The idea of women as objects to be looked at seemed especially interesting to me within King Kong. Mulvey claims that analysis of pleasure is the road to its destruction, but King Kong both analyzes and exploits women as objects to be gazed at. Mr. Denham expresses his distaste at the fact that audiences desire women in their films to "have something to look at." Seeing that women typically become reduced to this singular purpose in film Denham desires to creat films without women in them, so as not to distract from the plot. At the same time that Denham bemoans this aspect of the cinematic world, Fay Ray, as Ann Darrow, does everything she can to flaunt her body for the cinematic audience of King Kong. At one particular moment in the film when this effort was particularly obvious many people in the class, including myself, laughed. By capitalizing on the exact aspect of film that the filmmaker within the film decries, King Kong presents an interesting contradiction. It both analyzes cinematic pleasure and attempts to create it. This is not to say that King Kong is or was in any way radical or comitted to the idea of destroying cinematic pleasure, merely that it points out one of it's own tools: that of the female form as a pleasure object. Was it still possible for audience members to enjoy looking at Fay Ray when it was clear that she represented exactly what Denham despised in film? I imagine that it probably was. This coexistence of pleasure and analysis bring up an interesting question. Does analysis mecessarily destroy pleasure? and if so, at what point?