« Min's Blog | Main | bell hooks discussion »

watch watch watch watch watch watch watch watch

What I learned from the film is that in order to think critically when looking at media a person must realize that their perception has already been twisted from all past experiences of media, consciously examine the details of the work, and then evaluate how their own assumptions relate to the work itself. In Mulvey’s essay she presents the idea that the audience of a film subconciously identifies with the subject of the film, and therefore their attitudes toward the film will be biased if they choose to examine it critically. Two of bell hooks analytical strategies in regards to film include the understanding that all forms of oppression intertwined, and the concept that media is always created by human beings. Her examination of the Simpson case reflected these two strategies in that she pointed out that the mainstream media’s exlusive focus on racism was dismissive of the central issue of domestic abuse, and that both forms of subjugation required simultaneous analysis in order to inform the case.

Hooks uses the words patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism as a single term “White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy? in the film. This term emphasizes the key elements that comprise her theory that those white, male capitalists who have directed (and continue to direct) the mainstream culture determine from their own ideals how to portray life on screen. The “patriarchy? hooks refers to is reflected in McCabe’s introduction when she presents the idea that the representation of women in most films is as the “objects?, because the “subjects?, target audience, and creators of those films are men. Overall, the film challenges me to be more aware of all sensory experiences especially when I am taking in media as a form of entertainment. That said, I don't know how well I will actually be able to face this task. Often when I am critical of something I see I end up feeling a bit at a loss of what to do with that criticism. I could tell other people I suppose, or I could write about it, but mostly I end up frustrated and have not done anything substantial with my objections other than acknowledging them. I think in terms of my major, architecture, what I hope is that I will be able to better understand how a built environment could be created that would take into account the idea that people are more alike or different not on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, class, ect, but instead because of the way their minds retain and create, the way they move; by their personalities.


I thought it was interesting when Mulvey talked about the viewer subconsciously identifying with the character in the film. I don’t know if I totally agree with this concept (but maybe that’s because I do it subconsciously). When reading about how women are usually the objects and men are the subjects I thought about all the movies that I could remember, and I totally agree with this concept. Especially after watching the clip in class where all the women are completely objectified with the mirrors, framing and other tools used in filmmaking. I really like what you had to say about using the knowledge from bell hooks and this class and relating it to architecture. That’s really interesting.