Psychoanalytic Film Theory - Essay Example

Psychoanalytic Film Theory: Rear Window (1959) Psychoanalysis and semiotics have been used as working methodologies in understanding cinematic representations of women and these methods both gained momentum during the 1970s. The classic essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” by Laura Mulvey (1975/1985) has been considered as a primary material for feminist film theory, because it deepened film theorization through psychoanalytic spectatorship concepts and arguments. Using Lacanian and Freudian psychoanalytic terms, Mulvey examined how women are portrayed in cinema, as she analyzes the “male gaze” and its aspects of pleasure and nonpleasure (309). Mulvey's essay can be asserted as a historical document, due to her examinations of the pleasurable and controlling dimensions of “vision” that several disciplines studied before her and extended after her work. She argued that the “unconscious” of the patriarchal system has projected itself unto the film narrative. The male gaze had perilously affected the discourse between the dominant and dominated sectors of society, where political binaries of man/woman and active/passive are present. This paper will discuss the reasons why feminist film scholars adopted psychoanalytic film theory. It will also use feminist psychoanalytic spectatorship theory in studying Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1959). Feminist scholars adopted the psychoanalytic film theory, because the latter aims to examine and depict gender identity using cultural, instead of biological, concepts that are present in films, so that the exclusion of women in dominant film discourses can be identified and dismantled for purposes of political empowerment by breaking the domination of the male gaze and reversing spectatorship from male to female gazing. Rear Window (1959) depicts scopophilia through sexual stimulations of visual pleasures and narcissism, and its pervasive use of the sexual objectification of women, where the film sees them as sources of both pleasure and nonpleasure. Psychoanalytic film theory Feminist film scholars, during the 1970s, were interested in analyzing the diverse forms of gender oppressions that relegated them to a “secondary” social and political status (Kaplan 1238). Their takeoff was the “cultural,” and not the biological, aspect of negative female experiences, where cultural semiotic systems present relationships in how women are seen and consumed in films and in societies where they live in. These scholars noted that the “objectification” of women, which limited their desires and objectives, could be the root cause of their oppressed conditions in real and reel life. Spectatorship theory asserts that the spectator generally refers to the male spectator, who wants to see and “control” women, because of the visual pleasures that the feminine form can provide (Sherwin 174). Psychoanalysis broadens spectatorship theory by unlocking the unconscious impulses that drive the male gaze (Mulvey 305). Thus, it could be seen that ideological feminism has strongly driven psychoanalytic film theory (Kaplan 1238). The primary appeal of psychoanalysis is that it presented a concrete framework for understanding preexisting conventions of women from the patriarchal perspective (Mulvey 305). It is a fitting theoretical framework for the budding feminist film theory, which still needs conceptual foundations. Freud and Lacan, in particular, provided terms and processes that can help explain how the male unconscious embeds itself unto society through its dominating gaze (Mulvey 305). The “erotic” processes of “seeing” have a direct impact on consuming the female form, and they also have implications on how women are portrayed in narrative films (Mulvey 305). Lacanian theory argues that films present a “mirror image” that underlies symbolic infrastructures (McGowan 28). The “gaze” represents the male “imaginary” and this imaginary builds the illusions of pleasures and nonpleasures (McGowan 28). Lacan’s idea of the “gaze” focused on the “mirror stage” and how it affects the “process of ideological interpellation” (McGowan 28). The gaze begins the identification process where the spectator sees himself/herself in the film’s images (McGowan 28). Metz notes that: “The spectator is absent from the screen as perceived, but also (the two things inevitably go together) present there and even ‘all-present’ as perceiver” (qtd. in McGowan 28). The belief of the spectator, as the source of the gaze, provides him “imaginary pleasures” (McGowan 28). Mulvey calls this “scopophilia,” where the “controlling and curious gaze” finds it pleasurable to consume objects (307). It rests on the desire to see the “private and the forbidden” (307). Freud also explored feminine roles through his idea of women’s desire for bearing the wound of not having a penis (Mulvey 305). Without this penis, she is a threat to men, but she compensates for her “loss” by raising her child “into the symbolic” (Mulvey 305). Psychoanalysis has helped feminist film scholars uncover the symbolic meanings of the film narrative and expose sexual conflicts through a psychological understanding of the male “position of power” (Ravetto-Biagioli 105). Psychoanalysis demonstrates the conflicts of male gaze, because it suffers from sexual tensions between the ego and the libido. On the one hand, men drives pleasure from looking, because it gives him power and control of what he “sees” (Mulvey 307). The male gaze establishes and affirms his “ego.” On the other hand, there is fascination with the “mirror image” through narcissism, but self-preservation can see the “other” reflection as threat of castration (Mulvey 308). The libido may be erotically pleasurable, though it conveys uneasiness and uncertainty. These sexual concepts can assist in understanding the binaries of active/male and passive/female that perpetuate unbalanced gender roles and relationships (Mulvey 309). The male gaze projects his fantasies on female subjects, which can also be seen in films. Women are traditionally shown as “exhibitionists,” where they are both “looked at and displayed” (Mulvey 309). As objects of the male gaze, they are consumed as objects and relegated as passive actors in film, as well as in real life. One way of dismantling gender oppression in film is further studying it, which psychoanalysis also offers. Psychoanalytic theory also provided the way for future research, because it integrated the “scattered insights of the image of women” and distilled them toward one direction (Carroll 349). Instead of analyzing aspects of biology, race, and class, psychoanalysis can be used to integrate these disparate elements under the examination of the unconscious and its motivations and goals. Feminist scholars find psychoanalytic theory specifically helpful in investigating why the male gaze operates as it is and how females are affected by male spectatorship. These scholars can then study other ways of (should-be) seeing the female which can bring gender empowerment instead of displacement. Examining and underscoring patriarchal structures in film narratives are considered “political weapon[s]” (Mulvey 305). Feminist film scholars who support psychoanalysis believe that it can break the domination of the male gaze and reverse spectatorship from male to female gazing. A holistic understanding of the male gaze breaks it into its unconscious elements. After breaking it, its elements can now be changed or new elements can be used to produce female spectatorship. This time, women will study themselves and men and project new conscious desires and goals, which eventually, would drive unconscious impulses portrayed in films. Therefore, psychoanalytic theory presents research and empowerment tools that advanced feminist film theory toward goals of acknowledging and obliterating the political and social castration of the female sex. Feminist Psychoanalytic Spectatorship Theory: Gazing at the Rear Window (1959) Rear Window (1959) is an interesting film that depicts the sexual conflicts that Mulvey defined, because the movie depicts scopophilia through sexual stimulations of visual pleasures and narcissism. L.B. “Jeff” Jeffries (James Stewart) works as a photographer, which makes him a perpetual holder of the male gaze. His profession allows him the visual pleasure of being the subject taking photos of his objects (Howe 17). After being injured, however, he lost his power of the gaze, which he eventually regained as he looks over the windows of his neighbors. He enjoys scopophilia, because there is power in seeing what these people cannot see for themselves, whether literally or figuratively. They cannot see themselves the way Jeff sees them, such as the pursuit of love by Miss Torso and the delusions of happiness of Miss Lonelyhearts. Indeed, while Jeff has been emasculated by the loss of his “leg,” he recovers his phallic power through seeing and judging his neighbors. Furthermore, Stella (Thelma Ritter), his nurse, calls him as part of the “race of peeping Toms,” which underscores the voyeuristic tendencies of men. Men hold the power to “gaze” at other people, especially women, and “place” them in their “right” positions. Jeff, for instance, places Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly) in her “position” as a girlfriend, with no promises of marriage. It is also interesting that Jeff seems to be more erotically stimulated by other women and lives in his window, when he has a beautiful and lovestruck girlfriend, Lisa. Lisa comes as the perfect spectacle for the male gaze. She is physically attractive and is fond of displaying herself to Jeff, where she dresses up with the complete ensemble- the lovely dress, perfect shoes, and expensive jewelry and other accessories. Indeed, her visual presence serves to “freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation” (Mulvey 