Instantly
when reading the main text by Laura Mulvey is has a strong feminist ideology
,which withstands beyond the subject matter of 1950’s Hollywood cinema which
encourages so many critiques and other articles/essays. Within the second text
in the cine-osychoanalysis section, this is written according to Mulvey’s
original views and ideas but orders and arranges these in an easier reading
format and does little to oppose or contrast any of her points. This text is
more of a modern analysis referring to Mulveys article as a ‘classic feminist. This
body of text concludes and paraphrases ‘Visual Pleasure…’ which is quite the
opposite in the third text.
An interesting opposition, text included by Richard Dyre even goes against the empirical evidence of her text and stresses that males are objectified within cinema and ‘male pin-ups appear in the image to be looking in ways which suggest they are not an erotic object’ to mask the fact that they in fact are, which is overlooked due to the strong character given to them and counteracts the objectification. This adds another layer to the ‘male gaze’ understanding throughout many texts that have followed in Mulveys spirit in which she described as political psychoanalysis, whereas the second text names it feminist psychoanalysis belittling her slightly.
Despite the opposition it is a fair argument as the third text explains and leads on to other points that align with each opinion, and looks to other peoples views whereas the other two are focused solely on her words only. Balance is needed to give a fair argument. Also, there is no conclusion giving it a fair critique in the third text. All texts discuss the power given to the male spectator, but are argued in different ways but it is a point that should come up and is interesting to see written about in different ways amongst the Freudian theories embedded in the discussions.
An interesting opposition, text included by Richard Dyre even goes against the empirical evidence of her text and stresses that males are objectified within cinema and ‘male pin-ups appear in the image to be looking in ways which suggest they are not an erotic object’ to mask the fact that they in fact are, which is overlooked due to the strong character given to them and counteracts the objectification. This adds another layer to the ‘male gaze’ understanding throughout many texts that have followed in Mulveys spirit in which she described as political psychoanalysis, whereas the second text names it feminist psychoanalysis belittling her slightly.
Despite the opposition it is a fair argument as the third text explains and leads on to other points that align with each opinion, and looks to other peoples views whereas the other two are focused solely on her words only. Balance is needed to give a fair argument. Also, there is no conclusion giving it a fair critique in the third text. All texts discuss the power given to the male spectator, but are argued in different ways but it is a point that should come up and is interesting to see written about in different ways amongst the Freudian theories embedded in the discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment