Alfred Hitchock's Vertigo is an excellent demonstration of the voyeuristic gaze in cinema. This makes sense in this particular narrative, as the plot comprises of a detective following a woman, but it is also a good example of how women can be seen through a male gaze in other cinema.
The opening scene viewed is set in a bar/restaurant. The dark red decor of the walls and dark suits surrounding the woman contrast with her pale skin and green dress to ensure she clearly stands out. She is placed at in the centre of the scene. The man is filmed from face on, directly looking, and the close up shot makes a focus of his eyes, showing that he is looking for something, that he is watching the woman. When the camera cuts from the man, the room is viewed from his perspective, as if through his eyes, commanding the viewer also looks at the woman through his eyes too. These angles are continued throughout the next few scenes as it emphasises the watcher and the watched.
When the woman gets up, she looks around the room but not directly at the camera, or at the detective. She does not confront his gaze or the viewer's gaze, portraying her as something to be watched, rather than to watch. As she walks away and throughout the following scenes, she is filmed from behind. This is because the view of her is through the man's eyes as he watches and also lets the viewer see her entire figure, objectifying her further, whereas the detective is mostly framed closely round the face. The dress is revealing at the back and the gaze lingers on this, and in the next scene she wears a tight fitting suit, emphasising her figure again. When not being viewed from behind, she is in profile, again not allowing her to meet the gaze of the man. Barbara Krueger's Untitled (Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face) 1981-3, is an example of how this objectifies women by not allowing them to meet the male gaze. She uses a statue to demonstrate this, literally an object, and this is similar to the use of statues in a later scene.
The lighting throughout the sequence differentiates between the watcher and the watched as the man is portrayed in the shadows, whereas the woman is shown in the light. As he follows her into dark doorways, it is as though he is penetrating her space. The music reflects the difference between them as when the woman appears on screen it becomes soft and romantic.
The woman is objectified by the mis-en-scene of the locations she unknowingly takes the man to. The first place, a flower shop, depicts her surrounded by flowers. Flowers are typically solely decorative objects without other purpose, and by placing the woman among these, Hitchcock is objectifying her as a shallow decoration. She is in soft focus and surrounded by feminine, pastel shapes and colours, contrasting with the shadowy, dark location and close up shot of the man, where he is almost portrayed as a peeping tom. The second place she takes him to, the graveyard, has flowers again, but also decorative statues. Hitchcock cuts between the man observing the statues a few times before showing the woman. She, like the statues, is portrayed in profile and in a similar pose. The grey suit she is wearing adds to the similarity, thereby emphasising this further. The third location is the art gallery. The traditional looking, framed portraits on the walls are placed there to be observed, and placing her alongside these in a gallery objectifies her again. Sitting alone in the middle, she could almost be a sculpture. She even has the same hairstyle and flowers as features in the painting of the woman. These factors lead the viewer to see the woman as an object to be gazed upon. This contrasts with the way in which the detective is portrayed, as he is given an obvious professional purpose, which is demonstrated clearly in his busy manner of importance but also the objects he is surrounded by, such as his pen and paper and his car. She walks slowly, allowing the gaze to fall upon her figure, but the man seems to be mostly in a rush between places, indicating more purpose.
When the characters change location, the woman is seen entering from behind and although she may have been inside a particular location for a while, the first view the viewer has of the scene is when the man follows, and through his eyes. A prime example of this is the gravestone - she has been watching it throughout the entire scene, but we only see it when the man briefly glimpses it as she leaves. This teases the viewer, creating intrigue about what is being witheld. She is the object, which is appearing, and he is the subject, which is acting.
The art gallery scene shows the man focusing up close on aspects of the woman for the first time - her hair, and the flowers she has been carrying. Although these objects are relevant to the plot, they also have symbolism. If we use psychoanalysis to interpret these meanings, the decorative flowers and the swirl in the hair could relate to female genitalia, fetishising her, and the circular shapes also relate to the theme of Vertigo. The gallery depicts the viewer watching the man, man watching the woman, woman watching the painting and painting gazing back at the woman, making her the most watched subject. The only time a female gaze is reflected back at the detective is when he looks at the painting, and he seems to find this unsettling and disruptive of his voyeuristic undertaking.
The last technique I noticed was the use of reflections and images of the woman within the scene. When the woman is leaving the room in the first scene of the sequence, she is reflected in the mirror, creating an image of her - and obviously, images are there to be observed. There is a split screen during the flower shop scene which features both the watcher and the watched, and towards the end she is reflected in the painting of her ancestor on the gallery wall.
In conclusion, Hitchcock's Vertigo demonstrates the male gaze through camera angles, points of view, composition, light, sound, reflections, positioning of the subjects, mis-en-scene and symbolism.
Thanks Julia! This is such an in-depth response, you have really made an effort to decode this sequence. I also appreciate the use of sophisticated film language such as mis-en-scene. Good work!
ReplyDeleteTX