Deriving Pleasure

How and What We Derive Pleasure from When Watching Film.

By: Rachel Barclay

As spectators we go to the cinema to escape our everyday lives, be entertained, and seek pleasure in the images we see on the screen. In order for a film to be effective, it has to please, as well as extend some kind of pleasure to the audience, whether it be attained from the technical, artistic, critical interest, or simply for pure entertainment, and with the best kinds of cinema allowing for both (DeLauretis 581). This should go without saying, a trip to the cinema, takes us away from our hum drum lives for 120 minutes, allowing us to disappear into a world that isn’t our own, as we allow ourselves to deeply emerge into fantasy. Although the overall experience allows us to gain pleasure there are three categories that although all overlap in some ways, can be specifically designated to explain how and what we derive pleasure from on the screen; voyeurism, identification, and fetishism.


Voyeurism:
The spectator can attain ultimate pleasure in watching the cinema, through their acting as the voyeur, as the image offers many opportunities for voyeurism in watching. The act of voyeurism is defined as the pleasure attained from spying/watching people engaged in intimate behaviours such as undressing, or engaging in sexual activities. Within the Hollywood cinema a sex scene is almost priority, and highlighting the sexuality of the female is often key. Seeking pleasure from such mainstream film can also be very guilt free, as it does not involve watching an x-rated film, which may be attached to guilty thoughts. The cinema allows for a world of fantasy, and through such a voyeuristic nature the audience is never denied pleasure.


The Male Gaze: 
Mulvey’s male gaze allows for the ultimate in attaining sexual pleasure from the moving image, as it exploits all three of the looks; the look of the moving camera (the apparatus) the look of the male audience, and the look of the male characters in the film. One film which very obviously combines all threes looks in one sequence is Blow Out (1981). The opening sequence of the film is the opening shot of a horror movie, and although the audience does not realize it right away the sequence is actually a first cut of a film which is being viewed by the characters of the filmmaker and the sound technician in a screening room. The sequence is clearly a point of view shot of someone looking into a sorority house, we see their arm reaching out and stabbing someone, then spying on the girls, as this mystery person (whom we all assume to be male) peers into different windows as the camera sees what he sees, and therefore is what the audience sees; girls dancing around in their nighties, a girl studying, and a couple having sex, he then enters the house, slowly going into the showers and looking at naked girls, he sees a girl masturbating on the couch, then finally we see his arm as he pulls out a knife to kill a girl showering. This engages the look of the camera, the look of the males in the films, BOTH the point of view of the killer, as well as the film maker and the sound technician, and finally that of the male audience, all whom are deriving pleasure from the sexually charged, and partially sadist 
 images on the screen, which Laura Mulvey associates with the active control of the voyeur.

Scopophilia:
Laura Mulvey describes film as providing a certain amount of scopophilia, which is pleasure that comes from using another person as the object of sexual stimulation through the act of looking (718).  This is ever present in mainstream film, allowing for the spectator to derive pleasure in the image. The actual act of watching a film in a dark theatre amongst other spectators, whom are also watching the film, and each other allows for the spectator to gain pleasure. Mulvey further describes that the fact that the cinema creates a closed-off fantasy world, which holds its own symbolic “realistic” conventions, aids in propelling the audience’s voyeuristic fantasies (717). The film Blue Velvet (1986) encompasses voyeurism, from the way it exploits the dark underpinnings of suburbia, to the way it explicitly displays scopophilia. The film explores the idea of masochism, and characters both deriving pleasure from it, and deriving pleasure from watching others engage in masochistic acts. One scene in particular portrays this when we see the protagonist, Jeffery hiding in Dorothy Vallen’s closet watching through the shutters as Frank masochistically engages in sexual relations with Dorothy on the living room floor.  

The way the light shines through the shutters, casting shadows onto Jeffery’s face, resembles the way spectators; watch a film in a dark movie theatre as the light casts different shadows on their faces. The shot in which we see Jeffery’s point of view transcends the scopophilic gaze onto the audience, allowing them into the closed off fantasy world, enabling them to gain pleasure from watching Dorothy and Frank’s sexual encounter. This portrayal of scopophilia in voyeurism; Jeffery hiding in the closet, watching an intimate act, which he really has no business seeing, aligns with Mulvey’s association of voyeurism and sadism, which encompasses a controlling view both by the audience and the Jeffery, while also stems towards deriving pleasure from identification with the subject and or situation on the screen.

