I agree with some of your points, Ella, but I do think you’re being unfair to Laura M. on a number of levels. First, just after you berate somebody for getting the date of VIRGIN SUICIDES wrong, you get the TITLE of Mulvey’s essay wrong: it’s not “Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema”, there’s no ‘the’ in it. Second, she wasn’t really an ‘academic’ at all when she wrote it (drafted in ‘73, published in ‘75); more like a still-young freelance writer and budding filmmaker (she co-made her first film with then-husband Peter Wollen in ‘74). It was only later that she became a well-established academic figure (and figurehead). Third, not long after writing it, she began publishing a long line of ‘afterthoughts’, revisions, reconceptualisations of her piece – taking in exactly some of the points you make. In some ways, the fame of that early essay has functioned as a curse on her, and her unceasing intellectual & creative evolution. Her DEATH 24x A SECOND and AFTERIMAGES are both fascinating and far-reaching books that I recommend to anyone. Shafting her for ‘putting womankind back 50 years’ is unkind and ignores her larger contribution to ideas about cinema.
Your argument has the force of cinema history behind it. Yes, the role of women should be clear, though there are many fluctuations through the decades. And, within the outlines of your riposte, endless more detail can be mined. E.g., you are spot-on with highlighting Cukor's The Women. Of course, it was written by three women. The original playwright behind it was Clare Boothe-Luce, herself politically conservative (an active Republican) and conceiver of Life magazine, then published by her husband. Also involved, Anita Loos, perhaps the most salient 'literary' Hollywood female screenwriter: 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'.
Pre-Hays Code period, in the early-1930s, represents a fascinating treasure-trove or material for a massive thesis on how women were portrayed. The films -- and the whole career trajectory -- of Barbara Stanwyck are a great illustration. Also, Ida Lupino, luminous Brit expat, not only as actor, but later as leading director and producer. Hollywood Indie figurehead at a time when the major studio system still held sway. She needs to be reckoned with in any account of women in film history.
This makes me very happy. Laura was my tutor in the 80s, and she was a lot of fun.
I wrote a first year essay making some of the same points as here (particularly how the examples tend to subvert the structure she's describing).
I taught film later and always enjoyed breaking down the Great Essay with contextualising accounts and analysis.
As has been pointed out, this was a very youthful work, and Laura was not a film historian by any means. I think she was quite frustrated to be constantly discussed as the author of this one piece, when most people were oblivious to her other works.
The core of Visual Pleasure is a fascinating idea, which teachers can use to open discussions with students on a range of topics.
Sadly that's not how it tends to be used, and it gets cited in some very lazy writing. This article is a happy exception.
Bad theory has a grip on the throat of the humanities. My daughter’s History of Art course is piped exclusively through three theoretical funnels — gender, race and colonialism — as though nothing else existed in the world and with scant attention to the ‘priors of the medium’ (media in her case). The wearisome victim bingo of ‘intersectionality’. Coppola fetishised by the likes of ID because she’s also a celebrity to lionise (their wheelhouse). ‘Male gaze’ ‘female gaze’ film is always about looking and to some degree lusting — ‘put the light where the money is’ — on Bergman, or Hepburn or Taylor… Shout out to Salka Viertel, pal of Garbo about whom I am writing a movie now. Congrats on the New Statesman gig — reason enough to subscribe to that organ.
I totally agree when you say "scientific method has fled the humanities." It's something I always want to stay aware of in my own research. I want to back up my observations about people or emotions with citations from grounded, up-to-date writing from psychology/psychiatry, etc.
I’m not entirely opposed to critiques of “male gaze” imagery and messaging, but such critiques need to be balanced by awareness of the history of the art form. Essays like this are an essential part of the conversation. I like Sofia Coppola’s work, but I’m going to continue to enjoy Sternberg’s work too. It doesn’t make sense to me to value political messaging over aesthetics when you’re evaluating art, but people who care more about politics than art are free to do that. There are legitimate reasons to choose such a position, and I don’t fault people for that choice. But I do wish people wouldn’t pretend it’s a substitute for serious evaluation.
