Video summary

Can the Male Still Gaze?

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The video argues that the “male gaze” in cinema—popularized by Laura Mulvey (1975) as an implicit heterosexual-male default that frames women as objects for viewing—has become widely criticized and discouraged in mainstream filmmaking, especially after #MeToo and 21st-century feminism.

The creator agrees that objectifying depictions are often unnecessary and harmful. However, the video pivots to a more “selfish” question:

What happens to men’s desire and self-understanding when the expression of the gaze is heavily scrutinized?

The core inquiry is:

Can the male gaze still “work” without reducing people to objects?

1) Defining the male gaze and how it shows up on screen

The video explains Mulvey’s thesis: film can assume a male viewpoint even when no male character is explicitly watching, because camera framing and editing position audiences to adopt a heterosexual-male perspective.

Key on-screen signals include:

  • Fragmentation of female bodies The video emphasizes lingering close-ups and pans across parts of women’s bodies, contrasted with how men are often shown more fully (wider shots and context through action).

  • Objectification with little plot relevance The objectifying framing is described as often feeling gratuitous—not narratively necessary.

  • Staging comparisons across films Examples include comparisons such as:

    • Suicide Squad (Harley Quinn framed in a more “male-directed” way) vs. Birds of Prey (less objectifying approach).
    • The broader claim: when filmmakers don’t build shots around an assumed male viewer, women can function more as characters than as visual targets.

2) Female-directed cinema: “reclaiming” vs. conversing with the gaze

Initially, the creator expects female filmmakers to “reclaim” the male gaze. But the video argues that many examples work better as dialogues with it, not simple reversals.

Common patterns discussed:

  • Sexuality may remain present, but the camera is often locked to women’s eyes/subjectivity, reframing the gaze as something women relate to themselves—not something imposed by men.

  • Mutuality over coercion in Portrait of a Lady on Fire The film begins with one-sided looking tied to coercion, but the relationship develops into reciprocal gazing, humanizing intimacy through recognition.

  • Critique can fail when cinematography still centers the male perspective

    • Blue Is the Warmest Color is used to show how criticism may collapse if the visuals continue to anchor male-gaze centering.
    • Bombshell is described as a harassment exposé, yet the camera may still place viewers inside a man’s gaze during coercive scenes rather than centering the victim’s perspective.
  • A proposed alternative: Sorry Baby (Eva Victor, referenced as 2025) Traumatic events are communicated through jumps and with perspective staying with the survivor—keeping audience intimacy grounded in her subjectivity.

3) Men’s films after the critique: turning the gaze into an internal enemy

The video argues that male-focused storytelling hasn’t vanished—it has shifted. Rather than abandoning objectification entirely, many contemporary films weaponize the male gaze by depicting it as:

  • delusional
  • predatory
  • self-destructive

Examples listed:

  • Red Rocket (Sean Baker): an exaggerated male gaze reveals tragic delusions and predatory grooming through framing.
  • Shame (Steve McQueen): a scene evolves into predatory gaze and discomfort for a woman, reinforced by the man’s escalating obsession.
  • Enemy (Denis Villeneuve): cheating and desire are framed as predatory, dehumanizing the object of attention.

The creator’s claim: these films don’t just condemn men—they externalize the male gaze into an inner antagonist that blocks meaningful connection to others and to the self.

4) Richard Gadd as a special case: gaze as involuntary and alien to desire

The video then focuses on Richard Gadd:

  • Baby Reindeer: a stalker dynamic forces confrontation with childhood sexual abuse. The gaze is shown as something the gazer can cast involuntarily, contradicting what the man believes he desires.
  • Half Man: stepbrothers navigating closeted sexuality, trauma, and emotional disassociation destabilize the “straight” self-image.

The argument: Gadd uniquely illustrates that disassociation and alienation from one’s desire can happen even in heterosexual men—particularly when culture narrows what “desire” is allowed to mean.

5) The deeper claim: human desire is inherently contradictory and not easily moralized

A major thesis develops: cinema’s responses to the male gaze suggest not a simple fix, but that human desire is an enigma.

The creator argues desire often combines conflicting elements such as:

  • rage
  • longing
  • confusion
  • envy
  • fetishization
  • self-loathing
  • codependency

Because of this, attempts to moralize the gaze risk flattening something real about how longing operates internally.

6) Reframing the gaze: from objectification to reciprocity

To address the guiding question—whether “the male” can gaze— the creator proposes a more nuanced distinction, drawing from Savannah Brown and Fleabag:

  • A gaze imposed upon someone → reduction/violation
  • A gaze invited or used for intimacy → connection, vulnerability, even erotic play

The idea is that people can be looked at without reduction, and desire can function as a gateway to intimacy rather than only domination.

7) Positive male alternative: Terrence Malick as a “gaze that lets reality back in”

The video searches for men looking in ways that connect, not just critique. Terrence Malick is presented as the best fit:

  • Malick’s men can seem objectifying through idealization at first, but the video argues Malick’s worldview places men inside distortion—where their false constructions block real perception.
  • Malick’s style is described as capturing the “alternative” view: what their gaze prevents them from perceiving.
  • The claim: Malick shows men glimpsing something beyond distortion—an existential longing for love and reciprocity.

The conclusion becomes philosophical, drawing on Iris Murdoch:

  • Love/art/morals depend on realizing something other than oneself is real, which requires a receptive gaze that acknowledges mutual subjectivity.

8) Overall conclusion

The video concludes that:

  • Both women and men need new ways of thinking about looking.
  • Progress requires increasing diverse perspectives behind the camera, so gaze dynamics can be examined and reshaped.
  • Beyond politics and technique, the ultimate goal is to ask whether a gaze approach brings viewers closer to reality and reciprocity—turning desire from possession into acknowledgment.

Presenters or contributors

  • Presenter/Creator: (unnamed in the subtitles; speaker presenting/directing the video)
  • Referenced theorist: Laura Mulvey
  • Referenced filmmaker/documentary author: Nina Menkes
  • Referenced filmmakers/creators: Steven Soderbergh, Steve McQueen, Sean Baker, Denis Villeneuve, Terrence Malick, Eva Victor
  • Referenced TV/film writers/works (for examples): Richard Gadd (Baby Reindeer, Half Man), plus creators of cited films (e.g., Fleabag)
  • Referenced philosopher: Iris Murdoch
  • Referenced author/creator: Savannah Brown
  • Referenced series/channel: Ro Mooknee (series “Politits”)

Original video