Stardom Down To A Formula

            While there are many ways in which celebrities come to receive there star status, it seems that the majority of which, particularly in the film industry, come from a single outstanding performance which turns commercially successful. It isn’t all that unusual hear of “one hit wonders” in music, where a band has one song blow up and go huge and then subsequently fall back into obscurity, or where one particular TV star excels in a certain role but fails to make the jump into cinema. I feel this is fairly rare in cinema however, where one roll can cement someone at a pop icon over night. I would assume this is because once that one actor or actress has a successful roll, this is used as a formula to turn out more successful films with that person in that specific kind of roll, simply because its been proven to be financially successful.One person that comes to mind almost immediately is Bruce Willis, as he had several rolls in romantic comedies, one of which was a bomb in the box office and one of which was moderately successful prior to his roll in Die Hard, which grossed $81M on a meager $22M budget. Once big studios/producers/managers/agents see the successful formula they clamor to maintain this image and to continue to use it. Since Die Hard, Bruce Willis has been in over two dozen action films playing the same tough/badass/hero roll that he had in Die Hard itself. Even films that are not action based market his roll in accordance to this persona. In the trailer for The Sixth Sense, Willis, who is a major character in the film, is almost never shown unless he is in the midst of a high-octane action shot, often edited to push this to an even greater extent. Once filmmakers and financers noted the “Bruce Willis” formula, they fleshed it out as much as they could, and still continue to do so, as Willis, even with his age, is still set to star in action films up until late 2015, and it would not be surprising to see more follow, simply because of this success formula. Because of this, Willis has spent just over two decades building on this badass image that was first presented with his role in Die Hard in 1988. This image has gone beyond film too, with Willis having publicly supporting the U.S. Military. He has gone over to the Middle East multiple times to visit troops, donated 12,000 boxes of girl scout cookies to deployed members of the Navy in the Middle East, even expressed interest in joining the military to fight in the second Gulf War, but was dissuaded because of his age. This all ties into this character type, and while there is a good chance that he genuinely enjoys this kind of thing, I would assume that his managers, agents, etc. definitely played a significant roll in the presentation and coverage of such matters, because it sells, and because this kind of activity would being more validity to this character, because why would you want to watch an average guy play a badass roll when you could watch an authentic badass play a badass roll? The Bruce Willis example is just one of many that I can think of like this (Stallone, Eastwood, Statham, S. Jackson, Neeson, Schwarzenegger, etc.), especially in the action genre.

Stars As Specific Images

Richard Dyer makes some really compelling arguments in his piece describing the relationship of the celebrity in relation to the media. Dyer states that this relationship is made up of key components, including the promotion/publicity, the body of work (or films that they have been in), and criticism/commentary on that body of work or actions taken by that celebrity. I believe that all of these qualities are essential for the relation of celebrity and media, but we must also account for the fact that the media is not always accurate; by that I mean the celebrity may put out a false image that is not necessarily who they actually are as a person. Dyer doesn't really account for this, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether he is using his description to achieve a total knowledge of the celebrity. However, I think if posed with the question he would argue that the actual persona/o of the celebrity is not essential to their meaning in a cultural sense, and that the message formed by the media is all that really matters, be it good or bad in the end, due to a social removal or disconnect from the celebrity to their fans. Their identity becomes synonymous with their careers and they are socially isolated as people. Perhaps this is why so many celebrities seem so lost in their personal lives.

Postfeminism

"You don't need a man, you are the man, If you don't stop you will be forever alone" this is the quote from Think Like a Man that came to mind while I was reading this article "Post-feminism and Popular Culture" by Angela McRobbie. In this film and in many other films we are told that we are unable to be strong powerful woman unless we are willing to be labeled "a bitch" or even "a man." In this movie in particular there is a woman named Lauren who is a C.E.O of her company and makes a six figure salary. While talking with her friend Candance during dinner she says how she should not have to lower her standards because she is an independent powerful woman and if she was a man then woman would flock on her, her friend Candance then reassures her that yes, but since she is a woman it makes men flee rather then flock. My question would be, why would a woman have to be told that she is unable to be powerful and independent because it will scare men away from her success. In the movie Steve Harvey even says that "the independent woman" needs to lower her standards if she truly wants to find love because the men want to be the provider and once they feel like they are unable to be that since the woman makes more then the man will want to leave. She does not want to lower her standards, but in the end of the movie it shows herself lowering her standards by giving herself up to love and the male character Dominic. This happens in many movies such as Pretty in Pink, when in the end a strong independent woman changes her style and role to be with a man, and in the Ugly Truth when Abby gets lessons from Mike in order to get the attention of a man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8vxExfofIo
   -Talk between Candance and Lauren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htyDkxfdaLc
    -The ugly truth "women need beauty to show some type of full success"

