In class we have discussed Laura Mulveys theory of the male gaze, and its defining role in cultivating a feminist spectatorship. We have also critiqued Mulveys theory because she does not seem to create room for the pleasures and powers of the viewing body, and the capacity for these pleasures to supply important data for the understanding of a film or moving image artwork. As if in response to Mulvey, Laura U. Marks points to her experience of watching Charlies Angels (2000), and identifies that paying attention to the rise and fall of her affects helped her better understand how the film worked, despite the film’s sexist overtures. In this essay, compare and contrast Mulveys practice of viewing with the tenets of affective analysis outlined by Marks and Leys. Can these concepts be drawn together to create a more holistic method of viewing, or are they disparate forms of watching? If they can be drawn together, describe how, and for what purpose this method would serve? If they are disparate, say explicitly why? Murrays critical evaluation of Mulvey will be useful, and you may find it helpful to do a small amount of research to learn about some of the critiques of Mulveys theory to help you understand her ideas in contrast to the theory of affect.
Sources:
1. Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Visual and Other Pleasure, Bloomington, IND: Indiana University Press, 1989, pp. 14-36. (attached)
2. Andrew Murray, Heres Looking at You, Kid: A Critical Evaluation of Laura Mulveys Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema, ThatFilmAndGameBlog, Sept. 7, 2017, Web. https://thatfilmandgameblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/heres-looking-at-you-kid-a-critical-evaluation-of-laura-mulveys-visual-pleasures-and-narrative-cinema/
3. Laura U. Marks, Affective Analysis, Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research, Ed. Celia Lury et al., New York: NY: Routledge, 2018, pp 152-156.
4. Ruth Leys, The Turn to Affect: A Critique, Critical Inquiry 37 (Spring 2011), pp. 434-72
