GRGR(5) Katje: take one

[Michael Perez]

Justin wrote:
"Firstly, the perspective adopts that of the camera (or at least
incorporates that of the camera/cameraman); this recalls Mulvey's
notion of male voyeurism inherent in film, a voyeurism which relies on 
the enfetishization of the female body ('the camera follows as she
moves deliberately nowhere longlegged about the rooms, an adolescent
wideness and hunching to the shoulders. . .' (92.23-25)).  At the same
time this position is disrupted by a) the acknowledgment of the camera
(by mentioning the camera the narrator is most likely not the camera or

cameraman) and b) Katje herself.  Katje--and this might be an
appropriate time to begin a full-fledged discussion of her--is
obviously much more than the object of the male gaze.  In this scene
alone she seems more like a male 'flaneur' than a feminine sex object."

Hooo, boy, as Boris Badanov says.  If we're going to get into a
discussion about possible differences between male and female
voyeurism, then let's have at it, but it remains a contentious issue,
to state the bloody obvious.  To say that male voyeurism is a
motivating force in film marketing is uncomfortably true, though I
would argue against saying it is INHERENT.  Female voyeurism does exist
in film, TV, magazines, and advertising.  In volume, though, you have
to admit that the overwhelming amount of material directed toward men
and what they are supposed to like to see, hear, and read.  As for the
perspective of the camera, we are treated to a reprise of the exact
same passage at the end of the episode when the film is being viewed. 
Do you suppose this means that it does not matter to men whether their
voyeurism is "live" or on film?  If so, what are we to say about this? 
The business of voyeurism is buting and selling, too.  If there was no
market, it would not be so pervasive.


Michael
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com