Gender practise

The extract I have been given is from the movie ‘Hustle’. Evident just from the name you would be able to guess what this film is about. The gender stereotype theories of Mulvey (1975), Mackillon (2002) and Gauntlett (2002) are both supported and apposed by this clip.

The opening shot in the extract is a low angle medium close up of the middle-aged male in the clip. It is evident from this first shot that this male is working in the store from his attire (an expensive-looking suit). It’s a common stereotype that males working in clothes stores are either gay or very camp, and his posture supports this stereotype. Whilst the stereotype is supported, Gauntlett’s theory is not. He said that men in films were “conventionally rugged” and “extra-strong” but it is evident just from the first shot that he is none of these things. Although, there are some things in this first shot that supports Gauntlett’s theory. The fact that he is on a higher level than the woman in the shot and traditionally, height equals power when it comes to camera shots.

It is clear to me from this shot that the man is asserting his power over the older woman in the red coat. This is because the camera angle implies this. The shot itself is a high angle medium close-up on the woman in the red. Like I’ve already stated previously, height when it comes to camera angles is a defining factor as to whether a character is powerful or not, and it is clear to see that the woman is the least powerful of the two characters in the shot. This supports Gauntlett’s theory that men are powerful in films, although the male is not necessarily “rugged” and “strong”, he is still the most powerful. Although it does appose Laura Mulvey’s theory that women are used in films as “erotic objects of desire” because I can assure you that I myself feel no sexual desire towards this woman. What I believe is that this shot links in more with the common movie stereotype that women are made to be either sexual objects (which Mulvey’s theory states) OR housewives (which Mulvey’s theory does not state). Although it is difficult to tell from this shot as you can only really see the side of the males head, I would say that Mackillon’s 2002 theory is also apposed because he stated that men are now used in a similar way to women in films (sex objects) and the man in this film is well groomed yes, clean shaven, nice suit, but he is not what the society of this day and age would call a “sex object”.

The next shot is a medium shot of both the male and the female. Unlike the first shot, the woman does not look like the weaker of the two characters anymore because the camera angle is level for both of them and is not biased to either one. Not only that but the woman is keeping eye contact with the man unlike the earlier woman who shied away from this. In this shot, Laura Mulvey’s theory is supported because the woman in this shot is a younger, prettier, and more sexualised. The fact that the camera angle and the way she is standing (to the side) both result in her bum looking more aesthetically pleasing also supports Mulvey’s theory. Gauntlett’s theory on the other hand is not supported, this is because the man is not the most powerful character in the shot and although the theory does not state that the man is the most powerful character in the shot, it just states that they are usually rugged and extra-strong, it implies as much.