Friday 27 March 2015

Fandom



Starter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amYzBQMT4VI

Context:



Snakes on a Plane is a 2006 thriller film starring Samuel L. Jackson in which hundreds of poisonous snakes are released on a passenger jet flying between Hawaii and Los Angeles. Prior to its release in theaters, its B-movie style title combined with Jackson’s casting resulted in much hype for the film online, resulting in a number of parody videos and fan art.


http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/film-fans-spectatorship.html

Create Meaning example 1



Create Meaning example 2

fan involvement, producers keep happy

Task: Apply concepts of specatorship to fandom and map out using your case study

- pleasures
- factors: why, who, what, how, with who, via what medium
- responses - emotional, visceral, intellectual,
- active and passive

use the brief links below to help you produce a mind map as per example (only better with more images from your case study)

http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/intriductory-reading-fandom.html

http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/pleasures-of-film-watching-relationship.html

http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/active-spectatorship-relationship.html

Analyse Fandom's links to the Auteur Theory: how has it developed this?

http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/film-art-and-fandom.html



Analyse - give reasons for the significance of fandom in discussing contemporary spectatorship.
Write your analysis using your case study, write 1 paragraph for each of the following points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 from this list:


Justify the significance of gender, ethnicity, sexuality and technology to contemporary film spectatorship, refering to past and future

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Fandom example: Fan fiction doesn't have to be bad (or gay)

4.4 Final Critical Approach to Spectatorship: Fandom



D Grade: KeyTerms (Define)

Fandom
Cine Literate
Cinephile
Auteur
Communities
Fan fiction
Collpase of the boundary between audience and text (the film)
Film meaning is not inherant, but lies with the audience

C Grade: Apply to Examples
http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/film-fans-spectatorship.html

B Grade: Analyse the contemporary film Industry for the commercial success of this approach. Pick a Case Study & give reasons for purpose of targeting fandoms using spectatorship concepts:

Alignment
Pleasures (http://leighmediaa2filmsectionb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/pleasures-of-film-watching-relationship.html)
Factors & experiences
Readings (negotiated/preffered/oppositional)

A Grade: Explain how significant gender is to Fandom as a critical approach to spectatorship

"FILM ART" AND FANDOM (quotes)

In comparison with the early twentieth-century creation of movie fandom, the figure of the movie fan is perhaps less clearly gendered as feminine/feminized today, but this is because of a much changed cultural context, wherein both men and women are frequently targeted and imaged as consumers. 

This aspect of fandom moves closer to the scholarly appreciation of film, since treating film as art and dignifying certain directors with "authorial" or auteurist status is a strategy that has historically characterized film studies, and that still retains more than a foothold today. So-called "auteur theory" was initially employed solely by intellectuals and cinephiles seeking to value film as a medium, and although it carried cultural cachet, it was also accessible enough for nonacademic audiences to appreciate (Taylor, p. 87). Moving from being an exclusive/elitist view of film held by French cinéastes, auteurism entered the US scene and became popularized to the extent that Hollywood incorporated its discourse into its own publicity. Auteurism is no longer just a critical approach, but also a commercial strategy for organizing how audiences may respond to film texts.

One of the most significant cultural activities undertaken by film fans, then, is the way in which they seek to invest the work of their preferred performers and directors with cultural capital, setting their tastes against what they perceive and construct as mainstream cinema. However, such an apparent detachment from "the commercial" is itself commercial, since these fans are still placed within a specific market. Though this is related to the debate over fandom's resistant capability, it can also be viewed as a matter of film fans' cultural practices. Cult-film fans seek to defend and value their favored texts, but by doing so they also hope to reflect their own aesthetic taste, for they can see "true" artistic worth where general audiences cannot.  

Mark Kermode argues that horror fans actively perceive the genre's aesthetic value, whereas nonfans passively consume horror as if its representations are actual rather than aestheticized images of gore; he offers a convincing opposition between "active" fans who read horror films in relation to surreal genre precedents and "passive" nonfans who are characterized as reading horror films more naively.
In Kermode's account, horror fans are, crucially, "genre literate." Like fans of other genres or specific movie stars, they are expert consumers, able to trace generic histories and interpret new films in relation to countless preceding examples. This type of movie fan has a keen sense of intertextuality; thus, boundaries around "the text itself" tend to be partly dissolved by fans who, even while they carry out close readings of certain films, relate texts to others, either by generic category, in auteurist terms, or by focusing on a favored star. Organized fandoms, like those for cult movies or the horror genre, therefore challenge the idea that any film's meaning and significance are inherent. Rather, it is by reading films in relation to, and through, other texts that fans can convert "the film" into those meanings and values that characterize their fandom as a kind of interpretive community.
 
Fans read films not only through official publicity texts such as DVD extras, but also in relation to fan-produced texts (fan fiction). Henry Jenkins proffers the example of one fan who wrote an alternative ending to the film Thelma and Louise (1991) in which these female characters transform themselves into bats (Jenkins, 2000, p. 177). Recontextualizing the film as a lesbian vampire tale, this creative fan interpretation (and production) of meaning indicates how generic identities and textual boundaries can be reinscribed by film fans.

Thus, whether it is the interpretive activities of individual fans, or the socially organized, communal practices of fandom, fans and fandom have been as important to film studies as to the film industry.
 
Questions:
 
How does being a fan add a level of depth to passive consumers (non-fans)
 
How does being a fan or fandom help producers target this commercial market for 'cult films'. What examples of cult films can you find?
 
Find an example of fan-produced texts (fan fiction) for film on Youtube, how does this change your understanding of the Gazes, identity and alignment from your spectatorship studies?
 
What is a fandom and example of active spectatorship - explain with reference to a specific fandom around a film.
If fans can convert "the film" into those meanings and values that characterize their fandom as a kind of interpretive community. Find evidence to back this up
 
What does the article mean by the 'boundaries around "the text itself" tend to be partly dissolved by fans' - how does fan culture accomplish this, find an example.
 
What does it mean by the 2 impacts of fandom, 'interpretive activities of individual fans, or the socially organized, communal practices of fandom'? Find an example of this.

Does Fandom have academic/scholarly value as an approach to film spectatorship - what previous critical appraoich/theory does it return to and how does it develop it?

Conclusion - how does the concept of fandoms and the response of the film industry to this type of specatatorship develop our response to the question?
 
Assessment:
Which would you categorise the pleasures of Fandom?
Is Fandom Active or Passive Spectatorship? 

