Sensing the look of either a stranger or of a friend at us may trigger questions and suspicion within ourselves concerning our own subject, while it may also raise fear of exposure and “possessedness”. Gazing admiringly at someone out of affection may seem acceptable as far as social and interpersonal behavioural norms are concerned. One may wonder however whether there is a space or situation, be it cultural or practically any other, where one’s gaze at another person is in any way tolerable or at least allowable when it is deprived of respect and tender feelings.Laura Mulvey in her essay ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ differentiates three types of looks in cinematography; the look of the camera, the look of the audience and the look of the characters. As she explains: the look of the camera is voyeuristic in itself and generally male in the sense that the director is usually a man; the look of the hero is fundamentally fixed on the female character, while the look of the beholder follows the looks of the first two. All three therefore may contribute to women’s sexualization on screen. If this is so though, it may appear that one’s gaze (especially that of men) at the female protagonists cannot be, but objectifying. (How) Is it possible then to present the stories of Jane and Antoinette without identifying with this attitude? Furthermore, is the context of the novels to be taken into account when analyzing Jane and Antoinette’s experiences on the screen or should one examine them separately from their environment and make a generalizing suggestion about womanhood regardless of time and space?

I believe that while the above mentioned characteristics of the camera’s and of the male’s look may seem representative of specific frames, they neither delineate the whole of the films, nor they determine the audience’s perception. The way one understands the movies heavily depends on the director, be them male or female, whose responsibility is to create order among images. Their organization may result in and correspond to the victimization of the hero (referred to in the previous post, in this case Rochester, and may dissolve the problem of objectification that the spectator is otherwise invited to perform. In light of this, the question I ask does not really concern one’s capability of tolerating others’ gaze, but much rather the purport of that gaze conveyed to its object on the screen. The answer may not only reveal the director’s understanding of the heroines’ experiences, but may as well respond to the possibility of a “neutral” depiction of them, which at the same time necessitates the examination of the novels’ contexts that the creator can use as instruments to widen the audience’s sight. I expect to find a proper one…

 Source of featured image:  http://calico-pye.livejournal.com/