In the 1930's directer Busby Berkeley reinvented musicals on film media. By drawing from the burlesque elements of the previous decade, Busby Berkeley manages to combine film, acting and dancing in such a way women are portrayed sexually as objects. An example of this combination is is 1941's Ziegfield Girls. Ziegfield Girls deal largely with the male gaze. However, try envisioning a film with its gender roles reserved, with a predominantly female gaze attached, say Zigfield Guys? To envision such a film, we first have to analyze aspects of the male gaze in Zigfield Girls.
To envision a film like Zigfield Guys, we first have to take a look and analyze how Zigfield Girls was constructed and how the women were objectified for the male gaze. Right from the beginning, we see how director Busby Berkeley brings us into his world, with a man ending his confession to a woman. This serves to tell us the purpose of what we were about to see, which was a "love story". However, if we pay closer attention to how the following sequence was constructed, we know this not to be true, that it was just a mere cover story for the "main event" which followed. This sequence begins with sexual attraction, where Tony Martin serenades a woman, confessing his love and pleading for her affection. However, as the sequence goes on, it slowly turns from sexual attraction into sexual objectification.
Even as Tony Martin belted out his love song, we see how the woman is objectified. The wardrobe in this opening scene betrays the intention of Busby Berkeley, to portray his women as glamorous beauties, and here we see how the woman is dressed in a long white dress, closely resembling a wedding gown. Also, a soft focus camera angle is used to induce of aura of mystery around the woman, emphasizing her beauty. In addition, as the scene unfolds, we do not see or hear the woman talking at all. According to feminist theory, sexual attraction is the being physically and emotionally attracted to the a person, compelled by that person's appearance, personality and individuality. Sexual objectification, on the other hand is the viewing of another person as de-personalized objects of desire, not taking into account his or her individualism, instead purely focusing on his or her physicality. And this, is a clear example of sexual objectification, as we do not learn or know of this woman's personality nor identity, and her mere purpose here is to be the object of Tony Martin's affection and to draw the male gaze.
We also see more evidence of sexual objectification in the scene where the Zigfield Girls slowly descend a flight of stairs in their long flowing robes. Here, it can be clearly seen that Busby Berkeley intends these girls to be objectified. The stairs in this scene is a signifier of how these women descend from a "higher" place, coming down from above and gracing us with their presence. Also, by coming from above, it shows how these girls are "untouchable", thereby increasing the male desire even more, playing to the innate human desire of the forbidden. This motif is of the forbidden has been constantly repeated, however the most obvious being how Adam and Eve succumbed and partook of the forbidden fruit. Also, another important element which reinforces the fact the these women were intended to be objectified as objects of sexual desire was the uniformity seen here in this scene. As they descended the flight of stairs, the women moved in a slow uniform manner, thereby eliminating the individuality of each of these women, instead turning them into a single unit of beautiful women, aimed at the male gaze. The casting of these Zigfield Girls is also reflective of the sexual objectification in this scene. Every single girl here was the stereotypical all American beauty, with blonde hair and blue eyes, unblemished "virgin" girls. It is also notable how similarly all these women look, that no one women in that scene was distinguishable from one another, reinforcing the fact that these women have no individuality.
So, moving on to envisioning a movie like Zigfield Guys, how then would the element of the male gaze be transferred to the female gaze? A good example of this would be Kylie Minogue's The One music video. Standing in stark contrast to Zigfield Girls, Kylie Minogue's video is all about the female gaze. As it opens with a half naked man dancing to the background of some fireworks, it immediately subverts the male authority over the female. By degrading males to the level of female sexual objectification, the males here in turn are no different from strippers, parading their body to satisfy the sexual fantasy of women. However, here is where the similarities end. As a male gets sexual gratification from the submission of a woman, females in turn are sexually gratified by the secret indulgence in their fantasies. This is mainly because in today's patriachal society, it seems perfectly fine for a man to indulge in his sexual desire, however it is shocking to say the least, if a female does the same. While a man gets sexual fulfillment from a woman's submission, a woman gets hers from the subversion of the male authority, or in other words, dominance over a man.
As the intro of the song begins, we see half naked male dancers literally "bending over backwards" to the music. This, in a way, is the subversion of the patriarchal power, a literal bowing down of the male, in the worship of a female. Also, the partial nudity in the opening dance sequence also serves to expose the vulnerability of the male. This is simple a toned down version of how a fully naked man is vulnerable, with his phallus exposed. Subsequently, the image of the male dancer is replaced by Kylie Minogue, symbolizing how Kylie, or the woman, is more powerful and dominant. Also, while the women in Ziegfield Girls are demurred and perfect, reinforcing the image of the perfect woman, Kylie Minogue portrays a woman who is wild and and confident of herself, imperfect as she may be. In fact, she embraces the male gaze, and turns it into something in her favor. By doing so, she turns herself into something of a femme fatale. In subverting the male power for the sexual gratification of the female, that would be the equivalent of the female sexual objectification.
