Response #5

                                           Turning The Gaze To The Male Viewer

Many feminist film theorists concentrate their writing either on the male gaze or the female image in its relation to the male gaze. Many of these theorists wrote about these various topics in a time during or after the second wave of feminism. Doane, one of the big names in feminist film theory, writes that the first way to break the patriarchal system which allows for the objectification and oppression of the female form in film is to at least recognize and understand how that it is being objectified. In a time before the second wave of feminism had gained momentum and popularity, it would seem that Hitchcock was at least able to begin addressing the issue over the male gaze of the female image in his film Psycho. 

One instance of Hitchcock’s attempts to address this issue is the scene where Norman is peering through the peephole to spy on Marion undressing. The way the sequence is carried out seems to be a direct address to the male audience. The shot goes from Norman’s eye at the peephole straight to looking from his eye and what’s through the peephole. It illustrates that both the actor’s male gaze and the gaze of the male audience are the same. Then comes the shot after Marion is murdered. The camera pans away from a close up of her eye. This shot implies that a woman is never the viewer but instead is always the viewed. The amount of time between these two scenes can’t be an accident. They directly contrast each other in who can gaze and who can be gazed at.

Another instance that points towards this issue is the long drawn out approach of Marion’s sister towards Norman’s house towards the end of the film. She’s ascending towards the dreaded house. The audience knows its dreaded because of the ominous music. But the entire time she is approaching she is looking directly into the camera. At this moment Hitchcock manages finally to submit the male viewer to the female gaze. What’s more, when the male gaze is present it is done in a voyeuristic, passive state. In this scene Marion’s sister has not only taken on the role of gazer but she is also approaching those she is gazing at, which could be seen as an aggressive act towards the male audience. That there is unnerving, ominous music playing while this is happening only strengthens the argument that this scene is meant to make the male viewer uncomfortable.

In the past two paragraphs it was illustrated, at least to some degree, how a reversal was managed in the film between which gender is gazing at who. The moment in the film when this reversal is not only reflected on but outwardly addressed to the audience is in the last lines of the film. At this point Norman, who has taken on a female mindset, states in a female voice that she “wouldn’t even hurt a fly”, while he creepily and conspiratorially smiles out at the audience, again looking directly into the camera lens. It is as if Hitchcock himself is telling the audience “No, no one was hurt. But I just broke tradition and upset what 60 years of film has established as the norm under a patriarchal system.”

Now, I know my argument may discredit itself since a lot of what I wrote makes it sound like Hitchcock made his film simply in an attempt to address a male audience. But, as Doane makes a point of, the only way to try and solve the issue is to begin by at least seeing and recognizing its existence. I thought these scenes when analyzed together may have been a way of accomplishing an address of the issue.

The film selection for this course was perfect. The only way I could see it being any better is if it included some other films 
that do as much as Psycho . As far as conversations, I don't think there's much that can really be done to adjust how those turn
out. The only thing I'd have wanted more from this course is more screenings. Even though sticking around on campus until it 
is dark outside isn't my favorite, I would gladly give up two or three nights a week in order to watch and discuss iconic horror films.