Importance of Gender in Classical Hollywood Films

This essay will use Laura Mulvey’s theory of “Visual Pleasure and narrative cinema” to critically analyse the importance of gender in the construction of the gaze in classical Hollywood films. The two films I will be exploring are Rear Window, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and released in 1954, and the 1940 film directed by Dorothy Arnzer, Dance, Girl, Dance.

Mulvey’s Theory explains that all classical Hollywood films are created for the male gaze. Edward Snow’s theory explains that the male gaze and the problems that “Gaylyn Studlar has observed that females can only function for the male-only as an object is sadist spectatorial possession’. Mulvey’s theory explains why she believes that women in classical Hollywood films are passive subjects for the males as they have an active view. Mulvey explains the male position with ‘archive’ and the female ‘passive’. Mulvey argues that in films, women are described ‘as image, man as bearer of the look’. She argues that when watching these films, the viewer can tell who the film is made for and who the camera follows. In this theory, Mulvey does not believe any classical Hollywood film could be anything other than made for the male desire and created towards the male gaze. Mulvey Also explains the use of the patriarchal society in narrative cinema and classical Hollywood cinema. 

What is a patriarchal society? According to an online source, ‘A patriarchal system is a society in which men control all aspects: from politics to morals to economics and even the actions of women.’  In Mulvey’s theory, she explains that ‘Psychoanalytic theory is thus appropriate here as a political weapon, demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form.’ The patriarchal society is made of white cis genders, middle age, middle-class men, as are the films, as this is what the male gaze is also created for. She also explains that ‘to summarise briefly, the function of women in forming the patriarchal unconscious is twofold, she first symbolises the castration threat by her real absence of penis and second thereby raises her children into the symbolic.’ This implies that as the woman lacking a penis, as the man was the one who took it away from her, she is shown as the ‘passive’ whilst the man is shown as the ‘active’ – as they were the ones who put the women in the position she is in. 

Using Mulvey’s theory and analysing two different scenes from Hitchcock’s Rear Window, muley explains that ‘fundamentally, a woman presented on the screen scene should be erotic so that she attracts the spectator’s attention.’ This can be seen in the opening scene, where we are introduced to Jeff, our protagonist. In the opening scene, a POV shot is used to display the establishing shot. In this shot, we are shown our view outside the protagonist, Jeff’s, Window.  We are introduced to one of Jeff’s neighbours. Quickly, the audience is able to establish that Jeff is a voyeur. Mulvey explains that the media has normalised voyeurism and that, eventually, everyone would become voyeurs. She explains that people enjoy ‘looking into a private world’. A voyeur is a person who takes pleasure in looking at someone secretly. Looking gives us a sense of visual satisfaction, safety and control over what we see. In Rear Window, Jeff spends his days watching his neighbours as it provides entertainment due to his accident which has bound him to an armchair. In this opening scene at 7.01 Minutes, we are shown a long shot showcasing a woman getting dressed through her window. Her unnatural movement, such as putting her leg to her head, suggests to the viewer that she is potentially performing, which could indicate that she wants to show off to someone. Her flexibility could be implying a sexual desire which subsequently targets the male demographic, which dominates the target audience. According to Irvin D. Yolam in the article ‘Aggression and forbidden in voyeurism’, voyeurism could be described as a sexual assault. This is suggested as the voyeur looks at the other person nonconsensually and in a sexual way. Yolam explains, ‘ It is difficult to assess its incidence as a sexual offence since individuals are rarely charged with voyeurism’. Jeff is looking at this neighbour through his window whilst she is getting ready and dancing inside her private room. This creates a feeling for the audience that she is performing for them, and it is ok for them to sexualise her as the protagonist also contributes to the normalisation of voyeurism. This film targets white cis-gendered men, as they can relate to the story’s protagonists – as the main character is of caucasian descent.

