In this lesson, we focused on the ‘R’ of M.I.G.R.A.I.N.E, which stands for representation. Representation is defined as how media texts deal with and present gender, age, ethnicity, national and regional identity, social issues and events to an audience. Because of this, media texts have the power to shape an audience’s knowledge and understanding of these important topics. It makes them very powerful in terms of influencing attitudes and creating sway in public opinion. A more simplistic and easy to understand definition would be the description or portrayal of someone or something. We started out with this sentence and were told to be unafraid to voice our opinions, even if they were different to everyone else’s, throughout the lesson.
To begin, we were asked a question that would get us thinking about how people are portrayed in the media, famous or not. The question was, if you were in the media, the front cover of a newspaper article for example, what word would you like to be associated with? It was difficult trying to narrow myself down to one word, since many popped into mind, both positive and negative. But of course, I want to be shown in a positive light, so I chose a word which I like and is what I aim to be: driven. ‘Driven’ brings to mind success in the career or education sector, hard work and dedication to a particular thing, and since my life right now is focused on exactly those things, I want this adjective to be what comes to mind when people think of me. But of course, not everyone is so lucky to be portrayed in such a good manner, especially since people do not read the news every morning to have someone’s success rubbed in their faces. In fact, the many positive words that were shouted in class are hardly ever seen in newspapers, news reports and so forth. We also briefly discussed how the opinions of people in the media can change and how the information we receive seems to influence us greatly in our outlooks of different people. An example of this is the representation of English footballer Marcus Rashford, who’s had a rollercoaster in terms of his depiction in the media.
Marcus played for England in the final of Euro 2020 and was the first of three England misses in the shootout. Being England’s first major tournament final for 55 years and a sour defeat makes it unsurprising that fans were devastated. However, the unacceptable behaviour began with the great backlash that Marcus received for his miss, which grew into disgusting threats and racist remarks. Despite the racial abuse, Marcus rallied for people to get more benefits during the hard-hitting times of the covid pandemic. People’s views on him went from positive, to negative, and then back to positive again, showing how malleable the minds of the masses truly are.
Other Areas of Possible Analysis
Social groups: Groups of people can be represented in different ways. Examples include students, roadmen/chavs, politicians, furries, nerds/jocks, footballers, Trump supporters, etc.
Social issues: The social issues there are in the world right now, such as gun crime, covid-19, knife crime, Black Lives Matter, childhood obesity, climate change, poverty and homelessness, etc.
Gender: How this has changed over time, equality/inequality, empowerment, rights and more.
Age: Are youths always ‘thugs’? How different age groups are viewed and treated, stereotypes, etc.
Events: Any major riots, protests, festivals – the Olympics?
Presence and Absence: Any groups (men, women, old, young) that are missing and what kind of representation this creates.
For the rest of the lesson, we looked into two new theorists and examples that backed up their ideas.
Stuart Hall – Representation Theory
According to cultural theorist Stuart Hall, all media products have been intentionally composed, written, framed, cropped, captioned, branded, targeted and sometimes self-censored by producers, making them an artificial version of reality. Everything is produced by an institution and their experiences, attitudes and ideology will affect how they tackle the representation of the issue or person. Oftentimes, even when claiming to be from a neutral vantage point, companies will have placed their own opinion onto the information, through something as subtle as an implication through the sentences to something as obvious as an accusatory main title.
Media texts are a construction of reality. There is no single ‘reality’ rather a range of definitions of ‘reality’. Reality as presented by the mass media is therefore not a picture of ‘reality’, but, rather a constructed interpretation of reality.
Media Producers/Institutions (CEOs of large institutions like Fox, Google, Apple etc) change this constructed interpretation however they see fit, to portray the narrative they want to show. Often the end goal is to exaggerate and pick a side (positive or negative) in order to appeal to certain groups of people or grab their attention and cause them to buy/click. This is dangerous because one unfair comment could bring somebody’s career down to ruin if the damage is great enough, which it often is since the media has great sway in modern society. Examples include the jarring contrast in opinions on Trump, and also how negative stereotypes and labels are reinforced through the representation of ethnic minorities.
for incidents relating to people of colour, instead of something like ‘mash shooting’ which is often used with white people enforces harmful stereotypes. But it goes beyond the text – companies also use visual hints to change the reader’s opinion, such as the whitewashed covers or evident divide between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ information.
Laura Mulvey – Male Gaze Theory
Laura Mulvey is a feminist film theorist from Britain, predominantly known for her essay on Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema and her theory regarding sexual objectification on women in the media, more commonly known as The Male Gaze theory. Mulvey states that “the gender power asymmetry is a controlling force in cinema and constructed for the pleasure of the male viewer, which is deeply rooted in patriarchal ideologies and discourses.” She refers to the misogynistic ideal that has ruled over cinema for so long – putting the needs of the male viewer first. The fact that women are portrayed in a way that best appeals to the male target audience show how problems from an old-fashioned, male-driven society can reach into the future. She believes that women are in fact “the bearer of meaning and not the maker of meaning,” which suggests that women are not placed in a role where they can take control of a scene, instead they are simply put there to be observed from an objectified point of view. This inequality enforces the ancient and outdated idea of “men do the looking, and women are to be looked at”.
Not only is the Male Gaze theory relevant to the cinema, but it also correlates with everyday life. Some theorists have noted that in advertising, objectification and sexualised portrayals of the female body can be found even in situations where sex or representations of sex have nothing to do with the product being advertised.
We watched some examples to prove how prevalent the existence of the male gaze is in film-making, even today. The ones we looked into as a group were clips from Fast and Furious 5, Bombshell and Jumanji, but I have found my own examples for the two main points of discussion within the male gaze.
I have chosen a scene from the film Suicide Squad where the group are getting back their belongings and preparing for the mission. Naturally, there has to be at least one woman in the group that checks all of the boxes for stereotypical attractiveness and we couldn’t go the entire movie without at least one of these scenes, where she’s showing off her body – it’s just so normal and readily expected! The important part is at 3:35, where we cut to the bottom of her legs (now in tights) and slowly pan up her body, just as she is putting on her shirt so that her stomach and chest are exposed and clearly visible to the audience. The whole thing takes a couple of seconds max, but because the focus of the scene is so obviously her body, the whole action feels longer than it really is, as if the camera was moving in slo-mo. Her over-sexualised outfit and overall sex appeal are reinforced in this scene when she finally puts on her costume and becomes ‘Harley Quinn’. This is an incredibly harmful stereotype; in order to be badass, you have to look sexy and wear a scanty costume. The scene is meant for comedic purposes since the music abruptly stops when she realises everyone is staring at her, but the underlying true intention is that it is purely for the male gaze, to appease the male audience. It was entirely unnecessary, and only undermined the character’s strength, instead, pointing towards her appearance and deriving her character on the concept of looking good. It also reinforces how much a woman stands out when she is in a group of men, especially a millenarian group. Everybody focuses on her body instead of her reason for being there, and there is a huge difference in behaviour and attitude (nobody was staring at the men getting dressed, and we didn’t get a slo-mo of Will Smith’s abs).
Subverting the Male Gaze
To subvert something means to take away its power, especially in the context of a long-accepted social construct, like the Patriarchy. One method of doing this with the male gaze is by drawing attention to it through an irregularity that would point out how it would normally be accepted despite its problematic context – swapping the genders. By taking a stereotypical woman’s role and casting a man instead, the audience can’t help but notice the absurdity of having a character exist solely for something as shallow as appearance or sexual gratification. An example of when this is done extremely purposefully and obviously is a Webtoon series called The Princess’s Jewels.
The Webtoon follows the young and beautiful Princess Ariana, who is portrayed as perfect in almost every way. Her style, wit and completion of her royal duties are impeccable, not to mention her swordsmanship skills and dedication to the throne. The story begins when the princess decides to start ‘collecting’ talented, attractive men, openly stating that she would like to gather only good-looking boys who will serve and help her on her path to becoming Queen. The story is ridiculously exaggerated and unrealistic since all of the men but one fall for her right away and almost desperately agree to stay by her side, immediately loyal to their attraction to her. She also provided one with a collar to wear every time he is in her presence and repeatedly tells them that they are a part of her ‘jewellery box’, which they seem to readily accept despite the fact that is insulting. Each time Ariana ‘acquires’ a new man for her collection, she asserts her dominance by flaunting her intelligence and teasing, making sure that they trail after her like obedient dogs. Despite the fact that they each have a particular skillset that benefit her, nobody seems to question the demeaning concept of reducing people to objects of possession, beautiful but less than human. Sadly, this has been prevalent throughout anime and comic series for decades, with women! A surefire way for a dominant male figure to make their authority known and be more imposing is to surround themselves with beautiful women, and this is so normalised that nobody even questions it, which is what I believe The Princess’s Jewels is trying to point out. The audience reactions are largely positive because of the strong female lead, but a large portion of the readers report feeling uneasy or uncomfortable since the men are treated in such an obviously sexual manner, which goes to show that the message is coming across; no matter the gender, a person should never be reduced to an object, even if that object serves an important purpose, is beautiful, admired etc.
So, does this method work? In my opinion, subverting the male gaze through gender role swapping certainly draws attention to it, however, I don’t think that it helps fix it, or fight it. The actual problem cannot be solved simply by doing the same thing to the opposite gender; it is almost a form of revenge, but is equally as cruel and absurd, therefore only reinforcing the issue. It is also often, if not always, unnecessary. Just because we like to see beautiful, stereotypically attractive people on screen, doesn’t mean that that is all that there should be to their character. Attractive people also have stories, weaknesses and strengths, problems and goals, which should be fairly presented, or at least made known if they are not the main character. Turning something as simple as a woman putting on her costume into a provocative and lewd act serves no purpose to the story. Instead, we should focus on creating strong, independent female characters that work fairly with men and are aware of the injustices they face in the world, wanting to make a change, strong enough to make a change but most importantly, smart enough to know that the change cannot be achieved on a path of blind-sighted, mad vengeance. There are certainly, characters like that today, but also far too many that are badly written and rude, taking advantage of society’s sexist outlooks and throwing them back in the face of every man they meet. We shouldn’t stray off track in a desperate attempt to appease women or do the exact same thing with the female gaze simply because the male gaze has been dominant and arguably still is. The harder, but correct method would be to address the problem in a clear manner and go about creating a world or character where equality and fairness are built into the basis, and are normality, as they should be.
To further solidify my earlier example, I have found a video that shows how Birds of Prey subverts the male gaze. It is quite a different movie to Suicide Squad and this can be seen through the mise en scene and style of the film.