Again, similarly to Ziegfield girls, the males in this sequence are not named, nor given an identity. In the same way this uniformity steals a person's individuality, this anonymity again robs the male of his power. As in a patriarchal society, the patriarch, or head of the family, gains his power from recognition. However, here precisely the opposite is happening. The man loses his power in his anonymity. He is degraded to a piece of eyecandy, for the pleasure of women. When a man is used in a way that bypasses his identity, that is where sexual objectification comes in.
In comparison to today's world, in view of gender equality, many films such as this Ziegfield Guy already exists. For instance, one of the biggest popstars of our century, lady Gaga, exercises the female gaze in many of her videos. In her video "Bad Romance", lady Gaga surrounds herself with hulky male dancers, embracing her sexuality and feminity, strengthening the concept of the female gaze. In the 50s, such an explicit video would have caused a furore, sparking cries of satanism, as men were expected to be given due respect, and such a video would have undermined them. Hypocritically, yet it is okay for dancers to be female, attracting the male gaze.
Friday, 9 December 2011
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Final Essay: Titanic (1997) and Metropolis comparison essay
Both Titanic (1997) directed by James Cameron and Metropolis by Fritz Lang were set in a society where a vast gap separates the upper class from the lower class. In many ways, Titanic is a reflection of Metropolis, and Metropolis of Titanic. Both movies explores the issue of class struggle with Jack entering the world of the upper class society while Freder discovers the hidden underworld of his utopia. Although quite subtly, both these movies have many Marxist elements to them. While Metropolis ends with a change in terms of the class struggle faced by the lower class workers, the change in societal order in Titanic was only temporal. Water, which is used excessively in both movies, a universal symbol, represents many things including purity, renewal and also equality. Both movies have many similar representations of the class struggle and Marxist theory, however differ in terms of their protagonists (Jack and Freder, Rose and Maria) and their representation of water.
The class struggle, In both Titanic and Metropolis, the subject of class struggle is explored in many ways. The class struggle is very much a power struggle, with the strong dominating the weak. In the case of Titanic, Cal is the representation of the dominant upper class male, with abundant wealth and power at his disposal. On the other hand, Joh Frederson in Metropolis is very much like the state, as Karl Marx puts it, in his supremacy as the creator of Metropolis, subduing the weak. As the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker, it is the epitome of capitalistic ideals. The two different views Titanic and Metropolis contrast the power struggle in society; the first being an upper class view, where Freder ventures into the dark abyss of the workers living underneath the city; another by Jack, a lowly nobody, breaking through into the posh upper class society of the rich. By comparing these two films, we are able to juxtapose the difference in they way both movies portray the upper class and lower class, and even more than that, the similarities between them.
As we take a deeper look into Titanic, we see how differently people are treated simply because of their class status. In the scene where Rose tries to commit suicide, after being saved by Jack, instead of being congratulated a hero, he was instead arrested under the accusation of trying to outrage her modesty, and all this simply because he was from a lower class. As the incident was cleared up, we then see Cal offering Jack a $20 as a reward for saving Rose, his so-called "fiance". This shows Cal's clear disdain of Jack because of his class status, and even so, he only did it to seem grateful, under the prodding of the master of arms. In contrast, in Metropolis, in the scene where Freder met Maria for the first time by accident, we see how Maria and the children were hushed and ushered back out of the utopia by the four gleaming ushers, clearly not wanting Freder to see or know about the hidden underworld beneath the utopia of Metropolis. At the time, the dirty rags the children were wearing clearly has a double meaning. It is not just physically dirty, but in a way, the ushers didn't want these "dirty" people from the underworld, coming up and spoiling the perfect and gay illusion of utopia Metropolis that the upper class had. This clearly reflects how the dominant class in society exercise their power in trampling over the weak.
The way the different classes of society are separated in both movies are also interestingly similar. In Titanic, the upper class mainly occupied the upper decks, while the lower class lived below, in the bowels of the ship. This is a direct metaphor for the different classes in which people belonged, with those of upper standing occupying the higher decks, as with many other things in life as well. This is especially evident in the moral dilemma the audience was presented with as Titanic went down, that how could one's life be valued higher than another's, where the rich had the priority to all the life boats. Everyone should be given an equal chance for their own survival. Besides the physical separation, there is also a mental wall that sets the upper class apart from the lower class. An interesting character to note here is Molly, whose husband had made an overnight fortune, and landed themselves on Titanic. The mental barrier is clearly seen here, as Mrs. Ruby called her, "new money", meaning someone who only had become rich recently. The class separation is portrayed in the behavior, tone and norms Molly had, from her rougher language, texas accent and mannerism, earning her the cold shoulders of the other upper class women. This is especially intriguing as outwardly, she seems to be a normal upper class woman, but insides she's still the same rough and tumble person inside. What we see and what we know contradict each other, just as how many people are not who they seem to be.
Feminist roles in society also adds another dimension to this analysis of class struggle. As feminism and power go hand in hand, we can see how feminist roles in Titanic and Metropolis links the class struggle, or otherwise the power struggle in society. The most important women in each of these movies are Rose and Maria. Rose is a classic representation of what an upper class woman should be, gentle, well brought up. The "upper class" society expects a young woman like her to be demurred, submissive, and not to mingle with men, especially those with a lower social status. However, she doesn't conform to those expectations, instead she runs around Titanic with Jack, romancing him and even posing naked for him. What more, all that while, she's actually engaged and set to be married soon. Her actions do not reflect her status as an upper class woman, instead resembling more of a (excuse the language) whore, which she actually was called a few times. The archetype of a young woman is representative of patriarchal power, because that in having a powerful patriarch, would it be possible for a undefiled, pure virgin woman like Rose to come forth. However, by associating herself with a lower classed male, in a way, she is actually surrendering the patriarchal dominant power which the upper class has over the lower class. In Metropolis, Maria is a similarly curious character, a compassionate young woman bringing hope to a hopeless world. Maria stands out like a sore thumb among the plainly dressed workers of Metropolis' underground world. It is also highly unusual for a girl to be alone like that in a lower class society, which is today's equivalent of a young white girl to live alone in Harlem. Maria acts as a beacon of light in the darkness, and even her name, Maria, is derived from Mary, which was the name of the mother of Jesus. In a way, Maria preempted the "savior", as how a mother always comes before her child, or in the words of the movie, the "heart" between the brain and the hands, who was Freder. Here however, the patriarchal power here comes in terms of God, the father. This is evident with the countless references Maria made to the bible, telling her sheep to be patient in waiting for their savior. And in the same way Jesus came and saved men from their sins, Freder would then come down from above (the upper class) and finally free them from the oppression of the state.
No class struggle analysis would be complete without Marx, and in both Titanic and Metropolis, we see many elements of Marxist theory. In accordance to Marx that human societies divide, we see the division of societies here in both Titanic and Metropolis, in which case are the upper class and lower class societies. Marx states that there is only one driving force in this world, which is materialism, and that nothing else mattered. In a way this is true as both Titanic the ship and Metropolis the city are the epitome of materialistic idealism, two great monuments testifying to the economic power of man. Titanic was the biggest ship ever built for its time, and was touted "unsinkable", Metropolis on the other hand, was a utopia, and idealistic city of the future, created single handedly by a man- Joh Frederson. Marx's critique of capitalism also rings true in that capitalism has to do with exploitation, as seen in Metropolis, where the underground workers are ceaselessly exploited, to create this utopia, but only for the rich. Marx states that in a capitalism society, the value of labor of both the workers in Metropolis and the lower class people in Titanic are distorted, for instance, the reward Cal offered Jack for saving Rose. Furthermore, another example of alienation of labor according to Marxist theory is in the throngs of purposeless workers seen in the bowels on Metropolis. As Marx said, the workers are alienated from the products of their labor, producing things which do not benefit them, and therefore get discouraged easily, as what they do does not affect them in any way. The only way for this to change is for the working class to rise up agaisnt the "state", as we saw how the workers in Metropolis revolted and destroyed the heart machine.
Semiotics of water Water is a defining element in both Titanic and Metropolis, as both films climaxes with an overflowing of water. To gain a deeper understanding of what the water means in these two movies, we first have to understand the semiotics and signifiers of water. Water is a universal symbol, recognizable by everyone in the world. In my cultures and religions, water represents life, as without water we cannot survive. In man religions, water also represents cleansing, physical and spiritual cleansing on sins. From baptism to washing before prayers to Hindu devotees taking baths in river, water is a symbol for cleansing and healing. Furthermore, water also represents purity and closure, giving things a sense of finality.
Water in both these movies serve to bring change and new life. In Titanic, in the scene where the bow of the ship had already went under, the strings quartet continued to play, which then faded to silence, it was as if the water had taken over the sound. All we hear when the ship goes down is silence, before the frantic screaming begins. In a way, this water which brings silence, also brings equality. Before this water, everyone is equal. All the class struggles are swept aside, just as how a flood sweeps aside everything in its way. This water that washes over the ship, albeit deadly, brings peace along with it as well, purifying, cleansing and making new. In the same way new life is birthed out of death, this water has seemed to bring a new life to all those who survived it. The usage of water in Metropolis is slightly different than Titanic. In a way, the water is a personification of the workers rebellion, sweeping across the city. As the heart machine is destroyed, we see the water gushing into the underground city. However, as this water is pouring in, a sense of relief or awakening seems to wash over the crowd of workers, that they were misguided by the "witch". The water here also served to unite the people, in the scene where all the children gathered around a faltering Maria in the middle of the underground city. In addition, this flood or water seemed to have matured Freder, where we can see a different Freder emerging from the water, as if he were baptized, who then went on and defeated Rotwang.
In Titanic and Metropolis, we see both Jack and Freder, along with Rose and Maria, transcend the class barrier which the societies they lived in has set up around them. In a parallel comparison, we see Jack and Maria ventured upward, while Freder and Rose went down into the bowels of his city. These two people each acted as the heart, the mediator, the man middle man between the class struggle. And in the end, just as Marx said, that all previous exploitation institutions must go; the workers rose up, like a flood, and swept over the city. Like in titanic, as the ship was being swallowed by the sea, whatever wealth and status symbols that previously had separated the classes were wiped clean, everyone was equal before the water, however temporal.
In a way, Titanic and Metropolis are about the clashing of ideals. It personifies the difference between idealized capitalism against Marxist communism. Just as how Titanic and Metropolis are capitalist monuments, our world today is filled with many other monuments which show off the "patriarchal power" of the ruling class, of a country, such our very own Petronas Towers. However, at the same time, hidden beneath the surface are the working class people, dominated and exploited. I particularly like how Titanic ends, that in the end, everyone was left in the water regardless of class, equal, wiped clean.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
The class struggle, In both Titanic and Metropolis, the subject of class struggle is explored in many ways. The class struggle is very much a power struggle, with the strong dominating the weak. In the case of Titanic, Cal is the representation of the dominant upper class male, with abundant wealth and power at his disposal. On the other hand, Joh Frederson in Metropolis is very much like the state, as Karl Marx puts it, in his supremacy as the creator of Metropolis, subduing the weak. As the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker, it is the epitome of capitalistic ideals. The two different views Titanic and Metropolis contrast the power struggle in society; the first being an upper class view, where Freder ventures into the dark abyss of the workers living underneath the city; another by Jack, a lowly nobody, breaking through into the posh upper class society of the rich. By comparing these two films, we are able to juxtapose the difference in they way both movies portray the upper class and lower class, and even more than that, the similarities between them.
As we take a deeper look into Titanic, we see how differently people are treated simply because of their class status. In the scene where Rose tries to commit suicide, after being saved by Jack, instead of being congratulated a hero, he was instead arrested under the accusation of trying to outrage her modesty, and all this simply because he was from a lower class. As the incident was cleared up, we then see Cal offering Jack a $20 as a reward for saving Rose, his so-called "fiance". This shows Cal's clear disdain of Jack because of his class status, and even so, he only did it to seem grateful, under the prodding of the master of arms. In contrast, in Metropolis, in the scene where Freder met Maria for the first time by accident, we see how Maria and the children were hushed and ushered back out of the utopia by the four gleaming ushers, clearly not wanting Freder to see or know about the hidden underworld beneath the utopia of Metropolis. At the time, the dirty rags the children were wearing clearly has a double meaning. It is not just physically dirty, but in a way, the ushers didn't want these "dirty" people from the underworld, coming up and spoiling the perfect and gay illusion of utopia Metropolis that the upper class had. This clearly reflects how the dominant class in society exercise their power in trampling over the weak.
The way the different classes of society are separated in both movies are also interestingly similar. In Titanic, the upper class mainly occupied the upper decks, while the lower class lived below, in the bowels of the ship. This is a direct metaphor for the different classes in which people belonged, with those of upper standing occupying the higher decks, as with many other things in life as well. This is especially evident in the moral dilemma the audience was presented with as Titanic went down, that how could one's life be valued higher than another's, where the rich had the priority to all the life boats. Everyone should be given an equal chance for their own survival. Besides the physical separation, there is also a mental wall that sets the upper class apart from the lower class. An interesting character to note here is Molly, whose husband had made an overnight fortune, and landed themselves on Titanic. The mental barrier is clearly seen here, as Mrs. Ruby called her, "new money", meaning someone who only had become rich recently. The class separation is portrayed in the behavior, tone and norms Molly had, from her rougher language, texas accent and mannerism, earning her the cold shoulders of the other upper class women. This is especially intriguing as outwardly, she seems to be a normal upper class woman, but insides she's still the same rough and tumble person inside. What we see and what we know contradict each other, just as how many people are not who they seem to be.
