Queer Critique of “Visual pleasures in narrative cinema” by Laura Mulvey, 1941

Connor Kalen Silk
Sep 1, 2018 · 12 min read

Long Essay on “Visual pleasures in narrative cinema”

Laura Mulvey’s 1941 Essay “Visual pleasures and narrative in cinema” was a precursor essay on the current gaze theory in both cinema and the contemporary art world employing patriarchal conventions and theories to discuss the ways the female figure is portrayed. Primarily based on Freudian psychoanalytical research, her essay sets about to illustrate the pleasure derived from viewing the female figure; portrayed as a sexualised representation throughout cinema history. Her essay has been criticised over the years for focusing on the male spectator while neglecting to write about the presence of the female spectator. This essay will attempt to illustrate an argument based on opposing writings by Gaylyn Studlar, further readings from Lynda Nead, Mary Ann Doane, Michelle Meagher and Rosemary Betterton, with artworks by contemporary feminist painters Lee Price and Jenny Saville. Despite Mulvey’s aim to discuss how the male gaze frames cinema, her writings fail to broach how a female might spectate upon the female that does not relate back to masculine or male interactions.

Mulvey outlines Freudian theories on the modes of pleasure that are derived from viewing scopophilia and phallocentrism (castration anxiety) as a patriarchal means to explain why western cinema is predominantly shot in a way the subjectifies and sexualises the female. Freud describes scopophilia as a pleasure derived from viewing; a pleasure from using people as objects (Mulvey 2003, P 984) and a sexual desire that occurs which is exempt from the erogenous zones. Phallocentrism or castration anxiety occurs from the biological differences of the female not possessing a penis, which in turn cause anxiety and fear in the male, triggering the objectification and sexualise the female.

Mulvey outlines the depiction of the male as the “active role” and the female is presented as the “passive role” (Mulvey 2003, p986). through the way the camera frames the figure to draw attention to sexualised anatomy, we are inclined to align ourselves and identify with the male protagonists, giving us a male perspective. In her later essay “Afterthoughts on visual pleasure”(1989) Mulvey elaborates that she does not mean that the viewer is male but that there is a “masculisation” of the spectator (Mulvey 1989, p29). While this is a valid description of Hollywood Cinema, it fails to consider ways that female spectators view the female. Although this essay is essential reading on how the gaze is formulated, it fails to take into account methods of female spectatorship that does not somehow related back to the masculine and male.

“The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation.” (Mulvey 2003, 986). The theories in her essay are composed from a cinema view, whereby film tries to ask us to take a male viewpoint and by directing the viewers to imply they are male by sympathising with the male protagonist. Mulvey’s essay fails to consider a variety of sexualities and the magnitude of possibilities for female spectatorship. She acknowledges the gaze is formed from a heterosexual standpoint (Mulvey 2003, p963) and fails to go into further details of how it can exist outside that heterosexuality and the framework created through this system.

“It is necessary to argue that some forms of representation are better than others, on the basis that they offer women images of themselves which are not humiliating or oppressive”(Betterton 1987). The importance of acknowledging her absences of addressing female spectators must be considered through Mulvey’s sources; her argument solely relies on the studies of Freud and Lacan. These are a highly male-centric psychoanalysis styles (Studlar 1988). In Gaylyn Studlar’s book “In the realm of pleasure; Von Stenberg, Dietrich and the masochistic aesthetic”, chapter two “Masochism and Visual pleasure: the link to pre-oedipal development” she discusses critical views of Freud and the issues within his writings. Freud write about a supposed fixation on the phallic as being the generic norm that the female measures herself by. When an attempt to define the female through a lack (of penis), you must also define the male through lack (of womb) as well (Mulvey 2003). The application of Freud theories by feminists is not productive to negating patriarchal oppression (Studlar 1988) as Freud uses an “assumed” difference as evidential reasoning as to why the feeling of disadvantage arise (Studlar, 1988 p31).

Freud is quoted “those of you who are women this will not apply — you are yourselves the problem” on his essay on femininity in 1933 (Freud 1933, p. 113). Freud’s essay on theories of femininity functions by excluding females from the works. This is reflected in Mulvey’s work on cinema that attempts to illustrate the female’s role while excluding her from it (Doane 1982). Sources from Mulvey’s essay include reference to works by director Hitchcock, von Sternberg, Ziegfeld and Busby Berkeley. There is a rarity of the female spectator in art, categorised by a history of western art, the majority of works have been created by males and a high prevalence of this “art” is of the female body (Nead 1992, p1). With this lack of female spectator source and reliance on oppressive theories by Freud, one can see how Mulvey has failed to account for female spectatorship in her essays.

