This article was a little confusing at times because of the wording she used, and also because I don't think her message was easily displayed. I was able to make some sense out of it though. She talked about how the woman was seen to be part of a patriarchy where the male is top. This leads me to believe that she thinks the woman in film is just an object. She is there to serve a purpose and represent an image that the male is able to look at. She goes on to talk about how the Hollywood film reflects the culture in which it is based. Meaning that viewers get pleasure from films that include these types of images and films that do not include these will not be as successful, and people will lose interest. An interesting point she makes is about how film satisfies our pleasure of looking at other people. I didn't think of it this way before but there are many reasons we want to see a film that can be unconscious to us. For example we can look at people in the film and either feel powerful because we are able to view them as objects which is when we seek pleasure, or we can look at a character and identify with them. We can look and imagine ourselves in their position which is a great way to get attached or involved in a film.
Also, in many films, the woman is still seen as the icon. They are there to help the story along, but not to make things occur. It's like they are on display for everyone to see, rather than to be an important part of the film. I somewhat agree with Mulvey, but at the same time I do not think woman are always portrayed as an object (at least in my opinion). I think it is very prominent in films, but is not the case for every movie.
DQ: What about the other spectrum? Do you think there are films in which the male part is portrayed as the object? If so, what films? Or do you think the woman is always somehow incorporated as being this sex symbol and object?