For this blog post, I want to focus on a keyword that was central to Laura Mulvey’s essay—scopophilia. Once defined, it is easy to see why the concept comes up in an essay discussing women’s role in film as a passive object to be viewed and the broader theme of voyeurism in Rear Window. Though Jeff’s tendency to be a Peeping Tom doesn’t seem to derive from any sense of sexual pleasure, his voyeurism does open up conversations about the roles that men and women play in film and how they’re tied to sexual and gender-based binaries, even if there’s no sex involved. Mulvey discusses the image of women in cinema as an icon, but a passive one, to be looked at by their male love interest. But, she contends, once the leading lady becomes committed to the leading man, she “becomes his property, losing her outward glamorous characteristics, her generalized sexuality…”
When I read this, it was impossible not to immediately think of Lisa and her wardrobe. Throughout the film, Lisa dons a variety of stunning outfits which are both expensive and highly fashionable. It’s a part of who she is and how she presents herself. Jeff may not understand why she pays so much money for her clothes, but he certainly appreciates how beautiful she looks in them. But at the end of the film, we see Lisa in a blouse and jeans, a much more dressed down outfit compared to everything else she’s worn (even her pajamas are glamorous). I initially considered it to be a sign of her showing she was willing to change in order to be with Jeff since he viewed their lifestyles as too different, but Mulvey’s argument made me see differently, even though she wasn’t writing specifically about Rear Window. Of women in film, she says, “her eroticism is subjected to the male star alone.” Lisa’s casual attire can be attributed to her trying to show Jeff she can live in his world, but it can also be part of the larger trend that Mulvey discusses that forces female characters to make themselves smaller and less sexy once they’re in a relationship. In reality, it’s likely both. Part of what convinces Jeff that he cannot marry Lisa is how glamorous and refined she is. He enjoys her beauty and her fine outfits, but he cannot picture a life where she fits into his exactly as she is. Mulvey’s argument would suggest that Jeff cannot handle the thought of other people perceiving Lisa the way he does and getting to see her in those same outfits. His scopophilia makes it so that he needs to know that no one else sees the version of Lisa that he does. She can only be sexy and desirable with him, hence her need to change her way of dressing. Lisa is the subject of Jeff’s scopophilia, which is why she is the only one who makes any concessions in the relationship.
This is an interesting dive into sexuality in Rear Window, and I think your incorporation of Mulvey with your own analysis of the film works really well. I agree that Lisa’s change is likely both a result of her trying to fit into Jeff’s world, while also dulling her own beauty to avoid other men seeing her as Jeff does. Ultimately, I think you could argue that these two ideas have a lot of overlap and are even one in the same. In the act of dulling her own beauty, Lisa is making an effort to fit into Jeff’s controlling world. One question I would ask in your analysis of scopophilia in the film is that, as you explained, Jeff’s pleasure in being a “peeping tom” doesn’t come from sexual pleasure, is the fact that he is in a wheelchair relevant? Does this reinforce the idea that his indulgence in voyeurism is not sexually derived?
I think you’re absolutely onto something here. There is a lot to be said about the infantilization of people with disabilities in media of all sorts and a tendency to distance them from sex/sexiness/desire in one way or another. This could definitely extend to Jeff in his temporary disability, which I didn’t even think about. Perhaps his voyeurism comes off as less sexual or sexually threatening because of his current physical impairment just due to the inherent biases and perceptions of us as the audience. To answer your question, yes, I think the fact that he’s in a wheelchair is relevant.
I really like what you’re saying, but I’d argue there is a sexual component to Jeff’s voyeurism, as exemplified by his intense focus on the young woman dropping her top and the sex lives of the newlyweds. Would Mulvey say that voyeurism can exist without sexuality, or is it inherent to the word/concept? As for Lisa, Jeff describes her as “too perfect” – do you see her change in wardrobe as making her less perfect? More palatable for Jeff? Changing her in the eyes of her peers so she won’t be watched by others as Jeff watches her?
That’s a really good point. I see what you’re saying—I’d probably have to reread Mulvey’s piece, but I do think that some degree of sexuality is inherent to the concept of voyeurism and/or scopophilia. I think that while I don’t see Jeff’s voyeurism as driven by sexual urges, I see your point that sexuality is not devoid from it and I agree. It’s perhaps just not sexuality in the way we normally think of it, or not as obvious. When it comes to Lisa, that’s harder to say. I don’t think the wardrobe change makes her less perfect in Jeff’s eyes, but perhaps perfect in a different way. Previously she was the kind of perfect that to him made her untouchable, but now with her having “changed” it’s as if she’s perfect for him.