Friday 27 February 2015

Of Mulvey, Butler, and the Homosexual Gaze




Laura Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze has been received by feminists and queer theorists as highly influential in the fields of both cinema and photography, and has been used by feminists as a starting point to female body disturbance caused by men and advertising representation.  Mulvey’s theory from Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, however, focuses on strictly the heterosexual role in visual pleasure, scopophilia, not looking into the homosexual male gaze at all.  It is then necessary to use Mulvey’s work, along with Judith Butler’s gender conformativity theory, to analyze how homosexual males view heterosexual, homosexual, and transsexual films.  I argue that looking at films from the homosexual male view with the lens of Mulvey and Butler can we see that the homosexual male gaze is quite different from its straight counterpart.  Using Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Judith Butler’s gender performance and conformativity theories, the homosexual male role in watching the films XXX, Latter Days, and Hedwig and the Angry Inch objectifies the men in heterosexual target audience films because of the male character’s desire for the female, while in the homosexual films, desire is mixed with empathy because of the coming out process.

Mulvey and Visual Pleasure
Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure essay describes a theory in which the male gaze of women removes their human identity and views her as a sexual object.  This is in part because of a Freudian viewpoint that because women do not have a phallus, men are afraid of the castrated human form and must objectify her in order to compensate for her lack of a phallus.  “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 as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze (Mulvey, 3.)”  Scopophilia is the “love of looking” that creates sexual objects of those human forms that we are looking at.  Her essay further states that the male gaze is so overpowering, that women cannot be represented in movies as anything more than foils for these scopophilic tendency male viewers have.  So the women, mentally to watch the movie, must become a man in order to view films.  This already becomes a gender displacement in that she must objectify another woman, whom she may have no sexual desire for, because of the overwhelming pressure and presence the male gaze holds.  Her compliance with this dominant male gaze creates a situation where she can no longer watch a movie as a sexual woman, but become a man in order to associate her in male dominated cinema.
Q. So what if you are a homosexual man?

Gender Conformativity
It is necessary when analyzing Mulvey’s theory to think how roles in homosexual culture are referred and applied to a theory that is largely heterosexually dominant.  To do this we must understand the gender roles homosexual men must reside on, and Judith Butler’s Imitation and Gender Insubordination essay outlines her theory that gender is all performative, resulting from constant repetition of what is masculine and what is feminine is society’s eyes in order to solidify these roles.  It becomes a binary, where men and women are polarized to opposite ends of what defines a man and a woman.  When it comes to gender identity of gays and lesbians, Butler states “[c]compulsory heterosexuality sets itself as the original, the true, the authentic; the norm that determines the real and implies that ‘being’ a lesbian is always a kind of miming, a vain effort to participate in the phantasmatic plenitude of naturalized heterosexuality which will always and only fail (Butler, 312.)”  Butler is arguing that homosexuality imitates heterosexuality’s defining gender roles.  That a butch lesbian is imitating a man because of her masculine qualities that only belong to a man, so she must be a fake in order be in the gender realm.  The same goes for feminine gay men and even butch gay men whose hyper masculinity is a play on heterosexual masculinity pushed to the edges.  So gender must be a societal construct that constantly emulates the heterosexual definitions of masculinity and femininity in order to differentiate between the sexes.  When homosexual people enter the gender binary, they must imitate these norms in their relationship, but will always fail.  Butler goes on to state that drag is the only way to show the performativity of gender, but more on that later.
Q. How does this apply to ‘Gay Culture’ films like Brokeback Mountain and Priscilla Queen of the Desert?

The Homosexual Male Gaze
Utilizing these two theories can we form a theory on how homosexual men view cinema.  Now two theories can apply when looking at cinema through the homosexual perspective.  The first is a direct reflection of Butler’s gender conformativity applied to Mulvey’s theory.  It would state that homosexuals must either align themselves with straight women in their viewing of cinema.  To do so, homosexual men must become transsexuals themselves, becoming a woman and being subjugated to a dominant heterosexual, scopophilic gaze that a woman undergoes.  The homosexual gaze then must have another sex change and undergo the woman’s transsexualism in their mind as well.  This seems to have too many transitions, so we can simplify it to a homosexual converting to a heterosexual male.  Homosexuals would lose all their desire for the same sex and view women in a degrading way.  One would, as straight men do, objectify and strip the woman of identity, regarding her as nothing more than a commodity; a body designed to fulfill that scolophilic gaze.
Q. But how does this relate to female film characters that Gay Culture celebrates? Where is the alignment/identification if they are merely reduced to hetero sex objects?

