Greatly intrigued by the effect of 16 mm film in theentirety of Michael Powell’s 1959 Peeping Tom with the intension of it being fodder for this blog. Little did I know what I was getting into. In dealing with Lacanian psychoanalysis and the writings of Dayan,
Though almost every moment of this film was a force to be reckoned with, there was one particular facet which still holds a persistent place in my thoughts. I watched this film directly after finishing from Laura Mulvey’s text “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” which – combined with the overpowering moments of voyeurism in the opening sequence – led me t
o the assumption that Powell’s Peeping Tom would be the outlawed poster-child for the objectification of women. And there are many ways in which it could: the main character is male, all the other important characters are rather flat, the view from the 16mm camera has cross-hairs chopping up everything in sight, etc. For these reasons I felt perhaps Mulvey had her perfect opportunity to prove her point.
Mark Lewis clearly desires to see – but I am not sure that there is convincing evidence within the work to make the claim that this desire to see has any sexual implications (the character shows no particular interest in the pornographic “view” shop where he works). It seemed to be almost coincidental that the individuals murdered by the main character Mark Lewis all happen to be women. The women are indeed objects but in no manner
beyond that any representation on screen is an object. Mark does not just document women but his effect on the world he is afraid of, forever mediated by the camera – stuck in Lacan’s Imaginary stage – taking a position not far from that of the viewer. Yet, as we watch him watching we are confronted our Symbolic social selves, with a sheer awareness of the voyeurism took away any pleasurable effects it usually has for our Imaginary selves.
Towards the end of the film, when the character Helen and her mother attempt to pull him into the world of the Symbolic, we become the unaware voyeur once again. The structure of the film becomes more “normal” and we are soon given the omnipresence to peep knowingly onto the secret life of Mark. Yet we are again confronted with our voyeurism as Helen’s mother walks out of the shadows of Mark’s darkroom. Here we serve as the artificial eyes of a blind woman – having observed Mark every night without his awareness.
You remain a voyeur – but not in the sense that Mulvey means it – the objectifying-women voyeurism within the film is such an academic study of the idea that it looses its power to control the viewer’s mind. The voyeurism in which the audience of Peeping Tom takes part is a more abstract one. I believe this is due to the complex relationship caused by the viewers’ awareness of the two cameras present at all times: the camera Mark is holding and the camera filming Mark. During one murder scene, we see Mark moving around the woman in an almost dance-like manner and after a few moments of this we realize that the way his movement is communicated is by fact that the other camera (whose point of view we are adopting) is also moving in a similar 
manner.
This is just once example of the multiple points of view. Because of this it would next to impossible to accurately describe all the forces at work in a film like Peeping Tom and quite difficult to approximate the complex interrelations of it. This will be a film I will return to, because as off yet the criticism I have read falls short of being able to aid in one’s understanding of the place of the spectator in a film about the films and filming practices of a scopophile.
You made it clear that the man behind the camera was not experiencing the sensuality of women that typically characterizes the male gaze. Perhaps this tension between what the audience feels or is expected to feel (with regards to seeing the women) and what we know the Peeping Tom is experiencing exemplifies his lack of sanity. Even a gay male would acknowledge some sort of reaction to these women, but the coldness of this character leaves the audience deeply uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that not all voyeurism has to exist as the "objectifying-women voyeurism" you mention. I commented similarly on Jordan King's blog post from Friday, February 13 (jlking-filmblog.blogspot.com). All male and female viewers have the opportunity to be voyeurs and experience fetishes. I have not seen this movie in full, so it I cannot say whether I agree that Mark Lewis's desire to see has no sexual undertones (the opening scene of him in a whorehouse and the fact that he works in a porn shop would indicate they might, but alas, I am not qualified to say.) I agree that "Peeping Tom serves almost as a fetish object in itself," because it is possible to be enchanted by the cinema as a technical performance, and the 16 mm film is certainly a technical aspect that could be fetishized.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason we go to the movies is to be fooled into thinking what we see on screen is a reality. Christian Metz says it well in his book, The Imaginary Signifier: "It is understood that the audience is not duped by the diegetic illusion, it knows that the screen presents no more than a fiction. And yet, it is of vital importance for the correct unfolding of the spectacle that this make-believe be scrupulously respected (or else the film is declared poorly made), that everything is set to work to make the deception effective and to give it an air of truth (this is the problem of verisimilitude). A man who films and kills women without any sexual motivations is probably not a reality in most of our lives, but this film makes us believe that this situation could be possible.
I've only seen the part of Peeping Tom that we viewed in class. I was fairly freaked out by it, mut I've put it on my list of movies to watch after reading your post. I think the existence of the two cameras (Mark's camera and camera which films film) emphasize the points made in the readings. Any time another camera is visible in a movie, it forces the audience to reflect on the fact that they themselves are watching a movie. We can easily condemn a normal voyeur-murderer that we may come across in another film. In Peeping Tom however, we see Mark with a camera. It is more difficult to simply condemn his voyeurism as perverted in some way, because we realize that we are similarly guilty. We are watching a horror film, enjoying in some way the murders filmed for our benefit. This self-reflection makes us rethink how we view the character of the peeping tom.
ReplyDeleteSarah-
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty intrigued with the film now. Perhaps it's worth giving it a good watch.
I have not seen Peeping Tom, other than what was shown in class. However, based on your description and what was shown in class I think it can be said that the intent of the director was to show the psychopathic aspect of the character. If, as you say, he shows no desire in killing the women he kills, but rather enjoys the act of killing for itself and the women he kills just happen to be out of convenience, then the fact that he films their deaths is really chilling. The fact that he films the women for a murderous need rather than a sexual one is more disturbing to me than when I first watched the scene in class.
Having only viewed the clip from Peeping Tom that was shown in class, I don't really have a basis for commenting on your overall interpretation of the director's intent. Your observations are intriguing, however, and left me wanting to watch the film to see if I would reach a similar conclusion. I thought that your comment about the effect of the two cameras seemed to make a lot of sense. It also seems like it would create a sense of helplessness in the viewer - we are watching the scene unfold but we are so detached from it that it becomes even more frustratingly untouchable. I also think it sounds like an interesting psychological investigation of the motivation driving serial killers behavior. I do believe that there is an element of sexual desire inherent in these murders, but it's clearly a perversion of the normal sexuality experienced by most humans.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear your thoughts about Cache, another intensely voyeuristic alternative film, in relation to the psychosocial, obsessively sexual fixation with viewing and observation.
ReplyDeleteIn Cache, we again have an "observer"-character (although never narratively characterized, and barely even implied), who seems to have a fixative obsession with observation and, above all, CLANDESTINE observation (a decidedly pathological stereotype of actual psychoanalytical voyeurism diagnoses). Yet, despite this intensely voyeuristic framing (pun definitely intended), there is no sexualization or objectification of the female (or any) form.
Cache is voyeurist in the sense that there is a overt and covert observational spectacle, yet the "spectacle" in question is never quite sexualized or fetishized in the sense that Lacan might wish it to be. The scene is "fragmented," to a certain extent, in as much as any subject viewed from a camera lens can only fixate on a small part of the scene and not the whole.
What'll REALLY blow your mind, is that in Cache the thing that is being fragmented and sensationalized through voyeurism is in fact the mundane, everyday life of contemporary Western existence. Now, what does Lacan say about THAT in relation to sexual fixation?
...better yet, don't answer that...