Feminism and Postmodernism in Film

A “Redefinition of the World”

A Comparative Analysis of Laura Mulvey’s Feminism and Barbara Creed’s Feminism/Postmodernism in Relation to Peeping Tom and American Psycho

            Using Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” and Barbara Creed’s “From Here to Modernity: Feminism and Postmodernism”, this paper will examine Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom and Mary Harron’s American Psycho, by paying particular attention to the comparable and distinguishable ways in which each film positions its male and female characters. The films depict women and men in different ways, resulting in distinct spectator experiences. Furthermore, using Mulvey and Creed’s analyses, this paper will examine whether or not feminism and postmodernism are compatible theories, or if they present conflicting ideas.

            In Peeping Tom, the audience is aligned with the film’s main protagonist Mark Lewis, with whom we share an uncomfortable subjective gaze of his objectified female victims. In American Psycho, the audience identifies with main protagonist Patrick Bateman, with whom we share a subjective gaze of his objectified self, in addition to his subjective gaze of his objectified victims, who are in most instances female. The different depictions of gender result in different spectator positions. Michael Powell’s film fits comfortably within Mulvey’s theoretical framework, while Mary Harron’s film renegotiates, reconceptualizes and reappropriates Mulvey’s arguments pertaining to gender binaries, and works well in relation to Creed’s more contemporary discussion and analysis of feminism and postmodernism.

            Mulvey’s widely discussed essay stipulates arguments which have fuelled criticisms and debate in the realm of narrative cinema and viewing practices, and the ways in which the patriarchal society has structured film form, reproducing the gender binaries (active/male/subject and passive/female/object). Meanwhile, Creed considers the ways in which feminism and postmodernism can be supportive of one another in some instances, but contradictory in others. While considering the ways in which Mulvey’s assertions and Creed’s comparative analysis can work together and against one another, they will serve as theoretical lenses to examine the films in question.

            In Mulvey’s article she outlines the ways in which narrative cinema reinforce the dominant patriarchal ideology which we are all constituted by, arguing that the active male and the passive female gender split has been embedded into cinema and viewing practices. She draws on this distinction defining the male as subject, and female as object. The male practices scopophilia and voyeurism. Mulvey explains that at the extreme, voyeurism can lead to a perverted fixation, “producing voyeurs and peeping toms, whose only sexual satisfaction can come from watching, in an active controlling sense, an objectified other” (485). Meanwhile the female is the source of viewing pleasure as she has traditionally been looked at and displayed to fulfill the exhibitionist role. Mulvey asserts that the woman in a cinematic context functions on two levels: “as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium” (Mulvey, 488). The women depicted in Peeping Tom fulfill these criteria, and most often connote sexuality, inviting male characters to look at them. Many female characters in the film are models, prostitutes, and actresses, all of whom are constantly looked at, filmed, photographed, commodified, and ultimately objectified. There are a few female characters that are not sexualized to this extent, including Helen and her blind mother. Mark is nervous around Mrs. Stephens because she is blind, and cannot be objectified to the same extent as the other women, as she cannot see her own frightened reflection in Mark’s murderous mirror while being filmed. Furthermore, Mark likes Helen; therefore she is not overly sexualized and objectified as are other women in the film. Mark resists his usual subjugation methods, refusing to objectify Helen by choosing not to film her at all, in fear that he might subsequently feel compelled to murder her. Therefore, the film itself does not objectify her character. Helen and her mother both represent what Mulvey refers to as castration threat, and Mark is unsure how to approach the situation, panicking whenever Helen and/or her mother question his film hobby, or ask to be filmed.

            In Creed’s article, she wonders whether feminism is a symptom or a result of postmodernism, posing questions pertaining to a possible intersection between feminist theory and postmodern theory. She analyzes feminist and postmodern theorists, who have begun to explore the connections and distinctions between the two realms, including Alice Jardine and Craig Owens, in an attempt to further negotiate between the two theoretical approaches. Jardine suggests that postmodernism “signifies a ‘redefinition of the world’ brought about by the ‘complex destructuring, disintegration, of the founding structures in the West’” (Creed, 49). American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman reconsiders his identity, his image, and his existence. Not only does the protagonist’s sense of self resonate with postmodern thinking, the film itself commences with a glamorized image of a man who is carrying out a morning routine, doing things that are typically considered feminine. The unconventional scene shows a male showering, eating right, working out, and obsessively applying various hygiene products, while a voice over narration of his thoughts reveals his intense self-consciousness and self image. Both the film and Patrick Bateman are reconsidering and redefining the relationship between reality and its representations. 

