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.
