Hitchcock's Gaze

In "Is the Gaze Male," E. Ann Kaplan discusses women in film in the sense that they are almost reduced to non-existence. This is not to say that women do not exist or appear; rather, they are diminished solely into how they are perceived or represented by their respective male spectators. Says Kaplan of the Hollywood film, "Women in film, thus, do not function as signifiers for a signified (a real woman) ... but signifier and signified have been elided into a sign that represents something in the male unconscious" (310). It is through this gaze that women are given all of their presence in a film, leading not only to a compromised existence on the part of women, but the reduction of women from a position of danger to a position of "reassurance" or, possibly, fetish (312). Even in the position of the spectator, the female finds herself lost, as she is unable to function as someone with her own view; rather, she functions as a recipient of the male gaze, or as watching the woman who does receive that gaze (316). Kaplan attributes this not just to problems with patriarchy, but especially to the social tendency to suppress the mother, one of the earliest conceptions of femininity on the part of the individual (322). Keeping women repressed under a fetishistic gaze, or keeping women out of existence beyond their contributions to the male look, only contributes to this suppression, since women only have two options as a result: 1) appear as a mother who dotes on the child, or 2) appear as the sexualized object of the male gaze (323). Kaplan concludes that a departure from rigid gender differences would likely be the biggest aid to this dilemma, for if genders are not perceived as radically different and, subsequently, mysterious and dangerous to the other, then we can move beyond "a polarity that has only brought us all pain" (325).

"Rear Window" certainly serves as an interesting example of Kaplan's assessments. The entire film revolves around a man, Jeffries (James Stewart), looking at other people. The only characters we see in his apartment complex, including the women, are only those that exist under his gaze. Furthermore, two of the women he sees in person are ones who exist, but in a diminished role of servitude to Jeffries. The one character who may have an upperhand over him, Stella, still largely caters to him by helping him with cleaning while his leg heals; and when she talks to him, he usually brushes off what she has to say and literally keeps his gaze removed from her, instead staring out the window. Stella also interestingly fits in with Kaplan's assessments that when man is removed from the position of power and the woman takes it up, she becomes decidedly more masculine (318). It could be argued that Stella herself is the most masculine of the women featured, with her gruff manner, deep voice, and frumpled appearance.

Kaplan's views are most interestingly manifested, though, in the character of Lisa. She is introduced in a soft focus that moves toward that who is gazing, introducing her as an object of the gaze and giving her no role beyond. When she removes herself from the role of one who is looked at (or at least, tries to), and instead attempts to make conversation or discuss her and Jeffries' future, Jeffries usually ignores her or returns his gaze to the neighbors that never leave the control of his gaze because they are not aware they are under it. Even when Lisa puts herself in the gazing position, kissing Jeffries and dressing herself in lingerie, he is otherwise occupied with his neighbors, over whom he has a slightly more controlling gaze over.

The appeal of this control is made most apparent when Lisa enters this particular gaze. Lisa and Stella both leave the apartment to investigate the Thorwald mystery, with Lisa breaking into Thorwald's apartment. It is here that Jeffries watches her the most intently. It almost seems that, in order to be noticed, Lisa has to insert herself into a gaze that is removed from Jeffries and seemingly beyond his control; yet is under his very control because he can choose when he does or does not want to look at her, just as it is with the other neighbors he spies on. It seems, then, that for Jeffries, the female is best experienced when she is at a distance, ready to be looked at only when Jeffries is ready.

It is significant, then, that Jeffries does not agree to marry Lisa until she has shown herself capable of such resignation. It is also significant that when we Jeffries and Lisa living together, his eyes are closed. Once again his gaze is limited when she is in such close proximity to him. Perhaps this signals a desire on Jeffries' part to keep Lisa and the female at a distance, looking but not wanting to look literally too closely. Like Jeffries, Kaplan would argue that keeping the woman on film serves this function for all spectators who wish to keep women invisible or at a distance. Rather than putting the women in direct contact with the spectator, the woman exists only at a distance, on the screen that is separate from the self; and further diminished as the subject of the desires of the gaze.

Discussion Questions:

1) How do Kaplan's concepts of the male gaze change when a film is directed by a woman? Do they change at all?

2) Think of other Hitchcock films you have seen. Do they encourage such distance between woman and spectator? Of keeping women and their existence within the gaze? How about some of the films we have watched in class?

3) Could it be argued that Jeffries is in fact subject to the female and her gaze/wishes/presence in Rear Window, rather than the reverse? Explain.