Fig. 1. Lee Price, Jelly Doughnuts, oil on linen, 40 x 64inch

Studlar disagrees with Mulvey’s ideal that spectator pleasure occurs from male castration anxiety. Instead, she argues that there is a key difference in the way the sexes spectate and that one should not remove the feminine presences from the spectator role. Lee Price is a contemporary hyper-realism figure painter. Her self-portraiture incorporates food and women. Studlar’s theories are based on Gilles Deleuze book “Masochism: coldness and cruelty” (1967), and she rejects the use of Freudian and Lacan theories as well as other references to theorists on this topic. Studlar and Mulvey both propose a sort of “gender crossing”; a female spectator who gains pleasure from the viewing of the female body is masculinising herself. Studlar suggests any gender can place himself or herself in either role in the cinematic piece as either the spectator “male narrator” or “passive female”. These theories talk about how we perceive the female. In this artwork there is no inherently directed gender that you are supposedly identifing with by means of a surrogate character. The imagery in Price’s 2011 paintings ‘Sleeping with peaches’ is melancholy. In a 2011 interview with journalist Heather Smith Stringer “Sleeping with peaches: an interview with Lee Price” she talks about a range of strategies used within her work. She explores the connection between self-image, binge eating habits and the way women are socialised to act around food; “Don’t binge, be skinny, be beautiful and composed” (Stringer and Price, 2011). These paintings catch the artist in moments of solitude, post binging.

Fig. 2 Lee Price, sleeping with peaches, 2011, oil on linen, 56 x 81 inch

Price’s female self-portraits at first reference Mulvey’s applied theories of scopophilia; gaining pleasure from viewing an illusion of a private moment (Mulvey, 2003, p966). Price is a female artist who creates artworks that are talking about the female (self) spectator. The artist states that she has employed a birds-eye view (Stringer and Price, 2011), which is often interpreted as ‘voyeuristic” or “god-view” but in these works the figure is painted in self-repose, not hyper-sexualisation “playing to male desire” as Mulvey discusses (Mulvey 1944, p.67). Mulvey discusses the passive female/active male roles (Mulvey 2003. P.967) and yet prices images are painted without sole focus on erotic impact. Price states, “we are all sexual beings. To completely remove that aspect would be dishonest”(2011).

“To be naked is to be oneself” (Berger as cited in Nead, 1987), Prices is concerned with what changes a work from “the naked” to “the nude” (Stringer and Price, 2011). A long running feature in Price’s works is that she paints the woman with red nail polish on her feet. In Price questions, whether this brings the work from “the nude” to the sexualised “naked”, as historically placing a necklace on a woman changes it to “naked”. Historical text “The Nude” by Kenneth Clark defines the difference between the nude and the naked by “the naked” breaking traditional pictorial conventions. “Sleeping with peaches” hovers in a place where there is only the presence of the female who does not conform to the passive/active role. One would argue that the passive female is absent in these artworks; that there is only female. The paintings by Price characteristically talk about female experiences, they do not ask the viewer to “masculinise” themselves to gain any sort of viewing pleasure from these works and therefore have a complete lack of the “active male”. The contextual inspiration for her work comes from her own life; a life of disordered eating habits. Personal experience plays a role in how we perceive the female figure. (Betterton 1987) and these works talk of a female experience without placing any sort of masculine or male element into the works.

An attempt is made in Studlar’s book to further elaborate ideas of the passive female/active male by implying it is possible for female to take a “male” role; “a transvestite mindset”. Why is it not possible for a female to retain her womanhood while still viewing the sexual female? Or males to retain masculinity while not sexualizing the female? There is an at attempt an explanation in “After visual pleasures” (1989) yet it falls short. The manner by which Mulvey talks concerning the way the female views the female is only possible when masochistic. When the female is gaining pleasure from viewing outside her gender role. An issue with Freud is that he proposed “inherent bisexuality of all humans” but does not allow for the possibility of man’s envy of woman and womb, but solely of male castration anxiety. Freud does not account for the capacity for both genders to want for the opposite sex. There is possibility for both genders to move beyond castration anxiety to want or envy the other, too become them (Studlar 1988).

Fig 3. Jenny Saville, Passage, 2004, Oil on canvas, 336 x 290 cm

Jenny Saville’s works questions the feminist view of societies apprehensions and disgust of the fat body. Her artworks address this by negating traditions of visual pleasure and un-pleasure by creating paintings that address the depiction of the female form when the figure fails to reach acceptable, “normalised” aesthetics of beauty. These grotesque depictions explore complexity in repulsion, arguably these works fail to present “passive female”; the large and fleshy paintings are in your face. As with Lee Price’s paintings, Saville’s also negates the “active male” from her works. Mulvey quotes Freudian theories on the castration anxiety that causes men to “take woman as objects” and yet in the Passage, castration anxiety cannot be easily applied; the painting is of a transgender woman. The composition of the painting from its low angle directs the viewer’s eyes to travel upwards, to identify the phallus and move further up to read the breasts, the female curve of hips and femininity of the face. “Thus the woman as icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men, the active controllers of the look, always threatens to evoke the anxiety it originally signified” (Mulvey 2003, p.987) Saville’s work “Passage” question gender and gender roles. There is simply no one gender or the other and trying to cut down the spectator experience, as Mulvey does into categories is over simplifying the entire experience.

