “Women are there to feed an appetite, not to have any of their own” (Berger, 55). Laura Mulvey in her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” cites the example of Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum in the 1954 film River of No Return. “As the spectator identifies with the main male protagonist, he projects his look on to 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” (Mulvey, 838). The spectator is the male audience member who just bought the movie ticket and wishes he were Robert Mitchum. Once Norma Jeane Baker bleached her hair, and supposedly got a little nip and tuck she was transformed into the ever so desirable, and now iconic, Marilyn Monroe. She was a shiny object on display at a toy store.  Monroe knew she had a male audience and knew how to keep their attention.  She played the ditzy, dumb, beautiful blonde in films and then went on to pose nude photos that would end up being published in Playboy in 1953. But putting one’s looks/body on display is to do just that; just be a body to be looked at, to feed but not be fed, to give and never take, to be passive rather than active. Thus, such women become dehumanized because they are nothing more than pretty faces.  Women in film have traditionally functioned as both erotic object for male characters and the erotic object for moviegoers. The image of woman is fixed and held for the pleasure of the male spectator.  In the world we live in today, everything is about finding consumers and getting their money. Monroe's work made money. Her fans are the consumers. Consumers pay. People bought movie tickets to see films that Marilyn Monroe was in. People paid to buy a ticket and stare at and admire her beauty. On top of that, the male spectators/audience gets to live vicariously through the male love interest on screen kissing Marilyn.

As opposed to female as a sex icon image, male characters require depth in order for spectators to identify. Men are supposed to be the heroes who save the day and then get the girl. Think about the number of times a day we see women in the media scantily clad in itsy bitsy teeny weeny bikinis. Now think about how often you see a man in the media in a speedo or just underwear (underwear ads aside).  There’s not much of a comparison.  While Axe cologne advertisements are pretty steamy, the fact is that men aren’t nearly as exposed in the media as women.

 

http://lindseyomelon.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/skyy3.jpg
This lady's breasts have nothing to do with SKYY vodka, but they are the first thing you see when you look at the picture. The second thing I noticed was the way he is standing over her. Classic case of 'sex sells'.

 

The “Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” by Bell Hooks discusses the lack of accurate portrayals of African American women in film. Shows on television portraying African Americans, which are supposed to be relatable, often times are not because those shows are being scripted, directed, and produced by white people.  In addition to inaccuracies, early American cinema and television often portrayed African Americans as low class, uneducated servants which only made the white female characters appear more desirable on screen and ultimately to the male spectator(s). Listening to Hooks speak during an interview, I felt I could relate to the feelings she experienced as a young girl, not being able to relate to any characters on screen or models in magazines. There were never any Indian girls on Full House or Family Matters. As I got older and the industry started casting more ‘ethnic’ roles, the Indian Americans portrayed were all clearly extremely traditional with tili on their foreheads and saris on every day. I am a first generation American. Growing up I wore regular clothes like all my friends and my family in America (parents, aunties, uncles and cousins) celebrated Easter, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. But this isn’t shown on television because there hasn’t yet been a show centered around Indian Americans.

It really is quite fascinating to think about and analyze ideas like the male gaze and oppositional gaze, yet it’s simultaneously disappointing. I hope that the recent trend of portraying racial and cultural diversity in the media (like on Modern Family, and The New Normal) continues into the future and gives viewers realistic and relatable entertainment.