This theory seems to rely too much on the power of the heterosexual male gaze and ignores the desires of the homosexual male.  I propose that an entirely new gaze is created when a gay man looks at film.  First, in accordance with Judith Butler’s gender performativity, he still retains scopophilic tendencies, especially when looking at another man.  When in a film geared toward a heterosexual male audience writer Derek P. Rucas writes in his essay The Male Gaze, Homosexualization, and James Bond Films:
“In Goldfinger, the audience never takes on the gaze or the [point of view] of a female spectator.  We notice that characters such as Pussy Galore and Miss Moneypenny are attracted to Bond, but different conventions are used to articulate this sense of attraction.  For instance, the change of intonation in both the voices of Galore and Moneypenny signify an interest in Bond while Bond’s active gaze is the signifier of his female interest.  Sociologically speaking, the reason for the subdued female gaze could be a result of prominent ideologies present in the early 1960s.  Since the male figure was the dominant of the two sexes, his gaze will be active over the passive one of the female.
Although the female gaze is present in Goldfinger, there is also a gaze cast upon Bond from the male spectator.  This is not necessarily a homosexual gaze, nor a heterosexual gaze.  It is a gaze that could potentially meet both standards in the sense that both homosexual and heterosexual audiences can identify with the Bond character.  For instance, males will tend to idolize Bond because of his smooth McIveresque nature, whereas females will find sexual appeal in Bond.  When Bond is tied to the table with the threat of laser castration, the focus is on Bond’s groin area.  As we can see, according to Mulvey, Freud’s analysis of the threat of castration is a literal obstacle that Bond must overcome.  Although perhaps not consciously intended to be a homosexualized focal point, a gay audience who reads into the Bond films could interpret this scene from a fetishistic standpoint. …[T]he Bond crotch shot has the potential to appeal to both a female and gay audience, sexualizing the Bond character.”
Rucas is claiming that the homosexual male gaze can only come through the female perspective in cinema that our gaze, because it is a male one, overpowers her and her desire becomes our desire. The homosexual gaze is not transsvestivism, but rather a channeling through an outlet of the female desire for the male character, thus objectifying him while he is objectifying her.  Because the homosexual gaze overpowers the female gaze, we are essentially turning her into a commodity to look at heterosexual men with.  A kaleidoscope, if you will, that alters the perception of the film in our favour to turn a sexual being whose gaze is stronger than the female counterpart and meeting that gaze with an equally strong gaze through the woman.
I feel this is channeling through a woman’s perspective to, while it does have its merit, be a bit of a copout in that Rucas is searching for a way to channel his desire for Bond through a way he can get away with.  Women are indeed needed to bring out the sexuality in men, but I propose we are not using them as a lens that we can see through, but when the heterosexual man looks at her with desire, we only see his desire and do not use the woman in the film to express our own.  The character’s gaze and desire are enough to elicit a strong enough response so that the homosexual audience or viewer can objectify him through his own sexuality.  Our gaze is as strong as a heterosexual man’s that it will be met equally when we look upon him alone or when he is transplanting his own desire onto a woman.  I wouldn’t say that we are homosexualizing him, as Rucas would say, because he is being objectified by his own sex appeal and sexuality.  The woman then becomes a foil, which we being to sympathize with through her femininity, and not just a sexual object that we objectify.  Using Ricas’s own argument, in Goldfinger when Bond first meets Pussy Galore, he immediately beings to try to charm her and stares at her assistance butt as if he were taking in the sights of the women.  The gay audience would want James Bond to look at them like that and try to charm them.  So far this is following Rucas’s proposal, but when Galore shoots Bond down, we secretly cheer her on and retain a small delusion that he ultimately would charm us.  His sex appeal and charm are what we desire, so when he stares at a woman, we stare at his appeal, but as an audience and not through the lens of a woman’s gaze, with equal strength, though he cannot see it.  It is complicated by the fact that there is a woman present, but Rucas’s argument is not pushed far enough to show our own scopophilia in the presence of such a man.  It is not channeled; it is imposed through our own gaze as an audience member and does not require the commoditization of a woman to make him a sexual object.  Bond already is.
We are also attracted to Bond’s “machoness” because we secretly idealize partners to be like him: sexy, charming, courageous, suave, and intelligent.  His character traits are what turn us on to him, even when alone, so we continue our scopophilia even when women are not present at all.  We sexualize him through out the movie and not just when a woman is present, though it is much more subdued when she is not there.  His actions and words are enough to have this response come from the homosexual male perspective.
But when the film is designed for a gay male audience, the situation becomes even more complex is our view of the characters.  In this case, the scopophilia and objectifying nature of the male gaze is met with empathy from a common ground.  Laura Mulvey’s argument, that, when a woman is looked at by a man, her human identity is cast off and a purely commodifiable identity, where she needs no personality because of her lack of a phallus, is necessary to the male ego to compensate for the lack of the penis, cannot be applied to gay characters because they have a phallus, but are still the object of desire from the audience.  Through their desire and sexual encounters do we objectify them into the identity lacking sexual object.  But, since most gay films are about the coming out process, the characters can retain their humanity by way of a common experience that binds all out gay men together: the coming out process.  The depression, the denial, the family reaction, the church’s reaction, the suicide attempts; all of these experiences come rushing back to the forefront of memory in the gay audience because it has happened to them.  This creates an empathetic and sympathetic connection to the characters, giving back their own humanity while still desiring them.  It creates a middle ground between objectification and seeing them as a person, which creates both tension and an ability to keep the audience’s attention so a larger message can be conveyed to them.  The heterosexual gaze cannot do this in the same effectiveness as the homosexual gaze can.

Q. What aspects would the Gay community empathise with from their experiences that may develop identification and alignment?
Q. How then is the Queer Gaze not merely a sexual reversal of the Male Gaze?

Conclusion
Using Mulvey and Butler’s two theories can we see how the homosexual gaze is both similar and different in heterosexual, homosexual, and transsexual films.  Through a different emotional capacity, the homosexual gaze is not transformed into either a heterosexual male gaze that objectifies women or a heterosexual woman gaze that becomes overpowered by the heterosexual male gaze, but something entirely new with different desires and complications that emerges from reliability or pure desire an combines them into a new gaze entirely.  While true there is a similarity between certain points of the heterosexual and homosexual gaze, it becomes imperative to see how the heterosexual male gaze overlaps with the homosexual gaze when viewing homosexual target audience films.  Do they hold to Mulvey and Butler’s theory that they are repulsed because of clear gender deviancy from heteronormative practices?  Or does the fact that neither person is castrated negate the necessary need to objectify a woman?  Does the liberal heterosexual gaze match up with the more conservative?  What complications arise in the lesbian or bisexual gaze?  I can only theorize and cannot truly say, but it does open up another goal to see how all of the gazes interact, overlap, and deviate from each other in our viewing of cinematic narrative.

Friday 6 February 2015

Essay Plan Black Swan 1 hr

Essay Plan

"How far does a spectator’s gender affect their viewing experience in contemporary cinema?"

Thesis: 
1. Dominant approach has prioritised exclusively the Male spaectator's position - Freud, Lacan & Mulvey - so Gender has been considered the  most significant aspect.
Is this still true or the most significant?

2. Which film, year of release, director & style, critical response to the film

3. What pleasures was the Director intending to offer to the audience - Intellectual, Spectacle or Emotional?

4. How significant is it in this film? Balanced against Oppositional Gazes, Preferred and Negotiated Readings

Paragrah 1:
Outline Freudian/Psychoanalysis and the meaning produces in the film
Examples & analysis of:
1. Subconscious Suppressed Desires (Animalistic: Sex & Violent Drives) The 'ID'
Scenes:

2. Parental 'Modelling' or (lack of) & effect on Childhood (Nurturing Mother, Daddy's little girl)
Alignment - textual evidence (MICRO) camera, editing hallucinations
Scenes:

Pleasure - Spectacle & Visceral Sexual desire/empathy
Conclusion: so what significance to gender of the spectator - Freud = Male psyche?

Paragraph 2:
Outline Lacanian analysis of the film (Mirror Stage) and the meaning produces in the film
1. Mirrors - broken or distorted - identity and self-awareness
Scenes:
2. Fantasy - hallucinations, lesbian desires, turns into a Black Swan (innocence death/ 'ID' is taking over)
Scenes:
3. God-like perspective for the spectator - omnipresent and omniscient = camera & continuity 'invisible' editing (jump cuts) 
Scenes:
Alignment - Lacan is identity - Identifying with based on Gender?