Fig. 4, Jenny Saville, Propped, 1993, oil on canvas, 213.5 x 183 cm

The essay “Jenny Saville and a Feminist Aesthetics of Disgust” by Michelle Meagher discusses how Saville’s works interrogates The Gaze (a function by either gender). “Prop” is a painting by Saville’s that negate the scopophilia pleasure by inducing aspects of disgust into the imagery; these are not about traditional viewing pleasures. “Propped” depicts a large woman perched on a high stool. The woman looks directed at the viewer, with a expression indistinguishable from distress or lust. She clutches at her thighs, across a mirror surface the text “‘If we continue to speak in this sameness — speak as men have spoken for centuries, we will fail each other again . . .’ appears (Graham-Dixon 1994). The woman in propped is naked short of a white pair of shoes, which like price’s work. Questions whether this is a nude painting or a naked painting. Laura Mulvey’s essay uses Freudian theories to outline the way in which the scopophilic gaze effects the production of the works; pleasure from the objectification of people (Mulvey 2003, p.984). We are starkly reminded of these paintings’ likeness to reality while also disconnected from that by their painterly nature. The large, impasto brush strokes portrays a fleshy, authentic tactility. Meagher’s essay argues that Jenny Saville is reclaiming the “immediate” objectification and sexualisation of the “disgusting” body.

“Firstly, what does it mean to look from a woman’s point of view? And, secondly, how do women appear in images made by women?” (Betterton 1987). In Betterton’s essay, the quote “how do women look? reflects the main argument for this essay. Both artists use techniques characteristic of Monet’s “Olympia” they are reclaiming the gaze, controlling the look. Price characteristically works within two visual dialogues, one when the figure does not know they are being viewed and the second when the figure is making direct eye contact. The two works by Saville, both address the viewer. Making eye contact and daring them. In “Sleeping with peaches” the work shows more negative emotions at her actions, you are alone with her regret. In “Jelly Donut” the figure’s eye contact allows her to accept her actions. In “Propped” the large woman is acknowledging the spectator, not allowing the illusion of voyeuristic “peeping tom”. Too look at her you must see her as more than an objectified body.

There is considerable merit to the critique of Mulvey’s Essay. Price’s work integrates the immediate responses to adopt scopophilic pleasure when presented with partially naked or the nude female. While her work allows for the depiction of attractive females, it does not present them in a way so as to objectify them. Her paintings create space for the existence of a female spectator. Saville’s paintings question gender, assumptions about the kinds of bodies that are pleasurable to view and our repulsion towards what we perceive as disgusting. Mulvey’s argument relies too heavily on Freudian theories. She fails to give any account of female spectatorship and while it is important to talk about the patriarchal effects of the male gaze, she has abandoned any real explanations of ways in which the female can be viewed that doesn’t roundhouse back to being about the male. Betterton explains that there is value to the way a female spectator views the female that is individual and not just effected by the masculinisation of the spectator role.

Reference List

Betterton, R. 1987, How do women look? (in) Betterton, Rosemary.: Looking on : images of femininity in the visual arts and media, Pandora, London

Doane, MA 1982, Film and the Masquerade: Theorising the female spectator, (in) Thomas .S, 2004, Hollywood: Cultural dimensions: ideology, identity and cultural industry studies, Vol IV, Cultural dimensions: Ideology, Identity and cultural industry studies, P 64- 110, Routledge, London

Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. Lecture 33: Femininity. Standard Edition, v. 22. pp. 136–157.

Graham-Dixon, A 1994, She ain’t heavy, she’s my sister: Andrew Graham-Dixon reviews Jenny Saville at the Saatchi, Independent, assesed at: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art, Viewed on 11/6/2017

Nead, L. 1992, The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity and Sexuality, Chp 2 “A Discourse on the Naked and the Nude”, P 12–16, Routledge, London

Meagher, M. 2003, Jenny Saville and a Feminist Aesthetics of Disgust, Vol. 18, №4. Hypatia: Journal of Feminist Philosophy, Indiana University

Mulvey, L. 2003, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (in) Harrison, Charles, Wood, Paul.: Art in theory, 1900–2000 : an anthology of changing ideas, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA

Mulvey, L. c1989, Afterthoughts on Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (in) Mulvey, Laura.: Visual and other pleasures, Indiana University Press, Bloomington

Studlar, G. 1988, Masochism and Visual pleasure: the link to pre-oedipal development (In)

In the realm of pleasure; Von Stenberg, Dietrich and the masochistic aesthetic, Morningside, Columbia University press, New York

Stringer H.S and Price L. 2011, Sleeping with Peaches: And Interview with Painter Lee Price, The Other Journal, The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, Assesed at: https://theotherjournal.com, Viewed on: 17/5/2017

Image List

Figure 1. Lee Price, Jelly Doughnuts, oil on linen, 40 x 64inch

http://www.leepricestudio.com/recent-1/

Figure. 2 Lee Price, sleeping with peaches, 2011, oil on Linen, 56 x 81 inch

https://theartstack.com/artist/lee-price/sleeping-peaches-bef

Figure. 3. Jenny Saville, Passage, 2004, Oil on canvas, 336 x 290 cm

Assesed at: http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/jenny_saville_passage.htm

Figure. 4. Jenny Saville, Propped, 1993, oil on canvas, 213.5 x 183 cm

Assesed at: http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/jenny_saville_11.htm

Connor Kalen Silk
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade