Expert answer:Conversation Essay Prompt
Solved by verified expert:Conversation Essay PromptThe essay will present your tentative position in the conversation you are joining. You will write an essay in which you put two texts into “conversation” with each other and with the “exhibit” You will focus your discussion by organizing your essay around one or two questions that you will use to interrogate each of your texts. This is an argumentative paper—you are arguing for a particular way of understanding your group of texts. You should assume you are writing to an academic audience who may or may not have read your sources. Try to think of the texts you have selected as a conversation that you are actively entering into. Your voice will dominate the discussion, however, you do not need to use the “I” if you don’t feel it’s necessary. You must use the Mulvey text (I upload with files) “Visual Pleasure” as one of your texts. The choice of other text can be any one of the following:
Being a Man (I upload with files)
Choices of Exhibit/Case:
Ten Hours of Walking in NY as a Woman
Specs: 5 pages12 point typeDouble spaced
being_a_man.pdf
mulveyvisualpleasurenarrativecinema.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975) – Laura Mulvey
Originally Published – Screen 16.3 Autumn 1975 pp. 6-18
http://www.jahsonic.com/VPNC.html
I. Introduction A. A Political Use of Psychoanalysis
This paper intends to use psychoanalysis to discover where and how the fascination
of film is reinforced by pre-existing patterns of fascination already at work within the
individual subject and the social formations that have moulded him. It takes as
starting point the way film reflects, reveals and even plays on the straight, socially
established interpretation of sexual difference which controls images, erotic ways of
looking and spectacle. It is helpful to understand what the cinema has been, how its
magic has worked in the past, while attempting a theory and a practice which will
challenge this cinema of the past. Psychoanalytic theory is thus appropriated here as
a political weapon, demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has
structured film form.
The paradox of phallocentrism in aIl its manifestations is that it depends on the
image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world. An idea of
woman stands as lynch pin to the system: it is her lack that produces the phallus as
a symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies.
Recent writing in Screen about psychoanalysis and the cinema has not sufficiently
brought out the importance of the representation of the female form in a symbolic
order in which, in the last resort, it speaks castration and nothing else. To
summarise briefly: the function of woman in forming the patriarchal unconscious is
two-fold. She first symbolises the castration threat by her real absence of a penis,
and second thereby raises her child into the symbolic. Once this has been achieved,
her meaning in the process is at an end, it does not last into the world of law and
language except as a memory which oscillates between memory of maternal
plenitude and memory of lack. Both are posited on nature (or on anatomy in Freud’s
famous phrase). Woman’s desire is subjected to her image as bearer of the bleeding
wound, she can exist only in relation to castration and cannot transcend it. She turns
her child into the signifier of her own desire to possess a penis (the condition, she
imagines, of entry into the symbolic). Either she must gracefully give way to the
word, the Name of the Father and the Law, or else struggle to keep her child down
with her in the half-light of the imaginary. Woman then stands in patriarchal culture
as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out
his phantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the
silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of
meaning.
There is an obvious interest in this analysis for feminists, a beauty in its exact
rendering of the frustration experienced under the phallocentric order. It gets us
nearer to the roots of our oppression, it brings an articulation of the problem closer,
it faces us with the ultimate challenge: how to fight the unconscious structured like a
language (formed critically at the moment of arrival of language) while still caught
within the language of the patriarchy. There is no way in which we can produce an
alternative out of the blue, but we can begin to make a break by examining
patriarchy with the tools it provides, of which psychoanalysis is not the only but an
important one. We are still separated by a great gap from important issues for the
female unconscious which are scarcely relevant to psychoanalytic theory: the sexing
of the female infant and her relationship to the symbolic, the sexuaIly mature
woman as non-mother, maternity outside the signification of the phallus, the
vagina…. But, at this point, psychoanalytic theory as it now stands can at least
advance our understanding of the status quo, of the patriarchal order in which we
are caught.
B. Destruction of Pleasure as a Radical Weapon
As an advanced representation system, the cinema poses questions of the ways the
unconscious (formed by the dominant order) structures ways of seeing and pleasure
in looking. Cinema has changed over the last few decades. It is no longer the
monolithic system based on large capital investment exemplified at its best by
Hollywood in the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s. Technological advances (16mm, etc)
have changed the economic conditions of cinematic production, which can now be
artisanal as well as capitalist. Thus it has been possible for an alternative cinema to
develop. However self-conscious and ironic Hollywood managed to be, it always
restricted itself to a formal mise-en-scene reflecting the dominant ideological concept
of the cinema. The alternative cinema provides a space for a cinema to be born
which is radical in both a political and an aesthetic sense and challenges the basic
assumptions of the mainstream film. This is not to reject the latter moralistically, but
to highlight the ways in which its formal preoccupations reflect the psychical
obsessions of the society which produced it, and, further, to stress that the
alternative cinema must start specifically by reacting against these obsessions and
assumptions. A politically and aesthetically avant-garde cinema is now possible, but
it can still only exist as a counterpoint.
The magic of the Hollywood style at its best (and of all the cinema which fell within
its sphere of influence) arose, not exclusively, but in one important aspect, from its
skilled and satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure. Unchallenged, mainstream film
coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order. In the highly
developed Hollywood cinema it was only through these codes that the alienated
subject, torn in his imaginary memory by a sense of loss, by the terror of potential
lack in phantasy, came near to finding a glimpse of satisfaction: through its formal
beauty and its play on his own formative obsessions.
This article will discuss the interweaving of that erotic pleasure in film, its meaning,
and in particular the central place of the image of woman. It is said that analysing
pleasure, or beauty, destroys it. That is the intention of this article. The satisfaction
and reinforcement of the ego that represent the high point of film history hitherto
must be attacked. Not in favour of a reconstructed new pleasure, which cannot exist
in the abstract, nor of intellectualised unpleasure, but to make way for a total
negation of the ease and plenitude of the narrative fiction film. The alternative is the
thrill that comes from leaving the past behind without rejecting it, transcending
outworn or oppressive forms, or daring to break with normal pleasurable
expectations in order to conceive a new language of desire.
II. Pleasure in Looking/Fascination with the Human Form
A. The cinema offers a number of possible pleasures. One is scopophilia. There are
circumstances in which looking itself is a source of pleasure, just as, in the reverse
formation, there is pleasure in being looked at. Originally. in his Three Essays on
Sexuality, Freud isolated scopophilia as one of the component instincts of sexuality
which exist as drives quite independently of the erotogenic zones. At this point he
associated scopophilia with taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a
controlling and curious gaze. His particular examples center around the voyeuristic
activities of children, their desire to see and make sure of the private and the
forbidden (curiosity about other people’s genital and bodily functions, about the
presence or absence of the penis and, retrospectively, about the primal scene). In
this analysis scopophilia is essentially active. (Later, in Instincts and their
Vicissitudes, Freud developed his theory of scopophilia further, attaching it initially to
pre-genital auto-eroticism, after which the pleasure of the look is transferred to
others by analogy. There is a close working here of the relationship between the
active instinct and its further development in a narcissistic form.) Although the
instinct is modified by other factors, in particular the constitution of the ego, it
continues to exist as the erotic basis for pleasure in looking at another person as
object. At the extreme, it can become fixated into a perversion, producing obsessive
voyeurs and Peeping Toms, whose only sexual satisfaction can come from watching,
in an active controlling sense, an objectified other.
At first glance, the cinema would seem to be remote from the undercover world of
the surreptitious observation of an unknowing and unwilling victim. What is seen of
the screen is so manifestly shown. But the mass of mainstream film, and the
conventions within which it has consciously evolved, portray a hermetically sealed
world which unwinds magically, indifferent to the presence of the audience,
producing for them a sense of separation and playing on their voyeuristic phantasy.
Moreover, the extreme contrast between the darkness in the auditorium (which also
isolates the spectators from one another) and the brilliance of the shifting patterns of
light and shade on the screen helps to promote the illusion of voyeuristic separation.
Although the fiIm is really being shown, is there to be seen, conditions of screening
and narrative conventions give the spectator an illusion of looking in on a private
world. Among other things, the position of the spectators in the cinema is blatantIy
one of repression of their exhibitionism and projection of the repressed desire on to
the performer.
B. The cinema satifies a primordial wish for pleasurable looking, but it also goes
further, developing scopophilia in its narcissistic aspect. The conventions of
mainstream film focus attention on the human form. Scale, space, stories are all
anthropomorphic. Here, curiosity and the wish to look intermingIe with a fascination
with likeness and recognition: the human face, the human body, the relationship
between the human form and its surroundings, the visible presence of the person in
the world. Jacques Lacan has described how the moment when a child recognises its
own image in the mirror is crucial for rhe constitution of the ego. Several aspects of
this analysis are relevant here. The mirror phase occurs at a time when the child’s
physical ambitions outstrip his motor capacity, with the result that his recognition of
himself is joyous in that he imagines his mirror image to be more complete, more
perfect than he experiences his own body. Recognition is thus overlaid with
misrecognition: the image recognised is conceived as the reflected body of the self,
but its misrecognition as superior projects this body outside itself as an ideal ego,
the alienated subject. which, re-introjected as an ego ideal, gives rise to the future
generation of identification with others. This mirror-moment predates language for
the child.
Important for this article is the fact that it is an image that constitutes the matrix of
the imaginary, of recognition/misrecognition and identification, and hence of the first
articulation of the ‘I’ of subjectivity. This is a moment when an older fascination with
looking (at the mother’s face, for an obvious example) collides with the initial
inklings of self-awareness. Hence it is the birth of the long love affair/despair
between image and self-image which has found such intensity of expression in film
and such joyous recognition in the cinema audience. Ouite apart from the extraneous
similarities between screen and mirror (the framing of the human form in its
surroundings, for instance), the cinema has structures of fascination strong enough
to allow temporary loss of ego while simultaneously reinforcing the ego. The sense of
forgetting the world as the ego has subsequently come to perceive it (I forgot who I
am and where I was) is nostagicallyreminiscent of that pre-subjective moment of
image recognition. At the same time the cinema has distinguished itself in the production of ego ideals as expressed in particular in the star system, the stars
centering both screen presence and screen story as they act out a complex process
of likeness and difference (the glamorous impersonates the ordinary).
C. Sections II. A and B have set out two contradictory aspects of the pleasurable
structures of looking in the conventional cinematic situation. The first, scopophilic,
arises from pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation
through sight. The second, developed through narcissism and the constitution of the
ego, comes from identification with the image seen. Thus, in film terms, one implies
a separation of the erotic identity of the subject from the object on the screen (active
scopophilia), the other demands identification of the ego with the object on the
screen through the spectator’s fascination with and recognition of his like. The first is
a function of the sexual instincts, the second of ego libido. This dichotomy was
crucial for Freud. AIthough he saw the two as interacting and overIaying each other,
the tension between instinctual drives and self-preservation continues to be a
dramatic polarisation in terms of pleasure. Both are formative structures,
mechanisms not meaning. In themselves they have no signification, they have to be
attached to an idealisation. Both pursue aims in indifference to perceptual reality,
creating the imagised, eroticised concept of the world that forms the perception of
the subject and makes a mockery of empirical objectivity. During its history, the
cinema seems to have evolved a particularillusion of reality in which this
contradiction between libido and ego has found a beautifully complementary
phantasy world. In reality the phantasy world of the screen is subject to the law
which produces it. Sexual instincts and identification processes have a meaning
within the symbolic order which articulates desire. Desire, born with language, allows
the possibility of transcending the instinctual and the imaginary, but its point of
reference continually returns to the traumatic moment of irs birth: the castration
complex. Hence the look, pleasurable in form, can be threatening in content, and it is
woman as representation/image that crystallises this paradox.
III. Woman as Image, Man as Bearer of the Look
A. In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split
between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its
phantasy on to the female form which is styled accordingly. In their traditional
exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their
appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to
connote to-be-looked-at-ness. Woman displayed as sexual object is the leit-motif of
erotic spectacle: from pin-ups to striptease, from Ziegfeld to Busby Berkeley, she
holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire. Mainstream film neatly combined
spectacie and narrative. (Note, however, how the musical song-and-dance numbers
break the flow of the diegesis.) 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. This alien presence then has to be integrated into cohesion with the
narrative. As Budd Boetticher has put it:
“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.”
(A recent tendency in narrative film has been to dispense with this problem
altogether; hence the development of what Molly Haskell has called the ‘buddy
movie,’ in which the active homosexual eroticism of the central male figures can
carry the story without distraction.) Traditionally, the woman displayed has
functioned on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story,
and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium, with a shifting tension
between the looks on either side of the screen. For instance, the device of the showgirl allows the two looks to be unified technically without any apparent break in the
diegesis. A woman performs within the narrative, the gaze of the spectator and that
of the male characters in the film are neatly combined without breaking narrative
verisimilitude. For a moment the sexual impact of the performing woman takes the
film into a no-man’s-land outside its own time and space. Thus Marilyn Monroe’s first
appearance in The River of No Return and Lauren Bacall’s songs in To Have or Have
Not. Similarly, conventional close-ups of legs (Dietrich, for instance) or a face
(Garbo) integrate into the narrative a different mode of eroticism. One part of a
fragmented body destroys the Renaissance space, the illusion of depth demanded by
the narrative, it gives flatness, the quality of a cut-out or icon rather than
verisimiIitude to the screen.
B. An active/passive heterosexual division of labor has similarly controlled narrative
structure. According to the principles of the ruling ideology and the psychical
structures that back it up, the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual
objectification. Man is reluctant to gaze at his exhibitionist like. Hence the split
between spectacle and narrative supports the man’s role as the active one of
forwarding the story, making things happen. The man controls the film phantasy and
also emerges as the representative of power in a further sense: as the bearer of the
look of the spectator, transferring it behind the screen to neutralise the extradiegetic tendencies represented by woman as spectacle. This is made possible
through the processes set in motion by structuring the film around a main controlling
figure with whom the spectator can identify. As the spectator identifies with the main
male protagonist, he projects his look on to that of his like, his screen surrogate, so
that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the
active power of the erotic look, both giving a satisfying sense of omnipotence. A
male movie star’s glamorous characteristics are thus not those of the erotic object of
the gaze, but those of the more perfect, more complete, more powerful ideal ego
conceived in the original moment of recognition in front of the mirror. The character
in the story can make things happen and control events better than the
subject/spectator, just as the image in the mirror was more in control of motor
coordination. In contrast to woman as icon, the active male figure (the ego ideal of
the identification process) demands a three-dimensional space corresponding to that
of the mirror-recognition in which the alienated subject internalised his own
representation of this imaginary existence. He is a figure in a landscape. Here the
function of film is to reproduce as accurately as possible the so-called natural
conditions of human perception. Camera technology (as exempified by deep focus in
particular) and camera movements (determined by the action of the protagonist),
combined with invisible editing (demanded by realism) all tend to blur the limits of
screen space. The male protagonist is free to command the stage, a stage of spatial
illusion in which he articulates the look and creates the action.
C.1 Sections III, A and B have set out a tension between a mode of representation
of woman in film and conventions surrounding the diegesis. Each is associated with a
look: that of the spectator in direct scopophilic contact with the female form
displayed for his enjoyment (connoting male phantasy) and that of the spectator
fascinated with the image of his like set in an illusion of natural space, and through
him …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades