https://soundcloud.com/user911553879/oscars1 https://soundcloud.com/user911553879/oscars2 https://soundcloud.com/user911553879/oscar3

The past few weeks have been crazy so instead of uploading reviews for now I will upload pictures I have drawn that re still film related

 For my first post I wanted to do something different I am posting a film analysis instead of an actual review next week will begin the actual review process. 

Some critics, like Tania Modleski, consider Alfred Hitchcock to be a misogynist. While that may not be entirely true many of Hitchcock’s characters are. Two examples of misogynists are L.B. Jefferies from Rear Window (1954), and Scottie Ferguson from Vertigo (1958). The reason both of these men share a negative outlook on women is because they suffer from the Freudian disease scopophilia. The disease is closely associated with the term, “peeping Tom” because those who suffer from it get pleasure not from human interaction but simply from watching others. Meaning that the men see their female counter parts not as people but as objects that they want to control. Scopophilia can be broken down into two subsections, voyeurism and fetishism. That is important because Jefferies has a tendency to be more voyeuristic, while Scottie tends to be driven by the fetish portion of the disease. What is more astounding is how Hitchcock gets his audience to suffer from scopohilia; he achieves this by implementing the technique of gaze-object-gaze. This technique helps the audience member to identify with Jefferies and Scottie but at the same time makes the audience member just as voyeuristically invested. Hitchcock through the technique of gaze-object-gaze and the characters Jeff and Scottie tries to show his audience that in the film world men with deficiencies need to compensate by controlling their women.

 Laura Mulvey’s, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative,” argues that the cinema deals with two Freudian theories, voyeurism and fetishism. Both theories help suggest that, in the cinema, there are gender roles that are assigned; men are suppose to be the domineering players. Men however are only dominant because the women represent a threat. To ensure dominance, the theories of voyeurism and fetishism come into play because both help to demean the woman by putting them in subordinate role. There is a vast difference between voyeurism and fetishism. Voyeurism is based on two aspects, the first being scopophilia, which means pleasure in looking; so there is a certain peeping Tom esc quality about it. Mulvey states, “although the instinct is modified by other factors, in particular the constitution of ego, it continues to exist as the erotic basis for pleasure in looking at another person as an object” (page 17).  The other aspect behind voyeurism is the quality of narcissism, which is contradictory to the scopophilia aspect because one sees a person subjectively not objectively. When one looks at another in a narcissistic way one is looking for qualities in another to identify with. The narcissistic aspect of voyeurism does not necessarily have to do with male dominance but just with people being able to identify themselves with another. Voyeurisms two aspects help easily explained by Mulvey who says, “The first, scopophilia, 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 image seen” (page 18).

The clearest example of a character that suffers from voyeurism is L.B. Jefferies from Rear Window. As mentioned before people who suffer from voyeuristic tendencies have the desire to watch others; Jefferies is established to be a photographer and throughout the film is literally looking out his window-spying neighbors. However noble the cause is in the film Jefferies voyeurism makes him a misogynist. This is made evident through his constant mistreatment of his girl friend Lisa. The audience is given a glimpse as to how Jefferies feels Lisa within their first interaction; Jefferies is sleeping in his wheelchair, then Lisa enters his apartment and goes over to kiss him. Once they kiss Jefferies asks whom it was that was kissing him. This may have been a joke, but it implies to the audience that Jefferies has very little respect for Lisa. The question then should be why would Jefferies fall for Lisa? The answer is through her profession. Lisa is a model and as established Jefferies is a voyeur. This means that Jefferies likes to look at Lisa, but does not like her as a person. To Jefferies Lisa is just the epitome of a spoiled upper class woman; while he is a man ready for anything. The issue here is through Jefferies’ voyeurism he has a narcissistic attitude. This is made perfectly clear when Jefferies is explaining to Lisa his life style and how only a select few could handle it.

Jefferies’ feelings for Lisa turn from contemptuous too more caring as the film progresses. This happens when she becomes more adamant to help Jefferies solve the murder. The biggest change in Jefferies and Lisa’s relationship comes when Lisa sneaks over to Thorvald’s apartment to get evidence. Robin Wood in his novel, Hitchcock’s Films Revisited, mentions this important scene, “it is the turning point in their relationship. He comes to respect her for the courage and initiative (virtues he can appreciate) which he didn’t know she possessed (and she does it, obviously, to demonstrate these to him, to make him see, not from any abstract desire for justice)” (104). Jefferies’ feelings for Lisa may change for a new found respect for her, but the real reason is for the first time Jefferies can voyeuristically look at her. Hitchcock proves through the technique of gaze-object-gaze; for through this technique the audience sees Jefferies’ face light up as he and the audience cut to watching Lisa in Thorvald’s apartment. From that moment on the audience and Jefferies can see a happy ending for the couple. This feeling may be premature because at the end Lisa is seen putting down an environmental magazine for a fashion one. This could mean that Lisa has not really changed and Jefferies hopes that she did are not true.

Fetishism and voyeurism are similar because they are both have to do with attraction through looking, but they are vastly different because fetishism focuses on women not as individuals. Fetishism is divided into two subcategories the first of which is the male gaze over a woman. According to Mulvey the male gaze, “… projects its fantasy onto the female figure, 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 they can be connoted to-be-look-at-ness” (19).  Hence the woman is not an individual anymore but an object for men to look at and become aroused by. In most cases; as the story progresses the woman then falls in love with the leading male, the woman then loses her own identity and becomes what the leading male wants the woman to be. Simply saying that the man does not see the woman as an individual is an individual is an understatement because to get the arousal that the man desires he sees only pieces of the woman like as is depicted through Scottie’s desire for the character Judy to have the same look as Madeleine. But looking like Madeleine turns out to mean down to the exact shoe color. Mulvey’s paper incorporates what Scottie was doing because it is one of the basic rules of fetishism, “…fetishistic scopophilia, builds up the physical beauty of the object, transforming it into something satisfying in itself” (21).  The fetishistic theory is a more male dominating theory because everything the woman does is based around what the male finds arousing.

Scottie, from Vertigo, suffers from fetishism, especially during the second act of the film. After Madeleine suffers her untimely demise Scottie is lost and continues to wander around San Francisco. His reason for doing so is most likely an attempt to feel close to Madeleine. While wandering, Scottie runs into a woman named Judy who slightly resembles Madeleine, of course it is later revealed that Judy was actually hired to become Madeleine’s double. However, through Scottie’s relationship with Judy one can clearly see Scottie replace his voyeuristic mindset with a fetishistic one. One can also see that he takes on a more misogynist role. After discovering how similar Judy and Madeline are, Scottie takes it upon himself to change Judy in every aspect so that she looks identical to Madeleine; this is seen when Scottie buys Judy a suit that had to be exactly like Madeleine’s. It is seen again through Scottie’s preciseness to the shoes, eyebrows, and hair Judy must wear.

Judy constantly questions why she has to change, but Scottie continues to say, “what difference could it possibly make to you?” Mulvey claims that the reason the lead lady goes along with this is because, “she is glamorous, on display, sexualized. But as the narrative progresses she falls in love with the main male protagonist and becomes his property, losing her outward glamorous characteristics, her generalized sexuality, her show girl connotations; her eroticism is subjected to the male star alone” (21). So the female changes because the story tells her she must, along with the fact that she wants to please her man; the second reason is most likely due to the fact Judy loves Scottie and wants to please him.  Scottie’s fetish is complete when Judy come out of the bathroom wearing the perfect suite, shoes, eyebrows, and hair; this is seen through Hitchcock implementing the technique of gaze-object-gaze because when se walks out of the bathroom the audience and Scottie see Madeleine resurrected. The camera captures Judy the same way it captured Madeleine the first time the audience met her in the restaurant. The completion of Scottie’s vision was also shown through Scottie’s ability to now kiss and hold Judy. The only issue that Scottie face is that he can capture the outside beauty of Madeleine, but he cannot capture Madeleine’s personality, which Scottie was voyeuristically attached to.

It has been established that through voyeurism and fetishism the leading male characters can be considered misogynists. This is ironic though because both Jefferies and Scottie have both male and female qualities about them. A clear example of their femininity is their dependence on other people due to a disability. In most films if a male has a disability it means they are not a full man. This is seen in several of Hitchcock’s works like the 39 Steps (1935); where the antagonist was missing a finger. It is also seen in other filmmaker’s films like Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971) or Barry Lyndon (1975). In both those films there are men in wheel chairs, which symbolizes their inability to protect their wives. In the case of Jefferies and Scottie their disabilities leads to them being dependent on others, which subsequently makes them less male; because they are less dominant. Jefferies has a broken foot and Scottie suffers from acrophobia. These disabilities force them to be reliant on other people. In Jefferies case he is reliant on his nurse Stella and Lisa. Scottie is reliant on his ex-fiancée Midge. Making the lead characters reliant on others is also making the audience reliant on the other characters. Hitchcock through the technique of gaze-object-gaze makes his audience dependent on Jefferies and Scottie; the audience sees what they see. Therefore by making the audience dependent on the men we are reliant on their female counterparts as well.