Feminist roles in society also adds another dimension to this analysis of class struggle. As feminism and power go hand in hand, we can see how feminist roles in Titanic and Metropolis links the class struggle, or otherwise the power struggle in society. The most important women in each of these movies are Rose and Maria. Rose is a classic representation of what an upper class woman should be, gentle, well brought up. The "upper class" society expects a young woman like her to be demurred, submissive, and not to mingle with men, especially those with a lower social status. However, she doesn't conform to those expectations, instead she runs around Titanic with Jack, romancing him and even posing naked for him. What more, all that while, she's actually engaged and set to be married soon. Her actions do not reflect her status as an upper class woman, instead resembling more of a (excuse the language) whore, which she actually was called a few times. The archetype of a young woman is representative of patriarchal power, because that in having a powerful patriarch, would it be possible for a undefiled, pure virgin woman like Rose to come forth. However, by associating herself with a lower classed male, in a way, she is actually surrendering the patriarchal dominant power which the upper class has over the lower class. In Metropolis, Maria is a similarly curious character, a compassionate young woman bringing hope to a hopeless world. Maria stands out like a sore thumb among the plainly dressed workers of Metropolis' underground world. It is also highly unusual for a girl to be alone like that in a lower class society, which is today's equivalent of a young white girl to live alone in Harlem. Maria acts as a beacon of light in the darkness, and even her name, Maria, is derived from Mary, which was the name of the mother of Jesus. In a way, Maria preempted the "savior", as how a mother always comes before her child, or in the words of the movie, the "heart" between the brain and the hands, who was Freder. Here however, the patriarchal power here comes in terms of God, the father. This is evident with the countless references Maria made to the bible, telling her sheep to be patient in waiting for their savior. And in the same way Jesus came and saved men from their sins, Freder would then come down from above (the upper class) and finally free them from the oppression of the state.
No class struggle analysis would be complete without Marx, and in both Titanic and Metropolis, we see many elements of Marxist theory. In accordance to Marx that human societies divide, we see the division of societies here in both Titanic and Metropolis, in which case are the upper class and lower class societies. Marx states that there is only one driving force in this world, which is materialism, and that nothing else mattered. In a way this is true as both Titanic the ship and Metropolis the city are the epitome of materialistic idealism, two great monuments testifying to the economic power of man. Titanic was the biggest ship ever built for its time, and was touted "unsinkable", Metropolis on the other hand, was a utopia, and idealistic city of the future, created single handedly by a man- Joh Frederson. Marx's critique of capitalism also rings true in that capitalism has to do with exploitation, as seen in Metropolis, where the underground workers are ceaselessly exploited, to create this utopia, but only for the rich. Marx states that in a capitalism society, the value of labor of both the workers in Metropolis and the lower class people in Titanic are distorted, for instance, the reward Cal offered Jack for saving Rose. Furthermore, another example of alienation of labor according to Marxist theory is in the throngs of purposeless workers seen in the bowels on Metropolis. As Marx said, the workers are alienated from the products of their labor, producing things which do not benefit them, and therefore get discouraged easily, as what they do does not affect them in any way. The only way for this to change is for the working class to rise up agaisnt the "state", as we saw how the workers in Metropolis revolted and destroyed the heart machine.
Semiotics of water Water is a defining element in both Titanic and Metropolis, as both films climaxes with an overflowing of water. To gain a deeper understanding of what the water means in these two movies, we first have to understand the semiotics and signifiers of water. Water is a universal symbol, recognizable by everyone in the world. In my cultures and religions, water represents life, as without water we cannot survive. In man religions, water also represents cleansing, physical and spiritual cleansing on sins. From baptism to washing before prayers to Hindu devotees taking baths in river, water is a symbol for cleansing and healing. Furthermore, water also represents purity and closure, giving things a sense of finality.
Water in both these movies serve to bring change and new life. In Titanic, in the scene where the bow of the ship had already went under, the strings quartet continued to play, which then faded to silence, it was as if the water had taken over the sound. All we hear when the ship goes down is silence, before the frantic screaming begins. In a way, this water which brings silence, also brings equality. Before this water, everyone is equal. All the class struggles are swept aside, just as how a flood sweeps aside everything in its way. This water that washes over the ship, albeit deadly, brings peace along with it as well, purifying, cleansing and making new. In the same way new life is birthed out of death, this water has seemed to bring a new life to all those who survived it. The usage of water in Metropolis is slightly different than Titanic. In a way, the water is a personification of the workers rebellion, sweeping across the city. As the heart machine is destroyed, we see the water gushing into the underground city. However, as this water is pouring in, a sense of relief or awakening seems to wash over the crowd of workers, that they were misguided by the "witch". The water here also served to unite the people, in the scene where all the children gathered around a faltering Maria in the middle of the underground city. In addition, this flood or water seemed to have matured Freder, where we can see a different Freder emerging from the water, as if he were baptized, who then went on and defeated Rotwang.
