MAC 143 Final
Introduction:
An application of the theorists below to the limited series Watchmen (2019) can provide insight into how theory about media and our world influences the form and content of contemporary texts. Sigmund Freud’s The Uncanny illustrates how fear and unease can be incited by a conjunction of the familiar and unfamiliar. Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema details the intricacies of cinema as a visual sexual spectacle through the ‘male gaze’. bell hooks’ The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators uncovers the history of oppression and underrepresentation that has caused black women to develop a unique visual perspective regarding media. Ella Shohat and Robert Stam’s Stereotype, Realism, and the Struggle over Representation highlights specific ways in which media affects representations of the world and groups of people that inhabit it. Watchmen (2019) effectively implements the concepts introduced by these four theorists to reveal the sociohistorical constructs active within the world of the show, which serve as a reflection of these constructs’ presence in reality.
Methodology:
This post will contain a review of pre-existing theory, and an application of that theory to Watchmen (2019) in order to evaluate the aforementioned thesis. The similarities and differences of these sources will be analyzed in order to understand their effect when placed in conversation with each other. The argument will discuss how episode six, "This Extraordinary Being", satisfies the thesis through historical contextualization, while episode eight, "A God Walks Into Abar", does this through an emphasis on character development and the relationship between Angela and Cal/John. Finally, there will be a conclusion which will acknowledge the new understandings that this analysis illuminates.
Similarities: A Systematic “Other” and How it is Enacted
These four theorists are alike in their analysis of an “other,” a non-majority framework of ideas that goes against a previously-established set of social norms— in other words, a difference. Furthermore, these theorists all attribute the construction of the other to the perception of the viewer, along with the social and developmental backgrounds that contextualize said perception.
Freud defines the “uncanny” as “that class of the terrifying which leads back to something long known to us, once very familiar.”(1) The feeling of unease that results from the uncanny is caused by a stray from the familiar, in which the heimlich (“‘familiar; ‘native’, ‘belonging to the home’”(2)) and the unheimlich (“uneasy, eerie, blood-curdling”(3)) are juxtaposed to each other, emphasizing the distinction between the two in order to strengthen the alien qualities of the uncanny. When applying the uncanny to The Sandman, Freud notes that the uncanny is directly linked to the feeling of “being robbed of one’s eyes.”(4) Fear is caused by the uncertainty of what is happening, and within the medium of film this is associated most closely with the gaze. The gaze is our control, and if something impedes it or something within its sight is different from our previously-constructed realm of familiarity, the uncanny occurs.
This concept of the gaze as a form of cinematic control is strongly defined by Laura Mulvey (who bases her claims off of Freud’s Three Essays On Sexuality), as she distinguishes the male perpetrator of the gaze from the gaze’s female object. Mulvey writes that “The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly,”(5) outlining the control the male retains through the gaze and the powerlessness of the female receiver. This distinction along the line of gender is motivated by difference, and separates the woman from the position of dominance. Regarding the social context in which this othering takes place, Mulvey cites that “The presence of woman is an indispensible element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation.”(6) Within film, the role of the woman, as the audience perceives her, is to be a source of visual pleasure, yet the woman is alienated by contradicting the flow of the plot.
bell hooks evaluates this notion further, as she argues that the objectification of women (specifically black women) by the gaze and the historical marginalization and underrepresentation of black people in film has in turn created a counteractive “oppositional gaze.” hooks writes that “all attempts to repress our/ black peoples' right to gaze had produced in us an overwhelming longing to look, a rebellious desire, an oppositional gaze,”(7) reiterating the sociohistorical implications which brought about the oppositional gaze. This gaze is a product of the othering of black women in media caused by underrepresentation, as well as the pre-established white-male dominance of cinematic society. hooks provides nuance to Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze, writing that “looking at films with an oppositional gaze, black women were able to critically assess the cinema's construction of white womanhood as object of phallocentric gaze and choose not to identify with either the victim or the perpetrator.”(8) The oppositional gaze is a way for black women, who have been historically marginalized by their inability to participate in the gaze, to reclaim power and control within media.
Shohat and Stam further analyze the portrayal of marginalized races in the media by pointing out the stereotypes that “other” these groups and by contextualizing the different societal causes that bring about this othering. Shohat and Stam write that “a film inevitably mirrors its own processes of production as well as larger social processes,”(9) meaning that the social environment in which the film is produced influences its representations. This is why visual distortions such as blackface and yellowface are present in a white hegemonic society. Shohat and Stam also place an importance on representation, claiming that “the narrative and mimetic arts, to the extent that they represent ethos (character) and ethnos (peoples) are considered representative not only of the human figure but also of anthropomorphic vision.”(10) Therefore, a negative representation can have dire effects on those who view it, which is why the othering that media takes part in is damaging to the ideological perceptions of audiences.