Also, as the film is created for the male gaze, the objectification of women for male desire is consistently exhibited throughout the film. This links with Mulvey’s theory as she explains that women, as exhibitionists become objects for men to look at. An exhibitionist is someone who takes pleasure in being looked at. They present themselves to the gaze, which could be interpreted as taboo – if not received by the target demographic. Also, her outfit is very revealing as she is shown, in the wide shot of her room, wearing a bra. The use of pink throughout her outfit suggests that she is feminine due to the common stereotype that pink is feminine and, oppositionally, blue is masculine. As the viewer can be a voyeur, this movie creates the feeling that we, the viewers, are secretly staring at the woman without her knowledge, giving us the sense that she is the object of our desire. Once the audience is looking, we see her as a sexual object. Being a voyeur and sexualising this female character, whom we do not even have a name, implies to the audience that she is only there to be stared at and sexualised; that is her only purpose. She can be described as seductive as she is seen getting dressed in front of a window which doesn’t have it’s curtains closed. This, therefore, creates the feeling that she is allowing the protagonist (and thereby the audience) to see. She would have closed her curtains if she did not want to be seen. At 9.01, the Kuleshov effect creates the illusion that Jeff is watching the lady through the window while she is dancing. The lady through the window is dancing around her apartment doing daily chores. This implies that Jeff is a voyeur and is sexualising this woman by watching her dance in her underwear. As she is completing normal domestic tasks, she is not sexualising herself. The sexualisation stems from the protagonist’s choices. There are also shots of this woman moving her body in a sexual way, for example: moving her hips and her posterior from side to side whilst Jeff is watching her. This links to Mulvey’s theory as this character is only there to satisfy Jeff’s gaze when he wants to look at something. Moreover, when the audience sees her, she is sexualised and portrayed to be there for entertainment for two reasons. Firstly, they are intrigued by the narrative and how the neighbours influence the story but are also satisfied by the introduction of voyeurism.

However, when we are first introduced to Lisa, the love interest, at 24.27, she is shown looming over Jeff as he sleeps. This creates the feeling that maybe Jeff feels intimidated by Lisa. Online, Lisa is described as ‘gorgeous, smart, nurturing, financially independent, and she cannot get her hands off [Jeff].’ Even though she is seen as financially stable, this is not mirrored in her actions around Jeff. Throughout the film, Jeff has people nagging him about marriage and coincidentally, the film creates the atmosphere that the reason Lisa is here is to create a potential wife for Jeff. Lisa, in this film, is made to be a financially independent woman as she works for herself, but she is shown to be relying on Jeff’s presence as the majority of her screen time is with Jeff. Our first-time seeing Lisa in a mid shot, she wore exquisite clothing with red lipstick. The use of red lipstick could be considered sexual and seductive, as red is stereotypically a sexual colour. The close-up kissing scene at 24.40 creates the feeling that it is forced, and Lisa is moving on to Jeff. Lisa turned on every light in the room to make herself more visible, so Jeff looked at her. The use of the look-at-ness throughout the movie with Lisa is described as wanting to ‘prove to Jeff she is more than just a pretty face’.

Dance, Girl, Dance is a film directed by Dorothy Arzner in 1940, which can be argued to be created for the male gaze using Mulvey’s theory. According to Kevin Goddard in the article called “Looks Maketh the Man”: The Female Gaze and the Construction of Masculinity is explained as ‘The feminist movement long ago pointed out the power of the “male gaze” on the way women perceive themselves and allowed themselves to be perceived by men and other women. Judy, the movie’s main character, tries to become a professional ballerina but finds it hard to be recognised for her talent and hard work. At the same time, Bubbles keeps getting work by being her exhibitionist self and uses her conventional beauty to create jobs for herself. In the scene I will analyse, Bubbles is dancing to try and get a job, and the dancers are told to hula dance. 