309). Still, Jeff is more interested in the Torso woman and the daily lives of his neighbors, even when Stella already recommends for him to marry Lisa and settle down. In this case, Jeff derives visual pleasure from acting like the video camera itself, as he pans his environment and consumes numerous objects. Ironically, the audience also acts as the spectator too, where the film shows that the mise-en-scène of his existence is that he is a man who is trapped by his cast and that the story will mostly happen within the confines of his hot and humid apartment. This scene serves to capture the dangers of social isolation, which Jeff unconsciously imposes on himself, because of fears of marriage. The decorations of his apartment contain his life and obsessions: action photographs that he took himself and a broken camera put beside the shot of a racing-car accident. Clearly, he has lived a quite exciting and active life, but that “life” has been stolen from him by his accident. As a photographer, however, it is in his nature to seek continued spectatorship and it is fortunate for him that his window reinforces his scopophilic desires. When viewed this way, it will serve his ego more to control not just one person, by focusing on Lisa, but many people, since he can “view” them all. Scopophilia, furthermore, bears narcissism. Jeff wants to preserve his agency or action as a “subject” and because of this, he wants to detach himself from notions of marriage. Marriage is “something drastic” for him and he believes this to be true also from the newly wedded couple in his “view” who started out with booming romance, only for that romance to sizzle down in time because of boredom. Even when Lisa promises to be the ideal wife, Jeff rejects her, because she cannot live the way he wants- full of adventure and uncertainty. Lisa is a successful woman in her own industry and she enjoys the life of display and pomp. Jeff prefers to see himself in constant action and thrives in the hustle and bustle of risky environments. Despite his leg, he finds comfort and pleasure in being a peeping whore. As a voyeur, he looks at the people around him and feels superior to them. He might have lost his leg temporarily, but he feels that his power of astute observation and perception reinforces his male gaze over women and society in general: “one obtains power by intruding on people's privacy” (Howe 22). He sees these lives as lacking, which bears the dramatic irony that his life is lacking too, because of his social isolation. This need for an ego further displays itself when Jeff investigates the missing wife of Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). As Jeff uncovers more information through his male gaze, he realizes the possibility of murder. He feels himself reeled once more into the world of mystery and intrigue, which is the perfect world for him. It is far from the world that Lisa envisions for him, where he can fit into her fashion and design existence. In addition, Jeff gains power from viewing Lars. Lars has just made an ultimate act of power, which is murder; because it is a decision to actively end another person’s life without this person’s permission. As Jeff studies Lars, the former must be regaining his sense of identity. He is, once more, a journalist and a civic member of society. There is a risk, nevertheless, of being looked back, which Lars does. He realizes that someone knows the truth, which underscores the consequences of gazing at others (Howe 17). The film, moreover, embeds the sexual objectification of women, where it sees them as sources of both pleasure and nonpleasure (Mulvey 311). Jeff derives sexual pleasure from seeing women as sexual objects. The Torso woman is visually and erotically exciting. She is almost naked and is not aware of Jeff’s male gaze. It is this kind of voyeurism that makes her more appealing than Lisa, who despite of her beauty and style, is conscious of other people’s gaze. Lisa knows that she is gazed upon and is willing to use that gaze to her own advantage. She does so with Jeff, as she sexually draws him to her with her beauty and sexual innuendos, with the earnest hope that he would marry her soon, especially “very soon.” Jeff, despite his resistance, is still drawn to Lisa’s charm as he kisses her passionately several times in the film. This physical connection with the gaze reinforces the erotic desires of scopophilia. In addition, Jeff feels varying levels of displeasure from “seeing” Lisa, because she offers the threat of castration. First, phallocentrism focuses on the male sex and not the woman. Even when Lisa is dressed for “power,” since she is wealthier and has more social connections than Jeff, she remains instrumental to Jeff’s ego and libido needs. Budd Boetticher says it best when he states: What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance (qtd. in Mulvey 309). Jeff takes pleasure in