I agree with some of your points, Ella, but I do think you’re being unfair to Laura M. on a number of levels. First, just after you berate somebody for getting the date of VIRGIN SUICIDES wrong, you get the TITLE of Mulvey’s essay wrong: it’s not “Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema”, there’s no ‘the’ in it. Second, she wasn’t really an ‘academic’ at all when she wrote it (drafted in ‘73, published in ‘75); more like a still-young freelance writer and budding filmmaker (she co-made her first film with then-husband Peter Wollen in ‘74). It was only later that she became a well-established academic figure (and figurehead). Third, not long after writing it, she began publishing a long line of ‘afterthoughts’, revisions, reconceptualisations of her piece – taking in exactly some of the points you make. In some ways, the fame of that early essay has functioned as a curse on her, and her unceasing intellectual & creative evolution. Her DEATH 24x A SECOND and AFTERIMAGES are both fascinating and far-reaching books that I recommend to anyone. Shafting her for ‘putting womankind back 50 years’ is unkind and ignores her larger contribution to ideas about cinema.
Your argument has the force of cinema history behind it. Yes, the role of women should be clear, though there are many fluctuations through the decades. And, within the outlines of your riposte, endless more detail can be mined. E.g., you are spot-on with highlighting Cukor's The Women. Of course, it was written by three women. The original playwright behind it was Clare Boothe-Luce, herself politically conservative (an active Republican) and conceiver of Life magazine, then published by her husband. Also involved, Anita Loos, perhaps the most salient 'literary' Hollywood female screenwriter: 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'.
Pre-Hays Code period, in the early-1930s, represents a fascinating treasure-trove or material for a massive thesis on how women were portrayed. The films -- and the whole career trajectory -- of Barbara Stanwyck are a great illustration. Also, Ida Lupino, luminous Brit expat, not only as actor, but later as leading director and producer. Hollywood Indie figurehead at a time when the major studio system still held sway. She needs to be reckoned with in any account of women in film history.
This makes me very happy. Laura was my tutor in the 80s, and she was a lot of fun.
I wrote a first year essay making some of the same points as here (particularly how the examples tend to subvert the structure she's describing).
I taught film later and always enjoyed breaking down the Great Essay with contextualising accounts and analysis.
As has been pointed out, this was a very youthful work, and Laura was not a film historian by any means. I think she was quite frustrated to be constantly discussed as the author of this one piece, when most people were oblivious to her other works.
The core of Visual Pleasure is a fascinating idea, which teachers can use to open discussions with students on a range of topics.
Sadly that's not how it tends to be used, and it gets cited in some very lazy writing. This article is a happy exception.
Bad theory has a grip on the throat of the humanities. My daughter’s History of Art course is piped exclusively through three theoretical funnels — gender, race and colonialism — as though nothing else existed in the world and with scant attention to the ‘priors of the medium’ (media in her case). The wearisome victim bingo of ‘intersectionality’. Coppola fetishised by the likes of ID because she’s also a celebrity to lionise (their wheelhouse). ‘Male gaze’ ‘female gaze’ film is always about looking and to some degree lusting — ‘put the light where the money is’ — on Bergman, or Hepburn or Taylor… Shout out to Salka Viertel, pal of Garbo about whom I am writing a movie now. Congrats on the New Statesman gig — reason enough to subscribe to that organ.
I totally agree when you say "scientific method has fled the humanities." It's something I always want to stay aware of in my own research. I want to back up my observations about people or emotions with citations from grounded, up-to-date writing from psychology/psychiatry, etc.
I’m not entirely opposed to critiques of “male gaze” imagery and messaging, but such critiques need to be balanced by awareness of the history of the art form. Essays like this are an essential part of the conversation. I like Sofia Coppola’s work, but I’m going to continue to enjoy Sternberg’s work too. It doesn’t make sense to me to value political messaging over aesthetics when you’re evaluating art, but people who care more about politics than art are free to do that. There are legitimate reasons to choose such a position, and I don’t fault people for that choice. But I do wish people wouldn’t pretend it’s a substitute for serious evaluation.