As I read through this article, I was fairly confused as to what the point of it was and how it was connected to the media, to be entirely honest. I understood the references to feminism and the oppression of women especially with such important use of the phallace. But I was confused on the information in the beginning about the comparisons of male and female form and body parts. The easiest comparison that I could make to this article is a book by the name of Crash. If any of you have read the book by J.G. Ballard, you would probably understand what I mean. The main character in the book develops an unnatural fetish for vehicles and car crashes. I won't get in to much detail, but basically the man can only satisfy his deep sexual need by partaking in things involving vehicles, especially crashes. The way in which the author of this article talks about cinema and the media is very similar to that of the man in the book. He talks of our human connection to the cinema as well as our almost Freudian sexual attraction to it. The author graphically (in a G-rated sense) describes how the cinema's features of being dark and separating all persons makes for an intimate response and feeling that we begin to crave. That we can get lost in this state and feelings almost as if lost in intimacy. The author also hints at film as being somewhat of an extremely soft-porn in that it allows us to watch the female body and "highlights a woman's to-be-looked-at-ness". Again, touching on the inequalities of male and female form in the media.
My discussion question for this is:
Do you buy this argument? Do you think the cinema has become sort of a soft-porn showcasing male and female bodies (female more so than male)? Do you think that as humans we become encapsulated by the sexual and/or intimate at the cinema, making us crave it more?