            Owens argues that there is an “apparent crossing of the feminist critique of patriarchy and the postmodernist critique of representation”, with the intention to explore this possible intersection in order “to introduce the issue of sexual difference into the modernism/postmodernism debate” (Creed, 47). Creed delves into Owens’ arguments pertaining to feminism’s compatibility with postmodern thought, beginning with their agreement that the Great Narratives of the West have lost credibility and legitimacy. Secondly, both feminism and postmodernism present a critique of representation, that “system of power that authorizes certain representations while blocking, prohibiting or invalidating others” (Owens, 59/Creed, 48). Thirdly, both agree that the “representational systems of the West” only admit the vision of the “constitutive male subject”. Both theories also present a critique of “binarism”; both insist on the importance of “difference and incommensurability”; both seek to bridge the gaps between theory and practice; and finally, both critique “the privileging of vision as the superior sense and as the guarantor of truth”. Owens argues that the difference between feminism and postmodernism lies in the distinction between their oppositional counterparts: “postmodernism…sees itself as engaging in a debate with modernism”, while “feminism identifies patriarchal ideology as its ‘other’” (Owens, 70/Creed, 48). 

            Creed introduces a second analytic perspective by Alice Jardine, who further explores the common ground between feminism and postmodernism. Jardine sets out to discover whether or not feminism and postmodernism conflict, by paying particular attention to a process that she defines as “gynesis”. Jardine explains that gynesis is “a process of re-questioning and re-thinking- a process brought about by the collapse of the master narratives of the West and a re-examination of the main topics of philosophy: Man, Truth, History” (Creed, 48); “such rethinking has involved…a reincorporation and reconceptualization of that which has been the master narrative’s own ‘non-knowledge’, what has eluded them, what has engulfed them” (Jardine, 25/Creed 49). She contends that since the master narratives of the West had dismissed certain topics, a re-examination of the main topics, and a reincorporation of the eluded topics, including feminism, is fundamental to the development of postmodernism. Postmodernism is an attempt to reconsider Western society’s misrepresentations of reality, and this includes the misrepresentation of gender. Postmodernism is reconceptualising these previously neglected spaces, giving them a “new language”. Jardine points out that “if philosophy is truly to question those spaces, it must move away from all that has defined them, held them in place: Man, the Subject, History, Meaning” (73).

            Creed situates Jardine’s analysis within the context of this discussion, deducing that Jardine’s emphasis on the various areas of collapse of the foundations of Western society, which were also specified by Owens include: “the collapse of the master narratives of the West; the breakdown of the paternal metaphor; the crisis in representation; the decentring of the subject; the critique of binarism” (Creed, 50).

            Owens and Jardine discuss Lyotard and his theory pertaining to the collapse of the master narrative. While Lyotard points to the crisis of the master narrative in terms of “legitimacy”, Laura Mulvey’s work on cinema considers a different kind of narrative crisis, “based in questions of sexual difference and brought about by the self-aggrandising structures of the unconscious of patriarchal society” (Creed, 51-52). However, it is very important to note that Mulvey’s work pertains to classic narrative film, and is a product of a different theoretical basis, addressing itself to a different theoretical object. Although, both Lyotard and Mulvey agree, that “there is a crisis of narrative which has shaken the credibility of the major institutions of the West” (Creed, 52). This is where the distinction stipulated by Owens is clear: “feminism would attempt to explain that crisis in terms of the workings of patriarchal ideology and the oppression of women and other minority groups”, whereas postmodernism looks elsewhere for possible causes. Postmodernism is concerned with “the West’s reliance on ideologies which posit universal truths- Humanism, History, Religion, Progress, etc. While feminism would argue that the common ideological position of all these ‘truths’ is that they are patriarchal, postmodern theory…would be reluctant to isolate a single major determining factor” (Creed, 52). Feminism is determined to hold patriarchal order responsible for the misrepresentations of reality; postmodernism seeks to situate itself outside of all predetermined positions and ideologies and truly reconsider reality and its representations.   

            Mulvey’s arguments are built based on classical Hollywood cinema, and are not nearly as applicable and/or valid in contemporary film. However, it is important to consider the similarities and differences between her feminist framework and Creed’s unravelling analysis of Owens and Jardine’s theorizing. While considering Owens’ seven compatible measures between feminism and postmodernism, let us explore Mulvey’s assertions to determine whether or not her feminist critiques are relevant in regard to the negotiation between feminism and postmodernism.

            Owens claims that feminism and postmodernism agree that Great Narratives of the West have lost credibility. Mulvey’s essay stipulates that these master narratives in Western society are responsible for reinforcing patriarchal ideologies and order, as they are embedded into cinema and viewing practices.

            Secondly, Owens claims that feminism and postmodernism both present a critique of representation. Mulvey states that “the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form”, and that the “ultimate challenge” with which we are faced, is “how to fight the unconscious/structured like a language while still caught within the language of the patriarchy”/“patriarchal order” (484). False representations must not be mistaken for reality, as they are constituted by, embody, and reinforce dominant ideologies. How can we speak in opposition to the hegemonic ideology, when we too are constituted by the very same hegemony?

            Thirdly, feminism and postmodernism agree that the “representational systems of the West” only admit the vision of the “constitutive male subject”. Mulvey certainly agrees with this notion as she argues that viewing practices and visual pleasure in narrative cinema can only be practiced and therefore pleasurable, if the spectator is male, or if the female spectator adopts the dominant male ideology while viewing the film. Spectators then identify with the leading male protagonists in the film, which exhibit control, dominance, power, etc., while spectators objectify the passive, female character(s), who are objectified the same way by the on-screen males.

            Both theories also present a critique of binaristic thinking, which Mulvey expresses as well, “an active/passive heterosexual division of labour”; “in a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female” (488). She draws on this distinction, defining the male as subject, and female as object. The male practices scopophilia and voyeurism, while the female is the source of his viewing pleasure, displayed to fulfill the exhibitionist role.  

            Also, both feminism and postmodernism insist on the importance of “difference and incommensurability”. Mulvey makes assertions pertaining to the impossibility to create new, opposing practices, without having to engage with the patriarchal ideology in order to oppose, utilising it to further extents, rendering it inescapable, insurmountable, and incommensurable.

            Both seek to bridge the gaps between theory and practice, which Mulvey hopes for, as she aggressively includes in her essay that her intentions are to attack and destroy the satisfaction and reinforcement of the ego “that represent the high point of film history”, by discussing the interweaving of that erotic pleasure in film, its meaning, and in particular the central place of the image of woman. She states that this attack is necessary “to make way for a total negation of the ease and plenitude of the narrative fiction film…transcending…oppressive forms, or daring to break with normal pleasurable expectations in order to conceive a new language of desire” (485).

            Finally, both feminism and postmodernism critique “the privileging of vision as the superior sense and as the guarantor of truth”. Mulvey’s entire essay is built upon the practices of looking, and the gaze, however, her analysis delves deeper than the mere action of looking, as Mulvey guides readers through a psychoanalytic approach to unconscious activity, sexual arousal, erotic pleasure, narcissism, and the ego, as well as her concerns regarding the dominant ideology which we are constituted by.

            Owens argues that the difference between feminism and postmodernism lies in the distinction between their oppositional counterparts: postmodernism is up against its predecessor modernism, while feminism goes head-to-head with patriarchal ideology. Mulvey also identifies her opponent as the patriarchal ideologies which had dominated unopposed prior to any feminist notions were set in motion.  

             While examining of the opening scenes of both Peeping Tom and American Psycho, it is important to pay particular attention to the depiction of men and women, and the different spectator positions as a result. In the opening scene in Michael Powell’s film Peeping Tom, Mark is filming the blond prostitute. He is operating his camera, capturing the images he wishes to film; he has control over what is filmed, and what goes on in front of the camera. Mark is the subject, and the prostitute is the object. In this opening scene, the audience shares the perspective of Mark, as he looks through his viewfinder on his camera. The audience does not see Mark during the scene, instead the audience is aligned with his character, uncomfortably forced to identify with this deranged subject, objectifying his victims alongside him.