Though Jefferies has other feminine qualities about him Scottie is more of a feminine character as a whole. Jefferies is more of a misogynist; he believes he knows women just from looking at them like miss Lonleyhearts or miss Torso. Scottie resembles a woman mainly because he can relate to one so well; he has multiple names, he wears a corset, and he wanders; like Madeleine. Scottie’s voyeuristic relationship with Madeleine came from the fact that he could relate to her so well. That is why his gender role is in question because he is a male but at the same time relates so well to women. The reason it says women and not woman is because Scottie is also able to relate to Midge. It is ironic that Scottie would have such a negative outlook on women and still be able to connect with them. Scottie’s true misogynist way of thinking does not come until the last scene of the film when he is forcing Judy up the stairs. During this sequence the audience is in shock of how dark Scottie has become. The reason Scotties emotions got the best of him at the end was because he tried to control Judy, but he was not able to control her as well as the real man in the film, Elster.

            Through the Freudian disease, scopophilia Hitchcock is able shows his audience how a misogynist operates. Both Jefferies and Scottie suffer from scopophilia; though they dabble in the whole disease Jefferies is more of a voyeur and Scottie dabble more with the fetish aspect. But an audience member through these characters begins to suffer from scopophilia and ultimately become misogynistic himself or herself. Hitchcock is able to achieve this through his addition of the gaze-object-gaze technique.

Hello my name is Steven Mellina I am currently a student but and an aspiring filmmaker. Until that day I am just a self-proclaimed cinefile who loves nothing more than to sit back watch a great film and, most importantly, talk about them to any extent I can.

There are several reasons for why I am starting this blog the first I already gave you; I love talking about films. Secondly I think it is important to discuss or revaluate classic films. There are always new reviews for new films but very seldom are there new reviews for old films, which is unjust because classics should still be looked at and discussed in detail today. So as a rule I will only discuss classic films, or films that were released before the new millennium. This is not to say that classics have not come out since the year 2000, in fact a few of my favorite films have come out since then. But to keep life somewhat simplistic and rather than deal with technicalities I will just make an official cut off year. My feeling is also that critics and fans can speculate what a classic might be but it takes time to truly be considered a classic. For example Buster Keaton’s The General when it first came out in 1926 was a complete bomb critically and financially. However as time progressed it became more and more of a classic. Today it is ranked number 18 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies; aka their top 100 films. Though if you ask me he ranking is a bit too high for that film, maybe it would be a different story if it were replaced by my favorite of Buster Keaton’s work Sherlock Jr.

This blog is also a way for me to get my nerd out and to meet other film aficionados and enthusiasts. I say this because this blog will not be for people who know very little about the art of film or filmmaking. Through this blog I am combining my personal film reviews along with talking about theories. Philosophical discussions will transpire deriving from specific shot scales, themes, motifs, symbols, auteur styles, etc.

Starting this week I will begin to put up weekly reviews of films. There will not be much of a system to how I pick the films; I will just watch what I am in the mood to watch each week and write about it.

Though true classic film buffs are a niche audience I hope I can acquire some of your attention. I know that in todays world you can find reviews to practically anything online, but personally I am tired of watching wannabe classic film critics on YouTube. They all just prattle on about the same films and the same obvious remarks are made over and over again. Just because a classic is a classic does not mean everything in the film has been looked at completely. My goal is to leave no stone unturned or if I do to have you point it out to me. Like I said before I like to have conversations about film.

I have been called a movie snob by most if not all my friends. At first I took it as an insult until I realized that having high standards is nothing to be ashamed of, when it comes to film. In fact we are at a cross road in the film world. As each week passes by more garbage gets released into the theaters and makes millions. Filmmakers should be held to a higher standard and the best way to do that is to remind them of great classic films and the reasons they are considered great.

Thank you.