Conclusion: gender Spectacle Freud waqs basis for this and again Male studies

Paragraph 3:
Outline The Male Gaze, summarise the meaning it produces in the film
1. Voyeurism - CUs = objectification
Scenes:
2. The active 'Look' of male characters, particulalry at women = Power (audience in the film?)
Scenes:
Alignment - Men
Pleasure - sexual pleasure, intellectual

Paragraph 4:
Outline the definition of Oppositional Gazes (power and challenging dominance of male-centric readings)
1. Female Gaze
Scenes:
2. Queer Gaze
Scenes:
Readings - Preferred, Negotiated, Oppositional
Conclusion - directly challenging the question?

Emotional Responses - how does adopting this 'Gaze' make you feel?
Factors that affect adopting this Gaze -  experiences, not being representative of the dominant group/approach




Paragraph 5:
Conclusion: what does it offer to our response to the question - is Gender the most significant factor?

Wednesday 4 February 2015

3.4 Lesson Plan

Warm up

Sources:


Make notes on the Key Definintion Terms referred to in the video

Level 3: C
Articles & Analysis

Level 2: D/E
Read and identify significant quotes/content and in what Historical order

1. Mulvey
2. Doanne
3. Dyer
4. Foucault
5. Bright
6. Stacey
7. Lacan
8. Metz
9. Berger

Level 3: Lower (C)
Summaries how the following Theorists have developed The Gaze Theory in your own words
Identify 3 key scenes from any Case Study, and apply the relevant theorist(s)

Level 3: Higher (B)
Discuss how these Theories offer different meaning to Magic Mike or Black Swan or Django Unchained
Analyse 3 key scenes for MES: casting/performance/nudity, CAM: use of close-up, EDIT: positioning within the Narrative

Level 4:
Explain these Theories and synthesise your own argument:
How useful/limited is the traditional focus on Gender in Gaze Theory in understanding Spectatorship of all audiences 

 
This is the goal of what we will produce

Academic Article


Article 1 Intro (some thoughts on Queer Gaze)

Article 1 Intro (some thoughts on Queer Gaze)





































Level 2: D/E
Read and identify significant quotes/content and in what Historical order

1. Mulvey
2. Doanne
3. Dyer
4. Foucault
5. Bright
6. Stacey
7. Lacan
8. Metz
9. Berger

Level 3: Lower (C)
Summaries how the following Theorists have developed The Gaze Theory in your own words
Identify 3 key scenes from any Case Study, and apply the relevant theorist(s)

Level 3: Higher (B)
Discuss how these Theories offer different meaning to Magic Mike or Black Swan or Django Unchained
Analyse 3 key scenes for MES: casting/performance/nudity, CAM: use of close-up, EDIT: positioning within the Narrative

Level 4:
Explain these Theories and synthesise your own argument:
How useful/limited is the traditional focus on Gender in Gaze Theory in understanding Spectatorship of all audiences

Magazine Article (Level 2 - Low Level 3)

Gazes, Pleasure, and the Failure of Magic Mike

July 3, 2012
By | 1 Comment
The boys of Magic Mike 
When I saw the first bit of promotional material for Magic Mike, it took me about two seconds to call my mother. A movie about male strippers, featuring Matthew McConaughey and Matt Bomer? It was as if someone had reached into my mom’s brain, pulled out her id, and made it into a film. And as more and more trailers, stills, and interviews hit the internet, TV screens, and magazine pages, I became more and more excited about what seemed to be a viable summer popcorn movie focused almost entirely on the (straight) female gaze.
I saw Magic Mike on Monday night, with my mother, in a theater exclusively populated by cheering, hooting, unabashedly lustful women. The movie’s marketing had obviously hit its target. And yet, the film’s resolution turned out to be a bit of a bait-and-switch, promoting the idea that smart, attractive, morally sound women would never enjoy, or even sanction, male stripping. In other words, the film’s overarching message is a reprimand and a ridicule of the very women whose money it so desperately seeks.
While the film’s protagonists are all male, Magic Mike features many female characters. Unfortunately, most of them fall into one of two categories: sexually-promiscuous, exploitatively filmed, usually topless hangers-on of the male strippers who both literally and metaphorically represent the protagonists’ downfall, and attendees of the male revue who are portrayed as either drunken, childish floozies or desperate, unattractive objects of ridicule. (In one particularly distasteful scene, Joe Manganiello’s stripper character, “Big Dick Richie,” mockingly mimes back pain after lifting a heavyset woman, which seems like a poor business strategy for a man of his profession.)
The exceptions to this category are Olivia Munn’s Joanna, a bisexual, promiscuous psychology student who cruelly leads on Channing Tatum’s titular character; and Cody Horn’s Brooke, a responsible medical assistant and Mike’s ultimate love interest, who doesn’t approve of Mike or her brother (Adam, played by Alex Pettyfer) stripping. Of all the characters, Brooke is the one we’re asked to identify with and see as the moral center of the story. She has a “real” job, she doesn’t give in to Joanna’s scandalous advances, she never drinks or does drugs, she’s her brother’s primary caretaker, and she acts as the catalyst for Mike to realize that his stripping is immature at best and destructive at worst. By the end of the film, Mike has quit his job to focus on more mature pursuits, and Brooke rewards him by finally relenting to his romantic interest. (Unlike the usual gender-flipped stripper narrative, there is no indication that Brooke is attempting to “save” Mike’s virtue, or seeking to claim sole ownership of his naked body; it is, rather, her female virtue she is protecting when she refuses to associate with male strippers.)
There are more problems with this film: the insistent reinforcement of the male strippers’ heterosexuality coupled with mild instances of homophobia (only the morally suspect Joanna is allowed to be textually queer); the lack of characters of color who aren’t drug dealers (other than Joanna and Tito, Adam Rodriguez’s almost dialogue-free stripper character); and the fact that Brooke does nothing more than flail and scream when her brother nearly overdoses, despite her established medical training. But all of these issues tie into the same fundamental flaw: though the movie claims to be (and was certainly marketed to be) a film all about flipping sexist tropes and celebrating the female gaze, it can’t help falling back into problematic mainstream patterns: the male gaze, virgin/whore dichotomies, and the vilification of female pleasure.
Yet as I think back on my experience in that movie theater, I can’t help hoping that this is a sign of better things to come. Despite the film’s abundant flaws, Magic Mike has given women (including my mother and, let’s be honest, myself) the opportunity to go to a public, non-stigmatized place (unlike the private home party or derided strip club) to take in the sight of men putting themselves on sexual display for their benefit. The women in the diegetic audience of the strippers’ performances may be ridiculed, but it is still their hungry gaze we are invited to claim as our own. Magic Mike is not a great movie, but I hold out hope that its attempts to break the mold, however halfhearted, will inspire more and better versions of its kind in years to come.