            Laura Mulvey’s arguments work well in relation to this film. Mark fulfills the subjective, active, male role, situating the female characters in the film as passive objects. The pleasures in looking have been split between active male (Mark) and passive female (all of his victims). Mark practices scopophilia, fetishistic scopophilia, and voyeurism, while each female in the film is the source of his viewing pleasure, and while the female figure upholds an important and consistent presence in the cinematic narrative, “her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation” (Mulvey, 488). In Peeping Tom, self reflexivity is employed, presenting the film camera as a sadistic, masochistic, voyeuristic, and/or fetishistic scopophilic weapon. This filmic weapon is an extension of the male protagonist, Mark, as he uses film to capture the female. Mulvey also states that the principles of the ruling ideology agree that “the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification”, which is certainly the case in Powell’s film, but what about American Psycho?

            Comparing the depictions of men and women in the first scene of Peeping Tom  to American Psycho’s opening scene that shows Patrick Bateman getting ready in the morning, positioning him as the ‘new man’; a feminized man; a commodity. He is both subject and object of the gaze in this scene, and in many other instances throughout the film. He provides extra-diegetic narration voice over throughout the scene. The audience identifies with him as he is the subject of the story; the main protagonist. It is Patrick whom we hear speaking, and in addition, it is himself whom he is speaking of. He is also the only character in the scene. It is clear that Patrick is the subject of the scene, and the film in its entirety, but he is also the objectified “other” in this scene. While he carries out his meticulous morning routine, he introduces himself, and describes his regimented routine. As the scene comes to an end, he speaks of himself as if he is not there. He is not speaking diegetically in the scene; it is a voice over narration, which is accompanied by a beautiful piano theme by John Cale. However, it is implied that what is being said is what Patrick is thinking. His final lines in the scene explain that “There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.”

            Laura Mulvey’s claims do not work with this particular scene in American Psycho as the male figure is both subject and object of his own gaze, as well as the spectator’s gaze. Again, it is important to remember that Mulvey’s essay was written on the basis of Classical Hollywood cinema, and does not claim to function effectively elsewhere. (However, other scenes and other aspects of the film may conform to Mulvey’s binaristic thinking). Postmodernism, on the other hand, is a theory that can be effectively and thoroughly discussed in relation to Mary Harron’s film and this opening scene in particular.

            The scenes are similar in the sense that Mark and Patrick both fulfill the subject role. However, these scenes, and each film in its entirety is very different when it comes to the subject who holds the gaze, as important distinctions must be made here. Mark finds pleasure in his filmed material, and thus finds pleasure objectifying his female victims. Mark’s filmed objects know that they are being filmed, watched, and therefore respond to the camera’s presence, providing a different, more personal image of the filmed object for the spectator’s observation. Mark practices a form of scopophilia called fetishistic scopophilia, while Patrick exhibits narcissism as he perfects his self representation, and gazes upon his image in the bathroom mirror.

            Creed closely analyzes feminist and postmodern thinkers, and although it is evident that the two theories share some commonalities in their prevailing critiques, it is clear that the two veer in distinct directions when considering the oppositional forces each face, as well as the overall “goal” each pursues. Postmodernism is opposite modernism, while feminism is opposite patriarchal ideology. Postmodernism seeks to reconsider the relation of ‘reality’ to its representations, while feminism seeks to bring equality to women by doing away with dominant patriarchal order. Neither of the two theories explains all that there is to explain, nor does either of them necessarily aim to do so. Creed concludes in a reassured tone, that she is glad she did not try to unite them, as in the one case, “any attempt to speak from a ‘place’ is immediately rendered problematic by the fact that one of the positions central to postmodernism is that there are no places left from which to speak- there are no ‘Truths’, ‘Beliefs’, or ‘Positions’”(Creed, 67). Meanwhile, “the paradox in which…feminists find [themselves] is that while [they] regard patriarchal discourses as fictions, [they] nevertheless proceed as if [their] position, based on a belief in the oppression of women, were somewhat closer to the truth” (Creed, 67). Postmodernism strives to reconceptualise previous discourses by thinking outside of the box, while feminism strives to reconceptualise previous discourses by putting everything in the same box.

Works Cited

Creed, Barbara. “From Here to Modernity: Feminism and Postmodernism”. Screen 28.2,             1987. 47-53.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. Film Theory: An Anthology.             483-494. Print.

Peeping Tom. Dir. Michael Powell. Perf. Karlheinz Bohm. Michael Powell (Theatre),             1962.

American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. Perf. Christian Bale. Universal Pictures, 2000.