Heavenly Bodies

This week I choose to read “Heavenly Bodies” by Richard Dyer. I found this article very interesting. It has a lot to do with many of the readings we have recently read in class. They all relate to movie stars or super starts and how they are portrayed. Heavenly bodies focus on movie stars and how their image is built. Stars are produced by the media industries and Hollywood. Dyer discusses the development of a movie star, he explains that star are ultimately made for profit. Dyer states above all they are part of a labour that produces films as a commodity that can be sold for profit in the market place. He basically explains that stars star out as raw material and are built into these version of “heavenly bodies”that producers wants them to be. Just to  later use to produce another community, a film. Dyer compares the making of a movie star to Karl Marx idea of capitalism. How the individual is lost and how a star is just a machine. Stars are built for profit and are just a product to sell. When I read this article I couldn’t help but connect to many celebrities we see in pop culture. One of the celebrities I thought of the most was Miley Cyrus. I think Miley fits into this category because she has so many producers and whole team of people who work to build her imagine. She started out as raw material and now is transformed into a star. Everything that Miley Cyrus is has been built by her team. She is no longer a singer/ actress she’s a brand.  The whole Cyrus Corporation is a huge factory and I related this to the thoughts of Richard Dyer.

Stars and how they are perceived

The way stars are perceived is usually what movies they play in the most. Suspense and Action/Adventure catches my eye in a few stars. For example, a person who would be perceived as a somewhat ignorant/arrogant man is Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson has starred in some fantastic movies in his lifetime but how he is perceived today is a great actor but most people see him as ignorant more than arrogant. Jackson is only known to be ignorant because he is obnoxiously loud and he doesn't care what he says. This makes me like him more as an actor and a person even more. Suspense and Adventure is Jackson's specialty because he can play the hell out of Nick Fury in the Marvel films and Pulp Fiction made people fall in love with him. His part in Django as Stephen was fantastic and just plain hilarious but the magazine articles named him ignorant because they said he could have done better and not played the part of an Uncle Tom. What he portrays in movies might not be how he actually acts in real life. Publicity for a star like Jackson is a big thing because it gets him payed and he is put out into the world as a famous man no matter how people perceive him. The media sets the tone of the life of a star. Rather its in movies, sports, etc. The media wants the world to view the star in what they see on the screen rather than how the star truly is behind closed doors.

First Wave vs. Third Wave Feminism

Many who are "antifeminists" or simply refuse to label themselves as feminists cite the reason for their opposition as what they perceive as a growing element of misandry in the feminism movement, particularly highlighting examples they find on Tumblr or other forms of social media. There is even a Facebook group titled "Women Against Feminism" who give explanations such as "I can take responsibility for my own actions," and "If I get drunk, have sex, and regret it the next morning, that's not an excuse to cry rape." In some ways this opposition is understandable in the wake of a slimming gap between genders, however the forefront of the feminist movement in the early 1900s was a very different animal. Women were still perceived to be biologically different from men, the more emotional sex, but this was made out by women not to be a disadvantage, but an advantage, in the polls, because they were more in tune with emotional needs. This was their platform when campaigning for suffrage, and for the most part it worked, because even women in the movement were admitting to differences from the male sex. Second wave feminism is what most people think of when they think of feminism, however, and this was when the radicalization caused a backlash that continues to this day. Interestingly enough, though actual bra burnings have never been proven to have occurred, some still cite this rumor and exaggeration as way to make all feminists seem like misandrists. Finally, there is third-wave feminism, which is what we are working with today. This is the age of "riot grrls," of "lipstick feminism," and of a focus on sexual and personal freedoms. A movement against slut-shaming, and victim blaming in cases of sexual assault, and for more women in positions of power. Where is the line drawn, then, between a cause for equality, and plain misandry? The difference is: where one woman is fighting to have the same rights as a man, another is screaming about how women are the superior sex and having fantasies of male genocide

Thursday's Reading- Celebrity Image

In this week’s reading “Stars as Specific Images” Richard Dyer talks about how celebrities are portrayed according to promotion, publicity, films, and criticisms. We see these used all the time with today’s celebrities all the time. So I very much agree with the article and Dyers ideas. I think celebrities are used so much in various TV commercials and Ads because it helps sell an objects, people view it as “if this famous person, like Kate Walsh, dyes her hair with Garnier box dye, so can I”. This is beneficial toward the Gariner but also add to her image as a celebrity, saying that she endorses the use of box hair dye. Honestly, I think she does it for publicity aspects as a job, because what rich person would choose to use a cheap box hair dye, when they can get beautiful salon dye. Also, I think it is a way of humanizing her image. To say although she is a rich and famous celeb, she’s just like the average woman trying to stay beautiful. Celebrities today I feel are most shaped or formed by publicity. Publicity is huge whether it is true or not. Publishing’s in magazines, online, or even news coverage all comment and add to celebs image. Often times I feel like they have very harsh and bring down some of the celebrities or falsely portray them as people by leaking false or person information. I feel like this happens all the time with Kim Kardashian. I feel like media is always portraying her as a bad person, with bad publicity. But, do they really know the type of person she really is, do we? We only get and know of how media shapes and tells us she is as a person.

Marilyn Monroe as a Specific Image

In the article, "Stars as Specific Images", Richard Dyer pick apart the aspects of a star in the mass media. The first aspect he talks about is promotion. This is where media texts are deliberately used in order to put out a specific image for a star. "It includes (i) material concerned directly with the star in question...(ii) material promoting the star in a particular film" (pg. 60) The first one deals with things like images in fashion, how they look in public, etc. The second one is more like movie posters, magazines and stuff like that. The second aspect is publicity and this differs from promotion because it's "not deliberate image-making" (pg.61). Publicity is mainly through the press in texts such as gossip columns, radio interviews, and television interviews. Dyer explains that "The only cases where one can be fairly certain of genuine publicity are the scandals" (pg. 61) He also says the "The importance of publicity is that, in its apparent or actual escape from the image that Hollywood is trying to promote, it seems more authentic" (pg. 61) Dyer goes on to talk about film and the idea of the vehicle. This is when a film is built around the star's image, "a situation setting or generic context associated with the star" (pg. 62) The final aspect that Dyer talks about is the criticism and commentaries. "This refers to what was said or written about the star in terms of appreciation or interpretation by critics and writers." (pg. 62) The critics express "a widely held, pre-existing sentiment or view about a star. More frequently, however, they contribute to the shaping of 'public opinion' about a star." (pg. 63)
I think that the majority of stars' images are really defined by these aspects that Dyer talks about but I want to focus on Marilyn Monroe specifically. Marilyn Monroe was promoted as being a sex symbol and this is largely demonstrated by her roles in her films. This demonstrates the idea of the vehicle because a lot of Monroe's characters were based around her image that was always promoted. Monroe also had a wide variety of publicity. She struggled with image problems, depression, as well as drug problems and this was largely publicized and critiqued. When Monroe passed away from a drug overdose, this became a very big publication.

Vehicles of a Certain Kind

While reading "Stars and Specific Images" I found the notion of vehicles quite fascinating. How certain films are created with certain stars in mind. I began to stray away from the talks about feminism and sexualized images that we've been discussing. I thought about different films that are considered thrillers. In these thrillers there's a character usually not in their right mind and are partaking in some type of psychotic behavior. I thought of movies like Silence of the Lambs and Saw, these movies featured very interesting characters. Now a vehicle  was described as " Stories might be written expressly to feature a given star, or books might be brought for production with a star in mind,"(Dyer,62).While there are vehicles that give stars chances to shine through with a certain acting type but some seem like they just portray the actor as being an abnormal person in real life. So in the movies where actors are killing people in gruesome manners, are deranged individuals, or just your average creeper those actors become branded as such. I just started thinking how do they feel. Where are they and how are they seen in the public's eye? The actors that star in these thrillers aren't as publicized as someone who plays the attractive hero in a film. Stars become correlated with the roles they play. Being connected to your psycho killer, rapist role seems problematic for everyday life. Forever typecast as the actor who gives people the creeps. To be a sex symbol or the face of the cray? Work is work but I would find it saddening if people looked at me and instantly gave them goosebumps.
 

Celebrities and the Way They Are Perceived

In Richard Dyer’s “Stars as Specific Images,” Dyer wants to emphasize that celebrities “embody social types” (Dyer, 1).  Dyer suggests that their images are portrayed “across a range of media texts” (Dyer, 1).  He discusses the categories in which these texts fall under: “promotion, publicity, films, and criticism and commentaries” (Dyer, 1).  He begins with promotion, saying that the celebrity is “part of the deliberate creation/ manufacture of a particular image or image- context for a particular star” (Dyer, 2).  Here, Dyer wants to say that in these certain texts, the star gives consent, or promotes, the portrayed image.  Next, Dyer talks about publicity.  He says that in these texts, “it is ‘what the press finds out’” (Dyer, 3).  These types are usually found in magazines, or on social gossip columns.  I think that with publicity, Dyer wants to stress that these texts can be misunderstood and taken advantage of.  After publicity, Dyer talks about a star’s image throughout films.  He says that these texts “have a distinct and privileged place in a star’s image” (Dyer, 3).  He goes on to say “their celebrity is defined by the fact of their appearing in films” (Dyer, 3).  I think here, Dyer is trying to suggest that movie productions create a star’s image.  Dyer wants to say that the way a celebrity appears in a movie is how the general public will view that certain celebrity.  Finally, Dyer talks about criticism and commentaries.  As Dyer says, “this refers to what was said or written about the star in terms of appreciation or interpretation by critics and writers” (Dyer, 4).  In my own words, I want to say that in these specific texts, it is what other people say about the star.  Basically, these texts are about the star, whether they are good or bad.  

In today’s media, Dyer’s theories are still relevant.  In terms of promotion, we see it all the time.  For my example, I want to use Michael Jordan and his promotion of Hanes.  Michael Jordan stages his image here, and gives consent to it. 

All About Image

In Stars as Specific Images by Richard Dyer, there are four groups that make up a stars image or persona that is perceived by the media. These groups are promotion, publicity, films, and criticism and commentaries. Through these texts an image of a star is created or born. Although all of the sectors seem to be important I was most interested in the criticisms and commentaries that can create as well as make or break a stars career. What is said, posted, or written about a star can affect their career, the roles that they play or fan base that follows them. Today, the tabloids and online media have the tendency to attack stars and ruin their image. However, the tabloids can also help stars become bigger. Being named E! News’ ‘Best Dressed’ on Fashion Police or People Magazine’s ‘Sexiest Man Alive’ can up a star’s popularity and how people will view them. “More frequently, however, they contribute to the shaping of the ‘public opinion’ about a star” (Dyer, 63). This part of the reading could also add to Dyer’s Heavenly Bodies text and how audiences and fans may not see the full side of a star. They have a public image and are ultimately confined to that.

While reading the piece by Richard Dyer on “Stars as Specific Images,” many examples came to my mind based on the different formats he mentions. The author discussed promotions as a means to help manufacture an artist or celebrity in a certain way, and to give them a certain image. Dyer also discusses the less direct ways to portray a star in the public eye. The author discusses publicity as a way to give the audience and fans a more “authentic” glimpse into the lives of celebrities, and make them feel more connected to the person. Finally, the author discussed how films, criticisms, and commentaries also all go into creating a certain image of a star. I think most people would agree that Beyoncé is one of the biggest stars in the music industry at the moment. With the release of her latest album last year, people have not been able to stop talking about the artist. I think Beyoncé and her team create an image for her that is very unique and creates a lot of buzz for the star. For one, instead of creating a big hoopla over her album and promoting it prior to release, Beyoncé basically dropped the album out of nowhere, at least that’s how it seems to the public. The result is an enormous buzz over the release and an excitement that benefitted the star greatly. The artist has been the queen of the music scene this entire year, and even though she has been popular for years both as a solo artist and as a part of Destiny’s Child, her success this past year is unlike any other. The sheer breadth of her fans goes to show how Beyoncé is a massive star and creates the image by doing the unexpected and pushing the boundaries and expectations.

 

The Male Gaze

Going back to Laura Mulvey and what she calls the "Male Gaze" the first example that popped into my head was The Wolf of Wall Street.  You have this handsome man played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and of course, he has this beautiful woman as his wife, played by Margot Robbie.  However, this encounter of meeting his wife did not come without plenty of sex and sex appeal, or the "male gaze".  We see all throughout the beginning of movie, especially in the scenes where he takes the woman that he is sleeping with at the moment, the camera is focused on the woman and their curves,and depending how interested Leonardo has in the woman, the shot of the woman is either longer if he's really interested, or shorter if he isn't.  But when he takes his wife (before they got married) she is shown in full, naked body and all. You see the camera show Leonardo gaze at her, though they don't show her right away but you assume by his reaction that the woman must be something worth gazing at. Then you are shown the woman, who again is shown in full long shot to show that that is what Leonardo was gazing at.

Although Leonardo does have some naked scenes where one could argue that a woman could gaze at, the shots are nearly half as long as the they are when they focus on the women.  This movie is strictly focused on sex, money and drugs and although one may argue that it's simply a movie, I also think that this movie gives men an opportunity to fantasize about having a woman like Leonardo did in this movie.

I also want to relate this movie to Angela McRobbie, because throughout this movie you see how much of lack of empowerment that the woman play, Leonardo is portrayed at this powerful, wealthy man who only makes valid decisions, but when it comes to the wife deciding what should be done, it's shut down because she is just meant to follow along with the what the husband says, showing the figure of "I am the man and I know what's best" which of course for those who have seen the movie, know how that turns out.  And of course this is a form of scopophilia, because the men are active and the women is passive.

I was going to put a link up of the scenes that is named Wolf of Wall Street-Best Scenes, but considering it may be a little inappropriate, I figured people could look it up on their own time.

Heavenly Bodies- The Star as Image and Person

Heavenly Bodies outlines the multi-faceted nature of stardom. A star is not only a famous person, but an image that is fashioned by a studio, a symbol that is interpreted by the audience--be it in reverence, disdain, jealousy, or indifference--and of course, both a public figure and a private individual. The photographic portrait discussed at the beginning of the article illustrates this point very well--utilizing two reflections and the subject herself in the foreground to underline three different aspects of Crawford's life, and to comment on the very nature of not only Crawford's, but stardom in general.


A modern example that functions similarly to Eve Arnold's photograph is the Australian art collective Soda_Jerk's Dark Matter Trilogy, a series of three video-installations. Perhaps the article recalled for me certain elements of these videos due to the inclusion in either of both Judy Garland and Joan Crawford, but I feel that these videos effectively evoke the idea that a star is much more than what the public perceives, and more than what they themselves intend to project. In each part of the Dark Matter Trilogy, a star (or two) has an encounter with a different version of themselves--playing a different character, older or younger, at different stages in their career. The juxtaposition of these images, taken out of the context of the films from which they originate, seem to create meaning that cannot otherwise be seen, and to emit, perhaps, a portion of the star's true personality--existing as a bridge between two fictional characters, or two instances of performance.


Regrettably, the entire Dark Matter Trilogy does not exist online, but here are some clips.


River Phoenix, in The Explorers, encountering his older self in My Own Private Idaho: "The Phoenix Portal"
http://www.sodajerk.com.au/video_work.php?v=20120921063632


Joan Crawford and Bette Davis: "The Time That Remains"
http://www.sodajerk.com.au/video_work.php?v=20120921063658


Judy Garland: "After the Rainbow"
http://www.sodajerk.com.au/video_work.php?v=20120921063645

Jennifer Lawrence and Feminism

At the end of class today we discussed when sex appeal was okay. We all mutually agreed as a class that Megan Fox was being viewed through the male gaze, it was a little disturbing, while when Beyonce was pole dancing, she was being a fierce feminist.  We discussed the difference between the situations and the fine like between what is okay and what is not.  Our discussion got me thinking to a few weeks back when Jennifer Laurence's nude photos were leaked.

Jennifer said, "It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime, It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting." She continues by saying "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”

Jenn then appeared in Vanity Fair with these photos: 

The difference between the leaked photos and the magazine photos are Jennifer's consent: the way a woman wants to be viewed versus the way a man views her. Beyonce made a personal decision as a performer to be viewed pole dancing and as a sexual being. She wanted to make a statement that said, "I am beautiful and sexy because I want to be."

I don't think feminism is over because the discussion Jennifer Laurence brings up is still going on. Women are still not being viewed the way they want to be viewed, and progress is still being made.

This is the ad I told you about. I think it's pretty relevant to the Mulvey reading. Also Axe taking a Daniel Johnston song and doing this to it, pretty fucking crazy.

Saving the World with Abs and Sex Appeal

After this week’s discussion of how cinema and the human form have become intertwined, my thoughts shifted to one of my favorite genres of film. Comic book films hold a lot within their story lines; power struggles, action, good vs.evil, and heroism. However recently with the success of the Marvel franchise, I'm seeing an even bigger shift from the story and its content over to the sex appeal of the main characters.

Female leads are increasingly becoming perpetuated through sexual appeals, almost diminishing their importance as a character, and lending more to their importance as objective prize to their male counterparts.  Even in such story lines that the female is deemed “the hero,” she is only able to thwart evil villains through her distracting good looks which causes them to undermine her actual abilities.  And, more often than not, these female heroes are portrayed in such ways as to use these influences to their advantages—persuading audiences that assets are clearly valued over ability.

Take a look at Black Widow from “The Avengers”, her skills and capabilities pale in comparison to her male counterparts due partly to her tight catsuit and tight camera shots on her body. Yet when characters like Thor and Captain America's forms are played up its to pay homage to their strength and overall godlike presence as superheroes. "Here, curiosity and the wish to look intermingle with a fascination with likeness and recognition: the human face, the human body, the relationship between the human form and its surroundings, the visible presence of the person in the world,"(Mulvey,3).

 We're pulled into these films not only to see fantasy worlds and action scenes, we're attracted to these characters that offer more to the viewers eye than witty one liners. Content is fading and appearance is becoming more prevalent than ever. Comic book movies have taken superhuman qualities into the looks department rather than the focus being on their unique qualities. In order to save the world you better be a looker or else no one will take you seriously.  

Scopophilia

In the reading “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema “ by Laura Mulveys. She  talks about  many of the issues women have encounter  in cinema over the years.  Mulveys brings up the subject that women are objects of visual/sexual pleasure.  She specifically talks about the concept of scopophilia, which means the pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight.  Women have to methods on screen and they are seen as erotic objects. When I think of the theories of mulvey and her concept of scopohilia I start to think about every scary moving I have ever seen. There is always that one “hot” who gets killed in the most erotic way.  I also start to think about scopohilia and how we all are in a way looking woman and sometimes men in films. Sometime not even recognizing it, the way some of these films are made, draw an erotic attention. The way the camera is position an shots are taken they kind of make us all become scopophilia and without even recognizing it we use the other person as a subject of sexual stimulation.

Scopopholia and Cinema

In Lauren Mulvey's article, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," she discusses the role of women in film and how eroticized they have become. She discusses how film has made this possible because of the Scopophillic tendencies it produces. When watching a film, the viewer has an extremely voyeuristic perspective. This allows for viewers, especially men, to look at females in any way that they please. Muvley discusses how filmmakers have become aware of this, whether consciously or not. The result is woman being portrayed in such erotic ways that men are able to look at them with such voyeur. As Elaine says in the classic Seinfeld episode “The Movie,” “men can sit through the most pointless boring movie if there’s even the slightest possibility that a woman will take her top off.” An example of this in today’s culture could be Kill Bill. Though Tarantino is known for his crazy fetishes and it makes sense that he would over sexualize women in his movie, Kill Bill doesn’t do it extremely blatantly. It is much more subtle. The very first fight in Kill Bill is The Bride fighting Vernita Green. Though the fight isn’t very sexual at all, it is still two women having extremely close combat. They get very close to each other multiple times and if viewed out of context it can be viewed as sexual. I don’t know how relevant that is to the article but I think it has to do with what Mulvey is trying to say about films. The way in which they are viewed makes it so that women can be easily sexualized or eroticized in instances where they usually wouldn’t be.