Academic Resource (B & A Grade content)


Identify significant points on:

The Male Gaze ('Voyeurism' Sexual looking at women, 'Scopophilia' & male power)
The Female Gaze (Women looking at men & equal power/subordinance)
The Queer Gaze (Multiple sexualities & bisexuality - identification with flamboyant/ostracised camp characters)

Chick Flicks and the Straight Female Gaze: Sexual Objectification and Sex Negativity in New Moon, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Magic Mike, and Fool’s Gold
Natalie Perfetti-Oates, Florida State, USA
1In her landmark article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey’s analysis of scopophilia in classic Hollywood cinema reveals the existence and impact of the male gaze. The article, published in 1975, characterizes the industry as dominated by the heterosexual male’s pleasure in looking. Mulvey examines how this gaze affects the gendered representations of bodies on screen. She writes:
In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connotate to-be-looked-at-ness. (2088)
Here Mulvey establishes a binary: woman as spectacle and man as spectator. Her argument, which she makes in regard to classic Hollywood movies, has become fundamental to film studies and applied by scholars to a wide array of films. In so doing, however, many have critiqued the binary Mulvey posits in “Visual Pleasure” for oversimplifying scopophilia by disregarding the dynamics of the female gaze.
2In response to such criticism, Mulvey analyzes the role of the female spectator in her essay “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ inspired by Duel in the Sun.” This piece, published in 1981, describes the female spectator either as unable to identify with the (male) hero on screen or “secretly, unconsciously almost, enjoying the freedom of action and control over the diegetic world that identification with a hero provides” (70). In the case of the latter, Mulvey remarks that the female spectator will undergo a complex struggle between masculinity and femininity, one that parallels the struggle Freud describes between active and passive experienced by young girls in their early development. Indeed, Mulvey states that “the female spectator’s phantasy of masculinization [is] at cross-purposes with itself, restless in its transvestite clothes” (79). In “Afterthoughts,” Mulvey makes room for the female spectator, but does not address the possibility of the female gaze. She does not consider that beyond identifying, or not identifying, with the (male) hero as a subject, the female spectator might turn her gaze upon him as an object (of visual pleasure). However, film studies should consider not only the dynamics of the female as spectator, but also of the male as spectacle. As Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin point out, “Representations of men are just as socially constructed as are those of women, and need to be explored in a similar manner” (245). Benshoff and Griffin highlight a blind spot in film studies, calling for scholarship that balances Mulvey’s binary in “Visual Pleasure.” The erotic spectacle of the male body on screen is particularly important for analysis in light of the emerging trend of male sexual objectification in cinema.
3Several scholars in film studies have noted the sexual objectification of men on screen in action movies. This genre, with its reputation for featuring guns, explosions, and cleavage, traditionally caters to the heterosexual male gaze. The sensationalization of violence and the sexual objectification of Megan Fox throughout Transformers (2007) are characteristic. However, more and more action movies invite the heterosexual female gaze by showcasing men’s bodies as well, such as, for example, Ryan Reynolds’s in Blade Trinity (2004). Other popular examples of male spectacle include the bodies of Vin Diesel in The Fast and the Furious (2001), Gerard Butler in 300 (2006), and Hugh Jackman in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009). Yvonne Tasker observes that “As with the figure of the showgirl that Laura Mulvey refers to in classic Hollywood films, contemporary American action movies work hard, and often at the expense of narrative development, to contrive situations for the display of the hero’s body” (79). She examines the recent shift in focus from the spectacle of the body in action to the spectacle of the body itself. Similarly, Benshoff and Griffin point out that “in action movies and Westerns […] it has become something of a cliché that the hero’s shirt will be torn open during a particularly rough fight with an opponent” (246). Along with Tasker, Benshoff and Griffin reveal male sexual objectification in the action movie genre as an increasing trend, a phenomenon that holds important implications for the straight female gaze.
