In my opinion, I think Laura Mulvey's theory isn't evident within this particular music video. This is because I think that the male gaze isn't used here at all. As you can see from the picture on the right, the male and female character are together and are looked upon as being equals. The male character isn't dominant at all, as they both have equal parts within the video. The spectator can identify with the male and female gaze as the camera is filming from a completely neutral view and doesn't show the man or woman doing anything negative.
As you can see from the pictures on the right, the music video showcases the actor and actress having their own screen time by themselves, which again demonstrates that they both have agency and are both as important as each other. They also both use similar colours in their clothing and settings to further emphasise this point. The female character within this music video isn't the object of desire because the clothes that she wears aren't revealing at all, and she doesn't shape her body in a way that males would find to be sexual. The actor and actress both have agency and are given equal amounts of screen time. Both the male and female gaze is active as both genders would be interested in this video. The levels of cinematic gaze show that both characters within the music video are important and that men and women are shown to be on equal levels as none of them are seen to be dominant. This is a good example of a music video where Laura Mulvey's theory doesn't apply as women are not seen to be objects of erotic desire, and men and women are given equal amounts of screen time and agency. 
No comments:
Post a Comment