Wow, what an article! I have only taken one Psych. course (which was in high school), so I have limited knowledge of Freud and the psychoanalysis behind sexuality, so this article was pretty eye-opening.
I really enjoyed how Mulvey broke down the two types of looking. Those were ideas I had never thought of before, but that I agree are true. I can also see how both types of looking are primarily owned by males in cinema. However, I can think of several films with powerful, female protagonists where Mulvey's theory is technically wrong: Tomb Raider, Juno, Black Swan. But I guess, thinking about these films, the female body is definitely sexualized.
DQ: Do you guys think that Mulvey's view of men getting to look at women in both ways, always holds true? Is it changing as film evolves?
Also, I don't know if I necessarily agree with or understand Mulvey's criticism of the female body as a threat: "her lack of penis, implying a threat of castration and hence unpleasure" (Mulvey 840). I get that females can be described as the sexual different one because we are always "lacking" or a constant representation of the void of something else through menstruation or childbirth. I just don't get her thought that women pose a fearful threat of castration to men, resulting in a fetish....
DQ: What do you think of Mulvey's idea of the "threat of castration" as a fetish for men in film? Agree/understand/disagree?
A random last thought:
DQ: How do you all think this plays out in regards to homosexuality in general and in the world of cinema? Mulvey's ideas are restricted to the heterosexual relation between male and female. What do you think she would say about homosexuals watching films or being a part of films?