4Few scholars, however, recognize that the erotic spectacle of the male body appears in chick flick films as well. The term ‘chick flick’ has been used variously in the film industry. Mainly understood as a movie geared toward a female viewership, ‘chick flick’ is often specifically synonymous with romantic comedies. However, the genre can more generally describe female-targeted films in which romance, characterized by a ‘boy gets girl’ formula, composes the plot. ‘Chick flick’ is a relatively recent term, though it has since been applied retroactively to earlier women’s movies that feature love stories. Chick flicks have been showing women falling in love with men for decades, yet only recently have they shown men as objects of erotic spectacle. Indeed, the chick flicks mentioned by Mulvey in “Visual Pleasure,” such as To Have and Have Not (1944) and The River of No Return (1954), largely follow the paradigm of woman as spectacle and man as spectator she sets forth. Indeed, viewers of these movies see the bodies of their female leads revealed in low-cut shirts or fitting dresses while the bodies of their male leads are obscured by suits and ties or jackets and long sleeves. The main visual pleasure these men offer their audience members lies in admiration of their faces rather than the rest of their bodies. This pattern continues after the publication of “Visual Pleasure” and “Afterthoughts” for many decades—for example, in the 1980s with Sixteen Candles (1984), the 1990s with Pretty Woman (1990), and the early 2000s with A Walk to Remember (2002). The men in these chick flicks do not undergo any notable sexual objectification. However, beginning in the late 2000s, male sexual objectification occurs more systematically in the genre. This trend can be illustrated in movies like What Happens in Vegas (2008), The Proposal (2009), and Dear John (2010). Each of these features scenes which position the male lead’s body as a source of visual pleasure for his spectators. For example, The Proposal, a movie that already challenges gender norms by positioning its female lead as the boss and its male lead as her assistant, interestingly inverts the cliché of the shower scene. Here we see Sandra Bullock step out of the shower and look for a towel; instead of close-ups of her body, however, spectators see close-ups of Ryan Reynolds removing his clothing as he prepares to get in the shower. The presence of male sexual objectification in chick flicks continues to emerge, and, as it does, calls for renewed conversations about the possibilities for and implications of the gaze.
5Research on the female gaze in film should specifically consider the objectification of the male body in chick flicks, which more than any other genre are created for a heterosexual female audience. However, most of the current conversations regarding male sexual objectification on screen focus on action movies. Moreover, analyses of the female gaze that do focus on chick flicks may not position the erotic male body as an object of the gaze at all. For example, Paula Marantz Cohen’s analysis of the female gaze in chick flicks instead centers on the spectacle of the material world—the elaborate clothes, shoes, and hairstyles—offered to female viewers. She only briefly acknowledges the spectacle of the male body, writing in parenthesis that: “(Male nudity is another story, but it serves more as an aesthetic element than an incitement to lust)” (81). Cohen, among other scholars, appears to assume that since chick flicks characteristically feature stories of love, these films do not also cater to lust. Suzanne Moore addresses this silence surrounding the female gaze, observing that “to suggest that women actually look at men’s bodies is apparently to stumble into a theoretical minefield which holds sacred the idea that in the dominant media the look is always already structured as male” (45). Nevertheless, the sexual objectification of the male body continues to trend in chick flicks, and, as it increasingly impacts viewers, needs to inform scholarly discussions regarding the gaze. As such, my research examines the erotic spectacle of the male body and the presence of the straight female gaze in chick flick cinema, analyzing the association between sexual objectification and sex negativity that occurs in the genre.
Chick Flicks and the Straight Female Gaze: Sexual Objectification and Sex Negativity in "New Moon", "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", "Magic Mike", and "Fool’s Gold" — page 2
6My study of contemporary chick flicks demonstrates that these movies characterize sexual objectification with sex negativity. As Marcia Pally’s article “Object of the Game” points out, sexual objectification is not necessarily negative. In some cases, the object position can offer advantages, such as having the command of the room and/or the control of a captive audience. Pally explains that objectification can be an empowering and even enjoyable experience, so long as men and women do not remain trapped in subject and object positions. Despite this possibility, however, chick flicks overwhelmingly feature male sexual objectification in terms of sex negativity. Gayle Rubin describes sex negativity as a significant facet of United States society, observing that
This culture always treats sex with suspicion. It construes and judges almost any sexual practice in terms of its worst possible expression. Sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Virtually all erotic behaviour is considered bad unless a specific reason to exempt it has been established. (150)
My research examines the prevalence of sex negativity as it takes place in contemporary chick flicks New Moon (2009), Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008), Magic Mike (2012), and Fool’s Gold (2008). As these films attest, the sexual objectification of the male body for the straight female gaze actually weakens the desirability of his character in the plot. Indeed, in New Moon and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, it is the nice guy who ‘gets the girl’ and the sex object who does not. In Magic Mike and Fool’s Gold, the sex object does win over the woman in the end, yet the films designate the sexuality of these characters as a flaw they must overcome to achieve this aim. These case studies of the straight female gaze thus show that chick flicks increasingly indulge in male spectacle, yet condemn male sexual objectification via sex negativity.

