The Male Gaze and Fanservice in mass media

[MysticSang'ha]

Please note this thread is located in the Feminist Only forum. If one wishes to debate the notions of Male Gaze and Fanservice outside the exclusive forum, you are free to do so.

Let's clarify first, and please add to my definition of the terms if you wish, what Male Gaze and Fanservice is:

Male Gaze is the perspective or lens that is being projected out to the audience. What do males perceive, and what do males focus on, is shown on screen, in sculpture, on stage, and in print. An example is that in a heterosexual love scene in film, the camera is sure to show more of a woman's body than a man's, as well as show her reactions to pleasure more than a man's reactions to pleasure. There are many other examples as well in literature - both fiction and non-fiction - that strictly offer what males see and experience without any input or validity to what females see and experience.

Fanservice is where a T&A shot in movie and literature is placed there specifically to titillate an audience (targeted entirely toward people who are attracted to women), and plays no part in the development of a story. Plenty of examples are given in gaming (see the various Tropes discussions), in comics, and in film, where the view showcases a woman's body in a cookie-cutter fashion of perfectly symmetrical proportions....not as a wonder of her ability to engage in battle and be a part of the story, but to showcase and sexualize and titillate.

My questions for RF feminists are as follows:

- Assuming that the Male Gaze and Fanservice occur at a rate that is noteworthy, do you see them occuring less often or more often than in times past? How so?

- If there were more female writers, directors, producers, and artists were employed and/or commissioned to produce works for the masses, do you see them offering more of a Female Gaze? Or do you see more or less the status quo continuing unless there are more socio-political progress made outside the humanities and the arts/entertainment industries?

- Assuming that the prevalence of the Male Gaze and Fanservice provide a wall of opportunity for womens equality, what solutions do you have to change it?

Thanks bunches, and Happy Friday!

 

[Iti oj]

I never noticed/thought about it before.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never noticed/thought about it before.

What are your thoughts on the definitions I offered?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh, I also wanted to clarify and make a distinction between nudity and Fanservice.

As a bisexual, I am well aware of my attraction to other women. I also can differentiate between how a woman's body is perceived according to the lens that is capturing her image. There is beauty, and then there is Fanservice. One is an assumption that the entire audience will get turned on a bit and enjoy seeing some T&A, while another is capturing her as she is celebrating her beauty as part of a story development...her story, and her part in the overall story.

One is more likely to lead to objectification, while the other recognizes her personhood and autonomy. I believe Fanservice is the path toward objectification and dehumanizing the person. Granted that I am attracted to women, I can spot a Fanservice feature from a mile away (and it actually DOESN'T titillate me...in fact, it turns me off).

 

[fallingblood]

Starting with fanservice, I would say that it is becoming more prevalent. In the beginning of film, I would say it was quite prevalent then as well; however, because of various censors, it did cease to be seen too much (on the other hand, in the 60s and 70s, pornography became more mainstream. The movie Deepthroat having even been shown in some regular movie theaters, and adult movie theaters became much more popular during that time). Today, with some relaxation in censors, there does seem to be more fanservice.

As for the male gaze, I would say it is still prominent. I have heard some film critics and researchers even state that the female gaze is nothing more than the male gaze as women often look at themselves from a male point of view. So even with female directors and the like, there often still is a male gaze. On the other hand, there are a number of male directors who have used the female gaze. I believe Alfred Hitchcock actually used it quite often, and to great success.

I don't think the best solution though is to educate directors in general. The female gaze can provide a great new look at films. It brings something new to a film, and that can be exciting.

 

[Iti oj]

What are your thoughts on the definitions I offered?

I am still sorting them, but I will say this, I opened the thread expecting to want to debate in a different thread but do not find I want to any more.

 

[Secret Chief]

Just some random thoughts...

I can only offer a Brit male perspective, necessarily different to the OP's.

Technical point on male nudity in visual media: there is a legal restriction here.

As to the two terms, these are new to me. You're generally conjuring up mainstream American films to me. These I generally find quite puerile and shallow, mostly aimed at drunk teenagers and where, whatever the question, the answer involves violence. So I don't think I'd have high expectations in any department.

I consume a limited diet of mass media but would think there are many female/feminist writers, artists and directors. Am I mistaken?

The most recent drama I watched was French. Looking back I cannot think it was driven by the Male Gaze. As to the T&A thing, there was some appropriate nudity, possibly more male than female. (the drama was The Returned - highly recommended).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Starting with fanservice, I would say that it is becoming more prevalent. In the beginning of film, I would say it was quite prevalent then as well; however, because of various censors, it did cease to be seen too much (on the other hand, in the 60s and 70s, pornography became more mainstream. The movie Deepthroat having even been shown in some regular movie theaters, and adult movie theaters became much more popular during that time). Today, with some relaxation in censors, there does seem to be more fanservice.

Interesting! I have found the evolution of porn and how various aspects of the industry has been mainstreamed very well can explain its impact on mass media. Much of pornography is phallocentric, IMO, and carries an ejaculatory bias. In that of itself, the industry is more concerned about what a penis is doing and what it isn't doing, what it's penetrating, where it's going, what's being done with it, and when is the money shot and where is the money shot going. It assumes that is what male audiences care about, and therefore markets itself in that fashion.

As for the male gaze, I would say it is still prominent. I have heard some film critics and researchers even state that the female gaze is nothing more than the male gaze as women often look at themselves from a male point of view. So even with female directors and the like, there often still is a male gaze. On the other hand, there are a number of male directors who have used the female gaze. I believe Alfred Hitchcock actually used it quite often, and to great success.

Hitchcock is a good example. I also like Jane Campion's The Piano, and Niki Caro's Whale Rider, which both IMO offer a Female Gaze quite effectively and have both received consistent critical acclaim. Kathryn Bigelow is a director I greatly admire, given that I think she offers both a Male Gaze and Female Gaze in her films (The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty), and I believe she's making huge progress in the Hollywood industry with its typical "phone-it-in" standard of filmmaking and standards of male perspectives and writing.

I don't think the best solution though is to educate directors in general. The female gaze can provide a great new look at films. It brings something new to a film, and that can be exciting.

I think there have been notable female directors offering the Female Gaze, though they aren't popularized and marketed at the rate other works have been granted. Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding, Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation, and others have made waves through Hollywood.

I agree that it can be exciting. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

Does it make any sense if I think fanservice is on the rise, while male gaze is seeing increasing competition from female gaze (like the Piano, Fried Green Tomatoes or Juno) and neutral gaze (which is what I would call a film like Fargo)?

I think that in video games, developers are still assuming their market is almost entirely horny teenage boys. Hence the gratuitous T&A in many (if not most) AAA titles.

In film, I consider 100% Studio-driven films (Hollywood) as a completely different category from, well, all the other films on earth. The influence of female writers and directors is growing slowly, sometimes in the least likely places. Like the Middle East, for example. It's becoming cheaper and cheaper to make a movie, which is a revolutionary democratizing force in film-making.

Granted, you won't see many good films in North America because Hollywood still has a stranglehold on theatrical distribution, and of course they give preferential treatment to their own stuff, which still relies heavily on both Male Gaze and Fanservice. Repertory cinemas and film festivals give a more accurate picture of what is going on in film-making in general these days, but I don't have either within 100km of home any more, so I'm a little out of touch.

 

[crossfire]

Starting with fanservice, I would say that it is becoming more prevalent. In the beginning of film, I would say it was quite prevalent then as well; however, because of various censors, it did cease to be seen too much (on the other hand, in the 60s and 70s, pornography became more mainstream. The movie Deepthroat having even been shown in some regular movie theaters, and adult movie theaters became much more popular during that time). Today, with some relaxation in censors, there does seem to be more fanservice.

As for the male gaze, I would say it is still prominent. I have heard some film critics and researchers even state that the female gaze is nothing more than the male gaze as women often look at themselves from a male point of view. So even with female directors and the like, there often still is a male gaze. On the other hand, there are a number of male directors who have used the female gaze. I believe Alfred Hitchcock actually used it quite often, and to great success.

I don't think the best solution though is to educate directors in general. The female gaze can provide a great new look at films. It brings something new to a film, and that can be exciting.

I would wholeheartedly agree! I've pretty much given up on the mainstream mass media because of this. I used to love football, but it's gotten to the point of being more like WWF than football with all of the extra "gloss" that has been overly applied, imo. Frubals for you!

 

[Penumbra]

My questions for RF feminists are as follows:

- Assuming that the Male Gaze and Fanservice occur at a rate that is noteworthy, do you see them occuring less often or more often than in times past? How so?

I don't have a long enough time reference to say whether the occurrence is changing. I see it frequently in video games, as well as in anime, plus live action movies.

I think much of this is tied to the same thing as the Bechdel Test- most things tend to be male-centered in media. In many movies, two named female characters never even speak to each other, and then guys wonder why their girlfriends don't like to watch their movies as much as they do.

And what I find interesting is that people seem to expect that male characters should appeal to both male and female viewers, but female characters should appeal only to female viewers (outside of sex appeal- as in, appeal at depth). You have that thread on the show- Orange is the New Black. There are two new Netflix original series: Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards. One stars a woman, one stars a man. I like both. I mentioned them to my co-workers, and they said Orange is the New Black must be a chick show. But I watch things with male main characters all the time. Or like, I have a male co-worker that loves the Disney movie Aladdin (Disney singing adventure love story starring a guy) but cringes at the thought of watching Tangled (Disney singing adventure love story starring a girl, essentially the same type of plot). Tangled must be a chick movie, while Aladdin appeals to both. I had a friend recommend a movie to me, and for fun, after watching it, I pointed out that no two females ever spoke to each other in the movie, even once. He didn't think that was really an issue. I was like, "can you name one movie that you watched where two male characters never spoke to each other?", and the answer was of course no.

It's interesting as you point out, that even in a scene with little or no dialogue, it still more often than not has a male view- a view of the female body rather than the male body.

- If there were more female writers, directors, producers, and artists were employed and/or commissioned to produce works for the masses, do you see them offering more of a Female Gaze? Or do you see more or less the status quo continuing unless there are more socio-political progress made outside the humanities and the arts/entertainment industries?

I'd assume that more women as a whole would shift the balance a bit. As it currently stands, the ratio of women to men in indie film-making is pretty reasonable, but in the hierarchy and money-driven world of Hollywood, women are totally under-represented in all roles, especially as director.

I've planned and written stories out, and I tend to think they're fairly balanced.

- Assuming that the prevalence of the Male Gaze and Fanservice provide a wall of opportunity for womens equality, what solutions do you have to change it?

Thanks bunches, and Happy Friday!

Awareness is one. I've seen people say that feminists just complain about things, but when I point out that in the entire original Star Wars trilogy or Lord of the Rings trilogy not a single woman spoke with another woman ever, male friends of mine are kind of taken aback by it and say they didn't realize it. Even in movies where there are decent female characters, the ratio is often so skewed that they rarely speak to each other.

Another I guess is just support. Seeing movies and shows and playing games directed by women, written by women, and starring women.

 

[Riverwolf]

(and it actually DOESN'T titillate me...in fact, it turns me off).

As a heterosexual male, I have to agree. I hate blatant fanservice.

The mantra I typically use is this: I'm trying to become lost in another world, get attached to wonderful characters, and get immersed in a great story. If I wanted to watch porn, I'll watch porn. Keep porn out of places it doesn't belong.

I think part of the problem in gaming culture is the fact that a lot of companies target young teenage males in their marketing, so will include elements that will get that demographic to spend money, such as hypersexualized women (after all, they're not allowed to watch porn.) I think, at least in gaming, the problem will persist until companies realize that they should be targeting many demographics rather than just adolescent boys.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I watched the first 2 episodes of game of thrones yesterday...the male gaze is so boring.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I watched the first 2 episodes of game of thrones yesterday...the male gaze is so boring.

First 2 episodes? There's more to come.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

First 2 episodes? There's more to come.

but does it get better, or is it just more sex and rape.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

to be fair the first episode should make we want to continue watching

 

[MysticSang'ha]

but does it get better, or is it just more sex and rape.

I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the 3rd season of Game of Thrones on DVD, if that says anything.

George R. R. Martin has been praised for the development of his female characters in his stories, and many of the episodes pass the Bechdel test (a quick google check along with my own observations).

Don't fret for Daenerys, BTW. The end of season 1 had me jumping up and down in excitement for her and her story. :yes:

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the 3rd season of Game of Thrones on DVD, if that says anything.

George R. R. Martin has been praised for the development of his female characters in his stories, and many of the episodes pass the Bechdel test (a quick google check along with my own observations).

Don't fret for Daenerys, BTW. The end of season 1 had me jumping up and down in excitement for her and her story. :yes:

Does she fall in love with her husband?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

to be fair the first episode should make we want to continue watching

The entire first season pretty much takes its time giving enough background stories for the competing houses for the throne. I remember wondering when the series would start to get interesting until the 5th or 6th episode. Next thing you know, it gets REALLY interesting, and the pace and storyline doesn't let up after that.

Sex, rape, incest, beheadings, blood blood and more blood, and murdering children....that by itself makes the show extremely provocative. But in regards to the feminism that has been offered to exist in GoT, Martin was asked about how did he come up with such interesting female characters, and he answered that it's simple, really, since women are people like everyone else.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does she fall in love with her husband?

Must.....not.....give....spoilers......