At 18.51, a wide shot shows Bubbles walking up to the dance floor to get ready to dance, and we see the auditioner’s eyes look Bubbles up and down; with the eye-line match, we are made to think this man is looking at Bubble’s bottom. Linking to Mulvey’s theory describes women as exhibitionists, objects for men to look at. Pleasure in looking at another person as an erotic object, as we know, defines an exhibitionist. Therefore, Bubbles fits the mould of an exhibitionist. She puts herself on show for men. The audience views her as a sexual object, so she gets the parts and roles she wants. At 18.57, Bubbles takes off her coat, revealing to the other performers her outfit; this costume is more sexual than the other dancers, and this implies to the audience that she wants attention and people to look at her in a more sexual light. Also, having fewer clothes on than the other women is to appeal to the male auditioner so she would get the job by sexualising herself, as she knows the performance is for men to enjoy. This also conforms to Mulvey’s Theory when she explains, ‘women are regarded as objects of fetishist display for male viewers’ pleasure’. At 19.28, Bubbles begins to dance. She is very close to the male auditioner when dancing, seductively moving her hips and winking. 19.34, it cuts where a mid-shot of the man looking at Bubbles up and down again, this time when she is dancing. Throughout the dance, Bubbles keeps eye contact with the man whilst dancing, which creates an altogether sensual feeling. At 19.50, Bubbles smacks her bottom whilst making eye contact with the auditioner again. The second time Bubbles smacks herself, the shot cuts ( a jump cut) to the man smiling, suggesting that he is enjoying himself. 20.00 Bubbles smacks herself again, but this time stares directly into the camera, implying to the viewer that this dance is also for them. This links with Mulvey’s theory “mainstream film satisfies especially the male spectator by projecting his desires on the screen.” this implies that the ‘male spectator’ is the one that classical Hollywood cinema created. This makes the viewer feel that she is dancing and flirting with us. This shows to the viewer that she is performing for us. The direct gaze into the camera suggests she is winking at us. She is offering herself sexually to us, for us. Throughout this scene, even though we know there are other people in the room, how the scene is shot creates the feeling that only Bubbles and the other man are in the room; this makes the feeling that it is more direct, and she is only performing for just him. At 20.23, we get a closeup of the man’s face whilst watching Bubbles dancing. This implies that this performance is for him. Before Bubbles enters the scene, Judy performs in front of the auditioner. However, he does not seem interested and seems bored, as Judy is not sexualising herself and it is taking her dancing seriously. Judy’s character wants to become professional without using her femininity to get the job.

In conclusion, Mulvey’s theory suggests to the audience watching classical Hollywood cinema that these films are created for the male gaze. This is shown by both movies and scenes I have chosen to analyse throughout this essay. Mulvey’s Theory explains the impact men have on women in films– – in the development of narrative and casting– and how women become sexualised as a result of it. This suggests and is shown in the scenes in Dance, Girl, Dance, as the movie is based on two women trying to get jobs but facing the moral issue of deciding whether to exploit their sexuality or not. The more successful dancer is the one sexualising herself for male attention and attraction. This proves Mulvey is describing women as exhibitionists, which are just for men to look at as erotic objects and not a person. Additionally, linking with her quote, ‘woman as image, man as bearer of the look’. In Rear Window, the women are the objects of the gaze as they are used to sexualise, especially in the opening scene with the lady through the window, her costume, and how she is portrayed. This also proves Mulvey’s theory when she explains ‘that fundamentally, a woman presented on the screen should be erotic so that she attracts the spectator’s attention’. The Male gaze is prominently shown in both films, as Mulvey explains. The use of the female characters being ‘erotic objects’ is also suggested by the outfits they wear; this could be linked with the outfit of the lady through the window in Rear Window, where she is wearing a matching set of pink underwear whilst dancing. This could also be linked with Bubble’s outfit in the scene of her auditioning whilst doing her hula dance, where she is wearing a bra as a top with a low-rise skirt. In both scenes, we use POV shots to show the male characters looking at these women as if both are exhibitionists, according to Mulvey’s theory.  

Filmography

Rear Window, 1954, dir. Alfred Hitchcock, USA. 

Dance, Girl, Dance, 1940, dir. Dorothy Arnzer, USA. 

Bibliography

Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3, Autumn 1975, Pages 6–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6

Hein, C., (2006). Laura Mulvey, visual pleasure, and narrative cinema. Norderstedt: GRIN. Page 1-4

Yalom, I. D. (1960). Aggression and forbiddenness in voyeurism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 3, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1960.01710030091012

Edward Snow; Theorizing the Male Gaze: Some Problems. Representations 1 January 1989; 25 30–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2928465

Goddard, K. (2000). “Looks Maketh the Man”: The Female Gaze and the Construction of Masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0901.23

Gray, j. (2022, December 04). What is Patriarchy? Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://study.com/learn/lesson/patriarchy-overview-examples-system.htmlwww.shmoop.com.