Part 1: Looking at the opening scene in Psycho, it immediately opens with an entrance through the window frame, what Mulvey would consider the beginning of the masculinization of a spectator. We are, as spectators, brought into the perspective of the subject of the scene, which in this, is male. As the subject, he imposes his perspective and gaze throughout the entire opening. We can examine this through the filming technique being angled towards the male’s sight. The male is seen subjecting his gaze upon the woman after the entrance into the window frame. The woman is laid out on a bed in a poised position that is meant for observation. Then there is the male standing above her on the side of the bed, holding the gaze. He is considerably abusive in this gaze upon the passive object that is the woman. These can be linked with what Mulvey calls the abusive heterosexual gaze. Continuously through the scene we see the camera panning to either center the male or display his imposing gaze upon the female. We also see the camera capture his movement throughout the room with speech while the woman is often neglected in being center to the scene. The man is meant to be the subject and the camera displays his account of the moment.
Part 2: “It’s accuracy whether its right about the male gaze..is irrelevant in a sense to how it speaks for its moment for how it speaks as a historical document” (9:24). What Mulvey is trying to say is how her piece is able to stand out as a testament to what Hollywood film was like during that time in the scope of feminism. I find it interesting how she says that it doesn’t matter so much as if her argument is considered right by critics, but it matters that the deeper purpose is made clear. I feel her deeper purpose was to show a real problem within film media during the 70s in accordance to female portrayal and abusive heterosexual gaze. She states how her introduction to working with feminism in writing was little to none and so her writing seems mostly based upon her passionate thoughts and research. It is also important to note that this writing came right before the women’s right movement and influenced much of Mulveys work. The place in time when it was written holds importance in the piece being viewed as a historical document. I wonder what would happen if a piece like this was written today? Would it still be considered a historical document of present day in film for women, and how has it changed? It would be interesting to see someone write a piece similar to Mulveys documenting and analyzing todays film.
