Rather than thinking of film spectatorship as either passive or active, we should view it as a spectrum that we are constantly switching between. This is due to the fact both Mulvey's 'Male Gaze' theory and Blumler and Katz's 'Uses and Gratifications' model are too simplified for a modern day audience.
Mulvey's model was written in 1975 and only studied 'classic Hollywood' films from the 1940's; ideologies will have changed significantly within those 30 years, and have changed even more so in the 44 years since Mulevy first coined the theory. She also lacked in considering LGBT audiences who wouldn't take visual pleasure in seeing women as sexual objects, meaning that she is only really considering about 50% of her audience. This shows how Mulvey's suggestion that spectators assume a passive role and are subjected to the male gaze is inaccurate, as she assumes that a film has one fixed reading whereas we know that there are at least three (preferred, negotiated and oppositional, as well as being able to create your own meaning), as well as the fact she lacks consideration for people outside of the 'heterosexual white male' archetype who would instantly reject the sexualisation of women. She also failed to take into consideration independent filmmakers who actively reject hegemonic ideas and values, as well as female filmmakers- neither of which would want to conform to the dominant ideology or representation of women as sexual objects for characters or audience members.
Active spectatorship suggests a more complex relationship between the text and reader; spectators response is more individualised by extra-textual elements. Blumler and Katz argue in their 1975 'uses and gratifications' mode; that films (and other media texts) are used for a range of psychological responses. They suggest that users actively select content which can be used for their own benefits; this is also known as the 'PIES' model:
- Personal Identification wherein content reflects similar values to the spectators and copy some of their characteristics
- Information/Education in which content will inform the spectator so that they can acquire knowledge or an understanding of the subject
- Escapism, meaning we can get lost in the reality of the text or imagine ourselves in that situation
- Social Interaction which means we can use the texts as topics of conversation with others, also known as the 'water cooler effect'
Again whilst this is a sound model, it has some flaws in the sense that it is outdated for the post-modern society which we live in; in this global age of TV and Film, as well as the new digital technologies which are in it, this model is too simple. Blumler and Katz couldn't even comprehend the idea of the internet, mobile phones or social media at the time they were writing their model which shows how it is difficult to place modern texts or spectators 'needs' into just four categories; nowadays we consume content in many more ways for many more reasons. An example of this is film, as streaming services such as Netflix allow us to use films as 'background noise' whereby we don't actually watch the film but simply have it on for the sake of it, suggesting that films are becoming less and less about 'escapism'. We also use media products such as social media for validation rather than social interaction which is what its intended use was; Bauldrillard would argue that we are living in a hyper-reality when it comes to social media, as we are able to form our own identity rather than using it to reinforce our pre-existing one, showing how Blumler and Katz's notion of 'personal identification' has been flipped on its head. It is also easy to create echo chambers on social media, so social media becomes less about education and more about reinforcing our own ideologies, and in terms of escapism I feel that this comes in the form of the new, fake identities we can create online rather than using the platforms for entertainment or alignment with characters.
In terms of film, both of these ideologies are able to be easily critiqued from a spectatorship point of view. Take 'La La Land' for instance, the film was a box-office undeniably, but the amount of ideology and content within the film generated at least two preferred responses as well as a number of oppositional and negotiated ones. For example, the end sequence is set up to drive an emotional response, but is done in a way so that the spectator can actively choose whether to align with Mia (Emma Stone) or Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), and both are the preferred response. Director Damien Chazelle uses textual elements in the end sequence to drive a preferred response, he does this by using a shot / revere/ shot of Mia and Sebastian gazing at each other from across Seb's bar, meeting for the first time in years since their love faded. Chazelle uses this shot in combination with a low-key blue light to drive an emotional response or grief from the spectator from their lost love, before cutting to a dream-like sequence of what could have been. Chazelle plays the title track 'city of stars' non-dietetically over a single shot 2 minute sequence which depicts the duo moving to Paris for Mia to pursue her acting career, before they get married, have a child and live happily ever after. For a moment, we believe that this really did happen and it is clear that the preferred response is a happy and hopeful one, but Chazelle shatters these dreams when he cuts back to the bar and we see Mia take the hand of her new husband and leave the bar to go back to her daughter, leaving Sebastian alone at the piano in the bar he owns.
I feel that this sequence reflects the outdated nature of Mulvey's model, because it gives an insight into Sebastian's personal dreams for his relationship with Mia in which he only wants her to succeed in life. No male gaze applies to Mia from Seb's POV, and if anything she is the more dominant or active character as she visually pulls / walks him around the movie set in Paris. This shows how Mulvey's theory cannot be applied fully to modern film as it depicts an active, successful woman and a passive, lonely male with a loving yet slightly platonic relationship wherein sex to them is secondary, and their happiness is more important. This shows how more than one meaning is encoded into the film which contradicts what Mulvey said, as audiences can either choose to align with Mia and feel that she was right for leaving Sebastian as it has enabled her to prosper which in turn means they take an oppositional reading to Sebastian's feelings as he could come across as self-centred, but they could also align with Sebastian and feel empathetic for him as he has achieved his career goal of opening his own jazz club, but has had to suffer in his personal life and lose the love of his life, which means the spectator could take an oppositional response to Mia as they know that all Sebastian ever wanted was to be with her, that she could have prospered with him and he would have been happy, but she left him anyway.
In terms of the Uses and Gratifications model, the film can be used in a combination of ways; spectators may identify with Sebastian's loneliness or Mia's conflict between love and work, and could also use it for escapism due to it's dream like musical sequences. Yet, the way in which spectators consume the film show how the U&G model is slightly outdated; the film is available to watch on Netflix, and personally when I watched it the first time I paused it for extended periods of time, showing how the film can be used for 'background noise'. In terms of social interaction, the film received a lot of critical acclaim and Oscar buzz, suggesting that the water-cooler effect could be applied, but people were more likely to watch the film to make themselves seem more rounded in the sense that they have jumped on the bandwagon and can now happily say they have watched the film via their social media platforms, therefore adding to their own 'social value'. This use of the film shows how another category should be added which discusses social validation, as it both combines elements of identification and social interaction but also rejects them, showing how it is more complex nowadays to categorise audiences and understand their uses.
Overall, I feel that both models are useful in understanding media texts in the context that the models were written, as spectators probably were less individualised back then as they lacked modern technologies like the internet.However, in a modern day audience, these models are too narrow, lack consideration for minority groups and do not consider modern technology, therefore showing how they should either be updated or disregarded.
Comments