Identification:
There is great pleasure to be had in identifying with what we see on the movie screen, when we can recognize ourselves in something else, we attain great feelings of security, familiarity, and the thought that we are not alone, which give us pleasure and satisfaction in watching. Although identification does occur through the cinema, there is always the understanding that what we see on the screen is not actually real, and is often, a certain type or form of representation of said reality we identify with, and although this is not always realized with our initial encounter with a film, the reality of the cinema being a symbolic one is often eventually realized. The part of mis recognition often allows for the re realization of the fantasy, and escape cinema offers, and therefore still allows for us to gain pleasure and feel satisfied after watching a film.

Scopophilic Narcissism:
This sense of recognition in the cinema is constantly overlaid with that of mis recognition; the glamourous representing the normal, run- of the mill, yet projecting a image of something that is not realistic for the majority of the audience, not the average, but entails a fantasy. A film which can be seen as propelling this type of pleasure onto the audience is Young Adult (2011). The film tells the story of a peculiar young woman, who has gone through a divorce, and has now showed up back in her hometown in the pursuit of her high school boyfriend whom is now married and has just had a baby. When we watch a film we can easily recognize something in the image which we can identify with, but it is often a sensationalized version of its’ self. Mavis, played by Charlize Theron, is constantly attempting to be younger than she is, a long with her many problems, including being unable to find love, her job taking an unexpected downfall, and her unstable relationship with her parents, etc are all relatable situations, which the the audience can derive feelings of pleasure from, connected to the ways they can relate to the character/image.

In terms of deriving sexual pleasure from such identification, Laura Mulvey explains how cinema indulges the audience in scopophilic narcissism, and mainstream Hollywood films usually focus on the human form, and it is here where the curiosity and the look intersect with that of the fascination of likeness and recognition (718). Often there are scenes or shots in Hollywood films in which their only purpose is to exploit the female form, and engage in the “look”. In Young Adult there is a scene where Mavis takes her clothes off in front of her friend Matt because she has gotten wine all over silk dress. Her minimally clothed body is exposed to the spectator, and although her image of absolute chaos which is still conveyed by her character, the spectator who now can identify with the characters, can recognize themselves as this image of a half naked, sexualized body on screen. This is where the mis recognition occurs when the image is reflected onto the spectator as a body, but its’ realization is false, projecting the body outside of itself, thus making it clear that the identification is not completely whole (718). This is often recognized in films when a character or situation is relatable, but the character is perhaps much more glamourous (after all these are actors who live dazzling Hollywood lifestyles) than that of the spectator, allowing for a brief moment of narcissism, but then the spectator “takes the self” for the character to have been imaginary, and then realizes its not “me,” and  returns to the real, so therefore fiction can remain symbolic (Metz 28). This form of identification fu fills the audience with pleasure seeking in more than one way, while also allowing for the realization of the cinema being merely a semantic representation of life beyond the screen, allowing for moments of escape, and pleasure.

Fetishism:
The cinema as a whole can be looked at as a fetish, it can be loved as a body; a fully embodied entity (Metz 28). The simple definition of fetishism is the sexual arousal that a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation, and in cinema objects and situations are often fetishized, allowing for pleasure. The male gaze once again comes into play here, as it allows for females to become objects of desire, and evolve into the ultimate fetish; when the look of the male protagonist is broken, in order to convey the image of the protagonist’s relationship with the spectator (Mulvey 721). Christian Metz also explains how spectators show a certain “fetishism of the technique “ deriving pleasure in the fact that a film is well made and a well constructed piece of artwork. This kind of fetishism shines through in the most well made films, those in which the average spectator is able to understand and appreciate certain technological aspects, and allowing it to be a part of the reason they enjoyed the film.

