Normally, any TikTok that serenades me with a Taylor Swift âAll Too Wellâ and âChampagne Problemsâ medley would be heavenly to watch. I wish I could say that for this current trend where people show how their fashion style changed over the last few years. In the videos, multiple photos are shown to demonstrate how the user has âstopped dressing for the male gaze.â Most often, the âtransformationâ just means wearing less revealing clothing. Yet, this way of thought enforces the harmful ideal that your clothes speak for you. It assumes that women wear low-cut shirts and short clothing just for the eyes of a man. It plays right into the âWell, what was she wearing?â victim blaming tactic thatâs been used for years. The times, and the fashion trends, have changed. Weâve seen a 2020 VSCO girl summer, where it was common to hone in on oversized T-shirts and shorts. Weâve revisited a Y2K look this year, encompassing cropped baby tees and pleated skirts. Now, weâre experiencing a Cottage Core era, where long dresses are in, and it is no longer weird to like Taylor Swift (which is another article for another day). What hasnât changed is this notion that our clothing is somehow synonymous with how we want to be seen by men.
Itâs unrealistic to say youâve managed to escape the male gaze: the film theory that explains how everything is portrayed by and for men. How could you stray from it? A mere one and a half out of every 10 Hollywood directors are female. As a result, men are the ones who have final say on the movies and television shows that shape our perceptions of ourselves and the world around us. Since the concept of the male gaze was developed in 1975 by a filmmaker Laura Mulvey, women have attempted to regain control over this ideal. Some have given it a go in the industry itself; in fact, the number of female directors rose 8.2% from 2016 to 2019. Others have chosen to educate themselves on the theory. Regardless, has anyone actually been successful in reversing this harmful ideology? Has anyone even been able to experience what can only be assumed is the opposite: the female gaze? My guess is no.
âThe âfemale gazeâ isnât about asserting female dominance on-screen. Thatâs because the male gaze isnât just about objectifying women,â Stefani Forster wrote for Medium.Â
Take Pixar script supervisor Jessica Heidtâs discovery for example. Heidt had been working on âCars 3â when something felt off. After analyzing the first draft of the film, her calculations reported that 90%of the characters were male. Not to mention, one of only two female Pixar directors was fired during production because of âcreativeâ differences, and top male directors at the animation studio have been accused of sexual misconducts by several women. Pixar has a problem with women. With that said, whatâs represented on screen isnât necessarily objectification. The thing is that female fish, toys and cars in a childrenâs movie arenât being sexualized or used. They arenât important enough for that.
Forster explains that, unless there is objectification, female characters are just present to support the main, male characters in their endeavors. In the case of Pixar, this is exemplified by the mere three films theyâve ever made where a female character is the main one. This isnât even including âThe Incredibles,â despite it being a front-runner with two prevalent women: Elastigirl and Violet Parr.
So, what does this mean? To be honest, Iâm not sure. All I know is that, in a society where women arenât needed if weâre not objectified, I couldnât really tell you what the female gaze exactly is. Psychology concepts like the cultivation theory suggest that the more time spent watching on-screen stories play out, the more engulfed we are in them. In simple talk, the more we see a manâs idea of a society in film, the more we accept that society for what it is. I for one donât want to believe that. Consequently, hereâs what we do know about the female gaze.
We know that itâs not merely whatever the male one isnât. For example, it doesnât mean we instantly turn the tables and objectify men. Interestingly enough, we actually donât objectify anyone (shocking stuff!). Instead, we focus on characters for who they are. We concentrate on plots, storylines and character arcs. It can be harrowing to conceptualize that everything we think about the world is because it is what men told us to think. Still, there are positives to consider.
First, we can measure women inclusivity in the film industry. One of these measures includes The Bechdel Test. Taking inspiration from a 1985 comic by Alison Bechdel, this analysis considers movies to be at least gender progressive if it checks off all three requirements. One: the film must have two or more female characters. Two: these two characters must have names. And three: their conversations must be about something besides a man. Though itâs quite appalling and sad how many films donât pass this test (âA Star Is Born,â âBreakfast At Tiffanyâsâ and âLa La Landâ!), it allows us to have open conversations about representation on and off screen. In 2017, FiveThirtyEight challenged women in the industry to come up with a more modern test to measure equality. In The Uphold Test, developed by writer and actress Rory Uphold, 50 of the top movies that year didnât have a film crew that was 50%women. What this tells us is that representation has definite room to grow in this field. More than that, people are updating tests like these to further propel gender and even racial equality in the film industry. Thatâs a good thing!
Also making improvements is Pixar and their mistreatment of women. Heidtâs observation, along with a new software tool that automatically tracks characterâs genders throughout a pictureâs creation, changed âCars 3,â and Pixar, for the better. Behind the scenes, John Lasseter, someone whoâs âknown as the genius behind Pixar filmsâ has stepped down following reports of sexual advances and inappropriate, non-consensual behavior. With more room for representation all the way around, Iâm not the only one whoâs stoked to see what Pixar comes up with.
âWhatâs important is that we at the studio can look at the films weâre releasing over the next five years and say, âin the aggregate of what weâre doing, can we hit 50-50 over the course of these seven movies?â,â Heidt said in the docuseries Inside Pixar. âRepresentation matters because I think itâs important that even if itâs a fish or a toy or a car that people are able to see themselves or something that they believe represents themselves on screen.â
âIf youâre faced with a problem that seems bigger than you are and you donât know what to do with it, take a step back and think about what specific tools you have that nobody else has that maybe you can address it that way,â Heidt continued.
âI also think, go ahead and do it. Youâve gotta be fearless.â