Again, in theory yes, but in practice it was Batman ignoring his most promising lead in the case to be a voyeur…as the music in the scene is happy to point out
It might just be me with a bug bear, but it seems, like many things in the film, an idea was better than the execution.
Isn’t Batman noting her changing into Catwoman garb, rather than simply ogling?
Ignoring the actual lead in the case.
She died off screen
Haven’t seen The Batman, but I think we all know that the dynamic between Bond and M isn’t changing. That’s all the current regime at EON knows how to do. It’s been a part of each of the films since they’ve taken over for Cubby and, until there is evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that they will continue down that path.
Spoiler tags, people…
The problem is that while the scene may have a valid narrative purpose and/or fill-in a character’s psychological profile, it also serves, intentionally/unintentionally as an instance of the objectification of women’s bodies.
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is, for me, a paradigmatic example. The violent treatment of women is not being endorsed–in fact, it is being critiqued. But it is also depicted with Kubrick’s high level of artistry–an artistry that makes the scene watchable/enjoyable. I believe Kubrick was truly shocked when people started to imitate actions from CLOCKWORK, i.e., he truly lived so much inside his head that he could not imagine someone looking at his movie as a guidebook for real world behavior.
The situation is a filmic Catch-22: how does a filmmaker depict violence in such a way that simultaneously the images 1) keep a viewer’s attention; 2) do not endorse the violence depicted; and 3) maintain a consistent level of artistry.
Since what a director depicts is what he feels it is important for a viewer to see, inevitably, her images acquire a level of privilege: “This is what must be watched.” But the privileging can add an unintended endorsement to what is being depicted. I think Hitchcock understood this, and helps to explain his stylistic evolution from PSYCHO to FRENZY. I think Mankiewicz as well had a similar insight when making THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN…, which explains choices he made in the prison break sequence.
But wouldn’t it be impossible not to objectify women or men in movies?
Characters are always treated as objects to be put into situations a camera records.
Would it be better to have those „objects“ not looked at in a visually appealing way?
I have not seen „The Batman“ yet. But unless that scene is filmed like a Michael Bay movie (which only objectifies everything because there is no other purpose to them) I would ask whether any movie classic does less objectifying.
And isn’t it really a sign of our current perspective (which needed to change, definitely, but sometimes goes too far and loses sight of the issue) that objectifying of women and men in movies is considered a crime? Actresses and actors choose their profession because they want to be looked at. They put their body in the service of a story to be watched by millions around the world.
I constantly hear actors demand more screen time for themselves, more chances to show more of themselves, so objectification seems to be their goal, really.
No. For instance, Mankiewicz was able to avoid it in his films.
I would add Cukor films to those by Mankiewicz. A significant consideration is the amount of autonomy a character has within both the film and the film frame. Laura Mulvey may have overstated her case when she first made it (which even she admits), but it started a discussion where we can now say that sometimes objectification occurs, and sometimes it doesn’t. My beloved DAF is schizoid on the subject–depicting women with autonomy, as well as having them clothed and displayed for delectation. Tiffany Case may not dress for the help, but she certainly is dressed for her male viewers (many of them anyway).
I would ask: is the objectification/instrumentalization of a human being ever a good thing?
A person can desire to be looked at without also desiring to be objectified.
Again, they want more opportunities to be seen, but also want to avoid objectification. There is a major difference between the two behaviors.
I would not want to generalize either way whether actors and actresses want to be just looked at or even enjoy being objectified. There surely are actresses who had to choose: be naked or unemployed. But that is not what I mean.
Objectification would already be Daniel Craig as Bond (even without being pumped up and emerging half naked from the sea). Or Rita Hayworth as Gilda. Cary Grant in, well, any suit. Greta Garbo in any dress. And so on.
Where would cinema be without objectification? It is a means to make the audience watch, adore and desire.
But also: where would cinema be without criminal behavior? Psychopathic or anti-social characters?
Again, I haven’t seen “The Batman” yet. And I feel woke enough and prefer to be woke so much that I believe I will find that particular scene noteworthy, too.
But I do expect Bruce Wayne/Batman to exhibit questionable judgment. Just as I expect James Bond to do something similar.
In fact, I would be disappointed if those two characters would be always nice and unblemished by sinister thoughts.
In much better place.
We may be talking about different things. Objectification is: “the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object” (Oxford Languages definition). Unless a viewer is into degradation, using filmic techniques to objectify will not cause them to watch/adore/desire.
As far as I know, films have not committed any crimes. Some have depicted them, however.
Which is fine. But depictions of a character exhibiting questionable behavior does not mean a filmmaker needs to do so as well in terms of filmic technique. That would be an instance of the mimetic fallacy.
Sinister thoughts are fine, but a filmmaker does not need to engage in objectification in order to convey them.
Well said.
Jumping off from the conversation about the voyeur scene in the latest superhero flick, it is entirely possible for a director to show us that a character is engaged in such voyeurism without forcing the audience to become complicit in it as well. I have no idea if Reeves accomplishes this with his scene or not, as I haven’t seen The Batman, but just speaking in a generic sense about any kind of scene where this kind of activity is present.
I had no problem with the scene whatsoever. It’s more of a mirror to The Riddler’s surveillance of the Mayor at the beginning, and about a ten or fifteen second moment from a near three hour film.
First and foremost Bruce isn’t there to ogle women, he’s there to gather information. He’s meant to look away because she’s putting on a catsuit? I don’t think so. She’s the only one moving around the apartment at that time and thus requires close observation. What’s she up to? Where’s she going?
The movie shows Batman buries his emotions but isn’t in a lustful headspace. The scene in question is also showing the audience the transition Selina makes from Iceberg Lounge waitress, to concerned roommate and then cat burglar. She changes her appearance many times to play different roles.
But that’s where my issue is -
he’s there to find her flat mate, Koslov, who was a potential witness as she was the one seen with the Mayor at the iceberg lounge, and the reason he trailed Selina was he heard her talking to Koslov on the phone, but when she does lead him to the witness, he seems to forget why he’s there as he decides instead to watch Selina get undressed whilst the person he was actually looking for is in the next room.
I disagree. That would be a straight jacket approach to art, restraining it in a way that does not mirror how human beings are.
It’s always the story which should determine the approach, not a political agenda.
Exactly. In the same way, boredom can be conveyed without boring the audience.
Not at all. An artist is free to tell stories about how human beings are. You are conflating story with technique, with the result, that the deserved protection afforded to storytelling is (mistakenly) extended to technique.
What story justifies the objectification of women in order for it to be told (excepting pornography, which is predicated on the objectification of bodies)? An artist can tell a story about the practice of objectification without employing the technique of objectification, just as they can tell a story about child abuse without filming it.
I politely disagree. But let’s move on.
Let’s go big and a bit goofy, but not like the 70s. This is why Tom Mackiewicz wasn’t the best screenplay writer for James Bond. He was a bit full of himself, with crude jokes more often than not.
I liked TM going for silly.
Would anyone dare to do that today?
Strange, if you consider all the crises and dangers during the 70‘s.
I think that’s why the Bonds of the 1970s WERE so lighthearted. It was an escape from the harshness of the real world. I think thats the direction the series needs to take considering the world right now.
Shifting gears a bit I saw this video pop up in my YouTube feed and all I could think of while I was watching it was Bond villain lair. This “house” is absolutely obscene. I can easily imagine Bond attending a party, then being held prisoner and eventually escaping from here.
Related to this - that house sold about 2 weeks ago at a bankruptcy auction for $126M, less than half of its asking price of $295M…