Laura Mulvey’s theory of “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.

Laura Mulvey’s theory of ‘visual pleasure and narrative cinema’ does contain certain valid points. However, I great disagree with her views and assumptions on film, and will shed light on the holes in her theory that cannot be explained, or excused, proving in my mind at least that she does not have enough evidence to back herself up. Of course I do not know the full extent of her research, so everything here is based on my own knowledge.

Mulvey’s theory is largely this: Many feminist film critics have pointed to the ‘male gaze’ that predominates in classical Hollywood film-making. Mulvey’s theory gave one of the most widely influential versions of this argument. From an explicitly psychoanalytic viewpoint, Mulvey argues that cinema provides visual pleasure through scopophilia, and identification with the on-screen male actor. Mulvey states that Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is the key to understanding why film creates a space where women are viewed as sexual objects by men. She says that it is the combination of of the order of society and ‘looking’ as a pleasurable act that creates film as an outlet for female sexual exploitation. According to her, without a woman to compare to, a man and his supremacy as the controller of visual pleasure are insignificant. She argues that it is the presence of the female that defines the patriarchal order of society as well as the male psychology of thought.

“Peeping Tom”

Films such as “Secretary” back up this theory – the passive female is very much the object and the active male gets voyeuristic pleasure from this. However there are several examples in film where Mulvey’s theory does not fit. First of all, the French film “Beau Travail.” We would assume that the spectators (the bearers of the gaze,) find their subjectivity in watching the men, so where does this put the active male? And as Mulvey’s theory lacks information regarding what happens when females watch the film, what is their relation to “Beau Travail?”

Another argument would be Jane Campion’s “The Piano.” This involves a very strong female protagonist. Mulvey states that males cannot be the subjects under any circumstances. But in “The Piano,” both lead males are viewed quite obviously as the object, through the female protagonist’s eyes. In an attempt to explain this, Mulvey says that on occasion, the woman is worth receiving the adoration, rather than the male.

The example I’m going to focus on is “Fight Club.” At first glance, this film seems very masculine, but it is actually known as a “Mulvian” film. David Fincher uses very feminine themes throughout. Mulvey suggests that when men watch movies, the movie allows the viewer to identify the protagonist (around whom the story revolves) as himself, creating an ego-ideal. Fight Club decentralizes this tendency by making the nameless main character (Jack) not only inferior, but subservient to his own idealized alter-ego, Tyler Durden.

‘Jack’ & his idealized alter-ego, Tyler – “Fight Club”

Fincher severs the connection to the idealized male, and replaces it with a connection to a far inferior character. The aspect of scopophilia is also destroyed, in that the viewer also becomes the (uncomfortably) viewed. This is repeated over and over throughout. Even as the audience is called back to identify with ‘Jack’ again and again, he refuses to ever tell anyone, within the context of the movie or external from it, his real name. He is a coward and an escapist. The protagonist is almost a totally ineffectual being.

Mulvey states that women are portrayed as the objects of viewing by the men in the films, “simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact…as erotic objects for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic objects for the spectator within the auditorium.” In “Fight Club,” the major female character in the story (Marla,) first appears as a “disheveled but strong willed, cigarette smoking wreck.” Marla is hardly a sex object, and not at all demure and subservient. Not only is she not intimidated by men, but ‘Jack’ is at once terrified, attracted and repulsed by her. The only fantasy he will allow himself regarding her is telling her off for invading his support groups. Fincher goes so far as to make Helena Bonham Carter, who plays Marla, to wear enormous platform shoes to elevate her diminutive figure to eye level with the men in the movie. Marla can hardly be a distraction, then, from the forward motion of the plot. As Mulvey suggests, saying “her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story-line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation.” Marla is in fact, the opposite. She is not the object of Jack’s (at least conscious) erotic contemplation at all, and she is simultaneously the driving force behind the plot.

Helena Bonham Carter as Marla – “Fight Club”

It is Tyler who becomes the sex object. By casting Brad Pitt as his idealized male, Fincher has cast a man whom many consider the most attractive man in modern cinema, and who is arguably more beautiful than Helena Bonham Carter. It is this very figure who is screaming about the injustice of the brainwashing of cinema and meanwhile walking around in a major film with no shirt on. Tyler is not only an idealized version of Jack which allows him to have a relationship with the intimidating Marla, but Jack is also on a certain level in love with Tyler himself. He is literally becoming feminine.

Homo-eroticism also begins to emerge throughout the film, backing up the feminism further. Fincher concentrates on using Mulvey’s ideas and themes to create a feminist work in an almost entirely male-dominated plot.

Probably the strongest case against Mulvey is “Thelma and Louise.” Mulvey says that all mainstream cinema fits into her theory, all of it. The psychoanalytical approach does allow for such an argument. In “Thelma and Louise,” both lead females feel that they have been ‘castrated’ by society. They seek so called ‘male’ qualities, such as freedom and space. But they find that even after escaping, they are still surrounded and stuck in male society. But here’s the hole – How can a male gain pleasure from watching a woman take over their ways and gain power? This would mean that the man is being castrated as the women are defying them and taking control.

“Thelma & Louise”

Mulvey’s theory certainly has limitations. Granted, there are some example such as “Fight Club” that back her up completely. However she oes not give way to the notion that there are many ways to read a film, not one set of viewing rules. In films where the woman are dominant (such as Pedro Almodovar’s work) and are not an object, how can they theory be proven?