Differences: Subject Matter and Solutions
Within the shared concept of the visual dissimilar, these four theorists differ in the subject matter in which the concept is applied, as well as by the way in which they present solutions to the dissimilarities highlighted within their works. It is of note that the four texts I have selected have all been published in different decades, which likely contributes to their difference in application. In The Uncanny, Freud applies difference to that of the human subconscious, in order to analyze emotional self-suppression and fear. He qualifies the uncanny, claiming that “it undoubtedly belongs to all that is terrible— to all that arouses dread and creeping horror.”(11) By saying this, he denotes the visual unfamiliar/unusual (the unheimlich) as a tool of horror. Freud does not call for a removal or disavowal of the uncanny, but rather an embracing of the concept for effective subconscious analysis. He states that within psychoanalytical methodology, “there must be a class in which the anxiety can be shown to come from something repressed which recurs.”(12) This very class is the uncanny, which can be used to uncover a deeply-hidden source of anxiety.
While Freud shows how visual difference can result in fear, Mulvey conveys how visual difference can result in objectification and the division of power dynamics, and advocates for a dissolution of these practices through the construction of an objective cinematic view. She notes that “in a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female.”(13) The gendered dichotomization of society is applied to cinema, polarizing mens’ position of power and womens’ position of objectification. In Mulvey’s conclusion, she writes that “The first blow against the monolithic accumulation of traditional film conventions (already undertaken by radical filmmakers) is to free the look of the camera into its materiality in time and space and the look of the audience into dialectics, passionate detachment.”(14) She calls for filmmakers to establish an unbiased gaze, in which the audience does not identify with the scopophilic nature of the medium, but rather in a detached observance of the world that the camera creates.
bell hooks evaluates Mulvey’s text further, through the lens of black womanhood, and encourages black women to voluntarily abstain from the problematic dynamics of the gaze. hooks writes that “The prolonged silence of black women as spectators and critics was a response to absence, to cinematic negation.”(15) This text is her contribution to the growing conversation of black feminist film theory, applying the concept of the gaze to black women. She further notes that “Black female spectators, who refused to identify with white womanhood, who would not take on the phallocentric gaze of desire and possession, created a critical space where the binary opposition Mulvey posits of 'woman as image, man as bearer of the look' was continually deconstructed.”(16) Through this quote, bell hooks promotes a willful denial of the gaze and, in turn, the implementation of an oppositional gaze in order to participate in film criticism without falling victim to the gaze’s power imbalance.
Shohat and Stam identify power imbalances in film through the difference in visual representation, and provide a solution to this unequal visual representation by reorganizing film observation around the discursive rather than the visual. Regarding cinema in the postmodern world, Shohat and Stam write that “thus though there is no absolute truth, no truth apart from representation and dissemination, there are still contingent, qualified, perspectival truths in which communities are invested.”(17) This acknowledgement of relative truths is what leads to uneven representation, as groups in power build representations of others with the vested interest of maintaining their position of dominance, therefore portraying others as less-than. Shohat and Stam claim that a solution for this “is to speak less of ‘images’ than of ‘voices’ and ‘discourses."(18) By shifting the focus of film from the visual image to that of the voice of those depicted, film can redistribute representational power to those who have been often visually displayed without it.
Application:
“This Extraordinary Being”: Historical Contextualization
Watchmen’s sixth episode, “This Extraordinary Being”, puts the aforementioned theories into practice by analyzing the sociohistorical factors regarding race and gender relations in 1930s Tulsa. The episode effectively displays the polarization between Will Reeves’ quieter domestic life, and his high-intensity crime-fighting as a policeman and as Hooded Justice.
His home life is dominated by the dynamics of the gaze. His wife, June, is depicted almost exclusively within the confines of their house. This is indicative of the gender roles in place during the time, but it also alludes to the strength of Mulvey’s politics of the male gaze. Mulvey writes that women in film/television are villainized by their “lack of penis, implying a threat of castration and hence unpleasure.”(19) June poses an emotional threat to Reeves’ adrenaline-filled vigilante activities due to their love for each other, but this threat is neutralized by her containment within the home. This suppression, along with the societal alienation she faces as a black woman, causes her to develop an oppositional gaze. She uses her role as a homemaker to influence Hooded Justice’s decisions from behind the scenes, indicative in the scene in which Nelson Gardner (“Captain Metropolis”) visits. Nelson becomes the object of Will’s pleasurable gaze, substituting the usual gender dichotomy for a homoerotic objectification of Gardner, while June participates heavily in their conversation, voicing her opinion on behalf of Hooded Justice. She reclaims her being pigeonholed as a source of domestic support, and uses this position to dictate the politics of her home with a unique perspective. The power she retains from her oppositional gaze/role is exemplified further towards the end of the episode, when Will attempts to wipe the vigilante make-up off his son’s face and June stops him. Since June’s primary role has been to take care of the kids, both because of societal expectations and Will’s absence at night due to crime-fighting, she has a stronger influence over their children than Will, and uses this power in opposition to Will’s expectations for their children.
Will’s alter-ego as Hooded Justice is a persona formed by an oppositional gaze to the corrupt, white-dominated police force of Tulsa. His power has been greatly suppressed within the force due to his race, so he takes it into his own hands by donning the hood and fighting crime on his own terms. hooks writes that “the 'gaze' has been and is a site of resistance for colonized black people globally.”(20) Hooded Justice’s secretive, hidden gaze is in resistance to the societal oppression black people faced in 1930s Tulsa, and it also gives Will’s looking a sense of unencumbered freedom. His oppositional gaze is further provoked by his silencing within the group of superheroes that Nelson Gardner recruits him to. Will is focused on major issues affecting people of color in Tulsa, which is disregarded by Gardner and kept out of the light. This unwillingness for other superheroes to help Will due to the racial relations of the issue ultimately sparks Will to stop “Cyclops” himself, by killing everyone in Fred’s warehouse and burning it to the ground.
Will’s delegitimization within the Superhero group also brings Shohat’s and Stam’s theories of representation into play, as the group assumes that Will’s issues are less important due to his race. Shohat and Stam write that “historically, Hollywood has tried to ‘teach’ Black performers how to conform to its own stereotypes.”(21) This forcing of black people into a specific position within a certain environment happens to Will within both the Superhero group and the police force. In the former, he is written off due to his race, and in the other, he is hated because of his race. Because he is one of the only people of color in both contexts, he is forced to serve as a representation of his race. Furthermore, as Hooded Justice, he knows that society wouldn’t accept a black vigilante, so he puts white powder around his eyes to conceal his race, in order to not provide a negative or dangerous portrayal of black people in Tulsa.
The “Cyclops” and the KKK attempt to create harmful representations of black people within society by taking advantage of the uncanny, using supernatural mind control to influence black people into committing crimes. Freud writes that “One of the most uncanny and wide-spread forms of superstition is the dread of the evil eye.”(22) The visualization of the “Cyclops” itself takes advantage of this ability to induce fear, and the showrunners use this uncanny aspect to maintain a mystery and fear around the antagonists of the episode. The use of mind control embodies the uncanny due to its unfamiliarity in the real-world. Mind control is a science-fiction practice, and the implementation of it within the episode’s historical fiction-esque setting presents an unsettling feeling in audiences.
Will Reeves’ domestic life encapsulates the use of the gaze, both through the relationship between him and his wife and the relationship between him and Nelson Gardner, while his crime-fighting ventures reveal a plan that takes advantage of the uncanny to tarnish the representation of black people in Tulsa.
“A God Walks Into Abar”:
Watchmen’s eighth episode, “A God Walks Into Abar,” applies the work of these four theorists through the development of Angela’s and Cal/John’s pasts, providing insight into who they are as characters.
In the scene in which he enters the bar, Cal’s appearance is representative of Freud’s uncanny through its mix of familiarity and unfamiliarity and by its hiddenness to the viewer. Dr. Manhattan is a humanoid figure, yet contains several unfamiliar human aspects— he is completely hairless, his eyes glow, and his skin is blue. This combination of the heimlich and unheimlich is the exact formula for the uncanny that Freud identifies. Freud also defines the uncanny in another way, referencing Schelling by claiming that “everything is uncanny that ought to have remained hidden and secret, and yet comes to light.”(23) Dr. Manhattan dons a blue mask to cover his face in the beginning of the episode, and his fully-powerful, glowing form is revealed at the end, successfully satisfying this definition of the uncanny.
While Dr. Manhattan’s “true” form is representative of the uncanny, the form he takes in order to please Angela when they begin their life together acts as a subversion of the male gaze, in which he becomes the object of Angela’s gaze. He is willing to look like anyone as long as he provides Angela with visual pleasure. Mulvey writes that “In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness.”(24) Dr. Manhattan’s physical transformation encapsulates this notion of visual appeal for the sake of being looked at, as Dr. Manhattan states himself that this is simply for the pleasure of Angela and nothing else. Angela ultimately chooses a body for him, but at first, she is hesitant. This is due to the oppositional gaze she has built up within herself due to past trauma.
Because of the death of her parents, Angela has built up an oppositional gaze in regards to Dr. Manhattan’s place within the political world, critical and angry towards his actions. At the bar, Angela admits her hatred for Dr. Manhattan, and explains it’s cause—he caused violence and destruction while ending the Vietnam War, which caused an emotionally-scarred survivor to suicide-bomb her family. hooks writes that the oppositional gaze is brought about in society because “power as domination reproduces itself in different locations employing similar apparatuses, strategies, and mechanisms of control.”(25) This control leads to a rebellious looking, which is how the oppositional gaze is put into practice. Dr. Manhattan’s position of power emphasizes the control identified by hooks, and he has been used by the US government to exercise domination over the world. His actions have indirectly caused Angela severe emotional trauma. Over the years, this has taught Angela to observe Dr. Manhattan’s activities with scrutiny through an oppositional gaze.
This episode’s inclusion of a storyline concerned with generational trauma, as well as an illustration of how the US would use Dr. Manhattan as a super weapon, exemplifies Shohat’s and Stam’s theory regarding film’s reflection of real-world social systems. Shohat and Stam write that “a film inevitably mirrors its own processes of production as well as larger social processes.”(26) The implementation of these themes into this episode are indicative of their prevalence in reality. In America, there is a detailed history of generational trauma regarding racism, and the US has in fact used a superweapon in wartime before (the atomic bomb). Dr. Manhattan’s threat, as well as Angela’s ideological opposition to him, seems to have been directly inspired by real-life events that have occurred throughout American history.
In this episode, the Dr. Manhattan’s characterization impactfully embodies Freud’s concept of the Uncanny, while his transformation for Angela’s visual pleasure subverts Mulvey’s concept of the Male Gaze. Regarding the relationship between the two of them, Angela’s past trauma has caused her to assume an oppositional gaze, critical of Dr. Manhattan, while Angela’s trauma in conjunction with how the US government used Dr. Manhattan as a weapon effectively applies Shohat’s and Stam’s theory about art reflecting society.
Conclusion:
By examining Watchmen’s application of these four sources, one can understand how critical media theory is used to construct the world of a television series, and how said television series can apply these sources to real-world situations and events in order to reflect the reality we live in. Watchmen’s merging of sci-fi and fantasy with real events in American history, such as the Tulsa race massacre and the Vietnam War, allow for a unique and effective meditation on the factors that have shaped our current postmodern world. Freud’s analysis of the uncanny reveals how Watchmen’s showrunners elicit fear and mystery in audiences. Mulvey’s and hooks’ examinations of the abilities of the gaze provides insight into how Watchmen visually depicts relationships and power dynamics between characters. Shohat’s and Stam’s commentaries on media representations shows how Watchmen’s antagonists use negative representation as a weapon, and how the show’s involvement in the real world timeline dissects the relations of reality. Overall, viewing this series through the lens of these sources provides insight into how media and the real-world have a distinct influence on each other.
Bibliography:
1 Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny” in Collected Papers Volume IV, trans. Joan Riviere (London: The Hogarth Press, 1948), 369-370
2 Freud, The Uncanny, 370
3 Freud, The Uncanny, 375
4 Freud, The Uncanny, 382
5 Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Film Theory and Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 715
6 Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 715
7 bell hooks, “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” in Feminist Film Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1999), 308
8 hooks, The Oppositional Gaze, 313
9 Ella Shohat and Robert Stam, “Stereotype, Realism and the Struggle Over Representation” in Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the media” (London: Routledge, 1994), 187
10 Shohat and Stam, Stereotype, Realism and the Struggle Over Representation, 182
11 Freud, The Uncanny, 368
12 Freud, The Uncanny, 394
13 Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 715
14 Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 722
15 hooks, The Oppositional Gaze, 310
16 hooks, The Oppositional Gaze, 313
17 Shohat and Stam, Stereotype, Realism and the Struggle Over Representation, 179
18 Shohat and Stam, Stereotype, Realism and the Struggle Over Representation, 214
19 Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 718
20 hooks, The Oppositional Gaze, 308
21 Shohat and Stam, Stereotype, Realism and the Struggle Over Representation, 196
22 Freud, The Uncanny, 393
23 Freud, The Uncanny, 376
24 Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 715
25 hooks, The Oppositional Gaze, 307
26 Shohat and Stam, Stereotype, Realism and the Struggle Over Representation, 187
@theuncannyprofessoro