In Titanic and Metropolis, we see both Jack and Freder, along with Rose and Maria, transcend the class barrier which the societies they lived in has set up around them. In a parallel comparison, we see Jack and Maria ventured upward, while Freder and Rose went down into the bowels of his city. These two people each acted as the heart, the mediator, the man middle man between the class struggle. And in the end, just as Marx said, that all previous exploitation institutions must go; the workers rose up, like a flood, and swept over the city. Like in titanic, as the ship was being swallowed by the sea, whatever wealth and status symbols that previously had separated the classes were wiped clean, everyone was equal before the water, however temporal.
In a way, Titanic and Metropolis are about the clashing of ideals. It personifies the difference between idealized capitalism against Marxist communism. Just as how Titanic and Metropolis are capitalist monuments, our world today is filled with many other monuments which show off the "patriarchal power" of the ruling class, of a country, such our very own Petronas Towers. However, at the same time, hidden beneath the surface are the working class people, dominated and exploited. I particularly like how Titanic ends, that in the end, everyone was left in the water regardless of class, equal, wiped clean.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
Friday, 2 December 2011
BOOP BOOP DE BOOP
Marilyn Monroe is widely touted as the sex symbol of the 60s and 70s. In one of her more renowned works, she shows us exactly why that is so. Some like it Hot is rated one of the best comedies is American Cinema to date. Throughout the entire length of the film, the director played with semiotics, feminists theory and the male gaze to "seduce" the audience. This is especially evident in Marilyn's number, "I want to be loved by you". In this short sequence, we further analyze the how male gaze is manipulated and the use of symbolism in manipulating it.
Right from the very beginning, we see the choice to use chiaroscuro lighting to highlight Sugar and the disco ball in the middle of the ballroom. Amidst the grey and dark mass of people, Sugar stands out like a sparkling diamond, outshining everything else in that ballroom. The high key lighting used here to create contrast shows how enchanting and beautiful Monroe is, to an extend even portraying her like an angel. As the camera closes in on Sugar, we see her standing higher than the mass of heads below her, in a way elevating her to a higher level than them. Also, this could represent how the male gaze worships her, and even more so, her body. At the same time, we also can't help but notice how seductively she is dressed. In wearing a body hugging dress the same color as her skin, it instantly draws the audience in to pay closer attention to her bust line, while at the same time, the dark shadow dances tantalizingly up and down her bust. Effectively, this has drawn us into the world of Marilyn Monroe, we hang on to her every word, and at that instant, we were completely at her mercy.
We are drawn to her every gesture, from moving her hands seductively up and down the length of her body to the slightest flicker of her eyes. Her movements were innocent yet and the same time seductive, with every movement of her hand- inviting us to come closer; a shrug of her shoulder- innocence; and even near the end, her eyes rolled up into her sockets, even as if she was having an orgasm singing to us. With the last line of the song, "boom boom de boop", it was as if she was blowing a kiss towards the audience, drawing us even deeper into her charm. As she turned away, she revealed her bare-backed dress, effectively showing us what we had wanted to see throughout the span of the song, and with a playful shrug, walked off the stage. Monroe knew what men wanted, and that she became. A full bodied young women with the innocence and playfulness of a child.
The male gaze in this sequence is embodied in the brief but sure shot of Osgood Fielding waving at Daphne and Josephine while they were playing. With a smug smile and a wave of his hand, he was showing them his pleasure from watching them perform for HIM. And that essentially is the male gaze, the sense of dominance a man feels when a woman does something for his pleasure. In a way, a man feels self gratified when a woman submits, albeit indirectly to his will. The male superego is gratified when a man is able to establish this dominance over someone or something. In this case, a man feels powerful when he is able to get women to do things for his pleasure. However, what Osgood Feilding didn't know was that he was actually flirting with a man. And that is where symbolism comes in.
Drawing our focus to symbolism in the movie, the shot of Daphne and Josephine receiving flowers from each of their admirers no doubt draws some laughs from us. However, it is also extremely ironic as they are not who they seem to be. In actual fact, they are men dressed as girls. Symbolically, someone who acts like a girl, talks like a girl and dresses like a girl is a girl. However, this is not the case with them, as it is also not with many other things in the movie, which aren't what they seems to be. For instance, at first glance, one may write off Osgood Fielding, simply by the typology of his face, that he was a dirty old man who craved for sex. However, we soon find out that it is not the case, that in fact he was a sweet gentlemen who genuinely desired love. Another example is in the case of Mr. Shell Jr., Sugar thought that she had met the man of her dreams, rich, caring and what not. However, we know all too well that he was actually Josephine, and Josephine on the other hand, was actually Joe. Nobody is who they seem to be. The symbolism here is intriguing. On the surface, it seemed that Mr. Shell Jr. was a rich billionaire, when in fact he was Josephine; Josephine seemed to be a demure woman from a conservatory, when in fact she was actually Joe. In addition, we also see how symbolism was used by Joe to get intimate with Sugar. Symbolically, Mr. Shell Jr. was a man, yet, Joe tells Sugar that he does not have the "potency" of a man, wherein he suffers for erectile dysfunction. So does this make him a man or not? This manipulation of signifiers in the movie sends confusing signals to Sugar, which finally induces her to get intimate with him.
