>In cinematography and film theory, the male gaze refers to a way of framing and presenting images that positions the viewer to adopt a heterosexual masculine perspective, treating women primarily as objects of visual desire rather than as fully realized subjects. The concept, introduced by Laura Mulvey in the 1970s, describes a pattern of visual storytelling that can operate independently of any male character's viewpoint, and is often present even when no male characters are on screen. As a technique it can be used by both male and female directors, and most film critics and historians do not view it as an inherently negative development in the medium.
What are some prominent examples of OP not being a useless agit-prop faggot?
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)19:02:03
>>221092330(OP) >as objects of visual desire rather than as fully realized subjects Isn't presenting them as objects of visual desire part of fully realizing them? This is a dimension of many if not most women. A sexless, frigid woman who bitterly hides their body from the world is a horrible representation of reality.
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)19:06:38
>>221092545 >Isn't presenting them as objects of visual desire part of fully realizing them? This is a dimension of many if not most women. Thats the point, anon. It’s one dimension rather than the whole. Male characters are almost never portrayed only as sex objects which is why the female gaze does not exist
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)19:16:24
>>221092609 How can you show all dimensions of a character while refraining from showing one particular dimension? Male characters are portrayed as sexy, not as heavily visually, but also females aren't as visual when it comes to sex.
>>221092330(OP) >>221093005 what about female exhibitionism? what about the need that some women have for attention to their bodies?
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)19:52:43
>>221093347 >As a technique it can be used by both male and female directors, and most film critics and historians do not view it as an inherently negative development in the medium.
>>221093005 >the camera lingers on Megan Fox's body in fragments: legs, torso and lips. >a celebration of the female form >highlighting the essence of timeless beauty >her soft features contrast with the harsh metal masculinity of the transformers >she radiates soft beauty, offsetting the vulnerability of flesh with confident femininity Wow now it's equally vapid feminist drivel worshiping the female body.
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)19:53:23
>>221092330(OP) >male gaze No such thing, so none.
>>221092330(OP) >introduced by Laura Mulvey in the 1970s Reminder feminists during this time were 99% pro pornography. Only Andrea Dworkin hated pornography with good reason. So feminists invent the concept of the 'male gaze' to overshadow the 900 pound gorilla in the room that is pornography.
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)20:00:35
>>221093487 I prefer to put my nose in and smell them instead
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)20:01:33
>>221092330(OP) Are movies like Predator considered male gaze movies? (inb4 male gays pun)
>>221093487 I'm old so I was trained on smaller asses from the 1990s and 2000s Giant modern asses look comical to me, like they are a lard planet with farts trapped in their orbit, or like a big jiggly beach ball. I get it but it looks grotesque or amusing more than sexy.
>>221093583 Because it makes ugly feminist women jealous since they can't get your attention as easily, which means you're far less likely to spend money on them.
>>221093999 Such a shame how this franchise turned out. The first film is decent, even great in little scenes like this, when they aren't following the shitty Grindelwald/obscurial plot. And then it all goes off a clif in the next film.