seeing Lisa, but does not want a long-term commitment with her. He shows a conflict between his love for Lisa and love for his “self.” Their debate on marriage reveals their opposing views of spectatorship. Jeff asks Lisa if she can imagine him having his own photography studio in Manhattan: “Can you see me driving down to the fashion salon wearing combat boots and a three-day beard? Wouldn't that make a hit?” She confidently answers: “I can see you looking very handsome and successful in a dark-blue flannel suit.” Jeff calls these images as “nonsense” and indicates that he cannot accept Sartre’s terms “being-for-another” (Howe 20). Lisa and Jeff share opposing “views” of each other that provides displeasure to Jeff. Second, Lisa, penis-less as she is, depicts strength because she can do what Jeff cannot. She can go to Lars’ apartment and find more clues and evidence about the murder. When Jeff sees her inside Lars’ apartment, it suggests fear not just for the safety of his beloved, but his sexual castration. This woman is in the middle of the action, while he stays in his seat as a spectator. The ultimate castration is the loss of his subjectivity: “Man is reluctant to gaze at his exhibitionist like” (Mulvey 310). Jeff remains the subject, because he sees Lars coming into his apartment, but he is also an object, because he cannot act as the hero of the story. Lisa has to defend herself, which makes her the subject, the one with an imaginary penis. This essay further analyzes Lisa as the female spectator. Before, she is only a product consumed by the male gaze, but as she actively participates in the theorizations and plans of Jeff in unearthing the truth, she transforms herself to a spectator and her relationship with Jeff is “re-born erotically” (Mulvey 313). She has changed from a passive object to an active subject. The problem with this projection, however, is that she remains an instrument for Jeff. She may be acting out of her own volition and curiosity, but it is Jeff who brings her into his world of voyeurism and she acts after Jeff’s suggestions. Nonetheless, like Jeff, she insists on her own “being” by dressing down, but continuing her old habits. This is shown in the ending when she puts down a novel and replaces it with a fashion magazine, since Jeff is already asleep. It is her act of defiance, which makes her a constant threat to Jeff’s masculinity. Conclusion Feminist scholars used the psychoanalytic film theory, because the latter aims to scrutinize and represent gender identity using cultural, instead of biological, concepts that are present in films, so that the omission of women in dominant film discourses can be identified and dismantled for purposes of political empowerment. Psychoanalysis breaks down the elements of the male gaze and helps to reverse spectatorship from male to female gazing. Rear Window (1959) depicts scopophilia through sexual stimulations of visual pleasures and narcissism, and its omnipresent use of the sexual objectification of women. It shows the conflicts between male and female spectatorships and suggests the revolutionary aspect of developing the female gaze. It may not have solidly denunciated the male gaze, and instead, it may even have reinforced it, but its cinematic elements indicate that the male gaze is incomplete on its own. Jeff cannot solve the mystery without Lisa in the same way that the world cannot maximize its potential outcomes without the fruitful recognition and contribution of the female race. Works Cited Carroll, Noël. “The Image of Women in Film: A Defense of a Paradigm.” Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism 48.4 (1990): 349-360. Print. Howe, Lawrence. “Through the Looking Glass: Reflexivity, Reciprocality, and Defenestration in Hitchcock's Rear Window.” College Literature 35.1 (2008): 16-37. Print. Kaplan, E. Ann. “Global Feminisms and the State of Feminist Film Theory.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 30.1 (2004): 1236-1248. Print. Manlove, Clifford T. “Visual ‘Drive’ and Cinematic Narrative: Reading Gaze Theory in Lacan, Hitchcock, and Mulvey.” Cinema Journal 46.3 (2007): 83-108. Print. McGowan, Todd. “Looking for the Gaze: Lacanian Film Theory and Its Vicissitudes.” Cinema Journal 42.3 (2003): 27-47. Print. Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Movies and Methods: An Anthology. Ed. Bill Nichols. California: California UP, 1985. 303-314. Print. Ravetto-Biagioli, Kriss. “Vertigo and the Vertiginous History of Film Theory.” Camera Obscura 24.75 (2010): 100-141. Print. Rear Window. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. James Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, and Raymond Burr. Paramount Pictures, 1954. DVD. Sherwin, Miranda. “Deconstructing the Male: Masochism, Female Spectatorship, and the Femme Fatale in Fatal Attraction, Body of Evidence, and Basic Instinct.” Journal of Popular Film & Television 35.4 (2008): 174-182. Print. Read More