Sexual Objectification

7Contemporary chick flicks increasingly cater to the straight female gaze by sexually objectifying their male leads, frequently more than their female ones. New Moon, the second sequence in the Twilight saga, evidences this trend in the character of Jacob Black, played by Taylor Lautner. New Moon is notorious in pop culture for its near-exclusive appeal to a straight female audience. In analysis of its viewer demographic, Melissa Silverstein labels the movie “guy proof,” meaning New Moon “won’t need guys to see it for it to kick some box office butt.” At least part of this chick flick’s popular appeal lies in the erotic spectacle it makes of Jacob’s body, a spectacle especially evident due to the transformation the character undergoes from Twilight to New Moon. (Of course, male sexual objectification occurs to varying extents in each of the Twilight films, but particularly in New Moon as Jacob’s character—and his body—play a central role.) Between the first and second movies, Lautner becomes more muscular, cuts his hair, and, perhaps most significantly, removes his shirt. Kristen Stewart’s character Bella Swan calls attention to these changes the first time she sees him in New Moon, remarking “Hello, biceps. You know, anabolic steroids are really bad for you.” The changes that occur to Lautner’s body in this sequel coincide with Jacob’s transformation to a werewolf. Elizabeth A. Lawrence highlights the werewolf as a sexual symbol (104), also observing that “a person must remove his clothes in order to become a werewolf” (107). This proves true of Jacob, who spends most of the movie shirtless. Interestingly, New Moon does not often invite its viewers to gaze at Jacob’s newly sexualized body in action. Rather, it displays his body in scenes when he simply talks to Bella, such as during a conversation that takes place in her bedroom or another that takes place in the rain. In both he appears shirtless, so that his muscled shoulders and abs are on display to viewers. During a third scene, Jacob removes his shirt in order to help Bella after she has crashed a motorcycle. Note that he does not become shirtless in the process of saving her from the crash, but in order to dab the blood from her head afterward. Moore observes that “What seems to be happening is that now we are seeing the male body coded precisely as erotic spectacle but without the [usual] accompanying narrative violence” (53). In this way, New Moon takes part in a trending objectification of the male body in contemporary chick flicks which counters Mulvey’s conception of the female as the sole object of the gaze.
8In another example of erotic male spectacle, Forgetting Sarah Marshall bares the body of Aldous Snow, played by Russell Brand, for the visual pleasure of its heterosexual female viewers. The sensation Aldous’s body creates bears little similarity to the one made by Jacob’s since Lautner plays a muscular teen werewolf while Brand takes on the role of a libertine adult rock star. The movie relies on this rock star role to sexualize Aldous. His rocker sexuality becomes clear in the first scene Peter Bretter (played by Jason Segel) sees Aldous in person. Juxtaposed to Peter and his dorky Hawaiian shirt, Aldous—shirtless and adorned with tattoos, eyeliner, and jewelry—appears suave and sexy. Brand’s character often provokes a comedic sexual spectacle in Forgetting Sarah Marshall not merely because of the way his body looks, but also the way his body moves. He first appears in the movie, introduced as a “lead singer and notorious lothario,” in a music video that displays him pelvic thrusting and kissing strangers. Aldous pelvic thrusts again in a scene when he sings an erotic song titled “Inside of You” to Sarah (played by Kristen Bell), and yet again in another scene when he teaches a fellow hotel guest to have sex by using a life-size chess piece to demonstrate bedroom poses. In none of these scenes is Aldous with Sarah, thus offering up his body as the sole object of pleasure for the heterosexual female viewer. Forgetting Sarah Marshall garners more appeal from a male audience than do most romantic comedies (perhaps because its protagonist is a man), yet still follows the “boy falls for girl, boy and girl have trouble, and boy gets girl” formula of most chick flicks. Forgetting Sarah Marshall thus serves to exemplify the emerging pattern of male spectacle in chick flicks and the straight female voyeuristic pleasure it indicates.
9Arguably more than any other Hollywood chick flick, Magic Mike caters to the heterosexual female gaze in the unprecedented spectacle of the male body it presents. This spectacle is made possible because the movie follows the story of a stripper and largely unfolds within a strip club. Unlike other chick flicks in which male nudity is incidental to the events of the film, in Magic Mike it is a central part of the plot. As such, over the course of the movie, viewers—like the patrons at the strip club Xquisite—watch a series of stripteases, including multiple group performances as well as several solos featuring Mike (played by Channing Tatum), Adam (played by Alex Pettyfer), and Dallas (played by Matthew McConaughey). Furthermore, the film eroticizes Mike’s body not only on stage at Xquisite, but in his private life as well. Indeed, one of the opening scenes of Magic Mike features Mike’s rear end as he gets out of bed in the morning. Though female nudity occurs occasionally during the movie, it is men’s bodies that take center stage—literally. In many ways, Magic Mike reverses the argument Mulvey makes about the male gaze in “Visual Pleasure,” since the film clearly signifies the presence of the heterosexual female gaze. This gaze occurs not only amongst the female spectators of the movie in theaters, but within the movie as well amongst the female spectators at the strip club Xquisite. Every scene of the men stripping on stage also shows the women in the audience watching and cheering. McConaughey’s character even explicitly references the gaze while teaching Pettyfer’s how to dance. Coaching him in front of a mirror, Dallas tells Adam: “You are the man on the stage. Thousands of women, eyes on you. You are their vision.” In Magic Mike, men are clearly endowed with the “to-be-looked-at-ness” Mulvey describes regarding women, challenging the man-as-subject/woman-as-object binary she posits.
10Matthew McConaughey appears again as Finn in Fool’s Gold, a film that (like Magic Mike) eroticizes the male body for the straight female gaze. Although Kate Hudson (who plays leading lady Tess) appears scantily clad on the movie cover, it is McConaughey’s body viewers see most on screen. McConaughey stars in Fool’s Gold as a treasure hunter/beach bum sporting sun-tanned skin and sun-bleached hair. This character spends most of the movie in trouble, yet manages to do so while looking good. For instance, one scene finds him stranded in the ocean with nothing but a cooler to keep him afloat. Since the boat that will rescue him is visible in the background, the scene does not serve to demonstrate the desperation of Finn’s situation so much as it serves to emphasize the definition of McConaughey’s biceps when clinging to the cooler. Later in the film, Tess confronts Finn about how much money he owes, a conversation that occurs while he wears nothing but a towel; here the viewer watches him talk to Tess while drying water off of his chest and abs. McConaughey’s abs appear on screen a great deal in Fool’s Gold since he spends the majority of the plot in swim trunks. Though his career has recently taken a new direction, McConaughey’s earlier work established him a reputation for his frequent role as an object of the gaze in chick flicks. These include How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days (2003), Surfer, Dude (2008), and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009). Lisa Schwarzbaum affirms that “Years ago, Matthew McConaughey discovered a viable character niche for himself playing a man-tanned hero with a mushy center.” Offering up the erotic spectacle of McConaughey’s body to the heterosexual female gaze, Fool’s Gold poses as no exception.

Chick Flicks and the Straight Female Gaze: Sexual Objectification and Sex Negativity in "New Moon", "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", "Magic Mike", and "Fool’s Gold" — page 3
11The movies New Moon, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Fool’s Gold, and Magic Mike evidence the trending sexual objectification of men in chick flicks. Different as these characters are, Jacob, Aldous, Finn, and Mike all participate in the erotic spectacle of the male body on screen. Their example demonstrates that, like women, “male stars in Hollywood have also been carefully packaged and represented for the voyeuristic pleasure of the viewer” (Benshoff and Griffin 245). Lautner’s, Brand’s, Tatum’s, and McConaughey’s roles also demonstrate the contemporary nature of the male spectacle in chick flicks since all their films were produced between 2008 and 2012. Upcoming movies including Magic Mike’s sequel, Magic Mike XXL, and Fifty Shades of Grey suggest that this pattern will continue. This emerging trend in chick flicks, perhaps more than any other evidence, affirms the existence of the heterosexual female gaze in contemporary Hollywood cinema.

