Post #1: The Significance of "Gaze"

     The success of Transformers and Ironman other such explosive summer blockbusters is indicative of the force that is the male gaze and the public's unwillingness to accept breasts, buttocks and blond bombshells as anything other than a harmless and inevitable aspect of modern-day film. But the role of women in mainstream cinema is far from harmless: the female protagonist, if she exists, is often reduced to a single trope -- recall the fan-favorite damsel in distress -- and/or an object of male desire. Whether she is a plot device or eye-candy, the woman's purpose in film -- and other forms of art -- is to pander to the male audience and ultimately satiate the male gaze, which can then only be tamed by the resistance of the oppositional gaze.

     This so-called male gaze has pervaded all areas of art throughout history, whether the art in question is centuries-old nudes or 'family-friendly' PG-13 action films. No matter the art medium, the result is the same: women are the objects of men -- white, straight, cisgendered men, specifically -- and will continue to be the objects of men as long as patriarchy remains in place. The exploitative camera angles, the slow panning from bottom to top and the deliberate focus on the woman's breasts and buttocks serve to acknowledge the male audience (the female audience, by contrast, goes ignored).  According to Berger's Ways of Seeing, some forms of nakedness -- both in film and traditional art -- "[are] a sign of her submission to the owner's feelings or demands," in this case the "feelings or demands" of the male audience (52). The "owner-spectator" in every body of art is male, even in film. The camera may be focused on her breasts, even if she is not naked, or she may break the fourth wall and stare seductively into the camera. Either way, the intent is to titillate the male audience. 

  Such is the male gaze:  the portrayal of women as sex toys and tools for (not of) power. The male gaze is men's perception and representation of women, the latter usually crafted to cater to other men. Berger clarifies: "Women are depicted in a quite different way from men -- not because the feminine is different from the masculine -- but because the 'ideal' spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of the woman is designed to flatter him" (64). To continue with the example of mainstream  cinema (and sometimes art house film), popular films are made by men for men, and their intent is to place men in a position of power and undermine women by either over-sexualizing them or utilizing the cliche of the damsel in distress. Furthermore, art in general seems to exist only to please men, to reflect very masculine perceptions of feminine beauty and to portray women as nothing more than a fleeting image.

  The oppositional gaze, by contrast, is an individual's contesting stare -- her determination to create a visual representation of those under the oppressive gaze of white men. It came about in response to the white male gaze -- the objectification of women to serve white male needs. Non-white women feel this gaze with ferocity, for not only are they being objectified, but their non-white needs -- that is, the need for identification with the work's central characters -- go completely ignored. When they are present in film or another body of art, their images are usually -- and wrongly -- distorted to either fit a stereotype and/or social convention. Bell Hooks laments this fact, stating that non-white women must learn to combat the racism and sexism in films by developing a critical eye, an oppositional gaze. But this is difficult when feminists neglect to mention the importance of racial differences and black filmmakers are too absorbed in "phallocentric politics of spectatorship" to properly depict black women (118, 123). This is no way to combat the forces of oppression. The true foe is neither man nor white; he is a combination of the two, the white man, and tackling race and gender separately is a fruitless endeavor. 

  Furthermore, the objectification of women--white and non-white alike--is the focus of the male gaze. It is only through the effort of the oppositional gaze that women can begin to tear the male gaze down. This, however, will require feminists to concede to a simple fact: there is no one woman. A woman's experiences will differ depending on race or ethnicity. As a white woman, I can relate to the struggles of these white female protagonists; as a Brazilian woman, I am angered when Latinas are depicted as uneducated, tacky or other such stereotypes. I am not hurt when Latinas are absent in art or film because I am also white, and white people -- at the very least white men -- are always present in art and film. I am, however, hurt by the absence of women, so I can't even begin to imagine the pain or disconnect a non-white woman must feel when surveying art history, or watching a film with only white main characters. 

Megan Fox as seen in Transformers (2007)

While I would hesitate to call Transformers "art", it is 

nevertheless film, and most certainly popular culture. 

Below is a link to another blog containing a comprehensive analysis of not only the male gaze, but the female gaze. Nothing in this work is cited or taken from the following blog:

http://realizziie.blogspot.com/2010/03/female-gaze-vs-male-gaze-has-there-been.html