Mulvey’s fundamental argument in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” is that Hollywood narrative films use women in order to provide a pleasurable visual experience for men. The narrative film structures its gaze as masculine. The woman is always the object of the reifying gaze, not the bearer of it. The cinematic gaze is always produced a masculine both by means of the identification produced with the male hero and through the use of the camera. Mulvey identifies two manners in which Hollywood cinema produces pleasure, manners which arise from different mental mechanisms. The first involves the objectification of the image, and the second one the identification with it. Both mechanisms represent the mental desires of the male subject.
Dionne Cheah
While Mulvey’s “male gaze” still exists today, I believe that not only women but males are being objectified as well. It has become increasingly common to observe males who are topless or bare other body parts on screens. At the same time, there are more media portrayals of independent, capable women and they are not submissive to men. For instance, there is Lisbeth Salander (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Lady) and Daenerys Targaryen (Game of Thrones). All of these empowered female protagonists are able to garner a strong presence individually. Rather than let someone else make decisions for them, they show that they have own control over their destinies. While Mulvey’s argument is still true and relevant to us, we may argue that it does not hold as much weight as compared to the past.
Averie Lim
Mulvey’s theory of spectatorship where there’s a focus on aesthetics and the male gaze as a result of the structure of cinema is still relevant today. In today’s society there is still a distinct focus on aesthetics and the objectification of women has transcend media platforms to appear in both film itself, TV, TV advertisements and print advertisements.
We would notice the selling of body parts as the camera lens focus on aesthetic portrayals of body parts to attract consumers. Sensuality and beauty are key elements of these advertisements to sell the male gaze to both men and women, where they aim to convince women to buy their products to attract the male gaze.
Tay Ying Ying
In the Emergence of Cinematic Time, Mary Ann Doane introduced the term male gaze. In film, it portrayed women as passive, while male are being active. The films objectify women, conforming to a misogynist perception of women as commodifiable sexual objects. On the other hand, male protagonist becomes the surrogate of the viewers. For example, the film 30 minutes or less, filmed in Grand Rapids, showed that both good and bad guys in the comedy use women for nothing more than sexual pleasure. The classic Hollywood movies, like James Bond also uses the male gaze theory. It often portrays the male protagonist as the saviour of the day, rescuing and helping people in need.
However, times have changed and I feel that the author’s argument and viewpoints are narrow. In recent times, the theory of male gaze does not really hold. Films are no longer filmed in the perspective of the male protagonist. There are films that filmed in the perspective of female, animals, and others. For example, the film Hunger Games is filmed from the perspective of female; the film Charlots web is filmed from the perspective of a pig.
Lucy Molloy
Adorno’s critique of the radio is decidedly cynical. This can be judged from his first line when he describes the medium as a ‘problem’. However, he was writing in 1945. In the context of WWI and WWII it is understandable that Adorno would have eyed the radio with suspicion. The unilateral nature of the information that is broadcasted is potentially dangerous. For example, alongside Cinema, the radio was used to incite hate propaganda in Nazi Germany, on the flip side it was also the main tool available to freedom fighters. The radio was a powerful means of transmitting not only information but sentiment, and as a result it was a very politically charged medium. In addition, for people who lived in isolated communities (hard to imagine in Singapore, but I’m talking about rural villages here) the radio was an almost magical source of entertainment and held a degree of authority. In Brian Friel’s play ‘Dancing at Lughnasa’ (set in 1936 in Donegal) the radio is a main device used as a catalyst for change. It is also given an almost ‘godlike’ status by the household due to its power to connect them to the outside world. They personify it, referring to it as ‘Marconi’ and it is in some respects the epicentre of their daily live.
In the information saturated society that we are currently living in. The radio has become almost redundant. I worked at a community radio station 5 years ago. We were based in a basement in North London and we were licensed by GGlobal to broadcast live for 3 weeks on an FM stream. The experience of broadcasting over live radio is both nerve racking and exhilarating. I can understand from Adorno’s perspective how Radio DJs could assume a preist-esque role, whilst standing behind their microphone and preaching to the invisible masses who are eagerly tuning in.
He was right to be concerned. However, due to digital radio and the autonomy that this has granted individuals who live in the highly developed parts of the world, this concern is now redundant. As people are less susceptible to manipulation through radio. It is the other mediums, such as advertising, cookies and social media that people should watch out for!
Tan Zhuan Liang
To some extent, I concur with Adorno’s social critique of social media that the notion of broadcast entails a central producer of content with an uni-directional link to passive receptors. While it may be true even till today that the power of distribution of music through radio for example is largely monopolized in the case of Singapore. It is assumed that we as passive consumers are like ‘sponges’ which have a sole task of receiving the music only. Undeniably, we do not have the control over what music is being played on air since most radio stations follow a specific set of programme song flow.
However in contemporary societies, the decline of radio is caused by the rapid rise of Youtube or music software like Spotify which distribute songs to listen for free. While there are exclusive membership available to consumers to eliminate the mood dampening advertisements between songs, Spotify is preferred since as users are able to choose and listen to what we want. Besides users who don’t have a particular craving for a specific song, he or she can listen to a top 40 songs list provided or even select random playlist. Thus power relation-wise, consumers are given more autonomy to select their songs now as compared to the past where radio was the main distributor of music. However the only downside is that the software would share your files with others to listen. Either way, music is shared between people and that can only be a good thing.
Lee Wei Jie
After reading Adorno’s article, I do perceive the article to be overly critical over the introduction of the radio in society’s life. Perhaps, one might find it assuming to imagine how society at that time of the invention of radio must have felt: sounds and voices coming out from thin air. But coming back to the point of Adorno’s criticality, I do tend to agree to Adorno’s critique of its ideological effect. Broadcasting, as it seems, a single source planting seeds of information to many different people, would definitely be a means of ideological platform for those in power. However, the critique of radio on the standardisation of music, and the standardisation of what is popular music or not, this I find has been overly critical.
In one of Adorno’s criticisms, Adorno states that “Music ceases to be a human force, but is consumed like other consumer goods”. This relates to music’s losing its aura, through the mass broadcasting of radio technology. I find this to be a little fishy. Let me explain with an analogy. Suppose in a Foot ball match or a Superbowl match, the aura of this competition lies within the atmosphere of being actually at the game itself, with the masses of supporters cheering their team on. I would like to argue that broadcasting the match, be it on television or radio, prevents in itself another set of aura in its own sense. Of course, the aura being live at a match versus the aura of watching or listening from home is different, but what I assume is that they are 2 separate components. Would listening to radio of a certain piece of music remove the aura of what the music actually was? I would disagree, as one still understands the difference between live music and the audio reproduction of music.
Gareth Nah
Of the three articles, Adorno’s intrigues me the most. Although I can relate to some of the claims he makes, I find it difficult to concur with him on multiple fronts. Having been written some years back, the article may not be an entirely accurate reflection of societal conditions in place today.
Adorno argues that good music, when made accessible to the masses, has its “goodness” diluted. He believes that the massification of such music gives rise to a loss of its essence, or “aura” as elucidated by Benjamin. It appears that Adorno possesses this grandiose conception of “good music” as something exalted, and whose exclusivity should be preserved. Consequently, increased consumption of it would make it no longer rarefied, and instead cheapen it.
Some limitations are immediately evident in Adorno’s arguments. As he does not make reference to music other than that which is “good”, it is difficult to ascertain if he speaks of music in general, or music only as “high” culture. Assuming he indeed argues for the restriction of certain types of music to the elites, his elitism is misplaced in today’s globalized societies, many of which view music as a leveller and something to be widely distributed and enjoyed.
Adorno laments the gradual transformation of music from an end to a means to an end. He views this as a commodification of music, which he roundly criticizes. However, it is certainly common in this day and age to find many artistes and producers explicitly championing their music as a means to achieve a range of goals. Take for instance, the emancipatory effect of the globally famous We Are the World written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, recorded for the explicit purpose of raising funds for hunger relief efforts in Africa. The single was such a success that it was remade in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, this time to provide aid to survivors of the devastating disaster. In view such resounding success and popular reception, how then can we subscribe to Adorno’s view that music should be limited to pure appreciation as an end in itself?
Laura Mulvey criticized how the cinema has played a part in promoting a form of masculinity in the society via the objectification of women. I seek to propose an alternative view of her theory. I propose that male characters themselves can also promote masculinity.
This example can be seen in the movie, Fight Club. In Fight Club, Jack(Edward Norton), plays an average Joe whose life is filled with the obsession to get the best clothing and furniture. In a way, Jack could be portray as feminine as shopping is a hobby that usually belongs to women.
Enter Tyler Durden, the complete opposite to Jack. Tyler opposes to the social norm of society, including the obsession in shopping. Hence, if Jack represents the feminine males of society, Tyler is the representation of masculinity in man.
It has to be noted that, throughout the film, Jack was constantly listening to Tyler and his orders. Viewers slowly see Jack change and rid away his previous obsession with shopping and consumerism. If you look at this critically, you can interpret this as the oppression of Jack’s feminine side by Tyler’s masculinity. Given that Jack and Tyler are both the same person, you could view this process as a man internal struggles to overcome his feminine side and impose his masculinity.
The ultimate form of masculinity was also portrayed in the film through the establishment of the Fight Club. In Fight Club, man remove away their clothing, which could be seen as their material possession, and fight. Such a scene seems to resemble the Spartans masculinity whereby they fight without any clothes on as well. The removal of clothes and the fights seek to show what it means to be a man. The fights show that the men in the ring are tough, the movie aims to show that being tough is masculine.
In conclusion, these examples highlight an alternative view on how the cinema or the media can promote masculinity via male characters.
References: Fight Club. Hurt So Good:
Fight Club, Masculine Violence,
and the Crisis of Capitalism by Lynn M. Ta
Lim Fang Yu, Russell
Adorno’s article kind of resonates with me. Although some may view him as being overcritical, I feel that Adorno was quite ahead of his time. While I feel that there are good songs in this day and age, a lot of stuff seem to be repeats and filler material. One would be hard pressed to buy a CD that has 10 good songs in them, it is just that one or two good songs as advertised and the rest does not make you feel very much at all. Radio shows always seem to run on a format of banter… commercials… pranks… random song… banter… commercials… Throughout a radio program, we are constantly being persuaded to buy a product, buy a CD or hear about a lucky listener winning an item that is supposed to be the awesome and that you should buy it with your own money :/
Most people I talk to are able to tell me their favorite station without hesitation. However, I feel that true choice comes only after much struggle and deliberation take place. Unfortunately, the radio scene in Singapore is essentially segmented into demographics (age group, sex and race), and people tune in to the station that fit their profile.
Mulvey’s fundamental argument in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” is that Hollywood narrative films use women in order to provide a pleasurable visual experience for men. The narrative film structures its gaze as masculine. The woman is always the object of the reifying gaze, not the bearer of it. The cinematic gaze is always produced a masculine both by means of the identification produced with the male hero and through the use of the camera. Mulvey identifies two manners in which Hollywood cinema produces pleasure, manners which arise from different mental mechanisms. The first involves the objectification of the image, and the second one the identification with it. Both mechanisms represent the mental desires of the male subject.
While Mulvey’s “male gaze” still exists today, I believe that not only women but males are being objectified as well. It has become increasingly common to observe males who are topless or bare other body parts on screens. At the same time, there are more media portrayals of independent, capable women and they are not submissive to men. For instance, there is Lisbeth Salander (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Lady) and Daenerys Targaryen (Game of Thrones). All of these empowered female protagonists are able to garner a strong presence individually. Rather than let someone else make decisions for them, they show that they have own control over their destinies. While Mulvey’s argument is still true and relevant to us, we may argue that it does not hold as much weight as compared to the past.
Mulvey’s theory of spectatorship where there’s a focus on aesthetics and the male gaze as a result of the structure of cinema is still relevant today. In today’s society there is still a distinct focus on aesthetics and the objectification of women has transcend media platforms to appear in both film itself, TV, TV advertisements and print advertisements.
We would notice the selling of body parts as the camera lens focus on aesthetic portrayals of body parts to attract consumers. Sensuality and beauty are key elements of these advertisements to sell the male gaze to both men and women, where they aim to convince women to buy their products to attract the male gaze.
In the Emergence of Cinematic Time, Mary Ann Doane introduced the term male gaze. In film, it portrayed women as passive, while male are being active. The films objectify women, conforming to a misogynist perception of women as commodifiable sexual objects. On the other hand, male protagonist becomes the surrogate of the viewers. For example, the film 30 minutes or less, filmed in Grand Rapids, showed that both good and bad guys in the comedy use women for nothing more than sexual pleasure. The classic Hollywood movies, like James Bond also uses the male gaze theory. It often portrays the male protagonist as the saviour of the day, rescuing and helping people in need.
However, times have changed and I feel that the author’s argument and viewpoints are narrow. In recent times, the theory of male gaze does not really hold. Films are no longer filmed in the perspective of the male protagonist. There are films that filmed in the perspective of female, animals, and others. For example, the film Hunger Games is filmed from the perspective of female; the film Charlots web is filmed from the perspective of a pig.
Adorno’s critique of the radio is decidedly cynical. This can be judged from his first line when he describes the medium as a ‘problem’. However, he was writing in 1945. In the context of WWI and WWII it is understandable that Adorno would have eyed the radio with suspicion. The unilateral nature of the information that is broadcasted is potentially dangerous. For example, alongside Cinema, the radio was used to incite hate propaganda in Nazi Germany, on the flip side it was also the main tool available to freedom fighters. The radio was a powerful means of transmitting not only information but sentiment, and as a result it was a very politically charged medium. In addition, for people who lived in isolated communities (hard to imagine in Singapore, but I’m talking about rural villages here) the radio was an almost magical source of entertainment and held a degree of authority. In Brian Friel’s play ‘Dancing at Lughnasa’ (set in 1936 in Donegal) the radio is a main device used as a catalyst for change. It is also given an almost ‘godlike’ status by the household due to its power to connect them to the outside world. They personify it, referring to it as ‘Marconi’ and it is in some respects the epicentre of their daily live.
In the information saturated society that we are currently living in. The radio has become almost redundant. I worked at a community radio station 5 years ago. We were based in a basement in North London and we were licensed by GGlobal to broadcast live for 3 weeks on an FM stream. The experience of broadcasting over live radio is both nerve racking and exhilarating. I can understand from Adorno’s perspective how Radio DJs could assume a preist-esque role, whilst standing behind their microphone and preaching to the invisible masses who are eagerly tuning in.
He was right to be concerned. However, due to digital radio and the autonomy that this has granted individuals who live in the highly developed parts of the world, this concern is now redundant. As people are less susceptible to manipulation through radio. It is the other mediums, such as advertising, cookies and social media that people should watch out for!
To some extent, I concur with Adorno’s social critique of social media that the notion of broadcast entails a central producer of content with an uni-directional link to passive receptors. While it may be true even till today that the power of distribution of music through radio for example is largely monopolized in the case of Singapore. It is assumed that we as passive consumers are like ‘sponges’ which have a sole task of receiving the music only. Undeniably, we do not have the control over what music is being played on air since most radio stations follow a specific set of programme song flow.
However in contemporary societies, the decline of radio is caused by the rapid rise of Youtube or music software like Spotify which distribute songs to listen for free. While there are exclusive membership available to consumers to eliminate the mood dampening advertisements between songs, Spotify is preferred since as users are able to choose and listen to what we want. Besides users who don’t have a particular craving for a specific song, he or she can listen to a top 40 songs list provided or even select random playlist. Thus power relation-wise, consumers are given more autonomy to select their songs now as compared to the past where radio was the main distributor of music. However the only downside is that the software would share your files with others to listen. Either way, music is shared between people and that can only be a good thing.
After reading Adorno’s article, I do perceive the article to be overly critical over the introduction of the radio in society’s life. Perhaps, one might find it assuming to imagine how society at that time of the invention of radio must have felt: sounds and voices coming out from thin air. But coming back to the point of Adorno’s criticality, I do tend to agree to Adorno’s critique of its ideological effect. Broadcasting, as it seems, a single source planting seeds of information to many different people, would definitely be a means of ideological platform for those in power. However, the critique of radio on the standardisation of music, and the standardisation of what is popular music or not, this I find has been overly critical.
In one of Adorno’s criticisms, Adorno states that “Music ceases to be a human force, but is consumed like other consumer goods”. This relates to music’s losing its aura, through the mass broadcasting of radio technology. I find this to be a little fishy. Let me explain with an analogy. Suppose in a Foot ball match or a Superbowl match, the aura of this competition lies within the atmosphere of being actually at the game itself, with the masses of supporters cheering their team on. I would like to argue that broadcasting the match, be it on television or radio, prevents in itself another set of aura in its own sense. Of course, the aura being live at a match versus the aura of watching or listening from home is different, but what I assume is that they are 2 separate components. Would listening to radio of a certain piece of music remove the aura of what the music actually was? I would disagree, as one still understands the difference between live music and the audio reproduction of music.
Of the three articles, Adorno’s intrigues me the most. Although I can relate to some of the claims he makes, I find it difficult to concur with him on multiple fronts. Having been written some years back, the article may not be an entirely accurate reflection of societal conditions in place today.
Adorno argues that good music, when made accessible to the masses, has its “goodness” diluted. He believes that the massification of such music gives rise to a loss of its essence, or “aura” as elucidated by Benjamin. It appears that Adorno possesses this grandiose conception of “good music” as something exalted, and whose exclusivity should be preserved. Consequently, increased consumption of it would make it no longer rarefied, and instead cheapen it.
Some limitations are immediately evident in Adorno’s arguments. As he does not make reference to music other than that which is “good”, it is difficult to ascertain if he speaks of music in general, or music only as “high” culture. Assuming he indeed argues for the restriction of certain types of music to the elites, his elitism is misplaced in today’s globalized societies, many of which view music as a leveller and something to be widely distributed and enjoyed.
Adorno laments the gradual transformation of music from an end to a means to an end. He views this as a commodification of music, which he roundly criticizes. However, it is certainly common in this day and age to find many artistes and producers explicitly championing their music as a means to achieve a range of goals. Take for instance, the emancipatory effect of the globally famous We Are the World written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, recorded for the explicit purpose of raising funds for hunger relief efforts in Africa. The single was such a success that it was remade in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, this time to provide aid to survivors of the devastating disaster. In view such resounding success and popular reception, how then can we subscribe to Adorno’s view that music should be limited to pure appreciation as an end in itself?
Do check out the music video and decide for yourself its value beyond aesthetics!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoDY8ce_3zk
Laura Mulvey criticized how the cinema has played a part in promoting a form of masculinity in the society via the objectification of women. I seek to propose an alternative view of her theory. I propose that male characters themselves can also promote masculinity.
This example can be seen in the movie, Fight Club. In Fight Club, Jack(Edward Norton), plays an average Joe whose life is filled with the obsession to get the best clothing and furniture. In a way, Jack could be portray as feminine as shopping is a hobby that usually belongs to women.
Enter Tyler Durden, the complete opposite to Jack. Tyler opposes to the social norm of society, including the obsession in shopping. Hence, if Jack represents the feminine males of society, Tyler is the representation of masculinity in man.
It has to be noted that, throughout the film, Jack was constantly listening to Tyler and his orders. Viewers slowly see Jack change and rid away his previous obsession with shopping and consumerism. If you look at this critically, you can interpret this as the oppression of Jack’s feminine side by Tyler’s masculinity. Given that Jack and Tyler are both the same person, you could view this process as a man internal struggles to overcome his feminine side and impose his masculinity.
The ultimate form of masculinity was also portrayed in the film through the establishment of the Fight Club. In Fight Club, man remove away their clothing, which could be seen as their material possession, and fight. Such a scene seems to resemble the Spartans masculinity whereby they fight without any clothes on as well. The removal of clothes and the fights seek to show what it means to be a man. The fights show that the men in the ring are tough, the movie aims to show that being tough is masculine.
In conclusion, these examples highlight an alternative view on how the cinema or the media can promote masculinity via male characters.
References: Fight Club. Hurt So Good:
Fight Club, Masculine Violence,
and the Crisis of Capitalism by Lynn M. Ta
Adorno’s article kind of resonates with me. Although some may view him as being overcritical, I feel that Adorno was quite ahead of his time. While I feel that there are good songs in this day and age, a lot of stuff seem to be repeats and filler material. One would be hard pressed to buy a CD that has 10 good songs in them, it is just that one or two good songs as advertised and the rest does not make you feel very much at all. Radio shows always seem to run on a format of banter… commercials… pranks… random song… banter… commercials… Throughout a radio program, we are constantly being persuaded to buy a product, buy a CD or hear about a lucky listener winning an item that is supposed to be the awesome and that you should buy it with your own money :/
Most people I talk to are able to tell me their favorite station without hesitation. However, I feel that true choice comes only after much struggle and deliberation take place. Unfortunately, the radio scene in Singapore is essentially segmented into demographics (age group, sex and race), and people tune in to the station that fit their profile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ – Credits to a friend who sent me this sometime back and I was quite amused. It pokes a little fun at music these days. 🙂