This is a perfect example of "The Male Gaze" theory that we
discussed today in class. The more I thought about, the more I realized that
this idea is so common throughout all types of media. Not only are these women
being objectified, but I could not think of a single example where the girl was
not either naked or in some type of sexy outfit.
What is "the gaze" exactly?
-- describes the act of looking; began as the study of the objectification of
women in visual texts. The issues involved when discussing "the gaze"
include the following:- the objectification of women-- seen as
objects
- the commonality of female nudity --
display implies subordination
- internalization of the gaze, changes
women's perceptions of themselves and makes them think of themselves as
objects
- shift to objectification as a source of
pleasure (for both the looker and the looked-at)
- men as the dominant group have been the looker (the subjects; women the objects)
The point about the source of pleasure for both the looker and the looked-at made me come to the realization that not only do the examples show women in nudity, but that they are getting pleasure out of being looked at and objectified. The idea of women putting on a performance for men makes the situation that much more dramatic.
In Arnie's Media Aesthetics class, we learned that the camera angle determines how the audience is going to interpret that particular frame. For this example with Megan Fox, I wonder how this theory would alter if the camera was simply more wide angled and included more in the frame instead of just her midsection. Would the audience members still feel as if they are taking on the role of the looker?
I think that with the male gaze comes feminism as well...from what Dr. Sci said in class, that some women want to be looked at as more than a sex symbol. Celebrities like Megan Fox provide some form of pressure to conform in some cases, and to be just a 'pretty face for the cameras' or in the workplace as well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have really enjoyed learning about the concept of the Male Gaze. I think it is very interesting to learn about and the underlying meaning of things like Meghan has posted. I completely agree with what Susana and Meghan said about the different camera angles. I think that Megan Fox would be portrayed differently if the camera wasn't so close and in her face. She is already a beautiful woman and very popular in the media. I don't think it is always necessary for the media to try and make it seem like celebrities are "sex symbols."
ReplyDeleteI have learned about and talked about the Male Gaze in many of the media texts I have analyzed. However, last year I was taught a different perspective of the Male Gaze in my art history class. My teacher had us read an a few chapters in a book about the Male Gaze and write a paper about it, and I was shocked how much this new view rang true.
ReplyDeleteThe book is called "Ways of Seeing" and is written by John Berger. The idea is that the presence of nudity in art is portrayed differently depending upon sex. Men are depicted as being powerful and dominant, as the author states, "A man's presence suggests what he is capable of doing to you or for you" (45-46). Whereas women are portrayed differently, "A woman's presence expresses her own attitude of herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her. Her presence is manifest in her gestures, voice, opinions, expressions, clothes, chosen surroundings, rase--indeed is nothing she can do which does not contribute to her presence" (46). In simpler terms this article confirms what we learned in class about men act and are the surveyors, while women just appear. The difference here is that women are the surveyed (which we already know) but also the surveyors. Women are trained to always watch themselves and how they appear, and in art women are depicted as fulfilling that duty. They present themselves to be looked at by men, but also so they can watch themselves being looked at. "Thus she turns herself into an object--and most particularly and object of vision: sight" (47).
This different look on the Male Gaze I find very interesting. The idea that women also "gaze" at their objectification to watch themselves and observe men gaze at them I see embedded in today's culture. The point of why I bring this up is because I find it to be shockingly true and I challenge everyone to look back at their media texts and see this new side to the Male Gaze.
Please note this is also the first introduction of Megan Fox's character in any type of depth throughout the film. The "Male Gaze" (by extension) immediately makes women objects of aspiration, desire, and acquisition, before any intellectual capacity is even addressed.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, in the movie "Easy A", Emma Stone's character had obviously been introduced prior to anything happening. But her character was not "honored" per say as an intellectual being, or of any importance for that matter, until she began wearing revealing clothing and embroidering red A's on her wardrobe. This again reflects the sociological hold that "Male Gaze" has on the media when it comes to presenting the gender binary.
As I am now done with Arne's Media Aesthetics class, I too find this clip to be right along the lines that were presented by Meghan. The camera angle and placement throughout the clip was in line with framing Fox as a sexual object to be desired; the lingering shots, and slow panning and tilting of the camera all her to fall within the golden means of the shot (the 4 corners within the frame that are most focused on according to the theory). This type of framing is designed to drum up interest in the movie, especially among the male population; although the male gaze can be applied to women viewing Fox and having a desire for her as well. It could be a desire to obtain a body type like her, or a desire to disfigure her for looking the way she does. Regardless, this gaze can be applied throughout the scene shown here.
ReplyDelete