A particularly useful correlation in understanding classic Hollywood cinema is that of Lacan’s mirror stage and Mulvey’s notion of male identification with the male movie star. Lacan’s mirror stage is the moment in an infant’s life when he recognizes his reflected image (although does not necessarily have to be from a mirror) as a more perfect version of himself. The difficulties in managing his body are unseen in the reflection whose movements seem intentional. This stage “gives rise to the future generation of identification with others” as it produces an “ego ideal” (Mulvey, 201).
This “future generation of identification” manifests itself in the act of watching a movie. Now the spectator is the infant and the screen the mirror—at least while a leading actor is present. The acts of Humphrey Bogart seem more perfect than anything that could happen in real life. This is largely due to editing and our obsession with the narrative, both of which allow for poignant timing and satisfaction as narrative problems are solved (by the man). As Mulvey says, “the cinema has structures of fascination strong enough to allow temporary loss of ego while simultaneously reinforcing the ego” (202). The ego ideal, fed by the male star, is the gold standard for which the ego must strive to realize. This sets up a powerful relationship between the spectator and the onscreen character. The spectator’s “visual pleasure” stems from his willingness to learn from the male star; Bogart’s every move will be stored in the memory bank of the spectator who will have further knowledge of how to be “perfect”—how to evade danger, how to come up with profound one liners, and, of course, how to get the girl. Through this engagement, enthusiasm, and identification, the masculine / feminine binary proliferates.
No comments:
Post a Comment