“Not in favour of a reconstructed new pleasure, which cannot exist in the abstract, nor of intellectualised unpleasure, but to make way for a total negation of the ease and plenitude of the narrative fiction film.”

From a sculpture/painting of Nefertiti in 1330 B.C. Egypt to Marilyn Monroe’s command over a subway grate, beauty standards are latched onto us by force and esteem. The pedestal we silently, unconsciously, align to is a titan to contradict without sounding as though one bears the brunt of judgement. But the hallmark for that model can cite back to cartoons of rabbits who swoon with their hearts throbbing 3 feet from their chest. iTs a collective articulation by or for the male gaze. The process of objectification is sourced in essays written by Sigmund Freud. He divulges the connection of objectifications with primal instincts of scopophilia in early stages of environment/selfhood awareness. “Although the instinct is modified by other factors, in particular the constitution of the ego, it continues to exist as the basis for pleasure in looking at another person as object.”

Objectification of humans as a theory does not make as much sense as an initial thought, but one that sits perfectly in retrospect. From the Marxist dissection of man & commodity, third wave feminism, “objectification of humans” philosophizes, psychoanalyzes exactly how/why society has created such unpardonable inequality. The treatment, when faced with scorching indifference from a public aware of it, can be excavated down to the subconscious of how they are collectively taught to see in the modern age. A wild guess, but World Wars might link to media. Posters of propaganda, narratives from flowery writers that flourish the wining vision of an empire. Then to 20th century ubiquity, the movie is the energy for an audience. The influence of a movie is forcing its substance into deconstruction. Who can deny the allure of a panning shot of Brad Pitt fixing a car? Most people can identify its origin, as Mulvey cites the boundless cycle of wanting to emulate the active male while attaining the environment the lead actor commands, but what of its effect? The theory behind their essay investigates the psychological concoctions behind “movie magic”. “Scale, space, stories are all anthropomorphic..Here, curiosity and the wish to look inter­ mingle with a fascination with likeness and recognition:” Its undeniable the aim behind years of cinema has been to normalize the woman as the paradoxical clash between risk & gratification. I do believe the male gaze has morphed in the last few decades to be beyond gender and more centered on hierarchical, normative ideals.