The signifier of sending flowers also has a dominant cultural meaning. The meaning of a gesture lies in the interpreter of the gesture, where a sign has no meaning unless it is interpreted. In many cultures, flowers are sent by men to women. By sending flowers, a men establishes his dominance in the relationship as he is actually the one whom is in control. An unmannered/rude man wouldn't send flowers like what a gentlemen would do. In this sequence, we see Osgood Fielding sending flowers to two men instead of women. However, the meaning of this gesture is distorted to the audience, as we know that Daphne and Josephine were both men. Also, through a simple signifying gesture of sending flowers, we actually see the difference in character between Osgood Fielding and the Bellhop. We discern that while one is a true gentlemen, the other is simply a sexually charged teenager, from a mere simple gesture. Semiotics are widely used throughout the rest of the movie. As many issues discussed in this movies are culturally sensitive or inappropriate, many forms of symbolizers are used to cover up what is actually being said. For instance, when Sugar said that she always got the "fuzzy end of the lollipop," she actually meant some other "lollipop". Also, words like "toothpaste", "italian opera" and so on are some of the signifiers used throughout the movie to mean something else entirely. Even the "problem" Mr. Shell Jr. meant when he took Sugar on his boat was referring to something more culturally sensitive which was erectile dysfunction. Taking it even further, this "problem", which was supposed to make him "safe" from girls, was actually turned on its head and used to take advantage of Sugar.
From a feminist view, symbolically, Josephine, or Joe was a man, in the sense that he was in love with Sugar, yet he was dressed up as a woman. On the other hand, Daphne was the embodiment of a woman, in finally becoming a real "woman" even accepting the captain's proposal, but in fact he was actually a man. This is extremely ironic. The use symbolism in this movie truly adds another layer of humor to it. The classic player, portrayed by Joe here, is actually a man dressed up as a woman playing a man, and using his/her friendship with Sugar to take advantage of her vulnerability. However, the woman, Daphne, actually falls in love and gets whisked on a fantastic romance with Osgood Fielding, who in actual fact, a man! As we take a closer look at the characters portrayed by both these men, we actually see elements of feminity in both of them. Physically they are fully male, but because of this transformation, we see them actually incorporate elements of the female physique into their character. And not forgetting Marilyn Monroe, although she plays the naive blonde in this movie, underneath that, she's actually the a femme fatale. She leverages her beauty and seduction to her benefit, playing to the male gaze, so as to getting what she wants. And this is true even today, that because of that vulnerability, today she's one of the most well known sex-symbols on the planet. And it is no wonder that this kind of humor and irony that has garnered Some like it Hot a top spot as one of the best comedies ever made.
Right from the very beginning, we see the choice to use chiaroscuro lighting to highlight Sugar and the disco ball in the middle of the ballroom. Amidst the grey and dark mass of people, Sugar stands out like a sparkling diamond, outshining everything else in that ballroom. The high key lighting used here to create contrast shows how enchanting and beautiful Monroe is, to an extend even portraying her like an angel. As the camera closes in on Sugar, we see her standing higher than the mass of heads below her, in a way elevating her to a higher level than them. Also, this could represent how the male gaze worships her, and even more so, her body. At the same time, we also can't help but notice how seductively she is dressed. In wearing a body hugging dress the same color as her skin, it instantly draws the audience in to pay closer attention to her bust line, while at the same time, the dark shadow dances tantalizingly up and down her bust. Effectively, this has drawn us into the world of Marilyn Monroe, we hang on to her every word, and at that instant, we were completely at her mercy.
The same lighting technique continues to be used throughout the length of the number, effectively drowning out the performers at the back, solely focusing our attention on the one person that mattered in the sequence, Monroe. No doubt that she has become the object of sexual objectification here. This, in addition to the one sided lyrics such as "I wanna kissed by you, just you." couldn't be any more subtle. From this, we can see that the sexual objectification of Monroe was specifically aimed at the male gaze, as the lyrics were clearly aimed for men, not women. Lyrics like these play to the male superego, as it exposes Monroe's vulnerability, almost as if she was yearning for a man to sweep her off her feet and kiss her. Obviously the same wouldn't be true if a woman was listening to this. It was as if she was calling to every man who was listening to her, "come and get me!"