Object Fetishism:
The spectator’s ability to gain pleasure in watching an object which is shaped by fetishistic looking involves the substitution of a fetish object or turning the represented figure itself into a fetish so that it becomes reassuring rather than dangerous. Mulvey suggests that this builds up the physical beauty of the object, transforming it into something satisfying in itself. This often is what builds up the sexualization of certain stars, and what creates sex symbols, whom are often associated by the spectator with sex and pleasure, and not necessarily for their acting abilities. Marilyn Monroe is a prime example, and although she made 30 some odd films, the association with sex and pleasure and her image is often imbedded in the spectator, making her a reason for people to go watch films, both men and women have different reasons for gaining pleasure from her, allowing the movie screen to make her into a fetish, in which audiences wanted to be repeatedly pleasured by. In the film River of No Return (1954) Monroe’s character continuously is needing to dress and undress, because her clothes either get wet, or ripped, or what have you, and every time she does she repeatedly tucks and re-tucks her blouse into her pants. This action fetishizes her as the object of desire and pleasure, making the action sexually reassuring.

Christian Metz proposes ways in which fetishism in film gains its desirability through its playfulness with eroticism through framing and different camera movements (32). This means that in order to allow an object to become a fetish for the spectator the film must playfully and concurrently conceive excitement and desire, which wanders, similarly how the “look” might wander (32). By only eroticizing the object in this manner, the object gains desirability, and allows for excitement in the spectator, therefore equalling more pleasure in the watching experience. Certain techniques have been used to allow for this type of pleasure seeking including unveiling with lighting, extreme close ups of erotogenic body parts, including legs, lips, etc. This is especially pertinent to the characters like the femme fatale in noir and neo noir films.

The Camera as a Technique:
Fetishizing the camera, and a film’s technical beauty comes from a bit of a different place than object fetishism, which provides sexual pleasure, being in awe of the camera allows for pleasure in amazement, derives from the place of the film going experience, an excuse to escape from reality into a real live fantasy world. The apparatus itself makes the entire film, and cinema lovable and desirable for the spectator, making a cinema fetishist a person who is enchanted at the ability of the machine, and its wondrous capabilities (Metz 30). A film which provides this kind of pleasure to the spectator is one that at any given moment in the film, the spectator can think about the amount of technical strength within the frame, and be amazed at every move, and makes the spectator think about how the film was constructed, and conceived, allowing both the fantasy world and the machinery to “carry” the audience away, and allow them to exclaim that the film was “well made” (Metz  30). A film that can be strongly associated with this type of fetishizing is Avatar (2009). Avatar is not only categorized as a science fiction, fantasy film, which propels the audience into a world unlike their own, and allows them to escape reality, it is also well recognized for its cinematography, winning the academy award for its excellence, the special effects were incredibly state of the art for the time of the film’s release, and audiences swarmed movie theaters to watch the film in 3D, allowing for a whole new level of pleasure seeking. The film was so popular, allocating pleasure to the spectator that it was re-released in theaters after its original debut in 2009 which included the 4D experience. This is a what Metz would describe as the fetish being the the cinema in its physical state, and the law that permits all desire (31).

Deriving pleasure from the cinema takes on all shapes and forms, and for each spectator the experience is different. Although everyone goes to the movies for different reasons, the ultimate pleasure in watching film comes from its ability to let us turn off our minds and get involved with another reality, one that is relatable enough to be our own, but is recognizably just a play on the real world, or it lets us get entrapped in a fantastical world which is so sensationalized, its fantasy propels us further into our imaginations, as we pleasure in its beauty and fairy tale. 

Work Cited:

De Lauretis, Teresa. Ed. Timothy Corrigan, Patricia White, and Meta Mazaj.“From Alice Doesn't.” Critical Visions in Film Theory. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011.    Print.


Metz, Christian. Ed. Timothy Corrigan, Patricia White, and Meta Mazaj.“The Imaginary Signifier.” Critical Visions in Film Theory. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print.
 
Mulvey, Laura. Ed. Timothy Corrigan, Patricia White, and Meta Mazaj.“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Critical Visions in Film Theory. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins,     2011. Print.