Rear Window Shopping

In her essay “Is the Gaze Male?”, E. Ann Kaplan refers to Laura Mulvey’s description of the three levels of male looks or gazes structure film in general. These three looks are (1) the camera and technical act of filming itself. She says this look is male because it is “intrinsically voyeuristic” and most of the time the director, or person working the camera, was a man (311). The second look is that of the man within the narrative of the film. Here a women is almost always made the object of male desire, or gaze. The last of these is the gaze of the spectator, which Kaplan defines as being always already male. This look, Mulvey says: “imitates (or is necessarily in the same position as) the first two looks” (311).

 

I think Rear Window was an excellent choice of film for this week, not only because it was, by far, my personal favorite of the ones we have viewed in this course, but also because it is the perfect example of the structure of cinema Kaplan and Mulvey have presented for us.

 

Obviously, the narrative itself is consciously working with the idea of the male gaze and voyeurism. But here we see the narrative of the film melt into the gaze of the spectator, as the protagonist is a spectator and mirrors our own experience of going to the movies. Jefferies is in a dark room, much like the movie theater, watching all the people in his neighborhood. He is also helpless to stop what he sees. The scene where Lisa is trapped in Thorwald’s apartment mimics perfectly our own need to yell at the screen during a moment of suspense. This film is knowingly working with the filmic element of the male gaze. If not, there wouldn’t be so many extended cuts to Ms. Torso, the ballet dancer. All the men in the film turn their eyes to her prancing around in her apartment. Of all the neighbors, except for the murderer of course, she has the longest shots. Either this was purposefully done to comment on the sexual undertones of being a spectator, or Hitchcock was unaware of his own lusts.

 

Which very neatly brings me my next point. Hichcock himself was famous for becoming obsessed with his leading ladies, particularly Tippi Hedren, who was in The Birds  and Marnie. It is rumored that Hitchcock very aggressively wooed her to the point of obsession, and tried to mold her into the perfect woman, or the next Grace Kelly as everyone else saw it.

 

According to a little website called Wikipedia: “Although Hitchcock continued to have Hedren in mind for several other films after Marnie, the actress declined any further work with him. Other directors who wanted to hire her had to go through Hitchcock, who would inform them she was unavailable. "It grew to be impossible. He was a very controlling type of person, and I guess I'm not about to be controlled", said Hedren, who bought out her contract. Ending their professional relationship on a sour note, she recalled, "He said, 'Well, I'll ruin your career.' And he did." Who knows what really went down. Because it is involves, arguably one of the greatest directors of our time, this is an interesting addition to our discussion of the male gaze as the structuring factor of cinema itself.