Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema’  published in 1975, sparked a major discussion regarding the “interweaving of erotic pleasure within film, its meaning and in particular, the central place of the image of the woman” (2084). This essay was among the first to create a shift of film theory to a psychoanalytic framework, commonly influenced from the works of Freud and Lacan. Mulvey’s essay challenges the pleasure we experience from cinema by raising the concept of “women as an image and man as bearer of the look” (2088). 

Within cinematic displays, as a viewer we are “offered a number of possible pleasures” (2086). The first of pleasures we are offered is scopophilia or deriving pleasure from looking. “Freud isolated scopophilia as one of the component instincts of sexuality which exist as drives quite independently of the erotogenic zones. At this point, he associated scopophilia with taking other people in as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze” (2086). By participating in the cinema, a viewer is immediately cast into a scopophilia based environment. The cinema “portrays a hermetically concealed world which unwinds magically, indifferent to the presence of the audience, producing for them a sense of separation and playing on their voyeuristic fantasy” (2086). The darkness of the theatre contrasting with the brightness of the projection also helps to promote the illusion of a voyeuristic separation. 

The second of pleasures we are offered in cinematic viewings is scopophilia developed into a narcissistic aspect. Most mainstream films pay attention to the human form. The characters within a cinematic production are recognized with likeness of the “human face, body, the relationships between human form and its surroundings- the visible presence of the person in the world” (2087). As a movie goer, the male viewer connects with the male protagonist or hero of the story. The character who has the big muscles, the big house in hollywood, the sports car and hot babe on his arm. Sympathizing with a character in this way allows the viewer to “act out a complex process of likeness and difference or the glamourous impersonates the ordinary” (2087). 

This narcissistic aspect of scopophilia directly related to Lacan’s theory involving the mirror stage within child development. Lacan implements the concept that when a child first views themselves in a mirror, their self-image becomes more complete. Due to the lack of motor skills, when a young child sees themselves in a mirror, they feel a sense of perfection that isn’t felt from their own body. The same theory applies in the cinema. An image on the screen creates a sense of recognition and misrecognition for the viewer: the image recognized is conceived as the reflected body of the self, but its misrecognition as superior projects this body outside itself as an ideal ego, the alienated subject which, re-introjected as the ego ideal. The viewer can lose their sense of self and ego as they re-imagine themselves living the life of the protagonist. 

Mulvey contrasts these two concepts of scopophilia with a woman as the direct object of a viewer. Within films throughout hollywood, women have been objectified as an image of the determining male gaze. “The female figure possesses strong exhibitionist roles, in which women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so they can be said to connote a ‘looked-at-ness’”(2088). The place of a women in cinematic productions creates “an indispensable element of spectacle in a narrative film” (2088). Her presence often works against the storyline, to freeze the flow of action in erotic contemplation. “The female character provokes and represents an idea that spurs a will or inspires a fear/love within the hero. The woman causes the man to act the way he does- but, the woman herself has not the slightest importance” (2089). 

Mulvey published this essay in 1975, during a time where most films portrayed a male hero with a female love interest. Films and television have changed dramatically in the last 38 years. An example of this would be the popular HBO series ‘Game of Thrones’. This show portrays several different story lines revolving around a private sphere of family (Starks), blood rivalry (Lannisters), a female protagonist with a male love interest (Kahlessi), an orphan male with a traditional female love interest (Snow) among many others. I feel that this show demonstrates the concept of scopophilia to an endless degree on many different spectrums for every type of viewer. There are many other modern cinematic works that stray from her theory of a woman as an objective image; however, the conversation she struck at the time of this articles publication pressured hollywood to re-examine the filmic strategies of classical hollywood.

                In T.S. Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent, he situates tradition as the hallmark of significant works of art rather than uniqueness. Tradition can be loosely defined in the framework of Eliot’s writing as related to the reconstruction of the past or “archaeological reconstruction” (955). Eliot highlights the affinity of people to emphasize the individuality of a work of art as opposed to evaluating it based on how it fits into the existing tradition of art. Eliot states, “We dwell with satisfaction upon the poet’s difference from his predecessors, […], we endeavor to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed” (956). This idea of isolating one component of a work underscores one of his major points which is that you can’t divorce the work of art from it context steeped in both the traditional past and the present. He states, “You cannot value [the artist] alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead” (956). According to Eliot, this is where a work of art finds its value and significance. However, Eliot doesn’t advocate for a mindless imitation of works past. He states, “novelty is better than repetition” (956). He promotes an active participation in tradition – in the learning and reproduction of it. He states, “[tradition] cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour” (956). He details the historical sense which he deems necessary to be a prolific artist past the years of one’s youth. He defines the historical sense as the perception of the “pastness of the past” coupled with a “feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order” (956). This simultaneous order isn’t depicted as static but constantly changing as new works of art are added to it which reorders the whole structure. In this way, the new and contemporary alters the past or more specifically our perception of the past. He states, “The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art towards the whole readjusted” (957). This idea of some sort of trans-historical gallery of works of art with values determined by their comparison to one another seems plausible enough – although perhaps a little problematic. It is in my opinion, human nature to order entities of any kind and to make groupings of classifications. However, Eliot asserts that this order is in no way hierarchial. Order and comparison, in a way, connotes judgments of value. He states, “[the poet] must be quite aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but the material of art is never quite the same” (957). He speaks of a “refinement” rather than “improvement” but that also seems to suggest a progression and judgment. It is hard to situate what exactly the basis of this order is.

                Eliot states, “Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry” (958). Eliot aims for art to be seen as a science with different elements that combine to make a new work of art. In order to do this he states that “the progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality” (958). This “depersonalization” divorces the artist from his work. As practical as this may be, it seems to be in opposition to his emphasis of context in the beginning of his argument in Tradition and the Individual Talent. He posits the more mature artist as a “more finely perfected medium in which special, or very varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations” (958). He states, “the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material” (959). This suggests that writing should be less cathartic for the author and more directed towards eliciting a desired effect upon the audience. This requires a mastery over the author’s self and their emotions. This provides more mastery over the audience and the desired response. This discipline involved and degree of separation/removal from the writing is required, for example, in the editing process. He states, “The poet’s mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together” (959). He devalues the emotions and personality of the author in favor of “the intensity of the artistic process” and “technical excellence” (961).  For Eliot, this removal of the author creates a variety that would not be able to sustain itself otherwise.

Separate thoughts:

Can one actually divorce themselves from their writings? The artists and works he cites as good examples of that – do they continuously follow this pattern or do intrusions of their personalities always crop up in veiled ways?

(I could be interpreting this wrong but….)

His order of works of art and tradition might be seen as putting greater emphasis on “European” and “traditional” literature but he also states that “the poet must be very conscious of the main current, which does not at all flow invariably through the most distinguished reputations” (957). He emphasizes the “whole of literature” on several occasions. He also states that he has “suggested the conception of poetry as a living whole of all poetry that has ever been written” (958). Although he uses the male European writers in his examples and they are inextricably tied to what many think of as canonical or traditional writers/artist, he does speak of a whole that deviates from what is currently popular because what is popular today may be less so tomorrow. Perhaps we give him less credit for being inclusive because he doesn’t give specific examples of artists we think of as outside the standard conception of tradition such as female artists. When he says “all” he could mean “all”. Here again, context is valuable. He is perhaps writing from a context – a history that is exclusionary – and therefore we can’t really judge his theories as separate from that context.