Deconstructing the Male Gaze: How Cinema's Visual Language Shapes Our Perception

"Not everything can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it's faced." - James Baldwin

In my recent Instagram Live session, I dove into the fascinating and eye-opening documentary "Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power" by Nina Menkes (2022). This powerful film explores how the visual language of cinema has systematically reinforced gender inequality through what film theorist Laura Mulvey termed "the male gaze" back in 1975.

What is the Male Gaze?

The male gaze refers to how visual media—particularly film—is often constructed from the perspective of a heterosexual male viewer. It positions women as objects rather than subjects with agency. This isn't just a theoretical concept; it's a pervasive visual language that has become so deeply embedded in our cinematic experience that we often don't even notice it.

The Four Elements of Gendered Shot Design

According to Menkes' analysis, there are four key elements that contribute to a narrative position of male power in cinema:

1. Subject/Object Positioning

A subject does the action; an object is acted upon. Mulvey identified what she called the "to-be-looked-at-ness" as the basic position of women in cinema. Women aren't doing the looking—they're being looked at. This fundamental positioning establishes power dynamics that ripple throughout the entire narrative.

2. Framing

How often have you seen a film where a woman is introduced through disconnected shots of her body parts? A pan up her legs, close-ups of her lips, breasts, or hips—fragmenting her into sexual components rather than presenting her as a whole person. This technique is so ubiquitous that once you start noticing it, you'll see it everywhere.

Next time you watch a movie, pay attention to how women are often framed by their body parts, while men are typically framed as whole persons.

3. Camera Movement

The camera itself tells a story through its movement. Think about how often the camera slowly pans across a woman's body or uses slow motion to emphasize her sexuality. Examples abound, from Halle Berry emerging from the water in "Die Another Day" to party scenes in "Wolf of Wall Street."

In contrast, men are typically filmed in slow motion during action sequences that emphasize power rather than objectification—think war movies or "Top Gun" and its sequel.

4. Lighting

Men are typically lit three-dimensionally, with shadows and texture that convey depth and character. Women, however, are often filmed with soft, blurred lighting that flattens them into two-dimensional idealizations. Directors historically obsess over how women look on screen, frequently casting actresses much younger than their characters to avoid showing signs of aging.

While this might be harder to notice in recent films due to advances in digital imagery, watch anything from before 2000, and the difference becomes unmistakable.

The Psychological Impact

These aren't just academic observations—they have real psychological effects. Researchers Green and Brock have studied what they call "transportation"—how our suspension of disbelief during films creates powerful opportunities for shifting attitudes and beliefs.

When we're absorbed in a film, our critical faculties are lowered, and messages about gender, power, and sexuality enter our psyches more directly. Movies don't just reflect society—they shape it. They don't just reflect societal beliefs; they prescribe them.

If women are consistently portrayed as objects to be looked at rather than subjects who act, what message does that send? How does that affect how women see themselves and how society sees women?

Female beauty is often portrayed as a form of "power" in films. Women are seduced by promises that maximizing their beauty is the way to gain more power. The message becomes: your value lies in your appearance and desirability, not your actions or abilities.

This leads to women internalizing the male gaze—viewing themselves from the outside as visual objects to be evaluated. Studies have shown this contributes to body image issues, decreased cognitive performance, and even diminished political efficacy.

In just a cursory look at research on the effects of male presence in classrooms on female learning, I came across no less than a dozen articles about this.  2 studies that caught my eye were: 

• AAUW. (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings on Girls and Education. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

• AAUW. (1998). Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

UCLA Graduate School of Education and followed approximately 6,000 women graduates from both single-sex and coeducational high schools. Researchers found that graduates of all-girls schools demonstrated higher academic engagement, greater interest in STEM subjects, higher levels of academic self-confidence, and greater political engagement compared to their counterparts from coeducational institutions.

This is significant!

Hollywood's Gender Problem

The visual patterns in cinema directly connect to the shocking employment discrimination in Hollywood:

• In 1998: 9% of top 250 films were directed by women

• In 2008: 8% were directed by women

• In 2023: 12% were directed by women

After decades of awareness, we've barely moved the needle. In fact, Hollywood's compliance with Title VII equal employment opportunity law is worse than coal mining!

Interestingly, during the silent film era, women had many more opportunities. The first narrative film was written, directed, and produced by a woman—Alice Guy-Blaché in 1896. But when sound came along and Wall Street began financing Hollywood, women were systematically pushed out of power positions.

For about 40 years, only two women were making films in Hollywood—Dorothy Arzner and Ida Lupino. Even today, the word "director" is so synonymous with "male director" that we specify when a film is made by a "female director."

And...about 95% of directors of photography are men. So of course, the way films are shot reflects a male perspective.

Moving Forward

Being aware of these patterns doesn't mean you can't enjoy films that use them. As Menkes says, "It's ok to love a film AND question how it was made and what messages there are in it. Without questioning it, we are doing a disservice to humanity."

The first step to change is awareness. Once you start noticing these patterns, you can't unsee them—and that's powerful.

In my next post, I'll explore the direct connections between the male gaze, employment discrimination, and the epidemic of sexual harassment and assault in the film industry and beyond. We'll also look at filmmakers who are challenging these norms and creating new visual languages.

What films have you watched recently where you noticed the male gaze at work? How did it affect your viewing experience? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Dr. Cayte is a psychotherapist and Clinical Sexologist exploring the intersection of visual media and social power structures. This blog post is part of an ongoing series analyzing the impact of cinematic representation on real-world inequality.