Sex Negativity

12My analysis of the gaze as it occurs in chick flicks reveals another trend: the contextualization of male sexual objectification in terms of sex negativity. In other words, not only are men increasingly objectified in chick flicks, but their objectification is consistently characterized via sex negativity. In her article “Visual Pleasure,” Mulvey characterizes the (heterosexual) male gaze negatively because it denies its female object agency or power. Pally, however, counters Mulvey’s assessment of the cinematic gaze as inherently negative; according to her, “As a political condition, being an object is frightful, but as part of play it’s one of life’s charms.” Pally argues that it is possible for objectification to take place in a positive light and to imbue the objectified individual with power. Furthermore, she states, “we shouldn’t have to choose between subject and object (and God knows we shouldn’t impose such a choice on ourselves); the alternatives are false. We’ll know we’ve ‘made it’….When we can have both” (Pally). In chick flicks, however, many men struggle with the same problem women encounter in other genres: becoming trapped as objects of the gaze, so that they cannot, in Pally’s words, “have both.” This problem evidences the underlying sex negativity that characterizes surrounding cultural (and hence pop cultural) attitudes about sex, including sexual objectification. This sex negativity appears in New Moon, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Magic Mike, and Fool’s Gold, either preventing or problematizing each male lead’s role as ‘the one’ so as to trap him in the role of the sex object.
13In New Moon, Jacob does not play the role of ‘the one’ for Bella, despite the intimacy these characters share. The two entertain a close friendship during the movie that gives rise to sexual tension, yet this tension functions less to pose Jacob as a potential romantic interest for Bella and more to problematize the romance between Bella and Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson). Indeed, New Moon (as well as the rest of the Twilight saga) makes it clear that Edward is Bella’s true love. Near the end of the movie, Bella steps away from Edward only to tell Jacob: “Don’t make me choose. Cuz it’ll be him. It’s always been him.” It is thus no coincidence that Edward, who fulfills the role of ‘the one’ in New Moon, is not subject to the same sexual spectacle that Jacob undergoes. Though a brief scene near the end of New Moon features Edward shirtless, the majority of his on-screen appeal occurs through close-ups of his brooding face. Screen shots of the face form a popular mode of visual pleasure in contemporary chick flicks—such as Shane West’s in A Walk to Remember or Ryan Gosling’s in The Notebook—that do not sexually objectify their male leads. Lautner’s character functions in contrast to these male leads: as an object of his beloved’s gaze, yet not as a subject of her desire.
14Aldous plays a similar role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall since he, like Jacob, serves as a foil to the character who ‘gets the girl.’ Throughout the movie, Aldous’s rock star persona stands in contrast to Peter’s nice guy character. While Aldous maintains that he can “fuck anyone, anywhere, anytime,” Peter remarks that “for me, it’s much more enjoyable to get to know somebody—if you end up sleeping with them that’s great, but I like to get to know somebody.” Accordingly, the end of Forgetting Sarah Marshall sees eye-candy Aldous leaving his girlfriend Sarah in Hawaii with plans to sleep with the next woman, while sweet-rather-than-sexy Peter begins a new relationship with Rachel (played by Mila Kunis). The film does reveal Peter’s body to the audience (in fact, it is his penis that appears on screen), yet does so in order to portray Peter as pitiful rather than sexy. Chris Lee quotes an interview with Segel on the subject; when discussing the nude scene, Segel observes that “When a woman does nudity in a movie, men immediately switch into a sexual mode. For women, from what I understand, it’s not like that. They see a naked, out-of-shape man crying and it’s funny—something weird, disturbing and disgusting we can all laugh at.” Segel’s nudity here functions to make his character embarrassing and thus relatable, positioning Peter as a ‘boy next door’ rather than a sex object. This positioning enables Peter to embody the role of ‘the one,’ while Aldous’s ‘larger than life’ rock star persona remains rooted as an object of the gaze. Sensual, yet neither relatable nor reliable, Aldous is worshipped as a sex symbol rather than desired as a partner. Again, as in New Moon, the object of the heterosexual female gaze maintains a distance from the gazer.
15The sex negativity in Magic Mike is largely revealed by the fact that Mike can only become a love interest for the female lead Brooke (played by Cody Horn) after he quits his job as a stripper. Indeed, during the length of Mike’s career as a stripper at the club Xquisite, the women around him view him solely as a sex object. The first scene of the film shows Mike climbing naked out of bed after a threesome with his buddy Joanna and another woman he met the night before. Throughout the plot, Mike cannot move beyond this role as an occasional sex partner with Joanna. When he tries to learn more about her and her interests outside the bedroom, Joanna replies: “You ask a lot of questions, don’t you? Little Chatty Cathy tonight, huh?” She goes on to tell Mike: “You don’t need to talk. Just look pretty.” Brooke’s character sees Mike as an object rather than a subject as well. The two get to know each other over the course of several scenes, yet when Mike asks Brooke on a date to “get some food,” she answers: “I don’t know…Plus, I don’t exactly sport-fuck my brother’s stripper friends.” Brooke automatically sexualizes Mike’s intentions here because she views Mike in terms of his career as a stripper, and hence sees him solely as a sex object. While she rejects Mike, Brooke does date Paul: a character the movie does not sexually objectify, one who has a ‘serious’ job processing property damage insurance claims. In the characters of Paul and Mike, Magic Mike illustrates the either/or nature of subject and object positions within the heterosexual female gaze of contemporary Hollywood cinema. As such, only after Mike tells Brooke that he quit his job at Xquisite does she ask him to “get some food and talk about it”—the same offer he had made her earlier. Magic Mike stands apart from other chick flicks like New Moon and Forgetting Sarah Marshall since its sexual object does become ‘the one,’ yet the movie reaffirms the sex negativity surrounding sexual objectification by illustrating Mike either as a sex object or love interest, but not both.

Chick Flicks and the Straight Female Gaze: Sexual Objectification and Sex Negativity in "New Moon", "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", "Magic Mike", and "Fool’s Gold"

Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print.
Cohen, Paula Marantz. “What Have Clothes Got to Do with It?: Romantic Comedy and the Female Gaze.” Southwest Review 95 (2010): 78-88. Academic Search Complete. 27 September 2014. 
Fool’s Gold. Dir. Andy Tennant. Perf. Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2008. Film.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Dir. Nicholas Stoller. Perf. Russell Brand, Jason Segel, and Kristen Bell. Universal Pictures, 2008. Film.
Lawrence, Elizabeth A. “Werewolves in Psyche and Cinema: Man-Beast Transformation and Paradox.” Journal of American Culture 19.3 (1996): 103-13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 April 2011.
Lee, Chris. “‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ Lets It All Hang Out.” Los Angeles Times. Tribune, 16 April, 2008. Web. 18 April 2011.   
Magic Mike. Dir. Steven Soderbergh. Perf. Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey, Cody Horn, and Alex Pettyfer. Warner Bros., 2012. Film.
Moore, Suzanne. “Here’s Looking at You, Kid!” The Female Gaze. Eds. Lorraine Gamman and Margaret Marshment. Seattle: The Real Comet Press, 1989. 44-59. Print.
Mulvey, Laura. ”Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second Edition. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. 2084-95. Print.
---. “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Inspired by Duel in the Sun.” Feminism and Film Theory. Ed. Constance Penley. New York: Routledge, 1988. Print.
New Moon. Dir. Chris Weitz. Perf. Taylor Lautner, Krisen Stewart, and Robert Pattinson. Summit Entertainment, 2009. Film.
Pally, Marcia. “Object of the Game.” Marciapally.com. 17 March 2011. Web. 18 April 2011. 
Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Culture, Society, and Sexuality: a Reader. Eds. Richard Parker and Peter Aggleton. London: UCL Press, 1999. 143-178. Print.
Schwarzbaum, Lisa. “Movie Guys: The New Girls?” Entertainment Weekly, 12 May 2008. Web. 12 April 2011.
Silverstein, Melissa. “Will New Moon Be the Biggest Film of the Year?” Women and Hollywood, 12 November 2009. Web. 12 April 2011.
Tasker, Yvonne. Spectacular Bodies: Gender, Genre and the Action Cinema. London: Routledge, 1993.