|
Questions for Discussion
1. Lacan's mirror stage relies on visual recognition of the physical body as the main constructive element of subjectivity; which Mulvey then draws on as the foundation of the fascination with film. What happens when self-identification does not occur? Is this at all possible? 2. Mulvey describes two kinds of pleasure in film that is always produced for the male gaze: scopophilic and narcissistic. According to Doane the female viewer has only two choices in appropriating the male gaze: to become masochistic by seeing through "male" eyes, or to become narcissistic by identifying with the image. Are these the only possibilities? 3. How does masquerade operate in the practice of viewing? 4.Does masquerade give a position of agency to the female viewer? Is there any other place for the female gaze outside the patriarchal logic of viewing? 5. The theory of specifically male/female spectatorship presupposes that one would negate the other. Is this always the case? Where do other variables such as class, race, age, cultural background and sexual orientation come into play? 6. Do we agree that traditional cinema is always patriarchal and subverting the female gaze? Are there examples of evidence to the contrary, or otherwise non-heteronormative? For instance, Mulvey herself makes the exception of the 'buddy movie', where "the active homosexual eroticism of the central male figures can carry the story without disctraction" (11). How does this affect the sexuality of the assumed-heterosexual-male audience? 7. Films have been produced to increasingly demographic-specific target audiences. How can we imagine a more general theory of spectatorship? Will the theory also apply to other audiovisual products like TV ads and video clips?
|