Pleasures of Cinema

In the Laura Mulvey text, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", the nature and roll of women in cinematic history is examined. Mulvey notes how women in cinema appear almost exclusively as sexual objects, and although there have been a great variety of roles women play in cinema, a great portion all still use women in this nature.
What I found particularly interesting is how she draws much of her inspiration for this analysis on the theories of Freud. There are several aspects of his theory in particular that she draws on, such as scopophilia, which Freud himself stated is "taking people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze" (Mulvey, pg. 3). This, as Freud describes, is essentially the basic essence of all cinema. Everyone and everything on the screen, or any medium for that matter, is subjected to this scopophilia, especially in the modern first world where the amount of visual media we consume is tremendous. I also liked how Mulvey later went on to describe how modern cinema, particularly in the case of women, "continues to exist as the erotic basis for pleasure in looking at another person as object" Mulvey, pg 3).

So clearly, she believes that modern cinema still sports this standard, and that modern film and television still primarily use women as sexual objects, which I personally agree with. I am struggling to think of examples (although I don't watch as many movies as I used to) where a women in the film were used as crucial, plot driving characters in the last year or so. At the moment, only Sandra Bullock in Gravity comes to mind. After checking IMDB, I failed to find a single film on the top 10 highest grossing films from this last weekend that featured a women in a dynamic, plot driving role. I'm sure I'm missing a great many films, but the fact that I struggled to think of one at least means that these kinds of films are too few and far between. With this, I completely agree with the main stance Laura Mulvey makes in her text.

Objects of Sex

This week's readings by Laura Mulvey illustrate a major issue that has existed within cinema for over seventy years. Women, more often than not are simply presented as objects of visual/sexual pleasure by means of scopophilia, which refers to the pleasure taken by viewers in this method of presentation. Often, material such as this is void of all substance and is purely there to for the viewers visual pleasure. Mulvey argues that it exists to pleasure the viewer visually by presenting the woman in a sexual way, which is true and what makes this a very controversial topic.
Unfortunately for some, we live in a world where sex sells, and the cheap amusement is often the one used in film, advertisement, and other visual media. Personally I agree with her article, but I think it would be interesting to examine the opinions of persons from outside of the United States, which to this day holds many Puritanical values that are not shared by other places. In many European countries, sex in the visual medias is not nearly as censored or taboo as it is here, so I wonder if that audience would have the same sort of reaction to Mulvey's article. Perhaps is it our very system in the United States that makes he or she who is presented in a sexual manner feel objectified? I don't have an answer, but it sure does make me wonder if there is some kind of correlation.


http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/10/playboy-pinups-on-meeting-the-male-gaze.html

Above is a link to a very recent article written by Noreen Malone and researched by Anne Lemon and Lisa Mehling for the latest issue of New York Magazine. It takes this issue and relates it to some of the other concepts we have been discussing in class. It may not be related to film exactly, but nonetheless deals with the same concept of women being presented as objects of visual/sexual pleasure in visual media. Without doubt, it is a very compelling read.

Something Queer Here

In Doty's chapter, Something Queer Here, he starts off by talking about audience reception in mass culture. He describes audiences as "already acknowledged to be fragmented, polymorphous, contradictory, and 'nomadic' whether in the form of individual or group subjects." (Doty, page 1) He goes on to say that in order to analyze audience receptions they need to focus "upon the dense patterns and practices of daily life and way in which the media are integrated and implicated within it, rather than starting with already established audience categories." (Doty, page 2) This is when Doty introduces the term "queer". When using this term Doty is referring to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender. I actually thought of this word choice to be a little confusing because when I think or hear the queer I think of something being odd, and I don't necessarily agree with it being used to label someone based on their gender preferences.
I think that one of his main points in this article is that despite whether we are straight or "queer", "the intense tensions and pleasures generated by the woman-woman and man-man aspects within the narratives of the former group of films create a space of sexual instability that already queerly positioned viewers can connect with in various ways, and within which straights might be likely to recognize and express their queer impulses." (Doty, page 9)
In more traditional media, "queerness" was present but it was hidden by values of that time. Nowadays, "queerness" in media is more straightforward and in the open. Examples in media today would be shows like Modern Family, Grey's Anatomy, The Fosters, Chicago Fire, Revenge, Glee, and several more.