The theory of psychoanalysis and the gaze in cinema: Marilyn Monroe's example - Essay Example

?The theory of psychoanalysis and “the gaze” in cinema with reference to an image depicting Marilyn Monroe standing on the subway grate. Figure Still from the film The Seven Year Itch. The image shown above in Figure 1 depicts Marilyn Monroe in a famous pose, standing over a subway grate in a New York street, holding her dress down while it is being raised up by drafts of air coming from below. She is being observed by Tom Ewell, who plays married man Richard Sherman, and in the film, Marilyn Monroe’s character has no name and a somewhat vague provenance. This seems to suggest that she represents the archetypal woman, in her role as opposite to the male. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition she plays the role of Eve to Sherman’s Adam, offering forbidden fruit which he knows he ought to resist. I have chosen this particular image because it is exemplifies one of the standard themes of Hollywood cinema in the immediate post-war period: the romantic attraction between men and women, and its tension with the respectable role of husband and father which American males are supposed to play. It also illustrates why Marilyn Monroe is such an iconic figure in film history and provides a starting point for deeper analysis of how she achieved this status. The film was made in a very moralistic period, and so most of the tempting that occurs is a matter of imagination, conveyed in a series of somewhat chaotic dream sequences in the mind of Richard Sherman. Hemmed in by the moral tastes of the time, the director treats the whole topic as a kind of psychological exploration of sexual attraction, rather than a narrative tale of actual adultery. Very little in the way of real connection exists between the girl (Marilyn Monroe) and Sherman, but there is an expansive depiction of how he imagines her. This photographic image epitomizes the relationship between the two characters, and in so doing it also draws the audience in to a voyeuristic appreciation of the actress, taking pleasure in the chance revelation of her physical form that occurs over the subway grate. These voyeuristic elements can all be detected in this single still image of the two main characters shown in Fig. 1 above. In looking at this theme of the woman, seen through the eyes of a man who is theoretically unavailable, the theory of “the gaze” as proposed by Laura Mulvey (1975) is very useful. It rests on psychoanalysis as a basic underpinning idea, and proposes that phallocentrism is at the heart of much visual pleasure in cinema. This theory holds that there is an unequal relationship between men and women in Western societies, and that there is a central paradox in the lower status of the female and the heightened fascination of the male: “The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to the world” (Mulvey, 1975, no page number). According to Freudian psychological theory, the woman in human society suffers from the lack of a male sexual organ, while the man enjoys a position of power and superiority because he possesses just such an organ. It is this dynamic, analysed from a feminist perspective, which explains the significance of this particular image of the two actors. From the later perspective of the twenty first century, after several waves of feminism and the rise of a more egalitarian society which places a higher value on equal opportunity, Freudian ideas are no longer so widely or unreservedly held. In 1950s America, however, Freudian theories were still relatively new, and being applied in creative writing and film making as a way of exploring the theme of relationships between men and women. In The Seven Year Itch, for example, the main character Richard Sherman is employed in the publishing business and is required to read books on such theories. He even goes to visit the psychologist whose works he is reading, and so the film makes the ideas of Freudian psychology explicit in the storyline as well as using them in aspects of the cinematographic production. It is likely also, in my opinion, that this film and others like it, also helped to popularize Freudian analysis in America and explained a number of deep, archetypal meanings more through visual images such as the one portrayed in Fig. 1 above, than through the rather futile and intellectual dialogue about theories of psychoanalysis that crops up in the film. The proof of this observation lies in the perennial fascination which people have with Marilyn Monroe, and the popularity even today of this memorable scene. People grasp the subconscious meanings just by looking at the image, and they do not need to read books by psychologists to feel their force. Returning to the still image in figure 1, there is a very clear demarcation between the male and the female figures depicted there. They each occupy roughly one half of the available space, and stand in the same plane, in the foreground of the picture. The similarity ends there, however, because the male figure forms a tall, slender, one might even say phallic shape, while the female figure is characterised by billowing and irregular shapes which detract from the upright body itself. This female body does not have a clearly defined outline, but rather has formlessness that defies easy description. Parallels with Freudian theories of male and female identity formation can be easily detected in this particular contrast. Men are supposed to be definite, active and strong, while the feminine identity is expected to be more malleable, passive and weak, accepting a subordinate role and accepting the advances of the male. These gender roles are fixed in Freudian theory, in a way that modern psychologists are would regard as excessive polarization. This image captures the contrast and freezes it into a moment of chance appreciation. Two further features can be identified which clearly distinguish the male and the female figures in this photograph: the role that clothing plays, and the way that the element of “the gaze” operates, which is the central focus of Mulvey’s criticism. The male figure is fully clothed for a spell out of doors: he wears a hat, a bow tie tightly fastened round his neck and a formal jacket which is buttoned at the front. Most of his body is hidden, including his hands, which are either in his pocket or out of sight. The image that he exudes is one of relaxed formality: he is very comfortable in his clothes, but he does not reveal very much of himself. The only part of his actual body that can be seen is his face, and this is in profile, gazing at the woman and smiling in a satisfied way. The role of clothing for the man appears therefore to be to hide any vulnerability of the flesh. The lines of his pressed trousers are sharp, and the brim of the hat, as well as the line of his nose, and the corner shape of his shoulders are angular also. His hair, or potential lack of hair, is hidden by the hat, and overall he wears clothing like a suit of armor. The only slight chink in this masculine armor is potentially in the lower stomach and groin area, which is revealed under the open buttons of the jacket, but there are still further layers of protection, hiding the man’s body parts from view. In contrast to this buttoned-up and well-protected male armor, the female wears clothing which reveals much more of her human form. Both arms and legs are bare, and there is a long “v” shaped incision which draws the eye from the neck down to the breasts. The camera captures a glimpse of the taboo area of underwear. The color of the dress is much lighter than the man’s suit, suggesting innocence, but of course the cut and especially the movement of the skirt contradict this impression with their daring challenge to conventional deportment. The emotional image that Marilyn Monroe projects is privately sensual, in the enjoyment of the cool air, but it is the approving gaze of the male which makes this into an overtly sexual pose. She does not reciprocate his evident desire, but she tolerates it, and appears untroubled by it. In effect she complies with the role that the male imposes upon her: that of object to be admired, and source of visual pleasure. In Mulvey’s terms, she offers herself up to a An interesting feature of the image is the fact that no human agency seems to be at work. It is as if the enjoyment which the picture presents is that of a naughty moment, captured by chance through the action of the subway draft. This happy coincidence, which of course is anything but a chance occurrence on the film set, where the tiniest details are subject to meticulous control, absolves the characters of any guilt, and sets free a sexual fantasy. Through the obvious metaphor of air streaming upwards, this shot hints at illicit touches which the male figure would dearly like to engage in. The placing of the female on the right reflects the right-hand dominance of Western literary and visual culture. We read from left to right, and this ordering implies a left to right transfer of ideas. The male figure is the originator and the female figure is the goal of the gaze which is depicted in this photograph. This is the pattern which Mulvey describes as “Woman as Image, Man as Bearer of the Look” (Mulvey, 1975, no page number). This patriarchal pattern privileges the male as the more active of the sexes, and turns the woman into an object, which the man appreciates and desires. In order to fulfil this role as desirable object, the woman has to be “displayed as sexual object” (Mulvey, 1975, no page number) which implies an element of spectacle, preferably with some form of undressing, which invites the curiosity of the male, and ultimately also his desire. The full import of this gaze is best understood by trying to reverse the direction and consider the way that the female regards the male. In figure 1 above, the face of Marilyn Monroe is fully visible, but crucially, the eyes are closed and the mouth is open. This, along with her relative nakedness, places her somewhat at a disadvantage when compared with the male observer. She cannot see what he is doing, and she reveals in her open mouth exactly what her emotional state is at that very moment. There is no female gaze at all, and all the traffic goes in one direction from him to her. There is, of course another dimension involving the cinema audience, and later the viewer of the photograph, and here, too, the power lies in the person who looks at the semi-clothed woman. The word which is used for this process is “voyeurism” – and it has negative moral overtones because of the potential that exists for the more knowing bearer of the gaze to exert his power on the woman. In her ecstatic enjoyment of the cool air, she forfeits other senses, such as the power of seeing, and this renders her vulnerable to a predatory onlooker. Overall, therefore, this image conveys a great deal of information about American society in the mid 1950s. It provides a memorable snapshot of gender relations and cinematic iconography in a period of great social change. Mulvey in a different article citing the influences that earlier cinematic trends have had on the work of modern director Cindy Sherman points out that the 1950s are a highly significant period in American film because they mark “the mythic birthplace of postmodern culture…” (Mulvey, p. 148). She highlights “the pivotal place occupied by Marilyn Monroe… epitomizing the glamour of the period, hand held to thrown-back head, eyes half closed, lips open” (Mulvey, p. 149). This concept of “glamour” or in American spelling “glamor” is, in my opinion, present in this image shown in Fig 1 above in a way that just would not be possible in the more liberal society of today. The showing of a woman’s legs, especially in the presence of a fully clad male observer in a public place, carries a certain frisson in the 1950s because it transgresses the moral codes of the time, especially when it involves an upright, married and respectable individual such as Richard Sherman. My final reflection on this image is that it has achieved a certain nostalgia value with the passing of the years since it was taken. Gender roles are no longer so polarized, nor so rigid, and cinematic rules are becoming liberal also. It takes a lot more than a draft from a subway grate to shock modern audiences, and in some ways this presents a challenge to modern males. If nothing is taboo, then nothing is exciting any more. The image discussed in this paper is from an age when masculinity and femininity were more clearly defined, and men knew what their role was supposed to be. Contemporary viewers of the photograph can take pleasure in the visual expression of this different social context, although of course the darker side of patriarchy is present in modern minds along with the knowledge of the actress’s untimely death. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the patriarchal gaze destroys even when it does not touch the object, and this is the enduring message of the picture shown above. References Mulvey, L. (1975) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16 (3), pp. 6-18. Retrieved January 05 2013 from: https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/MarkTribe/Visual+Pleasure+and+Narrative+Cinema Mulvey, L. (July/August 1991) A Phantasmagoria of the Female Body: The Work of Cindy Sherman. New Left Review 188, pp. 137-150. Wilder, B. (Director) (1955) The Seven Year Itch. [Film]. United States: 20th Century Fox. Read More