The male gaze in this sequence is embodied in the brief but sure shot of Osgood Fielding waving at Daphne and Josephine while they were playing. With a smug smile and a wave of his hand, he was showing them his pleasure from watching them perform for HIM. And that essentially is the male gaze, the sense of dominance a man feels when a woman does something for his pleasure. In a way, a man feels self gratified when a woman submits, albeit indirectly to his will. The male superego is gratified when a man is able to establish this dominance over someone or something. In this case, a man feels powerful when he is able to get women to do things for his pleasure. However, what Osgood Feilding didn't know was that he was actually flirting with a man. And that is where symbolism comes in.
Drawing our focus to symbolism in the movie, the shot of Daphne and Josephine receiving flowers from each of their admirers no doubt draws some laughs from us. However, it is also extremely ironic as they are not who they seem to be. In actual fact, they are men dressed as girls. Symbolically, someone who acts like a girl, talks like a girl and dresses like a girl is a girl. However, this is not the case with them, as it is also not with many other things in the movie, which aren't what they seems to be. For instance, at first glance, one may write off Osgood Fielding, simply by the typology of his face, that he was a dirty old man who craved for sex. However, we soon find out that it is not the case, that in fact he was a sweet gentlemen who genuinely desired love. Another example is in the case of Mr. Shell Jr., Sugar thought that she had met the man of her dreams, rich, caring and what not. However, we know all too well that he was actually Josephine, and Josephine on the other hand, was actually Joe. Nobody is who they seem to be. The symbolism here is intriguing. On the surface, it seemed that Mr. Shell Jr. was a rich billionaire, when in fact he was Josephine; Josephine seemed to be a demure woman from a conservatory, when in fact she was actually Joe. In addition, we also see how symbolism was used by Joe to get intimate with Sugar. Symbolically, Mr. Shell Jr. was a man, yet, Joe tells Sugar that he does not have the "potency" of a man, wherein he suffers for erectile dysfunction. So does this make him a man or not? This manipulation of signifiers in the movie sends confusing signals to Sugar, which finally induces her to get intimate with him.
The signifier of sending flowers also has a dominant cultural meaning. The meaning of a gesture lies in the interpreter of the gesture, where a sign has no meaning unless it is interpreted. In many cultures, flowers are sent by men to women. By sending flowers, a men establishes his dominance in the relationship as he is actually the one whom is in control. An unmannered/rude man wouldn't send flowers like what a gentlemen would do. In this sequence, we see Osgood Fielding sending flowers to two men instead of women. However, the meaning of this gesture is distorted to the audience, as we know that Daphne and Josephine were both men. Also, through a simple signifying gesture of sending flowers, we actually see the difference in character between Osgood Fielding and the Bellhop. We discern that while one is a true gentlemen, the other is simply a sexually charged teenager, from a mere simple gesture. Semiotics are widely used throughout the rest of the movie. As many issues discussed in this movies are culturally sensitive or inappropriate, many forms of symbolizers are used to cover up what is actually being said. For instance, when Sugar said that she always got the "fuzzy end of the lollipop," she actually meant some other "lollipop". Also, words like "toothpaste", "italian opera" and so on are some of the signifiers used throughout the movie to mean something else entirely. Even the "problem" Mr. Shell Jr. meant when he took Sugar on his boat was referring to something more culturally sensitive which was erectile dysfunction. Taking it even further, this "problem", which was supposed to make him "safe" from girls, was actually turned on its head and used to take advantage of Sugar.
From a feminist view, symbolically, Josephine, or Joe was a man, in the sense that he was in love with Sugar, yet he was dressed up as a woman. On the other hand, Daphne was the embodiment of a woman, in finally becoming a real "woman" even accepting the captain's proposal, but in fact he was actually a man. This is extremely ironic. The use symbolism in this movie truly adds another layer of humor to it. The classic player, portrayed by Joe here, is actually a man dressed up as a woman playing a man, and using his/her friendship with Sugar to take advantage of her vulnerability. However, the woman, Daphne, actually falls in love and gets whisked on a fantastic romance with Osgood Fielding, who in actual fact, a man! As we take a closer look at the characters portrayed by both these men, we actually see elements of feminity in both of them. Physically they are fully male, but because of this transformation, we see them actually incorporate elements of the female physique into their character. And not forgetting Marilyn Monroe, although she plays the naive blonde in this movie, underneath that, she's actually the a femme fatale. She leverages her beauty and seduction to her benefit, playing to the male gaze, so as to getting what she wants. And this is true even today, that because of that vulnerability, today she's one of the most well known sex-symbols on the planet. And it is no wonder that this kind of humor and irony that has garnered Some like it Hot a top spot as one of the best comedies ever made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)