Giving Laura Mulvey Her Due

Jezebel linked to Stanley Fish's NYT Opinion piece about Kim Novak asking "Does Kim Novak get ignored by film critics because she was "the object of voyeuristic male gaze" in the '50s?" I clicked through thinking that Fish's piece was going to be some kind of reclaiming of Novak, lauding her as an actress in her own right and not just a pretty face steered around by powerful directors. (And in answer to Jezebel's question: Kim Novak is hardly ignored by film theory and criticism and when she is discussed, its usually only in the context of the male gaze. Please, Ladies.)

Fish's Op Ed "Giving Kim Novak Her Due" is a pretty tribute to a beautiful actress, a star who put up with more than her fair share of bullying through her career at the hands of Hitchcock, Preminger, Wilder, some of Hollywood's most famous auteurs. I agree that in the company of cinematic authors of that caliber, history never quite includes Novak as a driving force in the landmark films in which she stars. Nevertheless, upon finishing Fish's article I am left with but one screaming, rage-filled thought: "Holy crap! Did I just read an article about Kim Novak and the male gaze written in two-thousand-and-freaking-eight with not one single mention of Laura Mulvey?????" I mean, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema is such a primary text in Film Theory (not just Feminist Film Theory), I resist even summarizing it in a blog. However, I know that one person's seminal text is another's petty diversion, as academic fields and interests vary. (This exemption does not apply to the NYT, however.) In a nutshell, Mulvey uses psychoanalytic theory (Freud, Lacan) to equate the camera's view with the desirous male gaze, consequently the cinematic spectator's gaze becomes aligned with the male gaze. I'm a little to riled up right now to really discuss it in full, maybe later when I've taken the rage down a few notches I'll have a more thoughtful analysis of Mulvey v. Fish. Nevertheless, Fish's summation "[Novak] was something that has gone out of fashion and even become suspect in an era of feminist strictures: she was the object of a voyeuristic male gaze..." both flagrantly talks around Mulvey and blames her (without naming names) for the destruction of Novak's celebrity and the type of woman she portrayed on the screen. But wasn't that entirely the point? I'm all for nostalgia but why should a woman movie goer with her wits about her be complacent in worshiping an actress as a "glittering something beheld from afar." Mulvey set out to change that for women, and in turn put spectatorship into question for all audience members who watch through the eyes of a camera lens who aren't heterosexual white and male.

image above from Masters of Media. More hilarious smartypants jokes there.

Even more fun places to watch movies!

After my last post, Kim and Mike both emailed me about some summertime funtime movie nights they frequent. Having this many options is the best and worst thing about New York in the summertime-- but what a fantastic conundrum to be in! Turns out I'll be watching several movies a week through the end of August. And most of them for free. Darn.

This Friday I'll be checking out Gandahar at the Rubin Museum, a film I can not believe somehow has evaded me all these years: French animated scifi craziness. YES. Picture to the right, is enough for me. Films at The Rubin start at 9:30 and are free with a $7 bar minimum.

And don't forget about movies under the Brooklyn Bridge on Thursday nights! On the 22nd they're showing one of my faves-- Being There. If you've never seen it, its a charming movie with Peter Sellers in one of his final roles. Bring a plastic cup if you come so I don't drink an entire bottle of wine by myself and end up too drunken and melancholy. Movies at Brooklyn Bridge Park are free and start around 8.

Things to watch in the summertime

Heathers will be closed for renovations on our usual night, so there won’t be a screening this month. Robbed of this opportunity to force people to see movies, I’d like to take a moment and really encourage people to go to a Rooftop Films movie. I’ve been volunteering for them this summer a few times a month, and as far as I know everyone I’ve coerced into coming to watch movies has really enjoyed eating chocolate* and hanging out on a nice roof watching a movie. You can check out some of the shorts they’ve shown online at IFC (but none of the ones I’ve really loved, you can look at those here and here.)

Consequently, I strongly encourage attending Song Sung Blue at Roosevelt Island on August 16, if you love Neil Diamond as much as I do (and its free!), or Flying on One Engine on August 22 if you can’t bear to leave Williamsburg and you also must have free booze. I’ll be at both these screenings helping out in whatever way I can which usually involves stacking chairs. I must note however, that both the films I’ve recommended aren’t actually showing on a roof. The roof above is the Rooftop homebase, the Old American Can Factory. Find a screening that’s happening there, in the schedule—it’s a really pleasant roof. Actually, I also feel compelled to mention that last Saturday there was a screening not on a roof-- at The Yard -- and magically these Mexican food people who are usually at the Redhook Ballfields showed up and were making incredible tacos, so if you go to a screening that’s happening there, this good fortune may befall you. Also, bring bug spray. Or find me, I’ll have some.

I Like to Watch will be back in September. Email me if you want to watch something specific.

*chocolate doesn’t come with the movie, you have to bring your own. You can also most likely sneak in your own booze, and get drunk for free after the movie.