The 1983 film Flashdance is a wonderful depiction, and play on, the role of the spectator viewing spectacle within film. There is a very evident stance the film takes on transforming the ideas of both the portrayal of the spectacle and the control of the gaze--particularly the male gaze. Laura Mulvey describes in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” how “woman is displayed as sexual object is the leitmotif of erotic spectacle…she holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire.” Flashdance’s subversive narrative undergoes a full transformation throughout the film from the passive status of the woman within cinema into an active protagonist. The film “builds on the way she is to be looked at into the spectacle itself” (Mulvey 208).
The first and most popular dance scene during the film demonstrates the dominating nature of the male gaze. Alex Ownes (Jennifer Beals) dances on stage, poars water on herself, and all the while males in the audience seem mesmerized. The film picks at this historic cinematic “reliance” on the male to control cinematic actions—“the bearer of the look of the spectator” (Mulvey, 204). There are direct point of view shots from the male perspectives. However, the final dance scene of Flashdance nullifies the gaze and the importance of the audience’s spectatorship is embellished over that of the male character gaze. This is done by emphasizing the “shifting tension between the looks on either side of the screen” (Mulvey, 203). The spectator is forced to distinguish between their own point of view, that of the subject, and that of the other characters in the film.
The central theme of Flashdance personifies the relation between the actor/subject and the spectator. Graeme Turner describes in his book “Film as Social Practice” how Freudian theory views the role of spectator as a voyeur and their “voyeuristic look is one of the pleasures an audience finds in the cinema.” However Turner believes that “this may not be entirely accurate because actors “know that they are to be watched. So they exhibit themselves to the spectator rather than unwittingly reveal themselves” (pg 150). The dancers that work in Mawby’s Bar know they are on display and take full control over their performance. The film spotlights the fact that the girls, and their dances, prop, music, and theatrics are the defining factors in charge of directing attention. The camera follows their lead rather than the traditional lead of the male gaze. One prime example is the dance scene with Tina Tech (Cynthia Rhodes) dancing to “Manhunt”.
This specific scene addresses a major question posed by Christian Metz in “The imaginary signifier”. If the camera does not take the point of view of the male gaze or of the main character, “with what , then, does the spectator identify during the projection of the film? For he certainly has to identify” (pg. 46). The anxiety with this lack of identification is exactly what Flashdance wants to create. The more questioning by the spectator, the more aware the spectator will be of their role as viewers of cinema and more specifically spectacle.
I have to admit, the idea of women as a "spectacle" really blew my mind as something that seemed so subtle on viewing yet so obvious upon reflection.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the effect on the male gaze is essentially the same, I think it's meaningful to distinguish between situations where the woman is intentionally being a spectacle (like Marilyn Monroe on top of the table, or the dancers in this film) and those situations where the woman is presented as a spectacle unknowingly (like the fight example we saw in class). Of course the actresses know they're being watched by a camera, but I think there is a real interpretive difference between these two situations. When the woman is unknowingly a spectacle, she is generally presented negatively as petty or immature. When she takes the reins and intentionally puts herself on display, she is powerful and tranquilizing. Women as spectacles can be both demeaning and empowering.
I agree with what Alex said above-there is definitely a difference in the intentional female spectacle in Flashdance and the unintentional female spectacle. Alex Ownes (Jennifer Beals)is a prop, as this word is defined by Christian Metz in his book The Imaginary Signifier: "fetish, like the apparatus of the cinema, is a prop, the prop that disavows a lack and in doing so affirms it without wishing to. A prop, too, which is as it were placed on the body of the object; a prop which is the penis, since it negates its absence, and hence a partial object that makes the whole object lovable and desirable." The object that is Alex Ownes, in fact, is lovable and desirable.
ReplyDeleteBut Alex is much more than a prop; she is the protagonist as well. A female protagonist, at this time and still a little bit today, is a radical idea for film. Laura Mulvey defines the traditional female film role in her book Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema: "Traditionally, the woman displayed has function on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium." This is true of Alex Ownes, but it only partially defines her role in the film. This is her secondary role; her first is to be the protagonist and drive the action in the film, a role typically only held by male characters.
I think you bring up an interesting point, Katrina, with one of my favorite movies.
ReplyDeleteBecause as you say, these women are aware of the male's gaze, it makes me wonder if the voyeurism for the men and the audience watching the film is broken. If the female characters are performing with the intention of being watched does that mean there is less pleasure for the watcher when they are aware of the spectacle?
Another point you bring up is who the audience identifies with if their is no male gaze or main character. I do think that the audience will tend to identify with the "male" view even if there is no male present. When viewing a dance spectacle I think the audience watching the film feels as if they are watching a dance performance live or a theater performance and thus perhaps identify with that.
I agree with Alex on the point that there is a different connotation when women are in control or when they are not in control.
ReplyDeleteThis connotation is built off of the stereotypes we hold in our society and culture. Any time a woman exposes herself, society always assumes this woman is promiscuous and has no morals. However, men can continue to do anything they want with very little repercussions.
Women are predominantly seen as objects of desire in films and when they are portraying different roles, it is a bit jarring for the audience. This is a societal norm that must change and one can only imagine how our society is going to be in years to come if this is how we still continue to think.
I'm interested to know why you think it might be that the camera's gaze is necessarily identified as "male" in nature. Why do you think it is that the cinematic perspective of choice for Hollywood is that of the gendered male, especially when observing the female form.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense, of course, from a marketing and male perspective; what better way to attract male viewers than to dangle a sensationalized female physique for their own personal viewing pleasure. However, might there be some other reason for this technique? Perhaps there is something unique about the male gaze that lends itself particularly favorable to the business and practice of cinema. Or, perhaps there is something unique about the asexual or female perspective that lends itself especially unfavorable to the art of film; perhaps it is less marketable, or perhaps it is more difficult to reproduce cinematically. Whatever the reason, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.