Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:38:36.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spectatorial Theory in the Age of Media Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2009

Elizabeth Klaver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The last few decades of the twentieth century have seen the rise of a significant and powerful media culture. We now live in an age in which those media forces associated with visual entertainment – film, theatre, and television – have come increasingly to circulate among and interact with each other. Given the consequently porous nature of media boundaries, how should viewership and its effect on subjectivity be theorized today? Does the concept of the ‘spectatorial gaze’, as developed by critics in film and extended to theatre and television, actually work, given the plurality of the media culture? Elizabeth Klaver argues in the following essay that the ‘ways of looking’ currently available to viewers break down the isolated gaze of mastery – with or without its sexual-political connotations – and offer instead the potential and sometimes the actuality of performative interaction. Elizabeth Klaver is Assistant Professor of English at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. As part of her current work on the media culture, she has recently published in the field of television and contemporary drama, and has also published articles on Beckett and Ionesco.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Theatre Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 44 , November 1995 , pp. 309 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

An earlier version of this paper was read at the ‘Unnatural Acts: Theorizing the Performative’ conference, University of California, Riverside, February 1993.

1. Terry, Megan, Brazil Fado (Omaha: Omaha Magic Theatre Press, 1978), p. 6Google Scholar.

2. Jameson, Fredric, Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham: Duke UP, 1991), p. 69Google Scholar.

3. Deming, Robert H., ‘The Television Spectator-Subject’, Journal of Film and Video, XXXVIII, No. 3 (1985), p. 48Google Scholar.

4. Ibid., p. 61.

5. Lyotard, Jean-François, trans. Bennington, Geoff and Massumi, Brian, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. xxivGoogle Scholar.

6. Freedman, Barbara, Staging the Gaze: Postmodernism, Psychoanalysis, and Shakespearean Comedy (Ithaca; London: Cornell UP, 1991), p. 74Google Scholar.

7. Lacan, Jacques, trans. Sheridan, Alan, ed. Miller, Jacques-Alain, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (New York; London: Norton, 1981), p. 95–6Google Scholar.

8. Debord, Guy, trans. Imrie, Malcolm, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle (London; New York: Verso, 1990), p. 7Google Scholar.

9. Blau, Herbert, The Audience (Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1990), p. 58Google Scholar.

10. Debord, op. cit., p. 22, 58–62.

11. Mayne, Judith, The Woman at the Keyhole: Feminism and Women's Cinema (Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1990), p. 17Google Scholar. See also her comments on Debord, p. 14.

12. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, trans. Dallery, Carleton, ed. Edie, James M., ‘Eye and Mind’, The Primacy of Perception and Other Essays on Phenomenological Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics (Northwestern UP, 1964), p. 162Google Scholar, 178.

13. Sartre, Jean-Paul, trans. Barnes, Hazel E., Being and Nothingness: an Essay in Phenomenological Ontology (New York: Citadel Press, 1969), p. 233Google Scholar.

14. Smith, Paul, Discerning the Subject (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), p. 22–3Google Scholar.

15. Silverman, Kaja, ‘What is a Camera?, or: History in the Field of Vision’, Discourse, XV, No. 3 (1993), p. 3, 8Google Scholar.

16. Metz, Christian, trans. Britton, Celia, Williams, Annwyl, Brewster, Ben, and Guzzetti, Alfred, The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982), p. 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Ibid., p. 45–6.

18. Ibid., p. 50–1.

19. Willemen, Paul, ed. Rosen, Philip, Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: a Film Theory Reader (New York: Columbia UP, 1986), p. 216–17Google Scholar.

20. Lacan, op. cit., p. 74, and Freedman, op. cit., p. 53, 69.

21. Mulvey, Laura, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen, XVI, No. 3 (1975), p. 8Google Scholar.

22. Ibid., p. 11.

23. Shaviro, Steven, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), p. 12Google Scholar.

24. Ibid., p. 20.

25. Any James Bond movie will demonstrate the appeal of this theory. As Silverman notes (p. 5), in ‘The Apparatus: Metapsychological Approaches to the Impression of Reality in the Cinema’, Jean-Louis Baudry describes a lack of separation between the body and the external world. This suggests an alternative viewpoint as early as 1975 (Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, p. 313).

26. de Lauretis, Teresa, Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction (Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1987), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Mayne, op. cit., p. 36.

27. Saeed-Vafa, Mehrnaz, Ruins Within: Women in the Director's Chair, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 27 10 1993Google Scholar.

28. Sartre, op. cit., p. 242.

29. O'Gorman, Kathleen, ‘“so that people would stare:” The Gaze and The Glance in Beckett's Not I’, Modern Language Studies, XXIII, No. 3 (1993), p. 34, 36Google Scholar.

30. Beckett, Samuel, Not I, in Collected Shorter Plays of Samuel Beckett (New York: Grove Press, 1984), p. 213–23Google Scholar.

31. Freedman, op. cit., p. 68.

32. Ibid., p. 64, 71.

33. Silverstein, Marc, ‘“Body Presence:” Cixous's Phenomenology of Theater’, Theatre Journal, XLIII (1991), p. 508Google Scholar.

34. Merleau-Ponty, op. cit., p. 169.

35. Sartre, op. cit, p. 241.

36. Deming, op. cit, p. 61.

37. Stam, Robert, ‘Television News and Its Spectator’, Regarding Television: Critical Approaches – an Anthology, ed. Kaplan, E. Ann (Los Angeles: American Film Institute, 1983), p. 24Google Scholar.

38. Ibid., p. 24.

39. Television does have its own ways of holding the viewer. To bring the viewer back to a programme, it instals mini-cliffhangers before each commercial break. And for its regular programming, the repetition of character and setting week after week causes the viewer to develop emotional attachments.

40. Ellis, John, Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video (London; Boston: Routledge, 1982), p. 163Google Scholar.

41. Houston, Beverle, ‘Viewing Television: the Metapsychology of Endless Consumption’, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, IX, No. 3 (1984), p. 193Google Scholar.

42. Ibid., p. 184.

43. Sartre, op. cit, p. 233.

44. Lacan, op. cit, p. 89, 88. On CBS a stylized eye (its logo) actually appears during this interruptive gap.

45. Baudrillard, Jean, ‘The Ecstasy of Communication’, The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, ed. Foster, Hal (Seattle: Bay Press, 1983), p. 130Google Scholar.

46. Terry, Megan, ‘An Interview with Megan Terry’, by Londré, Felicia Hardison, Studies in American Drama, 1945–Present, IV (1989), p. 178Google Scholar.

47. Sartre, op. cit, p. 241.