Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Jeff's Massive Camera is Sketchy

Along the lines of what Jason said, I noticed too that Jeff's switch to a camera view was rather awkward, but in line with Mulvey's theories it's kind of hilarious. If you think about the castration complex, Jeff, in a sense, becomes symbolically castrated by his encasement. Throughout the film it is this sense of vision, seeing without being seen, that becomes power and dominance...and what else can Jeff do but whip out his massive camera and put it on his crotch to compensate for loss of phallocentricity...

I wish, too that we had compared Rear Window with Keeney's readings only because the correlations are so obvious, but the panopticon image again popped into my head, I think I had mentioned my theory of the reverse panopticon in which the jailer himself could be locked in and therefore be in the same situation as the prisoners...I think Jeff's predicament is the prime example of this because he himself has all the power but at the same time is incapable of wielding it.

But more to the topic, the women in the films fit Mulvey's theories perfectly. Though Jeff is emasculated and imobile, Stella is in a state of servitude, she is an object, a tool for the recovery of Jeff, a tool of investigation, and in a literal sense a comedic tool. Lisa, too is an object though in a more concealed sense. She is a model, her profession is to be looked at, to be beautiful and ultimately be an object to the world, whereas in direct contrast, Jeff is a photographer, his job is to objectify subjects. And the showcase of Torso is rather obvious. Hitchcock uses Jeff's condition to switch gender roles, Lisa becomes the hero when she gets the balls to go into the salesman's apartment and gather the evidence inflamed by her love for Jeff and thus earning his love in the end(totally reversed right?), she becomes "uncastrated" in a sense? In this way it is not her being seen that makes her subjective but her switching from the scopophilic object to the (typically male) ego.
In King Kong, women are gifts to what can easily be interpreted as the greatest symbol, the mirror, of masculinity and Anne becomes his one and only weakness, she metaphorically strips him of his power and he dies due to his obsession with the castrated, guilty object(who constantly needs saving because of her beauty). King Kong is the embodiment of male ego and Anne is the Scopophilis object (this changes only once in the film, when they show him at the theatre, but switches back when he escapes), this is especially obvious when Kong de-clothes her suddenly for no reason what so ever which directly supports Mulvey's statement:

"The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation"(203).

 Anne is only a device for the pleasure of the audience, and that Kong dies because of her almost indicate that women are the inevitable destruction of male ego and should be treated as such...

So I guess my question why is it that in all types of cinema, woman is an image and man is always the bearer of the look with extremely small exceptions? 


No comments: